Article Review

C

A a

b

a

A R R A A

K C R C C C

1

n o f r e m

t d d c a

C

1

Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / t s c

reativity support systems: A systematic mapping study

. Gabriel a,∗, D. Monticolo a, M. Camargo a, M. Bourgault b

ERPI Laboratory, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, Canada

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 25 July 2014 eceived in revised form 31 January 2016 ccepted 30 May 2016 vailable online 2 June 2016

eywords: reative support system emote collaboration reative problem solving reativity process omputer-assisted creativity

a b s t r a c t

As part of the innovation process, creativity has become a critical dimension for organiza- tions that wish to maintain their competitiveness. In order to foster the creativity potential within organizations, processes and systems need to be designed and integrated so that all stakeholders can participate in a coordinated and timely fashion, and despite the various dispersion levels that may separate them. Although many tools are already available on the market or being tested, a significant gap still exists between those products and the creativ- ity process that they are supposed to support. To truly respond to the need for creativity in a distributed environment, it is suggested that the entire process be re-examined and understood so that future Creativity Support Systems can fulfil real needs. This paper is a systematic mapping study of the literature on existing digital tools dedicated to creativity. A thorough examination of over 49 digital tools is carried out, providing the action channel for emerging Creativity Support Systems that would better support collaboration diversity throughout the creative process.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

In today’s globalized competitive context, organizations need to maintain their competitiveness by regularly generating ew ideas, new products or services, and new processes. Globalization also requires remote collaboration and extensive use f digital devices, as creativity is becoming a collective process. From the perspective of the innovation process, numerous actors influence the generation of value and novelty for a company. A trend that confirms and combines innovation and emote collaboration is the increase in open innovation strategies and associated platforms (i.e. OpenIdeo,1 Dell IdeaStorm,2

tc.). This article focuses on digital systems that support creativity during conceptual design and innovative initiatives and, ore specifically, innovation approaches that involve teams, such as creative workshops. Designing an entire system that supports creativity integrated into the entire innovation process is a complex problem

hat involves different research fields. (Ardaiz-Villanueva, Nicuesa-Chacón, Brene-Artazcoz, Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, & Sanz e Acedo Baquedano, 2011) identified four separate groups of studies, each of which has a different underlying goal: (1) to

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Gabriel), [email protected] (D. Monticolo), [email protected] (M.

amargo), [email protected] (M. Bourgault). 1 OpenIdeo: https://openideo.com/. 2 Dell Idea Storm: http://www.ideastorm.com/.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.009 871-1871/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

110 A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122

approaches to create satisfying digital tools. In other words, foster the creativity by means of computer tools by considering individual characteristics, the social interaction processes involved in creativity, and the environmental factors that influence the individual and social fields and thus creativity.

In this paper, we investigate how currently available digital tools dedicated to creativity are supporting it. Investigat- ing these systems requires consideration of the social and cognitive process of creativity, social interaction through the collaborative mode, and the environmental factors as the technological means and the creative techniques applied. This investigation was done through a systematic mapping study defined as a “broad review of [. . .] in a specific topic area that aims to identify what evidence is available on the topic” (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). Ultimately, the aim is to describe the actual “progress” concerning the support of creativity through digital tools and address the area to explore for future research in the field. The present work does not pretend to evaluate the efficiency of the systems to facilitate creativity, but rather is focused on the functionalities communicated by the authors reviewed.

As a starting point, in the coming section we will develop several concepts such as creativity, innovation, creative process, and creative support system and set the point of view of this work. In Section 3, the applied methodology for this mapping study will be described. Section 4 will then present the main results of the study. To conclude the result of the study, we will discuss confirmation of the fact that the domain of the digital systems dedicated to creativity is incomplete as suggested by (Bonnardel & Zenasni, 2010; Shneiderman, 2007).

2. Overview on creativity and some associated concepts

Several concepts were introduced in the previous section, most of them requiring further explanation and positioning to understand the assumptions underlying the systematic mapping study in this article.

2.1. Innovation vs. design vs. creativity

Innovation, defined as the acceptance and widespread use of a new product, process, or service, conveys the notion of success and of perceived value from various economic actors (e.g. customers), as well as differentiation from existing solutions (Tidd & Bessant, 2009). It is also considered as a process (e.g. search-select-strategy-implementation) and as a necessary mind set to produce novelty. From the perspective of innovation as a process, it is quite common for creativity to be considered as a component of innovation (Tidd & Bessant, 2009; Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Boly, 2008).

Like innovation, creativity can be seen from different perspectives: some authors would describe it as a mindset, others as a process, and some as a result. Several definitions have been proposed in the literature. In a problem-solving context, the most common definition of creativity is the ability to achieve a new and adapted production of concepts (Lubart, 2003), or the ability to produce something original and appropriate to a context (Howard, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2008). In other words, creativity is a balance between concept novelty and usefulness (Puccio & Cabra, 2012) or appropriateness (Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011; Howard et al., 2008) that is achieved by using existing knowledge (Ogot & Okudan, 2007).

These definitions of creativity have a lot in common with the concept of designing a solution. In this case, there are three relevant interpretations of ‘design’: design as a tangible outcome (Von Stamm, 2008), design as a creative activity (Von Stamm, 2008; Warr & O’Neill, 2005), and design as a process of transforming information into outcomes (Von Stamm, 2008). The third definition, which is the most commonly used according to Von Stamm, can be defined as a “conscious decision- making process by which information (an idea) is transformed into an outcome, be it tangible (product) or intangible (service).̈ (Von Stamm, 2008, p. 17). Von Stamm also suggests that creativity takes place within the design process. From this perspective, design as a process can be divided into three different types: conceptual design, in which concepts are generated to fulfil an objective; embodiment design, which is the structured development of the selected concept; and detailed design, which precisely defines every individual element of the outcome (Von Stamm, 2008). Thus, it appears that conceptual design concerns the generation of ideas/concepts, while embodiment design and detailed design concern creativity in the generation of new technical solutions.

In many cases, the distinction between innovation, conceptual design and creativity is blurred for the benefit of an overall process. For example, (Von Stamm, 2008) argues that innovation is composed of the creativity process plus the (successful) implementation of the idea in the form of a product, process or service. On the other hand, other authors consider implementation to be part of the creativity process. This view suggests that the innovation and design processes do overlap. Based on the authors’ experience concerning creative session facilitation, implementation will be considered as the stakeholders’ concern and not as part of the creative process. However, a link will be made between conceptual design and creativity. As highlighted by Howard et al. (2008) review, there is a slight difference in the scopes and the concepts considered, but design remains a creative process which is generally applied to domain-specific problems (e.g. engineering).

2.2. Influencing factors

Beyond the issue of defining creativity, multiple directions have been proposed to scientifically investigate the creativity domain. There are several perspectives for understanding the phenomenon of creativity. Creativity can be broken down into six main strands (Long, 2014): process, product, person, place, persuasion, and potential. Another structure for breaking down and understanding creativity comprises three different levels (Mumford, 2012): individual, collective (team), and

o ( f

-

-

-

E D 2 c c s

e C

o i B & c i a i

o I e o i & i w f m

2

d m ( w o

v z

A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122 111

rganizational. The third perspective is often considered as belonging to innovation rather than creativity, according to Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). These breakdowns are a way to observe creativity, determine and classify the influencing actors. Those described here are only some examples:

At the individual level, which corresponds to the person, the influential factors most often cited include domain-specific expertise, motivation and cognitive abilities (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). Cognitive abilities include ease with open- ended problems, personal cognitive processes established to generate ideas, and even experience and personal history.

From the collective perspective, the focus is on interactions between individualities and how they affect creativity. Accord- ing to (Glăveanu, 2010), social creativity is more than constraints on individual creativity. Creativity is social, as ‘its mere nature is relational since it could not exist outside of cultural resources and dialogical relations’ (Glăveanu, 2010, p. 88). The most famous inhibiting factors of brainstorming are social (Ray & Romano, 2013; Warr & O’Neill, 2005): production blocking (waiting for one’s turn to talk), evaluation apprehension (fear of judgment from others participants), free riding (relying on others’ idea production).

As for the organizational perspective, influential factors include the processes, the environment, and the culture provided by the organization, but also its available knowledge and the ability to create motivation. Other elements associated with organizational structure have also been studied to determine the nature of their impact on innovation and creativity (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012), such as communication (internal or external), actors’ specialization, technical knowledge resources and numerous other factors that impact specific innovation approaches.

As presented above, process is often referred to at the various levels of analysis: individual, collective, and organizational. ach level refers to something slightly different. For example, the individual level is associated with the cognitive process. ifferent aspects can be seen as part of this level. The creative process described by Helmholtz-Poincaré-Getzels (Lubart, 003) or Wallas (Ogot & Okudan, 2007) can be considered as the first process theorization of creativity. It introduces the oncepts of incubation and insight, which are based on “individuality, insight and outstanding ability”. Another aspect of ognitive creativity could be those concerning the association of ideas and analogies based on several criteria, such as emantic, structural, and pragmatic (Boden, 1994) or function, behaviour, and structure (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).

Concerning the collective level of creativity, the focus is on facilitating a person in the exchange of their knowledge and xpertise. The notion of idea generation is preferred to incubation and insight. This evolution was introduced through the reative Problem Solving (CPS) approach and by the world-renowned brainstorming method (Osborn, 1963).

Finally, there is the organizational level, which tends to consider the various factors that affect creativity to improve the rganization’s effectiveness (Soriano de Alencar, 2012). The processes described at this level remain overall, as each firm has ts own specificity, the focus can be on creativity, and is more or less inspired by a problem-solving approach (Amabile, 1988; asadur, Basadur, & Licina, 2012; Soriano de Alencar, 2012) or integrated into the entire production process of the firm (Sorli

Stokic, 2009). However, the basis and interpretation of these processes on different levels depend on the creativity school onsidered. There are at least three different schools concerning creativity (Shneiderman, 2007): structuralist, inspirational- st, and situationalist. “Structuralists believe people can be creative if they follow an orderly method. [. . .] Inspirationalists rgue that breaking away from familiar structures elicits creative solutions. [. . .] Situationalists recognize that creative work s social.(̈Shneiderman, 2007, p. 25)

In the present paper, attention is focused on the collective level, and more particularly on the CPS process, which is made up f four recursive phases: problem analysis, ideation, evaluation and communication/implementation (Howard et al., 2008). mplementation is a fourth step, even though it relates more broadly to innovation, rather than creativity specifically (Zeng t al., 2011; Von Stamm, 2008). Problem analysis initiates the process, allowing people to define the ‘problem space’. The aim f this step is to understand the problem, gather and reorganize information, and then frame the problem by reformulating t. The second step is ‘the production of original mental images and thoughts that respond to important challenges’ (Puccio

Cabra, 2012, p. 195) by applying a variety of (creative) methods. In order to sustain idea generation, in the third step the dea is assessed according to a set of criteria specified earlier in the process (goal definition), with the aim of developing

orkable solutions. The last stage is the implementation of the selected ideas. In this paper, these steps will be the basis or the observation of the creative process on a high level, as opposed to the operational level, which describes creativity

ethods or activities (Browning, Fricke, & Negele, 2006).

.3. Collaboration

As introduced previously, creativity is individual, collective, and organizational. The collective and organizational level is irectly related to the notion of collaboration. Since one person cannot have all the knowledge to solve a problem, he or she ust collaborate with somebody who can provide the expertise (Sorli & Stokic, 2009). There are two modes of collaboration:

1) traditional co-located collaboration, where all actors are in the same place at the same time; and (2) remote collaboration, hich implies virtual teaming, whereby members do not often interact in person due to distance or time lags, and thus can

nly communicate with information and communication technologies (Nemiro, 2004; Wilson, Scalise, & Gochyyev, 2015). The literature clearly shows that distributed projects are more challenging than traditional projects. They introduce new

ariables such as ‘physical and geographic separation among teams, social and cultural differences among people, time one differences, etc. which impact communication and collaboration, problem solving, trust, and several other factors that

112 A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122

influence project success’ (da Silva, Costa, Franca, & Prikladinicki, 2010, p. 87). In the case of remote collaboration, virtual platforms are vital for ensuring communication among team members. This can be achieved synchronously, as in natural communication, which implies that people need to be connected at the same time regardless of the time lags that exist between them. It can also be achieved through asynchronous communications, whereby a delay between the transmission of the information and its receipt occurs (e.g. e-mails). Whatever the collaboration mode, the way communication is processed greatly influences the success of collaboration. The challenge of the different collaboration modes is to be able to create the atmosphere necessary for any creative process; this challenge is even more important in the case of remote collaboration, as this atmosphere should be created through a digital environment (Sorli & Stokic, 2009). The means of communication are a factor in the success of the collaboration. Concerning creative collaboration, learning preferences (Nemiro, 2004), creative styles (Ray & Romano, 2013) and the characteristics of the work process are other examples of factors.

2.4. Different types of systems to support creativity

There is a wide range of approaches to support creativity by means of digital devices. Lubart (2005) classified these approaches in four metaphorical categories: a creativity support can be considered as a coach that gives advice and helps to implement and apply techniques; as a pen pal that provides support for collaboration; as a nanny that monitors the work’s progress and provides a framework; or as a colleague with which the computer generates its own ideas and solutions. Each of these classes represents a specific approach to creativity via digital devices which address different issues and use different vocabularies.

In the category of the monitoring software and framework provider (the nanny systems), the corresponding systems could be the Idea Management System (IMS). The function of the IMS is to collect and share the idea generated. “The goal of the Idea Management Systems (IMS) is to build tools for assessment of the collected ideas and selection of the best ones to implement” (Westerski, 2011, p. 1). The most modest support collects the ideas generated during a creative workshop such as the ‘48 h Innovation Maker’ platfrom3; whereas the most sophisticated permit evaluation is through different approaches such as up and down voting or presenting the similarity4 and relationships5 between ideas (Westerski, 2013).

The systems that support collaboration (pen pal systems) are known as Group Support Systems (GSS), Computer- Supported Cooperation Work (CSCW) or Single Display Groupware (SDG). “The process of collaboration support can be divided into two parts: communication and coordination. Communication is subdivided into explicit communication and information gathering. [. . .] Coordination consists of shared, access and transfer” (Gutwein, 2013, p. 15). Strictly speaking, the systems that assist communication and coordination do not support creativity. However, these tools are essential, notably in remote collaboration, as creativity requires communication between the actors and the way it is done influences the result (Nemiro, 2004), and coordination to manage the progress and the creative techniques. Two examples of a co-located collaboration environment can be cited: iLounge (Sundholm, Artman, & Ramberg, 2004) and iRoom (Gutwein, 2013) which use many different digital devices such as wall display, interactive tabletop, interactive whiteboard, camera, mobile device, etc. to permit a workgroup to work individually, in subgroups or collectively. The SDG refers more specifically to collective devices, where the team is gathered around the device, working on it together. “Interactive tabletops enable fully collab- orative work, engendering diverging conversations, idea exploration and information sharing equally amongst the group members” (Jones, Kendira, Lenne, Gidel, & Moulin, 2011, p. 156).

Concerning assistance with implementing creative techniques (coach systems), there are the Computer-Assisted Creativ- ity (CAC) systems or Creative Support Tools (CST) (Bao, Gerber, Gergle, & Hoffman, 2010), which can be considered as the Computer-Assisted Design (CAD) software of creativity. These systems are specifically designed to help the application of creativity methods by providing all the information and assistance needed to facilitate its application, including dedicated forms, a database, and data processing. The most commonly assisted method may be brainstorming, which is so common that it accounts for a subcategory of CAC: Electronic Brainstorming Systems (EBS) or E-Brainstorming. These systems tend to counteract the main weaknesses of ‘pen and paper’ brainstorming, namely group pressure, social loafing, and production blocking (Gutwein, 2013; Puccio & Cabra, 2012). Some tools are dedicated to defining the subject of a brainstorming exercise, such as Momentum (Bao et al., 2010). Although brainstorming is the best-known creativity method and has been widely studied, it is not the only method targeted by assistance tools. The inventive problem-solving method called TRIZ also has its tools, such as the accessible TRIZ 406 or expert-oriented TRIZAquisition (Zanni-Merk, Cavallucci, & Rousselot, 2009).

The digital system seen as a colleague corresponds to a system that becomes actively involved in the creative task and is able to suggest new ideas to humans. This corresponds to the computational creativity approach (Boden, 2009; Wiggins, 2006) and involves the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to model human creativity. Creativity is considered as a

3 48 h innovation maker: http://www.48h-innovation-maker.com/?language=en. 4 IdeaStream similarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ca2sP8QJs. 5 Gi2 MO relationship visualizer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwvIZn0mqjE. 6 TRIZ 40: http://www.triz40.com/TRIZ Fr.php.

A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122 113

Table 1 Semantic group of keywords used for the review.

Keyword group 1 (Collaboration . . .) Keyword group 2 (Methodology. . .) Keyword group 3 (Technology. . .)

Collaboration Brainstorming Application Distant collaboration Creative problem solving Computer-aided Groupware Creativity Computer support Open Creativity challenge Data support Virtual team Creative design Data systems Work group Creative design method Devices

Creativity workshop Electronic Design E-brainstorming Early stage innovation Interactive surface Ideation Interactive whiteboard Innovation Software Preliminary design Support

Support system Support tools System Tabletop

b e a

b t i

3

w e i o

3

f g g c p t

3

o D fi o t a a e s o s

Tools Wall display

e the monitoring of humans’ cognitive process (López-Ortega, 2013) to provide better assistance with creative tasks. For xample, CACDP (Liu, Li, Pan, & Li, 2011) integrates cognitive considerations into the design of a system that assists with the pplication of TRIZ.

Despite the different support perspectives, all these systems that are explicitly dedicated to supporting creativity can e considered a Creative Support System (CSS), which is a “class of information systems encompassing diverse types of IS hat share the purpose of enhancing creativity” (Voigt, Niehaves, & Becker, 2012, p. 153). Based on the different concepts ntroduced, the next section will present how the CSS of the literature will be reviewed.

. Materials and methods

As has been introduced previously, there are different natures of CSS. The objective of this mapping study is to determine hat kind of support these systems provide and which technologies they deploy to do that. The intent is to cover the main

lements described in the research field of creativity in terms of the different phases covered (problem analysis, ideation, dea evaluation) and the different creativity methods assisted by the digital system. As creativity is also collaboration, the bservations also focus on different modes of collaboration and the digital devices used to apply them.

.1. Search terms

In order to collect the materials of the study, it was first necessary to define the keywords. These keywords were defined rom a preliminary review of the literature on creativity and creativity support. The different keywords of interest were athered according to their relatedness to the same concept (collaboration; methodology; technology) into three distinct roups and expanded by several synonyms (Table 1) that were used to create the research terms. The research terms were reated by joining groups using the Boolean operators OR and AND; and by using wild cards like * to avoid the syntactic roblem of the plural. The research terms formed by the keywords and the operators was submitted to the different database o get the document.

.2. Materials

The documents considered in this study are essentially limited to journal articles and conference proceedings, although fficial work reports might also be included. The main databases used in this study were Web Of Science and EI Compendex. espite the combination of keywords in the request of the databases, it can however produce several thousand of results. A rst cleaning was done by eliminate article that are not related to innovation or creativity and digital system. Finally, based n the reading of the kept articles, the eventual system presented or used was included in the study. The addition of a system o the study was however dependant of the quantity of information provided by the article. We extended the search to some rticles that were cited in the first batch of articles if they were likely to provide additional details about a system. All the rticles were written in English. No start and end dates were set on the search; because it concerned digital technologies,

114 A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122

3.3. Observation criteria

As mentioned previously, the focus is mainly on the phase of the creative process and the collaboration mode. However, further details should be given to understand the meaning of this study.

On each system ascertained, different types of information were collected, such as the name of the system, the associated university if any, the years of publication, and the status (academic or research work vs. commercial systems). Concerning the observation done on the various systems encountered, a large number of elements were observed, from the domain of application of the system to the technology used to create the CSS. For this study, three of these were studied: the creativity process phases supported, the collaboration settings, and the technologies used.

– The creative process phases covered by the system are based on the creative process presented previously. These phases can be the problem analysis, the ideation, and the evaluation. Regarding the difference from the process suggested previ- ously, the implementation phase was out of the scope of the conceptual design phase. The phases covered by the system were determined according to the declaration of the documentation and also the nature of the deliverable collected and generated by the system. To cover the problem analysis, the CSS has to manage the problem formalization, at least request an explicit formulation of the problem. To be associated with the ideation, the system has to support a creative technique and thus collect the trace generated by the application of this technique, which could be an idea or general concept for brainstorming, a figure for mind mapping, picture for other techniques. . . It could also suggest inspirational material to facilitate divergence during idea generation. Concerning the idea evaluation phase, the CSS has to assist the task of sorting or ranking or provide a way to easily retrieve the idea. Operationally, the solution can be of a different nature, could be the manual definition of a group, application of criteria, mathematical processing of quantitative criteria, or a semantic analysis. A system covers at least one of these phases or it is not a CSS.

