This article was downloaded by: [50.161.102.194] On: 22 January 2014, At: 14:24 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Digital Creativity Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ndcr20 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction Michael Mose Biskjaera & Kim Halskova a PIT & CAVI, Aarhus University Published online: 12 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Michael Mose Biskjaer & Kim Halskov (2014) Decisive constraints as a creative resource in , Digital Creativity, 25:1, 27-61, DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2013.855239 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.855239

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles are normally published under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. However, authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles are currently published under a license to publish, which is based upon the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License, but allows for text and data mining of work. Authors also have the option of publishing an Open Select article under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirm conditions of access and use. Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 Digital Creativity, 2014 Vol. 25, No. 1, 27–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.855239 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

Michael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov PIT & CAVI, Aarhus University [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract 1 Introduction This article explores the observation that highly limit- The main goal of this article is to better understand ing, creative decisions of voluntary self-binding that constraints in creative practice. More specifically, radically prune the design solution may in fact we are interested in the various ways in which con- fuel and accelerate the process toward an innovative straints affect the progression of a design process. final design. To gain insight into this phenomenon, we In its narrowest form, constraints tend to be per- propose the concept ‘decisive constraints’ based on a ceived simply as requirements or demands; review of current, but dispersed, studies into creativity however, experienced creative practitioners are constraints. We build decisive constraints on two defini- tional conditions related to radical decision-making and well aware of the complex, dual role of con- creative turning points. To test our concept analytically straints: constraints both restrain and impede and and ensure its relevance to creative practice, we apply enable and advance a creative course such as a the two definitional conditions to three media fac¸ade design process. Rather than seeing constraints as installation projects in which our interaction design problems or obstacles that a creative agent, in research lab has been involved. In accord with insights this case a , must work against or work from these case analyses, we argue that decisive con- around, we argue that the enabling property of straints may inform current research into design pro- constraints in creative practice be studied more cesses and act as a creative resource for practitioners, in depth. Exploring this characteristic of con- not only in interaction design but, we assume, also straints in creativity entails several core research across related creative domains and disciplines. questions. Can a design process be improved by

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 applying an optimum amount of constraint Keywords: interaction design, creativity, constraints, decisive, media fac¸ades pressure on the agent(s) at a given stage—neither too few nor too many constraints? Are some con- straints, such as material, timeframe, budget, etc., more dominant or subordinate at various stages? And if so, why? When and to what extent should constraints be treated as flexible or fixed, soft or hard? Balancing or managing constraints in a reflec- tive, constructive manner toward a final design appears to be a feature of most design-related disciplines (Gross 1986; Onarheim 2012b), and, speaking in a computational/artificial intelligence

# 2013 The Authors. Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named authors have been asserted. Biskjaer and Halskov

(AI) perspective, Chandrasekaran (1990, 65) even ground our research more narrowly in a domain goes so far as to argue that: ‘[formally], all design into which we have gained insight over a can be thought of as constraint satisfaction, and number of years and then gradually extend the one might be tempted to propose global constraint scope to tentatively reach out to other creative dis- satisfaction as a universal solution for design’. The ciplines as well. importance of constraint satisfaction is also Due to its reliance on digital technology, inter- explored by Thagard and Verbeurgt (1998), who action design is rich in terms of technological con- conceive it as a question of maximising coherence ditions, requirements and circumstances that among elements in a computational process. enmesh the agents’ freedom of action during a Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 Although constraints at a basic of definition creative process. In the interaction design projects may be considered as ‘limitations on action our research lab, CAVI, has run and been involved [that] set boundaries on solutions’ (Vandenbosch in (see Halskov 2011), it has become apparent to and Gallagher 2004, 198), the conceptualisation, us that certain creative decisions have come to analytical and practical usage of the term are far bear a particularly strong impact on the outcome. from unanimous in design, let alone across other We have noticed that certain intentional creative creative domains and disciplines. (We subscribe moves that seem counterintuitive or even to a broad definition of ‘domain’ as a well-devel- unwise, as they render the design process signifi- oped area of expertise with consensual perform- cantly more difficult by going against tacit knowl- ance criteria [Abuhamedeh and Csikszentmihalyi edge and standard or first choices, thus pruning the 2004, quoted in P.D. Stokes 2007, 109]. See also solution space dramatically, in fact turn out to be Li [1997, 109] on domains as ‘bodies of disci- related to the attainment of radically new sol- plined knowledge’). Similarly, we consider ‘disci- utions. This means that these freely installed crea- pline’ a ‘specialized ...branch ...of knowledge’ tive obstructions share (at least) two key [Stember 1991, 3]). This palpable conceptual dis- characteristics. They are rooted in radical crepancy is not necessarily a problem as long as decision-making by going against easy and the scope of the studies is domain-specific; common creative choices as solution alternatives, however, it poses a problem for furtherance of and they accelerate the design process by theory and knowledge interchange between pushing it forward in the form of an unexpected research ventures into various kinds of constraints leap. In an attempt to understand this, in our and their effect on creative agency and processes. view, intriguing phenomenon, we have turned to In our work we have become increasingly research into constraints and constraint typologies aware of the need for a more refined theorisation related to creative processes. Based on reviews of of balancing constraints. As opposed to advanced previous and, primarily, current literature, we

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 problem-solving in the tradition of the seminal argue for the need for a new analytical concept work by Reitman (1964), Simon (1973), and to address this phenomenon of counterintuitive Simon and Newell (1972), which is grounded in creative decisions and their observed relation to artificial intelligence systems and computational radically new design solutions. processes, skilfully balancing constraints,aswe Our proposal is decisive constraints, which construe it, means the ability to realise, define builds on two definitional conditions that each and act upon circumstances and conditions in a refers to one of the two key characteristics men- creative process that are either unfavourable and tioned above, namely radical decision-making delimiting or beneficial and emancipatory, and creative turning points. Installing seemingly depending on each agent’s aptitude, experience highly inexpedient constraints in expectance of a and reflective choice of perspective. As the term more original final outcome may at times affect ‘constraint’ is highly inclusive, aspirations to the design process so significantly that this provide an exhaustive typology of constraints are obstructive act leads to an unforeseen, qualitative doomed to fail. Thus, we deem it more fruitful to forward leap. It is this decisiveness that our

28 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

proposed concept aims to capture. Thus, we argue projects consist of a proposal for a new art 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital that decisive constraints may serve as an analytical museum in Warsaw (2007), an urban interactive tool to help convey new insights into creative pro- installation, Aarhus by Light (2008) and the cesses, here focusing on interaction design. Fur- Danish EXPO 2010 pavilion. In Section 5, we thermore, we contend that decisive constraints end the article by discussing potential next steps may be embraced as a rich, inspirational resource for interaction based on our pro- for the agent(s) involved. To be able to present posed concept and the two definitional conditions. this argument with due attention to theories of con- Applying decisive constraints is not without costs straints in creative processes while also ensuring and drawbacks, which we also briefly touch upon; relevance to creative practitioners, the remainder however, we argue that decisive constraints may of the article is structured as follows. indeed also act as a creative resource for inter- In Section 2 below, we flesh out the theoretical action design practitioners, provided the agents background. We begin by discussing key aspects approach the process and apply the concept with of research into constraints and constraint typolo- adequate attention and reflection. Insofar as prac- gies specifically related to human agency and crea- titioners always face numerous challenging con- tive processes. Our focus will be the arguably three straints in any creative process, we briefly main contributions to current theory. Although present the idea that using decisive constraints as rich, the lineage of constraint studies is rather dis- a means to leverage some of these challenges persed, so one way to help join together these con- holds a distinct potential that reaches beyond inter- ceptualisations is by the term ‘creativity action design and into other creative domains and constraints’. We will briefly outline this concept disciplines. Finally, we briefly present a set of con- before presenting the complex role of constraints clusions in Section 6. as both creative enablers and restrainers. This comprises the first part of Section 3, which then focuses on the properties of voluntary, self- 2 Theoretical background imposed creativity constraints with regard to 2.1 The ubiquity of constraints in design decision-making and qualitative forward leaps in and the lack of a shared concept the design process. This second part of Section 3 No matter if a design process springs from a features our core contribution, the analytical detailed task assignment, a design brief, as concept decisive constraints, which is built on requested by a client, or comprises playful activi- Definitional Conditions 1 and 2. In Section 4, we ties with no deadlines or fixed structure, all crea- test the potential of our analytical concept by tive initiatives rely on decision-making. Options applying the two definitional conditions to three and choices are integral to creative progression.

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 media fac¸ade installation projects in which our Some processes are marked by unmalleable interaction lab, CAVI, has been requirements, often costs, deadlines, materials, involved. We would like to stress that our fonts, language, measures, functionality, etc., concept decisive constraints is not a direct deriva- meticulously stated in the design brief. Other tive of these three case examples. If that were the activities rely less obviously on such constraints. case, applying the concept to the same empirical To give an example: a designer is asked to make data would imply a logical fallacy (circular reason- a prototype of a casing for a tablet computer and ing). Rather, in addition to putting some ‘meat’ on is initially free to choose between two types of our analytical concept, so to speak, revisiting these material: aluminium or polycarbonate/acryloni- case examples yields the opportunity for new trile butadiene styrene (or, to avoid this tongue- insights into the design processes and some of twister, PC/ABS), which is frequently used in the varied ways in which the final came mobile phone bodies. Palpable constraints that into being. Also, this strategy serves to ground the designer must handle will then typically our theoretical contribution in practice. The three include a variety of materials, deadlines, costs,

29 Biskjaer and Halskov

measures, etc. Such constraints are usually synon- consensus in constraint research among ymous with requirements. Since the designer is and scholars (Onarheim and Wiltschnig 2010). given two options in terms of material, aluminium Given the vast array of disciplines that may be sub- or PC/ABS, (s)he must decide which material sumed under the generic heading ‘design’, this ter- (s)he prefers. By choosing one material at the minological cloudiness is to be expected. The expense of another, (s)he necessarily constrains problem, however, is that it makes it harder to (her)himself, as each material has its own fixed attain immediate furtherance of theory across set of measurable properties such as breaking various disciplines in terms of research into con- stress, colourfastness, bulk density, thermal con- straints pertaining to creative processes. Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 ductivity, etc. (S)he thus cuts off a range of the sol- An example of this cloudiness can be seen from ution space, and the design must now comply with the Palo Alto-based design company IDEO’s the fixed properties, desirable or not, of the chosen theme-based, free-form initiative, Designs On— : material. So while the specific choice clearly Designs On— is, at its core, a flexible forum prunes the designer’s creative space of action, that drives exploration, iterative thinking, the solution space, it also ensures the project’s pro- early prototyping, and sharing, minus bound- gression toward a final design. This conceptualis- aries or constraints. (http://designs-on.com, ation of a co-evolution of problem and solution emphasis added). spaces in design can be traced back to the seminal work by Reitman (1964) and Simon What IDEO consider a constraint-free arena for (1973), which we return to shortly. More recently, creative agency in its view of the topic has been treated in detail by Maher and (Brown 2008; Brown and Katz 2009) we would Poon (1996), Dorst and Cross (2001), Christensen, call a creative environment with no externally Onarheim and Ball (2010) and Wiltschnig, Chris- imposed constraints. By applying a practically tensen, and Ball (2013). attuned, finely meshed, conceptual awareness to As this example suggests, a designer will constraint , we believe the resource- usually approach a given task with an open fulness of constraints in interaction design and mind-set to sustain as many possible courses of related creative disciplines may be exposed and action as possible. This is especially true for studied in a more fruitful way. That means taking expert designers as opposed to novices (Cross more philosophically inclined questions of 2004), as the former seem more aware of carefully agency and decision-making into account as well. selecting the best-suited cognitive approach to the problem at hand (Kavakli and Gero 2002). This 2.2 Overview of current constraint does not imply that we see design as a predomi- research

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 nantly explicit rational endeavour in the tradition 2.2.1 Etymology and lack of detailed, generic of Simon (1996). Rather, tacit moves are indeed constraint typologies integral to all design activities. The points we Although the term ‘constraint’ can be traced back wish to make are, first, that constraints are to its Latin form as the verb ‘constringere’ always a part of a creative activity regardless of meaning to ‘restrain, compress, bind or press their origin—be it externally imposed require- together’ (Farlex, The Free Dictionary: constrain), ments of a design brief, properties of the a proper academic conceptualisation of the term design material or aesthetic or other preferences has only been attempted in recent years. It is diffi- or de-selections freely chosen by the designer cult to establish a single starting point for con- (her)himself; and, second, that there are various straint research; however, Reitman’s (1964, strategies for the designer to approach this ubi- 1965) work on the structure of ill-defined as quity of constraints. Although there is a general opposed to well-defined problems may arguably agreement on the presence of constraints in be seen as one of the first key contributions. design, there is a palpable lack of terminological Reitman’s interest is problem analysis aimed to

30 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

be compatible with computer programming 2007, 2008), (Nuseibeh and Easter- 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital languages, and through a series of expositions he brook 2000) to management philosophy (Goldratt argues for a continuum ranging from well- 1990) and artificial intelligence (Stefik 1981; defined formal problems to ill-defined ones such Boden 2004, 1999), and even leisure research as composing a fugue (1964, 300–301). In his (Damali and McGuire 2013) to name just a few view, ill-structured problems are based on open examples. The lack of terminological consensus constraints: across this body of work is no surprise given the spaciousness of the term itself. It is most likely whose definition includes one or more par- also a reason why there have been few attempts ameters the values of which are left unspecified at providing detailed, generic typologies of con- as the problem is given to the problem-solving straints and their effect on human agency, be it system from outside or transmitted within the creative endeavours or not. With no clearly system over time ...Open constraints are ubi- defined conceptual scope, typological efforts quitous ... [they] provide definitional slack. soon skid toward the insuperable problem the Car- They allow the problem solver to take a new tographers Guild bring upon themselves in Jorge tack on his problem, not by violating his con- Luis Borges’ famous one-paragraph short story, straints (though he may of course do that ‘On the Exactitude of Science’ (2004), in which too), but by adjusting those parameters of he fabulates about an empire’s ambition to map the constraint that are open to him (Reitman the entire world in all its detail 1:1. The empire’s 1964, 292–293, emphasis added). map expands to an extent that renders it unusable, (We will return to the violation part of this quote whereby Borges elegantly depicts the dilemma of shortly). In other words, an ill-defined problem accurate scientific representation. does not accommodate an obvious solution path The main body of current research into con- due to insufficient information available to the straint typologies specifically pertaining to human problem solver, and this calls for novel solutions. agency and creative processes is rooted in contri- Simon (1973) builds on Reitman’s broadly con- butions from three disciplines—, psy- ceived notion of constraints as ‘any or all of the chology and philosophy—and is based on work elements that enter into a definition of a problem’ by individual scholars. Having established the (Simon 1973, 189), but stresses the lack of a clear seminal work of Reitman (1964) and Simon structure of such problems (hence his term ‘ISP’ (1996, 1973) as the argued starting point(s) for as an abbreviation of ‘ill-structured problems’). current constraint research, we review the most As a concept, therefore, constraints become inte- recent main contributions in order to outline the gral in the work of both Reitman and Simon; conceptual backdrop for our own work.

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 especially with regard to design, as Simon asserts that ‘[d]esign solutions are sequences of action 2.2.2 A cubic constraint typology for architecture that lead to possible worlds satisfying specified According to American architect Frank O. Gehry, constraints’ (Simon 1996, 124). constraints are a crucial part of the way architects While Reitman (1964, 1965) and Simon conceive of their work process (Boland et al. (1996, 1973) use the term ‘constraint’ in a specific 2008). Currently, the architectural community’s way, the easy adaptability of the term itself has main contribution to constraint typology research enabled contributions from a number of is a three-dimensional cube-like model of domains, all of which may be subsumed under constraints related to design problems (Lawson ‘constraint research’ in the widest sense. These 2006, 106). Based on his experience as an architect contributions range from metaphysical theory and a psychologist, Bryan Lawson’s model com- (Harre´ 1970), philosophy of sports (Lewandowski prises three axes, which we in the present 2007), literary history (Andrews 2003), creative context will denominate X, Y and Z. The cube’s end user development (Coughlan and Johnson X axis illustrates the distinction between (a)

31 Biskjaer and Halskov

internal and (b) external constraints. The former problem-solving model. The general premise is refers to the relationships between elements of the idea that artistic creation is about solving ‘the the object being designed, whereas the latter creativity problem’: denotes contextual factors such as the site, location or specific context in which a given design is to be the creativity problem is strategic and struc- used (98). The vertical Y axis outlines the four tural. It involves selecting (the strategy part) main generators of constraints according to paired constraints (the structure part) that pre- Lawson, namely (a) legislators, (b) users, (c) clude reliable, successful responses and clients and (d) designers. The last axis, Z, groups promote novel, surprising ones (P.D. Stokes Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 constraints into four types: (a) radical; (b) practi- 2009, xiii, emphasis in original; see also cal; (c) formal; and (d) symbolic. Although Reitman [1964, 289] on ‘creative problems’). Lawson’s model opens up new paths of inquiry, This, she argues, is the most used and useful way to a more elaborate discussion of the elements of solve ‘the creativity problem’. By studying the his constraint typology is beyond the scope of emergence of Cubism and other artistic break- this article. Suffice it to say that while this model throughs, she presents the idea of a unique, dichot- of thirty-two boxes is useful to disseminate in omous pattern as the basis of such qualitative vivo architectural design problems by locating forward leaps. In several chapter subheadings (see key challenges, the very same domain specificity also P.D. Stokes 2007, 2008, 2009;P.D.Stokes impedes immediate and seamless furtherance of and Fisher 2005), she denotes the finding as a ques- theory across disciplines. However, the main tion of what can be learned from a pre-eminent, reason why Lawson’s constraint typology model creative individual like Picasso or Stravinsky. cannot address the key characteristics of Thus, she contends that the ability to create real decision-making and turning points that we are breakthroughs can be learned—or better, intention- aiming to capture and conceptualise here is the ally emulated—by following a dichotomous con- static nature of his cube-like model. More pre- straint-based creative process model. cisely, his model, by definition, is not suited to The premise for this argument is dual. First, address the dynamic correlativity of the variables, she must provide a constraint typology to have a i.e. how constraints affect a design process over pool of constituents from which to choose. Hers time (diachronically). is quartered with an emphasis on goal constraints:

2.2.3 Dichotomous constraints as a pathway to Goal constraints are overall criteria. Accepted creative breakthrough by a domain, they become stylistic conven- Another creativity-oriented constraint typology is tions, answers to questions like ‘is this a

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 offered by psychologist Patricia D. Stokes Fauve painting?’ All other constraints are pur- (2006). In her work, she attempts to bridge posively picked to help realize the goal. These several domains of creative practice, such as litera- include source constraints, which supply stylis- ture, visual art, , architecture, music and, tic elements for culling and recombination, more mundanely, , in which she has subject constraints, which specify content or previously worked. P.D. Stokes’s model is a motif, and task constraints, which govern problem-solving model, which builds directly on materials and their application (P.D. Stokes the pioneering work by Reitman (1964, 1965) and Fisher 2005, 283–284, emphasis in and Simon (1996, 1973). From Reitman, P.D. original). Stokes incorporates the idea that paired constraints direct and limit search in a problem space, and Elsewhere, P.D. Stokes mentions domain, talent, from Simon, that search can only lead to novel sol- variability and cognitive constraints (2006, 8), utions if the problem space is ill-structured (P.D. albeit with less clear conceptual demarcation. Stokes 2009, 174). This is the basis for her creative Assumingly, only domain constraints fit in her

32 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

process model. Second, to sustain logical consist- be said to enjoy creative freedom. In our view, this 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital ency, P.D. Stokes must show that the creative seems a somewhat drastic inference. Also, it raises agent has intentionally conceptualised his/her the question of where creative playfulness, exper- process dichotomously from the very outset imentation and spontaneity fit in within this using paired constraints; that is, she must prove a problem-solving model of creativity. As for spon- direct, legible link between the intentional act of taneity, this is only accommodated by the model freely selecting paired constraints and the sub- as ‘skilled execution’ such as improvisation by a sequent achievement of creative breakthrough. jazz musician (P.D. Stokes 2009, 179). Sudden The question remains to what extent this intended radical experimentation in the sense of doing cause and effect-relation can be adequately something ‘crazy’ or foolish just for the sake of it demonstrated. In Weisberg’s (2006, 2010) com- in order to see what happens cannot, by definition, parative studies of the revolutionary creation of be captured by the model’s conceptualisation of the DNA double helix model from 1953 and Picas- constraints in creative processes. Again, this so’s iconic 1937 painting, Guernica, he concludes seems a severe inference. The English zoologist that in both cases ‘creative advances came about E.R. Lankester once visited Charles Darwin, who through the building of the new upon the foun- explained to him an ongoing pollen experiment. dation of the old. There was no wholesale rejection Darwin had no idea how it would turn out: of the past, no “breaking out of the box”’ (Weis- ‘That’s a fool’s experiment. But I love fools’ exper- berg 2010, 241). These observations seem to iments. I am always making them’ (Lankester suggest that genuine creative breakthrough is 1896, 4391). Anecdote or not, this snippet suggests also based on many other variables, including that playfulness and radical experimentation are pre-reflective decision-making, applied tacit also integral to creative processes. With regard to knowledge (and ‘gut feeling’) and systematic crea- art, philosopher of aesthetics P. Livingston tive iterations, all of which challenges P.D. Stokes’ (2009) shares this view: core idea of breakthrough as (potentially) achieved deliberate experimentation with seemingly directly through a carefully devised, strategic con- arbitrary constraints is sometimes an impor- straint selection and substitution process. tant part of the story [i.e., artistic creation], P.D. Stokes puts strong emphasis on a creative and can indeed establish a scheme within agent’s ability to manage and manipulate his/her which unanticipated yet viable aesthetic dis- own creative process by using preclude–promote cernments become possible (Livingston 2009, constraint pairs to restructure problem spaces so 146). that novelty (here, breakthrough) becomes poss- ible and probable. Certainly, this ensures great (See also Kaplan and Simon [1990] on ‘experimen-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 variability in the creative outcome, but it also tal manipulation’ of cues to constrain search within greatly diminishes the whole idea of creative a problem space in order to attain an insightful sol- freedom, as artistic freedom thus consists solely ution). Thus, while P.D. Stokes’s model of creative in the reflective choosing of an agent’s own con- processes based on preclude–promote constraint straints (P.D. Stokes and Fisher 2005). To be able pairs offers a beneficial framework for analysing to choose one’s own constraints requires an exten- and emulating advanced creative processes, it sive experience of and insight into one’s domain, (logically) reserves ‘genuine‘ creative freedom to so logically this view entails that creative novices only a select few expert practitioners, and it enjoy no creative freedom proper. This ‘leaves leaves little room for radical, playful—or even artistic freedom to those experts who self-select foolish—experimentation (such as expressed by and self-impose constraints on their currently suc- Darwin) just for its own sake. The latter inference cessful solutions. Not all experts do. Not all experts is the main reason why P.D. Stokes’s constraint can’ (P.D. Stokes 2008, 12). Thus, according to the typology and model do not provide the conceptual model, neither novices nor all creative experts can foundation we need for the present purpose.

33 Biskjaer and Halskov

2.2.4 A tripartition of constraints as a body. Externally imposed constraints (2b) are philosophical foundation various requirements and demands emerging The most comprehensive theoretical contribution from the given context, including outside stake- to constraint typology research focusing on holders, e.g. a budget, a timeframe, demand for human agency is offered by Elster (2000). In the use of a particular material, etc. The last three long essays spanning philosophy of mind type, self-imposed constraints (2c), builds directly and practical rationality, political science and the upon Elster’s notion of beneficial, essential con- creation of art, Elster modifies some of his straints (1b). Unsurprisingly, self-imposed con- earlier ideas of benefits from pre-commitment straints stem from the agent’s own voluntary Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 and self-binding (1984). His work involves three choices such as a director’s decision to shoot a conceptualisations of what he generically calls (contemporary) movie in black and white. ‘beneficial constraints’. To locate where we pos- Elster’s third typology, the distinction between ition our own theoretical contribution within (3a) hard and (3b) soft constraints, is included current constraint research pertaining to creative here for the sake of completeness. Hard constraints processes, as featured on Figure 1 below, it is (3a) denote formal, material, technical and finan- necessary to briefly outline Elster’s work. cial constraints, and soft constraints (3b) refer to Elster’s first typology is dual and comprises (1a) genres and conventions. Armed with these (onto- ‘incidental constraints’, which are constraints logical) typologies, Elster engages in acute obser- that actually benefit the constrained agent, but vations and inductive inferences about the role of are not chosen by the agent (her)himself. As constraints in artistic practice as a creative opposed to this, (1b) ‘essential’ constraints’ are: domain. Despite concessional disclaimers of not ‘constraints that an agent imposes on himself for being a specialist in the field, he states that he the sake of some expected benefit to himself’ does not see aesthetic theory as a highly developed (2000, 4). For our present purpose, Elster’s discipline (2000, 179). Such polemic stipulations concept of essential constraints, (1b), emphasising in addition to a patently conservative aesthetic the agent’s personal freedom and intentional stance, an aversion to avant-garde art like the actions, is most important. work of composer John Cage (which he calls In the third of the most recent essays, Elster ‘entirely unserious ...and a gigantic and success- (2000) explores the idea that various kinds of ful put-on’ [2000, 245]), and the conviction that art limitations can in fact enhance the aesthetic equals maximising aesthetic value have not value of a work of art. In doing so, he probes exactly eased an appropriation of his ideas into creativity and design research, although he among scholars in the philosophy of aesthetics never mentions this himself. According to Elster, (for critiques, see Levinson [2003] and Livingston constraints in art serve two ends: they focus the Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 [2009]). One could speculate that these circum- agent’s attention; and they enhance the ‘aesthetic stances could be a reason why Elster’s pioneering potential’ so that the normative goal of any artist ideas and analyses of the benefits of voluntary self- is to: ‘maximiz[e] aesthetic value under con- binding, pre-commitment and constraints on straints’ (200, emphasis in original). This yields human agency have not gained more attention in two additional conceptualisations of constraints. creativity research. His incisive aesthetic idiosyn- The first of these two is the more incisive and crasies notwithstanding, we contend that Elster’s offers a clear and useful basic typology of con- three distinctions offer an acute and philosophi- straint emergence by distinguishing between: cally sound foundation for our exploration into (2a) intrinsic, (2b) imposed and (2c) self- constraints and decision-making and turning imposed constraints. Intrinsic constraints (2a) points. Elster analyses the (expected) benefits of refers to constraints given by the material; see self-binding—see (1a) and (1b)—provides an fixed properties such as bulk density and breaking analytical tool to discern the most fundamental stress in the above example with the mobile phone (ontological) aspect of constraints, i.e. how they

34 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design iia raiiy o.2,N.1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital

Figure 1. Decisive constraints in a generic constraint framework (based on Elster [2000]).

emerge—see (2a)–(2c)—and outlines a conti- list of various disciplines in which constraint model- nuum of hard vs soft constraints and argues how ling is thought to be of use. This is the case with P.D. neither of these labelled positions are fixed—see Stokes’ (2006) work, although collaborative forms (3a)–(3c). So although Elster never decidedly of creative practice are missing, among them film- focuses on design or creative processes, his making and design. The other path is the philosophi- insights and clear conceptualisations offer a solid cal one. Elster’s (2000) scope is decidedly foundation for our own concept, decisive con- philosophical; however, he never claims to straints, which we will introduce shortly. conduct creativity research, let alone design research, proper, which means that he does not 2.3 Toward a shared conceptual explore key design topics such as design will, framework based on current design intention and design principles. What he constraint research aims to ensure, though, is universal-oriented theor- 2.3.1 Two main paths in constraint research etical and conceptual consistency. This makes his related to creative processes work stand out from Lawson (2006)andP.D. The above presentation of key contributions to con- Stokes (2006), whose scholarly contributions also straint typology research related to human agency seem informed by personal experience (Lawson in and creative processes contain several distinctions design, P.D. Stokes in advertising) and targeted at and conceptualisations on both generic and sub- individual domains, whether it be one such or an levels. To sum up these dispersed studies and high- entire listing. Rather than choosing one such path over another, we believe it is more fruitful to try to Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 light what we see as focal points in the current body of work based on the three main contributions, we bridge the two; that is, to discern key elements and have included Table 1. Far from being a normative findings from each stance and use these valuable judgment or a ‘score’, the table is only meant to insights to inform advancements in a constraint- convey a simplified overview of four main par- oriented understanding of design processes, in this ameters in terms of research interests and aims case in interaction design in particular. within the three disciplines (stated as Low, Medium or High in terms of priority). 2.3.2 Bridging current contributions to help inform Our literature review including the focal points future research suggests (at least) two paths to pursue in an In the projects that our interaction design research attempt to employ insights into constraints and con- lab, CAVI, takes part in, we plan our work accord- straint typologies to help leverage the current under- ing to a research-through-design approach (Dals- standing of design processes in a perspective that is gaard 2010; Halskov 2011; Basballe and relevant to several disciplines. One is a cumulative Halskov 2012) inspired by ideas suggested by

35 Biskjaer and Halskov

Focal points Inspiration from professional Applicability to creative Cross-domain Development of theory and Disciplines experience processes relevance concepts

Architecture HIGH MEDIUM LOW LOW Psychology MEDIUM HIGH HIGH MEDIUM Problem solving Philosophy LOW LOW HIGH HIGH Practical rationality

Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 Table 1. Focal points within current research into constraints related to creative processes.

Frayling (1993) and, recently, Koskinen et al. 283–284]) is inspiring for our present purpose, (2011) and Gaver (2012); for a critique, see Zim- and so is her notion of playing with or manipulat- merman, Stolterman, and Forlizzi (2010). This is ing constraints to attain significant qualitative based on the contention that grounding research forward leaps in the creative process. in practice and personal experience is vital to the In our view, a fruitful way to proceed with the development of design theories. This means that aim of strengthening the understanding of design we concur with Lawson’s (2006) emphasis on processes via insights into ways of creatively bal- working in in vivo settings to locate crucial chal- ancing or manipulating constraints is a combi- lenges in the design process. Also, we share his nation of (at least) three elements: the inspiring view on the importance of personal experience contributions from psychology and architecture; and hard-won domain knowledge to conduct our personal experience and focus on grounding design research. As outlined, P.D. Stokes (2006) design research in practice; and, finally, the con- employs a cross-domain scope. Since ‘constraint’ ceptual clarity offered by more philosophically in itself is a highly inclusive and diffuse term, such inclined studies of constraints on human agency. cross-domain considerations must be taken into This is where Elster’s (2000) pioneering work is account from the outset. Although P.D. Stokes crucial, as he, his aesthetic idiosyncrasies notwith- emphasises her model’s ability to promote varia- standing, has developed the most illuminative bility, her notion of ‘breakthrough’ remains not constraint typology so far. For our present quite clear. Understood narrowly (and pragmati- purpose, it is his acute tripartition of intrinsic, cally), it might just mean reaching a new solution imposed and self-imposed constraints—see dis- path, but it seems hard to consider ‘breakthrough’ tinction (2a)–(2c) in Section 2.2.4)—which

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 as sheer novelty, thereby ignoring the impact forms the foundation for our core contribution, factor. P.D. Stokes never explains on what i.e. the introduction of the concept decisive con- grounds ‘breakthrough’ can be assessed; nor straints as a creative resource. To illustrate this does she address when, by whom and by which conceptual kinship and pinpoint where we see aesthetic standards it can be asserted. Assumingly, our own contribution to constraint research, we ‘breakthrough’ can only be assessed in retrospect. have included Figure 1, which gives an overview This brings Boden’s (1999, 2004, 2010) notion of of Elster’s intricate distinctions, as he does not H-creativity (historical creativity), as opposed to provide such a visual representation himself. P-creativity (psychological creativity), to mind. Explicating current research into constraint This opacity, however, does not alter the fact that typologies related to human agency and creative P.D. Stokes’s model and its prioritisation of processes admittedly entails the risk of construing novelty, variability and even breakthrough as the a field in a heterogeneous, segregated way, empha- overarching goal (see her so-called ‘goal sising differences, not similarities. Given the constraints’ [P.D. Stokes and Fisher 2005, inclusiveness of the term constraint itself, this

36 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

lack of shared scope in constraint typology both a hindrance/restrainer and a resource/ 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital research is to be expected. Rather than being a par- enabler for creative agency. Speaking strictly in a ticular field, constraint typology research as of problem-solving perspective, this is what P.D. now is a cluster of various ideas and contributions Stokes refers to when she states that constraints with few shared citations or mutually transparent both preclude and promote the structuring of a sol- concepts, let alone cross-domain ties to the work ution path through a problem space (2006, 2007, of other peers. Linking this to design processes 2009). Also, this duality is in alignment with the to help inform current studies and, potentially, profound studies of artificial intelligence and com- help spur furtherance of theory and knowledge putational art and creativity conducted by Boden interchange between disciplines therefore requires (2010): ‘Constraints on thinking do not merely a solid conceptual basis to avoid causing even constrain, but also make certain thoughts – more theoretical cloudiness. This is the reason certain mental structures – possible’ (2004, 58); behind our decision to provide the theoretical and: ‘[f]ar from being the antithesis of creativity, overview as featured above, and it with this in constraints on thinking are what make it possible. mind that we now proceed to propose decisive This is true even for combinational creativity, but constraints as small step toward an improved it applies even more clearly to exploration-based understanding of design processes based on originality’ (95). Given our research-through- insights into constraints and their relation to design approach, Boden’s notion of ‘exploration- decision-making and creative turning points. based originality’ applies to our own understanding of one of the pivotal aims of design, not least inter- action design, as this by definition involves one or 3 Introducing decisive constraints as more engaged agents in addition to the designers an analytical tool themselves. It should be noted that Boden in the 3.1 Creativity constraints as restrainers above quotations does not address design in par- and enablers ticular, but is concerned with creativity in a broad At the core of our research methodology lies the sense under which numerous research themes and assumption that constraints may profitably be con- disciplines are subsumed (Sternberg 1999; Stern- sidered a resource in design and other creative dis- berg and Kaufman 2010). As our core contribution ciplines if approached with an open mind and is theoretical in scope, it is necessary to briefly con- managed in an innovative, reflective manner. As sider the relationship between design and creativity argued in detail in Onarheim and Biskjaer while maintaining a focus on relevance for practice. (2013), we propose the generic term ‘creativity This is the next step toward being able to offer a constraints’ to help draw together a wide selection conceptualisation of the observation that some

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 of existing work investigating various aspects of severely limiting creative decisions of voluntary constraints in relation to creativity: ‘Creativity self-restraint may be just the trick or knack that constraints are explicit or tacit factors governing accelerates the design process quite dramatically what the creative agent/s must, should, can, and and occasionally leads to breakthroughs in terms cannot do; and what the creative output must, of a truly original creative outcome. should, can, and cannot be’ (8). Based on this pro- posed definition, we will from now on use the term 3.2 Creativity constraints and decision- ‘creativity constraints’ rather than our previous, making more wordy formulation. Following findings by As noted by Johnson-Laird (1988), clear-cut defi- Reitman (1964, 1965), Isaak and Just (1995), nitions of creativity are scarce and tend to be P.D. Stokes (2006, 2007, 2009), Joyce (2009), more beneficial when presented after a process or Onarheim and Wiltschnig (2010) and Biskjaer, a study rather than at the outset. Given the myriad Onarheim, and Wiltschnig (2011), creativity con- and diversity of contexts in which creativity straints possess a fascinating duality. They are appears, from needlework and baking recipes over

37 Biskjaer and Halskov

filmmaking and music to educational policies and sity or ‘constrainedness’. This constrainedness medical inventions, questions of individual skills may also be stated conversely as experienced (Gaut 2009), knowledge (Weisberg 1999), learning degree of creative freedom. Following our above and education (Robinson 2011, Peterson et al. definition, a poet is subjected to fewer creativity 2013), culture (Lubart 1999) and many more constraints than an engineering designer asked to (Runco and Albert 2010) have all become vital make a prototype of a low-cost cardiac pacemaker. components of current creativity research since In accordance with Elster’s typology of intrinsic, Guilford’s (1950) seminal inaugural presidential imposed and self-imposed constraints—see address to the American Psychological Association (2a)–(2c) in Section 2.2.4—creativity logically Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 (APA). This thematic complexity holds true for entails self-imposed constraints in the form of constraint research as well. Rather than explore inescapable, intentional choices. Choosing one these relevant topics, we wish to focus attention thing—a material, a structure, a form, a size, a on the design process conceived as a constraint- timeframe, etc.—over another is a prerequisite based, iterative progression toward a final design. for the creative process to progress and not stall Creativity scholars seem to agree that decision- regardless of domain. making is essential to all creative activities: ‘to be Here, ‘intentionality’ as deliberate, voluntary creative is to be free to choose among alternatives’ choices in a process may be observed across the (Johnson-Laird 1988, 202); and: ‘the creative mind entire spectrum of creativity research, from is [not] constrained to do only one thing. Even studies of the creation of art (Livingston 2007), someone who accepts all the current constraints via practical rationality and agency (Bratman without modification will have a choice at certain 1999) to design. With regard to design, we sub- points – sometimes, a random choice will do’ scribe to a generic understanding of design as a (Boden 2004, 95). As these snippets emphasise, particular form of creative, human action based decision-making and constraints are closely inter- on ‘intentional change’: woven. This is especially true for design, on Design will and design intentions are the which we will now focus. means for initiating and directing change The notion that creative activities in general based on human agency. It is design will and can be conceptualised in terms of managing, or design intention, guided by design judgment, balancing, creativity constraints is mirrored in that transform the abstractness of relevant Stacey and Eckert’s (2010) continuum of over- scientific knowledge and other forms of knowl- constrained problems (such as in engineering edge into a final unique design, the ultimate design) with very detailed design briefs stating particular. The ultimate particular is that exact deliverables vs under-constrained problems which ‘appears’ in the world (Nelson and Stol-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 (essentially artistic creation), where the creative terman 2012, 32). agent must impose various constraints on (him)- herself in order to be able to navigate his/her The important part here is how the transition from creative space of action (see also Reitman [1964, abstract to concrete, from idea to the ultimate par- 300–301] on a continuum ranging from well- ticular, may be governed by the agent(s) involved. defined problems to ill-defined ones). Referring What these considerations suggest is that decision- to this over- vs under-constrained continuum making and creativity constraints are not only inte- does not mean to suggest that all creative activities gral to all creative processes; they are also tightly may be analytically exhausted using a rational interwoven, since they both rely on a creative problem-solving approach in the tradition of agent’s ability to make a free, intentional choice Simon (1996, 1973). Rather, as argued in detail in the form of one or more self-imposed creativity elsewhere (Onarheim and Biskjaer 2013), the constraints. This is especially evident in design, point we wish to make is that various creative where the creative agent(s) must find innovative domains feature various levels of constraint inten- ways to balance the many intrinsic and imposed

38 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

creativity constraints stated in the design brief (see With decision-making and creativity con- 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital also Onarheim 2012a, 2012b). This entwinement straints being entwined, it is possible to map and of decision-making and creativity constraints is track down various spurs of simultaneous idea- one of two reasons why we propose decisive con- generation and decision-making in a process straints as an analytical concept for design (Dalsgaard and Halskov 2012). As shown in a research. design study by Dalsgaard, Halskov, and Nielsen (2008), the participants make numerous decisions during a process, and some of these choices are so 3.3 Creativity constraints and creative radical that they boost the progression of the turning points design process remarkably by yielding new Although creativity constraints are conceptually ideas, which thus enhance the solution space. (and thus ontologically) inseparable from What we have noticed over time in the various decision-making, their impact on the progression interaction design research projects that our lab of a design process varies greatly. Mundane has been involved in is that some of the choices choices such as ignoring a phone call or postpon- leading to the most significant, creative pro- ing a coffee until after a given task has been com- gression of the design process are rooted in coun- pleted may not influence a process significantly. terintuitive, radically limiting self-imposed Other decisions bear more profound consequences creativity constraints that dramatically prune the on the outcome. A common way of framing such design solution space. By generating creative brief, intense events during which the creative turning points, these radical choices become process advances rapidly is by terms such as crucial—or better, decisive—for the outcome of ‘insights’ (Isaak and Just 1995; Sternberg the design process. And this is the other reason and Davidson 1995; Miller 2000; Wiltschnig and for our proposition decisive constraints. Onarheim 2010) or ‘leaps’ (Holyoak and Thagard 1996). Qualitative progressive leaps do 3.4 Decisive constraints as an analytical not necessarily need occur for a process to be con- concept in design sidered creative. Weisberg (1986) has shown that 3.4.1 Definitional condition 1: radical solutions to problems often come in gradual incre- decision-making ments based on—and in extension of—past experi- As shown above, all creative endeavours, from art ences. While this indicates the typical pattern, to engineering design, involve decision-making creative processes frequently also include brief with some being mundane musings on lengths of events in which new ideas suddenly arise. One coffee breaks. Choosing one over another in such way to construe this is Boden’s (1999) notion of instances entails but a minute limitation of the sol-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 transformation of conceptual spaces, which also ution space, which most assumingly does not affect aims to explain why some ideas are considered the remainder of the process in any significant way. more radically new and original than others Opting for five minutes extra mocha time, thereby (Boden 2004, 94). Following Guilford and Paul reducing the remaining time available for the (1967) and, more recently, Lo¨wgren and Stolter- process ever so slightly, exemplifies what we man (2004, 29–30) among others, such intense propose to call a trivial self-imposed creativity con- phases can be described in terms of divergent and straint. Creative self-restraint in this puny, inconse- convergent thinking through which the problem quential sense, most often based on (pre-reflective) space is radically redefined. Although serendipity sudden impulses, is too vague as a concept to be of may occasionally play a role in such events, genuine interest as a means to inform the current thereby providing a solution without it being understanding of design processes. sought (Boden 2004, 234–237), most often To counterpoint this mundane example, we radical progression is based on decisions made wish to zoom in on particular instances where by the agent(s) involved. an agent makes a creative choice that seems

39 Biskjaer and Halskov

completely at odds with conventional wisdom solution’(Stacey and Eckert 2010, 249, empha- within the domain. By ‘conventional wisdom’, sis added). we mean the creative agent’s personal experi- ence, first choices, usual and standard solution What interests us is the situation where a creative alternatives in terms of his/her most accessible agent intentionally and with eyes wide open (tacit) knowledge resources, all of which govern makes a completely unexpected creative choice what (s)he would normally choose to do that seems so counterintuitive, at times bordering without sudden hesitation or critical reflection. on unwise or even nonsensical, that it momentarily Such a strange, seemingly unwise or even appears to reduce the solution space to a minimum. Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 foolish choice (see the above quote referring to This in accord with Reitman’s (1964)ideaof‘dis- Darwin’s pollen experimentation) is what we continuous transitions in the problem space’ attempt to capture conceptually by the term (306), which is caused by the problem-solver vio- ‘radical self-imposed creativity constraint’. It is lating his constraints at a given time. Further, based on unpredictable, intransigent decision- Reitman notes that if a problem-solver does making that renders the creative task at hand (at engage in violation of the constraints, (s)he then least seemingly) much harder to resolve. In ‘has no guarantee that progress on the new their three-phase invention process model, problem will have any relevance to the previous which consists of design space limitation, one’ (ibid.). Our interest is closely related to design generation, and design analysis, Isaak better understanding this violation of constraints, and Just (1995) also focus on decisions to which involves significant risk taking. As impose constraints. They argue that ‘successful Reitman (1964) explains: ‘The greater the number invention depends on imposing constraints on and complexity of the violations ...the more the the nature of the invention during design space problem solver risks introducing complications, limitation and design analysis and on releasing interactions, or contradictions when he attempts to or reformulating constraints during design gener- reconcile his latest work with the antecedent ation’ (285). We appreciate this varied use of problem’ (307). What we focus on here is not constraints in a creative (here, problem-solving) merely a trivial constraint violation (to use Reit- process; however, our view on such impositions man’s term), but a radical one in the sense that a of constraints differs from theirs because we dis- creative agent intentionally attempts to make his/ tinguish between trivial vs radical self-imposed her own creative challenge at hand seemingly inso- creativity constraints. This distinction construed luble by radically violating the constraints at hand as a continuum with no clear-cut demarcations by setting up new ones. Because a decision to relies on tentatively assessed impact, tension engage in such a practice of radical self-binding is rooted entirely in an agent’s free will and ingenious-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 and unpredictability. Therefore, it is also dissim- ilar from the continuum of strong (fixed) vs weak ness, decisive constraints adhere to the decision of (flexible) constraints as suggested by Stacey and applying a radical, self-imposed creativity con- Eckert to state levels of malleability, i.e. to what straint to stimulate the process. In other words, it extent the given constraints may be manipulated is related to radical decision-making. by the agent(s) involved: This leads us to formulate the first of two defi- nitional conditions. According to definitional con- Weak constraints can be relaxed to allow less dition 1, for an act to be conceived as an ideal but feasible designs; conflicting strong application of a decisive constraint in a design constraints, that must be met, may make the process, the act must represent: problem impossible. Design problems are constrained both by explicitly formulated (1) A voluntarily and intentionally chosen requirements and constraints, and by obstruction in the form of one or more creativ- implicit assumptions about the form of the ity constraint/s that diminish(es) the agent’s

40 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

solution space dramatically. This instalment of and is not meant to be used continuously to accel- 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital a radical self-imposed creativity constraint erate an ongoing process. As will appear shortly must to a very large extent go against the with definitional condition 2, what our concept is agent’s own prior (tacit or explicit) knowledge aiming to capture does not adhere to the beginning from experience as well as the relevant design of the process. It is an attempt to gain analytical community’s expectations to what are seen as insight into the relation between creativity con- standard and usual solution alternatives straints, radical decision-making and creative within the domain. turning points during the design process. Similarly, we would like to point out that our Implementing such a highly limiting choice in the definitional condition 1, as presented above, is in design process is important, but the crucial part is alignment with McDonnell’s (2011)workon what follows from it. According to P.D. Stokes enabling constraints as a form of imposition of (2006), genuine breakthrough results may poten- order in creative processes in art and design. tially be achieved by deliberate dichotomous think- Informed by findings from filmmaking and ing, i.e. by deliberately thinking in preclude– design, McDonnell defines ‘enabling constraints’ promote constraint pairs. Although she never men- as ‘devices, arbitrary, pragmatic, aesthetic and tions Elster’s (2000) work, this idea bears close other which artists or designers impose to create a resemblance to his so-called essential constraints discipline for the working process’ (559). The (see Figure 1), which are defined as constraints enabling characteristic of voluntarily imposing that an agent freely and intentionally imposes on various constraints on the creative process is gener- (him)herself for the sake of some expected benefit ally in accord with our concept of decisive con- to (him)herself. This expected benefit could very straints; however (as outlined in Section 3.1), well be the attainment of something highly original creativity constraints by definition encompass a and satisfactory—such as a work of breakthrough duality by simultaneously enabling and restraining quality. According to Elster, applying self- the solution alternatives. These two characteristics imposed constraints forces the agent to be original must be balanced for a design process to progress because it provides a narrower frame in which to based on the imposition of creativity constraints. ‘maximise aesthetic value’. Another difference is the radicalness of the Establishing such a starting point bears some decision-making. McDonnell explains that she resemblance to Darke’s (1979) concept of focuses on ‘the relationships between the decisions ‘primary generators’. Darke presents the idea that are made that can be construed as imposing that to make a vast set of solution alternatives enabling constraints, and the creative potential more cognitively manageable, designers ‘fix on a which is thus set in place once a regime is

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 particular objective or small group of objectives, decided upon’ (ibid.). Our present scope shares usually strongly valued and self-imposed ... this focus; however, what we are aiming to These major aims, called here primary generators, capture is decision-making using creativity con- then give rise to a proposed solution or conjecture’ straints that veer significantly from the norm, i.e. (43, emphasis in original). Darke’s conceptualis- that distinctly oppose usual solution alternatives ation is in accord with our own proposed and professional expectations of the relevant concept, decisive constraints; however, there is a (design) community. This is why we have intro- key difference. For Darke, the primary generators duced the distinction between trivial and radical in a given design process are conceptualised as self-imposed creativity constraints. ‘objectives [that] form a starting point for the This radicalness as a key element our definitional architect, a way in to the problem’ (38, emphasis condition 1 means that we also distinguish our in original). In other words, Darke’s concept concept from Elster’s view on the severity of con- specifically—and only—addresses the initiation straint intensity (or ‘constrainedness’). Given his of a design process. It is a way in to the problem reluctance to embrace artistic contributions from

41 Biskjaer and Halskov

certain avant-garde movements, it would seem very in Reitman’s (1964) problem-solving terms, ‘the likely that the level of constraint pressure he would solution set defined by the particular complex of advocate with regard to ‘maximising aesthetic constraints [...would appear] empty’ (299). This value’ is quite moderate. As opposed to a mere ‘chal- raises the important definitional question as to lenge’ in this sense, what we wish to address with the whether decisions satisfying definitional condition 1 decisive constraints concept does not refer to some are decisive if they mark a turning point in the abstract, normative goal or statements such as: ‘I design process, but nonetheless lead to a dead want to make the best calendar app graphical user end, not an innovative outcome. Also, it could be interface (GUI) ever.’ On the contrary; our notion asked how many such failed decisive constraints Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 of decisive constraints as outlined in definitional there are compared to fruitful ones. Both are valid condition 1 specifically concerns very concrete concerns, and they form the basis for definitional rules, choices and voluntary acts of self-binding. condition 2 below. As will become clear in Section 4, where we apply To refer back to the motivation behind this the two definitional conditions of our proposed article, what we focus on here is the intriguing concept to three media fac¸ade installation projects, observation that highly limiting, creative decisions reaching for decisive constraints as a processual of voluntary self-restraint, i.e. the free imposition resource may entail choosing odd, but very tangible, of radical creativity constraints, may occasionally design materials, or clear formulations of highly accelerate the design process and lead to a highly restraining sets of guidelines or rules to govern the original final design. It is the actual productiveness concerted creative efforts in the design process. of this seemingly disadvantageous act that we aim Thus, when we employ the term ‘dramatically’ in to embrace and explore by introducing decisive definitional condition 1 to denote the intensity of constraints as a conceptual lever for gaining better the act of implementing one or more radical self- insight into design processes, especially the nature imposed creativity constraint(s), either during or at of qualitative forward leaps or turning points. the outset of the design process, this level of con- Since our interest lies in the productiveness or strainedness cannot be universally assessed. It resourcefulness of radical self-imposed creativity relies on the agent’s individual domain experience constraints, a quantitative assessment of failed vs and (tacit and explicit) knowledge. The vital part fruitful constraints is relevant, but beyond the as stated in definitional condition 1 is that the crea- scope of this article. This study only investigates tive agent, the designer, pushes (him)herself to a the observation that voluntary application of point where there are no longer any immediate stan- radical creativity constraints seems to strongly dard solutions at his/her disposal. affect the originality of the outcome of the design process. Given our present focus on the resourceful-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 3.4.2 Definitional condition 2: creative turning ness of applying various creativity constraints to a points design process, we deliberately ignore such As practitioners know, an ingenious creative choice instances in which radical self-imposed creativity in the design process may appear very provocative constraints lead to a dead end in the design or almost nonsensical by being extremely challen- process. By resorting to the imposition of such ging to the agent him/herself and/or the design self-binding in expectance of a thus more original team, but without leading to an innovative, final outcome, the designer obviously takes a chance, design. Phrased differently, the application of a perhaps even gambles, due to the evident possibility radical self-imposed creativity constraint may of working toward a dead end. This means that the indeed satisfy definitional condition 1, but never- designer needs to muster courage to accompany his/ theless not yield any real progress or spur fruitful, her domain skills and (tacit and explicit) knowledge new ideas resulting in a truly original final design. from experience if (s)he decides to engage in the Indeed, radical self-imposed creativity constraints imposition of radical self-imposed creativity con- mayleadtoadead end in the design process, or straints to leverage the design process at hand.

42 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

In our view, the importance of a designer’s previous related to an intentional ‘push’ toward greater con- 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital experience in this way does not undercut the creteness and complexity in moving from idea to general value of decisive constraints as a creative final design (the ultimate particular). It is the resource in the design process. Rather, it would designer’s intent to ‘push’ in terms of evoking seem that resorting to radical self-imposed creativ- design cause via decisive constraints that we ity constraints could be of more value to an innova- wish to address. In practice, such as in a design tive, adventurous, expert designer than to a peer process, proving direct (design) causality with less pronounced experience and domain between an act of intentional change and a con- savvy and thus a lesser need to challenge his/her crete design outcome, the ultimate particular, is a own previous solution alternatives (see also P.D. highly challenging task. The more controlled the Stokes [2006, 2007, 2009] on creative experts research experiment (in vitro) in order to reduce being more inclined to employ preclude-promote the number of variables at play to demonstrate constraint pairs). causality, the more detached from a real world This elaboration on the productiveness or design setting (in vivo) the experiment becomes. resourcefulness of decisive constraints, or more Acknowledging the complexity and difficulty precisely their status as qualitative forward leaps involved in showing causality in design in a convin- or turning points directly related to the final cingly manner, we believe that it may be beneficial outcome, is comprised in the second of our two to turn to jurisprudence to help establish the necess- definitional conditions. In our treatment of P.D. ary criteria for our definitional condition 2, which Stokes’s proposed if–then conceptualisation of targets the emergence of creative turning points fol- dichotomous, paired constraints leading to crea- lowing radical self-imposed creativity constraints. tive breakthrough (see Section 2.2.3), we stressed What we suggest is the legal standard of proof the importance of human intention and that this ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. This is: must be manifested (and thus be observable) in The standard that must be met by the prosecu- the form of concrete creative decision-making. tion’s evidence in a criminal prosecution: that With regard to design, this importance of human no other logical explanation can be derived intention as a capacity for creative change in the from the facts except that the defendant com- physical world is emphasised by Nelson and Stol- mitted the crime, thereby overcoming the pre- terman (2012, 38): ‘It is a hallmark of design that sumption that a person is innocent until human intention is essential and central to the proven guilty ...The term connotes that evi- instigation of change in the real world. Human dence establishes a particular point to a intention is, therefore, a singularly important and moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute consequential cause of change.’ To address the that any reasonable alternative is possible ...

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 intricate relation between intentional change and Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest stan- cause in the real world, Nelson and Stolterman dard of proof that must be met in any coin the term ‘design cause’: trial (Farlex, The Free Legal Dictionary: ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, emphasis added). Design cause is the consequence of human volition and the capacity for humans to be Although this crucial legal standard neither implies, proactive and purposeful in their interaction nor establishes full transparent causality in an with the real world. Design cause is essential affirmative sense, it still articulates a certain point both for initiating change that brings new after which it becomes undisputable that other things into existence and for modifying explanations may be possible. As this is deemed those things that are already in existence (38). the highest standard of proof in any trial, we would argue that it suffices for our present purpose. According to this definition, design cause is This legal standard enables us to formulate clearly identifiable as a theoretical construct the second definitional condition. According to

43 Biskjaer and Halskov

definitional condition 2, for a creativity constraint alignment with the etymology according to ordin- to be truly decisive in an intentional act of creative ary use of the term in English (Farlex, The Free self-binding in the design process, it must also: Dictionary: ‘decisive’). With the concept decisive constraints presented and defined by definitional (2) Be related, beyond a reasonable doubt, to conditions 1 and 2 (Section 3) on the backdrop the final creative outcome of the design of our review of main contributions to creativity process in being of crucial importance to rede- constraint typology research (Section 2), we will fining the (new) solution space. Thus, for a now put our concept to the test. This means return- creativity constraint to be ‘decisive’ in appli- ing to practice, as we will apply our two defini-

Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 cation, it must be conducive to creative per- tional conditions to three media fac¸ade formance and, in the form of a creative installation projects in which our interaction turning point in the process, lead to the attain- design research lab, CAVI, has recently been ment of an original, concrete solution (a final involved. Our core contribution, the introduction design), not merely a dead end. of the concept decisive constraints as an analytical This second definitional condition addresses what tool, is intended to help gain better insight into the happens in the design process once the radical nature of dynamic project settings and how design creativity constraint has been (self-)imposed by processes evolve from initiation to conclusion. the agent(s) involved. The creativity constraint Our chosen domain is interaction design, and must be decisive in the sense of being utmost criti- based on findings from the three case examples cal (crucial) to the final result of the design in Section 4, we broaden the scope in Section 5 process. Whether a constraint may be seen as deci- by briefly considering how our concept may help sive in this second meaning of the term (as formu- inform current design theory. We argue that deci- lated in definitional condition 2) can only be sive constraints may also serve as an inspiring assessed after the fact (a posteriori). As with the resource for practitioners not only in interaction term ‘dramatically’ in definitional condition 1, design, but assumingly also in related creative the standard ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ in domains and disciplines. Finally, in Section 6, definitional condition 2 is hard to assess once we briefly offer a set of conclusions. and for all. Rather, it is meant to serve as a (moral) guideline (Farlex, The Free Legal Diction- ary: Beyond a reasonable doubt’). What is impor- 4 Cases tant is that it may be rendered more than extremely 4.1 Media fac¸ade installation projects as probable, thereby invalidating all possible alterna- exponents of decisive constraints tive explanations, that one or more of the final As implied in the term itself, interaction design

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 design’s key characteristics (see Norman’s puts emphasis on establishing and ensuring a [2002] affordances) can be traced back to the resourceful space of action for its involved voluntary instalment of the (self-imposed) radical agents (Lo¨wgren and Stolterman 2004). This creativity constraint(s). We have elsewhere space can be found in digital user interfaces in shown how such a tracking of ideas and design the private sphere, often embedded in various elements can be carried out in a concrete setting kinds of home or portable technology, or installed (Dalsgaard, Halskov, and Nielsen 2008). in the public domain, e.g. as large digital displays To sum up, our deliberate use of the duality in an urban setting. Interactive media fac¸ade instal- inherent in the term ‘decisive’ relates to both lations are an attractive medium for us as design radical decision-making (see definitional con- researchers to work with, as it evokes a multitude dition 1) and to creative consequence in terms of of cognitive perspectives in the users’ interactive the emergence of a creative turning point on the encounter with the installations. As mentioned in way toward an original final design (see defini- Section 2.3.2, our participation in these interaction tional condition 2). This interpretation is in design projects has been planned and executed as

44 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

research-through-design. Partakers in these three concept’s relevance to creative practitioners, 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital particular projects include artists, architects, among them designers in particular. The three industry professionals, scholars, professional media fac¸ade installation projects were conducted designers, computer scientists and others, so the between 2007 and 2010 and differ from each other sheer confluence of contributions from such a in terms of process duration and process form, varied array of disciplines has helped us gain degree of creative freedom (or conversely, con- insight into some of the key dynamics of creativity strainedness) in the process, number of partici- constraints and how they are managed during a pants, use of digital technology and extent of in- design process. Given that media fac¸ade installa- situ interaction, as the research reported is tions can be conceived as digital artefacts, public located in an intersection between architecture, interfaces, interactive spaces, items of ubiquitous motion graphics and interaction technology. The computing and more, this conceptual complexity first case concerns a proposal submitted to an means that the process through which the installa- architectural competition in 2007. tions come into being makes for a rich and suitable place to explore the complex dynamics of creativ- 4.2 Warsaw’s new art museum ity constraints. The Danish architecture studio, BIG, was invited In recent years, we have directed an increasing to present a proposal to the architectural compe- amount of attention toward the design process tition for the design of a new museum of modern itself in the form of development of tools, tech- art in Warsaw, Poland, and our lab was brought niques and maps for the various stages of a pro- into the process to help develop ideas and sol- ject’s progression; for instance, 3-D projection utions for integrating interactive technology into tools (Dalsgaard and Halskov 2011), the inspi- the building’s fac¸ade and interior surfaces. ration card workshops technique (Halskov and During the initial stage of the process, we Dalsgaard 2006, 2007), and maps for design assembled a large amount of material concerning reflection (Dalsgaard, Halskov, and Nielsen the physical site and the surroundings of the pro- 2008). It is this work we draw on in the following, posed museum, and we conducted a study of tech- where we put our concept decisive constraints to nologies and materials that potentially could be the test in order to show how the concept may con- applied in the design process. For the next step, tribute to inform the current understanding of we employed the inspiration card workshop tech- design processes. By applying our definitional nique devised by Halskov and Dalsgaard (2006). conditions 1 and 2 (see Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2) This is a collaborative approach to combining to the three media fac¸ade installation projects, domain knowledge with technological sources of we aim to show how our concept decisive con- inspiration. Domain knowledge is represented by

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 straints may offer new insight into some of the domain cards and may be generated by the vital ways in which creativity constraints, participants from the design domain. Technology radical decision-making and creative turning cards, primarily generated by the designers, rep- points not only converge in the design process, resent technologies that may directly or indirectly but converge in a unique manner that is conducive be part of the design concepts. The main phase of to reaching an innovative final design. We will the workshop consists of the participants colla- discern key challenges in each project, but it is boratively combining the cards on posters in beyond the scope of the article to engage in a order to capture various design concepts. As dis- more comprehensive outline of the numerous crea- cussed by Dalsgaard, Halskov, and Nielsen tivity constraints that characterised each design (2008), one of the materials introduced in the project. The important part here is the use of deci- workshop was thermo-chromatic concrete sive constraints as a conceptual lever to understand (TCC), invented by Royal College of Art design how and why the design projects evolved and students Christopher Glaister, Afshin Mehin, and ended as they did, and thereby also show our Tomas Rose´n (see http://www.innovation.rca.ac.

45 Biskjaer and Halskov

uk/718/all/1/Chronos-Chromos-Concrete.aspx), During the initial part of the process, we pon- which utilises a current applied to a heating dered how to produce and control heat, e.g. by element embedded in the concrete to make the using tubes filled with hot water or incorporating temperature rise, thereby causing it to change electrically heated elements. One idea was to use colour, an effect made possible by mixing a heat- TCC to make visible the consumption of energy sensitive ink into ordinary concrete. During the in the building, e.g. making hot water consumption workshop, several other technologies were intro- visible on the walls when people turned on the hot duced and discussed as potential starting points water in the bathrooms, or making visible the for exploring ways of transforming the architec- wiring of flex-tubes in floors as part of the under- Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 ture into media architecture. With no obvious start- floor heating system. We investigated in greater ing point at hand well into the workshop, the depth the idea of using TCC to make a low-resol- principal architect made the radical decision that ution display composed of individual tiles organ- TCC was the technology he wanted to use. Due ised in a matrix. As this use of TCC was to the unique properties of TCC, he intentionally technologically innovative, offering the stern con- chose to employ this specific material as a means straints of a very limited colour scheme and low res- to push the workshop forward and in a new direc- olution, we conducted a series of experiments. First, tion, because he knew that the use of TCC would we explored the appearance and perceptions of the represent a severe limitation of the solution space, varied imagery using the filters of a photo manipu- which he assumed would provoke the team to gen- lation tool followed by an investigation of the erate novel ideas and thus spur progression. potential appearance of a Vincent van Gogh self- Accordingly, the entire team immediately con- portrait. We made several versions of the portrait, sidered the radical decision to use TCC signifi- varying the opacity to get an impression of how it cantly more restraining than enabling due to its would look during the transition from low to high low resolution, slow refresh rate and limited heat intensity (see Figure 3 below). One of the colour scheme. As a radical self-imposed creativ- insights was the observation that the van Gogh ity constraint, choosing TCC went against the self-portrait took on an unmistakable resemblance team’s prior knowledge, experience and first to Lenin, which, for historical reasons, we con- choices in terms of preference for vanguard sidered unsuitable for a Polish museum. So, we digital display technologies. This means that defi- carried out similar experiments using Leonardo da nitional condition 1 (see Section 3.4) for a con- Vinci’s Mona Lisa portrait (see Figure 3)with straint to be decisive is satisfied. studies of scale and perspective as pivotal factors One of TCC’s intrinsic constraints, i.e. affecting perception. Findings from these exper- unmalleable constraints given by the material iments were included in the final competition pro-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 and context (see Elster’s [2000] constraint triparti- posal, concluding the creative process. tion as presented in Section 2.2.4), is that its colour In this design case, it seems evident that the changes quite slowly: from just a few seconds to principal architect’s radical decision to use TCC fifteen seconds when a section of the concrete is and embrace all its intrinsic constraints, with heating up, and even more slowly when it is which no one on the team had any experience, cooling down. Another intrinsic constraint con- became the very turning point for the entire cerns using TCC to make a display with pixels. design process. Establishing this creative turning The original inventors of TCC made a video of point in the process means satisfying definitional how a single tile of TCC could change from grey condition 2 (see Section 3.4) for asserting a creativ- to white, and in another example they showed ity constraint’s decisiveness, i.e. its relation, beyond how digital numbers of seven lines could be indi- a reasonable doubt, to the final outcome of the vidually controlled (see Figure 2). Such a digital design process by way of indisputably redefining display was made by wiring individually control- (delimiting) the solution space without leading to lable electrical heating elements cast in concrete. a dead end. What this first case example shows is

46 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design iia raiiy o.2,N.1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital

Figure 2. Thermo-chromatic concrete (TCC). Photo credit: Glaister, Mehin and Rose´n.

not merely how intrinsic constraints, in this case reason for looking toward other materials was the notably material ones, can be managed construc- limited availability of the LED panels. This was tively. More importantly, it demonstrates the crea- considered a huge step backward, since we were tive resourcefulness of applying decisive concerned that if we did not cover the entire constraints to an interaction design process in fac¸ade, the result would simply look like a screen order to reach an original final design. mounted on the fac¸ade rather than as an integrated part of the building. As opposed to the vast freedom of the Warsaw 4.3 Aarhus by Light case, this project was bound by at least three As part of our interaction design research lab’s on- severe intrinsic constraints: the limited availability going exploration into media architecture (see Dals- of the LED panels; the low resolution of the gaard, Halskov, and Nielsen 2008;Brynskovetal. display; and the fact that the design had to fit an 2009; Dalsgaard and Halskov 2010; Korsgaard existing building. We in the design team had et al. 2012), we approached Musikhuset, the city begun generating various ideas for the media concert hall in Aarhus, Denmark, to enquire into fac¸ade project before we even met with Musikhu- the possibility of temporarily integrating a media set’s director, so these three constraints fac¸ade into the architecture of the building. The mar- posed a grave challenge to our musings. Despite keting director agreed to the idea and gave us quite being concerned that it could be hard to reach a sat- unrestrained opportunities. Our technology partner, isfactory design, we accepted the offer and decided Martin Professional, who operates in the market for to embrace these severe material constraints in order media architecture, offered to supply some of their to let them define the solution space, thereby dra- LED panels for the installation. This was a kind matically narrowing down our creative options in and welcome offer; however, we were unsure how terms of solution alternatives. As opposed to the suitable these panels would be for the development Warsaw case, where the principal architect ulti- of the concert hall media fac¸ade. Among the signifi- mately took the radical decision, in this Aarhus by

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 cant constraints intrinsic to the panels was the low Light case the determination to freely and intention- resolution of the display, owing to the 40 mm dis- ally restrain ourselves by welcoming these three tance between the individual pixels. Another radical creativity constraints was a joint decision. severe, intrinsic constraint was the fact that the Thus, it is an example of radical decision-making, LED modules were only available in fixed dimen- which means that definitional condition 1 for a crea- sions of either 1×2metresor2×2 metres. The tivity constraint to be decisive is satisfied. glass fac¸ade of Musikhuset is 700 m2. We initially Through many iterations and a sketching planned to cover the entire fac¸ade with LED process, we managed to come up with a solution: panels, but Martin Professional imposed the organising the panels in a non-rectangular additional (external) constraint that only 180 m2 of pattern to avoid a screen-like effect (see Figure 4). LED panels would be available for the project. One of the key intrinsic constraints adhering to Although the opportunity to use the LED panels the structure of the building was that the huge was much appreciated, we pondered different poss- glass fac¸ade was organised into square and rec- ible solutions to the design problem at hand. One tangular areas. Fortunately, the dimensions of most

47 Biskjaer and Halskov Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1

Figure 3. Three visual experiments into TCC.

of the squares matched those of the 2×2 metre LED software identified the outlines of people’s panels, which eased the integration of the LED bodies as they approached Musikhuset. The panels into the building’s fac¸ade. The low resolution outline of a person’s body was then transformed of the LED panels, though, offered the most critical into a silhouette on the display (see Figure 6), constraint, as it had strong implications for the which in this way became a self-imposed creativ- imagery displayable. Through a series of design ity constraint for us as designers and an imposed workshops and experiments, our collective team constraint for the citizens of Aarhus with regard decided on two principle graphical elements: a con- to the kinds of possible interaction. stantly moving outline of the Aarhus skyline, as well As discussed in detail by Brynskov et al. as a number of animated, Tamagotchi-inspired crea- (2009), the silhouette encouraged a curious, tures (see Figure 5). playful investigation of the fac¸ade among the The visual style of both elements was deemed users while enabling them to interact with the crea- suitable for meeting the constraints presented by tures. By moving their silhouette back and forth the resolution of the panels. An interactive and from side to side, the users were able to element was combined with the city skyline and push, pull, lift and drop the creatures on the the animated creatures. Cameras were mounted fac¸ade. Since the glass fac¸ade was organised into at three locations along one of the main access square and rectangular areas, these were utilised paths through the park, and custom-designed as a constraint-enabled feature by having the small creatures enter and exit virtual doors at the vertical edges of the rectangular areas, climb up Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 and down the vertical edges and occasionally lay down to sleep on the horizontal edges.

Figure 4. Configuration of LED models and interaction zones. Figure 5. Graphical elements of Aarhus by Light.

48 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

As mentioned, we in the design team shared As opposed to both the extensive creative 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital strong initial concerns as to how suitable the freedom of the Warsaw art museum proposal and LED panels would be for a project design on the immediate need to completely revise our which we were already working. At the time, the already burgeoning initial design ideas in the three main intrinsic constraints (as presented Aarhus by Light case, our interaction design above) led us to think that if we wanted to go research lab became involved in this project after through with the project, we would have to run the had already been determined. the risk of not reaching a satisfactory process Entering the process quite late meant that we had outcome. On the other hand, being aware of this to adjust not simply our initial ideas, but more possibility of failure informed our decision to importantly our design approach itself (research- wholeheartedly embrace the panels as our main through-design), according to which we as material for the design process. And this dismissal designers and researchers take part in all aspects of a resort to standard or usual solution alternatives of the design process right from the beginning. became crucial—or better, decisive—for the final Since we had previously collaborated with design for Musikhuset. The ultimate design sol- BIG in the field of media fac¸ades and with the ution generated a substantial amount of attention lighting manufacturer, Martin Professional, the and interaction in front of Musikhuset (see Bryns- idea of turning the perforated fac¸ade into a kov et al. 2009), and can, specifically and beyond a media fac¸ade emerged quite naturally. In reasonable doubt, be traced back to the radical essence, our first thought was to design a media decision-making of embracing the three highly fac¸ade that would articulate the expressive limiting creativity constraints as presented above. pattern of the fac¸ade during the evening hours of Furthermore, as the team’s acceptance of these the EXPO. The idea of illuminating the nearly constraints did not lead to a dead end, definitional four thousand holes embossed into the fac¸ade as condition 2 for decisive constraints is also met. opposed to working with significantly larger, Similar to the first example, the Warsaw art two-dimensional surfaces presented a strong chal- museum proposal, this second example illustrates lenge calling for an innovative approach. Also, the the resourcefulness of radical, self-imposed crea- fact that the surface was curved and the pixels’ tivity constraints in an interaction design process. shape three dimensional (not two-dimensional ‘dots’) was not easily resolved. However, getting the opportunity to really challenge our tacit knowl- 4.4 The Danish EXPO 2010 pavilion edge and try to come up with a completely new The Danish pavilion at EXPO 2010 was designed design in the middle of a process that we had not by the Danish architectural firm, BIG. The interior been involved in from the beginning was so tempt-

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 of the helical building acted as a 300-metre-long ing that we decided to take on the project. exhibition area, and the outer fac¸ade of the pavi- Our basic idea was to add lighting fixtures to the lion was perforated with almost four thousand cavity wall above each tube passing through the holes of various sizes and configurations. Due to fac¸ade. The tube would therefore have to be made the double-loop structure of the building, the from a translucent material that would make each fac¸ade was almost 300 metres long and from hole appear as an illuminated, tube-shaped pixel some angles appeared as two bands, one above on a media wall. The scale of the building, its the other. The layout of the holes reflected the double-loop structure and pixel geometry of four statics of the building, meaning that the fac¸ade thousand pixels distributed over a band almost was a part of the load-bearing structure, and 300 metres long, were all powerful, intrinsic con- holes were present only where the statics and the straints for the entire team. The design of the inner construction allowed them to be placed. media fac¸ade evolved over a period of thirteen The original proposed idea suggested that the months through a series of design experiments holes would simply be plain holes. and activities where we applied tools and employed

49 Biskjaer and Halskov Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1

Figure 6. Citizens interacting with Aarhus by Light.

models created during the development period in Although the 300-metee-long, double-loop- order to examine different properties of the fac¸ade structured pixel geometry in itself imposed and to visualise design ideas as they emerged (see serious limitations on the design process, we Halskov and Ebsen 2013). found it necessary to formulate a set of self- One of the initial experiments included testing imposed creativity constraints to promote the orig- light sources on a full-scale mock-up (see inality of the eventual design solution. Concretely, Figure 7). This served as a platform for testing this took the form of a design manifesto with seven light fixtures and the quality of the individual elements to guide us in identifying our options in pixels with regard to colour and light intensity. terms of solution alternatives: One of the findings from these experiments was 1. medium: the facade lighting is not a screen, the observation that, due to the tube-shaped and should be regarded as a part of the architec- holes, the individual pixels would appear differ- ture; ently depending on the viewing angle, e.g. as a 2. architecture: the lighting design should circle or a crescent. During the process, we knew emphasise the architecture, and not constitute Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 that the irregular distribution of pixels forming a a visual takeover; long low-resolution display was a critical intrinsic 3. form: the visual expression should be created constraint offering particular challenges in terms with sensitivity to the layout of lighting fix- of what content it would make sense to develop. tures, and the pattern they form on the fac¸ade; In order to explore the perceptual possibilities of 4. speed: all movements and changes in lighting the fac¸ade pixel, we developed a software appli- must be slow; cation capable of visualising a small section of 5. adaptive: light levels will be adjusted accord- 24 of the total 627 columns in the fac¸ade. The soft- ing to measured sunlight levels; ware tool was utilised to test a variety of forms of 6. colours: the overall colour scheme consists pri- content, including video footage, animation, text marily of white or shades of grey, with some and abstract graphics. One of the findings was details in either black or red; the fact that horizontal lines were hard to perceive, 7. visual content: the visual content should build on and that text was only faintly perceivable. already existing visual features of the pavilion.

50 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design iia raiiy o.2,N.1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital

Figure 7. Full-scale mock-up. Resorting to a design manifesto in an attempt our lighting fixtures as tubes. Our final visualisa- to promote originality was new to us and thus rep- tion tool was a 1:100 scale model of the building resented a breakaway from our typical design on which we could project a virtual 3-D model strategy. Essentially, it severely challenged our of the configuration of holes as they would be illu- tacit design decisions by cutting off standard sol- minated on the pavilion. Such a mixed reality utions and usual choices based on prior experience approach enabled us to map visual content onto and knowledge, and it forced us to re-evaluate our the configuration of the holes in the virtual domain savvy and toolkits as designers. Employ- model and view the result on the physical scale ing a rigid design manifesto of various creativity model (see Figure 8). constraints in this way exemplifies radical The various tools described were used in a decision-making, which thus satisfies definitional series of workshops involving approximately condition 1 for a self-imposed creativity constraint fifty design experiments, leading to a collection

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 to be considered decisive. of content designs such as walking and bicycling In order to further probe what might constitute silhouettes of people, Chinese characters and feasible content using the design manifesto as a set black-to-white gradients moving around the build- of self-imposed creativity constraints, we devel- ing. The various content designs were produced oped a virtual 3-D model. This enabled us to visu- within the frame set by dogma four, six and alise content in a spatial configuration seven of the manifesto (speed, colours and visual corresponding to the form of the building, content) and evaluated up against the very same hereby addressing especially the first two of the set of self-imposed creativity constraints. Owing design manifesto’s seven dogmas in the form of to the constraints presented by the scale and self-imposed creativity constraints. These first shape of the building as reflected in dogma one two were medium and architecture. In contrast to to three of the manifesto, the final decisions and commercial visualisation tools available on the adjustments were conducted on-site in Shanghai. market, our own tool enabled us to also address Given the sheer complexity of this particular item three of the manifesto (form) by visualising project, the path toward the final design featured

51 Biskjaer and Halskov Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1

Figure 8. Mixed reality model.

numerous technological constraints, both intrinsic regard to decisiveness, definitional condition 2, ones and many imposed by partners. The careful requiring relation, i.e. legibility beyond a reasonable formulation of a seven-point design manifesto doubt, between radical, voluntary decision-making with specific guidelines to inform the last part of and the attainment of the final design goal is met the design process bore a direct and apparent in this case example as well. While the Warsaw impact on the final design, not least because it art museum proposal and Aarhus by Light were was used iteratively as a cross-reference (in the mostly based on material choices, the Danish evaluation) to make sure that the team did not EXPO 2010 pavilion exemplifies a somewhat deviate from the course represented by the aesthetic more abstract choice of self-restraint in relying on values and preferences of the manifesto. Thus, with a severely restraining set of values that required Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014

Figure 9. The Danish EXPO 2010 pavilion. Photo credit: Leif Orkelbog.

52 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

interpretation from the team. Although these three analyses specifically concerns how intrinsic and 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital interaction design cases differ in many ways, their externally imposed constraints, to use Elster’s shared scope as media fac¸ade installation projects acute tripartition (see Section 2.2.4), affect a notwithstanding, they all show the creative process in one domain. This means that the term potency of voluntary pre-commitment or even ‘constraint’ is utilised to distinguish between self-bindingin a design process. Itwas this particular various levels of obstacles and requirements in a design strategy, based on radical decision-making particular process in a particular domain. in the articulation and implementation of what we We propose a slightly different approach that with this article suggest be labelled decisive puts strong emphasis on conceptual consistency constraints, including custom development of without sacrificing relevance to creative prac- appropriate tools and models, that made it possible titioners. In offering two minimal definitional pre- for us to present an original final design for the conditions for determining whether a self-imposed Danish EXPO 2010 pavilion as illustrated in Figure 9. creativity constraint should be considered trivial or radical, possibly even decisive (see definitional conditions 1 and 2 in Section 3.4), we concur with 5 Discussion D.R. Stokes’s (2006) idea of a minimal ontology. 5.1 Theoretical and practical relevance of As shown in the previous literature overview of decisive constraints research into constraints pertaining to creative pro- The employment of self-imposed creativity con- cesses, what appear to be consensually applied straints in a design process is common among prac- terms tend to conceal discrepancies, inconsisten- titioners; however, we believe this phenomenon cies and conceptual cloudiness that hamper must be lifted out of the anecdotes and studied immediate progression of theory. What one disci- more carefully in order to become of use to even pline calls ‘practical constraints’ another denotes more creative professionals, not just in design, as ‘task constraints’, while a third uses the terms but potentially in related creative domains and dis- ‘material’ and ‘technical constraints.’ Even when ciplines as well. A quick search entry of ‘decisive the scope is generic based on philosophical ana- constraint’ on Google Scholar yields approxi- lyses to address the issue, such as in Elster’s mately 330 hits (as of August 2013). Still, the (2000) work, daydreaming is presented as an concept and how it affects the design process and example of creativity with no constraints (181). its outcome in terms of differentiating between Against this we would argue that time available levels of importance among constraints from idea- for this activity is always a delimiting factor and tion to final design has not been sufficiently ana- that daydreaming is context-dependent by being lysed or explored. Many researchers address affected by noise and ambience from the milieu,

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 constraints in their work, and examples include and is always framed as erotic, exotic, humorous, the aforementioned problem-solving analyses by surreal, etc. based on the agent’s decided, or unin- Reitman (1964, 1965) and Simon (1996, 1973), tended, set of preferences and cognitive abilities. Stefik’s (1981) work on hierarchical planning as This exemplifies how the terminological opacity constraint posting in computer science (AI) and, and vast array of specialised mono-disciplinary more recently, Fischer’s (2004) research into conceptualisations of constraints render it hard to socio-technical environments for design commu- formulate a unifying typology to cut across crea- nities (he uses the term ’barriers’ in lieu of con- tivity-related disciplines. Our contribution, the for- straints) and Coughlan and Johnson’s (2007, mulation of decisive constraints based on 2008) quartered typology related to end user devel- exploratory studies and design research projects opment, which is based on Pearce and Wiggins’s in interaction design, marks only a small step (2002) work on constraints in musical compo- toward a more refined and cohesive understanding sition. Although these and other studies concern of creativity constraints as an integral part of constraint management, the scope of these design processes. This raises the question as to

53 Biskjaer and Halskov

whether decisive constraints as an analytical 1960, including the heavy use of formal genre con- concept may have relevance for other creative straints such as lipograms and palindromes by domains and disciplines as well. novelists like George Perec and Italo Calvino and others (Symes 1999; Andrews 2003; 5.2 Decisive constraints as a creative Mathews and Brotchie 2005) comprise many intri- resource in a broader perspective guing examples to be explored more in depth by The expression ‘decisive constraint’ came up in means of key insights into creativity constraints passing in a chat with two close colleagues, Onar- in addition to literary studies (see also Onarheim heim and Wiltschnig, in Denmark, and although it and Biskjaer 2013). Based on preliminary Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 was never probed analytically, we could all musings on these four and other examples, we immediately relate to the concept with regard to have a strong hunch that our concept ‘decisive previous design research projects in which we constraints’ can be relevant not only to help had been involved. This observation supported improve the understanding of the creative pro- our shared conviction that self-imposed creativity cesses that lead to the final artefact, but also to constraints should be qualified and discussed more explore to what extent and how decisive con- critically than has been done so far. Our previous straints are employed as a rich creative resource (Biskjaer, Dalsgaard, and Halskov 2010; Biskjaer, in artistic processes. Although it is too early to Onarheim, and Wiltschnig 2011) and ongoing conclude anything, our preliminary findings studies of design, in particular interaction design, suggest an evident resemblance to design pro- and artistic processes substantiate the observed cesses as presented in this article. resourcefulness and importance that innovative As the title of the article indicates, our focal voluntary self-restraint can yield in a creative point is the resourcefulness that may stem from activity. In an art-oriented perspective, examples an agent’s voluntary and intentional imposition of this include the Danish Dogma 95 Manifesto of creativity constraints on (him)herself. This (the ‘Vow of Chastity’) for filmmaking, according invites the question whether undertaking self- to which the director must steer clear of usual and imposed creativity constraints, in particular standard artistic choices, idioms and preferences radical ones, is always necessarily beneficial. and instead subject (him)herself to a number of Are there no costs or drawbacks? Certainly, this severe demands such as no artificial lighting, is a valid concern, which deserves a more only hand-held camera, only Academy 35 mm thorough treatment than what falls within the film, etc. Another example of such artistic self- specific scope of this article. Any successful crea- binding is Icelandic singer Bjo¨rk, who chose to tive endeavour brings with it the risk of the crea- make the album Medu´lla (2004) with extremely tive agent, be it a designer, an artist, an

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 few instruments, using almost solely layered entrepreneur, etc., becoming undermined by his/ vocals and a capella singing. A third example is her own success. The same holds true for the crea- American artist Matthew Barney, who, from tive outcome, for instance an artefact, which can 1987 to 1989, created the first series, Drawing lose value and merit on a number of levels (aes- Restraint 1–6, of an on-going acclaimed art thetic, financial, etc.) and suffer the fate of even- project in which he explores how self-inflicted tually becoming obsolete, cliche´d or even encumbrance stimulates creativity much like the worthless. French Impressionist Claude Monet way forced resistance such as lifting weights (1840–1926) chose water lilies in his garden in helps build muscle tissue for an athlete. In his Giverny as his main motif during the last thirty first series, Barney takes a radical approach, as years of his life. It is assumed that his water he struggles to paint while being physically lilies series comprises around 250 paintings of restrained via cords and karabiners in his studio. this single motif. While Monet’s artistic influence As briefly mentioned, the literary avant-garde can hardly be overestimated, lesser creative experiments of the French Oulipo group from minds would no doubt have run a great risk of

54 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

undercutting their originality and potentially redu- how this theoretical construct may be useful to 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital cing their works to cliche´s had they sustained such help inform an improved understanding of a remarkably narrow and uncompromising idiom design processes by offering insights into some in their career, including continuously adhering of the ways in which creativity constraints, to more or less the same set of self-imposed crea- radical and adventurous decision-making and tivity constraints. Also, as pointed out by P.D. creative turning points converge in the design Stokes (2009, 174), creative practitioners are process in a unique way that is conducive to reach- often rewarded for their reliability, and this is ing a truly innovative final design solution. It is in another reason why unaltered self-imposed crea- this regard that we argue for the resourcefulness of tivity constraints may indeed become dull, and decisive creativity constraints with relevance to stereotypical, thereby eradicating the very orig- practitioners as well. This, however, gives rise to inality they were intended to promote. To break a critical question: why does the array of individu- out of this situation, the creative agent must ally tailored, mono-disciplinary conceptual invent a new set of self-imposed creativity con- models and terminology not suffice? Why not straints that may again serve as a resource and simply ‘play it by ear’, i.e. rely on ad hoc solutions potentially become decisive in his/her creative and dissemination of domain-specific concepts processes. and terms as needed among the design team In addition, it should be noted that constraints members and other partakers in the project? Con- proliferate (Reitman 1964). Each new creative curring with observations by Mamykina, Candy, choice entails new creativity constraints, and the and Edmonds (2002), we have experienced the more radical they are, the more severely they cut need to quickly agree on a transparent language off paths to potential solutions that may be better with concise concepts in our interaction design than what is compatible with the new self- research projects. A main reason for this is the imposed creativity constraints. As mentioned, fact that these projects have included many crea- there is no guarantee that such self-binding may tive professionals trained in diverse disciplines, be reconcilable with the original problem, in this but all forced to engage in creative collaboration case a design brief (see Section 3.4.1). Like all crea- on the fly. We hold the conviction that much tive processes, it is by no means certain that the research into creativity constraints in design and outcome following from an application of self- beyond contains unexplored exciting insights imposed creativity constraints, let alone decisive still confined by imprecise conceptualisations constraints, is good or successful in terms of how and fettered by lack of definitions. Such insights well the end product, be it an artefact or a design, represent a rich resource just waiting to be is eventually received by the market, critics, users, unfurled. Our emphasis on creativity constraints

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 etc. On a more speculative note, the reasons for as being of major importance to not only future such an undesirable outcome could possibly be design research, but creativity research as such, found in aesthetic or cost-related inadequacies or is echoed by Kaufman and Sternberg, whose exaggerations (among others), and there is no closing chapter in the most recent edition of the doubt that decisive constraints may be utilised in seminal The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity a non-productive way. Similarly, working with (2010) specifically links new avenues of thought too few creativity constraints may lead to the in creativity research to a refined understanding same adverse effect: an unsuccessful final design. of constraints (Sternberg and Kaufman 2010). Both are valid concerns; however, addressing Obvious next steps in terms of research will be these complex issues more in depth lies beyond to further explore constraints as a resource in crea- the scope of this article, as our interest is explicitly tive processes in related disciplines and areas of the resourcefulness of decisive constraints. research, not least the arts, including the perform- The aim of our core contribution, the proposed ing and the plastic arts, analogue and digital media concept ‘decisive constraints’, has been to show and individual and collaborative processes. A key

