List of Referees Tomasz Arciszewski (USA) Tomas Backstrom (Sweden) Herbert Birkhofer (Germany) Carole Bouchard (France) Jean-Francois Boujut (France) Julia Brewis (South Africa) Anders Brix (Denmark) David Brown (USA) Nick Bryan-Kinns (UK) Matthew Campbell(USA) Linda Candy (Australia) Hernan Casakin (Israel) Gaetano Cascini (Italy) Amaresh Chakrabarty (India) John Clarkson (UK) Steve Culley(UK) Andy Dong (Australia) Kees Dorst (Australia) Alex Duffy (UK) Gills Fauconnier (USA) Ernest Edmonds (Australia) Elena Mulet Escrig (Spain) Mads Nygaard Folkmann (Denmark) Haruyuki Fujii (Japan) Shuichi Fukuda (USA) Georgi V. Georgiev (Japan) John Gero (Australia) Ashok K. Goel (USA) Gabriela Goldschmidt (Israel) Samuel Gomes (France) Ewa Grabska (Poland) Ian Gwilt (Australia) Karl Hain (Germany) Sean Hanna (UK) Noe Vargas Hernandez (USA) Imre Horvath(Nethrelands) Tom Howard (UK) Norio Ishii (Japan) Luz Maria Jiménez (Canada) Yan Jin (USA) Jeff Kan (Singapore) Harrison HM. Kim (USA) Yong Se Kim (Korea) Masakazu Kobayashi (Japan) Larry Leifer (USA) Pascal Le Masson (France) Udo Lindemann (Germany) Julie Linsey (USA) Joachim Lloveras (Spain) Mary Lou Maher (USA) Dorian Marjanović (Croatia) Ann McKenna (USA) Chris McMahon (UK) Harald Meerkamm (Germany) Gavin Melles (Australia) Celine Mougenot (France) Tamotsu Murakami (Japan) Paul Murty (Australia) Yukari Nagai (Japan) Hideyuki Nakashima (Japan) Margareta Norell (Sweden) Koichi Ootomi (Japan) Panos Papalambros (USA) Jesenka Pibernik (Croatia) Lubomir Popov (USA) Vesna Popovic (Australia) Lily H. Shu (Canada) Masaki Suwa (Japan) Yoram Reich (Israel) Asko Riitahuhta (Finland) Paul Rodgers (UK) Pertti Saariluoma (Finland) Kristina Shea (Germany) Yoshiki Shimomura (Japan) Steven Smith (USA) Ricardo Sosa (Mexico) Masahiro Takatsuka (Australia) Hsien-Hui Tang (Taiwan) Toshiharu Taura (Japan) Katja Tschimmel (Portugal) Barbara Tversky (USA) Hung-Hsiang Wang (Taiwan) Bert Willems (Netherlands) Anthony Williams (Australia) Terry Winograd (USA) Hideyoshi Yanagisawa (Japan) Wim Zeiler (Netherlands) Yong Zeng (Canada) Directions for Design Creativity Research (Invited Papers) Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity: Beyond the Problem-Solving Paradigm Toshiharu Taura and Yukari Nagai Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 2) - Research Issues and Methodologies: From the Viewpoint of Deep Feelings and Desirable Figure Yukari Nagai and Toshiharu Taura Future Directions for Design Creativity Research John S. Gero Systematic Procedures Supporting Creativity - A Contradiction? Udo Lindemann Better, Not Catchier: Design Creativity Research in the Service of Value Gabriela Goldschmidt Using Evolved Analogies to Overcome Creative Design Fixation Steven M. Smith, Julie S. Linsey and Andruid Kerne Design Creativity Research: From the Individual to the Crowd Mary L. Maher Motivation as a Major Direction for Design Creativity Research Amaresh Chakrabarti Design Research and Designing: The Synergy and The Team Yong Se Kim Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity: Beyond the Problem-Solving Paradigm Toshiharu Taura 1 and Yukari Nagai 2 1 Kobe University, Japan 2 Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan Abstract. This article discusses the meanings of “design” and “creativity.” First, the authors provide a historical review of the terminologies of “design” and “creativity” used in the field of design research. On the basis of this review, they aim to formulate a fundamental perspective of design for our future society that does not focus on the notion of efficiency and is not restricted by the framework of a problem-solving process. Next, they redefine design as the process of composing a desirable figure toward the future on the basis of their classifications of design as drawing, problem solving, and pursuit of the ideal. Finally, they identify the meanings of such a new definition of design in order to find the essential areas of research for design in the future post- industrial society. Keywords: design, design creativity, design theoretics, post- industrial society, definition of design 1 Introduction In this article, we discuss the meanings of “design” and “creativity.” The word “design” is increasingly being used in a variety of societal contexts—for example, career design, sleep design, and community design. The definition of design has continued to change along with the times. One reason that we affirm this evolution of the definition of design is to develop a new meaning of design for our future society. In particular, we aim to clarify the meanings of design through a comparison of two different eras: those of industrial society and post-industrial society. Based on a survey of the literature, we investigate the historical change in the definition of design. We then consider the generation that will follow the post- industrial society. We consider the stream of industrial change that has progressed from the first form of industry (agriculture) and the second form (manufacturing) to the third form of industry (service); this progression is a result of our orientation based on the notion of high efficiency. According to the movement of this stream, the next inclination in the third form of industry will still be oriented toward efficiency. Thus far, “design” has played the role of providing a method of acceleration for obtaining increased efficiency in our industrial society. For most designed products, the expectation is that they must “be easy to use,” “be convenient,” “be cheap,” “consume low energy,” or “be easy to understand,” all of which involve the notion of efficiency. In contrast, there is another view of design that aims to achieve goals other than that of efficiency, namely, to foster an improved sense of well being or richness of the heart of the society. These goals are more deeply related to our spiritual dimension than to our material wealth. Considering this aspect, design assumes a totally different meaning from its previous definition, which represents the dominant industrial perspective. Therefore, we consider it impossible to conceive of design by merely extending or elaborating the previous definition. This does not imply that no previous design was related to richness of the heart, as there have been certain previous types of design that have fostered spiritual values. However, it is still possible to view the history of design in the rough terms presented above. In addition, we should never consider efficiency as solely a negative influence, but should respect that role for what it has to offer. However, if the times change such that we can be released from a sole belief in efficiency, other important meanings of design can then arise, and it is these that we wish to shed light on. If such a time has come, then design can truly be discussed in greater depth, and we can see the society of the next generation in terms of a new perspective of design. 2 Survey of Definitions of Design We have identified that design and creativity are inseparably connected to each other. As Herbert Simon said, because design can still be about transforming existing situations into preferred ones, in the field of design research, design is usually explained as being 4 T. Taura and Y. Nagai an activity to formulate a design solution for a purpose (Simon, 1973). The process of design has been seen as a process of rational problem solving. However, such a definition can be considered to be a tentative one in terms of transcendent or historical views. In this section, we review the previously dominant definitions of design. 2.1 Genealogic View of Definitions of Design The word “design” means a “plan,” a “pattern,” a “composition,” or an “intention.” It originally came from the French word “desinare,” which was derived from the Latin word, “signum.” Words in several other languages are also used in a way that is similar to the English word “design” (Ulrich, 2007). The meanings of design basically involve two phases: the mental plan for something, and then the creation of forms. In “Design Dictionary” (Ernhoff and Marshall, 2008), we learn that Leonardo da Vinci founded an academy that was dedicated to design. The idea of design still seemed to express something like styling, as we understand it, because it meant “the arrangement of lines and shapes as decoration,” but that was following a very old tradition with a meaning limited to the perspectives of the crafts era. Indeed, the meanings of design reflected the society of that time. In the modern era, design is explained as being “developed through the actions of key individuals responding to the new potentials and fears associated with developments in technology and to changing socioeconomic and political conditions and contexts” (Design Dictionary, P106). The most remarkable change leading to this new definition was the Industrial Revolution at the end of 18th century. In tune with the new ethos of the industrial revolution, the meaning of design changed, with an emphasis upon its more constructive aspect, as it was understood more as an engineering-based process. Around 1919, the Bauhaus and other new design movements arose in many places in Europe, all of which shared quite similar goals, namely “beauty,” “wealth,” and “efficiency.” It was thought that the best way to integrate these three goals was to establish a reasonable “standard.” Thus, “beauty” came to be understood as a rational value, in the sense of aesthetics having true worth. With the flourishing of industrial society that came afterwards, the definition of design changed in order to embrace the now- common large-scale manufacturing process (Asimow, 1962). The definition was again modified to be consistent with the problem-solving processes of industry. In fact, the framework of the problem- solving process became aligned with the methodologies of design in the industrial era, especially in terms of its management (Jerrard et al., 1998). Most design researchers used frameworks based on a problem-solving process model to explain the rational design process of that time. Indeed, design can be seen as an example of a process of construction whose aim is to solve ill-structured problems that lack clarity in terms of both the existing situation and the desired outcome. When people cannot see how to attain goals, they may develop methods that connect intermediate goals in order to do so. In large-scale manufacturing such as shipbuilding, for example, the entire process aims to solve a problem that is too complicated in its entirety, but which can be broken down into hierarchic, simpler, more manageable sub- problems (Simon, 1999). Thus, the engineering designs used in shipbuilding are methods of structuring the overall project into many partial problems. To identify rational methods for solving such complex problems (namely “design problems”), classification of the sub-problems and a systematic overview are required, particularly in engineering design (Eide et al., 2008). Thus, a field of design methodology