Int J Technol Des Educ (2010) 20:453476 DOI 10.

1007/s10798-009-9102-z

Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education
ria Teixeira de Paiva Doris C. C. K. Kowaltowski Giovana Bianchi Vale

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 scientic 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 Paiva School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, FEC, Department of Architecture and Building, DAC, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, CP 6021, Campinas, SP, Brazil e-mail: doris@fec.unicamp.br

123

454

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

design is used as the main object of inquiry, since the authors professional and teaching experiences are in this eld. 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 eld. 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 scientic basis for decision-making processes. To achieve such goals, the introduction 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 CampinasUnicamp, in Brazil (Kowaltowski 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 condent in their design proposals and the design process as a whole. The starting point of the exploratory investigation, presented in this paper, was a literature 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 production 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 fty years, especially in architecture. In the 1960s, design methods were investigated to diminish subjectivity in design, to apply scientic 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.

123

Methods that may stimulate creativity

455

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 mer Akin. C. Alexander published sionals such as Geoffrey Broadbent, Nigel Cross and O his Pattern Language in 1977. Scientists from other elds contributed as well to the understanding of design processes. Herbert Simon publishes The Science of the Arti n in 1983 contributes to the understanding of design cial in 1969 and Donald Scho education with his The Reective 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 identied each areas 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. mer Akin, Bryan Lawson, Jane Darke, The cognitive aspects of design are studied by O 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 specic 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 predesign 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 articial 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 redenition 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 functional assessment to means or (product) decisions, but does not follow a formal scientic process in which, by deduction, one reaches a logical result from posed premises. To

123

456

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

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 appropriate tools. When such methods are informally practiced, however, sidestepping may occur and opportunities might be missed. Thus, techniques such as Brainstorming or other creativity enhancement methods, criticism and decision-making activities should intertwine with traditional design, drafting, prototyping and testing activities, to provide the foundation 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 difculty 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 difculties of progressing from whole to part and part to whole in a conscious and efcient 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 exible teaching to relate to varied demands and design problems. The charter does not address creativity specically and studies on design education (Runoni 2002) show the

123

Methods that may stimulate creativity

457

lack of application of pedagogical instruments to develop critical consciousness and ethical attitudes in students. Jeffries (2007) as well reafrms 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 elds, 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 specic conditions, such as well-dened 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 traditionally been considered important; however, without giving specic 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 identied 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 awed 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 specic. Studies show, that there are few designers who can produce creatively over a wide eld 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 elds (engineering and product design) have shown that these professionals rely on rst 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 conict 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 dened as a process of becoming sensitive to a question, to a aw or a missing link in an area of knowledge. Importance is given to the identication of difculties and the formulation of hypotheses of such aws, to nally attain a solution, test it and communicate it to a wider audience. Creativity is dened as the capacity to produce new and original ideas (Boden 1999). However, novelty is not sufcient to classify a solution as something original. The idea has to have a specic purpose and solve a determined problem. Alencar (1996) shows that relevance to a context is of extreme importance for a product to have scientic, technological, social and aesthetic value. From this, it follows that creative thinkers are specialist in their elds and rarely are innovative across wider areas. Specic 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 rst 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

458

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

analogies, mutations or combinations and in some cases rst principles are applied. The experienced architect applies these concepts at times consciously, at times as experimentations to move forward in the design process. Kneller (1978) denes four indispensable stages in a creative process: preparation, incubation, illumination and verication. Preparation is an investigative phase to familiarize 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, Verication must occur when ideas are revised, analyzed, judged and solutions tested. Each phase may be helped by specic methods to stimulate reection, perception, creation and nally 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 ourish. 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 rst 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 identied in the studio setting (Kowaltowski et al. 2006b): 1. Studio teaching based on a given architectural program and site for a specic 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 justication 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 specic CAD design tools.

