Modelling Design Problems by Su-Field Method – Toward a Problem Solving Approach in Architectural Design Studio

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 05-07 February 2015, Novotel Athens Convention Center, Athens, Greece

Modelling design problems by Su-Field method – toward a problem solving approach in architectural design studio Sajjad Nazidizajia* , Ana Tomea, Francisco Regateirob a ICIST, DECivil, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais 1, Lisboa 1049-001, Portugal CESUR, DECivil, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais 1, Lisboa 1049-001, Portugal

b

Abstract The design studio is the main central concern in architecture education. The modifications in architectural design studio are not accompanying today‫׳‬s fast-changing world. The TRIZ, developed by Altshuller is an organized method for problem solving. SuField analysis is one of the analytical tools of TRIZ. The aim of this study is to examine this method of the modelling design problems for architecture students in design studio. Three design problems were chosen and modeled with the design studio students. The results showed that accompanying systematic method with critique and collaborative methods increased the motivation of students in the design studio task. © 2015 2015The TheAuthors. Authors.Published Published Elsevier © byby Elsevier Ltd.Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. Keywords: Design studio; Design problem; Su-field analysis; TRIZ

1. Introduction The design studio concept is central in architecture education. According to Schon (1983) architectural design studio is an effective process of learning and teaching that happens via individual or group problem-based projects. Problem recognizing and considering the problem constraints and using reasoned judgment are challenges in the design studio. Some of the most important issues in design studio are open-ended questions, interpersonal interactions , design critique and collaborative design (Nazidizaji, Tome, & Regateiro, 2014). Critique is the

* Sajjad Nazidizaji. Tel.:+ 351218418344 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.565

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

2023

feedback that students receive from their tutor and classmates in design studio by presenting their work and revising the design (Oh, Ishizaki, Gross, & Yi-Luen Do, 2013). Meanwhile working collaboratively increases the critique process and consequently improves the proposed solutions (Peng, 1994). With the growing degree of complexity, the architecture field faces different challenges like globalization, climate change, urbanization and social transformation. The design studio atmosphere has continued the same during the past century. Koch (2002) pointed out: the modifications in architecture education are not associated with today‫׳‬s fast-changing world, especially in the area of architectural practice. Design movement theorists have understood the necessity to balance rationality and creativity in the design process (Bashier, 2014). Derek and Clements-Croome (1997) argues that most of the failures in building design are because of the lack or absence of a systematic approach in their design process. Jones (1992) emphasized that the previous common methods such as design-by-drawing are not enough to solve the complex problems of manmade society (Jones, 1992). On the other hand, we should consider precisely the reasons for quitting traditional methods before creating any more new design methods (Jones, 1992). For organizing the design process, designers and researchers have developed rational methods. According to Cross (2000), the rational design methods often have the similar aims as the rational creative methods, such as widening the search space for potential solutions, or facilitating team works and group decision making. Many designers are suspicious of rational methods, fearing that they are stifling to creativity, misunderstanding about intention of systematic design, which is meant to improve the quality of design decisions, and hence the end products. From the beginning of the design research, researches have tried to understand mostly the design process. Although many researches have considered problem solving aspect of design (Lawson, 2012a, 2012b). In recent years some researches have emphasized more on the problem solving aspect of design (Dorst, 2003, 2006), but even these researches have not proposed any systematic approaches towards the design problem solving. Also the general trend in design researches was focusing on the products and then on the designer, but recently researches have concluded that considering both aspects are necessary. On the other hand, according to Moursund (2004) the definition of problem solving is broadly one: all disciplines including art, design, mathematic, music, and science even poetry are somewhat of a problem solving. TRIZ (the theory of inventive problem solving) has been developed by Altshuller as a systematic and organized methodology or toolkit that offers a logical tactic to increase creativity for innovation and innovative problem solving (Ilevbare, Probert, & Phaal, 2013). TRIZ is a knowledge-based systematic methodology of inventive problem solving (Savransky, 2002). The core concept of TRIZ is contradiction. Forty principles of TRIZ offer solutions for the existing trade-off by opposing parameters. Recently feasibility of using of TRIZ in architecture (Nazidizaji, Tome, & Regateiro, 2013 , 29-30 Oct), levels of innovation in architecture based on TRIZ theory (Nazidizaji, Tome, & Regateiro, 2014, 7-8 May) and modelling one accessibility problem by TRIZ (Nazidizaji, Tome, & Regateiro, 2014, 29-31 Oct) has been discussed by authors. (Najari, Barth, & Sonntag, 2014) have proposed a novel approach to architectural problem space framing using the TRIZ-based contradiction approach. Substance-Field (Su-field) analysis is one of the analytical tools of TRIZ for modeling problems (Terninko, Zusman, & Zlotin, 1996). 76 standard solutions offer solutions for opposing actions (Cameron, 2010) instead of the opposing parameters. In architectural design, space-space and user-space interactions are under debate. Due to the way that Su-field method analyzes efficiency of interactions between substances, it could be an analysis method for architectural substances interactions. However, since most interactions /fields in 76 standards are technical, it may face some limitations related to some architectural fields. The aim of this study is using Su-field analysis for solving design problems in architectural design studio. This paper comprises three parts. In the first one, we will shortly review Su-field analysis components, definitions, how it works, in the second part, we explain the concept of substances and fields in architecture. In the third part, we choose three problems and we model and find candidate solutions with S-field model. In each problem there is one type of field, including incomplete, insufficient and harmful between substances are discussed.

