Design Brochure 2013 WEB
Content
E X P E R TE X P E R T
E X P E R I E N C EE X P E R I E N C EE X P E R I E N C E
E X P E R TE X P E R TE X P E R TE X P E R T
S
O
C
I
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
S
e
m
p
a
t
h
y
i n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
y
m
b
o
l
i
c
s
y
m
b
o
l
i
c
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
s
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
n a
t
u
r
e
w
a
t
e
r
S
I
T
T
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
p
l
a
z
a
s
s
q
u
a
r
e
s
T A C I T K N O W L E D G E
URBAN EXPERIENCE
E
X
P
E
R
I
M
E
N
T
w
i
n
t
e
r
2
0
1
0
f
a
l
l
2
0
0
9
s
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
0
w
i
n
t
e
r
2
0
1
0
G
A
P
S
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S i u
W
H
A
T K
N
O
W
LE
D
G
E
D
O
C
O
M
M
O
N
C
ITIZ
E
N
S
H
A
V
E
?
c
o
-
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
o
l
s
t
e
c
h
i n
n
i q
u
e
s
t
o
o
l
s
S a n n o f
t
r
i
a
n
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
C O N N E C T I O N S
H
O
W
T
O
M
A
K
E
P
E
O
P
L
E
F
E
E
L
T
H
A
T
T
H
E
Y
O
W
N
P
U
B
L
IC
S
P
A
C
E
S
?
HOW TO ENABLE FULL PARTICIPATION?
S
A
N
D
E
R
S
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
S E M I O L O G Y
S
T
R
U
C
S
T
R
U
C
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
I
S
M
C L A R K S O N
K E A T E S &
C L A R K S O NC L A R K S O N
K
I
N
G
W
H
Y
T
E
I
N
C
L
U
S
I
V
I
T
Y
U
R
B
A
N
S
P
A
C
E
S
U
R
B
A
N
U
R
B
A
N
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
I
M
A
G
E
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Litsca
p
e
M
a
ria
G
a
b
rie
la
S
a
n
ch
e
s Th
e
sis P
ro
p
o
sa
l ID
E
S
5
2
0
1
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
U
R
B
A
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
U
R
B
A
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
U
R
B
A
N
U
R
B
A
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
E
N
A
T
I
O
N
U
R
B
A
N
U
R
B
A
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D
E
S
I
G
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
E
S
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
E
S
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
E
S
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
E
S
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
F
U
L
L
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
L
L
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
L
L
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
L
L
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
L
L
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
S
E
U
D
O
-
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
P
S
E
U
D
O
-
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
P
S
E
U
D
O
-
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
P
S
E
U
D
O
-
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
P
S
E
U
D
O
-
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
E
M
P
T
Y
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
E
R
Barthes
A R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R E
& U R B A N& U R B A N& U R B A N
A R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R EA R C H I T E C T U R E
P L A N N I N GP L A N N I N GP L A N N I N G
& U R B A N& U R B A N& U R B A N& U R B A N
H O W T O C R E A T E S O C I A L C A T A L Y S T S ?
A
N
T
H
R
O
P
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
T
H
R
O
P
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
T
H
R
O
P
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
T
H
R
O
P
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
T
H
R
O
P
O
L
O
G
Y
A
N
T
H
R
O
P
O
L
O
G
Y
J
A
C
O
B
S
J
A
C
O
B
S
J
A
C
O
B
S
J
A
C
O
B
S
L
Y
N
C
H
J
A
C
O
B
S
J
A
C
O
B
S
W
H
Y
T
E
W
H
Y
T
E
W
H
Y
T
E
L
Y
N
C
H
L
Y
N
C
H
id.carleton.ca
MASTER OF
DESIGN
SHAPE YOUR FUTURE
BASED ON YOUR
RESEARCH INTERESTS
The School of Industrial Design offers a program
of study and research leading to the Master of
Design (MDes) degree. The program takes
a strong research approach, and is normally
completed after two years of study.
The focus of the program is to advance
knowledge in the field of design through
the study of advanced design principles and
interdisciplinary design practices that con-
tribute to the strategic value of design. This
is achieved through a program of study that
will enable graduates to positively affect
the greater integration of design principles,
methodologies and interdisciplinary design
development processes into private and
public sector business practice.
