Open Source Innovation: What is it?

Each year our planet’s inhabitance’ become more competitive with one another for resources. Whether you’re a starving artist who dreams of one day selling your work, or a well established corporate giant looking for the next best thing, we are all looking for ways to produce products which are unique and in demand. Without continual growth and innovative change we will become stagnant; our products will become dinosaurs irrelevant to the fast changing consumer environment we are confronted with today.

In the past organizations have confronted this need for continuous refinement with vigilant research and design teams but, today the speed of communication and technology has for many, changed the equation. To stay relevant and satisfy customer needs many groups have chosen to open up their research and design efforts to the public.

By supporting web sites and blogs dedicated to consumer feedback and product suggestions, organizations are able to collect valuable data which can be instrumental in successful product innovation. While internal R&D teams may have explored many of the incoming outsider ideas themselves previously, there is also the possibility that many minds are greater than the few (especially when they belong to the individuals who utilize the products); who is better to generate a demand than those with a need?
What problems does it present?

Of course there are many problems presented with open innovation, as it is an innovative idea in itself. To begin with, someone needs to support and mange the meeting place; take care of software and site maintenance. Another concern, which is of monumental proportion, is how to compensate outside contributors. To what extent does one idea contribute to product innovation? How many ideas where built on and modified before a challenge was overcome? Open innovation may create a demand for us to refine our copyright guidelines and force us to deal with intellectual property in another way.

Another problem, which I believe will be a great obstacle and which may not be so obvious, is how to manage volumes of consumer feedback if it does arrive on the organization’s doorstep. Who will determine whether the ideas are old hat or fresh perspectives? Someone will need to extract that data and they will need to manage it properly or it may itself represent a missed opportunity for the organization.

Creativity

The open sourcing of innovative efforts doesn’t represent an end to internal R&D efforts but it does create some interesting demand for creative individuals outside of the product development area. As I have mentioned, organizations will need to manage the information as it comes in. Having individuals who can see the potential in ideas and extract value from the various inputs will inevitably be an asset.

Open source innovation is testament to the notion that product innovation is less frequently a genius revelation from one mind than it is the collective creative results of many minds. Organizations who seek to compete in our rapidly changing environments will need to rely more and more heavily on creative solutions. To stay viable both products and people alike must become more sensitive to new ways of looking at things and also be ready to adapt and react to the demands of an ever changing consumer’s marketplace.

Open source innovation is a response to the need for rapid development but I think it also represents a new era in creative collaboration. Many may resist the change but I believe it is inevitable. In the past, customer collaboration of this kind could have only been possible through a promotion or contest but today it has the potential to become a standard of product innovation. With its’ inception will come many new challenges as well as countless new opportunities.

Shawn Hess, ICSC Graduate Student

Creativity and Technology

It is interesting and quite paradoxical that I have been assigned the topic of Creativity and technology in the classroom. As my classmates know, I am the one who has just received my first cell phone this past Christmas. I still don’t know how to use it, other than to answer it and punch phone numbers in and press send (or the green phone sign) I had my kids a just the sound so if by any slight chance I get a call during class it will not disturb anyone else. However, it was quite a novel experience for me to be having a conversation while driving during a recent road trip. What a wonderful opportunity to utilize time to accomplish another task. Mind you I would not have tried it in intercity driving; too many distractions and I am not a multi-tasker by today’s standards. Now admit it ...if I was talking on my cell, even with the earpiece, but slowing down others or recklessly driving you would be cursing me on the road.

I come from a different generation whether I want to acknowledge it or not. The fact is “ More information has been produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5000” (Wurman,1989,p.229 in Runco, 2007) It is hard to believe I know, but I was completing my undergraduate work thirty years ago this spring! I was entering the education field without the use of computers. The first home computer had just been introduced less than half a year before my graduation. There was no internet, no search engine and Sony's Walkman was the most incredible piece of technological genius on campuses at the time! The Post-it had not been introduced until 1980.

With the way the education system works, you know these technologies would not be available in the classroom for some. I know it is a stretch for some of you, but really consider how you could learn/teach/facilitate in an environment without the technology you have currently available. Can I adapt to the new technology? Yes, I can. Do I want to adapt to it? Well, this is a more important question for an individual to consider.

I have personally begun to acknowledge new technologies in what has become a disposable society. With some certainty, I can state that at some point for a number of people, all of these new technologies are novel. It is a judgment call whether they are truly useful. Ascertaining usefulness is the key using any new technology, especially in the classroom. Let us also remember that the parameters of the “classroom” are not necessarily the traditional ones.

What is it we really need to educate students in today’s classrooms? What is the main objective or goal we are trying to achieve in educating our students? Does technology allow us to achieve more of these goals in a faster period? Can we achieve the same goals without the expense of new technologies? Can we engage our students without using technology as a crutch or is it a necessity?

As educators/facilitators, these are the questions we must explore when dealing with technology. The reality is that teachers must be creative both innovating and adapting programs, methods and tools to aid in reaching the ultimate goals of our endeavors. Buying into the latest technology is not always the best call. It really is up to us to do our homework and use our minds in these kinds of decisions. It is a great way to use the Creative Problem Solving process to decide what is best for the given situation.
That being said I did a search and found the following interesting read with some great applications of technology for the classroom. The abstract and reference is below with a link to the PDF.

Bonnie Doliszny, ICSC graduate student


Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. New York: Elsevier


Abstract ftaken directly from:

Thompson, S. D., Martin, L., Richards, L., & Branson, D. (2003). Assessing critical thinking and problem solving using a Web-based curriculum for students. Internet and Higher education, 6, 185-191.


Assessing critical thinking and problem solving using a Web-based curriculum for students
Critical thinking skills lead to more productive, prepared, and employable students in the workforce. In view of the skills that are necessary when students enter the job market, a Web-based curriculum requiring critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills was developed to meet those needs. A multidisciplinary team of educators created the “virtual exchange,” in which students are presented with scenarios involving relevant societal issues. Each student was assigned a scenario character to portray in their interactions with the other characters (students). They interact on the Internet to promote critical thinking skills in a “virtual exchange” of research-based ideas. The process used to design this exchange is discussed

.

Personality and Motivation

Chapter 9

Phares (1986) as cited in Runco (2007) defines personality as “that pattern of characteristic thoughts, feelings and behaviors that distinguishes one person from and that persists over time and situations”. Phares’ works well within my understanding of personality. It has been my experience that personalities rarely change outside of some unfortunate incident or necessity.

Feist (1998) determined that creative individuals have common tendencies and traits and that a “general creative personality” does exist and creative achievement can be related to it.

Some disagree with Feist’s conclusion. Mumford and Gustafson (1988) find personality to be at fault for an individual’s inability to convert ideas into action. I happen to also disagree with Feist. I don’t believe that all creative individuals share a common personality. The fact that we are not expectedly similar is a wonderful part of what makes us creative individuals.

Creative persons often have a playful mood or childlike tendency. This is usually indicative of spontaneity and self-actualization. It is now my belief (after attending and facilitating several creative problem solving sessions) that thinking and believing that anything is possible as we did when we were younger heightens our creative capability.

Intrinsic motivation is one of the more prominent characteristics of a creative individual. Runco (p. 37) discusses the work of Sir Francis Galton (1869), Nicholls (1983), MacKinnon(1962), Crutchfield (1962) and Golann (1963) and concludes in his analysis that all agree on this point.

Amabile (1996) makes mention of a more specific type of motivation (task motivation) as one of three necessary pieces for her componential theory, the other two being domain relevant skills and creativity relevant processes.

Runco states that Gardner (1993) believed the seven (7) persons he studied during his development of the initial multiple intelligences all were consummate creators who possessed a significant degree of perseverance. Additionally, Runco defined a similar attribute of persistence as “the willingness to expend effort” (p. 295).

Perseverance and persistence are two more traits listed in a creative person’s personality repertoire. This is justified by the 10 year rule. 10 years is the length of time considered necessary for one to gain the knowledge necessary for a given field or domain to be considered an expert (Runco, p. 37).

