Information, knowledge and agile creativity 9781119663317, 1119663318, 9781119663430, 1119663431

Citation preview

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Smart Innovation Set coordinated by Dimitri Uzunidis

Volume 22

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Stéphane Goria Pierre Humbert Benoit Roussel

First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address: ISTE Ltd 27-37 St George’s Road London SW19 4EU UK

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street Hoboken, NJ 07030 USA

www.iste.co.uk

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2019 The rights of Stéphane Goria, Pierre Humbert, Benoit Roussel to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019943626 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78630-402-5

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Chapter 1. Creativity for Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.1. Definitions of creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The different forms of innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. Incremental innovation and radical innovation . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2. Innovation from the bottom up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3. Disruptive innovation from the top down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4. Innovation by market extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.5. Some other forms of innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. The metaphor of the fighter plane to link creativity and innovation. 1.3.1. The OODA loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2. The space for imagined aerial maneuvers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

2 6 7 8 11 13 17 20 20 23 27

Chapter 2. Recognizing and Questioning the Problem . . . . . . . . .

29

2.1. Understanding and reformulating a problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1. A series of very simple questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2. Questioning problems with multiple interpretations . . . . . 2.1.3. The creation of concepts related to the problem or situation 2.2. The ideal final result and resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. The ideal final result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Start by considering a closed world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3. The balance of available resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. The levels of understanding and frameworks of a problem . . . . 2.3.1. The levels of scale of an understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2. Frameworks characterizing the treatment of a problem . . . 2.3.3. The division of frames and related issues . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

29 30 33 36 37 37 43 45 46 47 48 49

vi

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

2.3.4. The benefit of this division and these questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 53

Chapter 3. Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

3.1. Monitoring and its forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. The main steps in a monitoring process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Monitoring according to their location, users and objectives 3.1.3. Digital, punctual and continuous monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4. The practice of monitoring expressed in the form of metaphors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Information search and search engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Keywords and strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Relevant search engine responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Choosing and searching on search engines . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Keywords and search engine searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Keyword categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. The risks inherent in the use of keywords . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Keywords and expressions in texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Warning systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Web alert tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Content aggregation platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. Human resources for collective monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. The organization of information collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1. The monitoring plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2. Human sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3. Field observations and trade show visits . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4. Information reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.5. The comparative study or benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. The processing, formatting and dissemination of information . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

57 58 59 60

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 64 65 66 69 71 73 75 76 79 79 80 81 82 82 87 88 89 92 95

Chapter 4. Visual Communication and Idea Management . . . . . . .

99

4.1. Communication at the heart of the innovation process . . . . . 4.2. Knowledge mediation and creativity: the intermediary object, the boundary object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. The role of visual artifacts in the management of ideas . . . . . 4.4. The contributions and limitations of visual communication tools for idea management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1. Associative representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2. Territorial representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3. Event and causal representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4. Experiential representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

100

. . . . . . . . . .

105 108

. . . . . .

109 110 116 119 125 127

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Contents

Chapter 5. Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. (Collective) creativity: a sought-after skill? . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. The “classic” structuring of a collective creativity session . 5.2.1. Step 1 of preparing the creativity session . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2. Step 2 of the creativity session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3. Step 3 of analyzing and reporting all the results of the creativity session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. The important elements of a collective creativity session . . 5.3.1. The attitudes and state of mind for the facilitator to adopt, and for the group of participants to adopt . . . . . . . 5.3.2. Move from analytical to exploratory reasoning . . . . . 5.3.3. The three levels of divergence–convergence . . . . . . . 5.4. The choice of creative tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1. The five implementation logics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2. The notion of “father tools” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Processing the results of a collective creativity session . . . 5.6. The different forms of production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1. The embryo of an idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2. The idea sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3. The concept and the percept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7. The selection of ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

131 133 133 134

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135 135

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

136 139 141 147 147 148 150 151 151 152 155 157 161

Chapter 6. Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

129

. . . .

6.1. Some techniques and tools such as icebreakers or challenges 6.1.1. The human knot/human chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. The enigmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. The marshmallow challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.4. Non-musical chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.5. The ball point game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.6. Expressing yourself without speaking and using a game . 6.1.7. The highest card tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.8. The curved shot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Some techniques using associative logic. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1. The magic wand or the machine for exploring the future 6.2.2. Once upon a time – some ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3. Reasons and changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4. The big mysterious object bag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5. Concept serious play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Some techniques using analog logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

164 164 165 166 167 168 170 171 172 174 174 175 176 177 178 180

viii

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

6.3.1. The twisting of ideas or the reversal method . 6.3.2. Biostorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3. Miniature men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4. Lego serious play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Some techniques using combinatorial logic . . . . 6.4.1. The discovery matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2. Extensive morphological analysis . . . . . . . 6.4.3. Cubification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4. The scaffolding of ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5. Some techniques using oneiric logic . . . . . . . . 6.5.1. The ancient method of the waking dream . . . 6.5.2. Projective exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3. The village of originals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6. Some techniques using Aristotelian logic . . . . . 6.6.1. UX maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2. Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3. Creative aikido . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4. Simplified axiomatic design . . . . . . . . . . 6.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180 181 183 184 186 186 187 189 191 195 195 197 197 200 200 201 202 204 206

Chapter 7. System Mapping and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

207

7.1. Mapping of the system’s tangible and intangible assets . 7.1.1. Knowledge management and assets considered . . . 7.1.2. From knowledge assets to ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3. Assets indirectly involved in knowledge creation . . 7.1.4. The glossary of knowledge creation system assets . 7.1.5. Questioning and organizing assets in frameworks. . 7.2. System analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1. The development of a series of indicators . . . . . . 7.2.2. Beyond the calculation of indicators. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

207 207 209 213 216 219 222 222 231

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

239

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

243

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

259

Introduction

In the age of Big Data, connected objects and smart cities, we might think that all the possibilities offered by digital tools, which are constantly emerging, will make all organizations creative and sustainable. This may not be the case. One of the reasons that can be mentioned is simple: if we assume that all actors play the same game with the same rules and that this game is competitive, at the end of the game, there are necessarily winners and losers. Of course, while competition, now global, requires all companies to fight to remain competitive, not all organizations are fighting on equal terms. Some are more substantial, better equipped, more experienced and supported than others in their struggle to maintain and develop their market(s). With the aim of developing the market or placing products on new markets, innovation has its place. It is both a creator and a destroyer of value. Some organizations and individuals will benefit from innovation, and others will be the victims. That said, since it seems difficult for us to calm the perpetual storm of innovation, in the Schumpeterian sense of the word, perhaps the best thing to learn is to sail in an ocean that can be calm at times, but that one day or another can be unleashed against us. Since no company is immune to such a phenomenon, in general, only the strongest and those with the best capacity to adapt can survive. For the latter, we will use the term “agile”. Therefore, we have decided to offer you, through this book, a set of advice and tools, in order to draw on some resources that will make your company a little more agile and creative. Thus, we have written this book in seven parts that can be addressed independently, but which, taken together, present several elements of a

x

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

methodology to improve a company’s creative performance. Seen in this light, Chapter 1 begins by presenting creativity as a system dedicated to innovation. To do this, we begin by discussing different definitions of creativity. We then move on to different forms of innovation that are currently covered in the dedicated literature. From these, we propose a metaphor that will serve as a support for our thinking to explain a guiding idea for our reasoning about the creative and agile enterprise. We thus propose to compare the structure of an organization to that of an air combat squadron which must patrol and occasionally meet allies or face enemies. We do not approach this metaphor stricto sensu, but really as a support to which we can cling to talk about agility and elements to improve or master. Based on this principle, we present and repeat the first two stages of the OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act) of the former fighter pilot J. Boyd to link creativity to the agility that the organization must demonstrate. In this sense, we are talking about the search, in any company, for a certain creative maneuver. It is a question of being able to adapt its innovation processes, aiming to produce a product-type solution, in a sufficiently short period of time and a sufficiently relevant response for it to find its place on a market recently reconstituted by the appearance of a disruptive innovation. It is also a question of presenting the different forms of innovation that are more oriented towards product design or the development of “new” markets (in the sense of the blue ocean strategy, for example, in section 1.2.4) so that it is the agile company (in the sense mentioned above) that produces this famous innovation that creates value and is the Holy Grail sought by most companies and institutions that want to be innovative. Chapter 2 focuses on understanding the environment and related innovation problems, addressing them mainly through clusters of questions that need to be asked in order to solve them and adapt to change. The classic forms of questioning and reformulation of problems are discussed. You will find there the 5W+(2)H-type question and the five Why’s, as well as others allowing you to take a step back from the problem and consider the conditions for its resolution. We will thus discuss the resources made available and the ideal final result, as well as the different levels of understanding of the problem. This will allow us to outline what can be an interpretation framework that will serve as a key element in mapping the flows of ideas, information and knowledge in Chapter 7. Chapter 3 is dedicated to information acquisition and monitoring techniques. It is intended for novices in monitoring, and gives keys to

Introduction

xi

properly observing the environment and thus answering the first O of the OODA loop. We will present the three main categories of web monitoring and environmental scanning: file monitoring, news monitoring and alert monitoring. But, of course, we will also discuss other forms of monitoring such as competitive intelligence, technological monitoring, product monitoring, trend monitoring, legislative monitoring, image monitoring and e-reputation monitoring. We will also discuss the main stages of the monitoring cycle, which are the identification of relevant sources, the collection of information, the processing, formatting and dissemination of the most interesting information. Chapter 4 is devoted to visual communication and idea management. We will start by emphasizing its important role in the innovation process. Then, we will deal in a general way with the mediation of knowledge and the importance of intermediate or border objects. By presenting them in a creative context, we will move on to the role of visual tools in the emergence and management of new ideas. Finally, we mention the main contributions and limitations of visual communication media for the management of ideas. Chapter 5 discusses a number of elements to consider in order to effectively lead teams and stimulate collective creativity. We will start by presenting collective creativity as a competence, justifying its interest within the organization. Then, we will discuss the “classic” way of implementing a collective creativity session. Following this, we will discuss some important elements to ensure that this implementation goes as smoothly as possible. In connection with these clarifications, we will indicate some criteria for choosing creative tools adapted to your situation. We will end this section with some tips on how to deal with the results of your group creativity sessions and the different forms of production you can use to store them. To complement Chapter 5, Chapter 6 gives you a set of techniques to stimulate and support creativity. We will start with icebreaker tools and other warm-up exercises. This will allow you to create a friendlier atmosphere within heterogeneous teams and prepare their members to use their brain power to generate new ideas. Then, we will follow the classification of creativity techniques in Chapter 5 to present several techniques according to the operating logic they use (associative, analogical, combinatorial, oneiric, Aristotelian).

xii

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Finally, we will end this book with Chapter 7, which gives you keys to map and analyze a product innovation system. We will take up again our common thread of method proposal to know if your system is sufficiently agile and identify where its strengths and weaknesses are. In this way, it will be a question of mapping certain tangible and intangible assets of the innovation system and highlighting the flows of ideas, information and knowledge circulating within the system. Similarly, a measurement protocol will be proposed with an incentive to explore whether alternatives to practices and models allowing the proper functioning of the system exist and if some of them are occasionally requested. Thus, we will conclude our reflection by seeing how your system implicitly guides the choices (with reference to the second O of the OODA loop) and will propose to include in your measurements the time taken for a new and relevant idea to emerge and become a good solution, at least in the short term (i.e. a production placed on the market that has met with some success after one year).

1 Creativity for Innovation

In a general context, the terms creativity and innovation are often used as synonyms to refer to a process whose objective or result is the production of a novelty. However, these two terms do not address the same aspects of the development of a novelty, even though intuitively, when we consider them as steps in a process leading to the realization of a novelty, we place creativity before innovation. If we choose to consider them as two currents that can be developed in parallel with this same process, we very quickly believe that there must be many exchanges between them and therefore that they must be considered as complementary. In this book, we will discuss creativity as a system and not only as a process, linking it directly to an expected objective of innovation. We therefore make the a priori choice of a creativity that precedes innovation. We will see that this consideration based on the idea of a system makes it possible to consider more complex and especially cyclical relationships between the stages of creativity and innovation. However, before coming to these considerations, it seems necessary for us, in order to properly address these distinctions and complementarities between the concepts expressed by these two terms, to review their definitions, since certain nuances are made depending on the fields and authors. We will also rely on the different forms or variations in the way innovation is approached and to better make the link with certain techniques and methods to support creativity.

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

2

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

1.1. Definitions of creativity A large number of researchers from very different fields of research (arts, history, philosophy, psychology, management sciences, sociology, etc.) have taken an interest in creativity and have tried to define it. Although a comprehensive overview of the proposed definitions seems impossible for us to achieve, it is easier to regroup them by “family”. In this way, it is possible to approach and present definitions of creativity from a global virtual set that brings them all together, and then to consider its different partitions (subsets) and intersections. It is a question of qualifying them according to the definitional elements that distinguish them and connect them. Thus, an initial partition of the set of definitions of creativity that can be read can be divided according to whether the authors consider creativity from an individual or collective point of view [SIM 08], i.e. from the perspective of the team/group [OLD 96] or the organization [CAR 11]. Depending on the approaches, these two points of view may or may not be compatible. Beyond this first distinction, three different perspectives on creativity emerge. It can be considered as a capacity, process (i.e. a particular form of capacity), set of methods or result of the implementation of at least one of the above qualifiers. If we are interested in mental processes, the framework will be described as individual [GUI 67, HER 13, MAC 78, MED 62], and if we are in a collective framework, we will often talk about organizational processes [AMA 88, CAR 11, LER 15, WOO 93]. In any case, fundamentally, if we look at creativity in practice, there will be no significant consequences between the act of considering it above all as an attitude or posture [BEH 12, MAG 06, SMI 90, WIN 75], a capacity [AMA 88, DEG 99, JON 72, MED 62] or a process [CAR 11, HER 13, MAG 06, OSB 88], as a set of predispositions perceived as such [ANZ 81, KU 14, MCI 12, ROB 06], which must be cultivated and developed, or as a set of methods and techniques to be mastered to promote its implementation [BON 87, HER 13, KLI 13, SWI 04], or as the result of such implementation [AMA 88, KOE 89, MAG 06, WOO 93]. Then, we can see some distinctions depending on how we approach creativity. It is possible to associate it directly or not with: a process or phase known as “ideation”, i.e. the generation of ideas [AMA 88, JON 72, LER 15, MAC 65], a new production [MAC 65, MED 62, OSB 88, WOO 93], a more or less significant sum of combinations and associations of existing abstract or concrete elements

Creativity for Innovation

3

[KOE 89, MAG 06, MED 62, OSB 88], an original work or production [AMA 88, DEG 99, JON 72, OSB 88], very often qualified as such or with regard to a utility in relation to a problem or situation, i.e. in relation to the real world [AMA 88, LUB 94, MAC 65, WOO 93], and if it is a question of organizational creativity, if possible leading to innovation [BUR 13, LEL 10, LOU 13, OSB 88]. The proposed scheme of the chignole (drill bit) (Figure 1.1) brings together this sum of definitions that can be considered separately, all at the same time or in any other grouping corresponding to your preferences or application frameworks. We wanted to end it with a link to innovation, because this is part of our primary consideration in our view of creativity in this book. Similarly, we place ourselves within an organizational framework for the practice of creativity, without neglecting individual creativity or the means to implement it. This is not very original. At the enterprise level, creativity, if encouraged, must lead to the cooperation of people from complex and sometimes quite distinct environments [SUI 08] in order to contribute to the production of an innovation [BAR 88, IAN 04, MOO 96]. This requires a collective organization that requires a lot of effort and above all a strategy for developing exchanges between individuals. Creativity can then result from a set of interrelationships developed between different people, within teams [AMA 88, OLD 96, ROB 00], as well as in terms of networks of more extensive actors [MAG 06, SIM 08, WOO 93]. If well managed, these interrelationships can produce innovations, make it possible to disseminate, transform and create many kinds of knowledge [BOD 96, LEL 10, NON 97], but if poorly managed, they can just as easily stifle individual creativity and consequently that of organization [UZZ 05]. Creativity within an organization therefore aims to generate original and useful ideas, but must also be able to play a role in mediating the organization’s new knowledge so that the ideas and knowledge developed can be disseminated, understood and lead to innovations [BRI 17a]. Organizational creativity then consists of an internal process aimed at getting new products accepted within the company [DUR 06]. In this sense, there is a better understanding of the role that creative sessions play in gaining acceptance for certain changes in organizations. S. Brion and C. Mothe [BRI 17a] clarify this point by pointing out that risk-taking is better accepted and gives better results if it concerns creativity,

Results

Group of Methods

Process

Ability

Position/Attitude

Individual in an organizational team or group and combinations of existing elements/ product(s)

ideas/associations

Could be labeled Original

New and

Useful Adapted

Figure 1.1. Definition of creativity in the form of a chignole (drill bit)

Corresponding to a set of

Likelihood of developing/ generating To the real world

Able to lead to innovation

4 Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Creativity for Innovation

5

i.e. “the development of ambitious and bold ideas”. The process of transforming ideas into innovation must therefore contribute to significantly reducing this risk taking as the new process, product, service, etc. is developed [BRI 17a]. To do this, the development of creativity within an organization must take into account all of its characteristics, including the variety of its components. It seems to us that J. -Y. Barbier and C. Viala’s model of multi-level organizational creativity [BAR 13] illustrates all these elements to be taken into account when implementing a successful creativity process within an organization (Figure 1.2). Organizational characteristics Strategy Culture HR Management (HR orientation, management, training, rewards) Communication Structure Control Resources Information system

Environmental characteristics Intensity of the competition Technological changes Product-market fragmentation Regulatory and legislative changes Political environment

Organizational creativity

Group characteristics Standard Cohesion Size Diversity Roles Spots Training (training in problem-solving techniques)

Individual characteristics Background (genetic capital) Cognitive skills (intelligence, cognitive process, neurological factors, level of knowledge) Conditional Responsibilities (personality traits, cognitive styles, intrinsic motivation, emotions) Environmental aspects (family environment, culture-socio-political, professional)

Figure 1.2. Multi-level model of organizational creativity [BAR 13]

Finally, the characteristics of novelty, originality, usefulness and adaptation to an innovation framework will be the subject of further processing throughout this book. As the title indicates, we will also address creativity when we can call it agile. We remember that we use the term agility here to describe an ability to change maneuvers in a very short time, i.e. agility in the sense of C.W. Richards [RIC 96]. The elements structuring

6

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

the schema of the creativity hierarchy and the multi-level model of organizational creativity are therefore considered in a perspective of continuous movements, undergoing acceleration and other changes that a company must control as well as possible in order to remain able to adapt to new rules of the game. The idea of maneuver is then to be associated with a movement corresponding to a form of innovation. 1.2. The different forms of innovation As in the case of creativity, there are many definitions that have been proposed for innovation. We will not dwell here on their variety, but we will simply retain a definition of innovation at the crossroads of the Schumpeterian interpretation and the Oslo Manual proposed by the OECD. This is primarily the adoption of the widely accepted definition of innovation in the Oslo Manual [OEC 05]: The implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations. [OEC 05] Then, it is necessary to add the fact that it is the entrepreneur who chooses what will be the subject of the innovation [SAL 86] which, from then on, until it becomes a success, can only be considered as an objective (of innovation) and not as an outcome (innovation). In the business world, this success has been characterized by J. Schumpeter as “economically viable” [SCH 34]. That being said, even though the economic dimension is not always predominant, we keep in mind that for innovation to occur, it is necessary for a minimum community of individuals to adopt it. To do this, there must be appropriation and translation of the novelty within a network of more or less important actors, of which the adopting individuals will be part, but will not be the only participants [LAT 05]. With regard to forms of innovation, we have already stated, on the basis of the Oslo Manual’s definition of innovation, that these could be product, service, process, method or organization innovation. However, innovation can also be viewed from a different perspective than one that focuses on the element that is the subject of the innovation and the environment that is supposed to adopt it. To this end, we will focus on product, service and

Creativity for Innovation

7

method innovations when the method focuses on how to use or gain acceptance for the product or service. In this more limited context, we can consider several categories or forms of innovation. 1.2.1. Incremental innovation and radical innovation Traditionally, when addressing the issue of product/service innovation, we begin by expressing the difference between continuous or incremental innovation and radical or disruptive innovation. Incremental innovation is simply a continuous series of improvements made as laboratory or field experiments, technological advances, societal changes, etc. continue. For example, changes in the design of a product or in the way it is offered to its audience are made in successive layers that can be anticipated in the short term. Within the framework of a product, after a certain number of improvements, all the products meeting the same need tend to be reduced and above all to be designed according to a small number, or even a single dominant design. This notion of dominant design was proposed by Abernathy and Utterback in the 1970s [UTT 75]. In this sense, a dominant design may include a series of characteristics dictated by the market-leading product, which thus create similar habits and expectations on the part of users and imitative effects on the part of competitors, but it may also result from practices specific to users for which the products tend to be better adapted or from standards imposed by a state or sector of activity [FER 17]. The term design includes the aesthetic as well as the technological or methodological characteristics of the product that may be affected by the dominant design. The products all end up looking the same (almost all cars consist of four wheels, a body, an engine, two front seats, one of which is for the driver, etc.); they can be grouped into broad product classes with identical characteristics (two-wheel, three-wheel, four-wheel scooters; open and closed scooters, etc.); the technologies and materials used to design them being the same, or can be classified among a small number of families; the methods used to produce them, present them (quartz watches, manual winding, automatic winding, hybrid winding, etc.) and sell them (online sales, shop sales, hybrid sales: click & collect, drive, etc.) are relatively identical. Faced with these design routines, a disruptive innovation always ends up emerging following the arrival of a new entrant on the market, the emergence of a new technology or a particular effort made by an actor

8

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

already present to stand out from its competitors [GOR 17]. If a new design is successful, a break with the dominant design appears and therefore, if the new solution is a success (and therefore an innovation), we will speak of a disruptive innovation. This innovation is risky, but new entrants and players in difficulty regularly use it to survive or continue to survive. It is the form of innovation par excellence, since it makes it possible to create or regain a dominant position in a given market. That said, there are other ways to create such a break, for example, innovation from below or from above. 1.2.2. Innovation from the bottom up Bottom-up disruptive innovation first meant a lower-cost technology, which poorly or partially met the expectations of the users of the technology or associated product/service, eventually imposed itself through improvements over the old dominant technologies on the market. This situation has since been extended beyond technological change alone, but we keep this case to make it easier to explain what innovation from below is. A technology that is “mediocre” in terms of quality or performance, but less costly than dominant technologies, is continuously improved and therefore follows a continuous innovation curve so that the more it grows in quality and performance, the faster its development accelerates until it eventually reaches or even exceeds a minimum quality output of market users. At this stage, “traditional” users leave the old technology (or product) for cost reasons, no longer perceiving a sufficient qualitative difference. This type of innovation can also be described as disruptive innovation in the sense of C. Christensen [CHR 00], who first proposed a formal description. Although following a continuous and therefore predictable curve, low-cost technology often ends up surprising other market players “trapped” in their technologies and related investments. If the difference in quality between the two types of technologies (low-cost and other) becomes negligible compared to the majority of users, a disruption is created (users switch massively to low-cost technology) and there is at best only a small share of the market left for users who demand high-cost technologies with high performance. So there is a break. An example of this type of innovation is the computer market: fixed computers are gradually being replaced by laptops (Dell has been able to create a significant place for itself in this niche), which in turn are competing with notebooks and increasingly with smartphones.

Creativity for Innovation

9

This phenomenon is associated by C. Christensen with what he calls the “innovator’s dilemma” [CHR 00]. At the beginning, there is a market and innovators who master cutting-edge technologies and, thanks to them, occupy most of the market. Then, a new solution using a relatively less efficient technology is proposed on the market and succeeds in satisfying a minimum group of users (a niche), with limited resources and ready to make technological compromises (fewer performances and/or functions at a much lower cost). If the niche of users with limited financial capacity allows low-cost technology to survive and develop, then there is a risk of disruption for the old “innovators” who dominate the market. Why do existing innovators get caught up in this new technology when it is generally well identified? C. Christensen argues that historical innovators end up focusing on continuous innovation type development, because they tend to focus on the most demanding customers on the market: they are the ones who express innovation needs. Over time, less demanding customers are becoming more and more numerous and are looking for cheaper and less complex alternatives to use. As for innovators, by focusing on the most demanding users, they are forced to invest in order to maintain their market position and are reluctant to change technology in view of the investments made and the increasingly high performance achieved. It is a vicious circle into which all innovators risk falling. Another form of the bottom-up innovation that has met with some success is quite well known under different names: reverse innovation [HUS 16], frugal innovation [HAU 16] or Jugaad innovation [RAD 13]. The term “reverse innovation” first expresses the importance of innovation. It no longer comes from research and development laboratories in developed countries, but from regions where research and development resources are very limited, most often from developing countries. To name it, we like the French expression innovation système D (resourcefulness system) [HAU 16], even though it is rarely used, because it seems to us to best express the way it is conducted. It was C. Ghosn who proposed the expression “frugal innovation” to translate the expression Jugaad innovation that had emerged in India [RAD 15]. This type of innovation corresponds to the development of new products or technologies at lower cost, most often very simple, but of good quality that meet market standards. There are several ways to do this, which can be expressed in the form of six principles [RAD 13]: (1) find opportunity in adversity; (2) do more/better with less; (3) think and act flexibly; (4) keep it simple; (5) include the marginalized and the excluded; (6) follow your heart/intuition. The first principle aims to transform

10

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

problems into opportunities while developing a low-cost solution. It can be illustrated with the Revolve kit, designed in India, which is used to convert the halting traffic into energy, especially when driving in the city. Each time you brake, the energy induced is transformed into electricity, allowing you to have a car with a hybrid engine that saves 30% fuel [RAD 13]. The second principle (do more/better with less) can be illustrated by the solution of the French company Qarnot Computing, which has transformed computers into radiators. This allows a room to be heated at a lower cost while limiting noise and regulating the heat produced by computers. The third principle, which suggests flexibility, can be illustrated with the case of the washing machine for clothes and potatoes of the Chinese company Haier. In this case, a Chinese farmer complained to this company that his washing machine was constantly clogged. The technician sent on site understood that the problem came from the fact that the washing machine was also used to remove mud from the potatoes once they were harvested. This practice was identified and transformed into an opportunity by the company, which quickly offered a machine for washing clothes and cleaning potatoes, which was a commercial success [RAD 13]. The fourth principle (keep it simple) can be illustrated by the Q Drum water bottle designed in South Africa, which, because of its cylindrical shape, can carry up to 50 liters of water by pulling it and rolling it on the ground rather than carrying it. The fifth principle (include the marginalized and the excluded) can be illustrated by the case of the car Dacia Logan, which was first designed for people who were not able to buy a car in developing countries, and was then successfully offered to other countries. The last principle (follow your heart/intuition) simply asks you to test things you believe in without relying on a trend or market research. The Big Bazaar chain of stores is cited as an example by N. Radjou et al. [RAD 13]. The founder of this chain, K. Biyani, after having tried unsuccessfully to set up a Western hypermarket in India, followed his instinct without taking other advice into account and recreated the atmosphere of an Indian bazaar inside a hypermarket, which worked very well and led to the creation of a chain of stores bearing this name. As we have seen, frugal bottom-up innovation starts from the experience of a look and intuition of people who evolve in a difficult and often poor environment. If we summarize this way of reasoning as briefly as possible, it is a question of returning to the essence of the need with a robust but very simple response that makes it possible to reduce costs as much as possible. There are often simple solutions to problems that are part of the local

Creativity for Innovation

11

culture, but ignored by engineers. For example, the Mitticool refrigerator, which runs without electricity and was developed in India, uses the same principle as the gargoulette (or botijo, a porous clay jug that evaporates to cool the water it contains) to operate [DOU 15]. This refrigerator could therefore have been designed in the south of France, Spain or any other country with an equivalent water cooling system. Frugal innovation was therefore born as the lateral thinking of obsolete technologies from the bottom up, but it is no longer a robust technology combined with a new experience that is at the heart of the thinking; it is a simple and robust technology that can be useful to a very large number of people. 1.2.3. Disruptive innovation from the top down The innovator’s dilemma is not only about rejecting innovations from below, but also when a new technology comes from above. The top-down scale is related to the cost of the product/service, either in terms of development, from the innovator’s point of view, or in terms of purchasing from the customer’s point of view. The most common case concerns the emergence of a technology that is potentially very high-performing, but at a very high cost. As a result of research, development and/or economies of scale, its cost eventually decreases and competes with technologies that have been dominant in the market until now. The condition for the development of high-cost technology depends on: either, as for low-cost technology, first of all the existence of a niche of customers for whom performance or another criterion is more important than the excessive cost of the technology they can pay for (this is the case for digital photography, which was initially invented by Kodak, which did not dare to develop it, and was then taken over by the telephone manufacturers), or with a very high investment capacity (this is currently the case for Tesla and its electric cars, for example, or for the reading lights that took a little over 10 years to compete with paper books). For this type of innovation to work, it is necessary that the new product or technology combines reliability and ease of use with other benefits considered important by some users who can afford it. Apple has been successful in this type of innovation several times. For example, with the different versions of the iPhone, it has targeted a high-end market by promoting an attractive and practical design as well as an experience and performance superior to that of most of the market [EYC 17].

12

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

In the ultra-high-end innovation variant, it is even a question of avoiding any comparison of the product or technology offered. Its use in itself must be recognized and valued as such. Its price is only one of its components, but it contributes to the justification of an image of belonging to an elite. Ultrahigh-end innovation must therefore be based above all on working on the image associated with the product/technology and its price must be adapted to this subjective representation of the consumer’s mind. In the ultra-highend segment, consumers buy outstanding performance, and in its luxury version, they buy a form of recognition in terms of image and appearance [KAP 12]. It is possible to summarize the key components of luxury in the form of six criteria to be met: (1) be loved; (2) be superfluous and therefore not indispensable; (3) be rare; (4) be of very good quality; (5) be associated with an art form; (6) have a positive income elasticity (if the price increases the demand) [BOU 13]. Two product design principles can be associated with this type of innovation: the scarcity principle and the “Veblen effect”. The principle of scarcity can be translated into five phenomena: (1) proprietary information where at least initially only one privileged group is aware of the existence of the product/service; (2) limited/privileged access which is determined by a certain status, sponsorship, a minimum but significant amount to spend, an exclusive place of sale, etc.; (3) the limited time of the offer or access (after which it will no longer exist or be offered); (4) limited quantity, from a limited number to limited series and numbered to unfair (tailor-made); (5) suddenness where it is the perception of the speed of decrease of the quantity that will create rarity [LID 11]. The Veblen effect is named after economist T. Veblen, who apparently reported the first [LID 11]. This effect, also known as the “snobbery effect” [DEH 15], can be expressed as follows: the increase in the price of a product or service and its demand increase together. Once a certain threshold has been reached, the price increase results in an increase in demand and vice versa. The higher price suggests a high quality and at least plays on the phenomenon of privileged access mentioned above. This effect can be considered more limited than one could call the “limited Veblen effect”: a significant increase in the price of a product/service does not necessarily translate into a decrease in demand. B. Cathy points out that after a 40% increase in the price of Zenith watches (in 2002) all at once, sales of these same watches did not fall [CAT 07].

Creativity for Innovation

13

1.2.4. Innovation by market extension Behind this strange title, we propose to place the innovations resulting from a blue ocean strategy [KIM 08]. We do not use the term disruptive innovation here, because this type of innovation does not necessarily create a break in a market, even though this may still be an indirect consequence. This innovation by market extension is described by its authors as value innovation or non-disruptive innovation [KIM 17], because the main objective of this strategy is the creation of a new market space. In fact, a change of reference mark is made and a new positioning is made to occupy the spaces thus freed. To innovate with a blue ocean strategy, it is necessary to rethink the market in terms of product and consumer attributes, which is why we call it a benchmark change. It is a question of both reaching consumers “forgotten” by the current market and reaching them by positioning products in neglected areas. To do this, the authors and promoters of this strategy, W.C. Kim and R. Mauborgne, proposed in particular to rethink the attributes of a product using a tool called a “strategy canvas”. This framework is supported by an abscissa axis that lists a series of attributes and an ordinate axis that allows these attributes to be assessed loosely on a scale that ranges from zero (or very low/low) to high (or very high/strong). It can be used to define a new product type as a new product range. In general, this scale has five main levels, but positions on intermediate degrees are almost always considered. This tool makes it possible to assess the competition in terms of position at a given time. It allows market players’ investments in a range of products to be highlighted. The most complicated part is to identify the attributes (criteria or domains) that will be used to express these positions. The estimation of values associated with attributes is done at the intersection of two points of view. The first is to place the values of the attributes according to the quality or variety proposed. The second is to make this estimate based on the producer’s investment and expenditure costs. This makes it possible to reason in terms of savings achieved and the displacement of some of these savings by investing in other neglected or non-existent attributes in the market. In general, strategic frameworks are a mixture of these two ways of approaching the question of positioning a new range of products or a new product. The perception of the product’s attributes is first and foremost that of the customer. However, once the attributes have been selected and two to

14

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

four product/product lines are identified and placed on the canvas, the producer’s point of view takes precedence. The idea is then to look for a positioning that is still available, but which must be lower on average than those of the products/current ranges, in order to invest in strength, then other important attributes for forgotten customers. That is why we have qualified this type of innovation in the title as a top-down movement (from top to bottom for most market attributes, then from bottom to top for some new attributes). Among the examples that have become classic examples of strategy canvas is the case of Yellow Tail wines (Figure 1.3) developed for the United States by the Australian company Casella Wines. We will use this example again to better consider the function of the canvas. First, a list of criteria characteristic of the competition and areas of investment in this sector is drawn up (bottle price, use of enological terminology, advertising and media, aging potential, prestige and tradition of the vineyard, complexity of taste, range of wines on offer) [KIM 08]. From this list of seven attributes, two ranges of proposed wines are identified as partially culturally representative of those offered in stores in the United States: premium wines and budget wines. If we look at the value curves representing these two ranges on the canvas (Figure 1.3), we see the spaces available for a third range of wines. The Yellow Tail range will occupy this space.

Figure 1.3. Strategy canvas of Yellow Tail [KIM 08]

Creativity for Innovation

15

The invention of this range then made it necessary to identify customers who were not interested in the table wine and quality ranges. This amounted to taking into account the selection criteria of a neglected, but quite numerous group of connoisseurs of alcohol (beers, ready-to-drink cocktails, strong spirits, etc.) who did not buy or very rarely bought wine. Then, we had to find two or three attributes that could better match them: easy to drink/love, easy to choose, carrying an image of fun and adventure. Similarly, it was also necessary to estimate the importance or lack of importance that these consumers would be willing to give to the other attributes. Thus, if we estimate the value of the first two ranges of wines, according to the seven attributes listed, on a scale of values between 0 and 4, then on average premium wines obtain a score of about 3.1 and budget wines a score of 1.6. On these same attributes, the Yellow Tail range is considered with an average score of about 0.6. Even with the range of budget wines, the difference in average is significant. If we take into account the last three attributes that will serve as investments in the Yellow Tail wine range, then the average value of this range increases to about 1.4. For budget wines, even though we give minimal values to these three attributes (i.e. 0.1), we obtain an average of 1.3 while the average for the range of premium wines with this same reasoning is still about 3.3. Therefore, according to this strategic framework, the development of a range of Yellow Tail wines would cost, at worst, only slightly more than that of a traditional range of budget wines. If this story is known, it is because Yellow Tail wines have sold very well in the United States (4.5 million cases in 2003 according to [KIM 08]). As with any success, others have copied this model by playing on one or the other of these nine attributes, until they saturate this rather old “blue ocean”. As an example of this range of wines, we can mention the Be Pink wine from the GRM company, Ice Tropez and Black Tropez from the Tropez group, French Tonton from the company of the same name, etc. Other attempts have also been made, but have not been successful, such as Paper Boy Wine (an ecological paper wine bottle) and Burgonéo. These failures may be linked to the gradual saturation of the market, which had initially been extended (blue ocean), but other reasons can also be put forward. For example, in the case of Burgonéo, A. Asselineau mentions, in particular, the conservatism of intermediaries in the sale of wines that refused the new concept of Burgundy wine that is easy to drink and choose [ASS 10].

16

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Another explanation for this type of failure is given by W. C. Kim and R. Mauborgne [KIM 17] who insist that, to avoid failure, members representing the entire value chain should be involved in projects. Otherwise, the risk of misunderstanding is very high. It is therefore necessary to consider the creative process of a blue ocean, also under the perspective of organizational mediation. The only alternative to this diplomatic option is taxation, i.e. the forcible passage or circumvention of actors who would divert the project or cause it to fail. Another form of the value-added innovation that shares several common features with the blue ocean strategy is that of a voluntary search by a market player for a satisfactory technology that over time has become safe and whose cost has been greatly reduced. In fact, this type of innovation would be halfway between frugal innovation and value innovation. This is the development strategy that G. Yokoi has called “lateral thinking of obsolete technologies” [TAK 10]. This consists of meeting a need similar to the high-performance technologies in progress, by adding new experience, by using a less efficient but well-controlled technology whose cost is much lower than other technologies on the market. The best-known successes of this type of value innovation are those of Nintendo: Games & Watch, Game Boy and Wii. In all the three cases, the technology was simpler and less expensive than its competitors, but a different gaming experience was offered to compensate for the technological gap with the conference. Games & Watch provided the first “portable game console”, Game Boy (black and white) provided many hours of play (and not just one or two as was the case with its color competitors) first and then to connect from one console to another (which allowed a game like Pokémon to be introduced), and the Wii offered a new range of games that allowed a new experience where you could immerse yourself in the game by making gestures similar to those of the character played. In addition to the new experience that creates value, we find the most important criteria for a buyer in an innovation cited by W.C. Kim and R. Mauborgne: simplicity, ease of use, a friendly image and the effectiveness of the product [KIM 17]. To conclude this journey though innovations by market extension, we simply cite the technique of imagining impossible and improbable partnerships proposed by J. Dru [DRU 16] in order to consider new outlets for products outside their “classical” field of application. If interesting ideas emerge, it is enough to consider an innovation in collaborative mode.

Creativity for Innovation

17

1.2.5. Some other forms of innovation Not all innovations create a break with current production and technologies, nor even a new market. However, the term mental increment or continuum is not really enough to fully understand how they are thought and developed. For example, innovations can be considered according to the elements that are modified. From this point of view, it is possible to differentiate modular innovations or innovations from components of so-called structural architect innovations. Modular innovations focus changes and improvements on the components of an object or system, but do not involve rethinking its layout; relationships and positions are almost unchanged. In contrast, architectural innovations propose new configurations, by linking components differently, removing some and linking them to other components [GOT 17]. Thus, the configuration of the inside of a quartz watch has nothing to do with that of a mechanical watch. Architectural innovations can be considered as innovations halfway between incremental innovations (very often modular) and radical innovations such as the substitution of one technology by another [LOI 13]. Depending on the nature of the changes made and the success achieved, they lead to more or less significant market disruptions. From another point of view, innovations can be considered in relation to the newness they bring, especially if it is a question of product innovation. For example, it is possible to innovate without touching the product itself, but through the way it is perceived by its user. This is referred to as reformulated products [CHO 83]. Top-down disruptive innovations that create a rarity of an existing product correspond to this type of modification. Outside the framework of luxury and rarity, changes are made in the packaging, communication and supply chain associated with the product. With regard to these reformulated products, others can be repositioned. In this case, the components of the product are redesigned (modular or architectural modifications); the main functions of the product remain unchanged [LAH 85], but new ones may be added [CHO 83]. Another solution is to rethink an old or even forgotten product. We can then talk about revival innovation [DRU 16]. It can be the use of a forgotten technology or product such as Corning’s scratchproof glass, which became Gorilla Glass. No opportunity had been found for it for 50 years before its CEO managed to convince S. Jobs to use it to equip the lenses of

18

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

his iPhones [DRU 16]. Other examples of such innovation can easily be found. The adult scooter is an interesting example, as it is both a case of revival innovation (the scooter concept) and a repositioning on the adult market of a product that was only oriented towards the children’s market. In addition, the scooter’s very architecture had to be partially redesigned to make it foldable. Thus, several modes of innovation for the renewal of a product can complement each other to lead to real innovation. There are still other types of innovation such as innovation by imitation. These are not cases of plagiarism, but processes of improvement that have been successful in transposing them to other related products, or new functions that are copied or new markets discovered by some and on which others then try to position themselves as well, but by using a technology different from the original one or any other methodological or conceptual variation. For example, very soon after the success of the “foldable” adult scooter, new foldable city bikes appeared. Similarly, after the success of the Wii and its “nunchuk” controller to experience the game more intensely, Sony and Microsoft have equipped themselves with different technologies, but making it possible to meet this same need, with the PlayStation Move & Motion Controller and Kinect respectively. In the case of blue oceans, we can take the example of Yellow Tail wines; once the success has been achieved, historical market players or new players wishing to enter this market have seen an opportunity. In general, the products imitated in this case can be considered using the “strategy canvas”. The imitations will take as a model one of the ranges on the market (an old or the new one). If they take a historical range as a model, they will borrow one to three attributes from the new range. On the wine market, we will mention the case of French Tonton (a quality wine, with a touch of humor that is easy to choose), WineStar (a quality wine in a can, easy to transport and to choose) or rosé wines offered by Lidl under the titles Rosé Premier (First [growth] Rosé), Rosé Canicule (heatwave Rosé) and Rosé À la Gloire du Chat (Rosé to the Glory of the Cat) with wine labels bearing the effigy of P. Geluck’s cat (budget wine, easy to choose and offering a touch of humor). If the new range is taken as a model, then the imitations will try to bring at least one or two new attributes. For example, to stay within the wine category, we can cite two cases that have taken the beer model, like WineStar did, to reach a new audience: Be pink, whose grapefruit-flavored rosé wine is presented in the form of easyto-carry aluminum cans, and Ice Tropez, which is offered in the form of bottles or cans of beer flavored with wine that are as easy to drink as a soda or beer.

Creativity for Innovation

19

We end this journey through forms of innovation with collaborative and open innovation. H. Chesbrough proposed the expression open innovation [CHE 03] to name new models of innovation in which the company does not carry out its research or develop its business alone. According to this author’s premise, international competition now requires companies to collaborate in order to reach a critical threshold in order to remain competitive in their field(s); this premise can be challenged, especially if we consider the R&D resources available to at least the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) and BATX (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi). This open innovation can take the form of collaboration leading to patent applications with distributed or shared ownership. A more open variant is that of open-source innovation in which there are no more patents filed, intellectual property being registered in the form of full free licenses or under conditions. This type of license was first developed in the IT sector with the success of free software, but was quickly extended to other fields. The principle is to open the rights of exploitation and improvement of an invention to any person or company wishing to be part of the community of operators and developers of this invention. This is the case for many developments under free license(s). In this form of licensing, it is possible to exploit an invention, under certain conditions. For example, the General Public License (GPL) gives free access to and use of the programs developed, provided that transformations and additions are shared with the rest of the community outside commercial applications [BRO 15]. The Free Software Foundation imposes four conditions: (1) freedom to run the program for all purposes; (2) freedom to study the operation of the program and adapt it to its needs; (3) freedom to redistribute copies of the program (which implies the possibility of both giving and selling copies); (4) freedom to improve the program and distribute these improvements to the public, for the benefit of the whole community. The creative commons licenses offer a full rights assignment license and six restricted or combined variations with slightly different requirements from those of the Free Software Foundation: (1) obligation to cite clearly and explicitily the name of the author of the initial project; (2) right to use outside any commercial benefit unless the author’s authorization is obtained; (3) prohibition of the work or object in a composite package and other derivative works; (4) obligation to share, under the same or a similar license, improvements and transformations made.

20

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

The possible variations are: (1), (1) + (3), (1) + (4), (1) + (2), (1) + (2) + (4), (1) + (2) + (3). In the field of biotechnology, we find other examples such as the plant variety certificate, which proposes a total transfer of rights in order to have an alternative to the barriers imposed by patents [TRO 06]. In addition to these forms of collaborative innovation, there is also participatory innovation in the sense that the company proposes to co-innovate by soliciting its partners, customers and other actors involved in the field of interest, including some of its co-competitors [CHA 13]. This collaboration can concern the so-called participatory design, especially if users are included in the reflection and design phases or, during a call for broad collaboration, to collect large amounts of data and information (crowdsourcing) or crowdfunding [LEL 10]. 1.3. The metaphor of the fighter plane to link creativity and innovation We have just reviewed a number of aspects of creativity and ways of looking at innovation. We will now link these two sets using a metaphor: that of a fighter aircraft race. It focuses on forms of innovation and the aerial maneuvers that can be associated with them. It is based in part on an information loop as a model to express the links between a pilot, his information environment and the decisions he must make in the context of aerial combat. We will present this aspect, but then move away from the metaphor of combat, and limit ourselves to a less violent struggle: it will be a metaphor based on a race between planes. We will see how we will transpose it into the world of video games in order to better draw parallels with changes in the organization of creative groups; something that a metaphor more rooted in reality would not allow. We will therefore start this part by presenting a loop modeling an informational process in the middle of an air battle. 1.3.1. The OODA loop The OODA loop (Figure 1.4) is an acronym for the verbs: observe, orient, decide and act. It was developed by an American fighter pilot, J. Boyd, who then participated in the design of fighter aircraft for the American army

Creativity for Innovation

21

beginning in 1963 [COR 02]. This OODA loop provides a model to understand how a pilot in a combat situation can gain control over his opponent.

Figure 1.4. OODA loop [COR 02]

1

Figure 1.5. Mig-15 (left) and F-86 Sabre (right)

It is therefore necessary to approach it from a series of paths and not alone. Each route allows additional information to be acquired until one of the two fighters is saturated and no longer acts in a really or very predictable way. The origin of this loop comes from a question by J. Boyd about the results, a priori surprising, relating to the high proportion of successes achieved by American pilots on their counterparts fighting for North Korea during the Korean War (June 25, 1950–July 27, 1953). 1 Images under creative commons license: https://commons.wikimedia .org/wiki/File:North _American_F-86_Sabre_-_Flickr_-_p_a_h_(3).jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki /File:Mig_15_(27978597105).jpg.

22

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

In fact, during this period, the ratio was nine victories to one in favor of the Americans, although their aircraft (mostly F-86 Sabres) were considered less efficient than those of their enemies (including a majority of Mig-15 Fagot; see Table 1.1). F-86 Sabre

Mig-15

Speed

964 km/h

1,075 km/h

Climbing speed

46 m/s

50 m/s

Scope

1,260 km

1,960 km

Ceiling

14,720 m

15,200 m

Table 1.1. Technical comparison of the performance of the F-86 Sabre and Mig-15

Taking into account the most common characteristics, the Mig-15 outranked the F-86 Sabre. Once the number of flight hours for pilots on both sides (difficult to measure) was set aside, Boyd identified two other factors that explain this ratio of victories in favor of the Americans. The American pilots were less tired than the Mig-15 pilots because their aircraft had hydraulic mechanics to support the pilot in his maneuvers; these pilots also had an anti-g suit, unlike their counterparts who were fighting for North Korea. Thus, as the maneuvers carried out by two pilots in battle progressed, the one flying the Mig-15 got tired much faster than the pilot of the F-86. This human factor then became a determining factor in the fight. The OODA loop tries to integrate this type of factor into its modeling. At the entrance and exit of the loop, the different interactions and circumstances relevant to the conduct of maneuvers in the environment are taken into account. The fatigue factor, the surprise factor or any other factor expressing, for example, a technical problem that occurs or an opponent’s action, can be integrated into the loop at this time. The rest of the elements acting in the loop are information and the pilot’s ability to manage it according to his experience, his culture, his analytical skills, the decisions he can make, these choices and the time he takes to make them. According to the OODA loop model, information is essential to success, but information is not the only determining factor in the fight. Once informed, you must be able to process the information quickly and make a perceptive decision, if possible surprising (to disrupt the opponent) and fast

Creativity for Innovation

23

enough to damage the opponent’s OODA loop, until you can paralyze his decision-making ability and defeat him. Victory is not won in a single course of the loop, but after a series of iterations of the loop. If the actions of one of the opponents are predictable and the other acts fast enough to take advantage of this advantage, then the other will be forced to react and not to act, unless he can reverse the situation. Conversely, the pilot who succeeds in setting a trap (in terms of maneuvering) in which the other falls is in a position of strength with a more serene management of his OODA loop than that of his opponent. 1.3.2. The space for imagined aerial maneuvers We will now associate the forms of innovation previously discussed with different combat maneuvers or, more generally, aerobatics. According to this metaphor, a product or range of products will be represented by at least one aircraft (we will explain later on cases of aircraft duplication). As this metaphor must be used to identify positions, as well as to better understand certain maneuvers, the plane will leave behind a small trace of smoke. The course (or combat) area is the sector to which the products whose evolution you want to follow correspond. We will call this maneuvering space dogfight innovation space, in reference to the term used to talk about very tight aerial combat. That being said, we still need to define the space in which these maneuvers are imagined. It is a three-dimensional space. The y-axis (the one that will represent the flight altitude) will correspond to the price of the product as perceived by its potential buyer or, failing that, to the production cost of the product. The ground will be located at a level –1 (a full scale below that representing zero cost) that will not be reached by any aircraft. We propose an altitude scale from level –1 to level 53. To determine the price value associated with a graduation, we propose to refer to the median market price and put it at level 10. It is then sufficient to divide this price by 10 to obtain the value of each of the lower graduations (starting from zero, of course). Grades 11 and 12 are established with the same unit of measurement. Then for the graduations from 13 to 24, we propose to double the value of the unit, to quadruple it for the graduations from 25 to 36, to multiply it by 8 for the graduations from 37 to 48 and by 16 from 49 to 52 (the last level 53 represents a price

24

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

higher than the maximum of the 52 scale)2. The abscissa axis is associated with two variables. First, at time t, it classifies the products you want to represent in relation to the market-leading product in the targeted sector. For each cell, the axis starts at 106 and ends at 7 and not at 0, which allows the aircraft to be placed without overflowing on the previous ranges and at the same time to point to empty/free spaces. According to this axis at time t, an aircraft representing your product/product line is placed on the axis according to the shares of a market share it occupies. At a minimum, it is necessary to represent at least the leading aircraft (market-leading product) and the next two, provided that at least one of them represents a relative market share of at least 7%. Thus, there will be boxes where no aircraft will be represented. In other cases, the nose of the aircraft is used as a reference point to position it on this axis. The second variable that acts on this axis is time. It is represented by a shift of six graduations in the direction from left to right in which a priori all planes will fly. Thus at time t + 1, the positions of the aircraft (products) are reassessed, but their estimated positions (market shares) are shifted by six graduations, thus allowing the expression of a movement, even for the slowest aircraft (i.e. the leading aircraft). Time t + 1 will be either the end of a year or the year in which a new version of one of the three products that were market leaders at time t is released. In order to identify empty spaces (such as “blue oceans”), the most efficient space on the market will be used to determine the relative value of others3. Finally, the axis expressing the width of the space represents the categories of individuals targeted by the products according to gender and the axis of the products. We propose to create age categories with an eight-year range as the separation unit4. This graduation begins with the 85+ category, then decreases in six-year increments (80+ years, 72–79 years, 64–71 years, …, 16–23 years, 8–15 years, 0–7 years). You can increase the distance between each of the corridors thus delimited with thresholds of 12 years, for example (this reduces the set to eight categories instead of eleven), but it

2 These values can be taken into account over the years of inflation measurement in order to limit the effects of what will pass for a type of upward flow. You can settle for 37. 3 There is always a price range for which the number of sales or consumers in a particular category is more significant than the others. It is the number of consumers or the sum of sales (rounded up to the next highest unit of measurement) of this category and price range that should be used as a reference to calculate the relative percentage of market occupancy of the other boxes in the dogfight innovation space (see previous footnote). 4 Of course, other forms of categorization of individuals are possible, but the one of ages seems to us to be the easiest to use.

Creativity for Innovation

25

is necessary to continuously represent categories of individuals by group of years. In the first place, we propose to place male individuals from 0 to 7 (or 11) years of age and thus go up to 80 (or 84) years of age and over. Then, repeat the graduation in the reverse order with female individuals (0–7 years, 8–15 years, 16–23 years, …, 72–79 years, 80 years and over). This last delimitation allows the creation of flight lanes. In order for aircraft to be able to fly in it, we propose that the distance between two graduations should allow at least six aircraft to be aligned (four in length, six in width and six in height). A corridor is first defined by the y-axis (that of the categories of individuals). In the case of small markets, essentially targeting one to four categories of individuals, the “core market” corridor(s) are defined as described above, while the other corridors are merged into groups of two adjacent corridors. To do this, it is necessary to consider the full height of the corridors and the market shares by category of individuals for all altitudes (prices). Thus, in order for two corridors to be merged, the market share corresponding to the sum of the altitudes of these two corridors must not exceed 15% of the total market sales represented by all the corridors in the dogfight5 innovation space. Once the aircraft evolution space has been defined, we can associate the maneuvers with forms of innovation. First of all, modular incremental innovation is not associated with any particular maneuver, because this type of innovation simply plays the role of the aircraft’s fuel, which is supposed to glide even slowly (it has no attraction force towards the ground). Architectural innovation is associated with a number n of barrels. The number of barrels will be between one and three. It will correspond to the nearest integer resulting from the square root of the number of the main components of the old architecture that have been removed, replaced or completely changed position (regardless of the number of changes greater than nine, the number of barrels will be three). The maneuvers associated with other forms of innovation must logically be deduced from the displacement between time t and t + 1. For example, frugal innovation aimed at drastically reducing costs will result in a “piqué” maneuver, which will be a spiral piqué if it also gives rise to architectural innovation and will end with a recovery in order to achieve the obtained market positioning. We will 5 To obtain a representation even closer to that of an air battle, the abscissa axis must not be straight, but follow an arc of a circle whose complete rotation will be carried out after four iterations and whose radius must be at least two planes long for the corridor nearest the center.

26

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

add to these maneuvers a small clarification concerning the use of an old technology (lateral thinking of obsolete technologies) or an old object that has been brought up to date (revival innovation). In both cases, there will be a dive followed by a slight rise to the final position, which in aerial vocabulary is called a “low yo-yo”. To achieve this, it is sufficient to first make the aircraft dive to an altitude (price position) three steps lower on the cost scale than its final position (time t + 1)6 and whose inflection point will be on the time scale on step 3 of that of the added 5 to create the illusion of movement. The rest of the movement consists simply of bringing the aircraft from the inflection point to its final position (at t + 1).

3

2

Immelmann

1

Split S

2

3

1

Figure 1.6. Split S and Immelmann chained7

In the case of an innovation of the revival type, we propose to represent it using three types of figures according to the price positioning which is that of the aircraft at t + 1. If the price positioning is, at t + 1, at least one level higher than the one it occupied at t, the aircraft’s maneuver will correspond to the sequence of a Split S (with a descent of one level) and an Immelmann (with a rise of at least two levels). If the price positioning is, at t + 1, at least one level lower than the one it occupied at t, the aircraft’s maneuvering will correspond to the sequence of an Immelmann (with a one-level climb) and a Split S (with a descent phase of at least two levels). If the product positioning at t + 1 is the same as at t, then we propose a Split S and an Immelmann sequence (Figure 1.6). We are almost finished with this metaphor using aerial maneuvers to follow the evolution of the products. Since products will remain on the market for many years, whether improved 6 Unless it causes the plane to crash, of course. In this case, the inflection point will be at the zero level of the scale. 7 Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Split_S.

Creativity for Innovation

27

or not, in order to represent the new products on offer, it is necessary to consider other aircraft. In addition, some products may reach several categories of individuals. If there are two contiguous categories, it is sufficient to place the aircraft on the boundary of these two categories. In other cases, the aircraft will be duplicated as many times as necessary. A color will be assigned to each type of product, and therefore of aircraft, in order to easily identify those belonging to the same squadron. Thus, we will have strange cases where, from a position occupied by a single aircraft, two aircraft will appear to occupy a different corridor (the same product sold first to one category of individuals is now proposed, as it stands, to two categories). If this case is strange, it is enough to say to yourself that the planes piloted are piloted in a video game that allows you to better imagine this kind of situation. If the products of the same company are different, this distinction may be made by assigning a label with the name of the product to the aircraft concerned. Similarly, a partnership, if it takes place between companies, will be expressed per product, and therefore per aircraft. We propose to associate this aircraft with two colors (one per socket) and to distinguish this type of partnership aircraft; we propose to associate it with a two-seater aircraft, the others being single seaters. In the case of an open source innovation development, the aircraft may be a two-seater spotted aircraft with at least six colors. 1.4. Conclusion We have seen the various definitions of creativity commonly used. We have seen that these definitions can be combined. Creativity could include a posture, ability and process for producing original ideas or other products that could lead to the development of an innovation. Similarly, we have seen that creativity can just as much be considered from an individual or organizational point of view. From an organizational point of view, creativity is then assigned two functions: one is to produce new things and the other to accompany change by proposing a form of knowledge mediation within an organization. Then, we discussed innovation and its various forms. This journey through the forms of innovation was intended to show their differences and some ways of putting them into practice. Since many categories of innovation are presented in the form of associated movements, we were able to consider the metaphor of the aircraft in flight to better link creativity and innovation.

28

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

This metaphor, which may seem complex at first glance, aims to perceive the presence of hidden routines in product design better on the one hand and to link monitoring and innovation strategy better on the other hand. By following the principles of the OODA loop and imagining product development maneuvers using the metaphor of air combat, it is not only a question of being well informed about one’s environment, but also of knowing how to react quickly according to maneuvers adapted to adverse positions. If a company always improves its products in the same way, then its new products can be anticipated by the competition, which will then be able to develop more efficient or better positioned alternatives a step ahead. The company in question will therefore eventually transfer the initiative to another well-informed, rapid player and less predictable. The fact that it is a fight or an air race (if you prefer to place the planes on an axis of abscissa graduated from 0 to 100) constantly renewed allows us to consider creativity in terms of agility in the sense of C.W. Richards [RIC 96]. It is a question of reacting quickly and appropriately. But to do so, you also need to be well informed about your environment. We must fight against the comfort and complacency that can arise within an organization. In an organization that wants to be creative, this is the worst thing that can happen to it [ASH 16, 62].

2 Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

To be able to adapt quickly to a change in the environment, to use the metaphor of aircraft, it is necessary to avoid being constantly in autopilot mode. To avoid being in this situation, it is necessary to question from time to time within an organization how problems are handled and how they are identified. To do this, you must be able to ask yourself a number of “good” questions. We therefore discuss some methods and ways to understand and question a problem or any other situation whose analysis will reveal a hidden problem. 2.1. Understanding and reformulating a problem Among the sensitive points to be addressed when a problem is identified, the first to be addressed is, of course, how to understand it properly. If we simplify this situation, two scenarios may arise. The problem may have been identified and understanding it then concerns identifying the needs behind its identification and how best to address and solve the problem. In the other case, the problem, or the request that expresses it, is stated in a cyclical or very vague manner, i.e. the problem itself must be well identified and better identified. For example, a problem statement may require the identification and tracking of a company’s weaknesses and threats. Although there are methods such as SWOT to support the resolution of this type of problem, we can only consider it as a problem with a broad or vague statement. In fact, to solve it, it is necessary not only to research the company’s current and potential problems, but also to properly recognize its sector of activity and

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

30

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

the evolution of the latter as well as that of the company concerned (including in particular changes in progress). In this case, to fully understand the problem, it is necessary to fully understand the company and its situation. Similarly, if the demand to innovate quickly targets the entire company, we are in an almost identical situation. A good understanding of the company’s environment and capacities is above all necessary to solve this demand for innovation, knowing that the injunction to innovate quickly creates a paradox. It is therefore necessary to review the problem, either by withdrawing the requirement for speed, or by listing priorities in its resolution and, for example, by reducing it in part to the creation of original innovations within a very short period of time. 2.1.1. A series of very simple questions There is an old and easy way to better understand a problem: answering a series of questions about it. The origins of this technique can be diverse, as can its names. One of them, known as the Quintilian hexameter, is the result of the art of rhetoric. We can associate it with the abbreviation 5W+(2)H1, each letter of which refers to the initial of an interrogative pronoun. Thus, this type of questioning amounts to asking questions starting with the following interrogative pronouns: what, who, where, when, why, how and, finally, how much. It dates back to antiquity and can be attributed to various characters who have tried to systematize its practice, particularly in an oratory setting, as was the case with, for example, the Greek-Roman citizen Hermagoras de Temnos [WOE 12] or the Roman citizen Quintilien [QUI 75]. Subsequently, this method of questioning was partly taken up and reused in journalism, particularly American journalism at the end of the 19th Century, to guide the writing of an article under the name of the 5W method (who, what, when, where, why) [BRI 04, SCH 81]. Later, in order to refine analysis of the act of communication, H.D. Lasswell proposed another way of using the 5Ws [LAS 48] which became the 7Ws (who says, what/what is said, through what channel, to whom, in what circulations, for what purpose, with what effects) 10 years later under the leadership of R. Braddock [BRA 58,

1 The second H relating to the question “how much?” is not systematically part of this questioning, otherwise it would be called a heptameter. As for the last W, relating to the question “why?”, it appears in the Quintilien as a complement to the other questions, which then take the form “who and why?”, “what and why?”, etc. [BEL 00, p. 44].

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

31

MA 15, p. 24]. This type of series of questions is very useful for properly considering a situation or problem, as the questions concerned can easily be listed and recalled. However, these questions should be handled with caution, as the choice of questions asked and the order in which they are asked may influence perception of the situation of the problem or the problem itself. The important thing is to ask the right questions systematically in order to fully understand a situation or problem, but we encourage you to vary the order of the questions asked as much as possible. A very practical way to do this in an appropriate way is to consider these issues along two axes: one relating to a form of chronology and objective and the other to an organization at the level of scale of perception. This provides questioning in at least five steps or frameworks, of which the diagram of the five problem questioning frameworks (Figure 2.1) presents examples of questions that can be asked.

Figure 2.1. The five questioning frameworks to fully understand a problem

The 5W+(2)H questions take the form of one or more questions in each frame except at the central frame level, where we try to apply them as they are. The central framework is reserved for the first questions and, among them, the first one that must be answered is “what?”, i.e. what is the subject, the concept, the slogan, the situation, the contradiction, the point on which to focus or from which to respond to the identified or expressed need.

32

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Those who are familiar with the Quintilian hexameter or lean management or, more simply, with Toyota’s chained five-why method [LIK 09, p. 312] may find these five frameworks too limited, because the reasons are lost among the other questions, but the frameworks we propose to you only form a basic structure that you must use. You can review the questions frame by frame, or link the questions of the same nature from each frame (e.g. following a spiral process from the center for each question and when it is completed, you can move on to another type of question). If you ask all the questions from one framework before moving on to another, it is also very easy for you to combine these questions with the five linked questions. Since “why?” is the last question proposed for this framework, it is possible to follow the answer with a new one for what and repeat it three more times. Moreover, concerning the reasons why, the frameworks considered horizontally clearly show that the reasoning must not only go upstream of the problem and that the proposed model already proposes five reasons why, only two of which really correspond to Toyota’s questioning method (central framework and reasons and needs framework). As for the questioning object of the what, one of the simplest ways to implement it can be to reason using a concept map [NOV 08] or mind mapping [BUZ 10] (section 4.4.1), but you can also use a spreadsheet if you prefer this type of tool. To do this, the simplest way is to start from a framework representing the center of the questioning and entitled, for example, “problem posed”. It can be reformulated later. The question “what?” in the central framework will specify both what needs to be worked on in the resolution and all the key words and important expressions in the statement to be managed that do not form answers to the other questions. Since, at first, many questions will not be answered, we propose to reserve the color red for all unanswered questions in order to easily locate them on the map or board. To illustrate this type of questioning, we take as an example one of the topics proposed at the Université technologique de Montbéliard (UTBM) during Innovation Crunch Time 2017: “How to maximize a company’s production according to the cost of energy and its availability during a day, in order to obtain a productivity gain?” To ask our questions and manage their organization, we use the yED graph software which, compared to software dedicated to the design of mind maps, allows us to group certain elements in the form of a framework and allows cyclical and transversal links. These frames only act as guides, you can adapt and modify them according to your preferences and cases to be

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

33

addressed. For example, we have added outside the “reasons and needs” framework, a “why?” associated with the question contained in this framework “why did they (the needs) emerge?”. Similarly, the questioning does not necessarily stop (it would be a real pity) at the first answer given. Thus, in this example (central framework), the question “how much?” gives as an answer “the maximum” as stated in the problem statement. If we had the opportunity to question the sponsor, it would be interesting to know “what kind of maximum” or, conversely, to have him decide on what would be a minimum. Another sensible question, which would complement this answer would be “What is the current ratio (production/cost of energy/day) and what will happen in two years?” This question would involve an update on the current situation of the most successful equivalent companies (new “who?” and “where?”) and developments in this area (“how?” and “since when?”). Similarly, the answers given to the question “what?” can be further explored using a question such as “which ones?” or “of which type(s)?” (goods, products, services, knowledge, emissions, etc.). As Figure 2.2 shows, it is a matter of creating a network of questions and answers to them on a given problem or situation. In this sense, the questions can be organized into relay questions [BEL 00, p. 66], i.e. they can be asked in the form of a semi-directive interview. Thus, the questioning mode seems more natural, and the network of questions-answers thus established makes it possible to deepen the elements that have not already been examined. 2.1.2. Questioning problems with multiple interpretations If the problem is of a different order than those mentioned above, i.e. its expression is vague or ambiguous, very broad, cyclical, etc., it is not necessary to start with a 5W+(2)H-type question. The first thing to do is to ensure that the sponsor is aware of the wide variety of interpretations that the problem’s formulation allows. If he wants to know everything or innovate quickly and well, it’s almost as if he hadn’t said anything. In this case, there are two possibilities. First, you are familiar with the sponsor and the context of the request, and in this case, you must explain all the important elements implicit in the request, list the very different problems to be solved in the statement and organize them in order of priority. Then, you can move on to the same type of questioning as in the more classic case described above.

Figure 2.2. Example of questioning to understand a problem. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

34 Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

35

In the second case, you are almost unaware of the situation affected by the problem. You then need to learn more about the problem expressed and the situation concerned. To do this, we suggest that you start your questioning with what we will call a hexameter to the power of 5. This is a questioning that could be abbreviated by the formula: 25W+10H (Figure 2.3). All you have to do is try to ask yourself the same question five times or a variant of it. It is therefore advisable to link answers and questions from the same category (category what?, who?, etc.). Thus, the five whys can refer this time to Toyota’s five linked whys. At the end of this questioning and intelligence work, you should be able to draw a composite picture of the current situation and the ideal solution expected (see Chapter 3). If you are given the opportunity to work by design cycle, it is preferable to choose this option common to agile development and design thinking methods. With these methods, the important thing is to gradually but quickly access, with a trial and error approach, a satisfactory, functional solution which, if time permits, can then be further improved.

Figure 2.3. Example of questions for a hexameter to the power of 5

36

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Once these points have been clarified, you can either return to the questions from the five frameworks to explore all the questions that have not been asked and seek answers, or take a look at the resources at your disposal, the ideal end result you would like to achieve and the planning of tasks by priority, or, if time is short, move as quickly as possible to the prototyping phase for a solution. 2.1.3. The creation of concepts related to the problem or situation Even when questioned, not all situations that must lead to the creation of a novelty are always easily translated into a problem. In the section below, we will alternate the terms “problem” with “focal point of the problem”. Indeed, it seems necessary for us to bear in mind that any problem refers to a statement that is most often made up of a core (a focal point); it is important to ensure that it is on this aspect that the main efforts to solve the problem are concentrated. Since the resolution of any problem is a matter of interpretation, it is specific to each individual. Even in the context of an artist creating a work, its realization requires an explanation. In terms of interpreting the problem, we will rather talk about the need to explain the problem, its context, its aspect and the elements considered priorities, including its core, etc. Before talking about the focal point of the problem and its projection in terms of the expected ideal final result, we would like to address here a particular phase that forms part of the statement of a problem, even when the latter is formulated in a very vague way: the creation of concepts. At this stage, we approach concepts in the sense of the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge so that a group of individuals can cooperate for the purpose of creating knowledge and any other artifacts. In this way, concepts are expressed by words, word associations or short sentences [NON 97, p. 110] or networks of terms [NOV 08]. In this sense, the concepts produced during the stage we are interested in here, of recognition and questioning of a problem, must be validated by the group, tested with other individuals (at least as far as their reception and interpretation are concerned) and be reformulated according to an iterative process. This concept creation phase can be considered as an iterative process of the design thinking type [BRO 09], with the difference that at this stage, concepts replace prototypes. If you want to take a step back from the real situation you are considering, it is

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

37

advisable to form concepts using figurative language or metaphors [NON 97, p. 110]. This will allow for some freedom of interpretation, while maintaining a link with the problem under consideration. As in any creativity framework, it is good to first move away from the initial situation, without losing sight of it completely, in order to diverge one’s ideas, to confront them with those of others, to question and reformulate them before reinterpreting the ideas that seem most interesting to adapt to the real situation at the beginning of the creative process [ALT 06, p. 63, BON 13, p. 92]. Finally, moving through concept formulation also allows us to approach understanding of the semantic space of innovation development in a different way. In the sense of the C-K theory of design, concepts (whose interpretation is slightly different from ours, see Chapter 7) make it possible to create new ones through extension operations (elimination of a property that makes it possible to imagine a concept of a higher order) and partition (addition of a new property to a concept to create a more specific concept) of the concepts already formulated. According to this theory, if the formulation of a concept corresponds to something whose existence is proven, the concept is transformed into knowledge [HAT 07]. From our point of view, we can associate it with knowledge and freeze this concept by coloring it blue, for example. Thus, the creation of concepts in itself makes it possible to create a kind of cartographical representation of the innovation space to be explored while questioning what is still achievable by avoiding “frozen” areas. 2.2. The ideal final result and resources Being able to understand a problem and the context in which it is located is not enough to solve a problem, especially if it is innovation oriented. The most easily accessible point to discuss is assessment of the resources available and potentially available according to the time you have to solve your problem. However, since focusing on available resources can have a negative effect on problem-solving or innovation development, it is better to think first of all about the desired ideal objective. 2.2.1. The ideal final result The expression “final ideal result” comes from a set of tools to support creativity called TRIZ, which is the abbreviation of the Russian Teorija Reshenija Izobretateliskih Zadatch, translatable as “theory of resolving

38

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

inventive problems”. While TRIZ tools may seem complicated to implement or too tied to engineering problems, this is not the case for the ideal end result. As its name suggests, its principle is simple and consists of expressing the best possible solution in an idyllic context. This makes it possible to identify its essential functions, which would be the basis for its perfect integration into the envisaged situation and to free itself, in the first instance, from all the constraints that weigh on its resolution. It is then advisable to question the answers proposed by a series of “whys”? This involves reviewing the elements of describing the desired ideal objective in order to better formulate it and consider the reason for their participation in the ideal solution. Then, we must ask ourselves if we cannot envisage an ideal result that is even more effective than the one just formulated. After trying to answer a series of “whys?”, you can then try to answer a series of “what would be even betters?”. Finally, it remains for you to synthesize the expression of the ideal final result, so that its expression is clear and offers a real challenge in terms of realization. Of course, as it is an ideal, it will not be achieved for a very long time, if ever. However, it does provide a horizon that requires us to step back from the problem at hand. When a final ideal result is achieved, it is as a result of many iterations of a problem-solving process that have gradually resolved it completely. However, it is likely that this process has also pushed the limits of the solution to be achieved and thus laid the foundations for a new, ideal final result. The important thing is to be ambitious when the ideal final result is formulated. It thus makes it possible to advance as much by leaps as by small steps to solve a problem. Let us take a simple example to illustrate what the statement of an ideal final outcome brings. After a storm, nature played a nasty trick on you by transforming the friendly peninsula on which you were camping with about 10 people into an island. This island is a few square kilometers in size, but it has no trees. It is surrounded by a fairly deep watercourse with a minimum width of 4 m and infested with red-bellied piranhas2. How are you going to cross this watercourse? Some will resign themselves and wait for some help or end up starving. For them, the river is an impassable border or even a divine punishment. They are the ones who are opposed to changing the established order of things and, therefore, to any change. Among the others, there may be one who overestimates his or her abilities and to whom the first 2 We assume that you have enough resources on this island to live with your small community for a few days, but that, if you are unlucky, there is no network to call or find solutions on the Internet.

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

39

solution will come to mind. They will be eaten by piranhas. Some will focus on reasonable solutions that are safe for the group. They will try to do their best to be able to report their position so that help can find them. There are those who will try experiments by motivating others to test solutions, by observing crazy attempts or by trying to find ways to progress a few centimeters on or in this watercourse and then trying to extend the distance to be covered more and more. Unfortunately, they have the problem of time to solve and/or of finding volunteers to find to take the risk for them. There are others who will consider a boat solution because they know it can work, or it seems to them to be the best solution. But on this island, there are no trees. Do they have to sacrifice a tent, use other materials? And then who’s going to get on that boat and test it? Among the desperate, there are still two other examples. The one who proposes to sacrifice himself so that others can get by and, conversely, the one who considers sacrificing one or more members of the team to save himself and possibly others. Let us leave our shipwrecked people aside and using the principle of formulating the ideal result, put ourselves in their place. What expressions of the ideal final result could be formulated? 1) Have a bridge to cross the river. 2) Take away the piranhas (which ideally becomes: remove the piranhas). 3) Recreate a peninsula (which is the same as solution 1). 4) Flying over the watercourse. 5) Be invulnerable to piranha bites and cross without drowning. 6) Contact and persuade people within a reasonable distance of the island and with resources to help you cross the river. These formulations can be improved; we can group them together and take the formulations further. 1) The island once again becomes a peninsula. 2) The river can be crossed by swimming without any problem. 3) The river can be flown over without any problem. 4) A tunnel can be dug quickly under the river. 5) Competent external assistance can be obtained quickly.

40

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

This makes it easier for ideas to come up. We see a little further ahead and we can be original by avoiding limiting solutions to attempts at rapid swimming, individuals long jumping, with or without a pole, or the making of makeshift boats. This makes it possible to consider the ideal solutions (2) and (3). To achieve the result (2), it may be interesting to test whether the piranhas are hungry by putting some food within their reach. If they are not hungry, normal swimming should allow them to reach the other side without any problems. To achieve result (3), the construction of a springboard using tents can be considered. This solution allows you to train on the island to make long jumps and learn to land properly before attempting the jump over the watercourse. To achieve result (5), camping elements such as a stove can be used to create a more powerful antenna for a mobile phone. This solution is not risky, should not take much time and will allow you to know quickly enough if it works or not. If this does not produce the expected result, then only the two previous solutions, like others, can be tried. While the ideal final result is not very complicated to implement, there are still a number of precautions to take when using it. This may seem like nothing, but what it conditions in terms of objectives necessarily has an impact on the entire innovation process. To use it purposefully, it is first necessary to take sufficient distance to think about this ideal final result in terms of the resources available or newly emerging (see section 2.2.3). The interest of this order of reflection is to limit the effects of “active inertia” aimed at always reusing the same recipes that have made organizations successful in the past, even though a disruption (technological or other) appears [SUL 03, p. 24]. It is a question of forcing oneself out of the comfort zone of incremental innovation, as well as out of the field of an innovation of a type that we will call “deployment by cloning”. This cloning deployment consists of starting from a novelty that has met with a certain success (an innovation), and which will therefore be established as a reference model, quickly reproducing and implementing a series of solutions from the same range or category. The new method of creation and development will be extended or declined, almost automatically, in the manner of a new dogma, over a whole series of processes and other problems to be solved or solutions to be developed. This can be done without the organization and its members really becoming aware of it. For example, Dyson achieved its first success with a vacuum cleaner with higher suction power than competitive vacuum cleaners while offering a vacuum cleaner without a bag. If we look at the current production of this company, we see that Dyson has developed and marketed different products on the same principle: a more powerful fan without blades,

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

41

a more powerful lamp without bulbs and a more powerful hair dryer without excessive heat generation. Even though there is a certain nuance between these different products, there is still a very strong relationship in terms of the expression of the main characteristics of the product. It is likely that these products were developed from the statement of a final ideal outcome objective of the form: “more powerful than competing products, but without…”. Thus, what currently makes this company successful can turn into a weakness if it develops products only on this model. If the company Dyson does not propose other complementary orientations for the development of new products, it may limit its capacity for innovation while allowing the competition to anticipate more easily the possible variations of developed products, knowing that some of its patents will fall into the public domain in the 2020s. There will still be a technological gap to close, which is currently significant, but which according to C. Christensen almost always ends up being so (especially via other less efficient technologies that will not stop being perfected) [CHR 00, p. 4]. The deployment by cloning of the elements that have made a solution successful is not to be prohibited. It is just necessary to take a step back from this new practice, to analyze carefully what made it successful, to be enriched by it and to complement it with others. However, it is necessary to think before applying it, keeping, at least, the memory of previous practices, to continue to seek new practices or to monitor those of others. Above all, it is necessary not to design or develop in the same way for five years or more (if a number of years are to be used as a benchmark). There are therefore at least three risks associated with this rapid and unthinking deployment of successful practices: (1) imposing a practice on situations for which it is not appropriate; (2) working in only one way, which will generate more and more rigidity and resistance to change over time; and (3) developing blinders that will not allow the sector’s disruptive technologies and products to be perceived in time. It is necessary to keep a fairly broad and open field of investigation, if only at the creative level, by showing agility, i.e. being able to adapt quickly, to have several ways of solving a problem a priori and to renew one’s ability to generate new ideas or to put them into practice. It is also a question, beyond the stages of imagination and design and for the organization’s decision-making executives, of considering the launch of solutions different from those they have just validated or are used to validating.

42

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Faced with this type of reasoning involving the deployment by cloning of a new good method, the organization may therefore face resistance to change, which is a kind of organizational reflex [RAY 03, p. 235], but may also generate resistance to change in other ways. At this level, we find the problem of the innovator’s dilemma [CHR 00]. If the innovator wishes to change the way he or she designs and innovates, he or she risks jeopardizing the beautiful mechanism that has so far worked, and if he or she does nothing or allocates too few resources to the production of different offers aimed at developing a disruptive technology, service or product, he or she will sooner or later lose a significant part of his or her current market, or even his or her entire market following the development by a third party of one technological disruption or another. Another element to consider when imagining the ideal end result is to avoid falling into the trap of media hype [PRA 05, p. 60] or the Gartner hype cycle [FEN 08]. This consists of directing too quickly most of one’s hopes towards a promising but not mature new resource, whose capacities are fortunately overestimated in relation to the problem at hand. These are most often technologies or products whose merits are promoted by the media, even specialized ones, in the short or medium term. In doing so, the media, on the one hand, underestimate the time it will take for these promising technologies and products to mature and, on the other hand, overestimate their future use. Examples include 3D televisions, which were announced as revolutionary in the 2000s but which did not fundamentally change our habits, and Google Glass, whose qualities were so highly praised in the early 2010s. Concerning the ideal final result, one last element deserves our attention. When the recognition of a problem as such is not obvious, the problem may require research to be highlighted. To save time, the problem will first be placed in the background during considerations, to give way to the expression of an ideal that will allow the expression of different concepts (see previous sections) that will allow one or more problems to emerge. This development could take the form of a formulation-interrogation cycle linking ideal final results and different concepts according to reference situations to be taken into account, such as that shown in Figure 2.4. We specify that if, in this figure, we speak of ideal final results, it is to encourage you to consider several alternatives before merging them into a single ideal final result.

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

43

Figure 2.4. First and second plans of the formulation process and problem-solving

2.2.2. Start by considering a closed world In the developments that have emerged as a result of the dissemination of TRIZ tools, methods such as ASIT (Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking) and USIT (Unified Structured Inventive Thinking) have emerged [BER 10, p. 137]. Beyond systematic use in the form of a process proposal of the TRIZ tools, they both use the closed world principle. This closed world serves to avoid over-generalizing the problem or developing a solution that is too far removed from the reality of the problem, and therefore to keep in mind what really characterizes it. To take stock of this closed world, it is enough to look layer by layer, according to what is necessary, at the objects that constitute the problem and its environment. We find this type of reasoning in functional analysis of a product [COR 12, p. 76, DUP 14, p. 133]. When thinking in a creative situation, the closed world serves both to move away from the obvious solutions that have already been tested by observing what constitutes the problem, its environment and therefore the resources immediately available. The closed world must thus bring us closer to the reality of the situation of the problem and avoid as much as possible “cheating” with this reality by calling on external help. We can explain the interest of this mode of reflection by referring to K. Duncker and L.S. Lees’ test [DUN 45] known as the candle problem. The problem is as follows: a person must succeed in holding a candle via a cork board without any wax falling out; the whole thing must hold without human help. In the room

44

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

where the person and the candle are located, there is, in addition to the cork board, a table on which a candle, a matchbox and a box of pins are placed. Among the implicit rules of this test are that it is forbidden to ask someone outside to solve the problem (or to make it more up-to-date to go on the Internet to find a solution), that it is not possible to use objects other than those placed on the table, and that the table must not be damaged (by making a hole in the table or dismantling the table, for example). As there are matches and a candle, we immediately think about lighting the candle. It is also interesting to add to these rules the one prohibiting the lighting of any match, which is always frustrating. This problem can only be really solved when we calmly take stock of the resources available in this closed world. Thus, if the table and board cannot be damaged, matchboxes and pins can be damaged. If pins and matches are immediately identified as part of a solution (as there is a cork wall, pins can only be planted in it), it is, in general, not the case for their container. You can do the test, including leaving the plastic packaging of a pin box; it does not matter. Even in the age of fully recyclable packaging, plastic is initially perceived only as an external element to the problem. You can also add a new constraint: the candle must not be in immediate contact with the wall. This constraint will help some people find a satisfactory solution, while others will try to create a kind of footbridge made of matches and pins on which to place the candle (which is really a complex and risky solution). In the case of the closed world, it is sufficient to list the essential components of the problem as well as those that interact directly with these components (pins are in one box and matches in another). From this quick point, a solution will emerge: empty one of the boxes and then hang it on the wall with pins and then place the candle on it (if you do not want to light the matches, they can be used to hold the candle in the box). If you have proposed a box of pins in its plastic packaging, you will then see other solutions emerge. If the balance of the problem and its resources according to its closed world is not enough to solve the problem, before moving on to the balance of all available resources, it is necessary to reconsider the closed world to see what we have forgotten to consider at first. For example, we can note that there is air in the room where the candle and painting are located (this is not very helpful in this case, but it deserves to be recorded systematically in the case of other problems), matches can be planted in the candle, the boxes are made of cardboard that can be torn or bent, the wick of the candle can be used to hang it (the wick cannot be removed from the candle, otherwise it would no longer be a candle), the candle can be cut in half, etc. The USIT

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

45

method also proposes to analyze the spatio-temporal characteristics of the problem. It is very interesting. In this sense, we also advise to take stock of the habits and standards of the problem, as part of the problem and its closed world. We therefore propose to review the routines of use components of the problem: a candle is made to be lit and positioned in a vertical direction with the wick at the top, matches are made to be lit, pins are made to be planted, boxes are made to contain smaller objects, cork boards are made to be pierced, etc. Once this assessment is complete, it is enough to ask yourself if with the same components, we can do something else to solve the problem. 2.2.3. The balance of available resources We are always constrained in terms of resources to those we have and those we can have within the time frame and context in which we are located. If the review of the closed world has not helped us to solve the problem, it is time to expand the scope of possibilities. Thus, the fact that we are most often able to solicit additional resources or to consider in terms of resources what we did not see as such at the beginning of our reflection requires us to make an objective assessment of the resources available when trying to solve a problem, at least complex in appearance. To do this, we propose that you list your resources based on a classification into four categories related to their nature: financial resources (FINR), human resources (HUMR), material resources (MATR), intangible assets and digital resources (IADIR). This is not enough; it is still necessary to specify certain sub-categories by distinguishing, for example, internal resources (INTR) from external resources (EXTR). To complement this, these resources can be qualified according to their availability: those that can be available immediately (AIMM), for a limited period (ALIM) or under conditions (AUCO). You can thus add as many criteria and variables that allow the qualification of your sources as your situation requires. The mobility or location of resources can thus be identified: resources accessible on or from the main work site (RAPS) versus resources requiring on-site travel (RNDS). These last proposals are interesting to start the reflection work and possibly to start the project very quickly. Of course, they can already be included in the category of AIUC. We therefore have four main categories of resources that can then be distinguished according to three variables relating to the relative positions of resources vis-à-vis the organization (INTR, EXTR), their availability

46

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

(AIMM, ALIM, AUCO) and their access according to their geographical location (RAPS and RNDS). It may also be interesting to look at the history of the problem, if it is not new, and the resources previously requested. It is then necessary to ask whether the problem is really new and whether partial resolution attempts have not already been made or are being implemented. This will allow you to distinguish new resources (NEWR) from resources already used (RAUS). This new consideration of resources raises questions about the interest of what new resources can be used to solve the problem and how those that have already been used have been implemented. This makes it possible to take these resources into account in relation to their implementation and therefore to the dangers of a media hype or a deployment by cloning. It is therefore preferable to consider this resource balance dynamically, because its identification also depends on your understanding of the problem and the breakdown it undergoes to solve it. If your understanding of the problem and its management changes over time, then your focus on the resources that can be used to solve it must also be renewed. However, do not forget to always start with an assessment of the resources of the closed world and return to the closed world once some additional resources have been requested. Ideally, as few elements as possible should be added to the problem components to solve it, and if added, it is better to remove and even remove more than what is added. Your solution will then be all the more creative and elegant so that the nature of the problem remains similar to what it was initially. 2.3. The levels of understanding and frameworks of a problem Questioning a problem or the situation in which it arises is an essential element of achieving its resolution. However, it should not be believed that a 5W+(2)H-type question will solve all your problems. Indeed, if you ask these questions without considering that behind the situation studied there are causes of problems or simply reasons for hidden practices, you will have little chance of discovering them. In the presentation of the Kaizen method, T. Ohno points out that to identify the causes of problems, you have to imagine that there are problems, ask the right questions, as well as travel to see for yourself how things are done, including implementation of your solutions [OHN 12, p. 14]. Similarly, T. Ohno indicated that there are many sources of misunderstanding that inevitably arise within an organization. We

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

47

must be able to admit that we may be wrong to improve what is done [OHN 12, p. 7]. It is therefore necessary to take an external, critical, as well as a practical look, i.e. as close as possible to the realization and understand the reason for the tasks performed, the root cause of a problem and not its direct source [LIK 09, p. 312]. In order to consider limiting these errors in understanding and representing problem situations, we propose approaching them using a method that breaks them down into different stages and layers expressed by interpretation frameworks. 2.3.1. The levels of scale of an understanding Once you have ensured that you have a good understanding of the problem, that you have gone around your closed world and the resources that may be available, a classic way to approach a problem is to consider several levels of perception to better consider it. This makes it possible to approach a problem or what needs to be the focus of attention to solve it (an object, a service, a process, a company, a situation, etc.) from several angles. This approach is recommended if we want to limit our perception bias. In this sense, it is preferable to vary and combine the points of view to consider it. We will speak here of a focal point of the problem to treat the understanding of a problem in a rather general way. The focal point of the problem is the point where people’s attention is focused on solving the problem at least at the beginning of its perception. The five questioning frameworks presented above already allow us to approach the focal point of the problem from various angles that are implied in several questions. They are easily complemented by a representation integrating the three strata of its environment, namely the micro, meso and macro levels, which are themselves traditionally used to solve business strategy problems [GIB 12, p. 28], but can also be applied in many other cases. The micro level requires a problem to be broken down into sub-problems; a problem focal point must be broken down into parts and sub-parts, constituent elements, materials, sub-objectives, functions and stages of the operating process, on the one hand, and life, on the other hand. It is generally preferable to identify the nature and main characteristics (functions, materials, shape, operating and service life, advantages, constraints, disadvantages, etc.), variants and alternatives of its elements. Then, it is advisable to repeat this operation once for each of the listed items to go down to an even lower level of analysis.

48

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

The meso level links the focal point of the problem or some of its components (subproblems, parts, constituent elements, sub-objectives, functions, stages of its operating process, stages of its life) with elements of its environment perceived at an equivalent or slightly higher scale. This involves listing one or, more often, several maps of the elements of the environment with which the focal point of the problem or one of its components first has a direct interaction. Then, it is necessary to extend this mapping to the elements of the environment with which it is in indirect interaction through a single intermediary. To do this, simply browse the elements with which they interact directly and observe with which other elements they mainly interact. The steps just upstream and downstream of a previously identified step are also elements identified with this type of analysis. You can then reason at the meso level as if you were doing a slightly extended external functional analysis [COR 12, p. 76]. You can also simply list the characteristics, variants and alternatives of the new elements that have appeared. The macro level is the one that further extends this perception. The elements making up the meso level are grouped into broad categories or meso-clusters (or meso-steps if they are grouping stages) so that their number is less than eight. The characteristics of these meso-clusters are then reduced to the main one. The aim is to reduce the number of their attributes to a maximum of eight, except for their variants and alternatives. This maximum number allows us to create a readable star representation around the focal point of the problem. Once this is done, the groups created are in turn considered according to the interactions they have with other elements of the surrounding environment. Here again, you can extend this mapping by identifying and linking at least the elements with which there is indirect interaction at this level of order 1 (between a meso-cluster and the problem focal point is only one other meso-cluster). 2.3.2. Frameworks characterizing the treatment of a problem Understanding and characterizing a problem into different strata or levels of interpretation is only one way of breaking down the problem and linking this breakdown to the way the problem is treated. If we analyze how this decomposition is carried out, it is then possible to bring out interaction frameworks that will make it possible to point out certain elements involved in the resolution of a problem. In this sense, identifying the frameworks for

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

49

interpreting and dealing with a problem makes it possible to highlight the entire process for resolving it by including the actors involved. In this way, if we consider the individuals involved in a problem-solving process, including creative processes, it is information flowing between individuals that can be pointed out. In this sense, a network of links between individuals working in interaction frameworks throughout a process makes it possible to understand how information and ideas are translated and thus transformed. Such an analysis should therefore be based on the sociology of translation [LAT 05]. Thus, a problem cannot be considered outside the solution proposed for it and all the intermediate elements that have contributed to this transition. Concerning the identification and delimitation of what we call here “framework”, we have borrowed this notion from E. Goffman [GOF 74] and P. Flichy [FLI 07]. For us, a framework is an abstract, but organized, structure that gives meaning to an activity situation according to the individuals directly involved in that activity, as well as according to its purpose, references, data, information and knowledge that are requested. The interest of this decomposition into frames is to point out what happens there, has happened there and is reproduced there. In order to facilitate this breakdown, we propose to start from the analysis of the problem-solving process and more particularly in the context of this report, a process of developing a new product. In this case, the problem to be solved is therefore to develop a new product that can be designed to correspond to a market and be accepted by the users/customers it targets. The frameworks to be characterized will primarily refer to individuals engaged in an activity leading to material or immaterial production, soliciting reference models and a number of material and immaterial resources. These frameworks can be ordered according to a hierarchy of levels of frameworks (nesting of frameworks in other frameworks) and chronologically (one framework can precede another). 2.3.3. The division of frames and related issues The recognition of frames and, therefore, their delimitation or formation begins with a simple selection of steps in the development process of the new product. This division is a necessary a priori, but it will make it possible to highlight a certain number of frameworks whose questioning will probably reveal intermediate or implied stages in the previously selected stages. Thus, an executive may be associated with a step if it can be considered as an

50

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

activity distinct from other activities that precede or succeed it and if at least one individual carries out that activity. From this, a framework can be characterized as long as it is associated with at least a reference model for implementing this activity with the activity and the individuals who carry it out, the resources it requires and a production. Each framework is then the subject of a series of five questions: 1) Who interprets the information during the process? 2) What are the sources of the models used and why? 3) What resources (materials, equipment, tools, etc.) are available or used during the activity? 4) What elements are produced, requested or exploited during the process? 5) What ideas are generated and lead to the development of possible solutions? This questioning therefore concerns the individuals involved (question 1), what is requested in the framework (questions 2 and 3), as well as what is produced (questions 4 and 5). In this sense, we encourage people to consider as resources as well as productions: ideas, information, knowledge, problem statements, solutions associated with them and proposed, and of course, the solutions finally adopted. This is shown in Figure 2.5. In this drawing, the corner components are characteristic of a frame and their identification is necessary for the recognition of the frame as such. The “productions” square acts as an exit door from the framework, while at its center are two networks of strong interactions linking ideas, information and knowledge, on the one hand, and the links that are often implicit between problems and the development of a solution through different paths, on the other hand. We do not deny that there are other strong links, especially between information and problems, or problems (or solutions) and knowledge, but displaying them in this diagram would have made it less easy to read. The dotted triangle formed by knowledge, information and ideas should therefore be read as being on a plane other than that of problems, possible solutions and ideas. Thus, whatever the production of one of these two networks, we consider that it must have an impact on the other network. Let us say that these two networks function as parts of an electromagnet, one acting as a coil and the other as a nucleus. Their mutual interactions, once the current flows

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

51

(the activity starting), create a movement, i.e. in our case, at least one production. Chapter 7 will explain how we define precisely each of these fundamental elements of a framework. Of course, in order to be able to identify frameworks in a process, it is necessary to analyze it and break it down into several steps. This is one of the limitations of this type of reasoning. That being said, the cases where this applies are still extremely numerous. If you do not know where to start this decomposition, we advise you to first identify a problem whose purpose of the process will be to solve it. Then, you can identify the knowledge and information available about this problem, as well as the ideas and hypotheses (which we consider to be forms of ideas) that have been associated with the problem statement. We therefore return to a relatively classic questioning of the elements that make up the framework. Individual(s)

Activity

Productions Knowledge

Information

Possible solutions

Problems

Solutions

Ideas

Reference model(s)

Resources

Figure 2.5. Diagrams of the elements questioned within an interpretive framework [GOR 18]

As far as the nesting of frames is concerned, this occurs when an activity can be represented by a process. Thus, a framework presenting the activity from a general perspective may include other frameworks that each detail a step of the activity. Although it is generally interesting to survey the resources and productions of a framework, it is even more interesting if we can follow what happens to each. Thus, we encourage you to identify if identical resources are solicited several times and if productions from one framework are exploited as resources in another framework or even within it.

52

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

A 5W+(2)H-type question should be sufficient to characterize each of its elements. 2.3.4. The benefit of this division and these questions For this method of referencing and questioning the interaction frameworks of a product development process to make sense, its main objective must be clear to the person setting it up. We therefore insist on the fact that the use of these frameworks only makes sense if reference models for carrying out the activity are identified and explained. It is necessary to be able to name at least one reference model for each frame and then summarize it in the form of a short text, a diagram, images, video, etc. A series of questions must therefore be answered on this reference model, which must include the source of this model (Who produced it? Or from where it was borrowed?). Knowing which model is used, where it comes from, who uses it and for what purpose for a given activity reveals gray areas of the process and raises the question of the justifications for using such a model in a given situation. We would like to remind you that this book encourages you to be agile when it comes to creativity and innovation, even over a long period of time. The systematic use of the same models can only be seen as a source of rigidity in the process. If you have only one model available to perform a task, you no longer even think about why you are doing it this way and therefore do not risk reconsidering how you do it. Similarly, if over the years you always use the same models, you can, by highlighting this form of routine, point out the risks of rigidity of your process with regard to the changes that must necessarily take place outside your organization. A monitoring of emerging models according to your needs can therefore be useful (Chapter 3 will propose some principles and tools to carry out a monitoring). That said, you do not have to wait for new models to be promoted or exploited outside your organization to reconsider which ones you use and how you use them. This incentive to use more than one reference model to perform a task with the “required variety” on which I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi have placed so much emphasis in their reference work on knowledge creation [NON 97, p. 110].

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

53

A final interesting point highlighted by interviewing executives is the time that elapses between the statement of a problem and the emergence of a satisfactory solution to solve it. This allows you to see if, in addition to being agile, your creation and production system is fast enough and where the slowest steps are located. This will allow you to identify new problems, such as: how to make things faster…, how to accelerate…, how to limit the time lost due to…. Remember that behind each practice is a reference model, or even a routine of use of this model that makes it almost invisible to its practitioners. 2.4. Conclusion Every task, and therefore every questioning, hides hidden references and choices made consciously or unconsciously and sometimes for a very long time. Some are the result of an inheritance or a quick choice whose solution, if it has worked and therefore been adopted, is now part of the organization’s habits. The purpose of this book is to give you the keys to make your creative organization more flexible in the sense that it must be given a certain agility if it is to change its habits quickly. However, doing this involves taking a fresh look at the company’s practices on a regular basis (once a year). The use of external personnel can help. Discovery reports (see Chapter 3) then take on their full meaning, but if they are not accompanied by a questioning about the deep origins of what is the subject of the discovery, the conclusions you will draw from them may be much less interesting than they could have been. In order to illustrate this problem of looking at a task or a designed object, we will study the case of the board game Clue (Waddington Games). It is certainly outside the field of creativity and innovation, but its playful mechanisms are based on the search for answers to three questions: Who? Where? And how? In this sense, it can be considered as a systematic approach to solving a criminal investigation. We can ask you how you would go about proposing an alternative version of this game, without distorting it. We remind you that in Clue, the players’ objective is to find out first who killed Dr. Lenoir? In which room of a mansion? And with what weapon? (How?).

54

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

On closer examination, these questions, implicitly, form a problemsolving model in which the motivation for murder (why?) and the time of the crime (when?) are not judged as the most important questions, while the question “what?” already has its answer at the beginning of the game: it is a murder. So there are still three questions that are prioritized in this game. We can reasonably say that the other two issues are not addressed in order to allow for quick games (less than an hour’s play). It is therefore a design choice. That being said, even though we put this aspect of the number of questions in brackets, the fact remains that this game is still based on a form of criminal investigation model and therefore implied references. It is thus inspired by the murder mystery parties3 of the 1930s in which Arthur Pratt, the game’s creator, took part [FOS 13, p. 12]. Similarly, Arthur Pratt was inspired by the detective novels of the time of which he was a reader. J. Foster presents two novels by Agatha Christie as possible inspirations for this game: The Mysterious Affair at Styles [CHR 12] and The Sittaford Mystery [CHR 01]. These two novels have in common the fact that they take place in a mansion where there is a gallery of different characters, each of whom may be responsible for a murder that has just been committed. In the case of The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Hercule Poirot’s investigation must point out the type of poison used, how it was administered and by whom, while in The Sittaford Mystery, the investigation is conducted by two members of the victim’s entourage in a mansion strangely similar to that on the Clue board [FOS 13, p. 27] of which one of the suspects is named Violette! We can therefore find reference models hidden behind the design of this game. If you knew this game and its mechanisms, now that we have highlighted possible references and the questions it focuses on, some of you can now imagine alternatives to this game outside the changes, or different versions of this game outside the “classic” ones that have already been proposed and that are only variations of the basic game: more or different parts or pieces, more or different characters, more or different weapons.

3 These are life-size role-playing games of criminal investigation in a closed environment, in which players can move around a predefined number of rooms (of a house, hotel, boat, etc.) and discover in a limited time who the murderer is (the murderer is played by a player, whose objective is to not be discovered).

Recognizing and Questioning the Problem

55

If you can take a different look at a game like Clue, you can do the same with a task done in your organization. Or, with this way of considering the way one can look at understanding and solving a problem, you can make the link with, for example, the FAST (Function Analysis System Technique) value analysis system, which focuses on three questions [MIL 86, p. 17-1]: Why? How? And when? This system of thought is quite similar to that of Clue. It is used because it allows a fast and organized functional analysis. It differs mainly in the sequence of questions and answers: why and when? (answer) → why and when? (answer) → why and when? How and when? (answer) → how and when? (answer) → how and when? By comparing these two modes of operation, it is clear that some questions can be changed or interchanged from one questioning system to another, as well as that the FAST system can be transformed so that it can look like a game. It is thus possible to read/gamify [SAV 17, p. 13] the FAST system, i.e. to develop a new design to present it in such a way as to give it a more playful aspect in order to make its learning and/or use more interesting (at least for some of its users). The questioning of the means of development and the references used can be done simply, but if you wish to do so with sufficient efficiency, this practice must be done in connection with information about the external environment; an overview adapted to your situation.

3 Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

Information is a key element in decision-making. The OODA loop model we are following here (see Chapter 1) devotes an important place to regular access to information to adapt decisions to environmental changes. But since the quantities of information available began to evolve exponentially, the problem is no longer being informed, but being informed effectively. Monitoring attempts to solve this difficult problem. We present it here starting from some of its facets by detailing some of its means and practices on the basis of the intelligence cycle, each step of which is focused on information: expression of need, collection (of data and information), processing and analysis, and dissemination of results. 3.1. Monitoring and its forms When we talk about monitoring, it is preferable to speak of this term in the plural. There are thus many ways to practice monitoring. They are distinguished by the way in which the people in charge of them understand the iterative process, which ranges from the acquisition of useful information to its dissemination in a form adapted to its exploitation according to the context and the recipient concerned. In general, at least in France, for the past 20 years or so, it has been customary to refer to the experimental definition proposed by AFNOR (French standardization association) in order to clarify what monitoring is:

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

58

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[A] continuous and largely iterative activity aimed actively at monitoring the technological, commercial and other environment in order to anticipate changes. [AFN 98] This definition makes it possible to draw the outline of monitoring, but remains a little too general to fully understand what it concerns or not. There are thus many ways to consider and understand the monitoring activity. 3.1.1. The main steps in a monitoring process Among the ways to present monitoring, there is another common anchor for many scientific authors who are interested in this subject. In general, these authors will refer to the intelligence cycle. Although the number of steps that form it may vary from one author to another, it makes it possible to distinguish the different steps of a monitoring process. In its shortest version, it consists of four steps: (1) expression of informational need; (2) collection of information; (3) processing and analysis; (4) dissemination of results. Since it is a cycle, the response to a request may lead to a new one or, at the very least, as an iterative cycle, to a search for improvement in the adequacy of the information provision given in response to the request expressed. That said, it is important to be aware that, behind each of the steps implied or located between two steps in this cycle, other steps and other important elements take place in the monitoring process. First of all, between the stages of expressing the need and collecting information are the stages of research planning and sourcing (identification of the best sources of information related to the request). Similarly, between the collection and processing and analysis phases, there is necessarily a step of sorting (unless it is included in the processing), cross-checking the information and estimating its value and the degree of confidence that can be placed in it. Between the processing and analysis and dissemination stages, there is the stage of formatting the results of the work carried out in the dissemination format corresponding to the expectations of the recipients (e.g. seeking rapid recognition of the most important information), as well as according to the use they will make of it (e.g. reworking information to disseminate it in turn). Finally, between the dissemination and expression of need stage, there is a stage of information feedback management, a questioning of its relevance

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

59

and usefulness, as well as of the understanding of the needs expressed and, related to this, the identification of new information needs (and their recipients). 3.1.2. Monitoring according to their location, users and objectives Monitoring can also be defined according to its angle of approach, its objective and the profession of the person who practices it or its department of membership in the company (commercial, journalistic, legal, logistics, R&D, human resources, etc.). We will thus speak of technological monitoring when the usefulness of the information it must provide concerns objectives whose achievement requires a relevant contribution of this type of (technological) information. Similarly, it may be a question of scientific, competitive, legislative, legal, societal, etc. monitoring/intelligence. The type of monitoring can also be specified based on what it needs to monitor or the type of information it needs to look for. In this sense, it may be product monitoring (monitoring what may have an impact on certain of the company’s flagship products, their current and potential competitors), competitive (monitoring competition/competitive intelligence), image or reputation (of the company’s products, the organization itself, its partners, etc.), market (monitoring current markets/market intelligence, their trends and possible threats to them, as well as the opportunities that may arise), suppliers, customers, patents (in the form of technology monitoring focused solely on patents), etc. It may also include the means used to conduct the monitoring or information resources it uses. We can then talk about Internet, Web, open source, acoustic, video, etc. monitoring. The review can take many forms and some of its headings are interrelated in several ways. Strategic intelligence is the most well-known of these polysemic reviews. It can simply refer to the fact of carrying out useful monitoring directly in strategic decision-making (the information provided in this particular framework is, by extension, qualified as strategic). It can also be considered as a strategically organized monitoring, consisting of the management of many other forms of monitoring (competitive, image, legal and legislative, market, product, product, supplier customers, scientific and technological, societal, etc.) which are solicited more or less significantly according to the company’s priorities and the evolution of its environment. Finally, among the polysemic reviews, we will mention creative and

60

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

innovation reviews. Since creation and innovation are two terms that can have many meanings, if only by misusing language, the reviews associated with them carry the same variations in interpretation. Creative competitive intelligence can thus be considered as a review specifically dedicated to the information needs of creative personnel, inventors and other innovation managers. It can also be a review specifically geared towards the world of creation or innovation, which does not exactly correspond to the previous definition. It can be considered as a review implemented using the systematic use of creative and inventive methods in order to identify more effectively opportunities for creation and innovation or simply to follow the latest news and projects under development. Innovation monitoring, if not already included in creative competitive intelligence, is a monitoring specifically dedicated to a direct informational contribution to the innovation process, whether in the context of product, service, market, marketing or knowledge innovation. In this sense, effective innovation monitoring must ensure that the most important information for the innovation process flows well between the people involved and must support them so that they can more easily communicate, interpret and identify new knowledge, ideas, solutions, development opportunities, technological barriers, competitive threats, etc. 3.1.3. Digital, punctual and continuous monitoring Monitoring cannot be limited to the implementation of a regular and simplified information system based on digital tools such as RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, subscriptions to Twitter accounts or alerts as they can be offered by Google engines or portals such as the Web of Science. Even though we inform ourselves and manage the information obtained using a platform for aggregating information feeds or computer alerts (and other subscriptions to social networks) such as Inoreader or Netvibes, we cannot say that we are monitoring. Monitoring involves the implementation of a reasoned information process (the intelligence cycle) to select the best sources according to well-identified needs, filter and classify them in order to collect relevant information, annotate, summarize or aggregate them into a number that can be read and interpreted. In this sense, some so-called curation practices can be qualified as monitoring practices and not others:

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

61

All practices relating to the selection, editorialization and sharing of information content that can be carried out on digital networks, particularly on the Web. [PIR 16] If the process of acquiring information, up to and including dissemination, is designed to meet the needs of recipients, we are in a situation of monitoring, especially if management of this process involves concern for improving delivery, including anticipating the needs of recipients. If, on the contrary, curation is thought of as personal information management leading to a new informational production to which anyone who wants to subscribe cannot be called a review. There remains the particular case where one reviews for oneself, also called “ordinary review” [CAN 17]. In this case, we will talk about monitoring, if a significant part of the information collected exceeds a general informational interest in the sense of a social or traditional media. For example, if we regularly listen to several radio programs, watch television programs and read specialized magazines, we only monitor if we seek to identify certain information that meets specific needs already recognized. If we are not able to frequently obtain information that is useful to us in order to carry out some of our tasks, then we do not practice monitoring, but simply inform in a general way. To carry out monitoring, it is necessary to have clearly identified and specified its informational motivations while having set up a dedicated strategy to respond to them [CAN 17]. At the other extreme of monitoring practices, there are those called ad hoc monitoring or file monitoring. These are non-recurring information retrievals, but will still require going through the entire intelligence cycle. These information gathering practices can be considered as monitoring practices, if they take place in a broader process. An information search is carried out for one or more recipients, but the sources interviewed, processing carried out and information obtained are the subject of a knowledge capitalization in order to improve the next research. Feedback on the usefulness of standby information is then of interest. In addition, a one-time search can also generate a demand for continuous monitoring. If we consider these ad hoc searches as ad hoc reviews integrated into a larger monitoring system, a questioning of the recipients of the information can be carried out in order to ask them if they would not be interested in a more regular follow-up of certain points that have just been treated.

62

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

3.1.4. The practice of monitoring expressed in the form of metaphors We have just seen that the intelligence cycle is not the only way to imagine what a review is. Leaving aside technical, location and objective differences, it is possible to consider this practice as a set of complementary practices. To do this, we propose a metaphorical approach here. Thus, to express how a monitoring practice can use images, we can start by drawing a screen whose large size is in line with the development of information technology (Figure 3.1). Indeed, we can no longer reasonably monitor without using a computer or smartphone and therefore a digital screen. However, the importance of the Internet and the various software programs dedicated to the computer processing of data and information sometimes make some young reviewers forget that the relevant information is not only found on the Web or their favorite social networks. Indeed, not all information is on the Web and it is necessary to take a step back from the use of certain web tools to better consider the results they allow us to obtain. The drawing of the frame represents both what we all tend to focus our attention on as well as an element that needs to be put aside from time to time. Then, to report on the main functions of a watch, we add a pair of binoculars representing the organization’s environmental monitoring activity. On the contrary, and in a complementary way, we add a magnifying glass. It points out that a monitoring activity also requires an in-depth and detailed analysis of things. In a similar register, the figurative representation can be completed by a flashlight. It illustrates the fact that a review must highlight what is important and shed light on the paths on which the organization is being launched or intends to take. In addition to the flashlight, we add a mobile phone that reflects both the fact that an individual conducting a review must be attentive to the people to whom he or she is committed to providing information and, in addition to collecting digital data and information, that he or she must also consider other means and sources of information, including human contacts. Then, we highlight an alarm clock symbolizing the continuous process of a vigil in the form of a cycle that should periodically wake the organization up about what is happening around it and prevent it from falling asleep by always observing the same external elements. Similarly, we add a compass to keep in mind that conducting a review involves a dimension of cross-checking and estimating the value of

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

63

information, particularly according to the angle of approach and context. And finally, we end this series of images with a group of bricks forming a small pyramid, because to practice a review is to constitute an informational added value by drawing out various elements in order to give them meaning.

Figure 3.1. Some symbols presenting the main facets of monitoring

Figure 3.1 attempts to assemble all these facets of monitoring. It can also serve as a set of the eight errors of monitoring. Just consider this scheme when monitoring, and check each of the images that correspond to elements included in your process. This will allow you to ask yourself questions such as: have you gone far enough to fully contemplate the entire spectrum associated with your review? Did you get trapped on your phone or computer screen? Have you looked at enough detail about what was related to this vigil? Have you highlighted enough things and are they really coming out well? Is your review able to alert me to the appearance of changes that may have an impact on monitoring recipient? Did you forget to use human resources to get information? Have you taken into account the context in

64

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

which the information collected was produced or estimated the confidence you could have in your sources? What added value have you brought by assembling, crossing or formatting information? 3.2. Information search and search engines The Web or, more generally, the Internet forms a multidimensional space that gathers huge amounts of information. Apart from a few specific types of information, we can in general reasonably assume that, if information exists, it must be accessible via the Internet and more particularly via a search engine (giving us access only to a part of the Web which itself represents only a part of what is called the Internet). To overcome this problem of blinders and focusing our research on a small data space, it will be necessary to use more than one search engine and to supplement them, if possible, with other means of collection to access the information sought. Let us start this part with the essential search engines. A first way to consider them is to describe them as widely used gateways to access information available on the Web. A search engine is usually presented as an interface with a space called “search bar”, in which we type what are called queries. The queries typed in this bar take the form of strings that are a translation of a question you want to ask the engine in “a language it understands”. Not all search engines are dedicated to searching the Web. For example, some are only intended to allow a database to be queried. However, their operating principle remains broadly the same. Some generalist engines such as Google now allow queries in natural (spoken) language, but you still have to make the effort to translate your thoughts, which is like expressing a short and clear question. It is therefore necessary to monitor the evolution of the engines being questioned in order to make the most of their potential. Thus, engines such as Bing, Google or Yandex, to meet a wider audience and allow the use of their voice assistants (Google Home, Alexa, Siri, etc.), tend to deal with questions in natural language. It is therefore advisable to test/compare these two types of queries (natural language and keyword combination with operators). A query expressed in natural language can thus give better results than a complex search equation [BAS 17].

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

65

3.2.1. Keywords and strings For a few more months or years, search engines will give us better results if we ask them questions in the form of queries composed of keywords and strings. If a person can read a string and it means something to them, this type of string is considered a keyword. We will therefore extend the definition of keywords to any character string that allows us to obtain interesting answers if we type them in the bar of a search engine. The following strings can be considered as keywords: “home”, “tool”, “iron”, “2019”, “pdf”, “@tunilefer”, “#ironing”. It is often necessary, if the engine allows it, to type the string you want to use as a keyword in quotation marks. Quotation marks have the advantage of preventing the engine used from changing your character string to the most similar string. They also make it possible to specify what you are looking for, for example, if you are only interested in singular terms (“tool” and not “tools” which would also give as an answer the pages corresponding to the “tools” query). Quotation marks also allow you to search for a very precise character string (“Brittany potato”) that may contain special characters (punctuation marks or @, for example) or simply to accurately express a term composed of several words (such as “clothes iron”). In addition, it should be noted that punctuation marks, accents and capital letters are generally not taken into account by search engines. Another important point in using a string as a keyword is that the longer it is (within the limits of the engine’s capabilities), the fewer possible answers will be expected, but they will be all the more relevant. This allows you to type long strings of characters (including spaces/whites) in quotation marks in most search engines. You can also combine keywords in a query. This will correspond to a long string of characters, some of which are separated by spaces and will be typed without quotes. However, it is not advisable to type too many keywords in the same query, as many search engines may not take into account all your keywords (do the test with Google). In this way, a good request uses two to eight targeted keywords or one to four strings between quotation marks depending on the length of the strings or a combination of targeted keywords and strings between quotation marks.

66

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

When searching for information using a search engine, you must therefore translate your thoughts into keywords. It is necessary to choose keywords in the language of interest, i.e. the one that corresponds to the linguistic context of the problem (it depends on the linguistic skills of the person conducting the research, as well as on the languages of expression on the Web about the subject being questioned). This is why English is the most recommended language for a search engine query, because it is the most widely used language on the Web (this should not prevent you from using several languages to translate your queries in the same engine). Thus, the first of the English keywords that can be interesting in the context of monitoring is “search engine”. This will allow you to cross-reference this keyword with another keyword related to your subject or the theme in which it falls (science, technology, leisure, social media, photographs, etc.) in order to discover and search a specialized search engine (e.g. to avoid using only Google to perform an image search, you can try Yougoo and the TinEye reverse image search). Remember that an English search engine can also allow you to get good results with French, Spanish, Russian, etc. Just test it to know its capabilities. In fact, a web search engine is a technological tool that uses different computer programs, some of which will locate and store web pages. The other engines question what constitutes their memory. For example, for Twitter, it will be its database of tweets and for YouTube, its database of videos. 3.2.2. Relevant search engine responses Search engines therefore rank the answers to your queries in order of relevance: the best ones are supposed to be at the top of the first page of answers. However, it is not easy to understand what, exactly, is a relevant answer for a search engine. In fact, each engine has its own system for calculating relevance. Search engines can search web pages as well as many other types of documents. Search engines can provide answers to specific documents such as HTML, DOC, DOCX, DOCX, PDF, RTF, TXT, ZIP, etc. They can also target specific categories of documents: web pages, blogs, tweets, images, audio files, videos, etc. However, they all work in much the same way as Google, which is by far the most widely used search engine in the world. These engines therefore have a memory that stores data and documents, as well as metadata, or data informing about the content of an indexed

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

67

document. Keywords are the most common metadata. They were already used by archivists in the 1950s. These people identify, for a given document, a few keywords (called descriptors) in order to best qualify that document. In documentation, these keywords correspond to words that would be found as entries in a dictionary. Not all pronouns, articles, conjunctions and adjectives were originally considered keywords. Now, keywords are strings typed into a search engine or those used to digitally qualify the content of a document. Thus, web pages have a hidden side (also called “source code”) that corresponds to a form of computer code that uses tags. You can display most of these source codes by opening a web page and right-clicking on it with your computer mouse. As a general rule, a web page is composed of two main parts: one dedicated to the metadata that will describe the document or page, but will not be visible to a person who will visit this page (unless they ask to access the source code of course), and another dedicated to what the page should display to any visitor, including character sizes, font, etc. A tag can have one of the following two forms: (or simply ) or . The first is called “opening” and the second “closing”. Opening tags with metadata are often of this form “< meta AAAA=BBBBB/>”. If we consider a web page you have created, in HTML language (still widely used to design web pages), the tags and are used to frame the keywords you want to declare as such so that a search engine will recognize them for what they are. Similarly, search engines read the tags or the string in quotation marks “title” and what is announced by them to give what should be displayed as the title of the answer that the search engine will give (i.e. the text that forms the link on which you click). The source code tags are used to estimate whether or not a page matches your request. However, in a competitive global environment, metadata alone cannot be relied upon to identify whether a page or document is relevant. Anyone could put “fake” keywords or misuse keywords to encourage people to visit their web page or download their documents. This is why many alternatives to keywords have been used to estimate the relevance of documents to queries. The first point used is to take into account the content of the part visible to any visitor to a page without displaying the source code. However, due to time constraints, the first step is to analyze the first lines of text rather than the entire text. As the storage and calculation capacities of computers have increased, the engines have become more efficient to automatically index documents by browsing the texts that make up the “not hidden” side of documents (i.e. visible to the person who will consult them). If it is an image search, the engine will use the metadata of the source code of

68

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

the image search or, failing that, the text present in its vicinity. The strings selected as keywords will be by elimination, the longest, most repeated or closest visually to the type of documents indexed, etc. If a page contains all the keywords of your query, it will be considered relevant and the more your keywords are used in the first lines of a page, the better this page will be ranked in order of relevance. However, as the number of documents and pages available on the Internet became too large, other elements were taken into account to estimate the relevance of the documents or pages. Among these, one of the best known, thanks to Google, is the number of pages that have at least one of the keywords of your query and that have links that point to (from these pages to access) the page that will be given in response. This is one of the reasons why some pages given in response to one of your requests may not contain the keywords you typed. Of course, calculating page relevance can depend on several other criteria; here is a short list: – the number of visits to this page or downloads of this document; – the geographical location of the pages in relation to yours when you ask your question; – the language of your page in relation to the language associated with your geographic localization or the one you use most often; – the profitable keywords for such a page, which still correspond to those of your query; – words estimated as synonyms or translations of your keywords used by the engine (when the engine has a dictionary, lexicon or thesaurus); – the page update date (if its content has not changed between two indexing runs of the engine, the page’s relevance decreases); – the number of people who have found the page relevant or liked it (if the engine has this feature – think of the YouTube engine, the links between referencing on Google and ratings via Google +); – the number of people who follow the feeds of this category, this site, this person (e.g. on Twitter); – documents and pages that your friends in a social network have found interesting (they have noted, visited, downloaded or reported them to you);

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

69

– the similarity (in terms of keywords or localization) with the documents you have downloaded recently or the web pages you have visited in recent days. Each engine uses several of these criteria as well as other, more specific criteria, and associates a calculation coefficient to them. Many different relevance calculations are therefore possible. That is why it is necessary to take the time to test an engine to find out if the answers it gives you are right for you or not. Moreover, some engines, such as Qwant or the meta-engine (a portal allowing simultaneous search by several search engines) Duck Duck Go, allow you to avoid automatically taking into account some of these criteria for evaluating relevant pages, such as your geographic positioning or your most recent searches. 3.2.3. Choosing and searching on search engines In terms of information retrieval, it is necessary to explore the capabilities of search engines (and meta-search engines) beyond the use of the search bar alone. If you look closely at the presentation page of a search engine, you will discover that many of them (Bing, Dogpile, Metacrawler, Qwant, Yahoo, etc.) have a series of tabs (images, video, news, music, social, shopping, etc.) according to their search functions. For other engines, you will first need to make a request to access these tabs (Ask, Baidu, Duck Duck Go, Google, Yippy, etc.). Some will offer you an “advanced” or “expert” search mode or more specialized “search tools”. To access it, sometimes you just need to search the advanced search tab on the search page (Cairn, Espacenet, Monster, Patentscope, ScienceDirect, Societe.com, Vimeo, World of Science, World Wide Science), other times you will need to compose a query in French or English including the engine name and the expression “advanced search” (Google, Social Mention, Twitter, Yahoo) and more rarely some tools like Advangle (Bing and Google meta-engine queries). The main advantage of using an advanced search mode is to access more precise questioning parameters and often very useful options that we had not expected to exploit. That said, some specialized engines such as AnswerThePublic will include features that allow automated queries such as 5W+(2)H, which may make your task a little easier.

70

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Another way to consider search engines is to present their results. Some tools provide some classification of these by using strings common to several responses. They are engines that use the document aggregation technique based either on the proximity between the terms used to describe the documents (or contained in the documents) or on other metadata (authors, publication dates, classification categories, citations, etc.). These are known as clustering engines (e.g. Carrot2, Web of Science, World Wide Sciences, Yippy). You can search for one by combining in a query, for example, clustering engine and search engine. Similarly, there are some visual search engines. This expression can refer to image search engines (Everypixel, Google, Pexels, Pinterest, TinEye, Yougoo) or search engines that present their results in a more enriched visual form than a simple list. These engines can present their results in the form of screenshots that can be scrolled (DotHop). They can also be presented as tag clouds (Infomous), trees (AnswerThePublic), colored boxes separated from each other according to a thematic aggregation (Carrot2) or as evolution over time and geographical mapping (The Lens). There are still other drivers such as those that differ in their focus on social search engines. These engines weigh and estimate the image (positive, negative or neutral in particular) according to a so-called tonality calculation or sentiment analysis carried by certain discussions or texts widely used and disseminated (Social Mention, Social-searcher). In a nutshell, we will say that the analysis of text feelings is based on the recognition of expressions associated, for a given language, with rather positive or negative points of view (e.g. “super” is a word that is rather positively connoted, unlike “zero”). Or you can propose, in addition to answers and maps, a set of people to whom you can connect (Volunia) or combinations of several types of analysis (Talkwalker), etc. Finally, there are very specific search engines that allow you to search the deep Web, sometimes referred to as the invisible Web. This is rather paradoxical, because the visible Web is so qualified because it is the one that is accessed directly by typing a query into a “classic” search engine and clicking on one or the other of its answers. The invisible Web is a concept that attempts to translate the idea that sites, pages and documents on the Web are not directly accessible by traditional search engines. The deep Web concept means that you have to dig or dive to access the data on this part of the Web. A large part of the deep or invisible Web includes spaces linked by Internet links, but to which access is limited by a security protocol. We must register there with a login and password and, more and more often, copy a string proposed in the form of a photograph in order to show that it is a

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

71

human being and not an automatic search tool that wants to access this part of the Web. It may happen that this access is limited to a community of individuals or is subject to a charge. Many online databases, information portals, social networks, e-commerce sites, virtual worlds and online games correspond to these cases of indirect accessibility (in the sense that you need a login and password to access them). Among the other pages that make up the deep Web we can add all the pages or groups of pages that are orphaned, i.e. that are not yet referenced by a search engine. You must type their address in the address bar of your browser to access it. It is necessary to distinguish the deep or invisible Web from the Dark Web, which is a Web where people who browse it are expected to escape any recognition from an organization such as a government (using technology to anonymize and encrypt travel, discussions and other exchanges that take place there). Not everything is illegal, since in its philosophy it is a democratic tool and a tool to combat censorship and monitoring of the Internet visible to States, but it is still a space that some people use to carry out illegal transactions. 3.3. Keywords and search engine searches Keywords and, by extension, expressions in quotation marks can have more than one use. They can help us find documents of interest to us that are indexed in a database or on the Web. Their most well-known use concerns the creation of queries to search engines. It is a matter of selecting the right keywords to easily find documents accessible via the Web or the database that the engine queries. However, this is not their only potential; they can also be used to analyze documents to deduce various information such as the tone of comments or discussion, the connotation of a document, what is described as a novelty, locks (financial, technological, methodological, conceptual, etc.), design routines, etc. However, being realistic, keywords are first used in search engines where they can be combined to form queries. An interface like the search combination tool interface, for example, will allow you to make combinations of two keyword lists (synonyms are arranged in the same list) and then query Bing, Google and Yahoo. You will be able to search three engines and quickly consult several pages of results without having to type a large number of queries (one list of four synonyms and another list of five synonyms corresponds to 20 queries). This type of tool is very useful when the search engine does not have a very strict management of the Boolean

72

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

operator OR, as is the case with Google. In general, scientific and technical research engines have a much more rigorous management of these operators (ACM Digital Library, Cairn, Web of Science, World Wide Science). In this function, it is possible to link the words of the query using words named “operators”: AND, OR, EXCEPT, SUPERIOR TO, NEAR TO, etc. If I create a query consisting of two expressions A and B separated by the operator AND (i.e. “A AND B”), the results that must be provided to me as relevant will correspond to results that match both expressions A and B. The “A OR B” query will give me in response the same relevant results as those given for “A AND B”, but with the added benefit of those that will only be relevant for A alone and B alone. The operator EXCEPT allows you to complete a query by eliminating annoying results. For example, the “A AND B EXCEPT C” request is equivalent to asking to remove from the answers that would be obtained with the “A AND B” request those that would be relevant to the request including “C”. The operator SUPERIOR TO, like its counterpart INFERIOR TO, allows us to obtain answers involving, most often, dates. Finally, the operator CLOSE TO, if proposed, allows us to use, sometimes even to set the maximum distance in characters or words that must separate the expression “A” from that of “B” or the expression “B” from that of “A”. It is therefore an operator AND improved. There may still be other more specific operators (such as STRICTLY IDENTICAL TO), but I will not make an inventory of them here, because the engines that use them offer help that makes their syntax explicit (how to write them in queries). In addition, in many cases, these operators are implied in the use of the engine used (Google considers empty spaces between two keywords as AND operators). They can be included in a query without being really noticed, or they can be translated into a field to be filled in a dedicated window. Thus, by using an engine’s advanced search interface, you will often have access in the results page to the display of your query according to the syntax (grammar) accepted by the engine, which will allow you to use it directly the next time. Among the other operators or advanced functions that exist, we can mention the truncation operator often symbolized by the sign “*”. Most often this operator can be used to the left or right of a character string to indicate that all words beginning (right truncation) or ending (left truncation) with this character string are considered keywords in this query. Many documentary and scientific search engines accept this operator (ACM Digital Library, Cairn, Hal, Web of Science, World Wide Science). Finally, in recent years, other operators, or rather advanced search functions, have been offered to users in order to refine their requests. All you need to do is to

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

73

create a query with the name of the search engine and the expression “advanced search functions” to discover them. For example, the functions “intitle:” and “inurl:” allow you to refine a search equation (a query), respectively by specifying that the keyword attached to the function (e.g. intitle:innovation1) must be found, respectively in the title of the documents obtained in response, in the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) addresses of the web pages proposed in response. These functions can be used, in particular, with Bing and Google engines as well as derivatives of the latter (Scholar, Patents, Books, Images, etc.). 3.3.1. Keyword categories To query a search engine (once it has been identified and selected as a means of accessing sources of information relevant to the need you wish to meet), it is therefore necessary to identify a few key words or expressions, then ask yourself the question of how to develop search equations, combining them with or without operators or advanced search functions. Most of the time, it is enough to question the vocabulary to use, i.e. the choice of keywords to use. An initial way to do this is to imagine how the author of the documents we are looking for was able to express himself. Consulting dictionaries (including synonym and translation dictionaries), specialized documents, examples of relevant answers or asking experts about them are all helpful in identifying this vocabulary. However, in addition to the work of developing queries, we recommend that these keywords and expressions are classified according to their role in the research equation. Thus, they can be divided into three categories: harpoons, filters and nets. Similarly, it is possible to associate two categories of requests with them: direct and indirect requests. Keywords referred to as “harpoons”, as the name suggests, are used to harpoon sites, pages and documents that contain the typed keyword (in their textual content, in their metadata or among sites that have a direct link to this web page). Several harpoon keywords can be combined in a query separated by an operator, such as OR if they are synonymous or AND if they complement each other, to define the document we are interested in. For example, if you would like to receive information about avian influenza, you 1 Note that to use these functions you must write them by juxtaposing them with a keyword or expression without separating them by a space on either side of the two points.

74

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

can use the synonymous harpoon keywords “avian influenza” or “chicken flu”. If you wish to clarify your request, you can use two key words such as “avian flu” and “treatments” if you wish to obtain information on the treatments used in an avian flu case, knowing that “treatment” will be written in singular in a negative sentence such as: “Currently there is no treatment”. Keywords referred to as “filters” are used to filter responses and eliminate all sites, pages and documents that contain the keyword typed. These are those that are combined with the operator “EXCEPT” when this possibility is given. For example, if you want to receive information about the emperor penguin and you want to avoid answers related to the movie March of the Penguins, you can type the filter keywords “emperor’s march”, “cinema” or “Luc Jacquet”. The so-called “nets” keywords should help to catch what we are looking for, i.e. to obtain, via a better relevance ranking, the sites and documents that contain this type of keyword. They are not necessarily directly related to the subject of the research, but to the type of information or site being researched. These keywords are combined with the Boolean operator AND or its equivalent for the engine being searched. For example, if you would like to receive information on chainsaw sellers, you can type the harpoon keyword “chainsaw”, but to better specify your request, you can also add net keywords that are generally found on company websites that sell products such as: “our customers”, “our products”, “product range” or “order”. Direct queries are simply standard search equations that are developed to find websites or documents that will contain the answers to our questions. In addition, in order to better develop your monitoring plans and help you better understand them when you consult them long after, you can qualify some of your requests as “by ricochet”. These are requests made to obtain sites or documents as intermediate answers. In fact, in some cases, you will not get all the answers using only one type of query, because the answers will, for example, be present on the invisible Web and not in the directly visible web space. However, this does not mean that your investigation will be blocked. The site in question will require the use of a login and password that will not be available from the search engine initially used. So to obtain information held on this type of site, you must access it in two steps:

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

75

– query a standard search engine with a ricochet query to find sites that will host the answer to your main question; – query or browse the sites obtained with the request by ricochet to search for the information you are interested in. A simple case in which we could use a ricochet strategy is that of a company looking for suppliers to develop a new product. Once the characteristics of the products and suppliers have been listed, a direct strategy would be to combine keywords (harpoons, filters and nets) to obtain in response from companies providing the requested products. In comparison, an indirect search strategy would be to first look for trade shows and company directory (or portal) websites that could host the desired suppliers. The number of responses from this indirect approach will be less substantial than that of the direct approach (and therefore easier to process) and for so many, by querying these sites or by reading the list of exhibitors, you will have an equally substantial, if not more important, panel of suppliers. 3.3.2. The risks inherent in the use of keywords When searching search engines or databases using keywords, it is necessary to think about removing, at least partially, the blinders we have regarding the vocabulary we use. Thus, when you search for information, you choose keywords in relation to your knowledge of the subject and the vocabulary you have at that time. If you want to extend this vocabulary, you can search generic or specialized dictionaries, or use sites such as Wikipedia. However, here again, your vocabulary will be limited to the sources you have consulted. If you try to keep up with new trends or, what is even more difficult, disruptive innovations that may emerge, it is very risky to settle for this basic vocabulary. This problem is the same when using research assistants that learn and define the relevant vocabulary to provide you with answers from sites and documents already obtained. This is how we lock ourselves into an information sphere and may not see significant changes coming. To limit these risks, you can use a tool that identifies small changes in vocabulary among the documents that have recently appeared. It is also important to update your sources of information regularly and try to ensure that each year some new sources have been identified.

76

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

You can also make sure that not all your sources are of the same nature. At least some should be more generic than others, even though in general these sources offer information that is redundant, with information you already know. However, if you do not consult them, you will not be able to identify the few pieces of information they will provide that will be of interest to you. It is just necessary that the additional information is not too much to manage. As already mentioned above, another way to get around this keyword problem is to put yourself in the shoes of the writer of the texts you are looking for, the decision-maker whose actions you are trying to track, the designer of the website you are planning to monitor, etc. As P.-Y. Debliquy [DEB 14, p. 108] says very well, “To find, it is useful to put yourself in the shoes of those who publish the information you are looking for.” It is therefore very often necessary to identify the categories of people who make available or write the information we are looking for. Then, look for examples of the types of sites or documents they publish to be inspired by them. Finally, for all your more or less recurrent information retrievals, you can complete this work by profiling information designers and repositories and occasionally (once a year if possible) use creative techniques to find new sources of information and new relevant keywords. 3.3.3. Keywords and expressions in texts When looking for relevant information to answer a question, it is not always best to use a search engine and type in keywords, rather it may be better to use expressions. This does not prevent you from completing your requests with a few targeted keywords that will serve as harpoons, filters or nets (see section 3.3.1). Whatever your choice, once your problem has been clearly identified and reformulated in two or three different ways, the most important thing is to compose it into a list of questions and sub-questions for each of which you will associate one or more types of answers to be provided. Similarly, for each of these answers, you will have to imagine the texts or other indexed elements that would lead you to obtain satisfactory answers. Then, it will be a question of imagining, listing and searching for the best sources of access to these documents considered, a priori, relevant as well as the means of access to these sources (indirect research strategy).

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

77

Once you have done this, take a little time and write the ideal answers you want to find under each of your questions. Then, you will have to ask yourself a similar question about who is supposed to use these exactions or similar expressions. Associated with this question, you should add others concerning the vocabulary and language with which these people express themselves, the documents in which these expressions will be found as well as the places where these documents will be received. Then, ask yourself the question of access to this information and documents. What means (search engines) and sources are likely to lead you to obtain your answers and other information (indirect strategy)? Other equally interesting questions may follow: Are there other ways to access these answers via the Web or outside the Web? Which sources would be most relevant? What sources would provide both the clearest and shortest information? What would be the added value, richness and originality of the exploitation of this source compared to others? We will illustrate this with an example of research related to a very clear apparent demand: “to know which new watches will be put on the market”. To process this request, it is necessary to reformulate it in the form of a few questions with quite different interpretations, such as: – “What new watch models will be offered on the European market this year?”; – “What will be the new portable objects that will be available on the French market in two years’ time?”; – “What will be the next innovations in terms of fashion accessories and the watchmaking industries that could change the global watch market in two to five years?”; – “What new technologies and designs for high-end wristwatches will be the most trendy in the European and American markets in the next six months?”. A quick discussion with the sponsor will clarify some points and identify the “right” question to which you need to provide an answer. The profile of the applicant crossed with the famous 5W+(2)H questions (who, what, where, where, when, how, how much, why) used on this occasion will help you to clarify this request. For this example, the demand once specified will be this question: “What will be the new designs of mid-range and high-end

78

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

watches and the main connected technologies that will be presented during the year at the main world trade shows?” You can then break this question down into sub-questions: Which are the main trade fairs for mid-range and high-end watches? How can we follow and anticipate the latest news from watch trade shows? Who are the leaders and challengers (high-performing or perceived new entrants) in the watch market in terms of design or technology? How do we identify and monitor the latest trends and technological successes concerning connected watches? Who are the people to follow on social networks to find out about the latest trends and innovations in watches? In order to get some answers and estimate some of the time needed to answer other questions, you will already need to spend 5–10 minutes listing the main means and sources of information that you find interesting. Then, you will spend between 30 minutes and two hours doing some quick web searches and reading directly related to this topic (e.g. a magazine announcing technological innovations, including watches, and a magazine presenting new fashion trends, including watches). The organized and structured planning of your research will then really start. This should take you at least half an hour and should take more than an hour. A mind mapping tool (Freemind, Mind42, MindManager, MindMeister, MindNode, Thortspace, Xmind, etc.) and/or a spreadsheet (Appache OpenOffice Calc, Excel, Open Calc, Numbers, Table Server, etc.) in a second step or simultaneously, depending on your preferences, will help you reason and organize your tasks by categories. The mind mapping tool should help you to organize your thinking (see section 4.4.1) and to allocate your tasks in a rational way (are the most provided branches the most important for the question asked?) and the spreadsheet should allow you to make an information and memorization plan of your research. Remember, you need to search more than one search engine, including at least one that does not take into account your previous searches and your geographical location. You probably need to identify one or two specialized search engines and, if possible, consider more than one search language for these engines. Similarly, you should also consider using at least one social engine or network related to your geographical area of investigation. For example, engines such as Baidu, Qihoo 360 or Sogou may be useful for a search related to China and Yandex or Rambler for Russia. The same will apply to the use of the search engines of the social networks Ameba for Japan, Baidu Tieba, Qzone and Sina Weibo for China, Orkut for Brazil and

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

79

Vkontakte for Russia. You will also need to create your lexicon of keywords and expressions classified by categories (harpoons, filters and nets) and objectives (types of expected answers and search strategies used), necessary for engine queries, including their corresponding synonyms. Remember that the expressions in the glossary must correspond to the expressions used by the authors of the documents and participants in the discussions you are looking for, while taking into account the problems of homonyms. For our French case study, it was necessary to solve the problem of the present tense conjugation of the verb montrer in French and “watch” in English. Expressions such as “la montre” or “une montre” for French and “watches”, “the watch” or “the wristwatch” for English can help you get significantly more relevant answers than with the keywords montre and “watch”. To associate a meta-search engine or search engine with a search equation, of course, it will be necessary to test it and specify its objective as well as the additional settings to be made (delimitation of the time period using a tab, the use of the video or images tab, etc.). 3.4. Warning systems There are many monitoring systems that can be set up to alert you when relevant information (based on your parameters and criteria) appears in the information sphere you are monitoring. In this section, we will focus mainly on Web and social network alerting tools, as well as platforms to better manage them, and also on some tips for using a real network of human informants. 3.4.1. Web alert tools In addition to RSS feeds and social networks, there are many tools that can inform you about changes on the Web, especially those on a web page. The more precise and low or even non-existent these tools are, the longer they take to set up. Their principle is simple: regularly review a list of web pages and report a change between the last and penultimate visit. They allow you to monitor a particular area of a site, ignore certain spaces (such as ads) or ask to be alerted when keywords that you have recorded have disappeared or appeared (Custodee, Pagescreen, Stillio, UpdatePatrol, WatchThatPage, WebSite-Watcher). Some tools propose the implementation of website monitoring based on the creation, more or less ad hoc, of RSS feeds (Feed

80

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Creator, Feedity, OnWebChange, Page2RSS, Diffbot). Others, mainly for a fee, combine this function of monitoring activity on websites with RSS and social media feed management, web search or other digital sources and analysis of the results obtained (Digimind, IXXO, KBCrawl, Sindup, etc.). Limited to their monitoring function, these tools are referred to as alert tools (or alert agents) or simply as “Web page monitoring tools” (Web change monitoring). Among the alert tools, we also include alerts proposed by certain search engines, i.e. prepared requests that we wish to ask on a recurring basis and that inform you (by email, via a web page or your browser) of new features that have appeared in response since the last time the request has been made (Fresh Web Explorer, Giga Alert, Google Alerts, Mention, Talkwalker Alerts, etc.). In general, these tools directly propose to set up an alert, often named as such. In other cases, you will need to create an RSS feed that will also act as an alert, informing you of a change that has occurred in the area of a web page associated with the feed. For example, scientific information portals offer warning systems to keep you informed of new developments of interest to us. This is the case, for example, of the HAL online open archive portal or the World Wide Science, the Cairn and Web of Science paying sites, the scientific social network Researchgate, the job offer search site Monster or Patent Alert and Fresh Patents to follow the latest news on patents filed in the United States. 3.4.2. Content aggregation platforms Since social networks and RSS or Atom feeds (another variant of content syndication feeds such as RSS feeds) have made their way into the world of digital information, platforms for aggregating these different types of information have emerged to help us manage the variety of sources and the amount of data they collect. These platforms (Flipboard, Inoreader, Newzie, Netvibes, NewsBlur, Papaly, Symbaloo, etc.) have in common the fact that they are accessible online, allowing a dashboard type display to organize data collection. Since these platforms accept curation flows, they also allow many alert messages to be received and classified according to files or keywords to filter information. It is for this purpose that we mention them in this section. In addition, some allow the management of emails, either directly, more or less directly (Flipboard, Inoreader, Netvibes, NewsBlur, Symbaloo), or by transforming your emails into RSS/Atom feeds via a dedicated program (Advanced Email2RSS, Feeds2imap, Newspipe, etc.). This email acceptance allows you to complete your information with content

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

81

from still interesting subscriptions from newsletters and other email merge lists. Indeed, there are still some relevant ones that you can find by searching them, by typing search equations used with a keyword expressing your search theme, including one of the following terms: “mailing list”, “Google groups”, “newsletter”, “Yahoo groups”. 3.4.3. Human resources for collective monitoring Monitoring is first and foremost a human activity. Even though the emergence of the Internet and social networks has had a profound influence on its practices, we must not forget the importance of using a human information network. Of course, the vast majority of the information available on the Web has been produced by human beings, but there is a significant difference between asking someone to inform us directly if they discover a new element or event related to a given theme that deserves your attention. You can rely on an entire organization by raising awareness and training (at least) all its staff in monitoring. It will, of course, be necessary for the people concerned to have a clear understanding of the type of information you want to obtain and to whom and how they should send it. In this sense, it is preferable, as in incentives to inventiveness, to think of a system of rewarding the best contributors. Thus, little by little, monitoring will become part of the organization’s culture. Outside this organization, this can be done by developing a network strategy, for which it is preferable to favor regular and quality contacts with a small number of people with various profiles [ZIM 18, pp. 101–102]. In this case, as well as in the case of soliciting members of the same structure, several behaviors can be identified, which makes it possible to classify people according to their ability to inform you [DES 12, p. 135]. There is “active availability” which is that of people convinced of the importance of monitoring, who will take the initiative to inform you and will not wait for you to relaunch them. On the contrary, there are those who will have an informational attitude of “passive availability”, i.e. you will have to encourage them to provide you with information often by asking them a few questions directly. Other attitudes may also emerge, such as those of people who feel an “active obligation”, i.e. a commitment to you or your company, and who will quickly take the initiative to inform you. The attitude of

82

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

“passive obligation” will generally be more common. People will be aware that they are beholden but they will need to be reminded from time to time, sometimes simply by highlighting relevant information that another person has had the intelligence to bring you. Finally, even though the list may be longer, there are people with an “active egocentric” character who see information activity as a means of self-esteem. The main risk with these people is that they may send you too much information and therefore a lot of information that is not interesting or that you will already know about. However, some of these people can be very active on social networks. If they are staff of your organization, it will be necessary to train them to identify which information about your institution they can disseminate and which information should remain confidential. If these people are not part of your company, you can subscribe to their news feed or to one of their social networks in order to benefit, depending on the quality of the content they offer, from their active feedback. In this case, it will be interesting for you to be able to identify which if these people to follow. From then on, search engines will be able to help you (BuzzSumo, BuzzStream, Followerwonk, Hootsuite, LexisNexis, Social Mention, Social Searcher, Traackr, Twitter, etc.). 3.5. The organization of information collection If you are looking to improve your information supplies or optimize your monitoring processes over time, it is necessary to go through an initial planning phase followed by a second phase of capitalizing on the information and knowledge accumulated. Initially, the capitalization process will simply be an action of memorizing the information retrievals carried out, but indexed, so that certain knowledge about past events can easily be found. To save time, the planning phase must also take into account the memorization aspect of the tasks performed as well as the clarification of certain parts of the information provision process to better understand, afterwards, what has been thought and established. 3.5.1. The monitoring plan A monitoring plan is thus used to develop a monitoring procedure and to memorize it in order to capitalize on the knowledge accumulated during the various implementations of this procedure. One of the immediate advantages

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

83

of knowledge capitalization based on monitoring plans is the long-term qualification of information sources. If it is implemented, we have a ready-made directory of information sources. Unfortunately, if some sources have disappeared, we can go back to the way we did to identify them. A monitoring or information retrieval plan then allows a search or retrieval to be carried out in order to record it and better manage it. It is the basis of any monitoring work that is intended to be professional. It consists of a set of sheets developed to explain a monitoring procedure in order to resolve an information request. These sheets can take various forms: paper or a digital equivalent in the form of text sheets (watch books), spreadsheets, mental maps and indexed sheets in a dedicated database (e.g. with ACCESS or MySQL). Thus, the first sheet will record the reference formulation to express the informational need to be met. It is a question of finding a title for it to refer to. We can call this sheet “informational need” and present the main elements of this monitoring or information research by answering the following series of questions: – What is the original formulation of the information need to be addressed (with its formulation date)? – What are the other formulations of the informational need (date of production and validation with explanations if necessary)? – Who are the applicants/sponsors (name, profile, status with respect to the information need, availability for interview, contact information)? – What are the questions that information provision must be able to answer? – What is the degree of confidentiality of the various information supplies requested? – Who are the recipients of the information (name, profile, issues of interest to them, availability to receive the information or be interviewed, preferences and informational requirements including frequency – day and time of information – or deadline for information, contact details, information already provided and advice on latest supplies)? A second sheet will highlight information related to the “translation of the information need”. This sheet will gather the answers to a series of questions such as:

84

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

– Who and what is at the origin of the information need, the information request (name, contact details, status and explanation of this origin if necessary)? – What is the objective of providing information if it is fully responsive to the demand (what will happen to the first information provided and how will it be used)? – Is this request complemented by another? – What does this request imply (in terms of supplies, seeking information or how to access the information, assumptions to be validated or invalidated, sub-questions needing an answer and expected use of the information to be provided)? – What types of documents or data are being sought (raw, i.e. without further modification or processing, to be annotated, modified or elaborated)? – Which ideal documents/information could directly address this need? The third sheet will include the key elements of the translation of the information need according to the questions that compose it (see above) and especially the search engines interviewed. For each question asked, it begins with the reference of the associated vocabulary and the search engines questioned: – What are the key words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) and expressions that ask this question (their synonyms, homonyms at risk and translations according to languages)? – What search equations and search engines or meta-search engines are used to identify relevant information sources? – What are the search equations and search engines or meta-search engines interviewed to directly collect relevant information? – What sources of information are considered relevant, how often they are updated and how they are used (consultation, registration, subscription, monitoring, etc.)? Once the raw information and data have been collected, the elements of the following sheet will point out and specify the documents to be prepared. It will therefore be necessary to answer certain questions according to each of the documents to be created:

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

85

– What are the specificities of the documents (to be prepared) and their purpose (with a reminder of the name of the addressee(s)? – What are the sources of information needed to create such a document? – What tools are used to create such a document? Finally, it is possible to refine the work by completing a sheet dedicated to the information collected. For each piece of information, or at least those considered most important, it is advisable to be able to express an opinion on the following questions: – What is the origin of this information (its source and date of production)? – How much trust can be placed in this information or, if not, at its source? – Has an expert opinion been obtained about it? – What does this information imply, i.e. what can we deduce from it? – Is there any overlap between this information or its conclusions and deductions with other information from different sources? You now have many elements at your disposal to prepare and implement information collection on an ad hoc or more systematic basis. However, as you have seen, the implementation of a monitoring system can be approached in a general way or step by step. An organization may need to completely rethink its strategic or competitive intelligence, for example. There are therefore methods to ensure that essential points are not forgotten when trying to carry out a general review or a fairly exhaustive collection of information. R. Colas’ DESIRS method [COL 13, p. 20] can be a good way to avoid getting lost when developing and implementing a monitoring plan. Thus, this French method can help you link your work to all the fact sheets and questions related to the information need we have just reviewed. The name of this method is in fact an acronym corresponding to a list of objectives that a company must achieve. We can translate the French acronym DESIRS to the acronym ELSIAN which takes the following form: – “E” (D) to establish the company’s strategy; – “L” (E) to listen to customer expectations and requirements;

86

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

– “S” (S) to share expectations to all partners, what has been learned in D&E; – “I” (I) to identify potential feasible responses; – “A” (R) to answer by designing and developing value; – “N” (S) to notify the answers given. The achievement of each of the objectives of the acronym ELSIAN/DESIRS can be associated with different needs that must be met. Most of these can be translated into monitoring, research and information formatting missions. To “establish the company’s strategy,” it is necessary to be able to position the company in relation to others. It is therefore necessary to have a system or, if not, a competitive monitoring file. In addition, it is necessary to be able to estimate its capacities and productions. To this end, R. Colas [COL 13, p. 21] proposes to carry out a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats), as well as a market review and a technological review to avoid being overtaken by a disruptive innovation. “Listening to customers’ expectations and requirements” means conducting market research and monitoring the company’s image or its products. In order to be able to “communicate the results obtained to its partners,” work on sorting and formatting the information still needs to be done. It is better for the latter to be accompanied by additional analyses and questions on methods, products and services, particularly from a functional point of view. At the same time, it is important to understand the problems of its partners and therefore to monitor them through supplier, customer and subcontractor monitoring. The step of “identifying potential feasible responses” will require a complementary positioning study, especially oriented towards the future. It involves seeking strategic, organizational or technological approaches by soliciting techniques of creativity and research for different, or even new, but relevant ideas. To do this, it is directly related to the implementation of creative monitoring techniques [GOR 17] such as the blue ocean search (Chapter 1). In order to be able to respond by designing value, it will be necessary to implement studies such as benchmarking, identification of sources of innovation or problems via diagrams such as those in fish bones (Ishikawa diagram, after the name of their inventor). Finally, the last step, which requires “reporting responses”, must also be linked, in particular, to a customer review and e-reputation of proposals under development or procurement.

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

87

3.5.2. Human sources As mentioned above, in the case of warning systems, human sources are very important in terms of monitoring and information retrieval. If you neglect them, you may miss some very interesting information. In fact, the main advantage of human sources is the opportunity to discuss and reformulate your questions on a case-by-case basis. They also make it possible to take into account information in the form of intuitions and to treat it as such. Although it is not necessary to have absolute confidence in the opinion of a human source, because each of them has its own blinders, they make it possible to collect a lot of information (in particular, concerning the practices of a service, a technique or the use of a product). They can thus enlighten you on the explanation of a choice, the ease or difficulty of using an object, its action, the time required for its implementation, its real costs, the associated problems or problems and the solutions found to meet them, the unmet needs, etc. Moreover, human sources also make it possible to position information collected via the Web, to identify other sources of information, to estimate apparently unexplored avenues of innovation or to acquire the vocabulary we lacked to find the information we wanted and to raise new questions that we had not thought of. In order to manage them as well as possible, it is advisable to create, according to the subject of monitoring, a directory of human sources consisting of their names, addresses and other contact details, titles, functions, employer, expertise, availability, the date of the last time such source was requested and finally our feedback, remarks or opinions on the evolution of our requests and needs. We can then establish a list of the main human resources that can be solicited according to their organization. We propose that you complete this list according to your needs and specificities of your field of investigation. – Your initial human resources can provide you with some hindsight and even expertise on your issues (do not forget to respect the confidentiality criteria if necessary by keeping the sponsor secret and without disclosing their request). They are generally easy to access and may be a colleague, a friend, a user of a service or product, a customer, a supplier, a salesperson, a repairer, etc. – The internal human resources of a company may be directors of the parent company, engineers, managers, technicians, documentalists and

88

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

archivists, logisticians, sales representatives, communicators, accountants, trainees, shareholders, union members, customers, etc. – The external human resources of a company may be employees or members of a company or institution to which it is linked such as those of a supplier, a client company, a subcontractor, a partner company or organization, an interest group on which the company is dependent, associated or indirectly linked, a think tank, etc. – The human resources of territorial and governmental bodies may be the person(s) in charge of the regulatory body, its permanent employees (functional or affiliated), its various agents and contractual employees, its librarians, documentalists or archivists, its elected officials and advisors or members of associations and other militant citizens, etc. – The human resources of research organizations may be their managers or those of the regulatory body, permanent researchers, contract researchers, permanent and contract engineers, administrative or technical staff, students, representatives of a funding body or other partners, trainees, etc. – The human resources of associations and communities (artistic, cultural, rural, sports, non-governmental, consumer, etc.) may be their representatives, their members who lead the actions, those who deal with finance, logistics, communication, information system, the organization of various events, etc. – The human resources of traditional media or the Internet may be their managers, journalists, media technicians, web animators (people who are very popular on the Web from a blog, a Twitter account, an Instagram account, videos on YouTube, etc.), documentalists, computer programmers, graphic designers, etc. 3.5.3. Field observations and trade show visits Sometimes, collecting and searching information on the Web, reading specialized journals, querying databases or interviewing experts are not enough to meet a monitoring need, because it requires travel in the field. The most traditional solutions to solve this type of problem are the visit to the field of typical (future or current) use of the product or service concerned, a visit to a trade fair or a company that involves the production of a discovery report or the collection of information via a questionnaire.

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

89

Information from a field visit should not be overlooked. Some creative methods now systematically require us to confront reality on the ground by asking us to observe sites and people and create user experience maps (UX maps). This should also be the case for any watch. Field observation should allow you to see what you had not thought of and seen (in photographs or videos). It allows the interrogation of individuals, the identification of profiles, as well as recording of their real path by monitoring or direct immersion in place of these individuals. In a monitoring context, the terrain to be observed is linked to the context of the problem, but some information gathering fields are more exploited than others. As you know, many industries have their own trade shows. During these fairs, new services and products related to the sectors concerned are presented. This is an opportunity for participating companies to prospect new customers, develop contacts with customers or other companies present at the show, consolidate their visual identity with the public, develop a positive brand image, associate themselves with what is trendy in their sector of activity, etc. Thus, the more important a show is, in terms of participants or visitors, the more famous it is. This brings it more notoriety, it becomes unavoidable and the media, even non-specialized media, promote it. From the standpoint of monitoring, trade shows are therefore important sources of information. You can observe the latest trends in the sector, identify new productions, follow the evolution of brand images, decipher current communications strategies and speeches, and learn about how products of the various companies present are designed, talk to their communicators, sales representatives, engineers or technicians, collect brochures of new products or services. Gathered in one place, you have gathered, in the same exhibition, a considerable amount of additional information for a well-targeted sector of activity. 3.5.4. Information reports In order to take full advantage of the informational opportunities offered by a trade fair or company visit, it is necessary to draw up a plan for collecting information before going there. It is with this in mind that the information reports and surprise reports have been developed. Once we have decided to visit a trade show, as in the case of a monitoring plan, we must first clearly identify and understand the informational need to which we will try to respond by visiting the show, and then translate this need into a series

90

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

of questions to which we will try to respond. In the case of a visit to a trade fair, the questions can also be completed by a series of actions to be implemented such as: clarifying the communication of the competition, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of certain products or arguments, developing contacts with certain people and organizations, identifying the best places to be present at a trade fair of the same type, etc. In the case of a company visit, the questions will be: how are their practices different from ours, where and how are they carried out? (The other questions that may relate to them will be presented later in section 3.5.5 devoted to benchmarking.) The information report thus memorizes a set of questions and actions, such as the way in which we tried to answer them, the sources interviewed and observed as well as our contacts, comments and additional questions. With regard to the latter, the discovery report often corresponds to an information report prepared blindly. It is not intended to answer specific questions (except those that characterize it), but to point out differences and originalities. That is, it is composed of answers to questions like these: What surprised you? What did you find surprising, strange, new or interesting during your visit? What is the trend this year? What did not surprise you and was in line with your expectations or prejudices? What are the routines you were able to identify? The discovery report can be dedicated to multiple situations. The visit to a trade fair is the one we are referring to here, but it can be a conference, a company visit, a stay in a foreign region, the discovery and testing of a new product. This type of report must include the following elements: sender (writer), recipient, date, raw facts, sources and comments [DES 11, p. 127]. In order to take advantage of the knowledge capital that a surprise report constitutes, it is interesting to consult the latest reports made about the exhibition we are going to visit. Reading previous reports can help us to put the new information into perspective. In practice, a good information report must also present a part dedicated to discovery, since in addition to collecting information, we cannot deprive ourselves of certain information that is relevant to other problems and “at hand”. When attempting to answer a series of questions that constitute a training report, it is preferable to develop a tactic to answer them. This includes the exhibition route, the targets or information sources to be seen or questioned and their locations. It is also about organizing the questions and therefore the answers that will be asked to save time when collecting information. Thus, since the information-gathering tactic must follow a plan,

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

91

it is preferable to manage this plan dynamically. First, it must be developed, then put to the test and, finally, adapted according to the circumstances. In this way, if you are alone, you only need to take stock of the progress of your research at a given time. Then, take a break, at a time when the room is busy. Refresh your mind, do something else. Then, stay away for a while, take stock of your information collection and generate a series of additional questions related to your information needs. These questions are developed from the answers obtained or not during the first moments of your visit as well as from what you observed and which is available in the exhibition area. Since a plan rarely goes according to plan, it is a good idea to stop for a moment to take stock and rethink your tactics. It will also allow you to take your mind off things for a few minutes before going back to your report and its progress. This will allow you to take a step back and adapt better. The interest of adding images, including photographs, as well as sketches and diagrams should not be overlooked. Indeed, even today, despite photographs and videos, a drawing still allows a simplified communication of information, pointing more easily to important elements for the problem [DES 13, p. 244] and to give an account of an angle of vision that is not always easy to implement directly (it is very unlikely that you will be allowed to fly your drone equipped with a camera during a visit to a show or company). If you work as a team, it is best if you pass the baton on to someone who has not yet visited the show and who now has a more neutral view than you. He or she may be surprised by the information you may or may not have collected and the contacts you may have made. In the case of this type of teamwork, S. Shaker and M. Gembicki [SHA 99, p. 100] even propose to implement a room, called a war-room, dedicated to the real-time management of the information collected and the questions you must answer. Whether simply by using your phone, tablet, computer or a more advanced device such as a war-room, you can also use part of this break in your collection of information about the show to seek information on the Web, to confirm some of your hypotheses, to feed your thoughts and questions, to prepare new questions to ask, etc. Moreover, as a trade show evolves from hour to hour, not all stands always have the same people representing their company throughout the duration of the show. Some of them swap over. An engineer can replace a sales representative, and a technician can install a new demonstration device. Someone who is not very talkative at the beginning of the show can become talkative a little later, if they get bored. Some stands that attracted people may be accessible. Some conferences can take place, etc. Before leaving a professional fair, it is preferable to have at least two breaks

92

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

that will serve as a time to review the information and contacts obtained, and to debrief on everything that has been achieved. The second break can then lead well to a direct departure from the show, on a final lap, a last attempt to approach someone, a new hour of investigation of the show, etc. When the visit to the show is finally over, the information or surprise report can be closed; you can now update your information and, above all, be surprised at what you have seen or not seen. Finally, if you have enough time or human resources, you can break down your report into parts at the time of the show. Indeed, there may be variations in the information provided (sometimes unintentionally) depending on the time of the exhibition. There will be a part dedicated to the very beginning of the show (the first two hours), a part dedicated to the very end of the show (the last half-day) and between the two a part that can be broken down into hours of the day: opening, morning, lunch break, afternoon and end of the day. It should not be forgotten that the people most likely to inform you, if you address the competition, if you know how to ask the right questions, are the ones who are less aware of monitoring actions. These are often the people who occupy the stands when the exhibition is the least crowded. The best sales representatives and engineers are reserved to convince customers when they are most numerous. It can also be very interesting to note the profile of visitors, discuss with them and estimate their number according to the hours. 3.5.5. The comparative study or benchmarking A comparative or benchmarking study is not, in general, an easy type of information gathering. There are several benchmarking categories whose characteristics depend on the conditions under which they are carried out [JAK 06, p. 222]. If you want to acquire effective methods, improve your organization’s current practices, evaluate certain functions, services or tools (to simplify, we will talk about problem-solving), then you can start a comparative study. Competitive benchmarking is most often cited as an example, but in practice, it is quite complicated to agree with one or more competitors to exchange information on practices or tools. Of course, there are exceptions and examples of cooperation between competitors, such as when competing companies share the same difficulties at a given time and have difficulty coping on their own.

