Inventive Methods in Conceptual Architectural Design

Abstract

In architectural design, the conceptual phase is of particular importance, as it plays a crucial role in achieving ambitious goals and creating valuable design concepts. Due to the ongoing automation of design processes and the dynamic development of artificial intelligence, architects are beginning to compete with generative AI. In this competition, creativity remains the primary human advantage. This article seeks to answer the following question: how can the creative competence of designers be enhanced during the architectural design process? The aim of the research presented in this paper was to examine the usefulness of selected inventive methods in educating architecture students by enhancing their creative competence during conceptual architectural design. The research, which was conducted during the architectural creative process, took the form of a didactic experiment. Statistical methods, tables, and charts were used to present the results of these studies. The results of the conducted research indicate that, for the majority of participating architecture students, the analyzed inventive methods proved useful in enhancing their creative competence—particularly in terms of fluency, flexibility, and originality. To increase the competitiveness of future architects, their professional education can be directed toward strengthening creative abilities, for instance, through the inventive methods analyzed in this research.

1. Introduction

According to the general definition of design proposed by Edward de Bono, “Design is the combination of known elements (processes) to act together, thereby creating new value” (Cempel, 2013, p. 33). This understanding elevates the essence of design to the creation of new values and endows it with an axiological significance. For this reason, the conceptual phase, also referred to as the preliminary stage of the design process, is particularly important in architectural design. This phase is crucial for achieving ambitious design objectives. It is during the conceptual phase that architects undertake actions resulting in key design decisions. These decisions determine the architectural work as a new and valuable creation functionally, formally, and artistically. This raises the question of how creativity can be stimulated during the conceptual phase of architectural design.

The research problem addressed in this study concerns the systematic enhancement of designers’ creative competence during the conceptual phase of architectural design. Conceptual architectural design is the initial phase of the design process in which ideas, spatial arrangements, and functional requirements are explored and synthesized into preliminary design solutions (Lawson, 2005). Architectural designs, through drawings, models, and technical documentation, present a feasible spatial vision of a building or space that fulfills numerous requirements, including functional, esthetic, structural, environmental, and social ones (Cross, 2023).

According to numerous scholars in design theory, the creative process is inherently linked to all forms of design activity and, in particular, to conceptual design, which constitutes the most explicitly creative phase of the design process. B. Lawson emphasizes that design is fundamentally a creative problem-solving activity in which conceptual stages are dominated by generative and exploratory thinking (Lawson, 2005). Similarly, N. Cross argues that conceptual design is the phase in which designers actively engage in creative synthesis, transforming abstract requirements into preliminary spatial and formal ideas (Cross, 2023).

The creative process is a sequence of mental operations leading to the generation of new and valuable ideas or products (e.g., architectural conceptual designs).

1.1. Phases of the Creative Process (Creative Thinking)

According to psychologists, including G. Wallas, in all fields related to creativity (including architecture) the creative process follows a similar pattern and is relatively structured (Wallas, 1926).

According to classical psychological theories proposed by Graham Wallas, the creative process occurs in distinct phases. Four main phases can be distinguished:

• Preparation phase—familiarization with the problem and initial exploration;
• Incubation phase—maturation of ideas;
• Illumination phase—insight and recognition of a solution;
• Verification phase—realization and implementation of the solution.

1.1.1. Preparation Phase

During the preparation phase, the creator reviews the available data, classifies it, and formulates the design problem(s). In architectural design, this period involves the development of various pre-design analyses. During this stage, information is collected regarding existing design solutions and site-specific conditions. Analyses of available projects (e.g., best practice studies), inventories (e.g., of existing buildings, transportation networks, urban layouts, sunlight exposure), and qualitative research aim to prevent architects from “reinventing already open doors.” Subsequently, design objectives and problems are defined, and routine searches for design solutions begin. If obstacles arise during this work, the creator often transitions to the next phase of the creative process—the incubation phase.

1.1.2. Incubation Phase

Problems that require creative thinking demand a non-standard approach to elements and their recombination into a new arrangement. For the cognitive system, this is difficult to achieve based solely on previous experience.

The incubation phase (unconscious mental work, or so-called “background work”) is a period during which the creator does not think deliberately and consciously about the problem, but search processes continue in the subconscious. This is the period of idea “gestation,” described as “(…) the maturation of creative ideas. Subconscious, spontaneous cerebration; the problem is processed in the creator’s mind when they are not consciously thinking about it” (Kotarbiński, 1955).

According to Albert Einstein, “(…) our thinking mostly occurs without the need for words, and is largely unconscious” (Einstein, 1975).

During the incubation break, the search for new approaches to the data continues unconsciously. Standard problem-solving mechanisms are usually activated at this stage, and the subconscious evaluates alternative solutions. Unsuccessful attempts to solve a design problem through conventional means often lead to an impasse. In architectural design, the incubation phase provides the architect with the necessary time to resolve an unusual problem or design task subconsciously.

According to K. Lenartowicz, the incubation phase is a period “(…) often underestimated by clients demanding short deadlines for documentation (…)” (Lenartowicz, 2007, p. 39). Under the pressure of project schedules and client expectations, this “(…) essential period for the maturation of an architectural concept” (Lenartowicz, 2007, p. 39) is often shortened. Recognizing this process, Le Corbusier famously stated: “The concept will come by itself when it is ready.”

1.1.3. Illumination Phase

The next stage of the discovery process is the illumination phase (insight, or the a-ha experience), often referred to as the act of creation. This is the moment when a new solution spontaneously appears in the creator’s consciousness. Through a so-called intuition leap, “(…) various disproportionate aspects of the problem-solving situation suddenly fit together and yield a solution” (Lenartowicz, 2007, p. 8). This phenomenon, described by Gestalt psychologists, is called insight, and involves an unexpected, sudden reorganization of the problem situation into a new whole. At this moment, the creator’s perception of the problem changes. Most of this work occurs unconsciously (in the subconscious), usually in a state of non-task motivation (paratelic state) or during the incubation break.

According to associative theories, discovery occurs in the subconscious through bisociation. Koestler describes bisociation as the overlap of one idea or concept with another (Kaufmann et al., 1975, p. 33). Gordon Dryden notes that a new idea “is a new combination of old elements. There are no new elements; only new combinations exist” (Dryden & Vos, 2000, p. 184). “Whenever we speak of something ‘new,’ we are in fact referring to an innovative arrangement of already existing elements” (Dryden & Vos, 2000, p. 202).

According to associative theories, creativity is measured by the distance between associated concepts (Nęcka, 1999, p. 17); the more divergent the concepts, the higher the probability of producing a more original outcome. Many creators report that insight most often occurs in a state of relaxation and well-being. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart described this phase as follows: “When I feel well and am in a good mood, or after a good meal when I take a ride or a walk, or at night when I cannot sleep, ideas come into my head as easily as one could wish. I retain the ones I like and hum them. Once I have a theme, other melodies come, combining with the first in accordance with the requirements of composition as a whole: counterpoint, individual instrument parts, and all melodic fragments eventually form the complete work. Then my soul is in the fire of inspiration, and nothing escapes my attention. The work grows; I develop it and understand it more and more clearly, until I have the entire composition in my mind, no matter how long. My mind encompasses it as my eyes take in a beautiful landscape. This does not happen gradually, with each part detailed as later, but my imagination hears it as a whole.” (Jarociński, 1983).

Current research shows that states of relaxation and well-being are associated with specific brainwave frequencies: alpha and theta waves. Alpha waves oscillate at 8–12 cycles per second and are experienced as a state of simultaneous readiness and relaxation. Theta waves, with a frequency of 4–7 cycles per second, appear in the early stages of sleep when a person begins to feel drowsy and enters a light sleep phase.

According to Terry Wyler Webb, a pioneer of accelerated learning, “It is precisely in the alpha and theta states that we observe remarkable feats of supermemory and enhanced creative potential…” (Dryden & Vos, 2000, p. 171).

In the creative process theory proposed by Langley and Jones, illumination (insight) results from atypical recall from long-term memory. According to this theory, creativity involves retrieving unusual, accurate, and effective patterns that allow for better understanding and problem-solving (Langley & Jones, 1988).

In architectural design, insight is the moment when the architect unexpectedly perceives a solution to previously unsolved design tasks “with the eyes of imagination.” Diverse information in their consciousness unites and organizes, forming a solution to one or several interdisciplinary problems or design tasks simultaneously. According to W. Gordon, solving a problem satisfies the creator’s curiosity, and the accompanying feeling of discovery brings satisfaction and pleasure, confirming a job well done (Antoszkiewicz, 1982, pp. 244–245).

For the creator (e.g., an architect), illumination is an exhilarating and inspiring moment—the most wonderful part of the creative process. The feeling of fulfillment (a-ha experience) and satisfaction experienced at the moment of perceiving a solution is often accompanied by sudden physiological reactions (e.g., galvanic skin response) and the sensation of elevation. These positive emotions and bodily responses provide the creator with gratification for their effort and drive the next phase of the creative process—the verification phase.

1.1.4. Verification Phase

The verification phase involves the conscious refinement of ideas (development of solution concepts) as well as the evaluation and assessment of the proposed solution. Ultimately, the quality of a solution can be judged after its implementation based on concrete results.

In architectural design, this phase corresponds to the creation of project documentation and its interdisciplinary evaluation. During this period, the architect verifies design solutions against previously established goals and requirements (e.g., compliance with applicable regulations, functional and user requirements, and the planned investment budget). Today, architectural solutions are typically approved by the client, and in participatory design processes, potential users may also be involved.

Phases of the creative process (such as the architectural creative process) may recur and overlap during the simultaneous analysis of multiple design problems. Of course, “(…) familiarity with the creative process alone is not a sufficient factor for generating appropriate ideas” (Antoszkiewicz, 1982, p. 243). The creation of original design concepts requires creativity.

1.2. Creativity

According to psychologists, creativity is a characteristic of the person (the creator), whereas creativity in action—or creativity of the product—is a feature of the outcome. Creativity (from the Latin word creatus, meaning creative) is the ability to produce new and valuable works. “Valuable refers to outputs that are superior in some respect—esthetic, practical, or scientific—compared to what existed before” (Szmidt, 2013, pp. 22–23). These can include new ideas, new concepts, new associations, or even novel connections between already existing ideas and concepts. “(…) a creative person is someone capable of generating ideas that make our world better, more truthful, or more beautiful” (Szmidt, 2013, pp. 22–23).

Creativity is defined somewhat differently across various fields (Georgiou et al., 2022). In higher education, Jahnke et al. identify creativity with self-reflective learning, independent learning, curiosity and motivation, producing something, showing multiple perspectives, and striving for original, entirely new ideas (Jahnke et al., 2017).

In architectural design, creativity is essential in solving open, complex, and ill-defined design problems (Cross, 2006). Creativity is the ability to develop original and effective solutions to design tasks and problems. It also involves the capacity to translate concepts and ideas from other fields into the language of architecture.

1.2.1. Is Everyone Creative?

In cognitive psychology, creativity is described as a continuous trait possessed by every individual to a greater or lesser extent. However, among psychologists, two contrasting approaches to creativity can be distinguished: elitist and egalitarian.

The elitist approach assumes that only exceptional individuals possess an innate, high level of creativity (Guilford, 1978). Proponents of this view include Plato, Kant, and Schopenhauer.

In contrast, supporters of the egalitarian approach argue that creativity is not an inborn predisposition but a skill that can be developed. Advocates of this perspective include Aristotle, Graham Wallas, Donald Campbell, Joy P. Guilford, Robert W. Weisberg, and contemporary philosophers such as Simon Blackburn, Dustin Stokes, Margaret Boden, Maria Kronfeldner, Jon Elster, Peter Carruthers, and Edward Nęcka. Psychologist Joy Paul Guilford concluded that “(…) creativity is not only an innate talent, but also knowledge of methods, procedures, and tools.” According to him, talent can be supported through appropriate training of designers, while creativity can be cultivated through practice and training (Guilford, 1978). According to E. Nęcka, mental operations performed during the creative process “(…) although not fundamentally different from non-creative operations, are carried out in a specific manner that makes them creative,” such as deductive reasoning (Nęcka, 1999, p. 30). He argues that the self-organization of the creative process occurs at two levels:

I

Control level—strategic selection and management of the design process, including heuristic strategies;

II

Execution level—mental operations

(Nęcka, 1999, p. 29).

1.2.2. Criteria of Creativity

According to the definition of creativity, the primary criteria for its evaluation are novelty (originality) and value (cognitive, esthetic, or practical value) of the created products.

According to J.P. Guilford, creativity can be assessed based on the following criteria:

• Fluency—the ease of generating ideas (measured by the number of ideas produced);
• Flexibility—the readiness to change the direction of thinking (the more diverse ideas belonging to different categories, the higher the score);
• Originality—the ability to produce unusual, extraordinary, bizarre, unique, or rare ideas in the population;
• Elaboration—accuracy in execution and attention to detail in the creation process.
  (Guilford, 1950; Kim, 2006; Eissa, 2019)

Conceptual design requires the architect to engage in divergent thinking, i.e., the ability to generate many different, original solutions to a given problem (Guilford, 1978).

1.2.3. Creativity as a Threat

Creativity is not always a socially valued trait. According to E. Nęcka, creative activity is inherently highly prosocial. Nevertheless, society often underestimates creative individuals. Many people argue that creative activity, due to its unpredictability, can be dangerous and should be restricted “just in case” (Nęcka, 1999, p. 190). According to E. Nęcka, creative people constitute a group subject to particularly strong social pressure. One form of sanction applied to creative individuals is ostracism, while others include criticism or ridicule. Sanctions against creative people are often disguised as apparent concern. Such social pressure can limit the development and expression of creative abilities.

1.3. Obstacles in the Creative Process

Group pressure restricts the freedom of the creator and thus disrupts the course of the creative process (Nęcka, 1999, p. 106). Psychologists have also identified many other phenomena that limit creativity.

According to E. Nęcka, repetitiveness in addressing topics or design problems suppresses creativity (Nęcka, 1999, p. 135). He suggests that the source of this phenomenon may be the educational system, which delivers “informative” knowledge with limited implications.

According to E. Nęcka, repetitiveness in addressing design topics or problems suppresses creativity (Nęcka, 1999, p. 135). He argues that the source of this phenomenon may lie in an educational system that delivers knowledge in a declarative, minimally implicative manner. However, the essence of creative deductive reasoning lies in going beyond the provided information (Nęcka, 1999, p. 137).

Another obstacle in the creative process may be a conformist attitude. For conformists, “the need for belonging, recognition, experiencing signs of sympathy, and, ultimately, not causing trouble for anyone may be so strong that it outweighs potential motivations for creativity” (Nęcka, 1999, p. 134). As a result, such individuals often contribute little of value to group creative processes.

According to H. Altshuller, inventor and methodologist, psychological obstacles appear during every design process. Among them are persistent adherence to a single concept, incorrect formulation of design tasks, reliance on trial-and-error strategies, and the use of technical terminology (Altszuller, 1972, pp. 252–253). Altshuller argues that these psychological obstacles limit the scope of exploring new design solutions to the familiar problem area, causing mental inertia (Labuda & Prokopska, 2011, p. 313). He termed this phenomenon the “Inertia Vector” (Altszuller, 1972, p. 253).

1.4. Creative Attitude

Creative individuals adopt a creative attitude, which is a specific organization of cognitive and emotional structures, processes, and ways of responding to stimuli (Lenartowicz, 2007, pp. 81–82). “The creative mind is capable, as Schopenhauer put it, of thinking about something no one has thought of before, while observing what everyone sees” (E. Mayr, M. J. Stein, Cudowska, 2000). According to E. Nęcka, “(…) creativity usually manifests itself in some form of observable behavior, involving the production of new and valuable outputs” (Nęcka, 1999). According to D. Schön, the source of creativity is “reflection-in-action” (Schön, 2017).

According to J. Koch, “Creative ideas arise not only from innate creativity, but also require knowledge so that the resulting ideas are meaningful and useful. This combination of natural creativity and knowledge is often referred to as creative competence” (Koch, 2008, p. 16).

1.5. Know-How in Architectural Design

Architecture is an interdisciplinary field. In the architectural design process, in addition to intuition and creativity, architects draw upon knowledge from multiple disciplines. According to T. Hubinský et al., the education of architects involves “building a bridge” between different fields of knowledge and art, as well as developing the skills required for their practical application (Hubinský et al., 2022). In architectural design, the ability for holistic, multifaceted thinking is essential.

