Figure 1 - uploaded by Geoff Wright
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Paul Skaggs is an associate professor and program chair of industrial design at Brigham Young University. He joined the faculty at BYU after twenty-two years experience in industry. Fourteen years of which he operated his own full-service design consulting firm. Clients included Kodak, Fisher-Price, Federal Ex-press, Motorola, AT&T, Xerox and Hewle...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... this definition creativity is a measure that can be applied to divergence. Figure 1.1 further clarifies the divergence to convergence relationship. In this figure the stars in the first phase of the innovation process represent the idea "sparks" of creativity. ...
Context 2
... can be measured as a highly useful and novel new product, system, or service. Figure 1.2 compares the domain of innovation (as per. ...
Context 3
... the process can be viewed as both linear and non-linear because although there should be movement from divergent ideas to a convergent solution, the innovation process steps can (and should) often be revisited to ensure the best solution(s) are being developed. Figure 1.3 diagrams the flow. Although the diagram is presented in linear format, the process needs to be interpreted as being cyclical -in that idea finding, idea shaping, idea defining, idea refining, and idea communication can and should be continuously revisited while working towards the convergent solution. ...
Context 4
... purpose of this paper is to present and discuss the misalignment and use of creativity testing for purposes of measuring innovation. Numerous definitions of creativity exist, which have spawned the development of various creativity tests. Although these tests have been based on accepted definitions of creativity – such as “a behavior that is imaginative and inventive” (Guilford, pp. 444, 1950) 4 – these definitions have historically been applicable to domains separate from Technology and Engineering, focusing rather on the arts and psychology. Creativity as it pertains to technology and engineering is a subcomponent of innovation. Because creativity is only a part of innovation, we believe that creativity tests should not be used to evaluate or assess innovation. We believe that innovation is distinctly different than creativity. Innovation is structured creativity focused on producing an innovative product, service, or system. In essence it is a “practical creativity.” Although related, creativity and innovation are distinct and different. Consequently they should use distinct and different assessments. Paradoxically, most efforts to measure innovation are based on creativity definitions and tests, or only focus on production. This paper compares and contrasts the definitions, assessments, and instructional practices of creativity and innovation, in an effort to further clarify how and what should be taught regarding innovation, and how it might be more effectively measured. Although there are many definitions of innovation, the literature suggests that innovation is a novel and useful product, system, and or service. Novelty is defined as being unique, original, and new. Usefulness is defined as how beneficial the product is to people. Innovation is defined as structured creativity focused on producing a high in usefulness and novelty product, system, or service. Innovation has often been inappropriately used to define a person or thing that is simply creative . To be creative, does not mean, to be innovative. Creativity is a subcomponent of innovation. Innovation is a process that involves moving from divergent ideas to a convergent solution. In this definition creativity is a measure that can be applied to divergence. Figure 1.1 further clarifies the divergence to convergence relationship. In this figure the stars in the first phase of the innovation process represent the idea “sparks” of creativity. The imagery ...