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

93

However, there are other ways to achieve benchmarking. The first is simple, but it can pose cultural and financial problems. It is a geographical benchmarking. All you have to do is contact them, to visit them and talk to their people, with equivalent companies that have the same problems but that are not competitors because their market is in a completely different geographical area. The second method is quite common, but often gives less successful results. We propose to name it “surface benchmarking” in order to clearly distinguish it from the previous form. It is simply a matter of developing, based mainly on readings, in the manner of a monitoring file, a comparative study of practices, methods, services or products. It is then necessary to research, a priori, what are the best sources of information to identify best practices and achievements in relation to the problem to be solved. Most of this information is then sought from what is freely available on the Web, from customer notices and brochures, from trade journals, product photographs, etc. Unlike other monitoring dossiers, benchmarking studies (including surface studies) usually propose a navigation by sheet (one for each organization, product, service, system studied) as well as a part presenting the criteria and way of reading the analysis of the elements studied (using tables, radar diagrams, star systems, points or colors, etc.). In other benchmarking studies, it is possible to get more direct information, but in fact, they take much longer to be carried out. This is particularly the case for methodological and technological benchmarking that can be tested at home, because all the technology or method is available. In this way, if we test software, it is our tests that will be used as a reference for product calibration at the end of the study. However, for this to happen, it is necessary to have the opportunity to test the full versions of the tools or methods, which is not always easy to achieve. Similarly, cooperative benchmarking is more difficult to implement between competing companies. Moreover, whether or not competitors welcome us, we rarely have full access to their information (unless we are dependent on the same parent company or a specific agreement has been signed for a transfer of practices or technologies). Indeed, in order to have access to a reasonable amount of good quality information, an explicit agreement with competitors is required. It is also possible to carry out another type of benchmarking that will allow us to be in contact with companies with which we are not in competition. This is the case of a benchmarking of functions. If we benchmark functions, we need to find non-competing organizations that have the same function similar to the one we want to improve. F.

94

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Jakobiak also describes it as horizontal benchmarking [JAK 06, p. 223]. It consists of identifying companies that have similar functions, a scale of equivalent implementations (and a priori the best of practices different from ours), or that encounter problems similar to that of our company. It is therefore a matter of identifying and contacting these organizations, and then trying to reach an agreement with them to visit them or exchange information about the problem we are interested in. Since they are not competing companies, they will be more inclined to share information with us, especially if we also have information to share. Finally, a last benchmarking that can be used is benchmarking by analogy. It is equivalent to function benchmarking, but is implemented if you have not been able to solve your problem by implementing one or other of the previous types of benchmarking. Indeed, if we have not succeeded in finding a good practice that interests us through the comparative study procedures mentioned above, we must find other ways. The starting point is to begin from the main problem associated with the practice we are interested in to see how others are solving it. However, it is necessary that these companies belong to different sectors of activity from that of our organization. This will make it easier for us to obtain their permission to visit them and ask questions about implementing practices or solving problems. Figure 3.2 thus shows the simplest principles for discovering good practice through benchmarking by analogy. Analogy reasoning makes it possible to refer to similar problems to see how they are treated by other organizations in different sectors of activity. The idea is that each organization identified as a potential source of information that can help us solve our problem must be of a very different nature from the organizations we have already identified.

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

Found in

95

Is resolved by

Organization 1

Similar problem 1

Solution 1

Organization 2

Similar problem 2

Solution 2

Organization 3

Similar problem 3

Solution 3

Would correspond to

Would correspond to

Would correspond to

Our organization

Our problem

?

Can be broken down into

Our new solution Would correspond to

Sub-problem a

Organization a

Solution a

Sub-problem b

Organization b

Solution b

Sub-problem c

Organization c

Solution c

Is encountered in

Use to solve it

Figure 3.2. Diagram of possible paths for benchmarking by analogy

3.6. The processing, formatting and dissemination of information In this section, we will simply present some essential points of these steps in the monitoring process. As mentioned above, the collection stage requires a phase of sorting and qualification of information. It is a question of relating information to the trust we can place in it and in its source. Using an acronym such as NATHALIE will help you list some of the data that qualifies a source: – “N” for source name; – “A” for address (source coordinates); – “T” for source type; – “H” for host or source manager; – “A” for adherents, subscribers and followers (their number and profile); – “L” for links (incoming and outgoing for a website, affiliation and human network for a person); – “I” for interest (value of information provided in the recent past by this source);

96

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

– “E” for estimating the overall value of the source (e.g. from 0 to 4; but if the value is 0, this source must be deleted). Of course, to qualify certain sources, including human sources, you will have to carry out new searches via dedicated engines (depending on their specialty, you can use the engines of the USPTO, Kompass, SEO Power Suite Link Explorer, WIPO, Societe.com, Whois or, for example, the advanced “info:” function of Google). Beyond the exclusion of the least interesting information, sorting makes it possible to organize it in order to prepare it for analysis. At a minimum, this analysis consists of a simple reading that will allow you to classify this information in the appropriate category (an offline reading tool such as Pocket can help you). If you get into the habit of developing your monitoring articles or documents while you are monitoring, you can also use tools to record and annotate the points you have found interesting (Bear-Writter, Evernote, Framanotes, Google Keep, Milanote, OneNote, Pocket, etc.). Remember that at the level of information dissemination, a quality review must provide each of its recipients with the information they are interested in, at the time that is most appropriate for them and in a form that is appropriate for them so that they can read and understand it quickly. One of the key principles of effective information communication is to match (customize) it to the needs and preferences of each individual [DAV 01, p. 76]. If you want to communicate effectively, the form of content is also very important. In this sense, authors specializing in the economics of attention advocate quick, clear texts with, if possible, a significant emotional impact [CIT 12]. You need to think about the wording in your titles, which should be explicit and interesting. If the document is substantial (it would be more than half a page A4 if it were printed), it is advisable that its structure follows that of a journalistic article (boxes summarizing the main points of the text and therefore the information, highlighting the most important elements by changing the font color, underlining them, etc.) or a professional journal (if the document contains several texts). The same must be true for the images that you may eventually associate with them. The creation and use of any diagram, computer graphics or photograph must be reasoned and communicate important information very clearly [FAY 12, p. 12]. To make a relevant graph, simple rules can be implemented, such as avoiding any unnecessary information and dimensions [TUF 01, p. 71]. Similarly, if a scale of values is used, it must be legible and

Monitoring and the Intelligence Cycle

97

its origin (zero) must be visible. In addition, visual variables must be used with relevance to their own characteristics. The “shape” makes it possible to identify certain objects. The “color” and “orientation” of objects allow objects to be distinguished and some to be identified. The “value” has the same qualities as orientation and color, as well as makes it possible to order the objects (from the lightest to the darkest). Finally, “size” has all these advantages with the possibility of associating a quantity more easily with the size of an object [BER 99, p. 48]. In addition to these tips, there are many online tools and platforms to present, annotate and organize different pieces of information to better understand them while aggregating them on the same site to create a form of enlightened narrative (Curata, Evernote, Evrybit, Lumio, Paper.li, Scoop.it, Storyful, Tiki-Toki, Wakelet, etc.). Some of these tools also allow you to link textual information with maps. It is about creating additional informational added value in addition to gathering information on the same site (an example of this type of tool is 4sqmap, if you do not want to use the traditional Google Maps). All you have to do now is disseminate your information. Depending on their sending format, you can do it manually or using a program from a dedicated tool (Buffer, Hootsuite, HubSpot, If This Then That, Meet Edgar, TweetDeck, Twibble). Once your information has been disseminated, all you have to do is take an interest in their future by questioning the main stakeholders, which may allow you to identify new needs. To do this, there is no shortage of tools available (Checkbox, Drag’n Survey, Eval&Go, GetFeedback, Google Drive, LimeSurvey, MySurveyLab, Responster, SurveyGizmo, SurveyMonkey, Zoho, etc.).

4 Visual Communication and Idea Management

To carry out monitoring, it is necessary to have a number of concepts and tools according to the objectives you wish to achieve and the means at your disposal to carry it out. Various supports for note-taking or information visualization can be used. In fact, at each stage of the intelligence cycle (section 3.1.1), tools allowing various visual representations may be used. For example, during the stage of expressing the informational need or collecting information, the practice of sketch notes can be very useful. It consists of taking notes through drawing and is intended to improve the memorization of information while stimulating thought. Similarly, mind mapping representations (see section 4.4.1 in this chapter) are very commonly used at each stage of this cycle, as they also help to classify and communicate information. With this type of tool, even if you do not have any particular predispositions to the practice of drawing and you are afraid to use it in public, you will be able to exploit the benefits of a visual representation. The purpose of this chapter is to make you think about visual tools and methods for managing ideas by presenting them to you in broad categories and uses. Thus, we address the question of sharing ideas, i.e. mental representations, individual or partially shared, within a collective dedicated to innovation: research groups, focus groups, participating in collective creativity sessions, or simply actors of the organization engaged in a participatory innovation process. After a first part focused on the importance of communication and representations in the innovation process, we will present different tools and methods of idea management allowing actors to Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

100

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

express and inscribe emerging visions in formalisms, which we will analyze, allowing each of them not only to be understood by the rest of the group but also to report on the results of a collective thought without any particular skill in drawing! 4.1. Communication at the heart of the innovation process In a book published in 2001, communication researcher M. Lacoste [LAC 01, p. 21] wonders, “Can we work without communicating?” If we consider the verb “to communicate” in the narrowest sense, in other words, as being willing to communicate with people, you would probably be tempted to answer that it is not possible. It is not possible to work without communication, without verbal or non-verbal, formal or informal exchanges. However, this position is far from obvious, if we put aside the unintentional aspects of communication as well as communication established through the exchanges imposed by the work we do and its purpose. There are at least two reasons that may explain this possibility. First of all, in general, many managerial models (which are generally evolving today, fortunately in our opinion) are still very much inspired by a rational vision of work, heir to Taylorian industrial models, in search of an advanced degree of profitability in each of the tasks performed, and to which technology and automation contribute greatly. In this model, communication in the social and human sense of the term (which we distinguish from communication between machines), formal and informal conversations, the sharing of ideas, practices, etc., is perceived as a non-essential disturbance vector that can slow down the performance of the task. They dilute the action over time and to a certain extent escape the control of the actors in charge of supervising operations. Secondly, in terms of innovation, many discourses that cross the management currents, as well as the representations they convey, still remain attached to the figure of the inventor entrepreneur, the solitary genius and visionary. From this more or less fantasized perspective, communication does not appear to be the most significant issue since the creative process is then associated with a solitary and ineffable act. In our opinion, this vision conceals a less romantic face, more widespread and undoubtedly closer to practices observed within organizations, in which the project is the result of

Visual Communication and Idea Management

101

collective work, a team, a service and the many interactions established by the organization’s actors. The paradigm of cooperation at work, which includes the work of sociologist P. Zarifian [ZAR 96], leads us to question the relationships between the different subjective worlds that intersect, shock and complement each other, thus determining the actors’ degree of cooperation. These “intersubjectivity spaces”, which open up cooperation, would be delimited by the way in which the actors exchange and agree on four dimensions, namely: – the nature of the problems to be addressed and the knowledge to be developed; – the identity of the objectives and their definition process; – the meaning given to actions and the values on which they are based; – the convergence of people’s motives. The formation of a collective and its relative stability, given the complexity of building and maintaining its agreements, would therefore be determined by the ability of its members to maintain negotiating spaces around these four dimensions. To quote D. Wolton [WOL 09], it could rather be a question of building a kind of “cohabitation” between these different worlds, between these multiple “rationalities” [SIM 47], these “frames of experience” [GOF 91] or these “systems of relevance” [SCH 87] and, like P. Robert [ROB 05], to consider that at the beginning, there is “non-communication”, before we are surprised that sometimes this works. If we examine still more specifically the moment of the innovation process that corresponds to the creation and design itself, the problem of communication is also present, directly or indirectly, in particular, through sociocognitive factors. In this regard, the work of psychologists and ergonomic researchers, such as W. Visser [VIS 05], F. Darses and P. Falzon [DAR 96] and B. Cahour [CAH 02], highlights different cognitive factors that characterize interactions in participatory design. Thus, for B. Cahour [CAH 02], the creation of an intersubjectivity, in the case of collective design activity, is limited by numerous social and cognitive differences. On the cognitive level, the author identifies two factors: previous knowledge and design experience. On the social level, four factors can introduce biases into the creation of an inter-comprehension space: the roles and status of

102

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

participants, the positioning towards design proposals, the motivation of participants to actively participate in cooperation, and the notions of identity and recognition. In an attempt to respond to these biases, actors develop multiple practices, such as argumentation and the use of intermediary objects. We will devote the following section to the latter, as for argumentation, it is a common means of expressing a point of view, a representation. For Françoise Darses [DAR 06, p. 318], many interactions between actors in the process take place in the argumentative mode: Some methods [...] provide a framework for the collective work of analyzing the problem, identifying the interdependencies between sub-problems and seeking solutions. But they quickly find their limits when collaborating in solving such complex problems such as examining and selecting design alternatives, writing joint documents (technical reports, deliverable specifications, etc.), creativity sessions or task planning. In these situations, the solution is gradually constructed through argumentative debates in which ideas are confronted, decisions are evaluated and points of view are opposed. The argument would thus have two functions: – the animation of the cooperative process, because by developing a collaborative spirit, argumentation maintains a communicative dynamic of exchanges conducive to solving the design problem; – a dialectical function, because the interaction it implies makes it possible to establish compromises, develop a common goal, clarify the state of the problem to be solved and collectively build shared knowledge to establish a shared representation of the cognitive context [DAR 06, p. 321]. Françoise Darses, quoting Philippe Breton [BRE 96], thus distinguishes two types of arguments: – arguments for framing reality that aim to build a virtual, reference reality in order to make the argument credible, by suggesting to the audience shared values and beliefs. These arguments may be based on the affirmation of an authority, an experience, the recollection of common assumptions (values or beliefs) or a redefinition of the situation (recall of facts);

Visual Communication and Idea Management

103

– linkage arguments which aim to link the framing arguments with the opinion to be defended. These links can be deductive in nature (causality, purpose) or analogical in nature (metaphors, examples, comparisons). This phase can be accompanied by representations of the different aspects of this process in the form of graphs, for example, produced for the purpose of knowledge capitalization. The IBIS (Issue-Based Information System) [NOB 89] or ABRICo (agreements, goals, proposals, design interpretations) [LEW 01] methods illustrate how the different arguments for (pros) or against (cons) can be represented, for the former, and according to their nature and logical relationships (proposal, interpretation, agreement, common objective) for the latter. These approaches are based on a current of practices and research called “arguments mapping” [DAV 11, HAR 08, MAR 09], and we also speak of design rationale to designate this practice to represent all the arguments that have participated in a decision during a design process. In the case of the IBIS method, the elements discussed are represented in three categories, as shown in Figure 4.1: (1) problems or issues; (2) ideas or solutions and (3) arguments, the latter subdividing themselves into two categories: positive and negative arguments. The result is an oriented graph linking the appearance of these elements, the final state being the initial question or problem submitted to the actors involved.

CON

PRO

PRO

Figure 4.1. IBIS graph for problem-solving [NOB 89] (source: “Issue-Based Information System”, Wikipedia, 2018). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

104

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

As for the ABRICo model, it allows us to dynamically and sequentially represent the elements discussed according to four main categories: (1) goals (octagons), (2) interpretations (ellipses), (3) suggestions (rectangles) and (4) agreements (hexagons). Such modeling, together with its graphic representation, highlights the argumentative dynamics that take place within the collective and can also reflect the participants creativity (particularly through the “interpretation” and “suggestion” categories). Holiday with friends

Figure 4.2. ABRICo model [LEW 01]

Visual Communication and Idea Management

105

The translation of a process, a thought or a discussion can thus be illustrated with the help of graphs to keep track of it, take a step back from the activity carried out and manage it better. If these tools can be used in “traditional” project management, it seems important to us to consider their use in an innovation context. For us, it is a question of showing and justifying why and how visual representations can contribute to a process of creativity or innovation. In this sense, each of its representations can be considered as an intermediary object, a vehicle of information and knowledge. 4.2. Knowledge mediation and creativity: the intermediary object, the boundary object Since time immemorial, matter has been the preferred medium for the development of human intelligence (from the rock walls of the first humans to clay tablets, parchment and paper to our contemporary digital devices), as long as the human species has developed an ability to inscribe fragments of its thought on them. Writing constitutes what anthropologist J. Goody [GOO 86] calls an “intellectual technology” (such as lists and tables, which are, among many others, modes of representation offered by writing) and which P. Robert [ROB 00a, p. 103, ROB 00b] defines as “a regulated tool for managing numbers (complexity) effecting a translation of the event into a document by converting dimensions.” This last definition deserves some very useful clarifications for the reader to understand our development. An intellectual technology is “regulated” in the sense that it is characterized by a structure, a conventional format, the result of an evolution; it is socially and culturally situated, such as the structure of a book, the reading direction of a chart, the geometric shapes of a diagram and the meaning of the arrows that connect them. As for numbers, the author refers to them by directly associating them with the ability to “count, inventory, classify, prioritize, differentiate, order,” in a word, to give shape to the complexity of a reality that we wish to measure and control. As a result of these operations, intellectual technology fixes and records information as a prerequisite for its processing and accumulation. In this sense, it has the status of a document, because it fixes the volatile, transient and variously lived event as a materially stable object. Finally, he describes as “dimension conversion” the property that sometimes consists of simplifying complex phenomena (the modeling principle) by reducing the n dimensions of reality,

106

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

in a given context, to a lower number of dimensions intended to represent reality (low-tech mockup, sketches, user personas, metro plan, etc.), sometimes to account for complexity by increasing the number of dimensions (the processing principle). The transition from the data table to the calculation of statistical correlations or the creation of a scatter plot, the transition from a fixed image (photographics, storyboard, 3D model, etc.) to an animated image (videos, animation) are just a few examples. Finally, P. Robert [ROB 00a, ROB 00b] also proposes an in-between, a dimension conservation function, which makes it possible to perceive and operate on scale representations (what the author calls the navigation principle) which can be translated, for example, by designing models on a scale of 1:1. There is therefore a space for mediating knowledge, occupied, in particular, by objects of a particular type that allow the expression of the designers’ points of view. These intermediary objects, a category to which drawings, models, prototypes, listings and databases belong, for example, are particularly important in the design process, particularly as a means of communication between actors [BEG 07, p. 379], as well as a means of cognition [HUT 95]. The design activity consists of producing a variety of objects or documents of various forms and evaluating, criticizing or modifying them to produce new ones [MER 02, p. 89]. According to sociologist D. Vinck [VIN 09, p. 56], the intermediary object “materializes their [the designers’] intentions, work or thought habits, relationships and interactions, perspectives and compromises they have established”. It is a representation from which it is possible to decipher the processes and projections that take place before the design stage. Some research works, both empirical and theoretical, such as the founding work of the sociology of translation or the actor–network theory. Latour [LAT 05] and B. Callon [CAL 06] have thus relied on these objects to understand the design process; by examining the intermediary objects, it is possible to decipher the decisions that have been taken, traces of the designers’ thinking, possible tensions, power issues and social regulations. According to D. Vinck, the intermediary object, as a mediator object, also has a translation function: It refers to the idea that the transition from one register to another, for example, the transition from intention to realization, is not without transformation. The intermediary object is not limited to the intention of its author. Materialization introduces something new, a slippage, which is not necessarily intended or

Visual Communication and Idea Management

107

controlled, or even a betrayal. The resulting object does something other than what was intended. [VIN 09, pp. 56–57] Finally, according to L. Collet [COL 14], it contributes to the narratives and scenarios of use, which cross the collaborative design process, which try to integrate the object designed into social practices. An intermediary object does not require that all the actors to whom it is likely to be addressed are able to fully understand it, or more precisely it leaves everyone the chance to offer their own interpretation (interpretative flexibility). Knowledge of standards, languages, formats may not be shared by everyone, but it may be sufficient for this object to generate a reaction, a request for information, facilitate a decision, generate a new idea or be the source of proposal alternatives, i.e. in a word, that it initiates interactions so that it is considered as an intermediary object. We will talk about a boundary object, a concept developed by the American researcher S. L. Star [STA 99, STA 10], to designate a subset of intermediary objects, one of the particularities of which is to present, to the individuals who manipulate them, shared spaces – signs, languages, forms, norms, conventions, etc.: Boundary objects are an arrangement that allows different groups to work together without prior consensus. However, their forms are not arbitrary. These are essentially organizational infrastructures that have emerged because of information needs. I will now add the “information and work requirements” perceived locally by groups that want to cooperate. What is important for boundary objects is how practices are structured and how vocabulary emerges, to do things together. [STA 10, p. 19] A variety of boundary objects can be produced by the actors involved, depending on the roles, producers and recipients [VER 10]. The value of this concept is essentially heuristic, i.e. it offers the observer, or reflective practitioner, an instrument for reading the collaborative work that is engaged and the social and cognitive phenomena that emerge around this object: a sketch of an assembly plan, a metaphorical object made of clay or Lego bricks (section 6.3.4 in Chapter 6), an electrical diagram, a sketch on a white board, etc. Intermediary objects also ensure the project’s memory by keeping track of the options chosen, discussions and arguments exchanged at different phases of the project.

108

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

In terms of design, in line with the thinking of B. Callon [CAL 06] and B. Latour [LAT 05], this sociomateriality has been illustrated by the work of K. Henderson [HEN 98] and more recently by that of J. Whyte [COM 18, EWE 09, WHY 16]. The studies published by these researchers highlight the effects of intermediary objects, used by design engineers, on their practices. Thus, for Henderson, the culture of design is intrinsically linked to the way these representations are constructed because they constitute the core of the designers’ work [VIS 09]. In addition, these tools may engage or restrict the participation of stakeholders in the design process. Finally, policy, in the form of management prerogatives, can be integrated into a design tool, influencing the range of creativity allowed and innovation achieved in a given socio-technical context. 4.3. The role of visual artifacts in the management of ideas The various representations that take place during the design process consist of artifacts, because they are made by human hands, and in this sense carry with them the constraints, capacities and limitations encountered by their creator, on a cognitive, physical and corporeal or sensitive level. For example, M. Denis [DEN 89] identified five properties of representation systems, such as: – the degree to which the relationships between the elements represented are maintained (an organization chart, for example, will ever show only the hierarchical relationship between individuals in an organization and not the various types of relationships that can be maintained between these same individuals); – transformation, i.e. the transition from the form of an idea or knowledge to a form different from the first (e.g. the metro map which only expresses the succession of stations as experienced by the user and not their actual geographical location); – the informational loss that leads the representation to reduce the initial informative content, by an increase in abstraction, by a schematization, a selection of characters or simply by adapting to the expectations of the recipient; – the directional character which implies that the construction of a representation B from a reality A or a first representation of A will not enable us to fully reconstruct A from B; it is a direct consequence of the

Visual Communication and Idea Management

109

arbitrary which links a signifier (sign) to its signified and which reminds one of the aphorism of the founder of general semantics, A. Korzybski: “A map is not the territory it represents” [KOR 98]; – representational recursivity, which refers to the way we construct representations from other representations, which generates coding in cascade. Thus, the present properties not only apply to the representation itself but also characterize the elements that compose it, such as a mise en abyme. This review of the properties of representations makes it possible to go beyond the sole stage of the subjectivity of the actors involved, in situations of interaction with the intention of solving a design problem requiring their creativity. Representations in themselves are therefore heuristic forms that potentially determine their ability to capture the complexity of a situation and an idea. Nevertheless, it is recognized that they have purposes that make them very useful in human activity, such as: – the preservation of information that is likely to deteriorate; the representation then plays the role of a necessarily partial substitute for the object represented; – the explanation of information that is not directly accessible, because it is very complex, not formalized until now, such as a professional technique, locked, extracted from a past experience such as a memory, etc.; – guidance that guides and regulates the actions of individuals, such as plans and maps, etc.; – the systematization of a corpus to express properties or relationships in a systematic way, as organization charts, family trees and flowcharts do; – finally, signage, i.e. the communicative aim of the representation (e.g. pictogram, boards, shop signs, etc.). 4.4. The contributions and limitations of visual communication tools for idea management In this section, we will discuss several visual management tools used in creativity during the design process. A brief presentation of these tools will be accompanied by a communication analysis.

110

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

4.4.1. Associative representations Associative representations make it possible to visualize links between ideas, concepts or notions. Graphical components are essentially made up of vertices or nodes (symbolized by any geometric shape) linked by oriented (also called vectors or arrows) or non-oriented (simple links) edges. Depending on the case, these relationships can take on very different meanings, specific to the situation in which the representation is used, which is also its main communication limit. Despite this, network and tree representations, for example, are probably the most common visual tools. They are used when it is necessary to formalize ideas during a brainstorming session, for example. They can also be asked to report on the debates that have taken place in focus groups, using arguments that are linked together by logical relationships. The fundamental principle of their implementation consists of graphically and visually establishing links between words or groups of words evoking ideas. Let us take a closer look at some of them to illustrate this point and identify their constraints. 4.4.1.1. Some types of maps available Some of the maps and diagrams that give shape to an associative representation are more commonly used than others. Let us start with the so-called mind mapping maps (Figure 4.3), using the mind mapping technique.

Figure 4.3. Mind map. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

Popularized by the work and numerous publications of psychologist T. Buzan [BUZ 74] during the 1970s, the mind map is a representation that organizes concepts by associations of ideas by “breaking the linearity” that writing lists forces us into. For followers of this method, its use would

Visual Communication and Idea Management

111

correspond more to the functioning of the human brain, proceeding by association, on the one hand, and traveling as it pleases the different paths proposed by the representation, on the other hand. Although of free composition, the form produced invites the reader to follow, through its structuring, a form of progression in the reading of ideas and concepts around a central nucleus, thus preserving a form of linearity induced by the form: rotation around the central nucleus and the path of a branch from the nucleus to its end. In a similar vein, the technique called “lotus flower” [EWE 09, p. 203, PRO 05] is a creative technique that is similar to the construction of a mental map (Figure 4.4). During an initial phase, sub-themes, proposed by the participants in the ideation sequence, are grouped around a central theme; the second phase consists of taking the sub-themes one by one and placing them now in the position of a central theme.

CENTRAL THEME

Figure 4.4. Diagram of a blank lotus flower card (source: “Fleur de lotus: une technique creative cimple et efficace!”, Out the Box! (blog, March 26, 2015)).For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

112

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Figure 4.5. Concept map. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

Unlike mind maps, concept maps (Figure 4.5), on the other hand, are not graphs based on hierarchical1 order and accept “loop”-type links. Moreover, they do not necessarily have a “focal point”, i.e. a kind of original node from which all links flow directly or indirectly. Mathematicians use the term “non-deterministic graph” to refer to this type of representation, which allows the possibility of creating cycles, i.e. possibilities to connect vertices (in our case, ideas and concepts) regardless of their position in the representation. Associations can then be multiple, reflecting more richly the points of view of contributors, while introducing greater complexity into the formalization. In a creative session, participants may be asked to create a map individually, emphasizing the need to clarify the meaning given to the links traced and to discuss the complementarity of these links or their oppositions when sharing.

1 Mind maps allow for the presence of some loops (see Figure 4.3), but this is only an accepted exception to a rule that requires avoiding them. Otherwise, it is like transforming a mind map into a concept map.

Visual Communication and Idea Management

113

Figure 4.6. Example of an affinity diagram (source: [DRE 17])

Finally, the misnamed “affinity diagram” is a way of representing ideas produced during an ideation session according to the so-called “KJ” method, named after its Japanese creator (Kawakita Jiro) [KAW 75]. In the ideation phase, participants express and share their ideas, reacting to the facilitator’s instructions, by writing them on sticky and repositionable memos (one idea per memo), which are then grouped into families or categories, more or less distinct, according to their proximity. The contributions of these different ways of presenting ideas are numerous and similar to those we highlighted earlier: they structure thought, relieve memory and engage participants to make their ideas as explicit as possible in order to establish the links required by the representation. Nevertheless, it seems important to us to highlight the limitations, as well as some precautions for use that should be kept in mind when considering designing one. 4.4.1.2. Some characteristics and problems to remember First of all, among the key points to be taken into account and not to be forgotten, there is the case of the links to be drawn and the meaning that can be attributed to them. Indeed, in the majority of these maps, the meaning of the links is rarely specified. It may seem, a priori, obvious to the author of the map or to the group that co-constructed it. But for any other person, the

114

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

meaning of the links highlighted by this type of diagram is almost certainly open to misinterpretation. Only ontological-type graphs (in the computer sense), whose role it is specifically, clearly highlight the links and their meaning. So, apart from these particular cases, we believe that there are two consequences induced by not distinguishing the nature of the links outside their point of departure and arrival. The first is that several types of links can coexist in the same graph, which has the effect of making the relationships between concepts and ideas ambiguous. This ambiguity is not useless when constructing the map, quite the contrary: it can encourage each participant to explore his or her own associations of ideas based on the meaning he or she has of the map he or she is visualizing. It even encourages discussion and the expression of implicit knowledge. On the other hand, the second consequence of the first is more problematic. Indeed, if the map seems to be meaningful at first, i.e. at the time of its production or shortly thereafter, it is often difficult to provide a faithful interpretation of the exchanges when it is open to people who have not participated in its elaboration or when some of its designers read it several weeks later. So, even if you have contributed to it, you will probably have difficulty understanding it several days, months or years later. It often happens that this type of visualization is presented as the result of brainstorming and becomes a means of communication in order to report on the exchanges. In the latter case, the graph is still being modified to suit its audience (e.g. adding more detail) and to make it easier to understand (removing the most complex or marginal links). Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the use of such graphs is often limited to the people who designed them and over time, for the reasons just mentioned. In addition to the problem of managing and displaying the semantics of the network links of nodes displayed by such visualizations, other elements are also to be taken into account. Among these, there is the fact that these maps make it possible to break with the linearity of a discourse and, in doing so, mind mapping-type maps by promoting reasoning using associative logic (section 5.4.2). But it should be kept in mind that the reader follows diagrams and proceeds according to a known, usual mode of operation. Therefore, in order to reduce a form of cognitive dissonance, resulting from too large a gap between the perceived reality and the knowledge he or she possesses of the fact or problem discussed, a form of coherence is always sought by the latter among the reading objects presented to him or her. He or she will then seek or invent a coherence or explanation between the elements of the graph in order to establish his or her own narrative construction (see narrative sensemaking [BRU 91]). It is therefore preferable that the latter be

Visual Communication and Idea Management

115

more or less imposed by the session facilitator or negotiated with the group, which implies compromises as displayed as a legend on this map. It must be noted that mind maps and concept maps have a sense of reading, sometimes visible (suggested by the structure of the graph and the paths to be followed), sometimes invisible (by the order in which the ideas were added to it, the construction itself not necessarily respecting the linearity suggested by the final form, perhaps proceeding by successive jumps, by round trips, modifications/reformulations, etc.). The designers of these maps must therefore, as far as possible, provide the reading grid for these maps and adapt them to the audiences for which they are intended. Apart from the concept maps, which are similar to the so-called “random” graphs, i.e. without a specific structure visible, other visualizations are similar to the family of structured hierarchical graphs, in successive pyramidal layers. Thus, in the case of associative representations, hierarchical visualization sometimes seems to be diverted from its original meaning. However, if a map is used to create this type of structure, it loses its qualities if this “rule” is no longer respected. For example, navigation from the links created may no longer be obvious. There are exceptions to this rule in cases where the structure keeps a central node that represents what most of the thinking is focused on. Interaction diagrams are used in this way in the case of functional design [COR 12, pp. 76–77]. These maps remain useful because the peripheral loops at the focal point represent only interactions complementary to the understanding of the represented system and they remain few in number. Beyond the links and map structure, the expressions and keywords chosen as node labels are of great importance. In fact, there are the expressions produced to begin the construction of the map and those that are produced to be understood by all participants and non-participants (if it is to be disseminated) at the design stage. On this subject, two remarks can be made. The first concerns the limited vocabulary required by the representation. In general, the terms used can be recognized as “key words”, “nominal phrases” and any other form of “short expressions” of less than 10 words. This variety of expression possibilities makes the map very adaptable but requires reflection on the interpretation of terms by participants and/or readers. This work on interpretation can be particularly rich, because it also encourages participants to establish associations that they had not necessarily thought of, or because it limits the tendency of some participants to accept the proposals of others, even though they do not suit them.

116

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

The second remark concerns the necessary simplification produced by the use of a list of keywords, because it hardly reflects the complexity of an idea or an image. These two remarks explain the mixed feeling felt by the external reader of this type of representation, who does not know the history of the discussions regarding the choice of keywords and expressions in the representation. 4.4.2. Territorial representations The use of territorial representations consists of drawing sets of elements brought together by relationships of type “a kind of”, “belongs to”, “is composed of”2, etc. It is a question of defining perimeters or territories in the sense that these representations ultimately make it possible to decide whether a proposal, idea or concept is located inside or outside the project as well as the areas of overlaps between these different perimeters. In this category, we can identify Venn diagrams, organization charts, trees and stakeholder maps, which are the most common tools we have identified for collective creativity.

VIABILITY (COMPANY) Emotional

Process

Design Thinking

INNOVATION

DESIRABILITY (HUMAN)

FEASIBILITY (TECHNOLOGY)

Functional

Figure 4.7. Venn diagram 2 The ontologies to which we refer (section 4.4.1.2) therefore fall into this category of representations.

Visual Communication and Idea Management

117

Venn diagrams are powerful tools from the world of mathematics. Composed of geometric shapes (the most common being the circle) that intersect, they illustrate the logical relationships between sets of elements, marking their similarities (intersections) and differences (excluded parts). In terms of ideation (i.e. support for idea generation), such forms allow participants to establish multiple combinations of the properties of the whole. This representation has topological virtues, because it offers the reader a spatial view that allows them to locate an idea or concept on a multidimensional space.

Figure 4.8. Venn diagrams with two, three and four dimensions, delimiting respectively 3, 7 and 15 subsets. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

In a way, it is similar to the classic orthogonal plane in x, y, but differs from it on the one hand by allowing only discrete qualitative data to be represented, and on the other hand by keeping a representation on a two-dimensional plane, where the orthogonal plane in x, y, z requires an effort of imagination to visualize the third dimension. That said, from the point of view of its realization, the two- and three-part diagrams are the most common and easiest to produce, but beyond that, it becomes rarer. Figure 4.8 shows the most appropriate representation to visualize four dimensions, beyond which its reading becomes almost impossible and its realization is a challenge. In some cases, Venn diagrams can be retrospectively used to synthesize elements from associated techniques, such as the affinity diagram presented above. As a result, the relationship is no longer considered only as a partial one but also as an instance relationship (an individual example of an object or event class). In a similar register, since using the symbolism of circles or ellipses to represent sets, there is the mapping of stakeholders. It is a technique that allows all the actors of a project to be visualized by placing them within groups with clearly defined borders. The latter may include elements of different kinds, such as organizations or institutions, interests defended and

118

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

issues at stake, ideas or proposals for which each actor has expressed agreement or disagreement, relative oppositions (internal–external, favorable–disadvantage, etc.), etc. For example, Figure 4.9 illustrates several relationships that some groups or profiles of employees in a company have with others in the external environment. This figure shows well how the idea of boundaries can help to explain a form of structure and highlights the fact that the semantics of links can be associated with various icons. Consumers Business Organizations

Publishers

Subjects of news

Print Publishers Online only publishers

Print and digital publishers

Funders

Unsubscribed Consumers

Subscribers

Advertisers

Editors

Stockholders Investors

Photographers Journalists, reporters…

Bloggers

Graphic Designers

Internet Service Provider

UX Designer Content Creators

Ecosystem of Journalism

Tech Companies

Social Media

Developers Engineers

Manufacturers

App Stores

Inspired by : Dynabots, 05 June 2014, Devising a Stakeholder Map http://www.dynabots.com Platform Providers.

Figure 4.9. Example of stakeholder mapping with sets

Thus, this graphical representation differs from organizational charts, which are also functional visualizations designed to place individuals or functions in a hierarchical and organizational context. It also differs from tree diagrams (Figure 4.10), graphical representations similar to the flowchart, but applied to components other than individuals. Note the semiotic proximity between the mind maps mentioned above and the trees. Both seem to proceed in the same way: starting from a central node, they gradually develop into successive branches. What distinguishes them is the

Visual Communication and Idea Management

119

nature of the ramifications: vague and ambiguous for mental maps, they are intended only to evoke a link of any kind; explicit and unambiguous for tree diagrams, they denote a partial relationship (generic-specific, all or part, holonymy, etc.) between tree components (structure of tasks in a project, tree structure of a website, etc.).

Figure 4.10. Generic tree diagram of a website structure

4.4.3. Event and causal representations Representations such as storyboards, timelines, Ishikawa diagrams, etc. are various tools for creating event or causal representations. They have in common that they are constructed according to a reading direction, generally from left to right or from top to bottom, depending on the nature of the media and cultural contexts. This reading direction requires a sequential visualization of the information it contains. Flow diagrams (Figure 4.11), logical flowcharts and state-transition diagrams are very similar visually, but their reading direction is indicated by oriented arcs. This can sometimes lead those unfamiliar with these tools to confuse them and use them indistinctly, even though they differ in terms of their functions and the meaning that can be given to their composition. Thus, flow diagrams have, as their name suggests, the function of representing the flow of data, people, objects or matter between various components of the graph (storage spaces, processing systems, places, etc.). It is about representing interactions and ordered movements of elements from one point to another, whatever their nature and state, it being understood that each of these interactions and movements consumes time and resources.

120

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Figure 4.11. Data flow of a hotel room reservation platform online

More schematically, with much less established codes, this type of representation can also be compared to systemography (Figure 4.12), i.e. the visual and graphic description of how a system works in interaction with its environment and other systems. Logical flowcharts (called logigrammes in French), on the other hand, describe a situation of uncertainty reduction through a succession of conditions allowing transition from a known initial situation to a new situation, distinct from the first and more informed one. They can be used to make a logical mapping of a process and consist of steps and decisions to be taken (yes or no, positive or negative, etc.) that can be located between two steps, and paths from one step to another.

Figure 4.12. Example of a systemic representation where the subject is on vocational training and the role of various tools in this process

Visual Communication and Idea Management

121

Figure 4.13. Logical flowcharts describing the processing procedure for a scanned image

Finally, a state-transition diagram is a representation centered on an entity (machine, system, project, technical object), which consists of visualizing the different successive states of this entity, in reaction to events, called transitions, that follow one another and produce these states. This representation is used under this name in software engineering, in algorithms, to visualize the different states experienced by a computer program or a programming function. It can also be referred to as a sagittal diagram (or Pert diagram) in project management, which is then used to designate the different states of the project following the execution of tasks in a predetermined order. In parallel to the state-transition diagram, sometimes perceived by the neophyte as counterintuitive, there is a diagram that does not focus on the state resulting from an action, but on the action itself, we then speak of an activity diagram. It is possible to switch from one to the other, but you must be aware of the pattern you are in in order to respect a certain coherence.

Figure 4.14. Summary state-transition diagram illustrating the different states, a switch and actions producing these states

As we have pointed out above, these three representations are very similar; it may even be that some uses tend to combine them based on their graphic properties and underlying concepts. For example, we can mention the BPMN (Business Process Model Notation)3. The latter has, at the same time, the properties of flow diagrams, through the notion of control flow, those of logical flowcharts, through the concepts of event and branch, and the deterministic character (initial state, terminal state) of the realized graph as found in the state-transition diagrams. 3 BPMN guide available at https://www.bpmnquickguide.com.

122

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

That said, it is important to exploit each of these forms by trying to establish as clearly as possible the meaning of the different signs that make up the graphic representation. Thus, the question of the meaning of the forms used must be asked. A graph consists of nodes and edges. So, if the nodes are drawn, for example, in the form of boxes, it is important to know (or make known) the meaning of the latter in order to fully understand (or make intelligible) the graph that uses them. The same applies to edges. Their interaction is not self-evident. They can mean transitions between different phases, actions, causal relationships or memberships. Similarly, it is necessary to question a graph referring to time dimension; if no legend is provided, then the meaning of the forms used may not be clear to the reader. Will they misinterpret the graph by considering some of its parts as states of a project at a given time, when in fact they are the tasks to be performed or the resources to be mobilized? An Ishikawa diagram (also called a cause-and-effect diagram or a fish bone diagram) is the preferred representation of a method developed in 1962 by the Japanese quality engineer of the same name, in order to communicate the identified causes of an observed dysfunction, or an analyzed situation. These causes are structured around five domains that can be identified by their common initial “M”: machine, method, material, manpower, medium (environment). The description of this representation leads us to describe it as follows: a main vector, central in the graphical representation, marks the convergence of secondary vectors attached to each of the abovementioned domains, which, in turn, can be the convergent support of lower-level vectors denoting the different causes attached to each of the domains. The resulting shape is therefore similar to a tree structure listing the causes of a given situation. This representation joins the previous ones in establishing a structured set of causal links, but unlike the first ones, this is a timeless representation that offers an instant panorama at a given moment without informing us about the chronology of the construction of these links. In this sense, its classification among event representations is questionable, its place being probably in the intersection with the class of territorial representations. In contrast, timelines are much easier to classify as temporal representations. This type of representation can take more or less elaborate forms depending on the amount of elements it contains and the accuracy of the timescale it uses. Its most common form consists of a time vector, starting from the left of the support towards the right, in accordance with the Western vision of the flow of time, events then come to be placed there sometimes in

Visual Communication and Idea Management

123

their occurrence (points) and sometimes in their duration (lines or portions of the vector). Unlike previous visualizations, the timeline is not the preferred visualization to represent causal relationships, but rather when it comes to targeting a particular event and its duration. Finally, the last event representation we discuss here is the storyboard (Figure 4.15). This drawing technique comes from the cinema and includes all the shots of a film, before it is made. It allows you to view the actors on stage, the points of view adopted by the camera and the sequence of actions planned in the script, in an imaginative and narrative way. Without going as far as this level of storyboarding, even if it is reduced to its simplest expression, this tool is an interesting approach for at least two reasons. First, it can be done to share one’s vision of a situation leading to a succession of actions. Then, it can also be used to promote the reader’s projection in a given situation, moving from a position of a spectator to that of an actor depending on the angle of view adopted.

Figure 4.15. Example of a storyboard of a situation of use for an online service in French. Here, the characters are discussing playing and signing up to a video game4

4 Source: L. Castor, “Summarize the UX of the project by creating a storyboard. Openclassrooms”, CC BY-SA, April 2018.

124

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Use of this tool is not limited to the cinema. It is a relatively common practice, for example, in ergonomics and user experience design (UX). In its simplest expression, i.e. that corresponding to the supply and use of a blank sheet or strip using the codes of the comic strip (vignettes, bubbles, etc.), it requires its designers to stage actors, interactions, objects, etc. through drawing. Its realization does not require great artistic qualities; the important thing is to schematize in such a way as to clearly identify the different elements represented. One of its variants is to ask, for example, participants in a design workshop to “crunch” a situation on repositionable memos, which will then be placed in boxes. The advantage of this variant is that it allows us to mix the productions of each participant, during the pooling. We have repeatedly highlighted the contributions of these various representations, referred to here as event-driven and causal. Each of them also has its own specific and more general limitations. Thus, it seems to us that during their operation, their designer must be vigilant. First of all, it must be considered that they require, at a given moment, choices in the events represented, leading to a simplification of a reality that is undoubtedly much more complex and can hold many surprises. Similarly, these representations can be dynamic (diagrams and logical flowcharts, timelines or storyboard) or static (Ishikawa diagram), imposing reading choices, i.e. elements to be shown, to be placed in the foreground, in the background or not to be displayed so that the visualization remains understandable. For example, if a cause-and-effect diagram lists the possible causes of a malfunction or event, it says little or nothing about the order in which these causes occurred, making it impossible to represent the possible causal interactions that led to the situation described. Similarly, a flow diagram or storyboard, in order to remain readable and comprehensible in its sequentiality, requires that only certain events and relationships be represented. So, we can say that these approaches are sensitive to the participants’ point of view, while sometimes giving the illusion of exhaustivity. It is indeed tempting to describe these representations as “cartography” and, in so doing, to retain their referential character; it is still necessary to make the keys to reading these graphs accessible. Finally, we must remember that “correlation” does not necessarily mean “causality” and that simultaneous or successive occurrence, such as the conjunction of events, cannot be sufficient to establish a cause. They suggest it at most, which can sometimes be dangerous because from a more or less displayed “possibility”, the reader retains a “fact”. This general principle owes nothing to this type of

Visual Communication and Idea Management

125

visualization; nevertheless, we think it is preferable to be suspicious of the links represented, as the strength of images in terms of persuasion is sometimes underestimated. 4.4.4. Experiential representations The last family of visual representations that we wish to address in this chapter includes forms and materials that play on the relationship to the body, i.e. that call not only on the sense of sight but on all the perceptual experiences made possible by the human body. Similarly, these forms play on scale effects since they make it possible to relate them to the human scale, to the level of one’s gaze and to the experience that each of us can have of the object in question and the context in which it is brought into being. In this category, we list models and prototypes as well as tangible objects such as Lego brick constructions (section 6.3.4), origami and modeling clay models. A mock-up and a prototype are both representations of the product as close as possible to the final result in order to test the ideas with an audience. They are mainly distinguished from each other by the static and fixed aspect of the model, which is primarily aimed at the eye, in relation to the experiential modalities of manipulation for which a prototype is designed. Thus, the different interaction modalities appearing, at least partially, in the final product allow the experimenter to consider its use when performing the test. If the model allows its audience to analyze its subject’s integration within its future environment, the set constituted is relatively static, even if some forms of interactivity can be allowed (via a lighting set, 3D immersion, augmented reality, etc.). The model suggests more than it allows for experimentation. It allows the experimenter to imagine the interactions suggested by the device using subsequent experiments. These objects already constitute elaborate forms of product vision, such as can be proposed at an advanced stage of a project. Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest modeling and rapid prototyping phases (of the low-tech type, for example, i.e. using common materials such as paper or cardboard) that are upstream of the design process. Bringing these intermediary objects up as soon as possible promotes the sharing of experience and makes it possible to perceive an idea in its many aspects, even in an incomplete and imperfect way. The aim is to develop “minimum viable products” [MAT 16, p. 22], the nature and properties of whose materials allow for very rapid

126

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

implementation and make it easier for participants to intervene on a concept or idea proposed by others. They invite the test user to modify, improve or rethink them. This type of experiential realization does not necessarily require, from its initial phase, access to a 3D printer or to register in a Fab-Lab. For example, one way to enter this materialization phase is to use building materials and games, such as Lego bricks (section 6.3.4) and modeling clay. Marketed since the early 1950s, the first ones are probably no longer to be presented as they are known to a wide audience, whatever their age. This success and its notoriety contribute to the acceptance of this tool in creativity workshops. The principle consists of using the bricks to propose a prototype, a scenario or a metaphor expressing the product or service to be developed or improved. It is about providing a visualization of a mental representation, a vision of a solution or components of a problem to be solved. However, the interest of this practice lies less in the final realization, its form, than in the way the construction was made, i.e. the ideas exchanged, the explanations provided in order to realize it and therefore make the idea behind it understood, recovered by taking notes, recordings or a synthesis at the end of the activity. It is therefore above all a technique of co-elaborating ideas or mutual understanding about a project, even if its applications are multiple. The same result can be achieved by using clay rather than bricks. Thus, in a similar register, the origami technique also consists of creating material forms that promote exchanges between participants and invite each of them to clarify their own vision of a problem or solution [MEG 17]. This involves making paper constructions in the form of artifacts or characters which are then used as pawns on a board. This technique is used to model interactions within systems and between the system and its environment before the design phase. It requires an initiation phase, but can also be bypassed if the origami prototyping workshop is replaced by a “paper, scissors, glue and staples” creation workshop. The spirit of origami, of exploration by folding “to see”, will disappear in favor of the latter [SNY 03], which is easier to achieve. Although these representations seem very stimulating and prompt the emergence and exchange of ideas, it is important to be cautious about their value, especially with regard to prototypes and models. Their shape, which is relatively close to the final form sought, would easily suggest that it is a reified form of the solution. A rapid arrival in solution space, if not

Visual Communication and Idea Management

127

accompanied (not to say “bombarded”, as atoms are by particles when we want to divide them) by a series of questions challenging it, runs the risk of locking the protagonists in that space, depriving them of the opportunity to explore other avenues. Thus, we underline the risk of strong criticism in the face of a reality that is too quickly grasped in its entirety (which is why the prototype is not made). This can be a major obstacle to stimulating creativity, interaction and the exchange of ideas, because by shifting questions and analyses to technical and practical details, it destroys any divergent thinking (section 5.4.2) aimed at taking a creative step back to generate new ideas. In any case, in terms of the communication of ideas, this type of materialization, compared to more conventional representations, has several interests. The most salient thing in our view is that it is a less codified form of expression, i.e. one that makes more limited use of conventions and standards. It is based on communication, which in turn is based on an experience of the relationship to the world, to objects, to the social and material environment, more universal than the interplay of symbols and forms that we have seen before. In this respect, it is a more empirical, direct and intuitive approach which, moreover, focuses attention by causing a kind of disruption of practices developed and acquired at school and in the professional context, frameworks in which symbolic communication through writing is widely favored. Nevertheless, this empirical nature has the consequence of being intimately linked to the subjectivities, to the individual and individual experiences, even shared, of the actors, as well as to their socio-cultural context. Under these conditions, it seems essential to us that such representations be made as explicit as possible in order to be understood by as many people as possible. 4.5. Conclusion Visual representations and their uses are therefore multiple and present many interests from the point of view of a process of creativity and product innovation. Some can be used to express a problem and help it to be understood, others to discuss and share knowledge while highlighting it, some can put elements in perspective with each other to rethink a system or product and finally some are more or less complete schematizations of the imagined final product. Nevertheless, by focusing on the ability of these tools to communicate an idea, it has been stressed several times that the use of these

128

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

representations must be accompanied by an explicit work, in order to ensure that any user is able to make sense of them. Like any mode of language expression, its effectiveness requires that the code used be shared by all those for whom it is intended and requires an effort on the part of the author(s) to be as accessible as possible to their audience. It must therefore be remembered that the choice or use of a representation is not neutral, either in its motivations or in its effects. On the one hand, the use of one rather than another results from the vision of a problem or its solution held by individuals, a vision sometimes discussed and negotiated by the collective, sometimes imposed by a small number within it. On the other hand, on the effects side, it cannot be overlooked that any representation implies the selection, reduction and organization of information, as pointed out above. Languages, signs and rules operate this filtering, translation, structuring and freezing of the knowledge, which once documented, is destined to go beyond time, space and the original restricted social sphere. It is therefore necessary to be aware of this in order not to consider these representations as anything other than transitional forms, created in order to give, see and understand and which only require transformation. In Chapter 5, we will propose elements for understanding and implementing collective creativity sessions. You will notice that the use of graphs is important and you will find, in particular, several associative and territorial representations.

5 Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

Creativity is an ability that is increasingly in demand in organizations. In accordance with the approach chosen in this book, we consider it as part of an agile organizational dynamic aimed at producing innovations. Thus, creativity is not only undertaken by isolated individuals but also by groups whose assigned objective is to propose new ideas to meet a new need or problem. In this respect, group creativity only makes sense if the ideas produced collectively are more relevant and numerous than those of individuals who have worked alone to develop them. Therefore, one of the questions that can be asked to answer this question is how to transform the individual ability to create into a competence. In a way, this means clarifying how to work on and develop this group creativity with great potential. To answer this, we underline the fact that knowing and applying a creative process (a method composed of steps and tools) can open new paths by generating large numbers of ideas in an effective way. Thus, when considered as a collective process, the people participating in the “creativity group” will more quickly understand the attitudes, postures and reasoning used in this method. In this sense, the collective also makes it possible to enrich individual points of view and increase the number of ideas produced. The group effect not only promotes the addition of inventive powers but also allows them to be multiplied by each other through collective stimulation. Finally, from experience, we have repeatedly found that this first experience of collective learning allows each person to work and express their creativity individually afterwards.

