Azadegan Bush Dooley 2008

8/3/2019 Azadegan Bush Dooley 2008

1/27

Design creativity: staticor dynamic capability?

Arash AzadeganNew Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

David BushQ-Logic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, and

Kevin J. DooleyArizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Abstract

Purpose Viewing creativity through the theoretical lens of the resource-based view, the paperattempts to answer a fundamental question: is design creativity a static or dynamic capability? Ifstatic, then firms need to acquire personnel who are already creative. If dynamic, then personnelscreative talents should be developed through training.

Design/methodology/approach In an exploratory controlled experiment of 74 design engineersfrom ten firms, two forms of training emphasizing design creativity as static or dynamic capabilitywere applied. Creative designs developed by the participants were judged by professionals inside eachorganization. Results were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

Findings The exploratory findings support the notion that design creativity is a static capability.In tandem, support for design creativity as a dynamic capability, contingent upon personality traits isapparent. Training may help develop some peoples creative skills.

Research limitations/implications Small sample size limited the ability to distinguish thesignificance of some effects. Further incubation time for training and an added evaluation step by the

judges could have resulted in more apparent effects of training.Practical implications Finest candidates for recruitment and development may not be identifiedbased on a limited set of characteristics. Selection should be based on a combination of criteria. To gainthe most, training programs should be subject to the individuals learning styles.

Originality/value Design creativity should be considered as a static characteristic determinedupon recruitment (buy), and as a dynamic one developed post hire (make). The exploratory findingssuggest a combined buy and modify approach to design creativity.

Keywords Creative thinking, Product design, Resource allocation

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe value of a typical firm today is composed largely of intangible as opposed totangible assets (Lev, 2004; Hall, 1992). Amongst these, innovation capability isconsidered one of the most important, as innovation can lead to both lower cost andhigher revenue, and thus increased earnings (Utterback, 1996). The resource fromwhich innovation emerges is creative cognition: in order for a firm to have innovative

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr Roger Millsap for help during thedevelopment of these ideas. The study was partially funded by a grant from Honeywell SolidState Electronics Center.

IJOPM28,7

636

Received 10 August 2007Revised 12 December 2007Accepted 6 March 2008

International Journal of Operations &

Production Management

Vol. 28 No. 7, 2008

pp. 636-662

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0144-3577

DOI 10.1108/01443570810881794


2/27

outcomes, it must possess human resources capable of creative thought (Amabile,1988). As organizations recognize their importance as keys to better performance,creativity and innovation continue to gain significance for many (Feurer et al., 1996,p. 5). However, since creativity resides with individuals (Denton, 1998), organizational

creativity can essentially vary based on that of its human resources. Firms can enhancetheir creativity either through hiring or through internal development of theiremployees. Depending on the static or dynamic nature of creativity, hiring ordevelopment may be more appropriate. If creativity is static, firms are better offfocusing attention on recruiting whereas if creativity is dynamic, then trainingbecomes more important.

We place focus on creativity related to product design in investigating the question.We justify our choice of subject based on the increased significance placed ondesigners and on the merits of design thinking (Martin, 2004) to a firms operation.First, as manufacturers look towards further efficiency gains, their focus shifts toearlier activities across the value chain, including design tasks (Twigg, 1998). The

notably increased importance placed on the role of designers (Li, 2002) and designengineers (Hong et al., 2005) is a manifestation of such a trend. Second, design by itsnature is a strategy for facilitating change (Nelson, 1994, p. 23). Effective designrequires the inclusion of a wide set of perspectives from multiple disciplines, thusgoing beyond the constraints of traditional problem solving approaches (Nelson, 1994).As product life cycles shrink and product developments become more frequent(Koufteros et al., 2002), firms are expected to be more agile and responsive (Sharifi andPawar, 2002) to change, requiring their managers to think more broadly inadministering complex organizational change (Dunne and Martin, 2006). As the needsfor finding deterministic solutions gives way to that of establishing heuristicguidelines (Boland and Collopy, 2004), managers may benefit by thinking likedesigners (Liedtka, 2000). This may require combining the continuum (Gibb, 2004) oftechnical, managerial (Lam, 1996), conceptual (DNetto and Sohal, 1999) and creativeproblem solving skills into what is labeled as design thinking (Lawson, 1997). As such,we study design engineers, to explore how organizations could consider designcreativity as a resource for gaining technical, managerial and strategic benefits inmanaging change.

The question remains however, what type of resource is creativity? We applytheoretical perspectives from the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Penrose, 1959)as its stance emphasizes how firms can improve their competitive position throughharnessing competencies and capabilities (Cousins, 2005, p. 404). We considerexplanations from two perspectives within the RBV. The steady-state perspective(Barney, 1991, 2001; Wernerfelt, 1984) posits that design creativity provides a

competitive advantage because it is valued, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable. Thedynamic capabilities perspective (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997)posits that if design creativity is a dynamic resource then it should be enhancedthrough integration with learning. The former suggests that firms need to acquirecreative design personnel externally, while the latter suggests that creative designpersonnel can be developed internally. Given the context, our research question isessentially one of a make vs buy decision by the firm. We ask: is a firm better offbuying design creativity or making it? Placed in another form, we posit: is design

Design creativity

637


3/27

creativity a static characteristic determined a priori upon recruitment, or is it adynamic one that can be developed internally and post-hire?

In order to empirically test whether design creativity is better considered as a staticor dynamic capability we employ a controlled experiment. About 74 engineers from ten

organizations were recruited and were given a battery of tests to measure innatecreative potential (static traits). The engineers then completed two forms of training,one that emphasized design creativity as an attitude (static trait), and one that trainedparticipants in a creative thinking method using de Bonos (1992) provocation andmovement method (dynamic trait). Participants were then given a creative design taskdeveloped by their organization, and the organizational managers of participants

judged the creativity of the ensuing design. Structural equation modeling was used totest the linkage between static and dynamic traits and creative outcomes.

Literature review ad theoretical approachBasadur et al. (1982) divide the creativity literature into three streams: those belonging

to the individual, those related to their organization and those intended to identifyenhancements gained from training and development. The first stream focuses onidentification of characteristics carried by more creative people (Torrance, 1972; Wanget al., 1999; McIntyre et al., 2003; Audia and Goncalo, 2007). These studies linkcreativity to their innate characteristics, such as personality (Sternberg and Lubart,1991) and thinking style (Guastello, 1995). The second and third, considerorganizational factors that can nurture or inhibit (Glynn, 1996; Ahmed et al., 1999;Woodman et al., 1993; Perry-Smith and Shalley, 2003) and the role of training andimprovements in enhancing creativity (Scott et al., 2004; Wang and Horng, 2002; Birdi,2005). The latter two streams suggest that steps in creative thinking can be articulatedand codified, and that it is possible to train employees in creative thinking processes(Osborn, 1953; Whiting, 1958; Newell and Simon, 1972; Fiske, 1990; de Bono, 1992;

Parnes, 1992; Perkins, 1992).Among the few studies of creativity carried out in organizational contexts, Rickards

(1975) reports no effect from training while Basadur et al. (1982) and Wang and Horng(2002) show improvements in marked aspects of creativity performance. Other studiespoint to a clear positive association between training and creativity (Edwardsand Baldauf, 1983; Edwards, 1991; Hernstein et al., 1976). Yet another group ofstudies highlights the importance of context in making training effective (Harrington,1990; Rickards, 1999). Our effort falls between these streams and attempts todetermine which the individual or the organizational effects are determinants ofcreativity.

Since our emphasis is on determining the nature of firm capabilities, a theory thatprovides explanatory power on both the static and dynamic nature of resources better

suits our aim. The RBV has two prominent viewpoints (Schulze, 1994): the steady-stateperspective (Barney, 1991, 2001; Wernerfelt, 1984) and the dynamic capabilitiesperspective (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). The focus of the steadystate is on a firms ability to gain and sustain competitive advantage. The dynamiccapabilities school considers RBV as an evolutionary paradigm, subject todevelopment and enhancements (Levitas and Ndofor, 2006; Colbert, 2004). The focushere moves beyond resources and onto the methods for their accumulation,modification and integration.

IJOPM28,7

638


4/27

Amundson (1998) suggests four criteria for applying a theory in explaining aphenomenon under consideration: The theory should have:

(1) consistent and meaningful concepts with the phenomenon;

(2) significant explanatory power;(3) consistent assumptions with the discipline under study; and

(4) show an equivalent level of importance to the issues addressed.

The consistency in concepts and assumptions of the RBV and its explanatory power inoperations management research have been demonstrated by numerous studies (pleasesee Newbert, 2007 for a thorough assessment). More specifically, the RBVs focus onhow firms can enhance their internal capabilities towards competitiveness, makes it asuitable theory for explaining-related phenomena in manufacturing and operationsmanagement (Amundson, 1998). With regards to the importance of the issuesaddressed (our topic of creativity as a resource), the RBVs two uniquelycomplementary yet contrasting perspectives (static and dynamic views) provideexplanatory power that is arguably more powerful than other organizational theories.Below we further describe how design creativity fits the criterion of being a resource toa firm.

Design creativity fits much of the requirements to be a resource. First, it can bevaluable to organizations. Manifested in the form of novelty and relevance in thought(Amabile, 1983; Woodman et al., 1993), design creativity results in innovations, whichin turn provide competitive advantages to organizations (Oldham and Cummings,1996; Azadegan and Dooley, 2007). Second, individual differences in creativity arehuge (Simonton, 1999; p. 309). With over 50 per cent of all creative ideas generated bythe top 10 per cent of the productivity distribution (Simonton, 1984), creativity is quiterare. Third, design creativity is difficult to imitate, since by definition, the duplication

of creativity renders it as an imitation. Copied creations are labeled as replicas anindication of their lack of creativity. Fourth, since creativity resides with individuals(Davis, 1989; Barron and Harrington, 1981), as long as creative employees stay with anorganization, their capabilities also stay, making their design creativity sustainable.Lastly, creativity is hard to transfer between individuals (van Dijk and van den Ende,2002), and its formation is dependent on a multitude of situational factors (Kazanjianet al., 2000). Gaining sustainable competitive advantage from design creativity requiresfirms to capture and maintain it by hiring and retaining creative individuals. Such isthe perspective provided by the static view of the RBV.

These days, the process of acquiring creative talent has become a relatively imitabletask for many organizations. Similarly, acquiring material for and conducting trainingseminars is a conventional corporate practice. Yet some organizations remain more

creative than others. The dynamic perspective explains the difference between firmsby focusing on the integration of resources rather than the resources themselves (Palieet al., 2007). This perspective highlights the differences in sources (levels of creativity)and methods (types of training and development), and considers how varyingcombinations among them can allow for better results. The underlying assumption ofdynamic capability is that creativity in general, and design creativity in particular, canbe manipulated and improved. As such, for the dynamic perspective to be viable,creativity cannot be a static trait.

Design creativity

639


5/27

While the arguments for both the static and dynamic perspective are palpable, theydiffer on one pivotal consideration: whether design creativity is a static or dynamictrait. Whereas the static perspective focuses on the characteristics of design creativity,the dynamic perspective focuses on managerial decisions in combining design

creativity with training to gain competitive advantage. If design creativity is static,then a focus on the firms dynamic capabilities is unnecessary. In this case, firms arebetter off focusing their attention on recruiting, and retaining creative talent. If, on theother hand, design creativity is dynamic, then the choice of training and developmentand its alignment with creative personalities becomes more important to decisionmakers.

Research design Participants and protocolIn order to test whether design creativity is better viewed as a static or dynamiccapability, we set out to conduct an exploratory experiment under controlledenvironments. Experimental methods are favored when there is a need to isolate causalfactors amongst many complex contingencies (Babbie, 2004). Research participantswere recruited from a pool of practicing engineers at ten different organizations.Between six and 13 engineers participated from each company, for a total of74 participants. The experiment was conducted separately at each site. The industriesrepresented included electronics, agriculture, telecommunications, defense, andcontrols. Each participating company provided a problem statement that wasrelevant to its engineers and to the companys needs; enhancing the practical utility ofour outcomes (Amabile, 1983; Ford, 2000). Table I summarizes the participatingcompanies, their design problem areas, and the number of participants and judgesfrom each site. Participating companies were chosen based on their reputation forinnovation of new products, and their proximity to the research setting (Minneapolis,

Minnesota). All companies were mid-sized or large organizations with at least 1,000employees.Problem descriptions were one to two paragraphs in length, and often were

accompanied by drawings of an existing product or process. An example problem was:What type of new products could we make that take advantage of smart material

Market Company (industry) Problem area Participants Judges

Commercial Environmental controls Sensor technology and ventilationcontrol 10 3

Lawn and gardenequipment

Filament line advancement andcontrol 10 3

Industrial Farm machinery andequipment Agricultural equipment deliverycapabilities 13 3Lawn and gardenequipment 8 3

Military Ordinance Propulsion systems 6 3OEM Industrial machinery Circuit wafer fabrication machine 9 3

Communicationequipment

Switching function in less space9 3

Electronic equipment Hole size in circuit board fabrication 9 3

Table I.Participating companycharacteristics

IJOPM28,7

640


6/27

technology (materials embedded with computer chips)? In Unsworths (2001)taxonomy, the study is capturing responsive creativity, where the participants haverelatively little freedom in determining what to do, and allowing for the creativeresponse to be focused.

The experiment was conducted using the following protocol:(1) Participants were introduced to the purpose of the study and to the instructors.

(2) Participants took a battery of pre-tests to measure static traits.

(3) Participants were split randomly into two training groups. The first methodemphasized design creativity as a static trait, while the other emphasized it as adynamic trait.

(4) A copy of the stated company problem, and worksheets to develop conceptualideas related to the problem were provided to each participant.

(5) Data were collected from participants, and final concepts were sent to companyjudges for assessment.

An alternative approach to grouping participants would have been to incorporate adesign problem as pre-test into our design. However, so long as the subjects areassigned to different groups randomly, it can be assumed that the groups areequivalent without actual pre-test measurement (Babbie, 2004, p. 234). Campbell andStanley (1963, p. 25-6) suggest that the only reason for a pre-test is tradition and thatexperimenters have grown accustomed to the practice. In addition, several concernsruled the choice of a pre-test in this experiment. The temporal effect of multiple testswas the primary concern. Increased length of time in conducting the experiment alsowould have implied more intermissions between events, which increased thepossibility of contact between the two groups. Imitation of treatment by the differinggroup (Cook and Campbell, 1979) and their compensatory rivalry (Saretsky, 1972) were

secondary concerns in a more extended testing protocol.

Static creative traitsCreativity models generally recognize that individual factors (e.g. domain knowledge,personality and intelligence) are applied through a learned thinking process that ismediated by environmental variables, to produce a creative product (Woodman et al.,1993). This view of creativity recognizes it as a static capability, to be purchasedexternally by the firm. If the static view is correct, we should see high levels of theseindividual static traits coincident with high levels of creative outcomes. If instead,creativity is a dynamic capability, we would expect no correlation between innatecreative traits and creative outcomes.

Previous static traits that have been studied include creative personality and style,

creative intelligence, knowledge, expertise and accomplishments (Amabile, 1983, 1988;Eysenck, 1994; Kappel and Rubenstein, 1999; Sternberg and Lubart, 1991). Personalitycharacteristics associated with creativity include: autonomy, resistance of conformity,valuing of originality, strong commitments and high aspirations (Perkins, 1981). Otherfactors include thinking style and the ability to engage in divergent thinking (Wallach,1988; Guastello et al., 1998), tolerance for ambiguity and perseverance (Sternberg andLubart, 1991). Such traits can be assessed based on inherent characteristics of theindividual, such as their detail orientation, risk aversion, creative thinking and

Design creativity

641


7/27

cognitive style. Static traits can also be manifested through creative accomplishments,such as evidences of creativity based on prior business and science-related creativeaccomplishments (Audia and Goncalo, 2007). We measured a persons creativity usingboth personality traits and their record of accomplishments.

Some theorists believe that experience is positively associated with creativity, sinceexperience enhances the ability to transfer ideas into practice (Weisberg, 1986; Tierneyand Farmer, 2002). Domain expertise is considered a positive contributor to creativeoutcomes (Kappel and Rubenstein, 1999). We define experience to include education,engineering experience and company tenure. We considered engineering experience asthe amount of time that participants were involved in engineering and concept design.We further consider these characteristics as static for one key reason: whereasorganizations can provide training in the short run, they cannot change the level ofeducation, engineering experience or company tenure of their employees in a briefperiod of time. These characteristics are predetermined and fixed at the time ofcandidacy for employment or selection for development training. Table II provides alist of measurement scales and validated extant measurement instruments.

Creativity trainingWe randomly split participants in each organization into two groups and employedtwo training methods, one that emphasized creativity as a dynamic capability(provocation and movement), and one that emphasized it as a static capability (creativeattitude). While the nature of the two training methods was different, the procedure inapplication was kept similar. Both groups received approximately the same amount oftraining (2.5 hours), and both groups had the opportunity to discuss and apply theconcepts and/or method they were taught.

The creative thinking heuristic referred to as provocation and movement is foundedon the premise that the human mind is a self-organizing information processing systemthat quickly establishes patterns (de Bono, 1969). The patterns establish schemata,

Indicators of static traitsVariable Source

Accomplishments Creative science accomplishments ASAS Science (Guastello and Reike, 1993)Creative business accomplishments ASAS Business (Guastello and Reike,

1993)Personality Divergent thinking CAB (Hakstian and Cattell, 1978), scales

measure semantic fluency, ideationalfluency, word fluency, and games ofwhat-if (Guastello et al., 1992)

Creative style ASAS style (Guastello and Reike, 1993)

Guastello (1995)Risk averse styleLow-detail style ASAS style (Guastello and Reike, 1993)Modifier style Guastello (1995)Dreamer style Guastello (1995)

Experience Educational levelCompany experienceEngineering experiencePrior creativity training

Table II.Endogenous factors:indicators of static traits:accomplishments,personality andexperience

IJOPM28,7

642


8/27

frames of reference (Koestler, 1976), or mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983)Schemata must be challenged to gain discoveries outside of their existing scope, andthey must be exposed in order to challenge them (de Bono, 1992). The provocation andmovement technique is intended to act at a meta-cognitive level to direct the thinking

process as well as to objectify thinking and make it possible to think about thinking(de Bono, 1992, p. 119). The user starts by focusing on a particular challenge orquestion. A provocation is generated and used to prompt divergent thinking, enablingeffective search of the conceptual landscape. Each of the provocation methodssuggested is considered as an independent procedure allowing for them to be combinedas necessary. Based on our experience with the methods, we chose to teach four of themethods (escape, reversal, wishful thinking, and exaggeration). The fifth method,distortion, was actually incorporated partially into our description of reversal andpartially into exaggeration. Once a provocation step is complete, the user then uses amovement step, a convergent thinking process that involves examining the conceptsolution in light of practical utility and constraints. Five movement methods (extract aprinciple, focus on the difference, moment to moment, positive aspects, and

circumstances) were taught during these sessions. Table III outlines the main steps inthis training.

A number of creativity seminars promise attitudinal enhancements. In designingthe curriculum for creative attitude training, we sought to work from an established,

Provocation method Step description

Escape Specifically, spell out what we take for grantedEscape from what we take for granted by cancelling, negating,dropping, removing, denying, etc.

Reversal Go in the opposite direction of what is normally done (doing without isan escape)

Exaggeration Expandon a measurement dimension attribute (i.e. number, frequency,volume, temperature, duration, etc.)

Distortion Change normal arrangements (e.g. relationship between parties andsequences of action)With two parties distortion and exaggeration are the same

Wishful thinking Pull out of the air a fantasy a wish or impossibilityPhrase the provocation as Wouldnt it be nice if. . .

Random input Select a random work, picture, etc. and seek to connect it to the focusTake words as given changing them may orient you toward adifferent ideaTake the first random word (unless the connection to the focus isimmediately with not provocation

Movement technique

Extract a principle Take a principle, concept, feature, etc. from the provocation and ignorethe restFocus on the difference Compare the provocation to what exists and pursue what is valuable in

the differenceMoment to moment Imagine provocation in action and visualize what would happen as it is

used or applied moment to momentPositive aspects Of what is present (rather than what the provocation might lead to)

what is of valueCircumstances How, when or where would the provocation have different value?

Table III.Provocation and

movement training steps

Design creativity

643


9/27

high-quality program that highlighted the static traits of the participants. The premisehere was to manipulate participants motivation and thereby enhance their inherentstatic traits. Hennessy and Amabile (1988) show that motivation can be easily changedand that such a change can have a significant effect on creative outcomes. We

attempted to further enhance the tangible aspect of this training by incorporating awell-produced video to help with the delivery of the motivational concepts. Based onthese criteria, we chose a list of items from Adams Conceptual Blockbustingtextbook. We focused on what Adams (1986) calls perceptual, emotional, and culturalblocks to creativity. We also selected The Creative Spirit at Work videotape(Perlmutter, 1991), a recognized media production on the topic. Alongside thevideo-graphic presentation, five main topics of the text were the subject of instruction.These included:

(1) perceptual blocks (i.e. discovering personal barriers to creativity);

(2) psychology of creativity (i.e. necessity to appreciate change and allowing for thefreedom to experiment);

(3) nipping in the bud (i.e. maintaining an open mind-set to new ideas);(4) no punishment for taking a leap (i.e. taking risks); and

(5) what creativity is all about (i.e. gaining a broader perspective on creativity).

Interactive discussion of the material followed the coverage of each topic. Participantsapplied their new mindset to a practice problem which was also used with theprovocation and movement group. Table IV outlines the main topics and sequence ofcoverage chosen for this training.

Instructional topic Step description

Perceptual blocks Functional fixednessPatterns

Psychology of creativity Fall in love with changeConstant openness to changeBreaking the rulesFreedom of experimentListening to gut feeling intuition

Nipping in the bud Ways it cannot work versus ways to make it workChange the mindset of shooting down

Just do not say noNo punishment for taking a leap Anxiety is vital

Taking the first step

Going through the unknownsDrawing on other successesCannot grow without changing

What creativity is all about Getting past the voice of judgementRelaxationSensing, looking, listeningStopping the mind chatterSeeing the world awarenessSeeing things in new ways

Table IV.Creative attitude trainingsteps

IJOPM28,7

644


10/27

Generation and assessment of creative conceptsAfter completion of the training, participants worked independently to develop adesign concept. A two-column worksheet provided space to reflect and to capture theevolution of their thinking and the associated concepts. Once a participant determined

that they had a presentable idea, they transferred and elaborated on the idea on aseparate form. Participants were allowed to submit up to two concepts assuming thatthey perceived both to be outstanding. Six participants chose to submit two concepts.Final submittals were presented as sketches and descriptive notes (generally one pagein length). All participants completed their solution concepts in one to three hours.

Three judges from the participants company evaluated each concept. Companieswere instructed to provide judges who were knowledgeable about the problem areaand on any related technology. Judges were management professionals, such as R&Dmanagers, who were expected to evaluate design concepts as part of their routineresponsibilities. Assessments were made based on five creativity constructs(usefulness, novelty, elegance, transformation, and overall creativity) proposed by

Jackson and Messick (1965), using appropriate scale construction guidelines (DeVellis,1991). Item responses were on a balanced five-point Likert scale. The items were posedas declarative statements where participants noted the extent of their agreementwith the statement. Each judge independently scored the concepts by responding to13 questions. Table V compares some standards and responses described by Jacksonand Messick (1965) with the items in our scale.

Experiment controlsA number of experimental controls were employed to enhance the validity of thefindings. First, participants were randomly assigned to either of the two trainingmodes. Second, participant responses were identified using only numerical coding (asopposed to names or other personal identifiers) to limit any evaluation bias. Third, a

similar amount of time for discussion and preparation of concepts was used betweenthe two training. Lastly, judges were blind to either the training or the participant.To ensure the lack of systematic bias by instructors towards a specific training,

regression analysis between instructor and training was performed. In a model thatincluded the instructor and training as main effects, and their interaction, no significanceof the interaction (p 0.214) was noted. A power test was also performed to identify howlarge an effect would be detectable. The power analysis showed that the least significant(absolute) value (LSV), for the parameter estimate to be significant at a p-value of 0.05,(LSV 0.05) is 0.15252. This would require the parameter estimate to be over one and a halftimes larger to reach significance, thus confirming the null hypothesis.

Results

Measurement resultsRegarding our measures of creative outcomes, Cronbachs a was used to determinereliability (DeVellis, 1991), and exploratory factor analysis (principal components witha varimax rotation) to determine if the items for each scale loaded onto unique factors.There was insufficient data to combine the measurement and model estimation in theform of confirmatory factor analysis. However, CFA results for the 13 item scalesindicated two dimensions for the creative outcome: usefulness (utility and elegance;a total of six items) and uniqueness (novelty, transformation, and overall creativity; a

Design creativity

645


11/27

total of seven items). Cronbachs as for each of the two scales indicate high reliability

(a-uniqueness 0.95 and a-usefulness 0.9). Table VI provides the number of

items and a values for our product creativity scales.

In measuring static traits, we started with the works of Guastello (1995), who has

combined several previously established tests to develop a multifaceted measure of

creative talent. This inventory includes aspects of well recognized creativity scales such as16 personality factor (16PF; Cattell, 1966), Artistic and Scientific Activities Survey (ASAS;

Guastello et al., 1992) and comprehensive abilities battery (CAB-5; Hakstian and Cattell,

1978), as well as some new scales. Bush provides details of the approach and justification of

scale items. Here, we denote that principal component analysis suggested five factors, with

three primary factors including multiple items (creative, risk averse and low detail

orientation) and two secondary factors with a single item (modifier and dreamer). Validity

and reliability of the scale showed acceptable levels for results. Table VI provides statistical

PropertyCreativity construct descriptions( Jackson and Messick, 1965) Instrument items

Assessment

Overall creative (1) I feel that this conceptual design hashigh-creative value

Novel Unusualness/infrequency ascompared toother entries

(2) In my experience this is a very uniqueconcept

Surprise (3) I experienced positive surprise atseeing this concept

Cannot be prepared for, except in verygeneral way

(4) This was very different than otherentries

Useful Recognition of inevitability of theproduct given the context

(5) This is likely an effective solution tothe problem

The product is just rightProduct is complete or sufficient (6) The concept has good potential to be

useful

Elegant Total meaning is not divulged on firstviewing (7) My appreciation continues to grow asI consider the conceptExhibiting both simplicity andcomplexity

(8) This is an elegant solution to theproblem

Object worth pondering (9) The concept is simple, yet complex inwhat it accomplishes

Transforming Creation of new forms (10) This concept establishes newboundaries in the field

Change perceived possibilities (11) This concept could be a platform fora family of products

Viewers must revise their worldPower to alter viewers usual way ofperceiving or thinking

(12) This concept has expanded my viewof what is possible

Re-assessmentOverallcreative II

This re-assessment of question (1) was todetermine if the respondents opinion haschanged after having completed viewingthe other questions

(13) I feel that this conceptual design hashigh-creative valueTable V.

Creative product scaleinstrument

IJOPM28,7

646


12/27

data and number of items for each construct. Other scales associated with creativepersonality, creative intelligence, working style, education, motivation, and prior creativeaccomplishments were deemed reliable and unidimensional.

Modeling resultsUsing a series of cumulative structural equations models, we analyzed the effect ofvarious static traits, accomplishments, experience and training measurements. Westarted with two basic models that separately tested the battery of measurements onpersonality and on experience. Other groups of variables were then sequentially addedto these models. Personality measures included divergent and creative thinking, riskaversion, detail orientation, modifier characteristics and dreamer characteristics.Measurements of experience included years of education, years of service with theorganization and number of years of engineering experience. Accomplishmentsincluded awards and recognitions in business and science-related creativity.A particular inquiry was on the effects of training and its interaction with personality.

As such, our most detailed model was constructed using these characteristics. Werefrained from using latent models for two reasons. First, modeling interactions amonglatent constructs are at the early stages of use in structural equation modeling, havelimited application and can complicate the model analysis (Little et al., 2006). Second,our limited sample size prohibited us from conducting a thorough factor analysis.

In assessing these models and their interactions, we followed suggestions by Aikenand West (1991) and centered all variables prior to the analysis. A vital concern was onhow comparable the evaluation of concepts and the level of difficulty in task providedto each participant were. Judging the usefulness and uniqueness of a concept has to betaken in context, which is why it was important to use judges specific to each industry.To ensure validity of findings, we controlled for inter-rater reliability among sites in allmodels. We also controlled for possible differences in the level of design difficulty at

each organization by controlling for site.The model that included training and its interaction with static traits explains

differences in the design creativity of the concepts better than others (i.e. higher R2).Since the models are not nested, direct comparison of their fit cannot be made. We willlimit our comparative discussions to that of the regression coefficients (Table VII).

Despite the lower explanatory power of the simpler models, general insights canstill be gained from them. It is clear that personality or experience alone (ModelsA and B) are not suitable means for assessing ones design creativity. Both models

Items Cronbachs a Mean SD

Product creativity scalesUniqueness (novelty and transformation) 7 0.95

Usefulness (utility and elegance) 6 0.90 Personality traitsCreative 5 0.76 2.14 0.84Risk averse 7 0.78 2.13 0.68Low-detail oriented 3 0.81 2.18 0.92Modifier 1 NA 2.63 1.05Dreamer 1 NA 1.42 0.97

Table VI.Measurement results

Design creativity

647


13/27

G

F

E

D

C

Exper

ience

an

drecords

B

Exper

ience

A

Persona

lity

Acceptable

Persona

lity,

records,

experiencean

d

tra

ining

Persona

lity,

recordsan

d

experience

Persona

lity

an

drecords

Persona

lity

an

d

experience

Square

dmu

ltiple

corre

lation

(R2)for

usefu

lness

0.1

2

0.1

2

0.0

8

0.2

5

0.2

1

0.1

4

0.1

6

Square

dmu

ltiple

corre

lation

(R2)for

un

iqueness

0.1

2

0.1

2

0.1

1

0.2

9

0.2

0

0.1

1

0.2

0

df

6

2

9

20

.00

12

.00

11

.00

12

.00

Minimum

fitfunct

ionx

2

10

.48

3.4

8

3.3

4

20

.34

10

.91

8.9

4

8.8

3

p

0.0

9

0.1

8

0.9

5

0.4

4

0.6

0

0.6

3

0.7

2

Rootmeansquareerroro

f

approx

imation

(RMSEA)

0.1

0

0.1

0

0.0

,0

.05

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

Comparative

fitindex

(CFI)

0.9

6

0.9

9

1.0

0

.0

.95

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

Rootmeansquare

res

idua

l(RMSR)

0.0

49

0.0

45

0.0

22

,0

.05

0.0

20

0.0

28

0.0

28

0.0

26

Table VII.Comparative resultsusing structural equationmodels

IJOPM28,7

648


14/27

show low R2 values for usefulness (R2A 0.08 and R2B 0.12) and uniqueness

(R2A0.11 and R2B0.12). When personality and experience were combined (Model D),

R2 for usefulness and uniqueness improved to 0.16 and 0.20, respectively. The additionof science accomplishments and business accomplishments to experience (Model C) or

personality (Model E) provided none-to-marginal improvements in standard errors inuniqueness (R2C 0.12 and R

2E 0.11) or usefulness (R

2C 0.12 and R

2E 0.14).

Model C carried a particularly interesting set of variables, as it provided informationnot too distant from a typical candidates resume or curriculum vitae. As such, weshare additional information related to the model here, although they cannot becompared to other models and thus the figures are not included in the reported tables.Significant variables in Model C included the effect of company experience (p , 0.05)on usefulness. As related to uniqueness, business accomplishments (p , 0.1),engineering experience (p , 0.1), education (p , 0.05), and company experience(p , 0.05) all showed significance. It seems that when the only available informationrelated to a candidate is their experience, education and creative accomplishments,certain factors seem to be better indicators than others in predicting the level ofcreativity. However, the combined consideration of these factors (Models F and G)provides much higher explanatory power than the earlier models. We will discuss theramifications and managerial implications of these findings in later sections.

