Breathing, living, drinking, Tony Lai....in Copenhagen. YOu ain't get enough from this man. ONe whom I regard as an important catalyst that makes Singapore a
Yet, as he is smoothly facilitating this Innolab trip, I recall an important discussion we had some time back on "Innovation versus Creativity". INteresting food for thought.... especially as we are talking to the leading thinkers on Innovation here in Copenhagen.
I (naively) wrote on 19/10/07:
Hi Tony
Something been disturbing me for a while. Esp with the Innolab thing coming along and after experiencing your Experiential IP with the JMC. Would like to seek some clarification.
Whats your take on creativity? I know u guys are the key drivers in innovation- across ministries, organisations, etc but where would you place creativity. I guess, it seems obvious that through your IP processes, it ultimately drives towards CHANGE. Not discounting how "valuable" that really is, but definition wise, would it then just be the implementation of creative ideas? I know it sounds silly, esp if it just seems a simple issue of linguistic, but to me, I ascribe strongly to Rhodes 4 Ps- Press, Person, Product and Process. In this case, I thought, innovation would then lead perfectly as a creative process that brings about a creative product.
what say u?
john
His (garang and wack it hard baby) reply:
Hi John,
It would be my pleasure to engage you in this conversation.
There are so many parts of your email below that is worth dissecting and interpreting for sense-making. Let me see if I can share with you my thoughts around those.
Where do I place creativity? I place creativity at the individual level and a person's ability to create things. But I am VERY obsessed with the nuances of what "create things" REALLY mean. After my experience with working across different countries, I realize that it's very easy to generalize things. So..."create things" for me could include creating new perspectives, creating fresh insights, creating new opportunities, creating new ideas, creating new processes and finally creating new products/things. Therefore the ability to create things will require the ability to see things differently and "create" from there. That's where creativity is at its most exciting level.
Creativity has essences that are non-linear, differential and uncommon. It is more than just a part/phase/stage of a process and worse still...a specific definition. If our aim is to write a dictionary, then it has to have a definition. But if our aim is every else in life, creativity is extremely organic and emerges at usual places.
So then I come to your belief system that you ascribe strongly to Rhodes 4 Ps. May I ask you a few questions please? Do you need to ascribe to any paradigm or theory strongly? Let me ask this differently. WHEN do you need to ascribe to a theory strongly? When you asses and evaluate a theory, do you need to agree/associate with the entire theory's principles? What about the other theories that you do not ascribe strongly to...are there elements that are useful/fascinating in them? If there are, and you included it into Rhodes, what would you have? Would you not be in a creative mode then? And what would happen?
Let me switch the questions down another path. If you never ascribed to any theory strongly but could keep in your head all the various theories of creativity available, would that be a useful process? What happens when you could explain and understand different issues using different combinations of those multiple theories? Would you find new answers? What happens when you assess every issue using Rhodes theory only? Would not the world and its new problems seem "un-new"? Where are you looking at for creativity?
I think you get the gist of my question. But what is most interesting in your paragraph below reflect your strong desire for clarity and absolutes. Let me cite the examples.
(A) "it seems obvious that through your IP process, it ultimately drives towards CHANGE". Perhaps...but that's not the important part really. The way it achieves change or transformation is where the excitement really is. Innovation is a process where there are several unique combinations of activities that are highly contextual to the problem. The ability to solve a multitude of complex problems leading to the change is more important than the final change itself because otherwise it cannot happen. You got to be careful not to only just see the end outcome. Its like saying "isn't everything in life meant for progress?". Very sweeping my friend. There are very few things that can use the words beginning with "ultimately drives towards...". They tend to be very moralistic or idealistic. In real life, the woods and the trees are equally important.
(B) "innovation would then lead perfectly as a creative process that brings about a creative product". I have no problems with your statement except for the words "lead perfectly". Nothing leads perfectly. This may be true in some circumstances and may be completely ridiculous in other circumstances. Can we imagine situations when innovation does not lead to a creative process? Of course.
Do you need a high level of clarity John? Do you need things to square up towards a single form of understanding? How are you with direct contradictions? I am sure you are ok with contradictions. I know that. So can you live with innovation and creativity as contradictions then? Can they be THIS and THAT? Its cool right?
My key advice is avoid the perils of being an academic. Frameworks and theories are very important. They provide conceptual understanding and I am a sucker for them. The hard part is to avoid liking any one theory in particular. Like them all. Know them all. Then apply them in different situations for the best answers. Then mix them up and see what happens. Then create new ones based on your experience and knowledge. This will be your process towards originality. You have the capacity and intelligence to do that. Otherwise the peril of academics take over. You do not provide fresh insights and thoughts when you are facing a problem. Instead, you use
established frameworks and refer to it for understanding. Would it not be fun for you to creatively interpret it?
Just Tony...
After last night, I realise this man can reallly talk, especially after a martini! As for myself, I am seeing the trees and the woods, differently.
1 comment:
This was said of him today: "The only reason we know Singapore is because of him." Speaks volume of a Singaporean who has done us proud. And I hear he has a part to play to bring one of the coolest Design award and exhibition to Singapore.
Post a Comment