CREATIVITY

During the early stages of the project different models of creativity were reviewed in order to investigate possible ways of scaffolding the method of research. The model of creativity that had a particularly big impact on the structure and direction of the project was presented by Coughlan and Johnson [10]. It was particularly valuable in its insight regarding how designers frequently analyse their methods in order to explore new ways of work and achieve novel and creative outcomes [10].

During the interviews the participants were all highly engaged in reviewing the way they worked and seemed to particularly enjoy when a new, or novel question, was asked of them. They were generally eager to reflect and analyse their creative processes. Additionally, participants were frequently quite proficient at articulating both the details and concepts of how they worked and what helped them to be creative.

How creativity was facilitated was a key area of investigation throughout the project. A consistent facilitator of creativity was the use of analogue tools. While some specific tools were common (i.e. post-it notes, whiteboards), these were very much dependent on the context or environment they were being used in (i.e. office or professional environment). However, regardless of the specific tool, context, or environment, there were certain affordances present that were universally viewed as key enablers of creativity.

The analogue affordances that were generally most desired were immediacy of use and flexibility. Ease of use was also a consideration. This matches up with the original goal of developing a flexible tool for use in creative environments. This was validated both within the reviewed research as well as during the interviews.

COLLABORATION

The project goals, in regards to collaboration, centred on exploring the context (when and where) in which collaboration occurred. Additonally, how it occured and what tools were used were also key questions. While participants were fairly forthcoming about when, how, or where their collaboration facilitated creative results, specific outcomes and results were rarely discussed. The discussions focused mainly on the collaborative experience and the context it occured in.

For the majority of the participants their creative collaboration occured in an office environment. This was to some extent a reflection of the participants recruited. There were also instances where the participants did not necessarily recognise casually sharing ideas as a form of collaboration (regardless of the context). However, when prompted further there was frequently a higher degree of collaboration in more varied contexts then they initially indicated.

In regards to digital tools that helped facilitate co-located collaboration, specialised platforms, or digital tools, were rarely cited as being beneficial. Instead, more common and ubiquitous technologies (i.e. smart phones), were recognised as being effective tools for collaboration.

INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY

While discussing ways to integrate technology into a creative collaborative environment, the physical affordances allowed by analogue tools were continually cited as potentially stumbling blocks for digital tools. This was a common theme in the reviewed research, as well as during the interviews. In regards to the use of a sketchbook, participants commented on how the physical, tactile, and immediate access were overwhelmingly positive aspects of the sketchbooks. None of the participants had found current digital tools fit for replacing their analogue sketching tools.

This matched up with the project goal of integrating technology in a way that didn’t act as a replacement of analogue tools. Attempts to design elaborate technological systems to replace analogue tools were common througout the reviewed research. For a variety of reasons these attempts usually met with limited success and suffered from similar pitfalls.

CONCLUSIONS

One of the key findings of the project was the theme "Persistent Cues" and how it relates to triggering creativity. This was mostly related to physical artefacts from previous creative acts or collaboration (i.e. sketches). The theme name is derived from “physical cues” which was a potential theme during earlier stages of the project. However, during the interviews it was determined that both physical and visual cues were key elements of the theme. The core concept is in essence the occupation of a space (physical, visual, or mental) of a creative idea, or group of ideas, on the edge of an individuals focused thought or awareness.

From the interviews, one of the common traits of this theme of "Persistent Cues" was the generally passive way in which they worked. Specific ideas and past inspiration were not necessarily searched for amongst physical/visual artefacts. However, their presence within a lower level of attention seemed to function as possible triggers for new creativity. It is important to note that this persistence does not infer permanence. All of the artefacts that were referred to were generally of a temporary nature.

While it was a clear theme from the interviews, it is only indirectly linked to in the reviewed research. At the very least this indicates that a further review of literature on the subject might be beneficial to additional research on collaborative creativity.

Most examples of how "Persistent Cues" worked, within creative collaboration, were of an analogue nature (i.e. leftover whiteboard sketches). While the analogue aspect came with the usual physical affordances and benefits, it also suffered from the inherent drawbacks. For example, lack of mobility or difficult to reuse. However, further research and design efforts might potentially combine the affordances of analogue and digital, while mitigating the drawbacks. It is hoped that the results of the design stage of this project may offer some insight, or inspiration, into ways that this could be accomplished.