Propositions phase

After the workshops we conducted post-workshop interviews with the participants to get an idea of the success, team dynamic and climate.

After codifying all the concepts generated during the workshops, we synthesized the data to generate a report of final recommendations for each firm to move towards one or more sustainable innovations. This phase corresponds to the P phase in the KCP method.

The methods used for contrasting the LCA-driven eco-design approach with the creativity-driven eco-design approach aimed to shed light on the effect of the tools and workshop design on creativity.

Inspired by Le Masson et al. (2010)’s design theory, we designed a series of workshops for both case studies, which also built on the diagnostic that we performed. The workshops for which we had control (all but Solvay LCA-driven workshops) were carefully designed to provide a starting point of knowledge that at a desired distance from the dominant design of the product (ie. LCA results for workshop 1 and foreign knowledge for workshop 2), as well as providing a method or tool that is qualified as either rule-based or innovative (i.e. the Golden Rules of Eco-design for workshop 1, and C-K method or prospective innovation for workshop 2).

Clearly, the design team will have already been exposed to the LCA results in workshop 1 before workshop 2, which may in effect influence their creative reasoning. We therefore considered several alternatives to sequence the workshops in order to avoid “biasing” the design group with the LCA results. Considering Agogué et al. (2011)’s results which show that the information presented immediately before a workshop are on what the participants fixate, we felt confident that the introduction of new knowledge before workshop 2 would be more important in their creative reasoning than information they had seen one or several weeks prior (ie. the LCA results in workshop 1).

After leading the participants through the sequence workshops, we mapped the concepts proposed and knowledge activated by each team in each workshop using C-K theory, and evaluated the creativity of their exploration using the V2OR method (Le Masson et al., 2010). These results are presented in Appendix A and B.

An exploration that was high in value, variety, originality and robustness was qualified as an innovative exploration of the subject, whereas one that only built on existing knowledge, low originality of concepts was a more rule-based exploration of the subject. This analysis was done in the journal article (Chapter 4) and continued in Appendices A and B.

To evaluate individual creativity, a survey of methods was done to select which would be most appropriate for this project. Several semi-quantitative methods exist for evaluating creativity such as the Consensual Assessment Technique, where experts evaluate a creative work based on their experience (Amabile, 1996). However, this method is difficult to implement in practice since it is resource-intensive. The expert might also be a victim of cognitive fixation and unable to identify a truly innovative concept, or they might judge something to be innovative within their frame of reference, which may not be from an external point of view of the domain (Le Masson et al., 2014).

We finally opted for a hybrid approach for evaluating individual creativity.

First, we evaluated the ‘creative product’ that emerged from the workshop using Le Masson et al (2010)’s V2OR assessment method. By establishing the dominant design and the usual way of working in the diagnostic phase, our codification of the concepts generated during the workshops consisted of identifying how they differed from this collective fixation to identify Originality, variety, value and robustness with respect to the company’s individual context. We looked for elements of the K-phase presentations in the resulting concepts, and elements of what we qualified as their “dominant design” from the diagnostic. Were the participants fixated on what was presented and did this represent an expansive example or a restrictive example for their subsequent creative reasoning (Agogué et al., 2011)?

Next, we evaluated the individual’s creative cognitive ability by interviewing them before the workshop to understand their creativity skills and what professional routines they might fixate on during the workshops. By interviewing them after the workshops, we looked for signs of reflexivity and if they were able to see a progression of creative learning in the workshops. We asked them to identify if they were more or less creative in each workshop, in which one they felt more comfortable, and in which one they felt easier to propose ideas. The interviews were analyzed with

discourse analysis and inspired by grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002). This analysis is presented in Chapter 6 General Discussion.

Many factors were at play concerning the team dynamic and social forces at play during the workshops that could have affected the team’s creativity. From recordings and observations during the workshops, we were able to identify some power dynamics that may have taken hold. We also included some targeted questions in the post-workshop interviews to understand the team dynamic that occurred during the workshops better. Calling upon literature in the social nature of creativity (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Paulus, 2000; Paulus & Brown, 2007; Shalley

& Gilson, 2004; Stroebe & Diehl, 1994), the interviews and recordings were analyzed with discourse analysis and inspired by grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002).. This analysis is presented in Chapter 6 General Discussion.

Organizational creativity for eco-innovation was assessed by a historical document analysis of sustainability reports, and other environment- and innovation-related publications by the company.

In the case of ACME, we performed a benchmarking to understand the status quo from the competitors of the company. Interviews with the authors of these documents will also contribute data to the analysis. Many interview questions were targeted to understand the management instruments in place that may affect the employees’ intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996). Using literature from organizational creativity, we analyzed interviews and documentation using discourse analysis and inspired by grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002). This analysis is presented in the supplementary results (Chapter 5) and General Discussion (Chapter 6).

It should be noted that the methods used for all four objectives overlap in an intermingling web of creative dimensions that affect each other. We go into a further analysis of this in the Discussion sections of the article and of this thesis.