Reich-Hatchuel-Shai-Subrahmanian Article (2012) - Theoretical analysis of ASIT in C-K creative design theory

This major scientific article, published in the Journal of Engineering Design, constitutes the first formal theoretical analysis of ASIT using a rigorous framework: C-K theory (Concept-Knowledge). Resulting from collaboration between internationally renowned researchers (Tel Aviv University, Mines ParisTech, Carnegie Mellon University), this work resolves ASIT's apparent paradox and validates its logical coherence.

The article demonstrates that ASIT, despite its apparent simplicity and "staying in the box" constraint, constitutes a coherent and systematic creativity method. The analysis also reveals ASIT's theoretical limitations (subsequently contradicted) and proposes rigorous extensions to broaden its scope.

Article Summary

Research objective

To deeply understand how creativity methods work in design engineering and why some approaches are more effective than others. The objective is to go beyond usual qualitative comparisons by using a formal theory to precisely analyse a specific method: ASIT.

Identified problem

Methods to support creativity are numerous and diverse. Understanding their differences, comparative advantages and limitations is crucial both for research and creative design practice. Traditional comparison approaches (verbal descriptions, conceptual frameworks, benchmarks) lack explanatory power to reveal why different methods produce different results.

The ASIT paradox

ASIT presents a fascinating theoretical paradox: how can one be creative while "staying in the box"? ASIT's Closed World Condition (CWC) stipulates that only objects existing in the system at the time of the problem should be used to resolve it. This constraint seems contradictory with the standard vision of creativity that advocates "thinking outside the box" to find innovative solutions.

Methodology: analysis via C-K theory

The authors use C-K theory as an analysis framework. This design theory offers a formal model of creative thinking based on two distinct spaces: space C (Concepts) containing propositions without proven logical status, and space K (Knowledge) containing propositions with established logical status. Creative design is modelled as the interaction between these two spaces via four operators: K→C (generate concepts from knowledge), C→C (refine concepts), C→K (validate concepts into knowledge), K→K (transform knowledge).

Paradox resolution

The analysis demonstrates that ASIT effectively generates creativity by systematically producing expansive partitions in space C, i.e., new concepts that do not exist in knowledge K. ASIT's secret lies in its ability to reconfigure relations between existing objects in surprising ways, thus creating innovative solutions without requiring the introduction of new objects or new technical knowledge. ASIT massively favours C expansions (generation of creative concepts) while eliminating K expansions (acquisition of new knowledge), which guarantees pragmatic and rapidly implementable solutions.

Scientific Approach

Comparative approach of analysis methodologies

The authors begin by establishing a taxonomy of method comparison approaches: verbal comparisons using each method's own terminology, conceptual frameworks organising method collections, benchmarks solving test problems, and in-depth pairwise comparisons. Each has its merits but none provides the necessary explanatory power to understand why methods differ fundamentally.

Justification of theoretical approach

Theory-driven analysis offers precise and clearly articulated concepts, explanatory power revealing reasons for different performances, and a basis for rigorously comparing different methods. The authors draw inspiration from theoretical computer science where computability theory allows precise comparison of different algorithms.

Formal modelling of ASIT in C-K constructs

The authors formalise ASIT in C-K language. ASIT's Closed World Condition (CWC) defines a specific K structure composed of Ks (knowledge about system S) and Ke (easily accessible external knowledge). System S comprises a finite set of objects Oi, relations ORij between these objects, and functional performances FRk. Crucially, ASIT authorises no K expansion during the design process, a formal constraint that explains both its simplicity and its limitations.

ASIT reconfiguration algebra

ASIT's five operators are interpreted as a limited reconfiguration algebra of the system. Removal acts directly on objects Oi. Unification, Symmetry Breaking and Division act on relations ORij between objects. Multiplication introduces new objects from a restricted set Ke* very close to the existing system. This formalisation reveals that ASIT systematically explores a specific class of expansive partitions: all reconfigurations, intuitive or surprising, of system objects and their close variations.

Creativity evaluation via C-K

The authors propose a dual framework for evaluating creativity in design: creativity in space C (evaluating conceptual expansions via the nature and distribution of expansive partitions) and creativity in space K (evaluating knowledge expansions via the discovery and use of new knowledge). This distinction reveals that ASIT focuses almost exclusively on creativity in C, which explains why experts favourably judge ASIT solutions while potentially creating circular validation.

ASIT in this Research

Validation of ASIT's logical coherence

The analysis formally demonstrates that ASIT is a coherent and systematic method. Contrary to what the apparent paradox might suggest, ASIT violates no fundamental creativity principle. It constitutes a specific but legitimate implementation of C-K theory constructs, adapted to a particular class of design situations.

Precise mapping of ASIT operators

Each step of the ASIT process is precisely mapped to C-K spaces and operators. Problem world definition uses K constructs. Desired outcome formulation constitutes an initial concept C. Focal object selection transforms K into C. The five tools offer templates that systematically refine concepts in C. Mental elaboration and writing maintain the idea in C. Implementation attempts to move the concept towards K. This complete mapping eliminates any ambiguity about ASIT's actual functioning.

ASIT strengths revealed by analysis

ASIT offers systematic generation of C-expansions without requiring K-expansions, guaranteeing pragmatic solutions. All system objects are considered equally, including those seeming outside the problem, favouring surprising insights. Systematic removal of each object is tested. Decomposition and reorganisation of all objects is explored. Most importantly, all relations between objects are critically examined, a major source of creativity in ASIT. This systematic generation of a reconfiguration grammar corresponds to real daily engineering challenges where exploring radical changes is often unrealistic.

ASIT limitations exposed by analysis

C-K analysis clearly reveals ASIT's structural limitations. The CWC inhibits design of completely different systems having no objects in common with the initial system. Concepts generated by ASIT may not be extensible if CWC is maintained, sometimes requiring unavailable technical knowledge. ASIT operators do not cover all possible expansive partition types: no action on performance criteria FR* themselves, and no action on system environment E as a system object. Major innovations requiring K-expansions (like LEDs for lighting) are beyond standard ASIT's reach.

Detailed analysis of acid test example

The authors use the classic acid test case to illustrate their analysis. Metal samples are tested in acidic environments in a closed metallic container. The problem: the container itself is damaged by acid. ASIT unification solution: drill a pocket in the samples, pour acid inside, thus acid no longer touches the container. C-K analysis reveals this solution is an expansive partition because using the sample as environmental protection system never existed in the designer's K. The surprise comes from inverting the usual functional relation between sample and environment.

Proposed extensions to improve ASIT

The analysis leads to rigorous improvement proposals. First extension: revise CWC in two steps, first applying standard ASIT, second partially relaxing CWC by allowing introduction of different objects accessible via Ke. Generalised extension: a multi-step ASIT procedure based on sequences of CWC openings, with increasing neighbourhoods of K explored sequentially (K0, Ke1, Ke2, ...). C-K linearisation: a linearised application of C-K where knowledge expansions follow a predefined sequence, whereas in pure C-K, K expansions are dynamically guided by C expansions.

Positioning ASIT in TRIZ family

The authors position ASIT in the ecosystem of methods derived from TRIZ. ASIT is the most succinct and simple in the TRIZ-SIT-ASIT-USIT family. TRIZ is more complicated because it integrates several technical methods (contradiction matrix between 39 engineering parameters), but this complexity allows modelling some K-expansions. USIT partially complicates ASIT towards TRIZ while maintaining CWC. This comparative analysis suggests that systematic characterisation of C and K expansion types that each method provides would allow predicting their relative creative power.

Contributions

First formal analysis of a creativity method

This article establishes an important methodological precedent: analysing a creativity method via a formal theoretical framework rather than qualitative or empirical approaches. This approach allows obtaining precise and detailed results on methods' logical and empirical assumptions, complementary to non-theoretical comparisons usually employed in literature.

Resolution of a major theoretical paradox

The article definitively resolves the ASIT paradox: how to be creative while staying in the box. The formal demonstration establishes that ASIT generates authentic creativity via systematic expansive partitions in concept space, while maintaining practicability via absence of knowledge expansions. This resolution considerably strengthens ASIT's theoretical status, transforming a list of broad notions into a precise formal model.

Explicitation of ASIT's implicit assumptions

The analysis reveals assumptions not explicit in ASIT's original presentation: specific knowledge space structure, formal prohibition of K-expansions, principle of staying as much as possible in the system box, generation of expansive partitions as series of permutations and decompositions in a limited algebra, focus on changing relations between objects rather than objects themselves. This explicitation helps practitioners understand why ASIT works.

Rigorously justified improvement directions

The proposed extensions are not ad hoc suggestions but logically derive from theoretical analysis. Progressive relaxation of CWC, sequential introduction of neighbouring objects, and C-K linearisation with predefined expansions constitute coherent evolutions with ASIT's fundamental principles while broadening its scope. These improvement directions could be empirically tested and rigorously compared.

Framework for analysing other creativity methods

The article establishes an ambitious research programme: systematically analysing major creativity methods via C-K theory to understand their specific constraints, capabilities and limitations. This programme would allow a genuine scientific classification of creativity methods, surpassing usual qualitative descriptions. The authors suggest that any creativity technique can be interpreted as a constrained C-K logic with specific restrictions on space structures, operator activity, and objectives imposed on the design process.

Constructive critique of ASIT evaluation

The article questions previous empirical validations of ASIT based on expert judgements. C-K analysis suggests these evaluations could constitute circular validation: experts recognise as creative mainly visible C-expansions on known objects, precisely what ASIT mechanically guides the design process towards via CWC. This critique opens the way to more rigorous evaluations based on solid theoretical foundations rather than subjective perceptions.

Vision for a science of creativity in design

The authors propose a long-term vision: developing a scientific and systematic approach to creativity techniques for design engineering. This vision contrasts with the current state of the field where broad and equivocal descriptions prevail. C-K theory offers precise language avoiding ambiguities, establishes necessary conditions that any creativity method should verify, and allows modelling consequences of neglecting any of these conditions.

Implications for theory-method co-evolution

The article demonstrates the value of co-evolution between design theories and design methods. Theoretical analysis strengthens methods by explicating their foundations and suggesting improvements. Reciprocally, method analysis validates and enriches theories by testing their explanatory power on concrete cases. This bidirectional dynamic could profoundly transform the design engineering field.

Bibliographical Information

Complete reference

Document access

Canonical link (official source) : https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00822914

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2010.493505

This article is accessible via HAL (open archives) and via Taylor & Francis. We recommend consulting the document via official links to access the definitive published version.

Cite this document

 
More Information

Contact Us

For any information request, demonstration or quote, our team is at your disposal.