=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1342/creare2
|storemode=property
|title=Success Factors for Creativity Workshop in RE
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1342/01-CreaRE.pdf
|volume=Vol-1342
}}
==Success Factors for Creativity Workshop in RE==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1342/01-CreaRE.pdf
Success Factors for Creativity Workshops in RE
Sebastian Adam, Marcus Trapp
Fraunhofer IESE
Fraunhofer-Platz 1, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
{sebastian.adam, marcus.trapp}@iese.fraunhofer.de
Abstract. In today’s economy, innovation is the key factor to remain
competitive. However, due to the revolutionary and disruptive nature of
innovations, it is apparent that traditional requirements engineering (RE)
activities alone are not sufficient in this context (even though still highly
important, of course). Rather, there is a strong need to enhance traditional RE
activities with creativity techniques in a product or service development
process. In the last seven years, we have supported several organizations from
different domains in innovation finding during the RE phase. This paper
presents our experiences from the creativity workshops we applied there, and it
shows how such workshops can be integrated into RE processes. In this context,
we list success factors that we observed and show the key ingredients of
successful creativity workshops from our experience.
Keywords: RE, innovation, creativity, workshop, elicitation
1 Introduction
In today’s economy, innovation is the key factor to remain competitive. Without
having real innovations that inspire and bind customers, almost every organization
can easily be replaced by other organizations that provide the same services and
products with higher quality or lower prices.
However, innovation may not be mixed up with novelty. Adding a new feature to
an existing product is typically an evolution but seldom an innovation. Real
innovations change the way how customers experience a product, service or task in a
certain domain, or they change the insights people can gain through it. Innovations
therefore enhance the status quo and enable new benefits that did not exist there
before.
At least in projects in which there is the need to have disruptive ideas, external
inspirations, or a creative involvement of different stakeholder groups, it is therefore
apparent that traditional requirements engineering (RE) activities alone are not
sufficient (even though still highly important, of course). This means that, in such a
context, merely eliciting expectations and requirements from the stakeholders, or
analyzing their problems and frustrations will probably not lead to a solution that is
needed for changing this domain sustainably. The often cited statement from Henry
Copyright © 2015 by the authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
54
Ford, i.e., “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster
horses” is therefore still valid today.
Thus, at least under the aforementioned circumstances, there is a strong need to
enhance traditional RE activities with creativity techniques in a product or service
development process. However, we claim that doing a brainstorming [1] or another
creativity technique in isolation is not sufficient for systematically elaborating
innovative ideas. Rather, creativity is a hard work, which needs clear guidance in a
relaxed atmosphere, even though everyone can basically be more creative than he or
she thinks.
In the last seven years, we have supported several organizations from different
domains in innovation finding during the RE phase. This paper presents our
experiences from the creativity workshops we applied there, and it shows how such
workshops can be integrated into RE processes. In this context, we argue that many
things during such a workshop can go wrong if not carefully anticipated. Thus, we list
the good and bad things we observed during our creativity workshops and we
highlight the need for an excellent preparation, moderation and rework that we
consider as indispensable for coming up with really beneficial results. Based on this,
we also explain how the workshop results can be processed further in order to transfer
initial ideas into concrete requirements.
As we have already presented a first set of 12 success factors at CREARE 2010
[1], this paper will re-discuss these factors based on our additional experience we
have made since then. Further, new, essential success factors will be presented in this
paper. This is especially important as the creativity workshops we reported on in our
CREARE paper were almost all in research project settings, while our recent
creativity workshops have all taken place in the context of industry projects.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In section II, we describe the
projects in which we did a creativity workshop during RE in the past and we
summarize their contexts and goals. In this context, we elaborate the success factors
of these workshops and also present a re-discussion of the factors presented in our
previous publication [1]. In section III, related work in the area of creativity
workshops is briefly considered while section IV concludes.
2 Success Factors
Table 1 lists nine creativity workshops we performed over the last few years (i.e.,
since our CREARE paper from 2010) in RE processes including their goals, results,
context characteristics and participants.
In the following, we will share our insights from this series of creativity workshops
from two perspectives: first, we present new success factors that we learned during
these workshops. Second, we discuss the already existing lessons learned reported in
our previous CREARE paper under the light of the new projects reported in Table 1
for showing which success factors were confirmed or which new insights we
received.
55
Project P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Characteristics
Domain ICT: Insurance: ICT: ICT: Agricultural Engineering:
Business Intelligence Mobile Business Apps IT Product (HW & SW) IT Product (HW & SW) Product & Service
Workshop Goal Interaction Concepts and Mobile Business App Ideas Product Ideas that can be Product Ideas that can be Product or Service Ideas for
Feature Ideas for a given (B2E & B2C) developed in less than 3 Years developed in less than 3 Years the next 3-5 Years that utilize
Product Idea the latest IT trends
Desired Medium: For 3 given Product High: As many App Ideas as Low: Exactly 2 Product Ideas Low: Exactly 2 Product Ideas High: As many Product, or
Workshop Feature Areas a small Number possible; Participants should Service Ideas as possible;
Result Quantity of competing Ideas each mark their favorites Participants should mark their
favorites
esired Workshop Medium: The Results have to Low: The Results have to High: The Results have to High: The Results have to Medium: The Results have to
Result Fidelity enable Product Design to enable Management to decide enable Product Management to enable Product Management to enable Management create a
create a coherent Interaction which Idea clusters should be directly create a Business Plan directly create a Business Plan prioritized Development
Design for the given Product investigated in more detail /Execution Plan for the Ideas
Idea
Desired Degree Medium: It should be possible Medium: It should be possible High & Low: 1 very High: It should be possible to Low-Medium: It should be
of Innovation to implement the ideas in 1 to implement the ideas within innovative (“crazy”) Idea, 1 implement the Idea in 3 Years possible to implement some
Year with a team of 7 1 Year with a Team of 7 low innovative (“normal”) with a Team of 100 Ideas directly and some over
Idea; the next 1-5 Years
It should be possible to
implement the Idea in 3 Years
with a Team of 100
Starting Basis / Intense Interviews with the Small List of potential App Intense Interviews of the Description of the Business Short Interviews to derive the
Input Material Client about the given Product Ideas derived by the Client, current Roadmap of the Client, Domains of interest, Goals of the Workshop,
56
Idea, Goals of the Workshop, Short List of existing Documentation about the Description of the current Examples to illustrate current
User Stories, Initial Insurance Apps, Goals of the current Roadmap, List of Roadmap ICT Trends
Wireframes Workshop Areas of Improvement,
Product Ideas derived by the
Moderators’ company, Goals
of the Workshop
Duration 1,5 Days 1 Day 1,5 Day 2 Days 1,5 Day
(Start 1st Day in the Morning) (Start in the Morning) (Start 1st Day in the Afternoon) (Start 1st Day in the Morning) (Start 1st Day in the Afternoon)
Number of 9 14 9 10 15
Participants
Background of Business Experts, End-Users, Business Experts, Product Business Experts, Product Business Experts, Product Business Experts, End-Users,
Participants Product Managers, Developers Managers, Developers Managers, Top-Level CEO, Managers, Developers, Product Managers, CEO,
Developers Usability Expert Developers
Number of 3 2 2 2 2
Moderators
Environment / Neutral Location Neutral Location Neutral Location Client Client
Location
Briefing of Very little; Very little; Very little; Verbal by the Extensive; Very little; Verbal by the
Participants E-Mail by the Client E-Mail by the Client Client Verbal and E-Mail by the Client
Client
Table 1. Comparison of the different workshops
Project P6 P7 P8 P9
Characteristics
Domain Fashion: Fashion: Insurance: Finance:
Big Data / Marketing Big Data / Marketing Mobile Business Apps Mobile Business Apps
Workshop Goal Usage Scenarios in Product Usage Scenarios in Product Mobile Business App Ideas Mobile Business App Ideas
Marketing that utilize Big Data Marketing that utilize Big Data with Focus on Context (B2E & B2C)
Technology Technology Awareness
Desired Low: 1-2 concrete Usage Low: 1-2 concrete Usage Medium: 6 App Ideas Low & High: As many App
Workshop Scenarios Scenarios Ideas as possible; 3 App
Result Quantity should be described in more
Detail
Desired High: The Results have to High: The Results have to Low: The Results have to Medium: The Results have to
Workshop enable the IT Department to enable the IT Department to enable Management to decide enable Management create a