2024

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

2. Material and method 2.1. Su-field By the mid - 1970s Altshuller had promoted the complementary method to solve problems with Substance – Field Analysis and the 76 Standard Solutions (Table 1) (Gadd & Goddard, 2011).Substance-Field Analysis is a beneficial tool for recognizing problems in technical systems and finding innovative solutions for these recognized problems (Molina, Navas, & Nunes, 2014; Navas, 2013). Identified as one of the most appreciated contributions of TRIZ, Substance-Field Analysis has the ability to model a system in a very uncomplicated graphical way, to recognize the problems and also to suggest standard solutions in order to improve the system (Mao, Zhang, & AbouRizk, 2007). The law of “increasing degree of Su-Field” was developed by Genrich Altshuller:”Growth of technical systems will be towards increasing degree of Su-Field. This law can be interpreted as: non Su-Field systems has a tendency to change to Su-Field systems. In Su-Field systems during the evolution of system, the degree of fragmentation increases, transition is from mechanical fields toward electromagnetic fields, and there is an increase in the number of elements connection and system response (Genrikh Saulovich Altshuller & Williams, 1984; Petrov, 2012). Table 1: The 5 classes of 76 standard solutions (Altshuller 1999) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class5

Building and Destroying Su-Field Models Enhancing Su-Field Models Transition to the Super-System and Micro-Levels Standard Solutions for Detection and Measurement Standards for Applying the Standard Solutions

13 standard solutions 23 standard solutions 6 standard solutions 17 standard solutions 17 standard solutions

