Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education

Methods that may stimulate creativityand their use in architectural design education

Doris C. C. K. Kowaltowski • Giovana Bianchi • Valeria Teixeira de Paiva

Published online: 13 November 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract The architectural design process is based on a creative phase where creativity is

highly valued. Although the literature on creativity is rich in ways to stimulate the

decision-making process, these tools are rarely formally present in the building design

process. To further the discussion on creativity and design education this paper presents a

study on methods that may enhance the creative process and their application in architecture

courses around the world. The results of this inquiry indicate that design instructors apply

methods that may stimulate creativity mostly informally, with some positive results. To

explore more fully the richness of the literature on the enhancement of creativity, structured

applications of methods are recommended in controlled experiments to analyze results.

Keywords Creativity � Creative design � Design education � Problem solving �Methods that may stimulate creativity � Architectural design

Introduction

In recent decades universities and architecture schools in particular, have made important

efforts to improve design education. The goals in new ways of teaching design are mainly

concerned with enriching the pure artistic vision of architecture, through the insertion of

scientific knowledge and social responsibility. Environmental comfort and the question of

sustainability have increased the need for exact science and technical education. Social

sciences need to instill sensitivities towards the relation of human behavior and elements of

the built environment. Finally, results of studies on creativity should enrich the design

process.

In this paper, to further the discussion on design education a study on methods that may

enhance creativity is presented. The results of an exploratory interview inquiry with design

instructors, to investigate the application of such methods, are discussed. Architectural

D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski (&) � G. Bianchi � V. T. de PaivaSchool of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, FEC, Department of Architectureand Building, DAC, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, CP 6021, Campinas, SP, Brazile-mail: [email protected]

123

Int J Technol Des Educ (2010) 20:453–476DOI 10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z

design is used as the main object of inquiry, since the authors professional and teaching

experiences are in this field. The discussion on the creative design process and the results

of the exploratory interview study presented, are seen as having a wider application in the

design field.

Contemporary goals in higher education and particularly design education include

giving students tools to stimulate the search for creative solutions to problems, as well as a

solid scientific basis for decision-making processes. To achieve such goals, the introduc-

tion of methods that may enhance creativity can be found in the discussion on curricular

reforms.

The authors were interested in the application of tools that may enhance creativity, after

conducting a teaching experiment in a bioclimatic design-studio of the Architecture and

Urban Design Course of the State University of Campinas—Unicamp, in Brazil (Kowal-

towski et al. 2007). The strength of restrictions, imposed on the design solution realm, was

tested in the previous study. The results showed that restrictions could enhance creativity in

students, especially through the challenge of breaking the imposed barriers by adopting

new and original solutions. In addition, with restrictions made clear, students were more

confident in their design proposals and the design process as a whole.

The starting point of the exploratory investigation, presented in this paper, was a lit-

erature review that demonstrated that the rich ideas coming from studies on creativity

brought forward a large variety of methods that are said to stimulate creativity and when

applied in higher education may lead to better formation of future design professionals.

This educational enhancement is considered important, especially in relation to recent job

market trends and the globalization of the design profession. These trends have increased

competitiveness and demand acceleration of productivity. Higher design quality from

design professionals is expected as well. The contemporary world with its dynamic pro-

duction of knowledge and speed in technological advances, as well as obsolescence,

demands professionals capable of keeping up with this pace and creativity is seen as an

essential human asset. The new order also implies that design students need a deeper

understanding of background knowledge and need to acquire new abilities and attitudes

towards design, with an increased demand on creativity. Producing designs that are fresh

and new to the problem domain are expected of our students and of design professionals as

a whole.

The design process

To increase design quality and productivity stakes have been put on design methods in the

last fifty years, especially in architecture. In the 1960s, design methods were investigated to

diminish subjectivity in design, to apply scientific knowledge more effectively and use

information technology productively. The methods brought forward by Jones (1970) were

organized according to input (what designers know) and output (what designers want to

know) and included a variety of methods still important today. The list of tools in relation

to the enhancement of creativity included Brainstorming, analogy and attribute lists to aid

in ‘‘removing mental blocks’’.

The goal in developing design methods was to improve the process and the product

outcome. Importance was given to adding structure to the decision-making activity in

design. The argument was that, after all, most disciplines depend on tools, techniques,

protocols of good practice, so design and in particular, architectural design should have the

same.

454 D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski et al.

123

Many studies have been conducted since the 1960s, resulting in important contributions

to the understanding of the design process. The main exponents of this movement were

Christopher Jones, Christopher Alexander and John Luckman in the 1960s of the last

century. In the 1970s Horst Rittel and Henry Sanoff should be mentioned and towards the

end of that decade a list of important works were published by researchers and profes-

sionals such as Geoffrey Broadbent, Nigel Cross and Omer Akin. C. Alexander published

his ‘‘Pattern Language’’ in 1977. Scientists from other fields contributed as well to the

understanding of design processes. Herbert Simon publishes ‘‘The Science of the Artifi-

cial’’ in 1969 and Donald Schon in 1983 contributes to the understanding of design

education with his ‘‘The Reflective Practitioner’’. In the last two decades, Brian Lawson

and William J. Mitchell have contributed to the understanding of design thinking and the

logic of architectural design (Moreira 2007).

In 1984 Nigel Cross established a division of subjects in design methods and identified

each area’s principal exponents. Thus, control over the process is the goal of studies by

Christopher Jones and Bruce Archer, to mention only a few. The structure of design

problems is discussed by Peter Levin, Barry Poyner and Melvin Webber with Horst Rittel.

The cognitive aspects of design are studied by Omer Akin, Bryan Lawson, Jane Darke,

John Thomas and John Caroll and the philosophy of design methods is further investigated

by Broadbent (1973) and Cross (1984).

In 2002 three comprehensive studies investigated research contributions to design

theory and practice in general (Jeamsinkul et al. 2002; Poppenpohl 2002; Teeravarunyou

et al. 2002). The overview of studies on the process, its principles and methods, as well as

the philosophies and theories, shows that design studies are essentially interdisciplinary

and that the authors mentioned above have had an important impact on design practice and

education as a whole. From this, an understanding of the rich data, coming from the design

methods movement is created, which continues to have repercussions in diverse areas,

contributing to the development of specific research domains that support professional

activities.

In mechanical design, Suh (1990) creates the axiomatic design method. In architectural

design, Post-Occupational-Evaluations (POE) or Building Performance Assessment gains

importance and design quality evaluation methods are developed. Attention to the pre-

design phase, or development of a detailed design brief, has increased in professional and

teaching activities. Computational support tools, such as Computer Aided Design (CAD),

rapid prototyping and applications of artificial intelligence have sprung from the design

method movement to enrich and facilitate the design process.

Most studies on the design process in architecture show that it does not follow rigid

rules. Designers do not apply universal methods and rarely externalize their thought

process (Kowaltowski et al. 2006a). Research in design methods consider the creative

process complex, solving what are termed wicked or ill-structured problems (Rittel and

Webber 1973). Thus, design problems are only loosely formulated, at times through a

detailed brief or architectural program. Wickedness consists in the continuous redefinition

of the problem during the period of its resolution and the impossibility of testing the

validity of solutions (Coyne 2005). A rigid systems view of design cannot be defended,

even in the face of losing credibility regarding the design profession, since rationality in

design may not embrace important concepts such as value judgment, context and

uniqueness.

In design, as a form of problem solving, reasoning proceeds from objective and func-

tional assessment to means or (product) decisions, but does not follow a formal scientific

process in which, by deduction, one reaches a logical result from posed premises. To

Methods that may stimulate creativity 455

123

improve this process, creative methods are seen as important to stimulate original and

quality solutions. Jones (1963 and 1970) already emphasized the importance of methods

that aid in the search for ideas in design processes. In such early texts Brainstorming,

Synecticts, Morphological Charts and Removing Mental Blocks are mentioned as appro-

priate tools.

When such methods are informally practiced, however, sidestepping may occur and

opportunities might be missed. Thus, techniques such as ‘‘Brainstorming’’ or other crea-

tivity enhancement methods, criticism and decision-making activities should intertwine

with traditional design, drafting, prototyping and testing activities, to provide the foun-

dation for greater quality and originality of product, as well as awareness in the design

process.

