Assignment 1 — Creativity and Innovation

Introduction:

In this assignment I am going to be starting off by discussing the

differences between creativity and innovation, then discussing and
evaluating idea generation and creativity techniques. After, I will be
talking about how I have demonstrated my ability to identify new
opportunities and my ability to solve problems creatively. Then I will
reflect on my own creativity and how I can develop it and finally I
shall end by summarising the key points I have previously discussed.

Differences between Creativity and Innovation:

Innovation can involve coming up with new methods, ideas or

products (Simpson, 2003) but it could be argued that coming up
with a new product is actually an invention. Through my own
research and knowledge my opinion is that an innovation is an
improvement on the way we do something already i.e. the
innovation is the improved idea and then actual (new) product is the
invention. For example James Dyson invented his own version of
the vacuum cleaner, but the fact that it had no bag was an
innovation of Hoover’s version. Furthermore, I would say that this
definition is partially vague when mentioning that an innovation is
simply new methods, ideas or products because I don’t believe that
it’s innovative if it doesn’t add value to something, because the
original idea will surely continue to be used. Therefore I would
define innovation as a new idea, method or product that adds value
to something.

Both originality and effectiveness are needed when defining

creativity (Runco and Jaeger, 2012) and I agree with originality due
to the fact that creativity has to be imaginative and outside the box
e.g. creating/thinking of something from nothing, hence it can’t be
creative if it has been copied or done before, indicating that by
definition originality is essential for creativity. However, I don’t
agree that effectiveness is needed for creativity because it could
easily be argued that creativity (much like art) is subjective, and
effectiveness gives the connotation of successfulness, so it could be
the case that because no-one believes in an idea it isn’t creative when
in fact it could revolutionise the way we live e.g. google glass. Or
when looking at art an expert may say that a piece is merely average
but another expert may call it a masterpiece, resulting in my opinion
that creativity doesn’t need effectiveness. Perhaps instead of
effectiveness it should be imaginativeness or inventiveness because
to be creative and to create something you would have to imagine it
first and then invent it (or even innovate it from something else).
Therefore, I would protest to change the fact that effectiveness is
needed for creativity as something can be creative but not successful.

Idea Generation and Creative Techniques:

Due to there being numerous methods of idea generation and

creativity techniques I will solely focus on the following:
brainstorming in teams, SCAMPER, De Bono’s six thinking hats, De
Bono’s lateral thinking and a random idea generator.

A group is two or more people influencing each other in their

relationship (Paul B. Paulus and Huei-Chuan Yang, 2000).
Brainstorming involves a group generating ideas with four main
rules: no criticism of any ideas, state any and every idea that comes
to mind, aim for a high quantity of ideas and build on each other’s
ideas (Paul B. Paulus and Mary T. Dzindolet, 1993). This allows for
no fear of judgement and a vast range of ideas to discuss, build upon
and choose from. However, there is no evidence to support the fact
that more or better ideas are thought of than in a solo session (Paul
B. Paulus, 2000). Furthermore, the same article explains that
teamwork sessions result in lower productivity thus implying
brainstorming isn’t as useful as first construed. In my own opinion, I
agree that brainstorming is better than an individual generating
ideas because there are people who can discuss, develop and
improve each other’s ideas. However, I do not agree that there
should be no criticism of any idea because I believe some ideas
should be put under scrutiny so as not to waste the group’s time.

SCAMPER (standing for Substituting, Combining, Adapting,

Magnifying, Putting to other uses, Eliminating and Reversing) is a
technique that offers hints, prompts or questions to improve, create
or modify an idea/process/product (Olivier Serrat, 2017). To
substitute means to swap part of a product or process for another.
To combine is to consider putting together different parts of the
product/process. To adapt asks if it is possible to change (adapt) the
product/process. Magnifying would be to focus on modifying one
part. Putting to other uses entails something being re-used
somewhere else (because it works better somewhere else or it’s no
longer needed). Eliminating is used if a part is not useful, necessary
or too costly. Reversing asks if the product/process can be re-
arranged/sequenced differently. SCAMPER is potentially useful as it
can get people thinking in ways they may not have previously
considered and there are over 60 questions that can be asked
(Olivier Serrat, 2017) meaning it’s unlikely to leave any stone
unturned. However, it may also hinder creativity and idea
generation because of the fact that it’s long-winded and may not ask
relevant questions e.g. you may not be able to discard a part that’s
costing too much because it’s essential. Although this is perhaps
preferable to brainstorming because it can be done by a group or an
individual.