Creativity Methods Comparison

Brainstorming, Design Thinking, TRIZ, ASIT... Which method to choose for effective innovation? This objective comparison analyzes the process, efficiency and results of each approach to help you make the right choice according to your needs.

Quick comparison table

Synthetic view of main creativity and innovation methods. Click on a method to see the detailed comparison.

Method Ideation phase Workshop duration Training Facilitator profile Differentiating concepts
ASIT Structured (ASIT) 3 hours 2 days Trained person
Brainstorming Free brainstorming ¹ 1-2 hours Optional Anyone
C-K Theory Brainstorming (after preparation) ¹ Several days 5-10 days Expert
Design Thinking Brainstorming (ideation phase) ¹ 2-5 days 3-5 days Trained person
SCAMPER Semi-structured (checklist) 1-3 hours 1 day Trained person
Six Thinking Hats Brainstorming (by roles) ¹ 2-4 hours 1-2 days Trained person
TRIZ Structured (TRIZ) Several weeks 15-20 days Expert

Legend: Yes / High capacity | Medium | No / Low capacity

¹ Beware of brainstorming: Brainstorming in ideation phase has important limitations for innovation: causal approach generating predictable solutions (why causal approach limits innovation), cognitive biases influence (dominant personalities, self-censorship, group effect), non-systematic exploration missing solution axes, and vague results difficult to objectively evaluate. Even structured or AI-assisted, brainstorming tends to reproduce the same thinking patterns and rarely generates truly differentiating concepts. This is why methods integrating it (C-K Theory, Design Thinking, Six Thinking Hats) inherit these limitations in creative phase. To learn more: our detailed comparative article.

 

Comparative chart

Criteria legend

Innovation capacity
Training speed
Workshop speed
Accessibility
Affordable cost
Operational results

Visual methods comparison

Click on a method name to show/hide its curve

 

ASIT (Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking)

Summary

ASIT is a structured creativity method that generates differentiating concepts and effective solutions by systematically manipulating objects and constraints of a situation. Derived from TRIZ but simplified, it explores all possibilities by applying five tools (Unification, Multiplication, Division, Removal, Symmetry Breaking) to create effective, sometimes counter-intuitive solutions.

Objective(s)

Available in 2 versions: ASIT Solving and ASIT Conception, the ASIT method allows 1) solving complex and blocking problems with effective solutions and 2) generating differentiating concepts by systematically exploring all possible solutions, including the most counter-intuitive ones. ASIT aims for maximum efficiency, while respecting existing constraints and target markets.

Application fields

All domains (technological or not): industrial R&D, HR process optimization, product/service design, business model innovation, patent circumvention, strategic innovation... Used by SMEs and large groups for major innovation challenges (see testimonials).

ASIT method process

1

Preparation

Identification of objects and constraints of the situation (technological or not)

2

Ideation

Systematic application of ASIT tools (eliminates cognitive biases)

3

Synthesis

Evaluation according to effectiveness or usage disruption criteria, feasibility...

ASIT Strengths

  • High innovation capacity: Generates differentiating concepts and truly effective solutions
  • Systematic approach: Explores all possibilities, without bias or omission
  • Efficiency: Dozens of exploitable ideas in 3h
  • Short training: Autonomy in 2 days
  • Key strength: Systematic for all domains, concrete innovation respecting constraints (technical, market)

ASIT Weaknesses

  • Training required: 2 days to facilitate workshops in your domain, 4 days (including certification) to facilitate workshops in other domains
  • Certified facilitators: SolidCreativity controls practitioners' quality
  • Less known: Lower awareness than brainstorming or Design Thinking
  • Intellectual effort: Intense concentration during workshop
  • Less playful: Rigorous method
  • Not suitable for: Small simple problems

ASIT derived methods

SolidCreativity has developed several ASIT variants for specific uses, all based on FASiT (Fast ASIT), an accelerated version grouping the 5 tools into 3.

FASiT is the fast version of ASIT that groups the 5 original tools into 3 simplified tools. This simplification reduces workshop duration to 1h30 while maintaining excellent ROI.

Advantages: Speed (1h30 vs 3h), increased simplicity, suitable for non-strategic problems

Limits: Generates fewer ideas than complete ASIT, not the feeling of exhaustiveness provided by the 5 tools

Usage: Students, non-strategic problems or challenges

ecoASIT is an ASIT variant dedicated to eco-innovation. Based on FASiT, it integrates environmental constraints to design sustainable and innovative solutions, with reduced preparation and no prerequisites in sustainable development.

Objective: Design of eco-innovative products/services, beyond simple impact reduction

Duration: 2h workshop

More information: www.ecoASIT.com

ASIT-BIM is an ASIT variant dedicated to business model innovation. Unlike classical approaches of improving the Business Model Canvas, ASIT-BIM generates true strategic disruptions.

Objective: Create differentiating business models, explore new economic models, stimulate strategic innovation

Duration: 2h workshop

More information: www.ASIT-BIM.com

These methods are not detailed in the comparative summary as they are targeted applications of ASIT rather than alternative methods.

Brainstorming

Summary

Brainstorming is a group creativity technique developed to quickly generate a large number of ideas on a given subject. The principle relies on free expression without judgment: all ideas are accepted, even the craziest ones, in the hope that they trigger others. Quantity prevails over quality during the generation phase.

Objective(s)

Stimulate collective creativity through the rebound effect between participants.

Application fields

Marketing, communication, events, meeting facilitation. Particularly suitable for finding slogans and product names, brainstorming is widely used outside these applications.

Brainstorming process

1

Preparation

Definition of subject, gathering of a group (5-12 people)

2

Ideation

Free generation of ideas without criticism or censorship (15-45 min)

3

Synthesis

Selection (sometimes by preference), sorting and grouping of ideas

Brainstorming Strengths

  • Speed: Can be organized without heavy preparation
  • Accessibility: Training not essential
  • Participation: Encourages everyone's expression
  • Cost: "Free"
  • Key strength: Ice-breaker, animations without innovation stakes, unbeatable for finding names and slogans

Brainstorming Weaknesses

  • Low innovation capacity: Predictable ideas, rarely differentiating concepts
  • Quality: Many ideas hardly exploitable
  • Biases: Group effect, self-censorship
  • Non-systematic: Random exploration
  • Synthesis: Often neglected
  • Not suitable for: Differentiating concepts, new and effective solutions, complex problems

Artificial Intelligence for innovation

Generative AI (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.) is often presented as a major innovation lever. Our tests with 12 different AIs and analysis of hundreds of brainstorming sessions since 2002 show a more nuanced reality.

Process with AI

1

Preparation

Often absent

2

" Ideation "

AI responds to prompt without challenging the question asked. Its objective: satisfy the prompt, not solve the core problem

3

Synthesis

AI emits and evaluates responses, guiding choices

Why AI doesn't replace a true innovation method

Causal and predictable approach

AIs, like traditional brainstorming, adopt a linear causal approach: they seek to correct the cause of the problem rather than reconsider it. Result: predictable solutions revolving around a few recurring qualitative axes (reinforce, reduce...).

Speed hinders innovation

Ease of use doesn't encourage taking time to understand and properly formulate the problem. Then, AI is designed to respond quickly and satisfy the user, not to invent radically new solutions. Instant responses encourage multiplying queries, abandoning simple and effective ideas for intellectually gratifying but complex paths. No conceptual disruption emerges.

Lack of technical precision

Unlike graphic illustrations (where 6 fingers go unnoticed), technical solutions require precision and rigor. Combining existing solutions present on Internet rarely produces an innovation that actually works.

How to evaluate what hasn't been imagined?

The fundamental problem: you can't evaluate an idea you haven't even had. AIs, trained on existing data, cannot generate what has never been documented.

AI's true role in innovation

Rather than replacing the ideation phase, AI can effectively accompany upstream the use of proven methods like TRIZ (www.TRIZ40.com) or ASIT (www.ASIT.pro) for:

  • Analyzing existing patents and identifying innovation spaces
  • Preparing the problematization phase (list of objects, constraints, context)
  • Documenting and structuring creative workshop results
  • Accelerating technological state-of-the-art research

To deepen the relationship between AI and creativity: Creative ideas by AI?

Conclusion: AI is a powerful assistant for research and analysis, but doesn't replace a structured method like ASIT to generate truly differentiating concepts. To learn more: our complete analysis AI vs Brainstorming vs ASIT.

C-K Theory (Concept-Knowledge)

Summary

C-K Theory is a formal approach to innovative design that distinguishes two spaces: the Concept space (undecidable propositions) and the Knowledge space (validated propositions). Innovation emerges through iterative expansion between these two spaces, allowing generation of radically new concepts.

Objective(s)

Design innovative products or services by systematically exploring the space of possible concepts, while relying on existing knowledge and generating new knowledge. Aims for differentiating concepts through conceptual expansion.

Application fields

Complex product design, corporate strategic innovation, future market exploration. Used to find major conceptual innovations.

