Content uploaded by Carsten Deckert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carsten Deckert on Nov 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tinkering, Tools and Techniques – Creativity in
German Engineering Education
Carsten Deckert*
Professor of Innovation and Production Management
Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering
Hochschule Düsseldorf, University of Applied Sciences
Münsterstraße 156, 40476 Düsseldorf, Germany
E-mail: carsten.deckert@hs-duesseldorf.de
Ahmed Mohya
Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering
Hochschule Düsseldorf, University of Applied Sciences
Münsterstraße 156, 40476 Düsseldorf, Germany
E-mail: ahmed.mohya@hs-duesseldorf.de
* Corresponding author
Abstract
Purpose – Engineers are expected to be the creative problem solvers and innovative
tinkerers of a company. This article examines to what extent German tertiary education
lives up to this expectation. The analysis of German module descriptions in engineering
shows that there are no courses dedicated to creativity and that creativity and its techniques
are mentioned only sparsely in the modules of the engineering curriculum. Surveys
amongst our students show that they are usually familiar with techniques which are based
on generating alternatives such as brainstorming and morphological box, but lack
knowledge about techniques based on challenging assumptions such as forced connection.
They tend to favour discursive techniques over intuitive ones and techniques which use
generation of alternatives as an idea-generating principle. A combination of creativity
techniques seems to be most conducive to creative output in our course. Finally, we present
some first findings on creative sessions in remote work with the help of virtual whiteboards,
which have gained in importance since the pandemic.
Design/methodology/approach – Firstly, we present an document analysis of the modules
of Bachelor and Master programs of mechanical engineering at German universities and
universities of applied sciences. Secondly, we present results from surveys in our Master
course in “Innovation and Technology Management” where we gathered data from students
over several years and performed an external evaluation of the output using Consensual
Assessment Technique (CAT). These results include which creativity techniques the
students know prior to the course and which they prefer as well as which techniques seem
to be conducive to engineering creativity. Furthermore we surveyed their experiences with
creative sessions as remote work.
Originality/value – Overall, the article shows the importance to teach prospective
engineers the basics in creativity. Students should have the opportunity to acquire
knowledge about and apply different creativity techniques, as different techniques have
different strengths and weaknesses and, thus, different areas of fruitful application. They
should also have the chance to try out different modes such as in-person sessions and virtual
sessions, as some of the future work will most likely shift online. Furthermore, a
combination of different creativity techniques makes it more likely that engineers break
through their usual systematic-analytic way of thinking and helps them to think outside the
box to find creative solutions for the pressing problems of our time.
Keywords – creativity, engineering, education
Paper type – Academic Research Paper
1 Introduction – What do we expect from engineers?
Engineering can be understood as a special case of a more general process of creative
problem solving (Cropley 2015). Engineers are typically the persons in a company who
develop new products and processes by adapting scientific principles to specific problems
(Seelinger 2004). Some people – e.g. the former steel tycoon Ekkehard Schulz (2010) –
even go so far as to compare engineers to artists, since they both work creatively, intuitively
and imaginatively. Despite the differences that some researchers see in the creativity of
different domains, engineers are expected to be the creative problem-solvers in their
respective organizations and the drivers for innovation by developing and applying new
technologies.
According to Runco & Jaeger (2012) the standard definition of creativity includes two
characteristics: originality and effectiveness. This means that a creative solution has to be
novel, original and surprising as well as effective, valuable and suitable (Deckert 2016). In
engineering the emphasis is typically on effectiveness, as engineers strive to find a solution
to a pressing technical problem. For the field of engineering, Cropley & Cropley (2010)
use the term “functional creativity“ to distinguish creativity with a functional purpose from
mainly aesthetic creativity. Functional creativity leads to industrial products and services
such a machines or consumer goods.
Amabile (1996) distinguishes three components of creativity: expertise, creativity skills
and task motivation. Expertise and motivation are domain-specific, i.e. they depend on the
professional discipline where one wants to be creative. In the case of engineering, expertise
encompasses engineering skills usually taught in a technical university and motivation is
confined to engineering tasks. Creativity skills, however, are valid across several domains
and can be taught via approaches for creative problem solving or creativity techniques.
