Dick,
I think the fact that you have creativity in quotes tells much why it
hasn't been brought up as much.
There seems to be a constant tension between the systematic approaches like
TRIZ and the folks on the traditional creative approaches.
These systematic approaches I believe to aid the designer in shifting the
center of mass of their ideas to the right of the creative mix but do not
always enable the radical leaps that drive most of use.
I see these tools as enablers for those that have yet to develop the
awareness necessary to practice the ability that Bezier called, "detect
unexpected relationships between facts that look quite unconnected."
These systematic methods assist the novice in making these unexpected
connections beyond what their current skills can afford.
A question comes to mind though....
If systematic methods allow the systematic discovery of previously
unconnected ideas in a repeatable fashion, how then are these ideas
creative? That is to say, if anyone using these methods can achieve the
same level of performance, does this destroy the creativity by making the
previously difficult to perceive easy for everyone to connect?
I'm not trying to say these methods are bad. In fact I have seen them
utilized for tremendous gain in design, particularly by those with limited
experience beyond their own domain.
John Feland
Center for Design Research
Stanford University
At 11:00 AM 2/28/03 -0500, Richard Buchanan wrote:
>I've been puzzled why there has been no discussion of the systematic art of
>invention that supports "creativity" in design. Such an art has a long
>history in the West, and there are modern expressions even in design.
>
>Dick
>
>
>Richard Buchanan
>Carnegie Mellon University
|