C-K process

1

Preparation

Mapping of existing knowledge (K)

2

Ideation

Conceptual expansion (brainstormings) between C and K spaces (several days)

3

Synthesis

Validation and concretization of concepts, generation of new knowledge

C-K Theory Strengths

  • High innovation capacity: Aims for radically new concepts
  • Theoretical rigor: Formalized and academically validated approach
  • Knowledge expansion: Creates new knowledge during the process
  • Strategic vision: Explores future markets and uses
  • Key strength: Appreciated by senior management of large groups for innovations requiring long academic exploration

C-K Theory Weaknesses

  • Complexity: Theoretical approach difficult to master
  • Duration: Long process (several days to weeks)
  • Intensive training: Requires 5-10 days of training
  • High cost: Significant time and resources investment
  • Rare practitioners: Few truly competent experts available
  • Top-down approach: Difficulty of appropriation by operational teams
  • Not suitable for: Quick resolutions, SMEs with limited resources

Design Thinking

Summary

Design Thinking is a human-centered innovation approach, structured in 5 phases: Empathy, Definition, Ideation, Prototyping and Testing. It combines ethnographic observation, creative brainstorming and rapid prototyping to design solutions meeting user needs.

Objective(s)

Design products, services or experiences centered on user needs by combining empathy, creativity and rapid experimentation. Aims for incremental innovation through user experience (UX) improvement.

Application fields

Product/service design, UX/UI, digital transformation, social innovation, customer journey improvement. Widely used in tech, consulting, services and public sector.

Design Thinking process

1

Preparation

Empathy phase (interviews, user observations) and problem definition

2

Ideation

Creative brainstorming in group to generate solutions (1-2 days)

3

Synthesis

Rapid prototyping and iterative user tests

Design Thinking Strengths

  • User-centered: Solutions anchored in identified needs
  • Rapid prototyping: Early test and iteration
  • Multidisciplinary: Encourages collaboration between functions
  • Awareness: Recognized and widely adopted method
  • User experience: Excellent for improving UX
  • Key strength: UX improvement, interface design, services

Design Thinking Weaknesses

  • Medium innovation capacity: Innovations often incremental rather than differentiating concepts
  • Uses brainstorming: Little structured ideation phase, risk of predictable ideas
  • Duration: Long process (2-5 days minimum)
  • User dependency: Requires access and availability of end users
  • Bias: Solutions limited to expressed needs (not latent needs)
  • Not suitable for: Differentiating concepts, resolution of complex technical problems

SCAMPER

Summary

SCAMPER is a checklist of questions to stimulate creativity. The acronym means: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse. By systematically answering these questions about an existing product or service, improvement or evolution paths are generated.

Objective(s)

Improve or evolve an existing product, service or process by systematically exploring different modification paths. Mainly aims for incremental innovation and optimization.

Application fields

Product improvement, variant development, service optimization, new feature research. Particularly used in education, marketing and product development.

SCAMPER process

1

Preparation

Identification of product/service to improve

2

Ideation

Systematic review of the 7 SCAMPER questions (1-3h)

3

Synthesis

Selection and development of most promising paths

SCAMPER Strengths

  • Simplicity: Easy to understand and apply
  • Short training: 1 day enough to master
  • Light structure: Guides without constraining
  • Versatility: Applicable to many contexts
  • Key strength: Simple improvement of existing products, creativity beginners

SCAMPER Weaknesses

  • Low innovation capacity: Rarely generates differentiating concepts, mostly improvements
  • Dependency on existing: Always starts from an existing product/service
  • Predictable results: Questions guiding towards classical modifications
  • Lack of depth: Superficial exploration of possibilities
  • Not suitable for: Creating differentiating concepts or solving complex problems

Six Thinking Hats

Summary

The Six Thinking Hats method by Edward de Bono structures collective reflection by assigning six roles symbolized by colored hats: White (facts), Red (emotions), Black (critique), Yellow (positive), Green (creative), Blue (organization). Each participant adopts these different perspectives in turn to explore a subject.

Objective(s)

Improve quality of group reflections and decisions by separating thinking modes. Avoid sterile debates by structuring discussion according to different complementary perspectives.

Application fields

Group decision-making, conflict resolution, meeting facilitation, process improvement. Used in management, training and consulting.

