Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T05:47:35.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards Creativity Stimulating Design Intervention for Multidisciplinary Innovation Teams

Part of: Collaborative Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Sander Välk  and
Céline Mougenot

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of our research is to stimulate cross disciplinary design collaboration to improve innovation processes in product and service design domain. We focus on the intersection of biotechnology and design as this field poses great challenges and opportunities for innovation, and it has received little attention in light of technological advancements of digital goods over the past decades. Experimental studies in the area expose challenging interactions, rising from lack of common vocabulary and preconceptions. Organisational management studies suggest that creativity is a prerequisite for innovation in group processes. As such, we are interested in enhancing collective creativity. Numerous studies investigate external creativity triggers, however only on individual level. Our review suggests that external triggers can be effective when the task is problem solving or styling, but ambiguous goals like innovation require stimulation of intrinsic triggers, such as group incidental learning and tacit knowledge. To explain this, we propose a hypothetical innovation approach, that draws attention to cognitive stimulation methods leading to creativity in multidisciplinary teams.

Keywords

Multi- / Cross- / Trans-disciplinary processesInnovationCreativity
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 239 - 248
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Agapakis, C.M. (2014), “Designing synthetic biology”, ACS Synthetic Biology, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 121–128.Google Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations”, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123–167.Google Scholar
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity Assessing The Work Environment For Creativity University of Michigan University of Southern California”, Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154–1184.Google Scholar
Barczak, . (2010), “Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 332–345.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. (2011), “Drop that pipette: Science by design”, Cell, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 147 No. 3, pp. 496–497.Google Scholar
Boon, B., Rozendaal, M.C. and Stappers, P.J. (2018), “Ambiguity and Open-endedness in Behavioural Design”, Proceedings of the DRS 2018 International Conference: Catalyst, pp. 2075–2085.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (2003), “Designing and learning: A disjunction in contexts”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295–311.Google Scholar
Calvert, J. and Schyfter, P. (2017), “What can science and technology studies learn from art and design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics’”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 195–215.Google Scholar
Carlile, P.R. (2002), “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 442–455.Google Scholar
Cheng, P., Mugge, R. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2014), “A new strategy to reduce design fixation: Presenting partial photographs to designers”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 374–391.Google Scholar
Chieza, N. (2018), “Reflections from Ginkgo's first creative-in-residence”, Gingko Bioworks Blog.Google Scholar
Corvin, T., Pennington, M., Veyrier, C.-A., Huron, S., Arai, K., Baker, M., Mougenot, C. et al. (2017), “Tensions in Creativity Workshops”, Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2017 - ECCE 2017, pp. 93–100.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. and Cardoso, C. (2017), “Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in design?”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 50, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 49–55.Google Scholar
Cross, N., Dorst, K. and Roozenburg, N. (1992), “Research in Design Thinking”, Delft University Press, pp. 111–118.Google Scholar
Desmet, P.M.A. and Stappers, P.J. (2011), “Editorial”, CoDesign, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 61–64.Google Scholar
Dunne, A. and Raby, F. (2013), “Speculative Everything”, Design, Fiction and Social Dreaming.Google Scholar
Erichsen, J.A.B., Pedersen, A.L., Steinert, M. and Welo, T. (2016), “Learning in Product Development: Proposed Industry Experiment Using Reflective Prototyping”, Procedia CIRP, The Author(s), Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 454–459.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (2000), “Computational Models of Innovative and Creative Design Processes”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 64 No. 2-3, pp. 183–196.Google Scholar
Hekkert, P. and van Dijk, M. (2014), Vision in Design, 1st ed., BIS, available at: https://www.bispublishers.com/vision-in-product-design.html.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642111457.Google Scholar
Kurtzberg, T.R. and Amabile, T.M. (2001), “From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening the Black Box of Team-Level Creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowska, J., Szóstek, A. and Lamas, D. (2014), “(Un) structured Sources of Inspiration : Comparing the Effects of Game-like Cards and Design Cards on Creativity in Co-design Process”, Pdc ’14, No. 2010, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives), Learning in Doing, available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2804509.Google Scholar
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2001), “Informal and Incidental Learning”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2001 No. 89, p. 25.Google Scholar
McDonnell, J. and Lloyd, P. (2009), About Designing:Analysing Design Meetings, 1st ed., CRC Press, Balkema, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
McMahon, C., Lindemann, U., Gero, J.S., Leifer, L., Steinert, M., Edmonds, E., Goldschmidt, G. et al. (2013), “Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1983), The Tacit Dimension, Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA available at: https://doi.org/http://www.worldcat.org/title/tacit-dimension/oclc/10401108.Google Scholar
Mougenot, C., Ikeda, H. and Watanabe, K. (2012), “Influence of Designers ‘Kansei on the Design Outcomes”, Keer, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 245–250.Google Scholar
Müller, B. (2017), “Bringing Design to Science - Science can benefit more from design than design from science”, Www.Medium.Com, available at: https://medium.com/@borism/bringing-design-to-science-3fa653f2c149 (accessed 6 December 2018).Google Scholar
Müller, B. (2018), “Strategies for Design-Science Collaborations”, Www.Medium.Com, available at: https://medium.com/@borism/strategies-for-design-science-collaborations-10199f3b8305 (accessed 1 December 2018).Google Scholar
Nagel, J.K.S., Nagel, R.L. and Eggermont, M. (2014), “Teaching Biomimicry With an Engineering-to-Biology Thesaurus”, No. May 2015, p. V001T04A017.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), “Knowledge-Creating Company”, Harvard Buisiness Review, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-4765(04)00066-9.Google Scholar
Oxman, N. (2016), “Age of Entanglement”, Design and Science, MIT Media Lab, No. MIT Press, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Paletz, S.B.F., Sumer, A. and Miron-Spektor, E. (2017), “Psychological factors surrounding disagreement in multicultural design team meetings”, Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 0882, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Pedersen, A.L. (2016), “Using Prototypes to Leverage Tacit Knowledge Jørgen Andreas Bogen”, No. June.Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A. and Stroebe, W. (2007), “Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 933–946.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4 No. December 1969, pp. 155–169.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2008), “The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 101–116.Google Scholar
Sawa, M. (2016), “The laboratory life of a designer at the intersection with algal biotechnology”, Architectural Research Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
Schindler, J. (2015), “Expertise and tacit knowledge in artistic and design processes: Results of an ethnographic study”, Journal of Research Practice, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1991), The Reflective Practitioner - How Professionals Think in Action, Routledge of Taylor & Francis Group, New York, available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351883160.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1997), The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd Ed.), Computers & Mathematics with Applications, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(97)82941-0.Google Scholar
Simons, T., Gupta, A. and Buchanan, M. (2011), “Innovation in R & D: Using design thinking to develop new models of inventiveness, productivity and collaboration”, Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 301–307.Google Scholar
Smulders, F.E.H.M. and Brehmer, M. (2012), “Innovating innovation: Towards a NPD-management taxonomy”, Proceedings from the 13th International CINet Conference, Rome, Italy, 16-18 September 2012, pp. 987–1002.Google Scholar
Sosa, R. and Gero, J.S. (2015), “EDAM : A computational study of creativity in design : The role of society A computational study of creativity in design : The role of society”, No. November 2005, pp. 229–244.Google Scholar
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989), “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 387–420.Google Scholar
Stark, D. (2009), The Sense of Dissonance, Princeton University Press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831005.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F. and Henze, L. (2016), “Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 47, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, L.A. and Crilly, N. (2016), “Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 42, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Wood, N. (2005), “Unknown knowns; uncovering tacit knowledge for the design of interactive media”, No. May, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar