Dobble ScoreCard – Printable Download

Download the printable Dobble Scorecard here

Please feel free to download and use this ScoreCard created for use with the game ‘Dobble’.


Different Ways of Looking at London #2


Different Ways of Looking at London #1

London as Typography

Taken from an A-Z Map, with everything removed apart from the text. Courtesy of I think its really interesting how you can still see the river and the main open spaces…as well as follow the regions quite well. I’d probably prefer this to no writing whatsoever as a newcomer, but maybe not after having lived here a while.

The Many Facets of Creativity: Some extracts from my research

“When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong” – Buckminster Fuller


Some extracts from my Creativity Research…

Despite the fragmentation of the literature concerning creativity (Woodman et al., 1993), there is a degree of convergence amongst theorists (Mayer, 1999) that the notion that creativity can be used in reference to something that is both original (novel), and valuable (of use; relevant to context) (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999; Lubart, 1994; Osche, 1990; Bilton, 2007; Ford, 1996). However this is not a new conception. In 1976, Williams suggests that ‘creative’ means ‘a general sense of original and innovatory, and an associated special sense of productive’ (see also Stein, 1953; MacKinnon, 1962). So, for example, Margaret Boden describes two forms of creativity in this vein – ‘p creativity’ concerns something that is creative relative to the individual (a child painting a house for the first time) that is creative in a personal sense, but not with particular value in a wider context: children have painted houses before. This is presented in opposition to something creative relevant and valuable to a wider context (a theory in the field of biochemistry; an advance in eco-architectural design); ‘h creativity’.

However, this value/relevance/usefulness judgement remains subjective – and necessarily so due to the importance of an audience by which the creative product can be judged, and the inherent subjectivity of satisfying aesthetic needs within that audience. Certainly some areas of creativity – consider again the development of a new theory by a biochemist – lend themselves to having more objective judgement criteria such as parsimony, practicality or explanatory power take precedence (Penke, 2003). Or, in a commercial context, more objective measures such as ROI, cost and client expectations must be considered.  However, attempts to define specifically or more objectively what this usefulness/value might be have failed (Runco and Charles, 1993), primarily due to the contingency of value judgements being context/domain specific (Amabile, 1996), and the fundamental need for an aesthetic aspect in describing why a painting, a musical composition or a poem should be valued at all (Runco, 1993). Indeed, such value judgements are not arbitrary or idiosyncratic but rather, ‘intellectual aesthetic value represents a functionally based way of dealing with a cultural environment that is full of diverse ideas. In this perspective, cultural learning of values is not arbitrary. Learning mechanisms, in conjunction with feeling mechanisms and mechanisms of self-awareness that allow us to test how our ideas and behaviors are perceived by others, guide us through a maze of ideas towards intellectual beauty. Appropriate values will often differ between societies and within societies between social strata and individuals’ (Thornhill, 2003).

Further, it is posited here that a prerequisite to this conception is a combination of both divergent and convergent thinking, in order to produce both novelty and value (Bilton, 2007). In an organisational context, Bilton argues for the marriage of creativity and management, often held at arms length in western society, in order to create a context for the delivery of creative work.

the3six5 Project

A fascinating project from Len Kendall (@lenkendall) of Constructive Grumpiness, giving an overview of the year 2010 from 365 voices, for 365 days. I’ll be getting involved!

“Everyday for 365 days, a different person will write an entry about their experience that day. It doesn’t have to be about a specific topic, the key is that it somehow relates to what is happening in the world that day and how it relates to them. By doing so, starting from January 1 to December 31 of 2010, we will have a snapshot of the entire year, told from the perspective of 365 individual voices” – Len Kendall

Defining Creativity?

So, let’s go back to the beginning. What do we mean by creativity? Certainly we are not restricting a definition to the work done by ‘creatives’ in an agency. Indeed, as Al Cox, Head of Strategy at Collective says, “for us, [creativity] is the ability to conceptualise and the output could be anything; a design, a technology or a conversation”.


History and Complexity
But creativity is complicated. The Ancient Greeks believed that creativity came from a guardian spirit; an inner daemon or something similar, and Aristotle speaks of the attributed social value being of madness or ‘frenzied inspiration’. An early Western perspective was built on the voluntary Christian belief that creativity was an attribute possessed by a divine entity in whose image we had been created – but that nothing new could be made from ‘nothing’, we could only ‘mimic the ideal’ (I think it was Plato who originally said that actually). Enlightenment philosophers came to recognise that the divine attributes of artists [creators] should be attributed to the self not some divine origin. Positivist thinkers introduced measurement of creativity and since Guilford’s call for more creativity research in the 1950s, a field of research with significant girth has been generated around the subject. Creativity has been considered from a social-psychological perspective, historically, cognitively, in an organisational context and from a systems perspective, amongst many others.

It is generally agreed though, and to define what I shall talk about here, that Creativity is the combination of convergent and divergent thinking to produce a creative product of originality and value relative to context. This definition makes a lot of sense, not only in its consideration of confluence and multiple inputs (indicative of a ‘process’ rather than a single event), but also in its acknowledgement of context dependency. For example, an original idea can only be original in situ – the blank canvas does not exist. Particularly in an organisational context, creativity is bound but not only commercially; also by the individual and his environment, history, genre, rhythm, style, path dependency, budget, and whether you only have 5 minutes to do something before you have to meet your colleagues for a pint. Thus we see a creative system in which creative products are produced, contingent on individual motivation and context.

Process in Digital Agencies
So; to the creative process. Processes within and throughout agencies are often visualized as means-ends chains, invariably with more means than ends, and it is within the complexities of these ‘means’ that the creative process flows from new business generation to creative briefs, to managing expectations, designing, building, reviewing and delivering the creative product. This requires the various plugging in and out of different agency resources, in the form of time, money and individuals – and of course, there are invariably multiple projects, each with different requirements, going on simultaneously. These multiple projects contain processes (whether considered as means-ends chains, or something more complex) extending vertically and horizontally into networks of agencies, clients, and individuals.