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

130

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Many books and websites cover the “classic” approach/process of a collective creativity session. They provide an initial practice of this collective creativity method (CCM). We will not go back over the composition of groups that must present varied profiles in order to benefit from a real cross-fertilization of cultures, modes of reasoning and different visions of the problems and “objects” on which they will be led to reflect. Similarly, in the context of an agile innovation process, it seems obvious to us, as for many other authors [BRIT 17, JOU 00, LEL 10, SAY 06], that, as far as possible, customers or users affected by the expected solution should be invited to participate in these creative groups and workshops. During our research work, company practices and training given in France and abroad, we found that this method was often applied “mechanically”. Keeping this point of view in mind, the implementation and progress of a creativity session is then reduced to a succession of tools. This mechanism “must and/or should” make it possible to collectively produce new ideas. However, when approached in this way, we have observed on many occasions that the “miracle” of collective generation of ideas does not happen automatically. This is even more significant when the group of participants in collective creativity has never worked in this way before. This is why we believe that each creativity group of more than three people needs to be accompanied by a facilitator responsible for coordinating the group and achieving its objectives. This facilitator can be independent of the group or, as with the model of the agile working groups from the SCRUM (computer development) method, they may be a member of the group assuming this role as a coordinator (SCRUM manager), an activity facilitator and not an activity manager [GOF 16, p. 261]. A method is defined as the complementarity of an approach and the tools associated with it. An approach is both the designation of a given direction for the actions undertaken and a state of mind to be integrated and put in place for the application of the method. “It is not enough to describe in scientific terms the mechanism of things and phenomena, we must feel them to test their souls” (Vaclav Havel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, 2004). We believe that by understanding and applying these two elements in concrete ways, the session facilitator will be able to better use the real potential of the CCM. This will allow him or her to manage the group’s idea generation dynamics and guarantee a quantity of ideas at the end of the session. Similarly, it will make people experience and feel the attitudes (“think positive” and “see differently”) to have to imagine together. Remember that

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

131

this method is not efficient; its implementation must be intensified because the more ideas we have produced, the more “high potential” (innovation) ideas will be important. Finally, we would like to remind you that collective creativity must be practiced (as a facilitator or participant) to be integrated. It is like cycling. To learn how to do it, you have to (dare to) practice doing it. Indeed, it is possible to read a lot to get to know methods and many tools. But the essential thing is to feel the attitudes, postures and dynamics through practice. In this chapter, our intention is to provide a facilitator who already has prior experience with additional resources (based on research and experience) to develop skills. Therefore, at first, we will only briefly review the framework of a “classical” approach. Then, we will highlight and explain the elements/moments/tools that we consider important to ensure the implementation of collective creativity to produce as many new ideas as possible. 5.1. (Collective) creativity: a sought-after skill? Before discussing and/or adopting a method or tool, it is always reasonable and appropriate to consider its contribution. Collective creativity and the methods (understood as approach + tools) associated with it are no exception to the rule. Part of the answer can be provided through the points of view of organizations (company, industry, administration, start-up, etc.). But this answer implies answering another question: what skills do they expect from their employees? A global study conducted by the IBM Institute of Business Value in 2010 among 700 human resources managers identifies and classifies them [IBM 10] (see Figure 5.1). Most important leadership qualities over the next five years. Creativity

60%

Integrity Global thinking

52% 35%

Figure 5.1. Most important qualities for the next five years [IBM 10]

132

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

For 60% of those surveyed, creativity appears to be the most important of all leadership qualities. Among the various comments made during the interviews, one focused on when creativity is more important than ever for companies: “In times of complexity, slow growth and uncertain economic conditions around the world, business leaders need more creativity than ever.” Another study (see Table 5.1) conducted in February 2017 by the specialized search engine Adzuna [BOY 17] analyzed nearly 800,000 job offers to identify the 20 most frequently required qualities in ads. The first observation that is made is that “recruiters are increasingly attentive to soft skills, those ‘interpersonal skills’ essential to navigate in the professional world.” Rank

Quality

Evolution compared to 2016

1

Rigor

+ 4 places

2

Autonomy

=

3

Dynamism

+ 1 place

4

Team spirit

+ 7 places

5

Motivation

+ 2 places

6

Creativity

=

Table 5.1. Extract from the table of the “top 20 preferred qualities of recruiters” [BOY 17]

Creativity is ranked 6 in this study. If we consider creativity in its collective form (as in this chapter), we must associate team spirit (rank 4) and dynamism (rank 3) with it. We will also point out, in sections 5.2 and 5.3, that in order to carry out collective creativity sessions, the facilitator will have to be rigorous (rank 1) to achieve results. To go further, Adzuna also looked at the most remunerative soft skills, i.e. those that are in demand on the advertisements offering the highest salaries (see Table 5.2). As in 2016, for 2017, positions that require creativity are the most highly paid, followed by those that require proposal strength and then proactivity. Once again, creativity appears to be necessary.

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

Rank

Quality

Salary

1

Creativity

€42, 293

2

Proposal strength

€38, 424

3

Proactivity

€37, 979

4

Curiosity

€37, 354

5

Enthusiasm

€35, 575

6

Taste for challenge

€35, 505

133

Table 5.2. Extract from the table of the “top 10 qualities the most lucrative” [BOY 17]

We have just seen that creativity is a skill required by organizations. To set the framework for our discussions, in the following section we will discuss the “classic” structuring of a collective creativity session. 5.2. The “classic” structuring of a collective creativity session The collective creativity process usually takes place in the creative phase of the project, but it may also occur to address a problem on an ad hoc basis in the other phases of the design process. Indeed, everyone can be creative in their work, on a very specific (arranging their personal workspace) or more global problem. Creativity can be applied to all types of problems, whether technical, human, organizational, stylistic, etc. The creativity process is thus applied in the context of creativity sessions. It consists of three steps: preparing the session, conducting the creativity session (using the creativity method) and analyzing and reporting all the results of the session. We will now briefly present the different steps of a creativity session by inserting some tips or rules. A creativity session is always led by at least one facilitator. He or she will manage the group of people during the creativity session. It is important that the facilitator is external to the group so that he or she is not familiar with a setting and is immersed in their culture. 5.2.1. Step 1 of preparing the creativity session To start, the facilitator must first prepare the session. In fact, he or she must meet with the sponsor of the intervention to fully understand and define together the subject to be addressed during the creativity session. Depending

134

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

on the subject and human resources, he or she must also identify with the sponsor the persons forming the group of participants, respecting a few rules. Initial demand

Creative production

Analyses

Problem analysis

MOFF, causal diagram

Purge, the 3 Hs…

Opening

Presenting the problem

Brainstorming, introductory words

Return to the problem

Analogy

Convergence

Selection of ideas Evaluation matrix

Evaluation of ideas

Selected ideas

Figure 5.2. Example of a “classic” method of collective creativity: the approach, the different phases and possible tools. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

For example, this group should include people with different characteristics (multidisciplinary, multicultural, mixed, intergenerational, etc.) as far as possible, while ensuring that differences in hierarchical levels are not too great and that there are no conflicts between selected people. The facilitator must also prepare the necessary materials and select locations for the session. Finally, depending on the expected duration of the collective creativity session, he or she must build his or her session plan and plan the sequences between the three phases of the creativity method. 5.2.2. Step 2 of the creativity session Once all the preparations for the session have been taken into account, the session can take place and the CCM can be conducted. This consists of five phases (see Figure 5.2). It is essential to process them in this order: (1) after presenting the problem to the group, it is necessary (2) to analyze the problem in order to define it precisely; (3) to open up the field of investigation in order to switch to the creative production mode; (4) to select the most relevant ideas, possibly adapting them to the context of the problem; and (5) to evaluate the selected ideas. Beware, phase (3) must deserve all our attention because it is necessary to open up the problem so that it is not limited to the field on which it depends; all creative production

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

135

depends on it. Then, with the following phases, we return to the problem by adapting the elements from creative production to the problem initially posed. The selection of certain ideas and their evaluation are then carried out. 5.2.3. Step 3 of analyzing and reporting all the results of the creativity session During stage 2 of the creativity session and given its “limited” duration, only part of the production will have been used. The purpose of step 3 is then to record all the group’s productions in forms that can be understood, transmitted and reused by the members of the creativity group and people outside it. Indeed, the purpose of collective creativity is to generate new ideas so that they can continue to “live”, be supported and then developed (for some of them) by people making them continue the path of the innovation process. As we mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, we wish to enrich this classic vision of the method by reintroducing in a concrete way the underlying elements of the “collective creativity approach”: the attitudes, postures, dynamics to be established in the group in practice. Our objective is to provide the animator with concrete means to “feel and experience the soul” of collective creativity. We will therefore address these elements that we consider essential to propagate the creative spirit in a collective and thus “maximize” the production of new ideas. 5.3. The important elements of a collective creativity session When conducting a creativity session, it is important to keep in mind that the human being is at the center of the genesis of ideas. Thus, as Cavallucci points out, “no idea can be born alone from a tool” [CAV 06]. Even if the concept of tools to support creativity is very often correlated with that of work group facilitator, we insist on the fact that the role of the facilitator is the most important. It is a method that helps, guides creativity and guarantees the production of results. The facilitator must also play the neutral role of referee, dynamizer and manager of the group, organizer of the session. In section 5.3.1, we discuss the attitudes and states of mind that we consider to be predominant and that he or she should “infuse” into the group during the collective creativity session.

136

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

5.3.1. The attitudes and state of mind for the facilitator to adopt, and for the group of participants to adopt To carry out the session successfully, the facilitator must not only follow a protocol but also adopt a positive attitude, encourage a new look at the environment and the subject of work and, finally, alternate different modes of analysis, reasoning and idea generation. 5.3.1.1. Think positive It is often mentioned that, in particular, the French have rather negative critical characters1. However, during actions of collective creativity and innovation in different countries, we have realized that this state of mind is more widespread than we think and does not seem to depend only on a common country or culture. Beyond caricature, in order to be able to build together, having a positive attitude and state of mind is one of the elements that allows us to see things around us differently and guarantee a consequent new collective production. The facilitator will have to behave as such in order to be able to get the members of the creativity group to adopt this posture. This is not self-evident. Positive thinking is a posture, but it does not tell us how to achieve it, or how to make it understood and practiced by group members during a session. This may seem simplistic, but one of the first things not to do to be “positive” is to avoid certain negative postures or comments. At an international conference on collective creativity, a poster presented short sentences from daily life illustrating “35 ways to strangle ideas” (see Figure 5.3). Getting people to think positively means, first of all, making them careful not to say these “little sentences” that we have all used one day. To complete the journey towards the group’s “positive thinking” (and “positive” dialogue), the objective that the facilitator can propose to the whole creativity group is not to focus on the 90% of the “bad things” that potentially exist in the information provided, but to identify the 10% of “good things” that can be retained and then enrich them.

1 Let us be clear that we do not criticize criticism if it is constructive. We will see later that creative tools such as “reverse thinking” are used to generate ideas.

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

Figure 5.3. 35 ways to strangle ideas. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

137

138

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

To summarize this “positive thinking” and “identifying the 10%”, a common expression used to respond to a proposal could summarize this. Rather than say “Yes... but... !”, thinking positively and in enriching ways would lead us to say, “Yes... and...!” 5.3.1.2. See the environment differently A positive state of mind is one of the postures that allows us to see the environment differently. It is therefore an essential prerequisite for the development of a different/divergent vision. By changing our perception of the environment (individually and/or collectively), the group is expected to be able to formulate new ideas. The following maxim clarifies this: “Move your body and your mind will follow. Move your mind and your world will follow.” To make this individual and collective journey (which takes place during the moments of generating new ideas) understandable, it is often necessary to put it into practice with a simple exercise. Indeed, our conceptual system can only forge certain abstract and subjective ideas through metaphors [FRO 07]. To illustrate this phenomenon, we propose to the future animator the exercise “of the metaphors of the chair.” In this exercise, the chair represents a project and/or problem for which the group must find new ideas for use. At first, since this chair is positioned on the ground on its four legs, it is “seen and perceived” in the usual way. As a facilitator, propose to the group to formulate new solutions. This is often not obvious. Then, move the problem in relation to your body or vice versa. By lifting the chair, tackling it against a wall, turning it over, placing it horizontally, placing it on your lap, etc., you move the vision and perception of the problem that the people in the group have. You will find that proposing new ideas has become easier for them. The chair can very quickly become a coat rack, a mobile desk, a shelf, a chandelier, etc. The formulation of new solutions for the use of chairs is a concrete problem that IKEA’s research work has addressed following a prospective study of housing predicting, by 2050, a drastic reduction in living space (in m2) for the 69% of the world’s population living in cities.

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

139

5.3.2. Move from analytical to exploratory reasoning It must be noted that, of all the courses that have been or are offered in a “student” curriculum (primary school and above), those focused on the use of analytical approaches are in the majority. Borrowing the reasoning associated with this approach, it is often difficult for participants in a creativity session to activate the exploratory process, which is complementary. This is one of the central elements of the CCM. In order to understand the attitudes associated with this exploration, we propose the analogy between how to achieve a goal (for us, proposals for new solutions) and the choice of route to get there (highway or small roads). Let us characterize the analytical approach as a highway: a fast track to reach solutions. To solve a given problem, we use our knowledge to find the best way forward. We prefer to arrive at our destination as soon as possible rather than to experience a change of scenery through variations in landscape, facilities, services, etc. On any highway, there are strong similarities between them: guardrails, bridges, rest areas and gas stations at regular distances. The ideas that will emerge from this analytical process will certainly be good ideas, but in limited numbers. Similarly, it is rare to be alone on the same highway. This raises the question of the knowledge used to guide analytical reasoning. Is it unique or known by others? For example, in the case of TRIZ, by formulating the principle of psychological inertia, G. Altshuller [ALT 06, CAV 06] highlighted this problem. He thus proposed to sort through different inventive ideas identified with the help of patents [ALT 04]. Finally, beyond a degree of originality of ideas, there is the question of their real novelty. The exploratory approach proposes to “take the first highway exit” to take the school children’s path. We will no longer look for the fastest way, but, by letting our intuitions, desires, emotions, curiosities, chance, etc., speak for themselves, all the roads will lead us to cross the most unexpected ones. By bringing them closer together and creating fortuitous links between them and the problem we need to solve, we will generate new ideas. They will be numerous, diverse, different and complementary to those identified by an analytical approach. It is a question of taking a distant path and having a thought by bypassing, or even by walking according to our encounters along the way. One of the variations of this form of exploratory approach is serendipity [BRU 15]. It is defined as the art of discovering very fruitful things by chance or sagacity, without intention and at a time when you don’t

140

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

expect it. Systematic serendipity [GAR 04, SMI 64] has taken on a particular dimension when using the Internet. Since the widespread use of web surfing in the 1990s as waves of sites moved through the hyperlinks presented there, many people have been able to discover things that they found interesting and useful, but that they did not expect and, above all, that they were not looking for when they first surfed the Web. The solution

Analytical path

New solutions

Exploratory path

Figure 5.4. From analytical reasoning to exploratory reasoning. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

The condition for this exploration to be developed correctly without interruption is to use positive thinking and to postpone the evaluation of production until the end of the session. Similarly, setting and displaying operating rules for the group is a way to maintain and ensure better group functioning. We will take as an example the rule “ECQFH, here and now.” The initials mean:

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

141

– “E” for everything is good to say... and to note. This means that any information issued (word, sound, drawing, etc.) can contain interesting elements; – “C” for censorship and self-censorship abolished. By criticizing information, we break the positive thread of thought and can lead the person who received the criticism to stop participating spontaneously and to think before speaking, to self-censor; – “Q” for quantity: collective creativity is not an efficient process. By producing as many ideas as possible, the number of good and very good ideas will increase; – “F” for crazy, far-fetched, fantasy: the objective is to encourage people to let go, without judging the value of the information they offer to the group; – “H” for hijacking: it is one way to keep exploring; – “here and now” means that for people to agree to let go, it is necessary that what happens within the group during the session, i.e. people’s attitudes, letting go, etc., remains within the group. The creative exploratory process aims to move away from the most “classical” or obvious path (the highway of thought) in a serendipitous way. When conducted as a group, it is described as “divergent”, while the analytical approach is described as “convergent”. 5.3.3. The three levels of divergence–convergence In fact, to generate as many ideas as possible during a creativity session, it is necessary to organize a large number of sequences of divergent– convergent approaches and therefore divergent–convergent reflection (see Figure 5.5a). This encourages the generation of unexpected ideas, which may at first seem “far-fetched” (thanks to the exploratory approach), because they are disconnected from the problem to be solved. For example, the following convergence scheme will allow you to enrich ideas by contextualizing them in relation to the subject matter and thus make them more interesting.

142

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

a)

b)

Figure 5.5. Succession of divergence–convergence

Finally, by regularly practicing this exploratory process, participants in this process will develop an ability, i.e. a certain form of agility, to move individually and/or collectively from analytical reasoning to exploratory reasoning (and vice versa). This approach can then be presented at different levels of convergence. 5.3.3.1. Level 1: general structuring of a creativity session The course of a collective creativity session is structured around an alternation of divergence–convergence, what Graham Wallas calls creative looping [WAL 26]. Once the subject analysis phase has been completed, the objective of the creative production phase is to move away from the subject by diverging through exploratory reasoning (see Figure 5.3, a classic approach to collective creativity). Its purpose is to produce new, unexpected, even crazy ideas. They can be lifted in this way, as their potential links with the subject have not yet been highlighted. The role of the convergence phase is then to bring the subject and these ideas together in order to be able to respond to the problem at hand. Once this rapprochement is achieved, the term “crazy” ideas may then disappear and give way to “interesting” ideas.

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

143

5.3.3.2. Level 2: a vision of the creative path, the succession of divergence–convergence In order for the group to generate really new ideas, it is necessary to “make them live a path” to force them to get away from the subject. This path (the first highway exit, see Figure 5.4) consists of successive creative bounces using different creative tools. For each tool, a divergence– convergence sequence is therefore implemented. This is then a succession of divergence–convergence (see Figure 5.5(b)) constituting this creative path. The first rebound (using a first creative tool) will allow the group to “warm up” to be more and more creative by generating ideas belonging to an initial circle of ideas. It also allows the group to move away from the subject for the first time, to take a first step towards another path. It is very important not to stop here (as is unfortunately too often the case), because the ideas generated by the use of this first tool are only a basis for generating new ideas that we hope will be more original and remain relevant to the subject at hand. These ideas are part of what can be called the “first creative circle”. In fact, these ideas are, as a rule, mostly already in existence. The first creative circle then plays the role of purging the initial ideas that would have emerged anyway. They therefore constitute an essential foundation for the elevation of creative thought, but in no way an outcome. The second rebound (or even the following ones: third, fourth, etc.), thanks to other creative tools, should allow the group to really move away from the subject by acting as a starting point for creative reflection (Figure 5.6). This rebound and the following ones of the same order have the role of producing “crazy”, “far-fetched”, etc. ideas, because they are perceived as disconnected from the subject, but that is their only benefit. Then, once these rebounds have been made, a phase of rapprochement and contextualization of these “crazy” ideas with the subject (convergent phase) will be carried out. At this point, these ideas can change from “crazy” to “very interesting” because they will express new possible solutions.

144

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Topic

1st CREATIVE REBOUND

IDEAS

… to MAKE IT BETTER

Moving away from the subject…

2nd, 3rd, … CREATIVE REBOUNDS (several tools)

CRAZY and interesng IDEAS

Figure 5.6. The succession of divergence–convergence: the creative path. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

5.3.3.3. Level 3: the transition between divergence–convergence and the moment the initial form of an idea emerges Invention and creation are never born out of nothing. They always consist of the restructuring, recomposition, reorganization of constituent elements or those linked to pre-existing realities. An idea emerges from a fortuitous shock between a problem and an external stimulant. We believe that this shock, this moment of “illumination”, in the sense of generating a luminous idea, is one of the most important phases of the path that will lead to the generation of ideas. It occurs during the use of a creative tool, at the time of the transition from a divergence phase to a convergence phase. To make this moment as productive as possible, we argue that it must be orchestrated by the creative session facilitator. Above, we have just explained the principle of the distance from the subject through the path of succession of creative bounces using creative tools. If we take the example of a brainstorming session (perhaps, the technique most used by creativity groups) using associative logic (a well-known creativity tool designed to link objects or concepts that have

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

145

none a priori). This tool proposes to move away from the subject by starting from a formulation of the problem with a question of the type: “How to...?” During the phase of divergence with this tool, the facilitator asks the participants to propose, orally, words that come spontaneously to them to evoke the subject at the center of the activity or problem to which the creative session should contribute to providing an answer. He or she will note all the words and expressions stated, for example, on a flipchart-type sheet that is visible to everyone. They should also encourage all members of the group to take the baton from the last word spoken, without thinking and therefore without analyzing the last word expressed, to formulate new ones. This will cause words to appear that have no connection to the subject and will encourage distance from the subject. When the list of words thus obtained seems large enough and sufficient for the facilitator to consider that there has been a discrepancy, he or she first chooses one of the words obtained from among those that have no connection with the subject. He or she then joins this word with the subject in such a way as to cause a “bissociation”. This term refers to “an original and relevant assembly of pre-existing elements” [KOE 11]. Its purpose is to create an image in the participants’ minds. The facilitator can then suggest that one of the people come and draw on a new piece of flipchart paper, for example, this “fuzzy and imprecise” image. By encouraging the transition from oral to drawn expression, the facilitator will encourage participants to adopt a variety of different interpretations of the ideas expressed and, above all, help contextualize them in relation to the subject. It is at this precise moment that the transition from divergence to convergence takes place. It is really at this moment that the most interesting ideas are born. The role of the facilitator changes. While he or she encouraged divergence, he or she must now first help the “designer” to consolidate his or her image and then contextualize it to make it converge on the subject. During the consolidation, the facilitator will ask questions that help to describe and enrich the image. For example, he or she may ask: “How is the drawn object made up? What is it used for? Who uses it? Where? At what times?” To do this, they can rely on a classic tool of contextualizing problems and understanding well the questions that make up the Quintilian hexameter or 5W+(2)H (section 2.1). Once the image is more detailed and consolidated, the facilitator will facilitate its contextualization by asking questions that bring back elements of the subject. Then, the facilitator can express a series of other questions such as: How do you see use in the

146

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

subject? At what times, places, in which with which people can this apply to our subject? As a result of these efforts to reflect and answer various questions about a word expressed as “proto-idea”, the group obtains what we call an “embryo of an idea” (see Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7. The transition from divergence to convergence: time of birth of the embryos of ideas. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

This sequence of consolidation–contextualization actions usually results in a succession of new images in the minds of other participants. All that the facilitator has to do is ask them to come and draw them, one after the other, so that everyone can “feed” on these new images. When the proposals dry up, just take another word from the list and start again. When all the words have been used or a fatigue sets in among the participants, it is time to choose another creative tool and start managing this moment of birth of the embryos of ideas again. We have just presented the attitudes, modes of thought and actions that we consider essential to maximizing the production of new ideas. These elements, which must be exploited in order to create a creativity group dynamic, have an impact on the organization and conduct of a collective

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

147

creativity session. Thus, one of the moments during which the use of these elements “crystallizes” is that of creative production (which takes place during phase 2 of the session). We have just mentioned the structuring role and importance of the sequence of divergence–convergence as well as the interest of accompanying the group on a creative path through a succession of tools. But we did not give any advice so that the facilitator could choose the creative tools adapted to the session he or she is about to organize. 5.4. The choice of creative tools Choosing a group of creative tools adapted to your practices, context and audience may seem a priori quite simple, but this is rarely the case in reality. If the leader of a group can always be trained in the use of new tools, he or she must still be able to find himself or herself in the galaxy of the many creative tools and techniques that have been proposed so far. 5.4.1. The five implementation logics The literature on creative tools is quite extensive. Indeed, we find many articles, books and websites dealing with this subject. These tools are very often described in practical fact sheets. It seems that there are thousands of them available. This is why we think it is important to give future facilitators some ideas to guide them in their choice of tools. Considering that attitudes and modes of thought (see section 5.2.1) promote creative exploration without constraints and in all directions, we propose to represent the space of possible new ideas as a sphere with the subject to be addressed at its center. The facilitator must therefore stimulate his or her group of participants to arrive at a fairly complete exploration of this space of potential ideas. To do this, many authors propose to bombard the subject with different tools [DEL 15, JAO 94]. However, before that, the choice of appropriate tools remains an essential difficulty to manage. P. Vadcard, in his work [VAD 96], offers us a solution to this problem. The author focuses, first of all, on the tools that require effective implementation for a multidisciplinary group. The aim is to take advantage of the group effect, which not only adds up the inventive powers, but

148

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

multiplies them by one another through collective stimulation. By noting that “there were tools with different names, sometimes justified by a different formalism, but which in reality were identical” [VAD 96], he updated the reading keys of these tools, giving them a better readability. First, he drew up a model “identity card” from a panel of creative tools he had selected (including 11 sections to describe their main characteristics). Thus, based on the work of H. Jaoui [JAO 90] who had highlighted five main categories of creativity, P. Vadcard proposes a division into five logics for the implementation of creative tools2: – Associative logic, whose principle is based on the exploitation of the postulate that no association of ideas is the result of chance and that, contrary to appearances, a certain logic is established in associative chains (based on contrast, similarity, dependence, classification, consonance...). – Analog logic, the principle of which is based on the exploitation of the establishment of similarity between various domains that can be a community of characters in order to deduce laws, phenomena of ideas... – Combinatorial logic, the principle of which is based on the exploitation of a structural and/or functional decomposition of an object or problem, its recombination in a systematic or random way. – Dream logic, whose principle is based on the exploitation of unconscious processes (dream and fantasy springs) and their voluntary introduction into the creative process. – Aristotelian logic, the principle of which is based on a logical and Cartesian approach to the organization of ideas and concepts. 5.4.2. The notion of “father tools” To achieve this distribution, P. Vadcard [VAD 96] uncovered the notion of “father tools” representative of certain principles of implementation logic. This notion implies a certain form of implied genealogy, or at least possible comparisons of the order of kinship between different tools. The work he carried out to study the similarity of the identity cards of the selected tools enabled him to highlight that their implementation logic was a decisive factor in discriminating and distributing them into different classes or categories. 2 See also [JAO 15, p. 54].

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

149

Based on this study, P. Vadcard proposed the concept of a “father tool” which, by analogy, characterizes a tool representative of a class, a gender, etc. This hierarchical notion therefore implies the notion of “child tools”, i.e. tools belonging to the same family as their father while presenting some minor variants, making it possible to distinguish the different tools belonging to the same family (linked to the same father tool). Thus, for each of the logic families presented above, a father tool has been identified. This means that for each of the tools, its operating principle depends on how it is operated and therefore on the reasoning logic on which it is based, or at least which can be associated with it (see the examples in Table 5.3). Implementation logic

Father tool

Associative logic

Brainstorming

Analog logic

The analog approach

Combinatorial logic

The discovery matrices

Dream logic

The waking dream

Aristotelian logic

The method (R. Descartes)

Table 5.3. Table of association of logics and father tools (after [VAD 96])

Therefore, from this type of classification, the interest for the facilitator is to be able to have a father tool of each type. Learning a father tool will enable him or her to understand and use all the tools related to him or her by descent quickly and without great difficulty. A fortiori, by knowing the five father tools, he or she will be able to use all the creative tools. They will allow him or her to adapt to all situations and “sweep away” the spectrum of complementary logics, thus allowing his or her groups to explore different areas of the sphere of possible ideas. We note that these notions of logic and father/child tools are still applicable and “robust” today, despite the extraordinary inflation in the number of creative tools existing in the various media (scientific articles, books, websites, etc.). In Chapter 6, we will use them to present some creative tools. But to do this, we propose to add to these five logics and a sixth complementary one, which is applied transversely in combination with one or the other of these logics: the playful logic, i.e. based on the game.

150

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

5.5. Processing the results of a collective creativity session Idea generation is, in a global way, the phase intended to produce ideas and/or concepts in an organized way in order to supply the innovation process with new proposals. These ideas must be original/different, but they cannot appear to be simply “strange” or “bizarre”; they must be appropriate to the problems and opportunities that arise. Some authors argue that idea/concept generation is about producing original and effective solutions to a previously well-defined problem. It is the art of posing problems and proposing solutions to them [JAO 94]. Others consider that these sessions are finalized by the formalization of the generated concepts [FER 10]. Indeed, formalization strengthens both the generation of ideas and collaboration between actors. This formalization is an essential step in the idea generation phase [MAX 06]. But if the use of tools facilitates this generation and methods are available to generate large quantities of ideas/concepts during collective creativity sessions, the very nature of “what” is produced during a collective creativity session is questioned. In common language and literature, the terms “idea” and “concept” are similar and are very often linked or even confused. In agreement with Ferioli [FER 10], we think that the idea and the concept refer to formations of the mind: we have an idea or we build a concept. When we talk about it, the presence of the verbs “to have” and “to build” appears strongly, even primordially. Indeed, while construction involves a method, i.e. a path to follow, having an idea often implies a certain spontaneity. In this sense, the concept proposes an extension of the idea and therefore contrasts by its method of construction with the punctuality of the idea. In addition to this construction, the concept is also defined as “a construction of the mind explaining a stable set of common characters” [ACA 18]. In the rest of the document, we will focus on this second “form” of the concept. As we have seen in section 2.1.3, in a dynamic of information and knowledge creation, concepts are considered as a more or less explicit expression of tacit knowledge so that a group of individuals can understand each other and cooperate. In section 7.4.1, a more formal definition, specific to the configuration of a knowledge management and creation system with an innovation objective, will be provided. Through our research and practice, we believe that these are not the only forms of producing collective creativity. For this reason, we propose to

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

151

present our point of view and our own positioning in relation to the language that will be adopted in this section. 5.6. The different forms of production Apart from the more general formal framework given to you in section 7.4.1, we suggest that you address four different formalizations representing the “evolution” of an idea during collective creativity. They seem to us to be important and structuring for CCMs. These four forms are: the embryo of an idea, the idea, the concept and the percept. Product

Percept Concept Idea Embryo of an idea Figure 5.8. The different forms of production in collective creativity

5.6.1. The embryo of an idea In general, the term idea suggests a form of mental representation, rather abstract, something that arises in a specific way. In contrast, a concept, according to Piaget’s theory of constructivism, is something that is constructed, that is produced from given elements. According to this logic, normally, the idea appears spontaneously in its entirety, while the concept is the result of a progressive elaboration, which involves the representation of all its elements [PIA 36]. Indeed, practice reveals to us that ideas appear “spontaneously”, but, above all, that they appear in the context favorable to their emergence: in our case, the methods of collective creativity. Similarly, these ideas rarely appear

152

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

“in their entirety” but in unfinished forms that will have to be completed in order to be communicable and understood by the members of the creativity group. We will call this initial form of materialization the “embryo of an idea”. In our practice, we prefer drawing rather than just words to express this embryonic idea (Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9. Example in French of the materialization of an embryo of an idea

5.6.2. The idea sheet For us, the idea is the second materialization of the process of collective creativity. It is an evolution of the embryonic idea. Thus, we will only call it an idea when it has been partially filled in thanks to an idea sheet. The first role of an “idea sheet” is to “collect” an embryo of an idea by formalizing it using texts and diagrams. It is not just a title. Its production by writers (members of the creativity session, facilitator, etc.) contains information that they consider relevant to describe, enrich and promote understanding of the idea. This sheet gathers, for example, the following information: the field concerned, the specificity of the potential project, its size, a justification of its relevance and its final objectives. At this stage, it is not necessary to be very formal to fill in these fields. It should be noted that the form and information on the form may vary according to the needs of the study applicant. We would like to point out that the idea sheet (for formalizing the idea) is a tool for creativity in its own right. Indeed, filling in an idea form requires

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

153

you to clarify certain notions of the idea and thus “impose” a new creativity [VAD 96]. The second role of the idea sheet is to ensure that the idea has been addressed in its relative globality (through the different fields of an idea sheet, for example). Completing the form makes it possible to give rise to real exchanges between the actors and thus to ensure a common internal representation of the creativity group. It is also an external communication support for the group of participants. Indeed, they will not necessarily be the ones who will have to develop this idea towards a future product potential. It is therefore essential that this sheet be understandable by all. From this point of view, the idea sheet is therefore an intermediate object of design (IOD). The idea sheet is a form of contribution to a knowledge management system that allows it to be capitalized for future use. Considered as an element participating in an innovation dynamic, the idea sheet is a first step towards formulating a solution to a problem (section 7.1.4). The idea sheet in this context must be considered as an intermediate object. In this sense, it is an external representation referred by its designers for the purpose of constructing a shared representation [VIN 94, p. 96]. As an intermediate object, the idea sheet must operate according to three registers [GER 05]: – a register of representation of something and knowledge mobilized or developed; – a translation register characterizing the operations that consist of moving from one dimension of the object to another: functional, structural, geometric, technological, manufacturing; – a register of mediation in interactions between specialists with different points of view. Thus, in addition to idea sheets, multiple other intermediate objects punctuate the course of an innovation process, whether intangible (regulations, software, digital models) or tangible (technical drawings, texts, models). In the literature, there are different referenced formalization tools [KAT 09, MAX 04, STO 06, URB 97], which are as follows: textual representation, rough or sketch, 2D and 3D computer representations, functional model, aspect model, percept, virtual reality, sketch, prototype and pre-series. Depending on the formalization tools, the levels of

154

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

representation they allow or on which they are based are of different natures. For example, extensive formalization is only necessary if the concept is already widely developed. In essence, since creative action is often upstream of a successful future solution, this positioning therefore excludes certain overly sophisticated tools. Only the textual representations, the sketch, the idea sheet and the percept (see Figure 5.12) could be integrated into the initial design steps. As far as the actual formatting of the idea sheets is concerned, we will present two case studies to better illustrate our point. With Figure 5.10, we show you the shape of the idea sheets that we use, especially during our research work3.

Figure 5.10. Two examples of typical French idea sheets

3 The two sheets (Figure 5.10) were designed, compared and applied on the basis of “real” situations. We have used them for innovative projects, prospective business strategies, new solutions to recurring problems, development of new products, business organizations, R&D, education, etc., and in different types of organizations (economic, administrative, industrial, SME, VSE, start-up, etc.).

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

155

In order to present you with other ways of doing things, we have chosen the example of Maxant’s specific sheets [MAX 04] for an innovation department (to which it belongs). He calls his idea cards “IdeaFix”. They consist of a text, a life scene or an illustration, to which are added fields relating to the use of what the idea in question refers. In addition, although the use is at the heart of construction, technical and marketing aspects are also addressed (Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.11. The French IdeaFix sheet [MAX 04]. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

5.6.3. The concept and the percept As mentioned above, we maintain that the concept is a complex idea or one with a relatively high level of generalization, in the sense that it cannot be expressed by a single word or group of words. It requires a structured expression based on a number of characters. By their nature, concepts can be grouped into families according to the characteristics they share. This makes it easier, on the one hand, to name them and, on the other hand, to classify, structure and represent all the idea sheets produced. This is why our use of concepts is inspired by the co-evolution of the two spaces used in the C-K theory [HAT 17] (section 7.1.2).

156

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

In relation to the concept, the percept is an intermediate object created to help better understand the idea or concept. This term was created within the R&D department of the EDF Group [MAX 04]. Its name comes from the contraction of the expression “perceive the concept”. It is also called “dynamic situational concept” because its function is to perform a dynamic simulation of a situation where a concept is used. The percept is used to make the situational concept dynamic based on the elements defined in the related idea sheets, while freeing itself from the information specific to the design. First, it is a scenario described to represent the application or use of one or more ideas “belonging” to the same concept. This phase is also a continuation of creativity, since it makes it possible to specify some of these elements. A percept is then a simulation based on different possible modes of representation (a theatre scene or sketch, comic strip, short film, animation, photo novel, etc.). One of its main objectives is to facilitate the evaluation of a concept by presenting it at this early stage of the design process. A percept can thus be presented to different types of targets: potential end users, corporate decision-makers, etc. It thus helps to develop possible solutions to solve a specific problem (section 7.1.4). Figure 5.12 shows an example of a scenario and images from an animated presentation of this scenario.

Figure 5.12. Illustration of a scenario by an extract of the associated percept [MAX 04]. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

To conclude, we will remember that formalizing the concept, through a grouping of idea sheets or a percept, facilitates its understanding and allows its appropriation by a large number of actors during the design phase [FER 10, KAT 09]. Thus, the concept and idea can be carried out by many actors in the organization/project in order to be re-appropriated and transformed in the subsequent design and problem-solving phases.

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

157

5.7. The selection of ideas Once ideas are generated and explored using percept, the role of the creative group facilitator may not be complete. In fact, he or she may also have been assigned responsibility for organizing the selection of the best ideas, or at least providing a smaller panel than the total number of ideas generated to a group of “experts” and/or testers who will analyze them more thoroughly and test them. If this is the case, several possibilities depending on the time and resources available to the facilitator are possible. First, the issue of evaluators must be addressed. If the creativity session is to be part of a process aimed at creating an organizational consensus on the ideas or solutions selected (section 1.1), then the sorting of ideas can be done by the people who participated in their generation. However, the biases of this type of practice must be taken into account. First, it is very likely that those who participated in the development of some ideas will find these ideas better than those developed by others. Then, since the sorting only takes place at the end of a working session, which was probably lengthy, the participants may have only one desire: to finish this session and go home or to find their most urgent files. It is not surprising that under these conditions they may not take sufficient time to reflect and consider the ideas when voting, knowing that the more productive the session was, the more ideas there are to evaluate. Finally, if the sorting is open, i.e. visible to all, side effects can appear as votes similar to those of the first voters (informational conformism [SCH 18, p. 103]), depending on the votes already cast (no longer voting for minority ideas, for example), the most important (submission to authority) or charismatic (minority influence [SCH 18, p. 115]) people who have already voted, etc. On the other hand, if a Delphi-type evaluation method is used, i.e. one that requires the assistance of experts for this selection phase, the evaluation process may be longer since the evaluation principle involves several iterations aimed at reaching a consensus. Even in its digital version (e-Delphi), it is a time-consuming method [ZWI 14]. A weighted vote by a panel of experts, if possible supplemented by a group of current and potential users, can help to sort out ideas. Weighted voting can be done by allowing a limited number of “good marks” (using a set of three stickers to be assigned by each “judge”: a green one worth 1 point, a yellow one worth 2 points and a red one worth 4 points) or a scoring by ideas using a scoring matrix or colors (e.g. according to the Régnier chart system [ZWI 14]) expressing this score according to a list of criteria [GIL 16, pp. 122–125].

158

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Figure 5.13. Some solutions (estimated on a Likert scale from 0 to 3) that may appear and how they may be interpreted. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

159

In the case of developing a list of criteria, some sources of inspiration exist to guide us. You can use three criteria that were proposed by B. Barki and A. Pinsonneault [BAR 01]. These three criteria are grouped under the acronym EOF [GIL 16, p. 166] for effectiveness, originality and feasibility. Using these three criteria, all ideas are evaluated on a Likert scale [LIK 32], i.e. a rating requiring an evaluation using integers on a scale of three to seven levels depending on your preference. We appreciate this list, but consider that it lacks a criterion to assess the relevance/suitability of the idea to the problem being addressed. As it is sometimes difficult to pronounce directly on this point, we have replaced it with a criterion of inadequacy, which is easier to estimate than that of adequacy with the problem. This system, based on four criteria evaluated using a Likert scale, allows us to better classify ideas and find a use for them or “put them aside” to rework them. Figure 5.14 illustrates the positioning of ideas for solutions to a given problem and the advice for ranking these ideas according to the cases they illustrate.

Figure 5.14. The subject’s path to the rendering of collective creativity. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

160

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Another way of estimating ideas is according to an expectation/solution matrix [BEN 16, p. 126]. It is then a question of considering ideas in terms of proposing solutions to meet a problem or technical need. The potential of the solutions is estimated according to two axes: that of a performance perceptible by the targeted customer/user and that of the technical positioning of the solution that can be associated with the proposed idea. The axis of performance perceived by the customer/user can be broken down into three stages: implicit performance, explicit performance and attractive performance. The technical positioning of the proposed solution is divided into three other stages: renewed solution, solution derived from another existing solution and new solution. The intersection of the two axes makes it possible to draw a matrix of 3x3 boxes (see Table 5.4). Implied performance

Explicit performance

Attractive performance

Technical solution renewed

Directly achievable solution that meets a need that is implicit but must be met

Attractive solution provided that it is associated with high added-value

Directly feasible and very attractive solution

Derived technical solution

Solution to be considered according Attractive solution as to the technical long as it does not problem to be solved involve too high in order to implement production costs it

Interesting solution if a technical response can be provided quickly and if it allows a clear distinction from competing solutions

Solution to be discarded or considered according to the costs of developing a completely new technique or technology

A “classic” solution resulting from an R&D process

New technical solution

Solution to be discarded unless it provides a high added-value for the customer/user

Table 5.4. Waiting matrix/solution (after [BEN 18, p. 126-127])

Animating Teams to Stimulate Collective Creativity

161

5.8. Conclusion If we use the illustration in Figure 5.7 (“The transition from divergence to convergence: the moment of birth of idea embryos”), we have a synthetic vision of the creative path taken during a creativity session. Having stopped at the generation of idea embryos, we add to this path the writing of idea sheets (section 5.7.2). Each of these makes it possible to describe an idea by including sketches of the embryonic ideas as well as various pieces of information to enrich its description. Some idea sheets will allow the development of possible solutions (section 7.1.3) to solve one of the problems that may have been identified during the innovation process.

Figure 5.15. Concrete example of the CCM process. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/goria/information.zip

162

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Once the session is over, the facilitator is responsible for organizing the sorting of the ideas put forward, as well as for rendering the information that has been generated by the group (see Figure 5.15). This includes the description of each of the steps followed during the session, the creative tools used and their associated question and results; for example, mind mapping (section 4.4.1) is linked to each creative tool: the inductive words generated (and their number), the idea cards generated, etc. Similarly, this rendering will include the tree structure (i.e. a classification) of the idea card families (see Figure 5.15). That said, after having presented some tips for accompanying and coordinating a creativity group and choosing appropriate tools to alternate divergent and convergent thoughts, it seems necessary for us to present you with some tools. Thus, based on the elements mentioned in this chapter, we will, in the next one, introduce you to some creativity techniques in order to have a small toolbox to start leading a creativity group.

6 Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

The purpose of this chapter is to give you some creative tools so that you can use them in accordance with what was said about them in the previous chapter. Thus, we present here different tools classified according to the predominant logic in their use. We will not discuss the most well-known creative techniques of brainstorming, brain purge and SCAMPER/SCAMMPERR, because there is no shortage of literature about them and you probably already know them. Similarly, as some tools are presented in other chapters of this book, we do not present them here. These are the “strategic framework” (section 1.2.4), “mind mapping” (section 4.4.1) or the lotus flower (section 4.4.1) and the C-K theory (section 7.1.2). Finally, since in the 2000s many techniques using games were proposed, we added to each of these categories at least one tool combining a playful logic with one or the other reasoning logic. However, concerning tools using playful logic, it is necessary, before their proposal to a group, to take into account the participants’ relationship to the game, the games of which they are already aware and appreciate. But first of all, we will begin this presentation in the form of a series of sections with techniques and tools to break the ice (icebreaker) between the members of the group, create some cohesion or allow its members to warm up their brains.

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

164

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

6.1. Some techniques and tools such as icebreakers or challenges The following techniques have two objectives. Some will provide creative group leaders with methods to break the ice between participants (the human knot and non-musical chairs) who may not know each other and are not used to working together. A second group of techniques prepares participants to imagine, think differently and presents different exercises and warm-up games for the participants’ minds (the enigmas and expressing themselves without speaking using a game). As some techniques (the marshmallow challenge, the ball point game, the curve shot, the highest card tower) are as much icebreakers as warm-up exercises, we present them to you in section 6.1.1, in the same set. 6.1.1. The human knot/human chain This is above all an icebreaker-type tool that helps to relax the atmosphere and create a certain level of group cohesion. It can be classified as a technique contributing to convergent thinking, because to untie the knot, you have to work in a group and in the same direction. The time required for its implementation is: 5–10 minutes. It is a playful approach whose goal is to unravel a human knot. So you have to start by creating this node. Ask participants to gather in a circle around a point you have set. Then, ask all participants to extend their arms and have each hand grab at least one other hand that is the hand of another participant. Then, the rule is simple; participants must try to untangle the knot without letting go of the hands they are holding. You can propose to remove all the members of a broken chain consisting of less than five people from the game and the longest chain wins. Another variation that occurs when the knot is made is to ask participants to take in each of their hands the hand of the participant that is just before and just after them in a certain order. This can be the alphabetical order of the street in which they live (the alphabetical order of first name or the size of the participants can be used to separate those living on the same street).

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

165

Of course, solo practice is not possible. This exercise does not require any equipment, just a little space for the group to move. The activity stops when the node is untied or seems undone. 6.1.2. The enigmas This is above all an icebreaker-type tool that contributes to the warming up of the brain. It can be classified as a technique contributing to divergent thinking. The time required for its implementation is: 10–20 minutes. It is a fun approach that aims to ask participants to solve certain problems and riddles. Solo practice is possible. Many puzzles are presented in creativity workshops, available in the literature on creativity or accessible on the Web. For the facilitator, this technique makes it possible to convey the message that everyone has perceptual blinkers, but that by making small efforts to change perspective, when thinking in a group, there is most often a person who finds an interesting solution (to the enigma posed). For participants, it is a question of understanding how it can be interpreted, without inquiring about the answers or seeking to resolve it in the immediate future. The search for a solution must come after a short period of reflection, because if the answer were obvious, there would be no enigma. Unlike other activities, it is difficult to estimate the maximum number of participants. As it can also be done online, this is quite important and can, for example, be set at the threshold of 300 participants. This approach requires equipment on a case-by-case basis. In general, the facilitator (excluding online management) must have felt pens, paper and a table that may also be sufficient for puzzles that require drawing. We simply advise you to take the time to search for riddles by trying to present a certain variety of riddles made up of four to six different riddles. Of course, it is necessary to test each of the enigmas. For example, among the problems and enigmas that can be posed are: a riddle like “I sink, but I never drown”1, the problem of the nine points, 1 You can find this and other riddles at: http://www.une-enigme.com.

166

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

Romeo and Juliet2, the two strings [SWI 04, p. 63] or the problem of the four trees [SWI 04, p. 111]. 6.1.3. The marshmallow challenge As its name suggests, it is above all a challenge tool that helps to relax the atmosphere, create group cohesion and show the limits of certain methodological approaches (sometimes rather than planning and discussing, it is better to test small ideas and then refine them). For participants, the objective is to place a whole marshmallow as high as possible using only 20 (dry) spaghetti, tape and string. This method allows you to practice thinking “with your hands” and can be classified as a technique that contributes to divergent thinking. Indeed, unless they are familiar with construction and architectural techniques, participants in this challenge must think beyond a simple entanglement of spaghetti. The time required for its implementation is: 30–70 minutes. It is a playful approach of the competitive construction game type. It can be practiced solo, but the exercise is much more interesting with groups of three to six participants. The number of groups taking part in this challenge can be very large. In terms of preparation, this challenge requires two things. First, each group must have specific equipment: a table, a marshmallow (and a few spare ones just in case), 20 spaghetti, one meter of tape, at least two pairs of scissors and at least one meter of string. To this equipment, it is necessary to add a tape measure to measure the height of the constructions. It should be noted that it should be taken into account that this challenge is very well known; there is a lot of information about it on the Internet. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to ask each participant to put away their mobile phone before starting it. The rules presented to the participants are as follows: – teams of two to six people are randomly put together; – the construction must stand alone (without any other support structure) without sticking to the support (table) for at least 1 minute; 2 You can find other puzzles of the same order at: https://enigmatik.epikurieu.com/enigmes /Creativity/tag.fhtm.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

167

– only one marshmallow should be used per group and per structure; – the measurement is made by removing any height of the support (table) from the height obtained; – groups must complete their structure in less than 18 minutes (“official” time limit). After 18 minutes, it is possible to repeat the challenge: by offering the participants a 5-minute break followed by 3 minutes to review the other groups’ constructions and finish by giving them 2 minutes of reflection before restarting a second phase of 18 minutes to improve their construction or according to the same rules to compose a new one (so you need double equipment in this case). After 10 minutes of the first construction tower or 1 minute before starting the second construction phase, you can “motivate” the groups by letting them know that school-aged children have managed to keep the marshmallow 70 cm high. This prevents groups from being satisfied with small structures, but it can also lead them to consider structures that will never hold! 6.1.4. Non-musical chairs This is a game that, as its name suggests, requires a room with chairs. It is a fun approach that can be used as an icebreaker, falling into the category of agile games, i.e. fast learning games aimed at integrating the principles and rules specific to agile IT development corresponding to methods such as SCRUM. It was proposed by Alex Boutin in 20113. This game is played in several successive iterations that should lead to a good solution fairly quickly. As such, it encourages convergent thinking. The facilitator must be involved in this game and also have a stopwatch. If we count the time it takes to set up the room (put the extra chairs in a corner of the room) and the debriefing, it is a game that takes 30–40 minutes to set up. In terms of its rules, the game begins with a set-up that requires a number of chairs corresponding to the number of participants plus the facilitator. The chairs can be freely arranged in the room. The objective to be achieved from the participants’ point of view (the “team members”) is to 3 http://tastycupcakes.org/2011/04/non-musical-chairs/.

168

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

prevent the facilitator from sitting down. To try to do so, the facilitator has 60 seconds four each round. In general, the game takes place in four or five rounds. Each round is separated from the next by a short break of 3–5 minutes so that the group can recover from its emotions and develop a new strategy. Then, the group has 60 seconds to move the chairs before starting a new round of play. During these 60 seconds, the facilitator can move freely in the room without disturbing the reorganization of the chairs in progress. Thus, he or she may also try to consider an appropriate position so that he or she can sit down and mislead participants about the strategy he or she will adopt to succeed in sitting down. It is understandable that groups cannot be too large (20 people seem to be a maximum), but this game must have a minimum number of participants (about seven individuals). There are also some rules to respect and present to the group before starting the game: – it is forbidden to touch or block the host; – when a team member leaves a chair, he or she cannot sit on it again without sitting on another chair, even when the facilitator is nearby. It is obvious that solo practice is not possible. 6.1.5. The ball point game This is a challenge type tool combined with a fun approach. It is also a tool that belongs to the category of agile games and is based on several fairly short game turns (iterations). It is designed to be played as a team, which makes solo practice impossible. In this game, all the participants are part of the same group. It can include up to 300 participants according to some information found on the Web, which is obviously not the most common or desired format; a group of up to 30 participants seems preferable. In order to play this game, you need at least 120 balls (more or less the size of a tennis ball; ball pool balls are very suitable), two large boxes or bags (to put in and out of the circuit), a board and a marker to record predictions and scores, a stopwatch. It is preferable that the facilitator does not work alone, having one to three assistants, depending on the number of participants. If participants are limited in the movements they can perform, they can be integrated into the game as judges.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

169

The objective of this challenge is for the group to move as many balls as possible in a limited time of two minutes. To do this, certain points of rules must be strictly respected: – the person who introduces the balls into the circuit must be the one who brings them out; – each ball must be touched only once by each team member except the one in the starting and finishing position, who is allowed two touches per ball (one to take the ball from the bag/carton and one to put the ball back in the bag/carton); – the balls cannot be passed directly from one person to another (no passing to your immediate neighbor on the right or left, but you can pass the ball to the neighbor opposite); – before passing from one person to another, each ball must have air time (a moment when no one touches it); – any ball that falls, touches the ground or does not respect these rules (e.g. it is hit twice by a person who is not the one who picked up the ball) is lost (it is counted among the lost balls, i.e. the errors produced during the ball passage process); – each “good” ball is worth 1 point. In general, the facilitator allows the group to perform five to six iterations before stopping the game. One iteration lasts two minutes, and between two iterations, the group has five minutes to develop a new strategy. The game begins with a presentation of the rules, a ball and a question-andanswer phase about the rules (about 10 minutes). Then, the group has five minutes to organize itself freely in the room, and the facilitator and his or her assistant judges arrange themselves in such a way as to observe the rules. Before starting an iteration, take two minutes to record on a chart the group’s estimate of the number of balls that will be counted as “good” and those that will be “lost”. After an iteration, it usually takes five minutes to collect the lost balls, count the “right” balls and write the scores on the board. Then, the group has five minutes to develop a new strategy and position themselves. At the end of the count completing the fifth iteration, 10–20 minutes should be spent on a debriefing session. The purpose of this game is to create group cohesion, to show that you can improve a result by making short experiments, not thinking about it too long, and then testing a new strategy.

170

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

All in all, it lasts about 75 minutes. As this challenge is based on a progression by iteration of a set of people, it is a convergent thought. You can also use this game to show the effects of a “closed world” or “nose in the handlebars” in which people and organizations are locked. The purpose of the debriefing is to discuss why some simple or obvious solutions and strategies to achieve a very good score (more than 100 points) have not been implemented or imagined (the debriefing is also used to show how strategies have been improved). In this case, the facilitator can remove a different player at each iteration who simply has to observe the practice of the others, including during the break phase between two iterations (10 seconds before starting the next iteration, the observer is changed). If the score reached is less than 90 “good” balls, the facilitator can propose a final iteration, by imposing an effective strategy (just browse the Web and its video platforms to identify them) that should allow the group to improve its best score. If you wish to do so with a smaller group (5–11 people), you can use the same rules by adding an extra ball touch to each participant (all players must pass the ball twice in their hands and the one who brings the balls in and out of the circuit is allowed three ball touches). 6.1.6. Expressing yourself without speaking and using a game This activity is very simple and is a fun approach. It is simply a matter of offering to play real board games. We recommend games such as Concept (a game by Alain Rivollet and Gaëtan Beaujannot, publisher: REPOS Production), Imagine (a game by Shintaro Fujita, Motoyuki Ohki, Hiromi Oikawa and Shotaro Nakashima, publisher: Cocktail Games), Objets trouvés (Found Objects) (a game by Philippe des Pallières, publisher: Asmodée) or Pictionary (a game by Rob Angel, publisher: Parker). These games allow real brainstorming and encourage divergent thinking. In addition, as the title of this section indicates, they ask players to speak without speaking. The purpose of this “exercise” is to force participants to exploit the possibilities of non-verbal communication and thus to change their approach to the expression of a problem by opening up new perspectives on understanding and interpreting it. You can use one of these games for each group of four to eight players you can compose. Counting the time to understand the rules, a game lasts about 40–45 minutes.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

171

6.1.7. The highest card tower This is still a fun challenge, but it can be done alone or in pairs. It requires very simple equipment: a half-deck of classic playing cards (54 cards to a full deck) per group of one to two players and a tape measure (to measure the achievements). About a hundred participants can try this challenge if the room is large enough to hold them and if you have enough cards. The purpose of this challenge is simply to propose to several groups of one to two participants to make the highest card tower. They have 20 minutes to do so. The rules are as follows: – the participants cannot cause the tower of another group to fall (fair play is required, otherwise the disrupters will be eliminated); – participants can observe each other from a distance; – each group has 27 cards to create their own tower; – at the end of the game each card must be in the same condition as at the beginning of the game (it is forbidden to tear, fold, glue the cards, etc.); – the support (e.g. the table) of the tower does not count towards the height of the tower; – a tower must last at least 1 minute to be measured; – all cards constituting a tower must be, at least, in two by two contact (there cannot be two cards that do not touch each other). This challenge, which lasts about 30 minutes, highlights the prejudices/blinkers we have (it is likely that many groups start the challenge by trying to make a beautiful house of cards). In fact, participants are fully entitled to use items in the room (or their personal belongings) to hold cards or support them as long as the rules are followed. In addition, this challenge should make participants aware of the importance of keeping abreast of competitive developments and innovations as well as protecting their most important information. Some groups will be able to develop monitoring techniques (by sending their teammates to make a surprise report), as well as to protect (cache) their own techniques. They will thus take into account the informational issues related to an innovation.

172

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

The session ends with a 10-minute debriefing. This makes it possible to take stock of two aspects of the challenge associated with two ways of thinking: – divergent, i.e. open-minded and avoids focusing on our habits and prejudices; – convergent, i.e. understanding the challenges of information monitoring and protection (to protect, inspire and optimize its proposed solutions). 6.1.8. The curved shot This is an exercise activity with divergent thinking in a situation of stress due to competition between teams and a situation of mutual supervision of groups and their solutions. It consists of a competition where two to four teams of 2–12 participants must “pull” a maximum of paper in 30 minutes. The case seems simple if a certain number of rules did not impose a firing point, a corridor not aligned with the target. Thus, 4–48 participants can participate in this activity, but here again, moderation in the number of participants is required. To create the shooting lane, it is enough to free a rectilinear space forming a lane cutting a room in two. At one end of this corridor, against the wall and about two meters from the center of the corridor that touches the wall, a cardboard box 30–50 cm wide is placed open on the floor. The cardboard symbolizes the target. At a distance of about three meters from the center of the corridor touching the wall, a table is placed, and a chair or stool representing the shooting window is placed on it (e.g. you can block the sides of the chair with cardboard sheets to better define the shooting window). Two meters from the table supporting the shooting window, another table is placed to delimit the limit of the point/shooting point. When a person stands behind the shooting limit table and looks out the shooting window, it is important that they do not see the card that plays the role of the target. The rest of the room is organized to free a passage allowing access to the shooting point, and each group has at least one work area. Before starting the game, each group must designate its official pitcher and pickup.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

173

Projectiles are A4 sheets of two to four colors. Each group is associated with a different (leaf) color. It is preferable that the facilitator has assistants to check that the rules are being followed and that the A4 sheets can be distributed at the same time. The goal of this game for a group is to have as many A4 sheets of its color in the cardboard as possible at the end of the fourth iteration (taking into account any penalties). The rules are simple: – during four iterations of six minutes, the launchers are free to shoot as many times as they can from the A4 sheets that have been provided to the picker in their group; – only launchers are allowed to go to the point/shooting point; – once a pitcher has made his or her shot, he or she must clear the shooting range; – a launcher can only “pull” one A4 page at a time; – two participants from two different groups cannot touch each other or block each other’s movements; – at the beginning of the first round, each collector receives four A4 sheets of the same color (different from those assigned to the other groups), then another A4 sheet every two minutes; – only collectors can pick up the sheets the same color as those in their group that missed the target and replenish their group with them; – a collector cannot prevent another collector from accessing his or her group’s sheets; – a projectile in the box (having hit the target) is worth one point; – any attempt to cheat is sanctioned with at least one penalty point; – two iterations are separated from each other by a complete stop of shots and pickups lasting two minutes, which allows groups to designate launchers and pickers for the next iteration. Including the organization of the room, the presentation of the rules and their understanding as well as a 10-minute debriefing, the duration of this activity is about 45–50 minutes. Participants will quickly realize that shots

174

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

of “standard” paper balls or paper planes (having, for example, two wings of the same length) do not work. They will have to organize themselves under stress and show imagination and adaptability. The limited supply of A4 sheets contributes to the group’s stress by imposing a waiting period for supply. 6.2. Some techniques using associative logic Now, we will really start our presentation of some creativity techniques by addressing them by categories of logic they implement (section 5.4.1), starting with associative logic. 6.2.1. The magic wand or the machine for exploring the future We use the protocol of this technique from H. Jaoui and I. Dell’Aquila [JAO 08, p. 222]. Despite its name, this technique is serious. It encourages convergent thinking from an imaginary temporal position corresponding to a moment when the problem is already solved. The facilitator should first introduce the problem to the group, and then ask them to take an imaginary leap into a future where the problem is no longer a problem. The first step in this method is to distribute three to five small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper (such as Post-it®) per participant. Once this is done, the facilitator asks each participant to write ideas on the self-adhesive sheets, without discussing it with the others, starting with phrases such as: – the problem is completely solved if…; – the problem is practically solved if…; – the need associated with the problem is met if…; – we have a partial solution if… The second step is the one where the small sheets are gathered on a board, in disorder, to begin with. Then, the participants are informed of all the proposals made. If the group has few participants (about 10), they can directly propose groups of small sheets by grouping them together and naming the groups thus formed. If the number of participants is large, it is

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

175

better to use a digital tool to be able to copy the titles, then propose to classify them using a mind mapping tool or a digital flipchart like Lino4. The third step is analysis and reflection on the links between thematic groups formed using removable self-adhesive sheets. Based on the names given to them, participants associate each group name with a series of small sheets (family or cluster) of three to six keywords to better describe them. Then, the participants must construct a kind of flowchart that links the initial problem to the group titles. The different paths may intersect, but the solutions or conditions for solving the problem are not directly related to it. It is a question of imagining the major intermediate steps that are missing, giving them a name and associating them with keywords. A session can last from 60 to 120 minutes depending on the number of participants. It can be done alone, but in general, will be less effective. 6.2.2. Once upon a time – some ideas This is a technique resulting from the hijacking the game Once upon a time, which was designed for purely recreational activities. It is a game by Richard Lambert, Andrew Rilstone and James Wallis (publisher: Play Factory). This is a fun approach to using the cards proposed in the original game. This fun approach to creativity requires a card game for six participants. The facilitator introduces the problem and answers various questions for a few minutes. Then, two different games using this game will follow. In total, the duration of this activity is about 100 minutes. This technique requires convergent thinking. For the first part, each participant receives six cards. The player with the longest beard or the shortest hair starts the game. This player is the first storyteller whose role is to tell a credible use story about a service, product or technology on which the problem is focused. To do this, he or she uses the maps whose illustrations he or she uses as symbols or metaphors. Players with an “interruption” card can stop the story and ask the storyteller to add a double explanation by requiring him or her to answer a double “why?” The first “why” requires giving a reason and the second “why” requires giving an explanation of the reason given. Unlike the original game, “interruption” cards apply to any card and, when the storyteller gives two credible answers 4 http://en.linoit.com.

176

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

to both why, he or she can continue his or her story. A player who interrupts his or her story because he or she cannot go any further or does not give credible explanations to three “why” questions in a row must draw one of the remaining cards in the deck. An “interruption” card used returns to the pack, which is then reshuffled. The player who gets rid of all his or her cards wins the game. After the first game, the table congratulates the winner, all the cards are put back into the deck and the “interruptions” cards are removed from the deck. The facilitator distributes papers to all participants, and participants change tables if there are several. Then, each “player” receives seven cards. All “players” have five minutes to write on small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper ideas for solutions to the problem related to one of the cards they have in their possession. After five minutes, the “player” on the table who has the most potential answers starts the game by placing one of his or her game cards in the center of the table face up and beside him or her the small sheets of paper on which he or she has written by folding out what it is about. He or she scores as many points as ideas validated by the other “players”. Then, the whole table has 30 seconds to write new ideas on removable self-adhesive sheets. The player immediately to the left of the player who just placed his or her card does the same, but he or she can also place small sheets and add ideas related to the card already placed. Instead of placing a card and small sheets, a player can ask to replace as many cards in his or her hand as he or she wants with cards from the deck. Play is continued until seven cards are placed together on the table. Once the last player’s score has been counted, his or her cards and small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper are set aside (on another empty table if possible). The next player then places his or her card in the center of the table and continues until the last player has placed his or her card. Of course, this activity cannot be done alone. 6.2.3. Reasons and changes Above all, it is a tool for divergent thinking. The time required for its implementation is 150–180 minutes. Participants are grouped around tables so that there are at least four participants per table. Then, the problem is explained to the participants. In the middle of each table are six illustrations (paper, digital or in the form of small toys): a man, a watch, a

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

177

house, a factory, a tree and an arrow. The facilitator explains what each element symbolizes in the center of the table: the user (the man), the moments and times of design and use (the watch), the context of use (the house), the context of design (the factory), the environment (the tree) and the design or use process (the arrow). Then, the facilitator answers different questions, and gives participants 20 minutes to write on small sheets of pink removable self-adhesive paper (such as Post-it®) everything that is important, essential or immutable for the use or design of the subject under consideration. Each small sheet is linked to one or more illustrations in the center of the table and contains an indication of an element considered important, even essential. In order to create a dynamic with a playful and competitive approach, the facilitator announces that each small sheet with a valid entry (duplicates are eliminated) earns one point and that any illustration not related to at least one small sheet causes the table to lose five points. After 20 minutes, the scores of the different tables are counted and displayed. All listed items are announced, grouped by category and displayed on a wall (this phase can take 30 minutes). Once this is done, the facilitator gives participants 30 minutes to write, on small yellow sheets of paper, reasons and other explanations why a particular element on the wall is not transformable or is irreplaceable and on each small green sheet, an idea of changing an important element. After 30 minutes, the reasons and ideas for solutions are grouped together and the duplicates of each table are eliminated. After deduplication, each of the small yellow or green sheets on each table earns one point for each table. The table scores are updated. The reasons and ideas are listed and announced, grouped into categories for display on the wall. A final 30-minute round to bring out new reasons and ideas takes place according to the same model. Finally, the last score counting is done and a table is designated as the winner. This tool therefore requires many small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper in three different colors. It is difficult, but not impossible, to play it solo. 6.2.4. The big mysterious object bag This activity, in the form of a playful approach, consists of preparing a set of at least 32 cards, each of which has an image illustrating a different object, or preparing an opaque bag filled with at least 20 heterogeneous objects (a die, eraser, pencil, paper clip, USB key, comb, elastic band, cap,

178

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

poker chip, chess piece, adhesive tape, brush, string, etc.). Participants are grouped in groups of four to eight people around the same table. All groups have an object bag or deck of cards representing objects in the center of their table. The problem is then presented by the facilitator or another person. A few minutes are devoted to discussions and questions about the problem. The tables will gradually enter the game. At each table, the person with the largest amount of blue items on it starts the game. As the first player, they pick an object from the bag or a card from the central deck. This player has 30 seconds to develop an idea that associates the object being drawn or what it symbolizes with the problem and a solution. If the player succeeds, he or she scores one point and can draw a second object. He or she can propose a new solution using this object or complete his or her first proposal. If he or she proposes a new idea, he or she makes a new point. The player immediately to his or her right notes the points scored by the players. The one on his or her own right writes on a notepad or computer the validated proposals (earning points). Once the 30 seconds of play are over, following the clockwise direction, the players’ roles are changed. The person immediately to the left of the one who started the game picks up a new object. The items already removed remain on the table until there are six, when this number is reached, they are all put back into the bag (or deck of cards) and mixed. Participants may be impacted by the ideas of others or propose their own solutions and ideas, but to score points it is necessary that their proposal has not already been made. The game consists of 12 rounds of games, lasting about 60–100 minutes, for tables with four to eight players. By imposing a logic of associating objects that have no a priori connection with the problem, this activity stimulates divergent thinking. 6.2.5. Concept serious play This activity works in a similar way to that of the large pack of cards, but is based, as indicated by its title, on a distortion of Alain Rivollet and Gaëtan Beaujannot’s game Concept (publisher: REPOS Production). Participants are grouped around a table (four to eight players per table) and a game box. The problem is presented to the participants, then after a short question-and-answer phase, the game starts for each table in the same way. Each player receives five tokens (small cardboard counters from the game). The first player (the tallest person at the table, for example) has 30 seconds to take the question mark pawn, place it on a square on the game

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

179

board and announce the link he or she makes between the problem and what the square he or she has chosen to occupy expresses. If he or she does not have a valid proposal (not previously proposed and with the consent of the other players), he or she must part with a token. The person to his or her right transcribes on a mind map (section 4.4.1), paper or digital, the proposition made and some details if necessary. It is then up to him or her to take notes and to the person to his or her left to have 30 seconds to take the exclamation mark pawn, place it on a free square on the game board and announce the link he or she makes between the proposal symbolized by the question mark and what is expressed in the square he or she has chosen to occupy with the exclamation mark. The exclamation marks are thus placed successively. When there are no more, the player whose turn it is (usually the sixth to play) can move the exclamation mark and make a proposal by linking it to one of the symbols occupied by an exclamation mark. The game stops after about 60 minutes or when two players have lost all their tokens. It is therefore a playful approach that encourages divergent thinking. In order to take maximum advantage of the possibilities offered by the use of this game for creative purposes involving products or services, you can use a variant in the form of an extension to the above rules. To do this, it is necessary to prepare one to four A4 sheets in advance of the session, showing, depending on the subject of the reflection, the main stages of its design or use process5, a view of the context of its implementation and whether it is a product: a profile view, a top, bottom, rear and/or front view. With this advanced exploitation of the Concept game, the games last at least twice as long. For three or four players, each participant receives two small cubes (included in the game box) and for five to eight players, they receive only one. Compared to the previous rules, the question mark is no longer placed on the game board, but on one of the drawings/charts/photographs illustrated on an A4 page. It is preferable that the illustration be divided by the facilitator into play6 areas. The first player places the question mark on a location, explaining what it is, then takes an exclamation mark and places it on the board and suggests an idea for a solution or change related to the problem. The second player places another question mark without touching the previous ones and places it on a free place on the board and makes his or her proposal. Once the four exclamation marks have been placed, each 5 It is necessary that, two by two, the steps of a process be separated from a minimum space that can also be occupied, as well as a location upstream (input) and downstream (output) of the process be indicated. 6 A play area is a surface that indicates where a counter can be placed.

180

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

player can move the question mark or an exclamation mark and make a new idea proposal. The idea must therefore not have already been proposed. At the beginning of the fourth turn, players can place a chit on the game board in addition to their counter move. The next player may swap an exclamation mark and a small cube on the board provided they are the same color, otherwise he or she may not place an exclamation point on a square occupied by another exclamation point or a small cube. The facilitator is the only one who can move the question mark and replace it with a small cube on one of the A4 sheets. There is also the only one who can move small cubes on A4 sheets. After 40 minutes of play, we advise the facilitator to place a small cube on an A4 page (thus changing the position of the question mark) and to do so again every 20–30 minutes. 6.3. Some techniques using analog logic 6.3.1. The twisting of ideas or the reversal method Even with the help of good creative tools, it is not always easy to imagine original solutions to solve a problem. In order to get around this, techniques based on circumventing the problem have been developed. Using an indirect approach, the so-called twisting of ideas or inversion method invites participants to find solutions to aggravate another problem. This tool does not require any special equipment. Removable pencils, sheets and small sheets of self-adhesive paper are sufficient. This tool can be used solo and works in three steps. First of all, the “P” problem (e.g. “making the supermarket shopping cart more useful”) is raised, discussed and quickly analyzed. Then, in a second instance of divergent thinking, one or more formulations of an opposite problem “−P” (avoid making the supermarket shopping cart useful) or reverse “1/P” (make the supermarket shopping cart unusable) are made in a few minutes. All participants are invited, for 30–45 minutes, to seek and propose solutions to aggravate the situation by −P or 1/P. Each proposal is announced aloud (if the number of participants is very large, they should be divided into groups of 6–12 people) and is always followed by an invitation by the facilitator to propose at least two other additions or adaptations to further expand this solution. It can use expressions such as “can’t you do worse?” or “can’t we consider a more evil

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

181

or horrible solution?” As they are issued, solutions are grouped on a table or a mind map. This practice is called idea torture, because when participants struggle to propose new ideas, they are encouraged to imagine ways to torture users or clients of services and objects related to the problem −P or 1/P. After 30–45 minutes, the ideas are reviewed for five minutes and another five minutes of reflection are given to propose new ones. A short break is then proposed. It is followed by the third phase of this technique. The third step first consists of checking whether behind each “horrible” solution (HS), there is not a hidden original idea which, after some adaptations, would be a really and interesting solution to solve P7. Each participant should try to find an adaptation of an HS of −P or 1/P to make it a really good idea for problem P. This takes about five minutes. Then, participants are invited, for 30–45 minutes, to develop solutions −HS or 1/HS from the horrible “HS” solutions found for −P or 1/P. In theory, the reverse or opposite solutions of HS are “good” solutions to solve P. It is at this level that convergent thinking is solicited. As always, the final solutions are grouped by families or commonalities. The duration of this type of workshop is approximately 120 minutes. 6.3.2. Biostorming Bionics or biomimicry is a powerful problem-solving technique of copying the best of nature’s responses. Many scientists study the properties of plants, fungi, animals and even ground structures to understand how they work and what allows them to be perfectly adapted to certain conditions. For example, the kingfisher’s beak was used as a source of inspiration for the design of the Japanese Shinkansen high-speed train. The objective was to reduce the shock related to the air pressure experienced by the locomotive when it enters a tunnel just as the beak minimizes the impact of the kingfisher’s head when it enters the water. In the context of a creativity workshop, biomimicry does not consist of an in-depth study of a particular property, but in making links between the problem posed or some of its parts and similar problems for which nature provides a relevant answer. It is a question of implementing a creativity technique that combines classic brainstorming and biomimicry, called biostorming. 7 This seems, a priori, impossible and yet a skateboard with “square” wheels has not turned out to be such a bad idea, and the Heart Attack grill based on bad taste and junk food in large quantities works very well: http://www.heartattackgrill.com.

182

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

When facilitating such a workshop, the facilitator outlines the problem to be considered, answers questions and distributes a set of sticky notes in six different colors. He or she then gives examples of solutions for nature to solve various problems. To do this, the facilitator may find some of these solutions explained on the Web or in books such as those by J. Benyus [BEN 98], A. Guilot and J.-A. Meyer [GUI 14] or K. Collins [COL 16]. Then, he or she asks the participants to break down the problem into sub-problems or objectives to be achieved in order to solve it. This part lasts only 5–10 minutes. Then, the group members are invited to write each item on a sticky note, which is then placed next to the solutions found or the properties of certain forms of nature. A form is provided to each participant to allow them to register solutions or properties in the same way. The form indicates the color of the sticky notes and the properties or solutions that must be written on them. Here is the meaning of the colors of the removable self-adhesive paper sheets: – green for solutions found by plants or fungi; – yellow for interesting properties of certain plants or fungi; – pink for solutions found by animals; – orange for properties of interest for the problem of certain animals; – blue for interesting solutions to the problem proposed by certain landscapes and other forms of nature (viruses, bacteria, rivers, mountains, etc.); – purple for properties of interest for the problem proposed by certain landscapes and other forms of nature (viruses, bacteria, rivers, mountains, etc.). The solutions correspond to nature’s good ideas and the properties to reflect points behind which an interesting solution is hidden, without being identified, for the moment. The facilitator will then organize three cycles consisting of a 7-minute phase devoted to reflecting and writing properties or solutions on small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper, followed by another 10-minute phase of reading and storing the solutions or properties by category.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

183

The shapes of nature affected by the solution or property identified are written on the removable self-adhesive sheet. At the end of the third cycle, the facilitator asks to think about the solutions hidden behind the small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper expressing a property (i.e. yellow, orange or purple) and, when solutions are identified, to write them on other small sheets with the corresponding color (pink, green or blue). About 10 minutes are devoted to this task. Finally, the last sheets are attached to the categories of solutions already established or to new ones. The group then has 30 minutes to propose adaptations of these solutions to solve the original problem or ideas to have the same property as that of a form of nature and adapt it to the solution of the problem. The way of thinking is rather convergent. Participants can be divided by table when the group is large. Solo practice is possible and it takes about 120 minutes to implement. 6.3.3. Miniature men This tool is based on the TRIZ inventive problem-solving theory [ALT 04, p. 102]. It encourages divergent thinking. It first of all consists of identifying a problematic system. It involves carrying out a simple modeling of the relationship between an object/product and its direct environment or a user (or groups of users) when using a product or service, thus linking the latter to the product and its direct use environment. The facilitator should therefore spend the first few minutes of the session explaining the problem and then model it as a simplified interaction system. To do this, the number of elements represented in the system can be limited to a maximum of seven. Then, the facilitator explains to the participants that they must replace an element of the system with a group of about 20 (or more if necessary, such as a thousand or a million) miniature men. Each participant chooses his or her modeling of the system and the element he or she replaces with little men. Modeling can involve several moments or steps (at this point the system is like this, then at this point it is like this). Each participant can have from one to four miniature men. Each participant has 30 minutes to resolve the problem expressed by their miniature men. It is about explaining how miniature men should behave to

184

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

solve their problem. It is possible to separate the miniature men, so that they still form small groups. The participant can indicate which action(s) they should take. He or she can create subgroups of small men if necessary (men vs. women; blue vs. white vs. red, etc.). The solution is researched and modeled using drawings, but toys such as toy soldiers can also be used to better reflect in three dimensions. The important thing is to forget the initial problem and focus on solving the problem of the men. Once a solution is found for a problem expressed by an MPBH, it is set aside and the facilitator encourages the participant to seek another solution for the same miniature man or to address another one. Finally, the facilitator moves on to the final phase, which lasts 30–45 minutes and consists of grouping the solutions by miniature men and then translating them into a solution that can be adapted to the initial problem. The duration of this type of workshop is 90–120 minutes and its solo practice is possible. 6.3.4. Lego serious play The technique consists, as its name suggests, of using a set of Lego bricks. It was developed within the Danish company of the same name a few years before the patent on its famous brick went into the public domain. This technique is applicable to groups of participants from 4 to 100 people or more. It requires a dedicated box (Lego serious play) per table of two to six participants or a large number of various bricks and other Lego components, but above all: a base (a Lego plate, very thin and with a large surface area compared to other bricks) making “ground” and at least one small Lego man per participant. With this method, it will be the hands of the participants who will play the role of search engine. It alternates periods of silence dedicated to construction, periods of listening to descriptions of each other’s constructions as well as periods of co-construction. This method works in groups of two to eight people gathered around a table. It includes an icebreaker which consists of an initial manipulation of the Legos and a small challenge involving building a truck, an aircraft, the tallest tower, a dinosaur, etc. in one minute. This way, everyone (re)familiarizes themselves with this construction game. Then, in general,

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

185

the facilitator asks for five minutes of silence devoted to a representation of oneself using the little Lego man, bricks and other accessories made available on the table. Everyone works on this realization, alone and in silence. Finally, the facilitator asks to do a round table discussion where everyone will explain to the other table members for two to three minutes what his or her construction represents. Once this first step has been completed, the facilitator can then present the creativity problem for which they are gathered (for creativity workshops). After a short presentation and question and answer period, the facilitator asks the participants to find new solutions or ideas, without speaking, by manipulating the different bricks and other parts in the most intuitive way possible. The facilitator can then take some key expressions related to the problem that may have emerged during a brainstorming session to prepare for this workshop. For each of his or her proposals, he or she asks each participant to model, in two minutes, his or her understanding of the expression in relation to the problem using metaphors. Once this time has elapsed, each member of the table explains his or her construction to the others for about 30 seconds. Once three to six expressions have been treated in this way, the facilitator asks each participant to use his or her base and the available parts for this purpose. After 3–10 minutes, the facilitator stops this construction phase to encourage participants to write (on a small sheet of removable self-adhesive paper, for example) three to five keywords to describe their modeling and places this writing next to it. The facilitator then instructs the participants, in turn, to explain their metaphorical modeling to the rest of the table. Bricks can mean all possible things, so we must make the most of the possibilities offered by metaphors. This step lasts about 10 minutes. The next step can be tackled according to two approaches: either a repetition of construction phases is encouraged, or the facilitator asks the group to bring together the individual constructions, connecting them, to make them a coherent group structure. In both cases, each participant must think for a few minutes of a story that simply explains what it is about. Then, the table works together to select the best story or combine several stories in the same way that constructions can be assembled and adapted. At this point, if not already done, the facilitator asks the participants to write the

186

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

key points of their idea by trying to be as precise as possible and creating three to five sentences starting with a phase of the type: “my construction proposes a vision of the future…”, “to make life easier, my construction proposes…”, “my construction proposes something revolutionary…” and “the brilliant idea that I propose through my construction…”. Finally, the facilitator gives 20–30 minutes at each table to build a common vision, understand and integrate the ideas proposed at each table. Thus, each table tries to focus on an idea and must make a value proposition related to the problem by pointing out the relationship between the solution and its environment, including its users. For example, the requested modeling may be for a new business model to be imagined. Then, each participant transcribes on a dedicated sheet, a description of his or her idea and associates a photograph of his or her construction. This technique encourages divergent thinking and the sharing of ideas. A workshop lasts about 120 minutes and its solo practice is almost impossible. We have classified it among the methods using analog/metaphorical logic, but we could have placed it just as well among the methods using combinatorial logic since it uses both with a playful approach. 6.4. Some techniques using combinatorial logic 6.4.1. The discovery matrix This rather classic method favors convergent thinking. It does not require any major equipment and can be done alone or in groups up to a total of 100 people, if necessary. In general, participants are grouped in tables of four to eight. For the facilitator, the beginning of the session is to present the problem or rather the product category that needs to be rethought. He or she then gives each participant five minutes to list the different products that fall into this category. The answers are grouped by subcategories, and then 5 minutes are devoted to the extension of the list. This can be done through a game: a participant who first proposes a new idea “scores” a point. The facilitator then asks each person to write, for each of the selected subcategories, their main attributes, which may be their most important functions, their main

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

187

characteristics, the common and distinct components of the products, their usage situations, etc. Then, the answers are grouped again and participants search for subcategories that have not been forgotten. This can be done in the form of a game where each relevant answer gives two points to the person who proposed it. The facilitator then encourages, if this has not been done spontaneously, to go back to a level of categorization, including from the first category with which he or she initiated the workshop. Once a few new categories and subcategories are proposed, the facilitator asks participants per group or individually to develop a square or rectangular matrix. Square matrices have the same row and column headings. Rectangular matrices have different row and column headings. If time or the number of participants allows it, it is preferable to develop more than one matrix and therefore square and rectangular matrices. For the choice of row and column headings, participants choose a set of attributes. In general, we create a matrix with about 10 attributes. If it is a rectangular matrix, a second list of attributes is chosen that is different from the one used for the columns. Once the matrix has been created, it is then a question of trying to fill it with new ideas, specific to the product to be imagined, which correspond to the corresponding row and column. In square matrices, the diagonal can be used to imagine a product that does not have the relevant attribute or doubles the number. Each participant has at least 30 minutes to imagine at least four new solutions that can be combined. Finally, the facilitator moves on to the stage of sorting and discussing the proposed solutions by encouraging the improvement of the solutions. This type of workshop requires sheets of paper, pencils and a board. It lasts at least 75 minutes, and it calls for divergent thinking. Its solo practice is possible without any significant modification. A total of 100 people can practice it simultaneously. 6.4.2. Extensive morphological analysis This technique is quite similar to that of the discovery matrix (section 6.4.1). It is also a question of creating a matrix based on attributes of a product or service family depending on what it is applied to. The first part of a creativity session using morphological analysis is therefore identical to the first part of a discovery matrix. A notable difference is that the attributes

188

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

sought are mainly of two types: first, the main components of the reference product/service or competing products/services, and second, the main elements of the immediate environment with which the person using the reference product/service (or one of its main competitors) interacts. To do this properly, it is interesting to identify the reference product/service, its main contexts of use, moments of life and use and its main functions and needs to which it responds (in particular to identify about 10 competitors). When participants have about 10 fairly different categories of products/services with their main components or elements of interaction with the surrounding environment, the facilitator asks them to create, per group or individually, a matrix of 8–16 rows by 14 columns. Participants enter in the first 8–11 column headings the names of the product categories/services or their best representative. The line headings are named according to 7–15 of their main components which are written in the corresponding boxes (there can be insertion of boxes and therefore offset if there is not a perfect match with the column headings forming the first line). The remaining three columns will have specific headings, justifying the name “extended morphological analysis”. Indeed, in its classic application, this extension does not exist. The first of these three columns is called: “product/service without the component” (indicated by the line heading). The second remaining column is called: “product/service whose maximum number of components or maximum size found is at least doubled”. The last remaining column is called: “product/service whose minimum number of components or maximum size found is at least halved or is literally cut in half” (e.g. a wheel becomes a half wheel). Once this is done, the facilitator invites the participants to identify a path, from box to box, from top to bottom, that is not yet used. A product sheet is then written where the components with the titles of the boxes are written and if they are boxes in the last three columns, it is necessary to indicate what they consist of. The imagined products can then be grouped, sorted and discussed in terms of originality, relevance and feasibility. This type of workshop requires sheets of paper, pencils and a board. It lasts at least 75 minutes. It calls for convergent thinking.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

189

6.4.3. Cubification By combining the possibilities offered by the analogy of fairy tales with those related to the manipulation of the faces of a Rubicube (Rubik’s Cube) H. Michel [MIC 16] proposed an original creative method of imagining new products, which integrates a reasoning of the blue ocean strategy type by encouraging reflection on forgotten customers, places, resources, etc. This method can be applied to groups of 1–100 people, as each works on its own cube. The important thing is to follow the same protocol and be able to explain to others (to the facilitator at least) the meaning of the story of the imagined product. The first step of the method is to create your Rubicube. To do this, it is necessary to develop six faces of different colors divided into three lines, themselves cut into three boxes, which makes nine boxes per face and 54 boxes in all. The facilitator can come with cardboard sheets and distribute one to each participant to start the session with a workshop to build large white cubes; this session will serve as an icebreaker. It is preferable that the silhouette of a large white cube (e.g. 6.6 cm side, which is suitable for A4 sheets) is already drawn on each sheet. Participants will start by cutting the outline of the cubes, but will not have to build them right away. Then, the facilitator distributes sheets of six different colors on which squares are drawn (e.g. 2 cm wide). But to facilitate their location, the length of the sides of the squares must be 2 mm shorter than one-third of the length of one side of the large cube. Colored stickers, on which you can write, can replace the sheets. In general, the facilitator offers sheets of colors that are reminiscent of those of the “classic” Rubicube (white, yellow, red, blue, green, orange). In a corner of each of the squares are inscribed 1–3 stars (with the number 1, 2 or 3). On each side, there are three cubes with 1 star, three with 2 stars and three with 3 stars. Depending on the color of the squares, here is what will be written on each square: – on each red square, we write a different category of users: those with 1 star represent standard users of the product that is currently yours or the most sold (your product reference), those with 2 stars represent standard users of products competing with the one you use as reference and those with 3 stars represent the users not currently targeted by the reference product or its competitors;

190

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

– on each green square, a different category of context of use or sale is indicated: those with 1 star represent the points of sale or use of the standard users of the product which is your reference (see red cubes, above), those with 2 stars represent the points of sale or use of only products competing with the one you are using as a reference and those with 3 stars represent the points of sale and uses currently unexploited, but which could be; – on each white square, we write a different category of exploitable resource: those with 1 star represent the resources that you control, those with 2 stars represent the resources that you do not control and that control at least one of your main competitors and those with 3 stars represent the resources not exploited or very little exploited by you or your competitors; – on each blue square, we write a category of constraint or of higher tendency which will act on the use of the product: those with 1 star represent the strong constraints or tendencies which you have already considered for your reference product (see red cubes, above), those with 2 stars represent the constraints and tendencies taken into account by the only competing products of the one which serves as reference, and those with 3 stars represent the relatively strong constraints and tendencies, but which nobody seems to have taken into account; – on each orange square, a different category of advantage or added value is written from a verb to the infinitive. The squares with 1 star have an important advantage for your reference product (see red cubes, above), those with 2 stars have the advantages of the products competing with the one you use as reference and those with 3 stars represent the forgotten needs that can turn into advantages if a product meets them; – on each yellow square, a category of remuneration or income support model is entered (direct sale, subscription, sponsored advertising, pay-peruse, donations, group sales, weight sales, maintenance payments, etc.). The squares with 1 star represent a remuneration support of your reference product (see red cubes, above), those with 2 stars represent a remuneration support of the only competing products and those with 3 stars represent the remuneration supports neither exploited by your reference product nor by its competitors. Each participant must have been able to fill in at least six squares of each color (the others can be blank). The squares are then cut out, then considered in combinations and glued in groups on each side of the large cube. Importantly, each face must have at least one square of each color.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

191

To do this better, six “history” sheets are distributed to each participant. The “story” cards are presented as half-pages in A4 format on which each participant will use the elements written on the colored squares, give them meaning and link them. A colored square can only be used once. A card contains: – the product idea summarized in a few words; – a main slogan to indicate the product and interest its future buyers or users; – the product concept, i.e. a description of the product in a clear sentence that completes and clarifies the idea announced; – six inscriptions that appear among six squares of different colors with the number of stars of each of its elements. Each participant tries to create at least one “story” card by reflecting on it, and then pastes the squares corresponding to the card on the cube. The rest of the cube is completed by trying to present on each side a square of each color. The cube is then completely assembled. Participants are then encouraged to write another sheet from a randomly created face of their cube. Finally, each participant is invited to tell at least one story. The best “story” is one that has a large number of stars, as well as one that makes sense and can be explained to another participant. Stories with 12 or more stars represent products that break with the current market, those with between 7 and 11 stars can refer to original products, while stories with six or fewer stars refer to products that are in line with the market. This method therefore requires sheets of paper and cardboard, glue, scissors and pencils. The duration of this workshop is quite long. It takes at least 150–180 minutes. It is convergent thinking that is required here, even though the randomly composed faces allow the emergence of a divergent form of thinking, since they are often faces composed of squares with several stars. Its solo practice is possible. 6.4.4. The scaffolding of ideas This technique requires a special material in the form of colored sticks/platforms in the same format (or other paving stones similar to those in the Kapla construction set). The facilitator who uses this technique uses

192

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

a competitive “game” system by successive iterations. It is preferable to form teams of two to eight people, but this can work with individual confrontations. We advise you not to exceed eight teams, which make a maximum of 64 participants. The objective of the game is to build the highest scaffolding, respecting four rules: – a stick can only rest on the game stand (table) or other sticks of the same color or on one or more “neutral” sticks; – the number of sticks available to each group depends on the new solution they will imagine and choose to put forward; – the scaffolding must stand alone with no other support than the sticks and the support on which the lowest sticks are placed; – any idea that has been proposed by a group and that is later taken up by a second group is valid, but costs a penalty of a stick (of the color of its choice) to the group that made this loan. In terms of preparation, it is preferable that participants already know some creative techniques, as this technique is used to combine techniques rather than ideas. A small booklet, a set of sheets, a physical or digital space can be dedicated to creativity techniques. The important thing is that participants have at their disposal a description of at least 10 techniques. This type of workshop can take place over three to five sessions of 60 or 120 minutes each with breaks of one week for example (60-minute sessions assume that participants, in small groups, can organize creative workshop times). We present here the formula reduced to a single session, but for which at least two participants per group are able to apply four different creativity techniques. Including an icebreaker stage, such a session takes about four hours. Once the groups are positioned, an icebreaker can be considered (the sticks can be used for a challenge such as “building the highest tower”). Once this is done, the facilitator presents the objective of the session. We consider here that it is a question of imagining a new product that can be associated with a small list of constraints (less than five). Then, the facilitator gives 45 minutes to the groups to use at least one creative technique, imagine and develop a description of a new product (or service). At the end of this time, the proposals for solutions are presented and noted.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

193

The facilitator uses a list of criteria to help estimate the innovative potential of each solution. For each of these criteria, a variable number of sticks (between 0 and 5) are assigned. This number of sticks corresponds to a given score for a criterion. This is determined automatically or by voting of all groups except the group proposing the solution (in the event of a tie, it is preferable to round up to the next whole number). Thus, each group presents, through one of its members, for 5 minutes the solution it has chosen. The presenter can use images, video clips, drawings, mimes, etc. We then move on to a 5-minute question-and-answer phase. During this limited time, members of the other groups may ask questions which the group concerned answers in order to clarify certain aspects of its solution. This is followed by scoring and voting on the solution, for an additional 5 minutes, before moving on to another group. For the solution it has proposed, on the basis of the points obtained according to the criteria adopted, the group receives from 0 to 5 sticks of a certain color. The following is our list of criteria and associated colors, but you can adapt it completely to your practices: 1) The interest in acquiring or using the product (red sticks): one stick represents a minor interest, two sticks indicate a normal interest in this range of products, four sticks a strong interest compared to generation of the current product; in addition to the four sticks, because there is a clear improvement in the need or associated experience, a fifth can be attributed if the product meets an important need to which there was as yet no adequate response. 2) The guarantee of having clients/users (red sticks): one stick represents a niche market (a few thousand or hundreds if the product is very expensive), two sticks indicate that customers remain the same as those in a current known market of reasonable size (it is not a niche, but there are already several competing products), four sticks correspond to a positioning in a current known market as well as an extension to a small market of other forgotten or neglected customers; if a new, very important, market is created, five sticks will be allocated. 3) Respect for a family atmosphere (beige sticks): a stick is awarded if the proposed product is radically different, at least in terms of aesthetics, from everything that has existed or been proposed for 100 years; two sticks if a major effort is required to make the link between the product and what is

194

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

commonly proposed in recent years; four sticks correspond to an obvious integration of the product among the current ranges, although some aesthetic changes may be made (there is no fifth stick to distribute for this criterion). 4) The level of complexity of the product (beige sticks): one stick corresponds to the fact that the complexity of the product increases significantly, two sticks are given for a product whose complexity is essentially the same as that of current products, four sticks are assimilated to a significant decrease in the complexity produced compared to the existing one; a fifth stick is given if the complexity of the product decreases drastically. 5) Environmental change (green sticks): one stick corresponds to the fact that the product brings a change in its environment with a perception of disruption rather than associated benefits, for two sticks, there is no real change in the relationship between product, user and nearby environment, four sticks correspond to a significant change that does not disrupt other actions and is perceived as positive in the way the relationship with the environment is understood; a very important and very positive change may justify the addition of a bonus stick. 6) Architectural change (green sticks): one stick is given if no architectural change has been made, two sticks if changes (elimination, replacement or significant displacement) have been made to 5–20% of the components, four sticks are given for 20–75% of changes made and a fifth stick is given if at least 3/4 of the components have been changed. 7) Great originality (blue sticks): no sticks are given if this change already exists among the main competing products or services, one stick is obtained if the change already exists in the near past (less than 30 years) or if it is possible to find similar solutions among smaller competitors or if two groups have had the same idea of change at the same stage of the workshop, two sticks are given if it is possible to find similar solutions among products offered in a fairly remote geographical area (at least 1,500 km) or the idea is found among products from a different sector of activity, four sticks are provided if no trace of an equivalent idea in the recent past (less than 30 years) seems to exist; for this criterion, there is only a fifth stick to be awarded if, in addition to the great originality, a second originality almost as important as the first is proposed. 8) The inclusion in a crossroads of trends (blue logs): a log is given if the solution fits well into a recent trend that can be a technological trend (a log if

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

195

yes, if not nothing), a social trend (a log or nothing), an economic trend (a log or nothing) and a legislative trend depending on the geographical area concerned (a log or nothing). In general, the evaluation of a solution takes 5–10 minutes. At the end of this time, the facilitator announces that participants can improve their solutions or propose a new one. He or she gives them 45 minutes. Borrowing ideas from other groups is allowed, but brings in one less stick than in the previous round. Participants can also do research and prove that a previously presented idea was not as original as this and lower the estimate of its originality by one stick (so the target group must remove at least one stick from its scaffold). This encourages the replication and deepening of ideas that seem to be the most interesting. Following this new round, a new evaluation of the solutions is carried out. Usually the session is stopped at this time, but if more time is available, the animator can take a break of at least 120 minutes and then resume with one or two cycles of solution finding and evaluation, so this type of creativity workshop can be spread over several weeks, which also allows other creativity workshops to be inserted between two sessions. This technique encourages convergent thinking with a playful approach, as participants are, as the cycles progress, aware of the ideas of other groups, from which they can borrow ideas. Divergent thinking is also present depending on the creative techniques used by each group. Its solo practice is not really possible. This technique requires a set of 266 sticks made up of sticks of four different colors8. 6.5. Some techniques using oneiric logic 6.5.1. The ancient method of the waking dream It is a method that works very well on its own, but if it is possible to have a large room in which everyone can isolate themselves from both noise and other elements of the environment (such as the movements of other participants or any other distraction such as a vibrating phone), it can be used in groups.

8 This allows seven complete scaffolds to be erected, each consisting of 38 sticks.

196

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

For the facilitator, the first step is to create a calm and serene atmosphere that allows for a form of meditation. It explains what the problem or purpose of the workshop is. Then, it presents the different steps of the method that each one will have to follow individually. If we follow the “ancient” method [GAR 74, p. 51], each participant must then formulate in himself the objective of the dream he or she intends to have. This internal formulation must be followed by one or two internal and positive rephrases of the desired goal or a positive visualization of the environment of the problem being addressed. The third step consists of a deep relaxation phase of several minutes. Then, once a state of semi-sleepiness has been reached, each participant must calmly and positively repeat in himself or herself the objective sought through his or her “dream” (in connection with the problem addressed). It is then a question, for each person, of mentally visualizing his or her “dream”, of letting go of his or her unconscious and trusting him or her to link the problem with elements, a priori, unrelated to it, but which can be rich in ideas or rebound towards interesting ideas with interesting potential to solve it. Each “dreamer” then tries to explore more or less consciously the elements that appeared to him or her via his or her unconscious. Finally, the facilitator gently wakes the participants up by giving them a few minutes to get back to reality. He or she can then ask everyone to write down on paper everything that his or her dreamlike exploration has brought him or her that is new, interesting for the problem or simply curious. Then, a phase of exchange and reflection about the ideas and other elements that emerged during the “dream” takes place. To do this, the simplest way is for everyone to take turns discussing an idea, an element or an association of elements and for a minute or two to be dedicated to the discussion and emergence of new ideas based on this evocation, avoiding any criticism. This phase can last 45 minutes for a group of eight people. At the end of this more classic step, gatherings, combinations and sorting of ideas can be performed. This technique is applicable to groups of 1–12 people and requires about 120 minutes of time. It obviously encourages divergent thinking and requires pencils, sheets of paper and a board for materials; comfortable sofas inviting people to take a nap can also be advantageous for this technique.

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

197

6.5.2. Projective exploration This technique is an adaptation of creative problem-solving, from the technique of the same name proposed in the 1970s by the psychoanalyst M. Ullman. This method is only applicable to groups. It is not useful to practice it alone. The group should not be too large. If this is the case, the facilitator will create subgroups of 4–10 people around tables. After a small icebreaker, the facilitator explains the problem to be solved. This is followed by a question-and-answer period of a few minutes. Then, he or she suggests to each table that they draw lots to find out which table participant will be the first to share one of their dreams with the others. The others will follow in a clockwise order from the previous one. The important thing is not to evoke personal elements, but strange, original, bizarre elements encountered by the dreamer or, failing that, elements that he or she will have imagined at that time for the discussion. The participant explaining his or her dream (real or not) has two minutes to talk about it in the present while the group must listen carefully and in silence. Then, for five minutes, the other members of the table try to appropriate this dream by trying to better represent it, which imposes a step of questioning and asking the dreamer for clarification about some components of his or her dream. Then, it is up to the dreamer to remain silent, while each of the other participants is invited to propose a personal addition to the dream at that moment. To end this tour of evoking a single dream, each participant proposes an oral solution more or less related to the dream to solve the problem evoked. The proposals are explained, discussed, noted on papers and grouped by family. The next step is to do the same with the next person in a clockwise direction. When all participants have discussed a dream, the resolution ideas are reviewed, grouped and sorted. This technique therefore encourages convergent thinking and requires only a few sheets of paper and pencils. It is best to have at least 120 minutes to put it into practice. It is not possible to practice it alone. 6.5.3. The village of originals This technique is a playful approach to creativity that calls for dreams. It borrows its mode of operation from the game Les loups-garous de Thiercelieux (The Werewolves of Millers Hollow) (created by P. des Pallières and H. Marly, distributed by Asmodeus) which consists of

198

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

associating each of the players with a role that the others are unaware of (including at least one werewolf) and which alternates many phases where the players close their eyes to evoke nightfall, then reopen their eyes when day returns and vote to eliminate a player suspected of being a werewolf eating villagers when night comes. An entire part is occupied by a storyteller on whom a large part of the game’s dynamics is based. Moments of discussion and accusation, before the vote, also take place. With the original village technique, it is the facilitator who plays the role of storyteller. Participants are grouped by tables of 4–14 people. The facilitator hands out a first card from a traditional game of cards, composed of only one suit, face down. These cards are then turned face up and everyone discovers the card that will identify them. He or she thus indicates that everyone is a member of the original village who gather for a week once a year. On this occasion, the elder (the facilitator) is responsible for organizing seven days of new idea generation. This is the only time of the year when new villagers can be accepted, but it is also the time when others are asked to leave the village, as they no longer belong there (at least for the coming year). The facilitator specifies that a problem for which relevant and original answers will have to be found will be presented to them. There will be several rounds (from five to seven, depending on the number of participants) of reflection and ideas. Villagers who propose three non-original ideas will be asked to leave the village for the new year beginning the following month. Once this is done, the facilitator distributes another card, face down to each participant, but this time it is a unique card evoking paradisiacal landscapes, animals, objects, stories, imaginary figures, etc. As in the game, each villager has the right to vote and must look at his hidden card without showing it to others. The villagers with the most originality points at the end of the meeting will form the municipal council called “the originals”. The facilitator then outlines the problem to be solved. He or she answers questions from participants. Then, he or she asks them to write, at the top of a sheet of paper or a small sheet of removable self-adhesive paper that he or she distributes to them, the code on their visible card (1, 2, 3… valet, queen, king, joker), this will be the house number of each villager. He or she then invites participants to look at their picture card again, without showing it to others. Then, he or she asks for silence and orders everyone to cover their eyes with their hands and let themselves to dream about the illustration on their card. After two minutes of micro nap, the facilitator invites everyone to wake up, then without telling the others, to write an idea for solving the

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

199

problem on the paper sheet that they have with their code. Another two minutes are devoted to writing the idea. Then, the sheets are collected and the facilitator proceeds to counting. He or she then announces that each participant has three virtual “lives” for their ideas. He or she lists the ideas and as soon as two ideas are found to be identical, the participants concerned lose a “life”. The ideas are grouped together and the facilitator asks them to vote by show of hands when two ideas seem to be similar enough to be judged identical. In case of a tie, the ideas are considered rather similar and the participants concerned lose a “life”. If the facilitator has the opportunity, it is preferable that he or she does a small search for possible solutions (planned or already existing) before the workshop, or that he or she spends two minutes thinking of ideas alone. Thus, as an elder, the facilitator may have a list of 4–12 ideas (4 if there are 10 or more participants and slightly less if not) of non-original solutions that he or she will integrate when the first ideas are collected. This will serve to purge ideas and may cause some participants to lose a “life”. Following this round, the illustrated cards (the cards that were hidden) are given back to the facilitator who hands them over with the ones he or she had left and starts a new distribution. The code cards remain the same, a new paper is given to each participant, on which he or she writes his or her code. Everyone looks at their picture card without showing it to others, then a microsiesta is ordered, followed by a session of writing ideas. Ideas are collected and sorted again and if, again, ideas are very similar or if they resemble previously listed ideas, the participants concerned lose a “life”. A participant who has lost all his or her “lives” is eliminated (they can be represented by tokens distributed to each participant). After five to seven rounds of idea generation, the participants with the most idea “lives” are declared members of the municipal council. In general, it is the villagers who have kept all their points of originality. Implementing this technique therefore requires some equipment, including a deck of 52 classic cards, a set of about 30 illustrated cards that the facilitator can create himself, sheets of paper or small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper, pencils and a board. The duration of a creativity workshop using this technique is 150–240 minutes. It stimulates divergent thinking through a playful and competitive approach that encourages participants to propose original ideas by intersecting the ideation phases with dream phases. It is not possible to practice it alone.

200

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

6.6. Some techniques using Aristotelian logic 6.6.1. UX maps UX maps are tools for mapping a process from a user’s point of view, which is why the full name is User eXperience map. It is possible to make this type of card alone; the important thing is to be able to report a real user point of view. To do this, it is necessary to follow the user during the process at the heart of the targeted problem. It is also very interesting to put yourself in their place when possible and collect a lot of data about the interactions between the user and their environment throughout the process. When a facilitator proposes this type of tool to a group, he or she must not only present the problem at the center of the creative reflection that he or she will coordinate, but also have participants who have (had) the opportunity to follow this user path. Similarly, from one user profile to another, as the route may evolve, it is also preferable to clearly identify the targeted users and draw up a small sketch (also called a persona). In the context of a group reflection, it is therefore easily possible to follow the path of several users. The first step of this creativity workshop consists of drawing up a general mapping of a user process by modeling it in the form of a process/path, generally in 5–12 steps. Once this first process has been determined, by naming the steps, the group questions itself on the typical user profile or profiles of the users concerned and consequently on the variations induced in the general process/path. This first step can take 30–60 minutes. At the end of the survey, it is possible to select only one process and user profile or to divide the group into subgroups, each of which will focus on a typical profile and a process/path. The second step, which may take several hours, but we will limit it here to 60 minutes, is dedicated to a specialist process mapping. Its objective is to associate a specific user profile with a specific experience path. The route is divided into a series of steps, each with a brief description (what it consists of) that may include a diagram. In general, this description is supplemented by a set of information presented in boxes below the one in the step description. It contains information such as: the time spent, what the user does, what he or she feels (what he or she likes or dislikes), the experience

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

201

gained, what he or she thinks about it and examples of small problems that must be managed almost systematically. The third step is to review the mapping and imagine changes to be made by asking yourself a number of questions. Under the information written at the end of a step, ideas for opportunities related to changes to be made can be written. Once this is done, workshop participants should try to answer a second set of questions of the same form: Which steps can be deleted, replaced, merged or bypassed? What would happen in this case? How can this change be achieved? The workshop ends by providing, in clearly identified boxes and if possible with a specific color indication, the most relevant answers to the questions below. Once this is done, the different routes are presented to all participants, giving them the opportunity to add new ideas in addition to those listed, and then to vote for the “best” proposals for change. A final hour can be devoted to this task. Implementation of this technique requires paper sheets (A4, A3 and if possible A2), small removable self-adhesive sheets of paper, pencils and a board as materials. The duration of a creativity workshop using this technique ranges from 180 minutes to several days (in the case of field data collection). It stimulates convergent thinking. It can be used by 1–100 people. 6.6.2. Segmentation The term “segmentation” comes from the contraction of the terms “segmentation” and “intuition”. It is a combination of these two practices. It consists of creating a dedicated matrix that cross-references the envisaged applications with categories of customer behavior [MIL 16, p. 39]. A facilitator proposing this technique can implement it with different groups of 1–100 people. It will begin by presenting the type of product or market to be explored. Secondly, if possible, it will encourage the collection of direct data in the field.

