FADA1010 Chap.3 Brainstorming and Design Ideation
Brainstorming and Design Ideation
Brainstorming separates idea generation from judgement so a project can move beyond its first familiar response. This chapter shows how to create meaningful variation across interaction, scale, material, context and technology, then cluster and compare the resulting directions. Selection becomes accountable when criteria come from the core concept, audience evidence, testability and real studio constraints.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Delayed judgement and idea quantity
- 02
Conceptual variation instead of decoration
- 03
Sketching and rough modelling at speed
- 04
Clustering related design directions
- 05
Selection criteria linked to the concept
- 06
Turning a chosen route into a test
Worked example · free
Expand a single interface idea
- 1Change the relationship rather than only the visual style.
- 1Create routes around information, coordination and the waiting experience.
- 1Choose two contrasting routes for quick prototypes using criteria tied to the concept.
Key terms
- Brainstorming
- A generative process that produces many possible responses before criticism and selection begin.
- Divergence
- The deliberate widening of a design field through varied ideas, questions and approaches.
- Convergence
- The reasoned narrowing of alternatives using evidence, criteria and project constraints.
- Selection Criteria
- Explicit considerations used to compare alternatives and explain why a direction moves forward.
Brainstorming and Design Ideation FAQ
How many ideas are enough?
There is no useful number without variety. Continue until alternatives differ in relationship, interaction, material, scale or context rather than surface styling. The aim is enough contrast that selection reveals a real decision rather than endorsing the first idea.
When should feasibility enter the process?
Feasibility belongs in selection and testing, but applying it too early can eliminate unfamiliar possibilities. Generate widely first, then compare time, safety, access, materials and learning value while retaining at least one challenging route long enough to test.
What should be kept after selection?
Keep the generation pages, clusters, selection criteria and at least one rejected direction with the reason it was declined. This evidence demonstrates that the chosen proposal emerged through comparison rather than appearing without a visible process.
Assessment move
Set a short generation interval and change the prompt every few minutes: reverse the interaction, remove a component, alter scale, shift context, change who controls the design or translate the idea into another discipline. Draw quickly and label intention without polishing. When the page is full, cluster ideas by relationship rather than appearance.
Write selection criteria from the core concept and audience evidence, then compare contrasting directions with a short reason beside each judgement. Bring more than one route to critique and ask what each communicates, assumes and needs to test. Choose the next prototype for learning value, not visual finish. Keep rejected ideas because one interaction or material principle may return later in transformed form.
End the session by writing the uncertainty the next sketch or model will investigate. That sentence connects ideation to purposeful iteration. Separate the generation and evaluation modes physically as well as mentally. During a timed generation round, use small frames and spend only long enough to make the interaction, form or material move understandable.
Number each proposal and add a five-word intention, but postpone ranking. A critical voice introduced too early tends to reproduce the safest familiar answer. Once the interval ends, step away, restate the core concept and construct selection criteria before looking for a favourite.
Criteria might address audience agency, contextual fit, capacity to communicate the intended experience, feasibility and potential for informative testing. Weighting every criterion equally is unnecessary; explain which consideration is decisive at the current stage. Use a comparison matrix as an argument, not arithmetic theatre.
A score needs a note tied to visible evidence, and a close result should lead to a prototype rather than a false numerical certainty. Combine ideas only when the hybrid resolves a particular weakness. Collaging all popular features together usually produces complexity without a coherent interaction.
Instead, name the principle worth carrying forward: a reveal sequence, a modular joint, a tactile contrast or a change in who initiates the encounter. Develop three routes far enough that critique can compare real differences. For each, include a use sequence, a rough material study and one assumption that may fail.
Invite peers to describe what they infer before you explain the concept; the gap between their reading and your intention is useful evidence. After feedback, make a decision record with the chosen route, the strongest alternative and the reason for proceeding. Preserve fragments from rejected proposals in an archive organised by principle rather than by quality.
Later iterations may need a discarded mechanism even when its original form was unsuitable. Close the ideation phase with a prototype brief containing one question, one controlled variable, the required fidelity and the observation that will count as learning. This keeps brainstorming connected to making and stops attractive sketches from being mistaken for tested solutions.