The issue of addressing design as a whole, or of its part, is a further difficulty that an

experienced designer will tackle through the recall of known design solutions and of

travelling constantly with eye, mind and hand between the parts and the whole. Thus,

design is not a grammatical construction of a sentence, by a combination of parts to form a

whole.

In design education, special attention must be paid to the difficulties of progressing from

whole to part and part to whole in a conscious and efficient way. Producing designs that

have combinatorial qualities must be a goal in studio pedagogy. Problem solving needs to

be addressed through teaching methods and the introduction of tools, especially to help

students to overcome hurdles in moments of lack of progress, or what is colloquially called

‘‘being stuck’’.

The creative process

The literature on creativity is rich, and extensive studies have been conducted on how to

enhance this human ability or thought process (Cross 1997; Boden 1999; Runco 2004;

Siqueira 2007). Alencar (1996), Sternberg (1991) and Iashin-Shaw (1994), have called

attention to the fact that higher education must teach students to stimulate their own

creativity, to prepare them for the contemporary job and professional market. The same

authors show evidence however, that higher education seldom adopts practices that favor

creativity. Thus, most graduating professionals are capable only of applying what is

common knowledge in conventional ways (Alencar and Fleith 2004). Horng et al. (2005)

argues that the concept of creativity must be a key factor in new teaching strategies and

curriculum design. Although there is a consensus on the necessary introduction of the

concept of creativity in higher education, few courses deal formally or explicitly and in a

structured way with the issue.

Creativity is viewed in different ways in different disciplines: in education it is called

‘innovation’, in business it is ‘entrepreneurship’, in mathematics it is often equated with

‘problem solving’, and in music it is ‘performance’ or ‘composition’. A creative product in

different domains is measured against the norms of that domain, with its own rules,

approaches and conceptions of creativity (Reid and Petocz 2004).

The available literature on creativity and the methods that may stimulate are important

for design education but not always explicitly applied in a structured pedagogical way. The

UNESCO/UIA (2005) charter for architectural education stipulates that a variety of

methods should be applied to enrich the design-studio environment culturally and urges

flexible teaching to relate to varied demands and design problems. The charter does not

address creativity specifically and studies on design education (Rufinoni 2002) show the


123

lack of application of pedagogical instruments to develop critical consciousness and ethical

attitudes in students. Jeffries (2007) as well reaffirms the need for new teaching methods in

the design-studio to increase creative thought.

With increased complexity in the design world, innovation, originality or the stimulus

for creative thought, should no longer rely on talent or chance alone. Creativity, as a

concept of bringing forward new ideas, is seen by many as the driving force in the design

process of a wide variety of fields, from architecture to mechanical design. For many

professionals, originality is a prime goal, shunning repetition of ideas. ‘‘Cookie Cutter’’

architecture is the symbol of all that is wrong with our present-day society, but the

objectives of creativity in building design should not be originality for its own sake.

Essential is the search for new ways of solving problems (functional, technical, social,

urban and aesthetic) in intelligent and environmentally responsible ways.

From studies on creativity, we know that specific conditions, such as well-defined

problem limits, as challenges, can foster the creative design process (Kowaltowski et al.

2007). Giving students design tools, such as drawing, CAD and model making, has tra-

ditionally been considered important; however, without giving specific attention to

methods that may increase creativity, the design-studio is considered to be less productive

in forming creative professionals.

Studies on the creative thought process have identified that it depends on characteristics

of an individual: receptiveness or attitudes in search of new and appropriate solutions,

immersion into the problem at hand, dedication and motivation, questioning attitudes,

analysis of ideas, with special attention to flawed solutions (Kneller 1978). The capacity to

solve problems depends, as well, on two factors of cognition: repertoire (facts, principles,

concepts) and heuristics of problem solving (systemization of insights).

Accumulated knowledge or expertise are thus important and context specific. Studies

show, that there are few designers who can produce creatively over a wide field of

knowledge and there is a general view that expertise develops over time, as a person

matures. Finally, a point is reached when a peak of performance occurs and then an

inevitable decline begins (Cross 2004). Studies on outstanding designers from a wide range

of fields (engineering and product design) have shown that these professionals rely on ‘first

principles’ in the origination of their concepts, exploring the problem to frame the problem

space and in many cases creative solutions arise when there is a conflict to be resolved.

These results show some similarities in creative strategies, but do not mean that experts can

switch practice between domains (Cross 2003).

Creativity can be defined as a process of becoming sensitive to a question, to a flaw or a

missing link in an area of knowledge. Importance is given to the identification of diffi-

culties and the formulation of hypotheses of such flaws, to finally attain a solution, test it

and communicate it to a wider audience. Creativity is defined as the capacity to produce

new and original ideas (Boden 1999). However, novelty is not sufficient to classify a

solution as something original. The idea has to have a specific purpose and solve a

determined problem. Alencar (1996) shows that relevance to a context is of extreme

importance for a product to have scientific, technological, social and aesthetic value. From

this, it follows that creative thinkers are specialist in their fields and rarely are innovative

across wider areas. Specific in-depth knowledge is paramount for creative thought. Thus

for different domains the stimulus for adequate solutions is distinct as well. In engineering

design, for instance, the adequate structuring of problems and first principle exploration are

important parts of the creative process. In architectural design the manipulation of possible

design solutions, through models and drawings is essential and experience and repertoire

analysis are paramount. According to Gero (2000) most new ideas in design are based on


123

analogies, mutations or combinations and in some cases first principles are applied. The

experienced architect applies these concepts at times consciously, at times as experi-

mentations to move forward in the design process.

Kneller (1978) defines four indispensable stages in a creative process: preparation,

incubation, illumination and verification. Preparation is an investigative phase to famil-

iarize one self with the problem environment. Incubation is a longer period, often

unconsciously happening, preparing the mind for a solution search. Hypotheses are

rejected through distancing from the problem at hand. The third stage, Illumination, occurs

when perceptions are restructured and ideas are integrated in a search for solutions (Cross

1997). Finally, Verification must occur when ideas are revised, analyzed, judged and

solutions tested. Each phase may be helped by specific methods to stimulate reflection,

perception, creation and finally testing ideas. Interesting prospects present themselves with

available methods that may increase creativity for solving design problems intelligently

(Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007).

An important factor in stimulating creativity is the imposition of restrictions (Boden

1999). In the building design process, restrictions are present through codes, site conditions

and costs, to mention just a few aspects. Although often seen negatively as impositions,

restrictions can be positive challenges for new ideas to flourish. Restrictions, as stimuli, can

thus be applied in the design-studio to challenge students in breaking imposed barriers with

creative and appropriate solutions.

The design-studio teaching example conducted by Kowaltowski et al. (2007) showed

that creativity enhancement methods can be formally applied, in this case through imposed

restrictions. Results showed that restrictions, as design tools, can be of help to students in

their search for creative design solutions. On the other hand, this teaching experience

showed that most students cling to their first design solution, considered aesthetically

‘‘pleasing’’ and are reluctant to abandon this, even when problems are pointed out. The

experiment indicated that further research is needed to test the introduction of other

methods, which may stimulate creativity and, in parallel, may increase students’ sense of

responsibility in relation to social, urban and comfort impacts of design proposals.

Design education

Most design education, especially architectural design, occurs through the studio system

and how students are stimulated in their design efforts are related to the pedagogy applied

and to the personalities (instructors) present, as well as their individual ways of

approaching design. Six basic teaching methods can be identified in the studio setting

(Kowaltowski et al. 2006b):

1. Studio teaching based on a given architectural program and site for a specific design

project or architectural typology.

2. Studio teaching based on the discussion of an architectural program, elaborated by

students and its appropriate urban setting.

3. Introduction into the studio of an actual, local design problem and the development of

a participatory process, with problem analysis and solution justification by students.

4. Teaching design as a combination of architectural theory with practical design

activities.

5. Teaching design using ‘‘form generation’’ methods and formal architectural languages.

6. Teaching design to explore specific CAD design tools.


123

The synthesis of knowledge, coming from multidisciplinary areas, continues to be a

challenge in the typical design-studio of most architecture schools. The studio teaching

method relies mainly on the interaction of students with experienced professionals and

unstructured discussions concerning the specific, mostly hypothetical, design problems

posed. Many studies have examined the typical design-studio teaching method in relation

to diverse aspects: learning experiences, efficiency, quality of designs, etc. (Carsalade

1997; Oxman 1999a, b; Gouveia et al. 2001; Rufinoni 2002; Goldschmidt and Tatsa 2005;

Kowaltowski et al. 2006b).

