creative - apgico

Diagnosing and Improving

Artefacts and Organisations

Associate Professor David Cropley

University of South Australia

Outline

1. Improving Product Creativity – CSDS

• xxxx

2. Improving Organisational Creativity – IPAI

• xxxx

xxx

Improving Product Creativity

Definitions

“Product”:

Artefact: screw-driver, ladder, mousetrap?

Process: A way of doing something; production

line, boarding an aircraft?

System: More complex combinations of

interacting elements: airliner, ship, car?

Service: financial service, e.g. loan product,

credit card?

Products & Creativity

Creativity is beneficial to products:

New designs, new markets, competitive

advantage.

How do we recognise it, and how do we

improve it?

If I asked you to improve a design to make

it more creative, what would you do?

And “How”? What does that mean?

Mousetrap Design?

Take a simple mousetrap as an example.

How would we improve its creativity?

Do we first need to measure it?

If so, how do we “measure” its creativity?

Look at the following example for a

moment.

Please rate its creativity according to

whatever definition you use for creativity.

Please rate the creativity of this mousetrap:

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Somewhat Very much

Consensual Assessment

The technique we just used is the

Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT),

developed by Amabile.

It is quick and quite easy, statistically

reliable and valid.

It generally assumed that it requires domain

expertise.

That can be costly and difficult to obtain.

Product Creativity

Another issue, if we want to measure

creativity so that we can improve it, is that

the CAT doesn’t give us much information

to help us.

Let’s consider an example:

You want to know the weather tomorrow so

that you can decide what to wear.

I run a service that simply forecasts either HOT

or COLD.

How useful is that?

Product Creativity

What do HOT/COLD mean?

How HOT is HOT? 20C? 40C?

How COLD is COLD? 10C? -30C?

Limited usefulness – so should I wear a jacket,

or not?

So, a more differentiated definition of

creativity would be more useful?

It turns out that there is a good agreement in

the literature on what constitutes creativity.

Defining Creativity

Creativity can be defined in terms of:

Novelty – is the product original and

surprising?

Relevance and Effectiveness – does the

product do what it is supposed to do?

Elegance – is the product well-constructed and

complete? Does it look like a good solution to

the problem?

Genesis – does the product open up new

perspectives and ideas?

An Enhanced CAT

If we use the preceding definitions, we can

construct a more differentiated measure of

creativity.

This moves us towards a more useful

measure.

Now e.g., instead of just HOT/COLD, I

can forecast that the weather will be a

combination of temperature, humidity, wind

speed, cloud cover and precipitation.

That gives us more useful information.

Mousetrap Designs

Let’s now apply that enhanced CAT to a

selection of five mousetrap designs.

Using the form I give you, please rate each

mousetrap against the four criteria

(Relevance & Effectiveness; Novelty;

Elegance; Genesis).

Also rate their Overall Creativity.

“Bottle” Trap

“House” Trap

“Cage” Trap

“Hi-Tech” Trap

“Plastic” Trap

Improving Product Designs

We are now in a position to give more specific, and more useful, advice on improving the creativity of the products.

Instead of saying, e.g., “the creativity of the abcd trap is low, make it more creative”, we can now be more specific.

E.g. The abcd is quite effective, and will clearly trap mice successfully. It is also quite novel, in that it does not kill the mouse, but merely traps it…


…this is a more humane approach.

However, the design is reasonably inelegant

– it is poorly made, looks unfinished and

somewhat fragile, and is not attractive to

potential buyers. It also doesn’t shed much

light on the bigger problem of getting rid of

unwanted mice, and follows the same old

paradigm of bait & trap.


The enhanced CAT gives us a more

diagnostically useful measure of creativity.

There is still a case, however, that only

domain experts can properly rate the

creativity.

It also still leaves some questions

unanswered.

E.g. I don’t understand what to do to improve

the “elegance” or “genesis” of my design?

Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale

Let’s try to improve the measure further.

The literature suggests that we can break

each of the four criteria into more detail.

This gives us an opportunity to be much

more specific in our diagnosis and feedback

on a design.

Opens up possibility that we can create a

scale that doesn’t rely on domain expertise.

Let’s look at the mousetraps again and use

the CSDS to rate them.

“Bottle” Trap

“House” Trap

“Cage” Trap

“Hi-Tech” Trap

“Plastic” Trap

Research Findings

Data collected for the same designs suggests

that the CSDS is reliable, and that the 30

items of the scale do indeed measure the

concepts that we intend.

We are also comparing results obtained from

three groups:

Non-experts (Arts students)

Quasi-experts (First-Year Engineering Students)

Experts (Professional Engineers)

Let’s look at a summary of the data.

“Bottle” Trap - CAT

Non-Experts, n=791

Overall Creativity = 2.83 (SD 1.25)

Quasi-Experts, n=31


Experts, n=15


Non-Expert CAT Sub-Scores (n=588)

R&E = 2.18 (1.06)

N (P) = 2.71 (1.16)

N (EK) = 2.63 (1.08)

N (NN) = 2.72 (1.11)

E (E) = 2.28 (1.19)

E (I) = 2.32 (1.09)

G = 2.46 (1.05)

“House” Trap - CAT

Non-Experts, n=791


Quasi-Experts, n=31


Experts, n=15



R&E = 3.41 (1.04)

N (P) = 3.14 (1.00)

N (EK) = 3.23 (1.01)

N (NN) = 3.11 (1.06)

E (E) = 3.49 (1.09)

E (I) = 3.43 (1.08)

G = 3.20 (1.05)

“Cage” Trap

Non-Experts, n=791


Quasi-Experts, n=31


Experts, n=15



R&E = 3.59 (1.03)

N (P) = 3.17 (1.02)

N (EK) = 3.16 (1.02)

N (NN) = 2.81 (1.06)

E (E) = 2.42 (1.21)

E (I) = 2.85 (1.17)

G = 2.81 (1.07)

“Hi-Tech” Trap

Non-Experts, n=791


Quasi-Experts, n=31


Experts, n=15



R&E = 3.27 (1.13)

N (P) = 3.19 (1.04)

N (EK) = 3.35 (1.04)

N (NN) = 3.43 (1.07)

E (E) = 2.78 (1.26)

E (I) = 3.00 (1.15)

G = 3.31 (1.09)

“Plastic” Trap

Non-Experts, n=791


Quasi-Experts, n=31


Experts, n=15



R&E = 3.35 (1.16)

N (P) = 3.08 (1.12)

N (EK) = 3.09 (1.06)

N (NN) = 3.01 (1.06)

E (E) = 2.99 (1.23)

E (I) = 3.11 (1.16)

G = 3.01 (1.08)

Non-Experts (Most Creative – Least Creative)

Quasi-Experts (Most Creative – Least Creative)

Experts (Most Creative – Least Creative)

CSDS Value?

So what? – what value does the CSDS add?

Research results: reliable, non-experts, no

training?

How can we use it?

Idea Evaluation after idea generation?

Engineering – trade studies?

Applying the CSDS

Teachers – student assignments?

E.g. Improve the creativity of a story or a

poem?

CSDS criteria? Meaning?

City Authorities – control graffiti?

Airport Security – stop terrorist getting a

weapon on a plane:

Metal detectors (Now)

XXXX (Future)?

Using the CSDS, how would you rate this design?

How would you improve its creativity?

Improving Organisational Creativity

Creativity gives us ideas.

Innovation exploits those ideas.

Innovation is typically carried out by

organisations, e.g. Businesses.

It’s also the concern of any organisation that

is trying to satisfy needs or solve problems

through the development and exploitation of

ideas.

Improving Organisational Creativity

Like improving product creativity,

improving organisational creativity starts

with understanding the processes.

It is aided by our ability to measure things.

"If you can not measure it, you can not

improve it.“ (Lord Kelvin).

I’d like to explore this broader case of

innovation with you, and look at how we

might measure it to improve it.

Case Study - Winglets

41

Winglets

The idea of devices to control drag-inducing

vortices at aircraft wingtips has a long

history.

1897 – Frederick Lanchester – wing end-

plates.

1905 – Wright Bros. – blinkers.

1952 – Sighard Hoerner – drooped wingtips.

1979 – Richard Whitcomb – NASA – led

directly to testing on commercial aircraft.

42

Winglets

An Idea: interesting, and potentially useful, ideas

are generated all the time. Smart people notice

things, pursue hunches, tinker and experiment.

Vortex control on aircraft wing-tips?

