Sep 1, 2009
The Creative Product
The Creative Product
Introduction
As a starting point, the definition of creativity as a product is essential (Amabile, 1996; Mackinnon, 1987), in that only through the identification of outputs as creative, can the processes or individuals that give rise to them be identified (Besemer and O’Quinn, 1987). Note that ‘product’ does not just specify tangible objects, but includes the whole spectrum from physical products, to services to processes, initiatives and even business climates (Amabile, 1983; Besemer and O’Quinn, 1987; Mackinnon, 1987) .
The literature (e.g. Amabile, 1983; 1987, 1996; Amabile et al. 1996; Besemer and O’Quinn, 1987; Boden, 1994b, 1997; Brinck, 1997; Briskman, 1980 cited in Besemer and O’Quinn, 1987; Hausman, 1987; Isakaen, 1995; 1987; Rhodes, 1987) defines a creative outcome as having two essential qualities: Novelty (newness, uniqueness) and Value (usefulness, appropriateness, resolution). These two qualities are discussed below.
Novelty
The condition of novelty involves more than a new-not new classification, and implies more than a trivial difference from something in the past (e.g. Amabile, 1987, 1996; Boden, 1994b, 1997; Besemer and O’Quinn, 1987; Eysenck, 1994; Hausman, 1987; Rhodes, 1987). Furthermore, novelty can refer not only to the product, but also the task that the product is the solution for (Amabile, 1987; Kaufmann, 2004). The novel creative product is a ‘new type’ (Hausman, 1987). A novel output can be classified as;
- Original – how unlike any existing outcome the product is.
- Germinal – the likelihood of the product begetting (sprouting) other products (whether they be ‘me-too’ or creative).
- Transformational – The degree of influence the product has on culture, society (or an organisation).
Source: Besemer and O’Quinn (1987).
Scope of newness is another measure of novelty classification, which places emphasis on high-level mental processes as opposed to physical objects. Theories, for example, have more ‘novel scope’ as they may beget thousands of inventions (i.e. be extremely ‘germinal’ see (2), above), and any one invention may be ‘tweaked’ by numerous ‘innovations’ (Rhodes, 1987). Other literature classifies novel products two ways: Private/Psychological Novelty (that which is new to me) and Public/Historic Novelty (that which is new to everyone) (Boden, 1994a,b; Eysenck, 1994). Boden (1997) defines historical novelty (H-Novelty) as public novelty that possesses historical significance (Besemer and O’Quinn’s (1983) ‘transformational’ quality). As creativity is subjective (link to post), the degree to which outcomes can be described as novel will depend on the perspective from which they are judged.
Tasks may be viewed in terms of whether the subject has encountered the task previously, but they can also be described in terms of the intrinsic nature of the task itself (Amabile, 1987; Kauffman, 2004; Proctor, 1991). Two classes of task are described in the literature;
- Algorithmic tasks (such as arithmetic) do not allow room for creativity and as such responses to such tasks can not be considered novel.
- Where there is more than one possible way to a solution (or more than one possible solution) the task is defined as being Heuristic (requiring some search) (Amabile, 1987; Proctor, 1991).
- Note here that whether a task is algorithmic or heuristic has no bearing on its ‘newness’ and vice versa, but that even the completion of new algorithmic tasks will not require creativity (only skill, intelligence etc) (Kaufmann, 2004).
Most tasks encountered in the world are to some degree heuristic, it is only the presentation of such tasks which may give them the appearance of being algorithmic – but breaking out of algorithmic thinking and attacking a situation heuristically can be an important part of creativity (Amabile, 1987). Further, if an algorithm exists for a task, but the individual does not know of it, that task can be considered heuristic for the individual (Amabile, 1983). Kaufmann (2004) suggests that it is the novelty of the solution and the ‘newness’ of these heuristic tasks that characterises ‘types of creative outputs’ – novel responses to new tasks are ‘reactively creative’ while novel responses to familiar tasks are ‘proactively creative’ (link to post).
Summarising, the label ‘new’ can be conceived of as covering both significant innovations and shifts in thinking as well as more subtle changes and adaptations. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, competitive strength depends on many forms of innovation, from radical to incremental advances in product, service, system and process outputs – and as such the facilitation of both creative styles is important to firms and organisations (Stafford, 1998).
Value (Resolution)
Fundamentally, an object can be valuable on three levels;
- That it is useful for achieving some purpose (e.g. a knife to cut cheese),
- That it is intrinsically good (e.g. a beautiful knife that does not necessarily cut better) and
- That it contributes to something (e.g. a knife that influences the design of all future knives) (Hausman, 1987).
Besemer and O’Quinn (1987) set out five attributes for assessing the value (resolution) of a creative outcome;
- Adequacy: That it can be considered a solution. That is, as the creative act can be seen as a specific kind of problem solving (Brinck, 1997) the action or idea must on some level solve a problem.
- Appropriateness: That the outcome fits or applies to the situation. Actions born of randomness and serendipity cannot be seen as creative unless they can be sensibly related to the relevant context (Boden, 1997).
- Logicalness: The “basic level of orderliness without which it will be difficult to place a product within the group of products of the discipline” (Besemer and O’Quinn, 1987: 345).
- Usefulness: An outcome must have some kind of use, no matter how trivial.
- Valuableness: That the outcome has some value based on its ability to solve a problem (fill a need).
Source: Besemer and O’Quinn (1987).
Conceptual Definition
Amabile’s conceptual definition of creativity summarises the preceding discussion:
“A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable response to the take at hand, and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic.” (Amabile, 1996: 35).
Finding not only a solution, but a ‘creative solution’ (Amabile, 1987) requires the production of something that is perceived as new, valuable and elegant. But who decides this? Does whether an outcome is defined as creative or not rest on who does the judging? What is creative in one situation may be standard in another. The following section examines creativity as a subjective concept.
References:
Amabile, T.M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. In Isaksen, S.G. (ed.) Frontiers of creativity research, 223-254. Buffalo: Bearly Ltd.
Frontiers of Creativity Research
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.
Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity
Besemer, S.P. and O’Quinn, K. (1987). Creative product analysis. Testing a model by developing a judging instrument. In Isaksen, S.G. (ed.) Frontiers of creativity research, 341-357. Buffalo: Bearly Ltd.
Frontiers of Creativity Research
Boden, M.A. (1994a). Introduction. In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 1-11. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Boden, M.A. (1994b). What is creativity? In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 75-117. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Boden, M.A. (1997). The constraints of knowledge. In Å.E. Andersson and N.E. Sahlin (eds.) The complexity of creativity, 1-4. Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers.
The Complexity of Creativity
Brinck, I. (1997). The gist of creativity. In Å.E. Andersson and N.E. Sahlin (eds). The complexity of creativity, 5-16. Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers.
The Complexity of Creativity
Eysenck, H.J. (1994). The measurement of creativity. In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 199-242. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Hausman, C.R. (1987). Philosophical perspectives on the study of creativity. In Isaksen, S.G. (ed.) Frontiers of creativity research, 380-389. Buffalo: Bearly Ltd.
Frontiers of Creativity Research
Mackinnon, D.W. (1987). Some critical issues for future research in creativity. In Isaksen, S.G. (Ed.). Frontiers of creativity research, 120-130. Buffalo: Bearly Ltd.
Frontiers of Creativity Research
Proctor, R.A. (1991). The importance of creativity in the management field. British Journal of Management, 2, 223-230.
Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Isaksen, S.G. (Ed.). Frontiers of creativity research, 216-222. Buffalo: Bearly Ltd.
Frontiers of Creativity Research
