Developing Scales for Product Creativity and Organisational Innovation ECCIXII – Panel 4 – Creativity and Innovation Measures Associate Professor David Cropley david.cropley@unisa.edu.au

1. ECCIXII – Panel 4 – Creativity and
Innovation Measures
Developing Scales for Product
Creativity and Organisational
Innovation
Associate Professor David Cropley
david.cropley@unisa.edu.au

2. Introduction
Creativity: the ability to produce outcomes
that are novel, high in quality and
appropriate to the task.
Outcomes = products, services, systems,
processes.
Creative products drive innovation.
How do we measure creativity in products?
How do we measure an organisation’s
innovation?

3. Generic Innovation Process
Idea
?
Generation
Opportunity
Recognition
?
Development
Idea
Evaluation
Commercialization
Invention (creativity)
Exploitation
Based on Luecke & Katz, 2003,
Managing Creativity and Innovation,
Harvard Business School Press

4. Measuring Product Creativity
Indirect measurement, global
judgement/criterion-based measurement.
Can be domain-general or domain-specific.
Rating Scales:
Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS)
Student Product Assessment Form (SPAF)
Expert Judgement:
Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)

5. Indicators of Creativity
What observable characteristics of products
exist?
“Novelty”, “effectiveness”, “elegance” are
constructs, in the same sense as
“intelligence”.
What do we actually measure, and how, that
tell us something about these constructs?
Indicators = observable characteristics.

6. Indicators of Creativity
There are a variety of existing models,
scales and other “measures” of creativity.
Our research draws on a cross-section of
these to find indicators for the four
characteristics: effectiveness, novelty,
elegance and genesis.

7. Criterion of Creativity Kind of Solution Property of the Solution Indicator
CORRECTNESS (the solution accurately reflects conventional
knowledge and/or techniques)
Relevance & Effectiveness Routine Solution displays knowledge of existing PERFORMANCE (the solution does what it is supposed to do)
facts and principles and satisfies the APPROPRIATENESS (the solution fits within task constraints)
requirement in the problem statement
OPERABILITY (the solution is easy to use)
SAFETY (the solution is safe to use)
DURABILITY (the solution is reasonably strong)
DIAGNOSIS (the solution draws attention to shortcomings in other
existing solutions)
Novelty Original Problematization (solution draws PRESCRIPTION (the solution shows how existing solutions could be
improved)
attention to problems in what already PROGNOSIS (the solution helps the beholder to anticipate likely effects
exists) of changes)
REPLICATION (the solution uses existing knowledge to generate
novelty)
Solution adds to existing knowledge COMBINATION (the solution makes use of new mixture(s) of existing
elements)
INCREMENTATION (the solution extends the known in an existing
direction)
REDIRECTION (the solution shows how to extend the known in a new
direction)
Solution develops new knowledge RECONSTRUCTION (the solution shows that an approach previously
abandoned is still useful)
REINITIATION (the solution indicates a radically new approach)
REDEFINITION (the solution helps the beholder see new and different
ways of using the solution)
GENERATION (the solution offers a fundamentally new perspective on
possible solutions)
RECOGNITION (the beholder sees at once that the solution “makes
sense”)
Elegance Elegant Solution strikes observers as beautiful CONVINCINGNESS (the beholder sees the solution as skillfully
(external elegance) executed, well-finished)
PLEASINGNESS (the beholder finds the solution neat, well done)
COMPLETENESS (the solution is well worked out and “rounded”)
Solution is well worked out and hangs GRACEFULNESS (the solution well-proportioned, nicely formed)
together (internal elegance) HARMONIOUSNESS (the elements of the solution fit together in a
consistent way)
SUSTAINABILITY (the solution is environmentally friendly)
FOUNDATIONALITY (the solution suggests a novel basis for further
work)
Genesis Innovative Ideas in the solution go beyond the TRANSFERABILITY (the solution offers ideas for solving apparently
immediate situation unrelated problems)
GERMINALITY (the solution suggests new ways of looking at existing
problems)
SEMINALITY (the solution draws attention to previously unnoticed
problems)
VISION (the solution suggests new norms for judging other solutions-
existing or new)
PATHFINDING (the solution opens up a new conceptualization of the
issues)

8. Recognising Creativity
Regardless of the indicators chosen, and
their theoretical basis, a key point is that
they need to be recognisable to observers.
In other words, if I define “incrementation”
(the solution extends the known in an
existing direction) as an indicator of
novelty, can a person recognise that quality
in a product?

9. Recognising Creativity
There are several ways that we can
determine if these indicators are
recognisable by observers.
Obvious is: give them to people and ask them
to use them.
Over the last 12 months my research has
shown that the CSDS scale is highly reliable
and valid measure of product creativity.

10. Why Measure Product Creativity?
What benefits derive from an ability to
measure the creativity of products?
What advantages does the CSDS have over
other less differentiated measures?

11. Measuring Organisational Innovation
Organisational Innovation occurs across a
series of phases.
What happens in each phase is determined
by at least six cognitive, social and
psychological dimensions.
If we put these together, we have a model of
the innovation process.

12. Innovation Phase Model
Invention Exploitation
Phase Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation
Knowledge, Problem Many A few promising A single optimal A working prototype A successful
problem definition, candidate solutions solution ‘product’
Dimension Poles recognition
refinement solutions
Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent
Convergent
Process
vs Mixed
Thinking Style
Divergent
Divergent Divergent
Reactive Reactive Reactive
Motivation vs Mixed Mixed
Proactive
Proactive Proactive Proactive
Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive
Adaptive
Personal
vs
Properties
Innovative
Innovative Innovative Innovative
Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving
Conserving
Feelings vs
Generative
Generative Generative Generative
Routine Routine Routine Routine
Routine
Product
vs
Phase output
Creative
Creative Creative Creative
High High High High
Press High Demand
Organisational vs
climate Low Demand
Low Low Low

13. Innovation Phase Model
A key feature of this model that
distinguishes it from other models of
innovation is the dynamic pattern of
dimensions that facilitate innovation in any
given phase.
What’s good for innovation in one phase
may actually inhibit innovation in another
phase.

14. Innovation Phase Model
Invention Exploitation
Phase Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation
Knowledge, Problem Many A few promising A single optimal A working prototype A successful
problem definition, candidate solutions solution ‘product’
Dimension Poles recognition
refinement solutions
Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent
Convergent
Process
vs Mixed
Thinking Style
Divergent
Divergent Divergent
Reactive Reactive Reactive
Motivation vs Mixed Mixed
Proactive
Proactive Proactive Proactive
Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive
Adaptive
Personal
vs
Properties
Innovative
Innovative Innovative Innovative
Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving
Conserving
Feelings vs
Generative
Generative Generative Generative
Routine Routine Routine Routine
Routine
Product
vs
Phase output
Creative
Creative Creative Creative
High High High High
Press High Demand
Organisational vs
climate Low Demand
Low Low Low

15. The Innovation Phase Assessment
Instrument (IPAI)
The IPAI is an instrument that is based on
the Innovation Phase Model presented here.
Currently uses 168 questions (7 phases, 6
dimensions, and 4 questions per node) to
assess an organisation’s profile.
Strengths and weaknesses identified and
serve as the basis for fostering and
improving organisational innovation.

16. IPAI
The questions are all preceded by the stem “In
this organisation...”
“... staff avoid novel solutions to problems.”
“... staff produce lots of ideas.”
Each question is compared to the theoretical
“ideal” answer.
This results in a score /168. The higher, the
more aligned is the organisation to the ideal
profile for facilitating innovation in all
phases.

17. IPAI Output Example
lo 19.01 17.68 16.34
hi 19.01 17.68 16.34
Prep Act Gen Illm Veri Comm Val S O T W
Process 2.59 2.88 1.88 2.59 3.12 1.94 2.35 17.35
Motivation 2.29 3.24 2.65 3.35 3.82 3.35 1.41 20.12
Pers Props 2.59 1.82 2.12 2.41 2.41 3.24 2.76 17.35
Feelings 2.06 2.65 2.94 2.00 2.94 2.71 2.06 17.35
Products 2.18 2.65 2.24 2.82 2.82 3.47 1.65 17.82
relative SWOT Press 2.24 2.24 1.41 2.18 2.35 2.94 2.71 16.06
17.68 col avg
lo hi 13.94 15.47 13.24 15.35 17.47 17.65 12.94 15.15 106.06 total
17.06 S row avg
15.15 17.06 O
13.25 15.15 T
13.25 W
Std dev Row
1.90
st dev col
1.34

18. IPAI Analysis
The IPAI allows us to examine an
organisation, or a unit with an organisation,
at one of four levels:
Overall profile – e.g. IPAI score = 110/168
By phase – e.g. Verification strong, but
Generation weak (in relative terms).
By dimension – e.g. Motivation strong, but
Press weak.
By node – e.g. Gen/Press node weak, Ver/Mot
node strong.

19. IPAI Analysis
We can then tailor diagnostic advice and
remedial action on the basis of the
organisation’s IPAI profile, resources and
objectives.
Let’s look again at the example…

20. IPAI Output Example
lo 19.01 17.68 16.34
hi 19.01 17.68 16.34
Prep Act Gen Illm Veri Comm Val S O T W
Process 2.59 2.88 1.88 2.59 3.12 1.94 2.35 17.35
Motivation 2.29 3.24 2.65 3.35 3.82 3.35 1.41 20.12
Pers Props 2.59 1.82 2.12 2.41 2.41 3.24 2.76 17.35
Feelings 2.06 2.65 2.94 2.00 2.94 2.71 2.06 17.35
Products 2.18 2.65 2.24 2.82 2.82 3.47 1.65 17.82
relative SWOT Press 2.24 2.24 1.41 2.18 2.35 2.94 2.71 16.06
17.68 col avg
lo hi 13.94 15.47 13.24 15.35 17.47 17.65 12.94 15.15 106.06 total
17.06 S row avg
15.15 17.06 O
13.25 15.15 T
13.25 W
Std dev Row
1.90
st dev col
1.34

21. IPAI Analysis
Overall profile (106/168):
“X” is moderately well-aligned to an ideal
innovation profile. There is considerable room for
improvement in a number of phases and dimensions,
but…
By phase:
X has distinct relative weaknesses in two phases:
Generation and Validation. The ideal constellations
for these two phases are almost diametrically
opposite, suggesting that X must improve its ability
to recognise which phase is active, at any given
time, and adapt accordingly.

22. IPAI Analysis
By dimension:
X’s greatest weakness is its organisational
environment (Press). This appears to be particularly
weak in the generation phase, which is consistent
with the identified phase weakness. To improve
organisational environment across the board, the
following actions are recommended…
By node:
X presents several individual nodes which stand out
as blocks to effective innovation. The intersection of
Generation/Press stands out as a weak node.
Remedial action to address this weakness could…
22

23. Why Measure Org Innovation?
Improve outcomes.
Tailor/streamline activities to suit strengths.
Remedial action to address weaknesses.
Clarify goals and objectives.