An Opportunity (Need): when these ideas meet

an opportunity or a need, we start to get a critical

mass. The 1973 Oil Crisis – how can airlines

reduce costs?

Idea Evaluation – When idea meets need, we start

doing the sums.

We can reduce drag and increase fuel efficiency by 3-

4%!

43

Winglets

When oil cost <US$15 per barrel (in 2008

dollars), nobody cared (e.g. in 1972).

When oil cost >US$70 per barrel (2008 $),

everybody cared very much (late 70’s)!

In 2009 Qantas Group spent A$3.6 billion

on fuel.

A 4% saving on that bill is >$A140 million!

44

Winglets

Development – however, the good idea,

even with the driving need, didn’t simply

appear on aircraft – it had to be developed.

This took the concept through to the

working solution.

Commercialisation – even then, the

working solution had to be turned into a

viable, sustainable commercial enterprise.

45

Generic Innovation Process

Idea Generation

Opportunity Recognition

Idea Evaluation

Development

Commercialization

Exploitation

Invention (creativity)

Based on Luecke & Katz, 2003,

Managing Creativity and Innovation,

Harvard Business School Press

Lufthansa’s Paperless Cockpit

Lufthansa Systems has developed a paperless

system to replace the traditional flight bag used by

pilots.

An old-fashioned flight bag could contain up to

18Kg of paperwork needed by commercial airline

pilots.

The Lido/FlightBag system weighs no more than

2.2Kg.

The savings in fuel-burn are estimated at US $4.3

million p.a. for a major international carrier.

47

So What?

The moral of these stories, as you will be

well aware, is that innovation (the process

of “making money from creativity”) is:

1. A staged process – it happens in a number

of distinct steps or phases.

2. A fragile process – there are many factors

that can derail the process. It must be

carefully managed.

48

A Staged Process

Invention → Exploitation is a good start.

Idea → Opportunity/Evaluation →

Development → Commercialisation is

better.

Can we drill down a bit further to improve

our ability to understand and manage the

process?

We’ll return to this later on…

49

Generation

Activation

Illumination

Verification

Data are collected, problem awareness

develops

Analysis of options leads to a single solution for development

A range of candidate solutions is developed

One or more promising, novel solutions emerge

PHASE ACTION

Preparation

Communication

Validation

General & specialist knowledge accumulated

The product is revealed to knowledgeable others

The product is launched in the marketplace

Invention (Creativity)

Exploitation

The Expanded Phase Model of Innovation

Based on Wallas, (1926)

Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. Harcourt Brace, New York.

A Fragile Process

In the literature of psychology and

creativity there is extensive coverage of the

social, psychological and organisational

factors that can foster, or inhibit, creativity

and innovation.

A widely used model, that has developed

over the last 40+ years is the 4Ps Model.

If we understand this model, we have the

essential knowledge we need to manage this

fragile process.

51

The Four P’s of Innovation Social/psychological

dimension

Poles of dimension Examples of characteristics

Process convergent thinking

vs.

divergent thinking

Re-applying the known, being fast and accurate, being

strictly logical

Branching out, making unexpected links, seeing surprising

implications

Person (Motivation)

reactive

vs.

proactive

Problem accepting: Focusing on existing problems Driven by external pressure

Problem finding: Focusing on self-identified (unexpected)

problems Driven by internal pressure

Person (Personal

characteristics)

adaptive

vs.

innovative

Conforming, preferring the well-considered, relying on the

tried and trusted

Autonomous, open, high in self-confidence, non-conforming,

spontaneous

Person (Feelings)

conserving

vs.

generative

Exposure to the unexpected triggers negative affect,

departure from the usual arouses discomfort,

Exposure to the unexpected triggers positive affect, departure

from the usual arouses excitement,

Product routine

vs.

creative

Effective, accurate, conventional

Surprising, seminal, germinal

Press high demand

vs.

low demand

Problems and nature of desired solution closely defined by

management, high pressure for quick results, high demand

for accuracy, low tolerance of error or failure, rewards for

being right, high status given to people who fit in well

Problems and nature of solutions loosely defined, low

pressure for quick results, tolerance of “good” errors,

rewards for opening up perspectives, high status given to

people who are “different”