Other studies identified problems in architectural education as related to design com-

munication and the introduction and application of computer-aided design in architectural

courses (Nicol and Pilling 2000). Viewing architecture as pure art has often been identified

as a problem and investigations of typical professional practices have uncovered that

architects often lack knowledge on, or fail to anticipate, user needs (Salama 1995).

Importance given to the artistic content may cause architects to ignore social aspects in

architecture and to emphasize their self-expression. The aesthetic or formal bias is further

reinforced by most publications, used as teaching material in design disciplines. These are

often devoid of human content and directed towards the formal aspects of design (Ko-

waltowski et al. 2006c). Even technical aspects, evaluation results and user satisfaction

rates are rarely present in journals, used by students in design classes.

Schon (1983) describes design as a reflective conversation with the design situation,

thus addressing the human thought-processes and the language (drawings and models) used

to make design decisions. Schon’s ‘‘reflection in action’’, according to Snodgrass and

Coyne (2006), is the workings of a hermeneutical circle. Interpretation in design must

address two issues: preconceptions and the dynamic dialogue between the parts and the

whole of a design. In design education, the question of preconception, pre-judgment or

prejudice must be addressed, since students, although without previous experience in

design per-se, do not come to the studio as a ‘‘tabula rasa’’. The pre-understandings

students bring to their academic work come from their personal life experience and studio

instructors may attempt, in vain, to free the student’s mindset of such presuppositions. A

more appropriate approach to design education therefore considers to engage students in

questioning such presuppositions, expanding, and at times, rejecting responses in the

design dialogue.

Methods which may enhance creativity

To investigate the possible formal insertion of creativity enhancement tools, a literature

search on the many available methods that may stimulate creativity was conducted. This

study produced a list of some 250 methods. Table 1 presents some of these methods with a

glossary of meaning. de Bono (1992) describes many different ways to produce creative

ideas through techniques with descriptive names such as: ‘‘The Creative Pause,’’ ‘‘Focus,’’

‘‘Challenge,’’ ‘‘Alternatives,’’ ‘‘The Concept Fan,’’ ‘‘Concepts,’’ ‘‘Provocation,’’ ‘‘Move-

ment,’’ ‘‘Setting Up Provocations,’’ ‘‘The Random Input,’’ and ‘‘Sensitizing Techniques.’’

A large number of the methods found in the literature on creativity relate to a wide variety

of areas: psychology, pedagogy, business administration, marketing, industrial design, fine

arts and architectural and engineering design (Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007). For

that reason, not all of the methods found in the literature on creativity are necessarily useful

in typical architectural design processes, for example the ‘‘QFD’’ method rarely applies.


123

Table 1 Glossary of various methods, found in the literature, that may stimulate creativity (Clegg andBirch 2007; Mycoted 2007)

Method Description

Assumption busting A list of assumptions about the problem is made. Correctness inrelation to the problem at hand is tested. New assumptions appearand the most applicable of these are used to find solutions

CATWOE Technique consisting in seven steps:

Appreciating the unstructured problematical situation

Understanding the worldviews of the key stakeholders

Creating root definitions of relevant systems

Making and testing conceptual models based upon worldviews

Comparing conceptual models with reality

Identifying feasible and desirable changes

Acting to improve the problem situation

Cause-effect diagram Related to the concept of lean construction, where processes can bemeasured, analyzed, improved and controlled with emphasis oncustomer dissatisfaction

Crawford slip method A written brainstorming method where the mediator will generate areport on the paper slips of the team members. IBIS the planningmethod devised by Rittel used this idea coupled with the Delphimethod

Delphi method The Delphi method is an interactive forecasting method. Relies oninput of independent experts, in several rounds, with revisedforecast based on output of previous round. Results convergetowards ‘‘best’’ solutions using mean or median scores. The numberof rounds, achievement of consensus and stability of results areestablished beforehand

Force-field analysis Force field analysis looks factors (forces) that influence (hinder orhelp) a situation or problem. Used mainly in management planning

Gallery Team members must create their gallery of ideas on a poster and hangthem for contemplation and discussion by other team members

Input–output Developed by General Electric. The technique identifies new ways ofreaching a design goal by focusing on the input (attributes) and finaloutput desired. Requirements and restrictions (specifications) arestructured for this purpose

Morphological analysis A problem-solving technique based on problem structuring andelimination of the illogical solution combinations

NAF (Novelty, attractivenessand functionality)

Solutions are analyzed as to their novelty, attractiveness andfunctional usefulness. Grades are given on a 1–10 scale for eachattribute

Other people’s viewpoints Technique to encourage people to adopt unfamiliar viewpoints duringa problem discussion

PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) PDCA is a four-step problem-solving process also known as theDeming Cycle. Starting with: PLAN: Establish goals and processesnecessary to deliver results in accordance with the specifications.DO: Implement the processes. CHECK: evaluate the processesagainst the goals. ACT: introduce action to improve the process andstart the PDCA process over

QFD Method to transform user demands into design quality, to deploy thefunctions forming quality, and to deploy methods for achieving thedesign quality into subsystems and component parts, and ultimatelyto specific elements of the manufacturing process


123

In relation to design education, project-based learning has been adopted as the key

teaching–learning strategy by most universities. According to Christiaans and Venselaar

(2005) the question of the effectiveness of this approach still remains unanswered. These

authors also state that one of the issues in design education, that has only been dealt with at

an intuitive level, is the enhancement of creative abilities. Since creativity is one of the key

concepts when judging a designer or a design solution, the main question that still has to be

answered is how can knowledge that enhances creative designing be taught using explicit

instruction (Christiaans and Venselaar 2005).

Precedent based design (Oxman 1999a) is accepted as one of the cognitive phenomena

in design creativity as a source of ideation, and although the importance of intricate and

Table 1 continued

Method Description

Random stimuli Random stimulus is based on randomization with exploration ofassociations to novel non intentional ideas. The Random Wordtechnique starts with a random word used to generate newassociations. This helps to look at problems from unusual sidesdirecting thought toward creative solutions

Relational words Type of forced-relationship process that uses a checklist of verbs andprepositions. Used by editors to create book titles and marketers toname new products for example

SCAMPER Comes from Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Produce or findnew applications, Eliminate and Rearrange. Questions are made totransform an object or process through the above verbs

Six sigma (DMAIC and DMADV) The methodology consists of:

Define process improvement goals consistent with customerdemands and enterprise strategy. Measure key aspects of thecurrent process and collect relevant data

Analyze data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine therelationships and ensure that all factors have been considered

Improve the process based upon data analysis using techniques likedesign of experiments

Control to correct deviations from target. Set up pilot runs toestablish process capability

Finally move onto production, set up control mechanisms andcontinuously monitor the process

Six thinking hats The hats represent six thinking strategies identified by Edward deBono, consciously applied in techniques to enhance creativity. Redhat—Emotional thinking. Yellow Hat—Positive thinking. BlackHat—Critical thinking. White Hat—Facts. Green Hat—Creativethinking. Blue Hat—Big Picture

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities, Threats)

A strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project byidentifying the internal and external factors that are favorable andunfavorable to achieving that objective

Synetics Synetics is a technique to generate and evaluate ideas. In the firstsession the problem is analyzed. In the second session the problemsis described and the scope of action determined. Ideas are generated(using other techniques). Idea springboards are identified to focuson the solution realm. Possible solutions are brought forward. Theseare analyzed and a new cycle of synetics may have to begin if thesolutions are rejected until a consensus is reached


123

detailed knowledge as being essential to designing is well recognized, little is known about

how the knowledge base of the (novice) designer affects the quality or creativity of the

design (Christiaans and Venselaar 2005). Howard-Jones (2002) has shown many pitfalls

and potentials of methods to stimulate creativity and recommends the need for investi-

gations on the application of specific methods.