In addition to the ones listed, confidence, sensitivity, autonomy, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, risk taking, psychological androgyny, values and self-efficacy may be found among traits, tendencies or characteristics which may be combined within a creative individual.

Surprisingly or not, it is possible to possess all the recognized traits of a creative individual and to not behave in a creative manner. I find this to be a sad realization that one can be filled with all the aids to be creative and make a cognizant choice to not make use of them. I believe that it is much more common for an individual to be unaware that within her is everything she needs to be creative.

As I have come to learn as a student of creative studies, we are all creative but may demonstrate our ability differently.

Shelaine Rigby, Graduate Student

References

Amabile, T. (2001, April). Beyond Talent. American Psychologist, 56(4), 333-336. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. (1996). Evidence to Support the Componential Model of Creativity: Secondary Analyses of Three Studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 385. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Parnes, S.(Ed.) 1992. Sourcebook for creative problem solving: A fifty year digest of proven innovation processes. (pp. 164-200). Creative Education Foundation Press. Hadley, MA.

Runco, M. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: research, development and practice. Burlington, MA. Elsevier Academic Press.

Enhancement and the Fulfillment of Potential

Throughout this chapter the question of what is considered to be creative and what is not is brought up numerous times, leaving this debate alive for the readers own interpretation. This is a question that plagues many people studying this topic. What is considered creative, and what is not?

According to Mark Runco (2007), “Creative results are the most likely if the experiments focus on new and unconventional things. That is the most likely to lead to originality and creative insight.” (p330). The focus of this discussion can look at television. Runco talked about many television shows that were made into movies, but for the majority added a little spin to the story line, such as Charlie’s Angles. I am sure the first person to make a television show into a movie probably thought that is was creative; however, the storyline has the same characters that another person made up. In my opinion, yes the characters are the same, but some creativity has to be implied in order to actually produce a movie script.

Over the past ten years reality television has been on the rise. It is cheaper to make a reality show then to pay writers and actors and annual salary. When Survivor debuted to prime time in 2000, it was seen as almost a phenomenon to television. There was a buzz about the show all over the media. What is interesting to note, is that MTV had come out with a similar show many years before that was called Road Rules. However, Survior was praised as an original hit to television, but was it? Maybe the act of having a show on a prime time network, that was such a hit and cost nothing to produce, made it seem creative for a network station. They pay nothing to make it, and in return get a massive amount of money back for its success. This is where creativity could have played a part, since a network at prime time had never aired anything like this before. This is where the ‘unconventional’ part of Runco’s definition comes into play.

The many concepts that were presented in this chapter all used an example and then critiqued that example as to whether it was creative or not, but took both angles. There is in my opinion, no definite way yet to be able to judge creativity. That may be because the term is interpreted many different ways by many people. This blogger does believe that we all have the potential to exude creativity. It is just up to the person as to whether they are open enough to use it with their talent.

Runco, M. A (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development and practice.

-- April Margarella, Graduate Student

History and Historiometry-Chapter 7

As you can tell from the title, this chapter dealt with the history of creativity and things that are considered to be creative. There are many people mentioned that we all are familiar with and there are many others who fly under the radar. Nevertheless, there have been countless contributions to the field of creativity and there are many things that have taken place that were very interesting to me.

The chapter starts out by talking about the Wright brothers and their invention of the airplane. By all accounts I am sure we have all heard about this. What I found interesting about what the author says is that the Wright brothers were working in a time and place that was perfect for invention. The author believes that the time and the environment in which you work has a lot to do with creativity and I agree with that. He goes on to say that because of the enormous popularity of bicycles (which the Wrights were first famous for), the idea of an airplane was embraced by people because they trusted the work of the Wright brothers. This is where the author introduced two theories that are basically the crux of his arguments throughout the chapter. One theory is called the Zeitgeist and the other is known as the Great Person theory. The Zeitgeist is German for “spirit of the times” and the Great Person theory is the idea that Zeitgeist only contributes so much to creativity and that extraordinary achievements require extraordinary individuals. I agree that a Zeitgeist can be present in creativity (creativity and invention occur due to what is needed at that specific time), but I also agree with the Great Person theory because I think there are many individuals who have a lot to contribute to the field.

One quote I thought was interesting (probably because I totally agree with it!) is as follows…Zeitgeist is “the total sum of social interaction as it is common to a particular period and particular locale. One can say it is thought being affected by culture.” As I stated earlier, I agree with the notion of Zeitgeist, but I also agree that extraordinary individuals make significant contributions to creativity. But I love what was said about thought being affected by culture. I totally agree with the idea that our thoughts and the ways we do things is affected daily by culture, our environment, and our society.

There is also talk about the United States and how we may be on a downswing in terms of being creative. The author notes how the American public puts a huge emphasis on social conformity and I couldn’t agree more! Because of the need to conform to what society deems “normal,” I think many people hold back and do not express themselves freely. A reason deferring judgment is so important for us.

Finally, there is a section on serendipity that struck me because it made me think about our facilitation courses. The section talked about creativity happening by chance and lists a number of “accidental discoveries.” For example, the use of the cannon in wars led to defensive architectural developments that became basic tools of mapmaking and cartography. The author says the key word to look at is connections. It made me think about piggybacking and taking one idea and building on it. I found that to be quite interesting seeing how it’s something we’ve talked about a lot for facilitations.

There is much, much more information on the history of creativity in this chapter so if you’re interested I definitely recommend taking the time to absorb the information.

-- Frank Palisano, Graduate Student

Educational Perspectives

Chapter Six in the book Creativity by Mark A. Runco is titled Educational Perspectives. It looks at education and creativity from a number of angles. I am an art educator who teaches at a middle school in Western New York. What was most interesting to read about was the idea of creativity and teacher expectations.

Runco (2007) stated “The implicit theories about children’s creativity held by teachers are extremely important because they lead directly to expectations, and expectations are very powerful influences on students’ behavior” (p. 184). This statement fascinates me because I have experienced the influence of my expectations on my students. Being an art teacher, I want to foster the most creative learning environment that I can for my students. However, sometimes a child’s reputation will precede them and then my expectations of that child change. It is strange that despite my best efforts, sometimes a student’s behavior can effect my expectations of them and in turn have an adverse effect on their creative performance. I, and all educators, should give each child a level playing field, so to speak. Sometimes, I underestimate the impact of my expectations and attitude toward students. It is interesting to think that their performance in my class is a direct reflection of what I expect from them. I am trying to become more aware of this with each passing day in the classroom. Colleagues talk about how the “good” kids always do well and the “bad” kids always perform poorly. Could this be because the “bad” kids are labeled that way and expected to perform sub par and so they fulfill that expectation?

There is truth to the theory of teacher expectations and creativity. I try to be as unbiased as I can in the classroom, expecting the same level of behavior and performance from all of my students. Especially in the art classroom, many children think that they need to possess some form of innate artistic talent, that they cannot learn the skills they need to perform well. This is exactly how some people view creativity. In my classroom, it is emphasized that creativity and artistic skill can be learned and that art class is the place to learn it. Runco (2007) also talked about how people in the United States view creativity and child performance compared to how the Asian culture views creativity and performance. In the U.S., performance is attributed to innate talent. In Asian culture, performance is viewed as a “reflection of motivation and effort” (Runco, p. 187). I believe that the American culture would greatly benefit from the Asian perspective of performance. Young people are very quick to use the excuse of “I am not artistically talented”. This is also true in subjects such as math, science and music. Students’ achievement would greatly increase if they looked at performance as a reward for hard work and motivation. If teachers set their expectations of hard work and motivation high, their students will rise to meet them.

Runco, M. A (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development and practice.

-- Melanie Baehre, Graduate Student

Cognition versus creativity: a musical example

What cognitive processes occur when a pianist sits down to play Bach’s Prelude in C? Bach wrote the piece approximately 250 years ago, and left “directions” for how to play it via a musical score: basically, coded pen marks on lined paper. Today a pianist can learn the piece by following Bach’s directions and by pulling on his own domain expertise. There is little doubt that several cognitive skills will be called upon to execute the tasks: translating the meaning of symbols on the paper to certain keys on the piano, choosing the best fingers to use, making decisions about phrasing and articulation, and putting the knowledge together into a chain of movement that sounds, in the end, like music (hopefully, Bach’s Prelude). There is a certain amount of intelligence needed to achieve the performance of a such a piece of music. Was there a need for creativity?