has been established on the basis of such a problem-solving framework and systematic approach (Archer, 1965; Cross, 1984; Batazit, 2004). This field mainly addresses methods of “problem re-structuring” or “problem shifting” in order to attain the goals of “the design problems.” In the field of design methodology, a basic model of design that represents the three main steps of design, namely analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, became popular and was developed in several ways (Goldschmidt, 1999; Batazit, 2004). March has classified the patterns of design problems and design reasoning (March, 1976). Coyne and others represented a definition of designers whose purpose was to change the existing situation in order to create a desired situation by means of physical change (Coyne et al., 1990). Their approach considered that design knowledge should be representative, and they suggested that design activities should be “descriptions of the functions of artifacts” that would then fulfill their expected functions. However, as time passed, such definitions of design changed. When society entered the post- industrial era, the definition of design gradually became separated from the manufacturing process, a change that had been anticipated by design researchers. Indeed, as middle as the 1970s, Nigel Cross projected such a change and posed the message to his colleagues of how to commit to and contribute to the new society. His essential suggestion was, “to consider whether we are now entering a post industrial society and consequently in need of a post-industrial design process” (Lawson, 2006). To adapt to the needs of post-industrial design, Cross (2006) proposed a new view of the ability to Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity 5 design that he expressed as “designerly ways of knowing.” The capacities of design were considered to be more general than before, more like the capacity to “think,” which included the talent of knowing “how to see.” Design knowledge was also considered as an ability because it constituted a strategic form of knowledge that provided methods of problem solving based on previous solutions. Another view of the meaning of design was proposed from the perspective of business and management. Ulrich and Eppinger (2007) expressed the view that design is formed in the real world. Because the market in the real world represents consumers’ actual selection of products, it can be seen as a process similar to that of evolution. Therefore, design can be defined as a process of product evolution that is governed by the decisions made by the society. The above description is a brief overview of the history of how design has been defined over recent centuries. This history can be considered as the development of the “problem-solving process” in the era of industrial society. In this article, we call such a view of design “a problem-solving paradigm.” Now, that view and the framework it represented must give way to the next step of progress. A serious problem that has been pointed out is that the paradigm of an analytical view that is in accord with the view of a “problem-solving process” does not work in the post- industrial society that is now being born from the social sciences and economics. In addition, it has been suggested that people in today’s society need creativity more than before in order to overcome the difference in the old and new paradigms. However, the question of what kind of creativity is necessary for this new society remains unanswered. This article, therefore, will next discuss the important issue of creativity. 2.2 Genealogic View of Definitions of Creativity In the field of design research, two kinds of creativity have been discussed. One kind of creativity is related to the process of design, while the other is related to the products that are the result of the design process. In the former, the emphasis is on rational decision- making to find a design solution within a framework of problem solving. Cross (2006) has reported many cases of creative leaps that are made during the design process, expansions of awareness that may have been caused by the release from a mental fixation. The role of visual information is considered to be conducive to such releases from mental fixations. In fact, it has been supposed that experts have actual knowledge of how to break such fixations. Until now, analogical reasoning has been given the most attention because it relates to the problem-solving process (Findler, 1981Goldschmidt, 1990; Visser, 1996; Ball and Christensen, 2009). Many studies have reported that metaphors and visual images are effective for analogical reasoning (Goldschmidt 1994; ), and expert designers seem to understand the roles that these metaphors and visual images play. These studies have claimed that the capacity for visual thinking might be particularly expanded in the cognitive process of designers, referring to the theory of Rudolf Arnheim (1969). Goldschmidt has identified the effects of the ideas that occur (concepts) to the ones on the abstraction level during the design process, which she relates to creativity by carrying out experimental studies. These results were obtained through experimental observation of architectures’ design protocols. Such experimental observation of design process has been called “design protocol studies” and informs cognitive features of the creative design process (Kan and Gero, 2009). There are other standards as well with which to evaluate