202

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

In the specific workshop, the facilitator asks each participant to list the main problems (usually rather technical) to be solved to satisfy the customers and their purpose. From this list, he or she proposes to carry out a technical segmentation, i.e. to categorize the main types of applications that result from it (a type of application corresponds to the resolution of a type of problem and therefore to a category of need). Then, the participants do the same for the customers by listing the main categories of user/consumer behavior. This is the behavioral segmentation phase. Based on these elements, the facilitator asks them to create a matrix combining the main types of applications (columns) with the main categories of user/consumer behavior (rows). The role of the rows will be to indicate why such an application is necessary, i.e. why a customer/user would be interested in such and such a solution. The role of the columns will be to indicate what needs to be done or what is being done. The participants fill in the boxes with an argument that aims to answer a question of the form: how do we interest the customer/user in this type of application? How do we convince him/her? What business approach or business model would be appropriate? Boxes/segments are also quantified in terms of the number of products that could be sold or used. Once this is done, participants are invited to imagine solutions that can be placed on at least one of the most important cases/segments. It is necessary that these solutions are also expressed in terms of the functions they are to perform and the technologies they use. This practice requires only limited equipment: sheets of paper, small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper and pencils. The duration of such a workshop is approximately 120 minutes. It stimulates divergent thinking; it can be applied to groups of 100 people and can be practiced alone. 6.6.3. Creative aikido The principles of the technique named after this martial art are quite simple. As in the practice of aikido, it is a question of transforming the opponent’s strengths into weaknesses and problems into opportunities. Once these two principles have been established, the facilitator using this technique only has to present the subject of reflection of the creativity workshop or the problem for which he or she is responsible for devising

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

203

possible solutions. Once the problem has been presented and the classic question-and-answer phase has been completed, the facilitator asks the participants to list all the problems that arise depending on the situation. He or she then asks some of the other participants to list the strengths of the competition and, if they identify a product to rethink or improve, to list the weaknesses and constraints of that product. The time spent on this part can be 30–60 minutes. It is preferable that this research be done first on an individual basis to get as many ideas as possible about these elements. Then, the facilitator asks the group to group problems, weaknesses and strengths by affinities and categories. This can take 10–15 minutes. Then, he or she encourages the participants to associate for each of these elements, a need, a reason that justifies the strength of a competing product, a pretext for each problem or a weakness so that a user does not use the desired product and prefers another. This phase lasts 15 minutes. Participants can think about it in groups of two or alone. Then, the facilitator gives some examples of successful creative aikido, such as these: – during the Battle of Salamis (480 BC), Themistocles transformed the numerical superiority of the Persian fleet into a weakness by attracting it into a narrow channel where land forces could support the Greek fleet and where smaller ships than those of the Persians could more easily maneuver; – the kung fu style known as drunk man’s boxing transforms the apparent weakness of a drunk person into an advantage based on his unpredictable movements vis-à-vis those of the much more coded competing fighting styles (hard or soft praying mantis, tiger, crane, etc.); – after a hunting trip, the agronomist George de Mestral thought of transforming the problem that each walk in the woods required him to remove burdock seeds attached to his clothes into an opportunity for innovation that resulted in Velcro; – at the end of the 1980s, Nintendo’s Gunpei Yokoi transformed the strength of its competitors’ latest generation portable games consoles, which were in color, into a weakness based on their excessive battery consumption and instead invented a portable console with a black and white display but low battery consumption: the Game Boy;

204

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

– an engineer from the Indian company KPIT Cummins is transforming the problem of car traffic in a city like Bombay into an energy-saving opportunity; he created the Revolo kit that recharges car batteries from the kinetic energy generated by the many braking operations imposed by a traffic jam; – the city of Montreal, which has transformed bus stops into musical swings [MIC 16, p. 17] shortening the time spent waiting for the bus; – Clean AD proposes to use stencils and a Kärcher washer to turn dirty sidewalks into advertising slates. Once this is done, each group is instructed to imagine at least four solutions to the problem, based on transforming a problem into an opportunity, a competitive advantage into a disadvantage for the competition and an advantage for the future product to be developed. This method uses only limited equipment: sheets of paper, small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper, pencils and, possibly, a table. The duration of a workshop of this type is about 150 minutes. It stimulates divergent thinking and can be practiced alone. 6.6.4. Simplified axiomatic design This creative thinking technique requires that participants be well aware of each of its steps. In general, it is used by designers and engineers, but explained simply, it is accessible to the greatest number of people. The animator will be able to use it with large groups of people. If participants do not feel comfortable with some steps of this technique, they will be able to participate in others and are not excluded. It requires only simple equipment: sheets of paper, small sheets of removable self-adhesive paper, pencils and a board. The duration of a creativity workshop using this technique is 90–120 minutes. It stimulates convergent thinking and can be practiced alone. To begin the session, the facilitator outlines the purpose of the creative reflection and then asks the group to list the main product designs that correspond to it. It is therefore advisable to have an Internet connection

Some Techniques to Stimulate and Aid Creativity

205

or several copies of a folder compiling these main designs. Then, the facilitator instructs the group to identify the components of the object and the main functions that allow it to perform or the needs that its functions meet. Each function is written on a sheet next to the corresponding component. Then, for each different design of an equivalent product (i.e. one that fulfills the same functions), the facilitator asks them to create a matrix with the functions of the object, expressed by a verb, as line headings, and the name of the component or the position that allows it to perform this function in the columns. Then, the cells of the matrix at the intersection of a row and a column are completed by entering a cross if the component performs this function. At this stage, axiomatic design requires diagonalizing the matrices obtained. Since some products may already have been designed axiomatically, this phase requires identifying whether there is already a matrix with only one cross per column. This means that each component or position of a component fulfills one and only one function. It comes down to the fact that we act on a component (we activate it and put it in a specific position) to perform a single type of action that results in a single type of response. If such a matrix is identified, the facilitator will ask to look at whether all the functions essential to the user are being fulfilled without the need to act on two different components. The idea is to reduce to a minimum the number of different components to be operated to perform a function or, which is almost the same, to identify specific positions of the same component to perform a certain function. In this case, it is each of the positions of each component that must be entered in the line headings. If, despite this, a matrix with only one cross per column is identified, another creative technique such as a discovery matrix must be used, so that this work has not been done for nothing. Otherwise, i.e. when no column contains only one cross, then the product can be redesigned. The facilitator then asks the participants confronted with this case to imagine a new product, a new component of the current product, or positions of a current or fictitious component that would allow only one cross per column, so that the product performs the same functions. To do this, the host imposes only one rule: to propose a design that is as simple and refined as possible.

206

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

In such a workshop, the facilitator can illustrate the goal by using the classic case of the two-wheel sink faucet (one regulating the flow of hot water and the other regulating the flow of cold water) in contrast to the more refined design of the mixer. For the two-wheel valve, both wheels must be activated to obtain warm water at an average flow rate, for example, whereas with the mixer, only one component is handled, for which the appropriate position must be found on two axes (right or left for temperature and low or high for flow rate) to obtain warm water at the desired flow rate. 6.7. Conclusion You now have a large number of creative techniques to use and combine depending on the situation. You can find many more by browsing the Web on this subject or by consulting dedicated books. But once ideas are generated and sorted, they must still be used in the innovation process. There are many problems to be solved and ideas are constantly interacting with a wealth of information and knowledge when they are appropriated by individuals. Consequently, a large number of ideas can be generated in the same organization, and we believe it is necessary to have a method of monitoring what happens to the ideas produced, a subject that we suggest you address in Chapter 7.

7 System Mapping and Analysis

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part is dedicated to presenting all the elements that will be used to study the innovation system. The second part will present how to carry out its analysis and monitoring. 7.1. Mapping of the system’s tangible and intangible assets The mapping in this section is about identifying, classifying and memorizing a number of elements that contribute to an innovation process. Thus, they are elements that contribute directly or indirectly to the creation of a product or service considered new, compared to those that precede it, while having been successfully accepted by a minimum proportion of the public for which it is intended. This means identifying tangible and intangible assets of a system as a knowledge management and production system. That is why we begin this part by recalling some fundamental points of knowledge management. 7.1.1. Knowledge management and assets considered Knowledge management is an approach that aims first and foremost to make the exploitation of an organization’s intangible resources more efficient. From this point of view, this involves identifying a number of its intangible assets, transforming them or linking them to others in order to report them and to exploit when necessary for the implementation of an organizational process, to improve how they are shared in order to create new knowledge and prevent it being forgotten and thus prevent degradation of

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

208

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

some of the company’s assets. The expression knowledge management, when we use it here, will be taken in a rather broad sense and will take into account artifacts that are not knowledge, but that contribute to their functioning and creation. Therefore, in this section, we will discuss not only knowledge, but also other assets involved in the implementation of the system, such as: data, information, ideas, resources, individuals, solutions and reference models. As far as information and knowledge are concerned, they are considered in our analysis as an innovation system rather than an innovation product. These include links within and between the interpretive frameworks presented in Chapter 2, which we will return to in this chapter. This will allow us to understand how knowledge is generated and how the innovation process responds to objectives. Thus, the knowledge created and used as well as the information requested, identified and used can be considered as indicators of innovative practices [CHE 09, GAL 15]. With regard to the other elements, we wanted to integrate in the analysis of the innovation system, such as data, information or knowledge, these are considered in a similar way to how they were in some knowledge management methodologies such as the methodology for knowledge systems management (MKSM) [BAR 98] which inspired us in our system development. Indeed, this methodology considers both knowledge and information within the same system. Another interesting aspect of the latter is that it also takes into account, on the one hand, the activities and tasks carried out by individuals and, on the other hand, the interrelationships between information, actors (individuals) and knowledge required and generated by the performance of tasks and activities [ERM 14]. Compared to this approach, which considers all the value-added processes of an organization in order to better understand and consolidate them, our approach focuses only on the innovation process, which is why we have neglected certain aspects and integrated new ones such as the consideration of reference models and the generation of new ideas. Here are some ways to identify and estimate the exploitation and creation of a set of resources during a product innovation process considered as a process for solving an innovation problem. Therefore, first of all, we believe it is necessary to define all these intangible elements as well as those tangible elements involved in the process of creating knowledge, creativity and innovation in an organization. As expressed above, good knowledge management requires defining what it is about and going through a somewhat painful phase of developing a glossary of definitions.

System Mapping and Analysis

209

Later in this chapter, we will present a series of definitions that will play this role of glossary. These definitions have been developed to form a coherent set that originates from the first three levels of R. Ackoff’s relatively classic pyramid model [ACK 89] which organizes the relationships between data, information and knowledge in an order based on the construction of meaning (Figure 7.1). In relation to this model, we will not deal with the element of wisdom, but with several others, including a form of intangible asset necessary for innovation: ideas.

Wisdom

Knowledge

Information

Data Figure 7.1. Ackoff’s DIKW pyramid [ACK 89]

7.1.2. From knowledge assets to ideas In order to link knowledge and information to ideas that are generated throughout this type of process, we were strongly inspired by an innovation approach: the C-K theory of design [HAT 07]. As the name of this theory suggests, it is primarily organized around the distinction between elements of the organizational system that are concepts symbolized by the letter “C” and others that are knowledge associated with the letter “K”. In this sense, this theory requires us, in order to develop new knowledge, to distinguish two spaces: that of concepts and that of knowledge. A virtual border separates these two areas, but this cannot be easily crossed. It allows the transformation or creation of elements of a space from others. If there is a crossing of the

210

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

border by elements present on one of its sides, this crossing is above all carried out in the sense of concepts towards knowledge. This is due to the very nature of concepts and knowledge. First, knowledge is an element that can be expressed by a sentence or a nominal phrase for the one or more facts or objects to which it refers is a truth. If it is a fact or an expression, it must be objectively judged as true, and if it is an object, its existence must be unambiguously confirmed for at least one of its instances. Concepts are defined in this theory as opposed to knowledge. The expression of a concept can take two forms: an imagined and unproven property, i.e. a conjecture or a reference to something whose existence is not proven. If the concept is a property, it is because it is based on a hypothesis that has neither been validated nor invalidated. If the concept refers to something, what is the most common case is that it is something whose existence has not yet been confirmed. If a concept corresponding to a property is validated or invalidated, it is transformed into knowledge and loses its concept status. The reasoning is the same for concepts expressing things that have been proven to exist or that have been realized. In our own representation system, we have kept a definition relatively similar to that of C-K theory knowledge, but as far as the concept space is concerned, we have preferred an idea space. Indeed, for us, concepts are more or less complex abstract objects that can be expressed by a network of terms, which did not make it possible for us to exploit them in the sense of the C-K theory. By using the term “idea” instead, we remain in the realm of facts and objects that do not exist, which is consistent with the C-K theory, and allows us to more easily make the link with creative practices aimed at generating ideas. In addition, in order to better identify elements whose positioning is ambiguous in relation to these two spaces, we propose the term “sketch” to name them as well as a transitional space referring to them. Sketches belong to the space of ideas (concepts in C-K theory), but represent attempts to transition from certain ideas to the space of knowledge. This makes it possible to report projects and any object whose existence is not fully validated, but whose potential existence is nevertheless confirmed by at least one document referring to it. Thus, sketches are objects in the process of transformation that must be followed in order to verify their existence. However, they do generate new ideas and knowledge or even new sketches. Files, diagrams, patents and prototypes, in particular, are forms of sketches. For a sketch to be expressed as such, information expressing the reality of the project it expresses must be validated, as well as a problem must be associated with it. Indeed, for an element corresponding to a sketch to be

System Mapping and Analysis

211

transferred into the knowledge space, it is necessary to solve a number of problems in order to finally transform the idea into reality. Leonardo da Vinci’s aerial screw, of which we have the drawings, can thus be stored in the space of the sketches. This allows us to avoid debates about whether or not it exists. Similarly, when a prototype has failed, it may be kept in the sketch space. In the case of a reflection on flying machines, the sketch space could house, for example, the previously mentioned aerial screw, whose existence is associated only with drawings and texts, and the Avrocar (a kind of flying saucer developed by Canada and the United States in the 1950s), two of which could have been built, but whose performance was well below that expected. In order to keep the same ex-pressure logic as in the C-K theory, the sketches are associated with the letter S of sketch and the ideas with the letter I. In the C-K theory, new concepts can be created from two operations that define each concept as a potential set of several individuals/instances. To do this, we start from an existing concept and consider the definition of the set that corresponds to it in understanding. This means that the concept is defined from the properties/attributes that characterize it. For an element to be considered as falling within this concept, it must be able to be part of the set of elements represented by the concept, i.e. it must have all the properties/attributes that characterize the concept under consideration. From this extended definition of the concept, the C-K theory proposes to create new concepts through a partitioning operation and an expansion operation. The partitioning operation consists of creating a new concept by adding at least one additional property/attribute to an existing C0 concept. In order for an element to be part of this new set, i.e. part of this new C+1 concept, it must therefore include all the properties of the C0 concept and the new property specific to the Cn+1 concept. Conversely, the concept expansion operation consists of removing at least one property from the C0 concept in order to create a new C−1 concept, whose membership constraint for the elements that can enter it remains less rigorous than that of C0, since a property (a condition) necessary for membership of the latter has been removed. In addition, since part of the knowledge is made up of elements that could be concepts, but whose existence has been proven, it is possible to propose new concepts based on existing knowledge. It is enough to create a concept from knowledge by adding (partition operation of the concept, allowing us to separate the elements referring to it) or by removing (expansion operation of the concept, allowing it to belong to a set of other elements) at least one

212

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

property which when added or removed does not allow it to be associated with an already existing object. In our system, concepts are replaced by ideas to avoid confusion with what we called concept in Chapter 2, and we briefly recall here that for us, concepts are intermediate objects that serve to express other elements such as knowledge or ideas (section 2.1.3). But beyond the change of letter (I instead of C), it is the addition of the sketch space (S) that distinguishes our approach from that of C-K theory. To get an accurate picture of the transitions that can occur from one space to another, it is better to consider each of these three spaces as one of the three main faces of a prism. When an idea is transformed into knowledge, it usually involves at least one sketch. But when the expected result is achieved, then the corresponding idea and sketch disappear, leaving only the knowledge obtained (Figure 7.2). Existing knowledge can generate new ideas, knowledge that can inspire new knowledge as well as new ideas. However, new ideas can also be generated from unsuccessful attempts represented by sketches. Once rethought, they can lead to the creation of knowledge as well as new ideas. It is therefore possible to generate new ideas within the idea space by using partition and overall expansion operators. It is also possible to generate ideas from a set other than that of ideas, by considering what has already been proposed (sketches and knowledge related to the project in question) and by using a creative operator to consider and think differently about what already exists. Thus, operators such as those of SCAMPER or TRIZ can help to generate new ideas about an object or service to be developed.

Figure 7.2. Main relationships between the space of ideas, the space of sketches and the space of knowledge

System Mapping and Analysis

213

It should also be remembered that all this is a matter of representation and interpretation. An element can be interpreted as a sketch in one case and as knowledge in another. For example, if we take the case of the electric car before the 2000s [FRE 00, MIS 01], we find the traces of many electric cars that have been developed and produced over time. But in the end, all these electric cars were abandoned and more or less forgotten. The space of the sketches then makes it possible to welcome these old, somewhat forgotten approaches to the electric car, which makes it possible to keep the memory of their characteristics, as well as to associate them with problems that prevented their success or contributed to their extinction if they were successful for some time. 7.1.3. Assets indirectly involved in knowledge creation In Chapter 2, we mentioned several other elements that contribute to the creation of knowledge in the sense that this creation supports the production of new products or services with a view to innovation. The elements mentioned are the components of an interpretation framework or the elements encompassed by a framework (see Figure 2.5). We had thus listed the essential components for the development of a framework: at least one individual, an activity carried out by at least this individual, the resources made available to carry out this activity, and at least one reference model requested to carry out this activity or to express schematically expressing how this activity is formally and almost constantly carried out. Within this framework, other elements can be identified as products that are exploited or identified as stakeholders in performance of the activity concerned by the framework: information, knowledge, ideas, problems, possible solutions and solutions. We recall here that the sketches mentioned in section 7.1.2 are a specific form of solution, the others being rather a form of idea formulated as a hypothesis for the realization of a problem. Concepts in the operating system of interpretive frameworks are part of the problem formulation and resolution process (see Figure 2.4). They are used to provide guidance and to express and share more or less complex ideas. They are distinguished from ideas by the fact that ideas are expressed in the form of nominal phrases to express a response to a problem. The identification of this set of elements can only be meaningful for the purpose of managing the processes employing them. By abuse of language, we are talking about knowledge management here when we use all these

214

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

elements to contribute to the knowledge creation. We therefore have at least two processes that can be highlighted: the process of identifying, understanding and interpreting a problem, and the process of seeking and validating solutions to that problem. Of course, since these two processes can be considered as consecutive, they can be combined as a problem-solving process in a product innovation context. As it is a question of approaching this process in the form of a production and information dynamic, the temporal dimension of this process appears via several elements of this process. Information, knowledge, ideas, problems, sketches and solutions are dated and resources are associated with a frequency of use related to the activity under consideration. It is thus possible to consider an activity from the moment it will produce a resource. As we consider the formulation of a problem as a resource, it can be considered as a signal indicating the beginning of the activity. Similarly, the end of the activity can be considered each time a solution to the problem that initiated it is validated. A particular case to be dealt with is that of individual activities. They are the most numerous, of course. To take them into account while allowing the system thus mapped to be readable, only a few of them should be highlighted. To do this, it is strongly recommended to link individual activities to an activity at a higher level (managerial level) or to one that follows it chronologically, even though it is carried out by only one person, for example, if a company sets up a process for collecting individual ideas using an idea box type tool. It is, of course, interesting to know who produced an idea and when, but this information must logically be present on the idea sheet as it is filled out. In addition to this information already available, it is the activity of gathering and sorting individual ideas that will have to be reflected in the mapping. The ideas proposed can be understood as resources. For example, if the number of ideas useful for the realization of solutions or possible solutions that emerge from this activity is low, this may be related to the small number of individual ideas that reach it or to the way in which ideas are treated. The dynamics of this process of creating ideas and knowledge in general is therefore dependent on identifying the interpretation frameworks and the elements involved in their composition or use. However, in order to carry out a related reflection, it is necessary to establish an information plan of its interpretation frameworks. This begins with the recognition of a framework that must be described based on several of its attributes and components.

System Mapping and Analysis

215

Thus, the description of an interpretive framework consists of at least seven elements: 1) a name; 2) an activity (this may also be the name given to a gathering of consecutive activities); 3) a reference model or a composition of reference models; 4) a group of individuals who exploit the reference model(s) of the framework in more or less the same way; 5) some information about how people work to perform the activity or use their reference model(s); 6) the names of the frames it immediately contains (child frames); 7) the name of the executive(s) of which it is an immediate component (parent executives). Similarly, each of the activities, reference models cited and groups of people reported must be described on the basis of at least nine attributes: 1) a name; 2) expectations and/or objectives related to the implementation of an activity; 3) a description of a few lines that explains what it consists of beyond the connotations associated with its name; 4) signals or elements indicating the initiation and termination of the activity; 5) the names of activities and executives associated with activities immediately preceding it; 6) the names of activities and executives associated with immediate successor activities; 7) the name of the productions of the activity, i.e. the elements created or developed; 8) the name of the resources requested during the implementation of the activity; 9) the name of the resources exploited.

216

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

7.1.4. The glossary of knowledge creation system assets Even though this part may seem a little less digestible to the reader, it seems necessary for us to define once and for all and completely all the assets and other elements that we consider in analyzing the problem-solving process in a context of product innovation. These definitions also allow us to clearly establish links between the different assets involved in this process, which is why the definition of some elements refers to others that have been previously defined. In addition, in order to help distinguish each of these assets once formulated, we end each of the definitions with a scoring system. Thus, the transformation of a thing may keep the same name, but its notation will indicate its own nature at the time considered. We present these definitions in order of importance first and then chronologically to reference the frames, their compositions and productions. We therefore begin these with the interpretation framework. – An interpretation framework is a structure with identified boundaries that gives meaning to situations according to the people and activities included within it. It may contain other frameworks and indicates how it will be implemented. An interpretation framework is noted between two brackets. For example, the expression [creativity workshop] refers to the creativity workshop framework, while @creativity workshop@ refers to the creativity activity associated with the framework [creativity workshop]. – An activity is a set of actions coordinated and carried out for a specific purpose by a group of people. The activities need to be summarized in the form of short descriptions, as well as to be linked to signals to identify their initiation and termination. An activity can be broken down into a process involving other lower-level activities. Activities are noted between two @ symbols. – A group of people is a group of at least one individual. Each individual is associated with a profile and a role that they play in each setting where they are identified. We propose to note their names between two Chinese signs that express the word “person”, 人. Otherwise, we propose to use the letter lambda (λ) which is similar enough to make this notation. – A reference model is a framework of reasoning, a methodological pattern, or an example of a representation of a person or thing. This can be any object (abstract or concrete) that serves as a reference point alone or by composition with other models. Reference models are used in a way that requires them to be considered as examples to be followed in a positive

System Mapping and Analysis

217

(“good examples” from which to draw) or negative (examples from which to deviate, do the opposite or do otherwise) sense. Models are identified by a name and a description that may include illustrations. The names of the reference models are noted between left and right pointed brackets (< >). – A resource represents an artifact used or developed during the process. Ideas, information, knowledge, problems, leads and solutions are considered as particular forms of resources or productions. For example, the notation #/increase in wine consumption/# refers to the use of information (noted between the two slashes) as a resource. The resources are distinguished from productions by their association with an interpretation framework and a date corresponding to their frequency of use. Resources are noted between two number signs (#), but may include between them the notation specific to the resource used. – A production is considered as a particular form of resource, developed during the process, whose activity is documented and the date of production is reported. Productions are noted between double number signs (##) and indicate the category of the production performed. For example, the notation ##??iron without handle??## indicates the production of a sketch (noted between the duplicate symbols ??). – Information is a set of organized data used to answer a question whose origin and acquisition date are referenced (the source of the information is identified, i.e. the data that made it possible to develop it are known). The information is recorded between two forward slashes (/). – A datum is a minimum unit of constructing meaning that can be identified from a signal or sign, then aggregated and transformed to transmit and/or store it. As a minimum unit of constructing meaning, we did not propose a rating for the data considered alone. – A piece of knowledge corresponds to information (obtained after tests, research or by cross-referencing information and/or knowledge), validated (i.e. estimated as true by at least one person well identified in the process with an associated validation date) and whose elements contributing to this validation have been specified (with respect to an analysis model if possible). It must be possible to express knowledge, at least in its description, in the form of an affirmation or a negation. Knowledge is rated between two dollar signs ($$), unless it belongs to a particular category of knowledge that already has a rating. – A problem can take two forms that are noted in the same way. It is either a form of particular objective expressed and linked as such to an activity, or

218

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

a particular production or identified difficulty that takes the form of a request for a solution. A problem is always associated with a formulation in the form of one or more questions, each formulation dated and associated with at least one individual who expressed it. Problems are noted between two exclamation points (!). – An innovation problem is a particular form of problem. It differs from other problems in that it can be considered as an initial formulation of a problem to be solved that may persist over time despite the solutions developed. An innovation problem is always associated with a formulation in the form of one or more questions whose wording is dated and associated with at least one individual who has expressed it, but it must also indicate the category of innovation in which the solution should take place. Innovation problems are noted between double exclamation points (!!). – An idea is the formulation in the form of a nominal phrase or sentence, by at least one person, of an imagined answer that can answer a question. An idea can itself be formulated in the form of a question. Ideas are dated and stored in idea cards (section 5.7.2) and illustrated with percepts (section 5.7.3). Ideas are written between question marks (?). – A concept is a complex idea or of a relatively high level of generalization, in the sense that it cannot be expressed by a single word or group of words. Concepts are used to communicate ideas while maintaining a certain amount of interpretative vagueness for greater freedom of interpretation and creativity. Concepts are expressed using vague/ambiguous expressions or a network of terms for which it is preferable that the semantics of the links also be expressed. The concept may be supplemented by a percept formulation or illustration (section 5.7.3). It can always be reinterpreted; its network can be completed and modified over time. Concepts are scored between double question marks (??). – A percept is a scenario of an idea or concept (a theater scene or sketch, comic strip, short film, animation, photo novel, etc.). This is a particular form of description, which is why it is noted between open and closed braces ({}). – A (solution) path is an idea or information supplemented with information or knowledge that, beyond a simple sheet, makes it possible to assess its relevance to a problem. The relevance of a path is estimated on the basis of at least four criteria: the time required to complete it, the cost of its implementation, its potential contribution or gain for the targeted problem and its originality in relation to the existing one. The paths are completed by a

System Mapping and Analysis

219

description that explains how the proposed solution provides, at least, a partial answer to part of a problem related to the innovation process. Paths are marked between two ampersands (&). – A sketch is a solution path that has been drawn, or that has given rise to a prototype whose transformation into knowledge seems possible and documented, i.e. it is linked to at least verified information indicating the possibility of its existence. A sketch can be old knowledge that is now unexploited and whose exclusion is linked to at least one problem that could not be solved. The old knowledge is then replaced by a simple solution in the form of a sketch, provided that it is sufficiently documented. Thus, a sketch must be associated with a creation date, possibly a date of abandonment and an internal test date. Sketches that have been tested internally are the most important because they are the ones that create new knowledge. The dates and nature of all tests carried out on the basis of these sketches, as well as the names of the persons who carried them out, must be part of the description of these sketches. Sketches are noted in the same way as solution paths, but between double ampersands (&&), and internally tested sketches are noted between two sequences &&T, the “T” meaning internally tested, i.e. by at least one member of the company. – A solution is what makes it possible to solve a problem. Only those solutions that have been successfully tested and therefore subsequently implemented should be retained as solutions. The others can only be considered as sketches at best. The testing and validation criteria for a solution must be dated, recorded and associated with the solution description. If a solution has been proposed and therefore implemented, then it must be possible to translate or associate it with at least one piece of knowledge. The solutions are noted between two hats (^). – A description is noted between two braces: one open and one closed ({}). The use of descriptions is optional. Their objective is to allow the addition of additional information elements necessary for the understanding of a particular referenced asset. 7.1.5. Questioning and organizing assets in frameworks As we mentioned in Chapter 2, the analysis of the knowledge creation system from a product innovation perspective is above all a matter of questioning and highlighting certain practices. We do not list here all the artifacts to interrogate or question them. With our approach, it is the

220

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

interpretation frameworks that are at the heart of this analysis. We have seen in Chapter 2 the components of a framework and the fact that its definition is based on the identification of an activity. In Chapter 1, we proposed a metaphorical vision of the different forms of innovation using the maneuvers of an aircraft to distinguish between the different variants, as well as a dynamic consideration of the maneuvers envisaged in this way using the OODA loop. We can now make the link with this metaphorical and dynamic vision with the active participants in the creation of knowledge in a context of product innovation. You do not have to consider all these assets at once. One way to do this is to start your analysis with the elements that belong to the senior management levels of your creativity or innovation system. We recall (section 2.3.3) that the first level of consideration of managers consists of a breakdown into separate and consecutive activities. This should not prevent activities from being carried out in parallel, but requires only one activity at the beginning and end of the process. For example, you can start by dividing your process into three steps: one that starts the process, one that ends it and one that is a priori in between. Then, you can redivide the central step into as many activities, consecutive or parallel, or restrict the start and end activities to separate them from other activities. Of course, this mapping in the form of a framework must be limited to activities whose production must be “new” compared to a previous production. You can apply analysis by interpretation frameworks to other activities, but the components of a framework are primarily defined to monitor and understand how new knowledge, new ideas, new problems, new solutions or new artifacts (of the product or service type) is produced. Innovation can be reduced to an improvement of a previous solution, but is implicitly identifiable. Once this is done, the interpretation frameworks are derived from the activities through a process based on a series of questions: – What is the activity (creation/innovation) considered? – What is the objective of the activity (creation/innovation) in question? – What is the name of the activity in question? – Which individual(s) are involved? – What resources are available to the individual(s) to carry out the activity? – What reference model(s) do they use?

System Mapping and Analysis

221

– How can each model be named and expressed in a diagram? – What is the trigger signal for the activity (why and how does it start)? – What is the end signal of the activity (why and how does it stop or achieve its objectives)? – What are the activity’s outputs in terms of information, knowledge, ideas, concept expression, problem formulation or identification, solution leads, sketches, solutions or resources for other activities? Another approach to system analysis involves starting from the final artifact produced at the end of the process and, as in the previous approach, several related questions must be answered: – What is the name of the artifact considered? – In which category does it belong? – For what purpose/reason does it exist? – Can it be considered as a resource for another activity? – What does it consist of? – Where, when, how, why and by whom was it produced? – When, why and by whom was it requested (considered a resource to be produced)? – Where, when and by whom was it exploited? – Where has it been stored? – What are the direct semantic links (expressed by verbs) that it shares with elements of the same category? – What are its possible alternatives (equivalent or almost equivalent solution sketches, solution paths) and among them, what are the reasons for them to be seriously considered or excluded? It is clear that if we start from the questioning of the activity, it ends with the questioning of its productions. It is then easy to move on to the second list of questions about an artifact in order to question at least the one considered most important. Conversely, if we start by questioning the final artifact produced, the questioning of the individuals who produced it will automatically allow the creation of at least one interpretation framework that

222

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

can then be questioned according to the questions related to it. Thus, whatever the starting point of the analysis envisaged, the cross-checking and organization of the different answers to the questions of these two modes of questioning will automatically make it possible to refine the analysis of the system. In order to comply with the definitions of the identified elements and to properly record them, it will then be necessary to answer many other questions such as those relating to the origin of the resources and the date of their recognition or use. 7.2. System analysis Many tangible and intangible assets involved in the product innovation process can be identified as a result of the questions presented above. While their richness or the complexity of the network of links they highlight can be frightening, it is merely an approach to mapping the system from a knowledge creation perspective that can be developed step by step. However, if this approach does not seem direct and fast enough to you to analyze and improve your innovation system, it is possible to focus your attention on some essential elements of this process. 7.2.1. The development of a series of indicators It is always possible to analyze the evolution of an innovation system and/or its parts from a monitoring process using indicators. This approach to the agility of a system based on indicators is not new. The one proposed here differs from the previous ones in that it takes into account in particular the possibilities for innovation, the reference models used to create and the effort to change creative practices. In this, we give our own interpretation based on these parameter/attribute indicators already considered by other authors. Thus, indicators of market flexibility [VER 16] or flexibility of the models used [SHE 07] have already been proposed. Similarly, an indicator expressing the speed of introduction of new products has been proposed by various authors such as [SWA 06] or [AGA 07]. Similarly, a continuous improvement indicator was proposed several years ago [YUS 02]. As far as we are concerned, we propose a series of indicators in line with what we presented in Chapter 2 in terms of information dynamics, creativity and innovation. From this point of view, success in terms of innovation is partly dependent on our air combat metaphor. Therefore, we base our

System Mapping and Analysis

223

indicators on three parameters/attributes that can be associated with the agility of an innovation system. The first is the innovation guideline. This is to set an innovation objective, i.e. the type of innovation that we will try to produce to surprise our opponents and better position ourselves in the competitive environment. It is therefore not necessary to innovate systematically in one and the same way. The second parameter corresponds to the speed with which your system allows you to achieve your innovation objective. At this level, it is simply a matter of slightly improving the performance of your creativity and innovation processes based on the experience accumulated by your teams, better organizing them according to the problems involved, and improving the performance of the information and development processes associated with them. Thus, it is not so much a question of rationalizing the creative process, but rather of responding better and faster to requests for information and other resources that a creativity unit can issue. Similarly, in terms of prototype development, for example, it will always be interesting to reduce the time required for prototypes to be produced, once the ideas and master plans have been established, as well as the time required for them to be tested and analyzed while preserving or improving their quality. Finally, the third parameter to consider is the agility and performance of your system to respond to environmental changes or surprise the competition, what we call the maneuverability of the system or its parts. Maneuverability can compensate for a slower speed of the system. It depends on how your creativity and development teams work, as well as on the routines in which they may become trapped. If the routines of an organization can be considered as the genes of a living being [IBE 09, NEL 02], we also consider routines here as a risk factor for the organization. The first step is not to consider defensive routines as envisaged by C. Argyris [ARG 94] as an element in the fight against change (we will come back to this later), but as specialized know-how that can limit the company’s ability to adapt to sudden or significant environmental change. If outside the processes of creativity and innovation, the development of routines can be considered an advantage, the automation of activities and practices makes them more quickly executable by reducing, in particular, the choices they require, as well as by making these choices and the reasons for them more implicit [NEL 02]. This aspect of the routines can then be considered as a risk factor. Indeed, from an external point of view, in a context of competitive creativity, design routines, for example, can be monitored (section 3.5.4) and, as such, can be considered as potential weaknesses of the company. At the level of the creative process, routines are conditioned reflexes that allow the

224

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

organization to react quickly, as well as systematically in the same way, which exposes the organization to an adverse prediction or to a conceptual or technological disruption that its own routines could not have anticipated. 7.2.1.1. The degree of strategic freedom of innovation If innovation objectives are indicated in the interpretation frameworks by innovation problems, it is therefore possible to highlight the variety of innovation categories that a company is trying to achieve in an identified sector and to determine to which problem category the solutions, or even the most successful solutions, belong. Period t must be at least two years, because we consider a priori that it takes at least one year to estimate whether a new product is accepted by its users/customers or not. If a product struggles to be accepted at first, and then finally is accepted, we consider that over time some problems have been solved to transform the new product into innovation. Therefore, we believe that there are proposals for new solutions to achieve this and thus improve the first solution produced, even though the change was only made at the level of its communication. Thus, the first indicator we propose is the result of a report that will serve as an indicator of the degree of a company’s strategic freedom of innovation (DSFI). It requires the ability to associate a solution with an innovation category or a category combining two types of innovation. We do not think it is necessary to go beyond a combination of two combined categories. If necessary, the “other type of innovation” category can always be created. On the contrary, too narrow a ranking with less than five innovation categories will not be very useful for you with this indicator. Of course, the same will apply if the number of new solutions developed is less than five. In general, for the indicator degree of strategic freedom of innovation to make sense, you must be able to recognize unambiguously which category each of your solutions belongs to. It is also necessary that the number of solutions produced at the exit of your system (i.e. solutions that will be classified as an innovation) is higher for the period considered than the number of categories of the classification used. If this is not the case, you must increase the time period concerned and/or reduce the number of categories considered by grouping them together.

Breakdown by market and architectural extension

Breakdown by market extension and modular

Other and modular

Breakdown by market extension and incremental

Other and incremental

Breakdown by extension market

Other

Other and breaking from above

Other and rupture by market extension Other and open source

Other and breakdown from below

Breakdown from above only

Disruption by market extension

Breakdown by market extension only

Top and bottom breakdown

Top-down and open source breakdown

Break from above

Breakdown Disruption by Disruption by market market by market extension and extension and extension and from above from below open source

Breakdown from below only

Break from below

Bottom-up breakdown and open source

Open source only

Open source

Table 7.1. Example of a double entry table to classify innovative solutions into 36 innovation categories

Other and architectural

Top-down and architectural failure

Top and modular breakdown

Top and incremental breakdown

Bottom failure and architectural failure

Open source and architectural

Breakdown from above

Open source and Open source and incremental modular

Open source

Architectural only

Bottom and modular breakdown

Architectural and incremental

Architectural

Bottom and incremental breakdown

Architectural and modular

Modular and incremental

Modular

Architectural

Breakdown from below

Modular only

Incremental only

Modular

Incremental

Incremental

Other only

Other

System Mapping and Analysis 225

226

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

If you want a more complete categorization system that will allow you to apply it to a large number of solutions, you can classify your innovations in a double entry table, thus using combinatorial logic (section 5.4.1) like that in Table 7.1. It makes it possible to classify innovations and especially those combining two categories (e.g. according to reading direction, “top break” combined with “bottom break” gives “top-down top-low movement break” or “bottom-up top-down movement break”). When your categorization system has been established, we propose to associate this indicator (DFSI) with the result of the calculation applied to several variables: – t, the period of time concerned; – NC(t), the number of innovation categories that resulted in at least one solution during t; – TNS(t), the total number of solutions proposed during t; – NSi1(t), the number of solutions from innovation category i1 during t; – Max NS(t), the maximum number of solutions obtained during t by a single innovation category; – Rmax(t), the maximum value obtained by dividing Max NS(t) by TNS(t); – Ri, the proportion of an innovation category i to the total number of solutions for a duration t, Ri = NSi(t)/TNS(t). Here is the calculation we propose to you to use as an indicator1: DSFI(t) = [Standard deviation (Ri1→iNC(t))] * (NC(t) − 1)/[NC(t) * (1 + Rmax)] A high score (between 0.5 and 1) will give you a relatively good degree of freedom in terms of innovation trajectories, and a score close to 0 will tell you that your innovation trajectories are relatively predictable 2 . We also 1 “i1” corresponds to the first category of innovation and “iNC” to the last category of your ranking (the order of categories does not matter). 2 “1 + Rmax” was added to this operation in order to limit the side effects linked to a strong preferential choice (80% of the solutions, for example) for an innovation category, but considered by quasi-isolated solutions belonging to at least 10 different innovation categories.

System Mapping and Analysis

227

recall that this indicator applies to a set of solutions developed by activities that may be different. 7.2.1.2. The speeds of obtaining a first solution or alternative As for the second parameter of the innovation system, it is specific to the analysis of creativity and innovation activities considered one by one or in series giving rise to a solution. Thus, for an activity A, we consider the use of the average velocity indicator for obtaining an initial solution from the first recorded formulation of an innovation or creativity problem (aVAOP1S1) expressed. This indicator can itself be broken down into two other indicators: the speed of activity A to perform a first sketch test, which we simply call the average speed (velocity) of the first test of a first sketch (aVAT1Sk1) to the problem and the average speed of activity A to transform first sketches into first solutions (aVATSk1S1(t)). These speeds are expressed by number of productions (first sketches and first solutions) per year. If you wish, you can easily adapt these indicators to obtain the corresponding maximum and minimum speed indicators. To these indicators, we add the average speed of activity A to develop alternatives to solutions (aVADAS) developed by the company in which A is located. Concerning the average speed indicators, they are the result of calculations applied to several variables: – A, the activity concerned; – t, the period of time concerned, which is expressed in years; – NPA(t), the number of problems addressed (which resulted in either a formulation or reformulation in A or at least one solution or sketch in A if they were neither formulated nor reformulated in A) by activity A during t; – NAT1Sk1(t), the number of first tests of first sketches developed or recorded during A during t; – NS1A(t), the number of first solutions obtained by A during t;

228

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

– aDAT1Sk1(t), the average duration between the first expression of an innovation or creativity problem and the first test of a first sketch during A during t3; – aDA T1Sk1(t) = Σ DAT1Sk1(t)/NAT1Sk1(t); – aDABT1Sk1S1(t), the average time between the first test and a first sketch and the development of a first solution; – aDABT1Sk1S1(t) = Σ DABT1Sk1(t)/NS1A(t); – aVASk1(t), the average speed (velocity) of the first test of a first sketch made during A during t; – aVAB1Sk1(t) = aDAT1Sk1(t)/(1/t); – aVABT1Sk1S1(t), the average rate of transformation by A of a first test of a first sketch into a solution during t; – aVATT1Sk1S1(t) = aDABT1Sk1S1(t)/(1/t); – aVAOP1S1(t), the average rate of obtaining first solutions by A during t from the first recorded formulation of a problem; – aVAOP1S1(t) = [aVAT1Sk1(t) + C*(aVATT1Sk1S1(t))]/(1+C). In this last calculation, we consider, a priori, that the distance traveled to solve a problem using a constant C is specific to the sector concerned. You can thus opt for a value of C of 4, which will mean that a fifth of the path to achieving the innovation problem concerns the time required to carry out a first internal test of a first sketch. As indicated below, this indicator is complemented by the one presenting the average rate of development of alternatives. It also depends on new variables and calculations: – NSASn +1(t), the number of solutions of A of type Sn +1, i.e. which are not first solutions given to a problem already treated by A, but which have been elaborated by A during t; – DASn +1(t), the duration of development by A during t of a solution of type n +1 developed at a time mn +1 with respect to a previous solution of type n developed at a previous time mn, DASn +1(t) = mn +1 (Sn +1 ) – mn (Sn); 3 Σ DA T1Sk1(t) is the sum of the test times of a first sketch processed during A during t, of all problems that do not have a first test or a first sketch before t and that have been processed by A during t.

System Mapping and Analysis

229

– aDASBSnSn +1(t), the average time between obtaining an Sn +1 solution obtained by A during t from a previous solution Sn answering the same problem; – aDASBSnSn +1(t) = Σ DASn +1(t)/NSASn +1 (t); – aVADAS, the average speed of activity A to develop alternatives to solutions; – aVADAS(t) = aDABSnSn +1(t)/(1/t). If this speed is zero, it simply means that no alternative solution to a solution already developed internally has been proposed during time period t. The use of these indicators and the recording in your knowledge base should allow you to easily recognize the moment an innovation problem is expressed, the moment a sketch is elaborated or identified to answer this problem, the moment it is tested and the moment a solution considered satisfactory is elaborated, as it solves at least 75% of the problem initially expressed and has been accepted by a minimal group of users or customers necessary for its commercial or organizational development. Above all, these indicators should be used to identify good practices internally by answering the following question: why was this solution developed faster than any other? This should allow for the sharing of good practices and not the artificial creation of time savings. These indicators will be difficult for you to use to compare yourself with your competitors, so they are only useful to compare your innovation processes according to the sector or field for which you are developing solutions. 7.2.1.3. Maneuverability of the system and its parts As recalled by this title, the last parameter of the system is associated with its maneuverability. We propose three indicators for your dashboard. The first indicator is very simple, it is the maneuverability improvement effort indicator (MIEI). It indicates the number of new models (NM) used (successfully or unsuccessfully) to perform activity A during the analysis period: MIEIA(t) = NMA(t) It is simply necessary that the value of this indicator be different from 0 to indicate an agility effort in time period t for activity A. This indicator is

230

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

to be associated with the average effort to improve system maneuverability during t (aEIM), which averages all agility efforts made with regard to the number n of activities considered: aEIM(t) = [Σ NM1→n(t)]/n The second indicator expresses the average maneuverability (aMan) of a system composed of n activities and therefore involves calculating the maneuverability of each activity such as the maneuverability of activity A (ManA). This indicator gives a value resulting from the calculation of the number of different models used in activity A (NMDUSA) that resulted in the development of a solution during t. The resulting number is then squared and divided by the total number of solutions in activity A during t (TNSA): – ManA (t) = [NMDUSA(t)]^2/TNSA(t); – aMan(t) = [Σ Man1→n(t)]/n. A model that has been successful for an activity is determined by following up the signal that indicates the end of one the activity’s sequences (most often a production that allows it to move to the next activity in the process). Thus, for an activity to be considered slightly agile, the ManA(t) indicator must be greater than 0.20. If an activity is performed less than six times for a given period t of time, you will need to increase the period analyzed. Otherwise, this indicator will become useless. It is not a question of wasting time by implementing several models that allow the same activity to be carried out at the expense of a single relevant and usual one, but of indicating whether occasionally an attempt to change a model is successfully carried out. The third indicator used to estimate the agility of an activity is the quickness of adaptation of activity A to different models (QADM), which we associate with the average speed of adaptation of the system (aQDM) indicator. It presents a value obtained by doing the following operation for a period of time t: average time required to use a model different from the main model of A (aTUDMPA) divided by the average time required to use the main model P (i.e. the most used model) to successfully perform activity A (aTUMPA): QADM(t) = aTUDMPA(t)/aTUMPA(t): – QADM(t) = aTUDMPA(t)/aTUMPA(t); – aQDM(t) = [Σ Q1→nDM(t)]/n.

System Mapping and Analysis

231

The objective is to try to make the value obtained with this indicator tend towards a value lower than 2. If there is no main model for an activity, you only have to consider as the main model, the model that has both the highest number of successes and the lowest average implementation time for the period analyzed. 7.2.2. Beyond the calculation of indicators If you do not like “complicated” calculations, you can still consider your system of creation and innovation using the concepts mentioned above. We will return to the aspects mentioned using the indicators above, but in a different way and order. 7.2.2.1. The production time of the system according to its input and output Overall, in the context of innovation production that is of interest to us here, a system presents a solution in the form of a service or product as its output and an objective expressed either as an innovation problem or as a desire to improve an already proposed product/service. In the second case, the process considered is generally shorter than the overall process, because it is a matter of estimating the time it takes your system to propose an improvement of the solution that serves as a starting point for reflection. You can do this by estimating your solutions one by one. Compared to what we have discussed in this chapter, it is therefore a question of going back to the sketch that was successfully tested and that led to the solution. You then have at least two pieces of information, the production test date of the sketch concerned and the date of confirmation of its success, i.e. the date from the solution sketch that was considered accepted by its public. We have mentioned above that we consider periods of time t of at least two years. Thus, we consider that the validation of the transformation of a sketch into a solution from its deployment (or marketing in a commercial context) requires a one-year delay. Of course, you can reduce this period to six months or less if you are in more seasonal markets. For the additional year that we add to the year needed to validate a solution, we need to give ourselves a unit of reflection and development time at least equivalent to the validation period. In cases where the entry of the system corresponds to the expression of an innovation objective, it is no longer a question of estimating the time required to develop alternatives to current solutions (i.e. those that were still

232

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

implemented in the previous period), but the time required to process the entire process. This process begins with the reference date of the first expression of the innovation problem as the reference date and ends, if successful, according to our proposal one year after its deployment to its audience and confirmation of success. 7.2.2.2. Maneuverability of the system’s activities At the heart of what we believe is the maneuverability of your innovation system is the identification of activities and reference models. We have already recalled the specificities of these two concepts in this chapter (section 7.2). To use them in the simplest way, all you have to do is to reason using the interpretation frameworks that we suggest you identify. For a given creativity or innovation process, it will be a matter of recognizing the different interpretation frameworks that it incorporates. In the case of the analysis of a creative process, you can even associate the whole process with a single framework if it is limited to the ideation activity. Among the components of the framework, the one involving recognition of the reference model(s) used is the most important. Since an activity is associated with only one group of individuals, if the latter always works in the same way with the same reference models, it can only result in a rigidification of your system at the level of the activity concerned. If there are several alternative models for carrying out an activity, only those that have been successfully used should be considered. There are then several possible cases. First, there are the idea productions of isolated individuals or small groups (such as pairs) versus the productions of larger groups and activities such as creative workshops. Another case is quite classic; it is the same individuals (and therefore the same groups) who use all the models and it is the context in which the activity is implemented or its objective that determines the model(s) used to produce a relevant response. To do this properly, it is therefore necessary to break this framework down into reference sub-frames whose activities will be of the same nature as the activity of the framework in which they are contained, but whose name will take up or summarize that of the main activity associated with specific conditions of its type context for the

System Mapping and Analysis

233

implementation of the activity and/or objective4. At this level, the reasoning is the same as before and amounts to asking the following question: is one of your sub-activities reduced to using a single reference model? Another case is not much more complicated than the one just mentioned. The recognized framework has several reference models to perform the same activity, but the implementation of each model depends on the individuals who perform the activity. As in the previous case, it is necessary to break this framework down into sub-frames whose names will reflect or resurrect those of the main activities associated with the profile of the groups (or subgroups) of people who implement them. In this case, what is important is not the fact that a group of people uses a single reference model to carry out an activity, but the frequency with which one group is solicited in relation to another. This means recognizing how many times a sub-framework of activity defined by the group implementing it has been active during the period in question. If it is essentially the same group with the same reference model that performs the activity, there is also a danger of your system becoming rigid in this activity. Another case that seems to us to be the best can also arise: different models are used by the same groups of people without depending on the cases treated or their context. The monitoring of the evolution of such frameworks will then consist of estimating whether, over time (three consecutive time periods, for example), the reference models used are still the same. The aim here is to see whether at least one reference model different from those previously used has been successfully used. You can also look at the frequency of use of models rarely used in the previous period. Similarly, you can identify those that have been abandoned and those that have seen their exploitation increase or decrease. A reference model may be considered different from other models if it differs from the model already in use, which is at least 33% closer to it in terms of the steps constituting the process5. On a case-by-case basis, a number of questions may be asked to understand the reasons for drop-outs, reductions or increases in frequency. 4 The available resources may also explain the choice of a model, but since resources are one of the four components of the interpretation framework, if there is a change in resources, there is a change in framework and the reasoning presented here can be repeated. 5 Most models can very quickly be considered distinct, but others can only be differentiated in terms of steps in a process or main parts of an artifact taken as a model.

234

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

The most important thing is to avoid stagnation of your system. If the reference models that allow the success of the activity are always the same over long periods of time, then your system may also become rigid in relation to the evolution of practices outside the group of individuals considered in this context. When analyzing an interpretive framework, the main elements to be questioned are: the activity implemented, the resources available, the individuals who carry it out and the models used. If we wish to avoid a loss of maneuverability of the system in the sense that we have expressed above, it is necessary that each of the main components of the framework, with the possible exception of resources, evolve over time. The premise behind this reasoning is simple. To avoid a process as a series of activities losing its agility, it is necessary that it is not always the same people who are responsible for solving them and the same models who are solicited. The worst case being that this configuration is systematically implemented (the same people solve the same type of problem, always using the same reference models to perform an activity in the same way with the same resources). Here we find the interest of renewing teams over time, and also of changing the resources available, because they can influence practices, while the search for alternative reference models to carry out an activity must be the subject of continuous research by the teams. This is why it is important to monitor it (see Chapter 3) and to have a memory of the models and practices previously identified or practiced in order to (re)use them at least occasionally. Another variable that can be associated with the maneuverability of the system is the speed with which its teams adapt to use new models. We have proposed a way to calculate the corresponding speed. However, if we look at it in general terms, it means identifying the teams, and therefore the managers, in which it is interesting. Thus, we consider this interest, from the moment an activity has been successfully implemented, during the period concerned, at least six times. If no alternative reference model has been successfully used, the adaptation speed of this team for the activity concerned is zero. If we do not enter into the calculations, we can say that its inclusion is limited to comparing the number of successes for the period in question with the number of different reference models that have been successfully used by the same people with the same resources to carry out this activity. If you see more than one model being used, it will be a matter of looking at whether it was the first time it was used successfully. If this is the case, you

System Mapping and Analysis

235

will need to know how long it took to be successfully used, which may also be put into perspective with its similarity or difference with one of the models already successfully used by this team. We have mentioned above (section 7.2.1) the defensive routines of individuals reported by C. Argyris as cognitive mechanisms implemented to defend against change [ARG 94]. This means that for change to take place, individuals who need to implement it must understand its value and not see the integration of new ways of doing things or resources as adding inappropriate and disruptive elements to their current practices. If you want the maneuverability of an activity or system to improve, for example in terms of the reference models used, it will be necessary for the people involved to understand the value of trying new approaches and developing creative and innovative practices over time. They must recognize that even though an approach is very effective, it must be confronted from time to time with an alternative approach. This keeps up it to date with new practices and increases the capacity of those involved to adapt to paradigm shifts. The study of the maneuverability of your system is done to identify activities that need to be modified in terms of the composition of the groups of individuals performing them, the resources made available to them and above all to encourage them to change their way of doing things from time to time. This means trying to prevent your creativity and innovation system from becoming a quasi-automated production system as if it were simply an assembly line in which the majority of individuals are mechanically involved to perform their task without ever changing their habits. It is obvious that when the need to change its practices requires, the closer your system is to an assembly line, the less easy it will be to change it. In fact, it will often be easier to deconstruct and rethink everything if the time available to the company to adapt still allows it. 7.2.2.3. The system’s level of strategic freedom of innovation We saw some aspects that we considered very important for an innovation system to be and remain agile in its practices. We still have to consider in a similar way the strategic aspect of innovation. To do this, we are interested in the solutions produced by the system. As presented in section 7.2.1.1, once the solutions are recognized as such, you must classify them. With regard to the section on indicator calculation, we will content

236

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

ourselves here with a ranking model consisting of six categories of solutions. It is a matter of classifying them according to the differences and progress that distinguish a solution from another solution previously produced by your company or a competing organization. Here are the six categories we propose: 1) incremental improvements (some aspects already present in the previous solution have been improved or added that do not fundamentally change the presentation, operation, architecture or audience to which the previous solution is addressed); 2) minor architectural transformations (some aspects already present have been rethought or eliminated and others may have been added involving at least one change in the architecture of the previous solution, all of these modifications representing less than 33% of changes in the architecture of the previous solution6); 3) major architectural transformations (these are solutions with less than five main parts that required the transformation of at least 50% of the architecture of the previous solution or solutions with at least five main parts that required the transformation of at least 25% of the architecture of the previous solution); 4) target changes (some aspects of a previous solution have been redesigned to satisfy an audience that was not affected by the previous solution, but represents at least 20% of the public’s users/customers of the previous solution in terms of number of people7); 5) solutions combining major architectural transformations and target change (i.e. solutions that can be classified into categories 3 and 4); 6) other innovations. The usefulness of this classification is simple. First, you need to estimate the distribution of your new solutions (those that have been validated as successful one year after their deployment during the period in question). Then, it is a question of identifying whether the system has produced at least 6 To estimate this percentage, you can count the number of major parts of the new solution that, compared to the previous solution, have been removed, added, relocated, or reduced or increased in size by at least half. 7 Solutions of this type that can also fall into categories 1 and 2 are only assigned to this category, which is considered to be more important.

System Mapping and Analysis

237

one solution that does not fall into the category of incremental innovations. If this is not the case, it is obvious that you are very dependent on environmental changes and therefore on the innovations of other actors. You do not have the initiative, which in our air combat metaphor is not a good sign. In this case, if this is your way of doing things, you will need a highperformance strategic monitoring system and significant capacity to adapt your production system. If your solutions fall into at least two categories, it means that from time to time you try to take the initiative over your competitors. In this case, you need to consider whether, with one or two exceptions, your solutions do not fall into only two categories. We have proposed above the calculation of an indicator of the degree of strategic freedom of innovation of your system. Here you can reduce it to the number of categories in which your latest solutions fell and remove 1 from that number. A degree of strategic freedom of innovation of zero will therefore indicate that your solutions all belong to the same category. Of course, since this is an approach based on solution analysis, you will be able to compare your latest solutions with those of your competitors and therefore the degree of strategic freedom of innovation of the latter compared to yours. This way of doing things, if you have the means, will also allow you to monitor the innovation categories developed in a sector, which will also imply identifying whether categories are under-represented; these will be strategic innovation avenues that will allow you to take the initiative in this sector.

Conclusion

Making an organization innovative is not a simple problem, but it seems that keeping it the same is even more complex. In line with the work of C.M. Christensen [CHR 00], we consider the significant risk for the company of locking itself into routines, which constitutes a dilemma for innovation. At the enterprise level, all individuals and sources employed contribute to the production of innovations, as defined by the network actor theory [LAT 05], but it is good to introduce novelty into the system to make it evolve. Improving the observation processes that aim to react to changes in the company’s environment is an important issue, shared by all its stakeholders. The same must apply to activities that generate new ideas and translate them into useful productions. The flow of information, knowledge and ideas should not be too linear, and at times follow erratic and chaotic paths, in a positive sense close to a liberation, an unexpected creation and not the increase of a more important disorder within the processes of the organization (except possibly with regard to the activities specific to the ideation). The mapping and analysis of a product innovation system must be able to provide information beyond a simple understanding that can be provided by the census, the breakdown (section 2.3) and the visualization of frameworks and therefore of territories submitted and generating flows (of ideas, information, knowledge, possible solutions, resources, etc.) (section 4.4.2). It is a question of perceiving whether small flows sometimes also occur, whether traffic does not always occur via the same channels and whether the system has not become fragile under the effect of routines. In this sense, unexpected environmental change can occur and cause acute stress within the organization. S. Cros and B. True [CRO 18] showed that routines developed within an organization for crisis resolution purposes Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

240

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

were a very strong advantage for “classic” crises (the management of a major storm that will affect a city based on the 1999 storm model). In these cases, a crisis exercise does not cause a real state of acute stress for managers and other personnel targeted by this type of exercise. Indeed, they are often very well prepared for this type of rare, but expected, event, because it is present in recent history or is one of the cases traditionally mentioned and worked on in training. The organizational routines used are application routines, i.e. the implementation of procedures already planned. It is necessary to test the management of this type of crisis in order to know whether organizational dysfunctions appear in its management, but this cannot be enough. It is also necessary for the organization to develop routines for adapting to new and unexpected situations. As part of a crisis management exercise for a city, S. Cros and B. True [CRO 18] highlighted the emergence of acute stress in managers who could very well manage a storm, when the proposed crisis scenario was much more original, like that of an asteroid crashing into the city. This explains why Pentagon officials considered it necessary to prepare for a zombie attack on the United States [CHA 14]1. If, in crisis prevention and therefore crisis simulation frameworks, exercises involving a form of creativity are sometimes called for, the same should apply to innovation systems. The aim would be to anticipate and prepare for environmental changes with significant impacts in order to better react to events of an equivalent nature and thus avoid reacting by applying, in the absence of more relevant alternatives, known routines that are unsuitable for the situation at hand. For the company’s innovation system, the danger comes mainly from disruptive innovations that may appear in its activity sector. However, by definition, as a disruptive innovation, the innovation concerned will go against the habits of the sector. Both the monitoring system and the decision-makers concerned within the company may initially be blind to the emergence of disruptive innovation. As the signals and indicators of its development become more important, information about it will be widely disseminated as an already late “alert”. Nevertheless, decision-makers will only be able to become aware of the reality of this appearance with an even longer delay. If we add to this process of discovering and implementing a process of reaction to this innovation the problem of implementing innovation routines that are not adapted to the new 1 See, for example, [BEN 16]: https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/pentagon-zombie-apocalypsetraining-plan-2016-3.

Conclusion

241

situation, the company will have to face a global crisis situation. We presented the metaphor of air combat as a dogfight innovation space (section 1.3.2) to highlight the dangers for an organization of always acting according to the same rules. If the innovation models and processes implemented are standards, it is necessary to know in advance whether these standards allow rapid adaptation to a new situation linked to the appearance of a disruptive innovation or an equally unexpected rapid legislative change and to the negative and significant consequences. Moreover, for an innovation system, this type of exercise to be carried out occasionally (once a year or every two years) can help to bring out ideas and solutions that are as original as they are relevant within the organization. It will not simply be a preparation for a situation that may never arise, or only an addition to the knowledge to be stored, and also an opportunity to develop a disruptive innovation internally. As with the exercises of Pentagon or S. Cros and B. True, you can find examples of creative crisis situations in the fields of science fiction and fantasy. So, if you cannot imagine, for example, a disruptive technology, you can replace it with something magical or super-innovative (at least 20 years ahead of its development). Here are some examples: – a company has just launched humanoid robots on the market which are three times stronger than an adult person, with GPS and sufficient intelligence to help anyone carry packages or furniture, clean, repair plumbing, etc.; – by next month, shoes that allow people to move effortlessly, using air cushions, at a speed of 8 km/h, will be sold online; – a headset for exchanging information by telepathy at a distance of 2 km has just been presented in a trade show; – a new form of hypnosis allows any person to effortlessly memorize the equivalent of two hours of lectures in just 10 minutes; – the US government will ban the sale of all products with plastic or wood components starting next year. You can always use a creativity session to imagine the main elements leading to the sudden appearance of a disruptive innovation in one of the markets close to those of your company or institution. The important thing, as we have discussed throughout this book, is to ensure that a form of

242

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

organizational agility takes place in your innovation processes. As, for example, K. Ashton clearly stated [ASH 16, pp. 246–247], it is necessary to “place action above speech, to discuss less, to plan less and to try different approaches many times, to show more than to organize.”

Bibliography

[ACA 18] ACADEMIE FRANÇAISE, Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 9th edition, available at: http://www.academie-francaise.fr/le-dictionnaire/la-9e-edition, 2018. [ACK 89] ACKOFF R.L., “From data to wisdom”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, vol. 16, pp. 3–9, 1989. [AFN 98] AFNOR, “La norme XP X50-053. Prestation de veille et mise en place d’un système de veille”, in HERMEL L. (ed.), Maîtriser et pratiquer la veille stratégique, AFNOR, Paris, 1998. [AGA 07] AGARWAL A., SHANKAR R., TIWAR M.K., “Modeling agility of supply chain”, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 443–457, 2007. [AHM 12] AHMAD W., Contribution à une meilleure maîtrise des processus créatifs en co-conception: cas de l’ameublement en architecture, PhD thesis, Université de Lorraine, 2012. [ALT 04] ALTSHULLER G., 40 principes d’innovation: TRIZ pour toutes applications, Éditions A. Seredinski, Paris, 2004. [ALT 06] ALTSHULLER G., Et soudain apparut l’inventeur: les idées de TRIZ, Éditions A. Seredinski, Paris, 2006. [AMA 88] AMABILE T., “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 10, pp. 123–167, 1988. [ANZ 81] ANZIEU D., Le corps de l’œuvre, Gallimard, Paris, 1981. [ARG 94] ARGYRIS C., “Good communication that blocks learning”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 77–85, 1994. [ASH 16] ASHTON K., Comment faire voler un cheval? L’histoire secrète de la création, l’invention et la découverte, De Boeck supérieur, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2016.

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

244

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[ASS 10] ASSELINEAU A., “Quand un ‘cas d’école’ d’innovation stratégique est un échec…”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 4, pp. 71–83, 2010. [BAR 88] BARRON F., “Putting creativity to work”, in STERNBERG R.J. (ed.), Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 76-98, 1988. [BAR 98] BARTHELMÉ F., ERMINE J.L., ROSENTHAL-SABROUX C., “An architecture for knowledge evolution in organisations”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 414–427, 1998. [BAR 01] BARKI H., PINSONNEAULT A., “Small group brainstorming and idea quality: is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach?”, Small Group Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 158–205, 2001. [BAR 13] BARBIER J.Y., VIALA C., “Les apports de l'intrapreneuriat à la modélisation de la créativité organisationnelle”, Humanisme et Entreprise, vol. 3, pp. 65–86, 2013. [BAS 17] BASES, “Entre outils gratuits et outils payants, quelles nouvelles méthodes efficaces de veille et de recherche sur le Web visible et invisible?”, Bases, vol. 347, pp. 5–7, 2017. [BÉG 07] BEGUIN P., “Innovation et cadre sociocognitif des interactions concepteurs-opérateurs: une approche développementale”, Le Travail Humain, vol. 70, pp. 369–390, 2007. [BEH 12] BEHUE J., “Généalogie de l’innovateur”, Annales des Mines – Gérer et comprendre, vol. 4, pp. 34–42, 2012. [BEL 00] BELLENGER L., COUCHAERE M.-J., Les techniques de questionnement: poser et se poser les bonnes questions, ESF Éditeur, Issy-les-Moulineaux, 2000. [BEN 98] BENYUS M.J., Biomimétisme: Quand la nature inspire des innovations durables, Éditions Rue de l’Échiquier, Paris, 1998. [BEN 16] BENDER J., “The Pentagon has an actual plan for the zombie apocalypse”, Business Insider France, 2016. [BER 99] BERTIN J., Sémiologie graphique: Les diagrammes – Les réseaux – Les cartes, Éditions Gauthiers-Villars, Paris, 1999. [BER 10] BERSANO G., Créer Le Futur Avec Triz Et L'Innovation Systématique, Marston Gate, 2010. [BOD 96] BODEN M., Dimension of Creativity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. [BON 87] DE BONO E., Lateral Thinking for Management, Penguin Books, London, 1987. [BON 13] DE BONO E., La boîte à outils de la créativité, Eyrolles, Paris, 2013.

Bibliography

245

[BOU 13] BOUTILLIER S., UZINIDIS D., “Entrepreneurs historiques de l’industrie du luxe et innovation permanente”, Innovations, vol. 2, pp. 91–115, 2013. [BOY 17] BOYER C., “Les 20 qualités qui séduisent le plus les recruteurs”, Les Échos Start, 2017, available at: https://start.lesechos.fr/rejoindre-une-entreprise/ actu-recrutement/les-20-qualites-qui-seduisent-le-plus-les-recruteurs-7434.php. [BRA 58] BRADDOCK R., “An extension of the “Lasswell formula”, Journal of Communication, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 88–93, 1958. [BRE 96] BRETON P., L’argumentation dans la communication, La Découverte, Paris, 1996. [BRI 04] BRIN C., CHARRON J., DE BONVILLE J., Nature et transformation du journalisme: théorie et recherches empiriques, Presses Université Laval, Laval, 2004. [BRI 17a] BRION S., MOTHE C., “Le contexte organisationnel favorable à l’innovation ambidextre”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 3, pp. 101–115, 2017. [BRI 17b] BRITTON G., Co-design and Social Innovation: Connections, Tensions and Opportunities, Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames, 2017. [BRO 09] BROWN T., Change by Design. How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, Harper Business, New York, 2009. [BRO 15] BROCA S., CORIAT B., “Le logiciel libre et les communs: deux formes de résistance et d’alternative à l’exclusivisme propriétaire”, Revue internationale de droit économique, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 265–284, 2015. [BRU 91] BRUNER J., “The narrative construction of reality”, Critical Inquiry, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 1991. [BRU 15] BRUNET L., “Créativité en ingénierie”, Techniques de l’ingénieur, pp. 1–17, 10 January 2015. [BUR 13] BURGER-HELMCHEN T., “La créativité entre innovation et connaissances”, Économie et Management, vol. 148, pp. 5–10, 2013. [BUZ 74] BUZAN T., Use Both Sides of Your Brain, E.P. Dutton & Company, Inc. 1974. [BUZ 10] BUZAN T., BUZAN B., HARRISON J., The Mind Map Book: Unlock Your Creativity, Boost Your Memory, Change Your Life, Pearson BBC Active, New York, 2010. [CAH 02] CAHOUR B., “Décalages socio-cognitifs en réunions de conception participative”, Le travail humain, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 315–337, 2002.

246

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[CAL 06] CALLON M., “Sociologie de l’acteur réseau”, in AKRICH M., CALLON M., LATOUR B. (eds), Sociologie de la traduction: textes fondateurs, pp. 267–276, Presses des Mines, Paris, 2006. [CAN 17] CANET F., “La veille ordinaire en ligne: une pratique informationnelle en émergence”, I2D – Information, données & documents, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 70–79, 2017. [CAR 11] CARRIER C., CADIEUX L., TREMBLAY M., “Créativité et génération collective d’opportunités. Quelles techniques pour supporter l’idéation?”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 7, no. 206, pp. 113–127, 2011. [CAT 07] CATRY B., “Le luxe peut être cher, mais est-il toujours rare?”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 2, pp. 49–63, 2007. [CAV 99] CAVALLUCCI D., “L’entreprise industrielle”, Techniques de l’ingénieur, vol. 2, pp. 1–18, 1999. [CHA 13] CHASSAGNON V., HANED N., “Comment stimuler des projets d’innovation environnementale?”, Gestion, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 45–53, 2013. [CHA 14] CHAUVET A., “Le Pentagone a un (vrai) plan en cas d’attaque de zombies”, 20 minutes, available at: https://www.20minutes.fr/insolite/1375113-20140514 -pentagone-vrai-plan-cas-attaque-zombies, 2014. [CHE 03] CHESBROUGH H., Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Brighton, 2003. [CHE 09] CHEN C.J., HUANG J.W., “Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance – The mediating role of knowledge management capacity”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 104–114, 2009. [CHO 83] CHOFFRAY J.-M., DOREY F., Développement et gestion des produits nouveaux, concepts, méthodes et applications, McGraw-Hill, Paris, 1983. [CHR 00] CHRISTENSEN C.M., The Innovator’s Dilemna, HarperCollins, New York, 2000. [CHR 01] CHRISTIE A., Cinq heures vingt-cinq, Le Livre de Poche, Paris, 2001. [CHR 12] CHRISTIE A., La Mystérieuse affaire de Styles, Le Masque, Paris, 2012. [CIT 12] CITTONN Y., “Traiter les données: entre économie de l’attention et mycélium de la signification”, Multitudes, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 143–149, 2012. [COL 13] COLAS R., Comment, par l’écoute, améliorer la compétitivité de votre entreprise?, Société des écrivains, Paris, 2013.

Bibliography

247

[COL 14] COLLET L., “Dispositif discursif visant l’énonciation d’idées nouvelles en innovation : les règles d’écriture des récits d’usage”, Cahiers de Narratologie. Analyse et théorie narratives, no. 26, 2014. [COL 16] COLLINS K., Nature of Investing: Resilient Investment Strategies through Biomimicry, Bibliomotion, Brookline, 2016. [COM 18] COMI A., WHYTE J., “Future making and visual artefacts: an ethnographic study of a design project”, Organization Studies, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1055–83, 2018. [COR 02] CORAM R., BOYD: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, Back Bay Books, New York, 2002. [COR 12] CORBEL J.C., Management de projet: fondamentaux, méthodes, outils, Eyrolles, Paris, 2012. [CRO 18] CROS S., VRAIE B., “De l’intérêt des serious games comme méthode de restitution des apprentissages, sous stress aigu, en crise”, Management & Avenir, vol. 4, pp. 51–66, 2018. [DAR 96] DARSES F., FALZON P., “La conception collective: une approche de l’ergonomie cognitive”, Coopération et conception, pp. 123–135, 1996. [DAV 01] DAVENPORT T.H., BECK J.C., The Attention Economy: Understanding The New Currency of Business, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2001. [DAV 11] DAVIES M., “Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?”, Higher Education, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 279–301, 2011. [DEB 14] DEBLIQUY P.-Y., Chercher n’est pas trouver: outils, méthodes et stratégies à l’usage de ceux pour qui l’information compte, Edipro, Liège, 2014. [DEG 99] DEGRYSE L., “La loi des contrastes comme principe de la créativité artistique”, Le Philosophoire, vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 129–132, 1999. [DEH 15] DEHOORNE O., THENG S., “Étudier le luxe”, Études caribéennes, vol. 30, 2015. [DEL 15] DELL’AQUILA I., JAOUI H., 66 techniques créatives pour animateurs et formateurs, Éditions EMS Management et Sociétés, Cormelles-Le-Royal, 2015. [DEN 89] DENIS M., Image et cognition, Presses Universitaires de France, 1989. [DES 11] DESCHAMPS C., MOINET N., La boîte à outils de l’intelligence économique, Dunod, Paris, 2011. [DES 12] DESMARETZ G., Le renseignement humain, infiltration, recrutement, empiégeage, manipulation, trahison, Chiron, Paris, 2012.

248

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[DES 13] DESMARETZ G., Le renseignement opérationnel: espionnage, criminalité, affaires réservées…, Chiron, Paris, 2013. [DOU 15] DOU H., L’intelligence économique à l’heure du Jugaad: intelligence économique et innovation frugale, CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, 2015. [DRE 14] DRECQ V., Pratiques de management de projet: 40 outils et techniques pour prendre la bonne décision, Dunod, Paris, 2014. [DRE 17] DRECQ V., Pratiques de management de projet: 46 outils et techniques pour prendre la bonne décision, 2nd ed., Dunod, Paris, 2017. [DRU 16] DRU J.-M., NEW: 15 approches disruptives de l’innovation, Pearson, Paris, 2016. [DUN 45] DUNCKER K., LEES L.S., “On problem-solving”, Psychological Monographs, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. i–113, 1945. [DUP 14] DUPIN P., Le lean appliqué à la construction: comment optimiser la gestion de projet et réduire coûts et délais dans le bâtiment, Eyrolles, Paris, 2014. [DUR 06] DURAND R., “Créativité organisationnelle”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 161, pp. 91–94, 2006. [ERM 14] ERMINE J.-L., LIEVRE P., PARAPONARIS P., GUITTARD C., “Un état francophone du champ du management des connaissances: la communauté GeCSO”, Management & Avenir, vol. 1, no. 67, pp. 56–77, 2014. [EWE 09] EWENSTEIN B., WHYTE J., “Knowledge practices in design: the role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’”, Organization Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 07–30, 2009. [EYC 17] EYCHENNE Y., STRONG C., Uberisez votre entreprise: comment créer de la valeur avec les plateformes digitales?, Dunod, Paris, 2017. [FAY 12] FAYON D., ALLOING C., Développer sa présence sur Internet: concevoir et déployer une stratégie sur les médias sociaux, Dunod, Paris, 2012. [FEN 08] FENN J., RASKINO M., Mastering the Hype Cycle: How to Choose the Right Innovation at the Right Time, Harvard Business Press, Brighton, 2008. [FER 10] FERIOLI M., DEKONINCK E., CULLEY S., ROUSSEL B., RENAUD J., “Understanding rapid evaluation of innovative ideas in early stages of design”, International Journal of Design Engineering (IJDE), vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 67–83, 2010. [FER 17] FERNEZ-WALCH S., ROMON F., Management de l’innovation: de la stratégie aux projets, Vuibert, Paris, 2017.

Bibliography

249

[FLI 07] FLICHY P., Understanding Technological Innovation: A Socio-technical Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2007. [FOS 13] FOSTER J., The Story of Cluedo: How Anthony Pratt Invented the Game of Murder Mystery, Inventive Publishing, York, 2013. [FRE 00] FRERY F., “Un cas d’amnésie stratégique: l’éternelle émergence de la voiture électrique”, Actes de la IXe conférence internationale de management stratégique, pp. 1–18, Montpellier, France, 2000. [FRO 07] FROMILHAGUE C., Les figures de style, Armand Colin, Paris, 2007. [GAL 15] GALVEZ D., “Un outil pour mesurer la capacité d’innovation: l’indice d’innovation potentielle”, in CAMMARO M., BOLY V., MOREL L. (eds), Mesurer l’innovation en entreprise: un levier essentiel pour la réussite des projets innovants, Presses universitaires de Lorraine, Nancy, pp. 29–74, 2015. [GAR 74] GARFIELD P., La créativité onirique: du rêve ordinaire au rêve lucide, La Table ronde, Paris, 1974. [GAR 04] GARFIELD E., “Systematic serendipity: finding the undiscovered answers to science questions”, Medical Ignorance Collaboratory, 2004, available at: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/az072004.pdf. [GER 05] GERONIMI A., VRIES E., PRUDHOMME G., BAILLE J., “Objets intermédiaires dans une situation de conception en technologie avec CAO au collège”, ASTER, vol. 41, pp. 115–137, 2005. [GIB 12] GIBOIN B., La boîte à outils de la stratégie, Dunod, Paris, 2012. [GIL 10] GILLIER T., PIAT G., ROUSSEL B., TRUCHOT P., “Managing innovation fields in a cross-industry partnership with C-K design theory”, Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 883–896, 2010. [GIL 16] GILLET M., DE MAILLARD T., Animer une séance de créativité, Dunod, Paris, 2016. [GOF 74] GOFFMAN E., Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Harper & Row, New York, 1974. [GOF 91] GOFFMAN E., Les cadres de l’expérience, (1974), Minuit, Paris, 1991. [GOF 16] GOFFIN K., MITCHELL R., Innovation Management: Effective Strategy and Implementation, Macmillan International Higher Education, London, 2016. [GOO 86] GOODY J., La logique de l’écriture: aux origines des sociétés humaines, A. Colin, 1986. [GOR 17] GORIA S., Methods and Tools for Creative Competitive Intelligence, ISTE Ltd., London and John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2017.

250

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[GOR 19] GORIA S., “Inventory of interpretation frames as a methodological tool to analyze the elements acquired or produced during an innovation process”, Technology and innovation, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2019. [GOT 17] GOTTELAND D., HAON C., BOULE J.-M., L’innovation: de l’idée au lancement, Dunod, Paris, 2017. [GUI 67] GUILFORD J.P., The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. [GUI 14] GUILLOT A., MEYER J.-A., Poulpe fiction: quand l’animal inspire l’innovation, Dunod, Paris, 2014. [HAR 08] HARRELL M., “No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical-thinking skills”, Teaching Philosophy, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 351–374, 2008. [HAT 01] HATCHUEL A., “Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon”, Journal of Management and Governance, vol. 5, nos 3–4, pp. 260–273, 2001. [HAT 02] HATCHUEL A., WEIL B., “La théorie C-K: fondements et usages d’une théorie unifiée de la conception”, Colloque “Sciences de la conception”, Lyon, France, 2002. [HAT 07] HATCHUEL A., WEIL B., “Design as forcing: deepening the foundations of CK theory. Guidelines for a decision support method adapted to NPD processes”, Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED’07, Paris, France, pp. 28–31, 2007. [HAU 16] HAUDEVILLE B., LE BAS C., “L’innovation frugale, paradigme technologique naissant ou nouveau modèle d’innovation?”, Innovations, vol. 3, pp. 9–25, 2016. [HEN 98] HENDERSON K., “The role of material objects in the design process: a comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 139–74, 1998. [HER 13] HERNANDEZ E.-M., REDIEN-COLLOT R., “Méthodes de créativité et amélioration des projets entrepreneuriaux: présentation d’une expérimentation dans un contexte académique”, Gestion, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 93–114, 2013. [HUS 16] HUSSLER C., BURGER-HELMCHEN T., “Inversée, vous avez dit inversée? – Une typologie stratégique de l’innovation inversée”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 42, no. 255, pp. 105–119, 2016. [HUT 95] HUTCHINS, E., Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press, 1995.

Bibliography

251

[IAN 04] IANSITI M., LEVIEN R., “Strategy as ecology”, Harvard Business Review, March issue, pp. 68–78, 2004. [IBE 09] IBERT J., “Richard R. Nelson et Sidney G. Winter – La théorie évolutionniste de la firme: routines, sélection et recherche d’innovation”, in CHARREIRE S., HUAULT I. (eds), Les grands auteurs en management, Éditions EMS Management et Sociétés, Cormelles-Le-Royal, pp. 257–273, 2009. [IBM 10] IBM (INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS VALUE), “Capitalizing On complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study”, available at: www.ibm.com/capitalizingoncomplexity, 2010. [JAK 06] JAKOBIAK F., L’intelligence économique: la comprendre, l’implanter, l’utiliser, Éditions d’Organisation, Paris, 2006. [JAO 94] JAOUI H., Créatifs au quotidien. Outils et méthodes, Éditions Hommes et Perspectives, Marseille, 1994. [JAO 96] JAOUI H., La créativité mode d’emploi: connaissances du problème, applications pratiques, ESF Éditeur, Issy-les-Moulineaux, 1996. [JAO 08] JAOUI H., DELL’AQUILA I., 66 techniques créatives pour animateurs et formateurs, Éditions EMS Management et Sociétés, Cormelles-Le-Royal, 2008. [JON 72] JONES T.P., Creative Learning Perspectives, University of London Press, London, 1972. [JOU 00] JOUET J., “Retour critique sur la sociologie des usages”, Réseaux, vol. 18, no. 100, pp. 487–521, 2000. [KAP 12] KAPFERER J.-N., BASTIEN V., Luxe Oblige, Eyrolles, Paris, 2012. [KAT 09] KATTAN A., La réalité virtuelle immersive comme outil de représentation dans le processus de design. Application au programme INTERREG: Design dans la ville, PhD thesis, Université de Lorraine, 2009. [KAW 91] KAWAKITA, J., The Original KJ Method, Kawakita Research Institute, Tokyo, 1991. [KIM 08] KIM W.C., MAUBORGNE R., Stratégie océan bleu: comment créer de nouveaux espaces stratégiques, Pearson, Paris, 2008. [KIM 17] KIM W.C., MAUBORGNE R., Cap sur l’océan bleu: au-delà de la concurrence, Pearson, Paris, 2017. [KLI 13] KLIMCZAK E., Design for Software: A Playbook for Developers, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2013. [KOE 89] KOESTLER A., The Act of Creation, Arkana, London, 1989.

252

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[KOE 11] KOESTLER A., Le cri d’Archimède: l’art de la découverte et la découverte de l’art, Éditions Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 2011. [KOR 07] KORZYBSKI, A., KOHN D., DE MOURA M. et al., Une carte n’est pas le territoire : prolégomènes aux systèmes non-aristotéliciens et à la sémantique générale, Ed. de l’Eclat. DL, Paris, 2007 [KU 14] KU K.Y., LAI E.C., HAU K.T., “Epistemological beliefs and the effect of authority on argument – counterargument integration: an experiment”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 13, pp. 67–79, 2014. [LAC 01] LACOSTE M., “Peut-on travailler sans communiquer”, Langage et travail, pp. 21–53, 2001. [LAH 85] LAHLOU S., “Le nouveau produit: un concept flou”, Consommation, vol. 3, pp. 49–56, 1985. [LAS 48] LASSWELL H.D., “The structure and function of communication in society”, The Communication of Ideas, vol. 37, pp. 215–228, 1948. [LAT 05] LATOUR B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-NetworkTheory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. [LEL 10] LELONG B., GAYOSO É., “Innovation avec l’usager et plateformes collaboratives”, Réseaux, vol. 6, pp. 97–126, 2010. [LER 15] LERCH C., BURGER-HELMCHEN T., “La créativité décentralisée: le cas d’une entreprise industrielle personnalisant ses produits”, Innovations, vol. 3, no. 48, pp. 107–127, 2015. [LEW 01] LEWKOWICZ M., ZACKLAD M., “Rationalisation of decision-making processes in design teams with a new formalism of design rationale”, AI & Society, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 396–408, 2001. [LID 11] LIDWELL W., HOLDEN K., BUTLER J., Principes universels de design, Eyrolles, Paris, 2011. [LIE 10] LIEFOOGHE C., “Économie créative et développement des territoires: enjeux et perspectives de recherche”, Innovations, vol. 1, pp. 181–197, 2010. [LIK 32] LIKERT R., “A technique for the measurement of attitudes”, Archives of Psychology, vol. 140, pp. 1–55, 1932. [LIK 09] LIKER J.K., Le modèle Toyota: 14 principes qui feront la réussite de votre entreprise, Pearson, Paris, 2009. [LOI 13] LOILLIER T., TELLIER A., Gestion de l’innovation: comprendre le processus d’innovation pour le piloter, Éditions EMS Management et Sociétés, Cormelles-Le-Royal, 2013.

Bibliography

253

[LOU 13] LOUP-ESCANDE É., BURKHARDT J.M., RICHIR S., “Anticiper et évaluer l’utilité dans la conception ergonomique des technologies émergentes : une revue”, Le travail humain, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 27–55, 2013. [LUB 94] LUBART T.I., “Creativity”, in R.J. STERNBERG (ed.), Thinking and Problem Solving, Academic Press, New York, pp. 289–332, 1994. [MA 15] MA F., “Information communication”, Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–121, 2015. [MAC 65] MACKINNON D.W., “Personality and the realization of creative potential”, American Psychologist, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 273–281, 1965. [MAC 78] MACKINNON D.W., In Search of Human Effectiveness: Identifying and Developing Creativity, Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, New York, 1978. [MAG 06] MAGAKIAN J.-L., “La créativité à la croisée de trois démarches: fonctionnalisme, enactment, poétique”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 32, no. 161, pp. 155–167, 2006. [MAR 09] MARTIN D.W., “Computer-assisted argument mapping: a rationale approach”, Higher Education, vol. 58, no. 6, p. 799, 2009. [MAT 16] MATTHIEU F., HILLEN V., Le design thinking par la pratique: de la rencontre avec l’utilisateur à la commercialisation d’un produit innovant pour les seniors, Eyrolles, Paris, 2016. [MAX 06] MAXANT O., ROUSSEL B., PIAT G., “C4 Innovation Method”, in CORSI P. et al. (eds), Innovation Engineering, the Power of Tangible Networks, ISTE, London, 2006. [MCI 12] MCINTYRE P., “Constraining and enabling creativity: the theoretical ideas surrounding creativity, agency and structure”, The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–61, 2012. [MED 62] MEDNICK S., “The associative bias of the creative process”, Psychological Review, vol. 69, pp. 220–232, 1962. [MEG 17] MEGAHED N.A., “Origami folding and its potential for architecture students”, The Design Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 279–297, 2017. [MER 95] MER S., JEANTET A., TICHKIEWITCH S., “Les objets intermédiaires de la conception: modélisation et communication”, Le communicationnel pour concevoir, pp. 21–41, 1995. [MIC 16] MICHEL H., Jouez l’innovation: la méthode de cubification, Pearson, Paris, 2016.

254

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[MIL 86] MILES L.D., Comment appliquer l’analyse de la valeur pour réduire vos coûts et améliorer la qualité des produits et des services, Éditions de l’entreprise, Strasbourg, 1986. [MIL 16] MILLIER P., L’étude des marchés qui n’existent pas encore: une méthode spécifique et robuste pour lancer vos innovations, Eyrolles, Paris, 2016. [MIS 01] MISA T.J., “The electric car and the burden of history”, Business History Review, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 207–210, 2001. [MOO 96] MOORE J.F., The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems, Harper Business, New York, 1996. [NEL 02] NELSON R.R., WINTER S.G., “Evolutionary theorizing in economics”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 23–46, 2002. [NOB 89] NOBLE D., HORST W., RITTEL J., Issue-Based Information Systems for Design, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, 1989. [NON 97] NONAKA I., TAKEUCHI H., La connaissance créatrice: la dynamique de l’entreprise apprenante, De Boeck & Larcier, Brussels, 1997. [NOV 08] NOVAK J.D., CAÑAS A.J., The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008. [OEC 05] OECD, Manuel d’Oslo: principes directeurs proposés pour le recueil et l’interprétation des données sur l’innovation technologique, Éditions de l’OECD, Paris, 2005. [OHN 12] OHNO T., Taiichi Ohno’s Workplace Management: Special 100th. Birthday Edition, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, 2012. [OLD 96] OLDHAM G., CUMMINGS A., “Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 607–634, 1996. [OSB 88] OSBORN A.F., Créativité : l’imagination constructive, Dunod, Paris, 1988. [PIA 36] PIAGET J., La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant, Delachaux et Niestlé, Lonay, 1936. [PIR 16] PIROLLI F., “Une approche informationnelle de la médiation des savoirs dans les organisations : médiations documentaires et pratiques informationnelles”, Communication et Organisation, vol. 49, pp. 33–41, 2016. [PRA 05] PRAX J.-Y., BUISSON B., SILBERZAHN P., Objectif : innovation : stratégies pour construire l’entreprise innovante, Dunod, Paris, 2005.

Bibliography

255

[PRO 05] PROCTOR T., Creative Problem Solving for Managers: Developing Skills for Decision Making and Innovation, Routledge, London, 2005. [QUI 75] QUINTILIEN J.C., Institution Oratoire, Éditions Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1975. [RAD 13] RADJOU N., PRABHU J., AHUJA S., L’innovation Jugaad : redevenons ingénieux !, Éditions Diateino, Paris, 2013. [RAD 15] RADJOU N., PRABHU J., L’innovation frugale : comment faire mieux avec moins, Éditions Diateino, Paris, 2015. [RAY 03] RAYNAL S., Le management par projet, Éditions d’Organisation, Paris, 2003. [RIC 96] RICHARDS C.W., “Agile manufacturing: beyond lean?”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 60–64, 1996. [ROB 00a] ROBERT P., “Qu’est-ce qu’une technologie Communication et langages, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 97–114, 2000.

intellectuelle?”,

[ROB 00b] ROBINSON A., STERN S., L’entreprise créative, Éditions d’Organisation, Paris, 2000. [ROB 05] ROBERT P., “De la communication à l’incommunication?”, Communication et langages, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2005. [ROB 06] ROBERT-DEMONTROND P., JOYEAU A., “Les paradigmes de l’invention : modes et méthodes de la création poétique et résonances managériales”, Management & Avenir, vol. 1, pp. 91–114, 2006. [SAL 86] SALOMON J.J., SCHMEDER G., Les enjeux du changement technologique, Economica, Paris, 1986. [SAV 17] SAVIGNAC E., The Gamification of Work: The Use of Games in the Workplace, ISTE Ltd., London and John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2017. [SAY 06] SAYBOLD P.B., Outside Innovation: How Your Customers will Co-design Your Company’s Future, Harper Business, New York, 2006. [SCH 34] SCHUMPETER J.A., The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1934. [SCH 81] SCHUDSON M., Discovering the News: A Social History of American News Papers, Basic Books, New York, 1981. [SCH 87] SCHÜTZ A., “Sens commun et interprétation scientifique de l’action humaine”, in Le chercheur et le quotidien : Phénoménologie des sciences sociales, Méridiens Klinksieck, Paris, pp. 7–63, 1987.

256

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[SCH 18] SCHARNITZKY P., Les paradoxes de la coopération : comment rendre le collectif (vraiment) intelligent, Eyrolles, Paris, 2018. [SHA 99] SHAKER S.M., GEMBICKI M.P., WarRoom: Guide to Competitive Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999. [SHE 07] SHEREHIY B., KARWOWSKI W., LAYER J.K., “A review of enterprise agility: concepts, frameworks, and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 445–460, 2007. [SIM 08] SIMON F., TELLIER A., “Créativité et réseaux sociaux dans l’organisation ambidextre”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 7, pp. 145–159, 2008. [SIM 13] SIMON H.A., Administrative Behavior, 4th edition, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2013. [SMI 64] SMITH J.-F., “Systematic serendipity”, Chemical & Engineering News, vol. 42, no. 35, pp. 55–56, 1964. [SMI 90] SMITH G.J., VAN DER MEER G., “Creativity in old age”, Creativity Research Journal, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 249–264, 1990. [SNY 03] SNYDER C., Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine user Interfaces, Morgan Kaufmann, London, 2003. [STA 99] STAR S.-L., “The ethnography of infrastructure”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 377–391, 1999. [STA 10] STAR S.-L., “Ceci n’est pas un objet-frontière !”, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 18–35, 2010. [STO 06] STOELTZLEN N., ROUSSEL B., VALLETTE T., “Innovative collective process around graphic intermediate representation in the early stage of the design process: toward a conceptual framework to improve the collective exploration of innovation”, Journal of Design Research, Special Issue: Fostering Innovation During Early Informal Design Phases, vol. 6, nos 1–2, pp. 1–25, 2006. [SUI 08] SUIRE R., VICENTE J., “Théorie économique des clusters et management des réseaux d’entreprises innovantes”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 4, pp. 119–136, 2008. [SUL 03] SULL D.N., Revival of the Fittest: Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Managers Remake Them, Harvard Business Press, Boston, 2003. [SWA 06] SWAFFORD P.M., GHOSH S., MURPHY N.N., “A framework for assessing value chain agility”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 118–140, 2006. [SWI 04] SWINERS J.-L., BRIET J.-M., L’intelligence créative au-delà du brainstorming, Maxima, Paris, 2004.

Bibliography

257

[TAK 10] TAKEFUMI M., Gunpei YOKOI : vie et philosophie du dieu des jouets Nintendo, Pix’n love Éditions, Houdan, 2010. [TRO 06] TROMMETTER M., “La propriété intellectuelle dans les biotechnologies agricoles : quels enjeux pour quelles perspectives?”, Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 37–48, 2006. [TUF 01] TUFTE E.R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, 2001. [URB 97] URBAN G.L., HAUSER J.-R., QUALLS W.J. et al., “Information acceleration: validation and lessons from the field”, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 34, pp. 143–153, 1997. [UTT 75] UTTERBACK J.M., ABERNATHY W.J., “A dynamic model of process and product innovation”, Omega, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 639–656, 1975. [UZZ 05] UZZI B., SPIRO J., “Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 447–504, 2005. [VAD 96] VADCARD P., Aide à la programmation de l’utilisation des outils en conception de produits, PhD thesis, École nationale supérieure d’arts et métiers, Paris, 1996. [VER 10] VERCHERE C., ANJEMBE E., “De la difficulté de fabriquer des objetsfrontières”, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 36–64, 2010. [VER 16] VERMA S., CHAUHAN K., PRASAD S.K., “Agility in supply chain and its impact: automobile sector”, International Journal of Research in IT and Management, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1–21, 2016. [VIN 94] VINCK D., “La normalisation au cœur des réseaux de recherche”, Culture Technique, vol. 29, pp. 167–181, 1994. [VIN 96] VINCK D., JEANTET A., LAUREILLARD P., “Objects and other intermediaries in the sociotechnical process of product design: an exploratory approach”, in PERRIN J., VINCK D. (eds), The Role of Design in the Shaping of Technology, vol. 5, pp. 297–320, 1996. [VIN 09] VINCK D., “De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet-frontière”, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 51–72, 2009. [VIS 05] VISSER W., The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. [VIS 09] VISSER W., “Design as construction of representations”, Collection Art + Design & Psychology, no. 2, pp. 29–43, 2009.

258

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

[WAL 26] WALLAS G., The Art of Thought, Harcourt, Brace & Company, New York, 1926. [WHY 16] WHYTE J., TRYGGESTAD K., COMI A., “Visualizing practices in project-based design: tracing connections through cascades of visual representations”. Engineering Project Organization Journal, vol. 6, nos 2–4, pp. 115–28, 2016. [WIN 75] WINNICOTT D., Jeu et réalité, Gallimard, Paris, 1975. [WOE 12] WOERTHER F., Hermagoras, fragments et témoignages, Éditions Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 2012. [WOL 09] WOLTON D., Informer n’est pas communiquer, CNRS, Paris, 2009. [WOO 93] WOODMAN R.W., SAWYER J.E., GRIFFIN R.W., “Toward a theory of organizational creativity”, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, pp. 293–321, 1993. [YUS 02] YUSUF Y., GUNASEKARAN A., “Agile manufacturing : taxonomy of strategic and technological imperatives”, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1357–1385, 2002. [ZAR 96] ZARIFIAN P., Travail et communication. Essai sociologique sur le travail dans la grande entreprise industrielle, PUF, Paris, 1996. [ZIM 18] ZIMMER T., Le renseignement humain à l’ère numérique, intelligence économique et espionnage : vous manipule-t-on pour obtenir des informations?, VA Éditions, Versailles, 2018. [ZWI 14] ZWINGELSTEIN G., “Évaluation de la criticité des équipements – Méthodes d’exploitation des jugements d’experts”, Techniques de l’ingénieur, pp. 1–31, 2014.

Index

A, B, C, D, F agility, 42, 142, 234 benchmarking, 86, 90, 92–95 blue ocean strategy, 13, 16, 189 C-K theory, 37, 156, 163, 209–212 concept map, 32, 112 creative techniques, 147, 192 discovery report, 88, 90, 171 information retrieval, 61, 64, 69, 84, 87 divergence-convergence, 141, 142, 144, 146 father tools, 148 final idea result, 38 I, K, L idea sheet, 152–154, 214 information visualization, 99 innovation architectural, 17, 25 continuous, 7, 8, 9 disruptive, 7, 8, 11, 13, 86, 240, 241 frugal, 10, 11, 16, 25 incremental, 7, 25, 41 modular, 17 open, 19 radical, 7

reverse, 10 innovator’s dilemma, 9, 11, 42 intelligence cycle monitoring process, 57, 58, 60–62, 99 intermediate object, 105–107, 153, 156 interpretation framework, 52, 213, 215–217, 221, 233, 234 Ishikawa diagram (cause-and-effect diagram), 86, 122 knowledge management, 207, 208 lateral thinking of obsolete technologies, 11, 16, 26 leading a creativity group, 162 logic analogical, 148, 180, 186 Aristotelian, 148, 200 associative, 114, 144, 148, 174 combinatorial, 148, 186, 226 oneiric, 148, 195 M, O mind mapping, 32, 78, 99, 110–112, 114, 162, 163, 175, 179, 181 OODA loop, 21–23, 28, 57, 220

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity, First Edition. Stéphane Goria; Pierre Humbert and Benoit Roussel. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

260

Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity

R, S, T, V, W revival innovation, 18, 26 storyboard, 123, 124 strategy canvas, 13, 18, 163

TRIZ (théorie de résolution des problèmes inventifs), 38, 44, 139, 183, 212 Veblen effect, 12 5W+(2)H, 31, 52

Other titles from

in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management

2019 AMENDOLA Mario, GAFFARD Jean-Luc Disorder and Public Concern Around Globalization BARBAROUX Pierre Disruptive Technology and Defence Innovation Ecosystems (Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 5) DOU Henri, JUILLET Alain, CLERC Philippe Strategic Intelligence for the Future 1: A New Strategic and Operational Approach Strategic Intelligence for the Future 2: A New Information Function Approach FRIMOUSSE Soufyane Innovation and Agility in the Digital Age (Human Resources Management Set – Volume 2) GAY Claudine, SZOSTAK Bérangère L. Innovation and Creativity in SMEs: Challenges, Evolutions and Prospects (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 21)

HELLER David, DE CHADIRAC Sylvain, HALAOUI Lana, JOUVET Camille The Emergence of Start-ups (Economic Growth Set – Volume 1) HÉRAUD Jean-Alain, KERR Fiona, BURGER-HELMCHEN Thierry Creative Management of Complex Systems (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 19) LATOUCHE Pascal Open Innovation: Corporate Incubator (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 7) LEHMANN Paul-Jacques The Future of the Euro Currency LEIGNEL Jean-Louis, MÉNAGER Emmanuel, YABLONSKY Serge Sustainable Enterprise Performance: A Comprehensive Evaluation Method MILLOT Michel Embarrassment of Product Choices 2: Towards a Society of Well-being N’GOALA Gilles, PEZ-PÉRARD Virginie, PRIM-ALLAZ Isabelle Augmented Customer Strategy: CRM in the Digital Age NIKOLOVA Blagovesta The RRI Challenge: Responsibilization in a State of Tension with Market Regulation (Innovation and Responsibility Set – Volume 3) PRIOLON Joël Financial Markets for Commodities QUINIOU Matthieu Blockchain: The Advent of Disintermediation ROGER Alain, VINOT Didier Skills Management: New Applications, New Questions (Human Resources Management Set – Volume 1)

SERVAJEAN-HILST Romaric Co-innovation Dynamics: The Management of Client-Supplier Interactions for Open Innovation (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 20) SKIADAS Christos H., BOZEMAN James R. Data Analysis and Applications 1: Clustering and Regression, Modelingestimating, Forecasting and Data Mining (Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis Set – Volume 2) Data Analysis and Applications 2: Utilization of Results in Europe and Other Topics (Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis Set – Volume 3)

2018 BURKHARDT Kirsten Private Equity Firms: Their Role in the Formation of Strategic Alliances CALLENS Stéphane Creative Globalization (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 16) CASADELLA Vanessa Innovation Systems in Emerging Economies: MINT – Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 18) CHOUTEAU Marianne, FOREST Joëlle, NGUYEN Céline Science, Technology and Innovation Culture (Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 3) CORLOSQUET-HABART Marine, JANSSEN Jacques Big Data for Insurance Companies (Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis Set – Volume 1) CROS Françoise Innovation and Society (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 15)

DEBREF Romain Environmental Innovation and Ecodesign: Certainties and Controversies (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 17) DOMINGUEZ Noémie SME Internationalization Strategies: Innovation to Conquer New Markets ERMINE Jean-Louis Knowledge Management: The Creative Loop (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 5) GILBERT Patrick, BOBADILLA Natalia, GASTALDI Lise, LE BOULAIRE Martine, LELEBINA Olga Innovation, Research and Development Management IBRAHIMI Mohammed Mergers & Acquisitions: Theory, Strategy, Finance LEMAÎTRE Denis Training Engineers for Innovation LÉVY Aldo, BEN BOUHENI Faten, AMMI Chantal Financial Management: USGAAP and IFRS Standards (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 6) MILLOT Michel Embarrassment of Product Choices 1: How to Consume Differently PANSERA Mario, OWEN Richard Innovation and Development: The Politics at the Bottom of the Pyramid (Innovation and Responsibility Set – Volume 2) RICHEZ Yves Corporate Talent Detection and Development SACHETTI Philippe, ZUPPINGER Thibaud New Technologies and Branding (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 4) SAMIER Henri Intuition, Creativity, Innovation

TEMPLE Ludovic, COMPAORÉ SAWADOGO Eveline M.F.W. Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions in Developing Countries (Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 2) UZUNIDIS Dimitri Collective Innovation Processes: Principles and Practices (Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 4) VAN HOOREBEKE Delphine

The Management of Living Beings or Emo-management

2017 AÏT-EL-HADJ Smaïl The Ongoing Technological System (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 11) BAUDRY Marc, DUMONT Béatrice Patents: Prompting or Restricting Innovation? (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 12) BÉRARD Céline, TEYSSIER Christine Risk Management: Lever for SME Development and Stakeholder Value Creation CHALENÇON Ludivine Location Strategies and Value Creation of International Mergers and Acquisitions CHAUVEL Danièle, BORZILLO Stefano The Innovative Company: An Ill-defined Object (Innovation Between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 1) CORSI Patrick Going Past Limits To Growth D’ANDRIA Aude, GABARRET

Inés Building 21st Century Entrepreneurship (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 2)

DAIDJ Nabyla Cooperation, Coopetition and Innovation (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 3) FERNEZ-WALCH Sandrine The Multiple Facets of Innovation Project Management (Innovation between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 4) FOREST Joëlle Creative Rationality and Innovation (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 14) GUILHON Bernard Innovation and Production Ecosystems (Innovation between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 2) HAMMOUDI Abdelhakim, DAIDJ Nabyla Game Theory Approach to Managerial Strategies and Value Creation (Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set – Volume 3) LALLEMENT Rémi Intellectual Property and Innovation Protection: New Practices and New Policy Issues (Innovation between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 3) LAPERCHE Blandine Enterprise Knowledge Capital (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 13) LEBERT Didier, EL YOUNSI Hafida International Specialization Dynamics (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 9) MAESSCHALCK Marc Reflexive Governance for Research and Innovative Knowledge (Responsible Research and Innovation Set – Volume 6)

MASSOTTE Pierre Ethics in Social Networking and Business 1: Theory, Practice and Current Recommendations Ethics in Social Networking and Business 2: The Future and Changing Paradigms MASSOTTE Pierre, CORSI Patrick Smart Decisions in Complex Systems MEDINA Mercedes, HERRERO Mónica, URGELLÉS Alicia Current and Emerging Issues in the Audiovisual Industry (Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set – Volume 1) MICHAUD Thomas Innovation, Between Science and Science Fiction (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 10) PELLÉ Sophie Business, Innovation and Responsibility (Responsible Research and Innovation Set – Volume 7) SAVIGNAC Emmanuelle The Gamification of Work: The Use of Games in the Workplace SUGAHARA Satoshi, DAIDJ Nabyla, USHIO Sumitaka Value Creation in Management Accounting and Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach (Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set –Volume 2) UZUNIDIS Dimitri, SAULAIS Pierre Innovation Engines: Entrepreneurs and Enterprises in a Turbulent World (Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 1)

2016 BARBAROUX Pierre, ATTOUR Amel, SCHENK Eric Knowledge Management and Innovation (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 6)

BEN BOUHENI Faten, AMMI Chantal, LEVY Aldo Banking Governance, Performance And Risk-Taking: Conventional Banks Vs Islamic Banks BOUTILLIER Sophie, CARRÉ Denis, LEVRATTO Nadine Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 2) BOUTILLIER Sophie, UZUNIDIS Dimitri The Entrepreneur (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 8) BOUVARD Patricia, SUZANNE Hervé Collective Intelligence Development in Business GALLAUD Delphine, LAPERCHE Blandine Circular Economy, Industrial Ecology and Short Supply Chains (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 4) GUERRIER Claudine Security and Privacy in the Digital Era (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 1) MEGHOUAR Hicham Corporate Takeover Targets MONINO Jean-Louis, SEDKAOUI Soraya Big Data, Open Data and Data Development (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 3) MOREL Laure, LE ROUX Serge Fab Labs: Innovative User (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 5) PICARD Fabienne, TANGUY Corinne Innovations and Techno-ecological Transition (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 7)

2015 CASADELLA Vanessa, LIU Zeting, DIMITRI Uzunidis Innovation Capabilities and Economic Development in Open Economies (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 1)

CORSI Patrick, MORIN Dominique Sequencing Apple’s DNA CORSI Patrick, NEAU Erwan Innovation Capability Maturity Model FAIVRE-TAVIGNOT Bénédicte Social Business and Base of the Pyramid GODÉ Cécile Team Coordination in Extreme Environments MAILLARD Pierre Competitive Quality and Innovation MASSOTTE Pierre, CORSI Patrick Operationalizing Sustainability MASSOTTE Pierre, CORSI Patrick Sustainability Calling

2014 DUBÉ Jean, LEGROS Diègo Spatial Econometrics Using Microdata LESCA Humbert, LESCA Nicolas Strategic Decisions and Weak Signals

2013 HABART-CORLOSQUET Marine, JANSSEN Jacques, MANCA Raimondo VaR Methodology for Non-Gaussian Finance

2012 DAL PONT Jean-Pierre Process Engineering and Industrial Management MAILLARD Pierre Competitive Quality Strategies

POMEROL Jean-Charles Decision-Making and Action SZYLAR Christian UCITS Handbook

2011 LESCA Nicolas Environmental Scanning and Sustainable Development LESCA Nicolas, LESCA Humbert Weak Signals for Strategic Intelligence: Anticipation Tool for Managers MERCIER-LAURENT Eunika Innovation Ecosystems

2010 SZYLAR Christian Risk Management under UCITS III/IV

2009 COHEN Corine Business Intelligence ZANINETTI Jean-Marc Sustainable Development in the USA

2008 CORSI Patrick, DULIEU Mike The Marketing of Technology Intensive Products and Services DZEVER Sam, JAUSSAUD Jacques, ANDREOSSO Bernadette Evolving Corporate Structures and Cultures in Asia: Impact of Globalization

2007 AMMI Chantal Global Consumer Behavior

2006 BOUGHZALA Imed, ERMINE Jean-Louis Trends in Enterprise Knowledge Management CORSI Patrick et al. Innovation Engineering: the Power of Intangible Networks