There are several strategies in creative problem solving such as synectic or morphological
approaches (Geschka & Lantelme 2005). One approach often taken by engineers is Creative
Problem Solving (CPS) based on the approach of Alex Osborne, the creator of
brainstorming. This approach can be roughly divided into three phases of problem
definition, idea finding and solution implementation (Isaaksen & Treffinger 2004).
Creative thinking can be supported by creativity techniques. In the strategies of creative
problem solving, creativity techniques are usually a major part. Creativity techniques are
based on idea-generating heuristic principles such as association, imagination, combination
and confrontation (Geschka & Lantelme 2005, Geschka & Zirm 2011). Those principles
can be aggregated to two main principles proposed by de Bono (1991) to distinguish
between techniques that help to generate many alternatives and techniques that support the
challenging of assumptions (Deckert & Mohya 2020a). Furthermore creativity techniques
can be divided into intuitive techniques characterized by spontaneous insights from the
subconscious (e.g. brainstorming) and discursive techniques characterized by their
systematic and analytical approach (e.g. morphological box) (Brem & Brem 2013).
Additionally inventors often use heuristics to find solutions, and there are lists of heuristics
such as SCAMPER and the universal TRIZ-principles. Furthermore, there are also
collections of inventive heuristics in the literature, e.g. “always consider the negative” or
“consider the ideal solution”, which can be structured according to the two main principles
of creativity (Deckert 2017, 2018). Fig. 1 gives an overview of some of the main creativity
techniques and collections of heuristics. So we should expect engineers to be well-educated
in the approaches of creative problem solving and creativity techniques.
From the starting question of what we expect from engineers we derived the following
key questions to guide our research:
What do we teach prospective engineers with regard to creativity?
What do our students know about creativity?
What enables our students to be more creative?
What changes are there in creative problem solving due to remote work?
Fig 1: Creativity Techniques and Heuristics (Deckert & Mohya 2020b)
intuitive discursive heuristic
Generation of
alternatives
Brainstorming
Brainwriting
6-3-5 Method
Mindmapping
Morphological
box
SCAMPER
Inventor
heuristics
Challenging
assumptions
Reversal method/
Anti-solution
Forced
connection
Theory of
inventive problem
solving
(TIPS/TRIZ)
Heuristic
principles of
TIPS/TRIZ
Inventor
heuristics
2 What do we teach prospective engineers?
Creativity can be conveyed by teaching different creativity techniques in the context of
general strategies of creative problem solving and reflecting on their advantages and
disadvantages (Geschka & Lantelme 2005). It can also by taught by adequate teaching and
examination methods such as case studies, group discussions, role play and projects
(Kirillov, Leontyeva & Moiseenko 2015) as well as by focusing on the problem-solving
process through the work on open and ambiguous problems and the active inclusion of
students’ ideas in the process (Papaleontiou-Louca et. al 2014). Furthermore creativity can
be supported by a creativity-enhancing work environment which supports the initiative of
the students to start their own projects (Papaleontiou-Louca et. al 2014) – a concept similar
to the “Corporate Creativity”-approach by Robinson & Stern (1997). However, a central
element with regard to content are creativity techniques.
To find out what prospective engineers are being taught in German tertiary education,
we conducted an analysis of the module descriptions of the largest German universities and
universities of applied sciences with a mechanical engineering department. In this analysis
we focused on the occurrence of the word “creative” and “creativity” as well as main
creativity techniques in the module descriptions. In total, we looked at the content of
Bachelor and Master programs of 20 universities and universities of applied sciences with
regard to creativity (Deckert, Kuppuswamy & Wigger 2020, Deckert, Maschmann & Ngoy
2021).
As a main result, we found that no course is completely dedicated to creativity (i.e.
creativity as part of the course title). All in all, only a small fraction of the modules included
creativity or creativity techniques in their descriptions. In the Bachelor programs, five
universities of applied sciences and eight universities had no content on creativity
techniques in their module descriptions at all. Likewise in the Master programs, five
universities of applied sciences and six universities had no modules with any content on
creativity techniques whatsoever. The most common creativity techniques are the
morphological box and the TRIZ/TIPS -methodology indicating a preference of discursive
creativity techniques over intuitive techniques (Deckert, Kuppuswamy & Wigger 2020,
Deckert, Maschmann & Ngoy 2021).
