Foundations of Creativity & Information System … in... · Foundations of Creativity & Information System Theories for Creativity . ... Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation

Creativity in Business Processes

Foundations of Creativity & Information System Theories for

Creativity

1 Dipl.-Wirt.Inform. Matthias Voigt


Think about it…

Which kind of business processes did you

model/analyze in the past?

…issue travelling expenses …travel booking …electricity bill payment


Creativity-aware BPM

Now think of… …producing a movie.

…developing a new smartphone.

…designing a marketing campaign.

…developing requirements for an IT system.

… consulting for business process improvement


The Value Chain

Porter ME. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press, 1985.


The “Magic” Ingredient…

Creativity


Agenda

• Basics of Creativity • The 4 Ps (Person, Process, Product, Press) • Interrelations • Creativity in Groups • Creativity in Business Processes


Basics of Creativity


What is Creativity?

Novelty/Originality +

Value/Utility


What is Novelty?

“Radical Newness” Vs.

Recombination


Eight Kinds of Creative Contributions Accept and extend current paradigms

Reject and replace current paradigms Synthesize paradigms

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufmann, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of creative contributions. Philadelphia: Routledge.


Guilford‘s Categories of Divergent Thinking

• Fluency is the ability to generate a large number of ideas

• Flexibility is the ability to generate a wide variety of ideas

• Originality is the production of unique and unusual ideas

• Elaboration is developing or building of ideas

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.


Perspectives on Creativity

Person Process

Press Product Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.


Person


EXCURSION

What about a little creativity test?


Write down the adjectives that you think describe your personality

capable, clever, confident, egotistical, humorous, individualistic, informal, insightful, intelligent, interests wide, inventive, original, reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sexy, snobbish, unconventional; affected, cautious, commonplace, conservative, conventional, dissatisfied, honest, interests narrow, mannerly, sincere, submissive, suspicious

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405.


Amabile, T. M. (1998). HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY. Harvard Business Review

The Three Components Model of Creativity


Think of it…

• Think of the ideal BPM senior consultant, working in business process improvement projects for insurance companies

• What are her/his ideal – Expertise? – Creative-thinking skills? – Motivation?


Cognitive Network Model (CNM)

“Hypothesis 1/2: People who generate solutions in response to external stimuli delivered at a constant rate that does not overwhelm their attention resources should produce solutions with a higher average creativity rating/higher concentration of creative solutions than do people who generate solutions in the absence of external prompts.”

Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & Vreede, G. D. E. (2004). Causal Relationships in Creative Problem Solving : Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 167–197.


Results of CNM evaluation • “Both hypothesis 1 and 2 were supported by the data.

People using directed brainstorming did produce solutions of higher average creativity and did produce a higher concentration of creative solutions than did people using free brainstorming.”

• “However, the results of the exploratory analysis suggest that directed brainstorming is not an unmixed blessing.“

• “It appears to improve creativity when prompt topics change every two minutes (solo treatment) and when topics change every eight minutes (quartet treatment), but it may actually diminish creativity relative to the control group when prompt topics change every four minutes (duet treatment).”

Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & Vreede, G. D. E. (2004). Causal Relationships in Creative Problem Solving : Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 167–197.


Process


Divergent & Convergent Thinking

• “Convergent thinking is oriented toward deriving the single best (or correct) answer to a clearly defined question.”

• “Divergent thinking, by contrast, involves producing multiple or alternative answers from available information.”

Cropley, A. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.


Example of Convergent and Divergent Thinking



“Pseudocreativity”

• “However, production of variability by means of fluency, flexibility, and originality does not, on its own, guarantee creativity.”

• “The novelty derives only from nonconformity, lack of discipline, blind rejection of what already exists, and simply letting oneself go.”



“Effective novelty”

• “Therefore, converting mere novelty into effective novelty (i.e., creativity) requires both generation (via divergent thinking) and also exploration (via convergent thinking).”



The Geneplore Model

Finke, R., Ward, T., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Application. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.


The Process of Divergent and Convergent Thinking for Generating

Novelty



Effects of Appraisals (Convergence)

• “Hypothesis: The quality, originality, and feasibility of problem solutions will be highest when more original ideas are appraised with respect to operative standards and when less original ideas are appraised with respect to innovative standards.”

• Procedure:

Idea generation Idea appraisal with

suggestions for revision

Development of an implementing

plan for marketing campaign

Idea evaluation

Lonergan, D., Scott, G., & Mumford, M. (2004). Evaluative Aspects of Creative Thought: Effects of Appraisal and Revision Standards. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2), 231–246.


Results

• “It was found that better plans for these advertising campaigns were obtained when generative, or innovative, criteria were applied to less original ideas and when implementation efficiency, or operating, criteria were applied to more original ideas.”

• “It was concluded that evaluation may serve to remediate deficiencies in ideas but that the standards applied must vary with the nature of the idea and the context in which it is to be implemented.” Lonergan, D., Scott, G., & Mumford, M. (2004). Evaluative Aspects of Creative Thought: Effects of Appraisal and Revision Standards.

Creativity Research Journal, 16(2), 231–246.


EXCURSION: Knowledge &

Creativity 30 Dipl.-Wirt.Inform. Matthias Voigt

The Role of Knowledge in Divergence and Convergence

„Existing knowledge is a vital prerequisite for creativity. It provides a central source of inspiration for new ideas and determines the pathways available for creative problem solving. Notwithstanding its indisputable role, knowledge may also compromise creativity. The human mind is prone to reproduce what it is used to, and the provision of explicit knowledge constitutes a potential inhibitor of imagination.”

Müller-Wienbergen, F., Müller, O., Seidel, S., & Becker, J. (2011). Leaving the Beaten Tracks in Creative Work – A Design Theory for Systems that Support Convergent and Divergent Thinking. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(11), 714–740.


Do KMS Foster Creativity?

Cheung, P.-K., Chau, P. Y. K., & Au, A. K. K. (2008). Does knowledge reuse make a creative person more creative? Decision Support Systems, 45(2), 219–227.

“Hypothesis 1a. Individuals who engage in knowledge reuse will generate a higher number of ideas than those who do not.” “Hypothesis 1b. Individuals who engage in knowledge reuse will perform less creatively than those who do not.”


What do you think…?

Do you expect that the hypothesis can be confirmed?

“Hypothesis 1a. Individuals who engage in knowledge reuse will generate a higher number of ideas than those who do not.” “Hypothesis 1b. Individuals who engage in knowledge reuse will perform less creatively than those who do not.”


Results

“The results showed that H1a was not supported (t=0.509, p=0.3061) whereas H1b was supported (t=2.234, p=0.0139).”



Discussion

• “This indicative result may be explained by the nature of the knowledge reuse facility employed, which largely contains explicit knowledge without any brainstorming and alternative evaluation facilities. “

• “However, this finding should not be interpreted as a rejection on the possibility of successful knowledge management systems or IT-enabled creativity support systems.”



End of EXCURSION: Back to Process


Divergence & Convergence

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini, G., & Bacot, M. (2000). Collaborative Problem Solving Through Creativity in Problem Definition : Expanding the Pie. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9(1), 54–76.


Think of it…

Is there any experience in your professional/private life, where you regularly first work divergently and then convergently?

I was, when preparing these slides.


Stage Models

Preparation Illumination Incubation Verification

Guilford‘s (1950) stage model of the creative process

Amabile‘s (1996) componential model of creativity

Problem or task identification

Response generation Preparation

Response validation and

communication

Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3), 295–308.


Stage Model for Service Innovation

Pöppelbuß, J., Plattfaut, R., Ortbach, K., Malsbender, A., Voigt, M., Niehaves, B., & Becker, J. (2011). Service Innovation Capability: Proposing a New Framework. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Services Science (ISSS 2011) in

conjunction with the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2011). Szczecin, PL.


Think about…

… a stage model for business process improvement projects.

What would it look like?


Creativity Techniques

Progressive Abstraction Technique

Interrogatories (5Ws/H) Technique

Force Field Analysis Technique

Associations/Images Technique

Wishful Thinking Technique

Analogy/Metaphor Technique

Brainstorming Technique

Couger, J. D. (1996). Creativity & Innovation in Informations Systems Organizations. Danvers, MA: boyd & fraser publishing company.


Brainstorming Group Technique

• Osborn’s rules for brainstorming – The more ideas the better – The wilder the ideas the better – Improve or combine ideas already suggested – Do not be critical

• Osborn’s claim: If these rules are followed "the average person can

think up twice as many ideas when working with a group than when working alone."

Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York: Scribeners and Sons.


Product


A Creative Product…

• … is the outcome of a creative process • … can range from

– simple ideas (e.g. from brainstorming sessions) – over complex concepts (e.g. business process

models) – to concrete products and services (e.g. consulting

service for business process improvement)


Measurement of Product Creativity

• Creative product as means for measuring creativity

• Distinction of – Number of ideas (Fluency/Quantity) and – Quality of Ideas (not only Originality)

• Assessment has to be accomplished by judges/experts


The Consensual Assessment Technique by Amabile

“A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable response to the task at hand. The consensual assessment technique is a subjective technique that calls for a group of qualified judges to assess the creativity of a set of responses independently of one another.”

Elam, J. J., & Mead, M. (1990). Can Software Influence Creativity? Information Systems Research, 1(1), 1–22.


More on Evaluation Criteria

Dean, D. L., Hender, J. M., Rodgers, T. L., & Santanen, E. L. (2006). Identifying quality, novel, and creative Ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the AIS, 7(1), 646–699.


Press


The Creative Climate Questionnaire

Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123.


Interrelations


Componential Model of Creativity

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.

Creative process

Individual factors


An Interactionist Model of Organizational Creativity

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of management review, 18(2), 293–321.


Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of management review, 18(2), 293–321.


Creativity in Groups


Multilevel Model of Team Performance on Tasks Requiring Creativity

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330.


Observable Components of Creativity in Teams

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330. 58 Dipl.-Wirt.Inform. Matthias Voigt

Simplex Innovation Process

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini, G., & Bacot, M. (2000). Collaborative Problem Solving Through Creativity in Problem Definition : Expanding the Pie. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9(1), 54–76.


Is a Group More Productive (Creative) Than Individuals? … No!

“Contrary to Osborn's claim, Taylor et al. found that nominal groups produced nearly twice as many different ideas as the real groups. This finding has since been frequently replicated. Of the 22 experiments […], 18 reported the performance of nominal groups to be superior to that of real groups, and only 4, all involving 2-person groups […], reported no difference.”

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.


What do you think…?

Why are brainstorming groups

performing worse than individuals? Any ideas?


The Reason: Group Losses and Gains

Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-generating Groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.


But, Tools Help!

Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. B., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic Brainstorming : The Illusion of Productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110–134.


Results

• “For larger groups, EBS was found to be superior to nominal brainstorming in two studies (Dennis and Valacich 1993, Valacich et al. 1994).”

• “Overall, the main consistent finding emerging from past research is that participants using EBS are generally more satisfied than participants using other forms of brainstorming (Cooper et al. 1990, Dennis and Valacich 1993; Gallupe et al. 1990 and 1991, Valacich et al. 1994).”

Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. B., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic Brainstorming : The Illusion of Productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110–134.


Collaboration Pattern

• Diverge: To move from a state of having fewer concepts to a state of having more concepts.

• Converge: To move from a state of having many concepts to a state of having a focus on, and understanding of, the few worthy of further attention.

• Organize: To move from less to more understanding of the relationships among concepts.

• Evaluate: To move from less to more understanding of the possible consequences of concepts.

• Build consensus: To move from having less to having more agreement on courses of action.


Briggs, R. O., De Vreede, G.-J., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 31–64.

Collaboration Pattern & ThinkLets


Briggs, R. O., De Vreede, G.-J., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 31–64.

Four Creative Activities and Eight Tasks

Shneiderman, B. (2002). Creativity support tools - Establishing a framework of activities for creative work. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 116–120.


Creativity in Business

Processes 68 Dipl.-Wirt.Inform. Matthias Voigt

The Creativity-intensive Process (CIP)

Seidel, S. (2009). Toward a theory of managing creativity-intensive processes: a creative industries study. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 9(4), 407–446.


The Creativity-intensive Process


Seidel, S. (2009). Toward a theory of managing creativity-intensive processes: a creative industries study. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 9(4), 407–446.

The Creativity-intensive Process


Seidel, S., Müller-Wienbergen, F., & Rosemann, M. (2010). Pockets of creativity in business processes. Communications of the AIS, 27(1), 415–436.

Pocket of Creativity

Seidel, S., Müller-Wienbergen, F., & Rosemann, M. (2010). Pockets of creativity in business processes. Communications of the AIS, 27(1), 415–436.


That’s it!

And I promise: next lecture is more about IT, if you prefer.


Documents

Foundations of Creativity & Information System … in... · Foundations of Creativity & Information System Theories for Creativity . ... Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation