state of the art creative and innovative design methods

2013

Pulkit Vijayvargiya

Reg. No. 201388279

11/11/2013

State of the art Creative and Innovative Design Methods

State of the art Creative and Innovative Design Methods 2013

2

“I declare that this submission is entirely my own original work.

I declare that, except where fully reference direct quotations have been included, no aspect

of this submission has been copied from any other source.

I declare that all other works cited in this submission have been appropriately referenced.

I understand that any act of Academic Dishonesty such as plagiarism or collusion may result

in the non-award of my degree.”

Signature: Pulkit Vijayvargiya

Date: 11/11/2013


3

Abstract

Creative and Innovative design is central to modern designing activity and act as a powerful force in

personal and organizational success. There are many approaches and methods for creative and

innovative designing. This report intends to demonstrate state of the art design methods in the field

of creativity and innovation. It reviews some of the recent major creative and innovative design

methods like ASIT and C-K Theory. It also presents some of the recent developments in domain of

these methods with examples. A comparative analysis of these methods is also brought in to picture.

Introduction

Today, critical customer requirements, globalized business and a high end development in

technology have led to robust business competition and market uncertainty. It is now highly

important to put more stress on innovation and creativity than speed and quality of production

while designing a new product [1]. As per U.K. treasury report on creativity in business [2] top

multinational innovative companies generate 75% of their revenue from the services or products

that are not in existence 5 years ago. Thus providing unique, creative and innovative products to

customers is the biggest challenge for any organization. There are many researches and methods

are proposed to increase the creative and innovative values in products [3-8]. All methods are very

traditional, diverse and different in approach. As creativity and innovation has achieved such a huge

importance in the stream of engineering design, this had led to the actuation of many systematic

and creative design methods like TRIZ (Theory of inventive problem solving in Russian) [9], ASIT

(Advanced systematic inventive thinking) [10], SCAMPER [11]etc. A very different and innovative

approach of designing is also evolved as a result of these revolution called as C-K Theory [12]. These

methods are very different from conventional and popular methods of creative thinking like

Brainstorming, Brain writing, Metaphoric Thinking, Outrageous Thinking, Mind mapping etc. They

are very systematic in nature and their application requires a vast technical or engineering

background in the particular research domain. According to Hatchuel [14] these new methods are

more tailored in the genesis of new artifacts and ideas rather than problem-solving. In this report

two of the major state of the art methods ASIT and C-K theory are discussed and compared with

examples. ASIT is one of the most recent, refined and simplified form of the most popular inventive

designing method TRIZ *9+. The main governing principal of ASIT is its ‘Closed World’ approach [10].

On the other hand C-K theory [12] is one of the latest breakthroughs in the field of creative design

methods it has some unique features which keep it apart from other conventional methods of

design [15] and it can also be used to analyze and successfully employ other creative methods [16].


4

Findings: Review of ASIT and C-K Theory

ASIT

ASIT is the acronym for “Advanced systematic inventive thinking” *10+. It was first developed by

Horowitz [13] in Israel. ASIT is derived from and is a simplified form of famous Russian methodology

called as TRIZ (‘Theory of Inventive problem solving’) [9]. ASIT works on the same principle as TRIZ

i.e. ‘Vast majority of inventions complies with relatively small set of principles, and these principles

can be used to boost our thinking’ *13+. In comparison to TRIZ which is more complex and composed

of 40 different tools [9] ASIT is based on only 5 simplified tools, 1 condition and 1 principle [14]. The

main principle of ASIT is apposite to that of conventional creative design methods i.e. it deals with

‘closed world concept’ (CWC) *10+ and not to the ‘out of the box’ approach like other conventional

methods. Like TRIZ, idea behind ASIT is not to find how inventors work but to study what they do

and to study the result of their work. According to Horowitz [10] five of the main ‘Thinking tools’ or

‘Thought-provoking tools’ of ASIT are:

1) “Unification”: To find the solution of a problem by allotting a new function to an existing

element.

2) “Multiplication”: To find the solution of a problem by inserting an altered form of an existing

element in to the present system.

3) “Division”: To find the solution of a problem by separating elements in to different parts and

reorganize them.

4) “Breaking symmetry”: To find the solution of a problem by varying the symmetry of an

element from symmetrical to asymmetrical.

5) “Object Removal”: To find the solution of a problem by taking out one element from the

system and attributing its function to other existing element.

ASIT tools are found out to be very simple to use and understand, on the same time

they provide better and fast solutions as compared to TRIZ [16]. ASIT is now widely used in different

industries like Ford as a tool for inventive idea generation and also to train hundreds of engineers

[17]. Kaplan [19] suggested that ASIT is much alike properties as SCAMPER (an old version of

systematic problem-solving methods) [11]. Kaplan after comparing these two methods summed up

that ‘ASIT is a combination of SCAMPER and closed world concept’ *19+. Further development in ASIT

was done by Jerry [23], he proposed a new method called as FASiT in place of ASIT. FASiT was more

simplified form of ASIT and was very easy to use as it is based on only three tools [24].


5

C-K Theory

C-K Theory, also called as Concept-Knowledge design theory was first proposed by Hatchuel and

Weil [12]. It is one of the major breakthrough in the in the field of engineering design. C-K Theory is a

creative design method derived from a Mathematical method called as “The Forcing Method”

[20,22]. It introduces the idea of design in the mathematical world. Hatchuel [12] called C-K theory

‘an expansion machine’ as it helps to realize expansion of ideas and sources; which in turn generate

creative solutions. In the language of C-K theory Hatchuel defined creativity as a “resistance to

fixation effect” [12]. (Fixation effect: Is a set of rules we have in our mind and we have difficulties to

change make them evolve) [12]. C-K theory is considered to be an effective tool to overcome fixation

effects and come up with potential and creative solutions [20].

C-K theory is defined as the interaction between K-Space (Knowledge space) and C-Space (Concept

Space) [12]. Concept (C) is the first step of C-K theory. It can be defined as a brief or preposition

which is not true or does not carries a logical status in the designer’s knowledge scope. On the other

hand Knowledge (K) is defined as the group of prepositions having a logical status in the designer’s

knowledge scope [12]. (See fig.1)

Figure 1: Graphical representation of C-K Theory [12]


6

C-K theory works on the core concept of precisely what happens while travelling

from C- Space to K-Space (CK) or vice versa (KC), it defines the creative design process as the

application of 4 operators: 1) CC, 2) CK, 3)KC, 4) KK [16]. According to [21] when new

knowledge is added to concept (KC), concept gets expanded in to new partition which is a

disjunction process. But different concepts at the same time can also be stayed as concepts (CC),

or on the other hand can generate new knowledge (CK), which is conjunction in nature. Finally the

C-K designing process is ended when the undecided preposition in C-Space becomes decidable in K-

Space. This concept can be realized by “Design Model Square *19+. (See fig. 2)

There are many studies going on for the experimental validation and

improvement of C-K theory [15, 16, 23]. Kazakci [25] explained the procedure to improve creativity

design tools with the help of C-K Theory, he added another space called environment to concept and

knowledge space. Reich [16] improved the ASIT by modifying and using the C-K Theory. Ullah [15

mentioned the integration of internet system with C-K Theory to give it new dimensions and

features.

Figure 2: Design Model Square [12]

Practical application of C-K Theory

C-K theory was successfully employed in many companies world-wide like Thales, Renault etc. [22].

An acceptable example of C-K theory application in MINATEC IDEAs Laboratory® (MIL) was explained

by [23]. MIL is a giant research platform in the field of Micro-nanotechnology created jointly by HP,

France Telecom, CEA (French atomic commission) and ST Microelectronics. Each company is diverse

in nature and invests a huge sum of money in MIL; they expect to achieve new competencies via

creating new innovative products through MIL in their core domain. Thus due to such a huge variety


7

of core fields it was very difficult for MIL to decide to work on a straightforward project and come up

with an innovative product or service.

Figure 3: Driving Innovation fields by using C-K Theory [23]

Thus they started using C-K Theory of design with a common purpose of exploring

different innovation areas (For example: Visual interface, Energy and Mobility etc.) pandered by

micro-nanotechnology with a final goal of maximum advantage of its partners. C-K tree were drawn

for different areas. “Energy and Mobility” theme with “New energy production system” came up as a

most interesting concept for all partners. Following C-K design approach was used by the MIL team:

(Also see fig. 3)

1) Selection of innovation-Area (C selection).

2) Knowledge collection and approach from KC to create new partitions in C-Space.

3) Use CC approach for project positioning in the innovation areas and integration of CK.

4) Examination of sub-innovation areas and follow back the step 2.

As a result of systematic C-K approach, MIL puzzled out the exact share of each project in the

particular area and came up with the final idea (project) they have to work on. They also figured out

the existing knowledge they have for the particular project and the new skills they needed to hire in

order to fulfil the missing knowledge.


8

Comparison of Methods

Both of the design methods ASIT and C-K Theory endorse creativity and innovation. Both of them are

very well adopted by industries and employed successfully. Yet they are based on different notions

[16]. ASIT is introduced as a method which is derived from experiments and observations [10], on

the other hand C-K Theory is introduced as a hypothesis of designing that imbeds creativity as an

inherent part with supporting evidences of its pertinence [12,14,20,21]. A problem of ‘Metal acid

test’ was introduced by *16+ in order to understand the implementation of both methods. (See fig.4)

Figure 4: The acid test problem solved with ASIT’s Unification tool and C-K theory [16]

According to problem, reaction of acid on metal sample parts is required to be tested;

metal parts are kept inside a container in order to perform the test but a problem raised during the

test is that the container itself get eroded because of the acid. Solution of this problem by ASIT was

to make drill holes in the metal sample parts so that acid does not touch the container. This solution

is very creative but on employing it many unpredictable problems may arrived which are out of the

scope of actual problem definition. Thus the idea generated from ASIT ‘Unification’ tool is not the

most creative solution of problem; it is required to be detailed much further. On the other hand on

proceeding with C-K theory method many interesting and different creative solutions came in to

picture. And this designing process will continue till the idea generated is truly justified in the

knowledge space [21]. Thus, ‘closed world’ the main principle of ASIT *10+ can be said as one of its


9

biggest limitation. With C-K theory of design a designer can think out of the box [12] to generate

creative solutions which is not possible in case of ASIT.

Conclusion

ASIT is a very powerful, simple and specific method of creative and innovative designing. But its

‘Closed world’ or ‘stay in the box’ approach leads to generate very narrow or specific solutions which

in turn makes ASIT not a preferred method of creative designing. C-K Theory is one of the ‘state of

the art’ design method which by interplay between C-Space and K-Space explains how creativity is

possible inside a design process, how the new concepts can be generated using the knowledge and

how design process is defined as the application of C-K operators. C-K allows a designer to think ‘out

of the box’ and discuss what can be learned from judgments by opening the doors of possibilities to

develop breakthrough ideas. But C-K theory does not define the strategies for researching the C-K

spaces when design process actually occurs.

Hence both the methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, but if both the

methods are integrated to each other as proposed by [16] a new more consistent creative and

innovative design method can be developed. This new method will have all the unique problem

solving features of ASIT by overcoming its ‘closed world concept’ paradox by C-K theory and thus

giving a new dimension in the field of creative and innovative design.


10

References

[1] C. Lin, D. Luh, A vision-oriented approach for innovative product design, Elsevier Ltd., (2008).

[2] G. Cox, Cox review of creativity in business: building on the UK’s strengths. Available from:

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/publications/the-cox-review/, (2005).

[3] C.M. Crawford, New Products Management, fifth ed., Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,Boston, (1997).

[4] R.G. Cooper, New product strategies: What distinguishes the top performers? Journal of Product

Innovation Management 2 (1984) 151–164

[5] G.L. Urban, J.R. Hauser, Design and Marketing of New Products, second ed.,Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, (1993).

[6] K.T. Ulrich, S.D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill Inc.,New York, NY,

(1995).

[7] M. Baxter, Product Design: A Practical Guide to Systematic Methods of NewProduct

Development, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, (1995).

[8] G.D. Hughes, D.C. Chafin, Turning new product development into a continuouslearning process,

Journal of Product Innovation Management 13 (1996) 89–104.

[9] G. Altshuller, The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), 2nd edition, Technical

InnovationCenter, Worcester, MA (1996).

[10] R.Horowitz,FromTRIZ toASITin 4 steps (2001) (http://www.trizjournal.com/archives/2001/08/c/)

[11] B. F. Eberle, Scamper, D.O.K. Publishers, Buffalo, New York (1977).

[12] A. Hatchuel, B.Weil, “A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory” ICED

proceedings, Stockholm, (2003).

[13] R. Horowitz, ASIT's five thinking tools with examples, TRIZ Journal, September (http://www.triz-

journal.com/archives/2001/08/c/), (2001)

[14] A. Hatchuel, Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of

Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Governance, (2001), 5 (3–4), 260–273.

[15] A. Ullah, M. Rashid, J. Tamaki, On some unique features of C–K theory of design, CIRP Journal of

Manufacturing Science and Technology, (2011).

[16] Y. Reich, A. Hatchuel, O. Shai & E. Subrahmanian, A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in

engineering design: casting and improving ASIT within C–K theory, Journal of Engineering Design,

(2011).

[17] M. Barak, Systematic Approaches for Inventive,Thinking and Problem-Solving: Implications for

Engineering Education, TEMPUS Publications, (2004).

[18] R. Horowitz and O. Maimon, Creative design methodology and the SIT method, Proceedings of

DETC'97, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacramento, (1997).

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/publications/the-cox-review/


11

[19] R. Kaplan, ASIT compared to scamper for devising new products (http://www.trizjournal.

com/archives/2001/12/d/), (2001).

[20] A. Hatchuel, B. Weil, Design as Forcing: deepening the foundations of C-K theory, International

conference on engineering design, ICED, Paris, (2007)

[21] O. Shai, Y. Reich, A. Hatchuel, E. Subrahmanian, Creativity and scientific discovery with infused

design and its analysis with C–K theory, Springer-Verlag London Limited, (2012).

[22] A. Kanamori, The mathematical development of set theory from Cantor to Cohen, The Bulletin

of symbolic logic pages 1 - 71, (1996).

[23] T. Gillier, Portfolio management of innovation fields: Applying CK design theory in cross industry

exploratory partnership, 16th International Product Development Management Conference,

Twente, (2009).

[24] P. Jarry, Evolution of ASIT and creation of FASiT, Taken from The Proceedings of The XXIII ISPIM

Conference 2012 Barcelona, (2012).

[25] A. Kazakci, A. Tsoukias, Extending the C–K Design Theory: A TheoreticalBackground for Personal

Design Assistants, Journal of Engineering Design, (2005), 16/4: 399–411.

state of the art creative and innovative design methods

Documents