– Several things can be observed concerning the collaboration settings briefly introduced previously, notably the inclusion of collaboration in the system, the nature of the use of the system (individually, collectively), the dispersion of the collab- oration (co-located, virtual), and the communication (synchronous, asynchronous). The evaluation of these criteria was done according to the auto declaration of the document. In the case where nothing was specified, a CSS was declared as collaborative if communication was made through the system or if several people used it around the same device simul- taneously. The case where the system is not collaborative corresponds to a system that supports individual creativity. The nature of the use determines if the device is conceived to be used by one person, and so in the case of virtual collaboration constitute a sum of individual, or in contrast permits collective use and thus a collaboration of the group. The dispersion of the collaboration tends to evaluate if the CSS is designed to help users at the same place working simultaneously or if it is designed to support users distant in space and time. In regard to communications, they exclusively concern the CSS that support virtual collaboration as the co-located use a synchronous communication. There are thus four criteria to characterize the collaboration within the CSS, but the communication will not be considered for this study.

– Concerning the technology used, the focus is on the categories of devices used to implement the system. The information was collected from the system observed and then the categories of devices were created. It produced this list of device categories: web service, interactive tabletop, desktop computer, interactive whiteboard, mobile/individual device, wall display, augmented object, digital sketching instrument, interactive floor. From this list, there is the exception of the web service, which does not refer to devices but to a technology as a certain amount was cross-channel.

To summarize the elements observed over the Creative Support System encountered in the literature based on the keywords previously presented, five criteria were observed: the creativity phases covered, the inclusion of collaboration, the nature of the use of the system, the dispersion of the collaboration, and the technology used.

4. Results of the systematic mapping study

According to the methodology described above, of the 75 systems cited in the literature, only 49 were accompanied by enough information to be considered in this review. Appendix A presents the 49 CSS considered in this study with the different criteria observed. They all have different approaches to supporting creativity. For instance, Computer-Assisted Creativity systems such as Calico (Mangano & van der Hoek, 2012) and IdeaVis (Geyer, Budzinski, & Reiterer, 2012) simplify the formalization of ideas and participants’ contributions by using natural expressions such as sketches or diagrams (e.g. UML); TRENDS can even provide assistance with inspiration by broadcasting images (Setchi & Bouchard, 2010).

4.1. Creativity phases supported

Table 2 shows that the great majority of the CSS studied support only one phase (57%); 93% of this subsample is dedicated to the ideation phase. Overall, the supports that exclusively cover the ideation phase represent nearly half of those listed

A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122 115

Table 2 Phases of the creativity process covered by the supports.

No. of phases covered Phases Number of supports (total: 49) Proportion of category (%) Proportion of total (%)

1 (57%)

Problem analysis 2 7 4 Ideation 26 93 53 Evaluation 0 0 0

2 (31%)

Problem analysis and ideation 1 7 2 Problem analysis and evaluation 6 40 12 Ideation and evaluation 8 53 16

3 (12%)

Problem analysis, ideation and evaluation 5 83 10 Ideation, evaluation and implementation 1 17 2

Table 3 Collaboration capabilities of CSS.

Collaboration Number of CSS Remote collaboration Proportion of category Proportion of total (%)

Yes 38 (78%)

Yes 21 (55%) 43 No 17 (45%) 35

No 11 (22%) 22

Table 4 Remote collaboration capabilities and use of collaborative systems.

Remote collaboration Number of CSS Use Number of supports Proportion of category (%) Proportion of total (%)

Yes 21 (43%)

Individual 16 76 33 Collective 5 24 10 Both 0 0 0

No 17 (35%)

Individual 0 0 0 Collective 12 71 24 Both 5 29 10

Table 5 Global distribution of modes of using over the CSS.

Use CSS Total (%)

Individual 27 55 Collective 17 35

C ( a

4

s H t a s

h ( ( G

4

m W

Both 5 10

ogniStreamer (“CogniStreamer”, n.d.), i-Land (Streitz et al., 1999), InnovationCast (“InnovationCast,” n.d.), and Laboranova “Laboranova,” 2014). It is interesting to note that very few of the surveyed articles focused on the detailed study of problem nalysis and evaluation.

.2. Collaboration settings and tools

Most of the CSS listed in this review (78%) were designed to allow collaboration between users/participants, as Table 3 hows. More than half of these collaborative creativity supports (55%) were designed to support remote collaboration. owever, according to Table 4, a majority of these are limited to individual-to-individual remote collaboration. The systems

hat do not support remote collaboration but are still considered to be collective systems provide functionalities to enable group of participants to interact locally, such as interactive tabletops or a mix of individual and collective devices such as martphones and interactive tabletops.

Without considering remote collaboration (Table 5), the supports that are individually oriented represent more than alf of the CSS ascertained (55%). Only 10% permit the possibility to work on one’s own and collectively, such as Caretta Sugimoto, Hosoi, & Hashizume, 2004), ModLab + SeeMe (Herrmann & Nolte, 2010), Tatin-Pic (Jones et al., 2011), TeamStorm Hailpern, Hinterbichler, Leppert, Cook, & Bailey, 2007), and the unnamed system proposed by (Friess, Kleinhans, Klügel, & roh, 2012).

.3. Technologies dedicated to the system and their use

According to Table 6, the most widely used type of technology is the web service, which makes it possible to access infor- ation on various web-enabled devices such as tablets, smartphones, personal computers, and even interactive tabletops. eb services are also used to centralize information and allow each device to exchange data on a single web platform.

116 A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122

Table 6 Distribution of the types of technology used by collaborative CSS.

Support technology Number of supports that use it Proportion of total (%)a

Web service 22 45 Interactive tabletop 17 35 Computer software 11 22 Interactive whiteboard 7 14 Mobile/individual device 5 10 Wall display 4 8 Augmented object 3 6 Digital sketching instrument 2 4 Interactive floor 1 2

a Percentages do not add up to 100 because some supports use more than one technology.

Table 7 Detailed distribution of types of technology according to the use orientation of the support.

