|
Managing_Creativity_and_Innovation_part_2_of_2
| Managing Creativity and Innovation part 2 of 2
Managers must be competent in at least thirteen domains to even
begin effectively managing creativity and innovation. Part 2 of
Managing Creativity and Innovation covers the last six of these
domains.
h) Group Structure. There is much confusion as which group
structure (or combination of structures) maximises creative
output. Workshop leaders randomly seem to make people work
alone, in pairs, or in small or large groups. Each combination
has strong arguments for and against:
i)The individual working alone can be very creative; after all,
many people who are acknowledged to have made great
contributions to society have worked alone. ii)Pairs reduce the
path dependency and enhance the intellectual cross-pollination
that limits the individual. iii)Many successful enterprises grow
rapidly in the early stages, when there are only a small team of
people working together. iv)Large groups benefit from massive
intellectual cross-pollination but introduce politicking, core
and peripheral groups, a dilution of ideas and more negatives.
i) The degree of knowledge input has a significant effect on
output. There are three types of knowledge input:
i)Tacit knowledge. That experience which results from a natural
life-long interest and curiosity in many subjects and
experiences. ii)Depth versus Breadth. Can someone with limited
knowledge of a field make a significant contribution to it? Does
excess knowledge cause blinkered vision? iii)Networks and
Collaboration. Importing competencies from networks and
collaboration overcomes path dependency and parochialism and
allows greater frame breaking.
j) Radical versus Incremental productivity. Radical /
transformational / disruptive creativity is very much
glamorised. But is this what is required most often? Is radical
really radical or the result of incremental improvement? How is
radical defined? If we want a radical idea as opposed to an
incremental change, what are the implications? Incremental and
radical creativity require vastly different structures,
processes, skills and resources.
k) Structure and goals. Many creative people object to structure
and goals - they argue they interfere with thought processes and
originality; there is a very fine line between structure and
conformity. But structure and goals help set the boundaries of a
problem and produce more output that when an individual is
simply allowed to "do their best." How many people have a half
finished novel or screenplay in their office?
l) Process. It seems somehow incongruous that creativity can be
a process. Ask many practitioners what process they engage in
and they may well deny there is one. But if you examine the
activities of many creative people, common patterns of behaviour
emerge. This common process makes insight / eureka / the aha!
experience more likely. The process includes identifying and
intensely investigating the problem, forcing production of ideas
using creative versus critical thinking and other techniques;
seeking stimuli and allowing the unconscious mind to take over
by engaging in rest and unrelated activities.
m) Valuation. How do we value an idea, so as to decide how to
invest resources? Even a painter who creates for pure pleasure
has to decide which one of his ideas is best; there is always a
value system and (some argue) always some sort of promotional
instinct. There are decisions as to whether you are looking for
applied creativity and who the consumer is; how do they benefit?
There is no sure fire way to evaluate perfectly because there is
no sure fire route to commercial success. But we can benchmark
against those types of ideas that have succeeded in the past;
firms must make a decision as to their strategic, competence and
technical fit; there are comparisons against rivals and
practical impediments; how do we make the go or kill decision
and what are the trade-offs?
Kal Bishop, MBA, http://www.managing-creativity.com
About the author:
Kal Bishop is a management consultant based in London, UK. He
has consulted in the visual media and software industries and
for clients such as Toshiba and Transport for London. He has led
improv, creativity and innovation workshops, exhibited artwork
in San Francisco, Los Angeles and London and written a number of
screenplays. He is a passionate traveller.
|
|
| |
| |
