I'm responding with a generic message to everyone who wrote in reply to my
call for collaboration on my Creativity Audit project (exact name still to
be determined). Due to the unexpected flood of inquiries, please be
patient and I'll try to answer specific questions in order of receipt.
Background
The notion of and the need for a combined audit/ design tool became
apparent after I had been conducting workshops on thinking skills in
corporate and educational settings for over 10 years.
It became especially troubling after I completed a contract (in which
staff and management participated in corporate workshops on creative
thinking skills in business and spotting and creating opportunities),
with a major player in the telecommunications industry in Canada.
In followup interviews participants, who had little trouble
generating creative concepts and ideas in the workshops, experienced
various levels of frustration back in the workplace.
So teaching critical and creative thinking is necessary but insufficient
for success.
The general consensus was that there were too many system "barriers" to kill
off any new ideas or not enough system "promoters" to foster and nurture
the development of new concepts, insights or ideas. Most just gave up
but there were even instances where ideas that were develop within the
corporation and ignored provided the seed for new business concepts and
new direct competitors.
Traditional organizational structures are creatures of routine and
repetition, and despite the rhetoric, management is still uncomfortable
with adding system variety. In the past, they were always rewarded for
reducing or controlling variety.
This got me thinking.
In any organization, in what parts of the management system is variety
desirable ( ie.when and where is creativity, innovation and serendipity
encouraged and necessary for system viability and continued survival
in the wake of changes in the external environment) and when is it
counterproductive (due to various concerns such as safety, efficiency,
ethical, legislative or other constraints, system tolerance to errors or
variety becomes critical and therefore the range of desired behaviors
must be set/ imposed within narrow limits)
The audit concept is based on a few key assumptions:
1) There is no ideal or perfect model for a learning/ innovative
organization - only common generic program elements, which may need
adjustment over time due to changes in the external environment.
2) Therefore, the model does not and should not impose an artificial
structure or constraints on an organization. Participants themselves
determine which generic program elements (based on grounded principles of
cybernetics, systems theory and learning theory ) are needed at different
levels of an organization that will promote and support innovation.
Standard templates of questions and issues are available as well, but I
prefer the active learning process.
3) This innovation tool can be used in a reactive (audit) fashion
and for pro-active design reasons.
4) The process tends to shy away from the reductionist approach used by
other audits. Instead I selected a more heuristic, systems approach that
gives you the big picture first, followed by explorations of the
appropriate meta-system levels later.
The process has two linked parts.
Participants or the auditors/designers map the current viable system (or
subsystem) that they are focusing on. I like Stafford Beer's Viable
System model (see: Diagnosing the System for Organizations or The Viable
System Model; Interpretations and Applications od Stafford Beer's VSM.
Both are put out by Wiley)
If we then start exploring Creativity (at the individual level) and
Capability and Commitment (from management) we get the following matrix
for the innovation climate in any organization:
-------------------------------------
| | |-desired box
| | |
HIGH | Underchallenged | Innovative |
System | | |
Capability | | |
& Mgmt -------------------------------------
Commitment | | |
| | |
| | |
MODEST | Stagnant | Undercommitted |
| | |
--------------------------------------
MODEST HIGH
Individual Creativity & Innovation
In parallel, I use a 4X4 matrix (individual, group, organizational,
For further readings see work by Deb Chatterji, Mary Crossan, Kevin Weick,
B. Witcher, Tudor Richards, Stafford Beer and others
| individual | group | organizational | environment|
------------------------------------------------------------
individual | (1.1) | (1,2) | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
group | (2.1) | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
___________________________________________________________
organizational | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
environment | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ind Group Org'n Env't
Application:
I've used it for not-for-profits, trade associations, industry lobby
groups, entrepreneurial startups, mature corporations, government
departments, educational institutions, task forces etc.
Example: Introducing thinking skills across the curriculum at a local
community College
Focus: Skills development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: When looking at creative skills development (specific to Humber
College) you can explore each cell and examine the inter/intra-relations and
ask specific questions from a review or design point of view.
Questions are generated from the matrix and the previously developed
viable systems model or from a prior template of generic issues or
questions.
A small sample is provided below. The analysis can take on the level
of complexity that's appropriate to the issue or the scope of the problem.
Individual - Individual, cell (1,1)
-----------------------------------
Are students or staff taught thinking skills before Humber College?
(prior exposure)
Do students or staff have the critical and creative thinking skills
needed to generate new ideas-on demand-and evaluate idea effectiveness ?
As individuals, do we value creativity and judgement equally ?
Are students and staff motivated to develop new ideas ?
Over time, do we witness changes in thinking and behavior in students and
staff ?
etc.
Group - Individual, cell (2,1)
-------------------------------
Is there a mechanism in place to track changes in student or staff thinking
and behavior ?
Does Humber teach basic critical and creative cognitive (thinking) skills
to staff and students ?
Do department promote the value of creativity ?
Does Humber support active learning ? (using your thinking skills in real
world situations?) (experimentation)
Does Humber promote and reinforce the use of thinking skills across
diffrent subject areas and within the organization ? (skills transfer)
etc.
Individual - Organization, cell (1,3)
---------------------------------------
Are the new ideas, concepts or insights that get developed, transfered
into improved products and services at Humber ? (idea transfer)
etc
Group - Group, cell ( 2,2)
---------------------------
Are departments encourages to share ideas between themselves?
etc.
Organization - Environment, cell (3,4)
--------------------------------------
Are mechanisms in place to share teaching experiences (re: skills) between
other colleges ?
Are liason mechanisms in place to access changing stakeholder needs with
respect to thinking skills ? (college-feeder high schools, college-university,
college-professional bodies, college-employers etc)
etc.
============================================================================
You get the picture.
After that, fault trees can be developed to explore each issue. If
something is Less then adequate (LTA), why is that ?
--------------------------------
| |
| Teaching Thinking Skills LTA |
| |
--------------------------------
-teacher training LTA
-curriculum LTA
-strategy LTA
-level of material and examples LTA
-focus LTA
-motivation of instructors LTA
-confidence in own skills LTA
-belief that creativity can be taught LTA
etc
Well, I think I'll stop here since there may be alot of new information
and concepts to digest.
I hope this gives everyone bit of an overview of the process.
Regards
-- Walter Derzko wderzko@epas.utoronto.catel (416) 588-1122
OB