Design methods employed by architects largely stem from procedural knowledge passed on by academic instructors in a master–student relationship during architectural studies, as well as from acquired design experience. This experience is gained both during architecture studies—particularly through project-based learning—and later in professional practice within multidisciplinary design teams at architectural offices.

In architectural practice, it is difficult to clearly identify the factors that influenced specific design decisions. Researching the course of the creative process is further complicated by the fact that few outstanding architects currently develop their own proprietary design methods. Often this is impossible because most activities in the creative process are carried out intuitively (Gasidło, 2016, p. 91).

For this reason, the conceptual phase of the architectural design process remains shrouded in an aura of magic and spontaneity.

According to Ch. Alexander, “(…) we have already taken so many steps away from the unconscious shaping of our own spatial environment that we cannot return to entirely intuitive activity, to the spontaneous application of ‘tacit knowledge’” (Barełkowski, 2009, p. 78).

Nowadays, many academic teachers of architectural design, as well as architecture students, aim to more consciously stimulate creative processes during conceptual design. For this reason, architectural education increasingly employs methods that foster and stimulate creative thinking, such as brainstorming, design thinking, participatory methods, and many others.

1.6. Research Problem

This article is devoted to research aimed at identifying certain modes of thinking that can be employed in the creative education of future architects. The litmus test for these modes of thinking can be the inventive methods derived from the field of inventics.

Inventics (also referred to as innovation science or heuristics) is the study of creative processes (from Latin inventio—the gift of invention) (Kaufmann et al., 1975). Its purpose is to seek creative solutions to defined problems and to stimulate creative thinking across various domains (Proctor, 2010; Labuda & Prokopska, 2011, p. 313). Inventics encompasses numerous inventive methods. The most popular inventive method is brainstorming, based on associative thinking. Other inventive methods include synectics, the Gordon method, the crashing method, and the incompetence method. There are also multiple typologies of inventive methods, such as algorithmic methods (e.g., TRIZ) and analytical methods (e.g., morphological box).

During conceptual architectural design, the course of the creative process depends on the creative competence of the architect. According to J. Koch, creative competence relies on natural creativity (creativity derived from the current level of creative thinking), the use of creativity techniques, and specific knowledge (especially the understanding of various types of relationships) (Koch, 2008, p. 17).

The relevance of this topic arises from the increasing competition in creative professions. Currently, we are witnessing the rapid development of technologies aimed at automating design processes. A growing portion of tasks previously performed by architects is now being automated through computer-based, parametric generative methods and artificial intelligence. Generative AI (GenAI) increasingly performs tasks faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than humans, particularly in fields such as graphic design. This trend also affects architecture. Various analyses and simulations of design solutions are now performed automatically by specialized CAD software. With the development of computer-based, parametric generative methods and GenAI, design processes themselves are becoming automated. This will undoubtedly have a growing impact on the profession of architecture and its competitiveness in the design market. The ongoing automation of design work should increase the competitiveness of architects who demonstrate higher creative competence.

According to the “The Future of Jobs Report 2025” prepared by the World Economic Forum (WEF), creative thinking is one of the most important competencies that employers will require, and its significance is expected to grow (WEF, 2025). Higher education institutions should educate students with these requirements in mind (Forte-Celaya et al., 2021; Grigorenko, 2019). The well-known American psychologist R. Keith Sawyer argues that “(…) in the 21st century, the key task of all schools is to educate for creativity” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 344).

The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of selected inventive methods in enhancing students’ creative competence during conceptual architectural design.

The research question is as follows:

How can designers’ creative competence be enhanced during the architectural creative process?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Hypothesis

The research hypothesis was formulated as follows:

The use of selected inventive methods during conceptual architectural design helps architecture students create a larger number of more original design concepts, thereby enhancing their creative competence.

The verification of the research hypothesis was conducted based on the results of the didactic experiment, by comparing the outcomes of design work completed after learning selected inventive methods to the outcomes of the control group. The experiment results were discussed in relation to the existing state of knowledge.

2.2. Basic Research

During the study of the current state of knowledge, the following techniques were used:

• Literature review;
• Analysis and critique of publications;
• Correlations.

2.3. Didactic Experiment—Methodology

During the didactic experiment conducted with architecture students, the following research methods/techniques were used:

• Experimental research (using the crossover technique, also called rotation technique, which involves alternating the experimental and control roles of student groups);
• Heuristic research (testing the potential for supporting design processes using inventive methods);
• Observations (comparative analyses).

The results of the didactic experiment were evaluated using deductive, inductive, and particularly abductive reasoning1.

The experiment outcomes were processed using statistical techniques and graphical presentation (tables and charts).

2.3.1. Research Groups and Techniques Used

The didactic experiment was performed during first-cycle higher education studies in architecture during design classes. A total of 53 adult participants took part in the experiment. Among them were 29 second-year architecture students and 24 third-year architecture students from Rzeszów University of Technology. Information about their exact ages was not available. Their gender was not included as a variable in the study.

The experiment employed a single-group technique modified with rotational elements was employed.

In the first stage, all students formed the control group, which was not exposed to the independent variable.

In the second stage, all students formed the experimental group, which was exposed to the independent variable.

To accommodate the specifics of design classes, the single-group technique was deliberately modified by introducing rotation. Students were divided into two groups (Group A and Group B) of a similar size, with members of Group A seated between members of Group B.

To prevent students in the second stage (experimental group) from using design concepts developed in the first stage (control group), the design tasks assigned in the two stages were different. Tasks assigned to Group A in the first stage were given to Group B in the second stage, and vice versa. This cross-task assignment allowed an additional comparison of experimental results between Groups A and B, enhancing the objectivity and reliability of the findings.

2.3.2. Experiment Design

The didactic experiment aimed to examine the relationship between knowledge of inventive design methods and the creativity of architecture students.

The dependent variables were as follows: the number of design concepts per design task, the number of original design concepts, and their quality.

The design tasks were highly realistic, drawn from professional practice.

The participants in the study were second- and third-year architecture students (higher education).

The selection of tasks and the experimental procedure enabled the generalization of the study findings.

2.3.3. Experiment Procedure

The didactic experiment (Exercises 1 and 2) was conducted on April 10 and 12, 2018, during classes on the design of service and industrial buildings.

The experiment was integrated into standard semester projects and lasted two teaching hours per session, consisting of two separate stages (Exercise 1 and Exercise 2).

First Stage of the Didactic Experiment (Exercise 1)—Control Group

The aim of the first stage was to determine the current level of creative skills of the students (control group) during conceptual architectural design.

Students were presented with the evaluation criteria before starting the design work.

After receiving forms with the task (different for Groups A and B), students had 20 min to complete the exercise.

Second Stage of the Didactic Experiment (Exercise 2)—Experimental Group

The aim of the second stage was to determine the creative skills of students during conceptual architectural design using selected inventive methods.

Students were presented with the evaluation criteria before starting the design work.

After receiving the forms (tasks rotated between Groups A and B from the first stage), students had 20 min to complete the exercise.

2.3.4. Experiment Schedule

Schedule of the didactic experiment (Exercises 1 and 2):

I (20 min)—Control group (Exercise 1);

II (20 min)—Lecture (introductory information on design methodology);

III—Experimental group (Exercise 2)—alternating: lecture on selected inventive methods (5 min each) and trial application of each method (5 min each) in the following sequence:

• Synectics Method (5 min);
• 40 Inventive Principles (5 min);
• Breaking Method (5 min);
• Behavioral Method (Lateral Thinking Method) (5 min).

Students were randomly divided into Groups A and B. In the first stage, both groups formed the control group. Students were seated alternately to minimize teamwork and prevent copying of design concepts.

2.3.5. Selection of Inventive Methods

Numerous inventive methods are described in the literature, with various typologies. Establishing parametric criteria for their selection is challenging.

In the first stage, all algorithm-based and purely analytical methods were excluded. The final selection of inventive methods suitable for the architectural creative process was based on the experience of the author, a practicing architect. This largely subjective choice allowed the study to be conducted within a feasible timeframe.

Selected inventive methods:

• Synectics Method (Direct Analogy, Bionic Analogy, Personal Analogy, Symbolic Analogy, Fantasy Analogy);
• 40 Inventive Principles;
• Crushing Method (Breaking Habits);
• Behavioral Method (Lateral Thinking Method).

Selected inventive methods do not originate from the field of architecture. As is known, the origin of methods (their organic nature) affects the possibilities of their assimilation in other creative disciplines. For this reason, their implementation into the specific design domain of architectural design was necessary. The selected inventive methods were adapted to meet the requirements and working practices of architects.

Before the didactic experiment began, the participants were not familiar with the inventive methods being studied.

Synectics Method

The Synectics method, developed by William Gordon and Prince, involves the repeated use of analogies (partial or holistic) or metaphors to carry out a design task or solve a defined problem. Analogy in design consists of the conscious and deliberate search for similarities between known objects, situations, events, actions, or concepts and the goal of the design process (the new object). The application of analogies results in the transfer of certain information from known objects to the objects being created. Through analogies and metaphors, mental representations overlap and mutually enrich each other.

In the Synectics method, the following types of analogies are used: Direct Analogy (simple analogy), Personal Analogy, Symbolic Analogy (abstract analogy), and Fantasy Analogy. These types of analogies have been distinguished as an independent method, referred to as “Gordon’s analogies.”

40 Inventive Principles

The 40 Inventive Principles method, developed by Genrich Altshuller, was created based on the analysis of approximately 40,000 patented inventions. This method is used to stimulate creative thinking in order to overcome contradictions (antinomy) identified in existing solutions. The Inventive Principles are intentionally formulated in a very general way and should be adapted each time to the specific conditions of the problem being analyzed. The list of 40 Inventive Principles is provided in the Supplementary Materials Figure S1.

Crushing Method (Breaking Habits)

The Crushing Method, developed by A. Kaufmann, M. Fustier, and A. Drevet, is based on questioning the existing state and traditional solutions. Old habits and preconceptions must be “crushed” in order to create something new. When applying this method, it is essential to identify known and already tested design solutions, which establishes a set of ideas to be avoided. The method utilizes psychological effects such as contrast and isolation. According to this method, the principles underlying existing solutions should be reversed.

Behavioral Method (Lateral Thinking Method)

The Lateral Thinking Method, developed by Edward de Bono, involves placing oneself in the role of another person (with different preferences, character, position, intentions, physical conditions, knowledge, age, etc.). The aim of lateral thinking is to open new horizons and overcome existing barriers and limitations. The process of thorough restructuring of the concepts in the mind is intended to enable the generation of creative ideas (design concepts):

• Selection of a design task/problem;
• Creating a gap by contrasting known concepts with their opposites (loosening the control of thought);
• Searching for new solutions within the created gap, which involves:
  • adopting another point of view (e.g., future users, fictional characters, or even animals);
  • questioning assumptions made in advance;
  • reframing the problem “upside down” (inverting it).