Result Fidelity find and combine the required find and combine the required on Intensification of Effort in prioritized Development
data sources and enable them data sources and enable them the Area of Mobile Business /Execution Plan for the Ideas
to select appropriate Big Data to select appropriate Big Data Apps
Technology Technology
Desired Degree Low: It should be possible to Low: It should be possible to Medium-High: It should be Low-Medium: It should be
of Innovation implement the Ideas directly in implement the Ideas directly in possible to implement some possible to implement some
the next 6 Month the next 6 Month Ideas directly and some over Ideas directly and some over
the next 1-5 Years the next 1-5 Years
Starting Basis / Use Cases, several Interviews Use Cases, several Interviews Short Interviews to derive the Use Cases, several Interviews
Input Material with Business Experts to elicit with Business Experts to elicit Goals of the Workshop, with Business Experts to elicit
the As-IS-Situation as well as the As-IS-Situation as well as Examples to illustrate current the As-IS-Situation as well as
57
first Ideas, Goals of the first Ideas, Goals of the ICT Trends first Ideas, Goals of the
Workshop Workshop Workshop, List of Areas of
Improvement, Detailed
Documentation of 2 main Use
Cases, Examples to illustrate
current ICT Trends
Duration 0,5 Days 0,5 Days 0,5 Days 2 Days (Start 1st Day in the
(Start in the Afternoon) (Start in the Morning) (Start after Lunch) Morning)
Number of 7 7 12 13
Participants
Background of Marketing Experts, Marketing Experts, Business Experts, Product Business Experts, Product
Participants Developers, Big Data Experts, Developers, Big Data Experts, Managers, Mid-Level Managers, Top-Level
IT Service Experts IT Service Experts Management, Sales Experts, Management, Sales Experts,
IT Service Experts IT Service Experts
Number of 2 2 2 2
Moderators
Environment / Client Client Client Neutral Location
Location
Briefing of Very little; Verbal by the Very little; Verbal by the Very little; Verbal by the 2 Participants: Extensive;
Participants Client Client Client Verbal and E-Mail as
requested by the Client.
Others: Very little; E-Mail by
the Client
Table 1 (continued). Comparison of the different workshops
2.1 New Success Factors
As the first new success factor, we consider having six key ingredients
(participants’ roles) in each creativity workshop. First, an idea generator with a
domain (not technical) perspective is needed to generate unusual ideas in the
workshop. As a kind of pendant, we need as second role an idea evaluator with a
technical perspective in order to estimate feasibility and needed effort for the
evaluation phase. Third, we need an idea generator with a technical perspective to
produce innovative ideas based on technical innovation potential. As a pendant for
this person, we need as fourth role the idea evaluator with a domain perspective that
can judge whether a technology-driven idea would be accepted by the domain and
what would be the impact. The fifth and sixth role are the moderators of the
workshop. Both moderators should be skilled in creativity techniques and also
moderation. We differentiate the moderators in the analytical moderator and the
motivating moderator. The motivating moderator continuously guides the participants
through the workshop and motivates them to contribute actively. By his behavior he
encourages the participants to contribute continuously to reduce their shyness. The
analytical moderator keeps a close eye on the meta-level on the one side and the
results of the creativity techniques on the other side. In case he or she realizes a
problem on the meta-level (like participants getting into too intense discussions) or on
the result level (output completely different than expected), the analytical moderator
interrupts the workshop and re-plans the workshop in a coffee break.
A second new success factor we learned is starting with the collection of negative
“ideas” at the beginning of a creativity workshop instead of starting with positive
ones. The reason is that the human nature seems to be much more productive if we
ask for negative aspects than if we ask for positive ones. One can use this simple
mechanism in RE within creativity techniques. Thus, we made very positive
experience using the so called FlipFlop technique if we want to get many ideas. This
means that instead of gathering ideas for a question like “how can we make sure that
our new feature will be successful in the market?” we ask for “how can we make sure
that our new feature will be completely unsuccessful in the market?” In our
experience, asking like this, will lead to more than double the answers compared to
the first, positive version of the question. Of course, we then have to reverse the
statements so that the contrary (being successful) can be used for further processing.
