DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATICS

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATICS TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN Master s Thesis in Informatics A Study on Creativity Support in Ideation Software Andreea Usatenco

2

3 FAKULTÄT FÜR INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN Masterarbeit in Informatik A Study on Creativity Support in Ideation Software Eine Studie zu Kreativitätsunterstützung in Ideation Software Author: Andreea Usatenco Supervisor: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Florian Matthes Advisor: Marin Zec, M.Sc. with honors Submission Date:

4 VI

5 I confirm that this master's thesis is my own work and I have documented all sources and material used. Munich, Andreea Usatenco

6 VI

7 Acknowledgments I would first like to thank Marin Zec, M. Sc. for the great advice during this work. His assistance, guidance and patience contributed greatly to the result presented in this work. I would like to thank Bart Vermeulen from Innocentive for the great insight and help regarding the company s product. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends, for supporting, understanding and helping me during this work. vii

8 viii

9 Abstract Creativity is a key factor for innovation. Ideation (i.e. generating and developing ideas) is an important skill for complex problem solving. Thus, companies and organizations increasingly demand for creativity from their employees. Ideation software claims to promote the creativity of individuals and teams. However, there are various implementations and combinations of specific creativity techniques and innovation processes. There is a broad range of approaches to ideation support. As a consequence, it is challenging to compare different ideation tools and to evaluate how specific tools fit into an organization s context (i.e. goals, culture etc.). The goal of this thesis is to review the current market in ideation software and categorize available tools according to their feature set. In order to do that the selected idea generation tools will be evaluated according to a predefined feature set based on a creative process defined by us. In order to perform the evaluation, a rating mechanism will be defined and applied for all analyzed tools. The creative process will be defined based on existing literature, literature which will also serve as basis for defining the mandatory and additional features regarding the tool s implementation. We conclude with presenting and explaining the results of our study and possible future work ideas. ix

10

11 Contents Acknowledgments... vii Abstract... ix Contents... xi 1 Introduction Context Motivation Research questions Related work Literature Definition Views on creativity Perspectives Paradigms Thinking types Divergent thinking Convergent thinking Creative process Descriptive models Cognitive models Creativity techniques Brainstorming Morphological analysis Random word generator SCAMPER Reversal assumption Ideation tools Methods Research approach Reference model for software supported systems processes Creativity support process involved roles Creativity support process reference model for software evaluation Use case Features Evaluation Yutongo Post problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation IdeaScale Post Problem xi

12 xii Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation BrightIdea Post Problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation Stormboard Post problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation Groupmap Post Problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation Brainreactions.net Post Problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation Mindmeister Post Problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering... 76

13 4.7.5 Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution implementation Overall evaluation Hype.Go! Post Problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible solutions Solution Implementation Overall evaluation Cognistreamer Innovation Portal Post problem Research Idea Generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea Rating Possible Solutions Solution Implementation Overall Evaluation IdeaClouds Post problem Research Idea generation Idea filtering and clustering Idea rating Possible solutions Solution implementation Overall evaluation Discussion and future work Tool overall rating Conclusions Future work References Appendix List of Figures List of Tables Creativity techniques Tables xiii

14

15 Outline of the Thesis Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter introduces the reader to the subject of creativity presenting different aspects of why and when creativity is used and necessary. It presents the context which offered the necessity to conduct the study, and presents the purpose of our work, as well as how it relates to other work in the field. Chapter 2: Literature In this chapter, we present the literature review conducted and the necessary theoretical aspects in order to derive the process model used to conduct our study. Chapter 3: Methods Chapter 3 describes the methods and data sources used to derive the process model. In this chapter is presented the complete creative process model defined as reference model for our study, as well as the roles involved in the process and their attributions. The chapter contains a complete description of the process together with the derived use cases for our study. Chapter 4: Evaluation In this chapter is presented the evaluation of the tools. We first analyze the features each tool offers and how it can be used in our process, then provide an overview on available additional features. Chapter 5: Discussion and future work The results of the evaluation, together with the answers to our research questions and ideas for future work, are presented in this chapter. xv

16 xvi

17 Introduction Chapter 1 1 Introduction Context Motivation Research questions Related work

18 2 Introduction

19 Introduction 1 Introduction In order to dive into the domain of creativity, ideation and ideation tools, we must first explain what creativity means and the need for it in day to day work. There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun (Pablo Picasso) The famous painter looks at creativity as transforming something new from something old. In this sense he is right, there is such a little possibility nowadays to create something new, which has no connection to something old, that one can easily say, that creativity is the magic one needs to develop something no one has ever seen. We continuously use creativity. We use it in the day to day life, we use it to solve problems. Because of the different types of creativity, we do not even acknowledge its use. Most of the times we are not aware that our solutions to daily problems are based on creativity. 1.1 Context Companies invest milliards of Euros each year in innovation. The reason for that is because only by innovation they can still remain in top of the markets and in front of the competition. In a world where developing or inventing something new has become more and more difficult due to the rapid evolution of humanity, innovation is a key solution to remain or become market leader. If we talk about numbers, there were about 13,7 milliards Euros spent by the mechanical industry in 2014 (Mechanical Industry), about 4,58 milliards Euros spent by the banking industries in 2014 (Banking Industry) and the numbers are high also in other industries. This leads to the conclusion that people acknowledged the need for creative products and the need to be creative. But not only companies need creativity, we need it on daily basis, because it helps us solve problems. People need creativity if they want to differentiate themselves from other people or want to run a new business. So, there is the need to constantly develop new and valuable products or to find new solutions to new or old problems. In today s world we hear the words "to be creative very often, but do we actually know what they mean? Can we, with certainty, define what creativity is, or what the best way to be creative is? We first have to differentiate between idea management and idea generation, both being two distinct activities with different processes to follow. Idea generation is a theme widely discussed and researched, people trying to find new solutions in order to ease the process of developing new ideas. This thesis focuses on ideation tools. Ideation tools are tools that help us generate new ideas, find solutions to problems and come up with new products according to our needs. The conducted study should provide an overview of the available tools on the market and a deep analysis on what they do in comparison to what they promise to do. 1.2 Motivation The urge to develop tools to increase creativity has become bigger and bigger in the past years. More companies develop software that promises to increase the company s creativity or to help you generate new ideas. The question arises as to whether the aforementioned software is able to achieve its goals or not. 3

20 Introduction Because of the speed how things develop nowadays, the problem of being ahead of your competition comes up more often than before. And rising above completion needs good ideas, because only quality is not enough to be the best in your area of expertise, you also have to be innovative. In order to provide answers to those who consider using such a tool to improve their activity or to innovate themselves, we have conducted a study of available ideation tools. The study should test the tool s ability to help find a solution to a problem. The tools evaluated should provide the user with guidance in its use and have also the capability to be used in a creative session. Evaluating the tools should provide an overall estimation on how the tools behave and if the promised end results are achievable by the process integrated in the tool. 1.3 Research questions As the end result of this thesis, we hope to obtain a list of all available tools on the market and a categorization of these tools. In order to do that, we propose two main research questions, with the help of which, the chosen scenarios will be answered. The scenarios help us categorize the available tools and also see if those tools map to the defined psychology mechanisms. We will try to find out which categories of ideation tools are available on the market and which principles from psychology influenced the design of those tools. In the end a complete evaluation on selected tools will be presented. Answering the research question will provide an overview on the key elements such a tool should have and present a general state of the art on available tools in this direction. Also during the evaluation based on the research question will be evaluated the impact and influence of the tool on the user. The main focus is to discover if the tools provide the necessary resources to be used in the creative process described as relevant for the study. Except for the predefined scenario will also be taken into consideration the user-experience during the tool usage and the tool s usability. 1.4 Related work Psychology offers numerous research papers about idea generation. There are several studies about if using a computer based tool implies generating more ideas or how the number of persons in a group influences the number of generated ideas based on a tool supported session or not. Even though, our literature review revealed no presence of any study with the same direction as this work. A possible related work could be the study from Chip Gliedman, Peter Burris and Nancy Wang about innovation management tools (Gliedman, et al. 2013). The study focuses more on tools for idea management than idea generation, but includes a creativity part for the final evaluation. 4

21 Literature Chapter 2 2 Literature Definition Views on creativity Thinking types Creative process Creativity techniques Ideation tools

22 6 Literature

23 Literature 2 Literature This chapter consists of various creativity definitions, of different views from different scientists in the field, and explains how the user should look at ideation tools and what he should expect to gain from them. Different creativity definitions and understandings will be presented and discussed in this chapter. After understanding what creativity describes and wants to achieve, we will present some of the most important perspectives on creativity. Due to the fact that the subject of this thesis focuses on ideation, we will present the connections between creativity and ideation and how creativity is used as a means to achieve ideation. The word creativity is as common as the incentive be creative. The question that this chapter wants to answer is what this actually means. What does it mean to be creative, what should somebody achieve at the end of a creativity session in order to be valued as creative? And after knowing what the end result should be, what steps should be made to achieve it? In (Leonard et al. 1998) is stated that creativity is close related to knowledge. Another important subject to be discussed in this chapter is how creativity can be measured. Are there any specific metrics or specific guidelines in order to create a valid measurement of creativity? Creativity is not something that easily comes to light for everybody. Depending on your personality it can be harder or easier to be creative, to come up with that something new and useful the world has not seen before. If the individual personality type does not strike as an easily creative person, then several factors have to be taken into consideration, from which the most important personal triggers are. For a person to be creative we have to find out which individual triggers he or she has and how we can we use this triggers in the most beneficial way. Also, creativity is something that has no specific standard definition. There are guidelines, but we do not have something as precise as mathematics to define creativity. If we want to be creative and the process or mindset of being creative is not in our blood, we have to take several factors into consideration. A factor that influences creativity is happiness. Happiness itself is a state of mind, but in relation to creativity it is an important trigger helping the mind to come up with something new. In (Jennifer M. et al. 2002) the authors found after researching that our mood can influence our creativity as following negative moods were positively related to creative performance when perceived recognition and rewards for creative performance and clarity of feelings (a metamood process) were high and that positive moods were negatively related to creative performance when perceived recognition and rewards for creativity and clarity of feelings were high. Also, another important fact, which is easily neglected, is the break factor - how people feel when taking a break and how it impacts a person if the break is not taken willingly, but rather as an interruption from someone. In the (Beeftink et al.) is presented a case study on people taking voluntary, respectively involuntary breaks. The article s conclusion states that taking breaks at moments chosen at one s own discretion led to solving more insight problems and reaching fewer impasses than at moments that were chosen by others. Ideation is therefore the transition between chaos and order. We define chaos as the problem statement and all the thoughts that come with it, and we define order as the solution to the problem. In between come a huge number of ideas, generated in diverse modes and with diverse outcomes, but leading to a possible solution. 7

24 Literature 2.1 Definition If we search for a definition for the term creativity, we encounter various interpretations and various ways to define it. For example, the Webster dictionary defines creativity as the ability to produce something new through imaginative skill, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form. The term generally refers to a richness of ideas and originality of thinking. (Merriam-Webster 2006). Creativity is seen as the center for different notions and different activities, but there is not always a clear explanation regarding what creativity actually means. For example, Mumford defines creativity as the production of novel, socially valued products. But what do novel and socially valued mean in the given context? Considering the fact that the main subject of this thesis is ideation, we will present all the explanations with regard to idea generation. We live in a constantly changing world. This makes it harder to deliver something new and valuable than it was years ago, when the constant development just started. Society continuously evolves and it is getting harder and harder to come up with something that has not been discovered yet. If we add also the fact, that the end product should be something valued by society, then creativity gets much more importance and leads us to understanding how hard it is to be creative. 2.2 Views on creativity Another important factor that has to be taken into consideration when talking about creativity or while trying to be creative is the specific trigger for one person. Due to the fact that we deal with individuals and each individual is unique, it is very hard to determine a strict rule or description of triggers. For this purpose, we will refer to the study of M. Rhodes who determined the 4 P s of creativity. After presenting the four known and recognized perspectives on creativity, we will introduce the notion of paradigms as viewpoints on creativity. The presented paradigms were introduced by Vlad Petre Glăveanu in his studies Perspectives The 4 P s of creativity are an easy but complex way to describe creativity. The main reason for them is the fact that we cannot judge something as being creative only from a single point of view. In his work An analysis of creativity (Mel Rhodes 1961), M. Rhodes described the four major elements that define creativity views as being the person perspective, the process perspective, the product perspective and the press perspective. The four perspectives offer four different views on the same product in order to foster and ease the generation of new ideas. A graphical view of these perspectives can be seen in Figure 1. 8

25 Literature Figure 1: The 4P's of Creativity (Mel Rhodes 1961) Person perspective From this point of view, creativity is a personal characteristic. We need a definition in order to see what actually defines creativity at this point. Some characteristics for a person perspective are: originality what new things does the idea bring idea flow how many ideas does the person produce flexibility how much do the ideas differ between each other capability for elaboration how concrete and detailed the ideas are. However, there is no creativity quotient established so far. We cannot measure a person s creativity on a single scale, or with only one measurement method. Due to its complexity and to the fact that it is depending on each single individual, we cannot establish a golden rule to measure creativity. This also leads to the fact that creativity can have more influences than a rational-logic process. Product perspective We have to define the characteristics of the product such that, in the end, we can agree upon whether the product is a creative product or not. We have to define clear elements of the product, or give it a clear definition combining different concrete elements (like photos, texts, cars), as well as abstract ones (ideas, concepts, theories). Process perspective The process perspective is seen as dividing the problem into smaller problems and solving them step by step. Press perspective This perspective refers to the environment. We try to define the target environment and match our creativity to it. Csikszentmihalyi (Csikszentmihalyi 1997)said: If we understand under creativity an idea that new and valuable is, then we cannot accept the judgment from one as a standard for the 9