3 What do our students know about creativity?
In our Master course “Innovation & Technology Management” we continuously ask
our students which creativity techniques they already know from their Bachelor study
programs, before we teach them different creativity techniques. The assessment of the
degree of familiarity looks similar in every term. Fig. 2 shows the aggregate results of the
summer terms 2019 to 2022.
Fig. 2: Familiarity with Creativity Techniques (Survey in Master course “Innovation
& Technology Management” (HSD), 2019-2022, n = 81)
The main result is that our students are usually familiar with creativity techniques that
use the heuristic principle of generating alternatives such as the intuitive techniques of
brainstorming and mindmapping and the discursive technique of morphological box. The
latter is often part of the subjects on theory of design in the Bachelor study program. Our
students almost have no experience with creativity techniques that use the heuristic
principle of challenging assumptions such as forced connection or TRIZ.
Thus, the familiarity with techniques from the category “generation of alternatives” is
much stronger than the familiarity with techniques from the category “challenging
assumptions”. This fact also seems to drive the choice and evaluation of different creativity
techniques by our students, as techniques using “generation of alternatives” are usually
preferred over techniques using “challenging assumptions”. This tendency to us is
worrying, as it leads to a methodological monoculture in engineering and some major
Generation of
alternatives
Challenging
assumptions
creative breakthroughs in the past were achieved by breaking previously unquestioned
assumptions.
4 What enables our students to be more creative?
To answer the question what enables our students to be creative we analyzed the results
of our Master course “Innovation & Technology Management“ during the summer term of
2019. The students worked in groups of five on the task to redesign an everyday object.
They could choose their own mess and define their own problem, as long as it dealt with
the improvement of everyday objects such as umbrellas, cooking pots or shampoo bottles.
In ideation they could choose between intuitive, discursive or heuristic methods or a mix
of methods. As intuitive techniques the students chose mostly brainstorming, but some also
chose brainwriting, method 6-3-5 or mindmapping. As a discursive technique only the
morphological box was used which many students already know due to theory of design
from their Bachelor study program. As heuristics the SCAMPER checklist, the heuristic
principles of TRIZ and a collection of inventive heuristics collected by the lecturer were
used. As a method we used a questionnaire for the students’ self-assessment and also an
external assessment of the results by experts (Deckert & Mohya 2020a).
The self-assessment of the students showed that overall intuitive creativity techniques
get the highest ratings by students, and most students think that they and their team are
more creative using those techniques. Discursive techniques rank highest in the category
“ease of use” probably because students already know those techniques from their Bachelor
programs (e.g. from theory of design) and those techniques support their systematic-
analytical way of thinking. Creative heuristics have the highest rating when it comes to
increasing the understanding of creativity (Deckert & Mohya 2020a).
For the external assessment we used the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT).
CAT is a powerful method to evaluate creative output and is based on the assumption that
a product is creative when a panel of experts in a domain independently rates it as creative
(Hennessey, Amabile & Mueller 2011). It can be considered the “gold standard” of
creativity assessment (Baer & McKool 2009). In this case we chose five professors and
research assistants from the field of product development and innovation management of
Hochschule Düsseldorf, University of Applied Sciences as experts. The result of the rating
can be seen in table 1. The ranking shows that a combination of creativity techniques from
different categories seems to be most conducive to creativity. Especially the combination
of intuitive techniques with either discursive or heurstic techniques seems to be effective
while the intutive technique is usually used before the other techniques. The three groups
with the lowest rating all exclusively used intuitive techniques. As the students could chose
the techniques and the sequence of application on their own, not all combinations could be
tested. It should also be noted that due to the low number of groups the result is not
statistically significant, so further research is needed (Deckert & Mohya 2020a).
Ranking
Group
Rating
(% of maximum
score)
Applied creativity techniques
or heuristics
1
Gr. 7
80
intuitive & discursive
2
Gr. 2
77
intuitive & heuristic
3
Gr. 8
71
intuitive & discursive
4
Gr. 6
60
intuitive & discursive
5
Gr. 4
57
intuitive & heuristic
6
Gr. 1
54
intuitive
7
Gr. 5
49
intuitive
8
Gr. 3
46
intuitive
Table 1: Rating of students’ results in Master course “Innovation & Technology
Management” in 2019 using Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) (Deckert &
Mohya 2020a)
5 What changes are there due to remote work?
Creativity techniques in an ideation process usually require visualization tools such as
whiteboards, presentation boards or flip charts. With these tools people can share their ideas
using markers, cards and post-its. Similarly in a virtual workspace, visualization tools such
as digital or virtual whiteboards are necessary where remote members can use virtual
markers or digital post-its to share their ideas. Virtual whiteboards support teams in
capturing, sorting, developing and evaluating ideas through different templates and
functions. Furthermore these tools enable teams to document results in various formats and
to remotely communicate during ideation sessions. An assessment of ten virtual
whiteboards shows that there are simple tools to start with and comprehensive tools offering
the whole range of functionality and that companies offering virtual whiteboards
continually update their templates and functions (Deckert, Mohya & Suntharalingam
2021).
First experiences with teaching creative problem solving in a virtual environment have
been made in the context of the Master course “Innovation and Technology Management”
at the Hochschule Düsseldorf, University of Applied Sciences in the summer terms of 2020
to 2022. The students were exclusively taught via MS Teams in the terms of 2020-21 using
the Miro board as a visualization tool for ideation, and a combination of online and offline
ideation sessions in the term of 2022 using both traditional visualization tools and the Miro
board. The main creativity technique used was brainwriting. At the end of the term the
students took a survey of several questions. The results of the survey are shown in fig. 3.
Fig. 3: Comparison of Online and Offline Brainwriting (Survey in Master course
“Innovation & Technology Management” in 2021-22, n = 40)
Fig. 3 shows that our students prefer offline brainwriting to online brainwriting – during
the course (question 1) and also in the future (question 6). The main advantages of offline
brainwriting are that students generate more ideas, get an improved understanding of
creativity and have more fun using the technique. The only category in which online
brainwriting leads is “ease of use”. This is probably due to the low effort in designing and
documenting a board and the comfort of working from home. However, the results are
preliminary and still somewhat inconclusive, as students still struggle with the new tools.
6 Conclusions
We draw the following conclusions and further research questions from our research so
far:
1. Engineering can be understood as a way of creative problem solving with a
focus on functionality. Engineers are creative problem-solvers and drivers for
innovation in their organizations.
2. Creativity is only sporadically taught to prospective engineers at German
universities. Do we expect “innovation without creativity” from our engineers?
3. Students in our Master program mainly know creativity techniques using
generation of alternatives as an idea-generating principle (e.g. brainstorming).
What about challenging assumptions? Or heuristics?
4. A mix of different types of creativity techniques seems to be successful for
functional creativity. What mix of techniques works especially well for
functional creativity?
5. We will probably work online more often than before the pandemic, also in
creative work. How does this new work environment impact creativity?
As lecturers in the field of creativity in engineering we see the following key takeaways
in our research: We should teach prospective engineers a variety of creativity techniques
and let them reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques, as this
enables them to pick and choose the mix of techniques that suits them best and hopefully
fits the problem they have. Furthermore we should teach students in offline as well as online
visualization tools, as we still do not understand the impact of virtual whiteboards on
creativity very well, but the professional reality will probably force our students to do more
and more creative work in a virtual workspace. So in engineering, creativity is about the
right techniques and the right tools but in the end it is also a lot about tinkering.
References
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder: Westview Press.
Baer, J., & McKool, S.S. (2009). Assessing Creativity Using the Consensual Assessment
Technique. In C.S. Schreiner (ed.), Handbook of Research on Assessment
Technologies, Methods, and Applications in Higher Education. IGI Global, DOI:
10.4018/978-1-60566-667-9, pp. 65-77.
Brem, A., & Brem, S. (2013). Kreativität und Innovation im Unternehmen: Methoden und
Workshops zur Sammlung und Generierung von Ideen [Creativity and Innovation in
the Company: Methods and Workshops to Collect and Generate Ideas]. Schäffer-
Poeschel, Stuttgart.
Cropley D.H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering Education.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. 9 (2), pp. 161-171.
Cropley, D.H., & Cropley, A.J. (2010). Functional Creativity, “Products” and the
Generation of Effective Novelty, In Kaufman J.C., Sternberg R.J. (eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301-
317.
De Bono, E. (1991). Lateral Thinking. London: Penguin.
Deckert, C. (2016). On the Originality-Effectiveness-Duality of Creativity. Business
Creativity and the Creative Economy. 2 (1), 70-82. DOI:
10.18536/bcce.2016.10.2.1.07
Deckert, C. (2017). Creative Heuristics. A Framework for Systematic Creative Problem
Solving. Working Paper 01/2017. CBS Working Paper Series, ISSN 2195-6618.
Deckert, C. (2018). Creative Heuristics in Engineering Education. In SEFI (eds.).
Proceedings of the 46th SEFI Annual Conference "Creativity, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship for Engineering Education Excellence" (724-731). Brüssel: SEFI.
Deckert, C., Kuppuswamy, S.B., & Wigger, P. (2020). Kreativität im Maschinenbau - Wie
wird angehenden Ingenieuren an deutschen Hochschulen Kreativität vermittelt?
[Creativity in Mechanical Engineering – How Is Creativity Taught to Prospective
Engineers?]. Ideen- und Innovationsmanagement. 2/2020, S. 50-54.
Deckert, C., Maschmann, J. C., & Ngoy, M. (2021). Kreativität und Entrepreneurship im
Masterstudium Maschinenbau an deutschen Fachhochschulen und Universitäten
[Creativity and Entrepreneurship in Master Study Progams of Mechanical Engineering
at German Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences]. (Working Papers in
Industrial Engineering, No. 4). Düsseldorf, Hochschule Düsseldorf.
Deckert, C., & Mohya, A. (2020a). Kreativitätstechniken für angehende Ingenieurinnen
und Ingenieure [Creativity Techniques for Prospective Engineers]. Innovations-
Forum. 18 (1), S. 42-46.
Deckert, C., & Mohya, A. (2020b). Innovation without Creativity? – Teaching Creative
Problem Solving to Prospective Engineers. In SEFI (eds.). Proceedings of the 48th
SEFI Annual Conference "Engaging Engineering Education" (758-767). Brüssel:
SEFI.
Deckert, C., Mohya, A., & Suntharalingam, S. (2021). Virtual Whiteboards & Digital Post
Its – Incorporating Internet based Tools for Ideation into Engineering Courses. In SEFI
(eds.). Proceedings of the 49th SEFI Annual Conference "Blended Learning in
Engineering Education: challenging, enlightening – and lasting?" (758-767). Brüssel:
SEFI.
Geschka, H., & Lantelme, G. (2005). Problemlösungsstrategien [Problem-Solving
Strategies]. In Weissenberger-Eibl, M.A. (Hrsg.). Gestaltung von Innovationsystemen
(309-328). Kassel: Cactus.
Geschka, H., & Zirm, A. (2011). Kreativitätstechniken [Creativity Techniques]. In S.
Albers & O.Gassmann (Hrsg.), Handbuch Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement
(279–302). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Hennessey B.A., Amabile T.M., & Mueller J.S. (2011) Consensual Assessment. In: Runco
MA, and Pritzker SR (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity (Second Edition, vol. 1, 253-
260). San Diego: Academic Press.
Isaksen, S.G., & Treffinger, D.J. (2004). Celebrating 50 Years of Reflective Practice:
Versions of Creative Problem Solving. Journal of Creative Behavior. 38 (2), 75-101.
Kirillov, N. P., Leontyeva, E. G., & Moiseenko, Y. A. (2015). Creativity in engineering
education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 166, 360 – 363.
Papaleontiou-Louca, E., Varnava-Marouchou, D., Mihai, S., & Konis, E. (2014). Teaching
for Creativity in Universities. Journal of Education and Human Development. 3(4),
131-154.
Robinson, A.G., & Stern, S. (1997). Corporate Creativity. How Innovation and
Improvement Actually Happen. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity
Research Journal. 24 (1), 92-96.
Schulz, E. D. (2010). 55 Gründe, Ingenieur zu werden [55 Reasons to Become an
Engineer]. Hamburg: Murmann
Seelinger, C. (2004). The Creative Engineer. What can you do to spark new ideas? IEEE
Spectrum. August 2004, 48-49.
