Measuring creativity

Measuring creativity is not easy.

First, it's really hard to agree on what is creative and what is not: “Creativity is often misjudged. History is replete with examples of misjudged, overlooked, and ignored creative persons and works. Creative work is often misjudged in its own time and only later receives credit. Are contemporaries the best judges of creativity, or is a historical perspective the most accurate? (…) Misjudgment works both ways. Sometimes inventions and insights are overlooked, and sometimes their creativity and value are exaggerated. The possibility of misjudgment implies that consensual assessments should be used very judiciously.” Runco, M., Misjudgment, in Runco and Pritzker (1999)

Then of course is the problem of tests: “The criterion problem: what are the criteria by which creativity should be measured? A closely related question is whether tests commonly used to measure creativity in a person actually predict creative production. This problem encapsulates an essential operational definition for the field, because the research questions of empirical studies are based on issues of definitions.” O’Quin and Besemer, Creative Products, in Runco and Pritzker (1999)

Now, having acknowledged the previous two issues, how do we measure our (potential for) creativity? Divergent thinking is a widely used approach, motivation, personality, adaptability, and a dozen other features can be measured, even things like schizophrenia...

Here is the CREAX Creativity Self-Assessment Scan, announced as "a unique personal creativity profiling tool that offers you a free scan of your level of creativity in 8 different areas" Try it and see if the questions are relevant and the results tell you something about yourself: http://www.creax.com/csa

More inspiration

http://www.moreinspiration.com/ is a remarkable website for a few reasons: it's a very substantial database of interesting ideas, it's organised by industry (not so useful) and by 'property' (extremely useful), and you can collaborate sending more examples.

I say that organising this information by property is useful because it acknowledges the fundamental notion that innovation is domain-independent. And it's a great way to stimulate cross-disciplinary thinking. Just imagine, if you are a "materials" person or a "transport" person as we tend to organise ourselves both in industry and academia, you can actually jump from an innovation case in your area to another case listed in the same property but in an entirely different area like "sports" or "architecture". Even better, you can explicitly search a specific property in a distant domain and try to come up with a novel idea in yours. The potential provided by this structure is truly remarkable. The people from CREAX are:

a) very clever because they are adding value to otherwise overwhelming amounts of information
b) very nice because they share all of their great effort with all of us

So go pay a visit and use the information, but more importantly, make a mental note so that you too contribute a case next time you come across an unexpected, original and useful idea.

http://www.moreinspiration.com/

Innovations by property

• 2D protrusions
• 3D mesh with active elements
• 3D protrusions
• action during intervals
• active
• all senses
• axi-symmetric
• completely flexible
• components with negative component
• continuous action
• coordinated
• curved
• different components
• dual
• dual use
• dual use of colour
• experience
• field
• foam
• full spectrum of colour
• fully 3D
• fully asymmetric
• fully automated tool
• fully transparent
• gas
• high density
• hollow
• homogenous sheet structure
• human + semi-automated tool
• human operated
• immobile
• large size
• line
• liquid
• long duration
• low density
• medium density
• medium duration
• medium size
• mesh structure
• monolithic solid
• multiple
• multiple hollows
• multiple senses
• multiple use
• no feedback
• no use of colour
• non-coordinated
• one or more joints
• one sense
• opaque
• partially asymmetric
• partially transparent
• passive
• plane
• product
• pulsating action
• pulsating using resonance
• reactive
• segmented liquid
• segmented solid
• service
• short duration
• similar components
• simple feedback
• single
• single use
• small size
• smooth
• solid
• solid powder
• sparkling liquid
• spray
• symmetric
• using intelligent feedback

Probably the most influential innovation myth

Everyone seems to enjoy listing their "10 innovation myths". Here is my first one: "There are 10 innovation myths": http://blogs.hbr.org/anthony/2011/10/ten_innovation_myths.html?cm_sp=most_widget-_-default-_-Ten%20Innovation%20Myths



But this one is not only true, it's one of the most pervasive myths in innovation:

"We will win with superior technology. Most market disruptions rest on innovative business models — new ways to create, capture, or deliver value"

From my own viewpoint, sometimes (but not many) superior technology does make the difference. Other times, novel revenue models are indeed important. And yet other times, meaning is what matters most. But true innovations happen when all three dimensions of a product/service are novel: technology, business and design.



.

Design monkeys

I don't know how truthful is this entry, but it does certainly provide a set of clear examples of how designers get it wrong:
http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1367
This entry was submitted by Max Dirnberger and edited by Rob Spiegel






.

Five innovation skills

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576596714181439514.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Humans Invent (portal)

http://www.humansinvent.com

Apple Newton eMate and other "failures"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/splorp/4452752053/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBZCcwZfClI&list=PLF36E8D9C4CAA71AB&index=56

Just remember that it ain't a failure if you learn from it!

I call it "succefail"

Learning from cows

The expression "cow path" has some interesting connotations that are helpful to think about innovation and design:

1. People adapt things to their everyday habits just like cows roam and find good ways to reach their target through the landscape. A "cow path" is therefore a metaphor for people designing their own solutions.
2. Organisations develop ad-hoc solutions, but times change and these solutions may become obsolete in future times. Paving a cow path somehow implies that an informal or ad-hoc solution is recognised and formalised. The danger here is that the landscape has changed and the path is no longer optimal.
3. Cow paths can also be seen as 'best practices' seldom questioned by experienced people, but also by newcomers who interpret them as 'know-how' that result from tried alternatives.

Depending on the meaning you choose, one may argue that innovation requires challenging the cow paths (well known unchallenged paradigms), or alternatively, that innovation awaits in recognising and learning from the cow paths (bottom-up unexpected solutions).

A couple of useful and short articles:
http://asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-09/AugSep09_Crumlish.html
http://codesnipers.com/?q=node/15

Not ready for change?

Google does acknowledge that people may not be ready to "upgrade". Very understandable, as change sometimes means errors, buggy functionality, etc.

Innovation is not “Best Practice”

Innovation
 is not
 “Best 
Practice”

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/16506648?extension=pdf&ft=1318258849&lt=1318262459&uahk=1agBXcVAYIFcSr4l+F6Gxp82FXU

"I suggest that in order to save innovation, we might need to go beyond the notion of “best practices” and instead bring back innovation to its radically creative roots..."