Creative Information Systems
Vitor Santos Microsoft, Portugal Henrique São Mamede Universidade Aberta, Portugal
Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
IntroductIon
There are many definitions about creativity from different schools of thought. Coming from distinct environments there are two different approaches, for example the cases presented by Kao (1996) and Gryskiewicz (1993). The first defines creativity as the process through which ideas are generated, developed, and transformed into value.
The second defines creativity as a useful newness.
There is a great diversity of techniques that sup-port the creativity thinking and huge panoply of tools, which performs some of those techniques (http://www.
mycoted.com/creativity/techniques/, http://www.brain-storming.co.uk/tutorials/creativethinkingcontents.
html). All the creativity techniques have strong and weak points and can be more or less useful depending on the kind of problem.
Considering that the capacity to innovate is more and more a decisive factor in the enterprise competi-tion and also in personal, the study and concepcompeti-tion of systems that helps to innovate it has increasing importance (Bennetti, 1999).
In this context, the hypothesis to appeal to the capacity of computer systems, based in knowledge or in adaptations of creativity techniques in order to help to produce new combinations and to give unexpected, original, useful, and satisfactory answers, focus in one specific context is presented as something extremely challenging. In this article, we consider the concept of
“creative information system,” which introduces us to a proposal of a concrete architecture fact to a creative information system based in the technique of creativity named brute thinking (Michalko, 1991).
BAcKGround
During the inquiry about creativity, we came across a variety of theories and models that explain the creative
thought and its mental procedures (Koestler, 1964). The most known is the concept of the divergent thought of the American J. P. Guilford (Arieti, 1993; Gardner, 1998), decisive theory in the inquiry of the creativity in the United States between 1960s and 1970s, and the theory of the lateral thought, developed by Edward De Bono (Baxter, 2000; Binnig, 1997) between 1970 and 1980.
Later in a conference about “design thinking,” Ni-gel Cross criticized those creators that have frequent difficulties to abdicate from an initial idea and choose a new way for the search of a new solution (Binnig, 1997), calling the attention for the necessity of a bigger use of a lateral thought in creativity.
Other aspects not considered by Guilford and De Bono are the personal characteristics and the cogni-tive styles of the individual, the bio-social conditions (work structures, communication styles, conflict management, hierarchies), and environment (colours and shapes in-house, temperature, light, noise, etc.) where individuals work. All these aspects had been already identified by one of the most recent theories that explain the creativity—the theory of the systems (Cardoso de Sousa, 1998).
The systemic vision of the creativity is based on the general theory of the systems of biologist Ludwig von Bertalaffy who applied this term in the 1970s to frequently describe points of the biological, physical, and social systems. Previously, systemic theories had been developed within the cybernetics (Wiener), to whom the objectives were to dominate the complexity of technical and economic systems (Bono, 1994). On the base of the Bertalaffy and Wiener’s work, a theory of systems was largely developed and it leads us to the explanation, simulation, and manipulation of the nature process evolution. Currently, the main goal is to find a universal theory on the common systemic principles to different sciences (Jonas, 1994).
The majority of the investigators in creativity agree
C
with the three main faculties that characterize a creative person: the fluidity, the flexibility, and the originality of the thought, being these three pointers, the criteria of evaluation in many creativity tests (Cross, Dorst, &
Roozenburg, 1992). The fluidity of the thought points out the easiness to produce ideas in quantity within a limited time. This is about a non-critic thought, which can be stimulated by techniques such as brainstorming or brainwriting (Guilford, 1986).
The flexibility of the thought is characterized by the easiness not only to produce ideas in quantity, but also in quality and to find answers that allow different classifications. In opposition to flexibility, there is rigid-ity, immobilrigid-ity, and incapability to change attitudes, behaviours, or points of view, the impossibility to of-fer other alternatives, or to change an already applied method. When a proposal is created, if it is different from the existing one within a certain context for being uncommon or unusual, then is considered the original-ity of the thought.
The analytical thought is the process to recognize, classify, and describe the elements of a problem. Man describes itself to the others and to the world as an ana-lytical being that studies and decomposes everything in parts. The conclusions of the analysis can give us tracks to the accomplishment of a hypothesis, an analogy, or a new synthesis. Since the traditions of the occidental thought are based on analysis and logical reasoning, analysis is one of the abilities of the creative thought each time more used; however, difficulties are noticed in many students to accomplish functional and mor-phological analyses problems (Ferreras, 1999).
The accomplishment of hypotheses is another proce-dure of the creative thought. It is the ability to assume and to establish. In the experimental sciences, a reasonable explanation of the facts is provisionally adopted with the aim to submit it to a methodical verification for the experience. It is the search of causes and consequences.
An important procedure of the hypothetical thought is the divergent interrogation. Divergent questions allow some valid answers. Inducing because they are open stimulating a diversity of ideas, images, feelings, and immediate reactions.
To understand relations and interconnections it is necessary to compare and relate. Another elementary operation to solve a problem in a creative way is the analogical-comparative thought. It is about a mental process of bi-association of ideas (Smith, 1990), which
allow establishing a new and uncommon relation be-tween objects and situations. The ideas are bi-associa-tions; to create is to recombine the available knowledge.
The development of the analogical thought demands imagination training and the use of metaphors.
The synthetic thought is a combinational thought that carries through new syntheses in an individual or group base. It is the dispersed integration of fragmen-tary elements and information in a new combination.
To create an innovative product through an original synthesis, it is necessary to have an open attitude to different stimulations in order to have the maximum possible choice. Finally, but not less important, the mental procedure to process creation is the intuition.
It is linked with the direct and immediate contempla-tion of the reality or a problem for which is search a different solution from the one that could be get by a logical reasoning. It is an unconscious thought, where the procedure is not explainable. According to the physicist Gerd Binnig, the intuition is a kind of analysis or synthesis that is not processed logically when the problem is too much complex (Smith, 1990). Thus, the intuitive thought helps the designer to take a decision if the situation is not well defined and not very clear, and data is contradictory, incomplete, or too much subjec-tive, which is the majority of the situations concerning design projects.
To the creativity process, one or more available technique is appealed for the effect. Overall there are hundreds of techniques published in works by Michalko, Van Gundy, Higgins, Dilip Mukerjea, among other au-thors (Michalko, 2000). These techniques are tools in a workshop to suit different tools for different creative parties. For example, techniques for the definition of existing problems, to explore attributes of a problem, to generate alternatives for visual explorations, meta-phors, analogies and evaluation, and implementation of ideas. A few groups of techniques will be presented to be followed as a small example. In this sense, we have the technique of random word or image, false rules, random Web site, the SCAMPER, research, and the reusing and role-play.
The technique of random word, also called brute thinking, appeals to the random generation of a word that will work as an initial stimulation, extracting its underlying principles and applying them to the problem.
The technique of the random image is in everything similar to the previous one but with resource to an image in detriment of a word. The technique of false
Creative Information Systems
rules applies rules to the problem that previously was not considered as possible. That is why the name of
“false.” Getting the false rule and forcing its use in the new situation though for differentiated directions of which normally they would be followed.
The technique of random Web site consists of finding and consulting a site in a random way, collecting ideas, which are used there, generating new ideas, and getting the answer to our problems. The SCAMPER technique is a good example of a much elaborated technique that appeals to direct questions to which answers are given taking into account the problem, in order to lead to the generation of new ideas. The stimulation comes from the creation of answers to questions that would not be asked. The technique of research and reutilization implies a look to a stimulation searching for in other areas of knowledge to find a process that has decided a similar problem.
The technique of role-play allows changing the perspective of the problem, acting like another person, and trying to determine the way he or she would face the question.
More information and hyperlinks for related Web pages with techniques of creative thought can be found in http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/Creative/
Techniques/, the Web site of Andy Beckett, which is promotes a work of compilation of techniques (http://
www.mycoted.com/creativity/techniques/).
tHE crEAtIVE InForMAtIon SYStEM We could define “creative information system” (CIS) as an information system that faces a concrete problem in a certain context and uses an adjusted creativity technique and is able to automatically generate a set of answers that are potentially innovative for the solution of a problem.
The information system that we consider does not cover all the development cycles of the creative process, but allows relying on the computer system with all the direct creativity techniques application, with a bigger or smaller sophistication degree.
To be able to work, the information system has to receive as a starting point the necessary minimum inputs, namely the specification of the problem, the context, and the restrictions to the generated solutions.
The answers are generated through the application of one or more techniques of creativity or by the
combi-nation of the same ones adapted in order to be able to be implemented through computer applications, with a bigger or smaller sophistication degree.
As far as we are able to see, all the known techniques of creativity can be implemented with bigger or smaller adaptation without restrictions.
The generated answers or solutions can be direct or indirect proposal solutions. We understand as a direct solution when the answer possesses an immediate applicability for the resolution of the problem. We understand as an indirect solution when the answer cannot immediately be applied but has potential to lead to the appearance of a direct solution. The degree of sophistication of the system can be measured by sup-plied answers than can be more or less direct.
An EXAMPLE For tHE ArcHItEcturE oF A cIS
The architecture for a creative information system that we consider in this section is based on a technique from Michalko named brute thinking. This technique, very simply, has a very simple process as a base, which is developed in four steps, as follows:
• Step 1: Choose a word randomly.
• Step 2: Choose things/elements associated with the random word obtained.
• Step 3: Force links between the word and the problem and also between the associations and the problem.
• Step 4: List the obtained ideas and analyze them.
The construction strategy of a CIS based on this technique goes through the conception of an automatic system, assisted by a certain number of tools able to generate a set of phrases that, after analyzed by a user, can lead to the creation of a new idea.
In order to become possible, a context is supplied to the system by the user. This context will be used later in the final phase of the sentences composition, attempting to generate a new idea based on the user’s context. Simultaneously, a whole of words representing tangible or intangible objects is generated in a perfectly random form. For each one of these objects, a whole of key characteristics are associated with it’s determined.
C
For this determination, a dictionary of characteristics from the Internet can be used.
Once owner of all these elements, the system is in a condition to be able to pass on to the generator of phrases, which will also have a predetermined structure.
Then they are constituted of context—the verb that will be also randomly generated and one of the key characteristics that had been determined. The sentences will go on being generated and presented to the user for analysis; we estimate that only a very small percentage can have some meaning for the user. However, this will
be the result of the exclusively random combinations without any base in other previously existing ideas, which could restrict the generator.
Thus, for the implementation of this architecture, it becomes possible to determine which of the elements will constitute the central core of our creative informa-tion system. We will need a random generator of words, an element capable to determine the characteristics of the objects, and a module with capacity to combine all these elements with the keywords that describe the context generating phrases.
Creativity technique Application Engine Problem &
Context
Answers/Phrases
generator Solutions or
Answers Input
Output (for analysis) Creative Information System
Figure 1. General scheme of a creative information system
Figure 2. Global architecture of a creativity information system based in brute thinking
Creative Information System (CIS)
random generator
Internet search
Internet Input Context
Context verb Characteristics
Phrase Phrase Phrase Phrase n
. . .
. . .
. . .
0
Creative Information Systems
In this document, the element, which composes the architecture proposal, is represented in Figure 2. The central element of the system architecture is a module capable to combine the objects and its characteristics with words, which describe the context where the gen-eration of new ideas is demanded and the verb giving origin to a phrase that might be or not considered a new idea. For the determination of the use of the charac-teristics the system carries out the creation of objects, based in a dictionary. For each one of these objects there are some characteristics, which are common to all having as base or support a dictionary that searches it in the Internet and stores it for later reference. These are transferred into the combiner that conjugates them with the keywords that describes the context of the user and with a verb which is get in turn from a proper dictionary. With the capacity to combine these
ele-ments, a set of phrases is generated and then analyzed by the user who will collect those that are capable to effectively represent a new idea or proposal and will discard the remains.
concLuSIon
It becomes possible the use of an information system that supports most automatic functions of the creative process by implementing different techniques. The final part always will be processed by a human user because generated solutions will have the lack of an analysis which allows determining between the gener-ated solutions from those that effectively can be used as solutions for the problem and the ones that can consist exactly as new chances.
Figure 3. Detailed architecture of a CSI
random generator Word
Determinator CharacteristicsOf
Combiner
Dictionary of words
Dictionary of characteristics
Dictionary of verbs
Internet
Keywords Context
input
Phrases
Context verb Characteristic
results are analysed by human user Creative Information System
rEFErEncES
C
Adams, J. L. (1986). Guía y juegos para superar bloque-os mentales (2nd ed.), Editorial Gedisa, Barcelona.
Arieti, S. (1993). La creatividad, La síntesis mágica.
Fondo de Cultura Económica, México.
Baxter, M. (2000), Projeto de produto. Guia prático para o design de novos produtos (2nd ed.), Editora Edgard Blücher, S. Paulo.
Bennetti, P. (1999). O Uso de Técnicas do Pensam-ento Criativo Facilita a Participação e o Compro-metimento do Corpo Gerencial de uma Empresa com o Planejamento Estratégico. Tese de Mestrado em Criatividade Aplicada Total, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Binnig, G. (1997). Aus dem Nichts. Über die Kreativ-ität von Natur und Mensch [Desde o Nada. Sobre a Criatividade da Natureza e do Homem], Piper Verlag München.
Bono, Edward de. (1994), De Bono’s Thinking Course.
London: BBC Books..
Bono, Edward de. (1998), El pensamiento lateral, Manual de creatividad, Paidós Plural, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, México.
Bono, Edward de. (1999), El pensamiento creativo, El poder del pensamiento lateral para la creación de nuevas ideas, Paidós Plural, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, México.
Cardoso de Sousa, F. (1998). A criatividade como dis-ciplina científica, Colecção de Monografias “Master de Creatividad.” Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago.
Cross, N., Dorst, K., & Roozenburg, N. (1992). Research in design thinking. Delft: Delft University Press.
Ferreras, A. P. (1999). El cerebro creador, “Psicologia.”
Alianza Editorial, Madrid.
Gardner, H. (1998). Mentes Creativas, una anatomía de la creatividad, Paidós, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, México.
Gryskiewicz, S. (1993). Discovering creativity. CCL Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents; Their nature, uses, and development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Kao, J. (1996). Jamming (1st ed.). New York: Harp-erBusiness.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Ar-kana Penguin Books.
Michalko, M. (2000). Los secretos de los genios de la creatividad, Ed. Gestión 2000, Barcelona.
Michalko, M. (1991). Thinkertoys: A handbook of busi-ness creativity for the 90s. Ten Speed Press.
Smith, F. (1990). Pensar, “Epigénese e Desenvolvim-ento.” Instituto Piaget, Lisboa.
Lista de técnicas de criatividade, http://www.mycoted.
com/creativity/techniques/
Técnicas de pensamento criativo e pensamento lat-eral,
http://www.brainstorming.co.uk/tutorials/creative-thinkingcontents.html
Técnicas para pensamento criativo,
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/Creative/
Techniques/