Creative Heuristics. A Framework for Systematic Creative Problem Solving

Full text

Value Chain Management
COLOGNE BUSINESS SCHOOL
Carsten Deckert
Creative Heuristics
A Framework for Systematic Creative Problem Solving
WORKING(PAPER(((((01(
(
2017(
(

CBS Working Paper Series, ISSN 2195-6618
Editor: Cologne Business School
E-Mail: wps@cbs.de
Copyright:
Text, tables and figures of this paper are the intellectual property of the author. They may be
copied, distributed or displayed on the condition that they are attributed to him and to this
publication.
Cologne Business School
Hardefuststr. 1
50677 Cologne, Germany
T: 0800 580 80 90 (Free of charge from German landlines and mobile phones)
F: +49 (221) 93 18 09 30
info@cbs.de
www.cbs.de

!
!
i
Abstract
Creativity in inventive problem solving usually takes place in the middle of the continuum
of sheer chance and safe bet. Inventors normally use creative heuristics which provide
them with promising search fields and directions for inventive problems. The paper at
hand analyzes the existing frameworks of heuristic principles described in scientific liter-
ature about invention and insight, and proposes a framework of creative heuristics. Fur-
thermore existing heuristics from invention and insight research are allocated to the prin-
ciples in the framework. Thus, the proposed framework of creative heuristics can be used
as a toolbox in creative or inventive problem solving and as a means to promote creativity
in engineering education.

!
!
ii
Creative Heuristics
-
A Framework for Systematic Creative Problem Solving
Carsten Deckert
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2 Preliminary Considerations about Creativity ................................................................ 3
2.1 Functional Creativity and Invention ...................................................................... 3
2.2 Problem Space of Creativity ................................................................................. 6
2.3 Biases Inhibiting Creativity ................................................................................... 9
3 Framework of Heuristic Principles .............................................................................. 13
3.1 Definition of Creative Heuristics ......................................................................... 13
3.2 Heuristic Principles ............................................................................................. 15
3.3 Framework for Creative Heuristics ..................................................................... 20
4 Allocating Creative Heuristics to the Framework ........................................................ 24
4.1 Creative Heuristics for Generating Alternatives .................................................. 24
4.2 Creative Heuristics for Challenging Assumptions ............................................... 26
4.3 Reframing the Problem ....................................................................................... 29
5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 33
Reference List ............................................................................................................... 35
Appendix: Lists of Creative Heuristics ........................................................................... 42
!

!
!
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Triple Path Model of Insight .......................................................................... 16
Figure 2: Groups of Creativity Techniques ................................................................... 18
Figure 3: Framework of Creative Heuristics ................................................................. 21
Figure 4: Creative Heuristics for Generating Alternatives ............................................ 25
Figure 5: Creative Heuristics for Challenging Assumptions ......................................... 28
Figure 6: Reframing the Problem ................................................................................. 32

!
!
!

!
1
!
1 Introduction
“I believe there are important general principles underlying invention,
and our understanding of these principles
can make us more appreciative of the built world around us.”
(Weber 1992a, p. vii)
Nowadays creative problem solving is seen as one of the core skills of the 21st century
e.g. by the Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21 2015), a coalition founded by the
U.S. Department of Education and leading U.S. companies. Creativity is also seen as a
key success driver of companies contributing to an organization’s growth and long-term
survival (Mathisen & Einarsen 2004, p. 119, Oldham & Baer 2012, p. 387), and the ma-
jority of surveys by renowned consultancies propose a positive relationship between a
company’s innovations and its performance (see e.g. Arthur D. Little 2010, Jaruzelski,
Staack, & Schwartz 2015, PwC 2013, Ringel, Taylor & Zablit 2015). Consequently the
OECD (2013) sees creativity and innovation as important driving forces of economic de-
velopment fostering competitiveness, productivity, and the creation of new jobs.
The main problem with creativity is that it is hard to ignite and even harder to manage.
Even if a problem solver is well under way it is often unclear, if he gets a breakthrough
idea and finds an adequate solution to his problem or not. So creativity seems to rely to
a certain extent on sheer luck. On the other hand algorithmic approaches to problem
solving run the risk of sticking with the tried and true and of not leaving the comfort zone
of the problem solver. Thus, opportunities to improve existing products and services are
likely missed.
In their study of inventors Perkins & Weber (1992, p. 320 ff.) find that in a continuum
between sheer chance and safe bet, inventors tend to work in the middle – in the range
of systematized chance, fair bet and good bet. This does not mean that inventors do not
use chance occurrences along the way. In fact, inventors often see chance events as

!
2
!
opportunities and incorporate them into their work when they occur. But it means that
inventors use some kind of systematization in their search for a solution (Perkins 1996,
p. 130 ff., Perkins 2000, p. 94 f.). So inventors do seem to make use of “important general
principles” as the initial quote of Weber (1992a) suggests.
The question is, what these “important general principles underlying invention” (Weber
1992a, p. vii) are. There are several frameworks proposing inventive heuristics and paths
to insight. Some come from the historical analysis of inventions, others from the accounts
and observations of inventors and people solving insight problems. The aim of this paper
is to develop an overall framework of creative heuristics fostering creative or inventive
problem solving.
To achieve this aim the paper is structured as follows. In chapter 2 preliminary consider-
ations about creativity are described. In particular the terms functional creativity and in-
vention are defined, the problem space of tasks requiring creative problem solving is
circumscribed and the human biases inhibiting creativity are analyzed. Along the way
intermediate results about creative heuristics are recorded. In chapter 3 the term creative
heuristic is defined based on the preliminary considerations. Furthermore different
frameworks are analyzed and compared to determine their heuristic principles. From
these principles a framework of heuristic principles is developed. In chapter 4 different
heuristics from the literature are allocated to the principles in the framework, so that the
framework becomes a toolbox for inventors and problem solvers. All the analyzed heu-
ristics are collected in the appendix of the paper for further use. Finally in the conclusion
the possible utilization and the limitations of the framework containing the creative heu-
ristics are discussed.

!
3
!
2 Preliminary Considerations about Creativity
“The concept of creativity may trail clouds of glory
but it brings along also a host of controversial questions.”
(Boden 1996a, p.1)
This chapter defines the main terms of functional creativity and invention. Furthermore
related concepts such as technology and creativity are also described. Based on this,
the problem space of creativity is analyzed and characteristics of problems requiring a
creative solution are carved out. Finally the cognitive biases inhibiting creativity are de-
termined starting from the overall “Bias against creativity”. As an intermediate result
some key findings about creative heuristics are obtained which will be used in chapter 3
to define what constitutes a creative heuristic.
2.1 Functional Creativity and Invention
According to Runco & Jaeger (2012, p. 92) the standard definition of creativity includes
the two components originality and effectiveness. E.g. Sawyer (2012, p. 8) defines cre-
ativity as “the generation of a product that is judged to be novel and also to be appropri-
ate, useful, or valuable by a suitably knowledgeable social group”. A product should have
novel attributes which are unusual, unexpected or even inconceivable and, thus, surprise
us. But it should also solve a given problem and, thus, be in some form linked to the
existing body of knowledge of a specific domain (Deckert 2015).
Cropley & Cropley (2005, 2008 & 2010) use the term “functional creativity” for industrial
products such as engineered items or manufactured consumer goods. Functional crea-
tivity generates “novel products that serve some useful social purpose” (Cropley, Kauf-
man & Cropley 2011, p. 16). For functional creativity effectiveness is more important than
originality. A novel product must fulfill its intended need. Otherwise it will not be consid-
ered creative, no matter how new and original it is (Cropley & Cropley 2008).

!
4
!
The product of functional creativity can be called an invention. The process of invention
can be defined as the “generation of an economically efficient and reliably working
means-end relation” (Zobel 2009, p. 1, own translation) based on familiar technical
knowledge which is used in a new and often surprising way. The definition explicitly
stresses the importance of effectiveness over originality. According to Weber (1992, p.
14) invention can be seen as “a subspecies of creativity, one in which the evaluative
standard is primarily workability – as contrasted, say, with the aesthetic standards of
arts”.
Invention is based on some form of technology. Technology can be defined as “the the-
oretical and practical knowledge, skills, and artifacts that can be used to develop prod-
ucts and services as well as their production and delivery systems” (Burgelman, Chris-
tensen & Wheelwright 2009, p. 2). So on the one hand technology is a special form of
knowledge embodied in people and physical processes. On the other hand technology
contains the artifacts which this special knowledge generates such as machines, tools
and plants. In an industrial context technology can be either part of the sold product
(product technology) or it can be used to manufacture products while not directly being
part of the product (process technology) (Gerpott 2005, p. 26). When an inventive solu-
tion is commercialized it is usually called an innovation (Burgelman, Christensen &
Wheelwright 2009, p. 2).
A more concise definition of technology is given by Hughes (2005, p.4) who defines
technology as “craftsmen, mechanics, inventors, engineers, designers, and scientists
using tools, machines, and knowledge to create and control a human-built world consist-
ing of artifacts and systems associated mostly with the traditional fields of civil, mechan-
ical, electrical, mining, materials, and chemical engineering” and from “newer fields of
engineering, such as aeronautical, industrial, computer, and environmental engineering,
as well as bioengineering”. This definition also includes the two components “technology
as knowledge” and “technology as technical artifacts” and the creation of new products
based on technology. But it also includes the aspect of controlling the technical artifacts
and systems. Besides this definition is more precise as it limits the field to engineering

!
5
!
and related activities, a field for which technical sociology in Germany typically uses the
term “Realtechnik”1 (Häußling 2014, p. 11).
From the historical study of technological development a basic understanding of the
workings of invention can be gained. Basalla (2002) studies the variations and evolution-
ary paths of technical artifacts. In a similar way Petroski (1992) shows for everyday arti-
facts that “form follows failure” and that want rather than need drives the process of
technological evolution. Kelly (2010) tries to discover technology’s trajectories such as
complexity, diversity and specialization, and Arthur (2009) identifies some mechanisms
of technological development along the technological lifecycle such as internal replace-
ment and structural deepening. Furthermore this understanding of technological devel-
opment can be used to infer and develop rules for invention. Altshuller (1984) analyzed
about 40,000 patents to determine the physical effects used to solve technical problems
as incorporated into his methodology TRIZ2. Norman (2013) analyzes how bad design
ignores the needs of people and how good design can increase the usability of items. By
contrast Weber (1996a, 1996b) analyzes simple hand tools and devices to uncover the
“hidden intelligence of invention” and to generate creative heuristics of middle-range
generality. While the main purpose of these heuristics is to facilitate invention, they can
also often be fruitfully used in other domains, even in conceptual domains (Weber &
Perkins 1989, p. 70).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 A possible translation could be “real life technology“.
2 TRIZ is a Russian acronym for Theory of Inventive Problem Solving and denotes a method of
systematic inventive problem solving developed by Genrikh Saulovich Altshuller (1926-1998). In
English countries often the acronym TIPS is used (Orloff 2006, p. 3).
Intermediate result:
Creative heuristics can be derived from functional creativity and invention, and are (at
least partly) transferable to other realms.

!
6
!
2.2 Problem Space of Creativity
According to Amabile (1996, p. 35) for a product to be judged as creative, the task should
be “heuristic rather than algorithmic”. This means that the way to solve the problem is
not entirely clear or straightforward. In some cases even the target to be achieved is not
entirely evident. An example for an algorithmic task is baking a cake according to an
existing recipe. A heuristic task would be to bake a new cake inventing a new recipe
(Amabile 1996, p. 35 f.). So asking questions to find the right target or to transform the
problem so that the target becomes more evident can be seen as a central part of crea-
tive problem solving (Sawyer 2013, p. 26 ff.).
Getzels &!Csikszentmihalyi (1975, p. 101 ff.) distinguish presented problems from dis-
covered problems. A presented problem has a known formulation and a routine solution
approach. The discovered problem has no known formulation yet and lacks a routine
solution approach. In between these two extremes there is a problem type which has a
known formulation, but no routine solution approach yet. The solution of the presented
problem requires memory and retrieval of the solution approach, and the solution of the
intermediate problem requires reasoning and rationality, while the solution of the discov-
ered problem demands imagination and creativity including a fair amount of problem
finding.
The importance of problem finding is also highlighted in some creativity models. E.g. all
versions of the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) models – one of the most renowned
creativity approaches based on the work of Alex Osborn – include a phase at the begin-
ning to analyze and understand der problem. The newer models even include phases
such as “mess finding” or “constructing opportunities” to set the principal direction which
precede the formulation of the problem to be solved and the generation of ideas (Ges-
chka & Lantelme 2005, Isaksen & Treffinger 2004). In an overview of ten stage models
of creativity by Sawyer (2012, p. 89) seven models contain an explicit phase to analyze
and define the problem.
One category of problems which require creativity are so called insight problems. Insight
problems are characterized by a fixation or impasse. This means that a person is misled
by the given information of the problem and gets stuck. Insight problems often lead to a
fixation on an inadequate solution approach blocking more adequate routes to a solution.

!
7
!
A famous example of an insight problem is the so called “candle problem” in which a
person has to find a way to attach a candle to the wall. In this problem the fixation typically
occurs as categorizing a box of thumbnails as just a container, and the insight is to over-
come this categorization and use the box as a shelf to attach the candle to the wall
(Sawyer 2012, p. 107 ff.). It is debated though if insight problems are the main problems
of creative problem solving and if insight happens spontaneously by overcoming fixation
(Runco 2014, p. 22 ff.).
Another problem often mentioned with regard to creative problem-solving, especially in
the context of the method TRIZ3, is the inventive problem. An inventive problem can be
defined as “A problem containing a contradiction in the form of incompatible require-
ments and/or properties […] that cannot be solved by adequate methods and means”
(Orloff 2017, p. 19). In this case the solution is not straightforward since the desired
solution cannot be achieved with the existing means, but leads to a paradoxical require-
ment. Contradictions can occur in the form of general, standard or radical contradictions.
A general contradiction can be described as “the general need to attain a certain property
(or state) or remove an obstacle” (Orloff 2012, p. 24). Standard or technical contradic-
tions emerge from two opposing requirements or conflicting targets, e.g. high speed and
low gas consumption in a car. A radical or physical contradiction is a paradox where two
contradictory properties must exist side by side in the same part, e.g. a surface must be
both hard and soft at the same time. A solution can only be achieved by a new approach
which overcomes the existing contradiction and eliminates the problem (Orloff 2012, p.
27 ff.).
For Boden (1996b, p. 79) creativity takes places in the conceptual space of a certain
domain characterized by domain-specific constraints, e.g. mathematical notation, phys-
ical laws etc. Creative problem solving can take two routes. It can either exploit the full
possibilities of the conceptual space or it can explore the limitations of the conceptual
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 See footnote 2.
Intermediate result:
A creative heuristic can help by overcoming fixation and/or resolving a contradiction.

!
8
!
space. The latter case involves changing or eliminating some of the constraints. But it
does not mean to get rid of all constraints because creativity always operates within the
framework of some conceptual space and “To throw away all constraints would be to
destroy the capacity of creative thinking” (Boden 1996, p. 79).
Perkins (1992, p. 241) distinguishes between two types of problem spaces: “Homing
Spaces” and “Klondike Spaces”. A Homing Space usually includes “a target gradient that
leads to the target itself” making it possible to home in on possible solutions. Usually
Homing Spaces are characterized by a more or less fixed number of possibilities (e.g.
as defined by the rules of a game), few changes of possibilities through outside interven-
tion and more or less fixed target or solution states (Perkins 2000, p. 72 ff.).
Borrowing from the search of gold in the Alaskan Klondike, Perkins (1992, p. 241) calls
a problem space that requires creative problem solving a “Klondike Space”. The main
criterion of a Klondike Space is that is has “punctuate targets with sharply defined bound-
aries” (Perkins 1992, p. 241) making it hard to systematically improve the solution. Klon-
dike spaces are also called fuzzy possibility spaces which have no clear rules for creating
possibilities, frequent changes in the possibility space from the outside and no clear or
evolving target states (Perkins 2000, p. 72 ff.). They are characterized by the following
four problems:
• Rarity: “Payoff is sparsely distributed in a vast space of possibilities” (Perkins
1996, p. 122). This leads to a “wilderness of possibilities” and often to a long and
wide search for possible solutions (Perkins 2000, p. 53).
• Isolation: “Regions of payoff often lie isolated or semi-isolated” (Perkins 1996, p.
122). This can result in a “narrow canyon of exploration” where no solution exists
making a reframing of the situation necessary (Perkins 2000, p. 54).
• Oasis: “[…] regions of payoff or even promise are hard to leave” (Perkins 1996,
p. 122). The problem solver is stuck in an “oasis of false promise” offering an
easy compromise solution instead and stops pursuing his search for a better so-
lution (Perkins 2000, p. 55).
• Plateau: “In many regions, directions towards greater promise are not clear” (Per-
kins 1996, p. 124). This is also called the “seemingly clueless plateau” by Perkins
(2000, p. 54) since the Klondike Space often does not offer clues for a promising
direction.

!
9
!
The distinction between Homing and Klondike Spaces is not a clear typology but rather
a continuum of two opposite poles: Homing Spaces can incorporate parts of Klondike
Spaces and vice versa. And Klondike Spaces can be treated like Homing Spaces by
using creative heuristics to find promising target gradients (Perkins 1992, p. 243 ff.)
2.3 Biases Inhibiting Creativity
Examples of companies missing a business opportunity presented by functional creativ-
ity or an invention are legion. A reason for this can be ascribed to cultural lock-in due to
shared mental models of the business model of a company. Usually these mental models
help to navigate a business field in times of continuity, since they are based on the cu-
mulated experience and knowledge of management. But in times of discontinuity these
mental models can become a liability: They are not properly assessed and corrected for
changing environments and, thus, tend to become inaccurate or are used in an improper
way (Foster & Kaplan 2001, p. 63 ff.). Mental models tend to draw companies back to
their original business model, even if obsolete, and hinder them to explore new products
or new ways of doing business. Anthony (2012, p. 68) calls this phenomenon “the suck-
ing sound of the core business”.
Furthermore Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo (2011) found a bias against creativity leading
people to reject creative ideas, even if they say that they desire a creative solution. This
negative bias against creativity is caused by a need to reduce uncertainty making it hard
for people to recognize a creative idea. Ray & Myers (2000) refer to a Voice of Judge-
ment (VOJ) in people hindering them to accept their own or other people’s creativity and
describe it as follows: “This judgment condemns, criticizes, attaches blame, makes fun
of, puts down, assigns guilt, passes sentence on, punishes, and buries anything that’s
the least bit unlike a mythical norm” (Ray & Myers 2000, p. 42). One way to circumvent
the VOJ is to defer judgment in the process of idea generation. Additionally a preventive
Intermediate result:
A creative heuristic transforms a Klondike Space – entirely or partly – into a Homing
Space.

!
10
!
mind-set can motivate people to avoid a potential loss of a creative idea and stick with
the tried and true (Kounios & Beeman 2013, p. 179 f.).
Another bias working against creativity is fixation. Fixation occurs when a person fixates
on an inappropriate solution and cannot switch to a more appropriate solution. Insight
problems are hard to solve particularly because they usually lead to a fixation on inap-
propriate approaches (Sawyer 2012, p. 110 f.), as described in chapter 2.2. Fixation can
be caused by mechanized solution methods and functional fixedness. Mechanized solu-
tion methods are approaches which were successful in the past and are now used non-
reflectively – also for problems where they do not adequately fit. Functional fixedness is
the “inability to use familiar objects in an unfamiliar way” (Smith, Paradice & Smith 2000,
p. 113) as e.g. in the classic “candle problem” described in chapter 2.2. A related concept
to fixation is structured imagination or “the tendency not to deviate from what is already
known in creative efforts” (Smith, Paradice & Smith 2000, p. 113) leading to similar re-
sults in creative endeavors from different individuals.
Some biases of intuitive thinking as described by Kahneman (2012) can possibly inhibit
creativity, especially the endowment effect, the status quo bias, the confirmation bias
and the availability bias. The endowment effect was discovered and named by Thaler
(1980) and describes “the fact that people often demand more to give up an object than
they would be willing to pay to acquire it” (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 194).
The endowment effect does not only work on material items but also on ideas making it
hard for people to give up an unjustified belief (Ariely 2010, p. 177 f.). The status quo
bias was first described by Samuelson & Zeckhauser (1988, p. 47) and can be described
as a “bias toward sticking with the status quo”. Endowment effect and status quo bias
are both caused by the more fundamental bias of loss aversion (Kahneman 2012, p. 278
ff.). Both biases lead to mental inertia or the tendency to stick with old approaches and
work against the acceptance of new ideas.
The confirmation bias can be described as “a generic concept that subsumes several
more specific ideas that connote the inappropriate bolstering of hypotheses or beliefs
whose truth is in question” and usually refers to an “unwitting selectivity in the acquisition
and use of evidence” (Nickerson 1998, p. 175). It is a central bias with regard to
knowledge acquisition and termed “the mother of misconceptions” by Dobelli (2014, p.

!
11
!
19).4 The confirmation bias leads to amongst others preferential treatment and over-
weighting of positive evidence for existing beliefs, while contrary evidence is ignored or
underweighted. Especially, given categorizations or taxonomies are often seen as de-
scribing the “real” structure of the world and treated as such – a phenomenon called
reification (Nickerson 1998). This leads to old ideas being perceived as the way the world
works, while the evidence for the success of new ideas is undervalued.
A related concept with regard to groups of people is the phenomenon called groupthink.
The need for social conformity in members of a group can lead to pressure on dissenters
to conform to the group’s (sometimes unrealistic) opinion. The thinking involved has been
called “groupthink”. The term “groupthink” was first used by Janis (1973) and denotes a
kind of thinking “when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive group
that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (Janis 1980,
p.433). Groupthink became a popular practical concept leading to many empirical stud-
ies into its prerequisites and symptoms (Park 1990). Newer research shows that the
reason behind groupthink is not so much social bonds of a group, but rather overconfi-
dence and concerns for reputation of its members (Grant 2016, p. 185 f.). With regard to
idea generation groupthink leads to pressure on dissenters, self-censorship and self-
appointed mindguards to avoid deviations from the supposed group consensus and a
shared illusion of unanimity within the group (Janis 1980, p. 438 ff.).
Under the availability bias a person judges instances based on cognitive ease. More
specifically the probability of an event is estimated based on the ease of retrieval, search
or imaginability of an instance (Tversky & Kahneman 1974, p. 1127). This obviously
works against more creative solutions since original instances are harder to retrieve than
standard instances, and the success of a totally new idea is harder to imagine than a
previously successful but now obsolete idea.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 It is, however, debatable whether this title should go to the conformation bias or rather to the
phenomenon of loss aversion. Loss aversion is seen as the cause of several biases such as the
endowment effect and the status quo bias (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991)

!
12
!
The endowment effect, the status quo bias, the confirmation bias and the availability bias
all favor existing ideas, products or business models. In doing so, they tend to emphasize
effectiveness over originality. It can be assumed that the biases of intuitive thinking are
at least partly responsible for fixation and the general bias against creativity. As a sum-
mary of this chapter the following quote by Koestler (1967, p. 190) seems to be appro-
priate: “To acquire a new habit is easy, because one main function of the nervous system
is to act as a habit-forming machine; to break out of a habit is an almost heroic feat of
mind or character. The prerequisite of originality is the art of forgetting, at the proper
moment, what we know.”
Intermediate result:
A creative heuristics should help to overcome one or several biases operating against
creativity.

!
13
!
3 Framework of Heuristic Principles
“The first rule of discovery is to have brains and luck.
The second rule of discovery is to sit tight and wait till you get a bright idea.”
George Polya (1988, p.172), mathematician
In this chapter the term “heuristics” is defined and the term “creative heuristics” is spec-
ified. Based on this definition different sets of heuristic principles for creative and in-
ventive thinking from the literature of creative or inventive problem solving and insight
generation are described and compared. From these heuristic principles of creative and
inventive thinking a framework for creative heuristics is built.
3.1 Definition of Creative Heuristics
In the scientific literature there seem to be two kinds of definition of the term “heuristics”
with somewhat differing meaning. One kind of definition is from the field of decision mak-
ing and choice, the other from the field of problem solving and creativity. In both fields
heuristics refer to some kind of rules of thumb.
In decision making these rules of thumb distill the most important information of a situa-
tion for the given choice and ignore the rest (Gigerenzer 2008, p. 18). In particular the
heuristics “reduce the complex task of assessing probabilities and predicting values to
simpler judgmental operations” (Tversky & Kahneman 1974, p. 1124). This often leads
to useful and good enough solutions for complex problems, but at the same time also
leads to biases and decision errors under certain circumstance (see chapter 2.3) (Kahne-
man & Klein 2009). In the field of decision making there is often a clear target or a rational
choice to be favored and the discovered heuristics have a descriptive character.
In the field of problem solving a heuristic can be described straightforwardly as “a strat-
egy or rule of thumb for generating ideas or for solving problems” (Weber 1996a, p. 83)
and the study of heuristic as “the method and rules of discovery and invention” (Polya
1988, p. 112). More specifically Carlson & Gorman (1992, p. 48) define heuristics in the

!
14
!
field of invention as “the strategies and tactics an inventor uses to generate and manip-
ulate mental models and mechanical representations”. In this definition mental models
are the ideas and concepts of the inventor, and mechanical representations are the phys-
ical devices from which the inventor can build his inventions.
The heuristics in problem solving can be derived from the study of inventors or from the
study of the evolution of technologies and inventions. These studies do not aim at finding
the real mental operations which guided inventors at the time of their invention. They
rather try to uncover principles and rules leading to these solutions which might be used
by future inventors to guide them in solving their problems (Weber 1992b, p. 218). So
the main target is to find “mental operations typically useful” in the problem-solving pro-
cess (Polya 1988, p. 129 f.). For this reason, heuristics in problem solving deal with open-
ended problem situations in which the targets are not always clear and there is no obvi-
ous rational solutions, and they are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
The heuristic principles so found should be of medium generality, neither too specific to
make them useless for other similar problems, nor too general as to possess only a weak
power to create meaningful concepts and are not much more helpful than a random
search (Weber 1992a, p. 84 ff., Weber & Perkins 1989, p. 50 f.). This generality ensures
that heuristics provide “procedures which are independent of the subject-matter and ap-
ply to all sorts of problems” (Polya 1988, p. 133).
Apart from sufficient generality, heuristics in problem solving typically take into consider-
ation the logical and psychological background as well as the unbiased experience of
discoverers and inventors and pursue practical aims rather than scientific accuracy. Alt-
hough heuristics in problem solving are prescriptive, they do not deliver a ready-made
solution due to their broad generality, but rather particularly promising directions to
search for a solution. As such they are not unfailing rules but rather guidelines for dis-
coverers and inventors (Polya 1988, p. 172). “Heuristic reasoning is reasoning not re-
garded as final and strict but as provisional and plausible only, whose purpose is to dis-
cover the solution of the present problem” (Polya 1988, p. 113). This medium generality
excludes all general tips on how to be creative and overcome mental blocks such as free
association or asking probing questions (see e.g. von Oech 2008) since these tips do
not provide a concrete direction for the search but simply rely on the inventor eventually

!
15
!
hitting on an idea through enough more or less random trials and searches. It also ex-
cludes methods and approaches tied to one invention type or industry, if the transfera-
bility of these rules to other realms is not clear.
From the intermediate results in chapter 2 we can add that creative heuristics have the
following additional characteristics. Even if creative heuristics are derived from the field
of functional creativity and invention, their application might go beyond this field into other
fields such as science or arts due to the middle range in generality. Creative heuristics
can help overcome human biases working against creativity, especially functional fixa-
tion, and find promising directions for a solution search by transforming a Klondike Space
– entirely or partly – into a Homing Space.
3.2 Heuristic Principles
In the literature on creative or inventive problem solving and on insights there are several
explanatory frameworks for heuristic principles supposed to facilitate creative or in-
ventive thinking. One basic concept is Lateral Thinking by de Bono (1990). Lateral think-
ing is described as a deliberate and practical process related to insight, creativity and
humor. The target of lateral thinking is to restructure insights, i.e. fixed mental patterns.
The two basic principles of lateral thinking are the generation of alternatives and the
challenging of assumptions.
De Bono (1999, p. 37 ff.) distinguishes lateral thinking from vertical thinking. Vertical
thinking is a logical way of thinking using existing mental patterns and sequential rea-
soning based on relevant information to achieve one solution. By contrast, lateral think-
ing breaks up fixed mental patterns and uses several different ways of looking at a prob-
lem using also unusual or irrelevant information. Lateral and vertical thinking are not
contradictory, but rather can be seen as complementary ways of thinking.
With regard to insight problems (see chapter 2.2) the two concepts of Sternberg & Da-
vidson (1999) and Klein (2014) offer frameworks of underlying processes or paths for
problem solving. Sternberg & Davidson (1999) developed a three-process theory of in-
sight distinguishing three separate but related psychological processes. The goal of the

!
16
!
three processes is to restructure the mental representation of a problem, more specifi-
cally an insight problem. The following processes are distinguished:
• Selective Encoding is “sifting relevant information from irrelevant information”
(Sternberg & Davidson 1999, p. 65) and can be achieved when “a person finds
in a stimulus […] one or more elements that previously have been nonobvious”
(Davidson 2003, p. 158)
• Selective Combinations is “combining what originally might seem to be isolated
pieces of information into a unified whole that may or may not resemble its parts”
(Sternberg & Davidson 1999, p. 65). It includes the two aspects of which pieces
should be combined and how they should be combined (Davidson 2003, p. 159).
• Selective Comparison is “relating newly acquired information to information ac-
quired in the past” (Sternberg & Davidson 1999, p. 65) or discovering “a nonob-
vious connection between new information and prior knowledge” (Davidson
2003, p. 159).
Figure 1: Triple Path Model of Insight
Source: Klein 2014, p. 104
Contradiction
[Find an
inconsistency]
Connection,
Coincidence,
Curiosity [Spot
an implication]
Creative
Desperation
[Escape an
Impasse]
Use a weak
anchor to
rebuild story
Add a new
anchor
Discard a
weak anchor
Changes in how we UNDERSTAND
(Act, See, Feel, Desire)
Contradiction
Path
Connection
Path
Creative Desperation
Path
TRIGGER
ACTIVITY
OUTCOME

!
17
!
Klein (2014, 101 ff.) proposes a Triple Path Model for insights characterized by different
triggers and activities (see fig. 1). The three paths to insight are as follows:
• The Contradiction Path is triggered by a detected inconsistency of the problem.
The problem solver does not ignore or discard the inconsistency, but builds on it
to revise the rest of his beliefs. This often includes discarding an earlier belief
about the problem against conventional wisdom.
• On the Connection Path the problem solver spots an opportunity and generates
a new anchor to his beliefs by connecting different existing elements, by coinci-
dence or by curiosity. This process usually involves new pieces of information or
stimuli from different fields.
• The Creative Desperation Path can lead to a solution, when there is an impasse
situation and the problem solver is stuck. In this situation discarding a weak belief
or a flawed assumption can lead to the desired solution.
The three paths have not only different, but partly contradictory triggers. While the Con-
tradiction Path builds on a weak anchor, the Creative Desperation Path eliminates the
weak anchor and the Connection Path generates a completely new anchor, sometimes
by sheer luck.
Creativity techniques or tools are usually categorized according to the principles of idea
generation (Brem & Brem 2013, p. 28). Creativity techniques usually “provide a struc-
tured way […] to create interesting and eventually innovative concepts and solutions”
(Ahmed & Shepherd 2010). To do this, creativity techniques contain a closed set of rules
and instructions for the thinking which promote the generation of ideas. The rules of
creativity techniques are set in such a way that they cause the application of idea-inspir-
ing heuristic principles (Geschka 2013, p. 27). Thus, a categorization of creativity tech-
niques should reveal the main creative heuristics underlying creativity techniques.
One prominent categorization is the structure proposed by Geschka and colleagues
(Geschka 2013, p. 37, Geschka & Lantelme 2005, p. 324, Geschka & Zirm 2011, p. 292)
(see fig. 2). The principles distinguished are free association, structured association,
configuration, confrontation and imagination. While free association uses the mutual in-
spiration of different participants, structured association prescribes a set of rules or dif-
ferent perspectives to direct thinking into fruitful directions. Configuration uses the com-

!
18
!
binatorial possibilities of existing solution elements, confrontation evokes forced connec-
tions to elements extraneous to the problem and imagination makes use of the imagina-
tive power of visual thinking (Brem & Brem 2013, p. 29). The core of these techniques is
to break out of fixed mental routines by generating new perspectives, using further infor-
mation and changing the problem frame (Geschka & Lantelme 2005, p. 324).
Some authors and researches focus solely on the principle of combination, since a com-
bination of different mental patterns or a connection of mental concepts and stimuli of
the environment is often at the heart of creative thought. Usually concepts from different
categories are combined leading to “cross-fertilization” between different disciplines or
fields (Sawyer 2012, p. 115). Koestler (1967, p. 35) named the combinatorial act of con-
necting elements from different contexts “Bisociation”: “I have coined the term `bisocia-
tion´ in order to make a distinction between routine skills of thinking on a single `plane´,
as it were, and the creative act which […] always operates on more than one plane. The
former may be called single-minded, the latter a double-minded, transitory state of un-
stable equilibrium where the balance of both emotion and thought is disturbed.”
Figure 2: Groups of Creativity Techniques
Source: Brem & Brem 2013, p. 29, Geschka 2013, p. 37, Geschka & Lantelme 2005, p.
324, Geschka & Zirm 2005, p. 292, own translation
Idea-Generating Principle Creativity Techniques
(Examples)
Free Association
•
Brainstorming
•
Brainwriting
•
Mindmapping
Structured Association
•
De Bono´s Six Thinking Hats
•
Walt Disney´s Creative Thinking
Technique
•
Checklists, e.g. SCAMPER
Configuration
•
Morphological Box
•
Attribute Listing
Confrontation
•
Synectic Excursion
•
Confrontation with pictures / words
•
TIPS-Principles
Imagination
•
Take a picture of the problem
•
Try to become the problem

!
19
!
Rothenberg (2014) distinguishes between three cognitive creative processes in scientific
creativity all related to combinatorial processes:
• Sep-con articulation “consists of conceiving and using concomitant separation
(SEP) and connection (CON)” (Rothenberg 2014, p. 1). This process mainly op-
erates on part and whole effects, i.e. dismantling something into its components
and re-assembling it in a new and surprising way.
• The Homospatial process is described as “actively conceiving two or more dis-
crete entities occupying the same space or spatial location” (Rothenberg 2014,
p. 41). Spatial effects which are superimposed include shapes, patterns, dis-
tances and dimensions, and the Homospatial process leads to new scientific met-
aphors and new identities.
• The Janusian process can be defined as “actively conceiving multiple opposites
or antitheses simultaneously” (Rothenberg 1996, p. 207). The addressed oppo-
sites refer to logical and temporal effects and lead to the discovery of new and
valuable phenomena (Rothenberg 2014, p. 28). Rothenberg (1987) shows that
the Janusian process is at the core of many scientific breakthrough develop-
ments.
Sep-con articulation, Homospatial process and Janusian process can work in conjunc-
tion and can occur at several points in the creative undertaking.
With regard to inventions Weber (1992a) distinguishes between Single-Invention Heu-
ristics, Multiple-Invention Heuristics and Transformational Heuristics. While Single-In-
vention Heuristics apply to one artifact, Multiple-Invention Heuristics involve several ar-
tifacts which are linked or joined. Transformational Heuristics work by abstracting and
then transforming one element of the artifact. In another publication Weber (1992b) dis-
tinguishes between Inventing with Joins, Invention by Adding Features, Invention by Re-
finement and Invention by Abstraction & Transformation as heuristic principles. While
Inventing with Joins contains several heuristics using combinations and connections, In-
vention by Adding Features encompasses several heuristics to add new functions to an
existing product. Invention by Refinement just contains the Fine-Tuning Heuristic stating
that “An inventor should find the direction that evaluation criteria move in, and try to an-
ticipate the next step” (Weber 1992b, p. 229). Invention by Adding Features and Inven-

!
20
!
tion by Refinement are also included in the structure of Weber (1992a) as Single-Inven-
tion Heuristics. Invention by Abstraction & Transformation is the same as Transforma-
tional Heuristics, and Inventing with Joins corresponds to Multiple-Invention Heuristics
to a large extent.
Weber & Perkins (1989) develop a framework of heuristics for the invention of artifacts
and ideas containing a Frame Heuristic and several Within-Frame Heuristics and Be-
tween-Frame Heuristics. The Frame Heuristic provides a promising artifact or idea as a
starting point and represents it as a frame for further inventive activities. The heuristics
of the other categories work on this frame to improve it. The heuristics of Weber & Per-
kins (1989) show a big overlap to the heuristics of Weber (1992a) and Weber (1992b).
The category Within-Frame Heuristics largely corresponds to the categories Single-In-
vention Heuristics and Transformational Heuristics, and the category Between-Frame
Heuristics largely corresponds to the category Multiple-Invention Heuristics.
Another set of heuristics called “Modern Heuristics” is proposed by Polya (1988, p. 130).
It includes Variation of the Problem, Decomposing and Recombining, Generalization,
Specialization, Analogy, Auxiliary Elements and Auxiliary Problems as heuristic princi-
ples. Apart from Analogy which is similar to free association as a creative technique and
Decomposing and Recombining which is reminiscent of the Sep-Con Articulation by
Rothenberg (2014) this set of heuristics contains many rules to restructure the problem,
i.e. to vary the problem, to specialize or generalize the problem or to add auxiliary ele-
ments or problems. Lists of the heuristics of Weber (1992a), Weber (1992b), Weber &
Perkins (1989) and Polya (1988) are given in the appendix.
3.3 Framework for Creative Heuristics
From the literature analysis and the considerations about creative heuristics so far a
framework for creative heuristics is proposed which is displayed in fig. 3. The purpose of
this framework is not to provide a fool-proof recipe for invention, but to give a compre-
hensive overview over the effects of heuristics of medium generality which might be used
for a creative undertaking especially for an invention. This framework can then be used
to classify existing heuristics. After that it can be utilized as a toolbox for inventive activ-
ities.

!
21
!
The framework is based on the two basic principles of lateral thinking by de Bono (1990):
generation of alternatives and challenging of assumptions. It is complemented by the
elements “Reframing the Problem” and “Fine-Tuning the Problem”. “Reframing the Prob-
lem” is a necessary element in creative problem solving and specifically addressed in
the approach by Polya (1988). As Norman (2013, p. 217) writes: “One of my rules in
consulting is simple: never solve the problem I am asked to solve […] Because, invaria-
bly, the problem I am asked to solve is not the real, fundamental, root problem”. Refram-
ing or restructuring a problem can be necessary when the problem solver encounters
difficulties especially when he gets stuck in an impasse, when he finds novel pieces of
information or gets novel stimuli or when he suffers from information overload (Perkins
2000, p. 133). “Fine-Tuning the Problem” is based on the Fine-Tuning Heuristic by Weber
(1992a and 1992b) and is seen by Weber & Dixon (1989, p. 300 f.) as one of the heuris-
tics applicable for a wide invention context. Fine-Tuning is usually a second step after
the first creative idea to adjust it for better performance (Weber 1992a).
Figure 3: Framework of Creative Heuristics
Source: Own illustration
The generation of alternatives can be achieved by “Variabilization & Configuration”
and/or by “Combination & Separation”. It is incorporated in the connection path of Klein
(2014, p. 104) where the problem solver has to spot an implication either through con-
nection or through coincidence and curiosity. The principle of configuration is an idea-
Challenging
Assumptions
Generation of
Alternatives
Variabilization &
Configuration
Combination &
Separation
Contradiction &
Confrontation
Imagination &
Visualization
Reframing the
Problem
Fine-Tuning
the Solution

!
22
!
generating principle of creativity techniques (Geschka 2013). Furthermore the principle
of variabilization is a central feature of Single-Invention Heuristics by Weber (1992a)
respectively Within-Frame Heuristics by Weber & Perkins (1989). In particular it is related
to the Make-Variable Heuristic of Weber (1992a) respectively Principle 2 (Variabilization)
of Weber & Perkins (1989).
The principle of combination is mentioned in all of the described frameworks of principles.
Surprisingly it is not directly mentioned as an idea-generating principle of creativity tech-
niques. It can be assumed that it is implicitly included in the principle confrontation as
the examples of creativity techniques in this category not only demand configuration but
also combination (see chapter 3.2). Some approaches are solely based on combination
and separation such as Koestler (1967) or Rothenberg (2014).
Challenging assumptions can be achieved by “Contradiction & Confrontation” and by
“Imagination & Visualization”. Contradiction is a defining feature of an inventive problem
and also of the inventive approach of TRIZ (see chapter 2.2). It is also an idea-generating
principle of creativity techniques in methods such as Synectic Excursion (Geschka
2013). The principle “Contradiction & Confrontation” includes both the contradiction path
and the creative desperation path of Klein (2014, p.104) where the problem solver has
to find an inconsistency or escape an impasse. In these paths either a weak anchor is
discarded or a weak anchor is used to build a new insight and usually an old anchor of
commonplace wisdom is discarded. So both of these paths are about discarding unnec-
essary or inadequate anchors and are treated as one in this framework.
Imagination is not mentioned by any of the frameworks in chapter 3.2 with the exception
of the idea-generating principles of Geschka (2013). This is surprising as imagination
and visualization are reported by many inventors as a central approach, amongst them
famous and often-cited accounts of August Kekulé about his discovery of the ring-struc-
ture of benzene (see e.g. Koestler 1967, p. 118), Albert Einstein in his contribution to
Ghiselin (1985, p. 32 ff.) and Nikola Tesla in his autobiography (Tesla 2016, p. 5 ff.). The
German INNCH study (2014, p. 23 ff.) found that imagination and visualization in the
form of sensory-aesthetic thinking is a core skill of inventors, scientists and artists alike.

!
23
!
The described framework can be used as a toolbox with different phases. Usually the
creative process starts with a problem definition. Then ideas are generated via generat-
ing alternatives and/or challenging assumptions. If this approach is successful the solu-
tion can then be fine-tuned. If it is unsuccessful, the problem solver can try to reframe
the problem to find a better point of departure for a solution. The cycles between the
phases allow for a flexible use of either problem reframing or solution fine-tuning. In idea
generation the problem solver can switch between generating alternatives or challenging
assumptions.

!
24
!
4 Allocating Creative Heuristics to the Framework
“Nothing is more important than to see the sources of invention
which are, in my opinion, more interesting than the inventions themselves.”
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, philosopher and mathematician
(cited in Polya 1988, p. 123)
In this chapter heuristics from the literature are allocated to the principles of the frame-
work described in chapter 3.3. Creative heuristics for generating alternatives or challeng-
ing assumptions are briefly described and matched to the underlying principle. For the
reframing of problems a field of opportunities is proposed specifically designed for indus-
trial products. All the heuristics allocated in this chapter are described in detail in the
appendix.
4.1 Creative Heuristics for Generating Alternatives
The main approach behind the principle “Generation of Alternative” is to go for quantity
of ideas so as to also generate highly unusual ideas. For this it is advisable to defer
judgement and select the best options in a second step (de Bono 1999, p. 55 ff.). Klein
(2014, p. 104) refers to it as the connection path where the problem solver has to spot
an implication. Heuristics help to generate alternatives by prescribing promising search
areas or directions and, thus, limiting the number of possible paths. For this reason free
association is not included.
In the category “Variabilization & Configuration” the main heuristic is the Make-Variable
Heuristic by Weber (1992a) respectively Principle 2 (Variabilization) by Weber & Perkins
(1989). For a given product variables are created as potential dimensions of variation
whose values are then changed to generate new inventions. This approach is also called
“Vary the Variable” (Boden 1996b, p. 91) or “Choice of Entry Point and Attention Areas”
(de Bono, 1999, p. 154 ff.). The change of the variable can be guided by an evaluation
function as described by Principle 3 of Weber & Perkins (1989). The Repeated-Element

!
25
!
Heuristic by Weber (1992a) is a special case of variabilization. Creativity checklists such
as SCAMPER (Eberle 1996, see appendix) can be used for this principle.
Furthermore all heuristics related to addition and deletion of features belong to this cat-
egory, e.g. Feature Addition Heuristic and Feature Deletion Heuristic by Weber (1992a)
and all heuristics in Invention by Adding Features by Weber (1992b). Features can be
added to package functionality into the same structure (Packaging Heuristic), to improve
the human interface (Interface Heuristic), to simply increase functionality (Slot Addition
Heuristic) or to avail of an opportunity (Opportunity Heuristic) (Weber 1992b). Adding
features has to be done with care so as not to overload a product with functionalities.
Complexity of an invention is a potentially inhibiting factor of diffusion into a market (Rog-
ers 2003, p. 257). Norman (2013, p. 262) calls the tendency to overload a product with
new features “Featuritis”.
A further possibility is to abstract certain features of elements of an invention and to
transform them according to scale, dimensionality or matching (deterministic or proba-
bilistic). This refers to the Transformational Heuristics by Weber (1992a), the Abstraction
Heuristic by Weber (1992b) and Principles 7 and 8 by Weber & Perkins (1989).
Figure 4: Creative Heuristics for Generating Alternatives
Source: Own illustration
Generation of
Alternatives
Variabilization &
Configuration
Combination &
Separation
-Vary the Variable
-Use Creativity Checklist (e.g. SCAMPER)
-Find a Trajectory or Evaluation Function
-Add Relevant Features
-Package Relevant Features
-Improve the Human Interface
-Delete Irrelevant Features
-Abstract and Transform (Scale,
Dimensionality, Matching)
-Consider the Negative/Inverse
-Combine Inventions with Complementary or
Emergent Qualities
-Combine to Eliminate Redundancy
-Interpolate & Extrapolate
-Find a New Purpose
-Separate and Recombine
-Use Separation Principles

!
26
!
To the category “Combination & Separation” belong all heuristics which combine, join or
link several inventions or functions of inventions. Among these heuristics the Inverse
Heuristic respectively Joining an Invention with its Inverse (Weber 1992a and 1992b,
Weber & Perkins 1989) seems to be a powerful tool often used by inventors. It is also
called “Consider the Negative” (Boden 1996b, p. 91). Other heuristics in this category
lead to combinations with complementary or emergent qualities (Complement Heuristics,
Emergent Function Heuristic) e.g. to avoid switching (Switching (Avoidance) Heuristic,
Compacting Heuristics) or to deliver a better performance (Specialization Heuristic) and
to combinations to eliminate redundancies (Shared-Property Heuristic or Overlap Heu-
ristic) (Weber 1992a and 1992b). Principles 10, 12, and 13 of Weber & Perkins (1989)
also belong to this group. Furthermore inventors can look for missing steps in a sequence
of inventions and interpolate or extrapolate, see e.g. Interpolation Heuristic and Extrap-
olation Heuristic by Weber (1992b) and Principles 5 and 6 by Weber & Perkins (1989).
Especially for new materials or preliminary products the New-Purpose Heuristic can be
applied. This heuristic advises to list all properties of a new material and to then try and
find applications demanding one or several of these properties. This approach is also
used in Technology Management to analyze the potential of a new technology (Spath,
Linder & Seidensticker 2011, p. 66 f.). For parts or components of an invention the anal-
ogous heuristic is the Multiple Function Heuristic by Weber (1992b).
Furthermore heuristics using separation belong to this category as Decomposing & Re-
combining by Polya (1989), Principle 11 (Unjoin) by Weber & Perkins (1989) and the four
separation principles of the TRIZ5 approach – separation in space, separation in time,
separation through change of conditions or state and separation within an object and its
parts (Zobel 2009, p. 234 ff., see also appendix).
4.2 Creative Heuristics for Challenging Assumptions
One element of challenging assumptions is “Contradiction & Confrontation” which
roughly corresponds to the contradiction path and the creative desperation path by Klein
(2014, p. 104). A core approach to confront a company and its product is described by
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 See footnote 2.

!
27
!
Bodell (2011, p. 50 ff.) as “Kill the Company” in her identically named book. In this ap-
proach employees of a company take an outside-in approach and try to destroy the com-
pany with new and improved product offerings or business models. This way employees
are less inhibited to challenge deep-seated assumptions about the business environ-
ment and uncomfortable truths about their own company. The same exercise can be
used to “Kill the Product” to radically challenge current product offerings. In a more gen-
eral way Bodell (2011, p. 193 ff.) advises to use “Assumption Reversal” and just consider
the opposite of current assumptions. Similar recommendations are given by de Bono
(1999, p. 108 ff. and p. 124 ff.) called “Reversal Method” and “Dominant Ideas and Crit-
ical Factors”.
Confrontation is also an idea-generating principle of creativity techniques (Geschka
2013) which is sometimes termed Forced Connection (Bodell 2011, p. 191 ff.). Forced
connection can be done visually or verbally. For visual confrontation pictures are used
as confrontational elements. In verbal confrontation concrete terms from a different con-
text than the one of the problem are connected to the problem. These terms can be
randomly selected. The main aim is to free people from preconceived ideas (Geschka &
Zirm 2011, p. 296).
Another way to use confrontation is to describe the ideal solution to a problem. The ideal
final result (IFR) is a component of the TRIZ6-approach, but can also be used as a sep-
arate tool to challenge assumptions about a given product (see e.g. the principle “From
Impossible to Possible” in Bodell 2012, p. 182 ff.). The ideal final result describes the
best conceivable outcome of the inventive process with the most convenient conditions,
regardless of wether this result is realistically achievable at the moment or not (Koltze &
Souchkov 2011, p. 32 ff.).
The entire approach of TRIZ is a way to overcome contradictions of inventive problems
(see chapter 2.2). The central idea of TRIZ is to take a specific problem and turn it into
an abstract problem. In the abstract problem a contradiction is detected, i.e. incompatible
requirement of two parameters: While one parameter is improved the other one deterio-
rates and vice versa. So the contradiction has to be removed to achieve the ideal result.
For this TRIZ offers combinations of 39 parameters arranged as a contradiction matrix.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 See footnote 2.

!
28
!
For each possible contradiction between two of the 39 parameters TRIZ offers 40 in-
ventive heuristics – the 40 TRIZ Principles – to overcome said contradiction (see appen-
dix). These principles supply an abstract solution which has to be transformed into a
specific solution for the specific problem (Deckert & Zobel 2010, p. 7 ff., Spath, Linder &
Seidensticker 2011, p. 189 ff., Zobel 2009, p. 75 ff.).
The allocation of the TRIZ Principles in the heuristic framework is problematic as these
principles include medium generality heuristics (e.g. Universality, Preliminary Action or
“Blessing in Disguise”) as well as very specific heuristics (e.g. Mechanical Vibration,
Spheroidality-Curvature or Flexible Shells and Thin Films). Furthermore they include
considerable overlap to heuristics which can also be used for generating alternatives
(e.g. Segmentation, The Other Way Round or Parameter Changes). Nevertheless, since
the entire approach of TRIZ aims at overcoming contradictions the TRIZ Principles have
been allocated to this category.
Figure 5: Creative Heuristics for Challenging Assumptions
Source: Own illustration
The main idea of imagination and visualization is to use pictorial representations of a
problem and/or its possible solutions (Geschka & Zirm 2011, p. 297). As described vis-
ual-aesthetic thinking and immersion can be seen as central components of the creativity
of inventors and scientists (INNCH 2014, p. 23 ff.). In “Try to become the problem” the
inventor projects himself into the problem situation to conceive possible solutions. In
Challenging
Assumptions
Contradiction &
Confrontation
Imagination &
Visualization
Kill the Company/Product –
Reverse the Assumption –
Force a Connection (visual or verbal) –
Describe the Ideal Solution –
Use TRIZ Principles –
Take a Picture of the Problem –
Try to Become the Problem –
Visualize the Ideal Solution –
Change the Perspective (e.g. Six Thinking –
Hats) –
Model/Prototype the Solution –

!
29
!
“Take a picture of the problem” the problem solver analyzes the problem like a camera
to sharpen his views for the causal relations of the problem (Geschka & Zirm 2011, p.
297). A variant of these heuristics is to visualize the ideal solution.
Another possibility for imagination is to take on different perspectives on a problem –
either of main stakeholders, e.g. user of the product, seller of the product, innocent by-
stander etc. or fixed perspectives such as the Six Thinking Hats by de Bono (1999) or
the three roles of the Walt Disney Method (Geschka & Zirm 2011, p. 294). In this way
the inventor imagines the possible thoughts, feelings, wants and needs of different pos-
sible stakeholders and tries to see the problem from their perspective. The immersion
into the world of the customer is also used in approaches of Empathic Design (Mat-
telmäki, Vaajakallio & Koskinen 2013) and Design Thinking (Brown 2008).
Another heuristic from Design Thinking is to model or prototype the solution. A prototype
does not need to look like a finished product. On the contrary a “quick and dirty”-proto-
type can help to visualize a solution while simultaneously being cheap. Furthermore an
unfinished prototype invites people to make changes and corrections (Brown 2008, Kel-
ley 2001). “Prototypes should command only as much time, effort, and investment as are
needed to generate useful feedback and evolve ideas” (Brown 2008, p. 87). Tinkering
and fiddling with models and prototypes in product development makes the customer
experience of the product more tangible and helps to get important feedback of the func-
tionality and effectiveness of an invention. This approach is called “action theory” which
has led to a shift of focus in creative problem solving from contemplation to action (Saw-
yer 2012). It can lead to significant design improvements of inventions as the US-Amer-
ican company IDEO has successfully shown several times (Kelley 2001).
4.3 Reframing the Problem
Reframing the problem can be necessary at several points along the process of problem
solving. Many authors (see e.g. Geschka 2005, Norman 2013, p. 164 ff., Michalko 2011,
p. 41 ff.) stress the importance of a thorough problem analysis at the very beginning to
determine the “real” problem to be solved. In root cause analysis the inventor asks “why”-
questions several times to get to the core of the problem. This method is similar to the
“5 Why”-technique of Lean Management. The newest version of the Creative Problem

!
30
!
Solving (CPS) approach includes a stage called “Framing the Problem” (Isaksen &
Treffinger 2004, p. 95). During problem solving it can become necessary to restructure
the problem when the inventor is stuck or upon novelty or overload (Perkins 2000, p.
133). Reframing in an industrial context of invention can be achieved by generalization
or specialization with regard to the product offering or by taking into account auxiliary
elements such as packaging or the competitive environment and auxiliary problems from
other areas of the business model (see fig. 6).
According to Polya (1989, p. 108 ff. and 190 ff.) Generalization and Specialization can
be used to change the level of detail of a problem as a means for reframing the problem.
For companies from the manufacturing sector this translates into understanding the prod-
uct as a “holon” (Deckert 2016, p. 5 ff.). The term “holon” was coined by Koestler (1975,
p. 48) “from the Greek holos = whole, with the suffix on which, as in proton or neutron,
suggests a particle or part” for entities “which behave partly as wholes and wholly as
parts”. Transferred to an industrial product, the product can be either seen as an auton-
omous sellable unit or as a component of a larger entity, e.g. a more complex product or
a business model. So the product can be either broken down into modules, components
and raw materials to find a solution or it can be positioned into a wider context of the final
product of which it is a part. Especially in a B2B-environment many products are prelim-
inary materials or parts used to build other products. Eventually at the end of this value
chain an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) produces the final product which is
sold to consumers (B2C-product).
According to Polya (1989, p. 50 ff.) an Auxiliary Problem is a kind of substitutive problem
for the one the inventor intends to solve. For a company from the manufacturing sector
the business model offers opportunities to substitute an inventive problem with a different
type of problem. A business model can be defined as “the rationale of how an organiza-
tion creates, delivers and captures value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, p. 14). In an
industrial context a product can be seen as a part of the value proposition of a business
model. Apart from the product offering the value creation of a business model includes
customer segments, communication and distribution channels, customer relationships
and revenue streams (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, p. 16 ff.). Conceiving a product in
such a way can broaden the search space for possible solutions. A solution can be
searched in the product offering, i.e. by improving the product performance or the product

!
31
!
system. Apart from the product offering, a solution can also be searched in the configu-
ration and the customer experience. Configuration includes the profit model of the prod-
uct, the network of partners and suppliers as well as the structure and processes for
producing and distributing the product. Customer experience contains services as a com-
plement or as a substitution of the product, distribution and communication channels for
the product, product branding and positioning as well as customer engagement (Keeley
et al. 2013, p. 16 ff.).
According to Polya (1989, p. 46 ff.) an Auxiliary Element can be introduced to facilitate
the search for a solution. Transferred to industrial products Auxiliary Elements can lie in
packaging or the competitive environment. Packaging can be defined as a “unit which
serves a packaging function such as the containment, protection, handling, delivery, stor-
age, transport and presentation of goods” (ISO 21067 2015). Sales packagings serve a
few key roles which can be used as a solution for certain inventive problems. These
include protection & containment, environmental impacts & ethical implications, identifi-
cation & marketing communication, user convenience & market appeal, cost and inno-
vation (Simms 2012, p. 101 ff.). Products are usually not shipped out as single packages
but in the form of loading units, e.g. pallets or containers. So a solution might be achieved
by changing the packaging or the loading unit instead of the product.
Another Auxiliary Element is the competitive environment of the product which includes
all competitor products and substitutive products. By a competitor analysis either the
threat of substitution or further applications of an invention or a technology might be
spotted (Pfeiffer et al. 1997, p. 69 ff.). The competitive environment furthermore contains
complementary products (Geschka 2005, p. 388 ff.) which might be used to solve certain
inventive problems.

!
32
!
Figure 6: Reframing the Problem
Source: Own illustration based on Geschka (2005), Polya (1989) and Keeley et al. (2013)
Generalization
Specialization
Auxiliary Elements
Auxiliary
Problems
Final Product
Intermediate Product
Module
Component
Raw Material
Packaging
Loading Unit
Complementary Products
Competitors’ Products
Substitutive Products
ExperienceProduct Offering
System
Performance
Configuration
Service
Channel
Brand
Customer
Engagement
Profit
Model
Network
Structure
Process

!
33
!
5 Conclusion
“For most people, innovative thinking has become
a one-time PowerPoint exercise reserved for the annual strategic plan.”
Bodell (2012, p. xxi)
In the paper at hand a framework for creative heuristics was developed by analyzing
existing approaches to heuristics and gaining insight. The framework is based on the two
general principles “Generation of Alternatives” and “Challenging Assumptions” by de
Bono (1999). So the framework combines the ideas that “quantity will breed quality” by
Alex Faickney Osborn with the idea of Genrish Altshuller that “inventing is the resolution
of technical contradictions”. Each principle is split into two sub-principles: Generating
alternatives can be achieved by “Variabilization & Configuration” and “Combination &
Separation”; challenging assumptions by “Contradiction & Confrontation” and “Imagina-
tion & Visualization”. Furthermore “Reframing the Problem” and “Fine-Tuning the Solu-
tion” complete the framework.
Creative heuristics from the literature about invention and innovation were allocated
within the framework. These heuristics can help a problem solver to overcome fixation
and other human biases, such as endowment effect and status quo-bias. Apart from that
they offer promising search areas and directions and, thus, can transform a Klondike
Space into a Homing Space. So the framework offers a toolbox for inventors. Further-
more it also offers phases to shift between in the inventive process. Typically an inventor
would start by defining or framing the problem. Then he would tackle the problem by
generating alternatives and/or challenging assumptions. If a promising solution is found,
it is fine-tuned to improve its functionality. If the inventor gets stuck, he can turn back to
reframe the problem. For companies of manufacturing industries several paths for re-
framing are offered including generalization and specialization of a product offering, aux-
iliary elements in the form of packaging and competitive environment and auxiliary prob-
lems of the business model. Finally the framework might be used in promoting creativity
in engineering education as described by Cropley (2015, p. 168 ff.).

!
34
!
One limitation of the framework is that it is only a toolbox of heuristics with several
phases, but not a fixed method with a step-by-step approach to the best solution. In fact
it is hard to determine the effectiveness of the single heuristics in the framework. But the
heuristics in the framework are proven by historical analysis of inventions or by accounts
or observations of problem solvers. They have been tested by several creative people
and found worthy to be included in their books and papers. Generally, heuristics can be
seen as one way to solve creative problems (Perkins 1992, p. 247 ff.). Nevertheless, the
framework cannot guarantee a good solution. It cannot even guarantee that the inventor
finds a solution at all. So there is still room for chance insights triggered by random stim-
uli. But the application of the heuristics of the framework should increase the likelihood
of success and turn a situation of sheer chance into a situation of a fair or good bet (see
Perkins & Weber 1992, p. 320). Nevertheless, it might sometimes be advisable to ignore
the heuristics: Sometimes the best heuristic to choose is to drop a heuristic.
Apart from that, creativity does not only depend on creative thinking skills which can be
fostered by using creative heuristics. In the Componential Theory of Individual Creativity
by Amabile (1996, p. 83 ff.) expertise in the respective domain and task motivation are
also core components. Furthermore invention is not only determined by market pull or
technology push. Admittedly it is right that customer needs are a basis for invention and
that “necessity is the mother of invention”. Equally it holds true that technologies enable
new products and arouse new needs in people so that “Sometimes invention is the
mother of necessity” (Weber 1992a, p. 8). But it also seems to be the case that invention
is an activity which is undertaken as an autotelic activity putting inventors into the flow
channel, as the research by Csikszentmihalyi (1997) suggests. Or as Alex Faickney Os-
born is supposed to have said: “Necessity may be the mother of invention, but fun is the
father” (AZQuotes 2017).

!
35
!
Reference List
Altshuller, G. S. (1984). Erfinden – Wege zur Lösung technischer Probleme [Inventing
– Paths to Solving Technical Problems]. Berlin: VEB Verlag Technik.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder: Westview Press.
Anthony, S.D. (2012). The Little Black Book of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business
Review Press.
Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably Irrational. The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.
New York: Harper.
Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology. What It Is and How It Evolves. New
York: Free Press.
Arthur D. Little (2010). Pathways to Innovation Excellence. Results of a Global Study
by Arthur D. Little. Retrived 23.04.2016 from http://www.adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlre-
ports/ADL_InnoEx_Report_2010.pdf
AZQuotes (2017). Alex Faickney Osborn Quotes. Retrieved 18.06.2017 from
http://www.azquotes.com/author/23884-Alex_Faickney_Osborn
Basalla, G. (2002). The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bodell, L. (2012). Kill the Company – End the Status Quo, Start an Innovation Revolu-
tion. Brookline: Bibliomotion.
Boden, M. (1992). The Creative Mind. Myths and Mechanisms. London: Cardinal.
Boden, M. (1996a). Introduction. In M. Boden (ed.). Dimensions of Creativity (1-11).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Boden, M. (1996b). What is Creativity? In M. Boden (ed.). Dimensions of Creativity (75-
118). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brem, A., Brem, S. (2013). Kreativität und Innovation im Unternehmen [Creativity and
Innovation in the Company]. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel.
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. June 2008, 84-92.
Burgelman, R.A., Christensen, C.M., Wheelwright, S.C. (2009). Strategic Manage-
ment of Technology and Innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

!
36
!
Carlson, W.B., Gorman, M.E. (1992). A Cognitive Framework to Understand Techno-
logical Creativity: Bell, Edison, and the Telephone. In R.J. Weber & D.N. Perkins (eds.).
Inventive Minds. Creativity in Technology (48-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cropley, D.H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering Education.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. 9 (2), 161-171.
Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J. (2005). Engineering Creativity: A Systems Concept of
Functional Creativity. In J.C. Kaufman, J. Baer (eds.). Creativity across Domains: Faces
of the Muse (169-185). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J. (2008). Elements of a Universal Aesthetic of Creativity.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2 (3), 155-161.
Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J. (2010). Functional Creativity. “Products” and the Genera-
tion of Effective Novelty. In J.C. Kaufman, R.J. Sternberg (eds.). The Cambridge Hand-
book of Creativity (301-317). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cropley, D.H., Kaufman, J.C., Cropley, A.J. (2011). Measuring Creativity for Innovation
Management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. 6 (3), 14-29.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and In-
vention. New York: HarperPerennial.
Davidson, J.E. (2003). Insights about Insightful Problem Solving. In J.E. Davidson, R.J.
Sternberg (eds.). The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
De Bono, E. (1990). Lateral Thinking. London: Penguin.
Deckert, C., Zobel, D. (2010). Erfinden mit TRIZ. Wertsteigerung durch Kreativität [In-
venting with TRIZ. Value Increase through Creativity]. Deckert Management Report.
Sommer 2010, 7-9.
Dobelli, R. (2014). The Art of Thinking Clearly. New York: Harper.!!
Eberle, B. (2008). SCAMPER. Games for Imagination Development. Waco: Prufrock
Press.
Foster, R., Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative Destruction. Why Companies That Are Built to
Last Underperform the Market – and How to Successfully Transform Them. New York
Currency.
Gerpott, T.J. (2005). Strategisches Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement [Strate-
gic Technology and Innovation Management]. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

!
37
!
Geschka, H. (2005). Innovationsbedarfserfassung [Detection of Demands for Innova-
tions]. In J. Amelingmeyer, P.E. Harland (eds.). Technologiemanagement & Marketing.
Herausforderungen eines integrierten Innovationsmanagements [Technology Manage-
ment & Marketing. Challenges of an Integrated Innovation Management] (381-401).
Wiesbaden: DUV.
Geschka, H. (2013). Methoden-Dschungel der Kreativitätstechniken [Method-Jungle of
Creative Techniques]. Presentation at the Symposium der Gesellschaft für Kreativität
e.V., 7. September 2013, FH Mainz.
Geschka, H., Lantelme, G. (2005). Problemlösungsstrategien [Strategies for Problem-
Solving]. In Weissenberger-Eibl, M.A. (ed.). Gestaltung von Innovationsystemen [Crea-
tion of Innovation Systems] (309-328). Kassel: Cactus.
Geschka, H., Zirm, A. (2011). Kreativitätstechniken [Creativity Techniques]. In Albers,
S., Gassmann, O. (eds.). Handbuch Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement [Hand-
book of Technology and Innovation Management] (2nd ed.) (279-302). Wiesbaden: Gab-
ler.
Getzels, J.W., Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). From Problem-Solving to Problem-Finding.
In I.A. Taylor, J.W. Getzels (eds.). Perspectives in Creativity (90-116). Chicago: Aldine.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. London: Pen-
guin Books.
Ghiselin, B. (1985). The Creative Process: Reflections on Invention in the Arts and Sci-
ences. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grant, A. (2016). Originals. How Non-Conformists Move the World. New York: Penguin.
Hughes, T.P. (2005). Human-Built World. How to Think about Technology and Culture.
Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
INNCH (2014). Kreatives Denken und Kreativer Prozess. Eine qualitativ-psychologische
Studie [Creative Thinking and Creative Process. A qualitative-psychological survey]. Co-
logne: INNCH.
Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J. (2004). Celebrating 50 Years of Reflective Practice: Ver-
sions of Creative Problem Solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38 (2), 75-101.
Janis, I.L. (1973). Victims of Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Janis, I.L. (1980). Groupthink. In H.J. Leavitt, L.R. Pondy, D.M. Boje (eds.). Readings in
Managerial Psychology (3rd ed.) (432-444). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

!
38
!
Jaruzelski, B., Staack, V., Schwartz, K. (2015). 2015 Global Innovation 1000. Innova-
tion’s New World Order. Strategy& Survey. Retrieved 24.04.2016 from http://www.strat-
egyand.pwc.com/media/file/2015-Global-Innovation-1000-Fact-Pack.pdf
Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
Kahneman, D., Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for Intuitive Expertise. A Failure to Disa-
gree. American Psychologist. 64 (6), 515-526.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect,
Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5 (1), 193-206.
Keeley, L., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B., Walters, H. (2013). Ten Types of Innovation. The
Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Kelley, T. (2001). The Art of Innovation. London: Profile Books.
Kelly, K. (2010). What Technology Wants. New York: Viking.
Klein, G. (2014). Seeing What Others Don’t. The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights.
London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Koestler, A. (1967). The Act of Creation. New York: Dell.
Koestler, A. (1975). The Ghost in the Machine. London: Picador.
Koltze, K., Souchkov, V. (2011).Systematische Innovation: TRIZ-Anwendung in der
Produkt- und Prozessentwicklung [Systematic Innovation: TRIZ-Application in Product
and Process Development]. München: Hanser.
Kounios, J., Beeman, M. (2016). The Eureka Factor. Creative Insights and the Brain.
London: Windmill Books.
Mathisen, G.E., Einarsen, S. (2004). A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative and
Innovative Environments within Organizations. Creativity Research Journal. 16 (4), 119-
140.
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., Koskinen, I. (2013). What Happened to Empathic De-
sign? Design Issues. 30 (1), 67-77.
Michalko, M. (2011). Creative Thinkering. Novato: New World Library.
Mueller, J.S., Melwani, S., Goncalo, J.A. (2011). The Bias Against Creativity: Why Peo-
ple Desire But Reject Creative Ideas. Retrieved 07.09.2011, from Cornell University, ILR
School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/450/
Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.
Review of General Psychology. 2 (2), 175-220.

!
39
!
Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). OECD Sci-
ence, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013. INNOVATION FOR GROWTH. Paris:
OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2013-en
Oldham, G.R., Baer, M. (2012). Creativity and the Work Context. In M.D. Mumford (ed.).
Handbook of Organizational Creativity (387-420). London: Academic Press.
Orloff, M.A. (2006). Inventive Thinking through TRIZ. A Practical Guide. Berlin: Springer.
Orloff, M.A. (2012). Modern TRIZ. A Practical Course with EASyTRIZ Technology. Ber-
lin: Springer.
Orloff, M.A. (2017). ABC-TRIZ. Introduction to Creative Design Thinking with Modern
TRIZ. Berlin: Springer.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Vi-
sionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Park, W.-W. (1990). A Review of Research on Groupthink. Journal of Behavioral Deci-
sion Making. 3 (4), 229-245.
Pfeiffer, W. Weiß, E., Volz, T., Wettengl, S. (1997). Funktionalmarkt-Konzept zum strat-
egischen Management prinzipieller technologischer Innovationen [Concept of a Func-
tional Market for Strategic Management of Fundamental Technological Innovations].
Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Perkins, D.N. (1992). The Topography of Invention. In R.J. Weber & D.N. Perkins (eds.).
Inventive Minds. Creativity in Technology (238-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perkins, D.N. (1996). Creativity: Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm. In M. Boden (ed.).
Dimensions of Creativity (119-142). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Perkins, D.N. (2000). The Eureka Effect. The Art and Logic of Breakthrough Thinking.
New York: Norton.
Perkins, D.N., Weber, R.J. (1992). Effable Invention. In R.J. Weber & D.N. Perkins
(eds.). Inventive Minds. Creativity in Technology (317-336). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Petroski, H. (1992). The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Vintage Books.
Polya, G. (1988). How to Solve it. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
PwC = PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (2013). Breakthrough Innovation and Growth.
Retrieved 23.04.2016 from http://www.pwc.com/ca/innovation-survey

!
40
!
Ray, M., Myers, R. (2000). Creativity in Business. New York: Broadway Books.
Ringel, M., Taylor, A., Zablit, H. (2015). The Most Innovative Companies 2015. Four
Factors that Differentiate Leaders. Boston Consulting Group Survey. Retrieved
23.04.2016 from https://media-publications.bcg.com/MIC/BCG-Most-Innovative-Com-
panies-2015-Nov-2015.pdf.
Rogers, M.E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rothenberg, A. (1987). Einstein, Bohr, and Creative Thinking in Science. History of Sci-
ence, XXV (1987), 147.166.
Rothenberg, A. (1996). The Janusian Process in Scientific Creativity. Creativity Re-
search Journal. 9 (2), 207-231.
Rothenberg, A. (2014). Flight from Wonder: An Investigation of Scientific Creativity. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Runco, M.A. (2014). Creativity. Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and
Practice (2nd ed.) London: Elsevier.
Runco, M.A., Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Re-
search Journal. 24 (1), 92-96.
Samuelson, W., Zweckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty. 1988 (1), 7-59.
Sawyer, R.K. (2012). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2013). Zig Zag. The Surprising Path to Greater Creativity. San Fran-
cisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, D.K., Paradice, D.B., Smith, S.M. (2000). Prepare Your Mind for Creativity. Com-
munications of the ACM. 43 (7), 111-116.
SolidCreativity (2014). TRIZ 40 Principles. Retrieved on 27.02.2017 from
http://www.triz40.com/aff_Principles_TRIZ.php
Spath, D., Linder, C., Seidensticker, S. (2011). Technologiemanagement. Grundlagen,
Konzepte, Methoden [Technology Management. Basics, Concepts, Methods]. Stuttgart:
Fraunhofer Verlag.
Sternberg, R.J., Davidson, J.E. (1999). Insight. In M.A. Runco, S.R. Pritzker (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Creativity (Volume 2). San Diego: Academic Press.
Tesla, N. (2016). My Inventions: And Other Writings. Mineola: Dover Publications.

!
41
!
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization. 1980 (1), 39-60.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Science. 185 (4157), 1124-1131.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of
Choice. Science. 211 (4481), 453-458.
von Oech, R. (2008). A Whack on the Side of the Head: How You Can Be More Creative.
New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Weber, R.J. (1992a). Forks, Phonographs and Hot Air Balloons. A Field Guide to In-
ventive Thinking. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weber, R.J. (1992b). Stone Age Knife to Swiss Army Knife: An Invention Prototype. In
R.J. Weber & D.N. Perkins (eds.). Inventive Minds. Creativity in Technology (217-237).
New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weber, R.J., Dixon, S. (1989). Invention and Gain Analysis. Cognitive Psychology 21,
283-302.
Weber, R.J., Perkins, N.D. (1989). How to Invent Artifacts and Ideas. New Ideas in Psy-
chology, 7 (1), 49-72.
Zobel, D. (2009). Systematisches Erfinden. Methoden und Beispiele für den Praktiker
[Systematic Invention. Methods and Examples for Practitioners] (5th ed.). Renningen:
Expert Verlag.

!
42
!
Appendix: Lists of Creative Heuristics
Weber (1992a, p. 88 ff.)
Single-Invention Heuristics
Make-Variable Heuristic
Make or identify potential dimensions of variation, that is,
create dimensions or variables where previously only
fixed features or constants existed. Then begin to change
the values of those variables to more closely approximate
the desired goal, as determined by evaluative criteria […].
Repeated-Element Heu-
ristic
Once an interesting component is discovered […] try
copying or repeating it as often as necessary. It may be a
suitable building block for more complex inventions.
Fine-Tuning Heuristic
After the right parts are in place, try to rearrange or tweak
them for better performance. It is usually possible to im-
prove something by getting all the variables in just the
right configuration. To do this sensibly, it is important to
have definitive evaluative standards in mind.
Variance Control Heu-
ristic
Seek out variances that need to be controlled, from con-
crete quantities like water to abstract quantities like infor-
mation. Then try to find improved methods of control in or-
der to minimize range or to spread it out more evenly.
Feature Deletion Heuris-
tic
See what features or dimensions you can delete from an
invention and still have a viable product.
Feature Addition Heuris-
tic
See what other features or dimensions you can add to a
given product.
Multiple-Invention Heuristics: Linking
Interpolation Heuristic
Look for intermediate states in a line of invention develop-
ment. Some of these states may also be useful. […]
Extrapolation Heuristic
Look for trends in a line of invention development. Try to
continue those trends to a next step. To do so may re-
quire the finding of new functions or purposes. Or it may
simply be the idea of continuous improvement along a di-
mension that guides us.
New-Purpose Heuristic
Begin with a listing of the known properties of the new
material. […] look for applications that require one or
more of the properties that match those of our material.
[…]
Multiple-Invention Heuristics: Joining
Inverse Heuristic
Try joining those tools or devices that undo the actions of
one another. These are often useful combinations.
Complement Heuristic
Combine those tools or inventions that are used together
in the same context. Do this especially if the separate in-
ventions have complementary strengths and weaknesses
[…].

!
43
!
Shared-Property Heuris-
tic
Whenever tools or devices share one or more attributes
or parts, try to join them to eliminate redundancy, mini-
mize size or space, or hold down overall cost.
Emergent Function Heu-
ristic
When joining inventions, be on the watch for important
new capabilities that are not present in either of the
parent inventions. One of those functions is parallelism,
the ability to use simultaneously the capabilities of each
parent device.
Transformational Heuristics
Scale Heuristic
Try changing the size of one or more components in an
existing invention. Often a change in size scale will open
up entirely new applications.
Dimensionality Heuristic
Try changing the dimensionality of one or more compo-
nents in an existing invention. […]
Matching Heuristic
Try changing the basis of matching or linking between
components, from deterministic to haphazard. The way
components are linked together is a fundamental princi-
ple.

!
44
!
Weber (1992b, p. 221 ff.)
Inventing with Joins
Complement Heuristic
Combine only those tools or ideas that are used in the
same context.
Inverse Heuristic
Combine only those tools or ideas that are inverses of
each other.
Overlap Heuristic
Join only those tools with partially overlapping parts,
properties or functions.
Multiple Functions Heu-
ristic
Find multiple functions for the same part.
Specialization Heuristic
Allow for different specific [functional components] as part
of the same overall tool to maximize the fit between tool
and task.
Compacting Heuristic
Join components tightly, so they are in a package and will
not become separated or lost.
Switching Avoidance
Heuristic
Cut down on the dead time between uses that results
from having to look for a related tool and then switch to it.
Invention by Adding Features
Slot Addition Heuristic
Increase functionality by adding features […].
Packaging Heuristic
Pack as much functionality as possible into the same
structures and space.
Interface Heuristic
Develop a human interface, like a handle, that is comfort-
able and that will enhance leverage and control.
Opportunity Heuristic
Here’s a place that we can add a new function, so let’s do
it.
Invention by Refinement
Fine-Tuning Heuristic
An inventor should find the direction that evaluation crite-
ria move in, and try to anticipate the next step.
Invention by Abstraction and Transformation
Abstraction Heuristic
[…] abstraction of a building block and subsequent spatial
transformations of that building block […].

!
45
!
Weber & Perkins (1989)
The Frame Heuristic
Principle 1
(Frame)
Given an artifact or idea that might provide a point of de-
parture for invention, represent it as a frame with slots
bound to the values characteristic of the thing or idea.
Within-Frame Heuristics
Principle 2
(Variabilization)
Create variables in place of constants. Substitute a vari-
ety of values in slots to change the nature of a frame in
order to reach a goal.
Principle 3
(Evaluation Function)
To guide oneself along a path of frames through invention
space, construct an evaluation function that takes into ac-
count the invention or idea constraints […], the points of
free variation […], and the overall purpose at hand.
Principle 4
(Extension of Terms)
Try to apply a given tool, procedure, rule, or method to
entities that share many of the same slots and values with
the original objects of interest, thereby expanding the do-
main of application by adding XOR terms.
Principle 5
(Interpolation)
If there are gaps or missing values between important
working inventions or ideas, try to generate the filler […]
Principle 6
(Extrapolation)
If there is a possibility of an ordered class, try to extrapo-
late to an earlier or later member. If possible, try to con-
sider limiting cases (such as zero or infinity).
Principle 7
(Scale and Dimensional-
ity Changes)
Generate inventions and ideas by changing size scale
and slots; and by moving between deterministic and
probabilistic processes.
Principle 8
(AND Abstraction)
To become more abstract, drop slots (or treat them as
Don’t Cares).
Between-Frame Heuristics
Principle 9
(Joining an Invention
with its Inverse)
If an operation is interesting or powerful, look for its in-
verse, which may also be interesting and powerful. If
necessary, change the definition of the domain so the in-
verse will work. The existence of an inverse will increase
the range of inputs and outputs to and from an operation
or process.
Principle 10
(Joins in General)
Use a frame Join operation to create general new entities
that integrate the properties of the simpler components by
combining simpler frames; at the same time, eliminate re-
dundancies.
Principle 11
(Unjoin)
To understand a complex system, perform Unjoin in the
search for functional subcomponents.
Principle 12
(Metaphor)
Generate possible ideas about a target domain by meta-
phorically borrowing selected slots from other model do-
mains. If the fit is not satisfactory, try dropping slots from
the target domain or the model domain to decrease con-
straint and increase abstraction.

!
46
!
Principle 13
(Frame Comparison)
Determine differences and likenesses of frames, and no-
tice the trajectory of their change as a suggestion of next
steps in invention. This tells one what direction to move in
the search space of possible inventions.

!
47
!
Polya (1988, p. 131)
Modern Heuristics
Variation of the Problem
Desiring to proceed from our initial conception of the prob-
lem to a more adequate, better adapted conception, we
try various standpoints and we view the problem from dif-
ferent sides.
Decomposing and Re-
combining
You decompose the whole into its parts, and you recom-
bine the parts into a more or less different whole.
Generalization
Generalization is passing from the consideration of one
object to the consideration of a set containing that object;
or passing from the consideration of a restricted set to
that of a more comprehensive set containing the restricted
one.
Specialization
Specialization is passing from the consideration of a given
set of objects to that of a smaller set, or of just one object,
contained in a given set.
Analogy
Analogy is a sort of similarity. Similar objects agree with
each other in some respect, analogous objects agree in
certain relations of their respective parts. […] All sorts of
analogy may play a role in the discovery of the solution
and so we should not neglect any sort.
Auxiliary Elements
An element that we introduce in the hope that it will further
the solution is called an auxiliary element.
Auxiliary Problem
Auxiliary problem is a problem which we consider, not for
its own sake, but because we hope that its consideration
may help us solve another problem, our original problem.

!
48
!
Eberle (1996, p.6)
SCAMPER
Substitute
To have a person or thing act or serve in the place of an-
other.
Combine
To bring together, to unite.
Adjust
To adjust for the purpose of suiting a condition of pur-
pose.
Modify
Magnify
Minify
To alter, to change the form or quality.
To enlarge, make greater in form or quality.
To make smaller, lighter, slower.
Put to other uses
To have a person or thing act or serve in the place of an-
other.
Eliminate
To remove, emit, or get rid of a quality, part, or whole.
Reverse
Rearrange
To place opposite, to turn around.
To change order or adjust, different plan, layout, or
scheme

!
49
!
TRIZ Principles (SolidCreativity 2014)
40 TRIZ Principles
Segmentation
Divide an object into independent parts.
Make an object easy to disassemble.
Increase the degree of fragmentation or segmentation.
Taking out
Separate an interfering part or property from an object, or
single out the only necessary part (or property) of an ob-
ject.
Local Quality
Change an object's structure from uniform to non-uniform,
change an external environment (or external influence)
from uniform to non-uniform.
Make each part of an object function in conditions most
suitable for its operation.
Make each part of an object fulfill a different and useful
function.
Asymmetry
Change the shape of an object from symmetrical to asym-
metrical.
If an object is asymmetrical, increase its degree of asym-
metry.
Merging
Bring closer together (or merge) identical or similar ob-
jects, assemble identical or similar parts to perform paral-
lel operations.
Make operations contiguous or parallel; bring them to-
gether in time.
Universality
Make a part or object perform multiple functions; eliminate
the need for other parts.
Nested Doll
Place one object inside another; place each object, in
turn, inside the other.
Make one part pass through a cavity in the other.
Anti-Weight
To compensate for the weight of an object, merge it with
other objects that provide lift.
To compensate for the weight of an object, make it inter-
act with the environment (e.g. use aerodynamic, hydrody-
namic, buoyancy and other forces).
Preliminary Anti-Action
If it will be necessary to do an action with both harmful
and useful effects, this action should be replaced with
anti-actions to control harmful effects.
Create beforehand stresses in an object that will oppose
known undesirable working stresses later on.
Preliminary Action
Perform, before it is needed, the required change of an
object (either fully or partially).
Pre-arrange objects such that they can come into action
from the most convenient place and without losing time
for their delivery.
Beforehand Cushioning
Prepare emergency means beforehand to compensate for
the relatively low reliability of an object.

!
50
!
Equipotentiality
In a potential field, limit position changes (e.g. change
operating conditions to eliminate the need to raise or
lower objects in a gravity field).
The Other Way Round
Invert the action(s) used to solve the problem (e.g. in-
stead of cooling an object, heat it).
Make movable parts (or the external environment) fixed,
and fixed parts movable.
Turn the object (or process) 'upside down'.
Spheroidality – Curva-
ture
Instead of using rectilinear parts, surfaces, or forms, use
curvilinear ones; move from flat surfaces to spherical
ones; from parts shaped as a cube (parallelepiped) to
ball-shaped structures.
Use rollers, balls, spirals, domes.
Go from linear to rotary motion, use centrifugal forces.
Dynamics
Allow (or design) the characteristics of an object, external
environment, or process to change to be optimal or to find
an optimal operating condition.
Divide an object into parts capable of movement relative
to each other.
If an object (or process) is rigid or inflexible, make it
movable or adaptive.
Partial or Excessive Ac-
tions
If 100 percent of an object is hard to achieve using a
given solution method then, by using 'slightly less' or
'slightly more' of the same method, the problem may be
considerably easier to solve.
Another Dimension
To move an object in two- or three-dimensional space.
Use a multi-story arrangement of objects instead of a
single-story arrangement.
Tilt or re-orient the object, lay it on its side.
Use 'another side' of a given area.
Mechanical Vibration
Cause an object to oscillate or vibrate.
Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic).
Use an object's resonant frequency.
Use piezoelectric vibrators instead of mechanical ones.
Use combined ultrasonic and electromagnetic field oscil-
lations.
Periodic Action
Instead of continuous action, use periodic or pulsating ac-
tions.
If an action is already periodic, change the periodic
magnitude or frequency.
Use pauses between impulses to perform a different ac-
tion.
Continuity of Useful Ac-
tion
Carry on work continuously; make all parts of an object
work at full load, all the time.
Eliminate all idle or intermittent actions or work.
Skipping
Conduct a process, or certain stages (e.g. destructible,
harmful or hazardous operations) at high speed.

!
51
!
“Blessing in Disguise” or
“Turn Lemons into Lem-
onade”
Use harmful factors (particularly, harmful effects of the
environment or surroundings) to achieve a positive effect.
Eliminate the primary harmful action by adding it to an-
other harmful action to resolve the problem.
Amplify a harmful factor to such a degree that it is no
longer harmful.
Feedback
Introduce feedback (referring back, cross-checking) to im-
prove a process or action.
If feedback is already used, change its magnitude or influ-
ence.
Intermediary
Use an intermediary carrier article or intermediary pro-
cess.
Merge one object temporarily with another (which can be
easily removed).
Self-Service
Make an object serve itself by performing auxiliary helpful
functions.
Use waste resources, energy, or substances.
Copying
Instead of an unavailable, expensive, fragile object, use
simpler and inexpensive copies.
Replace an object, or process with optical copies.
If visible optical copies are already used, move to infrared
or ultraviolet copies.
Cheap Short-Living Ob-
jects
Replace an inexpensive object with a multiple of inexpen-
sive objects, comprising certain qualities (such as service
life, for instance).
Mechanics Substitution
Replace a mechanical means with a sensory (optical,
acoustic, taste or smell) means.
Use electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields to inter-
act with the object.
Change from static to movable fields, from unstructured
fields to those having structure.
Use fields in conjunction with field-activated (e.g. ferro-
magnetic) particles.
Pneumatics and Hy-
draulics
Use gas and liquid parts of an object instead of solid parts
(e.g. inflatable, filled with liquids, air cushion, hydrostatic,
hydro-reactive).
Flexible Shells and Thin
Films
Use flexible shells and thin films instead of three dimen-
sional structures
Isolate the object from the external environment using
flexible shells and thin films.
Porous Materials
Make an object porous or add porous elements (inserts,
coatings, etc.).
If an object is already porous, use the pores to introduce
a useful substance or function.
Color Changes
Change the color of an object or its external environment.
Change the transparency of an object or its external envi-
ronment.
Homogeneity
Make objects interacting with a given object of the same
material (or material with identical properties).

!
52
!
Discarding and Recov-
ering
Make portions of an object that have fulfilled their func-
tions go away (discard by dissolving, evaporating, etc.) or
modify these directly during operation.
Conversely, restore consumable parts of an object di-
rectly in operation.
Parameter Changes
Change an object's physical state (e.g. to a gas, liquid, or
solid.).
Change the concentration or consistency.
Change the degree of flexibility.
Change the temperature.
Phase Transitions
Use phenomena occurring during phase transitions (e.g.
volume changes, loss or absorption of heat, etc.).
Thermal Expansion
Use thermal expansion (or contraction) of materials.
If thermal expansion is being used, use multiple materials
with different coefficients of thermal expansion.
Strong Oxidants
Replace common air with oxygen-enriched air.
Replace enriched air with pure oxygen.
Expose air or oxygen to ionizing radiation.
Use ionized oxygen.
Replace ozonized (or ionized) oxygen with ozone.
Inert Atmosphere
Replace a normal environment with an inert one.
Add neutral parts, or inert additives to an object.
Composite Materials
Change from uniform to composite (multiple) materials.

!
53
!
Separation Principles (Zobel 2009, p. 234 ff., own translation)
4 Separation Principles
Separation in Space
Contradictory objects, functions or features have to be
separated spatially so that the desired useful effect only
takes place in a certain spatial area and the rest of the
system remains unaffected.
Separation in Time
Contradictory objects, functions or features have to be
separated in time so that the desired activity is only con-
ducted at a certain time.
The functions have to be divided in time so that the con-
tradictory conditions cannot collide anymore.
Separation through
Change of Conditions or
State
The separation of contradictory requirements take place
due to the modification of conditions under which a useful
and at the same time unnecessary or harmful process
operates. The system has to be transferred to a different
state (solid, liquid, gaseous). Certain intermediate states
are also interesting, e.g. soft, elastic, viscous.
Separation within an
Object and its Parts
Subsystems exercise a function contradicting the total
system without impairing the functional requirements to
the total system. Subsystems should be able to exercise
functions relevant for the total system which could not be
exercised by the total system without the help of the sub-
system.

!
54
!
Author
Prof. Dr. Carsten Deckert is Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, mem-
ber of the senate and head of the research cluster Value Chain Management at Cologne
Business School (CBS) where he is also responsible for the lectures in Technology and
Innovation Management (TIM). He acquired practical experience amongst others as a
partner and member of the management team at Deckert Management Consultants
GmbH in Düsseldorf and as a member of the Executive Board of Deutsche Aktionsge-
meinschaft Bildung-Erfindung-Innovation (DABEI) e.V., a German non-profit organiza-
tion fostering education, invention and innovation.
Contact
Prof. Dr. Carsten Deckert
Cologne Business School (CBS)
Hardefuststr. 150677 Cologne
Phone: +49 (0) 221 931809-661
Fax: +49 (0) 221 931809-61
E-Mail: c.deckert(at)cbs.de