The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.

htm

IJOPM 28,7

Design creativity: static or dynamic capability?

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

636
Received 10 August 2007 Revised 12 December 2007 Accepted 6 March 2008

David Bush
Q-Logic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, and

Kevin J. Dooley
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Abstract
Purpose Viewing creativity through the theoretical lens of the resource-based view, the paper attempts to answer a fundamental question: is design creativity a static or dynamic capability? If static, then rms need to acquire personnel who are already creative. If dynamic, then personnels creative talents should be developed through training. Design/methodology/approach In an exploratory controlled experiment of 74 design engineers from ten rms, two forms of training emphasizing design creativity as static or dynamic capability were applied. Creative designs developed by the participants were judged by professionals inside each organization. Results were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Findings The exploratory ndings support the notion that design creativity is a static capability. In tandem, support for design creativity as a dynamic capability, contingent upon personality traits is apparent. Training may help develop some peoples creative skills. Research limitations/implications Small sample size limited the ability to distinguish the signicance 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 identied based on a limited set of characteristics. Selection should be based on a combination of criteria. To gain the most, training programs should be subject to the individuals learning styles. Originality/value Design creativity should be considered as a static characteristic determined upon recruitment (buy), and as a dynamic one developed post hire (make). The exploratory ndings suggest a combined buy and modify approach to design creativity. Keywords Creative thinking, Product design, Resource allocation Paper type Research paper

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

Introduction The value of a typical rm today is composed largely of intangible as opposed to tangible assets (Lev, 2004; Hall, 1992). Amongst these, innovation capability is considered one of the most important, as innovation can lead to both lower cost and higher revenue, and thus increased earnings (Utterback, 1996). The resource from which innovation emerges is creative cognition: in order for a rm to have innovative
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr Roger Millsap for help during the development of these ideas. The study was partially funded by a grant from Honeywell Solid State Electronics Center.

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 signicance 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 enhance their creativity either through hiring or through internal development of their employees. Depending on the static or dynamic nature of creativity, hiring or development may be more appropriate. If creativity is static, rms are better off focusing attention on recruiting whereas if creativity is dynamic, then training becomes 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 signicance placed on designers and on the merits of design thinking (Martin, 2004) to a rms operation. First, as manufacturers look towards further efciency gains, their focus shifts to earlier activities across the value chain, including design tasks (Twigg, 1998). The notably increased importance placed on the role of designers (Li, 2002) and design engineers (Hong et al., 2005) is a manifestation of such a trend. Second, design by its nature is a strategy for facilitating change (Nelson, 1994, p. 23). Effective design requires the inclusion of a wide set of perspectives from multiple disciplines, thus going 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), rms are expected to be more agile and responsive (Shari and Pawar, 2002) to change, requiring their managers to think more broadly in administering complex organizational change (Dunne and Martin, 2006). As the needs for nding deterministic solutions gives way to that of establishing heuristic guidelines (Boland and Collopy, 2004), managers may benet by thinking like designers (Liedtka, 2000). This may require combining the continuum (Gibb, 2004) of technical, managerial (Lam, 1996), conceptual (DNetto and Sohal, 1999) and creative problem solving skills into what is labeled as design thinking (Lawson, 1997). As such, we study design engineers, to explore how organizations could consider design creativity as a resource for gaining technical, managerial and strategic benets in managing change. The question remains however, what type of resource is creativity? We apply theoretical perspectives from the resource-based view (RBV) of the rm (Penrose, 1959) as its stance emphasizes how rms can improve their competitive position through harnessing competencies and capabilities (Cousins, 2005, p. 404). We consider explanations 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. The dynamic capabilities perspective (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997) posits that if design creativity is a dynamic resource then it should be enhanced through integration with learning. The former suggests that rms need to acquire creative design personnel externally, while the latter suggests that creative design personnel can be developed internally. Given the context, our research question is essentially one of a make vs buy decision by the rm. We ask: is a rm better off buying design creativity or making it? Placed in another form, we posit: is design

Design creativity

637

IJOPM 28,7

638

creativity a static characteristic determined a priori upon recruitment, or is it a dynamic one that can be developed internally and post-hire? In order to empirically test whether design creativity is better considered as a static or dynamic capability we employ a controlled experiment. About 74 engineers from ten organizations were recruited and were given a battery of tests to measure innate creative potential (static traits). The engineers then completed two forms of training, one that emphasized design creativity as an attitude (static trait), and one that trained participants in a creative thinking method using de Bonos (1992) provocation and movement method (dynamic trait). Participants were then given a creative design task developed by their organization, and the organizational managers of participants judged the creativity of the ensuing design. Structural equation modeling was used to test the linkage between static and dynamic traits and creative outcomes. Literature review ad theoretical approach Basadur et al. (1982) divide the creativity literature into three streams: those belonging to the individual, those related to their organization and those intended to identify enhancements gained from training and development. The rst stream focuses on identication of characteristics carried by more creative people (Torrance, 1972; Wang et al., 1999; McIntyre et al., 2003; Audia and Goncalo, 2007). These studies link creativity to their innate characteristics, such as personality (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991) and thinking style (Guastello, 1995). The second and third, consider organizational 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 and improvements 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 articulated and codied, 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 studies point to a clear positive association between training and creativity (Edwards and Baldauf, 1983; Edwards, 1991; Hernstein et al., 1976). Yet another group of studies highlights the importance of context in making training effective (Harrington, 1990; Rickards, 1999). Our effort falls between these streams and attempts to determine which the individual or the organizational effects are determinants of creativity. Since our emphasis is on determining the nature of rm capabilities, a theory that provides 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-state perspective (Barney, 1991, 2001; Wernerfelt, 1984) and the dynamic capabilities perspective (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). The focus of the steady state is on a rms ability to gain and sustain competitive advantage. The dynamic capabilities school considers RBV as an evolutionary paradigm, subject to development and enhancements (Levitas and Ndofor, 2006; Colbert, 2004). The focus here moves beyond resources and onto the methods for their accumulation, modication and integration.

