Skip to main content Accessibility help

A systematic approach to assessing novelty, requirement satisfaction, and creativity

  • B.S.C. Ranjan (a1), L. Siddharth (a1) and Amaresh Chakrabarti (a1)


It is well-known that creativity is crucial for sustaining a product against competition. Many factors have been proposed in the literature as indicators of creativity, among which outcome-characteristics-based factors are considered the most reliable; among these, the creativity of an outcome is often indicated by two major factors: novelty and usefulness. Only a few studies address as to how creativity assessment methods and their results can be used during the design process. To systematically address the issue of how to influence creativity of design solutions, the following questions have been framed. (1) Which factors should be used as indicators of creativity consistently across different phases of the engineering design process? (2) How can creativity be assessed in terms of these factors during the engineering design process? In this work, we consider novelty and usefulness as the necessary factors for creativity. It is found, however, that it is not possible to directly assess the usefulness of outcomes during the design process. Therefore, requirement satisfaction is used as a proxy for usefulness. We propose a creativity assessment method that uses novelty and requirement satisfaction as indicators for creativity; the method can be used for assessing not only complete products but also ideas or concepts, as they evolve through the phases of the design process. The application of the method in design is explained using a detailed example from a case study.


Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: L. Siddharth, E-mail:


Hide All
Blessing, LT and Chakrabarti, A (2009). DRM: A Design Research Methodology. London: Springer.
Brown, RT (1989) Creativity. In Glover, JA, Ronning, RR and Reynolds, CR (eds), Handbook of Creativity. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 332.
Bruner, JS (1962) The conditions of creativity. In Gruber HE, Terrell G and Wertheimer M (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking: A Symposium Held at the University of Colorado. Behavioral Science Series. The Atherton Press, pp. 1-30.
Chakrabarti, A (2006) Defining and supporting design creativity, in: DS 36: Proceedings DESIGN 2006, the 9th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Chakrabarti, A and Khadilkar, P. (2003) A measure for assessing product novelty, in: DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.
Chakrabarti, A, Sarkar, P, Leelavathamma, B and Nataraju, B (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AIE EDAM 19, 113132.
Chakrabarti, A, Siddharth, L, Dinakar, M, Panda, M, Palegar, N and Keshwani, S (2017) Idea-Inspire 3.0 - A Tool for Analogical Design. Presented at the International Conference on Research into Design (ICoRD'17), Springer Singapore, p. 10.
Christiaans, HH (2002) Creativity as a design criterion. Communication Research Journal 14, 4154.
Chulvi, V, Mulet, E, Chakrabarti, A, López-Mesa, B and González-Cruz, C (2012) Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. Journal of Engineering Design 23(4), 241269.
Dorst, K and Cross, N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies 22(5), 425437.
Fox, HH (1963) A critique on creativity in science. In Essays on Creativity in the Sciences. New York: New York University Press, NY, New York University. Division of General Education. Creative Science Seminar; Science – Methodology; Creation (Literary, artistic, etc.), pp. 123152.
Garcia, R and Calantone, R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19, 110132.
Gomaa, WH and Fahmy, AA (2013) A survey of text similarity approaches. International Journal of Computer Applications 68, 1318.
Grace, K and Maher, ML (2015) Surprise and Reformulation as Meta-cognitive Processes in Creative Design, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems, Atlanta Georgia, pp. 1–16.
Grace, K and Maher, ML (2016) Surprise-triggered Reformulation of Design Goals, Proceedings of AAAI.
Grace, K, Maher, ML, Fisher, D and Brady, K (2015) Data-intensive evaluation of design creativity using novelty, value, and surprise. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 3(3–4), 125147.
Hart, SL and Christensen, CM (2002) The great leap: driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review 44, 51.
Howard, TJ, Culley, SJ and Dekoninck, E (2008) Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies 29, 160180.
Ip, CY, Lapadat, D, Sieger, L and Regli, WC (2002), June. Using shape distributions to compare solid models. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM symposium on Solid modeling and applications (pp. 273–280). ACM.
Jackson, PW and Messick, S (1965) The person, the product, and the response: conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality 33, 309329.
Jonassen, D, Strobel, J and Lee, CB (2006) Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for engineering educators. Journal Engineering Education 95, 139151.
Jordanous, A (2012) A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computing 4, 246279.
Keshwani, S and Chakrabarti, A (2017) January. Towards Automatic Classification of Description of Analogies into SAPPhIRE Constructs. In International Conference on Research into Design (pp. 643–655). Springer, Singapore.
Lee, DG and Suh, NP (2005) Axiomatic Design and Fabrication of Composite Structures-Applications in Robots, Machine Tools, and Automobiles. Oxford University Press. ISBN-10 0195178777 732.
Lopez-Mesa, B, Mulet, E, Vidal, R and Thompson, G (2011) Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. Journal of Engineering Design 22, 3154.
Lozano, DJ (2009) Metodología para la eco-innovación en el diseño para desensamblado de productos industriales.
Ludden, GD, Schifferstein, HN and Hekkert, P (2008) Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues 24, 2838.
MacKinnon, DW (1970) Creativity: a multi-faceted phenomenon. In Rolansky JD (ed.), Creativity: A Discussion at the Nobel Conference. Holland: North-Holland, pp. 1732.
Maher, ML and Fisher, DH (2012) Using AI to evaluate creative designs, in: DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1.
Moss, J (1966) Measuring Creative Abilities in Junior High School Industrial Arts. Monograph 2. (ERIC No. ED022023), Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Mulet, E, Royo, M, Chulvi, V and Galán, J (2017) Relationship between the degree of creativity and the quality of design outcomes. DYNA 84, 3845.
Nelson, BA, Wilson, JO, Rosen, D and Yen, J (2009) Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 30, 737743.
Newell, A, Shaw, JC and Simon, HA (1959) The Processes of Creative Thinking (p. 2). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Oman, SK, Tumer, IY, Wood, K and Seepersad, C (2013) A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Research in Engineering Design, 24, 6592.
Pahl, G and Beitz, W (1988) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Nasa Stirecon Technical Reports A 89, 47350.
Peeters, J, Verhaegen, PA, Vandevenne, D and Duflou, JR (2010) Refined metrics for measuring novelty in ideation. IDMME Virtual Concept Research in Interaction Design, Oct, pp.20–22.
Provancher, WR (2009) Climbing Robot Using Pendular Motion. Google Patents.
Qian, L and Gero, JS (1996) Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. Artificial intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 289312.
Sarkar, P and Chakrabarti, A (2007) Development of a method for assessing design creativity. Presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’07), Paris, France, pp. 79/1–12.
Sarkar, P and Chakrabarti, A (2011) Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32, 348383.
Sarkar, P and Chakrabarti, A (2015) Creativity: generic definition, tests, factors and methods. International Journal of Design Science and Technology 21, 737.
Shah, JJ, Smith, SM and Vargas-Hernandez, N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24, 111134.
Siddharth, L and Sarkar, P (2017) A methodology for predicting the effect of engineering design changes. Procedia CIRP Elsevier 60, 452457.
Siddharth, L and Sarkar, P (2018) A multiple-domain matrix support to capture rationale for engineering design changes. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 18, 021014-021014-11.
Srinivasan, V and Chakrabarti, A (2010 a) An integrated model of designing. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 10, 031013.
Srinivasan, V and Chakrabarti, A (2010 b) Investigating novelty–outcome relationships in engineering design. Artificial intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24, 161178.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

A systematic approach to assessing novelty, requirement satisfaction, and creativity

  • B.S.C. Ranjan (a1), L. Siddharth (a1) and Amaresh Chakrabarti (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.