Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:47:08.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Assess a Creativity Session

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

L. Coustillac ,
F. Bazzaro ,
J. Lobbé  and
Y. Meyer
L. Coustillac*
Affiliation:
Faurecia Clean Mobility, France Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, France Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France
F. Bazzaro
Affiliation:
Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, France
J. Lobbé
Affiliation:
Faurecia Clean Mobility, France
Y. Meyer
Affiliation:
Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France Université Savoie Mont Blanc, France
*
[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To renew their innovation and creativity practices, companies are now equipping themselves with new specific places: innovation laboratories. These laboratories support project teams during creativity sessions to generate ideas. In order to improve these practices, it is necessary to be able to assess and compare the different sessions organised. By joining the Clean Mobility Lab of Faurecia, we were able to analyse, observe and participate in creativity sessions. This immersion allowed us to develop an assessment grid of forty-eight indicators covering the entire creativity process.

Keywords

design creativityinnovationevaluationinnovation laboratories
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 851 - 860
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Ackermann, Fran. 1996. “Participants’ Perceptions on the Role of Facilitators Using Group Decision Support Systems”. Group Decision and Negotiation 5 (1): 93. 10.1007/BF02404178.Google Scholar
Aguirre, Manuela, Natalia Agudelo, et Jonathan Romm. 2017. “Design Facilitation as Emerging Practice: Analyzing How Designers Support Multi-Stakeholder Co-Creation”. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 3 (3): 198–209. 10.1016/j.sheji.2017.11.003.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. 1996. “Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity”. In 10.4324/9780429501234.Google Scholar
Amabile, Teresa M. 1988. “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations”. 1988. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7441.Google Scholar
Anderson, Chris. 2017. Makers: La nouvelle révolution industrielle. Pearson.Google Scholar
Balachandra, R., et Friar, J.. 1997. “Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: a contextual framework”. 10.1109/17.618169.Google Scholar
Baregheh, Anahita, Rowley, Jennifer, et Sally Sambrook. 2009. “Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation”. Management Decision 47 (8): 1323–1339. 10.1108/00251740910984578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barré, Jessy, Buisine, S., et A. Aoussat. 2018. “Persona logical thinking: improving requirements elicitation for multidisciplinary teams”. 10.1080/15710882.2017.1301959.Google Scholar
Boly, Vincent. 2008. Ingénierie de l'innovation. Hermes science. https://bibliotheque.insa-lyon.fr/recherche/viewnotice/clef/INGENIERIEDELINNOVATION-ORGANISATIONETMETHOD-BOLYV--HERMESSCIENCE-2008-1/id/492639.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, Nathalie. 2009. “Activités de conception et créativité: de l'analyse des facteurs cognitifs à l'assistance aux activités de conception créatives”. Le travail humain Vol. 72 (1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Bosqué, Camille. 2016. “La fabrication numérique personnelle, pratiques et discours d'un design diffus: enquête au coeur des FabLabs, hackerspaces et makerspaces de 2012 à 2015”. These de doctorat, Rennes 2. http://www.theses.fr/2016REN20009.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Carole. 1999. IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCT DESIGN TRENDS.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2003. “Participant Objectivation”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9 (2): 281–294. 10.1111/1467-9655.00150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Buisine, Stéphanie, Andréa Boisadan, et Simon Richir. 2017. “L'innovation radicale par la méthode de l'utilisateur extraordinaire”. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations 24 (décembre). 10.1016/j.pto.2017.11.001.Google Scholar
Carroll, Erin A., Celine, Latulipe, Richard, Fung, et Michael Terry. 2009. “Creativity factor evaluation: towards a standardized survey metric for creativity support”. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition, 127–36. C&C ’09. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/1640233.1640255.Google Scholar
Coursey, Lauren, Paul Paulus, Belinda Williams, et Jared Kenworthy. 2018. “The Role of Individual Differences in Group and Team Creativity”. In , 311–338. 10.1016/B978-0-12-813238-8.00014-0.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, Leon, et Martyn Evans. 2011. “Designing Creative Frameworks: Design Thinking as an Engine for New Facilitation Approaches”. International Journal of Arts and Technology, décembre. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJART.2012.044337.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCollinsPublishers.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 2014. Trace et archive, image et art. Collège iconique. Bry-sur-Marne: INA.Google Scholar
Duarte, F., Béguin, P., Pueyo, V., et F. P. A. Lima. 2019. “Innovative Labs and Co-design”. 10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_206.Google Scholar
Freitag Granholt, Marius, et Malte Martensen. 2021. “Facilitate Design through Improv: The Qualified Eclectic”. Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (juin): 100785. 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Rosanna, et Roger Calantone. 2002. “A Critical Look at Technological Innovation Typology and Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review”. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19 (2): 110–132. 10.1111/1540-5885.1920110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelb, Michael. 2018. Thinking for a Change: Discovering the Power to Create, Communicate and Lead. Gildan Media LLC aka G&D Media.Google Scholar
Gold, Raymond L. 1958. “Roles in Sociological Field Observations*”. Social Forces 36 (3): 217–223. 10.2307/2573808.Google Scholar
Wallas, Graham. 1926. The Art of Thought. http://archive.org/details/theartofthought.Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, E. J., Cooper, R. G.. 1991. “The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance”. Journal of Product Innovation Management 8 (4): 240–251. 10.1016/0737-6782(91)90046-2.Google Scholar
Laborde, Olivier. 2017. Innover ou disparaître: Le lab pour remettre l'innovation au coeur de l'entreprise. Dunod.Google Scholar
Lacom, Pauline, Florence Bazzaro, et Jean-Claude Sagot. 2017. “Proposal of an innovation framework in an international manufacturing company”. In 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 947–54. Funchal, France: IEEE. 10.1109/ICE.2017.8279984.Google Scholar
Lallement, Michel. 2015. L’âge du faire: hacking, travail, anarchie. Seuil.Google Scholar
Langfred, Claus W. 1998. “Is Group Cohesiveness a Double-Edged Sword?: AnInvestigation of the Effects of Cohesiveness on Performance”. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1046496498291005?casa_token=RDoiAcIghhYAAAAA:E2m8MaaaFdhXujMy6mYGyy1MGXaz3gVrP5fyd0zfiUGWDqTbLMgYpwjnZ-hb8yimdq0JbTEzE5PYd18.Google Scholar
Lobbé, Justine, Florence Bazzaro, et Jean-Claude Sagot. 2018. “DESIGNING A LIFE SITUATION TOOL IN CO-CREATIVITY: PROPOSAL FOR A TOOL ADAPTED TO FABLABS”. In 15th International Design Conference, 2299–2310. Dubrovnik, Croatia. 10.21278/idc.2018.0347.Google Scholar
Lubart, Todd, Mouchiroud, Christophe, Tordjman, Sylvie, et Franck Zenasni. 2015. Psychologie de la créativité - 2e édition. Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Lucero Vera, A.A. 2009. “Co-designing interactive spaces for and with designers: supporting mood-board making”. Phd Thesis 1 (Research TU/e / Graduation TU/e), Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. 10.6100/IR641288.Google Scholar
Magadley, Wissam, et Kamal Birdi. 2009. “Innovation Labs: An Examination into the Use of Physical Spaces to Enhance Organizational Creativity”. Creativity and Innovation Management 18 (décembre): 315–325. 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00540.x.Google Scholar
Marques Santos, Catarina, Uitdewilligen, Sjir, et Ana Margarida Passos. 2015. “Why is Your Team More Creative Than Mine? The Influence of Shared Mental Models on Intra-group Conflict, Team Creativity and Effectiveness”. 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281145639_Why_is_Your_Team_More_Creative_Than_Mine_The_Influence_of_Shared_Mental_Models_on_Intra-group_Conflict_Team_Creativity_and_Effectiveness.Google Scholar
Martin, Bella, et Bruce Hanington. 2013. 100 méthodes de design. Eyrolles.Google Scholar
Merindol, Valerie, Bouquin, Nadège, Versailles, David, Capdevila, Ignasi, Aubouin, Nicolas, ALexandra Lechaffotec, Alexis Chiovetta, et Thomas Voisin. 2016. Le livre blanc des open labs: Quelles pratiques? Quels changements en France. 10.13140/RG.2.2.27107.96806.Google Scholar
Metz, Phil, Burek, Susan, Tawnya, R. Hultgren, , Sam Kogan, , et Lawrence Schwartz. 2016. “The Path to Sustainability-Driven Innovation”. Research-Technology Management 59 (3): 50–61. 10.1080/08956308.2016.1161409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministers, Nordic Council of. 2006. Understanding User-Driven Innovation. Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
Minvielle, Nicolas, Lauquin, Martin, et Olivier Wathelet. 2019. Maquetter: ces entreprises qui innovent avec les mains. Diateino.Google Scholar
Mosely, Genevieve, Natalie Wright, et Cara Wrigley. 2018. “Facilitating Design Thinking:A Comparison of Design Expertise”. Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (mars): 177–189. 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004.Google Scholar
Mostert, Nel M. 2007. “Diversity of the Mind as the Key to Successful Creativity at Unilever”. 2007. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00422.x.Google Scholar
Mullen, Brian, et Carolyn Copper. 1994. “The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration”. Psychological Bulletin 115 (2): 210–227. 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Brent A., Jamal, O. Wilson, David Rosen, et Jeannette Yen. 2009. “Refined Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness”. Design Studies 30 (6): 737–743. 10.1016/j.destud.2009.07.002.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Lene. 2011. Personas in Co-creation and Co-design.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Gina Colarelli. 1998. “Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects”. Journal of Product Innovation Management 15 (2): 151–66. 10.1111/1540-5885.1520151.Google Scholar
OECD. 2005. OSLO Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD. 10.1787/9789264013100-en.Google Scholar
Paulus, Paul B., Dzindolet, Mary, et Nicholas W. Kohn. 2012. “Chapter 14 - Collaborative Creativity—Group Creativity and Team Innovation”. In Handbook of Organizational Creativity, édité par Michael D. Mumford, 327–357. San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00014-8.Google Scholar
Prajogo, Daniel I., et Pervaiz K. Ahmed. 2006. “Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance”. R&D Management 36 (5): 499–515.Google Scholar
Pruitt, John, et Tamara Adlin. 2006. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Runco, Mark A., et Garrett J. Jaeger. 2012. “The Standard Definition of Creativity”. Creativity Research Journal 24 (1): 92–96. 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J A, et L M Ward. 1982. “Environmental Psychology”. Annual Review of Psychology 33 (1): 651–689. 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.003251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Elizabeth, et Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. “Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design”. CoDesign 4 (mars): 5–18. 10.1080/15710880701875068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. Martino Pub.Google Scholar
Shah, Jami J., Steve M. Smith, et Noe Vargas-Hernandez. 2003. “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness”. Design Studies 24 (2): 111–134. 10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J., éd. 1994. Thinking and problem solving. Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sufi, Shoaib, Nenadic, Aleksandra, Silva, Raniere, Duckles, Beth, Simera, Iveta, Jennifer A. de Beyer, Caroline Struthers, et al. 2018. “Ten Simple Rules for Measuring the Impact of Workshops”. PLOS Computational Biology 14 (8): e1006191. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006191.Google ScholarPubMed
Takouachet, Nawel, Jérémy Legardeur, et Iban Lizarralde. 2014. “The role of the facilitator during digital creative sessions”. In Conférence Ergo'IA (Ergonomie & Informatique Avancée), 20–23. Bidart / Biarritz, France. 10.1145/2671470.2671473.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Rene, Michael Diehl, et Gavin Zijlstra. 2000. “Idea Production in Nominal and Virtual Groups: Does Computer-Mediated Communication Improve Group Brainstorming?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 3(2): 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar