Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:03:21.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inventions and Scientific Discoveries: Impact of Designers’ Collaborations on Creativity. An Analysis Towards Fixation Effects

Part of: Collaborative Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Quentin Plantec ,
Pascal Le Masson  and
Benoit Weil
Quentin Plantec*
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech; Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI)
Pascal Le Masson
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
Benoit Weil
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
*
Contact: Plantec, Quentin, MINES ParisTech - PSL Université, Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle, Centre de Gestion Scientifique, i3 UMR CNRS 9217, France, quentin.plantec@mines-paristech.fr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Scientific discoveries and inventions have long been established as two distinct and sequential activities. It has nonetheless been showed that projects aiming at producing both scientific discoveries and inventions could record impressive results. Our investigations are focusing on the creativity of collaborations outputs: a first agent is entailed to design a scientific discovery and another one invention. We use fixation effects as a performance measurement indicator for creativity based on Design Theory. We propose a first set of elements that can be suffering from fixation effects in both invention and scientific models designers reasoning. We propose a series of defixed inputs that could be shared between both designers to overcome their fixation effects. We highlight that if partners are engaged in one-way knowledge transfer it can conduct to “fixation traps”. We define a set of restrictive conditions that could conduct to a “cross-defixation process”: both actors would be able to create conjoint new inventions and scientific models in the non-fixed design path. In particular this process does not required designers to be defixed before starting the collaboration.

Keywords

InnovationCreativityHuman behaviour in designScienceC-K design theory
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 159 - 168
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Agogué, M. (2012), “Modéliser l'effet des biais cognitifs sur les dynamiques industrielles : innovation orpheline et architecte de l'inconnu”. Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris.Google Scholar
Agogué, M. et al. (2014), “The impact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and stimulation effects”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.37.Google Scholar
Agogué, M. and Le Masson, P. (2014), “Rethinking ideation: a cognitive approach of innovation lock-ins”, in The International Society for Professional Innovation Management, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.15303abstract.Google Scholar
Bush, V. (1945), “Science, the endless frontier; a report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research”. http://doi.org/B00B3K4WAA.Google Scholar
Camarda, A. et al. (2017), “The role of Expertise in Design Fixation : Managerial Implications for Creative Leadership”, in The 24th Innovation and Product Development Management Conference, p. 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.37.Google Scholar
des Comptes, C. (2018), “Rapport particulier sur la valorisation de la recherche civile du CEA”.Google Scholar
Le Deaut, J.-Y. and Procaccia, C. (2017), “Les enjeux économiques, environnementaux, sanitaires et éthiques des biotechnologies à la lumière des nouvelles pistes de recherche”. Paris, France. Available at: https://www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2016/r16-507-1-notice.html.Google Scholar
Felk, Y. et al. (2011), “Designing Patent Portfolio for disruptive innovation - a new methodology based on C-K Theory”, International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 11 No. August, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M. et al. (1994), “The New Production of Knowledge”. SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Gillier, T., Kazakçı, A. and Piat, G. (2012), “The Generation of Common Purpose in Innovation Partnerships : a Design Perspective”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 372–392.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A. P. and Narayanamurti, V. (2018), “Simultaneous pursuit of discovery and invention in the US Department of Energy”, Research Policy. Elsevier, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1505–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.005.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. et al. (2013), “Beyond Models and Decisions : Situating Design Through Generative Functions”, ICED13: 19th International Conference on Engineering Design, No. August, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/<hal-01485144>..>Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P. and Weil, B. (2011), “Teaching innovative design reasoning: How concept–knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects”, AI EDAM, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041000048X.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003), “A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory”, in International Conference on Engineering Design ICED 03, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:4891368.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2009), “CK Design Theory: An Advanced Formulation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. and Tripsas, M. (2008), “Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.002.Google Scholar
Klasing Chen, M. et al. (2017), “Designing the missing link between science and industry: Organizing partnership based on dual generativity”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2017, Vol. 4 No. DS87-4, pp. 307–316. Available at: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85029744337&partnerID=40&md5=c320dedd3652905ce1908e8ee60a78e5.Google Scholar
Kokshagina, O. et al. (2014), “Innovative field exploration and associated patent portfolio design models”, in Research in Interactive Design, pp. 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26121-8.Google Scholar
Krawczyk-Stuss, M. et al. (2015), “Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of the Composite to Biodentine with Different Adhesive Systems”, Dental and Medical Problems, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 434–439. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/59498.Google Scholar
Lander, E. S. (2015), “Perspective The Heroes of CRISPR”, Cell. Elsevier Inc., Vol. 164 No. 1–2, pp. 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.041.Google Scholar
Lenfle, S. (2011), “The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: The Manhattan case in retrospect”, International Journal of Project Management. Elsevier Ltd and IPMA, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.001.Google Scholar
Le Masson, P., Weil, B. and Hatchuel, A. (2014), “Theorie, méthodes et organisations de la conception”. Collection. Edited by P. des Mines.Google Scholar
Narayanamurti, V., Odumosu, T. and Vinsel, L. (2017), “RIP : The Basic / Applied Research Dichotomy”, Issues in Science, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 31–36.Google Scholar
Sincholle, V. (2009), “De la gestion des brevets d'inventions au pilotage de l'innovation: le cas d'un centre de recherche de haute technologie”. Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
Slaughter, S. (1993), “Beyond Basic Science: Research University Presidents’ Narratives of Science Policy”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800302.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. (1997), “Pasteur's Quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation”. Brookings. Available at: https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse510/16wi/readings/stokes_pasteurs_quadrant.pdf.Google Scholar
Sydow, J., Freie, U. B., Schreyögg, G., Freie, U. B., Koch, J. and European, U. V. (2009), “Organizational Path Dependence: opening the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 689–709. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.34.4.zok689.Google Scholar
Thrane, S., Blaabjerg, S. and Møller, R. H. (2010), “Innovative path dependence: Making sense of product and service innovation in path dependent innovation processes”, Research Policy. Elsevier B.V., Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 932–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.003.Google Scholar