From our literature search, methods or techniques have been selected, in relation to their

potential for being tested in the building design context and the architecture studio envi-

ronment. These are: Analogies; Attribute Listing; Axiomatic design method; Bio-Mimet-

icry; Brainstorming; Browsing; Charette; Component Detailing; Do Nothing; Doodling;

Drawing; Exaggeration; Excursions; First Principle; Focus Groups; Mind Mapping; Other

Peoples Viewpoints, TRIZ; Think Tank; Using Crazy Ideas; Using Experts; Visual

Brainstorming; Visualizing a Goal; Working with Dreams and Images. Many of these

methods are traditionally part of the design process, such as Charrettes, and those that

emphasize visualization of ideas (Goldschmidt and Smolkov 2006; van der Lugt 2005).

Other methods such as ‘‘Do nothing’’ need no formal introduction into the typical teaching

studio, as this attitude is one of the many complaints of design instructors. However, ‘‘Do

nothing’’ productively is another matter to be investigated. The idea behind this technique

is to imagine what happens if nothing is done to solve a specific problem and finding

solutions from what is defined as the worst scenario.

The possibility of successfully applying some of these methods to architectural design

education is contingent to the ways design occurs or is produced, and methods that may

enhance creativity can be categorized according to their applicability to the phases of the

design process. In Table 2 some of the potentially appropriate methods are related to each

of these phases identified by Kneller (1978).

New methods, not inherently part of typical design processes should be investigated

as well. Here, some of the more promising methods for design processes are discussed.

They are: Analogy, Attribute list, TRIZ, Brainstorming, Mental maps or Mind mapping

and Biomimicry. These methods were singled out since they are especially useful in the

idea generation phase of design processes (Jones 1970; Altshuller 1984; Gero 2000).

Biomimicry was included since it is a specific form of analogy, based on princi-

ples coming from nature, referred to in many studies on sustainable design (Benyus

1997).

Table 2 Classification of various methods that may stimulate creativity in relation to phases of the creativeprocess (Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007)

Creative processphase

Methods

Problem definition Assumption Busting; Assumption Surfacing; Backwards Forwards Planning BoundaryExamination; CATWOE; Chunking; Five W’s and Hs; Multiple Redefinition; OtherPeoples Definitions; Paraphrasing Key Words; Why Why Why

Idea generation Analogy; Attribute Listing; Biomimicry; Mind Mapping; Morphological Analysis;Nominal Group Technique; Pictures as Idea Triggers; Pin Cards; Random Stimuli;Talking Pictures; TRIZ

Idea selection Advantages, Limitations and Unique Qualities; Anonymous Voting; ConsensusMapping; Idea Advocate; NAF; Plusses Potentials and Concerns; Sticking Dots;Unique Qualities

Idea verification PDCA; QFD; Six sigma


123

The attribute list breaks the problem into parts and investigates these individually, with

potential in design education. The technique consists in identifying essential characteristics

of a product or process and reflects on ways to modify and improve these. Bouillerce and

Carre (2004) recommend that an inventory of all aspects of a problem should be made:

types of material used, dimensions, building technique, fabrication process, user require-

ments, etc. Once the list is ready, priorities are marked and alternatives suggested. The

combination of ideas increases exponentially, according to Davis (1992), with the number

of attributes.

TRIZ, or the ‘‘theory of inventive problem solving’’ in Russian, is a method created by

Altshuller (1984), based on more than three million patents of the Soviet Union in the

1950s to discover the patterns that predict breakthrough solutions to problems. TRIZ

research began with the hypothesis that there are universal principles of creativity, which

are the basis for technological innovations. Problems are structured according to 40 basic

inventive principles, identified by Altshuller in the patents such as: weight of moving

object; length of moving object; speed; force; stress; shape; temperature; illumination

intensity; power; loss of energy, time, substance, information; reliability; ease of main-

tenance, operation repair; etc. If these principles are identified and codified, they could be

taught to people to make the process of creativity more predictable. A matrix is created

which can be applied to new inventions.

The argument behind TRIZ is that somebody somewhere has already solved this

problem, or one very similar to it (Barry et al. 2005). Creativity is now finding that solution

and adapting it to the particular problem at hand. To solve problems TRIZ uses logic and

data, not intuition. TRIZ also provides repeatability, predictability and reliability due to its

structure and algorithmic approach.

Kiatake (2004) tested the application of TRIZ to architectural design problems. The

transfer of TRIZ principles to the architectural design process was attempted and the case

study presents some promising results in relation to facilitating decision-making. Kiatake

(2004) used 16 specific architectural design goals including environmental comfort (visual,

thermal, acoustics and smell), ergonomics, efficiency, equilibrium, flexibility, visual

impact, independence, movement, functionality or practicality, productivity, rationaliza-

tion and security and safety. According to Kiatake (2004), solution alternatives were

generated with added ease and their evaluation was more focused, using the TRIZ matrix

as the base to defend or justify issues.

Brainstorming is probably the best-known method to stimulate creativity, where experts

from various fields put their ideas forward without prior judgment. There are basic rules to

Brainstorming: Focus on quantity; No criticism; Unusual ideas are welcome since they

combine and improve ideas. In Osborn’s (1957) definition, Brainstorming is a conference

technique by which a group of people attempts to find a solution for a specific problem by

amassing ideas spontaneously.

A further method, called the Mental Map or Tree diagram (Siqueira 2007), is based on

the potential of idea generation when structured according to initial concepts. This method

is usually associated with the visual representation of ideas, to help the ‘‘free association’’

process of Brainstorming. Ideas are classified, structured and visually presented. By

mapping information, rapid expansion and exploration of an idea occurs. Analogy of

images may be part of this method. In design processes, this method is often identified in

the drawings of architects, especially in first sketches (Rowe 1992; Lawson 1997).

Finally, Biomimicry is considered the transfer of technology between life forms and

man-made constructs (Benyus 1997). According to proponents of bionic technology, it is

recommended because evolutionary pressures typically force living organisms to become


123

highly optimized and efficient. From this, biomimetics, biognosis, Biomimicry, or bionical

creativity engineering are applications of biological methods and systems found in nature

to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology. The view of

imitating nature is however, also the main criticism of Biomimicry, since nature does not

necessarily function on optimum designs, but on natural selection for sufficiently good

solutions.

The analysis of nature’s systems may lead to the seeds of inspiration in a creative design

process and Biomimicry is a method increasingly employed in design processes of famous

architects like Ken Yeang and Calatrava. For instance, an often cited example is the

Eastgate Center in Harare, Zimbabwe, a shopping center designed by Mick Pearce and

built in 1996. The thermal comfort of the building is supported by principles discovered in

termite mounds. Ken Yeang uses other examples. The understanding of the chemical

structure of DNA may stimulate the conception of building elements and as an analogy, a

pile of dishes of a restaurant kitchen demonstrates that building slabs may gain in stability

when rotated.

Creativity enhancement in design education

To test the introduction of methods that may enhance creativity in the design-studio an

exploratory study, as a structured interview, was conducted with 28 design instructors of

architecture schools around the world. 43 design instructors participated in the study and

28 faculty members responded to all the interview questions, outlined in Table 3. Table 4

shows the participant schools in Brazil and around the world.

One of the main goals of the study, was to ascertain if design instructors explicitly

structure their design pedagogy to enable the enhancement of creativity and what tools are

used for that purpose. The authors were testing, in this exploratory interview study, if

schools in Brazil and around the world actively apply the rich information coming from the

literature on the creative process. Thus, the use of methods that may stimulate creativity

was of interest. As a research goal out aims were several. First, the interviews questioned

design instructors on their familiarity with several of the methods that may stimulate

creativity found in the literature; then, the structured specific formal application in the

design-studio environment was of interest and the study was open to new pedagogical tools

or ideas which are seen as enhancing creativity of students, as described by the design

instructors participating in the interviews. Finally, the study tried to ascertain from design

instructors which aspects of architectural design could profit most from creativity

enhancement.

Since the authors work in Brazil and the first author teaches architectural design at the

State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil, special

attention was given to architecture schools in that country. In Brazil, Architecture Schools

emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of the subject. Courses include urban planning,

landscape and industrial design in their curricula.

Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world in area and population, prides itself of

producing architecture of recognized quality, said to be the result of its design education. A

60-year tradition in design education is mainly based on modernist principles of design and

the design methods movement has had little impact on studio pedagogy (Rufinoni 2002;

Moreira 2007; Naveiro 2008). Two exponents of this tradition have won the Pritzker Prize:

Oscar Niemeyer and Paulo Mendes da Rocha. Brazil, according to 2008 data has 224

architecture schools, producing a large number of new architects and urban designers every


123

Table 3 Structure of questions asked in exploratory interview study on methods that may stimulate cre-ativity in architectural design education

1. Which of these methods are known to you and applied in a design course/module? and What are theadvantages, difficulties and results of these methods?

a. Association of uncommon ideas and concepts coming from otherdomains to produce new, innovative solutions

Ex: Analogy, Metaphor, Association

b. Finding models in nature which are similar in problem definition andwhich may be imitated or may inspire solutions

Ex: Biomimicry

c. Spontaneous generation of large number of ideas and/or possiblesolution to a problem, with choice of best solution only at the end of theprocess

Ex: Brainstorming, Brainwriting, Idea Board

d. Decomposition of a problem into attributes or key-factors which maybe improved, changed or substituted

Ex: Attribute Listing, Matrix Analysis

e. Diagrams of items organized around a central concept with connectionsand branching on a theme or proposition

Ex: Mind Map, Diagram, Flow Chart

f. Structure a problem into its generic domain and search for the solutionthrough a matrix of 40 principles found in patents.

Ex: TRIZ, ‘‘Theory of inventive problem solving’’

2. Do you use other types of methods to stimulate creativity? Which?

3. In your opinion, are methods, which stimulate creativity more useful in the search for solutions for whichdesign issues?

( ) Architectural Programming( ) Site Planning and urban

considerations( ) Spatial/volumetric

considerations in design( ) Formal/Aesthetics

considerations( ) Environmental comfort/

Energy Efficiency( ) Technical issues


123

year. The quality of design education of these institutions is of interest, not only in view of

the level of performance of young professionals in their own regions, but also in view of

the global job market, which may absorb these graduates.

To conduct the exploratory study interviews were held with design instructors using

structured questions as shown in Table 3. The study explored the application of specific

methods that may enhance creativity. The methods selected were: Analogy, Attribute list,

TRIZ, Brainstorming, Mental maps or mind mapping and Biomimicry. As shown in

Table 2, these methods are recommended for the idea generation phase of design pro-

cesses. Respondents were free to add other methods, as outlined in question, (2) of Table 3

and a final question, (3) of Table 3, asked design instructors to indicate which design

factors could gain most from the application of methods that could stimulate creativity.

Table 4 Sample of exploratory interview study on methods that may stimulate creativity: location ofarchitecture schools

Location University

Brazil

Northeast 1. Universidade Federal de Alagoas (UFAL)—Maceio/AL

2. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)—Natal/RN

Central 3. Universidade de Brasılia (UnB)—Brasılia/DF

Southeast 4. Centro Universitario Moura Lacerda—Ribeirao Preto/SP

5. Centro Universitario Nove de Julho (UNINOVE)—Sao Paulo/SP

6. Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP)—Sao Paulo/SP

7. Universidade Estadual do Espırito Santo (UFES)—Vitoria/ES

8. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF)—Juiz de Fora/MG

9. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)—Belo Horizonte/MG

10. Universidade Federal do Rio Janeiro (UFRJ)—Rio de Janeiro/RJ

South 11. Centro Universitario Ritter dos Reis—Porto Alegre/RS

12. Pontifıcia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS)—PortoAlegre/RS

13. Universidade Federal do Parana (UFPR)—Curitiba/PR

14. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)—Florianopolis/SC

Around the world

Europe 1. Universitat Dortmund—Dortmund/Germany

2. Aalborg University—Aalborg/Denmark

3. Architectural Association (AA)—London/UK

4. Newcastle University—Newcastle/UK

5. Oxford Brookes University—Oxford/UK

6. Politecnico de Milan—Millan/Italy

North/CentralAmerica

7. Pennsylvania State University—Pennsylvania/EUA

8. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)—Mexico city/Mexico

Asia 9. Islamic Azad University—Teheran/Iran

10. Musashi Institute of Technology—Yokohama/Japan

11. International Islamic University—Kuala Lumpur/Malaysia

12. University of Engineering & Technology—Lahore/Paquistan

Oceania 13. University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney/Australia

14. University of Sydney—Sydney/Australia


123

Here Hershberger’s value structure was used to organize responses (Hershberger 1999).

These values and their related issues are:

1. Human: functional, social, physical, physiological and psychological;

2. Environmental: site, climate, context, resources and waste;

3. Cultural: historical, institutional, political and legal;

4. Technological: materials, systems and processes;

5. Temporal: growth, change and permanence;

6. Economic: finance, construction, operation, maintenance and energy;

7. Aesthetic: form, space, color and meaning;

8. Safety, structural, fire, chemical, personal and criminal.

The sample was divided into two parts. The Brazilian sample definition was based on

the percentage of architecture school in the country. The 2006 census listed 186 schools

and 14 were chosen at random, proportionally distributed according to the geographic

regions in Brazil. The international sample used a survey on design education as a basis for

regional representation of architecture schools worldwide (Boucharenc 2006). Table 4

shows the distribution of participating architecture schools according to regions in Brazil

and continents around the world. The number of interviews was 43, however, only 28

participants fully answered all the questions, thus a 33% response was obtained. Results of

this exploratory study are discussed below. Table 5 shows a summary of responses to

issues in architectural design which may profit from the application of creativity methods.

In Brazil the structure of architecture courses is controlled by national curricular

requirements and therefore all schools have a final year project, which is developed by

students individually and advised by instructors, also on an individual basis. This condition

is reflected in the study results, as some of the respondents participate in this advisory

capacity. In other countries, some schools, especially those of Asia Minor, had the highest

negative response in relation to their knowledge relating to the methods. This result may be

due to a lack of English proficiency. For non-English speaking countries, the exploratory

study may need to be re-conducted with added texts in each country’s own native tongue to

explain the questions.

Table 5 gives an overall picture of how creativity is stimulated in design-studios in

Brazil and around the world. Statistical evaluation was primarily in the form of percentage

responses. A ‘‘Chi-square test’’ was applied and the ‘P’ values of the tests are shown in

Tables 5. This statistical evaluation showed only one significant difference between the

Brazilian and worldwide sample. This difference relates to the last question, (3) in Table 3,

of the study. The majority of design instructors worldwide responded that the main issues

that creativity methods can enhance are: site planning and urban considerations. Only half

of Brazilian instructors saw this importance. None of the other data demonstrated signif-

icant differences in the responses, when comparing the local with the worldwide sample.

Further tests were also applied, to evaluate if knowing a method was related to the

application of another method. Thus, as an example, Analogy and Biomimicry were

compared. For this evaluation, the ‘‘Fisher Exact Test’’ was used. This test is suitable for

testing independence on two-way contingency tables with multinomial sampling, and it is

called exact because it does not use large-sample approximation distributions, but an exact

distribution. The ‘‘Bonferroni Correction’’ was used in conjunction with this test. All

creativity stimulus methods were compared, but no statistical significance was shown.

Thus, knowing one method is independent of the application of another.

The general results show that design-studio instructors are concerned about stimulating

students’ creativity. However, tools that may enhance creativity are mainly applied


123

Ta

ble

5M

ajor

resu

lts

of

explo

rato

ryin

terv

iew

study

on

met

hods

that

may

sim

ula

tecr

eati

vit

yin

arch

itec

tura

ldes

ign

educa

tion

Det

aile

dre

sponse

toques

tion:

whic

hof

thes

em

ethods

are

know

nto

you

and

appli

edin

ades

ign

cours

e/m

odule

?an

dW

hat

are

the

advan

tages

,dif

ficu

ltie

san

dre

sult

so

fth

ese

met

ho

ds?

