USE OF SYSECTICS AS AN IDEA SEEDING TECHNIQUE TO ENHANCE DESiGN CREATIVITY Jufian 0.nlosiu Jet Propulsion I~i;ihoratory/Califi,mlahstitute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove D~IVS Pasadena, California, 9 I 108, USA Tel: (818) 354-1686; Fax: (818) 393-4539 e-mail: Julir~.O.RIosiu~jpl.na~.gov ABSTRACT A snccesshl new break-through technology project relies on how many inventiveand creative design options are available at the An approach to generate creative designthat employs the different levels of design. New creative design is the result of a practice of synectics is presented.The integrated use of the non-linear process, where existing knowledge is mixed with new Thewry of InvcntiveProblem Solving (TIPS) technique, along information and imagination. The approach suggested here is to with physical, chemical and biological phenomena and effits enhance design creativity by exercising analogies and metaphors knowledge data base provided by I”TechOptimizerm soitware, embedded in the practice of synectics, where the idea seeding is and the Robust Engincering Design methodology is the me of stimulated via the availability of adiversified knowledge and this proposed new creative design. The creative design approach information data base. starts with the clarification of the term “requirements” vis-&-vis “design decision.” Creative design conccyt generation and CREATIVE DESIGN AT MULTIPLE LEVELS. design decisions are addressed at system, subsystem, assembly, and part level. This concept is based on the hypothesis that many The use of the most possible inventive and innovative means to new design options can be quickiy generated. It is believed that enhance design creativity is the cradle of birth for all new design decision is strongly enhanced by th~snew approach when breakthroughtechnologies. The design decisionand design many design options are present. The Creativitv Domain Process selection criteria rely onhow accurately the initial functional is defined as the means for the generation of new ideas and requirements could be implemented, as well as, on the availability concepts. Functional modeling analysis using the triad of of resourcest technology readiness, and risk management. The subject, action, and objlct is considered as a desired analytical diagram on the next page describes the relationship between the tool to identiQ the right problem to be solved. The identification initial systemfunctional and performance rquirements and the ofcontradictions as problems and their categorization as cascading nature and repetitive cycle of the lower level managerial, engineering, and physical indicates the category of requirements and associated design concept generations and design design conceptsolution to be generated.The TIPS offered decisions encountered during the project development life cycle. At contradiction metrics and standard solutions engage the mental the beginning of the first phase of project implementation, the analogy and metaphoric thinking as part of the synectics idea originalsystem hctional and pa5omance requirements are generation process. The inclusion of the ideal function concept is spcified. In response to these requirements, several architectural described as a creativitymeasurement. The closer the new design system concepts could be consideredfor implementation concept perfoms related io the ideal performance, the higher the thatwould allow the implementation of the desired system grade of the new creative design The ranking of the newly functional requirements and performance. OIdy after a thorough generated conceptsrelative to the ideal performance is presented analysis and evaluation of each design system option, a decision of as a structured approach of selecting creative design concepts or best architectural design system implementation is performed. The as a technology road map layout. Finally, the parametric design architectural design systtm Yelected to implement the initial system and evaluation of fimctimal performance is viewed as the robust hctional and performance requirements only now will identi@ the engineaing designimplementation and optimization of the hdional and performance requirements of the second tier of selected best dcsign wnccpt. requirements at the subsystem leveis. Based on this second tier of requirements, the next step is to generate several sub-system INTRODUCTION designconceyts. Again, analysis andevaluation of each sub- system design wnceyt will require a design decision and selection DO WHAT NO ONE EMS DONE BEFORE in a FASTER, of the most appropriate sub-system design concept. In turn, the BETTER, CHEAPER environment, and DO NOT FAIL is a sub-system design concept selected is now dictating, in fact, the major component of the current high technology industry-wide third tier of functional and performance rec~uinmerlts for the imperative. To successfully momplisl~the futuretechnology assemblies included in the subsystem. For the next phase as you challenges, a majorparadigm change from the old wayof can nowpredict, the assemblyfunctional and performance itnplancnting projects to a new way is required. To enable the requirements are triggering the design concqtr gtwcration for the new approach, a comprehensive training and re-training program assembly,followed by the appropriate designdecision and best in L-reative design has to be established. “Ifow you start a day is concept seletion. And finally, based on the assembly design that the way you spend thc rest of it” 1s an old saying. IIow you start has been selected, thefourth tier of parts functional and with the Systm Requlrmcnts and System Design Decisions is perkmnance requirnnents is established. Parts design md parts the wav you will succctul with the accomplishntcnt of a givm selection and decisionmaking is nowcompleting the project project or rask. Creative design concept gLnLTUtion and design waterfalldevelopment cycle. ‘l’he above dwription clwiy decisions need to bc rtddrcsseci and pzcointed not only at the illustrates that design concept generation and design decision is the system level but also at the sub-system, assembly, and part level. driving force of rquirerncnts peneraticm,and definitely not the othcr way around [ I 1. llcslgn decmons are pxformtd in the generation cie.xnbcd by this triad reflects a vc~tlcalor top down context ot' thc avdabtlity of many creative dcsigrl concepts. hr rcquirancnt gcneration process. Requtrtnlent tiocumcnts arc observed from the camding project design lmpl~mtlltation. usually part of a contractual agrcxmc-t that is used by a customer design decisions are based on the availability of design options to convey functional and performance rcyuiremcnts to a huiiritr in at different levels 01' projcxt design, including; architectural order to design and implement a final product [3].Time and time design system,sub-system design, assembly design, and part again, projtxt schcdule slips are offenblamed on late requiremcnts, design. Creative designconcepts are generated during the incomplete requirements, designmodifications andor late process whcre rcquinmcmts and designs are pen;olated at all th~ impravemcnts.Tiger tams, which are teams created by aboveproject design life cycle levels. In order to acwrmpksh multidisciplinary experts, are frequently used to rescue troubled what no one has done before, training and prmses have to be projects.Unplanned and unscheduled activities related to late established, where multitudes of creative design idas and rcquirement modification result in additional implementation cost, design options can be easily generated at system, subsystan, and schedule slips that often lead to project overruns, low prduct assembly, and part design levels. quality, and prreliability. Symbolization T Build Image To claim the esistence of a complete requirement specification pnor to any design is, in fact, a fallacy [4]. Lower level I I I 1 requirements are derived from the measurable attributes of the I I I+ I I immediate hugher level design. Total system requirements are t+ """""4 ""_" *t complete only d~en product and its total utilization history I I the is I I I I available, including details of all techniques used to produce the I I I I engineeringproduct. Nevertheless, "requirements phase" is still I I included in ProjectImplementation Plans andprojects are held """"" """ I accountable for requirements phase completion prior to proceeding to any design implementation. INITIATIVE 1: Do what you say; say what you do. In the old paradigm, practice has demonstrated that mandated top down requirements do not convey a smooth project development. l=Systqn Functional Reauiremeots Only after repetitive iterations and complete involvemcnt of all key Z=Grchjtectumi Desien System stakeholders, various design options of the original image concept 3rSub-system Functional Requirements are generated. To select the best design option, a final design &Sub-system Desa decision is in order. In fact, all of the unplanned, unscWuled and SgAssembly Requirements unwsted repetitive design cycles, where oAen a late 6Assembly Des@ multidisciplw tiger team is called upon to rescue a troubled 7=Part Rwuiremeats project, represent the real and natural process undertaken by all %=PartDesign projects during the project development life cycle. In the new paradigm, the next natural step is to include in the Project Implementation Plan, from the beginning, all of iterative COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS ARE 1(N FACT A design Lycles and design decisions, detailing all of the related and FALLACY projected