Amundson (1998) suggests four criteria for applying a theory in explaining a phenomenon under consideration: The theory should have: (1) consistent and meaningful concepts with the phenomenon; (2) signicant 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 in operations management research have been demonstrated by numerous studies (please see Newbert, 2007 for a thorough assessment). More specically, the RBVs focus on how rms can enhance their internal capabilities towards competitiveness, makes it a suitable theory for explaining-related phenomena in manufacturing and operations management (Amundson, 1998). With regards to the importance of the issues addressed (our topic of creativity as a resource), the RBVs two uniquely complementary yet contrasting perspectives (static and dynamic views) provide explanatory power that is arguably more powerful than other organizational theories. Below we further describe how design creativity ts the criterion of being a resource to a rm. Design creativity ts much of the requirements to be a resource. First, it can be valuable to organizations. Manifested in the form of novelty and relevance in thought (Amabile, 1983; Woodman et al., 1993), design creativity results in innovations, which in turn provide competitive advantages to organizations (Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Azadegan and Dooley, 2007). Second, individual differences in creativity are huge (Simonton, 1999; p. 309). With over 50 per cent of all creative ideas generated by the top 10 per cent of the productivity distribution (Simonton, 1984), creativity is quite rare. Third, design creativity is difcult to imitate, since by denition, the duplication of creativity renders it as an imitation. Copied creations are labeled as replicas an indication of their lack of creativity. Fourth, since creativity resides with individuals (Davis, 1989; Barron and Harrington, 1981), as long as creative employees stay with an organization, 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 (Kazanjian et al., 2000). Gaining sustainable competitive advantage from design creativity requires rms to capture and maintain it by hiring and retaining creative individuals. Such is the perspective provided by the static view of the RBV. These days, the process of acquiring creative talent has become a relatively imitable task for many organizations. Similarly, acquiring material for and conducting training seminars is a conventional corporate practice. Yet some organizations remain more creative than others. The dynamic perspective explains the difference between rms by focusing on the integration of resources rather than the resources themselves (Palie et al., 2007). This perspective highlights the differences in sources (levels of creativity) and methods (types of training and development), and considers how varying combinations among them can allow for better results. The underlying assumption of dynamic capability is that creativity in general, and design creativity in particular, can be manipulated and improved. As such, for the dynamic perspective to be viable, creativity cannot be a static trait.

Design creativity

639

IJOPM 28,7

640

While the arguments for both the static and dynamic perspective are palpable, they differ on one pivotal consideration: whether design creativity is a static or dynamic trait. 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 rms dynamic capabilities is unnecessary. In this case, rms are better off focusing their attention on recruiting, and retaining creative talent. If, on the other hand, design creativity is dynamic, then the choice of training and development and its alignment with creative personalities becomes more important to decision makers. Research design Participants and protocol In order to test whether design creativity is better viewed as a static or dynamic capability, we set out to conduct an exploratory experiment under controlled environments. Experimental methods are favored when there is a need to isolate causal factors amongst many complex contingencies (Babbie, 2004). Research participants were recruited from a pool of practicing engineers at ten different organizations. Between six and 13 engineers participated from each company, for a total of 74 participants. The experiment was conducted separately at each site. The industries represented included electronics, agriculture, telecommunications, defense, and controls. Each participating company provided a problem statement that was relevant to its engineers and to the companys needs; enhancing the practical utility of our outcomes (Amabile, 1983; Ford, 2000). Table I summarizes the participating companies, their design problem areas, and the number of participants and judges from each site. Participating companies were chosen based on their reputation for innovation of new products, and their proximity to the research setting (Minneapolis, Minnesota). All companies were mid-sized or large organizations with at least 1,000 employees. 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 Sensor technology and ventilation control Filament line advancement and control Agricultural equipment delivery capabilities Propulsion systems Circuit wafer fabrication machine Switching function in less space Hole size in circuit board fabrication Participants Judges 10 10 13 8 6 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Commercial Environmental controls Lawn and garden equipment Farm machinery and equipment Lawn and garden equipment Ordinance Industrial machinery Communication equipment Electronic equipment

Industrial

Military OEM Table I. Participating company characteristics

technology (materials embedded with computer chips)? In Unsworths (2001) taxonomy, the study is capturing responsive creativity, where the participants have relatively little freedom in determining what to do, and allowing for the creative response 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 rst method emphasized design creativity as a static trait, while the other emphasized it as a dynamic trait. (4) A copy of the stated company problem, and worksheets to develop conceptual ideas related to the problem were provided to each participant. (5) Data were collected from participants, and nal concepts were sent to company judges for assessment. An alternative approach to grouping participants would have been to incorporate a design problem as pre-test into our design. However, so long as the subjects are assigned to different groups randomly, it can be assumed that the groups are equivalent without actual pre-test measurement (Babbie, 2004, p. 234). Campbell and Stanley (1963, p. 25-6) suggest that the only reason for a pre-test is tradition and that experimenters have grown accustomed to the practice. In addition, several concerns ruled the choice of a pre-test in this experiment. The temporal effect of multiple tests was the primary concern. Increased length of time in conducting the experiment also would have implied more intermissions between events, which increased the possibility of contact between the two groups. Imitation of treatment by the differing group (Cook and Campbell, 1979) and their compensatory rivalry (Saretsky, 1972) were secondary concerns in a more extended testing protocol. Static creative traits Creativity models generally recognize that individual factors (e.g. domain knowledge, personality and intelligence) are applied through a learned thinking process that is mediated by environmental variables, to produce a creative product (Woodman et al., 1993). This view of creativity recognizes it as a static capability, to be purchased externally by the rm. If the static view is correct, we should see high levels of these individual static traits coincident with high levels of creative outcomes. If instead, creativity is a dynamic capability, we would expect no correlation between innate creative 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). Personality characteristics associated with creativity include: autonomy, resistance of conformity, valuing of originality, strong commitments and high aspirations (Perkins, 1981). Other factors include thinking style and the ability to engage in divergent thinking (Wallach, 1988; Guastello et al., 1998), tolerance for ambiguity and perseverance (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991). Such traits can be assessed based on inherent characteristics of the individual, such as their detail orientation, risk aversion, creative thinking and

Design creativity

641

IJOPM 28,7

642

cognitive style. Static traits can also be manifested through creative accomplishments, such as evidences of creativity based on prior business and science-related creative accomplishments (Audia and Goncalo, 2007). We measured a persons creativity using both personality traits and their record of accomplishments. Some theorists believe that experience is positively associated with creativity, since experience enhances the ability to transfer ideas into practice (Weisberg, 1986; Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Domain expertise is considered a positive contributor to creative outcomes (Kappel and Rubenstein, 1999). We dene experience to include education, engineering experience and company tenure. We considered engineering experience as the amount of time that participants were involved in engineering and concept design. We further consider these characteristics as static for one key reason: whereas organizations can provide training in the short run, they cannot change the level of education, engineering experience or company tenure of their employees in a brief period of time. These characteristics are predetermined and xed at the time of candidacy for employment or selection for development training. Table II provides a list of measurement scales and validated extant measurement instruments. Creativity training We randomly split participants in each organization into two groups and employed two training methods, one that emphasized creativity as a dynamic capability (provocation and movement), and one that emphasized it as a static capability (creative attitude). While the nature of the two training methods was different, the procedure in application was kept similar. Both groups received approximately the same amount of training (2.5 hours), and both groups had the opportunity to discuss and apply the concepts and/or method they were taught. The creative thinking heuristic referred to as provocation and movement is founded on the premise that the human mind is a self-organizing information processing system that quickly establishes patterns (de Bono, 1969). The patterns establish schemata,
Indicators of static traits Source ASAS Science (Guastello and Reike, 1993) ASAS Business (Guastello and Reike, 1993) CAB (Hakstian and Cattell, 1978), scales measure semantic uency, ideational uency, word uency, and games of what-if (Guastello et al., 1992) ASAS style (Guastello and Reike, 1993) Guastello (1995) ASAS style (Guastello and Reike, 1993) Guastello (1995) Guastello (1995)

Variable Accomplishments Personality

Creative science accomplishments Creative business accomplishments Divergent thinking

Creative style Risk averse style Low-detail style Modier style Dreamer style Educational level Company experience Engineering experience Prior creativity training

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

Experience

frames of reference (Koestler, 1976), or mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983) Schemata must be challenged to gain discoveries outside of their existing scope, and they must be exposed in order to challenge them (de Bono, 1992). The provocation and movement 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 or question. A provocation is generated and used to prompt divergent thinking, enabling effective search of the conceptual landscape. Each of the provocation methods suggested is considered as an independent procedure allowing for them to be combined as necessary. Based on our experience with the methods, we chose to teach four of the methods (escape, reversal, wishful thinking, and exaggeration). The fth method, distortion, was actually incorporated partially into our description of reversal and partially into exaggeration. Once a provocation step is complete, the user then uses a movement step, a convergent thinking process that involves examining the concept solution in light of practical utility and constraints. Five movement methods (extract a principle, focus on the difference, moment to moment, positive aspects, and circumstances) were taught during these sessions. Table III outlines the main steps in this training. A number of creativity seminars promise attitudinal enhancements. In designing the curriculum for creative attitude training, we sought to work from an established,
Provocation method Escape Reversal Exaggeration Distortion Wishful thinking Random input Step description Specically, spell out what we take for granted Escape from what we take for granted by cancelling, negating, dropping, removing, denying, etc. Go in the opposite direction of what is normally done (doing without is an escape) Expand on a measurement dimension attribute (i.e. number, frequency, volume, temperature, duration, etc.) Change normal arrangements (e.g. relationship between parties and sequences of action) With two parties distortion and exaggeration are the same Pull out of the air a fantasy a wish or impossibility Phrase the provocation as Wouldnt it be nice if . . . Select a random work, picture, etc. and seek to connect it to the focus Take words as given changing them may orient you toward a different idea Take the rst random word (unless the connection to the focus is immediately with not provocation Take a principle, concept, feature, etc. from the provocation and ignore the rest Compare the provocation to what exists and pursue what is valuable in the difference Imagine provocation in action and visualize what would happen as it is used or applied moment to moment Of what is present (rather than what the provocation might lead to) what is of value How, when or where would the provocation have different value?

