Table of contentsSummaryDefinitionDefining creativityDefining knowledgeApproaches to knowledge and creativityConclusionSummaryThe aim of this article is to analyze the effect of knowledge and creativity on the outcome overall design process, in order to study how to apply these two elements. principles to produce the best result. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay After defining these two concepts, different types of methods and approaches will be explored in depth, drawing a parallel between convergent thinking based on knowledge and creativity. , divergent thinking. These two methods use different tools and therefore pursue different results. However, facing a design problem relying solely on one of these two methods is in itself limiting, since they only allow part of the overall question to be analyzed. will be outlined, in which creative and knowledge-based approaches intertwine, so that the designer can both build on previous knowledge, but also create new ideas by finding hidden correspondences.DefinitionIt is not rare to hear the words “knowledge” or “creativity” in everyday conversation, even if it involves people unrelated to design activities. Everyone shares a general idea about the meaning of these terms, an idea clear enough to make them use these words and be understood by others: yet, if someone were asked to give their own definition of knowledge or creativity, each of them would have a slightly different answer. Defining knowledge and creativity is troubling not only for people not involved in design, but for all kinds of experts, who have produced different explanations throughout history. Since it would be difficult to compare two concepts that are unclear, as this article aims to do, it would be appropriate to start by framing each of them within a clear definition. Defining Creativity Writer Eric Jerome Dickey compared the explanation of creativity to the question: "How do you fly?" » Despite its simplicity, this quote embodies the problem: the result of creativity is visible (the bird flying), the process is not. In recent times, one of the academic institutions that strives to explain this concept unequivocally is the Marconi Institute for Creativity. (MIC), based in Bologna, Italy. They continued a well-structured definition process, based on the so-called standard definition of creativity: “Creativity requires originality and efficiency”. (font: Runco, Garrett)Based on this, they then proposed the dynamic definition of creativity: “Creativity requires potential originality and effectiveness”. The need for the word “potential” is explained as follows: first of all, it must be kept in mind that creativity is not necessarily a successful process. Someone can invest time and resources into a creative action and ultimately end up with a failed result. This is not to say that the creative process was pointless (as Corazza claims, that would be like saying that a soccer team that hasn't scored in a game isn't actually playing soccer). Second, potential also has a temporal meaning: creativity. of an object, a work of art, a design choice is inevitably linked to the judgment of a specific historical era. Many artists were not appreciated during their lifetime, although their creativity is undeniable. So, to summarize thisdefinition, creativity is a potential which, even when present, can only be expressed when the result is successful and recognized by society. knowledgeThe debate about knowledge is infinitely older, because philosophers of the classical era first tried to give it a definition: one of the earliest examples is Plato's Theaetetus (font: Stefanov), in which various attempts are made, but in the end the author left the question open. General definitions are: human faculty resulting from interpreted information; understanding that arises from a combination of data, information, experiences and individual interpretations (businessdictionary.com, 2015). However, throughout history it has been variously defined as: "Things that are considered true in a given context." text and which push us to act if there were no obstacles” (André Boudreau). “Capacity to act” (Karl Sweiby). “True and justified belief that increases an entity's capacity for effective action” (Nonaka and Takeuchi). All these definitions refer to an idea of ​​knowledge allowing action: thus, without knowledge, a person (or, in the broad sense, a team, a company, etc.) does not have the right to act in any way whatsoever. , or his actions make no sense. Otherwise, looking at it the other way around, it means there is no reason to know if it doesn't lead to action. So, like creativity, knowledge can also be seen as a potential that can only be expressed by concretely applying it. This brings us to design. Another aspect that cannot remain ignored is the relativity of knowledge, since it is a constantly evolving concept of which parts can be reformulated, expanded or removed. Perhaps this is what makes the term so difficult to grasp.Knowledge and creativity approachesKnowledge and creativity are undoubtedly two key elements of any design process: what is less obvious is how these two principles relate to each other. mix to create a successful result. The effects of knowledge and creativity on design have been mapped individually, as their application is embodied by two different approaches, convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking is more closely linked to knowledge, namely using existing knowledge to produce new knowledge, leaving no room for knowledge. unknown possibilities. Convergent processes rely on methods based on the designer's prior knowledge, such as the evaluation matrix. The result is usually one, or very few, answers to a given problem. This can lead to knowledge-based errors, when the designer's assessment is affected by their prior knowledge, causing them to ignore other important aspects of the problem. Divergent thinking, on the other hand, is the ability to explore outside the box. , creating a variety of possibilities from the available information. It generally uses free flow methods (brainstorming, bodystorming, etc.), so the solutions proposed are numerous. Although convergent and divergent thinking have often been viewed as competing processes (Getzels & Jackson, 1962), their differences have more recently been recognized. mutual utility (Rickards, 1993; Brophy, 1998). The aim of this article is to prove, like many other sources, that the best approach is a mixture of the two. Several methodologies and approaches have been developed so that these two modes of thinking are used together fruitfully: one of the most predominant is undoubtedly the CK theory (Concept-Knowledge Theory) (font: Le Masson): this is not.