Design Creativity 2010 part 2 ppsx

List of Referees
Tomasz Arciszewski (USA)
Tomas Backstrom (Sweden)
Herbert Birkhofer (Germany)
Carole Bouchard (France)
Jean-Francois Boujut (France)
Julia Brewis (South Africa)
Anders Brix (Denmark)
David Brown (USA)
Nick Bryan-Kinns (UK)
Matthew Campbell(USA)
Linda Candy (Australia)
Hernan Casakin (Israel)
Gaetano Cascini (Italy)
Amaresh Chakrabarty (India)
John Clarkson (UK)
Steve Culley(UK)
Andy Dong (Australia)
Kees Dorst (Australia)
Alex Duffy (UK)
Gills Fauconnier (USA)
Ernest Edmonds (Australia)
Elena Mulet Escrig (Spain)
Mads Nygaard Folkmann (Denmark)
Haruyuki Fujii (Japan)
Shuichi Fukuda (USA)
Georgi V. Georgiev (Japan)
John Gero (Australia)
Ashok K. Goel (USA)

Gabriela Goldschmidt (Israel)
Samuel Gomes (France)
Ewa Grabska (Poland)
Ian Gwilt (Australia)
Karl Hain (Germany)
Sean Hanna (UK)
Noe Vargas Hernandez (USA)
Imre Horvath(Nethrelands)
Tom Howard (UK)
Norio Ishii (Japan)
Luz Maria Jiménez (Canada)
Yan Jin (USA)
Jeff Kan (Singapore)
Harrison HM. Kim (USA)
Yong Se Kim (Korea)
Masakazu Kobayashi (Japan)
Larry Leifer (USA)
Pascal Le Masson (France)
Udo Lindemann (Germany)
Julie Linsey (USA)
Joachim Lloveras (Spain)
Mary Lou Maher (USA)
Dorian Marjanović (Croatia)
Ann McKenna (USA)
Chris McMahon (UK)
Harald Meerkamm (Germany)
Gavin Melles (Australia)
Celine Mougenot (France)
Tamotsu Murakami (Japan)
Paul Murty (Australia)

Yukari Nagai (Japan)
Hideyuki Nakashima (Japan)
Margareta Norell (Sweden)
Koichi Ootomi (Japan)
Panos Papalambros (USA)
Jesenka Pibernik (Croatia)
Lubomir Popov (USA)
Vesna Popovic (Australia)
Lily H. Shu (Canada)
Masaki Suwa (Japan)
Yoram Reich (Israel)
Asko Riitahuhta (Finland)
Paul Rodgers (UK)
Pertti Saariluoma (Finland)
Kristina Shea (Germany)
Yoshiki Shimomura (Japan)
Steven Smith (USA)
Ricardo Sosa (Mexico)
Masahiro Takatsuka (Australia)
Hsien-Hui Tang (Taiwan)
Toshiharu Taura (Japan)
Katja Tschimmel (Portugal)
Barbara Tversky (USA)
Hung-Hsiang Wang (Taiwan)
Bert Willems (Netherlands)
Anthony Williams (Australia)
Terry Winograd (USA)
Hideyoshi Yanagisawa (Japan)
Wim Zeiler (Netherlands)
Yong Zeng (Canada)

Directions for Design Creativity Research
(Invited Papers)
Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity:
Beyond the Problem-Solving Paradigm
Toshiharu Taura and Yukari Nagai
Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 2) - Research Issues and Methodologies:
From the Viewpoint of Deep Feelings and Desirable Figure
Yukari Nagai and Toshiharu Taura
Future Directions for Design Creativity Research
John S. Gero
Systematic Procedures Supporting Creativity - A Contradiction?
Udo Lindemann
Better, Not Catchier: Design Creativity Research in the Service of Value
Gabriela Goldschmidt
Using Evolved Analogies to Overcome Creative Design Fixation
Steven M. Smith, Julie S. Linsey and Andruid Kerne
Design Creativity Research: From the Individual to the Crowd
Mary L. Maher
Motivation as a Major Direction for Design Creativity Research
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Design Research and Designing: The Synergy and The Team
Yong Se Kim
Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New
Definition of Design and Creativity: Beyond the Problem-Solving Paradigm
Toshiharu Taura
1
and Yukari Nagai

2

1
Kobe University, Japan
2
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan
Abstract. This article discusses the meanings of “design”
and “creativity.” First, the authors provide a historical review
of the terminologies of “design” and “creativity” used in the
field of design research. On the basis of this review, they aim
to formulate a fundamental perspective of design for our
future society that does not focus on the notion of efficiency
and is not restricted by the framework of a problem-solving
process. Next, they redefine design as the process of
composing a desirable figure toward the future on the basis
of their classifications of design as drawing, problem
solving, and pursuit of the ideal. Finally, they identify the
meanings of such a new definition of design in order to find
the essential areas of research for design in the future post-
industrial society.
Keywords: design, design creativity, design theoretics, post-
industrial society, definition of design
1 Introduction
In this article, we discuss the meanings of “design”
and “creativity.” The word “design” is increasingly
being used in a variety of societal contexts—for
example, career design, sleep design, and community
design. The definition of design has continued to
change along with the times. One reason that we
affirm this evolution of the definition of design is to

develop a new meaning of design for our future
society. In particular, we aim to clarify the meanings
of design through a comparison of two different eras:
those of industrial society and post-industrial society.
Based on a survey of the literature, we investigate the
historical change in the definition of design. We then
consider the generation that will follow the post-
industrial society. We consider the stream of industrial
change that has progressed from the first form of
industry (agriculture) and the second form
(manufacturing) to the third form of industry (service);
this progression is a result of our orientation based on
the notion of high efficiency. According to the
movement of this stream, the next inclination in the
third form of industry will still be oriented toward
efficiency. Thus far, “design” has played the role of
providing a method of acceleration for obtaining
increased efficiency in our industrial society. For most
designed products, the expectation is that they must
“be easy to use,” “be convenient,” “be cheap,”
“consume low energy,” or “be easy to understand,” all
of which involve the notion of efficiency.
In contrast, there is another view of design that
aims to achieve goals other than that of efficiency,
namely, to foster an improved sense of well being or
richness of the heart of the society. These goals are
more deeply related to our spiritual dimension than to
our material wealth. Considering this aspect, design
assumes a totally different meaning from its previous
definition, which represents the dominant industrial

perspective. Therefore, we consider it impossible to
conceive of design by merely extending or elaborating
the previous definition. This does not imply that no
previous design was related to richness of the heart, as
there have been certain previous types of design that
have fostered spiritual values. However, it is still
possible to view the history of design in the rough
terms presented above. In addition, we should never
consider efficiency as solely a negative influence, but
should respect that role for what it has to offer.
However, if the times change such that we can be
released from a sole belief in efficiency, other
important meanings of design can then arise, and it is
these that we wish to shed light on. If such a time has
come, then design can truly be discussed in greater
depth, and we can see the society of the next
generation in terms of a new perspective of design.
2 Survey of Definitions of Design
We have identified that design and creativity are
inseparably connected to each other. As Herbert Simon
said, because design can still be about transforming
existing situations into preferred ones, in the field of
design research, design is usually explained as being
4 T. Taura and Y. Nagai
an activity to formulate a design solution for a purpose
(Simon, 1973). The process of design has been seen as
a process of rational problem solving. However, such a
definition can be considered to be a tentative one in
terms of transcendent or historical views. In this
section, we review the previously dominant definitions

of design.
2.1 Genealogic View of Definitions of Design
The word “design” means a “plan,” a “pattern,” a
“composition,” or an “intention.” It originally came
from the French word “desinare,” which was derived
from the Latin word, “signum.” Words in several other
languages are also used in a way that is similar to the
English word “design” (Ulrich, 2007). The meanings
of design basically involve two phases: the mental plan
for something, and then the creation of forms. In
“Design Dictionary” (Ernhoff and Marshall, 2008), we
learn that Leonardo da Vinci founded an academy that
was dedicated to design. The idea of design still
seemed to express something like styling, as we
understand it, because it meant “the arrangement of
lines and shapes as decoration,” but that was following
a very old tradition with a meaning limited to the
perspectives of the crafts era. Indeed, the meanings of
design reflected the society of that time. In the modern
era, design is explained as being “developed through
the actions of key individuals responding to the new
potentials and fears associated with developments in
technology and to changing socioeconomic and
political conditions and contexts” (Design Dictionary,
P106). The most remarkable change leading to this
new definition was the Industrial Revolution at the end
of 18th century. In tune with the new ethos of the
industrial revolution, the meaning of design changed,
with an emphasis upon its more constructive aspect, as
it was understood more as an engineering-based

process. Around 1919, the Bauhaus and other new
design movements arose in many places in Europe, all
of which shared quite similar goals, namely “beauty,”
“wealth,” and “efficiency.” It was thought that the best
way to integrate these three goals was to establish a
reasonable “standard.” Thus, “beauty” came to be
understood as a rational value, in the sense of
aesthetics having true worth. With the flourishing of
industrial society that came afterwards, the definition
of design changed in order to embrace the now-
common large-scale manufacturing process (Asimow,
1962). The definition was again modified to be
consistent with the problem-solving processes of
industry. In fact, the framework of the problem-
solving process became aligned with the
methodologies of design in the industrial era,
especially in terms of its management (Jerrard et al.,
1998). Most design researchers used frameworks
based on a problem-solving process model to explain
the rational design process of that time. Indeed, design
can be seen as an example of a process of construction
whose aim is to solve ill-structured problems that lack
clarity in terms of both the existing situation and the
desired outcome. When people cannot see how to
attain goals, they may develop methods that connect
intermediate goals in order to do so. In large-scale
manufacturing such as shipbuilding, for example, the
entire process aims to solve a problem that is too
complicated in its entirety, but which can be broken
down into hierarchic, simpler, more manageable sub-

problems (Simon, 1999). Thus, the engineering
designs used in shipbuilding are methods of
structuring the overall project into many partial
problems. To identify rational methods for solving
such complex problems (namely “design problems”),
classification of the sub-problems and a systematic
overview are required, particularly in engineering
design (Eide et al., 2008). Thus, a field of design
methodology has been established on the basis of such
a problem-solving framework and systematic approach
(Archer, 1965; Cross, 1984; Batazit, 2004). This field
mainly addresses methods of “problem re-structuring”
or “problem shifting” in order to attain the goals of
“the design problems.” In the field of design
methodology, a basic model of design that represents
the three main steps of design, namely analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation, became popular and was
developed in several ways (Goldschmidt, 1999;
Batazit, 2004). March has classified the patterns of
design problems and design reasoning (March, 1976).
Coyne and others represented a definition of designers
whose purpose was to change the existing situation in
order to create a desired situation by means of physical
change (Coyne et al., 1990). Their approach
considered that design knowledge should be
representative, and they suggested that design
activities should be “descriptions of the functions of
artifacts” that would then fulfill their expected
functions.
However, as time passed, such definitions of

design changed. When society entered the post-
industrial era, the definition of design gradually
became separated from the manufacturing process, a
change that had been anticipated by design
researchers. Indeed, as middle as the 1970s, Nigel
Cross projected such a change and posed the message
to his colleagues of how to commit to and contribute to
the new society. His essential suggestion was, “to
consider whether we are now entering a post industrial
society and consequently in need of a post-industrial
design process” (Lawson, 2006).
To adapt to the needs of post-industrial design,
Cross (2006) proposed a new view of the ability to
Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity 5
design that he expressed as “designerly ways of
knowing.” The capacities of design were considered to
be more general than before, more like the capacity to
“think,” which included the talent of knowing “how to
see.” Design knowledge was also considered as an
ability because it constituted a strategic form of
knowledge that provided methods of problem solving
based on previous solutions.
Another view of the meaning of design was
proposed from the perspective of business and
management. Ulrich and Eppinger (2007) expressed
the view that design is formed in the real world.
Because the market in the real world represents
consumers’ actual selection of products, it can be seen
as a process similar to that of evolution. Therefore,
design can be defined as a process of product

evolution that is governed by the decisions made by
the society.
The above description is a brief overview of the
history of how design has been defined over recent
centuries. This history can be considered as the
development of the “problem-solving process” in the
era of industrial society. In this article, we call such a
view of design “a problem-solving paradigm.” Now,
that view and the framework it represented must give
way to the next step of progress.
A serious problem that has been pointed out is that
the paradigm of an analytical view that is in accord
with the view of a “problem-solving process” does not
work in the post- industrial society that is now being
born from the social sciences and economics. In
addition, it has been suggested that people in today’s
society need creativity more than before in order to
overcome the difference in the old and new paradigms.
However, the question of what kind of creativity is
necessary for this new society remains unanswered.
This article, therefore, will next discuss the important
issue of creativity.
2.2 Genealogic View of Definitions of Creativity
In the field of design research, two kinds of creativity
have been discussed. One kind of creativity is related
to the process of design, while the other is related to
the products that are the result of the design process. In
the former, the emphasis is on rational decision-
making to find a design solution within a framework
of problem solving. Cross (2006) has reported many

cases of creative leaps that are made during the design
process, expansions of awareness that may have been
caused by the release from a mental fixation.
The role of visual information is considered to be
conducive to such releases from mental fixations. In
fact, it has been supposed that experts have actual
knowledge of how to break such fixations. Until now,
analogical reasoning has been given the most attention
because it relates to the problem-solving process
(Findler, 1981Goldschmidt, 1990; Visser, 1996; Ball
and Christensen, 2009). Many studies have reported
that metaphors and visual images are effective for
analogical reasoning (Goldschmidt 1994; ), and expert
designers seem to understand the roles that these
metaphors and visual images play. These studies have
claimed that the capacity for visual thinking might be
particularly expanded in the cognitive process of
designers, referring to the theory of Rudolf Arnheim
(1969). Goldschmidt has identified the effects of the
ideas that occur (concepts) to the ones on the
abstraction level during the design process, which she
relates to creativity by carrying out experimental
studies. These results were obtained through
experimental observation of architectures’ design
protocols. Such experimental observation of design
process has been called “design protocol studies” and
informs cognitive features of the creative design
process (Kan and Gero, 2009).
There are other standards as well with which to
evaluate creativity. For instance, the value of the

diversity of products or the speed at which goals are
achieved is often used as evaluation items in
assessments of creativity (in the Encyclopedia of
Creativity).
In addition, Eppinger and Ulrich (2007) suggested
that the actual results of marketing express the values
of creativity of designed products in the real world.
They have also suggested that diverse productions
affect our power to create products in the next
generation.
On the other hand, the creativity of designed
products or the ideas governing them have usually
been evaluated in terms of novelty and practicality,
two criteria offered by the study of Sternberg and
Lubert (1999). They described creativity as the ability
of produce work that is both novel and appropriate.
Gero (2007) has added the notion of “unexpected” to
these criteria in the evaluation of creativity in design.
As we pointed out earlier, design has been
discussed mainly within a framework of problem
solving. In such a framework, ability means the ability
to analyze problems, which is of course a necessary
skill in the problem-solving process. However, in the
post-industrial society, a form of creativity is required
that is different from the old problem-solving
paradigm. We would say that this ability is the
capacity for creativity in design. However, what this
exactly means must be clarified in our contemporary
context. Therefore, we will next re-consider how this
term might be newly defined.

6 T. Taura and Y. Nagai
3 New Definition of Design and Creativity
3.1 Classification of Design
As a foundation for this new definition, we first
classify design into three categories: drawing, problem
solving, and the pursuit of an ideal.
Category A: Drawing
The term “design” is widely thought of as the
expression of images in the form of pictures or
sketches; in other words, it is strongly associated with
art or drawing. This is how the term is typically
considered in its most popular and general use.
Although drawing seems to be creative, the drawing
process cannot create a truly new output, because
drawing itself is a process that involves only the
transformation of a design image (an abstract concept
imagined in the designer’s mind) into a concrete figure
or shape. Thus, it is creative only in that it entails
imagining a nonexistent figure or shape. Therefore, the
essential nature of its creativity lies in the design
image that the figure or shape then represents.
Category B: Problem solving
In our review of the history of design, the notion of
design comes to the fore when we address the process
or act of designing rather than its results in the form of
sketches and drawings, particularly since the
development of industry to its present degree. In this
case, we have thus far considered the design process
mainly within the framework of problem solving.
However, the problem-solving process itself cannot

really create a new goal. Therefore, our next concern is
with the question, “how do we determine the desired
goal?” We can have obvious goals (problems) that
need to be achieved, such as finding solutions for
natural disasters. Similarly, in the case in which we
need to meet customer requirements that are clearly
spelled out, it is also easy to set goals. However, there
are sometimes cases in which the goals themselves are
unclear.
Category C: Pursuit of the ideal
We can also use the term “design” to mean the pursuit
of certain ideals, a definition whose meaning differs
from the predominant definition of design as the
solving of obvious problems. For example, from a
social perspective, design involves the notion of
pursuit of an ideal. Moreover, the term “pursuit of an
ideal” contains within it the notion of the future, as
opposed to the problem-solving perspective that is
usually used in the context of current problems. We
can identify one distinct feature of design as being
something that is aroused within us and is supported
by the requisite criteria of our ideals. It involves the
presence of a process of abstraction in an ideal
environment. Moreover, it recognizes designs that
conform to our perspective of the “future” and
“something that is meant to be”—that is, something
that only human beings can conceive of.
3.2 New Definition of Design and Creativity
Based on the above consideration, we would re-define
design as the process of “composing a desirable figure

toward the future.”
Regarding this definition, we will first discuss what
we mean by “toward the future.” The notion of the
future is, of course, extremely abstract. For example,
we can never draw an exact picture of the future. We
can imagine what things may be like in the future, but
it is impossible to visualize a precise notion of the
future itself. This kind of highly abstract notion can
only be represented in language. In the context of
design, the future has two meanings. One meaning is a
future that we can grasp inductively, such as a
marketing forecast. The other meaning is the wish or
desire for recognition/expression that is led by inner
feeling, as in art. In our re-definition of design, we
consider that the latter meaning is the more important
of the two.
Next, we discuss what we mean by a “desirable
figure.” It is this part that determines the object of
design. There are two kinds of desirable figures:
obvious goals in the case of a problem-solving
process, and an ideal image in the case of the pursuit
of an ideal. As suggested above, in our re-definition of
design, we consider this latter object of design to be of
greater importance. In this case, a feeling of resonance
in the mind can be a reason for an ideal image. One
important point regarding artifacts is the notion of
“naturalness.” We often assume that the process of
making artifacts should come naturally to humans.
However, there is no common process that resonates
with human beings, even though we create artifacts by

copying them from the natural world. In contrast, there
are some things that differ from what is found in
nature but nevertheless resonate within the human
mind. Music is a good example. Music is composed of
man-made sounds, most of which differ from natural
sounds such as the sound of a breeze or a bird’s song.
In fact, music resonates in the human mind, where it
makes a deep and natural impression. It is in the
human mind that the desirable figure of the artifact
originates. Therefore, in order to realize a desirable
figure, it is necessary to identify the sources of deep
feelings in the human mind.

Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity 7
Finally, we will discuss the idea of “composing,”
because it provides an explanation for the process of
design. In design, one of the typical processes is the
composition of parts, because the way in which we
create products differs from the process of creation in
the natural world. A method for such an integration of
existing concepts (in other words, “concept synthesis”)
is well known (Finke et al., 1992; Taura and Nagai,
2005; Nagai and Taura 2009). For the integration of
existing concepts (concept synthesis), particularly in
the pursuit of desirable figures, it is not enough to just
carefully analyze the given goals. It is also necessary
to imagine the desirable figure in the future, and there
must be an intrinsic motivation that resonates with
one’s inner feelings. In this article, we use the term
“composing” to embrace just such motivations.

On the basis of the above definition, we define
design creativity as the degree to which a desirable
figure is realized. In this approach, novelty may be
implemented as a by-product of this pursuit, but not as
a causal factor of creativity. Thus, if a new idea is
proposed merely on account of its uniqueness, we
cannot say that this partakes of the aim for desirable
figures.
4 Meaning of New Definition of Design
We will now discuss the meaning of our new
definition of design as compared to its previous
definition.
First, we consider the ability to design from the
viewpoint of creativity. We can understand that
problem-solving ability (category B) is related to
“innovation,” in which the novel idea for a problem-
solving plan that is difficult to conceive is finally
realized. A plan might also be considered innovatory if
is not particularly novel but involves difficulties that
must be overcome in its realization. Within the
framework of a problem-solving process, a problem is
defined as the difference between the current state and
the desired goal. Thus, the process of developing a
solution to achieve the goal is synonymous with the
design process. In many cases, the solution can be
found by analyzing the gap between the current state
and the design goal. In other words, it can be said that
the solution lies hidden in the gap. Therefore, the
ability to solve problems can be considered to be an

analytical skill.
On the other hand, based on the new definition of
design advanced in this article, it is important for the
ideal image to be pursued. Designers must have the
ability to compose the ideal functions of the future, or
the ability to compose an interface that will evoke an
ideal impression in the recipient’s mind. As mentioned
in the previous section, ability in composition is
needed in order to create ideal images in design.

Fig. 1. Extended model of the design process
We have proposed an extended model of the design
process that involves two dynamics: a “push” type and
a “pull” type (Taura and Nagai, 2009). Figure 1 shows
the extended model. On the basis of this model, the
design process as we define it can be explained as the
process of composing a design image that is being
“pushed” from the source of deep feelings that
resonate with our inner minds. The design image is the
same as “a concept,” as referred to earlier. Thus, a
push-type design process is the process of composing
“a concept” that represents a desirable figure. In
contrast, a “pulled” process is a problem-solving
process that is “pulled” forward from a predetermined
goal. As we consider the process of composing a
desirable concept, our emphasis will be on the roles of
a push-type process.
Next, we discuss our new definition of design from
the viewpoint of “characteristics of humans.”
Although we confess that the boundary here is a bit

ambiguous, our scope of interest is those actions that
only a human being is able to perform. We suppose
that other animals (such as monkeys) can probably
perform a certain degree of problem solving. In fact, it
is well known that monkeys use tools in their food
taking, a behavior that is certainly a sort of problem
solving. The notion of design that we defined above,
by contrast, is something that could never be done by
monkeys. These are things that only a human can do:
to imagine a desirable figure, to conceive of things
using abstract notions like “the future,” or to compose
a new concept with a high level of intelligence.
We can understand that the post-industrial society
has revealed our deepest human wish. Humans need to
imagine desirable figures that express a “better sense
of well‐being” or “richness of the heart.” It can
become possible for us to have such figures when we
approach the process of design with an understanding
of our new definition of its meaning. It can be said that
post-industrial society indicates that the new meanings
of design is centered in what this paper presents as
category C, namely the pursuit of an ideal.
8 T. Taura and Y. Nagai
5 Conclusion
In order to identify the meanings of design, we have
discussed the terminology of design and creativity
based on a historical review. Following a classification
of design that consists of three categories—drawing
(category A), problem solving (category B), and
pursuit of the ideal (category C), we discussed the

importance of design in the pursuit of an ideal
(category C) in our future society, as compared to
design within the framework of a problem-solving
process (category B).
We have re-defined design as being the process of
composing a desirable figure toward the future.
On the basis of this new definition of design, we
will next propose design theoretics to formulate a
framework for studying design in our future society,
after the passing of the post-industrial era. The
pertinent and essential research issues will also be
addressed, and will be introduced in Part 2 of our
article.
References
Archer B, (1965) Systematic method for designers. London:
The design council (republished 1984, in Developments
in Design Methodology, ed. Cross N)
Arnheim R, (1969) Visual Thinking. University of California
Press
Asimow M, (1962) Introduction to Design. Prentice-Hall
Ball LJ, Christensen BT, (2009) Analogical reasoning and
mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to
uncertainty resolution. Design Studies 30(2):169–186
Bayazit N, (2004) Investigating Design: A Review of Forty
Years of Design Research. Design Issues 20(1):16–29,
MIT Press
Coyne D, Rosenman M, Radford D, Balachandran M, Gero J,
(1990) Knowledge Based Design Systems. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company Ltd.
Cross N, (1975) Design and Technology. Open University

Press
Cross N, (1984) Introduction. in Developments in Design
Methodology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cross N, (1989) The nature and unnature of design ability.
Design Studies 11(3):127–140
Cross N, (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. Birkhauser
Eide A, Jenison R, Northup L, Mashaw L, (2001)
Introduction To Engineering Design and Problem
Solving. Mcgraw-Hill's Best-Basic Engineering Series
and Tools
Erlhoff M, Marshall T, (2008) Design Dictionary. Board of
International Research in Design, Birkhouser Verlag AG
Findler NV, (1981) Analogical reasoning in design process.
Design Studies 2(1):45–51
Finke RA, Ward TB, Smith SM, (1992) Creative Cognition:
Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Gero JS, (2007) on his talk “Design Creativity”, ICED07
SIG Design Creativity Workshop
Goldschmidt G, (1990) Linkography: Assessing design
productivity. In Trappl R, (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems
90:291-298, Singapore: World Scientific
Goldschmidt G, (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis
kids of architecture. Design Studies 15(2):158–174
Goldschmidt G, (1999) Design. In Encyclopedia of creativity,
Runco MA, Pritzker SR, (eds.), Academic Press, 525–
535
Jerrard B, Newport R, Trueman M, (1998) Managing New
Product Innovation. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Kan JWT, Gero JS, (2009) Using the FBS ontology to

capture semantic design information in design protocol
studies. In McDonnell J, Lloyd P, (Eds), About:
Designing. Analysing Design Meetings, CRC Press,
213–229
Lawson B, (2006) How designers think, fourth edition.
Architectural Press
March L, (1976) The logic of design and the question of
value. The Architecture of Form, Cambridge University
Press
Nagai Y, Taura T, Mukai F, (2009) Concept blending and
dissimilarity: Factors for creative concept generation
process. Design Studies 30(6):648–675
Simon HA, (1973) The structure of ill-structured problems.
Artificial Intelligence 4:181–200 (Republished 1984)
Simon HA, (1999) The Sciences of the Artificial. Third
Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Sternberg R, Lubart T, (1999) The concept of creativity:
Prospect and Paradigms. Handbook of Creativity,
Cambridge University Press
Taura T, Nagai Y, (2005) Primitives and Princeples of
Synthetic Process for Creative Design-Taxonomical
Relation and Thematic Relation. In Computational and
Cognitive Models of Creative Design VI, Gero JS,
Maher ML, (Eds.), 177–194
Taura T, Nagai Y, (2009) Design Creativity: Integration of
Design Insight and Design Outsight. Special Issue of
Japanese Society for the Science of Design 16-2(62):55–
60
Ulrich KT, Eppinger S, (2007) Product Design and
Development 4. McGraw Hill Book Co.

Ulrich KT,(2007) Design: creation of artifact in society.

Visser W, (1996) Two functions of analogical reasoning in
design: a cognitive-psychology approach. Design Studies
17(4):417–434
Visser W, (2006) The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers