See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/200026860

Collaborative Creativity

Article  in  Communications of the ACM · October 2002

DOI: 10.1145/570907.570940 · Source: doi.acm.org

CITATIONS READS
136 1,570

3 authors:

Lena Mamykina Linda Candy

Columbia University ArtworksrActive
89 PUBLICATIONS   3,355 CITATIONS    145 PUBLICATIONS   2,450 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ernest A. Edmonds
De Montfort University
326 PUBLICATIONS   4,142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Creativity and Reflective Practice View project

User Interface research and development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Linda Candy on 07 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Collaborative
Creativity
Human creativity represents an enigma to the
research community: It is all but impossible to
describe the process in unequivocal terms, yet there is
a strong desire to promote and encourage this
uniquely human activity. Within the realm of
human-computer interaction, the challenge is to
understand in what ways technology can enhance the
creative process. In the past, research on creativity
focused on the individual and the individual’s inter-
nal cognitive processes. As a result, there exists a
legacy of guidelines and frameworks for building
computer-based tools that encourage and promote
individual creativity. However, recent research has
begun to paint a more complicated picture of cre-
ativity that highlights the importance of social inter-
actions, mentoring, and collaboration in creative
work [1, 4, 6, 8]. The importance of analyzing cre-
ativity in this more holistic sense is readily apparent
when one considers that most creative pursuits in
industry involve interdisciplinary teams working
together to develop a product that cannot be created
by a single individual alone. The question for HCI
research becomes then: What tools, methodologies,
and practices can support creativity of individuals in
interdisciplinary teams?
There are a number of important differences in dri-
ving forces behind individual and collaborative cre-
ativity. By understanding factors that influence
collaborative creativity we can devise ways to promote
and enhance it and build a foundation for develop-
96 October 2002/Vol. 45, No. 10 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
ment of computer-based tools that augment the cre-
ative process. This article presents a view on interdisci-
plinary creative collaboration inspired by two separate
sources. One is a practitioner’s experience of creative
collaboration in a music and sound design company.
Another is based on a long-standing research program
observing the collaboration of artists and technologists
during the COSTART artist-in-residency studies at
Loughborough University, U.K. [4].
The two creative environments discussed here serve
as catalysts for bringing together collaborators with
various backgrounds, skill sets, and experience levels.
Despite the differences in goals between the two envi-
ronments, both seek to develop teams that can
uniquely solve a problem through their collective
efforts, and both environments have done so with rel-
ative success. It is therefore instructive to analyze the
commonalities between these two environments—one
a commercial enterprise, the other a research institu-
tion—to better understand how to encourage collabo-
rative creativity in other situations.
In both environments, we have observed collabora-
tors engage in a process consisting roughly of three
main activities: creative conceptualization, realization
(or implementation), and evaluation. Within these
three activities, partners in collaboration tend to adopt
certain roles, which are especially noticeable and pro-
nounced between artists and technologists (rather than
within groups of artists or technologists). We describe
these roles as models of collaboration, which we sum-
 By Lena Mamykina, Linda Candy, and Ernest Edmonds

marize as an assistant model, a full quishing of individual control of

partnership model, and a partnership the creative process and different,
model, depicted in the figures but complementary, roles appear
appearing here. Figure 1 provides an to be best suited to achieving that
overview of the three main activities end.
compared to the participants (artists
and technologists), while Figure 2 Supporting Interdisciplinary
depicts the assistant, full partnership, Collaboration
and partnership models respectively. Computing technology has a vast
Strong involvement, influence, and potential to support interdiscipli-
leadership by a collaborator are indi- nary creative collaboration. Here,
cated by shaded areas [5]. we discuss the requirements for a
The assistant model is the one successful partnership based upon
most commonly observed in a com- the experience of the COSTART
mercial creative team setting, where project, and suggest some opportu-
collaborators assume the responsibil- nities for the development of com-
ity for different phases of the project, puter-based tools.
and often even join the project for a Devising a Shared Language.
brief time and leave after fulfilling An ability to communicate and
their parts. This model is sometimes Figure 1. The exchange creative ideas is an essential part of the cre-
partner/activity
referred to as a conveyer model. We matrix. ative process. For an interdisciplinary group, this abil-
argue that the second model, which ity can be impaired by the differences in the group
we define as partnership, presents sig- members’ professional vocabulary and the concepts
nificant benefits for creative collaboration and discuss they use. Participants’ success in reaching a common
ways to achieve these benefits here. creative vision, brainstorming, exchanging creative
ideas and evaluating them depends on the ability of the
Creative Collaboration
through Partnership
In a full partnership situation, com-
plementary interests exist even where
the outcomes by each individual
party may differ. Indeed, one of the
most successful ongoing partnerships
observed in the artist-in-residence
studies operated in such a way as to
serve convergent interests though it
produced quite distinct artistic outcomes. The part- group to devise a shared lan-
ners are able to achieve mutual benefit but at the guage. One of the successful Figure 2. Assistant
model, full partnership, and
same time, retain ownership of their individual practices for reaching a shared partnership with artist
achievements. Such mutual benefit requires the relin- understanding in an audio control.

