Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 265–270

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Keynote

Stimulating creativity and innovation through Intelligent Fast Failure

Armend S. Tahirsylaj ∗
Department of Education Policy Studies, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Literature on creativity and innovation has discussed the issue of failure in the light of
Received 25 March 2012 its benefits and limitations for enhancing human potential in all domains of life, but in
Accepted 29 May 2012 business, science, engineering, and industry more specifically. In this paper, the Intelligent
Available online 8 June 2012
Fast Failure (IFF) as a useful tool of creativity and innovation for maximizing personal and
institutional productivity, relevance and value is reviewed. In particular, IFF is a useful
Keywords:
teaching and learning tool for public and private educational contexts. IFF, a term coined
Intelligent Fast Failure
Creativity by Jack V. Matson in late 1980s and early 1990s, demystifies the aversion from failure,
Innovation encourages calculated and well-informed risk-taking and initiative, and whenever applied,
Teaching and learning either yields results that could benefit individuals, organizations and society at large or
teaches lessons for future endeavors. IFF and some of its derivatives used by various authors
and institutions are explored along with some examples of its applications, and its potential
and limitations in the 21st century.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Failure Is the Mother of Success. — Chinese Saying

1. Introduction

In recent years, creativity and innovation have been used increasingly as buzzwords in media and literature. Interest took
off with expansion of globalization and shifting into knowledge-based and information-based economies, especially after
explosion of computer technology and the Internet. Commentators argue that the U.S. is going through a creativity crisis,
with students showing poorer results in creativity tests (Bronson & Merryman, 2010; Kim, 2011). To exemplify the argument,
Kim (2011) studied the results from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, initially developed in 1966 and then revised another
five times until 2008, and found that U.S. students’ tests scores based on Paul Torrance’s creativity tests were rising until
1990, and were in decline ever since. The apparent creativity crisis is wake-up call for educators to undertake changes to
transform the current U.S. education system into one that stimulates innovative thoughts and ideas to educate students who
will maintain a competitive advantage.
A large body of literature on creativity broadly conceptualizes it as a process or product that shows a balance of originality
and value (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009; Haring-Smith, 2006; Robinson, 2011; Robinson & Aronica,
2009). Innovation, on the other hand, is defined as a process that produces something new and unique (Matson, 1996).
Additionally, a growing literature put the emphasis on the importance of failure toward success (Harford, 2011; Lim, 2004;
Matson, 1991, 1992, 1996; Petroski, 2006; Sitkin, 1992). In this work the emphasis in not placed on failure per se, but on
failure as a pre-requisite for success. Petroski (2006) claimed that “Failures are remarkable. The failures always teach us
more than the successes about the design of things” (p. 49). Furthermore, Petroski argued that the way one responds to
failure distinguishes leaders from followers, “true designers from mere users of things” (p. 64). Therefore, instead of fearing

∗ Correspondence address: 217 Chambers Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States. Tel.: +1 814 777 8847.
E-mail address: aut159@psu.edu

1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.005
266 A.S. Tahirsylaj / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 265–270

the failure, the way to tackle it needs to be based on a critical view of why the effort did not succeed and what was learnt
that will help in the next effort. Harford (2011) discusses the concept of adaptability in the processes expected to yield
something unique and valuable. Individuals need to embrace the willingness to risk failure otherwise they can never truly
succeed. In his book Dare to Fail, Lim (2004) listed tens and hundreds of individuals who would be considered successes
by any contemporary criteria, ranging from scientists like Albert Einstein to political leaders like Margaret Thatcher, but
who went through many failures and recognized the importance of failure for their successes. Probably frustrated by the
judgment of others on his work to invent light bulb, Thomas Edison is quoted as saying “Don’t call it a mistake, call it an
education” (Lim, 2004, p. 116). Mistake and failure are negatively loaded words, and arguably, Edison felt that negativity
and duly portrayed as education what others viewed as a mistake.
Intelligent Fast Failure (IFF) is a tool, method and theory that may be utilized individually or in schools, communities,
businesses, industry, universities and anywhere else where individuals or groups of people are trying to create something
new and of value or improve something already in use. The IFF concept and acronym was coined by Jack V. Matson initially
in an article titled Intelligent Fast Failure in Management Letter (March 25, 1989) and then further elaborated in three publi-
cations: How To Fail Successfully: A Bold Approach To Meeting Your Goals Through Intelligent Fast Failure published in Houston,
Texas (1991); The Art of Innovation: Using Intelligent Fast Failure by the Leonhard Center for Innovation and Enhancement
of Engineering Education at The Pennsylvania State University-University Park, Pennsylvania (1992); and Innovate or Die: A
Personal Perspective on the Art of Innovation, Paradigm Press (1996).

2. Origin and conceptualization of the Intelligent Fast Failure

The IFF trajectory started when Dr. Matson, an engineering faculty member at the University of Houston, was struck by
lightning, literally, while playing tennis in a hot summer day in 1984. Challenged by existential questions, in the aftermath
of the event, Dr. Matson decided to pursue a more creative life from then on – personally, professionally and academically.
About the same time, the University of Houston had initiated a curriculum reform for moving toward a core curriculum and
Dr. Matson was asked to teach two senior level ‘knowledge integration’ courses. For him, this was a chance to give up his
former teaching style and incorporate creativity directly into engineering design problems (Matson, 1996).
Matson’s first attempts at injecting creativity into engineering courses proved to be slow failures as students did not
respond well to problem-based learning style that required them to come up with creative ideas through classical brain-
storming type techniques. One night he observed his six-year-old son playing creatively with Popsicle sticks. That turned
out to be an ‘aha’ moment as he took Popsicle sticks to the students for the next class and asked them to build the tallest
structure using only the sticks. Students became playful and fully participated in the task, with some starting to build the
structure right away based on the initial idea while others tried out different ideas before starting the “project”. Surpris-
ingly, the ones who initially tried out different ideas quickly ended up building the tallest structures, while those who went
with the first idea invariably built shorter structures. Matson reasoned that the students who tried lots of ideas in a short
period of time were going through a process of fast failure wherein each failed idea constituted knowledge acquisition that
congealed into ultimately better ideas and taller structures compared to those who ran with their first ideas and bypassed
the critical process of learning through failed attempts. This was the beginning of implementation of learning process for
the students based on fast failure as a platform toward breakthrough innovation and creativity. In the process, it was appre-
hended that creative breakthroughs were based on a foundation of knowledge acquisition, and that failures (experiments)
were a necessary component of the learning process (Matson, 1991, 1992, 1996).
In 1988–1989 academic year, Dr. Matson’s ideas for failure-based learning received national recognition as he won the
First National Zell/Lurie Award and Fellowship for teaching creativity and innovation at the University of Michigan’s School
of Business Administration. UM students dubbed Dr. Matson’s course as “Failure 101” since failure become the overarching
theme, process and product of classroom and out-of-classroom activities. Referring to the experience, Dr. Matson emphasized
that “By going through failure exercises they [students] not only released their creative energies, but understood the vital
role of failure in the process of innovation” (Matson, 1992, p. v). The most difficult part was to convince students to undertake
risks that stimulated failures, but in Matson’s class, failures were the keys to success.
Failure-based teaching and learning model at the University of Michigan attracted local and national media attention. He
was quoted in numerous print and broadcast media outlets in the U.S., including Houston Business Journal (1988), Houston
Chronicle (1988), Dividend (1988), Management Letter (1989), Industry Week (1989 and 1991), The Tribune (1989), The Wall
Street Journal (1989), Insider (1989), CBS Television (1989), Time (1990), Bureau of Business Practice (1990), The Chronicle of
Higher Education (1990), US News and World Report (1990), Glamour (1990), Chicago Tribune (1991), etc. The most striking
theme in all media features was Dr. Matson’s unconventional and creative way of organizing teaching and learning activities
in the classroom. For example, students in “Failure 101” would be asked to develop structures with Popsicle sticks that would
never sell; and submit a Failure Résumé so they would personally recognize failure as an inevitable part of growing up.
By the end of fellowship at the University of Michigan, Dr. Matson had conceptualized the “Intelligent Fast Failure”. It
was first mentioned in 1989 and then further elaborated in three subsequent publications (Matson, 1991, 1992, 1996). The
following quote captures the meaning of each concept in the IFF acronym:
“Intelligent” means that when you take a risk you want to learn as much as possible about what happened and why
by gathering feedback. “Intelligent” also means the risk is attempted in such a way that not many resources (time
 A.S. Tahirsylaj / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 265–270 267

and money) are lost if it fails. “Fast” means that risk is accelerated so that you know what happened quickly. “Failure”
means that you should not expect most plans to work out. Most will, in fact, fail; but it is through the process of failure
that you acquire the knowledge of the partial truths which will enable you to develop successful risks (Matson, 1992,
p. 35)
The “partial truth” implies gathering valid information after examining the failure and identifying what went right, or
wrong and why. IFF concept was an intentional risk-taking and trial and error process in which individuals took full control
of their actions by undertaking manageable risks, keeping the cost to minimum and maximizing learning until a way was
found that worked out the best for the intended outcome.

3. Relevance of failure for creativity and innovation

A key element to recognize about creativity is that most people have the creative spark and tacit curiosity – the question
is how to keep it alive and develop it. Moris R. Cohen was quoted as saying that “the real driving force in pure science is just
natural wonder or curiosity. We all have it until we are educated out of it” (Hare, 2003, p. 3). Wonder and curiosity precede
creativity. When knowledge is added to wonder and curiosity, the outcome consists of creative and innovative work. The
creative side in humans “[. . .] can flourish if you spawn a culture to encourage it, one that embraces risks and wild ideas
and tolerates the occasional failure” (Kelley & Littman, 2001, p. 13). This contradicts the schooling practices in the education
systems almost anywhere in the world, where there is no tolerance for failure, few or no risks are promoted, and only success
is celebrated. However, if IFF is adopted as a theory of action at individual and institutional level, a culture for tolerance to
failure is needed for paving the ground for deep learning and creative and innovative pursuits. This is particularly relevant
for the schooling context, both at K-12 and university contexts.

4. Intelligent Fast Failure principles

The IFF contains elements that could be applied in many situations while in the creative pursuit of innovation or simply
a new solution to a problem. Before embarking on this adventure, two agreements need to be made: first, overcome and
understand the fear of failure, and second, decide to learn from failure. To deal with the first, it must be understood that
risk always involves a margin of error which in turn makes it a potential failure. The trouble with fear of failure is that it can
make people totally inactive. “If you do not attempt something, you cannot fail. If you do nothing on regular basis, you will
develop the ability to do nothing very well” (Matson, 1996, p. 52). Second, the decision to learn from failure seems common
sense but people often give up in their first try without examining what went wrong and how they could improve for the
next try. Once again the importance of taking risks is emphasized, as:
[. . .] risking means being in the unknown, trying something new and unique. [. . .] Barriers and boundaries will become
evident as you knock up against them. Eventually you will learn the unknown and what works and what doesn’t. That
is the pathway. [. . .] Failure tests our resolve, motivates us to learn more, and forces us to recognize our weaknesses.
Going through failure is how we learn (Matson, 1991, p. 3).
Matson came up with three concepts to enable IFF when dealing with new tasks and ideas, namely STRAFE, CHAOS and
Fast History. Inspired by World War II fighter pilots who flied low to shoot bullets on the enemy, acronym STRAFE stands
for Success through Rapid Accelerated Failure Engineering and Entrepreneuring (Matson, 1991). As in the fighter pilots case
where they knew that only a few bullets would hit the target, when applying STRAFE, it is clear that only a few ideas will hit
the target – in other words only a few ideas will work out as intended while many others will only generate learning for what
does not work. STRAFE concept also implies that several ideas, or as many as possible, are tried out simultaneously. Such
intense activity and idea implementation will enhance learning and will shorten the period from trial and error to success.
The second concept, CHAOS is applied after an idea is turned into a product and it is being used. CHAOS stands for Creating
Havoc Accelerates Outrageous Success and it means that the product needs to be refined, improved and redesigned so that
competition does not take over. Individuals need to be the strongest competitors to themselves (Matson, 1991). The third
rule is the concept of Fast History, which means that any successful idea, design, product or process is transient, particularly
nowadays when the knowledge is outdated very fast in almost all domains. In order to handle Fast History individuals must
diversify their ideas and concepts by looking at new directions by developing “interests in areas you know nothing about
then connect the acquired knowledge to what you know. You will be surprised by the quantity and quality of new ideas.
You will be helping to make Fast History rather than being trapped by it” (Matson, 1991, p. 6). Related to Fast History is
the concept of serendipity, which means that new ideas will often come unexpectedly while doing something else (Matson,
1996). Therefore, it is crucial to remain alert and be observant as new ideas are often hidden in most unexpected places. To
accelerate idea generation through serendipity, it is required to maintain a high level of curiosity and diversify the hobbies
so that individuals have more opportunities to encounter new ideas wherever they are in whatever they do.
In addition to the three concepts which serve as tools for enhancing creativity and innovation, the IFF also sits on three
principles, including, generating ideas, running experiments, and shifting perspectives (Matson, 1996). The first two princi-
ples are about coming up with as many ideas as possible and then filtering and sorting them out to decide which ones will
be tried out. One critical issue with idea generation is to make it a habit to collect and note them down on regular basis, by
268 A.S. Tahirsylaj / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 265–270

keeping an idea journal for example. Running experiments involves selecting the most promising ideas for testing to see
which ones work, which do not and how the process can be accelerated toward successful innovation. The third principle
of shifting perspectives is the most difficult as it requires changing the mindset and understanding of others about innova-
tion. “An innovation succeeds when others recognize its uniqueness and want it for that reason” (Matson, 1996, p. 33). If
innovation is not accepted or recognized as such by wider public, all input to produce the innovation will go unrewarded.
Ideas and concepts do not develop in vacuum – creativity and innovation do not either. Knowledge accumulation and
learning from academic and non-academic domains is paramount for being able to generate ideas, implement them and
achieve desired results. Authors have noted that it takes 10 years of hard study and practice for an individual to be at
the peak of potential in a certain field or skill (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) or 10,000 h of practice before starting to produce
world-class work or performance (Gladwell, 2008). All learning is potentially beneficial in the process of unfolding one’s
own individuality and creativity.

5. IFF derivatives

5.1. Fast Failure

The U.S. East Coast scholars seem to be more attuned with the concept of Fast Failure. Recently failure as a concept in
business and entrepreneurship is being promoted by scholars at Harvard University (for example, Amy C. Edmondson) and
Columbia University (such as Rita Gunther McGrath). A distinction between Fast Failure and IFF consists of the fact that fast
failure is primarily promoted within organizational units while IFF is promoted as a tool for both individual and organizational
levels. Failure within institutional bodies started to be promoted in early 1990s, when Sitkin (1992) argued that failure was
a prerequisite for organizational learning and progress. Highlighting the relevance of failure over success, Sitkin wrote
that “Where success can foster decreased search and attention, increased complacency, risk aversion, and maladaptive
homogeneity, modest levels of failure can promote willingness to take risks and foster resilience-enhancing experimentation
– benefits that complement liabilities of success” (Sitkin, 1992, p. 237). Sitkin also used the term “intelligent failure”, which
was appropriately attributed to Jack V. Matson. Sitkin, however, exclusively applied the concept to organizational operations,
and identified five key characteristics that contribute to intelligence of failures within organizational units: “[. . .] (1) they
result from thoughtfully planned actions that (2) have uncertain outcomes and (3) are of modest scale, (4) are executed and
responded with alacrity, and (5) take place in domains that are familiar enough to permit effective learning” (Sitkin, 1992,
p. 243).
In April 2011, Harvard Business Review (HBR) dedicated a whole issue to failure. Authors used different terms and phrases
to exemplify failure. In one article, the concept of Intelligent Failure was mentioned (Edmondson, 2011), and in another
concepts like Failing by Design and Intelligent Failure were elaborated (McGrath, 2011) without attributing them to anyone.
The HBR issue almost exclusively contextualized failure within organizations. The following captures the seven principles
put forth by McGrath in HBR issue for what she refers to as “putting intelligent failure to work”: (1) decide what success and
failure would look like before you launch initiative; (2) convert assumptions into knowledge; (3) be quick about it – fail fast;
(4) contain the downside risk – fail cheaply; (5) limit uncertainty; (6) build a culture that celebrates intelligent failure; and
(7) codify and share what you learn (McGrath, 2011, pp. 79–83). McGrath (2011) concluded that in the existing uncertain
world, “[. . .] avoiding failure is not an option. If you accept this premise, the choice before you is simple: continue to use
practices that limit what you can gain from failures – or embrace the concept of intelligent failure, in which learning can
create substantial value” (p. 83). In another article, McGrath used the phrase “Falling Forward” to refer to entrepreneurial
failures, which adds to the variety of concepts promoting failure in business and entrepreneurship (McGrath, 1999, p.
13).

5.2. Fast Forward Failure

Fast Forward Failure seems to be favorable to the U.S. West Coast scholars, primarily used by Stanford University professors
and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and business leaders. The term was labeled by Carol Bartz, Autodesk chief executive officer,
in a video lecture published by Stanford University’s Entrepreneurship Corner in October 24, 2001. Bartz propelled failure
within the organization so that employees would be able to take risks, fail, identify the failures, and move forward with the
lessons learned. Tina Seelig, a Stanford University professor and author, argues that risk-taking and failure are the secret
sauces of Silicon Valley success, stating that “[in Silicon Valley] failure is acknowledged as a natural part of the process of
innovation (Seelig, 2009, p. 75). For example, Seelig notes that entire venture capital industry risks huge amounts of money
by investing in start-ups, which most frequently turn out to be failures.

5.3. IFF applications

Since its initial publication, IFF has been adopted and applied by professionals and experts of diverse domains as a tool
to enhance achievement in their respective areas. For example, Tim Murphey, a language learning specialist working on
professional development for English language teachers in Japan, applied IFF in training sessions while teaching English
teachers to juggle (Murphey, 2005). Applying IFF principles in his work, Murphey found out that making a lot of mistakes
 A.S. Tahirsylaj / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 265–270 269

at the early stage enhanced foreign language learning the same as one does when trying to learn juggling for the first
time. According to him, learning juggling would teach training participants to tolerate failure initially, before they see what
works for them in the later stages. Another example is the work of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Engineering and Safety Centre that applied IFF for conceiving and developing engineering concepts to solve multidisciplinary
concepts. Recognizing the IFF contribution, NASA project team members emphasized the necessity of having an environment
that supports experimentation, failure, and learning as engineers and scientists pursue innovative ideas in engineering
designs (Camarda, Bilen, de Weck & Matson, 2010). In addition to other cases where IFF was used for technology-based
designs and software (Cruz, Pabón, Torres, & Vélez-Arocho, 2002; Smith, Mould, & Daley, 2009), IFF was also promoted
and advocated for in the work of authors, entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists of a variety of areas, from business to
technology to education. Furthermore, it was also referred to as one of the approaches that would improve the extant school
system in the U.S. as part of President Barack Obama’s education plan as well as in other education policy recommendation
textbooks (Guthrie & Schuermann, 2010; Week, 2009). In particular, the Obama education plan ideas published by Education
Week summarized IFF application to performance-pay as an education policy, claiming the following:
Intelligent fast failure is not a goal, but an outcome from risking effort. Each experiment undertaken is carefully
considered, with the goal being to determine the conditions necessary for success. Experiments are crafted to minimize
downside risks and the time and resources needed to learn quickly and from the outcomes. While ordinarily individuals
and organizations would test ideas sequentially, starting with the best, with intelligent fast failure they experiment
with multiple ideas simultaneously. As a result, it is possible to accelerate the learning process, compress failure time,
and progress more rapidly toward resolution (Week, 2009, p. 155).
This is not to suggest that performance-pay policy for teachers’ work is endorsed but this is an example of how IFF is
getting more attention at the highest policy levels in the nation to frame and design new educational policies that aspire to
improve the education system in the U.S.

5.4. IFF potential and limitations

IFF has potential for unlocking human spirit. It can be applied in schools, universities, work, experimental labs, movie
industry, sports, and publishing to name a few. A clear distinction needs to be made between IFF and other failure theories pro-
posed by other authors: IFF promotes trying out several ideas or experiments simultaneously at individual or organizational
levels, while other failure theories promote failing within organizational units and linearly, i.e. one idea/experiment after
another. Also, it is often thought that risk-taking and failure only belong within the realm of business and entrepreneurship;
still IFF is not limited to any specific domain and may be used in any–all it takes is an open mind to learning through failure
and taking actions/risks that will push one’s boundaries of knowledge into the unknown, where creativity and innovation
lie.
However, IFF has its limitations and they should not go unnoticed. Situations evolve when one cannot afford the luxury
or privilege of applying IFF. For example, in doing extreme sports, like rock climbing, there is not much room to try out
different ideas as one little mistake might result with accidents and serious injuries. Also, there is not much variation left
for surgeons in surgery rooms when they operate on patients as the effect could be lethal. As with any other common sense
judgment, after fully embracing IFF as a way of life, individuals will be able to easily identify situations where IFF could
result with serious disadvantages, as well as others where they will be able to rely on it as a learning experience toward
knowledge mapping and innovative work.

6. Conclusion

The origin, concepts and principles of IFF as a tool and theory for creativity and innovation were elaborated as measures
through which individuals and organizations may advance their learning and innovation. Several other failure theories that
derived from Jack Matson’s ideas on failure-based innovation were outlined as well as a few examples of IFF applications,
potential, and limitations. In some instances, Matson’s contribution was acknowledged, while in others attribution was
misplaced. Nonetheless, the multitude of other scholars’ work on failure and how it can enhance individual and organiza-
tional learning and innovation enhances knowledge-base and understanding. As emphasized in CNN’s article, “Successful
people–creative people–fail every day, just like everybody else. Except they don’t view failure as a verdict. They view it as
an opportunity. Indeed, it’s failure that paves the way for creativity” (Leopold, 2012, n.p.). As more studies and publications
emerge, the more people will be aware of the significance of failure in day-to-day activities. IFF has the potential to unlock
dormant creativity for creating new and valuable solutions to the existing challenges and those yet to come. Arguably, this
is the biggest challenge facing humanity, but giving up is not an option.

References

Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek, July, 10.
270 A.S. Tahirsylaj / Thinking Skills and Creativity 7 (2012) 265–270

Camarda, C., Bilen, S., Olivier de Weck, M., & Matson, J. (2010). AC 2010-1733: Innovative conceptualengineering design–a template to teach innovative
problem solving of complexmultidisciplinary design problems. Louisville, KY: Paper presented at 2010 American Society of Engineering Education Annual
Conference.
Cruz, J. A., Pabón, J. A., Torres, M. A., &Vélez-Arocho, J. I., (2002). Technology based entrepreneurship: An effective tool for promoting teamwork, creativity
and innovation in students. Paper presented at 2002 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.
Edmondson, A. (2011). Strategies of learning from failure. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 48.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU Member States: Fostering creative learning and
supporting innovative teaching: Literature review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU Member States (ICEAC). JRC Technical Note, 52374.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.
Guthrie, J. W., & Schuermann, P. (2010). Leading schools to success: Constructing and sustaining high-performing learning cultures. Sage Publications Inc.
Hare, W. (2003). Is it good to be open-minded? International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17(1), 73–88.
Harford, T. (2011). Adapt: Why success always starts with failure. Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Haring-Smith, T. (2006). Creativity research review. Retrieved October, 22, 2007.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm Crown Business.
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4),
285–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805
Leopold, T. (January 21, 2012). The success of failure: Pulitzer Winner’s surprising road to the top. CNN. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/living/jennifer-egan-creativity-failure/index.html?hpt=hp c3
Lim, B. (2004). Dare to fail. Arunkant Jindal.
Matson, J. (1989, March 25). Intelligent fast failure. Management letter. Prentice-Hall, Bureau of Business Practice., pp. 7–8.
Matson, J. V. (1991). How to fail successfully: A bold approach to meeting your goals through intelligent fast failure. Dynamo Pub.
Matson, J. V. (1992). The art of innovation: Using intelligent fast failure. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Matson, J. V. (1996). Innovate or die: A personal perspective on the art of innovation. Paradigm Press.
McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 13–30.
McGrath, R. G. (2011). Failing by design. Harvard Business Review, 89, 77–83.
Murphey, T. (2005). Juggling with language learning theories [Videotape]. National Foreign Language Resource Center at University of Hawaii, 0.
Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design. Princeton University Press.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone.
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. Viking Press.
Seelig, T. (2009). What I wish I knew when I was 20: A crash course on making your place in the world. HarperOne.
Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in organizational behavior, 14, 231.
Smith, J., Mould, D., & Daley, M. (2009). Constructures: Supporting human ingenuity in software. Digital Creativity, 20(1–2), 79–94.
Week, E. (2009). The Obama education plan: An education week guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.