Six Thinking Hats process

1

Preparation

Definition of subject, explanation of the 6 hats

2

Ideation

Brainstorming divided by roles (green hat imposes being creative)

3

Synthesis

Critical analysis (black hat), highlighting positive points (yellow hat), decision-making (blue hat)

Six Thinking Hats Strengths

  • Debate structuring: Avoids conflicts with playful approach
  • Multiple perspectives: Forces considering different angles
  • Pedagogical: Easy to understand with hat metaphor
  • Balanced participation: All adopt same roles in turn
  • Key strength: Meeting facilitation, conflict management, collective decision-making

Six Thinking Hats Weaknesses

  • Low innovation capacity: Classical brainstorming (green hat), predictable ideas
  • Artificiality: Roles can seem forced or theatrical
  • Duration: Potentially long process (2-4h minimum)
  • Primarily managerial: Tool aims for group dynamics, not innovation
  • Paid license: Registered trademark, commercial use controlled
  • Not suitable for: Generating differentiating concepts, solving technical problems

TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving)

Summary

TRIZ is a systematic innovation methodology based on analysis of millions of patents. It identifies universal inventive resolution principles and proposes 40 inventive principles, laws of technical system evolution, and tools like the contradiction matrix to methodically solve innovation problems. Among known tools, the contradiction matrix has simplified access via www.TRIZ40.com.

Objective(s)

Solve technical problems with effective solutions and generate differentiating concepts by relying on proven inventive principles. TRIZ aims to eliminate technical contradictions to achieve "ideal solutions".

Application fields

Industrial R&D, engineering, technical contradiction resolution, advanced technology development, patent circumvention. Used in aeronautics, automotive, electronics for technical innovations.

TRIZ process

1

Preparation

Problem reformulation, contradiction identification (several days)

2

Ideation

Application of the 40 inventive principles and TRIZ tools (several weeks)

3

Synthesis

Technical validation and development of inventive solutions

TRIZ Strengths

  • High innovation capacity: Solves technical contradictions
  • Solid scientific basis: Founded on analysis of millions of patents
  • Systematic approach: Matrix of 40 universal inventive principles
  • Contradiction resolution: Eliminates technical compromises
  • Predictability: Laws of technical system evolution
  • Key strength: Technical problems requiring in-depth analysis

TRIZ Weaknesses

  • Complexity: Method difficult to master requiring an expert
  • Very long training: 15-20 days minimum to become autonomous
  • Application duration: Very long process (several weeks)
  • High cost: Intensive training and expert consulting
  • Rare experts: Few truly competent practitioners
  • Heaviness: Too sophisticated for simple problems
  • Not suitable for: Quick resolutions, SMEs with limited resources, or problems with too many contradictions

Summary: Which method to choose?

After comparing these creativity methods, here are our recommendations according to your needs and constraints.

Choose ASIT if...

  • You're looking for concrete and applicable differentiating concepts
  • You need to solve a complex problem with truly effective solutions
  • You want an efficient method: 3h workshop for dozens of exploitable ideas
  • You want short training (2 days) to become autonomous
  • You need a systematic approach that explores all possibilities
  • You want to respect your existing constraints (budget, means, deadlines)
  • You target concrete results quickly

Choose Brainstorming if...

  • You want an ice-breaker or to energize a meeting
  • You have no budget for creativity
  • You're just looking to collect ideas without real innovation stakes
  • You accept predictable results and hardly exploitable ideas

Warning: Brainstorming rarely generates differentiating concepts and often produces ideas everyone already knows.

Choose TRIZ if...

  • You have a complex technical problem with contradictions
  • You have several weeks for resolution
  • You have access to TRIZ expertise
  • You're a large company with substantial R&D budget
  • You're looking for technical innovation

Note: ASIT is derived from TRIZ but 10x faster and more accessible. For most cases, ASIT offers better efficiency/investment ratio.

Choose Design Thinking if...

  • Your priority is user experience
  • You're designing interfaces, services or customer journeys
  • You have access to your end users for tests
  • You have 2-5 days for the complete process
  • You aim for incremental improvements centered on user

Limit: Design Thinking uses brainstorming in ideation phase, limiting its capacity to generate differentiating concepts.

Other methods

C-K Theory

Choose C-K if you're conducting long-term exploratory R&D (several days to weeks) with need for knowledge expansion. Requires experts and significant investment.

SCAMPER

Choose SCAMPER to simply improve an existing product. Short training (1 day) but rarely generates differentiating concepts. Good for creativity beginners.

Six Thinking Hats

Choose Six Thinking Hats to structure debates and facilitate group decision-making. Good for conflict resolution but limited creative phase (brainstorming).

In summary: These methods are facilitation or improvement tools, but don't compete with ASIT for generating differentiating concepts.

Our recommendation

For your innovation needs, ASIT offers the best balance between efficiency, structure, short training and capacity to generate differentiating concepts and effective solutions. With 3 hours workshop, you get dozens of exploitable ideas where brainstorming, even integrated in methods claiming to be structured, remains stuck on known solutions.