Model F includes personality, accomplishments and experience without considerationof any impact from training. Model F shows acceptable fit and a reasonable R2 for bothusefulness and uniqueness (0.21 and 0.20, respectively). However, the introduction oftraining and its interactions with personality (Model G) shows even further enhancementin R2 for both uniqueness and usefulness (R2 0.29 and R2 0.25, respectively). ForModel G, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was at 0.00 (P-testof RMSEAclose fit 0.68), comparative fit index was at 1.00 and root mean square residual at 0.020all of which indicate an excellent model fit. We will detail the effect of significant variables

for Model G in the next section. Here, we denote that, given an excellent fit and the squaredmultiple correlation (R2 ), Model G suggests that the best approach to ensure thedevelopment of unique and useful concepts is to consider a combination of personality,experience, accomplishments as well as the inclusion of suitable training.

DiscussionThe structural equation models suggest that significant and different levels ofcontribution from personality, experience and accomplishments can help predictcreativity of concepts. Models that excluded training came short in considering itsnotable direct and indirect impacts (in the form of interactions with personal traits) oncreative concepts. In this section, we provide a more detailed analysis of the significantvariables contributing to the model that included training and its interaction with

PERSONALITY (Model G). We start with accomplishments and personality, and thengo on to experience, training and the interaction of training with personality.

Accomplishments and personalityTo allow for direct comparison of the effect of variables in Model G, we reportstandardized solutions of the parameter estimates (Kline, 2005). Results show thatscience-related accomplishment is a reasonable predictor of creativity. It is valuable toinclude such factors, particularly in a post-test only design, since they represent

Design creativity

649


15/27

a measure of pre-training ability. The scale used for this item records the extent ofaccomplishment in such areas as original design, ideas for a new invention, andspecifications for a new invention. Whereas science-related accomplishments enhancethe usefulness and uniqueness of the concepts there is a negative association between

business-related accomplishments and usefulness and uniqueness of the concepts.Estimated standardized path coefficients (g ) for the effect of science-relatedaccomplishment on uniqueness and usefulness were 0.27 (p , 0.10) and 0.36(p , 0.05), respectively. That is, a level of scientific accomplishment one standarddeviation above the mean predicts uniqueness that is 0.27 standard deviations abovethe mean and a usefulness that is 0.36 standard deviations above the mean. In contrast,there is a negative association between business accomplishments and usefulness anduniqueness of the concepts (standardized parameter estimates: g 20.31, p , 0.05and g 20.26, p , 0.10, respectively). One explanation of the difference in the effectof engineering experience and company experience may be on the role played by theindividual and thereby their power base. Whereas engineering experience implies abrokering (or transfer) of knowledge from one firm (or industry) to the other,business experience may imply compliance to company rules and constraints, therebylimiting creativity. Similarly distinctive results were recently reported by Oke et al.(2007).

We found minimal support for the direct significance of static traits on creativity.Only detail-oriented individuals showed significantly more unique concepts(g 20.18, p , 0.10) . W he re as t he p os it iv e e ffe ct of s cienc e-re late daccomplishments are intuitive, the negative associations for business-relatedaccomplishments are somewhat surprising. Two explanations may be appropriatehere. First, the business factor may represent a learning style or personality factor thatis not measured by the model and our questionnaire. Second, a notable number ofresponses on the business factor included extreme values, which may be indications of

a self-reporting bias.As discussed previously, extensive knowledge within a domain provides a resource

from which to draw during concept development. However, from an organizationalperspective, experience is not a readily modifiable trait, making it static in personnelhiring and development decisions. While organizations provide training in the shortrun, gaining experience or education falls more on the individual and happens in thelong run. Engineering experience had strong positive effects on uniqueness andusefulness (g 0.37, p , 0.05 and g 0.26, p , 0.10, respectively). As expected,better understanding of the challenges in the problem domain has a positive effect oncreativity. However, participants with little or no experience produced some of themost novel concepts. The models reflected this notion through the negative effect ofcompany experience on both uniqueness and usefulness (g 20.29, p , 0.10 andg 20.36, p , 0.05, respectively). Perhaps, those with longer tenure with theirorganization have lower incentives (or threat) to generate creative concepts.Lastly, education was found to have positive significance with uniqueness (g 0.20,p , 0.05).

Interestingly, past training experience did not seem to enhance the creativity ofconcepts. Given the immediate enhancement noted from the training provided in thisexperiment, these findings reflect the need for continuous and routine creativitytraining. Without some frequency in reiteration of training, it seems that the positive

IJOPM28,7

650


16/27

effects of training on developing creative designs may be diminished. Our study didnot assess the duration of time between and since other previous training. As such it isnot possible to assess the dynamics of how long the effects of creative training aremaintained. What may seem plausible and could be verified as part of future studies

is whether the long-term benefits of training can vary in usefulness or uniqueness ofconcepts.

TrainingTraining had a significant effect on the usefulness of the concepts generated (g 0.61,p , 0.10). Overall, the effect of provocation and movement training was shown to behigher than that of creative attitude. However, as noted before, the effects weredistinctly different based on the participants static traits. Whereas creative style didnot show any significance alone, the interaction of creative style and training wassignificant (g 20.58, p , 0.10 for uniqueness and g 20.54, p , 0.10 forusefulness). Similarly, whereas modifier style did not show any significance alone,its interaction with training was significant on uniqueness (g 0.44, p , 0.10).

High-creative style individuals included those who come up with breakthroughideas, get them completed and accepted, use ideas from many unusual sources, explorealternatives, and emulate the style of those who are particularly good at their work. Itseems that those with low-creative styles benefited more from provocation andmovement training and those with high-creative style benefited more from creativeattitude training (as indicated by the negative directional sign for parameter estimates20.54 and 20.58 and Table VIII). Perhaps, provocation and movement training wasable to compensate for a low level of creativity style while creative attitude trainingwas able to balance the shortcomings of having a high level of creativity. As such itmay be that, when it comes to creativity style, different forms of training are better

Direct effect on

Interaction with(provocation and

movement) training onFactor Uniqueness Usefulness Uniqueness Usefulness

AccomplishmentsBusiness related 20.26 * * 20.31 *

Science-related 0.27 * * 0.36 *

PersonalityDivergent thinking Creative style 20.58 * * 20.54 * *

Risk averse style Detail orientation (reverse scale) 20.18 * *

Modifier style Dreamer style

ExperienceEducational level 0.20 *

Company experience 20.29 * * 20.36 *

Engineering experience 0.37 * 0.26 * *

Training (provocation and movement) 0.61 * *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * * p , 0.10. (Dash) indicates non-significance

Table VIII.Summary of parameter

estimates (Model G)

Design creativity

651


17/27

suited to different personalities. It is also plausible that attending the creative attitudetraining helped these individuals to recognize the need for focus on the usefulness oftheir concepts.

Modifiers try to make modest improvements to existing designs. One could also say

that they prefer to work on derivatives rather than try to establish new productplatforms. Participants who had a low preference for modification and who had thecreative attitude training performed much better than those with this same style whohad the provocation and movement training. Conversely, modifiers who hadprovocation and movement training performed better than their creative attitudecounterparts. Those with preference for modification may be more linear andsequential in their thinking, with a steep associational hierarchy, and would thusbenefit from a guided technique for breaking mental set.

Two reasons may explain why our particular forms of training might not lead tomore unique results. First, from a dynamic perspective, provocations, by design, placethe user at a neutral starting point, from which the uniqueness of the concepts are to bedeveloped. Second, from a static perspective, the amount of time for training and

practice limits the chance that participants will have to learn the procedures of themethod. It is plausible that the personalities noted above (e.g. risk averts) have morechallenge in realigning their point of reference to start a new process. It is alsoplausible that some of these personalities (e.g. dreamers, divergent and creativethinkers) may have needed added time to fully understand and apply the steps in thetraining process.

SummaryWithin the limits of our exploratory framework we found several factors to beindicators of creative outcomes in design of products. Factors related to expertise(experience on the particular problem, previous technical accomplishments) had strongpositive effects. In contrast, business accomplishments were negatively associated

with the design creativity of the concepts. As expected, those with creative styles whoenjoy coming up with breakthrough ideas, and use ideas from many unusual sourcesseemed to develop more creative concepts when in an appropriate training forum.Those with low-creative styles seemed to have benefited from provocation andmovement training, while those with high-creative styles benefited more from creativeattitude training. Table VIII provides a summary of the direct and interaction effectfindings.

The study identifies personality, accomplishments and experience as characteristicsthat may be useful for identifying expected levels of design creativity from individuals.It also shows that some personalities may find some training more helpful inenhancing their creative design output. Our findings add evidence to the importance ofconsidering individual and organizational factors in enhancing creativity (Bharadwajand Menon, 2000; Amabile et al., 1996). Other findings are in alignment with those fromprevious research on the predictive power of past accomplishments in enhancingbenefits of creativity training (Cummings and Oldham, 1997).

ConclusionsOur study focused on design as a subject for investigating creativity, as we weredrawn to the nature of work by designers. Designers have a cross functional role(Vandevelde and Dierdonck, 2003; Souder, 1977) that bridges the world of product

IJOPM28,7

652


18/27

ideas with that of manufacturing realities (Lu and Wood, 2006). Their responsibilitiesdeal with tradeoffs and synergies between scientific and artistic understanding(Nelson, 1994, p. 24); the ideals of research and the pragmatism of manufacturing(Hong et al., 2005). Clearly, product design has fundamental impacts on downstream

activities of the firm (Busby and Williamson, 2000, p. 339; Singhal and Singhal, 2002).However, creativity is not limited to the design department and great advances cancome from the ingenuity of different personnel (Florida, 2004). In a more competitivelandscape, firms which harness creativity of more of their workforce have a clearadvantage over others (Duguay et al., 1997, p. 1193). Most firms carry creativepeople and creative processes, and those who leverage a combination of the two(Ekvall, 1997) are better aligned for success. Furthermore, as firms expect theirmanagers to be agents of change and to proactively adapt to their environment, theirrole takes a form similar to that of designers (Vandevelde and Dierdonck, 2003). Assuch, tools and methods used in design can be of increased use to business managers,enhancing managerial approaches to decision making (Ekvall, 1997; Haapasalo and

Kess, 2002). Our findings suggest that such methods can be beneficial but are clearlysubject to the static traits carried by the individual.

Our empirical results suggest that both perspectives of the RBV have justifiedexplanations. First we find evidence supporting the notion that creativity is a staticcapability which must be acquired by the firm externally. Resources such aspersonality and experience do provide marginal value in determining creativity ofdesigns. However, sheer attention to personality and experience (i.e. resources) ortraining approaches (i.e. competencies) does not create a rare, inimitable competitiveadvantage. We also find support for creativity as a dynamic capability, contingent

upon certain personality traits of the individual, suggesting that training may helpdevelop some peoples creative skills. As such, our findings support the notion thatfirm competence is linked to the acquisition and deployment of its resources (Lewis,2003). Our exploratory findings suggest that organizations can gain a competitiveadvantage through discerningly combining diverse training methods with diversepersonal traits. This type of organizational competency is less frequent and harder toimitate. As such we denote that it is the linkage between firm resources and firmcapabilities that provide the enhanced performance benefits gained from creativitytraining. Hiring talented individuals (i.e. buy) alongside appropriate creativity training(i.e. modify) approach in recruitment and design personnel development is thussuggested.

Our results can be extended to provide insights to make/buy decisions in productdesign. In making such outsourcing decisions, firms should compare their internalstatic and dynamic traits to that of their outside suppliers. Design development should

be kept internal to the firm when design personnel carry favorable accomplishments,experience and personality. More specifically, when a firms design personnel showevidence of higher science-related accomplishments, higher levels of education andhigher levels of engineering experience than that of the suppliers, the firm shouldretain its design development capabilities. In contrast, increased business-relatedaccomplishments, and company experience of the firms design staff suggests more use

of outside sources for creativity. In either case, providing select training to designpersonnel can help enhance the level of creativity in the concepts developed.

Design creativity

653


19/27

Managerial implicationsMost recruiting managers are keenly aware of the need to acquire and retain their mostcreative personnel. A more pertinent question for managers is how to distinguish thesebest-ranked candidates. Our results suggest that the finest candidates in terms of

creativity cannot be identified based on a single set of characteristics. Focusing oncredentials through their past experience in a curriculum vita, their presentation skillsduring an interview, or awards and accolades noted by a reference source may be weakindicators of their creativity. The findings here further clarify suggestions by others onhow such isolated characteristics can undermine recruitment decisions (Sullivan, 2000;Topor et al., 2007; Keller and Holland, 1979). Instead, as suggested by the extantliterature (Soosay, 2005; Stein, 1991) choosing personnel based on a combination ofcriteria for selection provides a better tool for recruitment. Managers should thereforeapply multiple measures for evaluating the candidates personality alongside their pastexperience and accomplishments.

Past studies of creativity training have highlighted the benefits of specific trainingprograms (Puccio et al., 2006; Rollier and Turner, 1994; Runco and Basadur, 1993;McFadzean, 1998). Our results also suggest that creativity training and developmentprograms may not have the same results for each individual. Some innovativeorganizations recognize the importance of the disparate and paradoxical nature ofinnovation and creativity development (Khazanchi et al., 2007). Many such firms adjusttheir expectations of employee creativity accordingly. Ferrari for example, arranges forcreativity training without expectations for marked improvements in creativityperformance (Morse, 2006). Others apply the personality factors into their developmentprograms. Xilinx (an innovative leader in programmable logic controllers) for exampledifferentiates its engineering recruits based on whether they are more technicallygifted or customer facing (Leavy, 2005, p. 35). Xilinx has different developmentplans for each of these groups.

To gain the most from training and development, programs should be subject to theindividuals learning styles. It also may be difficult to assess the impact of trainingprograms on each individual. As such, requests for attendance at creativity trainingshould not be linked to expectations of increased performance. Neither shouldthe number of training seminars attended by an employee be used as a gauge of theircreativity performance. Lastly, training and development plans that cater for thelearning style of the individual would provide the most benefit to an organization. Suchflexibility in expectations and adjustments in career and development can helporganizations gain the most out of their creative talent.

LimitationsAs with practically all exploratory research, this effort has limitations. The main

limitation is in it laboratory setting format. Clearly, creativity is regarded as amulti-level consideration (Woodman et al., 1993; Leenders et al., 2007) making directgeneralizability of our findings difficult. In addition, despite our attempts to studyengineers working on real-life organization-specific problems, our setting hastemporal and situational differences from their regular work environment. Of our twotreatments, one (creative attitude) is not an established indicator of static creativityand the second (provocation and movement) should also be verified through furtherstudies.

IJOPM28,7

654


20/27

Another limitation of this research relates to the incubation and evaluation steps ofthe training exercises. In addition, our lower sample size limited our ability todistinguish the significance of some variables effect. Lastly, experience with bothtraining approaches suggests some improvements in conducting the exercises. Each of

these limitations will be discussed briefly below with some prescribed actions.Whether the results associated with incubation are caused by mental refreshment,

forgetting, noticing, or further processing, the effects are familiar enough to mostpeople to be taken for granted. In this research design, there was little time for theseprocesses. The provocation and movement process is intended to engage an alternativeschema, or representation of the problem. This schema, as we have discussed, in turnaffects what is attended to, how it is perceived, and how it gets processed (combinedand transformed). This seemed to provide a benefit to some types of participants, butexpanding the time and context for noticing, perceiving and processing, may enhancethis benefit. Similar time constraints may have impacted how the participantsperceived, absorbed and applied the topics discussed in the creative attitude training.

Another limitation of this research is that the evaluators may not have gained a fullunderstanding of some of the concepts developed. This may be due to the presentationstyle of the concepts creator. It might also reflect the creators incompleteunderstanding of the concept. A creator may have a concept with high-potentialvalue but not yet know how to realize the ideas potential. The judge may then see theidea as untenable and this impression may inform the judges evaluation of dimensionsother than utility (i.e. it may affect the novelty score). One way to address this isthrough a longitudinal study to see which ideas advance through development intodetail design. Our low sample size prohibited us from leveraging the findings to theirfull extent. In this report, we opted to list significance of relationships that are either atp , 0.05 or p , 0.10. Around half of our report is based on the premise of reportinglarger p-value findings. However, a broader set of participants and therefore enhanced

statistical power of the study can certainly ensure the viability of the reporting.Given these limitations, we subscribe to the notion that the studys findings canonly go as far as an exploratory attempt at identifying the dynamics of creativity fordesigners.

Future studiesFuture work could consider other research designs in assessing creativity to enhanceour exploratory findings. A post-test only, equivalent group design (as used in thisresearch) should be employed to confirm the conclusions from this study, assess theveracity of some alternative hypotheses, and expand the breadth of variables studied.This can be supplemented by a more in-depth study of a smaller number of participants,using protocol analysis (Ericsson and Simon, 1984; Ennis and Gyeszly, 1991). Protocol

analysis will help determine, to a greater precision than is possible with the conceptdevelopment worksheets, how the participants are applying the training and how theirdesign ideas evolve. In tandem, a larger sample size and the inclusion of a broader set oforganizations, or the application of iterative case study triangulation (Lewis, 1998) canbe beneficial. Future studies can leverage this to explore possible distinctionsamong organizations. Owing to a low-sample size, our study was unable to distinguishorganizational factors that can also impact creativity. Judging by the emphasis onorganizational factors in creativity theories, investigation of these aspects is merited.

Design creativity

655


21/27

References

Adams, J.L. (1986), Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas, Addison-Wesley PublishingCompany, Inc., Reading, MA.

Ahmed, P., Loh, A. and Zairi, M. (1999), Cultures for continuous improvement and learning,

Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. S426-34.

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Amabile, T. (1983), The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization,The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 357-76.

Amabile, T. (1988), From individual creativity to organizational innovation, in Grnhaug, K.

and Kaufmann, G. (Eds), Innovation: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective, NorwegianUniversity Press, Oslo, pp. 139-66.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), Assessing the work

environment for creativity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-84.

Amundson, S.D. (1998), Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations

management and other disciplines, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,pp. 341-59.

Audia, P.G. and Goncalo, J.A. (2007), Past success and creativity over time: a study of inventorsin the hard disk drive industry, Management Science, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Azadegan, A. and Dooley, K.J. (2007), Strategic considerations in outsourcing: enhancing theeffects of supplier innovativeness, paper presented at 2007 Academy of Management

Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Babbie, E. (2004), The Practice of Social Research, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Barney, J. (2001), Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management

research? Yes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 41-56.Barron, F.B. and Harrington, D. (1981), Creativity, intelligence and personality, Annual Review

of Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 439-76.

Basadur, M., Graen, G. and Green, S. (1982), Training in creative problem-solving: effects onideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-70.

Bharadwaj, S. and Menon, A. (2000), Making innovations happen in organizations: individualcreativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both?, Journal of Product

Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 424-34.

Birdi, K.S. (2005), No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training, Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training, Vol. 29 Nos 2/3, pp. 102-11.

Boland, R. and Collopy, F. (2004), Managing as Designing, Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA.

Busby, J.S. and Williamson, A. (2000), The appropriate use of performance measurement in

non-production activity: the case of engineering design, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 336-58.

Campbell, W.C. and Stanley, J. (1963), Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs forResearch, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

Cattell, R.B. (1966), The Scientific Analysis of Personality, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

IJOPM28,7

656


22/27

Colbert, B.A. (2004), The complex resource-based view: implications for theory and practice instrategic human resource management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3,pp. 341-58.

Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for

Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Cousins, P.D. (2005), The alignment of appropriate firm and supply strategies for competitive

advantage, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25Nos 5/6, pp. 403-28.

Cummings, A. and Oldham, G.R. (1997), Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for thehigh potential employee, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 22-36.

DNetto, B. and Sohal, A.S. (1999), Changes in the production managers job: past, present andfuture trends, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19No. 2, pp. 157-81.

Davis, G.A. (1989), Testing for creative potential, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 257-74.

de Bono, E. (1969), The Mechanism of Mind, Penguin Books USA Inc., New York, NY.de Bono, E. (1992), Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas,

Harper Business, New York, NY.

Denton, J. (1998), Organizational Learning and Effectiveness, Routledge, London.

DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, London.

Duguay, C.R., Landry, S. and Pasin, F. (1997), From mass production to flexible/agileproduction,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17No.12,pp. 1183-95.

Dunne, D. and Martin, R. (2006), Design thinking and how it will change managementeducation: an interview and discussion, Academy of Management Learning & Education,Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 512-23.

Edwards, J. (1991), The direct teaching of thinking skills, in Evans, G. (Ed.), Learning andTeaching Cognitive Skills, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne,pp. 87-106.

Edwards, J. and Baldauf, R.B.J. (1983), Teaching thinking in secondary science, in Maxwell, W.(Ed.), Thinking: The Expanding Frontier, Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, PA,pp. 129-38.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-21.

Ekvall, G. (1997), Organizational conditions and levels of creativity, Creativity and InnovationManagement, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 195-205.

Ennis, C.W. and Gyeszly, S.W. (1991), Protocol analysis of the engineering systems designprocess, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 15-22.

Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.

Eysenck, H.J. (Ed.) (1994), The Measurement of Creativity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K. and Wargin, J. (1996), Developing creative teams for operationalexcellence, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,pp. 5-18.

Fiske, R. (1990), Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Design creativity

657


23/27

Florida, R. (2004), Americas looming creativity crisis, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10,pp. 122-36.

Ford, C. (2000), Creative developments in creativity theory, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 284-5.

Gibb, S. (2004), Imagination, creativity and HRD: an aesthetic perspective, Human ResourceDevelopment Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 53-74.

Glynn, M.A. (1996), Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligences to innovation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1081-120.

Guastello, S.J. (1995), IMAGINEMACHINE: The Development and Validation of a Multifaceted Measure of Creative Talent, Marquette University Department of Psychology,Milwaukee, WI.

Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1993), Selecting Successful Salespersons With the 16PF,The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL.

Guastello, S.J., Bzdawka, A., Guastello, D.D. and Rieke, M.L. (1992), Cognitive abilities andcreative behaviors: CAB-5 and consequences, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 26,

pp. 260-7.Guastello, S.J., Shissler, J., Driscoll, J. and Hyde, T. (1998), Are some cognitive styles more

creatively productive than others?, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 77-91.

Haapasalo, H. and Kess, P. (2002), In search of organisational creativity: the role of knowledgemanagement, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 110-8.

Hakstian, A.R. and Cattell, R.B. (1978), An examination of interdomain relationships amongsome ability and personality traits, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 38,pp. 275-90.

Hall, R. (1992), The strategic analysis of intangible resources, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 135-44.

Harrington, D. (1990), The ecology of human creativity: a psychological perspective, in Runco,M.A. and Albert, R.S. (Eds), Theories of Creativity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 143-69.

Hernstein, R.J., Loveland, D.H. and Cable, C. (1976), Natural concepts in pigeons, Journal ofExperimental Psychology; Animal Behavior Processes, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 285-302.

Hong, P., Vonderembse, M.A., Doll, W.J. and Nahm, A.Y. (2005), Role change of design engineersin product development, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 63-79.

Jackson, P.W. and Messick, S. (1965), The person, the product, and the response: conceptualproblems in the assessment of creativity, Journal of Personality, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 309-30.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983), Mental Models: Towards A Cognitive Science of Language, Inference,and Consciousness, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kappel, T.A. and Rubenstein, A.H. (1999), Creativity in design: the contribution of informationtechnology, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 132-43.

Kazanjian, R.K., Drazin, R. and Glynn, M.A. (2000), Creativity and technological learning:the roles of organization architecture and crisis in large-scale projects, Journal of

Engineering & Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 273-98.

Keller, R.T. and Holland, W.E. (1979), Toward a selection battery for research and developmentprofessional employees, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM26No. 4, pp. 90-4.

Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), Innovation-supportive culture: the impact oforganizational values on process innovation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25No. 4, pp. 871-84.

IJOPM28,7

658


24/27

Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,New York, NY.

Koestler, A. (1976), Bisociation in creation, in Rothenberg, A. and Hausman, C. (Eds),

The Creativity Question, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 108-13.

Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M.A. and Doll, W.J. (2002), Integrated product development

practices and competitive capabilities: the effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and

platform strategy, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 331-55.

Lam, A. (1996), Engineers, management and work organization: a comparative analysis of

engineers work roles in British and Japanese electronics firms, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 183-212.

Lawson, B. (1997), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Architectural Press,Oxford.

Leavy, B. (2005), Innovation at Xilinx: a senior operating managers view, Strategy &Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 33-8.

Leenders, R., van_Engelen, J.M.L. and Kratzer, J. (2007), Systematic design methods and the

creative performance of new product teams: do they contradict or compliment eachother?, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 166-79.

Lev, B. (2004), Sharpening the intangibles edge, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 6,pp. 109-16.

Levitas, E. and Ndofor, H.A. (2006), What to do with the resource-based view: a few suggestions

for what ails the RBV that supporters and opponents might accept, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-44.

Lewis, M.A. (2003), Analysing organisational competence: implications for the management of

operations, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23Nos 7/8, pp. 731-56.

Lewis, M.W. (1998), Iterative triangulation: a theory development process using existing case

studies, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 455-69.Li, M. (2002), Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers design thinking

and systems thinking, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-410.

Liedtka, J. (2000), In defense of strategy as design, California Management Review, Vol. 42No. 3, pp. 8-30.

Little, T.D., Bovaird, J.A. and Widaman, K.F. (2006), On the merits of orthogonalizing powered

and product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables,

Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 497-519.

Lu, Q. and Wood, L. (2006), The refinement of design for manufacture: inclusion of process

design, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 10,pp. 1123-45.

McFadzean, E. (1998), The creativity continuum: towards a classification of creative problemsolving techniques, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 131-9.

McIntyre, F.S., Hite, R.E. and Rickard, M.K. (2003), Individual characteristics and creativity in

the marketing classroom: exploratory insights, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25No. 2, pp. 143-9.

Martin, R. (2004), The design of business, Rotman Management, Winter, pp. 7-10.

Morse, G. (2006), Conversation: sparking creativity at Ferrari,Harvard Business Review, Vol.84No. 4, p. 23.

Design creativity

659


25/27

Nelson, H. (1994), The necessity of being undisciplined and out-of-control: design action and

systems thinking, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 22-9.

Newbert, S.L. (2007), Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment

and suggestions for future research, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2,

pp. 121-46.

Newell, A. and Simon, H. (1972), Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Oke, A., Idiagbon-Oke, M. and Walumbwa, F. (2007), The relationship between brokers

influence, strength of ties, and NPD project outcomes in innovation driven horizontal

networks, Journal of Operations Management, 23 October.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at

work, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 607-34.

Osborn, A. (1953), Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking, CharlesScribners Sons, New York, NY.

Palie, S., Bessant, J. and Gupta, A. (2007), Towards technological rules for designing innovation

networks: a dynamic capabilities view, International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 1069-92.

Parnes, S.J. (1992), Source Book for Creative Thinking, Creative Education Press, Buffalo, NY.

Penrose, E. (1959), The Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New York, NY.

Perkins, D.N. (1981), The Minds Best Work, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Perkins, D.N. (1992), The topography of invention, in Perkins, D. and Weber, R. (Eds), InventiveMinds, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 238-50.

Perlmutter, A.H. (1991), The Creative Spirit at Work, Ambrose Video Publishing, New York, NY.

Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic

social network perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-106.

Puccio, G.J., Firestien, R.L., Coyle, C. and Masucci, C. (2006), A review of the effectiveness of CPS

training: a focus on workplace issues, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 15No. 1, pp. 19-33.

Rickards, T. (1975), Brainstorming, an examination of idea production rate and level of

speculation in real managerial situations, R&D Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-14.

Rickards, T. (1999), Brainstorming revisited: a question of context, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 1, pp. 91-110.

Rollier, B. and Turner, J.A. (1994), Planning forward by looking backward: retrospective

thinking in strategic decision making, Decision Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 169-89.

Runco, M.A. and Basadur, M. (1993), Assessing ideational evaluative skills and creative styles

and attitudes, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 166-73.

Saretsky, G. (1972), The OEO P.C. experiment and the John Henry effect, Phi Delta Kappan,

Vol. 53, pp. 579-81.Schulze, W. (1994), The two schools of thought in resource-based theory: definitions and

implications for research, Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 127-52.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. and Mumford, M. (2004), The effectiveness of creativity training:

a quantitative review, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 361-88.

Sharifi, S. and Pawar, K.S. (2002), Virtually co-located product design teams: sharing teaming

experiences after the event?, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 656-79.

IJOPM28,7

660


26/27

Simonton, D.K. (1984), Genius, Creativity and Leadership: Historiometric Inquiries, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Simonton, D.K. (1999), Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: is the creativeprocess Darwinian?, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 309-28.

Singhal, J. and Singhal, K. (2002), Supply chains and compatibility among components inproduct design, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 289-302.

Soosay, C.A. (2005), An empirical study of individual competencies in distribution centres toenable continuous innovation, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 299-310.

Souder, W.E. (1977), Effectiveness of nominal and interacting group decisions processes forintegrating R&D and marketing, Management Science, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 595-605.

Stein, M.I. (1991), Creativity is people, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 12No. 6, pp. 4-10.

Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1991), An investment theory of creativity and its development,Human Development, Vol. 34, pp. 1-31.

Sullivan, J. (2000), Experience it aint what it used to be: its time to kill the sacred cow of jobexperience in recruiting, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 511-5.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.

Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents andrelationship to creative performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6,pp. 1137-48.

Topor, D.J., Colarelli, S.M. and Han, K. (2007), Influences of traits and assessment methods onhuman resource practitioners evaluations of job applicants, Journal of Business and

Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 361-76.

Torrance, E.P. (1972), Can we teach children to think creatively?, Journal of Creative Behavior,Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 114-43.

Twigg, D. (1998), Managing product development within a design chain, International Journalof Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 508-22.

Unsworth, K. (2001), Unpacking creativity, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 289-98.

Utterback, J.M. (1996), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press,Cambridge, MA.

van Dijk, C. and van den Ende, J. (2002), Suggestion systems: transferring employee creativityinto practicable ideas, R&D Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 387-95.

Vandevelde, A. and Dierdonck, R.V. (2003), Managing the design-manufacturing interface, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 Nos 11/12,pp. 1326-48.

Wallach, M.A. (1988), Creativity and talent, in Grnhaug, K. and Kaufmann, G. (Eds),Innovation: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective, Norwegian University Press, Oslo, pp. 13-23.

Wang, C.W. and Horng, R. (2002), The effects of creative problem-solving training on creativity,cognitive type and R&D performance, R&D Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 35-45.

Wang, C.W., Wu, J.J. and Horng, R.Y. (1999), Creative thinking ability, cognitive type and R&Dperformance, R&D Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 247-55.

Weisberg, R.W. (1986), Creativity: Genius and Other Myths, W.H. Freeman and Company,New York, NY.

Design creativity

661


27/27

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5No. 2, pp. 171-80.

Whiting, C.S. (1958), Creative Thinking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, NY.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993), Toward a theory of organizational

creativity, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 293-321.

Further reading

Hennessey, B.A. and Amabile, T.M. (1988), The conditions of creativity, in Sternberg, R. (Ed.),The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 11-38.

Corresponding authorArash Azadegan can be contacted at: [email protected]; [email protected]

IJOPM28,7

662

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Azadegan Bush Dooley 2008

Documents

Transcript of Azadegan Bush Dooley 2008