2.2. Definition The definition of Substance is any material, thing or a combination of them, in any physical state or form such as solid, gas, liquid, powder, paste, gel, etc. It can possess any physical property such as elastic, reflective, conductive, intelligent, etc (Cameron, 2010). The field is the action between substances such as mechanical, acoustic, thermal, chemical, electric, magnetic etc. Substances are named by S1, S2, S3 and Field by F. Substance S1 is changed, processed, converted, discovered, inspected etc. Required action is accomplished by Substance S2. Fig 1 shows how TRIZ solution tools basically work. The types of fields have been categorized as (Fig 2) 1. Effective complete system 2. Absent or incomplete, there is no field/ interaction between substances 3.Ineffective/ or insufficient system 4. Insufficient field 5. Excessive field 6.Harmful field 7. Measure or detect field . for selecting which standards we could use for every type of fields, we can apply an inventive standard flowchart (Fig 3)(G. Altshuller, 1999). Fig 4 presents how to apply inventive standards. 2.3. Su-field in architecture Everything that performs a function is a technical system. Any technical system can consist of one or more subsystems (G. S. Altshuller, Shulyak, & Rodman, 1997). Buildings are technical systems that have sub-systems and super-systems [26]. In Su-Field analysis model from the most detailed objects to the whole building and even supersystems such as neighborhood or city can be used as Substances S1, S2, and S3. Many times changing a sub-system may lead to solving or creating a major problem even in the super-system. The example for this issue is changing the color of facades or using green roof and its effect on preventing the creation of thermal islands in the city. “An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities”(Howard, 1818) What we call the architectural space is a concept that was created by putting some physical pieces and materials next to each other (Arnheim, 1977). All these pieces are sub-systems of an architectural space that have interactions

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

2025

and mutual affection on each other and can be defined as fields in architecture. We have divided the field for architectural Su-field analysis as below: x Space-space fields From the space syntax theory (Hillier & Hanson, 1984), we know some defined fields between spaces. Isovist (Benedikt, 1979)is the visibility of spaces from other spaces. Level of depth, integration and choice are fields that are between spaces. Thermal, acoustic interactions are other fields that can be said are common with another engineering field.

Su-field model (or function statement)

Solutions suggested on how Similar problems resolved in other industries , science and technologies

By analogy

Problem formulated (as key skill)

Inventive standards

The specific problem

Flow of how classical TRIZ helps to solve the problems and focus thinking

Specific solutions for current problem

Figure 1: How TRIZ solution tools basically work-Inventive standards (adapted from (Cameron,2010))

F

F

S2 S1 Su-field interaction

S2 S1 Absent/ Incomplete

F

F

S2

S1 Insufficient

S2

F

S1

Excessive

S1 S2 Effective/ Complete

S2 Harmful

Figure 2: The types of fields (adapted from (Altshuller,1999))

2026

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

State problem

Convert to a Sufield model S1,S2,F

Validate interaction is direct

Choose problem type

Incomplete or absent

Harmful, Excessive

Insufficient

Measure, Detect

Class 1.1

Class 1.2

Class 1 and 2

Class 4

Solutions

Class 3

Class 5 Evolved solution

Figure 3: Inventive standard flowchart (adapted from (Altshuller,1999)) State problem

Validate direct interaction

A acts on B

X

Y

Fn

Su-field interaction F

Solution flowchart

List ideas

Fn

Fn B

A

A Action

B

S2

S1

S2 acts on S1

Figure 4: How to apply inventive standards (adapted from (Cameron,2010))

x User-space fields Relationships and interactions of user with space inside space or from outside of space can be classified in this kind of field. Way finding (Passini, 1992) is an example of user-space field. As (Lynch, 1960) defined the way finding as "a consistent use and organization of definite sensory cues from the external environment.". It has enough information of the space so that the way-finding is easy to be used by the user. x Space-environmental factor The effects of environmental factors such as sunshine, wind on the whole building and space. Ventilation inside buildings, aero-dynamic effects of the wind on buildings and also lack of user comfort because of the wind in open spaces are examples from this field. x User-component User-space relationship may be affected by the quality of the relationships between user and components. What we call here as components include building components such as floor, ceiling, roof, walls, doors, windows, And furniture, electrical devices, etc. x User-user fields All types of social interactions between users inside the built environment can be categorized in this field. It involves interactions between users and social spaces, specifically when the space has a dominant effect on it.

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

2027

2.4. Method For testing the applicability of Su-field for solving architectural design problems, a list of considered design problems of the spaces and campus of the Instituto Superior Tecnico (Universidade de Lisboa) was prepared. Then the problems were categorized from the architectural and Su-field point of view. The substances and fields in problems were recognized. By Su-field, the problems were divided by their type of fields including incomplete, insufficient, excessive and harmful. Three problems were chosen. The first priority for choosing problems was choosing at least one problem from every type of field. Three volunteer students were chosen from the architectural design studio course at Deylaman Institute of Higher Education (Lahijan-Iran) to model problems by Su-field (one problem for each student). The Su-field and standards were described to the 3 students by a tutor. During the use of Su-field, every student could use the feedbacks and ideas of the other two classmates and tutor as a critique session. Students were in the final semester of the undergraduate degree. They had passed all Architectural Design Studio (ADS) courses. The architecture undergraduate program in Iran takes at least 4 years. The total number of course credits is 140, and they consist of general, basic, professional, and optional courses. Each of the ADS (ADS-1, ADS2, ADS-3, ADS-4, and ADS-5) is equivalent to 5 credits (Science Ministry, 2007). 3. Case problems for modelling Three case design problems involving three types of fields were chosen (Fig 2). The field between substances in the first case is incomplete, in the second is insufficient and the third one is harmful. 3.1. Problem 1 by student 1 (Way finding inside the campus) The first problem to solve is the problem of way finding for the new students in the main campus of our faculty (Instituto Superior Tecnico). For new comers, finding post-graduation office is difficult. In this case, the field between space and user is insufficient. Based on the inventive standard flowchart, we should use standards class 1(13 standards) and standards class 2 (23 standards). In other terms, we should choose our solution from the total 36 standards. During the whole process of this modelling problem, the tutor gave the instructions for modelling with the Su-field and then the modelling and choosing the solutions and ideas were criticized by the tutor and other students. In fact we used critique model of design studio on a systematic method of problem solving in the design studio. Another task that was done by students was finding the general and creative existing solutions and policies for better way finding and equivalent to standards of class 1 and 2 and then choosing the best ideas by critique. In this stage in fact they used some kind of reverse engineering (Nazidizaji & Safari, 2013) for the best solutions of the design. F (inform/way finding)

S1(user) Insufficient

F (inform/way finding)

S2 (space), S1(user) S3 (signs) Internal Complex Su-Field Model

Figure 5: Using internal complex Su-field model for way finding problem

In this example, space informs user in an insufficient way. Now we compare previous way finding solutions with some standards suggested by Su-field analysis from class 1 and 2.

2028

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

One way for improving way finding is : “Provide signs at decision points to help way finding decisions”, and standard 1.1.2 (Internal Complex Su-Field Model) states that the “problems can be solved by permanent or temporary transition to the Internal Complex Su-Field Model; i.e., introducing into S2 or S3 additives for increasing controllability, or imparting the required” (Fig 5, Table 2). Using land marking such as sculpture and art and architectural features such as arches over main entrances could be attributed to this standard.

Table 2: Comparison of way finding solution with Su-field standards Way finding solutions

Standard name

Provide signs Use landmarks to provide orientation cues and memorable locations Use survey views (give navigators a vista or map) Provide signs at decision points

Standard number

Internal Complex Su-Field Model Internal Complex Su-Field Model

1.1.2 1.1.2

External Complex Su-Field Model

1.1.3

3.2. Problem 2 by student 2 (noisy restaurant ) In the Canteen the crowd of students makes a lot of noise. This decreases the noise comfort in students. We can consider the space of restaurant as S2 and students as S1 and here the F is harmful or excessive. According to the inventive F

F (acousstic)

S2 (restaurant)

S1(user)

S2

Harmful

S1 S3=S1,S2 S3=S’1,S’2

Figure 6: Using standards class 1.2 for harmful actions in acoustic problem

Standard flow chart we should use standards class 1.2 (5 standards). In this example, users are the sub-system of the restaurant space. Every user (S1) is disturbed by the noise of other users (sub-system of S2). General solutions for these acoustic problems are using absorbance materials, changing the geometry of space for making distractions in sound reflections. In the first the students chose the standards 1.2.1 (Eliminating Harmful Interaction by Introducing S3) and 1.2.2 (Eliminating Harmful Interaction by Introducing Modified S1 and/or S2). For first standard (1.2.1), the proposed solution was dividing the space into three or four parts by some transparent dividers. Standard 1.2.2 lead to modifications in S2 (replacing roofs, floor, walls material with absorbance materials) and modifications to S1 (changing organization of sitting for users) (Fig 6). For improvement of ideas, students applied class 5 standards based on the inventive standard flowchart. 3.3. Problem 3 by student 3 (absence of view in underground of building) Because of the limitations in number of the rooms in DECivil, the basement rooms have been used as computer site or workshops. The lack of view to outside makes the space for user very boring. Here the outside environment can be considered as S2 and computer site (ISTAR) can be considered as S1. The F is view, in fact in Su-field model, it can be said that the outside does not inform the computer site. The type of field here is absent or incomplete. Based on the inventive standards flowchart, we should apply standards class 1.1 that consists of 8 standards. For solving this problem, after considering all 8 standards, standard number 1.1.5(Su-Field Model with

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

2029

the Environment and Additives) was applied (Fig 7). The proposed solution was putting a camera on four facades of the building and broad casting the scene on the four walls of the space. F (inform)

S2 (outside)

S1(user)

S’EN, S3

S1

Absent/ Incomplete Figure 7: Model with the environment and additives for absent type of field

Figure 8: Three students work on three design problems

4. Discussion and conclusion The purpose of this study was to provide the design studio with a more creative and innovative ability by applying the Su-field analysis method. During this task other common methods of design studio such as critique was used as well. In Su-field analysis, by using the 76 standard solutions, incomplete, insufficient and harmful field (interaction) between two substances should change to a complete Su-field model. Meanwhile all technical systems evolve according to increasing the degree of the Su-field. The type of field in the three chosen design problems was respectively insufficient, harmful and incomplete. Students (Fig 8)found the modelling of the first problem (way finding problem-insufficient field) easier than others. This was because of the high number of standards that they could apply. The second problem (noisy restaurant-harmful field) was the most difficult task for them due to the limited number of standards for this field. Using the systematic problem solving method in design studio does not decrease the role of critique, while accompanying systematic method with critique and collaborative methods increased the motivation of students in the task in design studio. High interpretability of standards was described by students as the main limitation for using the method for them. For better use of Su-field in architectural design studios, listing and categorization of many different substances and fields in architecture is recommended. For future researches applying this method for different design problems, with a higher number of students is proposed.

2030

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031

Acknowledgment This research is financially supported by the Portugal Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian). The authors most sincerely thank the design studio students for their cooperation in the process of problem solving. References Altshuller, G. S., Shulyak, L., & Rodman, S. (1997). 40 Principles: Triz Keys to Innovation: Technical Innovation Ctr. Altshuller, Genrich. (1999). Tools of classical TRIZ: Ideation International. Altshuller, Genrikh Saulovich, & Williams, Anthony. (1984). Creativity as an exact science: The theory of the solution of inventive problems (Vol. 320): Gordon and Breach Science Publishers New York. Arnheim, Rudolf. (1977). The dynamics of architectural form: based on the 1975 Mary Duke Biddle lectures at the Cooper Union (Vol. 376): Univ of California Press. Bashier, Fathi. (2014). Reflections on architectural design education: The return of rationalism in the studio. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(4), 424–430. Benedikt, Michael L. (1979). To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B, 6(1), 47-65. Cameron, G. (2010). Trizics: Lulu Enterprises Incorporated. Cross, Nigel. (2000). Engineering design methods: strategies for product design (Vol. 58): Wiley Chichester. Derek, T., & Clements-Croome, J. (1997). What do we mean by intelligent buildings? Automation in Construction, 6(5), 395-400. Dorst, Kees. (2003). The problem of design problems. Expertise in design, 135-147. Dorst, Kees. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, 22(3), 4-17. Gadd, K., & Goddard, C. (2011). TRIZ for Engineers: Enabling Inventive Problem Solving: Wiley. Hillier, Bill, & Hanson, Julienne. (1984). The social logic of space (Vol. 1): Cambridge university press Cambridge. Howard, Luke. (1818). The Climate of London: Deduced from Meteorological Observations, Made at Different Places in the Neighbourhood of the Metropolis (Vol. 1): W. Phillips, sold also by J. and A. Arch. Ilevbare, Imoh M., Probert, David, & Phaal, Robert. (2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33(2), 30-37. Jones, John Chris. (1992). Design methods: Wiley. com. Koch, Aaron. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force: American Institute of Architecture Students. Lawson, B. (2012a). How Designers Think: Taylor & Francis. Lawson, B. (2012b). What Designers Know: Taylor & Francis. Lynch, Kevin. (1960). The image of the city (Vol. 11): MIT press. Mao, X., Zhang, X., & AbouRizk, S. (2007). Generalized solutions for Su-Field analysis. The TRIZ Journal. Molina, Joao D., Navas, Helena V. G., & Nunes, Isabel L. (2014). TRIZ Methodology Applied to Noise Comfort in Commercial Aircraft Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (pp. 1409-1419): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Moursund, David. (2004). Introduction to Problem Solving in the Information Age. Najari, Amirabbas, Barth, Marc, & Sonntag, Michel. (2014). A novel approach to Architectural Problem Space Framing using TRIZ- based Contradiction Approach Paper presented at the TRIZ FUTURE CONFERENCE 2014 - Global Innovation Convention, Lausanne-EPFL university. Navas, Helena V. G. (2013). TRIZ: design problem solving with systematic innovation. Advances in industrial design engineering. Rijeka, Croatia, InTech, 75-97. Nazidizaji, Sajjad, & Safari, Hossein. (2013). Analysis Algorithm of Architectural Projects a Method for Architectural Reverse Engineering in Design Education. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 17(4), 514-523. Nazidizaji, Sajjad, Tome, Ana , & Regateiro, Francisco (2013 , 29-30 Oct). Investigation about the Feasibility and Obstacles of TRIZ Application in Architectural Design Process. Paper presented at the TRIZ Future Conference 2013 Towards systematic inventive processes in industry, Paris. Nazidizaji, Sajjad, Tome, Ana, & Regateiro, Francisco. (2014). Search for design intelligence: A field study on the role of emotional intelligence in architectural design studios. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(4), 413-423. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2014.08.005 Nazidizaji, Sajjad, Tome, Ana, & Regateiro, Francisco. (2014, 7-8 May). Levels of innovation in architectural design. Paper presented at the ARbD’14 - Fourth International Conference on Architectural Research by Design, Lisbon. Nazidizaji, Sajjad, Tome, Ana, & Regateiro, Francisco. (2014, 29-31 Oct). Parameters and Contradictions in Indoor Accessibility Problems. Paper presented at the TRIZ Future Conference 2014, Global Innovation Convention, Lausanne/CERN. Oh, Yeonjoo, Ishizaki, Suguru, Gross, Mark D., & Yi-Luen Do, Ellen. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302-325. Passini, Romedi. (1992). Wayfinding in architecture: Van Nostrand Reinhold New York. Peng, Chengzhi. (1994). Exploring communication in collaborative design: co-operative architectural modelling. Design Studies, 15(1), 19-44. Petrov, Vladimir. (2012). The Law of Increasing Degree of Su-Field. Savransky, S. D. (2002). Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving: Taylor & Francis. Schon, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126): Basic books. Science Ministry, . (2007). General characteristics Programme and syllabus of courses-B.Sc. of Architecture. Tehran: Ministry of Science Research and Technology, Council of planning for higher education

Sajjad Nazidizaji et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015) 2022 – 2031 Terninko, J., Zusman, A., & Zlotin, B. (1996). Step-by-step Triz: Creating Innovative Solution Concepts: Responsible Management, Incorporated.

2031