Int J Technol Des Educ (2010) 20:453–476

DOI 10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z

Methods that may stimulate creativity

and their use in architectural design education

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

Published online: 13 November 2009

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract The architectural design process is based on a creative phase where creativity is
highly valued. Although the literature on creativity is rich in ways to stimulate the
decision-making process, these tools are rarely formally present in the building design
process. To further the discussion on creativity and design education this paper presents a
study on methods that may enhance the creative process and their application in architecture
courses around the world. The results of this inquiry indicate that design instructors apply
methods that may stimulate creativity mostly informally, with some positive results. To
explore more fully the richness of the literature on the enhancement of creativity, structured
applications of methods are recommended in controlled experiments to analyze results.

Keywords Creativity
Creative design
Design education
Problem solving

Methods that may stimulate creativity
Architectural design

Introduction

In recent decades universities and architecture schools in particular, have made important
efforts to improve design education. The goals in new ways of teaching design are mainly
concerned with enriching the pure artistic vision of architecture, through the insertion of
scientific knowledge and social responsibility. Environmental comfort and the question of
sustainability have increased the need for exact science and technical education. Social
sciences need to instill sensitivities towards the relation of human behavior and elements of
the built environment. Finally, results of studies on creativity should enrich the design
process.
In this paper, to further the discussion on design education a study on methods that may
enhance creativity is presented. The results of an exploratory interview inquiry with design
instructors, to investigate the application of such methods, are discussed. Architectural

D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski (&)
G. Bianchi
V. T. de 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 field. The discussion on the creative design process and the results
of the exploratory interview study presented, are seen as having a wider application in the
design field.
Contemporary goals in higher education and particularly design education include
giving students tools to stimulate the search for creative solutions to problems, as well as a
solid scientific basis for decision-making processes. To achieve such goals, the introduc-
tion of methods that may enhance creativity can be found in the discussion on curricular
reforms.
The authors were interested in the application of tools that may enhance creativity, after
conducting a teaching experiment in a bioclimatic design-studio of the Architecture and
Urban Design Course of the State University of Campinas—Unicamp, in Brazil (Kowal-
towski et al. 2007). The strength of restrictions, imposed on the design solution realm, was
tested in the previous study. The results showed that restrictions could enhance creativity in
students, especially through the challenge of breaking the imposed barriers by adopting
new and original solutions. In addition, with restrictions made clear, students were more
confident in their design proposals and the design process as a whole.
The starting point of the exploratory investigation, presented in this paper, was a lit-
erature review that demonstrated that the rich ideas coming from studies on creativity
brought forward a large variety of methods that are said to stimulate creativity and when
applied in higher education may lead to better formation of future design professionals.
This educational enhancement is considered important, especially in relation to recent job
market trends and the globalization of the design profession. These trends have increased
competitiveness and demand acceleration of productivity. Higher design quality from
design professionals is expected as well. The contemporary world with its dynamic pro-
duction of knowledge and speed in technological advances, as well as obsolescence,
demands professionals capable of keeping up with this pace and creativity is seen as an
essential human asset. The new order also implies that design students need a deeper
understanding of background knowledge and need to acquire new abilities and attitudes
towards design, with an increased demand on creativity. Producing designs that are fresh
and new to the problem domain are expected of our students and of design professionals as
a whole.

The design process

To increase design quality and productivity stakes have been put on design methods in the
last fifty years, especially in architecture. In the 1960s, design methods were investigated to
diminish subjectivity in design, to apply scientific knowledge more effectively and use
information technology productively. The methods brought forward by Jones (1970) were
organized according to input (what designers know) and output (what designers want to
know) and included a variety of methods still important today. The list of tools in relation
to the enhancement of creativity included Brainstorming, analogy and attribute lists to aid
in ‘‘removing mental blocks’’.
The goal in developing design methods was to improve the process and the product
outcome. Importance was given to adding structure to the decision-making activity in
design. The argument was that, after all, most disciplines depend on tools, techniques,
protocols of good practice, so design and in particular, architectural design should have the
same.

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-
sionals such as Geoffrey Broadbent, Nigel Cross and Ömer Akin. C. Alexander published
his ‘‘Pattern Language’’ in 1977. Scientists from other fields contributed as well to the
understanding of design processes. Herbert Simon publishes ‘‘The Science of the Artifi-
cial’’ in 1969 and Donald Schön in 1983 contributes to the understanding of design
education with his ‘‘The Reflective Practitioner’’. In the last two decades, Brian Lawson
and William J. Mitchell have contributed to the understanding of design thinking and the
logic of architectural design (Moreira 2007).
In 1984 Nigel Cross established a division of subjects in design methods and identified
each area’s principal exponents. Thus, control over the process is the goal of studies by
Christopher Jones and Bruce Archer, to mention only a few. The structure of design
problems is discussed by Peter Levin, Barry Poyner and Melvin Webber with Horst Rittel.
The cognitive aspects of design are studied by Ömer Akin, Bryan Lawson, Jane Darke,
John Thomas and John Caroll and the philosophy of design methods is further investigated
by Broadbent (1973) and Cross (1984).
In 2002 three comprehensive studies investigated research contributions to design
theory and practice in general (Jeamsinkul et al. 2002; Poppenpohl 2002; Teeravarunyou
et al. 2002). The overview of studies on the process, its principles and methods, as well as
the philosophies and theories, shows that design studies are essentially interdisciplinary
and that the authors mentioned above have had an important impact on design practice and
education as a whole. From this, an understanding of the rich data, coming from the design
methods movement is created, which continues to have repercussions in diverse areas,
contributing to the development of specific research domains that support professional
activities.
In mechanical design, Suh (1990) creates the axiomatic design method. In architectural
design, Post-Occupational-Evaluations (POE) or Building Performance Assessment gains
importance and design quality evaluation methods are developed. Attention to the pre-
design phase, or development of a detailed design brief, has increased in professional and
teaching activities. Computational support tools, such as Computer Aided Design (CAD),
rapid prototyping and applications of artificial intelligence have sprung from the design
method movement to enrich and facilitate the design process.
Most studies on the design process in architecture show that it does not follow rigid
rules. Designers do not apply universal methods and rarely externalize their thought
process (Kowaltowski et al. 2006a). Research in design methods consider the creative
process complex, solving what are termed wicked or ill-structured problems (Rittel and
Webber 1973). Thus, design problems are only loosely formulated, at times through a
detailed brief or architectural program. Wickedness consists in the continuous redefinition
of the problem during the period of its resolution and the impossibility of testing the
validity of solutions (Coyne 2005). A rigid systems view of design cannot be defended,
even in the face of losing credibility regarding the design profession, since rationality in
design may not embrace important concepts such as value judgment, context and
uniqueness.
In design, as a form of problem solving, reasoning proceeds from objective and func-
tional assessment to means or (product) decisions, but does not follow a formal scientific
process in which, by deduction, one reaches a logical result from posed premises. To

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 appro-
priate tools.
When such methods are informally practiced, however, sidestepping may occur and
opportunities might be missed. Thus, techniques such as ‘‘Brainstorming’’ or other crea-
tivity enhancement methods, criticism and decision-making activities should intertwine
with traditional design, drafting, prototyping and testing activities, to provide the foun-
dation for greater quality and originality of product, as well as awareness in the design
process.
The issue of addressing design as a whole, or of its part, is a further difficulty that an
experienced designer will tackle through the recall of known design solutions and of
travelling constantly with eye, mind and hand between the parts and the whole. Thus,
design is not a grammatical construction of a sentence, by a combination of parts to form a
whole.
In design education, special attention must be paid to the difficulties of progressing from
whole to part and part to whole in a conscious and efficient way. Producing designs that
have combinatorial qualities must be a goal in studio pedagogy. Problem solving needs to
be addressed through teaching methods and the introduction of tools, especially to help
students to overcome hurdles in moments of lack of progress, or what is colloquially called
‘‘being stuck’’.

The creative process

The literature on creativity is rich, and extensive studies have been conducted on how to
enhance this human ability or thought process (Cross 1997; Boden 1999; Runco 2004;
Siqueira 2007). Alencar (1996), Sternberg (1991) and Iashin-Shaw (1994), have called
attention to the fact that higher education must teach students to stimulate their own
creativity, to prepare them for the contemporary job and professional market. The same
authors show evidence however, that higher education seldom adopts practices that favor
creativity. Thus, most graduating professionals are capable only of applying what is
common knowledge in conventional ways (Alencar and Fleith 2004). Horng et al. (2005)
argues that the concept of creativity must be a key factor in new teaching strategies and
curriculum design. Although there is a consensus on the necessary introduction of the
concept of creativity in higher education, few courses deal formally or explicitly and in a
structured way with the issue.
Creativity is viewed in different ways in different disciplines: in education it is called
‘innovation’, in business it is ‘entrepreneurship’, in mathematics it is often equated with
‘problem solving’, and in music it is ‘performance’ or ‘composition’. A creative product in
different domains is measured against the norms of that domain, with its own rules,
approaches and conceptions of creativity (Reid and Petocz 2004).
The available literature on creativity and the methods that may stimulate are important
for design education but not always explicitly applied in a structured pedagogical way. The
UNESCO/UIA (2005) charter for architectural education stipulates that a variety of
methods should be applied to enrich the design-studio environment culturally and urges
flexible teaching to relate to varied demands and design problems. The charter does not
address creativity specifically and studies on design education (Rufinoni 2002) show the

123
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 reaffirms the need for new teaching methods in
the design-studio to increase creative thought.
With increased complexity in the design world, innovation, originality or the stimulus
for creative thought, should no longer rely on talent or chance alone. Creativity, as a
concept of bringing forward new ideas, is seen by many as the driving force in the design
process of a wide variety of fields, from architecture to mechanical design. For many
professionals, originality is a prime goal, shunning repetition of ideas. ‘‘Cookie Cutter’’
architecture is the symbol of all that is wrong with our present-day society, but the
objectives of creativity in building design should not be originality for its own sake.
Essential is the search for new ways of solving problems (functional, technical, social,
urban and aesthetic) in intelligent and environmentally responsible ways.
From studies on creativity, we know that specific conditions, such as well-defined
problem limits, as challenges, can foster the creative design process (Kowaltowski et al.
2007). Giving students design tools, such as drawing, CAD and model making, has tra-
ditionally been considered important; however, without giving specific attention to
methods that may increase creativity, the design-studio is considered to be less productive
in forming creative professionals.
Studies on the creative thought process have identified that it depends on characteristics
of an individual: receptiveness or attitudes in search of new and appropriate solutions,
immersion into the problem at hand, dedication and motivation, questioning attitudes,
analysis of ideas, with special attention to flawed solutions (Kneller 1978). The capacity to
solve problems depends, as well, on two factors of cognition: repertoire (facts, principles,
concepts) and heuristics of problem solving (systemization of insights).
Accumulated knowledge or expertise are thus important and context specific. Studies
show, that there are few designers who can produce creatively over a wide field of
knowledge and there is a general view that expertise develops over time, as a person
matures. Finally, a point is reached when a peak of performance occurs and then an
inevitable decline begins (Cross 2004). Studies on outstanding designers from a wide range
of fields (engineering and product design) have shown that these professionals rely on ‘first
principles’ in the origination of their concepts, exploring the problem to frame the problem
space and in many cases creative solutions arise when there is a conflict to be resolved.
These results show some similarities in creative strategies, but do not mean that experts can
switch practice between domains (Cross 2003).
Creativity can be defined as a process of becoming sensitive to a question, to a flaw or a
missing link in an area of knowledge. Importance is given to the identification of diffi-
culties and the formulation of hypotheses of such flaws, to finally attain a solution, test it
and communicate it to a wider audience. Creativity is defined as the capacity to produce
new and original ideas (Boden 1999). However, novelty is not sufficient to classify a
solution as something original. The idea has to have a specific purpose and solve a
determined problem. Alencar (1996) shows that relevance to a context is of extreme
importance for a product to have scientific, technological, social and aesthetic value. From
this, it follows that creative thinkers are specialist in their fields and rarely are innovative
across wider areas. Specific in-depth knowledge is paramount for creative thought. Thus
for different domains the stimulus for adequate solutions is distinct as well. In engineering
design, for instance, the adequate structuring of problems and first principle exploration are
important parts of the creative process. In architectural design the manipulation of possible
design solutions, through models and drawings is essential and experience and repertoire
analysis are paramount. According to Gero (2000) most new ideas in design are based on

123
458 D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski et al.

analogies, mutations or combinations and in some cases first principles are applied. The
experienced architect applies these concepts at times consciously, at times as experi-
mentations to move forward in the design process.
Kneller (1978) defines four indispensable stages in a creative process: preparation,
incubation, illumination and verification. Preparation is an investigative phase to famil-
iarize one self with the problem environment. Incubation is a longer period, often
unconsciously happening, preparing the mind for a solution search. Hypotheses are
rejected through distancing from the problem at hand. The third stage, Illumination, occurs
when perceptions are restructured and ideas are integrated in a search for solutions (Cross
1997). Finally, Verification must occur when ideas are revised, analyzed, judged and
solutions tested. Each phase may be helped by specific methods to stimulate reflection,
perception, creation and finally testing ideas. Interesting prospects present themselves with
available methods that may increase creativity for solving design problems intelligently
(Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007).
An important factor in stimulating creativity is the imposition of restrictions (Boden
1999). In the building design process, restrictions are present through codes, site conditions
and costs, to mention just a few aspects. Although often seen negatively as impositions,
restrictions can be positive challenges for new ideas to flourish. Restrictions, as stimuli, can
thus be applied in the design-studio to challenge students in breaking imposed barriers with
creative and appropriate solutions.
The design-studio teaching example conducted by Kowaltowski et al. (2007) showed
that creativity enhancement methods can be formally applied, in this case through imposed
restrictions. Results showed that restrictions, as design tools, can be of help to students in
their search for creative design solutions. On the other hand, this teaching experience
showed that most students cling to their first design solution, considered aesthetically
‘‘pleasing’’ and are reluctant to abandon this, even when problems are pointed out. The
experiment indicated that further research is needed to test the introduction of other
methods, which may stimulate creativity and, in parallel, may increase students’ sense of
responsibility in relation to social, urban and comfort impacts of design proposals.

Design education

Most design education, especially architectural design, occurs through the studio system
and how students are stimulated in their design efforts are related to the pedagogy applied
and to the personalities (instructors) present, as well as their individual ways of
approaching design. Six basic teaching methods can be identified in the studio setting
(Kowaltowski et al. 2006b):
1. Studio teaching based on a given architectural program and site for a specific design
project or architectural typology.
2. Studio teaching based on the discussion of an architectural program, elaborated by
students and its appropriate urban setting.
3. Introduction into the studio of an actual, local design problem and the development of
a participatory process, with problem analysis and solution justification by students.
4. Teaching design as a combination of architectural theory with practical design
activities.
5. Teaching design using ‘‘form generation’’ methods and formal architectural languages.
6. Teaching design to explore specific CAD design tools.

123
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 specific, mostly hypothetical, design problems
posed. Many studies have examined the typical design-studio teaching method in relation
to diverse aspects: learning experiences, efficiency, quality of designs, etc. (Carsalade
1997; Oxman 1999a, b; Gouveia et al. 2001; Rufinoni 2002; Goldschmidt and Tatsa 2005;
Kowaltowski et al. 2006b).
Other studies identified problems in architectural education as related to design com-
munication and the introduction and application of computer-aided design in architectural
courses (Nicol and Pilling 2000). Viewing architecture as pure art has often been identified
as a problem and investigations of typical professional practices have uncovered that
architects often lack knowledge on, or fail to anticipate, user needs (Salama 1995).
Importance given to the artistic content may cause architects to ignore social aspects in
architecture and to emphasize their self-expression. The aesthetic or formal bias is further
reinforced by most publications, used as teaching material in design disciplines. These are
often devoid of human content and directed towards the formal aspects of design (Ko-
waltowski et al. 2006c). Even technical aspects, evaluation results and user satisfaction
rates are rarely present in journals, used by students in design classes.
Schön (1983) describes design as a reflective conversation with the design situation,
thus addressing the human thought-processes and the language (drawings and models) used
to make design decisions. Schön’s ‘‘reflection in action’’, according to Snodgrass and
Coyne (2006), is the workings of a hermeneutical circle. Interpretation in design must
address two issues: preconceptions and the dynamic dialogue between the parts and the
whole of a design. In design education, the question of preconception, pre-judgment or
prejudice must be addressed, since students, although without previous experience in
design per-se, do not come to the studio as a ‘‘tabula rasa’’. The pre-understandings
students bring to their academic work come from their personal life experience and studio
instructors may attempt, in vain, to free the student’s mindset of such presuppositions. A
more appropriate approach to design education therefore considers to engage students in
questioning such presuppositions, expanding, and at times, rejecting responses in the
design dialogue.

Methods which may enhance creativity

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

search on the many available methods that may stimulate creativity was conducted. This
study produced a list of some 250 methods. Table 1 presents some of these methods with a
glossary of meaning. de Bono (1992) describes many different ways to produce creative
ideas through techniques with descriptive names such as: ‘‘The Creative Pause,’’ ‘‘Focus,’’
‘‘Challenge,’’ ‘‘Alternatives,’’ ‘‘The Concept Fan,’’ ‘‘Concepts,’’ ‘‘Provocation,’’ ‘‘Move-
ment,’’ ‘‘Setting Up Provocations,’’ ‘‘The Random Input,’’ and ‘‘Sensitizing Techniques.’’
A large number of the methods found in the literature on creativity relate to a wide variety
of areas: psychology, pedagogy, business administration, marketing, industrial design, fine
arts and architectural and engineering design (Clegg and Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007). For
that reason, not all of the methods found in the literature on creativity are necessarily useful
in typical architectural design processes, for example the ‘‘QFD’’ method rarely applies.

123
460
Table 1 Glossary of various methods, found in the literature, that may stimulate creativity (Clegg and
Birch 2007; Mycoted 2007)
Method
Assumption busting
CATWOE
Cause-effect diagram
Crawford slip method
Delphi method
Force-field analysis
Gallery
Input–output
Morphological analysis
NAF (Novelty, attractiveness
and functionality)
Other people’s viewpoints
PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act)
QFD
123
D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski et al.
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 find solutions
Technique consisting in seven steps:
Appreciating the unstructured problematical situation
Understanding the worldviews of the key stakeholders
Creating root definitions of relevant systems
Making and testing conceptual models based upon worldviews
Comparing conceptual models with reality
Identifying feasible and desirable changes
Acting to improve the problem situation
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 field analysis looks factors (forces) that influence (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 identifies new ways of
reaching a design goal by focusing on the input (attributes) and final
output desired. Requirements and restrictions (specifications) 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 1–10 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 specifications.
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 specific elements of the manufacturing process
Methods that may stimulate creativity 461

Table 1 continued

Method Description

Random stimuli 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
Relational words 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
SCAMPER Comes from Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Produce or find
new applications, Eliminate and Rearrange. Questions are made to
transform an object or process through the above verbs
Six sigma (DMAIC and DMADV) The methodology consists of:
Define 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
Six thinking hats The hats represent six thinking strategies identified by Edward de
Bono, consciously applied in techniques to enhance creativity. Red
hat—Emotional thinking. Yellow Hat—Positive thinking. Black
Hat—Critical thinking. White Hat—Facts. Green Hat—Creative
thinking. Blue Hat—Big Picture
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, A strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths,
Opportunities, Threats) 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 Synetics is a technique to generate and evaluate ideas. In the first
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 identified 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

In relation to design education, project-based learning has been adopted as the key
teaching–learning strategy by most universities. According to Christiaans and Venselaar
(2005) the question of the effectiveness of this approach still remains unanswered. These
authors also state that one of the issues in design education, that has only been dealt with at
an intuitive level, is the enhancement of creative abilities. Since creativity is one of the key
concepts when judging a designer or a design solution, the main question that still has to be
answered is how can knowledge that enhances creative designing be taught using explicit
instruction (Christiaans and Venselaar 2005).
Precedent based design (Oxman 1999a) is accepted as one of the cognitive phenomena
in design creativity as a source of ideation, and although the importance of intricate and

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 investi-
gations on the application of specific methods.
From our literature search, methods or techniques have been selected, in relation to their
potential for being tested in the building design context and the architecture studio envi-
ronment. These are: Analogies; Attribute Listing; Axiomatic design method; Bio-Mimet-
icry; Brainstorming; Browsing; Charette; Component Detailing; Do Nothing; Doodling;
Drawing; Exaggeration; Excursions; First Principle; Focus Groups; Mind Mapping; Other
Peoples Viewpoints, TRIZ; Think Tank; Using Crazy Ideas; Using Experts; Visual
Brainstorming; Visualizing a Goal; Working with Dreams and Images. Many of these
methods are traditionally part of the design process, such as Charrettes, and those that
emphasize visualization of ideas (Goldschmidt and Smolkov 2006; van der Lugt 2005).
Other methods such as ‘‘Do nothing’’ need no formal introduction into the typical teaching
studio, as this attitude is one of the many complaints of design instructors. However, ‘‘Do
nothing’’ productively is another matter to be investigated. The idea behind this technique
is to imagine what happens if nothing is done to solve a specific problem and finding
solutions from what is defined as the worst scenario.
The possibility of successfully applying some of these methods to architectural design
education is contingent to the ways design occurs or is produced, and methods that may
enhance creativity can be categorized according to their applicability to the phases of the
design process. In Table 2 some of the potentially appropriate methods are related to each
of these phases identified by Kneller (1978).
New methods, not inherently part of typical design processes should be investigated
as well. Here, some of the more promising methods for design processes are discussed.
They are: Analogy, Attribute list, TRIZ, Brainstorming, Mental maps or Mind mapping
and Biomimicry. These methods were singled out since they are especially useful in the
idea generation phase of design processes (Jones 1970; Altshuller 1984; Gero 2000).
Biomimicry was included since it is a specific form of analogy, based on princi-
ples coming from nature, referred to in many studies on sustainable design (Benyus
1997).

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

Problem definition Assumption Busting; Assumption Surfacing; Backwards Forwards Planning Boundary
Examination; CATWOE; Chunking; Five W’s and Hs; Multiple Redefinition; Other
Peoples Definitions; Paraphrasing Key Words; Why Why Why
Idea generation Analogy; Attribute Listing; Biomimicry; Mind Mapping; Morphological Analysis;
Nominal Group Technique; Pictures as Idea Triggers; Pin Cards; Random Stimuli;
Talking Pictures; TRIZ
Idea selection Advantages, Limitations and Unique Qualities; Anonymous Voting; Consensus
Mapping; Idea Advocate; NAF; Plusses Potentials and Concerns; Sticking Dots;
Unique Qualities
Idea verification PDCA; QFD; Six sigma

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 reflects on ways to modify and improve these. Bouillerce and
Carré (2004) recommend that an inventory of all aspects of a problem should be made:
types of material used, dimensions, building technique, fabrication process, user require-
ments, etc. Once the list is ready, priorities are marked and alternatives suggested. The
combination of ideas increases exponentially, according to Davis (1992), with the number
of attributes.
TRIZ, or the ‘‘theory of inventive problem solving’’ in Russian, is a method created by
Altshuller (1984), based on more than three million patents of the Soviet Union in the
1950s to discover the patterns that predict breakthrough solutions to problems. TRIZ
research began with the hypothesis that there are universal principles of creativity, which
are the basis for technological innovations. Problems are structured according to 40 basic
inventive principles, identified by Altshuller in the patents such as: weight of moving
object; length of moving object; speed; force; stress; shape; temperature; illumination
intensity; power; loss of energy, time, substance, information; reliability; ease of main-
tenance, operation repair; etc. If these principles are identified and codified, they could be
taught to people to make the process of creativity more predictable. A matrix is created
which can be applied to new inventions.
The argument behind TRIZ is that somebody somewhere has already solved this
problem, or one very similar to it (Barry et al. 2005). Creativity is now finding that solution
and adapting it to the particular problem at hand. To solve problems TRIZ uses logic and
data, not intuition. TRIZ also provides repeatability, predictability and reliability due to its
structure and algorithmic approach.
Kiatake (2004) tested the application of TRIZ to architectural design problems. The
transfer of TRIZ principles to the architectural design process was attempted and the case
study presents some promising results in relation to facilitating decision-making. Kiatake
(2004) used 16 specific architectural design goals including environmental comfort (visual,
thermal, acoustics and smell), ergonomics, efficiency, equilibrium, flexibility, visual
impact, independence, movement, functionality or practicality, productivity, rationaliza-
tion and security and safety. According to Kiatake (2004), solution alternatives were
generated with added ease and their evaluation was more focused, using the TRIZ matrix
as the base to defend or justify issues.
Brainstorming is probably the best-known method to stimulate creativity, where experts
from various fields put their ideas forward without prior judgment. There are basic rules to
Brainstorming: Focus on quantity; No criticism; Unusual ideas are welcome since they
combine and improve ideas. In Osborn’s (1957) definition, Brainstorming is a conference
technique by which a group of people attempts to find a solution for a specific problem by
amassing ideas spontaneously.
A further method, called the Mental Map or Tree diagram (Siqueira 2007), is based on
the potential of idea generation when structured according to initial concepts. This method
is usually associated with the visual representation of ideas, to help the ‘‘free association’’
process of Brainstorming. Ideas are classified, structured and visually presented. By
mapping information, rapid expansion and exploration of an idea occurs. Analogy of
images may be part of this method. In design processes, this method is often identified in
the drawings of architects, especially in first sketches (Rowe 1992; Lawson 1997).
Finally, Biomimicry is considered the transfer of technology between life forms and
man-made constructs (Benyus 1997). According to proponents of bionic technology, it is
recommended because evolutionary pressures typically force living organisms to become

123
464 D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski et al.

highly optimized and efficient. From this, biomimetics, biognosis, Biomimicry, or bionical
creativity engineering are applications of biological methods and systems found in nature
to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology. The view of
imitating nature is however, also the main criticism of Biomimicry, since nature does not
necessarily function on optimum designs, but on natural selection for sufficiently good
solutions.
The analysis of nature’s systems may lead to the seeds of inspiration in a creative design
process and Biomimicry is a method increasingly employed in design processes of famous
architects like Ken Yeang and Calatrava. For instance, an often cited example is the
Eastgate Center in Harare, Zimbabwe, a shopping center designed by Mick Pearce and
built in 1996. The thermal comfort of the building is supported by principles discovered in
termite mounds. Ken Yeang uses other examples. The understanding of the chemical
structure of DNA may stimulate the conception of building elements and as an analogy, a
pile of dishes of a restaurant kitchen demonstrates that building slabs may gain in stability
when rotated.

Creativity enhancement in design education

To test the introduction of methods that may enhance creativity in the design-studio an
exploratory study, as a structured interview, was conducted with 28 design instructors of
architecture schools around the world. 43 design instructors participated in the study and
28 faculty members responded to all the interview questions, outlined in Table 3. Table 4
shows the participant schools in Brazil and around the world.
One of the main goals of the study, was to ascertain if design instructors explicitly
structure their design pedagogy to enable the enhancement of creativity and what tools are
used for that purpose. The authors were testing, in this exploratory interview study, if
schools in Brazil and around the world actively apply the rich information coming from the
literature on the creative process. Thus, the use of methods that may stimulate creativity
was of interest. As a research goal out aims were several. First, the interviews questioned
design instructors on their familiarity with several of the methods that may stimulate
creativity found in the literature; then, the structured specific formal application in the
design-studio environment was of interest and the study was open to new pedagogical tools
or ideas which are seen as enhancing creativity of students, as described by the design
instructors participating in the interviews. Finally, the study tried to ascertain from design
instructors which aspects of architectural design could profit most from creativity
enhancement.
Since the authors work in Brazil and the first author teaches architectural design at the
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in the State of São Paulo in Brazil, special
attention was given to architecture schools in that country. In Brazil, Architecture Schools
emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of the subject. Courses include urban planning,
landscape and industrial design in their curricula.
Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world in area and population, prides itself of
producing architecture of recognized quality, said to be the result of its design education. A
60-year tradition in design education is mainly based on modernist principles of design and
the design methods movement has had little impact on studio pedagogy (Rufinoni 2002;
Moreira 2007; Naveiro 2008). Two exponents of this tradition have won the Pritzker Prize:
Oscar Niemeyer and Paulo Mendes da Rocha. Brazil, according to 2008 data has 224
architecture schools, producing a large number of new architects and urban designers every

123
Methods that may stimulate creativity 465

Table 3 Structure of questions asked in exploratory interview study on methods that may stimulate cre-
ativity in architectural design education
1. Which of these methods are known to you and applied in a design course/module? and What are the
advantages, difficulties 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 definition 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 Efficiency
( ) 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 University

Brazil
Northeast 1. Universidade Federal de Alagoas (UFAL)—Maceió/AL
2. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)—Natal/RN
Central 3. Universidade de Brası́lia (UnB)—Brası́lia/DF
Southeast 4. Centro Universitário Moura Lacerda—Ribeirão Preto/SP
5. Centro Universitário Nove de Julho (UNINOVE)—São Paulo/SP
6. Universidade de São Paulo (USP)—São Paulo/SP
7. Universidade Estadual do Espı́rito Santo (UFES)—Vitória/ES
8. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF)—Juiz de Fora/MG
9. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)—Belo Horizonte/MG
10. Universidade Federal do Rio Janeiro (UFRJ)—Rio de Janeiro/RJ
South 11. Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis—Porto Alegre/RS
12. Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS)—Porto
Alegre/RS
13. Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)—Curitiba/PR
14. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)—Florianópolis/SC
Around the world
Europe 1. Universität Dortmund—Dortmund/Germany
2. Aalborg University—Aalborg/Denmark
3. Architectural Association (AA)—London/UK
4. Newcastle University—Newcastle/UK
5. Oxford Brookes University—Oxford/UK
6. Politécnico de Milan—Millan/Italy
North/Central 7. Pennsylvania State University—Pennsylvania/EUA
America 8. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México (UNAM)—Mexico city/Mexico
Asia 9. Islamic Azad University—Teheran/Iran
10. Musashi Institute of Technology—Yokohama/Japan
11. International Islamic University—Kuala Lumpur/Malaysia
12. University of Engineering & Technology—Lahore/Paquistan
Oceania 13. University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney/Australia
14. University of Sydney—Sydney/Australia

year. The quality of design education of these institutions is of interest, not only in view of
the level of performance of young professionals in their own regions, but also in view of
the global job market, which may absorb these graduates.
To conduct the exploratory study interviews were held with design instructors using
structured questions as shown in Table 3. The study explored the application of specific
methods that may enhance creativity. The methods selected were: Analogy, Attribute list,
TRIZ, Brainstorming, Mental maps or mind mapping and Biomimicry. As shown in
Table 2, these methods are recommended for the idea generation phase of design pro-
cesses. Respondents were free to add other methods, as outlined in question, (2) of Table 3
and a final question, (3) of Table 3, asked design instructors to indicate which design
factors could gain most from the application of methods that could stimulate creativity.

123
Methods that may stimulate creativity 467

Here Hershberger’s value structure was used to organize responses (Hershberger 1999).
These values and their related issues are:
1. Human: functional, social, physical, physiological and psychological;
2. Environmental: site, climate, context, resources and waste;
3. Cultural: historical, institutional, political and legal;
4. Technological: materials, systems and processes;
5. Temporal: growth, change and permanence;
6. Economic: finance, construction, operation, maintenance and energy;
7. Aesthetic: form, space, color and meaning;
8. Safety, structural, fire, chemical, personal and criminal.
The sample was divided into two parts. The Brazilian sample definition was based on
the percentage of architecture school in the country. The 2006 census listed 186 schools
and 14 were chosen at random, proportionally distributed according to the geographic
regions in Brazil. The international sample used a survey on design education as a basis for
regional representation of architecture schools worldwide (Boucharenc 2006). Table 4
shows the distribution of participating architecture schools according to regions in Brazil
and continents around the world. The number of interviews was 43, however, only 28
participants fully answered all the questions, thus a 33% response was obtained. Results of
this exploratory study are discussed below. Table 5 shows a summary of responses to
issues in architectural design which may profit from the application of creativity methods.
In Brazil the structure of architecture courses is controlled by national curricular
requirements and therefore all schools have a final year project, which is developed by
students individually and advised by instructors, also on an individual basis. This condition
is reflected in the study results, as some of the respondents participate in this advisory
capacity. In other countries, some schools, especially those of Asia Minor, had the highest
negative response in relation to their knowledge relating to the methods. This result may be
due to a lack of English proficiency. For non-English speaking countries, the exploratory
study may need to be re-conducted with added texts in each country’s own native tongue to
explain the questions.
Table 5 gives an overall picture of how creativity is stimulated in design-studios in
Brazil and around the world. Statistical evaluation was primarily in the form of percentage
responses. A ‘‘Chi-square test’’ was applied and the ‘P’ values of the tests are shown in
Tables 5. This statistical evaluation showed only one significant difference between the
Brazilian and worldwide sample. This difference relates to the last question, (3) in Table 3,
of the study. The majority of design instructors worldwide responded that the main issues
that creativity methods can enhance are: site planning and urban considerations. Only half
of Brazilian instructors saw this importance. None of the other data demonstrated signif-
icant differences in the responses, when comparing the local with the worldwide sample.
Further tests were also applied, to evaluate if knowing a method was related to the
application of another method. Thus, as an example, Analogy and Biomimicry were
compared. For this evaluation, the ‘‘Fisher Exact Test’’ was used. This test is suitable for
testing independence on two-way contingency tables with multinomial sampling, and it is
called exact because it does not use large-sample approximation distributions, but an exact
distribution. The ‘‘Bonferroni Correction’’ was used in conjunction with this test. All
creativity stimulus methods were compared, but no statistical significance was shown.
Thus, knowing one method is independent of the application of another.
The general results show that design-studio instructors are concerned about stimulating
students’ creativity. However, tools that may enhance creativity are mainly applied

123
 468

123
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, difficulties and results of these
methods?

Method Location Application (%) Most applied in Advantages Disadvantages Pedagogical results

Used Known Not

Not used known

Analogy, Brazil 79 21 0 82% Design- 36% Increase in 27% none; 18% difficulty 55% very
Metaphor studio 27% final student repertoire; of finding analogies satisfactory 27%
design-studio 27% Better choice of good for idea
solution realm analysis/underst.
concepts
P value = 0,4725 World 62 23 15 75% Design- 25%Solution 63% difficulty of applying 25% very
studio exploration;25% analogies to design satisfactory; 25%
dev. lateral thought problem; varies;
process
Biomimicry Brazil 43 57 0 50% Design- 50% better underst. of 50% difficult to apply in 50% very
studio design question design-studio, diff. to satisfactory
distinguish analogy
from Biomimicry
World 57 36 7 38% Design- 38% better solutions 50% difficult to apply in 50% very
P value = 0,4495 studio; 25% options 25% better design-studio 25% no satisfactory 25%
Sustainable underst. of design problems associated good sustainable
design question solutions 13%
leads to useful
discussions
D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski et al.
 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, difficulties and results of these
methods?

Method Location Application (%) Most applied in Advantages Disadvantages Pedagogical results

Used Known Not

Not used known

Brainstorming Brazil 57 43 0 75% Design- 63% Multiple solution 38% lack of student 38% satisfactory
studio 25% proposal; 50% quick initiative, needs 25% excellent
Environmental discussion and focus instructor intervention;
comfort classes on design problem 38% lack of develop. of
Methods that may stimulate creativity

25% final year ideas 25% diverts

project attention
P value = 0,6945
World 64 29 7 57% Design- 56% generation of 33% not stimulating 22% 22% satisfactory
studio; multiple solutions; lack of student 22% good
22% exploration of initiative, needs creative
unfamiliar ideas; instructor intervention; solutions; 22%
22% good group Stimulus to
work exchange of
ideas;
Attribute list Brazil 57 36 7 75% Design- 50% clearer underst. 25% difficulty in 38% better underst.
studio 38% of design problem establishing attributes of design
Environ. 25% analysis of pos. 25% too time problem 25%
Comfort 25% and neg. points consuming excellent method
final year
P value = 0,5164 project
World 72 14 14 40% Design- 30% clearer 10% too cumbersome, 20% satisfactory
studio understanding of
design problem
469

123
 Table 5 continued
470

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

123
Method Location Application (%) Most applied in Advantages Disadvantages Pedagogical results

Used Known Not

Not used known

Mind map Brazil 79 21 0 64% Design- %46 better underst. of 27% no problems 18% 18% excellent 18%
studio 37% design problem 27% difficulty in structuring satisfactory
Final Year better structuring of the diagram
project functional relations
World 57 36 7 38% Design- 38% underst. of 25% difficulty in applying 13% better underst.
P value = 0,4197 studio functional to design development 13% satisfactory
requirements, 25%
better underst. of
design problem
TRIZ Brazil 0 21,4 78,6
World 0 7,1 92,9

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
affirmations showed that instructors use personal ways of stimulating creativity in their
design classes, not readily identified as methods, techniques or tools.
Analogy was considered the most appropriate technique to enhance creativity in stu-
dents. The technique is appropriate for all course levels. Design methodology courses and
sustainable design can profit most from the application of Analogy. The advantages of this
method are the possibility of increasing students’ repertoire. In Brazil, teaching staff
thought that analogies help the design discussion by integrating meaning and communi-
cation to design, but pointed out that when up-to-date literature is not readily available
difficulties in sustaining the method arise.
Design repertoire is of prime importance to enhance the creative process. Akin (1986)
states that conceptual abstractions, coming from references, create bridges between mental
and physical activities and are the basis for deeper exploration of theoretical concepts of
design repertoire. Cross (1997) explains the creative leap in the design process in a similar
way. Formal repertoire is also known to be the most often applied information in the
design-studio (Oxman 1999b). Given a specific design reference, a student may learn to
identify relevant concepts and build a theoretical basis for his/her design knowledge, which
can then generate new design solutions.
Design instructors of worldwide schools of architecture stated that metaphors increased
the exploration of various design solutions and developed lateral thought processes, but
thought that analogy is a difficult method to apply in the design-studio system. The main
problem is related to finding adequate examples and avoiding shallow associations, which
may compromise design choices (Holyoak and Thagard 1996). Casakin (2004) argues that
students lack analytical tools to reflect with some depth on their design problem and this
causes difficulties in using analogies as a design tool. With time and increased experience,
students will learn to see a design problem from various angles, both conceptually and as
abstractions. Once they are able to proceed this way, analogies are applied with more ease
and productivity.
The exploratory study separated Biomimicry as a special method to stimulate design
creativity. This was done in an effort to emphasize that Biomimicry is a more complex
analogy, demanding understanding of the natural phenomenon behind a specific bio-
logical structure or example. Mainly introductory design classes and environmental
comfort studies can profit from the use of Biomimicry application as shown in Table 5.
In schools around the world, but not in Brazil, sustainable design and environmental
comfort studies are the main courses mentioned with positive application for Biomim-
icry. A better understanding of design problems is possible since they are said to be
comprehended when associated to phenomenon and evolutionary systems found in nat-
ure. On the other hand, respondents also find this method difficult with students, since
they tend to use only visual associations, without the accompanying functional sys-
tematic study. A further problem, associated to the application of Biomimicry, is the
tendency of inducing organic forms in design, curtailing student’s freedom of design
choices. On the other hand, of using Biomimicry are considered satisfactory, especially
with students with good drawing abilities, since they are capable of translating and
communicating their ideas with clarity and detail.
The application of Brainstorming in architectural design-studios helps the spontaneous
generation of ideas in groups as shown in Table 5. Most architectural design disciplines are
said to profit most from this method. The use of Brainstorming occurs in the initial years
(first to third year in Brazil) and worldwide more towards the end of typical architecture

123
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 reflections on proposed solutions.
Most faculty members in schools around the world also mentioned avoiding stagnation in
the design process, based on unique solutions. The exploration of the unfamiliar can be
achieved and Brainstorming encourages group work. The method thus stimulates pro-
ductivity in the design process, through an increases repertoire.
The relation between quantity and quality of ideas generated is an important issue to
consider. Brainstorming is most effective when the largest number of ideas is brought
forward. In architecture, Goldschmidt and Tatsa (2005) showed that students, with more
ideas in relation to the design problem, are able to find better solutions and develop them
further. This is further affirmed, by showing that the quality of first ideas affects the
number of ideas that can be connected to new proposals.
Disadvantages mentioned in our study in relation to Brainstorming are the poverty of
ideas that are brought forward by students, due to their lack of experience and maturity.
Another problem is how to focus students on more than the final form of their design. Often
students are said to be reluctant to participate, fearing that their ideas may be considered
poor or naive. This situation needs the intervention of faculty.
Brainstorming needs to be structured to create awareness that the initial stages of design
are essential and instrumental for later design development phases. Shortcuts are avoided
and other methods can be applied to verify ideas and optimize the solution search.
However, the exploratory study of this paper showed that most instructors do not follow
the formal ways the method demands, but introduce Brainstorming loosely for group
discussions.
The attribute list method is considered a useful and effective method according to the
results shown in Table 5. It can be used at any stage of a typical design course, but is
considered more effective in graduate courses. The method is said to give a clear vision of
a design problem through its decomposition. The complexity of a design problem can be
visually clarified through the demonstration of positive and negative points of the solution
realm. The advantages are the diagnosis of a problem with different viewpoints, coming
from various disciplines. Optimization and hierarchical structuring of solutions are pos-
sible. In addition, the discussion is naturally amplified through the decomposition. The
difficulties are mainly related to establishing attributes and then converting these to design
solutions. The method is considered cumbersome and needs active involvement and
guidance by instructors.
Mental Maps are considered useful at all levels of formal design education. The main
advantages are the increase and understanding of design repertoire and the organization of
a design problem. A further positive point is the graphical exposition of ideas that the
method induces. Drawing skills are trained, with direct application to design manipulation.
The dangers however, lie in this graphical transposition as well, where immature students
may read design solutions (plan forms) directly in diagrams and schematic decomposition
of problems. Overall, instructors praise the method for its concentration on problem
comprehension.
The results of the use of TRIZ in design education show that this method is not well
known by design instructors, although very much present in the literature on creativity and
applied in engineering schools. The reason for this may be the fact that the TRIZ matrix is
very specific, coming from mainly mechanical engineering innovation and the solution
realm has not yet successfully been translated to architectural problems. An interesting
investigation could be the analysis of design repertoire and its repeated and qualitative

123
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 amplifies students’ experience, which
can then be applied to their design solution realm. Hertzberger (1996) affirms that the more
students can absorb from design references, the more guidance exists for their design
decision-making process.
Other methods mentioned, in this open question, were group discussions and design
criticism by students of the work of colleagues. Charrettes or concentrated short period
design exercises were mentioned as positive methods that may productively stimulate
creativity. Group discussions permit students to think beyond their own work. The
exchange of ideas can help design development mutually. Learning from others is valued
as a stimulus to the divergent thought process (van der Lugt 2005).
In relation to the last question, (3) of Table 3, on the most appropriate application of
methods in the design process and the factors which may profit most, the respondents
indicated that stimulating creativity is best suited to formal questions of design, citing
aspects of aesthetics as an important creativity issue. Brazilian instructors considered the
acquisition of a repertoire (design references) as a major issue in design education. This
reflects the importance given do formal aspects of design in most schools in the country,
coming from a Beaux-Arts tradition and passing through a modernist inclination in design
instruction. Schools of architecture around the world indicate that emphasis on technical
solutions is stronger through a detailed architectural programming stage, search for
environmental comfort solutions and design performance analysis and more complex
methods, such as Biomimicry and design problem decomposition methods, such as the
mental maps are more applied.
In Brazil design instructors attempt to make students analyze his/her own process and
testing of partial solutions is given importance. Worldwide the introduction of a real or role
playing client into the design process is seen as an important addition to the design-studio
system. Group work and group dynamics are seen as ways to introduce changes to the
typical design education setting. However, group composition is an issue of concern and
stress conditions in debates need analysis according to the respondents of the exploratory
study.
Use of conceptual models, 3D objects and simulations were mentioned as important
companions to design-studio teaching methods. Some instructors also indicated using the
concept of ‘‘Gestalt’’ as a method, as well as phenomenological studies, as their personal
tools for design reflections. Finally, although most instructors consider design pedagogy as
problem-based-learning (PBL), some instructors are aware of PBL as a specific tool and
have attempted to apply the method in the architectural design-studio.

123
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 student’s repertoire and stimulate group discussions.
Design is an artistic activity with the application of scientific and technological
knowledge. In architecture it is also an investigation of finding the best form for the shelter
necessities of human activities. Due to the complexity of the design process there are no
precise and fixed formulas that bring together form, function, context conditions and
available technologies. With an understanding of first principles, experience and intuition,
most designers reach heuristically their design solutions. Methods to increase creativity are
rarely mentioned when the experienced designer’s process is discussed and the question of
creativity is often considered an implicit factor. From our results this is, to some extent,
true in design education as well.
Most formal higher education prides itself of its excellence in teaching the concepts of
science, with design education adding as well repetitions of case studies and projects in a
studio discussion environment. In many higher education institutions, professional formal
education is under discussion and various methods are tested to prepare future profes-
sionals for the work challenges that lie ahead. As a contribution to these debates, this paper
describes some of the issues that should come to the forefront in curriculum discussions,
especially in architecture schools, with creativity as a driving force for educational
changes. The exploratory study on the application of methods, as found in literature, that
may enhance creativity with design faculty of architecture courses around the world
indicates the need for more in-depth surveys on the potential application of specific
methods and techniques. These should be tested in the design-studio in relation to their
efficiency in producing designs with recognized architectural qualities and in relation to
their effective and productive support of the design processes of students.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank FAPESP (Fundação de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado
de São Paulo) for the support of this research project and Cezar Augusto de Freitas Anselmo and Rafael
Pimentel Maia for data analysis and statistical test support.

References

Akin, O. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London, UK: Pion.

Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1996). A gereˆncia da criatividade: abrindo as janelas para a criatividade pessoal e
nas organizações. São Paulo, Brazil: Makron Books.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2004). Inventário de Práticas docentes que favorecem a criatividade no
Ensino Superior. Psicologia Reflexiva e Crı´tica, 17(1), 105–110.
Altshuller, G. S. (1984). Creativity as an exact science: The theory of the solution of inventive problems.
New York, USA: Gordon and Breach.
Barry, K., Domb, E. & Slocum, M. (2005). What is TRIZ?. TRIZ Journal. Practical Innovation: Applying
the Concepts of TRIZ to Accelerate Innovation \http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/what_is_triz[.

123
Methods that may stimulate creativity 475

Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: William Morrow.
Boden, M. A. (1999). Dimensões da Criatividade. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artmed Editora.
Boucharenc, B. (2006). Research on basic design education: And international survey. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1–30.
Bouillerce, B., & Carré, E. (2004). Saber desenvolver a criatividade na vida e no trabalho. São Paulo,
Brazil: Larousse do Brasil.
Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in architecture: Architecture and the human sciences. New York, USA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Carsalade, F. D. L. (1997). Ensino de Projeto de Arquitetura: uma visão construtiva. Dissertation (Master of
Architecture), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Casakin, H. (2004). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process. Expert versus novice
performance. The Journal of Design Research. http://www.research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/design/
papers/22CasakinDTRS6.pdf. Retrieved 12 Aug 2007.
Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge:
Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 217–236.
Clegg, B., & Birch, P. (2007). Instant creativity: Simple techniques to ignite innovation & problem solving.
London, UK: Kogan Page.
Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17.
Cross, N. (Ed.) (1984). Developments in design methodology (p. 357). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, N. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modeling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30(4), 311–317.
Cross, N. (2003). The expertise of exceptional designers. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Expertise in
design (pp. 23–35). Sydney, Australia: Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.
Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever. Dubuque, US: Kendall/Hunt.
de Bono, E. (1992). SERIOUS CREATIVITY: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New
York: HarperCollins.
Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes. In Technological
Forecasting and Social Change (vol. 64(2–3), pp. 183–196). New York, US.
Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem
solving performance. Design Studies, 27(5), 549–569.
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? correlates of design creativity. Design
Studies, 26(6), 593–611.
Gouveia, A. P., Harris de Camargo, A. L. N., & Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. (2001). Analogia e Abstração no
Ensino do Projeto em Arquitetura. Proceedings of Graphica 2001 (pp. 1092–1101). São Paulo, Brazil.
Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming and pre-design manager. Boston, US: McGraw Hill.
Hertzberger, H. (1996). Lições de arquitetura. São Paulo, Brazil: Martins Fontes.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1996). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, US: MIT
Press.
Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., Chanlin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and creative
teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 352–358.
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster
creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 215–226.
Iashin-Shaw, I. (1994). Cognitive structures of creativity: Implications for instructional design. European
Journal for High Ability, 5, 24–38.
Jeamsinkul, C., Boztepe, S., Poppenpohl, S., Lim, Y. (2002). Annotated theory and practice in design—list.
Visible Language, 36(2), 210–235.
Jeffries, K. K. (2007). Diagnosing the creativity of designers: Individual feedback within mass higher
education. Design Studies, 10(5), 485–497.
Jones, C. (1963). A method of systematic design. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on
design methods—1962 (p. 53). Oxford: Pergameno Press.
Jones, C. (1970). Design methods. London, UK: Wiley Bros.
Kiatake, M. (2004). Modelo de suporte ao projeto criativo em Arquitetura: Uma aplicação da TRIZ—teoria
da solução inventiva de problemas (Master degree Dissertation), Escola Politécnica da Universidade
de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Kneller, G. F. (1978). Arte e cieˆncia da criatividade (J. Reis, Trans.). São Paulo, Brazil: IBRASA.
Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Labaki, L., de Paiva, V., Bianchi, G., & Mösch, M. E. (2007). The creative design
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. 577–581). 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.
Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., Celani, G. C., & De Carvalho, D. M. (2006a). Reflexão sobre
metodologias de projeto arquitetônico. Ambiente Construı´do, 6(2), 07–19.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Moreira, de Carvalho D. (2007). Os Princı́pios da sı́ntese da forma e a a análise de projetos arquitetônicos,
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), 304–312.
Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. London,
UK: E & FN Spon.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York, US: Scribner.
Oxman, R. (1999a). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20, 105–122.
Oxman, R. (1999b). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1),
63–91.
Poppenpohl, S., Teeravarunyou, S., Holguin, R., Boztepe, S., et al. (2002). Annotated theory and practice in
design—list. Visible Language, 36(2), 172–192.
Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity. The Australian Educational
Researcher, 31(2), 45–62.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Rowe, P. G. (1992). Design thinking. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.
Rufinoni, M. R. (2002). Novos e velhos desafios no ensino de projeto arquitetônico: caminhos para a
formação de uma conscieˆncia crı´tica (Vol. 4, pp. 11–15). São Paulo, Brazil: Sinergia (CEFETSP).
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education. Cairo, Egypt: The Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, US: Basic Books.
Siqueira, J. (2007). Ferramentas de Criatividade. Accessed in: April 2007 \http://criatividade.wordpress.
com[.
Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (2006). Interpretation in architecture: Design as a way of thinking. London,
UK: Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991) A theory of creativity. In Proceedings of XIV ISPA Colloquium. Braga, Portugal.
Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Teeravarunyou, S., Storkerson, P., Jeamsinkul, C., & Sawasdichai, N. (2002). Annotated theory and practice
in design—list. Visible Language, 36(2), 134–155.
UNESCO/UIA. (2005) Charter for architectural education. In http://www.uia-architectes.org/image/PDF/
CHARTES/CHART_ANG.pdf. Accessed 26 April/09.
van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings.
Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.