April 26, 2010
Is Human Error the Ultimate Source of all “Accidents”?
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/91922764.html?showAll=y&c=y
The linked article, from 2theadvocate.com in Baton Rouge, isn’t about creativity, but it is about an important topic in the realm of technology and innovation: error.
I love the subtitle of this article: “Effort Pushes to Eliminate Human Error”. And then the statement by the US MMS that it is “developing regulations aimed at preventing human error, which it identified as a factor in many…offshore oil drilling accidents…”. How can it be anything BUT human error? Humans erect these structures and operate them. Even “equipment failure” is a form of human error: humans choosing materials and equipment, choosing how to use it, etc.
In addition, it can be argued that there is no such thing as an “accident”. The safety industry prefers to use the term “incident”. The word “accident” implies that there was no way to avoid the incident. Every incident is avoidable, in one way or another.
Would love to hear some comments on this topic.
April 24, 2009
Creativity Training — Innovation Training
Here is a link to a one-page summary of our Innovation Training services.
January 15, 2008
The Evidence for Creative “Flow”
[Note: I know that I promised to discuss the concepts of creativity and innovation in my next post, but in reading Scott Berkun's (2007) book The Myths of Innovation the concept of flow was mentioned. (More on my review of Berkun's book to come.) I am feeling my own creative flow regarding the concept of flow at the moment and will be unable to write about any other topic until I get this topic out of my system!]
Each time I read a book or article in the popular press about creativity, I expect to see some reference to Czikzentmihalyi’s (1971) concept of flow. (Yes, that is spelled correctly. It is pronounced similar to “cheek-sent-me-heel-yi”.) Flow, as Czikzentmihalyi characterizes it, is a feeling of timelessness and intense concentration and engagement with the task at hand. Of course, anyone who has become engrossed in one’s hobby or occupation can recognize the phenomenon that Czikzentmihalyi calls flow. However, this begs the question as to whether the concept of flow is useful as we try to understand creative design and the process of human creative activity.
I must clarify that I am not an expert on Czikzentmihalyi’s concept or theories regarding flow. However, the serious reading I have done on the topic (including that of my dissertation advisor who is a noted creativity researcher) I have not found positive references to Czikzentmihalyi’s concept. It is telling, also, that neither the other scientific theories of innovation that I have studied nor my own model of engineering creativity (Elias 2005) has required the inclusion of the concept of flow.
So what does it mean to me when I see Czikzentmihalyi interview or cited in a book? Unfortunately for the author of the piece, it lends less credibility to the remainder of the documentary or book.
References
Berkun, Scott (2007) The Myth of Innovation. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Czikzentmihalyi, Mihalyi (1971) Flow. J of Human Psychology.
Elias, J.S. (2003). The Engineering Design Mind: A Cognitive Model and a Case Study. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Lousiana at Lafayette, 2003).
[Note: References are freestyle. This is not a dissertation. Thank God.]
January 3, 2008
Knowledge and Creativity
There are two basic types of incorrect advice on creativity. The first comes from people who have worked on projects that the advisors believe represents “correct” innovation. The second comes from self-appointed experts who repackage what others have said about creativity (i.e., the importance of brainstorming and “freeing” your thoughts).
Tonight I will discuss the flaws in the first view of innovation. The second view will be critiqued at a later date.
I ran across a website and book on creativity and innovation today, and like many other non-scientific treatments of the subject, it suffered from a non-scientific approach to data collection and analysis. Most business writers use their success in working projects as a source for attempts to extract some marketable wisdom. Unfortunately, this approach leads to some flawed advice for several reasons.
The book and website, which I will not name, states that knowledge hinders creativity. If this is so, then it follows that the greatest innovations would be produced by the inexperienced. Let’s say you are faced with the task of building a new economical bridge to span a major river. Do you want someone with extensive experience in bridge construction, or would you prefer a novice? Of course, one would expect that experience with the materials, methods, and economics of bridge construction in the particular environment for the bridge in question would lead to a better design. And this is exactly what research on the highest level of creativity has shown. Any novice can dream up a scheme such as, “Let’s build a suspension bridge to span the Mississippi River near New Orleans”. Without knowledge of the forces created by such a system and the geology required to resist the forces, the project could waste valuable time and money on a design that is simply not feasible.
In fact, Petroski (1994) has proposed that most notable bridge design disasters are a result of a lack of knowledge of the limitations of a new technology. One example he discusses in detail is the infamous failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in which the successful design scheme of the Brooklyn Bridge evolved over several years to create longer, lighter spans than had been used previously. The culture of success in the engineering community publicized the positive features of the suspension bridge without discussing the limitations of the design scheme, culminating in the misapplication of the technology in the case of the Tacoma Narrows.
Remember the early days when businesses first attempted to integrate new computer technology in the office? Contrary to previous corporate hierarchical structure where senior employees with extensive experience were entrusted with making major decisions, in the case of computer technology the recent college grads were asked to design and oversee the implementation of the systems. Why the difference? Because those college graduates had more experience with technology than anyone else in the workplace. At that time, senior engineers and managers had very little experience with computer hardware, software, programming, or networking. The younger workers used their knowledge to create solutions.
The book I referenced above is correct in one aspect: in some cases, extensive knowledge can hinder creativity. If one has extensive experience but does not look for new ways to improve on the conventional ways of doing things, there will be no chance for innovation.
Remember, most business advice is bad advice (Argyris 1999). That is why you will read current scientific theories regarding creativity here, not just “advice” from self-styled experts.
Next Topic – “Creativity and Innovation: One Concept or Two?”
References:
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Petroski, H. (1994). Design paradigms: Case histories of error and judgment in engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
December 28, 2007
The Scientific Study of Creativity
Welcome to the Scientific Study of Creativity!
I have created this blog, “centerfordesign.wordpress.com”, in order to publicize what is known scientifically about creativity. I have been reading extensively on this subject for several years and wrote my dissertation using a case study of the highest levels of design creativity to create a model of design creativity.
Much of the discussion of design and creativity on the web, in general, and on blogs, in particular, is simply the writer’s hopes and dreams regarding creativity. That is not what you will see here. This site will always be grounded in what is known scientifically about creativity, from case studies, psychological studies, and neuroscience.
Over the past few years I have emailed colleagues when I happened upon scientific articles, books, and other materials regarding creativity. I will start with some of those emails as the source for the first entries here.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
