In a recent research report published in the Personality and social psychology bulletin, Polman and Emich demonstrate how when we make decisions for others, we are going to make decisions that are more creative than the ones we make for ourselves.
This is just the latest extension of research into construal level theory, an intriguing concept that suggests various aspects of psychological distance can affect our thinking style. (link from quote)
I see this as a important validation of one of the benefits of case studies and problem-based learning for boosting the creativity of participants.
In addition, it is yet another argument for the importance of communities of practice which promotes the community-based tackling of issues in order to find creative solutions to advance the practice.
Again, this only further promotes the benefits of open innovation which consists of the gathering of external inputs to advance a concept, a product or a technology.
How thinking for others can boost your creativity | Research Digest | Christian Jarrett | 1 Mar 2010
This post is cross-posted with Brandon Hall’s Workplace Learning Today
Of course the jet airplane and in-vitro fertilization are there.
But what surprised me was that GPS technology is around since 1978! And even more surprising, to find high-yield rice. You *do* learn something new every day!
To select the 50 most pioneering inventions of the past 50 years, PM consulted 25 authorities at 17 museums and universities across the country. Their collective expertise spans aeronautics, biology, physics, medicine, automobiles and technology. An initial call for suggestions resulted in a list of 100 inventions, which was then circulated for a formal vote and reduced via a points system determined by each expert’s top picks. Any such list is open to debate, of course.
Radical innovation is a proposal or idea and not a product. It is user-centered and focussed on meaning.
What is your innovation strategy?
In his book, “Design-Driven Innovation“, author Roberto Verganti outlines a framework for mapping strategy for innovation as a radical change in meanings. Check out his thinking in the diagram below:
As your company maps its innovation strategy, this distinction of radical innovation of meanings rather than features may be noteworthy in your product development. If you’re not thinking about radical innovation right now, you can be sure your competitor is. Lead, follow, or get out of the way has never rang so true.
While I have focused most of my research on Communities of Practice and Collective Expertise, I see a necessary co-existence of both these principles in order to ensure the most optimal results in advancing knowledge and practice.
We can seek out (aggregate) all the sources of information on any subject and share them with the world, but if we don’t make sense of them, they’re worthless.
PKM isn’t just collecting and filing bits and pieces of information for later retrieval. There is an ongoing sense-making process that, through practice, develops cognitive skills. It’s knowledge management, not information or document management.