Multiple Forms of Applications and Impacts of a Design Theory: 10 Years of Industrial Applications of C-K Theory

  • Armand Hatchuel
  • Pascal Le Masson
  • Benoit WeilEmail author
  • Marine Agogué
  • Akin Kazakçi
  • Sophie Hooge


C-K theory has been developed by Armand Hatchuel and Benoit Weil and then by other researchers since 1990s. In this chapter, we show that its very abstract nature and its high degree of universality actually supported a large variety of industrial applications. We distinguish three types of applications: (1) C-K theory provides a new language, that supports new analysis and descriptive capacity and new teachable individual models of thoughts; (2) C-K theory provides a very general framework to better characterize the validity domain and the performance conditions of existing methods, leading to potential improvement of these methods; (3) C-K theory is the conceptual model at the root of new design methods that are today largely used in the industry.


Design Theory Innovative Design Innovative Project Innovation Field Design Profession 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agogué, M. (2012). Modéliser l’effet des biais cognitifs sur les dynamiques industrielles: innovation orpheline et architecte de l’inconnu. Paris: MINES ParisTech.Google Scholar
  2. Agogué, M., & Cassotti, M. (2012). Theory-driven experiments: Modeling and testing fixation and stimulation effects on creativity. Paper presented at the 5th Paris Workshop of the Design Theory SIG, Paris, January 30, 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Agogué, M., Le Masson, P., & Robinson, D. K. R. (2012). Orphan Innovation, or when path-creation goes stale: Missing entrepreneurs or missing innovation? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(6), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agogué, M., Kazakçi, A. (2013). 10 years of C-K theory: A survey on the academic and industrial impacts of a design theory. In A. Chakrabarti, & L. Blessing (Eds.), Models and Theories of Design, Bangalore (pp. 219–235).Google Scholar
  5. Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stötzel, M., Wiener, M., & Ystrom, A. (2013a). A contingency approach of open innovation intermediaries—the management principles of the “intermediary of the unknown”. Paper presented at the European Academy of Management, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  6. Agogué, M., Yström, A., & Le Masson, P. (2013b). Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Agogué, M., Kazakçi, A., Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., Poirel, N., & Cassotti, M. (2014). The impact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and stimulation effects. Journal of Creative Behavior(1), 1–12..Google Scholar
  8. Arnoux, F. (2013). Intégrer des capacités d’innovation radicale: Le cas des mutations des systèmes d’énergie aéronautiques. Paris: MINES ParisTech.Google Scholar
  9. Arrighi, P.-A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2012). Breaking the dilemma between robustness and generativeness: An experimental assessment of a new software design suite. In International Product Development Management Conference, Manchester, UK (p. 20).Google Scholar
  10. Arrighi, P.-A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2013). From New Product Development (NPD) to New Design Process (NDP)? How new Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools lead to embedded learning and exploration in effective processes. In International Product Development Management Conference, Paris, France (p. 21).Google Scholar
  11. Ben Abbes, A. (2007). Cadrer des projets collaboratifs en structurant des champs d’innovation. Paris: Ecole des Mines de Paris.Google Scholar
  12. Benguigui, J.-M. (2012). Les 10 ans de la théorie C-K: Revue de littérature. Paper presented at the AIMS.Google Scholar
  13. Berthet, E., Bretagnolle, V., & Segrestin, B. (2012a). Introduction of semi-perennial forage crops in an intensive cereal plain to restore biodiversity: A need for collective management Journal for Sustainable Agriculture.Google Scholar
  14. Berthet, E., Barnaud, C., Girard, N., & Labatut, J. (2012b). Towards a reflexive framework to compare collective design methods for farming system innovation. IFSAGoogle Scholar
  15. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brogard, C., & Joanny, D. (2010). Stratégies d’innovation pour préparer les moteurs d’avion vert de 2025. Rapports de l’option Ingénierie de la Conception. Paris: MINES ParisTech.Google Scholar
  17. Cogez, P., Felk, Y., Le Masson, P., Weil, B. (2011). Absorptive capacity for radical innovation: a case study in the semiconductor industry. In IEEE International Technology Management Conference, San Jose, California.Google Scholar
  18. Cogez, P., Kokshagina, O., Le Masson, P., Weil, B. (2013). Industry-wide technology road mapping in double unknown—the case of the semiconductor industry. In IEEE International Technology Management Conference, San Jose.Google Scholar
  19. Colasse, S., & Nakhla, M. (2011). Les démarches de contractualisation comme processus de conception: l'émergence du contrôle de gestion médicalisé à l'hôpital. Revue Politiques et Management Public, 28(3, Juillet-septembre), 311–331.Google Scholar