2.2 Re-Discussing Existing Success Factors
In the following, we present new insights for seven out of the 12 success factors
that we reported already at CREARE [1].
Regarding the success factor of “Prepare the convergence step carefully, plan
breaks” and “Don’t oversimplify the prioritization and evaluation step” we would like
to emphasize now also the explicit need for intermediate prioritization steps during a
creativity workshop, and not only the need for a final evaluation at the end. Especially
when time is rare to elaborate each intermediate idea in detail, divergence and
58
convergence need to be used alternately. However, as such intermediate
prioritizations may quickly end up in time-consuming discussions (e.g., “all ideas are
important!”), we made very positive experience with forcing the participants to
“select the idea that you like most” in a “first come, first serve” setting.
Regarding the success factor of “Plan enough time” and “Atmosphere” we
emphasized that a good (and different) environment and enough time is indispensable
for running these workshops. In particular, we experienced that approximately 1.5
days of concentrated work are usually needed for coming up with fruitful results. We
also realized that it is extremely important that the participants participate
continuously, and that they should not be distracted by emails or parallel meetings.
Thus, in the meantime we even tend to postpone or even cancel creativity workshops,
if the probability is high that participants have to leave, or if the organizational
surrounding conditions are not good enough to work in a creative atmosphere (e.g., no
willingness to move to a different location).
In our previous CREARE paper, we also emphasized the need to use even not
very well-known “Creativity techniques to enforce variations” even though people
might be sceptic if we use something beyond the classic brainstorming. We can
clearly confirm that we came to many settings where classical brainstorming style
techniques have been used with no or very limited success, and that different
techniques created much more innovative ideas. However, we learned in the
meantime that there is no strong need for making use of too many different techniques
and that it is not needed to always (re-) select from the over 200 existing creativity
techniques that are out there. Rather, we recommend adhering to an individual set of
techniques with which the moderators have made good experience and which work
well in their individual context. In the different projects we conducted so far (cf.
Table 1), we always used, similar set of techniques, always with very positive results.
When we reported our lesson “Never start without prior analysis of the problem
space in the domain”, we wanted to emphasize that we strongly recommend
performing domain, market, problem and requirements analyses beforehand.
However, we would like to extend this success factor with our observation that even
for moderators that did many creativity workshops in the past, a thorough and detailed
planning of each individual workshop is still indispensable. In particular, the creation
of a dedicated, detailed script for the moderators explaining, for instance, how the
results of one technique are processed by a subsequent technique, the anticipation of
results of each techniques (sometimes with trial runs) and the intensive discussion of
the analytic and motivating steps in the preparation of the event is needed. In addition,
it is essential for the perception of success that the participants experience a logical
connection between the results of each step of the creativity workshop.
In CREARE, we also reported that one should “Choose participants carefully”,
arguing that one should not invite the narrow minded fellows to the workshops for not
letting them slow down the creative group process. As can be seen from the new
success factor of “six key ingredients for successful creativity workshops”, we
relativized our opinion on this. Of course, we still have to choose the participants
carefully, but also with regard to the mix of persons. In addition, we want to
emphasize how essential it is to use “evangelists”, i.e., persons that participated in
59
such events and can positively affect other people experiencing this the first time.
Second, we always experienced having interdisciplinary in such sessions as a key
success factor. In particular, involving a real customer in the process of product
innovation is always a win for both sites. We experienced that customers felt a higher
loyalty when they are invited to participating in product development. Of course, this
involves the risk of disappointing the customers, if no ideas are implemented.
Finally, we also want to comment briefly on the other five success factors that we
reported in our former CREARE paper [1]. The factors “Don’t start too late in a
project” and “Contact people personally beforehand and clarify expectations and
goals” are of course still valid, even though we achieved very good results also when
not always contacting the people personally before.
When we reported the success factor “Have fun, but not too much” we argued for
finding the right balance between enjoyable time and making clear to the participants
that everybody must work hard on the ideas to make the workshop a success. We
made good experience with keeping this always in mind.
Also “Include good Incubation” is very valid. We often experience in the new
projects that the incubation phase can have significant impact on the generated ideas.
In the new projects, we did not stick much to the factor “Don´t rotate participants
unless there is enough time”. We also made good experience with mixing teams, even
though one needs to keep in mind that a group of people needs some time to find
together to become effective. In this regard, we made good experience with “force fit”
in which persons with different backgrounds have to combine different ideas.
3 Related Work
Several further authors reported also their experiences on creativity workshops.
Geschka [2] reports on several benefits of creativity in RE in comparison to individual
problem solving, especially an increased effectiveness with higher amounts of new
ideas at lower costs.
Maiden et al. [3] report their lessons learned, for instance, that one-day workshops
are too short, restricting the time to develop trust and collaboration among employees
as well as the time to incubate and illuminate ideas too much. Furthermore, they
report the necessity to define clear input and output models for each half-day session.
Gryskiewicz et al. [4] describe lessons learned from the participants of the creative
RE project, mainly concerned with group dynamics. Additionally, they recommend
discussing problems in a group of people with different backgrounds, not only with
experts of the domain.
Rhodes and Thame [5] give recommendations for the performance of workshops to
speed up the process of innovation in organizations. The type of workshop they
present is claimed to be suitable for the identification of market chances of the
organization and the creation of new product / market concepts.
Anderson [6] describes experiences from the perspective of a workshop participant
as well as of a workshop leader. He presents some suggestions to improve the
performance of creativity workshops: For example he recommends the participants to
arrive in the workshop already with prepared ideas.
60
Schlosser et al. [7] contains an extensive description of the workshop and a
collection of “creativity triggers” with specific explanations and examples they
defined for the context of the project to enable creative thinking during the workshop.
Because of the usage of a creativity workshop, they authors experienced an increased
efficiency of the requirements elicitation.
Mahaux et al. [8] report in general on what creativity can mean to different persons
in RE and, therefore, give a good foundation for creativity in RE.
4 Conclusion
We argued that in today’s economy, innovation is the key factor to remain
competitive. Therefore, including innovation into the RE activities by means of
creativity workshops is key to success. This paper extends a previous report on
success factors when performing creativity workshops [1]. We report on experience
from conducting creativity workshops in new, purely industrial projects and discuss
and extend success factors that were reported previously [1]. As part of this, we
present the six key ingredients for performing creativity workshops successfully. We
hope that sharing these experiences enables other researchers and practitioners to
perform creativity workshops more successfully and motivates people to extend
research on creativity in RE, respectively.
References
1. Kerkow, D., Adam, S., Riegel, N., Uenalan, O.: A creative method for business
information systems. In: 1st Workshop on Creativity in RE (CREARE) at REFSQ 2010,
pp. 8-21, ICB-Research Report 40 (2010)
2. H. Geschka, "Creativity Workshops in Product Innovation," Journal of Product Innovation
Management, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 48-56, 1986.
3. N. Maiden, S. Manning, S. Robertson and J. Greenwood, "Integrating creativity workshops
into structured requirements processes," in DIS '04 Proceedings of the 5th conference on
Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, 2004.
4. S. S. Gryskiewicz, K. D. Holt, A. M. Faber and S. Sensabaugh, "From Experience:
Demystify Creativity, Enhance Innovation," Journal of Product Innovation Management,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 101-106, 1985.
5. J. Rhodes and S. Thame, "Accelerating innovation through real-time workshops," Long
Range Planning, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 41-46, 1988.
6. S. P. Anderson, "UX Magazin," 02 02 2011. [Online]. Available:
https://uxmag.com/articles/problems-with-innovation-workshops. [Accessed 07 03 2014].
7. C. Schlosser, S. Jones and N. Maiden, "Using a Creativity Workshop to Generate
Requirements for an Event Database Application," in REFSQ '08 Proceedings of the 14th
international conference on RE: Foundation for Software Quality , 2008.
8. Mahaux M. Mavin A., Heymans, P.: Choose your Creativity: Why and How Creativity in
Requirements Engineering Means Different Things to Different People, International
Working Conference on RE Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ), 2012
61