Concept Generation
Concept generation is examined as a structured divergence and selection process. Marks come from showing multiple genuinely different concepts, applying selection criteria transparently, and recognising intellectual-property and feasibility constraints early.
Divergence tools
- Brainstorming rules: quantity first, no criticism during generation, build on others, encourage wild ideas, record everything.
- SCAMPER prompts substitution, combination, adaptation, modification, elimination and reversal.
- TRIZ resolves contradictions, for example making a part stronger without adding mass, using separation in time or space.
- Functional decomposition describes what the product must do before deciding how. A morphological matrix combines sub-solution options into complete concepts.
- Analogical transfer borrows mechanisms from other industries, but check that the analogy survives the real constraints.
Convergence and selection
Use a Pugh matrix: compare concepts against a datum on weighted criteria, score better/same/worse, and investigate the losers before discarding them. Criteria commonly include user benefit, cost, manufacturability, risk and environmental impact. Weighting must be agreed before scoring, otherwise the matrix merely justifies a preferred concept. Check prior art and freedom to operate before investing in a concept that cannot be protected or sold.
Worked example
Three concepts for a reusable food container are compared against the current datum on cleanability, part count and cost. Concept A scores better on cleanability but worse on part count. Concept B scores better on all three, but a patent search reveals a granted claim covering its lid hinge. Concept C is slightly worse than B on cost but has no IP conflict. The team selects C and adopts A’s rounded internal corner, which improves cleanability without adding parts. The reasoning: a Pugh score is a decision aid, not a verdict; freedom to operate is a gating constraint, and hybridisation can capture strengths without carrying the conflict.
Traps that cost marks
- Generating one idea and calling it concept development.
- Criticising ideas during divergence, which suppresses alternatives.
- Setting weights after seeing scores.
- Ignoring tooling, assembly or regulatory constraints until the concept is fixed.
- Treating a patent search as optional or assuming a design-around is automatically lawful.