CDT504 Chap.6 Generating Concepts Systematically
Generating Concepts Systematically
Structure expands creativity
Concept generation clarifies the problem, searches externally, searches internally, explores systematically and reflects. Decomposition can follow functions, user actions or critical needs. External sources include lead users, experts, patents, literature and existing products.
Internal search benefits from individual idea generation, suspended judgement, sketches and later group combination.
Organise fragments without pretending every combination works
Classification trees reveal ignored solution branches. Combination tables connect fragments across subproblems, but incompatible combinations should be removed transparently.
Clearly different concepts differ in working principle or system arrangement, not only colour or minor geometry.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Problem clarification
- 02
Functional decomposition
- 03
External search
- 04
Internal search
- 05
Classification trees
- 06
Combination tables and reflection
Worked example · free
Escape one crowded solution branch
- 2Diagnose the false variety.
- 2Decompose the problem.
- 2Plan a broader search.
Key terms
- Functional Decomposition
- Breaking a design problem into simpler functions without committing to physical parts.
- External Search
- Looking to users, experts, patents, literature and related products for solution principles.
- Internal Search
- Generating ideas from individual and team knowledge through structured creative work.
- Classification Tree
- A branching map that divides the solution space into distinct concept classes.
- Combination Table
- A tool for joining compatible solution fragments across subproblems.
Generating Concepts Systematically FAQ
Why decompose a design problem?
Smaller subproblems make search more focused and reveal functions that one overall concept may hide. Function language also keeps alternative physical arrangements open for later comparison and combination.
Are group brainstorming sessions enough?
Not usually. Individual work can produce more variety, while group work helps combine, critique and build shared understanding. A strong process uses both at appropriate moments.
How can concepts be shown to be clearly different?
Demonstrate different working principles, allocations of function or system arrangements. Cosmetic variation inside one solution branch does not satisfy the assignment requirement for distinct concepts.
What should an external-search record contain?
Record the subproblem, source context, solution principle, relevant constraint and any intellectual-property concern. Explain how project conditions differ from the source. This lets teammates build on the learning without copying a finished product or repeating the same search under a new keyword.
Why compare sketches at similar detail?
A polished favourite can appear more feasible than a rough alternative even when their evidence is equal. Give every survivor enough description to show its working principle, key interfaces, assumption and risk. Consistent representation helps selection judge concepts rather than drawing effort.
What should happen before concept selection begins?
Confirm that the set contains genuinely different principles, that critical subproblems have been searched and that every survivor has a comparable description. Name the assumption and cheapest informative prototype for each concept. Selection cannot recover variety that generation discarded too early.
Assessment move
Take a familiar product and decompose it twice, once by function and once by user action. Build a classification tree with at least three branches and write one external source that could enrich each branch. Generate ideas individually before combining them. End with a reflection on the assumption shared by every surviving concept.
Begin with the mission, needs and target specifications so the search addresses the actual problem. Compare the two decompositions and note which subproblems each makes visible. Functional language should describe transformations or jobs rather than parts; user-action language should expose moments of confusion, effort and recovery.
Select the critical subproblems for creative attention and avoid spending equal effort on routine details. Plan external search by question. Lead users may reveal adaptations, experts may redirect a technical search, patents may disclose mechanisms and constraints, literature may explain a principle, and benchmarking may show how existing products allocate functions.
Record the lesson and context rather than copying a finished solution. Run internal search alone before the group session to increase variety. Suspend judgement while generating, make sketches comparable in detail and allow apparently infeasible ideas to reveal useful fragments. Use the group session to explain, combine and challenge, not merely to vote. Build a classification tree that separates solution principles.
If every sketch sits on one branch, return to search. Then create a combination table across subproblems and eliminate incompatible combinations with explicit reasons. Review interfaces because individually attractive fragments can fail together. Preserve several learning paths rather than three cosmetic variants of the familiar answer.
For every survivor, write the principle, critical assumption, cheapest informative prototype and unresolved risk. Reflection should identify which search source produced genuinely new options, which decomposition was productive, which branch remains empty and which assumption all concepts share. Assign the next search action. This record demonstrates systematic exploration and creates a clean handoff to selection.