26 Literature existence of creativity. It is impossible to know if a thought new is. It is only possible if we have different measuring techniques and if it is valuable depends on the appreciation of the people interested Paradigms Another perspective about creativity is defined by the paradigms with which one can define creativity. In the article (Gălveanu 2010) the three paradigms, HE, I and WE are presented. The different paradigms about creativeness suggest that in the evolution of creativity we can observe three different stages. The HE paradigm This paradigm suggests the idea of a great genius - a single person, responsible for everything. The HE comes from the historical myth that there is something responsible for everything and that something is usually defined as a HE entity. The genius concept has been appearing through history as long as the human race has existed. In the end, it rarely is creativity alone that decides who is a genius, but rather the institutional structures reflecting power relations between and within a social group. (Gălveanu 2010) The I paradigm The I paradigm is the evolution within the psychological studies from the HE paradigm. In the center we still have a person, but the person is not a genius anymore, but a regular person. The WE paradigm The WE paradigm means that we have to include creativity into a social context. We have to acknowledge its social nature and we have to see that it is a process that spurs out of transactions between self and others, self and environment as stated in ( Gălveanu 2010) As we can see in (Marakas et al. 1997) creativity is being approached in two ways by the psychologists as following the origin oriented approach and the process oriented approach. The origin oriented approach is, according to Sigmund Freud, an approach where the creativity arises within an individual. On the other hand, we have the process oriented approach, which is seen by (Ripple 1989) as a process with which we can simulate our thoughts. This approach leads to the conclusion that creativity exists in everyone ( Marakas et al. 1997) and we only have to make it come to light. 2.3 Thinking types There are three important steps in order to define the idea generation process. First, there is a divergent phase, followed by a clustering phase and, finally, a convergent phase. Guilford (Guilford 1967) defined these two types of thinking as human response to a set problem Divergent thinking Divergent thinking is one of the most important characteristics of creativity. This type of thinking means that ideas will be more valuable in terms of quantity, rather than quality. The individual or group is invoked (inclined) to generate as many ideas as possible, not thinking if those are really the most suitable for the problem they should solve. At the end of this phase 10

27 Literature a high number of ideas should be available, ideas that will be clustered and, afterwards, sorted. After performing the divergent thinking phase, a high number of ideas is generated, however this number of ideas is by far not the final one. The next step into generating a possible solution to the proposed problem is the collection of those ideas called also clustering phase Convergent thinking Having performed the clustering phase and also defined clear criteria about the wanted end solution, we can now use convergent thinking and refine the gathered results into a few possible solutions. The convergent thinking approach assumes a deep analysis of the ideas gathered until that moment and also a deep criticism about the ideas. The results are compared to the decision criteria, and the most appropriate choices are then selected from the idea pool. 2.4 Creative process In the previous paragraphs, we presented the main ideas about creativity, what creativity is and what we want to achieve through creativity. But now the question arises, what should we do and how should we behave in order to be creative, to come up with the desired creative idea in the end? The intensive research about creativity over the last years leads to the idea that it is better to follow a process in order to hope for a creative idea at the end of the creativity session. Those creative processes mean nothing but guidelines which, when followed, can lead to a positive result in the end Descriptive models The creative process was subject of intensive study and research, and right now two very important and well known creative process models exist, developed by Amabile, Wallas, Osborn and Basadur. These models try to present the acting way split into different phases. According to each author there are different steps to be done in each phase, but the final result should lead, in all cases, to a creative idea. Wallas (Wallas 1926) was one of the first to try to propose such a model (Shneiderman 2009). His proposal was a four step model which divided activities into the following stages: Preparation Incubation Illumination Verification The Preparation phase means gathering knowledge and understanding the problem. After defining the problem, a deeper understanding will be performed in order to fully understand the problem and to be capable of finding a solution. In the Incubation phase we let our subconscious take control and think over the problem without any forced concentration. The Illumination phase represents the moment when the new idea has come. After coming up with an idea, we have to evaluate it in the last phase called Verification. The need for this verification comes from the need to make sure that the solution found, conforms to the initial requirements and fulfills the expectations. 11

28 Literature Osborn published in collaboration with Parnes (Parnes 1992) another creativity model which has 6 stages. The model is sometimes presented with 5 stages. Mess-finding (Objective Finding) Fact-finding Problem-finding Solution-finding (Idea evaluation) Acceptance-finding (Idea implementation) Objective Finding is the first stage of the model. In this stage we have to identify the goal or the wished challenge that we are focusing on.the second stage, fact-finding, involves informing ourselves about the goal, trying to find as much information as possible, and answering all the questions we have about it.in the problem-definition stage a clear definition of the problem has to be stated, along with criteria to determine if a proposed solution is a good one or not. After defining the problem comes the Idea finding stage, where the whole scope idea generation is. All possible solutions are presented and gathered together.after having listed all possible solutions we have to conduct the Solution Finding phase. At this point, a selection of the most accurate ideas is performed. We have to analyze the generated ideas and see what would fit the necessary solution best. In the end, after having found a suitable solution to our problem, comes the Acceptance Finding stage, where a plan to implement the idea will have to be discussed.one interesting fact about the Osborn - Parnes model is the fact that each stage includes a divergent and then a convergent stage. Amabile (Forster 2010) proposed a five stage model having the main activities as following: Problem - define the actual problem. Explain and describe it in detail. Preparation search for necessary information. Response generation generate possible solutions in your mind, use mind connections which already formed during research Response validation compare generated responses to the problem statement and criteria previously defined. Outcome overview of the result. If the result is satisfying, then the process is completed, otherwise a new iteration is started. Another possible creativity model to use is the Basadur model (Basadur et al., 2000). This model has six steps, which will guide you to a possible solution: Problem-finding find the actual problem that needs a solving. Fuzzy situations should be transformed into clear statements about the problem. Those will be helpful in order to see if a possible solution is suitable. Fact-finding gathering facts and ideas about the problem. At this point, it is possible to already find a solution, so that the process will not be continued. Problem definition a clear and strict definition of the problem. The solution space will also be determined in this step. Idea-finding generating ideas. There will be many possible ideas defined and there is a prohibition of any criticism or idea-analysis at this step. Evaluation and selection generating as many criteria as possible. These criteria will then be used to select the generated ideas and solutions in order to select the best to be implemented. Action planning taking the necessary steps in order to be capable to implement the chosen solution. In their paper (Vogt et al. 2013) present another approach of the creative process inspired by the work of (Briggs et al. 2003). 12

29 Literature Their defined creative process model includes two main phases: a generative and a convergent one. As Guilford (J.P. Guilford 1967) stated in his work, the generative phase is about generating high quantities of novel and diverse ideas (Vogt et al. 2013) and the convergent phase if about refining the generated ideas though a critical process (Vogt et al. 2013).The model the authors (Vogt et al. 2013) defined is structured as follows: The generative phase is formed of three sub-processes Inspiration members stimulate one another to come up with new associations and ideas Gathering and sharing ideas among members Create the process of producing, documenting and refining ideas. The convergent phase follows the generative phase and consists of another three subprocesses: Organize relating ideas in order to reduce their complexity and come to a common understanding of ideas Evaluate assessing the value of ideas Select negotiating and selecting ideas for elaboration The model they proposed was used as basis to construct the architecture of a creativity intense process support system. The models we presented are used in every environment where creativity is needed. They help organize the creativity sessions and obtain the best results with as little time loss as possible. Even though the similarities could lead to the idea that the models do not differ from each other, the differing elements lead to different effects of using one or the other model. For example, models having very detailed descriptions lead to a much easier start in implementing them. If the implemented model does not have a very detailed description, then time will have to be spent in order to accommodate the requirements of the model. A detailed description will also prevent from making mistakes in implementing the model, due to the fact, that if a mistake is sensed, then it will be much easier to recognize the step it was made at and to redo the step. But, on the other hand, judging by the individual psychology one might choose a less detailed model, only by thinking that a smaller description means less to do. In this case it will have negative impact on the users, due to the fact that all steps have essentially to be done in every model, only that some describe them in detail and some only suggest what should happen Cognitive models The models we have seen so far present the creativity models from an outer perspective. There is no emphasis on the inner person, on his or her feelings or thoughts, but rather on a clear and strict way of how to behave. Another type of creative models are the cognitive models. In comparison to the descriptive models, the cognitive models are addressed to the inner of the individual and the definition tries to define rules for the cognitive processes of an individual on his way to being creative. One of the most important cognitive model for creativity is the Geneplore (Finke et al. 1994) model. By definition, this model includes only two stages, a generative phase and an explorative phase. 13

30 Literature The generative phase means generating the preinventive structures. These preinventive structures represent the ideas and the fragments of ideas that come into the mind when thinking about something. This model tries to benefit from the irregular and individual brain connections and lets no idea get lost. For example, each person reacts in a different way when thinking about something. When faced with an unknown problem, different ideas can come up into the mind of different people. This phase tries to actually gather the small parts of an idea that first come to mind, for example a fragment of a song, or a picture. The second stage, the explorative phase, preinventive exploration and interpretation is aimed. This means revising the ideas and fragments of ideas that were generated in the previous state and expand them in a further depth. Other authors also proposed cognitive creative models. The problem with cognitive creative models is their complexity. Those models are very complex and, due to this fact, they are very hard to implement in software, as the authors from Idea Generation Techniques Among Professionals (Herring et al. 2009) stated. We presented these theoretical aspects in order to have the needed support to perform a creativity session. The problem nowadays arises when the teams having to perform this creativity session are not in the same location. Having a team in the same location can lead to a simple implementation of the models. On the other hand, a distributed location of the team members means having to come up with different solutions. Even though the same model is implemented, there are more constraints that have to be taken into consideration. Creativity is itself a sensitive and hardly quantifiable subject, therefore, adding a distributed team to it can easily lead to a disaster. However, knowing how to manage different situations can also easily lead to a result at least as well as one for a team located in the same place. Distributed teams are harder to manage. Assuming that the team is in the same time zone, or that the differences do not vary more than two hours, most problems disappear. On the other hand, if a team is distributed along different time zones and maybe continents, then we a tool which allows communication between the team members. First of all handling a distributed team means a very good coordination between the members. There has to be a very good means of communication and there also has to be a setup suitable for everybody. For example, the whole session has to be conducted in the same language and all the materials have to be in the same language. This language has to be understood by every participant at the session. The monitoring of the session has to be strict and careful, so all the details are understood by all the participants, but also arrive at all the participants. This is a common mistake in teams where only one or two members are missing and there is a discussion with verbal and hand gestures. At that point, if the session manager does not pay enough attention, the members who are not in the same room with the others might miss important details. This is considered an important thing, because one of the triggers for creativity is the contact to other persons, therefore there should theoretically be no disadvantage being in a distributed team from this point of view. Another aspect, which arises, is how effective those creativity sessions in a distributed team really are? Is it really a good idea to perform them if the members are not in the same place? Different researcher performed experiments to show the effect of group support systems on distributed teams. The main conclusion is that, of course, it depends. It depends on the users, it depends on the individuals, it depends on the group members chosen for the study. 14

31 Literature We discussed different aspects on creative processes, we presented the main ideas and some of the problems that can arise. Thinking about ideation tools, do they not seem as a good idea to be used when wanting to be creative? A study by Elam and Mead as referred in (Marakas et al. 1997) showed that computer based decision support system can influence the decision process adopted by its user. It also showed that the usage of software designed with the intention of improving its user s relative creativity can lead to greater relative creativity in the solutions than those produced without the aid of such software. However, there is no answer to the question regarding whether the actual software of the implemented creativity technique lead to the final result of the study. 2.5 Creativity techniques First of all, what are creativity techniques? According to (Geschka, 2005) creativity techniques are thinking and acting rules which, combined, lead a group or an individual to generate ideas. We can see that creativity techniques are not there to reach a predetermined goal, but to find different ways that might lead to a goal. The goal itself is the solution to the problem, a solution that we do not have, since we are trying to generate ideas in order to solve it. Marc Tassoul classified creativity techniques in (Tassoul,2009)as follows: Inventorying techniques imply the use of remembering and gathering information about a problem. Associative techniques generate as many ideas as possible with help of association techniques. Confrontational techniques generating new ideas by trying to think different. Provocative techniques techniques which provoke the user to leave his/her normal environment and create new analogies. Intuitive techniques expressing every idea that comes into your mind. Analytic systematic techniques deep analysis of the problem, often splitting it into sub problems. Creativity techniques exist under diverse descriptions. They are used in order to be able to generate as many ideas as possible, with the intent of finding a suitable solution to a problem. We have to differentiate between a creativity process and a creativity technique. Creativity processes offer a framework for creating a suitable environment in order to generate ideas. Creativity techniques, instead, offer ideas about ways in order to generate ideas. We do not get the promise that in the end a solution will be found, but we are guided in order to generate as many ideas as possible, so the idea pool will be satisfying in the end. After analyzing some of the ideation tools available on the market, we came up with following techniques that have a high number of implementations: Brainstorming, a creativity technique implemented by more than seventy percent of the software available on the market. Morphological analysis followed by the random word generator. SCAMPER Reversal Assumption. 15

32 Literature Brainstorming Brainstorming is one of the oldest creativity techniques ever proposed. The originator of this method is Alex F. Osborn. He first began developing this method in 1939 and stated in his book Applied imagination, that brainstorming would be more effective than individual working alone in generating ideas. The main rules for doing brainstorming are: You are not allowed to criticize Think outside the box and come up with unthinkable solutions Refinement of already existing ideas is wanted Generate as many ideas as possible (quantity over quality) Even though the rules appear to be simple, there are a lot of groups pretending to do brainstorming even though they are not. The first basic mistake one can make in a brainstorming session is the objective. If not all participants have the same understanding of the problem or even worse, if not all the participants know the actual problem a solution is needed for, then the brainstorming session will not be a success. Another common mistake is that people start a brainstorming session with the wrong mindset. It might be that they do not think that there is a possible solution, or they think that only one good solution exists, or even that they would much more rather be somewhere else than in that particular session. This leads to a closed mind and closed minds are not capable of generating ideas, which is the whole point of doing a brainstorming session in the first place Morphological analysis Morphological analysis is another widely used creativity technique in problem solving. It was first used by the scientist Fritz Zwicky, who developed it in the 1960s. The main idea of this technique is to split the problem into subproblems and then generate ideas to solve the smaller ones, building a solution like this. For example, building a new lamp could mean splitting the lamp into bulb, power supply, size, style and material and then trying to find possible solutions for these parts, coming up in the end with a whole solution to your problem. An important part of this technique is to know how to split the general problem into subproblems. It is for sure easy if we talk about an object having different qualities, but what happens if we need to split a more complex problem? Random word generator The random word generator technique is a known creativity technique. Its definition says that you have to define a problem and then get a random word next to it. This word has nothing to do with your problem. What needs to be done, is to say all the ideas that come into your mind when hearing that word. Analyzing the possible solutions might lead to a solution in the end. An example for this technique could be choosing the destination for your next holiday. 16

33 Literature SCAMPER SCAMPER is a mnemonic that stands for: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, Reverse. These terms and expressions are actually situations or questions you should confront your problem with in order to generate ideas how to solve it. Even though a lot of these questions come from Alex Osborn, the person who actually organized them into this mnemonic was Bob Eberle. Some examples about answering the questions are what can be substituted in the problem? For example if it is an object, what kind of parts can I substitute, what materials can I substitute. What else can I use to solve my problem, is there a direct replace? Answering these questions about the desired solution can lead to many ideas. This technique is simple and helpful Reversal assumption The reversal assumption technique is meant to help analyze the problem from a different perspective. The main mean to do that is to alter one aspect of the problem. Doing that you will create a mirror image of the problem and so new ways to approach your initial one. Analyzing the presented techniques, we can observe different types of creativity techniques. We are able to differentiate between creativity techniques with a general description, for example, there is nothing mentioned about time constraints, as well as being able to differentiate between methodical or intuitive creativity techniques. If we have to choose a creativity technique, we have to be sure that it is suitable for our needs. For example in a creativity session which, due to the distribution of the team, is geographically distributed and takes place over a longer period of time, choosing a time bounded creativity technique would not lead us to the expected good results. The step of choosing a creativity technique can be defining for the ideas that will be generated through the process. Having one individual to work with can ease the work and can make the choice easier, but if we are dealing with a team, then things are getting more complicated. Everything relates to the basic rule of psychology, which states that more people make things more complicated than only one individual. So, in order to be able to benefit the most from a group of individuals, we have to select the most neutral creativity technique. If the group differs very much in the personality type or the technique suitable to the group members personality, if we know it and are able to find something to provoke their creativity to the maximum. In (Parjanen 2012) the authors state that if an organization innovates by relying only on certain talented individuals, it fails to utilize the creativity of the rest of the organization, not to mention that the others are not committed to developing the ideas further. This being one of the major problem of organizations, how should we benefit from all? How should a company benefit from all employees ideas, not only from those in the positions to generate ideas? Ideation tools might be an answer for this questions, but as the study of Aiken,Krosp, Shirani and Martin (Aiken et al., 1994) showed, larger groups do not necessary mean better ideas or more, but they can easily lead to conflicts in-between the team. 17

34 Literature 2.6 Ideation tools Ideation is, by definition, idea generation. Idea generation can be used in different situations, but one of the most common usages is for problem solving. We live in an era where, ideally, everything is done automatically or with computer support. As a consequence thereof, the need for creativity/ideation software has arrived. What used to be a pen-and-paper activity is now done in front of what is offered now from diverse companies to be done with computer assistance. The number of creativity tools available has considerably increased in the last years. More and more companies develop a creativity tool for distribution, or for internal use. The main idea is that psychology will not change. The models developed so far, will still be available years from now, so that any company developing a new creativity tool will try not to reinvent the wheel, but to make the wheel more stable. This means that no new creativity technique will be generated, but the performance of the tool will lay in its ability to make the user obtain the highest benefit from the creativity technique implemented. The implementations of a creativity tool differ in many ways, but their whole scope is to make the usage of the tool more profitable than the usage of the same technique in a noncomputer assisted way. The main idea is that a problem exists and a solution is needed. Due to the fact that we live in a constantly changing world, which demands new things more and more, we need solutions to be creative. The three main elements of ideation are the problem statement, the idea generation and generating solution. The element in the end is not a sure element. creativity technique promises a sure solution in the end, all that a creativity technique offers is support in order to generate the necessary ideas, which will lead to a possible solution. The problem statement is the most important element of ideation. In order to find a solution, we need to understand the problem, so the first step is defining the problem. Also, by defining the problem, we need to define possible expectations from the solution. In order to be capable of filtering the generated ideas, we need to have a well-defined problem and well-defined expectations from the solution space. We will list some of the advantages and disadvantages of using these tools, in order to see that that use of these tools does not only provide positive implications. Table 1 two lists, one containing the advantages and one the disadvantages of ideation tools. Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Ideation Tools Advantages Ideation tools make the need for a third party disappear. A good implementation of an ideation tool will make a moderator seem useless in a creativity session. Better performance in some cases (if the users are advanced computer users). Disadvantages People not used to work with the computer might reject the tool at the beginning Productivity decrease. If the user has also access to different applications on the computer while using the software, then he might easily get distracted. Slow communication if there is a 18

35 Literature Portability if the work is done on a computer it is much easier to carry a file, than dozens of paper sheets. Distributed teams easy access for people who are not in the same room Anonymity Parallel communication Automated recording no notes needed. time lost. Capable of paying attention to each other instead of concentrating to also write. communication session there might be people who type slower than they speak Lack of media richness if we use a software, we will not have any body language or any capability to see the other people s faces. Possible increase of conflict due to anonymity. In many situations, people who know they are under the protection of anonymity tend to be meaner than in situations when they are not. (Aiken et al., 1994) Due to the fact, that the usage of a tool depends on the personality of the user, a general conclusion, regarding whether using such a tool improves creativity with regards to idea generation, becomes possible. As we can see in the work (Ivanov, 2009), due to incompatibilities between the group supporting systems and its users, companies still prefer to use clients and online meeting tools in order to perform their meetings. Another important factor in favor of ideation tools is the possibility to remain anonymous. Anonymity is a desired fact nowadays and studies (Joao Pissarra, Jorge C. Jesuino 2005) have shown that having the possibility to be anonymous offers a higher creativity performance than not being able to. 19

36 20 Literature

37 Methods Chapter 3 3 Methods Research approach Reference model for software supported systems processes

38 22 Methods

39 Methods 3 Methods In the previous chapter, we introduced various creative process models. After studying the presented models and comparing their proposals to our needs, we decided to define our own creative process model. The model that resulted from our research has eight phases and includes three main roles. In the following, we will present the roles, with their attributions and the scenarios, defined by our process model, in greater detail. 3.1 Research approach To fulfill the purpose of our work, we have pursued a literature survey. The survey resulted with a series of articles regarding creativity process models. We presented the available models in literature in chapter 2 and derived a suitable process model in order to use in our analysis. The following table represents a summary of the found creativity process models and stands as basis for the model we defined. Phase Model Table 2: Creative process models summary Wallas Osborn & Parnes Amabile Basadur et al. Problem finding x x Fact finding x x Problem definition x x x x Preparation(Research) x x Incubation x x Response generation x x x x x Evaluation and selection x x x x Action planning x x x Acceptance x x Action x Vogt et al. As we can see, there are several similarities between the developed creativity process models. In order to obtain a creativity model suitable to our study, we have developed the creativity model presented in the next part of the thesis. The roles we defined as being part of our creativity process model are also a combination of the presented models, resulting from our literature research. At the moment the thesis was written, a list of 152 possible ideation tools was conceived after searching for possible ideation tools on the Internet. From this list we will select ten tools in order to conduct our study and answer the research questions. The study to be conducted has seven use cases as basis. These use cases serve as a means of testing how the principles from psychology are mapped on the ideation tools and to decide whether the tools provide the creative support they advertise or not. 23

40 Methods 3.2 Reference model for software supported systems processes After having performed a deep analysis on available models from theory and comparing them with models in practice, we developed our reference model. We will use this model as a basis to conduct our study. The model we defined consists of the main phases we found in all the presented creativity process models and is a result from combining the presented model. The next parts of the thesis will describe the roles of the persons implicated in the creativity process we defined and the process model itself, followed by the main use cases we will investigate Creativity support process involved roles Overall, the three main roles in a creativity process are the ones of problem owner, contributors and the mediator. The problem owner is most of the time seen as a client whose problem needs to be solved. The role of the problem owner is to define the problem correctly and to assure that the right problem is being solved. He also needs to assure that the contributors to the creative process have correctly understood the problem. Another important part of the owner s role is to provide materials for the contributors in orders to ease the understanding of the problem. The more information about the problem is provided, the better the understanding will be and, as a consequence thereof, the idea generation will be easier. If the creative process treats the owner as a normal participant, then he will also be a contributor to the idea generation process. He will have the same rights as the other contributors and benefit from everything the others benefit, in order to facilitate the creativity process. Another role of the problem owner is to help cluster and filter the ideas that have been presented. The owner, knowing the most regarding what the problem is about, can easily express options about related ideas in order to cluster them and, at the same time, help filtering irrelevant ideas. Besides this, the owner of a problem can participate in the phase where solution proposals are presented and where the steps needed in order to implement a solution are chosen. The contributors of a creativity process are the people meant to give the ideas. The contributors have a role in every phase of the creativity process. First of all, the contributors have to have the same understanding of the problem. The people having this role in a creativity process are required to express as many ideas as possible in the idea generation phase. Also, contributors participate in the idea-rating phase. This phase is considered to be as important as the phase where the ideas are generated, because here the quality is important. Therefore, an important step is filtering the ideas that are not suitable for solving the problem. The mediator is the person responsible with coordinating the process of ideation. The role of the mediator is to assure that all the entities involved in the process are treated in the right way and that they obey their obligations. Mediators need to assure a correct understanding of the problem. Also, they need to assure a correct understanding of what the voting system means and how the rating is done. Also, last but not least, the mediator should sum up the results of the creative process and offer possible solutions to the initial problem. 24

41 Methods Creativity support process reference model for software evaluation In order to conduct our study, we have defined our own creativity process model, according to which we will conduct our study. The model is a result of the data presented in the chapter above and is considered to be a fair trade between all the models presented above, and also suitable to the need of usage of the ideation tools we analyzed. We generalized a creativity process as consisting of 7 main phases: problem generation, research, idea generation, idea filtering and clustering, idea rating, solution proposal and solution implementation. In the first phase, the problem stating and understanding, the purpose is to achieve a general understanding of the problem to be solved. Situations where the problem is not stated correctly at the beginning, or where not everybody has correctly understood what the problem is about, may occur. These discussions should clarify if the right problem is solved and make sure that all the members having to generate ideas afterwards understood the problem correctly. After defining the problem, the problem owner should present the resulting information to the participants. This information should clarify the understanding of the problem and should get all participants to the save level of information about the problem. After having done the research, comes the idea generation part. This is one of the most important parts of the creative process, due to the amount of information that should come out of this process. This phase is done in close collaboration with the mediator, because he is the one helping implement the creativity technique. After having defined the problem and assured that everybody has the same amount of knowledge in order to generate ideas, the idea generation phase begins. For this phase, a creativity technique is used. The mediator s role is to assure that the technique is correctly implemented and that the moments when the participants get stuck are passed over. This part of the creativity process takes the most amount of time and must done be very well. Generating ideas is something that all contributors should do, therefore the role of the mediator at this point is to assure that everybody has the right to talk, the right to express his or her opinion. The idea generation phase is mostly about getting all possible ideas from participants. Idea generation should be ruled by quantity and not by quality in this phase. The participants should have all the means in order to be as creative as possible. After having generated all the ideas comes the filtering and rating phase. In order to rate ideas, a rating system has to be provided. An important factor that needs to be taken care of, is that all the participants should understand how the rating works. Everybody should have the same reference system. This being said, the next step is to cluster related ideas. Clustering makes the process easier in the future, due to the fact that some ideas may be excluded from the beginning, due to not fulfilling the initial requirements. After this step, the clustered ideas are discussed, explained and voted. The explanatory part makes sure that everybody understood the idea and, therefore, the final result can be uniformly voted without big discrepancies between participants due to different understandings. After having voted the ideas, some solution possibilities should have come up. In order for a creativity process to be successful these solutions should be refined into action plans, which have to be implemented afterwards. This the closing form of a creativity process, where the future development is formed into the form of the solution. A possible visualization of the process can be seen in Figure 2. 25

42 Methods Figure 2: Test Process Workflow Use case Chapter 2 Literature of this thesis presents a detailed psychological analysis on the principals a creative process is based on. Following these steps can lead to a possible solution. After a deep study of the methodology on how creativity studies have to be conducted and what the end result should be, we came up with six main scenarios. These six scenarios represent the phases in our creativity process and have different purposes for the members participating. According to the process order, the scenarios are: problem statement, research, idea generation, idea refinement/clustering/filtering, solution proposals, and solution implementation. The presented and analyzed scenarios have the problem owner, the contributors and the mediators as participants. We defined the roles involved in the creativity process and constructed every diagram with all actors as participants. The purpose of these diagrams is to show the connection between the users of the application and their feature. The way the actual problem statement is formed reveals a strong connection between the user s goal and the features of the application. 26

43 Methods Post problem Figure 3: Post Problem Use Case The fundamental use case that defines the workflow process, as defined by Basadur et al., is the problem definition. A creativity process cannot start if the problem is not well defined, if the problem stated is not the right problem to solve, or if the participants have not understood the idea correctly. The participants to these phases are the problem owner, posting his problem, the moderator, who assures the guidance of the processes participants during the phase, and the actual participants. All of the participants in this phase need some clear features from the tool that they are about to use, in order to gain benefits in comparison to doing the process without having a tools support. In the Post Problem use case, the problem owner wants to post a problem. A necessary feature for this phase is the capability to post the problem. An editable text field would be appropriate for this situation. In order for the rest of participants to benefit from this feature, the entered text should be available for others to view. In addition to the text field, media support can be added to the description, so the understanding can be eased. Because of the importance of the problem understanding in this phase, participants have to be able to communicate their questions with regards to the stated problem. In order to do that, a feature like comments should be available. Problem owners have to be able to read the comments and answer possible questions. This use case base functionality. An ideation tool could not be used in a creative process without it. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure 3 27

44 Methods Research Figure 4: Research Use Case The second phase of the defined process model is the research part. The use case regarding this scenario focuses on spreading the problem knowledge and information among the participants. In order to obtain a common ground about the problem understanding and the information available on it, participants have to be able to access the material and also post materials, if needed. Also necessary in this phase are the participant s questions. In order to gain maximum benefits from the involved parties, public comments should be displayed. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure Idea generation Figure 5: Idea Generation Use Case 28

45 Methods The idea generation scenario is considered the core scenario of an ideation process. The main idea of this scenario is to generate as many ideas as possible with regards to the problem that needs to be solved. According to Basadur et al. the main rule is quantity over quality. This means that we guide ourselves to generating as many ideas as possible without criticize them yet. In order to do that, participants need to be able to express their ideas and thoughts. A possible feature for this use case would be a text field to introduce an idea. Text fields should be available for others to see, so that they are used as inspirational source. In this scenario, a creativity technique should be used. It is left to the tool s developers to choose the creativity technique and how it is implemented. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure Idea filtering and clustering Figure 6: Idea Filtering and Clustering Use Case The previous phase included generating as many ideas as possible. After having generated as many ideas as possible, comes the need to perform a selection of the available ideas. The filtering and clustering activity is done either by all participants to the process, or by the problem owner. He, as the main knowledge source about the problem is the most capable to decide if an idea is related to the problem or not. Also, after hearing the arguments and complete explanation of an idea, the participants should be capable to decide if it fits the solution space or not. In order to filter and cluster ideas, the tool should offer support for deleting an idea, if that is necessary, or to create categories and cluster the tools. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure 6. 29

46 Methods Idea rating Figure 7: Idea Rating Use Case The idea rating phase is necessary to create a possible ideas hierarchy. In order to rate ideas, a rating mechanism should be available and all participants to this phase should have the same understanding of the rating. Also, the veto right should be equal to all parts involved. After the phase is completed, an ordered idealist should be available. This list serves as the basis for the next phase. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure 7. 30

47 Methods Possible solutions Figure 8: Possible solutions Use Case The scenario solution proposal is correlated with the last phase of the creativity process we have chosen as the reference model for our study. The last phase of the process is used for creating a summary of what has been discussed and what possible solutions resulted as an outcome of the process. The scenario is handling the summary part, together with the possible solutions, if solutions can be extracted from the conclusion. Due to the dynamic and unpredictable outcome of a creativity process, finding a possible solution at the end is not a necessary step. However, if the process was successful, the involved roles need specific features in order to be capable to implement the step. Necessary features are a general summary text field, which can be either manually written, or automatically generated by the tool. Also, if the process resulted with possible solutions, there should be an area where the involved parts can see the results. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure Solution implementation Figure 9: Solution Implementation Use Case 31

48 Methods The last phase of a creativity process represents the summary of the discussed ideas and a possible implementation. Due to the fact that a creativity process offers the possibility of obtaining a possible idea implementation at its end, the analyzed tools should offer support for this feature. Also, during the entire process of creating a plan for such an implementation, the participants should be able to comment the discussed elements. The final element of this phase is a list of possible steps in order to implement the selected solution from the previous phase. The corresponding diagram can be seen in Figure Features After having derived the creative process model and the scenarios to be able to test the tool s capability to be mapped on the scenario we organized the necessary features as can be seen in Table 3. These are the mandatory features we are looking for in our analysis. Another set of features are the Table 3: Mandatory Features Table Actor Goal Feature Post his problem -Text field to describe problem -Media to support description -Edit written text Communicate with -Users comment on post other users -Product owner see comments Share research -Additional info about Problem owner materials problem See materials -Contributors post materials Express ideas -Idea expressing place Express opinion -Comment on idea Rate -Rating mechanism Have overview (see -See other comments comments and rating -See others rating systems) Cluster similar ideas -Grouping feature Filter irrelevant ideas -Delete feature Read problem -Problem with description posted Ask questions -Comments available Read material -Material available Contributors Post material -Users can add materials (text, media, ) Ask questions -Comments Express ideas -Idea expressing place See other ideas -Ideas available to all 32

49 Methods Mediator If stuck -> unstuck Express opinion See explanations See rating mechanism Rate See results(overall)/see results intermediate See results Assure everybody understood problem Materials availability Assure general idea expression Provide help when no inspiration Coordinate people Assure the rule "quantity over quality" is followed Assure rating understanding Assure everybody s right to talk Brief summary about what discussed was Present possible solutions -Creativity technique -Comments -Comment/description (detailed description) -Rating rules description -Rating mechanism -Results overview available to everyone -Overview feature -Feedback feature -Public material display -Opinion expressing rights -Creativity technique -Apply creativity technique -Rating mechanism explained -Opinion expressing rights -Summary feature - 33

50 34 Methods

51 Evaluation Chapter 4 4 Evaluation Yutongo IdeaScale BrightIdea Stormboard Groupmap Brainreactions.net Mindmeister Hype.Go! Cognistreamer Innovation Portal IdeaClouds

52 36 Evaluation

53 Evaluation 4 Evaluation In the first chapters of this work we presented different theoretical aspects about creativity. From these well-known concepts we defined and created our own process as a support process for our study. From the creative process model we derived seven scenarios, which will be used as basis for our evaluation. Each tool will be analyzed to see if the defined scenarios can be mapped onto it. The results will be presented in the form of screenshots or tables. The analysis will be conducted in the same way for each tool, providing an overall uniform evaluation. Each feature will be rated on a scale from 0 to 4. 0 points means that the tool does not offer any support for the feature. 1 point means that there is a possibility to use the tool in order to execute the necessary functionality, but there is no direct mapping between the tool and the functionality and, as a consequence thereof, it is complicated to execute it. A rating of 2 means that the tool offers the possibility to be mapped onto the necessary functionality, even though it is not directly implemented. The same ranking mechanism will also be used for the qualitative ranking of the additional features of the tool. The additional features refer to the extra features which are not mandatory for the process, but improve the tool s usability. In this case, 0 points will mean that the tool offers no support for the feature. 1 point will lead to a possible presence, but hard usage and no direct mapping between the goal and the process. 2 points will mean that the feature is not directly present, but can be simulated using other artifacts. 3 points will mean that even though there is no direct mapping between the desired feature and the tool, there is an easy possibility to do it. 4 points will describe a desired featured, that is implemented by the tool, providing ease of use and offering the desired functionality. We have chosen this rating mechanism in order to be able to differentiate between the tools that offer a desired functionality and the tools that offer either possibilities to execute the functionality or none at all. This will lead to a general score between 0 and 4 points, suggesting that the tool with the highest score is most suitable for the designed creative process. The summary, together with the overall results, will be presented in the next chapter of this work. 4.1 Yutongo Yutongo is presented as a brainstorming which is online available. The first screen of the tool is presented in Figure 10: Yutongo Dashboard and serves as home screen after having signed into the tool. The user has an overview on all available features and his profile, being able to select the desired functionality. 37

54 Evaluation Figure 10: Yutongo Dashboard Post problem The website Yutongo.com advertises itself as being an idea hub. Users are allowed to post their problems, known as idea challenges for Yutongo and customize their posts with additional features. In order to use this tool in a creativity session and post a problem, the main user has to create an Idea challenge. Starting with Figure 11 we will present the user interface in order to post a new problem. Yutongo.com offers the possibility to post a problem under the title Idea Challenge. While filling the different fields before posting the actual challenge, the user has different possibilities to describe his problem. The first field is the name. Due to the fact, that the name is the first contact a user has with a challenge, it is suggested to choose a name that is as appealing as possible. From the media point of view, the user is allowed to add a picture in order to support the written description. Figure 11: Yutongo New Idea Setup Name and Picture 38

55 Evaluation The problem owner has to describe the problem as detailed as possible. A detailed description eases the understanding for the participants and can therefore contribute to a much more efficient idea generation in the next phase. Figure 12 shows how the user interface looks like. Figure 12: Yutongo Idea description Further in the tool s process, the user can choose whether the idea is secret or not. This will lead to different privacy and access settings afterwards. Also, the challenge s owner is able to select the language for the challenge as seen in Figure 13. Figure 13: Yutongo Language The next necessary step requires setting up an environment for the challenge s viewer in order to ease the understanding for him and help him tackle his creativity. To ease the usability some of the required fields are already filled based on the information added before. 39

56 Evaluation Figure 14: Yutongo Questions The third step is also meant to ease contributor s creativity by adding an inspirational picture. Figure 15: Yutongo Inspirational Pictures The fourth step in the initial process is the last one before having completed the setup for the challenge. The owner can set a time limit here and also has the option to send an to the entire community in case of a public challenge, as can be seen in Figure

57 Evaluation Figure 16: Yutongo Time Limit and tification Yutongo.com offers an easy to use tool, which allows the user to design the challenge according to his/her preferences, having many settings available. The advantages of using this tool for this scenario is that posting a challenge after carefully filling the required fields will make it self-explanatory for the contributors. A disadvantage of using this tool for this purpose is that the challenge s owner might not know that many details about his problem and having to fill the fields in the addition process might frustrate him and lead to him not using the tool. The creativity technique used by Yutongo.com is brainstorming combined with SCAMPER (in order to post the problem different questions about the problem have to be answered). The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because the owner has multiple options to describe the problem Research This use case focuses on gathering as much information about the problem as possible. The last part of the first step is adding as much additional information to the problem definition as possible. The goal is to ease the creative process through a deep understanding of the problem, achieved through a detailed description. 41

58 Evaluation Figure 17: Yutongo Additional information The tool only allows the owner to post information. The users participating have no rights to add materials or comments in addition to the ones already posted. The materials the owner posts at the beginning serve as a helper for the ideation part of the creative process. The interface can be seen in Figure 17. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because only the owner can post additional materials for the problem Idea generation This tool offers the feature of idea generation, done by the selected participants to a challenge. In order to write down an idea for a problem, the user has two options. One option is to write the idea directly, filling out an interface as seen in Figure

59 Evaluation Figure 18: Yutongo Direct Idea Submission Another option is to follow the tool s creative process guidance and generate possible ideas or idea parts as an outcome of the process. The generated idea parts can afterwards be merged into an idea. We can see this in Figure 19. Figure 19: Yutongo Generate Idea The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because the participants are guided through the process and helped with lateral points of view on the problem. 43

60 Evaluation Idea filtering and clustering This tool offers the possibility to merge existing ideas into one idea. This feature can be used for clustering ideas. Figure 20 presents the interface used to create helping questions for the user. It also allows deleting a written idea, which can be used for the filtering part. Figure 20:Yutongo Filtering Ideas The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3. The tool offers merging and deleting possibilities, but there is no support for communication between users in this phase Idea Rating Yutongo offers the participants in a challenge the possibility to vote for existing ideas. The tool s ranking systems offers ranking options for the initially specified criteria. In order to be able to rate an idea, the user has to first select the idea and then rate it according to the displayed criteria. The rating mechanism is explained, and available for everybody to see at every ranking try. Figure 21: Yutongo Rating Mechanism 44

61 Evaluation After having rated the idea, a summary of all the votes and comments is displayed. Also, a general rating of the idea is available for the user to see. Figure 22: Yutongo Idea Rating Overview The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4. The tool does not offer a description of how the rating mechanism works, this is considered as being self-explanatory. On the other hand, the tool does average rating and is suitable for this phase of our process Possible solutions Sadly, the tool does not have an integrated possible solution feature. In order to be able to execute the sixth step of the predefined process, the users can select the ideas with the highest amount of votes and then form possible solutions. The general received ideas overview can serve as basis for this. Figure 23: Yutongo Possible Solutions 45

62 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 2, because there is an overview of the ideas and the rating, but no support for further decisions or discussions Solution Implementation There is no feature support for the solution implementation scenario derived from our process. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Overall evaluation Table 4: Yutongo Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Cost Free 1 Package available Subscription 3 Packages available Organization Target User Team Individual Private Campaign authentication Authentication Username and Password Security Connection with 128 bit Encryption Encryption User New Account Authentication Credentials from other accounts Facebook Displayed Plain Chosen User Name Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Webserver Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language 36 Different Languages Specific(tool defined) Process Custom Specification - Private Campaign Creativity Technique Brainstorming, SCAMPER 3 Media Support 4 Activity Feed 0 tifications New interested persons for public campaigns; 4 Newsfeed Searches 3 Feedback 0 Communication between users Message exchange 3 Collaboration Idea sharing 0 Idea Status 4 Status types 4 Import 0 Export CSV or Printer Friendly 4 46

63 Evaluation List Reordering 0 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Voting mechanism 4 Reward Participation Evaluation 0 Incentive Scheme 0 Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive Depending on Campaign Type 4 Support Contact details 1 Table 4 shows an overview on how Yutongo scored during our evaluation. As explained at the beginning of the chapter, the rating of the features was from 0 to 4, also including the ease-of-use and user-friendliness of the tool. Overall, the tool scored a 2.29, due to missing features for the last phase in the creative process and missing additional features, as seen in the table. The searches part could be improved, it does not search directly for ideas, but for people interested in specific topics. Except for the rating part, the tool was easy to use and self-explanatory. It also suits a team creative session or individual, due to numerous hints from the tool during the idea generation part. 4.2 IdeaScale Idea scale is a web based online tool, which, as resulted from our evaluation, is more suitable for idea management, than for ideation. The tool offers enough functionality to be mapped onto our process, though it is not as suitable for the process as other tools we analyzed in this study Post Problem In order to post a problem you have to create a community. Problem posting is referred to as New idea submission. This can be seen in Figure 24. Figure 24: IdeaScale Post Problem After clicking on the Submit New Idea button the interface regarding the information pops up, and information about the idea can be added. 47

64 Evaluation Entering a title, description and campaign type is mandatory for the first user interface. The campaign type is suitable when designing campaigns to be used for problems/products inside a company and with the company s resources. After that, the user can add tags to his/her description. Tags help the problem to be found by the search engine incorporated in the tool. They can also be used to implement different algorithms to correlate participants to a campaign to their interests. The interface is presented in Figure 25. Figure 25: IdeaScale Post Problem Details After submitting the idea we are redirected to our community page, where we can see the submitted idea, as in Figure 26. Figure 26: IdeaScale Post Problem Succes 48

65 Evaluation In order to add a description to the idea, there is only a text field available. media support can be added. In order to be able to use the tool in a team creativity process, new members have to be added to the participants in the community list. Figure 27: IdeaScale Add Participant New participants are added by clicking on Add member and then entering the new participant s address. Figure 28: IdeaScale Add Participant Details There is also the option to add moderators to a campaign. Moderators can be added either to the whole campaign, or only to the products alone. These features can be observed in Figure 27 and Figure 28. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because there is the possibility to add the problem statement and the description, but there is no media support available for additional information about the problem. 49

66 Evaluation Research The second scenario to be tested on the analyzed tool offers implementation only for the public displayed comments. The user can comment the idea and see comments from other users. They are not allowed to add any additional information to the idea. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Idea generation The idea generation process is commenting the posted idea. Due to the fact that the tool is not using a creativity technique, there is no possibility to help the members not having any idea. The controlling mechanism that can be used with this particular tool is paying attention to the members commenting and those not being active in the discussion. Private communication between users can be done through messages. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 2, because ideas can be expressed through comments, however, due to the fact that no creativity technique is available, it imposes the need of a moderator Idea filtering and clustering The ideas are presented in the form of comments. The users are offered the option to delete a comment. Also, there is the possibility to mark one comment as the top comment of the comment thread. The comments are visible to all members of the community. There is no possibility to group the comments or to have an overview more detailed than seeing the whole comments list. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 2, because there is the possibility to delete an idea and also reorder comments Idea Rating If we consider expressing ideas in the form of comments, there exists the possibility to agree or disagree to one idea. Figure 29: IdeaScale Idea Rating The mechanism is not explained and considered to be self-explanatory due to the description,as seen in Figure 29. Also, there is no automatic display of the comments with the highest rankings. In order to change the status of an idea, the owner has multiple possibilities,as seen in Figure 30: 50

67 Evaluation Figure 30: IdeaScale Change Idea Status After the idea is considered to be solved, it can be marked as closed. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because a rating mechanism exists. The mechanism is self-explanatory, so that the scenario can be easily mapped Possible solutions Due to the fact, that there is no general available board, the possible implementations have to be discussed in a separate place. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because there is no support in order to define possible solutions Solution Implementation The tool offers no feature in order to capture possible steps for the implementation of the idea. Due to this, the solution implementation needs to be done separately. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Overall evaluation Table 5: IdeaScale Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Free Cost Subscription Target User Security User Authentication Displayed Information Organization Packages available Organization Team Individual authentication Authentication Encryption New Account Credentials from other accounts Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn Plain Chosen Username Anonym 51

68 Evaluation Platform Type Web Software Type Cloud Web based tool Computer/Device Deployment type Facebook, Twitter, Interface to other systems LinkedIn, Yammer Language 36 Different Languages Specific(tool defined) Process Custom Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique 0 Media Support 0 Activity Feed Private Profile 4 tifications New Campaigns, News on Own Campaigns 4 Searches Title, Tag, Campaign 4 Feedback Direct Messaging, Voted Comment 4 Communication between users Message Exchange 3 Collaboration Idea sharing 4 Idea Status 7 Status Types 4 Import 0 Export Excel or XML 4 Reordering 0 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Voting Mechanism 4 Evaluation 0 Reward Incentive Scheme 0 Participation Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Support FAQ, Chat with Company 4 The free version of IdeaScale that we analyzed was not particularly suitable for our developed creative process. Even though the tool scored better at the additional features part, the ranking for the mandatory features was still low. Overall the tool scored Due to the fact, that the score is so low, it would not be recommended to use the tool is such a process, even though it has a lot of functionality in order to manage the campaigns, assign user permissions and control the process regarding the campaign. 4.3 BrightIdea BrightIdea advertises itself as being a collaboration tool for achieving maximum ideation through collaboration. The main concept that the tool uses, is collaboration between different persons. The end result contains different elements which are likely to lead to a possible solution to a problem Post Problem Two possibilities to go to post idea. 52

69 Evaluation Figure 31: BrightIdea Post Problem As we can see in Figure 31, the user can choose between the green button on top of the page, and the red button on the right. The green button is part of the website s menu and is always available, no matter the navigation point the user is in at a moment. Both options lead to the interface shown in Figure 32. Figure 32: Bright Idea Post Problem Details This interface offers the users the possbility to add diverse information about his/hers problem. As seen in the tools we analyzed before, there is a title field and a description. In addition to the standard fields, the user can add media support to ease the undestanding of his problem. There is the possibility to add an image to the idea, different files as 53

70 Evaluation attachments, tags or categories as seen in Figure 33. ne of them are mandatory, but highly recomanded in order to explain the problem as good as it can be explained. Figure 33: BrightIdea Problem Category After completing the required and recommended fields in the problem description the owner gets an overview of the result as we can see in Figure 34. Figure 34: BrightIdea Problem Overview The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because the owner has multiple options to describe the problem Research The second scenario is about researching the idea. For this we need to add additional info, to be able to let other users post materials and display comments. The research scenario can be mapped on the tool completely only by the problem s owner. He/she is the only one able to add materials to the description. The other users are allowed only to comment on the available materials as seen in Figure

71 Evaluation Figure 35: BrightIdea Additional Information The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because there is the possibility that additional information is added, but only by the owner of the problem Idea generation The ideas generated for a problem are written in form of comments under the problem statement. There is no specific Add idea functionality, but there are different functionalities available for the comments. As we can see in Figure 36 users can sort idea, post other ideas or add additional materials in comments. Figure 36: BrightIdea Add Idea 55

72 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because the idea generation is done by posting comments. On the other hand, there exists the possibility to add additional information to a comment, so this can ease its understanding Idea filtering and clustering Ideas can be filtered in form of deleting a comment and cannot be clustered. Another available feature is sorting the comments by the date they were posted. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because there exists the possibility to delete an existing idea or sorted by the date they were posted Idea Rating The idea rating mechanism is done with up and down votes. Everything is purely subjective, due to no clear explanation what the voting actually means. Figure 37: BrightIdea Voting Mechanism The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because there exists the possibility to upvote or downvote an idea Possible solutions There is no feature to sustain this scenario. In order to use the tool for this scenario we can use the comments feature to create an overview on what has been discussed. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Solution Implementation The tool offers no support to write the necessary steps in order to implement the solution, so that the ranking for this use case is 0. 56

73 Evaluation Overall evaluation Table 6: BrightIdea Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Licensing Open Source Free Cost Subscription Enterprise Package available Organization Target User Team Free Usage with Invites Individual authentication Security Authentication Username and Password Encryption SHA1 and RSA User New Account Authentication Credentials from other accounts Displayed Plain Chosen Username Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language English Specific(tool defined) Process Custom Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique 0 Media Support Attachments for Comments 3 Activity Feed 4 tifications Latest General News and Campaign News 4 Searches Searches in: Blog, Ideas, Posts, Users, Activity 4 Updates, Comments Feedback 0 Communication between users Message Exchange 3 Idea sharing 0 Collaboration Idea Status 0 Import 0 Export 0 Reordering Sort By Date or Rank 2 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Up and Down Votes 4 Evaluation 0 Reward Incentive Scheme 0 Participation Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Support Only with direct contact 1 Rati ng 57

74 Evaluation BrightIdea resulted after the evaluation in not suitable for our creative process. The free version we were allowed to evaluate scored low at the mandatory scenarios, as well as the additional scenarios. The tool has a well-defined structure, there is easy access to the available functionality, sadly not the one we would have wanted to have. The overall score of 1.64 is mirroring the exact lack of features needed for our process. 4.4 Stormboard Stormboard in an online idea generation and management tool. The application is web based and is, as the detailed analysis proved, an ideal collaboration environment. The tool offers the possibility for users to directly collaborate and participate at a creativity session. The next part of the study presents the tool s behavior regarding the seven use cases we provided as relevant for our creativity process. The main concept the tool implements is collaboration through messages on a wellorganized board. Stormboard can be used for solving different problems, as well as in a creative process Post problem Stormboard is a card based collaboration tool. The Post Problem scenario can be easily conducted at the beginning, due to the tool s features. After having logged in, the user has the opportunity to create a stormboard. A stormboard is a board, where the users can dynamically collaborate and find solutions to problems. The interface can be seen in Figure 38. Figure 38: Stormboard Post Problem 58

75 Evaluation The owner of the board can set its title and the template to use. The template can be changed afterwards during the process. This will not affect the ideas already posted. Figure 39: Stormboard Problem Description After having defined the problem, the description needs to be added, Figure 39, and members invited to participate to the process. Figure 40: Stormboard Add Participants The information about the problem, like a detailed description or visual information, can be added on the board and will appear in form of sticky notes as we can see in Figure 41. Figure 41: Stormboard Sticky tes Also, for all steps of the process is a comment mechanism implemented. This means that every information added to the board can be commented. Comments can be left by the owners of an idea, or by other participants. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because the owner can describe the problem and it can also be commented on by other participants Research The research scenario can also be applied with help of the visual elements available. Users can post available information in the form of images, videos, files, or even draw something. These elements are available throughout the whole process while the stormboard is still open. 59

76 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because there exists the possibility to add different materials to the existing statement Idea generation The idea generation is a feature that is implemented with help of the sticky notes. The notes are posted on the board and can be commented or voted. Everything happens in real time, however there is only one problem, no creativity technique is available. This means that once the users are out of ideas, without a coordinator to help them they will have no new option. The created board offers the possibility to add different media elements like images, videos, files or sketches on the board. In Figure 42 we can see the available media features. A board can include an unlimited number of them. Due to the fact that they are diverse, the possibility that the person wanting to contribute to the board finds an element that he/she wants increases and this eases the idea generation. Figure 42: Stormboard Media Elements The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because even though adding a new idea is a simple process, there is no creativity technique involved Idea filtering and clustering In order for the participants to be able to filter and cluster ideas, the ideas can be moved on different parts of the board, edited or deleted. Moving the notes can be done by every participant, editing and deleting can only be done by the owner of an idea to his/her own idea, as we can see in Figure

77 Evaluation Figure 43: Stormboard Idea Filtering The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because it is simple to delete an idea or cluster it on the board Idea rating The Stormboard online application also has a voting mechanism integrated. The participants can vote on own ideas or on ideas posted by other participants. The voting mechanism is formed by an up vote or a down vote as can be seen in Figure 44. Figure 44: Stormboard Idea Voting The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because rating the idea is a simple process Possible solutions The scenario involving possible solutions can be easily done by adding a new card with a summary of what has been discussed and one with possible solutions that result from the ideas so far. This offers the participant the possibility to have the same view on what has been posted and also to comment if necessary. 61

78 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because it can be implemented at the end based on the results from the process Solution Implementation The solution implementation part can be done in the same way as the possible solutions part. Another possibility is to change the view of the board, as in Figure 45, so that the view is more suitable for a process which requires a possible solution implementation. This might be useful, if the results from the process are afterwards exported in a format, so that the parts can have a suitable title. The export feature is not available for the free version, so we cannot say for sure, what implications choosing another template might have. The online application also has a general setup tab, where the users can change different settings regarding the displayed information or the number of votes available for every participant. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 2 due to the fact, that there is still a possibility to add cards to the board after ideas have been rated. Figure 45: Stormboard Board Setup Overall evaluation Table 7: Stormboard Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Licensing Open Source Free Cost Subscription Target User Organization Team Update for Additional Features Rati ng 62

79 Evaluation Individual authentication Security Authentication Encryption Secure Connection User New Account Authentication Credentials from other accounts Google First Initial from Fist and Displayed Plain Last Name Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language English Specific(tool defined) Custom Process Users can define their Specification own process Private Campaign Creativity Suitable for Technique Brainstorming 1 Media Support Images, videos, sticky notes, files and sketches 4 Activity Feed Detailed description of every change on the 4 board. tifications Chat notifications, more than 60 min not used, members leaving or 4 joining board Searches Search functionality only for the selected stormboard. Different 2 queries available. Feedback Comments 3 Communication between users Chat Available 4 Idea sharing Link to Storm can be shared 4 Idea Status Information displayed 4 Collaboration Only with upgrade from: Import 4 Excel, CSV and Text Files Export Only with upgrade: Excel, PDF, Wall view 4 Reordering 4 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Plus and Minus Votes 4 Evaluation 0 Reward Incentive Scheme 0 Participation Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Support Quick Help, Online Help, Chat with Support 4 Stormboard turned out to be a suitable tool for our creative process. It scored high for the mandatory scenarios and also for the additional features, as we can see in Table 7. The tool uses real time collaboration between users, which is very well implemented and can be 63

80 Evaluation considered flawless. Sadly there is no creativity technique directly implemented, so at this part we rated the tool with 1, since it can only be easily used for brainstorming. The overall rating is 2.9, which leads to recommending the tool for this process, with the caution regarding the missing creativity technique. 4.5 Groupmap Groupmap is an online brainstorming tool with different functionalities. The following part of the thesis will analyze if the tool maps onto the seven scenarios we defined as core scenarios for the process we created. After logging in, the user has to define his map, or join a map. Figure 46: Groupmap Login The tool describes the board to be used during the creative process as map Post Problem When creating the map, the owner can choose which creativity technique he/she wants to use during the process. This choice can influence the end result and should be chosen according to the participating members. The owner can choose between brainstorming, plus minus interesting, six thinking hats or a SW1H brainstorm. According to this choice a corresponding board will be created in order to let the participants benefit to the maximum from the creativity technique they selected. 64

81 Evaluation Figure 47: Groupmap Choose Creativity Technique And different characteristics for the map, as we can see in Figure 48. Figure 48: Groupmap Board Features Once the map has been created, the board will begin to look like Figure

82 Evaluation Figure 49: Groupmap Created Map The Groupmap online application offers as only possibility to ask questions a general chat in the app, which is always available, independent to the current stage of the process. Figure 50: Groupmap Map Chat The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because a problem can be stated and also described, but there is no possibility to add additional information to the problem Research The research functionality is poorly represented in this tool. Users can exchange information only through comments. There is no media support and no possibility to add additional information. The problem description can be though edited at any point of the process. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because there is no support from the tool Idea generation The idea generation process is done similarly to a mind map. According to the template chosen at the beginning, the participants can either randomly add ideas to the map or have to follow specific rules. Figure 51 and Figure 52 present examples for brainstorming and six thinking hats. 66

83 Evaluation Figure 51: Groupmap Brainstorming Map Figure 52: Groupmap Six Thinking Hats The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because there is the possibility to add ideas according to the chosen creativity technique Idea filtering and clustering After having added all possible ideas, the filtering and clustering step in our predefined process is assisted very well by the Groupmap application. The application provides us with a Review step, where ideas can be commented, edited or deleted. The user interface can be seen in Figure

84 Evaluation Figure 53: Groupmap Idea Editing Due to this feature we can easily group and filter ideas, in order to realize the required process step and its rating is Idea Rating The rating step is also implemented in the analyzed application, and depending on the chosen template, it is available or not. For example, the six thinking hats template has no implementation for rating ideas. On the other hand, the brainstorming templates define a separate step for rating the filtered ideas as we can see in Figure 54. Figure 54: Groupmap Brainstorming Rating Mechanism The initial settings of the map configurator specify how many votes each participant has available. Ideas can also be rated as we can see in Figure