Met

hod

Loca

tion

Appli

cati

on

(%)

Most

appli

edin

Advan

tages

Dis

advan

tages

Ped

agogic

alre

sult

s

Use

dK

no

wn

No

tu

sed

No

tk

no

wn

An

alo

gy

,M

etap

ho

r

Pv

alu

e=

0,4

72

5

Bra

zil

79

21

082%

Des

ign-

stud

io2

7%

fin

ald

esig

n-s

tud

io

36%

Incr

ease

inst

uden

tre

per

toir

e;2

7%

Bet

ter

cho

ice

of

solu

tio

nre

alm

27

%n

on

e;1

8%

dif

ficu

lty

of

fin

din

gan

alo

gie

s5

5%

ver

ysa

tisf

acto

ry2

7%

go

od

for

idea

anal

ysi

s/u

nder

st.

con

cep

ts

Worl

d62

23

15

75%

Des

ign-

stud

io2

5%

So

luti

on

exp

lora

tio

n;2

5%

dev

.la

tera

lth

ought

pro

cess

63

%d

iffi

cult

yo

fap

ply

ing

anal

og

ies

tod

esig

np

rob

lem

;

25

%v

ery

sati

sfac

tory

;2

5%

var

ies;

Bio

mim

icry

Pv

alu

e=

0,4

49

5

Bra

zil

43

57

050%

Des

ign-

stud

io5

0%

bet

ter

un

der

st.

of

des

ign

qu

esti

on

50

%d

iffi

cult

toap

ply

ind

esig

n-s

tud

io,

dif

f.to

dis

tin

gu

ish

anal

og

yfr

om

Bio

mim

icry

50

%v

ery

sati

sfac

tory

Worl

d57

36

738%

Des

ign-

stud

io;

25

%S

ust

ain

able

des

ign

38

%b

ette

rso

luti

on

so

pti

ons

25

%b

ette

ru

nd

erst

.o

fd

esig

nq

ues

tio

n

50

%d

iffi

cult

toap

ply

ind

esig

n-s

tud

io2

5%

no

pro

ble

ms

asso

ciat

ed

50

%v

ery

sati

sfac

tory

25

%g

oo

dsu

stai

nab

leso

luti

on

s1

3%

lead

sto

use

ful

dis

cuss

ion

s


123

Ta

ble

5co

nti

nu

ed

Det

aile

dre

sponse

toques

tion:

whic

hof

thes

em

ethods

are

know

nto

you

and

appli

edin

ades

ign

cours

e/m

odule

?an

dW

hat

are

the

advan

tages

,dif

ficu

ltie

san

dre

sult

so

fth

ese

met

ho

ds?

Met

hod

Loca

tion

Appli

cati

on

(%)

Most

appli

edin

Advan

tages

Dis

advan

tages

Ped

agogic

alre

sult

s

Use

dK

no

wn

No

tu

sed

No

tk

no

wn

Bra

inst

orm

ing

Pv

alu

e=

0,6

94

5

Bra

zil

57

43

075%

Des

ign-

stud

io2

5%

En

vir

on

men

tal

com

fort

clas

ses

25

%fi

nal

yea

rp

roje

ct

63

%M

ult

iple

solu

tio

np

rop

osa

l;5

0%

qu

ick

dis

cuss

ion

and

focu

so

nd

esig

np

rob

lem

38

%la

cko

fst

ud

ent

init

iati

ve,

nee

ds

inst

ruct

or

inte

rven

tio

n;

38

%la

cko

fd

evel

op

.o

fid

eas

25

%d

iver

tsat

tenti

on

38

%sa

tisf

acto

ry2

5%

exce

llen

t

Worl

d64

29

757%

Des

ign-

stud

io;

56

%g

ener

atio

no

fm

ult

iple

solu

tio

ns;

22

%ex

plo

rati

on

of

un

fam

ilia

rid

eas;

22

%g

oo

dg

rou

pw

ork

33

%n

ot

stim

ula

ting

22

%la

cko

fst

ud

ent

init

iati

ve,

nee

ds

inst

ruct

or

inte

rven

tio

n;

22

%sa

tisf

acto

ry2

2%

go

od

crea

tiv

eso

luti

on

s;2

2%

Sti

mu

lus

toex

chan

ge

of

idea

s;

Att

rib

ute

list

Pv

alu

e=

0,5

16

4

Bra

zil

57

36

775%

Des

ign-

stud

io3

8%

En

vir

on

.C

om

fort

25

%fi

nal

yea

rp

roje

ct

50

%cl

eare

ru

nd

erst

.o

fd

esig

np

rob

lem

25

%an

aly

sis

of

po

s.an

dn

eg.

po

ints

25

%d

iffi

cult

yin

esta

bli

shin

gat

trib

ute

s2

5%

too

tim

eco

nsu

min

g

38

%b

ette

ru

nd

erst

.o

fd

esig

np

rob

lem

25

%ex

cell

ent

met

ho

d

Worl

d72

14

14

40%

Des

ign-

stud

io3

0%

clea

rer

un

der

stan

din

go

fd

esig

np

rob

lem

10

%to

ocu

mb

erso

me,

20

%sa

tisf

acto

ry


123

Ta

ble

5co

nti

nu

ed

Det

aile

dre

sponse

toques

tion:

whic

hof

thes

em

ethods

are

know

nto

you

and

appli

edin

ades

ign

cours

e/m

odule

?an

dW

hat

are

the

advan

tages

,dif

ficu

ltie

san

dre

sult

so

fth

ese

met

ho

ds?

Met

hod

Loca

tion

Appli

cati

on

(%)

Most

appli

edin

Advan

tages

Dis

advan

tages

Ped

agogic

alre

sult

s

Use

dK

no

wn

No

tu

sed

No

tk

no

wn

Min

dm

ap

Pv

alu

e=

0,4

19

7

Bra

zil

79

21

064%

Des

ign-

stud

io3

7%

Fin

alY

ear

pro

ject

%4

6b

ette

ru

nd

erst

.o

fd

esig

np

rob

lem

27

%b

ette

rst

ruct

uri

ng

of

fun

ctio

nal

rela

tio

ns

27

%n

op

rob

lem

s1

8%

dif

ficu

lty

inst

ruct

uri

ng

the

dia

gra

m

18

%ex

cell

ent

18

%sa

tisf

acto

ry

Worl

d57

36

738%

Des

ign-

stud

io3

8%

un

der

st.

of

fun

ctio

nal

req

uir

emen

ts,

25

%b

ette

ru

nd

erst

.o

fd

esig

np

rob

lem

25

%d

iffi

cult

yin

app

lyin

gto

des

ign

dev

elo

pm

ent

13

%b

ette

ru

nd

erst

.1

3%

sati

sfac

tory

TR

IZ

Pv

alu

e=

0,5

95

6

Bra

zil

021,4

78,6

Wo

rld

07

,19

2,9


123

informally in an unstructured manner. Since the study was conducted as an interview, the

commentaries indicated a loose knowledge of creativity enhancement tools and many

affirmations showed that instructors use personal ways of stimulating creativity in their

design classes, not readily identified as methods, techniques or tools.

Analogy was considered the most appropriate technique to enhance creativity in stu-

dents. The technique is appropriate for all course levels. Design methodology courses and

sustainable design can profit most from the application of Analogy. The advantages of this

method are the possibility of increasing students’ repertoire. In Brazil, teaching staff

thought that analogies help the design discussion by integrating meaning and communi-

cation to design, but pointed out that when up-to-date literature is not readily available

difficulties in sustaining the method arise.

Design repertoire is of prime importance to enhance the creative process. Akin (1986)

states that conceptual abstractions, coming from references, create bridges between mental

and physical activities and are the basis for deeper exploration of theoretical concepts of

design repertoire. Cross (1997) explains the creative leap in the design process in a similar

way. Formal repertoire is also known to be the most often applied information in the

design-studio (Oxman 1999b). Given a specific design reference, a student may learn to

identify relevant concepts and build a theoretical basis for his/her design knowledge, which

can then generate new design solutions.

Design instructors of worldwide schools of architecture stated that metaphors increased

the exploration of various design solutions and developed lateral thought processes, but

thought that analogy is a difficult method to apply in the design-studio system. The main

problem is related to finding adequate examples and avoiding shallow associations, which

may compromise design choices (Holyoak and Thagard 1996). Casakin (2004) argues that

students lack analytical tools to reflect with some depth on their design problem and this

causes difficulties in using analogies as a design tool. With time and increased experience,

students will learn to see a design problem from various angles, both conceptually and as

abstractions. Once they are able to proceed this way, analogies are applied with more ease

and productivity.

The exploratory study separated Biomimicry as a special method to stimulate design

creativity. This was done in an effort to emphasize that Biomimicry is a more complex

analogy, demanding understanding of the natural phenomenon behind a specific bio-

logical structure or example. Mainly introductory design classes and environmental

comfort studies can profit from the use of Biomimicry application as shown in Table 5.

In schools around the world, but not in Brazil, sustainable design and environmental

comfort studies are the main courses mentioned with positive application for Biomim-

icry. A better understanding of design problems is possible since they are said to be

comprehended when associated to phenomenon and evolutionary systems found in nat-

ure. On the other hand, respondents also find this method difficult with students, since

they tend to use only visual associations, without the accompanying functional sys-

tematic study. A further problem, associated to the application of Biomimicry, is the

tendency of inducing organic forms in design, curtailing student’s freedom of design

choices. On the other hand, of using Biomimicry are considered satisfactory, especially

with students with good drawing abilities, since they are capable of translating and

communicating their ideas with clarity and detail.

The application of Brainstorming in architectural design-studios helps the spontaneous

generation of ideas in groups as shown in Table 5. Most architectural design disciplines are

said to profit most from this method. The use of Brainstorming occurs in the initial years

(first to third year in Brazil) and worldwide more towards the end of typical architecture


123

courses (third to forth year). The advantages of Brainstorming in design instruction are

quick and multiple generation of design solutions at the beginning of a course. The method

may also be a good way of stimulating discussions and reflections on proposed solutions.

Most faculty members in schools around the world also mentioned avoiding stagnation in

the design process, based on unique solutions. The exploration of the unfamiliar can be

achieved and Brainstorming encourages group work. The method thus stimulates pro-

ductivity in the design process, through an increases repertoire.

The relation between quantity and quality of ideas generated is an important issue to

consider. Brainstorming is most effective when the largest number of ideas is brought

forward. In architecture, Goldschmidt and Tatsa (2005) showed that students, with more

ideas in relation to the design problem, are able to find better solutions and develop them

further. This is further affirmed, by showing that the quality of first ideas affects the

number of ideas that can be connected to new proposals.

Disadvantages mentioned in our study in relation to Brainstorming are the poverty of

ideas that are brought forward by students, due to their lack of experience and maturity.

Another problem is how to focus students on more than the final form of their design. Often

students are said to be reluctant to participate, fearing that their ideas may be considered

poor or naive. This situation needs the intervention of faculty.

Brainstorming needs to be structured to create awareness that the initial stages of design

are essential and instrumental for later design development phases. Shortcuts are avoided

and other methods can be applied to verify ideas and optimize the solution search.

However, the exploratory study of this paper showed that most instructors do not follow

the formal ways the method demands, but introduce Brainstorming loosely for group

discussions.

The attribute list method is considered a useful and effective method according to the

results shown in Table 5. It can be used at any stage of a typical design course, but is

considered more effective in graduate courses. The method is said to give a clear vision of

a design problem through its decomposition. The complexity of a design problem can be

visually clarified through the demonstration of positive and negative points of the solution

realm. The advantages are the diagnosis of a problem with different viewpoints, coming

from various disciplines. Optimization and hierarchical structuring of solutions are pos-

sible. In addition, the discussion is naturally amplified through the decomposition. The

difficulties are mainly related to establishing attributes and then converting these to design

solutions. The method is considered cumbersome and needs active involvement and

guidance by instructors.

Mental Maps are considered useful at all levels of formal design education. The main

advantages are the increase and understanding of design repertoire and the organization of

a design problem. A further positive point is the graphical exposition of ideas that the

method induces. Drawing skills are trained, with direct application to design manipulation.

The dangers however, lie in this graphical transposition as well, where immature students

may read design solutions (plan forms) directly in diagrams and schematic decomposition

of problems. Overall, instructors praise the method for its concentration on problem

comprehension.

The results of the use of TRIZ in design education show that this method is not well

known by design instructors, although very much present in the literature on creativity and

applied in engineering schools. The reason for this may be the fact that the TRIZ matrix is

very specific, coming from mainly mechanical engineering innovation and the solution

realm has not yet successfully been translated to architectural problems. An interesting

investigation could be the analysis of design repertoire and its repeated and qualitative


123

ways of solving known design problems to construct an architectural TRIZ matrix. These

‘‘principles’’ are not so much seen as a recipe for design solutions, but as a stimulus for a

productive design process.

The exploratory study of this paper included a question (2) of Table 3, for participants

to indicate other methods that may stimulate creativity in the teaching of architectural

design. Most design instructors replied that they mainly use analysis of design references

(repertoire) and case studies. In addition, observations of reality and everyday life were

considered essential methods to design stimulus. The repertoire analysis method was once

criticized as inducing students to copy masters. This is today no longer seen as a problem,

as long as the analytical process is well understood and conducted, in a structured manner.

In addition, an analysis of everyday life (quotidian) can enrich the design process through

authentic cultural products and expressions, dissipating any fears of loss of originality from

observing the usual and known (Carsalade 1997). Formal precedence analysis is considered

of prime importance in design instruction, since it amplifies students’ experience, which

can then be applied to their design solution realm. Hertzberger (1996) affirms that the more

students can absorb from design references, the more guidance exists for their design

decision-making process.

Other methods mentioned, in this open question, were group discussions and design

criticism by students of the work of colleagues. Charrettes or concentrated short period

design exercises were mentioned as positive methods that may productively stimulate

creativity. Group discussions permit students to think beyond their own work. The

exchange of ideas can help design development mutually. Learning from others is valued

as a stimulus to the divergent thought process (van der Lugt 2005).

In relation to the last question, (3) of Table 3, on the most appropriate application of

methods in the design process and the factors which may profit most, the respondents

indicated that stimulating creativity is best suited to formal questions of design, citing

aspects of aesthetics as an important creativity issue. Brazilian instructors considered the

acquisition of a repertoire (design references) as a major issue in design education. This

reflects the importance given do formal aspects of design in most schools in the country,

coming from a Beaux-Arts tradition and passing through a modernist inclination in design

instruction. Schools of architecture around the world indicate that emphasis on technical

solutions is stronger through a detailed architectural programming stage, search for

environmental comfort solutions and design performance analysis and more complex

methods, such as Biomimicry and design problem decomposition methods, such as the

mental maps are more applied.

In Brazil design instructors attempt to make students analyze his/her own process and

testing of partial solutions is given importance. Worldwide the introduction of a real or role

playing client into the design process is seen as an important addition to the design-studio

system. Group work and group dynamics are seen as ways to introduce changes to the

typical design education setting. However, group composition is an issue of concern and

stress conditions in debates need analysis according to the respondents of the exploratory

study.

Use of conceptual models, 3D objects and simulations were mentioned as important

companions to design-studio teaching methods. Some instructors also indicated using the

concept of ‘‘Gestalt’’ as a method, as well as phenomenological studies, as their personal

tools for design reflections. Finally, although most instructors consider design pedagogy as

problem-based-learning (PBL), some instructors are aware of PBL as a specific tool and

have attempted to apply the method in the architectural design-studio.


123

Conclusions

The results of an exploratory interview study, on the use of methods that may enhance

creativity in architectural design-studios, showed that most design instructors make an

effort in using tools to enhance creativity. Positive and negative points are presented in

relation to the application of six methods: Analogy, Attribute list, TRIZ, Brainstorming,

Mental maps or mind mapping and Biomimicry. Some differences exist between the

application of these methods in Brazil and around the world, with a study sample divided

in equal parts between architecture schools of these two groups. Since the exploratory

study was conducted as a structured interview the responses by design instructors indicated

that the methods are mainly used in an informal, unstructured manner, especially to

increase student’s repertoire and stimulate group discussions.

Design is an artistic activity with the application of scientific and technological

knowledge. In architecture it is also an investigation of finding the best form for the shelter

necessities of human activities. Due to the complexity of the design process there are no

precise and fixed formulas that bring together form, function, context conditions and

available technologies. With an understanding of first principles, experience and intuition,

most designers reach heuristically their design solutions. Methods to increase creativity are

rarely mentioned when the experienced designer’s process is discussed and the question of

creativity is often considered an implicit factor. From our results this is, to some extent,

true in design education as well.