  20. Defour, M., Delaveau, C., & Dupas, A. (2010). Avionique. Des technologies innovantes au services des plus belles réussites aéronautiques. Paris: Gallimard Loisirs.Google Scholar
  21. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D., Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 103–120.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrlenspiel, K. (1995). Intégrierte Produktentwicklung. Methoden für Prozessorganisation, Produkterstellung und Konstruktion. München: Carl Hanser.Google Scholar
  23. Elmquist, M., & Le Masson, P. (2009). The value of a ‘failed’ R&D project: an emerging evaluation framework for building innovative capabilities. R&D Management, 39(2), 136–152.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Elmquist, M., & Segrestin, B. (2009). Sustainable development through innovative design: Lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 9(2), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eris, O. (2005). Insisting on truth at the expense of conceptualization: can engineering portfolios Help? International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 551–559.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Felk, Y. (2011). Evaluation et pilotage des activités de recherche pour la rupture dans la R&D centrale de STMicroelectronics: réviser les classiques du management de la recherche industrielle. Paris: MINES ParisTech.Google Scholar
  27. Felk, Y., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2011). Designing patent portfolio for disruptive innovation—a new methodology based on C-K theory. In International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’11, Copenhagen, Technical University of Denmark (p. 12).Google Scholar
  28. Gardey de Soos, P., (Ed.), (2007). Conception innovante à la RATP: la méthode KCP. Cinq cas pratiques de conception innovante collective. Les rapports de la prospective, n°146. RATP, Paris.Google Scholar
  29. Gillier, T., Piat, G., Roussel, B., & Truchot, P. (2010). Managing innovation fields in a cross-industry exploratory partnership with c-k design theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 883–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goria, S. (2010). Proposition d'une méthode d'expression d'idées et de problèmes d'innovation. ESSACHESS Google Scholar
  31. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (1995). Experts in Organization, a Knowledge-Based Perspective on Organizational Change (trans: Librecht L). Studies in Organization: Innovation, Technology and Organizations. Walter de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2002). C-K theory: notions and applications of a Unified Design Theory. In Herbert Si International Conference on Design Sciences, Lyon, 15–16 march 2002.Google Scholar
  33. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach to innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory. ICED’03, August 2003, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  34. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2006). Building innovation capabilities. The development of design-oriented organizations. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science and industrial change, the handbook of research (pp. 294–312). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2008). Learning to face the unknown and the emergent: a project-based critical learning perspective. In European Academy of Management, Ljublana (p. 19).Google Scholar
  36. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2009). Design theory and collective creativity: A theoretical framework to evaluate KCP process. In International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09, August 24–27, 2009, Stanford.Google Scholar
  37. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2011). Teaching innovative design reasoning: How C-K theory can help to overcome fixation effect. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heymann, M. (2005). “Kunst” und Wissenchsaft in der Technik des 20. Jahrhunderts. Zur Geschichte der Konstruktionswissenschaft. Zürich: Chronos.Google Scholar
  39. Hooge, S., & Hatchuel, A. (2008). Value indicators and monitoring in innovative PDM: A grounded approach. Paper presented at the International Product Development Management Conference, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  40. Hooge, S. (2010). Performance de la R&D en rupture et des stratégies d’innovation: Organisation, pilotage et modèle d’adhésion. Paris: MINES ParisTech.Google Scholar
  41. Kokshagina, O., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2013a). How design theories enable the design of generic technologies: Notion of generic concepts and Genericity building operators Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’13, Séoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  42. Kokshagina, O., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Cogez, P. (2013b). Platform emergence in double unknown (technology, markets): common unknown strategy. In D. Çetindamar, T. Daim, N. Başoğlu, & B. Beyhan (Eds.), Strategic planning decisions in the high tech industry (pp. 90–120). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Kroll, E. (2013). Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kroll, E., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2013) Modeling parameter analysis design moves with C-K theory. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’13, Séoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  45. Le Masson, P., & Gardey de Soos, P. (Eds.), (2007). La RATP et les enjeux de la compétition par l’innovation - un séminaire d’initiation à la conception innovante. Les rapports de la prospective, n°145. RATP, Paris.Google Scholar
  46. Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2010a). La conception innovante comme mode d'extension et de régénération de la conception réglée : les expériences oubliées aux origines des bureaux d'études. Entreprises et histoire, 5, 51–73.Google Scholar
  47. Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2010b). Aux sources de la R&D : genèse des théories de la conception réglée en Allemagne (1840–1960). Entreprises et histoire, 2010(1), 11–50.Google Scholar
  48. Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2013). Design theories as languages for the unknown: Insights from the German roots of systematic design (1840–1960). Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2010). Strategic management of innovation and design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Le Masson, P., Aggeri, F., Barbier, M., & Caron, P. (2012a). The sustainable fibres of generative expectation management: The “building with hemp” case study. In M. Barbier & B. Elzen (Eds.), System innovations, knowledge regimes, and design practices towards transitions for sustainable agriculture (pp. 226–251). Paris: INRA Editions.Google Scholar
  51. Le Masson, P., Cogez, P., Felk, Y., & Weil, B. (2012b). Absorptive capacity for radical innovation: A case study in the semiconductor industry. Advances in Technology and Innovation Management 1.Google Scholar
  52. Le Masson, P., Cogez, P., Felk, Y., & Weil, B. (2012c). Revisiting absorptive capacity with a design perspective. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 5(1/2), 10–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Le Masson, P., Weil, B., Hatchuel, A., & Cogez, P. (2012d). Why aren’t they locked in waiting games? Unlocking rules and the ecology of concepts in the semiconductor industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(6), 617–630.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Kokshagina, O. (2013). A new perspective for risk management: a study of the design of generic technology with a matroid model in C-K theory. In T. Taura, & Y. Nagai (Eds.), Nara Workshop (p. 15). Nara, Japan.Google Scholar
  55. Lenfle, S. (2012). Exploration, project evaluation and design theory: A rereading of the Manhattan case. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(3), 486–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ondrus, J., & Pigneur, Y. (2009). C-K design theory for information systems research. In 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Pialot, O., Legardeur, J., & Boujut, J.-F. (2011). Towards a multi-input model, method and tool for early design phases in innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 55(3), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Poelmans, J., Elzinga, P., Viaene, S., & Dedene, G. (2009). A case of using formal concept analysis in combination with emergent self organizing maps for detecting domestic violence. Advances in Data Mining: Applications and Theoretical Aspects, 5633, 247–260.Google Scholar
  59. Reich, Y., Hatchuel, A., Shai, O., & Subrahmanian, E. (2010). A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: Casting ASIT within C-K theory. Journal of Engineering Design 1–22.Google Scholar
  60. Schmid, A.-F., & Hatchuel, A. (2014). On Generic Epistemology. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 19(2), 131–144.Google Scholar
  61. Shai, O., Reich, Y., Hatchuel, A., & Subrahmanian, E. (2009). Creativity theories and scientific discovery: A study of C-K theory and infused design. In International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09, August 24–27, 2009, Stanford.Google Scholar
  62. Shai, O., Reich, Y., Hatchuel, A., & Subrahmanian, E. (2013). Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C-K theory. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sharif Ullah, A. M. M., Mamunur Rashid, M., & Tamaki, J. (2011). On some unique features of C-K theory of design. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  64. Silberzahn, P., & Midler, C. (2008). Creating products in the absence of markets: A robust design approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(3), 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weil, B. (1999). Conception collective, coordination et savoirs, les rationalisations de la conception automobile. Thèse de doctorat en Ingénierie et Gestion, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, Paris.Google Scholar
  66. Zeiler, W., & Savanovic, P. (2009). Integral morphological CK design approach for multidisciplinary building design. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(4), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armand Hatchuel
    • 1
  • Pascal Le Masson
    • 1
  • Benoit Weil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marine Agogué
    • 2
  • Akin Kazakçi
    • 1
  • Sophie Hooge
    • 1
  1. 1.Mines ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.HEC MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations