bonaccorsi 2007 grammar of creativity

Slide1: 

  Grammars of creation. Thinking for radical innovation    Andrea Bonaccorsi School of Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy a.bonaccorsi@gmail.com   Paper presented to the ESOCE net Workshop Creativity in collaborative environments Rome, December 3, 2007

Slide2: 

  Recent calls in management for more “radical thinking” in innovation   Christensen: Innovator dilemma Kim and Maubergne: Blue ocean innovation Ridderstrale and Nordstrom: Karaoke capitalism Mathews and Wacker: the deviant’s advantage Sheth: the self-destructive habit of good companies Taleb: the black swan Cholle: l’intelligence intuitive Anderson: the long tail1]

Slide3: 

Values Needs Functions Attributes Specifications Lifestyle Comfort Stay afloat Lenght 20 mt Drawings Autonomy Reliability Control direction Weight 10 tons Calculations Status Safety Get horizontal Composite stability Levels of description of artifacts

Slide4: 

Levels of description of artifacts World of users Values Needs Functions Attributes Technical specifications World of technology

Slide5: 

Functional description (Polanyi, 1958) The function of heart is to pump blood. The function of a hammer is to push a nail in the wall. Functional descriptions cannot be reduced to structural descriptions. Functions are not needs. The latter are defined in discursive terms by human users of objects. Functions can be defined in physical terms, as behaviors under specified conditions, which are connected to a desired effect.

Slide6: 

Functional analysis The level of functions makes it possible to connect rigorously the narratives on the world of users (user analysis, etnographic research, cognitive ergonomy..) to the world of product design and technology So far, functional analysis has mainly been adopted to support incremental innovation (e.g. House of Quality, Quality Function Deployment, conjoint analysis). Recent developments allow the extension to the more fundamental problem of generating radically new solutions.

Slide7: 

Function space Let F be the function space, or the set of all possible functions. This space contains all possible behaviors of objects under any conceivable condition, subject to the constraints that they can be implemented in the physical world. This means that the function “moving at speed higher than light” is not (so far) included in the function space. Two main questions: How is the function space structured? What is the relation between functions and structures?

Slide8: 

Structure of the function space The fundamental property of the function space is hierarchy. Functions can be hierarchically decomposed, down to elementary units. A functional hierarchy is an iterative decomposition of a high level or macro-function into more elementary sub-functions. The achievement of lower level functions is a requisite for the achievement of higher level ones. Sub-functions are either intrinsically related to the main function as necessary elements, or are generated by the extension of conditions for behavior.

Slide9: 

From Kitamura, Kasai and Mizoguchi (2001) A functional hierarchy of a power plant (portion).

Slide10: 

Relation between functions and structure Let S be the structure space, or the set of all possible structures. This includes all natural structures and all conceivable artifacts, the latter subject to the constraints that they do not violate physical laws. This means that the structure “chocolate bar at 300° C” or the structure “an engine exhibiting motum perpetuum” are not included in the structure space. Human beings have the distinctive ability to represent functions (perhaps large classes of functions) as independent from objects. Design is a many-to-many correspondence between the function and the structure space.

Function Structure space space: 

Function Structure space space

A design is a correspondenceor mapping from a function onto a structure: 

A design is a correspondence or mapping from a function onto a structure

Function Structure space space: 

Function Structure space space F0 S0

How many different objects can implement the function F0?How many different functions can be implemented by the object, or structure, S0?: 

How many different objects can implement the function F0? How many different functions can be implemented by the object, or structure, S0?

Slide15: 

All functions can be implemented by a variety of structures

All structures can implement a variety of functions: 

All structures can implement a variety of functions

Slide17: 

Function Structure space space Design as many-to-many correspondance

Slide18: 

Innovation as abduction The mapping does not have the property of isomorphism (Polya, 1954). Design problem solving is a form of abductive thinking, that does not move from antecedents to consequences, but makes the reverse path, from desired consequences (functions) to possible causal factors (structures). There is no logical necessity in abduction. In this perspective, design is not the object of logics, but rather of informal logic or semiotics. In fact, the way in which functions are projected onto physical structures resembles the process of attribution of meanings to signs, or semiosis (Eco, 1990).

Slide19: 

  Flow-block diagrams in materials design (steel) From Olson (2002)

Slide21: 

Recombination Lot of innovation takes place by combining existing solutions. The crucial point is that creative recombination does not take place in the space of structures (recombination of existing mappings) but in the space of functions. Recombinant search does not simply combine structural elements. It is not simply searching in the space of physical parameters, but is the careful combination of mappings, i.e. of realized pairs of points in the two spaces. As such, it requires deep knowledge of both spaces. Examples Apple i-Pod Echelon

Slide22: 

Analogy Analogical search requires the identification of a common structure between two apparently dissimilar problems. The two problems are not already available for comparison; instead what is required is the search for a problem that has the same deep structure of the problem at hand. In our case the heuristics identifies in the problem at hand a structure of the mapping which is similar to other known mappings. Similarity does not relate to either functions or physical structures, but to the way in which the mapping is arranged.

Slide23: 

Examples Nike’s application of aircraft ejectable seat technology to backpacks Commerce Bank (the experience of retail shop as a useful analogy for banking) Baraclit (pre-assembled luxurious roofs as an analogy to pre-fabricated buildings)

Slide24: 

Abstraction By abstraction we mean the explicit representation of all abstract conditions for a function to be implemented by any mapping. In search by abstraction there is not a test of a particular mapping, but rather the delineation of the general and abstract properties of any physical structure for them to possibly be mapped onto the function. Examples Wright brothers Stealth aircraft Geox footwear

Slide25: 

Abstraction Search in the neighborood of existing mappings (e.g. around the basic geometry of conventional fighters in the case of Stealth) would have never lead to that solution. Random search would never allow a jump in a totally different region in the structure space. Or, if it happened by chance, would never support the search around that region for long time. It was abstraction that allowed the team to map the stealth function on a completely different regions.

Slide26: 

Conclusions Radical innovation requires a deep mastering of both structure and function space at high levels of generality. The search is driven by broad heuristics that suggests promising ways to map desired functions onto new regions of the structure space. The deeper the abstraction in the search, the more radical the idea generated. Design theory as a general theory of innovation.