Design creativity

643

Movement technique Extract a principle Focus on the difference Moment to moment Positive aspects Circumstances

Table III. Provocation and movement training steps

IJOPM 28,7

644

high-quality program that highlighted the static traits of the participants. The premise here was to manipulate participants motivation and thereby enhance their inherent static traits. Hennessy and Amabile (1988) show that motivation can be easily changed and that such a change can have a signicant effect on creative outcomes. We attempted to further enhance the tangible aspect of this training by incorporating a well-produced video to help with the delivery of the motivational concepts. Based on these criteria, we chose a list of items from Adams Conceptual Blockbusting textbook. We focused on what Adams (1986) calls perceptual, emotional, and cultural blocks to creativity. We also selected The Creative Spirit at Work videotape (Perlmutter, 1991), a recognized media production on the topic. Alongside the video-graphic presentation, ve 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 the freedom 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. Participants applied their new mindset to a practice problem which was also used with the provocation and movement group. Table IV outlines the main topics and sequence of coverage chosen for this training.

Instructional topic Perceptual blocks Psychology of creativity

Step description Functional xedness Patterns Fall in love with change Constant openness to change Breaking the rules Freedom of experiment Listening to gut feeling intuition Ways it cannot work versus ways to make it work Change the mindset of shooting down Just do not say no Anxiety is vital Taking the rst step Going through the unknowns Drawing on other successes Cannot grow without changing Getting past the voice of judgement Relaxation Sensing, looking, listening Stopping the mind chatter Seeing the world awareness Seeing things in new ways

Nipping in the bud No punishment for taking a leap

What creativity is all about Table IV. Creative attitude training steps

Generation and assessment of creative concepts After completion of the training, participants worked independently to develop a design concept. A two-column worksheet provided space to reect and to capture the evolution 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 a separate form. Participants were allowed to submit up to two concepts assuming that they perceived both to be outstanding. Six participants chose to submit two concepts. Final submittals were presented as sketches and descriptive notes (generally one page in length). All participants completed their solution concepts in one to three hours. Three judges from the participants company evaluated each concept. Companies were instructed to provide judges who were knowledgeable about the problem area and on any related technology. Judges were management professionals, such as R&D managers, who were expected to evaluate design concepts as part of their routine responsibilities. Assessments were made based on ve 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 ve-point Likert scale. The items were posed as declarative statements where participants noted the extent of their agreement with the statement. Each judge independently scored the concepts by responding to 13 questions. Table V compares some standards and responses described by Jackson and Messick (1965) with the items in our scale. Experiment controls A number of experimental controls were employed to enhance the validity of the ndings. First, participants were randomly assigned to either of the two training modes. Second, participant responses were identied using only numerical coding (as opposed to names or other personal identiers) to limit any evaluation bias. Third, a similar amount of time for discussion and preparation of concepts was used between the two training. Lastly, judges were blind to either the training or the participant. To ensure the lack of systematic bias by instructors towards a specic training, regression analysis between instructor and training was performed. In a model that included the instructor and training as main effects, and their interaction, no signicance of the interaction ( p 0.214) was noted. A power test was also performed to identify how large an effect would be detectable. The power analysis showed that the least signicant (absolute) value (LSV), for the parameter estimate to be signicant 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 half times larger to reach signicance, thus conrming the null hypothesis. Results Measurement results Regarding our measures of creative outcomes, Cronbachs a was used to determine reliability (DeVellis, 1991), and exploratory factor analysis (principal components with a varimax rotation) to determine if the items for each scale loaded onto unique factors. There was insufcient data to combine the measurement and model estimation in the form of conrmatory factor analysis. However, CFA results for the 13 item scales indicated 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

IJOPM 28,7

Property Assessment Overall creative

Creativity construct descriptions ( Jackson and Messick, 1965)

Instrument items

646

Novel

Useful

Elegant

Transforming

(1) I feel that this conceptual design has high-creative value Unusualness/infrequency as compared to (2) In my experience this is a very unique other entries concept Surprise (3) I experienced positive surprise at seeing this concept Cannot be prepared for, except in very (4) This was very different than other general way entries Recognition of inevitability of the (5) This is likely an effective solution to product given the context the problem The product is just right Product is complete or sufcient (6) The concept has good potential to be useful Total meaning is not divulged on rst (7) My appreciation continues to grow as viewing I consider the concept Exhibiting both simplicity and (8) This is an elegant solution to the complexity problem Object worth pondering (9) The concept is simple, yet complex in what it accomplishes Creation of new forms (10) This concept establishes new boundaries in the eld Change perceived possibilities (11) This concept could be a platform for a family of products Viewers must revise their world Power to alter viewers usual way of (12) This concept has expanded my view perceiving or thinking of what is possible This re-assessment of question (1) was to (13) I feel that this conceptual design has high-creative value determine if the respondents opinion has changed after having completed viewing the other questions

Table V. Creative product scale instrument

Re-assessment Overall creative II

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 as 16 personality factor (16PF; Cattell, 1966), Artistic and Scientic 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 justication of scale items. Here, we denote that principal component analysis suggested ve factors, with three primary factors including multiple items (creative, risk averse and low detail orientation) and two secondary factors with a single item (modier and dreamer). Validity and reliability of the scale showed acceptable levels for results. Table VI provides statistical

Items Product creativity scales Uniqueness (novelty and transformation) Usefulness (utility and elegance) Personality traits Creative Risk averse Low-detail oriented Modier Dreamer 7 6 5 7 3 1 1

Cronbachs a 0.95 0.90 0.76 0.78 0.81 NA NA

Mean

SD

Design creativity

2.14 2.13 2.18 2.63 1.42

0.84 0.68 0.92 1.05 0.97

647
Table VI. Measurement results

data and number of items for each construct. Other scales associated with creative personality, creative intelligence, working style, education, motivation, and prior creative accomplishments were deemed reliable and unidimensional. Modeling results Using a series of cumulative structural equations models, we analyzed the effect of various static traits, accomplishments, experience and training measurements. We started with two basic models that separately tested the battery of measurements on personality and on experience. Other groups of variables were then sequentially added to these models. Personality measures included divergent and creative thinking, risk aversion, detail orientation, modier characteristics and dreamer characteristics. Measurements of experience included years of education, years of service with the organization and number of years of engineering experience. Accomplishments included 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. We refrained from using latent models for two reasons. First, modeling interactions among latent constructs are at the early stages of use in structural equation modeling, have limited 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 Aiken and West (1991) and centered all variables prior to the analysis. A vital concern was on how comparable the evaluation of concepts and the level of difculty in task provided to each participant were. Judging the usefulness and uniqueness of a concept has to be taken in context, which is why it was important to use judges specic to each industry. To ensure validity of ndings, we controlled for inter-rater reliability among sites in all models. We also controlled for possible differences in the level of design difculty 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 R 2). Since the models are not nested, direct comparison of their t cannot be made. We will limit our comparative discussions to that of the regression coefcients (Table VII). Despite the lower explanatory power of the simpler models, general insights can still be gained from them. It is clear that personality or experience alone (Models A and B) are not suitable means for assessing ones design creativity. Both models

648

IJOPM 28,7

Squared multiple correlation (R 2) for usefulness Squared multiple correlation (R 2) for uniqueness df Minimum t function x 2 p Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) Comparative t index (CFI) Root mean square residual (RMSR) 0.12 0.12 6 10.48 0.09 0.10 ,0.05 .0.95 ,0.05 0.96 0.049 0.045 0.022 0.99 1.00 0.10 0.0 0.12 2 3.48 0.18 0.11 9 3.34 0.95 0.29 20.00 20.34 0.44 0.00 1.00 0.020 0.12 0.08 0.25

Table VII. Comparative results using structural equation models C Experience B A and records Experience Personality Acceptable G Personality, records, experience and training F Personality, records and experience E Personality and records D Personality and experience 0.21 0.20 12.00 10.91 0.60 0.00 1.00 0.028 0.14 0.11 11.00 8.94 0.63 0.00 1.00 0.028 0.16 0.20 12.00 8.83 0.72 0.00 1.00 0.026

show low R 2 values for usefulness (R2 0.08 and R2 0.12) and uniqueness A B (R2 0.11 and R2 0.12). When personality and experience were combined (Model D), A B 2 R for usefulness and uniqueness improved to 0.16 and 0.20, respectively. The addition of science accomplishments and business accomplishments to experience (Model C) or personality (Model E) provided none-to-marginal improvements in standard errors in uniqueness (R2 0.12 and R2 0.11) or usefulness (R2 0.12 and R2 0.14). C E C E Model C carried a particularly interesting set of variables, as it provided information not too distant from a typical candidates resume or curriculum vitae. As such, we share additional information related to the model here, although they cannot be compared to other models and thus the gures are not included in the reported tables. Signicant 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 signicance. It seems that when the only available information related to a candidate is their experience, education and creative accomplishments, certain factors seem to be better indicators than others in predicting the level of creativity. However, the combined consideration of these factors (Models F and G) provides much higher explanatory power than the earlier models. We will discuss the ramications and managerial implications of these ndings in later sections. Model F includes personality, accomplishments and experience without consideration of any impact from training. Model F shows acceptable t and a reasonable R 2 for both usefulness and uniqueness (0.21 and 0.20, respectively). However, the introduction of training and its interactions with personality (Model G) shows even further enhancement in R 2 for both uniqueness and usefulness (R 2 0.29 and R 2 0.25, respectively). For Model G, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was at 0.00 (P-test of RMSEA close t 0.68), comparative t index was at 1.00 and root mean square residual at 0.020 all of which indicate an excellent model t. We will detail the effect of signicant variables for Model G in the next section. Here, we denote that, given an excellent t and the squared multiple correlation (R 2), Model G suggests that the best approach to ensure the development of unique and useful concepts is to consider a combination of personality, experience, accomplishments as well as the inclusion of suitable training. Discussion The structural equation models suggest that signicant and different levels of contribution from personality, experience and accomplishments can help predict creativity of concepts. Models that excluded training came short in considering its notable direct and indirect impacts (in the form of interactions with personal traits) on creative concepts. In this section, we provide a more detailed analysis of the signicant variables contributing to the model that included training and its interaction with PERSONALITY (Model G). We start with accomplishments and personality, and then go on to experience, training and the interaction of training with personality. Accomplishments and personality To allow for direct comparison of the effect of variables in Model G, we report standardized solutions of the parameter estimates (Kline, 2005). Results show that science-related accomplishment is a reasonable predictor of creativity. It is valuable to include such factors, particularly in a post-test only design, since they represent

Design creativity

649

IJOPM 28,7

650

a measure of pre-training ability. The scale used for this item records the extent of accomplishment in such areas as original design, ideas for a new invention, and specications for a new invention. Whereas science-related accomplishments enhance the 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 coefcients (g) for the effect of science-related accomplishment on uniqueness and usefulness were 0.27 ( p , 0.10) and 0.36 ( p , 0.05), respectively. That is, a level of scientic accomplishment one standard deviation above the mean predicts uniqueness that is 0.27 standard deviations above the 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 and uniqueness of the concepts (standardized parameter estimates: g 2 0.31, p , 0.05 and g 2 0.26, p , 0.10, respectively). One explanation of the difference in the effect of engineering experience and company experience may be on the role played by the individual and thereby their power base. Whereas engineering experience implies a brokering (or transfer) of knowledge from one rm (or industry) to the other, business experience may imply compliance to company rules and constraints, thereby limiting creativity. Similarly distinctive results were recently reported by Oke et al. (2007). We found minimal support for the direct signicance of static traits on creativity. Only detail-oriented individuals showed signicantly more unique concepts ( g 2 0.18, p , 0.10). Whereas the positive effect of science-related accomplishments are intuitive, the negative associations for business-related accomplishments are somewhat surprising. Two explanations may be appropriate here. First, the business factor may represent a learning style or personality factor that is not measured by the model and our questionnaire. Second, a notable number of responses 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 organizational perspective, experience is not a readily modiable trait, making it static in personnel hiring and development decisions. While organizations provide training in the short run, gaining experience or education falls more on the individual and happens in the long run. Engineering experience had strong positive effects on uniqueness and usefulness (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 on creativity. However, participants with little or no experience produced some of the most novel concepts. The models reected this notion through the negative effect of company experience on both uniqueness and usefulness (g 2 0.29, p , 0.10 and g 2 0.36, p , 0.05, respectively). Perhaps, those with longer tenure with their organization have lower incentives (or threat) to generate creative concepts. Lastly, education was found to have positive signicance with uniqueness (g 0.20, p , 0.05). Interestingly, past training experience did not seem to enhance the creativity of concepts. Given the immediate enhancement noted from the training provided in this experiment, these ndings reect the need for continuous and routine creativity training. Without some frequency in reiteration of training, it seems that the positive

effects of training on developing creative designs may be diminished. Our study did not assess the duration of time between and since other previous training. As such it is not possible to assess the dynamics of how long the effects of creative training are maintained. What may seem plausible and could be veried as part of future studies is whether the long-term benets of training can vary in usefulness or uniqueness of concepts. Training Training had a signicant 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 be higher than that of creative attitude. However, as noted before, the effects were distinctly different based on the participants static traits. Whereas creative style did not show any signicance alone, the interaction of creative style and training was signicant (g 2 0.58, p , 0.10 for uniqueness and g 2 0.54, p , 0.10 for usefulness). Similarly, whereas modier style did not show any signicance alone, its interaction with training was signicant on uniqueness (g 0.44, p , 0.10). High-creative style individuals included those who come up with breakthrough ideas, get them completed and accepted, use ideas from many unusual sources, explore alternatives, and emulate the style of those who are particularly good at their work. It seems that those with low-creative styles beneted more from provocation and movement training and those with high-creative style beneted more from creative attitude training (as indicated by the negative directional sign for parameter estimates 2 0.54 and 2 0.58 and Table VIII). Perhaps, provocation and movement training was able to compensate for a low level of creativity style while creative attitude training was able to balance the shortcomings of having a high level of creativity. As such it may be that, when it comes to creativity style, different forms of training are better

Design creativity

651

Factor Accomplishments Business related Science-related Personality Divergent thinking Creative style Risk averse style Detail orientation (reverse scale) Modier style Dreamer style Experience Educational level Company experience Engineering experience Training (provocation and movement)

Direct effect on Uniqueness Usefulness 20.26 * * 0.27 * * 20.18 * * 0.20 * 20.29 * * 0.37 * 2 0.31 * 0.36 * 2 0.36 * 0.26 * * 0.61 * *

Interaction with (provocation and movement) training on Uniqueness Usefulness

2 0.58 * *

20.54 * *

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

Table VIII. Summary of parameter estimates (Model G)

IJOPM 28,7

652

suited to different personalities. It is also plausible that attending the creative attitude training helped these individuals to recognize the need for focus on the usefulness of their concepts. Modiers 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 product platforms. Participants who had a low preference for modication and who had the creative attitude training performed much better than those with this same style who had the provocation and movement training. Conversely, modiers who had provocation and movement training performed better than their creative attitude counterparts. Those with preference for modication may be more linear and sequential in their thinking, with a steep associational hierarchy, and would thus benet from a guided technique for breaking mental set. Two reasons may explain why our particular forms of training might not lead to more unique results. First, from a dynamic perspective, provocations, by design, place the user at a neutral starting point, from which the uniqueness of the concepts are to be developed. 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 the method. It is plausible that the personalities noted above (e.g. risk averts) have more challenge in realigning their point of reference to start a new process. It is also plausible that some of these personalities (e.g. dreamers, divergent and creative thinkers) may have needed added time to fully understand and apply the steps in the training process. Summary Within the limits of our exploratory framework we found several factors to be indicators of creative outcomes in design of products. Factors related to expertise (experience on the particular problem, previous technical accomplishments) had strong positive effects. In contrast, business accomplishments were negatively associated with the design creativity of the concepts. As expected, those with creative styles who enjoy coming up with breakthrough ideas, and use ideas from many unusual sources seemed to develop more creative concepts when in an appropriate training forum. Those with low-creative styles seemed to have beneted from provocation and movement training, while those with high-creative styles beneted more from creative attitude training. Table VIII provides a summary of the direct and interaction effect ndings. The study identies personality, accomplishments and experience as characteristics that may be useful for identifying expected levels of design creativity from individuals. It also shows that some personalities may nd some training more helpful in enhancing their creative design output. Our ndings add evidence to the importance of considering individual and organizational factors in enhancing creativity (Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000; Amabile et al., 1996). Other ndings are in alignment with those from previous research on the predictive power of past accomplishments in enhancing benets of creativity training (Cummings and Oldham, 1997). Conclusions Our study focused on design as a subject for investigating creativity, as we were drawn 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