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM October 2002/Vol. 45, No. 10 97

 Tools that support articulation of
creative ideas and allow for better
exchange between different
disciplines can eliminate some of
the barriers in interdisciplinary
collaboration.
design world is the use of metaphors that relate specific
terms and concepts to real-world scenarios and situa-
tions familiar to everyone. In this way, an interaction
designer might describe a desired sound as a “church
bell” or a “gentle whisper,” and a composer can extract
the necessary musical components from such
metaphors.
There are a number of potent directions for pro-
viding support in devising a shared language. One way
is to help team members understand and learn each
other’s professional jargon with automated interpreta-
tion systems [8]. Frequently, however, the vocabulary
needs to be task-dependent, custom or unique to the
team and the environment, and developed by the team
over an extended period of time and during multiple
projects. In cases like this, teams need tools that allow
them to capture, annotate, and reuse custom vocabu-
lary. In our earlier example of successful metaphor use,
the collaborators would benefit from the ability to
reuse successful metaphors or to learn from unsuccess-
ful ones. In their work discussing communities of
practice, Brown and Duguid [2] note the natural ten-
dency for people to develop and communicate stories
as a way of informally disseminating important on-
the-job information. Another approach developed by
Thomas et al. [10] and discussed in this issue is the
development of a pattern language that captures solu-
tions to a recurring problem in patterns and is meant
to stimulate thought without providing an inflexible,
possibly inappropriate structure.
Developing a Common Understanding of the
Artistic Intentions and Vision. A shared language is
a great asset in developing a common understanding
of the artistic intentions and vision. However, the lan-
guage of creative exchange does not have to be verbal.
People often use design artifacts to express their cre-
ative vision. For example, during a brainstorming ses-
sion, an interaction designer might start drawing flow
charts, whereas a composer would create musical
sketches using a keyboard. These demonstrations of
creative ideas and visions, when the right tools are
available, greatly reduce the risk of misunderstanding
and fruitless arguments.
Fluid and open communication is a necessary con-
98 October 2002/Vol. 45, No. 10 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
dition for reaching a shared vision. One way to
encourage communication in an interdisciplinary
team is to provide lightweight ways to support articu-
lation of thought. For example, there are multiple
commercially available tools supporting the develop-
ment of low-fidelity design artifacts, such as sketches
and prototypes. There are also multiple practices
developed in the HCI community, such as paper pro-
totyping, Wizard of Oz prototyping, storytelling, and
role-playing. What is lacking in some of these tools is
the ability to easily develop, store, annotate, and share
multimedia and multiformat prototypes and sketches.
Engaging in Extensive Discussions and What-if
Sessions. Development of a common understanding
of the artistic intentions and vision requires that col-
laborators engage in extensive discussions and what-if
sessions. Within this phase of collaboration the inter-
disciplinary nature of the group confers multiple ben-
efits to the participants. They can present different,
often complementary views on the problem and help
each other break away from obvious solutions. During
such discussions, the ability to capture ideas, annotate
them and store them for future reference allows the
group to build a shared knowledge resource that has
innumerable benefits.
In creative work it is also important to be able to
track the progress of an idea or revisit design decisions.
To this end, there are encouraging developments
emerging in lightweight capture and annotation of
design histories [8]. Interdisciplinary collaboration
presents a new context and new benefits of design his-
tories. Participants can refer to captured design
progress to learn each other’s approaches, or to track
the development of a creative idea without having to
explicitly discuss it. However, it is important to
remember the need for multiformat sketching and
allow information designers, visual designers, com-
posers, and other creative professionals to explore cre-
ative ideas within the same environment.
Developers of tools for creativity support should be
mindful of differences in cognitive styles, which are
typical for different disciplines or even for individuals
with the same professional backgrounds. For example,
when working on an audio interface, an interaction
designer might start with building a conceptual frame-
work concentrating on logical flow and relationships
between elements, using tools that support and
encourage it, such as flowchart applications. A com-
poser, on the other hand, is more likely to engage in a
free-form exploration, creating and discarding many
musical ideas simultaneously, possibly without captur-
ing them. Development of tools that support creative
exploration should reflect these different approaches,
allowing for structured and linear explorations, as well

as free form and parallel discovery.
Sharing Knowledge Resources. An effective work-
ing relationship exists where both parties exchange
knowledge resources in order to make progress and
resolve difficulties of both a technical and artistic
nature. The sharing of knowledge is an important
facilitator of creative collaboration. It also depends
upon the parties having complementary rather than
identical skills. A partnership that aims to be self-suffi-
cient must also know its limits and be willing to carry
out the necessary research when the knowledge is
insufficient. Indeed, self-sufficiency in technical know-
how, or at least the quest for it through research, can
be in itself a stimulus to creative thought. Being able
to learn through knowledge sharing is beneficial and
it particularly applies where having a direct contact
with a new way of thinking stimulates the generation
of options.
Tools like CoWeb, mailing lists, and newsgroups are
commonly used by commercial enterprises to enhance
communication and share knowledge resources. Cap-
turing and distributing successful practices in case
studies can foster this sharing. Computer-based meth-
ods that enable users to broadcast Web site informa-
tion to one another combined with shared drawing
and knowledge-based support to decision making
have been developed in prototype form but are not
yet commercially available [7].
3. Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. Interaction in art and technology. Cross-
ings: Electronic Journal of Art and Technology 2, 1 (Mar. 2002);
crossings.tcd.ie/.
4. Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. Explorations in Art and Technology.
Springer-Verlag, London, 2002.
5. Candy, L. and Edmonds, E.A. Modeling co-creativity in art and technol-
ogy. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Creativity and
Cognition. 2002.
6. Csikzentmihalyi, M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1999.
7. Edmonds, E.A. and Candy, L. Computer support for concept engineering
design: Enabling interaction with design knowledge. Journal of Systems
Engineering and Electronics 7, 2 (1996), 55–71.
8. Klemmer, S.R., Thomsen, M., Phelps-Goodman, E., Lee, R., and Landay,
J.A. Where do Web sites come from? Capturing and interacting with
design history. CHI Letters, Human Factors in Computing Systems 4, 1
(2002), 1–8.
9. Shneiderman, B. Creating creativity: User interfaces for supporting inno-
vation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7, 1 (2000),
114–138.
10. Thomas, J., Lee, A., and Danis, C. Enhancing creative design via software
tools. Commun. ACM 45, 10 (Oct. 2002).
Lena Mamykina (lmamykina@eliasarts.com) is an interaction
designer with Elias Arts in New York.
Linda Candy (linda@lindacandy.com) is a senior research fellow in
the Department of Computer Science at Loughborough University, U.K.
Ernest Edmonds (ernest@ernestedmonds.com) is a professor in the
Department of Information Technology at the University of
Technology, Sydney, Australia.
© 2002 ACM 0002-0782/02/1000 $5.00

Conclusion
Observations and analysis of the creative work of an
interdisciplinary team, whether in industry or in
academic settings, can greatly increase our under-
standing of factors that influence it and the driving
forces behind it. Carefully developed tools that pro-
vide lightweight support for articulation of creative
ideas and allow for better exchange between differ-
ent disciplines can eliminate some of the barriers in
interdisciplinary collaboration. However, the ques-
tions of interdisciplinary collaboration are more
complex and are a subject for studies in organiza-
tional behavior, leadership and management, social
sciences, and even architecture and space design.
The importance of creating an emotional as well as
physical environment that encourages creativity
should not be underestimated. The atmosphere of
trust, encouragement, and risk-free exploration as
well as incentives for creative investigation is a nec-
essary part of any creative culture. c

References
1. Amabile, T.M. The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1983.
2. Brown, D. Organizational Learning. Cohen, Sproull, Eds., 1991,
58–82.

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM October 2002/Vol. 45, No. 10 99

View publication stats