Next, consider that the same performer wished to “do his own thing”. He has probably played the piano for some time, has listened throughout his life to music in a variety of styles. There are patterns of key strokes that his fingers have grown accustomed to executing, as a result of hours of practice. So he approaches the piano keyboard with many influences and engrained techniques. He also has certain preferences and a level of physical agility. What will be the result of this pianist attempting to improvise a song based on the Bach Prelude? Is this a more creative endeavor than the task of learning the piece as Bach wrote it? And are the skills needed similar, different, or a combination of the two? Furthermore, will a simple determination on the player’s part to produce something original yield a creative result? What will be the role of the subconscious?

The improviser has a greater chance of producing an original song if he is an expert in his field and has a large amount of domain knowledge. The larger the pool of knowledge (inputs), the more combinations he may be able to generate (for diverging). And with more experience, an improviser might also have an edge in recognizing good combinations (for converging). Of course, he might also fall into habitual modes of operating and produce similar products over and over.
However, this brings up an interesting point: in the view of Welling (in press), all new combinations are constructed from and therefore dependent on previously known elements. Does this constitute creativity? Is recombination really a valid part of the creative process?

Perhaps what really matters is how far we push the envelope. A recombination at an elemental level could have millions of permutations, and certainly from among them there might be something not seen before. If creativity is evaluated by the resultant product, it might seem that an uncreative, cognitive, linear process could result in something novel and useful.

But how can we handle the daunting test of filtering through so many variations? It’s just not efficient (or possible) to evaluate them all one by one. A computer is limited as well, as it would have to be programmed to recognize novelty and that is usually what’s unknown. We may know novelty when we see it, but computers don’t work that way! Also, returning to the pianist, how does he cope with the pressure of generating musical variations within the constraints of an improvised performance? Is it possible for him to think quickly enough to plan and execute every note?

Enter the role of intuition and the subconscious. At one level, the subconscious provides the script for the everyday routines we do. For a pianist, certain movements can get ingrained over time, and that allows him to think at a higher level of musicality while his fingers execute the technical procedures. But that also means that an attempt to be creative through improvised playing could turn out to be just a stale reiteration of notes. Again, a new combination doesn’t guarantee creativity. There has to be more.

Sometimes a musician has a feeling of being in a flow, or a feeling of metacognition. He has tapped into a higher level of processing, and he is both directing and being directed. He ceases to struggle as entire pre-assembled chunks of data emerge ready to be inserted into the improvisation. It is not a conscious process completely. It often feels like the process just “happens”. Somehow, despite conscious limitations in cognition, the musician’s mind is able to rapidly combine and evaluate perhaps thousands of musical combinations in a very short time. How is this possible?

Perhaps what seems like random outputs from our subconscious into our conscious are the signs of a hidden operating system that works below our level of awareness. At its best, it seems to serve as “judge, jury and executioner”, producing well-formulated ideas that evoke an “a-ha!”. But we don’t get all the steps along with it--just the final idea. That void can leave us with the impression that the solution was “magical”.

If we cannot connect the dots through logic, does it mean that the solution is illogical? It only implies that the steps are unknown. It also means that there is much to learn about “non-traditional” intelligences and we should keep an open mind about the things we don’t yet understand.

Please feel free to listen to the link for a musical example: The song begins on track 4 with the Bach Prelude in C presented as it was originally composed. Then the piece begins again with new material added in (composed by the performer ahead of time). The piece concludes at track 5 with a full, freestyle improvisation based on the first two measures of the prelude. Listen to see if you can “hear” the cognitive and/or creative processes occurring. Arrangement and performance by Pam Szalay.

http://pamszalay.googlepages.com/thejourneyofasong

-- Pam Szalay, Graduate Student