The concept generation activity is one of the lampposts of the
engineering design. It provides a forum for designers to apply creativity
and contribute their personal flair. It also represents the time when
technology is chosen or develop to fulfill the customer needs.
One danger in any concept creation process is the bias of
preconceived solutions. Preconceived solutions usually occur early in
the process of solving design task. They are the engineer’s idea of
what a product should do, not the customers.
Decomposition or breaking down a problem in to the smaller parts is
one fundamental principle that helps us overcome these dangers. Many
ideas are readily apparent to simple, small scope problems.
Decomposing and recasting a complex product system into such
smaller pieces can greatly enhance the number of concepts.
Generation of concepts requires insights that come from a fundamental
knowledge of how the world behaves and how we can estimate the
behavior. These insights are followed by a great deal of perspiration
and hard work can greatly advance the solutions by considering the
synthesis of analogous and feasible technologies.
The two types of methods of concept generation:
 INFORMATION GATHERING AND BRAIN STORMING:
These methods focus on the combination of obtaining knowledge of
possible techniques with the generation of ideas from the minds of the
designers.
 BIASING METHOD:
In this method they add “bias” to the search or solutions by using
physical insights and documented design principles. By directing
search for solutions, a greater number of ideas may be generated for
particular aspects of the design problem.
 The process begins with a review of the customer needs, highlighting
the primary needs that are the initial focus. All the needs must be
satisfied through concept generation and the process begins with
considering the most important need first.
 Based on customer need focus, the design task is decomposed into
sub-problems that may be more easily understood and solved.
These sub-problems are of three forms: functional models, product
architecture and product portfolio. The focus is on what the product
must do, not how it will do it.
 A functional decomposition may be used to generate form solutions
to each of the product functions that are, transforming function to
form. Alternative layouts and interfaces may be developed from the
product architecture information. Alternative integral or modular
concepts may be developed from the portfolio choices. This
approach will lead to a broad number of solution ideas for each of the
product functions. These solution principles may be applied to
alternative layouts that are created.
 The next step in the concept generation process is to combine the
solution ideas per product function into concept variants, that is,
alternative designs. We are essentially adding and connecting
together solutions to each of the functions by creating geometry of
the solutions, their interfaces to each other.
These methods are needed that helps in generating concepts for
product functions and combine them into alternative product ideas.
Formal concept generation methods may be classified, broadly, into
two categories: intuitive and directed.
The intuitive category relates to the methods that focus on idea
generation from within an individual or group of individuals. The intent
of such methods is to remove barriers to divergent thinking so that new
connections and features in a product may be visualized. By removing
these barriers, the environment of idea generation may be filled with
conditions that promote creativity.
Directed method uses a systematic, step by step approach to search
for a solution. These methods rely on technical information, expertise
and guidelines to seek solutions to technical problems. They force
solutions to be determined along a particular path, although the final
solution is not readily apparent at outset.
The first method of concept generation is information gathering. This
activity entails the dynamic search for data that will contribute to the
technology, physical principles, or industrial design of a product.
Information gathering begins the study of concept generation methods
due to its critical stature in the process.
A patent search is essential in understanding the current technology in
a product domain. It is also useful for seeking analogous ideas from
the products that solve similar functions.
Information should be gathered from analogies, the world wide web,
benchmarking, and people. Analogies consist of a similar product or
artifact that operates in a different domain. It is similar because it
implements an architecture or function that is in common with the
product being designed.
Analogous products include power tools, sound rooms, automobile,
aircraft, and food processors. By studying these solutions, we can
develop analogous solution principles.
Other categories of information sources include benchmarking, people
and the world wide web. These also provide a wonderful forum for
harvesting ideas that may be used to generate further concepts for a
particular product development.
Brainstorming is an intuitive method of generating concepts. It focuses
on product function and architecture, where team members
communicate ideas verbally during a set of time period. All tean
member are encouraged to be open and uninhibited during the initial
sessions of brainstorming. The overall aim of brainstorming is to obtain
several concepts that might work as solution principles to a piece of the
design problem.
Advantage
 The ability of a set of individuals to collectively build on each other to
generate ideas that would not arise individually.
 Team member will piggyback and leapfrog each other.
 Piggybacking creates building block ideas to words, body language,
statements and concepts stated by a Team member.
 Leapfrogging on the other hand results in divergent in the responses.
Each team member brings different expertise, skills, and personality
to a group effort of piggybacking and leapfrogging. Brainstorming
taps into this diversity to create, quickly, a large number of high level
solutions.
Disadvantage
The right idea may not come at the right time. Group discussion may
side track or inhibit the original ideas.
Brainstorming is a powerful technique for generating concepts. A
committed team creates ideas together, which possibly triggers further
ideas.
THE GUIDELINE FOR BRAINSTORMING SESSION:
 Designate a group leader, to prevent judgment and encourage
participation by all. The facilitator should not contribute directly, but
rather direct and record.
 Form the group with 5 to 15 people, usually no more and no less.
Less gives inadequate ideas; more can break down the group into
multiple conversations towards participation.
 Brainstorm for 30 to 45 min. The first 10 min are typically devoted to
problem orientation and familiarity. The next 20 to 25 min will see a
sharp increase in ideas. During the final 10 min, a trickling of idea will
occur which should be encouraged.
 Don’t confine the group to expect in the area. The only way to obtain
new ideas is to introduce new knowledge and experimental
backgrounds.
 Depending on the goals of a brainstorming session, the individuals
may enter a session with a set of ideas.
 Avoid hierarchically structured groups, bosses, supervisors and
managers should not be included in many of the sessions.
One effective way to record the results of a brainstorming session as it
happens is by memory mapping. The facilitator starts with a clean
sheet of paper, writes the problem statement in the center of the paper
as two words, and draws a box around it. Then ideas are generated to
solve the problem, they are recorded quickly, say with two or so words,
with circle drawn around them. Each new idea to solve the initial
problem is connected to the original problem statement.
As an idea is refined, or sparks another idea, these new ideas are
connected to the idea that sparked them. Ideas that are all basically the
same concept should branch out of the originally proposed concept.
Entirely different concepts should have their own branches emanating
from the problem statement.
If the problem statement is refined into a new one, this new form can be
recorded by entering a new problem statement and drawing a box
around it. Problem statements in boxes distinguish the concepts in
circles. The new problem statement should be connected to the
concept that sparked the reformulated statement by a directed arrow.
Memory maps help a facilitator visualize this process who can then
redirect the process back on to the original problem.
The memory map also serves as an effective visual documentation of
the brainstorming session. It is called a memory or mind map, as if a
single person creates all of the ideas individuals.
Brain ball is one form of brain storming that meets the goals. In brain
ball the participants from a standing circle where everyone in the circle
may see each individual. The process then begins by introducing a
hypothetical ball that is passed from that is passed from individual to
another individual, assuring that all the participants are included at
some point in the passes. A participant may pass the ball to any other
member, as quickly and spontaneously as possible without the process
becoming unwieldy. In the first round of the game, no speaking is
allowed. An addition throwers and receivers should actively play their
roles without introducing ancillary motions or theatrics.
In the next round, a ball is introduced again by a facilitator and the
thrower adds a sound. A receiver restates the sound and passes the
ball to some another participants by stating a new sound. Members
should not concentrate on thinking of new sounds in advance, or they
will be distracted from receiving the ball. After a few minutes of passing
the ball and sound, the facilitator introduces a second ball to an
unoccupied member in the circle. Two balls and spoken sounds then
pass around the circle simultaneously.
Participants must pay close attention to pass or receive one of the
balls, maintaining their relaxed attitude and peripheral vision. The
process continues until the team experiences the full activity
responding spontaneously to multiple balls and sounds.
The facilitator ends the second round and then introduces a word or
concept to the group. The facilitator throws the hypothetical ball to a
member of the group with a solution or response to the concept. The
member receiving the hypothetical ball restates the response and
passes the ball to another participant with a new response. The
member repeats the response, and the process continues.
A second and possibly third ball is to be introduced to the game as the
time proceeds. Multiple balls with piggyback and leapfrog responses
are then simultaneously passed until the brainstorming reaches a
repetitive stage. The facilitator can then introduce a new concept, sub
problem, solution, or idea generator to create a new round of
brainstorming. The participants may also be divided into sub circles to
continue new rounds, with redistribution occurring over time.
This process is an effective means to add the sketching dimension to
concept generation. Industrial designers, on the other hand, are quite
adept at this dimension and should be used as facilitators of the 6=3-5
method.
After a few sessions of the 6-3-5 method, oral brainstorming is typically
applied to discuss, refine, and advance the concept variants as a
group. The typical brainstorming process is executed at this stage;
however, the search is now directed with the concepts recorded by the
6-3-5 method. This directed search for concepts greatly accelerates the
refinement of concepts, bringing them closer to ideas that may be
evaluated and formalized.
The 6-3-5 method may be summarized by the following process steps:
 Arrange team members around a table.
 Each member writes/ describes/ sketches three ideas for the primary
product functions, usually five or less. The ideas are expressed in
clearly distinguished areas of the paper, usually on oversized white
media such as butcher paper.
 After t minutes of work on the concepts, members pass their ideas to
the person on their right.
 For the next t minutes, team members modify the ideas on the sheet,
with the option of adding an entirely new concept, not contained on
their original idea sheet.
 Passing of the idea sheets continues until a member’s original sheet
returns and the round ends. With sufficient time intervals between
rounds, five rounds are repeated.
 After generating ideas for each of the primary product functions, the
entire process is repeated to develop alternative layouts and
combined concept variants that utilize a summary of the solution
principles generated for each function.
 Postpone the ideas are accumulated and summarized.
Directed search or logical concept generation methods are used to
develop ideas in a deliberate, step by step, comprehensive fashion.
Direction is provided by design or physical principles that are previously
known. These principles, in conjunction with knowledge of physical
effects and technology, drive the process toward particular types of
solutions.
SYSTEMATIC SEARCH WITH PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES:
 The procedures for generating concepts from physical principles are
as follows:
 Models are the primary function or subsets of function of a product
as a black box, with material, energy or signal flows.
 For this black box, determine possible physical principles that can
convert the input to the output for the product functions. This step will
require the gathering of information from a variety of sources.
 Write general relationships for the physical principles that relate a
measured effect to independent variables.
 Vary each of the design variables to generate a concept for solving
the product functions.
 Develop a physical realization of the variable changes with sketches.
Each of the sketches is a possible concept idea.
This procedure may be applied to any of the function combinations
from the product function structure. Intuitive choices are the primary
functions of the product, as weighted by the customer needs, and the
function chains that form potential modules of the product.
SYSTEMATIC SEARCH WITH CLASSIFYING SCHEMES:
 A procedure for executing directed search with classifying schemes may be
listed as follows:
 Model the primary functions or subsets of functions of a product as black
boxes, with material, energy, or signal flows.
 For these black boxes, choose the classification schemes that closely relate
to the functions and customer needs.
 For one of the classification headings, generate solutions to the functions.
 Document the results in matrix, where the rows are functions and the
columns are solutions, organized by classification headings.
 After ideas are exhausted for a given heading, repeat the process for the
next heading.
As stated for direct search with physical principles, this procedure may be
applied to any of the function combinations from the product functional model.
Intuitive choices are the primary functions of the product as weighed by the
customer needs and the function chains that form potential modules of the
product.
SYSTEMATIC SEARCH WITH CLASSIFYING SCHEMES:
A procedure for executing directed search with classifying schemes may be
listed as follows:
 Model the primary functions or subsets of functions of a product as black
boxes, with material, energy, or signal flows.
 For these black boxes, choose the classification schemes that closely relate
to the functions and customer needs.
 For one of the classification headings, generate solutions to the functions.
 Document the results in matrix, where the rows are functions and the
columns are solutions, organized by classification headings.
 After ideas are exhausted for a given heading, repeat the process for the
next heading.
As stated for direct search with physical principles, this procedure may be
applied to any of the function combinations from the product functional model.
Intuitive choices are the primary functions of the product as weighed by the
customer needs and the function chains that form potential modules of the
product.
The theory of problem solving was developed by Genrikh S. Alsthuller
in the former U.S.S.R, beginning in the late 1940s. The basic of this
theory is to discover that the pattern exist in the patent claims; many of
them are based upon the same working principles.
The patents were classified into five categories:
The first two categories were designated as routine design, meaning
that they don’t exhibit significant innovations beyond current
technology. These categories are basic parametric advancement and
change in a configuration.
The last three categories, on the other hand represents designs that
included inventive solutions. These three categories are identifying
conflicts and solving them with known physical principles, identifying
new principles and identifying new product functions and solving them
with known or principles.
Based on these patent studies, Altshuller observed a number of trends
in the historical invention. Some of the key observations, in the context
of product design, include the following:
Evolution of engineering systems develops according to the same
patterns, independent of the engineering discipline or product domain.
These patterns may be used to predict the trends of future evolutions in
a product domain. They may also be used to direct the search for new
concepts.
Conflicts are the key drivers for product invention. Principles for
eliminating conflicts are universal across product domains. Application
of these principles implies that compromise is unacceptable.
The systematic application of physical effects aids invention, since a
particular product team does not know all physical knowledge.
These observations lead to the structure of TIPS for solving inventive
problems. A number of components comprise this structure. For the
purpose of this text, we consider three primary components:
 Laws of engineering system evolution,
 The physical effect, and
 The solution principles.
Physical principles on the other hand, document the knowledge of the
physical world from many diverse fields.
Design principles in turns are heuristic rules for eliminating conflicts in
design task, creating a high level concept that is possible inventive
solution.
The final step is to refine the concepts, from the principles and effects,
into a concrete geometry.
A systematic method for this assembly and continued ideas creation is
known as morphological analysis or morphological charting.
Morphological analysis is a tool that provides a structured search and
combination of concepts in product design. The process of executing
this analysis is as follows:
 Consider each product function in the functional model and each
module of the product architecture.
 List the function or module as of a row matrix.
 In the first column of the row matrix, enter the current solution to the
function or module, if the product exists.
 Apply concept generation methods and record the concepts in the
columns of the matrix for each function. Map the range of solutions
per each function to a classification scheme, such as energy
domains. Judge if the solutions are too focused or cover a good
breadth. If the solutions are too focused, carry out further sessions of
the intuitive and directed concept generation.
When a good breadth of ideas and technologies are realized in the
morphological matrix, combine the ideas into diverse concept variants
that seek to satisfy the entire product specification.
We create a morphological matrix and label each row with a product
sub function. Next we immediately fill in the first column of the matrix
with current solutions. For each product and identify the component
that satisfies the function.
After forming the initial matrix, we may black out functions that are not
part of the redesign effort. This action is usually carried out for reasons.
 The product functions solution components cannot be changed,
usually for regulatory or contractual reasons.
 The product functions solution components are not part of the
redesign effort, and it is not a part of the redesign effort, and it is not
a real concern to the customer or too expensive to invest resources,
and so forth.
 Support functions might not be considered at this stage in the
development process.
We have range of possible solutions to each product function, we need
to combine solutions. A large number of combinations are possible;
however, issues exist in geometrical and physical compatibility and
function sharing.