I've done the creativity & innovation sessions 3 times now. Twice @UTS with ACT-KM in between (slides here). I kinda stumbled into doing them and each time, I've played with the format - cutting, tweaking, exploring. Some of it works well and some of it less so.
The way people have engaged with this material has been very heartening. It touches on things that everyone can relate to. And it suits the light style of facilitation / teaching that I favour.
It comes in two halves - one section on creativity and one on innovation (& clocks in at somewhere between 2-3 hours for the lot). The creativity half is nearly there. The basic structure is: exercise - theory - personal reflection - theory - discussion. I'd like to delve into the theory a bit more (most of it is currently based on Theresa Amabile's work), possibly bring in a few more perspectives. And the exercise is currently an odd hybrid of improv & brainstorming. If I get to do it again, I may play with other exercises.
The innovation half I am less happy with. In some ways, that topic is bigger and harder to get into. Using things like the Cynefin model confuses people as much as it helps. I also think it lacks an overarching structure. I'm going back to the books for this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Got to slide 20 and actually jerked back away from my computer screen. ;)
You did a great job at not going engineer except on that one slide.
This would be an awesome resource or experience on slidepoint. Have you considered uploading a soundtrack and making it a slidecast?
Sean - Glad you liked them. Slide 20 is supposed to have that effect so I hope the whiplash wasn't too bad.
As for uploading the soundtrack, that's an interesting suggestion. The session is quite interactive & experiential so I'd rather stick to doing it live for now.
If you use the Cynefin framework based on the images in this slide I am not surprised if people are confused. You have a set of simple slides and images, following by a complex and cluttered image that I would never use in a workshop.
In addition you are making a creativity-innovation link when from a complexity perspective (and Cynefin is a complexity model) creativity is a symptom of innovation not a cause.
The Cynefin framework used for innovation uses that principle, only uses one or possible two dynamics not multiple ones and also (critically) has simple network models and transitions attached that provide a simple 1-3 stage process for people to follow. Given that its essence as an innovation framework is to avoid the creativity route you are using contradictory structures.
For a simpler version you might want to look at the HBR article this month.
I await with interest to understand the "lack of an overarching structure", nice throw away but.
I repeat an earlier comment on a listserv. Where is Matt Moore and what have you done with him?
Dave - The session itself does not describe creativity as the cause of innovation. In fact it tries to examine the blurred, dialectical, complex boundaries between the two. "Innovation is the cause of creativity" is great line to use as provocation but it's one-dimensional. And I don't see the evidence backing it up 100%. I think you're reading stuff into the slides that isn't there.
I'd agree the insertion of the Cynefin framework in this set of slides is clumsy. It was an experiment that didn't pan out in this environment.
The "overarching structure" line wasn't about the Cynefin model - it was about the second half of the session - so you can untwist your knickers about that one. I quite like the Cynefin model.
"Matt Moore" is alive and well and living somewhere in the South Pacific. Who wants to know?
Thanks for the clarification Matt, but I should say that I was not the only one to read the post as saying (i) that creativity was a cause of innovation, (ii) that you had come to the conclusion that, in respect of innovation, the Cynefin model confuses people and (iii) that said model lacks an overarching structure.
So I don't think that any part of the apparel was distorted in any way, I was responded to a reading that others had made along with myself. Pleased to hear that the interpretation did not match the author's intent.
Incidentally I did not say in my response that Innovation is a cause of creativity, I said that was a symptom of innovation which is a very different statement. I would go further and say that I think it is a mistake say that there is a boundary between creativity and innovation, dialectical or otherwise (in fact I am not sure a boundary can be dialectical) but that is for another day, and discussion better held over a beer.
"I said that was a symptom of innovation which is a very different statement."
Hmmm - it is different but it could be interpreted as suggesting a causal relationship.
"I would go further and say that I think it is a mistake say that there is a boundary between creativity and innovation"
I would agree with that but researchers on this topic often create one so that has to be acknowledged.
Post a Comment