Preparation

Activation

Generation

Illumination

Verification

Communication

Validation

Idea Generation

Opportunity Recognition

Idea Evaluation

Development

Commercialisation

Process

Person

Product

Press

The Four Social-Psychological

“Ps”

Combining elements: The Four P’s

The EPM

Standard Model of Innovation

Innovation Phase Model Invention Exploitation

Phase Preparation

Knowledge,

problem

recognition

Activation

Problem

definition,

refinement

Generation

Many

candidate

solutions

Illumination

A few promising

solutions

Verification

A single optimal

solution

Communication

A working prototype

Validation

A successful

‘product’ Dimension Poles

Process

Thinking Style

Convergent

vs

Divergent

Convergent

Divergent Divergent

Convergent Convergent

Mixed

Convergent

Motivation

Reactive

vs

Proactive

Mixed

Proactive Proactive Proactive

Mixed

Reactive Reactive

Personal

Properties

Adaptive

vs

Innovative

Adaptive

Innovative Innovative Innovative

Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive

Feelings

Conserving

vs

Generative

Conserving

Generative Generative Generative

Conserving Conserving Conserving

Product

Phase output

Routine

vs

Creative

Routine

Creative Creative Creative

Routine Routine Routine

Press

Organisational

climate

High Demand

vs

Low Demand

High

Low Low Low

High High High

Innovation Instruments

E.g. Workplace Assessment Checklist (Luecke &

Katz, 2003):

Leadership style, thinking styles, learning styles,

psychological environment, physical workspace.

“I support people taking intelligent risks and do not penalize

them when they fail”

*Higgins (1995): seven dimensions:

Skills, strategy, structure, systems, style, staff, shared

values.

“To what extent does your organization encourage new ideas

and risk taking with products?”

*Higgins, 1995, Innovate or Evaporate: Test &

Improve Your Organisation’s IQ, Its Innovation Quotient,

The New Management Publishing Company

Innovation Instruments:

Limitations 1. Inadequate treatment of psychological factors

that affect creativity/innovation

2. Inadequate treatment of social/environmental

factors that impact on innovation process

3. Weak identification of steps in the process,

especially of the “invention” (creativity) stages

4. Failure to address the paradoxical nature of

social/psychological factors during the process

Key Features of Innovation Phase Model

Combines business concepts of innovation with

psychological research findings.

Innovation occurs across seven phases.

At each stage, innovation is affected by

social/psychological dimensions – Process,

Person, Product and Press.

Each dimension can range across a spectrum, e.g.

Thinking styles – range from Convergent to

Divergent.

Paradox – what’s good for innovation at one

stage may be bad for innovation in another.

Key Features of Innovation Phase Model

KEY: The ideal constellation of

social/psychological dimensions varies from phase

to phase.

In other words – the constellation of Process,

Person, Product and Press that is ideal for

innovation in the activation phase IS NOT THE

SAME as the constellation that is ideal for

innovation in the verification phase.

Most instruments incorrectly assume that what’s

good in one stage is good in every stage.

Innovation Phase Model Invention Exploitation

Phase Preparation

Knowledge,

problem

recognition

Activation

Problem

definition,

refinement

Generation

Many

candidate

solutions

Illumination

A few promising

solutions

Verification

A single optimal

solution

Communication

A working prototype

Validation

A successful

‘product’ Dimension Poles

Process

Thinking Style

Convergent

vs

Divergent

Convergent

Divergent Divergent

Convergent Convergent

Mixed

Convergent

Motivation

Reactive

vs

Proactive

Mixed

Proactive Proactive Proactive

Mixed

Reactive Reactive

Personal

Properties

Adaptive

vs

Innovative

Adaptive

Innovative Innovative Innovative

Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive

Feelings

Conserving

vs

Generative

Conserving

Generative Generative Generative

Conserving Conserving Conserving

Product

Phase output

Routine

vs

Creative

Routine

Creative Creative Creative

Routine Routine Routine

Press

Organisational

climate

High Demand

vs

Low Demand

High

Low Low Low

High High High

Consequence

If you tailor your management, training, systems

and staff development to optimise your

organisation for the activation phase, for

example, it will be no surprise to you that your

organisation is weak at executing the verification

phase.

Why? Because the thinking styles, personal

properties, motivation, environmental factors and

outputs that are ideal for activation will hinder

innovation during verification.

Diagnosing Innovation

61

The Innovation Phase Assessment

Instrument (IPAI)

The IPAI is an instrument that is based on

the Innovation Phase Model presented here.

Currently uses 168 questions (7 phases, 6

dimensions, and 4 questions per node) to

assess an organisation’s profile.

Strengths and weaknesses identified and

serve as the basis for fostering and

improving organisational innovation.

IPAI Output Example

lo 19.01 17.68 16.34

hi 19.01 17.68 16.34

Prep Act Gen Illm Veri Comm Val S O T W

Process 2.59 2.88 1.88 2.59 3.12 1.94 2.35 17.35

Motivation 2.29 3.24 2.65 3.35 3.82 3.35 1.41 20.12

Pers Props 2.59 1.82 2.12 2.41 2.41 3.24 2.76 17.35

Feelings 2.06 2.65 2.94 2.00 2.94 2.71 2.06 17.35

Products 2.18 2.65 2.24 2.82 2.82 3.47 1.65 17.82

relative SWOT Press 2.24 2.24 1.41 2.18 2.35 2.94 2.71 16.06

17.68 col avg

lo hi 13.94 15.47 13.24 15.35 17.47 17.65 12.94 15.15 106.06 total

17.06 S row avg

15.15 17.06 O

13.25 15.15 T

13.25 W

Std dev Row

1.90

st dev col

1.34

IPAI Analysis

The IPAI allows us to examine an

organisation, or a unit with an organisation,

at one of four levels:

Overall profile – e.g. IPAI score = 110/168

By phase – e.g. Verification strong, but

Generation weak (in relative terms).

By dimension – e.g. Motivation strong, but

Press weak.

By node – e.g. Gen/Press node weak, Ver/Mot

node strong.

Enhancing Innovation

65

IPAI Analysis

We can then tailor diagnostic advice and

remedial action on the basis of the

organisation’s IPAI profile, resources and

objectives.

Let’s look again at the example…

IPAI Output Example

lo 19.01 17.68 16.34

hi 19.01 17.68 16.34

Prep Act Gen Illm Veri Comm Val S O T W

Process 2.59 2.88 1.88 2.59 3.12 1.94 2.35 17.35

Motivation 2.29 3.24 2.65 3.35 3.82 3.35 1.41 20.12

Pers Props 2.59 1.82 2.12 2.41 2.41 3.24 2.76 17.35

Feelings 2.06 2.65 2.94 2.00 2.94 2.71 2.06 17.35

Products 2.18 2.65 2.24 2.82 2.82 3.47 1.65 17.82

relative SWOT Press 2.24 2.24 1.41 2.18 2.35 2.94 2.71 16.06

17.68 col avg

lo hi 13.94 15.47 13.24 15.35 17.47 17.65 12.94 15.15 106.06 total

17.06 S row avg

15.15 17.06 O

13.25 15.15 T

13.25 W

Std dev Row

1.90

st dev col

1.34

IPAI Analysis

Overall profile (106/168):

“X” is moderately well-aligned to an ideal

innovation profile. There is considerable room for

improvement in a number of phases and dimensions,

but…

By phase:

X has distinct relative weaknesses in two phases:

Generation and Validation. The ideal constellations

for these two phases are almost diametrically

opposite, suggesting that X must improve its ability

to recognise which phase is active, at any given

time, and adapt accordingly.

IPAI Analysis

By dimension:

X’s greatest weakness is its organisational

environment (Press). This appears to be particularly

weak in the generation phase, which is consistent

with the identified phase weakness. To improve

organisational environment across the board, the

following actions are recommended…

By node:

X presents several individual nodes which stand out

as blocks to effective innovation. The intersection of

Generation/Press stands out as a weak node.

Remedial action to address this weakness could…

69

Summary of Analysis

IPAI analysis and action is based on:

Understanding where you are in the process at

any given time, for any given project.

Understanding what you are trying to achieve.

Maintaining the strengths of the organisation.

Addressing the weaknesses to maximise the

likelihood of successful innovation.

70

Research Findings

In 2010/11 we collected data from >450

respondents.

Preliminary findings support the Innovation

Phase Model.

The IPAI is highly reliable, and is able to

distinguish between almost all of the 42

nodes.

Please contact me if you would like to

discuss using it in your organisation.

Documents

creative - apgico