ideas with that of manufacturing realities (Lu and Wood, 2006). Their responsibilities deal with tradeoffs and synergies between scientic 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 rm (Busby and Williamson, 2000, p. 339; Singhal and Singhal, 2002). However, creativity is not limited to the design department and great advances can come from the ingenuity of different personnel (Florida, 2004). In a more competitive landscape, rms which harness creativity of more of their workforce have a clear advantage over others (Duguay et al., 1997, p. 1193). Most rms carry creative people and creative processes, and those who leverage a combination of the two (Ekvall, 1997) are better aligned for success. Furthermore, as rms expect their managers to be agents of change and to proactively adapt to their environment, their role takes a form similar to that of designers (Vandevelde and Dierdonck, 2003). As such, 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 ndings suggest that such methods can be benecial but are clearly subject to the static traits carried by the individual. Our empirical results suggest that both perspectives of the RBV have justied explanations. First we nd evidence supporting the notion that creativity is a static capability which must be acquired by the rm externally. Resources such as personality and experience do provide marginal value in determining creativity of designs. However, sheer attention to personality and experience (i.e. resources) or training approaches (i.e. competencies) does not create a rare, inimitable competitive advantage. We also nd support for creativity as a dynamic capability, contingent upon certain personality traits of the individual, suggesting that training may help develop some peoples creative skills. As such, our ndings support the notion that rm competence is linked to the acquisition and deployment of its resources (Lewis, 2003). Our exploratory ndings suggest that organizations can gain a competitive advantage through discerningly combining diverse training methods with diverse personal traits. This type of organizational competency is less frequent and harder to imitate. As such we denote that it is the linkage between rm resources and rm capabilities that provide the enhanced performance benets gained from creativity training. Hiring talented individuals (i.e. buy) alongside appropriate creativity training (i.e. modify) approach in recruitment and design personnel development is thus suggested. Our results can be extended to provide insights to make/buy decisions in product design. In making such outsourcing decisions, rms should compare their internal static and dynamic traits to that of their outside suppliers. Design development should be kept internal to the rm when design personnel carry favorable accomplishments, experience and personality. More specically, when a rms design personnel show evidence of higher science-related accomplishments, higher levels of education and higher levels of engineering experience than that of the suppliers, the rm should retain its design development capabilities. In contrast, increased business-related accomplishments, and company experience of the rms design staff suggests more use of outside sources for creativity. In either case, providing select training to design personnel can help enhance the level of creativity in the concepts developed.

Design creativity

653

IJOPM 28,7

654

Managerial implications Most recruiting managers are keenly aware of the need to acquire and retain their most creative personnel. A more pertinent question for managers is how to distinguish these best-ranked candidates. Our results suggest that the nest candidates in terms of creativity cannot be identied based on a single set of characteristics. Focusing on credentials through their past experience in a curriculum vita, their presentation skills during an interview, or awards and accolades noted by a reference source may be weak indicators of their creativity. The ndings here further clarify suggestions by others on how such isolated characteristics can undermine recruitment decisions (Sullivan, 2000; Topor et al., 2007; Keller and Holland, 1979). Instead, as suggested by the extant literature (Soosay, 2005; Stein, 1991) choosing personnel based on a combination of criteria for selection provides a better tool for recruitment. Managers should therefore apply multiple measures for evaluating the candidates personality alongside their past experience and accomplishments. Past studies of creativity training have highlighted the benets of specic training programs (Puccio et al., 2006; Rollier and Turner, 1994; Runco and Basadur, 1993; McFadzean, 1998). Our results also suggest that creativity training and development programs may not have the same results for each individual. Some innovative organizations recognize the importance of the disparate and paradoxical nature of innovation and creativity development (Khazanchi et al., 2007). Many such rms adjust their expectations of employee creativity accordingly. Ferrari for example, arranges for creativity training without expectations for marked improvements in creativity performance (Morse, 2006). Others apply the personality factors into their development programs. Xilinx (an innovative leader in programmable logic controllers) for example differentiates its engineering recruits based on whether they are more technically gifted or customer facing (Leavy, 2005, p. 35). Xilinx has different development plans for each of these groups. To gain the most from training and development, programs should be subject to the individuals learning styles. It also may be difcult to assess the impact of training programs on each individual. As such, requests for attendance at creativity training should not be linked to expectations of increased performance. Neither should the number of training seminars attended by an employee be used as a gauge of their creativity performance. Lastly, training and development plans that cater for the learning style of the individual would provide the most benet to an organization. Such exibility in expectations and adjustments in career and development can help organizations gain the most out of their creative talent. Limitations As with practically all exploratory research, this effort has limitations. The main limitation is in it laboratory setting format. Clearly, creativity is regarded as a multi-level consideration (Woodman et al., 1993; Leenders et al., 2007) making direct generalizability of our ndings difcult. In addition, despite our attempts to study engineers working on real-life organization-specic problems, our setting has temporal and situational differences from their regular work environment. Of our two treatments, one (creative attitude) is not an established indicator of static creativity and the second (provocation and movement) should also be veried through further studies.

Another limitation of this research relates to the incubation and evaluation steps of the training exercises. In addition, our lower sample size limited our ability to distinguish the signicance of some variables effect. Lastly, experience with both training approaches suggests some improvements in conducting the exercises. Each of these limitations will be discussed briey 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 most people to be taken for granted. In this research design, there was little time for these processes. The provocation and movement process is intended to engage an alternative schema, or representation of the problem. This schema, as we have discussed, in turn affects what is attended to, how it is perceived, and how it gets processed (combined and transformed). This seemed to provide a benet to some types of participants, but expanding the time and context for noticing, perceiving and processing, may enhance this benet. Similar time constraints may have impacted how the participants perceived, 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 full understanding of some of the concepts developed. This may be due to the presentation style of the concepts creator. It might also reect the creators incomplete understanding of the concept. A creator may have a concept with high-potential value but not yet know how to realize the ideas potential. The judge may then see the idea as untenable and this impression may inform the judges evaluation of dimensions other than utility (i.e. it may affect the novelty score). One way to address this is through a longitudinal study to see which ideas advance through development into detail design. Our low sample size prohibited us from leveraging the ndings to their full extent. In this report, we opted to list signicance of relationships that are either at p , 0.05 or p , 0.10. Around half of our report is based on the premise of reporting larger p-value ndings. 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 ndings can only go as far as an exploratory attempt at identifying the dynamics of creativity for designers. Future studies Future work could consider other research designs in assessing creativity to enhance our exploratory ndings. A post-test only, equivalent group design (as used in this research) should be employed to conrm the conclusions from this study, assess the veracity 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 concept development worksheets, how the participants are applying the training and how their design ideas evolve. In tandem, a larger sample size and the inclusion of a broader set of organizations, or the application of iterative case study triangulation (Lewis, 1998) can be benecial. Future studies can leverage this to explore possible distinctions among organizations. Owing to a low-sample size, our study was unable to distinguish organizational factors that can also impact creativity. Judging by the emphasis on organizational factors in creativity theories, investigation of these aspects is merited.

Design creativity

655

IJOPM 28,7

656

References Adams, J.L. (1986), Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 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, Norwegian University 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 inventors in 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 the effects 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 of Management, 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 on ideation and problem nding 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: individual creativity 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 of European 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 of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 336-58. Campbell, W.C. and Stanley, J. (1963), Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. Cattell, R.B. (1966), The Scientic Analysis of Personality, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

Colbert, B.A. (2004), The complex resource-based view: implications for theory and practice in strategic 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 Mifin, Boston, MA. Cousins, P.D. (2005), The alignment of appropriate rm and supply strategies for competitive advantage, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 403-28. Cummings, A. and Oldham, G.R. (1997), Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the high 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 and future trends, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 157-81. Davis, G.A. (1989), Testing for creative potential, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 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 exible/agile production, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1183-95. Dunne, D. and Martin, R. (2006), Design thinking and how it will change management education: 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 and Teaching 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?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-21. Ekvall, G. (1997), Organizational conditions and levels of creativity, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 195-205. Ennis, C.W. and Gyeszly, S.W. (1991), Protocol analysis of the engineering systems design process, 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 operational excellence, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-18. Fiske, R. (1990), Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Design creativity

657

IJOPM 28,7

658

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 Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 53-74. Glynn, M.A. (1996), Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences 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 and creative 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 knowledge management, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 110-8. Hakstian, A.R. and Cattell, R.B. (1978), An examination of interdomain relationships among some 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 of Experimental 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 engineers in 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: conceptual problems 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 information technology, 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 development professional employees, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM26 No. 4, pp. 90-4. Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), Innovation-supportive culture: the impact of organizational values on process innovation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 871-84.

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 rms, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 183-212. Lawson, B. (1997), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystied, 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 each other?, 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 of Management 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. 23 Nos 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. 42 No. 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 renement 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 classication of creative problem solving 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. 25 No. 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. 84 No. 4, p. 23.

Design creativity

659

IJOPM 28,7

660

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 rm: 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 inuence, 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, Charles Scribners 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), Inventive Minds, 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. 15 No. 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 of Management 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: denitions 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. Shari, S. and Pawar, K.S. (2002), Virtually co-located product design teams: sharing teaming experiences after the event?, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 656-79.

Simonton, D.K. (1984), Genius, Creativity and Leadership: Historiometric Inquiries, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Simonton, D.K. (1999), Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: is the creative process Darwinian?, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 309-28. Singhal, J. and Singhal, K. (2002), Supply chains and compatibility among components in product 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 to enable 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 for integrating 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. 12 No. 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 job experience 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-efcacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1137-48. Topor, D.J., Colarelli, S.M. and Han, K. (2007), Inuences of traits and assessment methods on human 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 Journal of 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 creativity into 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&D performance, 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

IJOPM 28,7

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource-based view of the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-80. Whiting, C.S. (1958), Creative Thinking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, NY. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Grifn, 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 author Arash Azadegan can be contacted at: arash.azadegan@asu.edu; aazadegan@cox.net

662

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints