Exercises: Ideation techniques

Explain in your own words what brainstorming is and write down two basic rules that a group must follow for it to work well.

Explain what a mind map is, how it is organised, and what it is used for in a technology project.

In the mind map in the figure, dedicated to designing a classroom bench, one branch is missing. Suggest what aspect that branch should cover and add two specific ideas that would branch off it.

Carry out a short individual brainstorming session: write six different uses for an empty tin can in the workshop, even if some seem wild.

Explain what a sketch is and what minimum elements it must include so that another person can understand it without you being present (views, notes, approximate proportions).

Draw a mind map in your notebook with 'ergonomic desk' in the centre and at least three branches; describe its branches here and one idea for each branch.

You can do it on paper and send a photo with your answer.

Explain the brainstorming rule 'quantity over quality': why unusual ideas are also written down and what can come out of them later.

In a mind map, what is the difference between a main branch and a sub-branch? Explain it with an example using 'bicycle' as the central topic.

Carry out a short brainstorming session: write down at least five different proposals for reducing noise in the school canteen. Then choose the one that seems most feasible to you and justify your choice.

Explain the difference between a sketch and a technical drawing, and explain why quick freehand sketches are mainly used in the ideation stage.

How do brainstorming and mind mapping differ as ideation techniques? State at which point in the project you would use each one and why.

From a brainstorming session about backpacks, these unusual ideas emerged: 'backpack with roller-skate wheels', 'singing backpack', 'transparent backpack'. Turn each one into a viable proposal and explain what real problem it would solve.

Your group has twenty ideas and needs to narrow them down to two. Propose three selection criteria (feasibility, cost, impact...) and apply them to three ideas you have made up, showing the final decision.

The SCAMPER technique suggests verbs to transform an object: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate, and reverse. Apply two of them to a school chair and describe the two resulting ideas.

Describe in words the sketch for a folding wall coat rack: which views you would draw (front elevation, side elevation, mechanism detail) and what explanatory notes you would add.

Compare group ideation with individual ideation: give two advantages and one disadvantage of each method, and state at which point in the project you would choose each one.

During the ideation phase to design an automatic plastic cap sorter in the school workshop, the team records the following dynamics after 25 minutes of meeting:

– Minute 4: Alba proposes using buoyancy in salt water; Lucas laughs and says that "that's a sticky, useless mess".

– Minutes 8–20: Lucas monopolises the floor explaining in detail a robotic arm with artificial vision and artificial intelligence. The rest of the group nods in silence to avoid arguments.

– Minute 24: There are only two ideas recorded: Lucas's robotic arm and "placing a manual operator".

1. a) Identify the two critical methodological flaws that occurred in the session and technically justify how they have blocked the quantity and diversity of operating principles explored.
2. b) Redesign the session by replacing traditional brainstorming with a structured technique (such as 6-3-5 Brainwriting or the worst possible idea method). Explain step by step how you would apply that technique to neutralise Lucas's dominance, eliminate the fear of judgement, and force the exploration of simple physical principles (density, size, magnetism).

You are going to ideate a technical school backpack for urban cyclists that must solve a fundamental design conflict: continuous waterproof materials (plastic tarpaulins, PVC) do not breathe and cause condensation and sweat on the back, while breathable fabrics let water through in heavy rain.

Develop a structured mind map to explore technical solutions to this challenge. Your map must branch into four mandatory functional axes:

1. Management of dorsal perspiration (mechanical solutions for physical separation, air convection channels, or tensioned mesh).

2. Watertightness and water drainage (labyrinth flap geometry, hydrophobic coatings, drainage channels, or seals without expensive waterproof zips).

3. Safety and passive visibility under heavy rain (retroreflective elements, chromatic contrast, visible geometric distribution with a rain cover).

4. Quick access to books and electronic devices without exposing the main compartment to water.

At least two specific and feasible workshop technical solutions must derive from each axis. Justify how the overall map resolves the conflict between breathability and waterproofing without drastically increasing weight or cost.

A 4th-year ESO project team must design a system to prevent workshop doors from slamming violently due to draughts. Five minutes after starting, a team member proposes: "Let's buy a commercial hydraulic piston for 35,00 € and screw it to the top; it's an idea that is guaranteed to work, so let's not waste time looking for more alternatives".

1. a) Technically refute the stance of settling for the first viable solution. Analyse two design risks that the team ignores by failing to conduct a divergence phase (consider aspects such as cost, maintenance, mechanical overload on the hinges, and the pedagogical value of workshop manufacturing).
2. b) Propose two conceptually distinct alternative solutions based on different physical principles (for example, homemade pneumatic damping, pulley counterweight with friction brake, or progressive magnetic retention).
3. c) Design a decision matrix with three weighted criteria (for example: economic cost, workshop manufacturing complexity, and durability) and numerically evaluate the three proposals to justify which one should actually be built.

Your team must tackle a complex ideation challenge in a strict 40-minute session: design a low-cost mechanical device (under 10,00 €) so that a person with reduced mobility in one hand can open preserve jars of different diameters. The group consists of four people: two tend to get sidetracked with futuristic electronic ideas that are impossible to build, and one is very shy and freezes up when others debate out loud.

Design the complete protocol for the ideation session:

1. a) Precise time distribution by phases (opening/analysis of the specifications, individual and silent divergence, collective combination/improvement, and convergence/selection), justifying the minutes allocated to each.
2. b) Assignment of specific roles and what concrete guidelines the moderator must apply to redirect unfeasible ideas without demotivating and to guarantee the contribution of the introverted person.
3. c) Specific ideation technique used (justify why conventional open brainstorming should not be used) and the objective final cutoff method you will use in the last 5 minutes to select the proposal that will move on to prototyping.

The pedestrian crossing in front of your secondary school crosses a four-lane avenue where continuous sudden braking and vehicle-pedestrian collision incidents are recorded: vehicles frequently travel at more than 50 km/h and there is poor visibility on rainy days and at night.

1. a) Develop a mind map analyzing root causes and technical intervention vectors, structured into four main branches: 1) Driver human factors (distractions, speed, field of vision); 2) Pedestrian human factors (reaction times, visibility, behavior); 3) Physical environment and infrastructure (lighting, static signage, differentiated pavements); 4) Active traffic regulation (presence sensors, dynamic beacons, actuators).
2. b) Based on different branches of your mind map, derive and describe in detail two viable technological solutions that do not simply consist of "installing a conventional traffic light". One must focus on an active system based on sensors and actuators (electronics and programming) and the other on a physical/mechanical intervention with low urban impact. Justify for each one which branch and root cause it directly targets.

A group of students claims in the workshop: "If the teacher limits our budget to 5,00 € and forbids us from using commercial motors and 3D printed parts, we cannot be creative; constraints kill design." Prove that this statement is wrong by solving the following practical case:

You must devise a mechanism capable of lifting a 500 g object to a height of 30 cm after pressing a manual trigger.

– Option A (without resource constraints): briefly describe the typical, predictable solution that anyone would adopt (commercial servomotor with gearbox, microcontroller, and commercial parts).

– Option B (with the problem's constraints): solve the same problem using exclusively recycled materials from the classroom (cardboard, rubber bands, bottle caps, syringes with water, or sand counterweights). Explain the physical principle used and justify in detail why Option B demonstrates greater technical creativity, functional optimization, and understanding of mechanics than Option A.

In a team of four students tasked with designing an irrigation system for the school garden, the student with the highest grades in Technology declares at the beginning: "The best thing to do is program an ESP32 board with capacitive sensors and connect it to a cloud via Wi-Fi; don't overthink it." At the end of the session, the four idea sheets present minimal variations of that same proposal (changing the pump brand, adding a larger LCD screen), completely ruling out mechanical solar drip systems or level floats without electronics.

1. a) Diagnose which psychosocial mechanisms and anchoring biases have caused this groupthink phenomenon and what technical vulnerabilities the project carries if built without questioning the initial proposal (consider aspects such as the lack of Wi-Fi coverage in the garden, weather exposure, or continuous power consumption).
2. b) Propose how you would reorganize the session applying the "Six Thinking Hats" technique or a Brainwriting protocol, indicating the specific instruction you would assign to the team to force them to uncover the blind spots of the hegemonic solution and explore low-tech alternatives.

Four proposals have emerged to reduce litter in the playground: gamified bins, CCTV monitoring, fines, and a poster campaign. Evaluate each using technical and social criteria (cost, effectiveness, acceptance) and propose a reasoned combined plan.