This approach led to a series of methods for developing creativity based on the assumption that a quantitative increase of ideas will necessarily bring about a qualitative improvement.
Such widely known methods as brainstorming, synectics, random stimulation and lateral thinking (identified with Edward de Bono) can be traced to this approach.
These studies show that the main difficulty faced by problem solvers is not generating a large quantity of ideas but coming up with original ones.
[3][4] These discoveries have prompted a new approach which holds that original and interesting results stem from organized thinking and structured processes rather than the random generation of ideas.
[5] SIT is a descendant of the work of Genrich Altshuller, a Russian engineer who analyzed over 200,000 patents to identify the 40 common inventive principles of his unique formula, named TRIZ.
Routine engineering design deals with this situation by searching for the "best fit" compromise, a trade off that maximized the utility and minimizes the negative impact of a specific configuration of the variance of the available input parameters.
During the 1970s, one of Altshuller's students, Ginadi Filkovsky, immigrated to Israel and joined the Open University in Tel Aviv.
Two Ph.D. students, Jacob Goldenberg and Roni Horowitz,[6] joined Filkovsky, focusing their research on developing and simplifying the methodology.
In spite of the commonalities, SIT strongly differs from TRIZ in several important respects, having to do mainly with its practical application.
[7] The move from TRIZ to SIT was motivated by the desire to create a method that is easier to learn and retain (achieved through a smaller number of rules and tools), more universal in application (achieved through elimination of engineering specific tools) and tighter in keeping the problem solver within a real inventive framework (the Closed World principle).
For example, the Bedouins use camels for a number of different tasks: transportation, currency, milk, skin for tents, shade, protection from the wind, burning feces for fuel.
The closed-world condition, by contrast, forces the thinker to find a creative solution by heavily limiting the space of possibilities.
Since the scope of possibilities is artificially limited there is no choice but to reconsider the relations between elements found within the problem and pay closer attention to them: their arrangement in space and time; their assigned functions and their necessity.
Thus, the closed-world condition sets us on a collision course with our fixedness, allowing us to arrive at solutions which are both innovative (different from the usual) and simple (since based on existing and known elements).
The qualitative-change principle dictates that solutions can be found where the main problem element or variable in the existing situation is either totally eliminated or even reversed.
It can also be the case that the problematic element becomes a key positive factor; the situation is "reversed", and the disadvantage transforms into an advantage.
A term coined by Ronald Finke, "function follows form" is often considered a "backwards" process in that the starting point for thinking of new ideas is the existing resource base rather than specific needs that have been identified in the market.
The "function follows form" principle is applied as an overarching framework to focus the application SIT's thinking tools.
Cognitive fixedness is a state of mind in which an object or situation are perceived in one specific way, to the exclusion of any alternative.
The heat that was emitted from the cathode-ray tubes, dispersing upwards would melt the controls had they been located on the upper part.
This notion was expressed in a Harvard Business Review Article entitles "Finding Your Innovation Sweet Spot".
SIT approaches new product development by identifying and applying certain well-defined schemes derived from a historical analysis of product-based trends, termed patterns or templates.
The notion that the rewards of generating a large number of ideas outweigh the costs can be traced back to early studies in the field.
[9] As this process tends to be highly complex and un-formalized, those involved in generating new ideas may seek ways to become more productive as they progress from one ideation task to another.
Individuals who adopt such a cognitive strategy may expect to gain an advantage over others who treat every task as new and unrelated to past ideation.
The methodology is most often taught through programs on innovation, business administration, marketing, organizational development, leadership, management studies.