creativity. For instance, the value of the diversity of products or the speed at which goals are achieved is often used as evaluation items in assessments of creativity (in the Encyclopedia of Creativity). In addition, Eppinger and Ulrich (2007) suggested that the actual results of marketing express the values of creativity of designed products in the real world. They have also suggested that diverse productions affect our power to create products in the next generation. On the other hand, the creativity of designed products or the ideas governing them have usually been evaluated in terms of novelty and practicality, two criteria offered by the study of Sternberg and Lubert (1999). They described creativity as the ability of produce work that is both novel and appropriate. Gero (2007) has added the notion of “unexpected” to these criteria in the evaluation of creativity in design. As we pointed out earlier, design has been discussed mainly within a framework of problem solving. In such a framework, ability means the ability to analyze problems, which is of course a necessary skill in the problem-solving process. However, in the post-industrial society, a form of creativity is required that is different from the old problem-solving paradigm. We would say that this ability is the capacity for creativity in design. However, what this exactly means must be clarified in our contemporary context. Therefore, we will next re-consider how this term might be newly defined. 6 T. Taura and Y. Nagai 3 New Definition of Design and Creativity 3.1 Classification of Design As a foundation for this new definition, we first classify design into three categories: drawing, problem solving, and the pursuit of an ideal. Category A: Drawing The term “design” is widely thought of as the expression of images in the form of pictures or sketches; in other words, it is strongly associated with art or drawing. This is how the term is typically considered in its most popular and general use. Although drawing seems to be creative, the drawing process cannot create a truly new output, because drawing itself is a process that involves only the transformation of a design image (an abstract concept imagined in the designer’s mind) into a concrete figure or shape. Thus, it is creative only in that it entails imagining a nonexistent figure or shape. Therefore, the essential nature of its creativity lies in the design image that the figure or shape then represents. Category B: Problem solving In our review of the history of design, the notion of design comes to the fore when we address the process or act of designing rather than its results in the form of sketches and drawings, particularly since the development of industry to its present degree. In this case, we have thus far considered the design process mainly within the framework of problem solving. However, the problem-solving process itself cannot really create a new goal. Therefore, our next concern is with the question, “how do we determine the desired goal?” We can have obvious goals (problems) that need to be achieved, such as finding solutions for natural disasters. Similarly, in the case in which we need to meet customer requirements that are clearly spelled out, it is also easy to set goals. However, there are sometimes cases in which the goals themselves are unclear. Category C: Pursuit of the ideal We can also use the term “design” to mean the pursuit of certain ideals, a definition whose meaning differs from the predominant definition of design as the solving of obvious problems. For example, from a social perspective, design involves the notion of pursuit of an ideal. Moreover, the term “pursuit of an ideal” contains within it the notion of the future, as opposed to the problem-solving perspective that is usually used in the context of current problems. We can identify one distinct feature of design as being something that is aroused within us and is supported by the requisite criteria of our ideals. It involves the presence of a process of abstraction in an ideal environment. Moreover, it recognizes designs that conform to our perspective of the “future” and “something that is meant to be”—that is, something that only human beings can conceive of. 3.2 New Definition of Design and Creativity Based on the above consideration, we would re-define design as the process of “composing a desirable figure toward the future.” Regarding this definition, we will first discuss what we mean by “toward the future.” The notion of the future is, of course, extremely abstract. For example, we can never draw an exact picture of the future. We can imagine what things may be like in the future, but it is impossible to visualize a precise notion of the future itself. This kind of highly abstract notion can only be represented in language. In the context of design, the future has two meanings. One meaning is a future that we can grasp inductively, such as a marketing forecast. The other meaning is the wish or desire for recognition/expression that is led by inner feeling, as in art. In our re-definition of design, we consider that the latter meaning is the more important of the two. Next, we discuss what we mean by a “desirable figure.” It is this part that determines the object of design. There are two kinds of desirable figures: obvious goals in the case of a problem-solving process, and an ideal image in the case of the pursuit of an ideal. As suggested above, in our re-definition of design, we consider this latter object of design to