Use Number of supports Device used Number of supports that use the device Proportion of category (%)

Individual 27 (55%) Web service 15 56 Computer software 9 33 Both 2 7

Collective 17 (35%) Interactive tabletop 13 76 Interactive whiteboard 6 35 Web service 3 18 Wall display 2 12 Computer software 2 12 Digital sketching instrument 2 12 Augmented object 2 12 Interactive floor 1 6

Both 5 (10%) Mobile/individual device 5 100 Interactive tabletop 4 80 Web service 3 60 Wall display 2 40

To gain a better understanding of the use of technology, the details in Table 7 are useful. The individual supports used, which represent half of the systems in the present study, are mainly based on web services. This is because a significant proportion of these individual supports are remote collaboration systems. Among CSS that are exclusively intended for collective use, interactive tabletops are the most widely used. In the case of complete environments, the most popular are once again interactive tabletops, in association with interactive whiteboards or other accessories: BrainStorm (Hilliges et al., 2007), Envisionment and Discovery Collaboration (Andrew Warr & O’Neill, 2007), ThinkTank (“ThinkTank,” n.d.), IdeaVis (Geyer et al., 2012), i-Land (Streitz et al., 1999), iLounge (Sundholm et al., 2004), iRoom (Jones et al., 2011), and Tatin (Jones et al., 2011). It is not surprising that all five of the systems that are designed to integrate individual and collective use are based on smartphones or tablets (PDAs for the oldest experiments) for individual input and interactive tabletops or whiteboards for collective input.

5. Discussion

In contrast to what was expected at the beginning of this study, a significant number of digital supports exist to assist creativity. The majority of them cover only one phase of the creative process, mainly the ideation phase. This is no doubt due to decades of promotion of divergent thinking and ideation in the literature (Puccio & Cabra, 2012). However, six supports seem to cover all three phases observed: Innovation Assistant (McCaffrey and Spector, 2011), BrainDump (Brade et al., 2011), CogniStreamer (CogniStreamer”, n.d.), i-Land (Streitz et al., 1999), Laboranova (“Laboranova,” 2014), and InnovationCast (“InnovationCast,” n.d.). Working in organizations implies collaboration; the systems which do not integrate collaborative functionalities are certainly interesting for studying creativity through digital tools but do not promise extensive use of it. With the evolution of working habits, the increase in virtual collaboration, and the remaining natural importance of ‘real’ collaboration (in contrast to virtual collaboration), the system should be thought of as a “hybrid real-virtual environment”

a a d p c ( n c

b t r c i o r i p t t b o i a (

6

a u

-

-

d p c o t c p

t t s

A

A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122 117

nd the popularity of personal computers is decreasing, whereas the reliance on personal devices such as smartphones nd tablets is increasing. This evolution could explain the use of web services, which is cross-channel, and also collective evices for information gathering. The emergence of this approach also encourages alternating the individual and collective hases, which are complementary in terms of creativity. From the corpus studied, five supports cover both individual and ollective use: Tatin-Pic (Jones et al., 2011), ModLab (Herrmann & Nolte, 2010), TeamStorm (Hailpern et al., 2007), Caretta Sugimoto et al., 2004), and the unnamed system from (Friess et al., 2012). If the three perspectives observed are matched, one of the systems support the entire three creativity phases for individual and collective activities in co-located and distant ollaboration.

The contribution of this work is to provide an overall vision of the systems dedicated to creativity, the main conclusions eing the imbalance in coverage of the different phases of the creative process and the lack of systems that use technologies o provide a hybrid environment throughout the different phases of creativity. Examination of the articles about the CSS also evealed a limited diversity of the creative techniques supported. Goel and his colleagues suggested the four C’s for cognitive, ollaborative, conceptual, and creative in order to design the future CAD (Goel, Vattam, Wiltgen, & Helms, 2012). The intention s first design of the support system according to the known cognitive pattern of the user. The lack of consideration for the verall iterative creative process confirms the importance of also addressing new perspectives on designing CSS. Further esearch certainly has to be done concerning creativity and innovation (Shneiderman, 2007) but this could be achieved by mproving the way that the tools, which are the CSS, are designed. To design these CSS of the future, two perspectives are ossible: create an integrated system that covers the entire creative process with a large library of activities and creative echniques, capitalizing the information generated by the different actors, or have a modular approach where the different ools used for communication, application of creative techniques, and creation of the artefact “speak” the same language to e able to capitalize and reuse the information generated as suggested by (Voigt, Bergener, & Becker, 2013) with the concept f Creativity-Intensive Process Support System (CPSS). Whatever the preferred approach, in order to reach a certain level of ntelligence and assistance in creativity, several fields must be explored, notably ontology. The use of ontology in innovation nd creativity would permit interoperability of the different systems supported by standardization at the semantic level Sorli & Stokic, 2009).

. Conclusion

This paper presents a study of 49 Creative Support Systems cited in the literature. These systems have been observed ccording to the phases of the creative process supported, the collaboration setting supported, and the different technologies sed. The main conclusions from this study are:

Very few CSS provide assistance with problem analysis, ideation, and idea evaluation. The majority of these systems are dedicated to ideation phases.

No system from this study is able to cover the three phases mentioned above for individual and collective use in a co-located and virtual collaboration.

The question of a unique system to support the entirety of the creative process throughout the various perspectives can be iscussed. The fact is that creativity, as well as innovation in general, is a critical aspect for a company and should be managed roperly. The results highlight the necessity to more properly orient the design of the CSS to cover the different phases of reativity across the different collaboration settings. To do so in the most adapted way, the cognitive pattern and behaviour f the actors have to be considered. Addressing this question by offering advanced functionalities, such as adaptation of he system to the behaviour and cognitive patterns of individuals, implies the introduction of artificial intelligence into the reativity support. The future research to improve CSS can be the design of ontology related to the creativity process to rovide assistance throughout the different phases of the process based on the actors involved and the knowledge required.

The present study has several limits, notably the method used. Even if the intention was to be as exhaustive as possible, he approach does not permit coverage of a company’s initiatives, very few of which are documented anyway. Concerning he systems, the efficiency of the CSS considered was not evaluated and the creativity-influencing factors entailed by the

ppendix A.

1 1

8

A .

G a b

riel et

a l.

/ Th

in kin

g Skills

a n

d C

rea tivity

2 1

(2 0

1 6

) 1

0 9

– 1

2 2

References Name Digital device Collective/ Individual

Collaborative Remote collaboration

Phase covered Nature of the assistance

(Brocco, Forster, & Frieß, 2011)

360◦ Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation IT systems to support open creativity

(48h Innovation Maker, 2013)

48 h Innovation Maker

Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation Collect the ideas of different teams that are working on the same subject.

(McCaffrey & Spector, 2011)

Innovation assistant

Computer software Individual No No Problem analysis, ideation, evaluation

Define the subject by redefining techniques, analyse the unexplored features of a solution

(Brade et al., 2011) BrainDump Computer software Individual No No Problem analysis, ideation, evaluation

Information gathering and organizing (cluster)

(Gutwein, 2013; Hilliges et al., 2007)

BrainStorm Interactive table, wall display

Collective Yes No Ideation, evaluation

Support co-located collaborative creativity

(Liu et al., 2011) CACDP Computer software Individual No No Problem analysis, evaluation

Requirements analysis, design problem analysis, design problem solving, solutions management

(Mangano & van der Hoek, 2012)

Calico Interactive whiteboard

Collective Yes No Problem analysis, ideation

Support designers sketching on the interactive whiteboard

(Warr & O’Neill, 2007; Sugimoto et al., 2004)

Caretta Sensing board (interacts with physical objects), projector, and PDA

Collective Yes No Ideation Integrate personal and shared spaces to support face-to-face collaboration

(Bellandi et al., 2012)

Catalyst for Collaborative Innovation (C4CI)

Web service Collective Yes Yes Ideation Pervasive, intelligent environment that can proactively stimulate collaboration between innovation team members

(CogniStreamer, n.d.)

CogniStreamer Web service, computer software

Individual Yes Yes Problem analysis, ideation, evaluation

Support the idea management process, stimulate collective creative minds

(Bhagwatwar, Massey, & Dennis, 2013)

Creative virtual environment

Computer software Individual Yes Yes Ideation Immersive environment to interact with remotely located persons and brainstorm

(Vattam, Wiltge, Helms, Goel, & Yen, 2011)

Dane Web service Individual No No Problem analysis, ideation

Interactive knowledge-based design environment, provides access to a design case library containing Structure-Behaviour-Function (SBF) models of biological and engineering systems

(Schmitt, Buisine, Chaboissier, Aoussat, & Vernier, 2012; Buisine, Besacier, Aoussat, & Vernier, 2012)

DiamonSpin Tabletop Collective Yes No Ideation Graphical interface to support brainwriting and mindmapping

(Warr & O’Neill, 2007)

Envisionment and Discovery Collaboratory

Interactive tabletop, physical object, ultrasonic sketching tools

Collective Yes No Problem analysis, ideation

Support social creativity by creating shared understanding among various stakeholders, contextualizing information to the task at hand, and creating objects-to-think-with in collaborative design activities

(Clayphan, Collins, Ackad, Kummerfeld, & Kay, 2011; Gutwein, 2013)

Firestorm Tabletop Collective Yes No Ideation, evaluation

Tabletop computer interface has the potential to support idea generation by a group using the brainstorming technique

A .

G a b

riel et

a l.

/ Th

in kin

g Skills

a n

d C

rea tivity

2 1

(2 0

1 6

) 1

0 9

– 1

2 2

1

1 9

(Gutwein, 2013) GADjet Tabletop Collective Yes No Ideation Interactive meeting table based on a multitouch surface which should transfer the technological advantages of a normal working place to the working area of a whole group

(Wang & Ohsawa, 2013)

Galaxy + ideaGraph Computer software Individual No No Ideation Support the dynamic process of idea discovery

(Westerski, 2013) Gi2 MO Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation, evaluation

Set up Semantic Web technologies in the environment of Idea Management Systems

(ThinkTank, n.d.; Yuan, 2008)

ThinkTank Web service, complete digital environment

Collective Yes Yes Ideation, evaluation

Collaborative structure for the way people work together; transform process performance and create culture of innovation and engagement

(Jones et al., 2011) Ide Rummet (the idea room)

Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation Asynchronous distributed collaborative idea generation platform

(Wang, Cosley, & Fussell, 2010)

Idea Expander Computer software Individual Yes Yes Ideation Tool to support group brainstorming by intelligently selecting pictorial stimuli based on the group’s conversation

(Huang et al., 2007) Idea Storming Cube Web service Collective Yes Yes Ideation Game-based collaborative creativity support system to support creative thinking and help a user form a perspective-shift thinking habit

(Chakrabarti, Sarkar, Leelavathamma, & Nataraju, 2005)

Idea-Inspire Computer software Individual No No Problem analysis, ideation

Software for automated analogical search of relevant ideas from the databases to solve a given problem

(Forster, Frieß, Brocco, & Groh, 2010)

IdeaStream Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation Chat communication on computer-supported idea generation processes

(Geyer, Pfeil, Höchtl, Budzinski, & Reiterer, 2011; Geyer et al., 2012)

IdeaVis Custom tabletop, wall display, Anoto digital pen

Collective Yes No Ideation Novel approach for supporting co-located sketching sessions

(Streitz et al., 1999; Warr & O’Neill, 2005)

i-Land Augmented object, interactive wall, interactive tabletop, computer chair

Collective Yes Yes Problem analysis, ideation, evaluation

An interactive landscape for creativity and innovation

(Gutwein, 2013; Sundholm et al., 2004)

iLounge Interactive whiteboard, tabletop, computer software

Collective Yes Yes Problem analysis, ideation

Support co-located collaborative work

(Bellandi et al., 2012)

PIT Idea Management Software

Computer software, web service

Individual Yes Yes Ideation Built-in social intelligence ensures that all relevant knowledge within the organization is captured to create great ideas

(InnovationCast, n.d.; Bellandi et al., 2012)

InnovationCast Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation, evaluation, implementation

Pose challenges, capture and evolve ideas and work collaboratively on opportunities and projects, to translate investments in innovation into value

(Gutwein, 2013; Jones et al., 2011)

iRoom Interactive whiteboard, tabletop, computer software

Collective Yes No Ideation Create a collaborative environment for complete civil engineering teams

(Laboranova, n.d.) Laboranova Web service Individual Yes Yes Problem analysis, ideation, evaluation

Team building, information gathering, idea formalization, evaluation

(Gardoni, Blanco, & Rüger, 2005)

MICA-graph Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation Graphical formalization of the idea (prototype)

1 2

0

A .

G a b

riel et

a l.

/ Th

in kin

g Skills

a n

d C

rea tivity

2 1

(2 0

1 6

) 1

0 9

– 1

2 2

(Herrmann & Nolte, 2010)

ModLab + SeeMe Interactive tabletop, web service, smartphone

Individual & collective

Yes No Ideation, evaluation

Special facilitation collaboratory (ModLab) where laptops and a large interactive screen can be linked to produce collaborative modelling

(Gutwein, 2013; Bao et al., 2010)

Momentum Web service Individual Yes Yes Problem analysis Tool that elicits topic-oriented responses prior to a group brainstorming session

(Friess et al., 2012) Not named Tabletop, web service, smart phone

Individual & collective

Yes No Ideation, evaluation

Generic model for creativity-technique-based problem-solving processes and discussions (group), collaboration and interaction on multi-touch tabletop displays

(Patent Inspiration, n.d.)

PatentInspiration Web service Individual No No Problem analysis, ideation

Intelligent data mining tool to leverage the creative performance of engineers and innovation managers

(Hartmann, Morris, Benko, & Wilson, 2010)

Pictionaire Interactive tabletop Collective Yes No Ideation An interactive tabletop system that enhances creative collaboration across physical and digital artefacts. It offers capture, retrieval, annotation and collection of visual material

(Yuan & Chen, 2008)

SILA + CBDS Computer software Individual Yes Yes Ideation, evaluation

Environment where an inference mechanism of a Semantic Ideation Learning Agent (SILA) that performs idea associations and generation can learn and share knowledge

(Jones et al., 2011) TATIN Interactive whiteboard, tabletop

Collective Yes No Ideation Increase the creativity of brainstorming meetings, and help make the group’s output more effective

(Jones et al., 2011) Tatin-Pic Interactive whiteboard, tabletop, smartphone, web service

Individual & collective

Yes Yes Ideation A multi-modal collaborative work environment for teams performing preliminary design

(Hailpern et al., 2007)

TeamStorm Tablet PC, wall display

Individual & collective

Yes No Ideation Collaborate by providing mechanisms to integrate tablet- or PC-based input on a large display in front of a group of designers

(Van Dijk & Vos, 2011)

Traces Interactive floor Collective Yes No Ideation Save the ‘traces’ (intermediate artefacts) of creativity, build a consensus/common imaginary between participants

(Setchi & Bouchard, 2010)

TRENDS Computer software Individual No No Ideation Software tool that supports the inspirational stage of design by providing various sources of inspiration

(Zanni-Merk et al., 2009)

TRIZAcquisition Computer software Individual No No Problem analysis Assistance with elementary knowledge acquisition, problem formulation, knowledge structuring or problem reformulation

(Lopes, Alvarez- Napagao, Vazquez-Salceda, 2009)

USE (Uplift Seek Engine)

Web service Individual No No Ideation System that can lead creative professionals on an individual brainstorm by using images to relate semantic concepts

(Alvarez & Su, 2012)

Virtual Reality Mechanism Design Studio (VRMDS)

Virtual reality and computer software

Individual No No Ideation Rapid 3D modelling and prototyping

(Tan, Tripathi, Zuiker, & Soon, 2010)

VisuaPedia Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation Generate and collect data on creativity, knowledge contribution and sharing as well as the context in which people network to build their social capital

(Ardaiz-Villanueva et al., 2011)

Wikideas + creativity connector

Web service Individual Yes Yes Ideation, evaluation

Enhance creative skills, especially the generation of ideas and originality in university students

(Gutwein, 2013) WordPLay Tabletop Collective Yes No Ideation Interactive tabletop platform for finding and organizing ideas in a group.

R

A

A A

B

B

B

B

B B B B

B

B B

B

C

C

C D

d

F

F

G

G

G

G

G

G

G H

H

H

H

H

H

I J

K

L L

A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122 121

eferences

lvarez, J. C., & Su, H.-J. (2012). VRMDS: an intuitive virtual environment for supporting the conceptual design of mechanisms. Virtual Reality, 16, 57–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-009-0144-z

mabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167. rdaiz-Villanueva, O., Nicuesa-Chacón, X., Brene-Artazcoz, O., Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L., & Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T. (2011). Evaluation of

computer tools for idea generation and team formation in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 56(3), 700–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.012

ao, P., Gerber, E., Gergle, D., & Hoffman, D. (2010). Momentum: getting and staying on topic during a brainstorm. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10) (pp. 1233–1236).

asadur, M., Basadur, T., & Licina, G. (2012). Chapter 26—organizational development. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 667–703). San Diego: Academic Press. Retrieved from. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123747143000264

ellandi, V., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Frati, F., & Maggesi, J. (2012). Towards a collaborative innovation catalyst. IEEE, 637–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2012.96

hagwatwar, A., Massey, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2013). Creative virtual environments: effect of supraliminal priming on team brainstorming. In Proceedings of 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 215–224). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.152

oden, M. A. (1994). Agent and creativity. Communication of the ACM, 37(7), 117–121. oden, M. A. (2009). Computer models of creativity. Al Magazine, 30, 23–34. oly, V. (2008). Ingenerie de l’innovation: organisation et méthodologies des entreprises innovantes (Lavoisier). Hermes Science Publications. onnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The impact of technology on creativity in design: an enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2),

180–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00560.x rade, M., Heseler, J., & Groh, R. (2011). An interface for visual information-gathering during web browsing sessions: braindump-a versatile visual workspace

for memorizing and organizing information. pp. 112–119. Retrieved from. http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=achi 2011 5 30 20210

rocco, M., Forster, F., & Frieß, M. R. (2011). 360◦ open creativity support. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17, 1673–1689. rowning, T. R., Fricke, E., & Negele, H. (2006). Key concepts in modeling product development processes. Systems Engineering, 9(2), 104–128.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sys.20047 uisine, S., Besacier, G., Aoussat, A., & Vernier, F. (2012). How do interactive tabletop systems influence collaboration? Computers in Human Behavior, 28,

49–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.010 hakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. S. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new

ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 19, 113–132. layphan, A., Collins, A., Ackad, C., Kummerfeld, B., & Kay, J. (2011). Firestorm: a brainstorming application for collaborative group work at tabletops. ACM,

162–171. ogniStreamer—(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cognistreamer.com/ Accessed 21.05.14. amanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Chapter 19—organizational structure and innovation revisited: from organic to ambidextrous structure. In M. D.

Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 483–513). San Diego: Academic Press. Retrieved from. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123747143000197

a Silva, F. Q. B., Costa, C., Franca, A. C. C., & Prikladinicki, R. (2010). Challenges and solutions in distributed software development project management: a systematic literature review. IEEE, 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICGSE.2010.18

orster, F., Frieß, M. R., Brocco, M., & Groh, G. (2010). On the impact of chat communication on computer-supported idea generation processes. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC X) (pp. 165–174).

riess, M. R., Kleinhans, M., Klügel, F., & Groh, G. (2012). A tabletop application environment for generic creativity techniques. International Journal of Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications, 4, 55–65.

ardoni, M., Blanco, E., & Rüger, S. (2005). MICA-Graph: a tool for managing text and sketches during design processes. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16, 395–405.

ero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010

eyer, F., Pfeil, U., Höchtl, A., Budzinski, J., & Reiterer, H. (2011). Designing reality-based interfaces for creative group work. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 165–174).

eyer, F., Budzinski, J., & Reiterer, H. (2012). IdeaVis: a hybrid workspace and interactive visualization for paper-based collaborative sketching sessions. pp. 331–340. ACM. Retrieved from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2399069

lăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007

oel, A. K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., & Helms, M. (2012). Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: a study in biologically inspired design. Computer-Aided Design, 44(10), 879–900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.03.010

utwein, S. (2013). Computer support for collaborative creativity (Technical report). Munich: University of Munich. ailpern, J., Hinterbichler, E., Leppert, C., Cook, D., & Bailey, B. P. (2007). TEAM STORM: demonstrating an interaction model for working with multiple ideas

during creative group work. pp. 193–202. ACM. Retrieved from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1254987 artmann, B., Morris, M. R., Benko, H., & Wilson, A. D. (2010). Pictionaire: supporting collaborative design work by integrating physical and digital

artifacts. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 421–424). errmann, T., & Nolte, A. (2010). The integration of collaborative process modeling and electronic brainstorming in co-located meetings. Presented at the

CRIWG. illiges, O., Terrenghi, L., Boring, S., Kim, D., Richter, H., & Butz, A. (2007). Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. pp. 137–146. ACM. Retrieved

from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1254980 oward, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology

literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001 uang, C.-C., Li, T.-Y., Wang, H.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2007). A collaborative support tool for creativity learning: idea storming cube. pp. 31–35. Retrieved from.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs all.jsp?arnumber=4280942 nnovationCast (n.d.) Retrieved from http://innovationcast.com/en/what it is. ones, A., Kendira, A., Lenne, D., Gidel, T., & Moulin, C. (2011). The TATIN-PIC project: a multi-modal collaborative work environment for preliminary design. pp.

154–161. IEEE Computer Society. http://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2011.5960069 itchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (EBSE Technical Report No.

EBSE-2007-01). Keele,UK: Software Engineering Group, School of Computer Science and Mathematic, Keele University. Retrieved from.

aboranova (2014). Retrieved, from http://www.laboranova.com/ Accessed 22.05.14. iu, X., Li, Y., Pan, P., & Li, W. (2011). Research on computer-aided creative design platform based on creativity model. Expert Systems with Applications, 38,

9973–9990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.032

122 A. Gabriel et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 (2016) 109–122

Long, H. (2014). More than appropriateness and novelty: judges’ criteria of assessing creative products in science tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 183–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.05.002

Lopes, J. S., Alvarez-Napagao, S., & Vazquez-Salceda, J. (2009). USE: a concept-based recommendation system to support creative search. In 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology – Workshops (pp. 17–21). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2009.220

López-Ortega, O. (2013). Computer-assisted creativity: emulation of cognitive processes on a multi-agent system. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 3459–3470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.054

Lubart, T. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Armand Colin. Lubart, T. (2005). How can computers be partners in the creative process: classification and commentary on the special issue. International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies, 63, 365–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.002 Mangano, N., & van der Hoek, A. (2012). The design and evaluation of a tool to support software designers at the whiteboard. Automated Software

Engineering, 19(4), 381–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10515-012-0104-9 McCaffrey, T., & Spector, L. (2011). How the obscure features hypothesis leads to innovation assistant software. Proceedings of the second international

conference on computational creativity, 120–122. Retrieved from. http://iccc11.cua.uam.mx/proceedings/the helpful/mccaffrey iccc11.pdf Mumford, M. D. (2012). Handbook of organizational creativity. Elsevier professional. Retrieved from.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123747143 Nemiro, J. (2004). Creativity in virtual teams: key components for success. Pfeiffer. Ogot, M., & Okudan, G. E. (2007). Systematic creativity methods in engineering education: a learning styles perspective. International Journal of Engineering

Education, 22(3), 566–576. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Scribner. Patent Inspiration (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.patentinspiration.com/ Accessed 13.06.16. Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2012). Chapter 9—idea generation and idea evaluation: cognitive skills and deliberate practices. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 189–215). San Diego: Academic Press. Retrieved from. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123747143000094

Ray, D. K., & Romano, N. C., Jr. (2013). Creative problem solving in GSS groups: do creative styles matter? Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(6), 1129–1157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9309-3

Schmitt, L., Buisine, S., Chaboissier, J., Aoussat, A., & Vernier, F. (2012). Dynamic tabletop interfaces for increasing creativity. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1892–1901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.007

Setchi, R., & Bouchard, C. (2010). In search of design inspiration: a semantic-based approach. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 10(3) http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3482061

Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity support tools—accelerating discovery and innovation. Communications of the ACM, 50(December (12)), 20–32. Soriano de Alencar, E. M. L. (2012). Chapter 5—Creativity in organizations: facilitators and inhibitors. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational

creativity (pp. 87–111). San Diego: Academic Press. Retrieved from. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123747143000057 Sorli, M., & Stokic, D. (2009). Innovating in product/process development. London: Springer. Streitz, N. A., Geissler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., . . . & Steinmetz, R. (1999). i-LAND: an interactive landscape for creativity

and innovation. pp. 120–127. ACM. Retrieved from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=303010 Sugimoto, M., Hosoi, K., & Hashizume, H. (2004). Caretta: a system for supporting face-to-face collaboration by integrating personal and shared spaces. pp.

41–48. ACM. Retrieved from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=985698 Sundholm, H., Artman, H., & Ramberg, R. (2004). Backdoor creativity: collaborative creativity in technology supported teams. pp. 99–114. Retrieved from.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NJQeyFBXROUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA99&dq=%22is+not+placed+in+the+heads+or+minds+of+individuals +but+rather+in+the%22+%22authors+focus+on+the+concepts+of+ability+and+talent+(or+creativity,+authors%E2%80%99+remark)%22+&ots =veOqPcbff-&sig=6loE96oZ900hpajF8RlQ BS1 0Y

Tan, M., Tripathi, N., Zuiker, S. J., & Soon, S. H. (2010). Building an online collaborative platform to advance creativity. 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), 421–426.

ThinkTank (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.groupsystems.com/. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change (4th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Van Dijk, J., & Vos, G. W. (2011). Traces in creative spaces. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 91–94). Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., Helms, M., Goel, A. K., & Yen, J. (2011). DANE: fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired design. In T. Taura, & Y. Nakai

(Eds.), Design creativity 2010 (pp. 115–122). New York: Springer. Voigt, M., Niehaves, B., & Becker, J. (2012). Towards a unified design theory for creativity support systems. In D. Hutchison, D. Hutchison, et al. (Eds.),

Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 152–173). Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9 13 Voigt, M., Bergener, K., & Becker, J. (2013). Comprehensive support for creativity-Intensive processes an explanatory information system design theory.

Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5(4), 227–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0272-6 Von Stamm, B. (2008). Managing innovation, design and creativity. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Wang, H., & Ohsawa, Y. (2013). Idea discovery: a scenario-based systematic approach for decision making in market innovation. Expert Systems with

Applications, 40, 429–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.044 Wang, H.-C., Cosley, D., & Fussell, S. R. (2010). Idea expander: supporting group brainstorming with conversationally triggered visual thinking stimuli. In

Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 103–106). Warr, A., & O’Neill, E. (2005). Understanding design as a social creative process. pp. 118–127. ACM. Retrieved from.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1056242 Warr, A., & O’Neill, E. (2007). Tool support for creativity using externalizations. pp. 127–136. ACM. Retrieved from.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1254979 Westerski, A. (2013). Semantic technologies in idea management systems: a model for interoperability, linking and filtering. Universidad Politécnica de

Madrid, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Telecomunicación. Wiggins, G. A. (2006). Searching for computational creativity. New Generation Computing, 24, 209–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03037332 Wilson, M., Scalise, K., & Gochyyev, P. (2015). Rethinking ICT literacy: from computer skills to social network settings. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18,

65–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.05.001 Yuan, M. (2008). An automatic classification approach to idea organization in group support systems. PhD dissertation. University of Arizona. Yuan, S.-T., & Chen, Y.-C. (2008). Semantic ideation learning for agent-based e-brainstorming. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 20,

261–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2007.190687 Zanni-Merk, C., Cavallucci, D., & Rousselot, F. (2009). An ontological basis for computer aided innovation. Computers in Industry, 60, 563–574. Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can traditional divergent thinking tests Be trusted in measuring and predicting real-World creativity?

Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 24–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545713 48h Innovation Maker (2013). Retrieved from http://48h-innovation-maker.com/ Accessed 13.06.16.

Related Articles/Differences-in-creative-mindset-between-Germany-and-Pola_2016_Thinking-Skill.pdf