123

Methods that may stimulate creativity

459

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 specic, mostly hypothetical, design problems posed. Many studies have examined the typical design-studio teaching method in relation to diverse aspects: learning experiences, efciency, quality of designs, etc. (Carsalade 1997; Oxman 1999a, b; Gouveia et al. 2001; Runoni 2002; Goldschmidt and Tatsa 2005; Kowaltowski et al. 2006b). Other studies identied problems in architectural education as related to design communication and the introduction and application of computer-aided design in architectural courses (Nicol and Pilling 2000). Viewing architecture as pure art has often been identied 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 (Kowaltowski et al. 2006c). Even technical aspects, evaluation results and user satisfaction rates are rarely present in journals, used by students in design classes. n (1983) describes design as a reective conversation with the design situation, Scho thus addressing the human thought-processes and the language (drawings and models) used ns reection in action, according to Snodgrass and to make design decisions. Scho 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 students 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, Movement, 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, ne 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

460

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

Table 1 Glossary of various methods, found in the literature, that may stimulate creativity (Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007) Method Assumption busting Description A list of assumptions about the problem is made. Correctness in relation to the problem at hand is tested. New assumptions appear and the most applicable of these are used to nd solutions Technique consisting in seven steps: Appreciating the unstructured problematical situation Understanding the worldviews of the key stakeholders Creating root denitions 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 be measured, analyzed, improved and controlled with emphasis on customer dissatisfaction A written brainstorming method where the mediator will generate a report on the paper slips of the team members. IBIS the planning method devised by Rittel used this idea coupled with the Delphi method The Delphi method is an interactive forecasting method. Relies on input of independent experts, in several rounds, with revised forecast based on output of previous round. Results converge towards best solutions using mean or median scores. The number of rounds, achievement of consensus and stability of results are established beforehand Force eld analysis looks factors (forces) that inuence (hinder or help) a situation or problem. Used mainly in management planning Team members must create their gallery of ideas on a poster and hang them for contemplation and discussion by other team members Developed by General Electric. The technique identies new ways of reaching a design goal by focusing on the input (attributes) and nal output desired. Requirements and restrictions (specications) are structured for this purpose A problem-solving technique based on problem structuring and elimination of the illogical solution combinations Solutions are analyzed as to their novelty, attractiveness and functional usefulness. Grades are given on a 110 scale for each attribute Technique to encourage people to adopt unfamiliar viewpoints during a problem discussion PDCA is a four-step problem-solving process also known as the Deming Cycle. Starting with: PLAN: Establish goals and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the specications. DO: Implement the processes. CHECK: evaluate the processes against the goals. ACT: introduce action to improve the process and start the PDCA process over Method to transform user demands into design quality, to deploy the functions forming quality, and to deploy methods for achieving the design quality into subsystems and component parts, and ultimately to specic elements of the manufacturing process

CATWOE

Crawford slip method

Delphi method

Force-eld analysis Gallery Inputoutput

Morphological analysis NAF (Novelty, attractiveness and functionality) Other peoples viewpoints PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act)

QFD

123

Methods that may stimulate creativity Table 1 continued Method Random stimuli Description

461

Random stimulus is based on randomization with exploration of associations to novel non intentional ideas. The Random Word technique starts with a random word used to generate new associations. This helps to look at problems from unusual sides directing thought toward creative solutions Type of forced-relationship process that uses a checklist of verbs and prepositions. Used by editors to create book titles and marketers to name new products for example Comes from Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Produce or nd new applications, Eliminate and Rearrange. Questions are made to transform an object or process through the above verbs The methodology consists of: Dene process improvement goals consistent with customer demands and enterprise strategy. Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data Analyze data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine the relationships and ensure that all factors have been considered Improve the process based upon data analysis using techniques like design of experiments Control to correct deviations from target. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability Finally move onto production, set up control mechanisms and continuously monitor the process

Relational words

SCAMPER

Six sigma (DMAIC and DMADV)

Six thinking hats

The hats represent six thinking strategies identied by Edward de Bono, consciously applied in techniques to enhance creativity. Red hatEmotional thinking. Yellow HatPositive thinking. Black HatCritical thinking. White HatFacts. Green HatCreative thinking. Blue HatBig Picture A strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project by identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieving that objective Synetics is a technique to generate and evaluate ideas. In the rst session the problem is analyzed. In the second session the problems is described and the scope of action determined. Ideas are generated (using other techniques). Idea springboards are identied to focus on the solution realm. Possible solutions are brought forward. These are analyzed and a new cycle of synetics may have to begin if the solutions are rejected until a consensus is reached

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)

Synetics

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

123

462

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

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 investigations on the application of specic 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 environment. These are: Analogies; Attribute Listing; Axiomatic design method; Bio-Mimeticry; 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 specic problem and nding solutions from what is dened 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 identied 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 specic form of analogy, based on principles coming from nature, referred to in many studies on sustainable design (Benyus 1997).