85 Evaluation Figure 55: Groupmap Brainstorming Rating System The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because the rating and voting mechanism is self-explanatory and easily done Possible solutions The analyzed tool provides an option to view the results of the discussed ideas. The last step of the process offers an overview of the presented ideas with their rating and votes as presented in Figure 56. These features helps obtain an overview of the process. Figure 56: Groupmap Possible Solutions The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 2, because possible implementations can be derived from the overview after the rating Solution Implementation The solution implementation features are not presented in the applications process. This feature can be either done through the general comments, or sent privately to all participants. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Overall evaluation Table 8: Groupmap Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Cost Free 69

86 Evaluation Subscription For additional features Organization Participants can be Team Target User invited Individual Creativity technique available authentication Security Authentication Encryption New Account Username and Password User Authentication Facebook, LinkedIn, Credentials from other accounts Twitter, Google +, Microsoft Displayed Plain First and Last Name Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language English Specific(tool defined) Predefined Steps Process Custom Users can define own process Specification Private Campaign Brainstorming, six Creativity thinking hats, 5w1h, plus Technique minus interesting 4 Media Support Images for Idea Description 3 Activity Feed Resume at the end of the process. 3 tifications 0 Searches Search in own maps, featured maps and 4 recent maps. Feedback Comments 4 Communication between users Chat Available 4 Idea sharing 0 Collaboration Idea Status Information about idea displayed 4 Import 0 Export 0 Reordering 4 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Up and Down Votes 4 Evaluation 0 Reward Incentive Scheme 0 Participation Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Support FAQ, contact possibility 4 Groupmap has an overall average of 2.12 out of maximum 4. This score is a perfect reflection of an incomplete mandatory feature mapping, but a large spectrum of additional features, as we can see in Table 8. These are easy to use and help ease the creative process. The tool did 70

87 Evaluation not score maximum for the activity feed, because of the fact that there only a session summary, not a user overall summary of the user s activity. In the end we can say that even though our process cannot be completely mapped on the tool, the tool is very user friendly. 4.6 Brainreactions.net Brainreactions.net is an online web application which helps conduct brainstorming sessions. The tool offers possibility to conduct private or public sessions, depending on your needs. For our study, we selected the private option and tested if all our scenarios can be mapped onto the tool. The application differentiate users for the open brainstorms from the ones using private ones. The private brainstorming rooms are entered only after ordering their creation. The first step after is the same as in our scenario, defining the problem Post Problem Posting the problem into the online tool is done in the next step after creating the brainstorming room. As we can see in Figure 57, the tool offers the possibility to add a question into the brainstorming room and a description for that question. The question to be added is the problem to be solved and the description is a simple text field that offers details about the problem. The more detailed the description is, the easier it will be for the participants to understand the problem. Figure 57: Brainreactions.net Post Problem The problem s title is mandatory, afterwards coming only optional features. Beside the description, sample ideas can be added and also media information, in order to ease the understanding of the problem. 71

88 Evaluation Figure 58: Brainreactions.net Idea Samples As can be observed in Figure 58, a large amount of media options are available. After having defined the problem in the private room, users needs to be invited, in order to have participants. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because the owner has multiple options to describe the problem Research Additional information about the problem can only be added in the problem statement phase. After that phase, no other change can be done to the initial stated information. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because no other information can be added after the first phase is finished Idea generation The idea generation phase is formed only from posting ideas to the defined problem. Inspirational sources can be already posted ideas or the problem description. The communication between users is complicated, due to the fact, that there are neither chat nor other means of communication available. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 1, because ideas can be posted only in form of comments and no creativity technique is available Idea filtering and clustering For the filtering part, the tool offers support in deleting an idea. Deleting an idea can be done either by its owner or by the owner of the brainstorm problem. This is represented in Figure 59. Figure 59: Brainreactions.net New Idea Clustering ideas is not available in this tool. 72

89 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 2, because ideas can be deleted. There is no clustering feature available Idea Rating Idea rating is also a feature that is not available. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Possible solutions Possible solutions can be extracted after a deep analysis of the written ideas. There is no feature to ease this phase and also no feature available to document the results. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Solution Implementation The solution implementation phase of the process also cannot be done with the analyzed tool. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Overall evaluation Table 9: Brainreactions.net Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Cost Free Subscription Organization Private Brainstorming rooms Target User Participants can be Team invited Individual authentication Security Authentication Username and Password Encryption User Authentication New Account Credentials from other accounts Displayed Plain First and Last Name Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language English Process Specific(tool defined) Predefined Steps Custom 73

90 Evaluation Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique Brainstorming 2 Media Support Images, video and text for idea description 4 Activity Feed 0 tifications Chat tifications 3 Searches 0 Feedback 0 Communication between users 0 Idea sharing 0 Collaboration Idea Status Information about idea displayed 4 Import 0 Export 0 Reordering 0 Idea Rating Rating mechanism 0 Evaluation 0 Reward Participation Incentive Scheme 0 Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Support FAQ, contact possibility 3 After having evaluated the tool from brainreactions.net, we came to the conclusion that it does not fulfill our expectations. They advertise as doing brainstorming, but the technique is not totally implemented by the tool, this is why in Table 9 it is rated only with 2 out of 4 points. Overall the tool lacks additional features and the required features for our creative process are also not totally present. The overall rating of the tool is of 0,89, which justifies our analysis. 4.7 Mindmeister Mindmeister in an online mind mapping and idea generation application. It offers support to create diverse sessions, depending on the current needs. The next part of the thesis will analyze if the tool maps onto our needs and how the user should act in order to obtain the wished functionality from the tool. The user has to choose what template he wants to use, in order to obtain the best results. For our use cases we will choose a private brainstorming template. The tool offers the possibility to make the map public or private. A public map can be accessed by everyone, in comparison to a private map, which can only be seen and used by invited members Post Problem The problem posting part, requires only to enter the challenge's name in the middle section of the map. 74

91 Evaluation Figure 60: Mindmeister Map As we can see in Figure 60, the tool offers different points on view in order to help find a possible solution to a problem. The owner of the problem should fill all available fields with the information he holds, so that the collaboration from external users is as easy as possible. In order for the communication to succeed, the tool offers the option to invite people to private maps. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 1, because the tool does not offer other possibilities to describe the problem except for the title Research For the research phase of our process the tool offers diverse support. For advanced users, there exists the possibility to drag and drop different files into the map. This option is not available for free accounts. There is also the possibility to add links, notes or tasks to the map, so that the participants have a better understanding. The adding of the additional elements is available for all participants, not being restricted by the owner status. Figure 61 shows a screenshot from the tool regarding this options. Figure 61: Mindmeister Addional Information 75

92 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because there is the possibility to add additional material to the board Idea generation The idea generation phase of our process is covered by the tool in a simple way. There is a part of the map where ideas can be added. There is no comment possibility and also no chat available, so that the users cannot be sure they understood the idea right or that their idea has been properly understood by others. There is an unlimited amount of ideas that the users can add. There is also no possibility to add a time limit. A session facilitator is useful in these situations, so that the participants do not lose the session s focus. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because the tool offers the possibility to add ideas, but there is no creativity technique involved Idea filtering and clustering The chosen brainstorming template can be used to cluster ideas and filter them. The map is dynamically organized and the ideas presented can be easily grouped or deleted. In Figure 62, Figure 63, Figure 64 we can see three examples about how this looks in the tool. Figure 62: Mindmeister Idea Clustering Example 1 Figure 63: Mindmeister Idea Clustering Example 2 76

93 Evaluation Figure 64: Mindmeister Idea Clustering Example 3 The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because moving ideas on the screen is done in a simple way and also deleting an idea is simple Idea Rating The analyzed tool does not provide any rating mechanism, due to this, it will be rated with Possible solutions There is no possible solution feature, users can organize ideas, in order to order them into possible solutions, so that we will rate it with Solution implementation The solution implementation feature is available in form of action points that the users can take in order to implement the solution. Figure 65 shows how the tool implements this feature. Figure 65: Mindmeister Solution Implementation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because it is simple to create new action points suitable to the goals defined before. 77

94 Evaluation Overall evaluation Table 10: Mindmeister Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Cost Free Subscription 3 Packages available Private Brainstorming Organization rooms Target User Team Individual authentication Security Authentication Username and Password Encryption New Account Facebook, Twitter, User Authentication Google, Google Apps, Credentials from other accounts OpenID, Unilogin, MC Online, MindMeister First and Last Name Displayed Plain displayed Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language 10 Languages available Specific(tool defined) Process Custom Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique Brainstorming 3 Media Support Images, video and text for idea description, links 4 Activity Feed 0 tifications 0 Searches Only in map searches 2 Feedback 0 Communication between users 0 Idea sharing For paid packages 3 Collaboration Idea Status 0 Import 0 Export 10 different possibilities 4 Reordering 0 Idea Rating Rating mechanism 0 Evaluation 0 Reward Participation Incentive Scheme 0 Gamification Different achievements 4 Monetary Incentive 0 Support Online help, tutorial, key shortcuts 4 78

95 Evaluation Mindmeister advertises itself as being an online brainstorming suitable tool. After testing the tool with the predefined scenarios, we came to the conclusion, that is it not totally suitable for our process, but that it can be used to follow it. The evaluation we conducted resulted with an overall score of As can be seen in Table 10 the tool offers many additional features, which help to implement the process. Overall the tool is user-friendly, has a good real time communication between users and is adjustable to different processes. 4.8 Hype.Go! Hype.Go! advertises itself as being a platform for collaborative innovation and idea management. The available description leads to a perfect candidate for our study. The following part of the thesis will analyze whether the tool is suitable for the defined creative process or not. The users can benefit from a free trial by signing up. After that, the processes and problems are organized in campaigns. As can be seen in Figure 66, a campaign definition contains five main steps, organized in a well-defined process. Figure 66: Hype.Go! Process Steps Post Problem Figure 67: Hype.Go! Problem Title The first step is to define the question to be answered in the campaign, represented in Figure 67. A catchy title in recommended, especially for public campaigns. After having defined the question, the user is required to fill out a short summary, as seen in Figure 68: Figure 68: Hype.Go! Problem Summary 79

96 Evaluation and a description as seen in Figure 69. It is recommended to make the description as detailed as possible, so a good understanding of the problem can be achieved. Figure 69: Hype.Go! Problem Description In order to make the problem attractive to public campaigns a picture option is available for the owner to be added to the problem definition. A possible banner is shown in Figure 70. Figure 70: Hype.Go! Campaign Banner Also, a sponsor can be added to the campaign, so that more people get engaged into generating ideas. The next step in the definition is defining the campaign visibility. For private campaigns users need to be invited. This user interface is presented in Figure

97 Evaluation Figure 71: Hype.Go! Participants Invitations In order to assure some flexibility, but also try to keep the process organized, a time limit needs to be defined. Figure 72 shows how this feature is represented in the user interface. Figure 72: Hype.Go! Time Limit The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4 due to the diverse information that can be added to the problem statement Research The research phase can be done by the idea owners while creating the campaign. After the campaign has been created, there is no possibility for a contributor to add additional information. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Idea generation The idea generation phase consists of contributors adding ideas. There is no collaboration between users and, in order to add an idea, a user needs to fill out different information, as will be seen starting from Figure

98 Evaluation The idea title is the first information to be entered about an idea. Figure 73: Hype.Go! Idea Generation After naming the idea in an attractive way, a short description needs to be added, as we can see in Figure 74, in order to explain the idea. Figure 74: Hype.Go! Idea Generation Description The description helps the owner and other users to understand what the idea means and may foster their creativity. Figure 75: Hype.Go! Idea Picture Another option for the idea owner is adding a picture to the idea, Figure 75. This could also achieve a better understanding of the idea and inspire people to generate their own ideas. Figure 76: Hype.Go! Idea Additional Information The last possible media feature for the idea generation process is adding files to the description. Those can be additional information, studies or everything that the user finds as relevant for the idea. Figure 76 82

99 Evaluation After having filled out the form, the idea can be edited, shared, deleted or commented on. This leads to various discussions on an idea, and a moderator is needed in order to coordinate the actions. An overview of the tool s interface after posting an idea is presented in Figure 77. Figure 77: Hype.Go! Idea Overview The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because adding an idea is a simple process with diverse information, but there is no creativity technique involved Idea filtering and clustering There is no specific option for clustering ideas. Filtering ideas, can be done by deleting the ones considered as not suitable for the problem that needs a solution. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 1, because of the possibility to delete ideas, but no possibility to cluster them Idea Rating The rating mechanism is as complex as adding a new idea. In order to rate ideas, a rating session needs to be started so that everyone can vote. The process is shown in Figure

100 Evaluation Figure 78: Hype.Go! Idea Rating The second step, seen in Figure 79, of the rating creation process defines the fields to be filled while rating. Figure 79: Hype.Go! Evaluation Forn The third step asks for selecting the evaluation team. This is represented in Figure

101 Evaluation Figure 80: Hype.Go! Evaluation Team After creating the rating session, ideas can be rated, and a results overview is presented, as we can see in Figure 81. Figure 81: Hype.Go! Evaluatio Results The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, due to a complex voting system with a results overview afterwards Possible solutions The possible solutions can be derived after the rating phase. There is no specific feature for that in the application. 85

102 Evaluation The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 1, because the tool offers no support to do it, though it presents an overview of the rating so conclusions can be derived Solution Implementation The solution implementation is to be discussed separately, due to lack of a feature for this. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Overall evaluation Table 11: Hype.Go! Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Cost Free Only trial version Subscription Organization Private Brainstorming rooms Target User Participants can be Team invited Individual authentication Security Authentication Encryption User Authentication New Account webmail address allowed Credentials from other accounts Displayed Plain First Name displayed Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language English Specific(tool defined) Process Custom Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique 0 Media Support Images, video and text for idea description, links 4 Activity Feed On Home Page 3 tifications 3 Searches 0 Feedback Comments 4 Communication between Comments 4 users Collaboration Idea sharing 4 Idea Status 4 Import 0 86

103 Evaluation Export Excel 2 Reordering 0 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Complex rating session 4 Evaluation 0 Reward Incentive Scheme 0 Participation Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive Depending on campaign 4 Support Online help, tutorial 4 Table 11 shows a complete rating of the additional features that Hype.Go! implements. The score for these features is 2.22, which is high in comparison to the other tools, but not sufficient that together with the mandatory features the tool can score more than This leads to the conclusion that the tool is not suitable for our process, even though it has a lot of extra functionality available. 4.9 Cognistreamer Innovation Portal Cognistreamer Innovation Portal is a widely known and used idea generation and management tool. We have chosen this tool for our analysis due to the features the company advertises the tool has. We will conduct the evaluation based on the seven main use cases we developed. The tool has no free version, so a direct client release will be used in order to conduct the analysis Post problem The tool offers two possibilities in order to post a problem. The user can either choose to add a new Idea Campaign or an Innovation Challenge. At a first glance the main difference between the two options is a SWOT offered only by the Innovation Challenge. We have chosen to analyze the Idea Campaign. In order to implement the first scenario, the user has to fill out different fields regarding the problem. First, as can be seen in Figure 82, the owner has to enter a title for the problem and then write a short description. For the description, several editor options are available, which can ease the process of understanding. 87

104 Evaluation Figure 82: Cognistreamer New Idea Title and Description Figure 83: Cognistreamer New Idea Tags and Categories After having described the problem, the user has to fill out different additional fields in order to be able to complete the process. As we can see in Figure 83 different tags can be added, attachments or categories. This information, especially the tags and the categories can be used in the search mechanism of the tool, as well as for different statistics. Figure 84: Cognistramer New Idea Image 88

105 Evaluation Another important feature for our fist use case is posting an image regarding the problem. This element can serve itself as a stimulator for ideas, due to the visualizing power of the human mind. Besides those details about the problem, the owner has to set up different settings about the campaign, like the number of votes per user, a time limit or visibility from other users Research Our research scenario can be easily mapped on the tool. After having posted the problem the tool offers users the possibility to comment on the general campaign. This is a separate feature from adding a new idea. In the comments the users can insert images or tables Idea Generation Adding a new idea to the campaign is a simple and comfortable process, which can be easily done by the members. The contributor has to give a title to his/her idea and a short description. Afterwards he can add different tags for the idea, different attachments and pictures and include it to different categories. Also, the owner can set up visibility rights for his/her idea. The tool then offers additional functionality to comment on the idea or start a discussion based on it Idea filtering and clustering Mapping our idea filtering and clustering scenario is possible, but only for the filtering part. There is no possibility to cluster ideas. Ideas can be deleted, edited or commented, but not merged to other ideas Idea Rating The rating mechanism is very complex. A user has a number of votes per campaign in order to vote existing ideas. In Figure 85 we can see how this looks like in the tool. Figure 85: Cognistreamer Voting Except for the voting mechanism, the tool offers the possibility to review the impact of the idea in different directions in the company. This is represented in Figure 86. After the ideas have been rated and discussed, the selected ones are transmitted into the next stage. 89

106 Evaluation Figure 86: Cognistreamer Different Impacts Possible Solutions The possible solutions scenario can be mapped on the tool. As we can see in Figure 87, the process implemented by the tool offers a section to see the selected ideas. They can be further discussed and transferred to the last phase of the tool s process. Figure 87: Cognistreamer Process Solution Implementation Due to the last phase of the tool s process we can easily map our use case on the tool. In Cognistreamer s closure phase the selected solution can be discussed and implementation steps can be described Overall Evaluation Table 12: Cognistreamer Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Cost Free Subscription Organization Private Campaigns Target User Team Participants can be invited Individual authentication Security Authentication Encryption Secure Connection 90

107 Evaluation Credentials from New Account User Authentication company Credentials from other accounts Displayed Plain First Name displayed Information Anonym Platform Type Web Software Type Web Application Cloud Deployment type Computer/Device Interface to other systems Language English Specific(tool defined) Process Custom Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique 0 Media Support Images, video and text for idea description, links 4 Activity Feed 4 tifications 4 Searches In tags and content 4 Feedback Comments 4 Communication between users Messages 3 Idea sharing Comments can be shared 2 Idea Status 4 Collaboration Import 0 Export PDF with full information about an idea or 4 campaign Reordering 0 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Complex rating session 4 Evaluation 0 Reward Participation Incentive Scheme 0 Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Support Company direct support 4 The tool scored a total of 3.24, which places it on the first place of our study. As we can see in Table 12, the tool scored for almost for all implemented additional features a 4. The scenario mapping was almost totally possible, but there was no creativity technique involved. Due to the fact that the tool is normally used in a company with direct support from the tool owners, users can apply a creativity technique with help of the external moderator. Overall the tool was easy to use, very complex and with a lot of features IdeaClouds IdeaClouds is an online platform designed for exploring solutions and finding new ideas. The platform advertises itself as being team oriented and having also a moderator function. The description itself makes IdeaClouds a suitable candidate for the study we conducted. The platform was developed as spin-off of the Technical University of Munich with the goal of a collaboration software. As we can see in Figure 88, depending on the intended use of the software, there are multiple scenarios available. 91

108 Evaluation Figure 88: IdeaClouds Choosing Use case Post problem Mapping our use case Post problem is done in the second step of the user-tool contact. The interface is shown in Figure 89. Figure 89: IdeaClouds Problem statement After having introduced the title of the problem, the user needs to enter his address, in order to proceed with the process. By clicking on the Continue button, present in Figure 89, the user has to choose if the use case is done alone or in a team. If a team is required, then the member s addresses will have to be entered in another field. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 1, because the tool offers no support to describe the problem only giving it a title being allowed Research For our Research use case the tool does not offer a lot of support. In the initial definition phase there is no possibility to add additional materials or information about the statement, and there is also no possibility afterwards to edit the entered information. However, the board created for the session offers the possibility that extra materials are added to it, like images or text notes. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because additional information can be then stated on the board. 92

109 Evaluation Idea generation The Idea generation use case can be easily mapped on the board. Figure 90: IdeaClouds Add new idea Figure 90 shows how a new idea is entered. First, there is an idea title, followed by a description. In this phase it is important, that as many ideas as possible are generated. Real time collaboration is offered, so that each idea entered by a participant is seen in real time by other participants. Ideas can be edited by everyone, there is no idea owner. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because ideas can be easily written on the board, and there are also guidelines in case users do not know what to do or how to think. The guidelines are different depending on the creativity technique used Idea filtering and clustering This tool offers no special functionality for filtering and clustering ideas. This can be done by the participants after having decided that all possible ideas were defined. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 3, because there is no specific feature to do that, but users can reorder ideas on the board or delete them Idea rating The rating mechanism is set up at the beginning. While defining the problem, the owner also has to choose if the ideas will be rated or not. In order to select a suitable rating mechanism from a list, the options are explained when going with the mouse over them. This is shown in Figure 91. Figure 91: IdeaClouds Rating mechanism explained 93

110 Evaluation The evaluation is done individually by the members of the team. This means that one s ratings are not seen by other participants. Figure 92: IdeaClouds Idea evaluation Due to the fact that each participant does the rating alone, in order to move to next phase, all have to be finished with the current one. Once a participant has finished rating, by finishing this task he automatically also sends a chat message to the others, letting them know he has finished. The rating explanation is presented in Figure 92. After completing the task we have an overview on the ratings. This sums up all the votes and creates an average value for the rated ideas. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 4, because there is full support from the tool. The mechanism is explained and can also be chosen from more than one option Possible solutions The brainstorming phase ends with the general rating results, so that there is no support from the tool for our Possible solutions scenario. In order to determine possible solutions, the results can be exported and derived from the obtained information. There is the possibility to export the results in the formats shown in Figure 93. Figure 93: IdeaClouds Export Ideas The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 1, because the tool offers direct support. There is a general overview of the results and an export option available. The possible export types are presented in Figure

111 Evaluation Solution implementation The solution implementation use case we considered relevant for our study cannot be implemented on IdeaClouds. In order to do this, the information from the previous phases can be used, but without any support from the tool. The rating of the possible implementation of this scenario is 0, because the tool offers no support Overall evaluation Table 13: IdeaClouds Overall Evaluation Category Characteristic / Detailed Description Rating Licensing Open Source Free Cost Subscription Target User Security User Authentication Displayed Information Platform Type Software Type Deployment type Language Process For more creativity techniques Organization Team Individual authentication Authentication Encryption RSA and AES New Account User and Password Credentials from other accounts Plain address displayed Anonym Web Web Application Cloud Computer/Device Interface to other systems English, German, Italian Specific(tool defined) Depending on process Custom Specification Private Campaign Creativity Technique 4 Media Support Images 3 Activity Feed 0 tifications Via 3 Searches 0 Feedback Comments 3 Communication between users Chat 4 Idea sharing 0 Collaboration Idea Status 0 Import From already finished sessions 4 Export PDF, Whiteboard, PDF A4, RTF 4 Reordering Due to whiteboard 4 Idea Rating Rating mechanism Set up at the beginning 4 Reward Participation Evaluation 0 Incentive Scheme 0 95

112 Evaluation Support Gamification 0 Monetary Incentive 0 Task description, briefing, manual 4 IdeaClouds resulted in being one of the tools most suitable for the creative process we defined. The tool scored an overall of 2.26, which almost places the tool in top 3 of the evaluated tools. As we can see in Table 13, the tool has a lot of additional features, which help the user and create a pleasant work environment. The tool offers many creativity techniques and guides its user through the process. 96

113 Discussion and future work Chapter 5 5 Discussion and future work Tool overall rating Conclusions Future work

114 98 Discussion and future work

115 Discussion and future work 5 Discussion and future work The last chapter of this thesis will explain the results we came up with and will motivate the presented conclusions. At the beginning of the work we presented a creativity process that we conceived. This process was derived from the most known creative processes in literature and served as the basis for our study. During the analysis we evaluated how we can map our scenarios onto the tools and also what additional features the tools offer in order to be more usable or capable to implement different functionality. The rating mechanism is presented in 4 Evaluation and is applied on all analyzed tools. The appendix of the paper contains complete overviews on the results and the features the tools implement or not. The rating was done in two parts, once we evaluated the tool s capability to be mapped on our specific scenarios and afterwards we compared the tool to a list of additional features we considered to be relevant for the process. The main focus of the paper was not only on the mandatory features the tools needed in order to implement our seven steps process, but also on how useable and friendly the tools were. The last two factors had a high weighting in the evaluation and this can be seen in the results presented below Tool overall rating As we can see in Table 14 none of the tools achieved the maximum score for all mandatory features nor for the additional. The result was expected, due to the fact, that we developed our own process, which included a combination of phases available in other processes. Table 14: Tools Overall Rating Post Problem Research Idea Generation Idea Filtering and Clustering Idea Rating Possible Solutions Solution Implementation Use Cases Rating Addional Features Rating Total Rating Yutongo Ideascale brightidea stormboard groupmap brainreactions.net mindmeister hype.go Cognistreamer ideaclouds The tool with the highest ranking was the one from Congnistreamer. Cognistreamer s Innovation Portal proved to be most suitable to our scenarios, lacking only at directly using a creativity technique. As we discussed with the company s assignee, the tool is normally used after having an introduction session about its functionality and usage possibilities. On the second place after the rating is the tool provided by Stormboard. This tool is also not implementing any creativity technique, but can be easily used in a brainstorming session with a moderator s support. 99

116 Discussion and future work On the third place, at almost equal score are the tools provided by Yutongo and IdeaClouds. These two tools both implement a creativity technique and are therefore mostly suitable for the theme of this paper. Yutongo does not precisely define the creativity technique used, but due to the questions the user has to answer while posting his problem, we can easily say that it uses SCAMPER as creativity technique. IdeaClouds offers ten creativity techniques to choose for a free usage. The implementation of this techniques is clear and easy to understand and the tool offers user support through the process the entire time. There is also the option to hide this information in case of users aware of the process. The tool is easy to use and very user-friendly. In comparison to our top three analyzed tools is the tool from brainreactions.net. This tool scored the lowest points being the only one to score less than 1 point. The tool advertised itself as using brainstorming and being a perfect environment for idea generation. As our evaluation proved, the tool was not using any creativity technique even though it was promising that and the user interface was not user-friendly at all. During our study we found out that it is not only important that the tool implements a creativity technique, but that the process it implementing should be easy to follow and the interface the user is communicating with should be as friendly as possible. Due to the fact that a friendly user interface can play an important factor in the idea generation process, it should be a main focus for the tool designers to keep it as friendly as possible. 5.2 Conclusions Our study contained the evaluation of ten tools. We have analyzed the tools not only from the perspective of how our seven steps process can be mapped onto the tools, but also from the usability point of view and how user friendly the tools were. These factors contributed to the different rankings and also to the fact, that tools, which did not contain all necessary steps for our scenario, did not score very low, due to high user-friendly interfaces and usable features. We found out that most of the tools try to implement general functionality, so that a scenario we defined as mandatory had no direct mapping, but the tool offered the needed functionality in order for it to be done. The purpose of this work was to find out and categorize available ideation tools on the market and discover what principles from psychology influenced the design of those tools. The research we conducted lead to the conclusion that the main characteristics which differentiate the tools is whether the tools implement a creativity technique or not, if the user is offered a predefined process or the possibility for him to create one or not, and if the tool is suitable for an individual usage or not. Most of the analyzed tools turned out not to implement a creativity technique, even though they were advertising an idea generation process. This was a major down point for them, because as literature revealed, a process involving a creativity technique can lead to much better results than a process without one. Tools like Yutongo and IdeaScale were much easier to use having both a creativity technique and a predefined process implemented. The tools which had no guiding process mostly compensated with a good user interface offering a good user-experience. This can help the user define his/her own process and conduct it. On the other hand, having no predefined process can lead to organizational problems and a bad time management. Most of the tools having a predefined process also had the possibility of setting time limits. This can ease further time management and help keep the participants focused on the task. 100

117 Discussion and future work If we consider the individual usage of a tool with the purpose of finding possible solutions to a problem, most of the tools were inadequate for this purpose. All of the analyzed tools emphasize on group creativity. Even if they offer the possibility to create a private campaign, the purpose is to be able to communicate with other people in order to generate ideas. ne of the analyzed tools offered a perfect working environment in order for the user to work alone and develop new ideas. This caveat can be seen from the process definition until the implemented features. From the psychological point of view, most of the tools are guided by Rhodes (Rhodes 1961) 4 P s. We can see that in the way they try to look at the problem not only from the person perspective, but also from the process or from the product point of view. From the psychological point of view, most of the tools are guided by Rhodes (Rhodes 1961) 4 P s. We can see that in the way they try to look at the problem not only from the person perspective, but also from the process or from the product point of view. Some of the tools offer the possibility to include the challenge into a category. In a public idea generation process this can lead to the result that people who are interested in that particular category participate to the process. Regarding the process principle, tools try to offer the user a specific process to follow in order to generate ideas. For example from the analyzed tools is Yutongo, which guides the user through the whole process. IdeaClouds offers a task based process. This means that the user can continue with the next task only when the corrent completed is. The study we conducted was after choosing a specific set of metrics. If the metrics would have been chosen different, the evaluation would have probably resulted with different results. We can conclude that it is not only necessary for a tool to have a well-defined process and specific features, but also to offer a good user experience. As M. Kuniavsky said in his work (Kuniavsky 2003) the user experience is about making the user happy. We have seen in our research different approaches towards this direction. There are tools like Yutongo and IdeaClouds which try to combine the experience of a structured process with a friendly interface and tools like brainreactions.net which focus only on implementing the basic functionality required. In the end it is for the user to decide what kind of experience it desires, but for the developer to try to offer him the best experience he could receive, by combining functionality and visual elements. 5.3 Future work The current work analyzed only a part of available ideation tools. Further work could address analyzing the rest of available tools. The Forrester Report (Gliedman et. al, 2013) presents us with a list of available tools, which could be interesting in evaluating due to their use in organization. These tools do not offer any free versions. Another further work for which this thesis could serve as starting point could be conducting an empirical study in order to see the impact of idea generation tools on users. This could be conducted from the perspective how better results can be achieved, with or without support. Such an experiment could be conducted using different size of groups of people having different backgrounds and different ages. This kind of experiment could simulate a real working environment in a company, where different people from different departments are gathered together in order to help develop a new product or solve a problem. 101

118 Discussion and future work The study from (Dennis et. al. 1990) revealed that the idea-generation performance increased with group size. Due to the constant evolution of the tools nowadays, and the constant attempt of the developers to create tools that offer a better user-experience, such a study could have different outcomes now. Also, another interesting factor could be comparing the aspects of quality and quantity. It would be interesting to evaluate which tools ease the idea generation and which help develop qualitative ideas. Another interesting aspect that could be studied with such an experiment would be the one of anonymity. What kind of anonymity do the tools offer and how do the people react to it. In order to conduct such an experiment a clear structure should be defined and also the points of interest for the outcome should be clearly specified. A possible setup for such an experiment could be defining two types of groups, a small group with 7 to 10 people and a large one with 22 to 27 members. Two groups of each group type should exist, in order to properly evaluate the results. In each group, people should be the same diversity in age and backgrounds, due to the previous work environment simulation explained above. In order to create the same basis for all the teams, none of the members should be aware of the problem to be solved and all of the groups should have the same task to solve. Due to the nature of the study, a time limit should be set. rmally a moderator should be present in order to guide the participants through the process and assure good communication and understanding. Depending on the nature of the evaluated tool this moderator could be absent in the case of tool supported session, due to some tool s inner moderator feature. In this case, the moderator could be a silent one, and only write down the observations during the session. For the non-software supported sessions, the groups should have a moderator in order to help them guide through the entire process. All of the teams should have the same process flow, so if the analyzed tool has a predefined process, the teams not using it should follow the same work process in order to be able to compare results at the end. After the session has been terminated, the participants could be asked to fill out a questionnaire with questions formulated so that in the end, a complete feedback about the process and the experience of the participants can result as an outcome of the study. Besides the feedback of the participants, the feedback from the problem owner about which way produced the better idea can also be taken into consideration, assuming that there will be a possible solution in the end. At the end of the session, a complete evaluation of the user-experience and the generated ideas will be done, in order to conclude which method achieved the best results. 102

119 Reference References Alan R. Dennis, Joseph S. Valacich, J. F. Nunamaker Jr. (1990): An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Group Size in an Electronic Meeting Environment 25, pp Alexander Ivanov (2009): Satisfaction with Web - based meetings for idea generation and selection: the role of instrumentality, enjoyment and interface design. Dissertation. Arthur B. Van Gundy Jr. (1988): Techniques of structured problem solving. Banking Industry: nsaufwendungen-von-banken/. Basadur, Min; Pringle, Pam; Speranzini, Gwen; Bacot, Marie (2000): Collaborative Problem Solving Through Creativity in Problem Definition: Expanding the Pie, pp Ben Shneiderman (2009): Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers, pp Chip Gliedman, Peter Burris, Nancy Wang (2013): The Forrester Wave: Innovation Management Tools. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1997): Creativity: Klett-Cotta. Flora Beeftink, Wendelien van Eerde: The Effect of Interruptions and Breaks on Insight and Impasses: Do I need a break right now? Forster, Florian J. (2010): Computerunterstützung von kollaborativen Kreativitätsprozessen. Doctor's Thesis. Technische Universität München, München. George M. Marakas; Joyce J. Elam (1997): Creativity enhancement in problem solving through software or process, pp Geschka, Horst; Lanteme, Gudrun (2005): Kreativitätstechniken: Gabler Verlag. J.P. Guilford (1967): The Nature of Human Intelligence. James M. Higgins (2006): 101 Creative Problem Solving Techiniques: The Handbook of New Ideas for Business. Jennifer M. George, Jing Zhou (2002): Understanding When Bad Moods Foster Creativity and Good Ones Don't: The Role of Context and Clarity of Feelings, pp Joao Pissarra; Jorge C. Jesuino (2005): Idea generation through computer - mediated communication: The effects of anonymity, pp Leonard,D & Sensiper, S (1998): The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation. California Management Review, 40, , pp Marc Tassoul: Creative Facilitation Matthias Vogt, Katrin Bergener, Jörg Becker (2013): Comprehensive Support for Creativity- Intensive Processes. An Explanatory Information System Design Theory, pp Mechanical Industry: -fuer-innovationen-im-maschinen--und-anlagenbau-in-deutschland/. 103

120 References Mel Rhodes (1961): The Analysis of Creativity. Merriam-Webster (2006): The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Michael Michalko (2006): Thinkertoys. Mike Kuniavsky (2003): Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Milam Aiken, Jay Krosp, Ashraf Shirani, Jeanette Martin (1994): Electronic brainstorming in small and large groups. Electronic brainstorming in small and large groups. Electronic brainstorming in small and large groups, pp Parnes, Sidney J. (1992): Source Book for Creative Problem Solving: A Fifty Year Digest of Proven Innovation Process. Ripple, Richard E. (1989): Ordinary creativity, pp Roberto O. Briggs, Gert-Jan de Veerde, Jay F. Nunamaker Jr. (2003): Collaborative Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Support Systems, pp Roland A. Finke, Thomas B. Ward, Steven M. Smith (1994): Creative cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications, pp Satu Parjanen (2012): Experiencing Creativity in the Organization: From Individual Creativity to Collective Creativity, pp Scarlett R. Herring; Brett R. Jones; Brain P. Bailey (2009): Idea Generation Techniques among Creative Professionals, pp Vlad Petre Gălveanu (2010): Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology, pp Wallas, Graham (1926): The Art of Thought. 104

121 Appendix Appendix Appendix List of Figures List of Tables Creativity techniques Tables

122 106 Appendix

123 Appendix Appendix List of Figures Figure 1: The 4P's of Creativity (Mel Rhodes 1961)... 9 Figure 2: Test Process Workflow Figure 3: Post Problem Use Case Figure 4: Research Use Case Figure 5: Idea Generation Use Case Figure 6: Idea Filtering and Clustering Use Case Figure 7: Idea Rating Use Case Figure 8: Possible solutions Use Case Figure 9: Solution Implementation Use Case Figure 10: Yutongo Dashboard Figure 11: Yutongo New Idea Setup Name and Picture Figure 12: Yutongo Idea description Figure 13: Yutongo Language Figure 14: Yutongo Questions Figure 15: Yutongo Inspirational Pictures Figure 16: Yutongo Time Limit and tification Figure 17: Yutongo Additional information Figure 18: Yutongo Direct Idea Submission Figure 19: Yutongo Generate Idea Figure 20:Yutongo Filtering Ideas Figure 21: Yutongo Rating Mechanism Figure 22: Yutongo Idea Rating Overview Figure 23: Yutongo Possible Solutions Figure 24: IdeaScale Post Problem Figure 25: IdeaScale Post Problem Details Figure 26: IdeaScale Post Problem Succes Figure 27: IdeaScale Add Participant Figure 28: IdeaScale Add Participant Details Figure 29: IdeaScale Idea Rating Figure 30: IdeaScale Change Idea Status Figure 31: BrightIdea Post Problem Figure 32: Bright Idea Post Problem Details Figure 33: BrightIdea Problem Category Figure 34: BrightIdea Problem Overview Figure 35: BrightIdea Additional Information Figure 36: BrightIdea Add Idea Figure 37: BrightIdea Voting Mechanism Figure 38: Stormboard Post Problem Figure 39: Stormboard Problem Description Figure 40: Stormboard Add Participants Figure 41: Stormboard Sticky tes Figure 42: Stormboard Media Elements

124 Appendix Figure 43: Stormboard Idea Filtering Figure 44: Stormboard Idea Voting Figure 45: Stormboard Board Setup Figure 46: Groupmap Login Figure 47: Groupmap Choose Creativity Technique Figure 48: Groupmap Board Features Figure 49: Groupmap Created Map Figure 50: Groupmap Map Chat Figure 51: Groupmap Brainstorming Map Figure 52: Groupmap Six Thinking Hats Figure 53: Groupmap Idea Editing Figure 54: Groupmap Brainstorming Rating Mechanism Figure 55: Groupmap Brainstorming Rating System Figure 56: Groupmap Possible Solutions Figure 57: Brainreactions.net Post Problem Figure 58: Brainreactions.net Idea Samples Figure 59: Brainreactions.net New Idea Figure 60: Mindmeister Map Figure 61: Mindmeister Addional Information Figure 62: Mindmeister Idea Clustering Example Figure 63: Mindmeister Idea Clustering Example Figure 64: Mindmeister Idea Clustering Example Figure 65: Mindmeister Solution Implementation Figure 66: Hype.Go! Process Steps Figure 67: Hype.Go! Problem Title Figure 68: Hype.Go! Problem Summary Figure 69: Hype.Go! Problem Description Figure 70: Hype.Go! Campaign Banner Figure 71: Hype.Go! Participants Invitations Figure 72: Hype.Go! Time Limit Figure 73: Hype.Go! Idea Generation Figure 74: Hype.Go! Idea Generation Description Figure 75: Hype.Go! Idea Picture Figure 76: Hype.Go! Idea Additional Information Figure 77: Hype.Go! Idea Overview Figure 78: Hype.Go! Idea Rating Figure 79: Hype.Go! Evaluation Forn Figure 80: Hype.Go! Evaluation Team Figure 81: Hype.Go! Evaluatio Results Figure 82: Cognistreamer New Idea Title and Description Figure 83: Cognistreamer New Idea Tags and Categories Figure 84: Cognistramer New Idea Image Figure 85: Cognistreamer Voting Figure 86: Cognistreamer Different Impacts Figure 87: Cognistreamer Process Figure 88: IdeaClouds Choosing Use case Figure 89: IdeaClouds Problem statement Figure 90: IdeaClouds Add new idea

125 Appendix Figure 91: IdeaClouds Rating mechanism explained Figure 92: IdeaClouds Idea evaluation Figure 93: IdeaClouds Export Ideas

126 110 Appendix

127 Appendix List of Tables Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Ideation Tools Table 2: Creative process models summary Table 3: Mandatory Features Table Table 4: Yutongo Overall Evaluation Table 5: IdeaScale Overall Evaluation Table 6: BrightIdea Overall Evaluation Table 7: Stormboard Overall Evaluation Table 8: Groupmap Overall Evaluation Table 9: Brainreactions.net Overall Evaluation Table 10: Mindmeister Overall Evaluation Table 11: Hype.Go! Overall Evaluation Table 12: Cognistreamer Overall Evaluation Table 13: IdeaClouds Overall Evaluation Table 14: Tools Overall Rating

128 112 Appendix

129 Appendix Creativity techniques To date, hundreds of creativity techniques have been published. The list below provides a selection of well-known techniques and briefly describes them. For more information, see (Michalko 2006), (Van Gundy Jr. 1988), (Higgins 2006) and others. Analogy technique Find out characteristics about the problem and other similar problems which were resolved. Use the information to generate ideas for the current problem. Brainsketching Ideas are expressed only by drawing a sketch of it. After all participants have finished or the time has passed, all ideas are shown to all other participants. Brainwriting Ideas are not verbally transmitted, but written on cards. Bulletproofing Ideas are expressed after having thought about what could go wrong. Cherry Split The process consists of splitting the challenge first in two words and then each word in two attributes. The split goes on until there is enough material to work with. After that, ideas come from reassembling the attributes. Five Ws and H In order to generate ideas, participants have to find answers to 6 questions: Who?, What?, Why?, When?, Where? and How? Idea Box Ideas come after having analyzed the problem, split it into parameters and then found variations for the parameters. The end result is after combining the elements. Osborns Checklist Ideas are expressed after answering questions from a questions list. The idea is to find new ways to think about the problem. 113

130 Appendix Progressive abstraction Ideas are expressed after having split the problem into different levels of abstraction in order to obtain more general solutions. Provocation Ideas come after having made many foolish statements about the problem. In this way, through the shock new ideas can be generated. After the statements can be discussed about benefits, consequences, necessities. RoleStorming This creativity technique generates ideas based on thinking from different points of views. First a number of ideas is generated with a creativity technique, then the participants take a new identity and find ideas from that point of view. Roles can be changed as many times as wished. Six thinking hats Participants take different role through the process. Each role has a hat and the purpose to obtain different thinking directions about the problem: White hat focus on the data available Red hat emotions and intuition Black hat criticism and negative thinking Yellow hat positive and optimistic thinking Green hat creative thinking Blue hat session moderator Why Why Why Ideas come after repeatedly answering why questions about new facts or ideas. The difference between open answer questions and close answer question has to be clear in order to obtain an evolution in the process. Wishful thinking Ideas as firstly generated without taking care of any restrictions the problem might have in reality. In the next step the generated ideas are compared to possible reality impediments and filtered. 114

131 Appendix Tables 115

132 116 Appendix