MORPHOLOGICAL METHOD

Fritz Zwicky pioneered the development of General Morphological Analysis (GMA) as a method for investigating the totality of relationships contained in multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable problem complexes. During the past two decades, GMA has been extended, computerized and employed for structuring complex policy and planning issues, developing scenario and strategy laboratories, and analyzing organizational and stakeholder structures. This article outlines the fundamentals of the morphological approach and describes an application in policy analysis.

”... within the final and true world image everything is related to everything,

and nothing can be discarded a priori as being unimportant.” (Fritz Zwicky:

Discovery, Invention, Research through the Morphological Approach.)

General Morphological Analysis (GMA) was developed by Fritz Zwicky – the Swiss astrophysicist and aerospace scientist based at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) – as a method for structuring and investigating the total set of relationships contained in multidimensional, non-quantifiable, problem complexes (Zwicky 1966, 1969).

Zwicky applied this method to such diverse fields as the classification of astrophysical objects, the development of jet and rocket propulsion systems, and the legal aspects of space travel and colonization. He founded the Society for Morphological Research and advanced the "morphological approach" for some 40 years, between the early 1930's until his death in 1974.

The morphological method hinges around a morphological chart or design matrix (table) and really only caters for the stages of presenting and evaluating the alternative ideas. To use the matrix for this purpose it is of prime importance that the designer has carefully established his specification; to employ the morphological matrix without first doing so could result in obvious chaos. The morphological approach derives its name from the dictionary definition: "pertaining to the study of an organized system or form".

The matrix comprises a single left-hand column in which are listed the parameters essential to the design, i.e. what the design must be, or must have. To the right of each element in the column is a row containing the possible ways of achieving that particular parameter. The morphological method is principally concerned with the speculation step in the process.

To illustrate the use of the morphological matrix, consider the design of a forklift truck for use in a warehouse. The design parameters resulting from the specification would include:

1. means of support which allow movement across the floor
2. means of steering the vehicle
3. means of stopping
4. propulsion
5. power unit
6. power transmission
7. lifting mechanism
8. facilities for operator

A morphological chart showing these parameters and some possible ways of satisfying them is shown in Figure 1.

If every solution on each row is compatible with all the solutions on the other rows the number of possible solutions to the system is a multiple of all the ideas on the rows, the possibilities would be enormous. Clearly many of the alternatives are not compatible, e.g. an air cushion vehicle could not be steered by its wheels if it had none.

In the example of the forklift truck some of the alternatives along a row may be combined to give a single solution, e.g. hydraulic transmission maybe used for the lifting mechanism whereas the drive to the wheels might be in the form of shafts and gears. It can be seen that transmission may have been divided into lift and motive; any morphological chart may be subdivided to cover all aspects of the problem. The coarseness of the division is decided by experience. This example illustrates the problems which may arise if the specification stage is ignored. By formulating a specification it would have been shown that steering by rails is unacceptable for a general purpose forklift vehicle. Similar arguments can be applied to some of the other solutions suggested.

In the example the forklift truck the truck was required to perform various functions, which were listed as design parameters. An alternative is to consider the properties required of the design. Consider a tool for tilling the soil; it will not be described as a spade as this suggests a particular solution-to the problem. The parameters may now be divided into functions-and properties. The only function is that it should employ manual effort and result in the ground being broken up:

1. breaking up the ground;

The properties required are

   i.  light to use

2. ease of stowage
3. corrosion resistance
4. simple to maintain etc.

Each of these parameters can be listed on a morphological chart as in Figure 2. Even for the small field in Figure 2, the number of combinations are large.

Even when consider a familiar object like a "beer bottle" it is possible to use the morphological method to produce many of the forms in existence and to some completely new ones, Figure 3. The method generates a large number of alternatives, it still remains to the designer to sort out which alternative to pursue. 

Selecting one alternative from each attribute we can define both old and new configurations.

The standard "stubby" is:
short, 12 oz., brown, smooth, cap.

A completely new configuration is:
curved, 6 oz., crystal, etched, pull top.