Table 2 Classication of various methods that may stimulate creativity in relation to phases of the creative process (Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007) Creative process phase Methods

Problem denition Assumption Busting; Assumption Surfacing; Backwards Forwards Planning Boundary Examination; CATWOE; Chunking; Five Ws and Hs; Multiple Redenition; Other Peoples Denitions; 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 Advantages, Limitations and Unique Qualities; Anonymous Voting; Consensus Mapping; Idea Advocate; NAF; Plusses Potentials and Concerns; Sticking Dots; Unique Qualities PDCA; QFD; Six sigma

Idea selection

Idea verication

123

Methods that may stimulate creativity

463

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 reects on ways to modify and improve these. Bouillerce and (2004) recommend that an inventory of all aspects of a problem should be made: Carre types of material used, dimensions, building technique, fabrication process, user requirements, 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, identied 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 maintenance, operation repair; etc. If these principles are identied and codied, 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 nding 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 specic architectural design goals including environmental comfort (visual, thermal, acoustics and smell), ergonomics, efciency, equilibrium, exibility, visual impact, independence, movement, functionality or practicality, productivity, rationalization 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 elds 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 Osborns (1957) denition, Brainstorming is a conference technique by which a group of people attempts to nd a solution for a specic 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 classied, 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 identied in the drawings of architects, especially in rst 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

464

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

highly optimized and efcient. 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 sufciently good solutions. The analysis of natures 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 specic 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 prot most from creativity enhancement. Since the authors work in Brazil and the rst author teaches architectural design at the o Paulo in Brazil, special State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in the State of Sa 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 fth 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 (Runoni 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

Methods that may stimulate creativity

465

Table 3 Structure of questions asked in exploratory interview study on methods that may stimulate creativity in architectural design education 1. Which of these methods are known to you and applied in a design course/module? and What are the advantages, difculties and results of these methods? a. Association of uncommon ideas and concepts coming from other domains to produce new, innovative solutions Ex: Analogy, Metaphor, Association

b. Finding models in nature which are similar in problem denition and which may be imitated or may inspire solutions Ex: Biomimicry

c. Spontaneous generation of large number of ideas and/or possible solution to a problem, with choice of best solution only at the end of the process Ex: Brainstorming, Brainwriting, Idea Board

d. Decomposition of a problem into attributes or key-factors which may be improved, changed or substituted Ex: Attribute Listing, Matrix Analysis

e. Diagrams of items organized around a central concept with connections and branching on a theme or proposition Ex: Mind Map, Diagram, Flow Chart

f. Structure a problem into its generic domain and search for the solution through 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 which design issues? ( ) Architectural Programming ( ) Site Planning and urban considerations ( ) Spatial/volumetric considerations in design ( ) Formal/Aesthetics considerations ( ) Environmental comfort/ Energy Efciency ( ) Technical issues

123

466

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

Table 4 Sample of exploratory interview study on methods that may stimulate creativity: location of architecture schools Location Brazil Northeast Central Southeast /AL 1. Universidade Federal de Alagoas (UFAL)Maceio 2. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)Natal/RN lia (UnB)Bras lia/DF 3. Universidade de Bras rio Moura LacerdaRibeira o Preto/SP 4. Centro Universita rio Nove de Julho (UNINOVE)Sa o Paulo/SP 5. Centro Universita o Paulo (USP)Sa o Paulo/SP 6. Universidade de Sa rito Santo (UFES)Vito ria/ES 7. Universidade Estadual do Esp 8. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF)Juiz de Fora/MG 9. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)Belo Horizonte/MG South 10. Universidade Federal do Rio Janeiro (UFRJ)Rio de Janeiro/RJ rio Ritter dos ReisPorto Alegre/RS 11. Centro Universita cia Universidade Cato lica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS)Porto 12. Pontif Alegre/RS (UFPR)Curitiba/PR 13. Universidade Federal do Parana polis/SC 14. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)Floriano Around the world Europe t DortmundDortmund/Germany 1. Universita 2. Aalborg UniversityAalborg/Denmark 3. Architectural Association (AA)London/UK 4. Newcastle UniversityNewcastle/UK 5. Oxford Brookes UniversityOxford/UK cnico de MilanMillan/Italy 6. Polite North/Central America Asia 7. Pennsylvania State UniversityPennsylvania/EUA xico (UNAM)Mexico city/Mexico 8. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Me 9. Islamic Azad UniversityTeheran/Iran 10. Musashi Institute of TechnologyYokohama/Japan 11. International Islamic UniversityKuala Lumpur/Malaysia 12. University of Engineering & TechnologyLahore/Paquistan Oceania 13. University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney/Australia 14. University of SydneySydney/Australia University