Students will examine and incorporate
multi-faceted design principles and practices
that contribute to the strategic value of design
with particular research focus on the following
key areas: advanced materials and manufacturing
processes, advanced visualization, design
and culture, design management, extreme
environments, human-oriented design, product
interaction design, sustainable design, and
strategic design research. They will also have
an opportunity to engage in interdisciplinary
interactions with faculty from the school, as
well as faculty and students from a diverse
range of disciplines in the university, all
linked to the design development process.
Graduates will have the skills to conduct inter-
disciplinary design research and to manage
resources to provide a design-based advantage.
The MDes program aims to teach designers
to integrate more effectively design value into
the business environment: it does not aim to
teach business people the process of design.
Graduates are prepared to play a strategic
role in championing design in a variety of
enterprises, including academic institutions.
CAPITAL ADVANTAGE
The National Capital Region is the ideal place
to study. Within a short distance from Carleton’s
campus are a multitude of industry and world-
class government research and development
laboratories where interdisciplinary design
development plays a part. Ottawa is home to
a range of federal museums that have been
actively engaged with our MDes students since
the program’s inception. Other collaborative
opportunities for thesis research include Ottawa’s
medical institutions such as the Ottawa Heart
Institute, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute
and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
FIELDS.
An Interdisciplinary
Design Journal
id.carleton.ca/graduate/fields-report
CONTACT INFORMATION
School of Industrial Design
3470 Mackenzie Building
1125 Colonial By Drive
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6
Phone: 613-520-5672
Fax: 613-520-4465
Email: [email protected]
APPLICATION & DEADLINES
For more information about the MDes program,
please visit our website at: id.carleton.ca.
Details about how to apply are available here:
graduate.carleton.ca/apply-online.
You can access an online application at this
website: graduate.carleton.ca/applynow.
All applicants must submit their completed
application by March 1.
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
For admission into Carleton’s graduate
programs, you will need to demonstrate
that your knowledge and use of English
are strong enough for graduate studies
at an English-language university.
For a listing of our minimum
English-language requirements,
please visit our website at:
graduate.carleton.ca/
international.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Generous funding is available in the form
of teaching/research assistantships and
scholarships based on academic excellence.
We encourage students to compete for scholar-
ships from OGS, Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC) or Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
whatever is appropriate to your research area.
Applicants who apply after March 1 may be
considered for funding, if funding is available.
For additional information on scholarships visit:
graduate.carleton.ca/financial-assistance.
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Applicants must have a bachelor’s degree in a
design discipline, or the equivalent, with at least
a B+ standing. Applicants with a design-related
background, but not a professional degree in
design, will be required to demonstrate signifi-
cant links between their academic background
and professional experience working with
designers in the design development process.
Specific program requirements can be found
in the Graduate Calendar online at:
calendar.carleton.ca/grad.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
You need to provide the following documents:
n A portfolio showcasing a diverse selection
of your recent work
n A CV
n Two letters of reference
n A one-page Statement of Intent
n Transcripts from all post-secondary
institutions you have attended
n If applicable, a copy of your English-language
test score
Note: All documents must be uploaded in
the application system. Official documents
(transcripts, test scores) will only be required
if you are accepted into our program.
CO-CREATION OF
KNOWLEDGE
DIVERSITY
KNOWLEDGE
SHARING
PRESS/
ENVIRONMENT
TEAM
PROCESSES
Larson, 2010
SYNERGETIC
PROCESSES
Larson, 2010
Larson, 2010
Larson, 2010
Larson, 2010
Adams, 1986
Amabile & Mueller, 2008
Amason & Sapienza, 1997
George & Zhou, 2001
McCrae, 1987
Vyas et al., 2009
Vyas et al., 2009
Vyas et al., 2009
Taura & Nagai, 2011
Schilpzand et al., 2011 Prabhu et al., 2008
King et al., 1996
Kelley & Littman, 2001
Kelley & Littman, 2001
Kelley & Littman, 2001
Kaufman, 2009
Kaufman et al., 2008
Henessey & Amabile, 2010
Henessey & Amabile, 2010
Henessey & Amabile, 2010
Hargadon & Bechky, 2006
Hargadon & Bechky, 2006
Hargadon & Bechky, 2006
Goldschmidt, 2005
Gilson, 2008
Gilson, 2008
G
ilson, 2008
Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008
Feist, 1998
Cross, 2011
Cross, 2011
Cross, 2011
Cross, 2011
C
ross, 2011
Cross, 2011
Batey et al., 2010
Barron & Harrington, 1981 Barron & Harrington, 1981
Badke-Schaub et al., 2010
Badke-Schaub et al., 2010
Anderson, 1992
Am
abile & M
ueller, 2008
Am
abile & M
ueller, 2008
Amabile et al., 2008
INTERACTION
COGNITIVE
STIMULATION
SMALL GROUPS
PSYCHOLOGICAL
SAFETY
PERSONALITY
DESIGNERLY
WAYS OF KNOWING
REPRESENTATION
PSYCHOLOGY
COLLECTIVE
CREATIVITY
IDEATIONAL
CREATIVTY
SYNERGY
BRAINSTORMING
SPEEDSTORMING
BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT
TEAM
PERFORMANCE
PROBLEM
SOLVING
BOUNDARY
SPANNING
CONFLICT
GROUP
TASKS
INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES
VISUAL
COMMUNICATION
ORGANIZATIONAL
CREATIVITY
DECISION
MAKING
DESIGN
THINKING
INDIVIDUAL
CREATIVITY
IDEA-
GENERATION
PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
TEAM
CREATIVITY
CREATIVITY
INTERDISCIPLINARY
COLLABORATION
DESIGN
CREATIVE
SYNERGY
Larson, 2010
Larson, 2010
Amason & Mooney, 1999
Amason, 1996
B
a r c z a k e t a l . , 2 0 1 0
Barczak et al., 2010
Bassett-Jones, 2005
Bassett-Jones, 2005
Behfar & Peterson, 2008
Behfar & Peterson, 2008
Bond & Keys, 1993
Bond & Keys, 1993
Bond & Keys, 1993
Bond & Keys, 1993
Bond & Keys, 1993
Büyüközkan & Arsenyan, 2011
Büyüközkan & Arsenyan, 2011
C
hen, 2006
Chen, 2006
Cross & Cross, 1995
Cross & Cross, 1995
De Clercq et al., 2009
Collins & Guetzkow, 1964
Collins & Guetzkow, 1964
De Dreu, 2006
De Dreu & Weingart, 2006
Diamond, 1987
D
iehl & Stroebe, 1987
Diehl & Stroebe, 1991
Dunnette et al., 1963
Farh et al., 2010
Farh et al., 2010
Friedrich & Mumford, 2009
Hackman, 1968
Hertel, 2011
Holtzman & Anderberg, 2011
H
oltzm
an & Anderberg, 2011
Holtzman & Anderberg, 2011
Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011
Jehn, 1995
Jehn, 1997
Jehn & M
annix, 2001
Joyce et al., 2010
Joyce et al., 2010
Joyce et al., 2010
Joyce et al., 2010
Kim, 1990
Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2000/2001
Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2000/2001
Larson, 2007
Larson, 2007
Larson, 2007
Lasker et al., 2001
Lasker et al., 2001
Lasker et al., 2001
Laughlin, 1980
McGrath, 1984
Miura & Hida, 2004
Miura & Hida, 2004
M
iura & Hida, 2004
Morris, 1966
Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007 Osborn, 1963
Osborn, 1963
Osborn, 1963
Paulus, 2000 Paulus, 2000
Paulus et al., 1993
Paulus et al., 1995
Scarnati, 2001
Scarnati, 2001
Shalley & Zhou, 2008
Steiner, 1972
Taylor et al., 1958
Troyer & Youngreen, 2009
Troyer & Youngreen, 2009
Vizjak, 1994
W
oodm
an et al., 1993
Yoshimura & Yoshikawa, 1998
Yoshimura & Yoshikawa, 1998
DESIGN
CREATIVITY
CREATIVE SYNERGY LITSCAPE
IDES5201 Thesis Proposal
Professor Lorenzo Imbesi
Tim Haats
06.10.2011
Adams, J. L. (1986). Conceptual blockbusting: A guide to better ideas (3rd ed.). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc.
Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of
creativity. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 33-64). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional confict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox
for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.
Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team confict in strategic decision making.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 340-359.
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective confict.
Journal of Management, 23(4), 495-516.
Anderson, J. V. (1992). Weirder than fction: The reality and myths of creativity. Academy of Management Executives, 6(4), 40-47.
Badke-Schaub, Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer, M. (2010). How does cognitive confict in design teams support the development of creative
ideas? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 119-133.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and
collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2),
169-175.
Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and
Individual Differences, 20, 532-535.
Behfar, K. J., & Peterson, R. S. (2008). The critical role of confict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between confict type, confict
management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170-188.
Bond, M. A., & Keys, C. B. (1993). Empowerment, diversity, and collaboration: Promoting synergy on community boards. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 21(1), 37-57.
Büyüközkan, G., & Arsenyan, J. (2011). Collaborative product development: A literature overview. Production Planning and Control, 1-20.
Chen, M.-H. (2006). Understanding the benefts and detriments of confict on team creativity process. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 15(1), 105-116.
Collins, B., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision making. New York: Wiley.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.
Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143-170.
De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2009). When good confict gets better and bad confict becomes worse: The role of social
capital in the confict-innovation relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 283-297.
De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task confict and innovation in
teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-107.
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship confict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
Diamond, P. (1987, March). Synergy: Working together to make one plus one equal four. Human Resource Management Australia, 73-79.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53(3), 497-509.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61(3), 392-403.
Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J., & Jaastad, K. (1963). The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial
samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 30-37.
Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010, August 16). Task confict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1-8.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientifc and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
Friedrich, T. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). The effects of conficting information on creative thought: A source of performance improvements
or decrements? Creativity Research Journal, 21(2), 265-281.
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 613-617.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513-524.
Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity at the individual, group, and organizational
levels. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 303-322). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26, 593-611.
Hackman, R. J. (1968). Effects of task characteristics on group products. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(2), 162-187.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A feld study of problem solving at work.
Organizational Science, 17(4), 484-500.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.
Hertel, G. (2011). Synergetic effects in working teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 176-184.
Holtzman, Y., & Anderberg, J. (2011). Diversify your teams and collaborate: Because great minds don't think alike. Journal of Management
Development, 30(1), 75-92.
Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Group motivation gains in the wild. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 47, 455-459.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefts and detriments of intragroup confict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of confict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
530-557.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of confict: A longitudinal study of intragroup confict and group performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Joyce, C. K., Jennings, K. E., Hey, J., Grossman, J. C., & Kalil, T. (2010). Getting down to business: Using speedstorming to initiate creative
cross-disciplinary collaboration. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 57-67.
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America's leading design firm. New York: Doubleday.
Kim, S. H. (1990). Essence of creativity: A guide to tackling difficult problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 189-203.
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2000/2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 285-294.
Larson, J. R. (2007). Deep diversity and strong synergy: Modeling the impact of variability in members' problem-solving strategies on group
problem-solving performance. Small Group Research, 38(3), 413-436.
Larson, J. R. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. New York: Psychology Press.
Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative
advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179-205.
Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),
Progress in social psychology (pp. 127-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6),
1258-1265.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interactions and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miura, A., & Hida, M. (2004). Synergy between diversity and similarity in group-idea generation. Small Group Research, 35(5), 540-564.
Morris, C. G. (1966). Task effects on group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 545-554.
Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
524-535.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generation groups. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49(2), 237-262.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of
group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78-89.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 17(1 & 2), 249-265.
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motiva-
tion. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 53-66.
Scarnati, J. T. (2001). On becoming a team player. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 7(1/2), 5-10.
Schilpzand, M. C., Herold, D. M., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Members' openness to experience and teams' creative performance. Small Group
Research, 42(1), 55-76.
Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational creativity (pp. 3-31). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (Eds.). (2011). Design Creativity 2010. London: Springer.
Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?
Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23-47.
Troyer, L., & Youngreen, R. (2009). Confict and creativity in groups. Journal of Social Issues, 65(2), 409-427.
Vizjak, A. (1994). Exploiting your synergy potential: Promoting collaboration between business units. Long Range Planning, 27(1), 25-35.
Vyas, D., Heylen, D., Nijholt, A., & van der Veer, G. (2009). Collaborative practices that support creativity in design. In I. Wagner, H. Tellioglu,
E. Balka, C. Simone, & L. Ciolf (Ed.), ECSCW'09: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (pp. 151-170). Vienna, Australia: Springer.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2),
293-321.
Yoshimura, M., & Yoshikawa, K. (1998). Synergy effects of sharing knowledge during cooperative product design. Concurrent Engineering:
Research and Applications, 6(1), 7-14.
Cover artwork: Maria Gabriela Sanches
Diagram: Tim Haats
