Meat and potatoes of being creative

16 Apr

The definition of creativity, ideas and innovation is a never ending story. Here is our contribution to it. During our education at the Kaospilots we called  self-appointed creatives „kiddies“. Nothing wrong with a childish worldview if you consider the need of ambigous thinking and a huge curiosity in order to come up with an idea. It would be wrong however to call a child creative as far as the organizational ppart of creativity is concerned. The ideas a kid can come up with are for sure funny, crazy or even dazzling but we doubt the ideas could be turned into an innovation. They would probably lack the expertise knowledge. However, sometimes there’s no need that one person is equipped with the nessecary expertise around the basic idea. That’s where workgroups, organisations or companies step in. Lets look at the steps

  1. being creative (process),
  2. come up with an idea (the outcome of being creative),
  3. turn it into an innovation (processing the idea) and
  4. change market/society (sell the innovation through a process again)

…we sense that the process of change needs a huge set of premises. We tried to illustrate it and refer to Nives Nizic “Erfolgsfaktoren des betrieblichen Ideenmanagements (German only)”.


Maybe this short thought can be read as an answer to the frequently asked question, if anybody is or can be creative. Well, yes, but on a different scale and with different importance.

4 Responses to “Meat and potatoes of being creative”

  1. steendahl April 19, 2009 at 13:39 #

    HI! i like your little 4-steps explanation, and i am wandering how it would like if the “social” aspect should be implemented. The buzz word of them all -social innovation-
    ** just a question that came to me when reading you blog** -have a nice day.

    • Roman April 20, 2009 at 07:28 #

      Hey Sören. You are right. It doesn’t involve any kind of quality aspect of ideas. We think that the quality of an outcome of a creative process (e.g. sustainable idea, smart idea, stupid idea) is depending very much on the individual mindset of the “idea generator(s)” as well as the common mindset of the “idea facilitator” (e.g. company that makes the idea visible for the market). If these keyplayers are not streamlined at least in some crucial spots, social innovation (or: win-win-win) will be difficult to achieve. Thanks for your contribution and say hey to Aarhus!

  2. steendahl April 22, 2009 at 21:55 #

    I still like your thoughts around this! -and thanks for the reply. Personally i like to differ creativity and innovation with the ACT of “implementation”. As i guess you are referring to in your -dot no. 3 (processing the idea), in the original post.

    Some others might like to add “meaning” as well, but i do think that is too subjective… where do you stand in this matter?

    // i am not in Århus at the moment, but i will say hello when i get there.

    • Roman April 23, 2009 at 07:49 #

      Again, you’re right. Processing an idea can lead to an innovation. An idea can exist without a market. An innovation presumes a market (receivers, an audience, beneficaries). From a general point of view “meaning” is implemented per se in an innovation. Nobody would take steps to process an idea without any meaning. But unfortunately meaning is often replaced with “profit” in a unidirectional way. But again: That’s the general point of view. It wouldn’t be ours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: