Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano

DESIGN METHODS AND PROCESSES, PROF. G. CASCINI, ASP XIV CYCLE

Knowledge-based design and design creativity

Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano
Full list of author information is
available at the end of the article Abstract
Nowadays, knowledge and creativity naturally appear as distinct and
complementary concepts that inevitably coexist at the core of every modern
conception of Design. This is why a clear understanding of their influence on the
intrinsic dynamics of Design resoning is fundamental to correctly frame it in a
proper, comprehensive and possibly useful way. In the first part of the paper, the
evolving role of knowledge and creativity in the main Design theories and
methodologies of the last decades is briefly surveyed from an historical
perspective, with a particular focus on the recent interpretation found in the CK
theory (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003). Immediately after, this theoretical model is
directly applied to a real design experience of the author, in order to uncover the
complex interplay between these two actors (knowledge and creativity) in a much
more tangible and revealing fashion. The third and final part contains some
personal conclusive considerations presented as a list of five domain-independent
heuristics aimed at fruitfully exploiting both knowledge and creativity in every
design situation, whatever the method adopted to tackle the specific task.

1 The evolving role of knowledge and creativity in the Design

process
Despite the formal rigour and the scientific nature of many of the fields in which
they are pursued (engineering, architecture, pharmaceutics and so on), design ac-
tivities are often perceived as blurred processes characterised by an inscrutable mix
of knowledge and creativity, in a complex frame of cognitive, cultural, and social
aspects. This uncomfortable perception, along with the consequent will to make
some order in such an important mental process, were the main reasons behind the
many attempts to set up a rigorous Design theory of the last decades.

1.1 Design as a knowledge-based process

In their first steps, Design theories and methodologies were characterised by an
overbearing role of knowledge over creativity. The very first school of thought that
built a scientific, rational step-by-step approach to design thinking was the so called
“German systematics” (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003). It dates back to the mid 19th cen-
tury (Redtenbacher, 1852) and basically relies on “plans of action that link working
steps and design phases according to content and organisation” (Pahl et al. 2007).
An akin philosophy was adopted by a group of rational models flourished in the 60s
as prescriptive sequences of activities and algorithms, among which the Asimow’s
three-stage model (Asimow, 1962) represents a significant example.

These methodologies, that could be seen as an extension of preexisting decision-

making methods, optimization techniques and rational problem solving (Archer,
Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano Page 2 of 7

1965), gradually entered a serious crisis when the Design issue began to be ad-
dressed as a much more complex and wicked problem. In the first years of the 70s, a
turning point was set by H. Rittel, who vigorously publicised his idea of a “second
generation” of design methods. In open contrast with the “old school” of academics,
he claimed that “the design process is not considered to be a sequence of activities
that are pretty well defined and that are carried through one after the other” (Rit-
tel, 1973) and strongly rejected old-established deontic logics in favour of a more
partecipative and argumentative structure (contradictions to be solved). Neverthe-
less, even in such an innovative vision, creativity and inventiveness still didn’t find
a decent spot, and the old view of ‘systematic reasoning’ as a sufficient and en-
abling condition for the generation of new knowledge remained a quite widespread
belief among academics and Design theorists. In this context, the “conservative”
idea of a rule-based design paradigm strongly emerges in a 1988 paper by Nobel
prize Herbert Simon (one of the most valued theorists of decision-making and AI).
To support his thesis, Simon wrote a computer software (KEKADA) that, starting
from a reasonable set of initial information, arrived to the very same discoveries
previously made by notable human scientists (the urea cycle by A. Krebs), without
apparently relying on any form of human creativity (Simon & Kulkarni, 1988).

1.2 The rising importance of creativity and ideation

In the last part of the 20th century, knowledge-based theories became increasingly
sound and detailed to the point that, nowadays, they are used in firms worldwide
and taught in many engineering and architecture courses. Despite that, a clear
paradigm shift was observed in the last two decades. The rising importance of inno-
vation in technological and social development determined an increasing attention
of Design theorists towards creativity as an intrinsic and distinctive trait of every
design activity (Kryssanov et al. 2001; Hatchuel et al. 2007; Gero, 2013) until, in
2013, a higher academic prominence of themes such as inventive thinking and inno-
vative design was obtained thanks to the foundation of the “International Journal
of Design Creativity and Innovation”.

A series of methods to support design creativity were developed (TRIZ, SIT, HBDI)
and overcoming fixation (Gero & Purcell, 1996; Moreno et al. 2014) became a central
issue that shifted the focus from logical, linear and knowledge-oriented convergent
schemes of thought to spontaneous, non-linear and creativity-oriented divergent
forms of thinking. Following this line, as an attempt to open their mind to novel
and creative design solutions, scientists and engineers approached Psychology and
Social Sciences to adapt concepts such as situated cognition (Choi & Hannafin,
1995) and analogical reasoning (Linsey et al. 2012) to their everyday design prac-
tice.

1.3 Design as a generative interplay between creativity and knowledge

The new “anxiety” towards the exploration of creative ideation as a driving force
in generating originality (creativity over knowledge) often led to a misleading op-
position between “formal reasoning on the one hand vs. psychological phenomena
on the other hand” (Le Masson et. al, 2017).
Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano Page 3 of 7

Figure 1 Number of
scientific papers having
the keywords ”C-K
Theory” or ”CK Theory”
in the title.
Source: author’s research
on Scopus.

This contradiction has been recently overcome by one of the most discussed Design
theories of the last ten years (see figure 1): the CK theory (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003).
Its main objective is to bring together knowledge and creativity under the sole
notion of generativity as “the ability to conceptualize and create non-existent alter-
natives” (Le Masson et al. 2017). This crucial design task is obtained through an in-
terplay between two complementary entities: the space of Concepts (C) (undecidable
propositions: neither true nor false) and that of Knowledge (K) (decidable propo-
sitions: true/false), which are involved in an active and continuous co-expansion
(C-C, K-K) that inevitably happens by means of mutual interactions (C-K, K-C).
In this view, the innovative concept of “expandable rationality” (Hatchuel, 2002)
is opposed to Simon’s “bounded rationality” (Simon, 1972), and creativity is seen
both as an e↵ect (K-C) and a cause (C-K) of knowledge expansion.

2 Spotting knowledge and creativity in a real design experience

In this section, a recent design case carried out by the author (the design of a
detailed map of the urban air quality in Milan) is assessed in the light of the CK
theory. The latter was chosen as a diagnostic tool to better isolate the role of knowl-
edge and creativity in determining the actual shape of the final design solution.

With reference to figure 2, the design process starts with the proposition “There
exists an urban air quality map of Milan developed by ARPA”, which is apparently
true and, therefore, does represent a K-proposition. Nevertheless, since ARPA maps
are obtained through climate models based on rather spread measurements, they
turn to be highly inaccurate at a local scale. As a consequence, a K-C disjunction
is possible through the proposition C0 = “There exists a daily updated urban air
quality map of Milan with building-scale detail which relies on direct measure-
ments”. In fact, by better analysing C0 , we actually discover that it is neither true,
nor false (such a map still doesn’t exist, but its future existence is not rejected),
thus respecting the definition of concept given in the previous section (an unde-
cidable proposition in K). The initial process C0 was then expanded following the
logical scheme reported in figure 2 (each arrow represents a C-K, K-C, K-K or
C-C operation, while the black boxes identify the subsequent concepts belonging
to the final design path). Finally, the last concept resulting from the C-expansion
Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano Page 5 of 7

As already mentioned, several interesting insights on the dynamics of knowledge

and creativity in typical design situations may be gathered from an in-depth anal-
ysis of this case study. First of all, by closely following the mental process reported
in figure 2, it becomes apparent that creativity (understood as the continuous par-
tition of new concepts in an expanding C-space) is necessarily enabled by numerous
interactions with preexisting knowledge (the innovative idea of a self-powered sensor
in a plant pot would have never been possible without being aware of the existence
of microbial fuel cells). It is then possible to conclude that one of the main factors
a↵ecting the capability of a designer to generate original ideas and solutions may
be found in its ability to activate and mobilise old knowledge. Of course, for such
an ability to be e↵ective, a solid education and a wide background are crucial.
From this perspective, the creative potential of an individual can be continuously
“trained” by always being up-to-date (both inside and outside the boundaries of its
own professional field) and by constantly feeding his own cultural heritage. In this
way, we are in fact directly promoting C-K interactions, thus indirectly fostering
creativity and generativity.

On the other hand, like in a give-and-take relationship, the peculiar logic behind
knowledge exploration and activation is itself evidently driven by the creativity flow
having place in the C-space (microbial fuel cells would have never been explored
without first conceiving the concept of a “self-powered AQ sensor placed on resi-
dential balconies”). In this sense, a well structured formal language able to properly
track and guide creative thinking turns to be fundamental to not get lost in such
a hazy practice. Hence, as a further suggestion for the improvement of a designer’s
creative potential, training CK formalism is certainly a good way to develop a right
model of thought to get the most out of its own inventiveness. In addition, by
adopting a tree-structured model instead of a linear, prescriptive one (e.g. phase-
gate), the designer’s creativity is also exploited to generate intermediate concepts
(e.g. sensors powered with food waste) that may be further used as starting points
for new, independent design issues (design as a multiple-output process).

3 Conclusive remarks. Five heuristics to properly exploit

knowledge and creativity in Design processes
Innovative design is a complex task that must be somehow ”controlled” with the
help of mental models and schemes. Nowadays, as professional designers, we have
the possibility to choose between plenty of abstract descriptive theories and prac-
tical prescriptive methodologies that inevitably have a strong impact on the final
outcome of our work. In many situations, this impact may be even more significant
in determining the success/failure of a certain solution than our past experiences
and education. Hence, being able to embrace a ”flexible-methodical procedure”
(Cross, 2008) that can smoothly adapt itself to changing design tasks and contexts
becomes a crucial issue. To this end, whatever the design theory or method we have
chosen to follow, we should always be able to find an e↵ective way to fruitfully exploit
both our knowledge and creativity in it. For this purpose, a conclusive summary of
the main personal understandings concerning the role of knowledge and creativity
in Design reasoning is reported below as a list of five general heuristics:
Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano Page 6 of 7

1 Before starting, try to roughly estimate the level of originality required by the
design issue you are about to face (are you designing a turbine blade or a
legless chair?)[1] . This will help you to choose the most suitable approach and
adapt it to the specific task.

2 Original design solution are always the result of a balanced interaction be-
tween creativity and knowledge. Keep track of this interaction by adopting a
proper information mapping technique.

3 Design without creativity inevitably reduces to knowledge-centric activities

such as optimisation, problem-solving and decision-making. Take advantage
of these powerful techniques without letting them limit your inventiveness.

4 Creativity is a fuzzy concept. Train it systematically and treat it in a struc-

tured way by adopting a right formal language.

5 Innovative concepts always come from preexistent knowledge thanks to the

“inventive” role of human creativity[2] , while new knowledge may come both
from new concepts[3] and old knowledge [4] . Always take some time to explore
new concepts before running towards a solution: even the craziest ideas may
be determining in finding technically sound and valuable solutions.

References
Archer, LB. (1965). ”Systematic Method for Designers” The Design Council, London.

Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to Design. Englewood Cli↵s, NJ., Prentice-Hall.

Choi, JI., Hannafin, M. (1995) ”Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, struc-
tures, and implications for design” Educational Technology Research and Development
43(2) 53-69

Gero JS., Purcell A. (1996) ”Design and other types of fixation” Design Studies 17(4)
363–383.

Gero, JS., Jiang, H., & Williams, C. (2013). “Design cognition di↵erences when using un-
structured, partially structured and structured concept generation creativity techniques”
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 1(4) 196-214.

Cross N. (2008) ”Engineering design methods. Strategies for product design.” Wiley (4th
edition)

Hatchuel A., “Towards Design Theory and expandable rationality : The unfinished pro-
gram of Herbert Simon”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 5, no. 3-4, 2002,
pp. 260-273.

[1]
CK intepretation: c-K vs C-k designs.
[2]
CK interpretation: disjunction followed by C-expansion through partition and
departition.
[3]
CK interpretation: conjunction.
[4]
CK interpretation: deduction and K-K operations.
Paolo Barbato, Energy Engineering - Politecnico di Milano Page 7 of 7

Hatchuel, A. & Weil, B. (2003). “A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-

K theory.” In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED’03),
Stockholm, Sweden, pp 109–124.

Hatchuel, A., Weil, B. & Le Masson, P. (2007). “Creativity and Design reasoning: how C-K
Theory can enhance creative Design” In: Proceedings of the international conference on
engineering design (ICED’07), Paris, France.

Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Reich, Y., Subrahmanian, E. (2018). “Design theory: a foun-
dation of a new paradigm for design science and engineering.” Research in Engineering
Design 29(1) 5-21.

Kryssanov VV., Hisashi Tamaki & Shinzo Kitamura (2001). “Understanding design fun-
damentals: how syntesis and analysis drive creativity, resulting in emergence,” Artificial
Intelligence in Engineering 15 329-342.

Linsey JS., Markman AB., Wood KL. (2012). ”Design by Analogy: A Study of the WordTree
Method for Problem Re-Representation” Journal of Mechanical Design, April 2012, Vol.134
/ 041009-1

Le Masson, P. (2017).“C-K theory: A Model for Creativity.” Paris Innovation Review, April
2017.

Moreno, D., Hernández, A., Yang, M., Linsey, J. & Wood, K. (2014) ”A Step Be-
yond to Overcome Design Fixation: A Design-by-Analogy Approach” Design Computing
and Cognition DCC’14. Retrieved from: http://web.mit.edu/ mcyang/www/papers/2014-
morenoEtalb.pdf

Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Grote, KH. & Feldhuse, J. (2007). “Engineering Design: a Systematic
Approach”, Third English ed., London, Springer.

Redtenbacher, F. (1852) Prinzipien der Mechanik und des Maschinenbaus. Bassermann,

Mannheim.

Rittel, H. (1973). ”The State of the Art in Design Methods.” Design Research and Methods
(Design Methods and Theories) 7(2) 143-147.

Simon HA., (1972) “Theories of Bounded Rationality” Decision and Organization, ed.
McGuire C.B. and Radner R., North HollandPubl. Co, Amsterdam, pp. 161-176.

Simon HA., Kulkarni, D. (1988). “The Processes of Scientific Discovery: The Strategy of
Experimentation” Cognitive Science 12 139-175.