2.3.6. Design Task Topics

Design Task Topics (Exercise No. 1)

Group A

Task topic:

Design an exhibition stand for a design company.

Design problem (contradiction) was formulated as follows:

The stand should be typical, yet at the same time original.

Group B

Task topic:

Design a pavilion/shelter in a park (a local meeting place).

Design problem (contradiction) was formulated as follows:

The shelter should provide protection from the cold while lacking at least one wall.

Design Task Topics (Exercise No. 2)

Students were tasked with developing design concepts to specified design problems using the selected inventive methods.

Group A

Task topic:

Design a pavilion/shelter in a park (a local meeting place).

Design problem (contradiction) was formulated as follows:

The shelter should provide protection from the cold while lacking at least one wall.

Group B

Task topic:

Design an exhibition stand for a design company.

Design problem (contradiction) was formulated as follows:

The stand should be typical, yet at the same time original.

2.3.7. Criteria for Evaluating Design Tasks (Guilford, 1950; Kim, 2006)

The criteria for evaluating the results of the experiment were as follows:

• the number of developed design concepts,
• the number of original and diverse design concepts versus the number of typical design concepts.

The student works were evaluated collectively by experts.

3. Results

3.1. Results of the Educational Experiment

Educational Experiment No. 1 involved 53 participants, including 29 second-year architecture students and 24 third-year architecture students from Rzeszów University of Technology.

The design works produced during Exercise No. 1 (control study) and Exercise No. 2 (experimental study) were evaluated according to the same criteria:

• Number of design concepts;
• Originality/typicality of design concepts.

3.1.1. First Stage of the Experiment (Exercise No. 1)

The first stage of the experiment (Exercise No. 1) aimed to determine the current level of conceptual design skills of students in the control group. Both design tasks included a contradiction that needed to be resolved.

The results obtained by the students during the control study are presented collectively in

Table 1. Results of the Control Exercise (No. 1). (Source: own elaboration).

Control Exercise (No. 1)
Design Groups	Group A		Group B
Classification	Original Concepts	Typical Concepts	Original Concepts	Typical Concepts
Number of Concepts Developed	18	30	23	24
Total Concepts Developed per Group	48		47
Total Concepts Developed	95

.

During the control study, students primarily focused on refining their initial design concepts. As a result, the design concepts were well-developed, but their quantity was limited. The originality of these design concepts was relatively low.

3.1.2. Second Stage of the Experiment (Exercise No. 2)

The second stage of the experiment aimed to determine the level of students’ creative skills during conceptual architectural design when applying selected inventive methods.

The results obtained by the students during the experimental study are presented collectively in

Table 2. Results of the Experimental Exercise (No. 2). (Source: own elaboration).

Control Exercise (No. 2)
Design Groups	Group A		Group B
Classification	Original Concepts	Typical Concepts	Original Concepts	Typical Concepts
Number of Concepts Developed	91	21	78	21
Total Concepts Developed per Group	112		99
Total Concepts Developed	211

.

During the experimental study, the design concepts proposed by students were often sketchy. However, there were more design concepts compared to the works produced during the first stage of the experiment (control group). Some design concepts were highly original, and, in certain cases, even surprising. Therefore, their creative level can be considered high.

3.2. Results of the Educational Experiment—Comparison of Control and Experimental Groups

A detailed comparison of the results from the control group and the experimental group is presented in: Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.

3.2.1. Fluency (Number of Ideas Developed)

In the control study, each student produced an average of 1.79 design concepts. In the experimental study, each student produced an average of 3.98 design concepts.

A statistical increase of 122% in the number of developed design concepts was observed in the experimental study compared to the control study.

Overall, the experimental study demonstrated a significant increase in the number of design concepts developed relative to the control study. A summary of these data is presented in Figure 1.

3.2.2. Originality (Number of Design Concepts Considered Original) and Flexibility (Diversity of Design Concepts)

In the control study, each student produced an average of 0.77 concepts considered original. In the experimental study, each student produced an average of 3.18 such design concepts. This represents a more than fourfold statistical increase in creative performance in terms of originality (ability to generate atypical ideas) and flexibility (diversity of ideas).

The experimental study also demonstrated a substantial increase in the number of original design concepts compared to the control study. A summary of these data is presented in Figure 2.

The design concepts developed by students during the experimental work were generally more atypical and, in some cases, even surprising. An example of one student’s work is presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

3.2.3. Typicality (Number of Design Concepts Considered Typical)

In the experimental study, a decrease in the number of typical design concepts was observed compared to the control study.

A summary of these data is presented in Figure 3.

In the control study, each student produced an average of 1.01 design concepts considered typical. In the experimental study, each student produced an average of 0.79 such design concepts. A summary of these data is presented in Figure 3.

3.2.4. Precision (Accuracy and Attention to Detail)

Due to the difficulties in accurately assessing this parameter, a qualitative (descriptive) evaluation was applied.

The concepts developed by students in the experimental group were often less refined, indicating a decrease in creativity in terms of precision and attention to detail. An example of one student’s work is presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

3.3. Experimental Conclusions

The use of selected inventive methods during conceptual architectural design helped the majority of architecture students create a larger number of more original design concepts, thereby enhancing their creative performance. Consequently, the research hypothesis was confirmed.

The results show a significant variation in the impact of the tested inventive methods among individual students. This may be due to differences in the level of knowledge acquired regarding these methods, the adopted creative attitude, and individual preferences of the students.

The number of concepts developed in the experimental study by third-year students was statistically lower than the number of concepts developed by second-year students during the same study. The results obtained by all students were presented collectively; therefore, differences in their age and experience can be considered confounding variables. The participants’ gender was also not included in the study.

It was not possible to control all variables that could have influenced the results. The study always takes place within a specific context, over which the instructor conducting the educational experiment does not have complete control. The observed correlation may result from greater fatigue and lower engagement of the third-year students, as this study took place during the last class of the day. This correlation will be the subject of further research.

This experiment was included in the students’ course schedule but was not widely announced. The students were informed about the planned didactic experiment several months in advance and again one week before it was conducted. Nevertheless, several students appeared to be surprised.

Classes were conducted according to the semester schedule, which meant that the experiment in different project groups was conducted at different times of the day. Observations indicate that this affected the level of concentration and engagement of participants in the design tasks.

4. Discussion

Literature research shows that psychologists representing the egalitarian approach to creativity agree on the possibility and usefulness of enhancing creative processes in design, including architectural design.

Psychologist Joy Paul Guilford concluded that talent can be supported through appropriate education of designers (Guilford, 1978). According to him, “(...) creativity is not only an innate talent but also knowledge of methods, procedures (...)” (Guilford, 1978). Proponents of the egalitarian approach argue that creativity can be strengthened through specific training and exercises (Guilford, 1978; Nęcka, 1999, pp. 111–112). Prof. Edward Nęcka suggests that creators (including architects), in order to develop creativity, “(...) should practice the full range of strategies and operations” (Nęcka, 1999, p. 111).

According to Prof. Anders Ericsson from Florida State University, people who achieve outstanding results in their field (including creative work) practice more (quantitative difference) and better (qualitative difference) than their peers. Additionally, they monitor their results to plan and improve the way they practice. The skills and mental representations acquired in this way allow them to generate creative innovations (Ericsson, 1998).

According to E. Nęcka, the mental operations carried out during the creative process “(...) although not different in essence from non-creative operations (...) are performed in a specific way that makes them creative,” such as deductive reasoning (Nęcka, 1999, p. 30).

The literature review indicates that every inventive method originated from practical experience and is based on it. The origin of these methods—their organic nature—significantly influences the possibilities of their assimilation into other creative domains. Most of the inventive methods analyzed in this study did not originate in the field of architecture. Therefore, their implementation into the specific field of architectural design is necessary. Integrating inventive methods into architects’ design practice requires their practical understanding. Attempting to use inventive methods in the design process creates conditions that facilitate understanding their function and assessing their usefulness.

In the course of the didactic experiments, students’ personal experiences (learning by doing) and self-reflections facilitated the acquisition of professional knowledge (explicit and tacit knowing, cognitive and bodily acts, knowledge and experience) (Kirkman & Brownhill, 2020).

During conceptual architectural design, the course of the creative process depends on the creative competence of the architect. According to J. Koch, creative competence relies on natural creativity (creativity stemming from the current level of creative thinking), the use of creativity techniques, and certain knowledge (especially the understanding of various relationships) (Koch, 2008, p. 17).

According to Ch. Jones, no strategy or method can replace the talent of designers, but when used skillfully, they can facilitate its expression (Jones, 1977, p. 11).

Nęcka also states that the self-organization of the creative process occurs on two levels:

• Level I—control (strategic selection and monitoring of the design process);
• Level II—execution (mental operations) (Nęcka, 1999, p. 29).

Consequently, inventive methods can be used to control the course of the design process. Didactic experiments based on the application of inventive methods can create conditions that positively stimulate the development of both talent and design skills in architecture students.

Therefore, the way students were taught could have had a significant impact on the experimental results. Certainly, after such a brief presentation and training, it is difficult to speak of a deep understanding of the selected inventive methods. Consequently, the results obtained should be considered surprising.

Conceptual design requires architects to engage in divergent thinking, i.e., the ability to generate multiple, different, and original concepts to a given problem (Guilford, 1978).

According to J.P. Guilford, creativity can be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Fluency—ease of generating ideas (measured by the number of design concepts);
• Flexibility—readiness to change the direction of thinking (the more diverse the ideas belonging to different categories, the higher the score);
• Originality—ability to produce unusual, extraordinary, bizarre, unique, or rarely encountered ideas (design concepts);
• Elaboration—accuracy in execution (attention to detail) and creation.
  (Guilford, 1950; Kim, 2006; Eissa, 2019)

According to B. Lawson, different criteria for evaluating design solutions are not equally important. He also emphasizes the difficulties in assessing design solutions based on certain criteria, particularly those relying on subjective judgment (Lawson, 2005, p. 64). One such criterion is originality.

In the experimental study, a statistically very large increase (more than fourfold) in the number of original design concepts was observed compared to the control study, indicating an increase in students’ creative competence in terms of originality (ability to generate unusual design concepts) and flexibility (diversity of design concepts). Some design concepts were very original, and in some cases even surprising (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

The design concepts developed by the students in the experimental group were more diverse. The results of the experiment indicate that applying the same inventive method by different individuals may lead to different outcomes (design concepts).

Thus, the results of the study confirm the validity of the egalitarian approach to creativity.

A possible implication of these research results in architecture students’ work is an increase in conscious and planned actions during the early stage of the design process, which until now has proceeded in an intuitive manner (tacit knowledge).

Architecture students and architects may more consciously use inventive methods at specific stages of the design process and for specific purposes, e.g., to broaden the range of potential design concepts.

According to H. Altszuller, designers often have difficulty extending the scope of design searches beyond the familiar problem domain due to the so-called “Vector of Inertia” (Altszuller, 1972, p. 253). During the experiment, the experimental group produced a larger number of original and diverse design concepts, indicating that participants explored a wider range of design directions.

Inventive methods, particularly Synectics, rely on the well-known psychological effect of priming. This is the tendency of individuals to be influenced by seemingly unrelated, subtle cues. Signals expressed through behavior, words, or images can induce significant changes in behavior (e.g., change in movement speed, decision-making) or assist in idea identification (e.g., identifying the word “water” facilitates the identification of the word “drink”). It is a form of activating associations in the mind that influences thoughts, decisions, and behavior.

In the architectural design process, certain words and images may, for example, guide the search for new design concepts toward unexplored areas (Topić et al., 2025; Ahmad, 2017). Currently, participatory design methods are gaining increasing attention among architects (Cruickshank et al., 2013). Engaging in co-design with future users enables architects to approach design problems from alternative perspectives (Scott, 2017). Similarly, inventive methods support the re-framing of familiar problems and the exploration of novel solutions.

In this way, inventive methods can be used to overcome creative impasses by broadening the range of design concepts explored. Continuing this line of reasoning, further expansion of the search area will require the knowledge of additional inventive methods.

For most architecture students, the analyzed inventive methods proved useful in enhancing creative competence in the architectural design process. During the didactic experiment, architecture students in the experimental group (after learning about the selected inventive methods) proposed 122% more design concepts than students in the control group. Although these design concepts were less elaborated, a significant statistical increase in creative competence regarding fluency (number of design concepts) was observed.

However, it is uncertain whether the observed statistical increase in creative competence among students who learned the selected inventive methods is long-lasting.

Concepts developed by architecture students in the experimental group were often less elaborated, indicating a decrease in creativity in terms of elaboration (one of the creativity criteria). However, according to Wilford, in the conceptual phase, when developing original design solutions, a lower degree of drawing precision is desirable. In the initial phase of the architectural design process, conceptual sketches should be kept as small as possible in order to convey the essence of the solution (Iuliano & Serrazanetti, 2015). Small sketches limit the detail and quality of the design concept. In both groups, the time constraints undoubtedly affected the accuracy and level of detail in the developed design concepts. In architectural design, the degree of refinement of a concept generally facilitates the assessment of its feasibility. Typical solutions can be refined very easily and quickly by relying on design experience rather than creativity.

According to N. Cross, creativity is essential when solving open, complex, and incomplete design problems (Cross, 2006). D. Schön argues that the designer improvises, tests new ideas, and responds to emerging information (Schön, 2017). In his view, the source of creativity is reflection-in-action (Schön, 2017). During the design process, design problems and solutions co-evolve (Cross, 2006).

According to E. Nęcka, creativity can also be strengthened by inducing desired states of attention and awareness (Nęcka, 1999, pp. 111–112). Most students who participated in the didactic experiment demonstrated a higher level of engagement in design activities compared to their activity during regular design classes. Psychological studies described in the literature on individuals who participated in inventive method training showed higher motivation for innovation and a perceived increase in creativity (Haines-Gadd, 2015, pp. 266–267). Conversations with architecture students who participated in the didactic experiment and their observations suggest similar conclusions.

Higher levels of motivation for innovation and the perceived increase in creativity are important when undertaking ambitious design challenges. This is also significant in the context of increasing competition in fields related to art and design, including architectural design. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) increasingly performs the work of graphic artists faster and cheaper. With the development of computer-based, parametric generative methods and GenAI, design processes are also being automated, which will certainly have an increasing impact on architects’ competitiveness in the design market.

The ongoing automation of design work should increase the competitiveness of architects who demonstrate higher creative competence. Eugene Raudsepp and Pinchas Noy state the following: “The era of intelligent people is coming to an end. A new era is coming—the era of creative people” (Kuratko, 2015, p. 106).

In the context of employment, creativity is becoming an increasingly important competency for higher education graduates in the 21st century. Consequently, higher education institutions should educate students with these requirements in mind (Forte-Celaya et al., 2021; WEF, 2025; Georgiou et al., 2022). When introducing new teaching methods aimed at developing creativity, it is essential to verify their effectiveness (Forte-Celaya et al., 2021).

The results of this study are very promising. However, the results obtained by all students were presented collectively; therefore, differences in their age and experience can be considered confounding variables. The participants’ gender was also not included in this study.

The ability to employ inventive methods in architectural design may provide a competitive advantage for future architects (Labuda, 2015). Consequently, to enhance the competitiveness of future architects, their education should focus on strengthening creative competence through the analyzed inventive methods.

The article presents the first stage of research on the use of inventive methods in the architectural creative process. The large effect (the substantial differences between the control and experimental group results) indicates that the applied methods have practical significance. In the evaluation of architectural concepts, the use of multiple tools to verify the reliability of conclusions is difficult or even impossible to implement—particularly at this initial stage of the research.

For further verification of the obtained results, the study is planned to be repeated with a larger research group. In the next study, it is recommended to conduct a creativity assessment both before and after the experiment. It is also planned to eliminate the identified confounding variables, such as the participants’ age and experience.

Understanding the processes and mechanisms employed during design certainly requires further interdisciplinary research involving educators, methodologists, psychologists specializing in creativity, and even experts in brain activity research and analysis.

5. Conclusions

Results of the first stage of the research, conducted during the architectural creative process, indicate that the analyzed inventive methods were useful for most architecture students in enhancing their creative competence (in terms of fluency, flexibility, and originality). It should be taken into account that the results of this study may have been influenced by confounding variables.

In the context of the ongoing GenAI revolution and the increasing automation of design processes (through computer-based, parametric generative methods), the education and development of architects can be directed toward enhancing their creative abilities by methodically strengthening creative competence, for example, through the application of the inventive methods analyzed in this study.