Most formal higher education prides itself of its excellence in teaching the concepts of

science, with design education adding as well repetitions of case studies and projects in a

studio discussion environment. In many higher education institutions, professional formal

education is under discussion and various methods are tested to prepare future profes-

sionals for the work challenges that lie ahead. As a contribution to these debates, this paper

describes some of the issues that should come to the forefront in curriculum discussions,

especially in architecture schools, with creativity as a driving force for educational

changes. The exploratory study on the application of methods, as found in literature, that

may enhance creativity with design faculty of architecture courses around the world

indicates the need for more in-depth surveys on the potential application of specific

methods and techniques. These should be tested in the design-studio in relation to their

efficiency in producing designs with recognized architectural qualities and in relation to

their effective and productive support of the design processes of students.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank FAPESP (Fundacao de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estadode Sao Paulo) for the support of this research project and Cezar Augusto de Freitas Anselmo and RafaelPimentel Maia for data analysis and statistical test support.

References

Akin, O. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London, UK: Pion.Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1996). A gerencia da criatividade: abrindo as janelas para a criatividade pessoal e

nas organizacoes. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Makron Books.Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2004). Inventario de Praticas docentes que favorecem a criatividade no

Ensino Superior. Psicologia Reflexiva e Crıtica, 17(1), 105–110.Altshuller, G. S. (1984). Creativity as an exact science: The theory of the solution of inventive problems.

New York, USA: Gordon and Breach.Barry, K., Domb, E. & Slocum, M. (2005). What is TRIZ?. TRIZ Journal. Practical Innovation: Applying

the Concepts of TRIZ to Accelerate Innovation\http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/what_is_triz[.


123

http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/what_is_triz

Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: William Morrow.Boden, M. A. (1999). Dimensoes da Criatividade. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artmed Editora.Boucharenc, B. (2006). Research on basic design education: And international survey. International Journal

of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1–30.Bouillerce, B., & Carre, E. (2004). Saber desenvolver a criatividade na vida e no trabalho. Sao Paulo,

Brazil: Larousse do Brasil.Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in architecture: Architecture and the human sciences. New York, USA: John

Wiley & Sons.Carsalade, F. D. L. (1997). Ensino de Projeto de Arquitetura: uma visao construtiva. Dissertation (Master of

Architecture), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Casakin, H. (2004). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process. Expert versus novice

performance. The Journal of Design Research. http://www.research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/design/papers/22CasakinDTRS6.pdf. Retrieved 12 Aug 2007.

Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge:Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 217–236.

Clegg, B., & Birch, P. (2007). Instant creativity: Simple techniques to ignite innovation & problem solving.London, UK: Kogan Page.

Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17.Cross, N. (Ed.) (1984). Developments in design methodology (p. 357). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Cross, N. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modeling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30(4), 311–317.Cross, N. (2003). The expertise of exceptional designers. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Expertise in

design (pp. 23–35). Sydney, Australia: Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology.Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever. Dubuque, US: Kendall/Hunt.de Bono, E. (1992). SERIOUS CREATIVITY: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New

York: HarperCollins.Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes. In Technological

Forecasting and Social Change (vol. 64(2–3), pp. 183–196). New York, US.Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem

solving performance. Design Studies, 27(5), 549–569.Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? correlates of design creativity. Design

Studies, 26(6), 593–611.Gouveia, A. P., Harris de Camargo, A. L. N., & Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. (2001). Analogia e Abstracao no

Ensino do Projeto em Arquitetura. Proceedings of Graphica 2001 (pp. 1092–1101). Sao Paulo, Brazil.Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming and pre-design manager. Boston, US: McGraw Hill.Hertzberger, H. (1996). Licoes de arquitetura. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Martins Fontes.Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1996). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, US: MIT

Press.Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., Chanlin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and creative

teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 352–358.Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster

creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 215–226.Iashin-Shaw, I. (1994). Cognitive structures of creativity: Implications for instructional design. European

Journal for High Ability, 5, 24–38.Jeamsinkul, C., Boztepe, S., Poppenpohl, S., Lim, Y. (2002). Annotated theory and practice in design—list.

Visible Language, 36(2), 210–235.Jeffries, K. K. (2007). Diagnosing the creativity of designers: Individual feedback within mass higher

education. Design Studies, 10(5), 485–497.Jones, C. (1963). A method of systematic design. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on

design methods—1962 (p. 53). Oxford: Pergameno Press.Jones, C. (1970). Design methods. London, UK: Wiley Bros.Kiatake, M. (2004). Modelo de suporte ao projeto criativo em Arquitetura: Uma aplicacao da TRIZ—teoria

da solucao inventiva de problemas (Master degree Dissertation), Escola Politecnica da Universidadede Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Kneller, G. F. (1978). Arte e ciencia da criatividade (J. Reis, Trans.). Sao Paulo, Brazil: IBRASA.Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Labaki, L., de Paiva, V., Bianchi, G., & Mosch, M. E. (2007). The creative design

process supported by the restrictions imposed by bioclimatic and school architecture; a teachingexperience. Proceedings of 2nd PALENC Conference, and 28th AIVC Conference: Building lowenergy cooling and advanced ventilation technologies in the 21st century (pp. 577–581). Crete, Greece.


123

http://www.research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/design/papers/22CasakinDTRS6.pdf

http://www.research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/design/papers/22CasakinDTRS6.pdf

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., & Barros, R. M. P. (2006c). Architectural Design Analysis as aStrategy for People Environment Studies: Finding Spaces ‘That Work’. Proceedings (CD) of 19th IAPSConference, International Association for People-Environment Studies. Alexandria, Egypt.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., & Celani, G. C. (2006b). Triple ‘t’: in search of innovativedesign teaching methods. Proceedings of CSAAR 2006 Changing Trends in Architectural DesignEducation. Rabat, Morocco.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., Celani, G. C., & De Carvalho, D. M. (2006a). Reflexao sobremetodologias de projeto arquitetonico. Ambiente Construıdo, 6(2), 07–19.

Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.Moreira, de Carvalho D. (2007). Os Princıpios da sıntese da forma e a a analise de projetos arquitetonicos,

Doctoral Theses, School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, State University ofCampinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.

Mycoted. (2007). Creativity and innovation, science and technology: Tools, techniques books, discussions.Accessed in: Aug 2007 \http://www.mycoted.com/[.

Naveiro, R. M. (2008). Design education in Brazil. Design Studies, 29(3), 304–312.Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. London,

UK: E & FN Spon.Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York, US: Scribner.Oxman, R. (1999a). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20, 105–122.Oxman, R. (1999b). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1),

63–91.Poppenpohl, S., Teeravarunyou, S., Holguin, R., Boztepe, S., et al. (2002). Annotated theory and practice in

design—list. Visible Language, 36(2), 172–192.Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity. The Australian Educational

Researcher, 31(2), 45–62.Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.Rowe, P. G. (1992). Design thinking. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.Rufinoni, M. R. (2002). Novos e velhos desafios no ensino de projeto arquitetonico: caminhos para a

formacao de uma consciencia crıtica (Vol. 4, pp. 11–15). Sao Paulo, Brazil: Sinergia (CEFETSP).Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education. Cairo, Egypt: The Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop.Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, US: Basic Books.Siqueira, J. (2007). Ferramentas de Criatividade. Accessed in: April 2007 \http://criatividade.wordpress.

com[.Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (2006). Interpretation in architecture: Design as a way of thinking. London,

UK: Routledge.Sternberg, R. J. (1991) A theory of creativity. In Proceedings of XIV ISPA Colloquium. Braga, Portugal.Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press.Teeravarunyou, S., Storkerson, P., Jeamsinkul, C., & Sawasdichai, N. (2002). Annotated theory and practice

in design—list. Visible Language, 36(2), 134–155.UNESCO/UIA. (2005) Charter for architectural education. In http://www.uia-architectes.org/image/PDF/

CHARTES/CHART_ANG.pdf. Accessed 26 April/09.van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings.

Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122.


123

http://www.mycoted.com/

http://criatividade.wordpress.com

http://criatividade.wordpress.com

http://www.uia-architectes.org/image/PDF/CHARTES/CHART_ANG.pdf

http://www.uia-architectes.org/image/PDF/CHARTES/CHART_ANG.pdf

Documents

Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education