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 specic 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 processes. Respondents were free to add other methods, as outlined in question, (2) of Table 3 and a nal 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.

123

Methods that may stimulate creativity

467

Here Hershbergers value structure was used to organize responses (Hershberger 1999). These values and their related issues are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Human: functional, social, physical, physiological and psychological; Environmental: site, climate, context, resources and waste; Cultural: historical, institutional, political and legal; Technological: materials, systems and processes; Temporal: growth, change and permanence; Economic: nance, construction, operation, maintenance and energy; Aesthetic: form, space, color and meaning; Safety, structural, re, chemical, personal and criminal.

The sample was divided into two parts. The Brazilian sample denition 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 prot 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 nal year project, which is developed by students individually and advised by instructors, also on an individual basis. This condition is reected 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 prociency. For non-English speaking countries, the exploratory study may need to be re-conducted with added texts in each countrys 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 signicant 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 significant 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 signicance 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

468

123
Most applied in Not known 0 27% none; 18% difculty 55% very 36% Increase in 82% Designof nding analogies satisfactory 27% studio 27% nal student repertoire; good for idea 27% Better choice of design-studio analysis/underst. solution realm concepts 75% Designstudio 25%Solution exploration;25% dev. lateral thought process 63% difculty of applying 25% very satisfactory; 25% analogies to design varies; problem; 50% very satisfactory Advantages Disadvantages Pedagogical results 21 23 15 57 0 50% Designstudio 50% better underst. of 50% difcult to apply in design question design-studio, diff. to distinguish analogy from Biomimicry 38% better solutions options 25% better underst. of design question 50% difcult to apply in design-studio 25% no problems associated 36 7 38% Designstudio; 25% Sustainable design 50% very satisfactory 25% good sustainable solutions 13% leads to useful discussions

Table 5 Major results of exploratory interview study on methods that may simulate creativity in architectural design education

Detailed response to question: which of these methods are known to you and applied in a design course/module? and What are the advantages, difculties and results of these methods?

Method

Location Application (%)

Used Known Not used

Analogy, Metaphor

Brazil

79

P value = 0,4725

World

62

Biomimicry

Brazil

43

World

57

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

P value = 0,4495

Table 5 continued

Detailed response to question: which of these methods are known to you and applied in a design course/module? and What are the advantages, difculties and results of these methods? Most applied in Not known 0 75% Designstudio 25% Environmental comfort classes 25% nal year project 57% Designstudio; 56% generation of multiple solutions; 22% exploration of unfamiliar ideas; 22% good group work 38% satisfactory 63% Multiple solution 38% lack of student 25% excellent initiative, needs proposal; 50% quick instructor intervention; discussion and focus 38% lack of develop. of on design problem ideas 25% diverts attention 33% not stimulating 22% 22% satisfactory 22% good lack of student creative initiative, needs solutions; 22% instructor intervention; Stimulus to exchange of ideas; 38% better underst. of design problem 25% excellent method 25% difculty in 50% clearer underst. establishing attributes of design problem 25% analysis of pos. 25% too time consuming and neg. points Advantages Disadvantages Pedagogical results

Method

Location Application (%)

Used Known Not used 43

Methods that may stimulate creativity

Brainstorming

Brazil

57

P value = 0,6945 29 7

World

64

Attribute list 36 7 75% Designstudio 38% Environ. Comfort 25% nal year project 40% Designstudio

Brazil

57

P value = 0,5164 14 14

World

72

30% clearer understanding of design problem

10% too cumbersome,

20% satisfactory

469

123

470

Table 5 continued

123
Most applied in Not known 0 64% Designstudio 37% Final Year project 38% Designstudio 38% underst. of functional requirements, 25% better underst. of design problem %46 better underst. of 27% no problems 18% difculty in structuring design problem 27% the diagram better structuring of functional relations 18% excellent 18% satisfactory Advantages Disadvantages Pedagogical results 21 36 7 25% difculty in applying 13% better underst. to design development 13% satisfactory 21,4 7,1 92,9 78,6

Detailed response to question: which of these methods are known to you and applied in a design course/module? and What are the advantages, difculties and results of these methods?

Method

Location Application (%)

Used Known Not used

Mind map

Brazil

79

World

57

P value = 0,4197

TRIZ

Brazil

World

P value = 0,5956

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

Methods that may stimulate creativity

471

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 afrmations showed that instructors use personal ways of stimulating creativity in their design classes, not readily identied as methods, techniques or tools. Analogy was considered the most appropriate technique to enhance creativity in students. The technique is appropriate for all course levels. Design methodology courses and sustainable design can prot 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 communication to design, but pointed out that when up-to-date literature is not readily available difculties 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 specic 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 difcult method to apply in the design-studio system. The main problem is related to nding adequate examples and avoiding shallow associations, which may compromise design choices (Holyoak and Thagard 1996). Casakin (2004) argues that students lack analytical tools to reect with some depth on their design problem and this causes difculties 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 specic biological structure or example. Mainly introductory design classes and environmental comfort studies can prot 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 Biomimicry. A better understanding of design problems is possible since they are said to be comprehended when associated to phenomenon and evolutionary systems found in nature. On the other hand, respondents also nd this method difcult with students, since they tend to use only visual associations, without the accompanying functional systematic study. A further problem, associated to the application of Biomimicry, is the tendency of inducing organic forms in design, curtailing students 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 prot most from this method. The use of Brainstorming occurs in the initial years (rst to third year in Brazil) and worldwide more towards the end of typical architecture

123

472

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

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 reections 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 productivity 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 nd better solutions and develop them further. This is further afrmed, by showing that the quality of rst 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 nal 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 claried 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 possible. In addition, the discussion is naturally amplied through the decomposition. The difculties 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 specic, 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

Methods that may stimulate creativity

473

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 amplies students experience, which can then be applied to their design solution realm. Hertzberger (1996) afrms 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 prot 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 reects 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 reections. Finally, although most instructors consider design pedagogy as problem-based-learning (PBL), some instructors are aware of PBL as a specic tool and have attempted to apply the method in the architectural design-studio.

123

474

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

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 students repertoire and stimulate group discussions. Design is an artistic activity with the application of scientic and technological knowledge. In architecture it is also an investigation of nding the best form for the shelter necessities of human activities. Due to the complexity of the design process there are no precise and xed formulas that bring together form, function, context conditions and available technologies. With an understanding of rst principles, experience and intuition, most designers reach heuristically their design solutions. Methods to increase creativity are rarely mentioned when the experienced designers 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 professionals 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 specic methods and techniques. These should be tested in the design-studio in relation to their efciency in producing designs with recognized architectural qualities and in relation to their effective and productive support of the design processes of students.
o de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank FAPESP (Fundac a o Paulo) for the support of this research project and Cezar Augusto de Freitas Anselmo and Rafael de Sa Pimentel Maia for data analysis and statistical test support.