Large groups have understood this: Airbus, Michelin, ArcelorMittal, Thales use ASIT for their major innovation challenges, but also many SMEs (see our client references).

Want to test ASIT on your challenges?

Let's discuss your innovation project

Schedule a meeting

Are you hesitating between ASIT and other creativity methods? This section explains why ASIT is the reference method for industrial innovation and R&D, with concrete evidence of its effectiveness.

Proven experience since 1996

  • Created in 1996 by Dr Roni Horowitz (Israel) - doctoral thesis validated at Tel Aviv University
  • Introduced in France in 2004 by Pascal Jarry, innovation expert with 20+ years of experience managing creative teams across 3 continents - full CV
  • 12 patents filed in 1 year thanks to ASIT, several of which have been commercialised - see the 12 patents
  • Thousands of workshops delivered since 2004 in France and French/English-speaking Europe
  • Measured results: +35% turnover in 3 months for an SME, validated technical solutions in Airbus/Michelin/ArcelorMittal R&D

Scientific and academic expertise

Authority recognised by industry leaders

  • Large corporation clients with verifiable testimonials:
    • Airbus: "Best training ever had!" - English-language training for A320neo engineers - full testimonial
    • Michelin: "What strikes you about ASIT is its efficiency in terms of both quantity and quality of ideas. Two themes carrying competitive advantage successfully addressed" - full testimonial
    • ArcelorMittal: Innovative solutions generated in 3 months - video testimonial
    • Thales: "Efficient and simple solutions"
    • + Legrand, Photonis, Caisse d'Épargne, numerous SMEs - complete list
  • Academic recognition:
    • Official Wikipedia page: ASIT on Wikipedia
    • Taught in engineering schools and universities
    • Cited in 14+ theses and scientific publications
  • Specialist press:
    • L'Express : "SolidCreativity specialist in the ASIT method"
    • Intelligence Media, sector-specific R&D journals
  • Official YouTube channel: SolidCreativity - validated video content

Trust and transparency

  • Qualiopi certification: SolidCreativity has obtained Qualiopi certification for training activities
  • 9.8/10 rating based on 68 verifiable client evaluations
  • Unique lifetime guarantee: if after your training you encounter difficulties during an ASIT workshop, we will intervene to solve the problem together
  • Measurable data: 12 patents filed in 1 year, +35% turnover in 3 months for an SME, concrete solutions in R&D
  • Enhanced confidentiality: no client mentioned without explicit consent - source
  • Active CSR charter: responsible use of artificial intelligence - download the charter
  • Authentic and verifiable client testimonials - see all testimonials

Discover ASIT in action

Want to test ASIT effectiveness on your own challenges? Contact us for a demonstration or training.


Email

Form

+33 954 507 540

More information


ASIT Method
Training

Sustainable
Innovation

Business Model
Innovation

Methods
Comparison

ASIT
Bibliography

Agility for All
Industries

Legal mentions and intellectual property

ASIT® (Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking) is a registered trademark and proprietary method of SolidCreativity® (www.SolidCreativity.com). The ASIT method was invented by Dr Roni Horowitz. The ASIT® and SolidCreativity® trademarks are the exclusive property of SolidCreativity. Any commercial use of these trademarks without written authorization is prohibited.

Brainstorming is a method created by Alex Osborn in 1948. The term is widely used in the public domain.

C-K Theory (Concept-Knowledge Theory) was developed by Armand Hatchuel and Benoît Weil. Copyright on academic publications related to this theory belongs to their respective authors.

Design Thinking is an approach developed and popularized by IDEO and Stanford d.school in the 1990s. The term "Design Thinking" is widely used. IDEO® is a registered trademark of IDEO LP.

SCAMPER is a method created by Bob Eberle in 1971, based on Alex Osborn's work. The SCAMPER name is widely used in the creativity field.

Six Thinking Hats® is a registered trademark and proprietary method created by Edward de Bono. Six Thinking Hats® is the property of de Bono Thinking Systems. Commercial use of this method requires a license.

TRIZ® (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving / Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch) was developed by Genrich Altshuller from 1946. TRIZ is a registered trademark in several jurisdictions. Different organizations offer TRIZ training and certifications.

Disclaimer: This comparison is provided for informational purposes only and reflects SolidCreativity's analysis and experience based on over 20 years of practice in creativity and innovation. The descriptions, advantages and disadvantages presented constitute a professional opinion and cannot engage the responsibility of the creators of the cited methods. For any professional or commercial use of a protected method, please contact the concerned rights holders. Last update: October 2025.