Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 33–41 | Cite as

Influence of the type of idea-generation method on the creativity of solutions

  • Vicente ChulviEmail author
  • María Carmen González-Cruz
  • Elena Mulet
  • Jaime Aguilar-Zambrano
Original Paper


This paper studies the influence of the type of method, intuitive or logical, used for idea-generation on the final creative results. An experiment was developed in which 16 design teams were asked to solve a design problem using different creative methodologies. Seven of the teams used the SCAMPER intuitive method and another seven teams used the TRIZ logical method. Two groups acted as control. One of these control groups used brainstorming, and other group used no method. The creativity of the results, considered as the combination of novelty and utility, was evaluated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Results show the differences in these parameters in the different methods used in the experiment.


Creativity and innovation Design methods TRIZ SCAMPER Idea-generation experiments 

Supplementary material

163_2012_134_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1465 kb)
163_2012_134_MOESM2_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 32 kb)


  1. Altshuller G (1984) Creativity as an exact science: the theory of the solution of inventive problems. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuller G, Shulyak L (1997) 40 principles: Triz keys to technical innovation. Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves J, Marques MJ, Saur I, Marques P (2007) Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation. Creat Innov Manag 16(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahill AT, Alford M, Bharathan K, Clymer JR, Dean DL, Duke J, Hill G, LaBudde EV, Taipale EJ, Wymore AW (1998) The design-methods comparison project. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 28(1):80–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besemer SP, O’Quin K (1989) The development, reliability and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creat Res J 2:268–279Google Scholar
  6. Buzan T, Buzan B (1999) El libro de los mapas mentales: cómo utilizar al máximo las capacidades de la mente. Ediciones Urano, LogroñoGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakrabarti A (2003) Towards a measure for assessing creative influences of a creativity technique, international conference on engineering design, ICED 03. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  8. Chulvi V, Ruiz-López J, Vidal R (2011) Methodological approach for innovation in enterprises. DYNA 86(4)Google Scholar
  9. Chulvi V, Mulet E, Chakrabarti A, López-Mesa B, González-Cruz MC (2012a) Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. J Eng Des 23(4):241–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chulvi V, Mulet E, González-Cruz MC (2012b) Measure of product creativity. Metrics and objectivity. DYNA 87(1):80–89Google Scholar
  11. Eberle B (1996) Scamper: games for imagination development. Prufrock Press, Waco, TXGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2000) Expert choice 2000 team. Expert Choice Inc., PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  13. Francis D, Bessant J (2005) Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation 25:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. González-Cruz MC, Aguilar-Zambrano J, Aguilar-Zambrano J, Colombel MG (2008) La estrategia de creatividad sistemática TRIZ con equipos multidisciplinares de diseño de producto. DYNA 83(6):337–350Google Scholar
  15. Gordon WJJ (1961) Synectics: the development of creative capacity. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Horowitz R, Maimon O (1997) Creative design methodology and the SIT method. In: Proceedings of DETC’97 ASME design engineering technical conference, Sept 14–17, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Justel D (2008) Metodología para la eco-innovación en el diseño para desensamblado de productos industriales. PhD Thesis. Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, SpainGoogle Scholar
  18. López-Mesa B, Mulet E, Thompson G, Vidal R (2011) Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. J Eng Des 22(1):31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moss J (1966) Measuring creative abilities in junior high school industrial arts. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Nappier N, Nilsson M (2006) The development of creative capabilities in and out of creative organizations: three case studies. Creat Innov Manag 15(3):268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ogot M, Okudan G (2006) Systematic creativity methods in engineering education: a learning styles perspective. Int J Eng Educ 22(3):566–576Google Scholar
  22. Osborn A (1953) Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Peeters M, van Trujill H, Reymen I (2007) The development of a design behaviour questionnaire for multidisciplinary teams. Des Stud 28(6):623–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Shai O, Subrahmanian E (2012) A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting and improvising ASIT within C-K theory. J Eng Des 23(2):137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ritchey T (1998) Fritz Zwicky, morphologie and policy analysis. In: 16th EURO conference on operational analysis, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Rivera J, Vidal R, Chulvi V, Lloveras J (2010) La transmisión visual de la información como estímulo cognitivo de los procesos creativos. An Psicol 26(2):226–237Google Scholar
  28. Rohrbach B (1969) Creative by rules—method 635, a new technique for solving problems. Absatzwirtschaft 12:73–75Google Scholar
  29. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2008) Studying engineering design creativity. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on studying design creativity, Aix-en- Provence, FranceGoogle Scholar
  31. Shah J, Vargas-Hernandez N, Summers JD, Kulkarni S (2001) Collaborative sketching (C-Sketch)—an idea generation technique for engineering design. J Creat Behav 35(3):168–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shah J, Vargas-Hernandez N, Smith S (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 24(2):111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shai O, Reich Y, Rubin D (2008) Creative conceptual design: extending the scope by infused design. Comput Aided Des 41(3):117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tether BS (2003) What is innovation? University of Manchester and UMIST, ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition (CRIC), ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  35. Thompson G, Lordan M (1999) A review of creativity principles applied to engineering design. In: Proceedings of the I Mech E Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  36. Torrance EP (1969) Torrance test of creative thinking: norms-technical manual. Ginn, Lexington, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vicente Chulvi
    • 1
    Email author
  • María Carmen González-Cruz
    • 2
  • Elena Mulet
    • 1
  • Jaime Aguilar-Zambrano
    • 3
  1. 1.Department d’Enginyería Mecànica i ConstruccióUniversitat Jaume ICastellón de la PlanaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Proyectos de IngenieríaUniversitat Politécnica de ValènciaValènciaSpain
  3. 3.Pontífica Universidad Javeriana-CaliCaliColombia

Personalised recommendations