References
Akin, O. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London, UK: Pion. ncia da criatividade: abrindo as janelas para a criatividade pessoal e Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1996). A gere es. Sa o Paulo, Brazil: Makron Books. nas organizac o rio de Pra ticas docentes que favorecem a criatividade no Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2004). Inventa Ensino Superior. Psicologia Reexiva e Crtica, 17(1), 105110. 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

Methods that may stimulate creativity

475

Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: William Morrow. es da Criatividade. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artmed Editora. Boden, M. A. (1999). Dimenso Boucharenc, B. (2006). Research on basic design education: And international survey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 130. , E. (2004). Saber desenvolver a criatividade na vida e no trabalho. Sa o Paulo, Bouillerce, B., & Carre Brazil: Larousse do Brasil. Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in architecture: Architecture and the human sciences. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons. o construtiva. Dissertation (Master of Carsalade, F. D. L. (1997). Ensino de Projeto de Arquitetura: uma visa 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, 217236. 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), 517. 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), 311317. Cross, N. (2003). The expertise of exceptional designers. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Expertise in design (pp. 2335). Sydney, Australia: Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427441. 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(23), pp. 183196). New York, US. Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27(5), 549569. Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593611. o no Gouveia, A. P., Harris de Camargo, A. L. N., & Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. (2001). Analogia e Abstrac a o Paulo, Brazil. Ensino do Projeto em Arquitetura. Proceedings of Graphica 2001 (pp. 10921101). Sa Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming and pre-design manager. Boston, US: McGraw Hill. es de arquitetura. Sa o Paulo, Brazil: Martins Fontes. Hertzberger, H. (1996). Lic o 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, 352358. 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, 215226. Iashin-Shaw, I. (1994). Cognitive structures of creativity: Implications for instructional design. European Journal for High Ability, 5, 2438. Jeamsinkul, C., Boztepe, S., Poppenpohl, S., Lim, Y. (2002). Annotated theory and practice in designlist. Visible Language, 36(2), 210235. Jeffries, K. K. (2007). Diagnosing the creativity of designers: Individual feedback within mass higher education. Design Studies, 10(5), 485497. Jones, C. (1963). A method of systematic design. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on design methods1962 (p. 53). Oxford: Pergameno Press. Jones, C. (1970). Design methods. London, UK: Wiley Bros. o da TRIZteoria Kiatake, M. (2004). Modelo de suporte ao projeto criativo em Arquitetura: Uma aplicac a cnica da Universidade o inventiva de problemas (Master degree Dissertation), Escola Polite da soluc a o Paulo, Sa o Paulo, Brazil. de Sa ncia da criatividade (J. Reis, Trans.). Sa o Paulo, Brazil: IBRASA. Kneller, G. F. (1978). Arte e cie sch, M. E. (2007). The creative design Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Labaki, L., de Paiva, V., Bianchi, G., & Mo process supported by the restrictions imposed by bioclimatic and school architecture; a teaching experience. Proceedings of 2nd PALENC Conference, and 28th AIVC Conference: Building low energy cooling and advanced ventilation technologies in the 21st century (pp. 577581). Crete, Greece.

123

476

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

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., & Barros, R. M. P. (2006c). Architectural Design Analysis as a Strategy for People Environment Studies: Finding Spaces That Work. Proceedings (CD) of 19th IAPS Conference, 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 innovative design teaching methods. Proceedings of CSAAR 2006 Changing Trends in Architectural Design Education. Rabat, Morocco. o sobre Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., Celani, G. C., & De Carvalho, D. M. (2006a). Reexa nico. Ambiente Construdo, 6(2), 0719. metodologias de projeto arquiteto Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystied. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. pios da s ntese da forma e a a ana lise de projetos arquiteto nicos, Moreira, de Carvalho D. (2007). Os Princ Doctoral Theses, School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, State University of Campinas, 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), 304312. 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, 105122. Oxman, R. (1999b). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 6391. Poppenpohl, S., Teeravarunyou, S., Holguin, R., Boztepe, S., et al. (2002). Annotated theory and practice in designlist. Visible Language, 36(2), 172192. Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2), 4562. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155169. Rowe, P. G. (1992). Design thinking. Cambridge, US: MIT Press. nico: caminhos para a Runoni, M. R. (2002). Novos e velhos desaos no ensino de projeto arquiteto ncia crtica (Vol. 4, pp. 1115). Sa o de uma conscie o Paulo, Brazil: Sinergia (CEFETSP). formac a Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657687. Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education. Cairo, Egypt: The Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop. n, D. (1983). The reective practitioner. New York, US: Basic Books. Scho 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 designlist. Visible Language, 36(2), 134155. 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), 101122.

123