be of greater importance. In this case, a feeling of resonance in the mind can be a reason for an ideal image. One important point regarding artifacts is the notion of “naturalness.” We often assume that the process of making artifacts should come naturally to humans. However, there is no common process that resonates with human beings, even though we create artifacts by copying them from the natural world. In contrast, there are some things that differ from what is found in nature but nevertheless resonate within the human mind. Music is a good example. Music is composed of man-made sounds, most of which differ from natural sounds such as the sound of a breeze or a bird’s song. In fact, music resonates in the human mind, where it makes a deep and natural impression. It is in the human mind that the desirable figure of the artifact originates. Therefore, in order to realize a desirable figure, it is necessary to identify the sources of deep feelings in the human mind. Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity 7 Finally, we will discuss the idea of “composing,” because it provides an explanation for the process of design. In design, one of the typical processes is the composition of parts, because the way in which we create products differs from the process of creation in the natural world. A method for such an integration of existing concepts (in other words, “concept synthesis”) is well known (Finke et al., 1992; Taura and Nagai, 2005; Nagai and Taura 2009). For the integration of existing concepts (concept synthesis), particularly in the pursuit of desirable figures, it is not enough to just carefully analyze the given goals. It is also necessary to imagine the desirable figure in the future, and there must be an intrinsic motivation that resonates with one’s inner feelings. In this article, we use the term “composing” to embrace just such motivations. On the basis of the above definition, we define design creativity as the degree to which a desirable figure is realized. In this approach, novelty may be implemented as a by-product of this pursuit, but not as a causal factor of creativity. Thus, if a new idea is proposed merely on account of its uniqueness, we cannot say that this partakes of the aim for desirable figures. 4 Meaning of New Definition of Design We will now discuss the meaning of our new definition of design as compared to its previous definition. First, we consider the ability to design from the viewpoint of creativity. We can understand that problem-solving ability (category B) is related to “innovation,” in which the novel idea for a problem- solving plan that is difficult to conceive is finally realized. A plan might also be considered innovatory if is not particularly novel but involves difficulties that must be overcome in its realization. Within the framework of a problem-solving process, a problem is defined as the difference between the current state and the desired goal. Thus, the process of developing a solution to achieve the goal is synonymous with the design process. In many cases, the solution can be found by analyzing the gap between the current state and the design goal. In other words, it can be said that the solution lies hidden in the gap. Therefore, the ability to solve problems can be considered to be an analytical skill. On the other hand, based on the new definition of design advanced in this article, it is important for the ideal image to be pursued. Designers must have the ability to compose the ideal functions of the future, or the ability to compose an interface that will evoke an ideal impression in the recipient’s mind. As mentioned in the previous section, ability in composition is needed in order to create ideal images in design. Fig. 1. Extended model of the design process We have proposed an extended model of the design process that involves two dynamics: a “push” type and a “pull” type (Taura and Nagai, 2009). Figure 1 shows the extended model. On the basis of this model, the design process as we define it can be explained as the process of composing a design image that is being “pushed” from the source of deep feelings that resonate with our inner minds. The design image is the same as “a concept,” as referred to earlier. Thus, a push-type design process is the process of composing “a concept” that represents a desirable figure. In contrast, a “pulled” process is a problem-solving process that is “pulled” forward from a predetermined goal. As we consider the process of composing a desirable concept, our emphasis will be on the roles of a push-type process. Next, we discuss our new definition of design from the viewpoint of “characteristics of humans.” Although we confess that the boundary here is a bit ambiguous, our scope of interest is those actions that only a human being is able to perform. We suppose that other animals (such as monkeys) can probably perform a certain degree of problem solving. In fact, it is well known that monkeys use tools in their food taking, a behavior that is certainly a sort of problem solving. The notion of design that we defined above, by contrast, is something that could never be done by monkeys. These are things that only a human can do: to imagine a desirable figure, to conceive of things using abstract notions like “the future,” or to compose a new concept with a high level of intelligence. We can understand that the post-industrial society has revealed our deepest human wish. Humans need to imagine desirable figures that express a “better sense of well‐being” or “richness of the heart.” It can become possible for us to have such figures when we approach the process of design with an understanding of our new definition of its meaning. It can be said that post-industrial society indicates that the new meanings of design is centered in what this paper presents as category C, namely the pursuit of an ideal. 8 T. Taura and Y. Nagai 5 Conclusion In order to identify the meanings of design, we have discussed the terminology of design and creativity based on a historical review. Following a classification of design that consists of three categories—drawing (category A), problem solving (category B), and pursuit of the ideal (category C), we discussed the importance of design in the pursuit of an ideal (category C) in our future society, as compared to design within the framework of a problem-solving process (category B). We have re-defined design as being the process of composing a desirable figure toward the future. On the basis of this new definition of design, we will next propose design theoretics to formulate a framework for studying design in our future society, after the passing of the post-industrial era. The pertinent and essential research issues will also be addressed, and will be introduced in Part 2 of our article. References Archer B, (1965) Systematic method for designers. London: The design council (republished 1984, in Developments in Design Methodology, ed. Cross N) Arnheim R, (1969) Visual Thinking. University of California Press Asimow M, (1962) Introduction to Design. Prentice-Hall Ball LJ, Christensen BT, (2009) Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies 30(2):169–186 Bayazit N, (2004) Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research. Design Issues 20(1):16–29, MIT Press Coyne D, Rosenman M, Radford D, Balachandran M, Gero J, (1990) Knowledge Based Design Systems. Addison- Wesley Publishing Company Ltd. Cross N, (1975) Design and Technology. Open University Press Cross N, (1984) Introduction. in Developments in Design Methodology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Cross N, (1989) The nature and unnature of design ability. Design Studies 11(3):127–140 Cross N, (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. Birkhauser Eide A, Jenison R, Northup L, Mashaw L, (2001) Introduction To Engineering Design and Problem Solving. Mcgraw-Hill's Best-Basic Engineering Series and Tools Erlhoff M, Marshall T, (2008) Design Dictionary. Board of International Research in Design, Birkhouser Verlag AG Findler NV, (1981) Analogical reasoning in design process. Design Studies 2(1):45–51 Finke RA, Ward TB, Smith SM, (1992) Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Gero JS, (2007) on his talk “Design Creativity”, ICED07 SIG Design Creativity Workshop Goldschmidt G, (1990) Linkography: Assessing design productivity. In Trappl R, (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems 90:291-298, Singapore: World Scientific Goldschmidt G, (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design Studies 15(2):158–174 Goldschmidt G, (1999) Design. In Encyclopedia of creativity, Runco MA, Pritzker SR, (eds.), Academic Press, 525– 535 Jerrard B, Newport R, Trueman M, (1998) Managing New Product Innovation. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Kan JWT, Gero JS, (2009) Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information in design protocol studies. In McDonnell J, Lloyd P, (Eds), About: Designing. Analysing Design Meetings, CRC Press, 213–229 Lawson B, (2006) How designers think, fourth edition. Architectural Press March L, (1976) The logic of design and the question of value. The Architecture of Form, Cambridge University Press Nagai Y, Taura T, Mukai F, (2009) Concept blending and dissimilarity: Factors for creative concept generation process. Design Studies 30(6):648–675 Simon HA, (1973) The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence 4:181–200 (Republished 1984) Simon HA, (1999) The Sciences of the Artificial. Third Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Sternberg R, Lubart T, (1999) The concept of creativity: Prospect and Paradigms. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press Taura T, Nagai Y, (2005) Primitives and Princeples of Synthetic Process for Creative Design-Taxonomical Relation and Thematic Relation. In Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design VI, Gero JS, Maher ML, (Eds.), 177–194 Taura T, Nagai Y, (2009) Design Creativity: Integration of Design Insight and Design Outsight. Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design 16-2(62):55– 60 Ulrich KT, Eppinger S, (2007) Product Design and Development 4. McGraw Hill Book Co. Ulrich KT,(2007) Design: creation of artifact in society. http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/designbook.html Visser W, (1996) Two functions of analogical reasoning in design: a cognitive-psychology approach. Design Studies 17(4):417–434 Visser W, (2006) The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers . (Canada) Directions for Design Creativity Research (Invited Papers) Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity: Beyond the Problem-Solving. Chakrabarti Design Research and Designing: The Synergy and The Team Yong Se Kim Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity: Beyond. important issue of creativity. 2. 2 Genealogic View of Definitions of Creativity In the field of design research, two kinds of creativity have been discussed. One kind of creativity is related