55 Biskjaer and Halskov

point of interest will be a more in-depth analysis of creativity constraints are malleable insofar as the delimitation of self-imposed creativity con- they can be challenged and modified (e.g. straints in general and decisive constraints in par- imposed technical constraints in interaction ticular. Another topic to be studied in more depth design), some are not, as they are always already is constraint management as balancing constraints embedded and present in the creative agent’s fac- (see also Onarheim 2012b). As our present scope ulties. How these two types of creativity con- is exploratory and descriptive with the limitations straints converge and affect each other is an that this approach entails (Dalsgaard, Halskov, and interesting topic that calls for more research (see Nielsen 2008; Dalsgaard and Halskov 2012), the also Onarheim and Friis-Olivarius 2013). Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 critical question to inform such future studies is a prescriptive (normative) one: how to do it well, meaning concrete strategies for use of creativity 6 Conclusions constraints as a means to elevate creative perform- In this article, we have shown how our proposed ance and spur progression in order to attain orig- analytical concept ‘decisive constraints’ can inality in the final outcome, not only in design, serve to inform an improved understanding of but potentially in various creative practices. Onar- design processes. As a theoretical contribution, heim (2012a) has taking steps in that direction in a our concept has been formulated to help gain study of engineering design, and together we are better insight into some of the crucial ways in currently building on previous observations of which creativity constraints, radical decision- expert handling of creativity constraints (Biskjaer, making and creative turning points converge in Onarheim, and Wiltschnig 2011) in an investi- the design process in a unique way that may lead gation of how to establish the ‘right’ amount of to dead ends, but, more importantly, may also be constrainedness by manipulating fixed creativity a path toward a genuinely original final design sol- constraints (inherent and imposed) or, conversely, ution. Our point of departure for case-grounding by freely adding extra ones (self-imposed) to enter our analytical concept in order to show relevance a so-called ‘sweet spot’ of creativity as a malleable for design practice has been interaction design as (design) space where the agent(s) feel(s) most pro- our primary domain, here instanced as three ductive (Onarheim and Biskjaer forthcoming). cases of interaction design experiments that have As the art examples above suggest, the process led to examples of innovative media architecture. of artistic creation, as opposed to the artefact and The three case examples illustrate the complex its appropriation, is yet to be probed more compre- correlativity of creativity constraints in a design hensively by scholars working within philosophy process, and the intricate dynamic interplay of aesthetics (a notable exception is the work by between timeframes, materials, levels of

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 Gaut and Livingston [2003]). Currently, there is and interaction, costs, etc. as examples of creativ- not even an established paradigm for a philosophy ity constraints seems a promising topic for coming of creativity, although the interest in the topic is studies. Informed by lessons from these cases, a growing (see D.R. Stokes 2006, 2008; Gaut first conjecture would be to probe key concepts 2010, 2012; Klausen 2010). Scholars from other such as context and content to help analyse, con- disciplines, from Scho¨n’s (1983, 1987) seminal ceptualise and concretise opportunities for pro- studies of creative professionals to recent contri- moting creative originality or excellence as these butions from management science (Austen 2010) emerge in the design process. have contributed to this field, and the findings’ rel- To ensure conceptual consistency, analytical evance to the more art-oriented milieus in the relevance and practical applicability, we have humanities seems clear, albeit still little explored. built decisive constraints on two preconditions, Finally, we would like to note that also neuroscien- definitional conditions 1 (related to radical tific research seems an exciting new area for future decision-making) and 2 (related to creative research into creativity constraints. While some turning points). Informed by a review of key

56 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

contributions to previous and current constraint University’s interdisciplinary research centre for 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital research, this has entailed a new reading of Participatory Information Technology. Darke’s (1979) concept ‘primary generator’, as we argue that there may be more than one, and that such particularly important (decisive) self- References imposed creativity constraints grounded in Abuhamedeh, S., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2004. “The radical decision-making are integral to shaping Artistic Personality: A Systems Perspective.” In Crea- the solution space and evolve in response to tivity: From Potential to Realization, edited by R. J. Sternberg, E. I. Grigorenko, and J. L. Singer, 31–42. dynamic project settings. Also, our proposed con- Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ceptualisation enables a new interpretation of Andrews, C. 2003. “Constraint and Convention: The Nelson and Stolterman’s (2012, 31) theory of Formalism of the Oulipo.” Neophilologus 87 (2): design as a process of ‘moving from the universal, 223–232. general, and particular to the ultimate particular – Austen, H. 2010. Artistry Unleashed. Toronto: Univer- the specific design’. In this view, introducing deci- sity of Toronto Press. sive constraints in a given design process may be Basballe, D. A., and K. Halskov. 2012. “Dynamics of seen as an intentional ‘push’ toward greater con- Research Through Design.” In Proceedings of the creteness and complexity in the transition from Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS idea to final design. As much as we would like 2012), 58–67. New York: ACM. to explore our proposed concept’s potential rel- Biskjaer, M. M., B. Onarheim, and S. Wiltschnig. 2011. evance for other aspects of design theory, includ- “The Ambiguous Role of Constraints in Creativity: ing a thorough discussion of and reflection on its A Cross-Domain Exploration.” In Proceedings of limitations, it is beyond the scope of this article Design, Development and Research Conference, to investigate the potential of decisive constraints Annual Research Conference of the Faculty of Infor- when applied to some of the main design para- matics and Design, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, 26–27 September 2011, Cape Town, digms such as , engineering, human- South Africa, 104–114. centred design, user-centred design and, very recently, Balanced, Integrative and Generous Biskjaer,M.M.,P.Dalsgaard,andK.Halskov.2010.“Crea- tivityMethods inInteractionDesign.”In Proceedingsof (BIG) design (Cockton 2012), among others. the First Conference on Creativity and Innovation in However, with our proposal of ‘decisive con- Design (DESIRE 2010),12–21.NewYork:ACM. straints’ as an analytical concept to help gain Bjo¨rk. 2004. Medu´lla. One Little Indian/warner Bros. new insights into decision-making and turning ASIN: B0002JUXBO Compact disc. points in design processes, and as a concrete Boden, M. A. 1999. “Computer Models of Creativity.” means for practitioners to embrace creativity con- In Handbook of Creativity, edited by R. J. Sternberg,

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 straints as an inspiring resource, our intention has 351–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. been to make the path toward these and related Boden, M. A. [1990] 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths creative endeavours more accessible. and Mechanisms. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Boden, M. A. 2010. Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Acknowledgements Surprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boland, R. J., Jr, F. Collopy, K. Lyytinen, and Y. Yoo. We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers 2008. “Managing as Designing: Lessons for Organ- for insightful comments and constructive criticism, ization Leaders from the Design Practice of Frank which helped shape the core contribution of this O. Gehry.” Design Issues 24 (1): 10–25. article. Moreover, we would like to thank our indus- Borges, J. L. [1946] 2004. The Aleph and Other Stories. try partners BIG and Martin Professional. This London: Penguin Classics. research has been funded by Centre for Digital Bratman, M. 1999. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays Urban Living (the Danish Council for Strategic on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge Research, grant 09-063245) and by Aarhus University Press.

57 Biskjaer and Halskov

Brown, T. 2008. “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Dalsgaard, P., and K. Halskov. 2012. “Reflective Review 86 (6): 84–92. Design Documentation.” In Proceedings of the Brown, T., and B. Katz. 2009. Change by Design. Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS New York: Harper Business. 2012), 428–437. New York: ACM. Brynskov, M., P. Dalsgaard, T. Ebsen, J. Fritsch, K. Dalsgaard, P., K. Halskov, and R. Nielsen. 2008. “Maps Halskov, and R. Nielsen. 2009. “Staging Urban Inter- for Design Reflection.” Artifact 2 (3–4): 176–189. actions with Media Fac¸ades.” In Proceedings of the Damali, B. Z. A., and F. A. McGuire. 2013. “The 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Enabling Potential of Constraints.” Journal of Human–Computer Interaction: Part 1 (INTERACT Leisure Research 45 (2): 136–149.

Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 2009), 24–28 August 2009, Uppsala, Sweden, Darke, J. 1979. “The Primary Generator and the Design 154–167. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03655-2-20. Process.” 1 (1): 36–44. Chandrasekaran, B. 1990. “Design Problem Solving: A Dorst, K., and N. Cross. 2001. “Creativity in the Design Task Analysis.” AI magazine 11 (4): 59–71. Process: Co-evolution of Problem-Solution.” Design Christensen, B. T., B. Onarheim, and L. J. Ball. 2010. Studies 22 (5): 425–437. “Design Requirements, Epistemic Uncertainty and Elster, J. [1979] 1984. Ulysses and the Sirens. Revised Solution Development Strategies in Software ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Design.” Design Studies 31 (6): 567–589. Elster, J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Cockton, G. 2012. “UCD: Critique via Parody and a Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge: Cam- Sequel.” In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM bridge University Press. Annual Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems (ALT.CHI 2012), 1–10. New York: Farlex. The Free Dictionary. “constrain.” Accessed April ACM. 25, 2011. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constrain. Coughlan, T., and P. Johnson. 2007. “Constrain Your- Farlex. The Free Dictionary. “decisive.” Accessed selves: Exploring End User Development in December 12, 2011. http://www.thefreedictionary. Support for Musical Creativity.” In Proceedings of com/decisive. the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Farlex. The Free Legal Dictionary. “beyond a reason- Cognition, 247–248. New York: ACM. able doubt.” Accessed January 27,2013. http:// Coughlan, T., and P. Johnson. 2008. “An Exploration of legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a Constraints and End User Development in Environ- +Reasonable+Doubt. ments for Creative Tasks.” International Journal of Fischer, G., 2004. “Social Creativity: Turning Barriers Human–Computer Interaction 24 (5): 444–459. into Opportunities for Collaborative Design.” In Cross, N. 2004. “Expertise in Design: An Overview.” Proceedings of the Conference Design Studies 25 (5): 427–441. (PDC 2004), 152–161. New York: ACM. Dalsgaard, P. 2010. “Research In and Through Design – Frayling, C. 1993. “Research in Art and Design.” Royal An Interaction Design Research Approach.” In Pro- College of Art Research Papers 1 (1): 1–5. Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 ceedings of Conference of the Computer–Human Gaut, B. 2009. “Creativity and Skill.” In The Idea of Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Creativity, edited by M. Krausz, D. Dutton, and K. Computer–Human Interaction (OZCHI 2010), Bardsley, 83–103. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. 200–203. New York: ACM. Gaut, B. 2010. “The Philosophy of Creativity.” Philos- Dalsgaard, P., and K. Halskov. 2010. “Designing Urban ophy Compass 5 (12): 1034–1046. Media Fac¸ades: Cases and Challenges.” In Proceed- ings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Gaut, B. 2012. “Creativity and Rationality.” Journal of Computing Systems (CHI 2010), 2277–2286. Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70 (3): 259–270. New York: ACM. Gaut, B., and P. Livingston. 2003. The Creation of Art: Dalsgaard, P., and K. Halskov. 2011. “3D Projection on New Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics. New York: Physical Objects: Design Insights from Five Real Cambridge University Press. Life Cases.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer- Gaver, W. 2012. “What Should We Expect from ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems Research Through Design?” In Proceedings of the (CHI 2011), 1041–1050. New York: ACM. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput-

58 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

ing Systems (CHI 2012), 937–946. New York: Klausen, S. H. 2010. “The Notion of Creativity 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital ACM. Revisited: A Philosophical Perspective on Creativ- Goldratt, E. M. 1990. Theory of Constraints (TOC). ity Research.” Creativity Research Journal 22 (4): Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press. 347–360. Gross, M. D. 1986. “Design as Exploring Constraints.” Korsgaard, H., N. B. Hansen, D. Basballe, P. Dalsgaard, PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. and K. Halskov. 2012. “Odenplan: A Media Fac¸ade Design Process.” In Proceedings of the 4th Media Guilford, J. P. 1950. “Creativity.” American Psycholo- Architecture Biennale Conference (MAB 2012), gist 5 (9): 444–454. 23–32. New York: ACM. Guilford, J. P., and J. Paul. 1967. The Nature of Human Koskinen, I. K., J. Zimmerman, T. Binder, J. Redstro¨m, Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. and S. Wensveen. 2011. Design Research Through Halskov, K. 2011. “Design Research Lab (Day in the Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Lab Series).” ACM Interactions xviii (4): 92–95. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Halskov, K., and P. Dalsgaard. 2006. “Inspiration Card Lankester, E. R. 1896. “Charles Robert Darwin.” In Workshop.” In Proceedings of the Designing Inter- Library of the World’s Best Literature Ancient and active Systems Conference (DIS 2006), 2–11. Modern, edited by C. D. Warner. Vol. 2, 4385– New York: ACM. 4393. New York: R. S. Peale & J. A. Hill. Accessed Halskov, K., and P. Dalsgaard. 2007. “The Emergence August 15, 2013. http://darwin-online.org.uk/ of Ideas: The Interplay between Sources of Inspi- content/frameset?itemID¼F2113&viewtype¼text& ration and Emerging Design Concepts.” CoDesign pageseq¼1. 3 (4): 185–211. Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Halskov, K., and T. Ebsen. 2013. “A Framework for Process Demystified. Oxford: Elsevier/ Architec- Designing Complex Media Fac¸ades.” Design tural. Studies 34 (5): 663–679. Levinson, J. 2003. “Elster on Artistic Creativity.” In The Harre´, R. 1970. “Constraints and Restraints.” Metaphi- Creation of Art: New Essays in Philosophical Aes- losophy 1 (4): 279–299. thetics, edited by B. Gaut and P. Livingston, 235– 256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holyoak, K. J., and P. Thagard. 1996. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: Lewandowski, J. 2007. “Boxing: The Sweet Science of MIT Press. Constraints.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 34 (1): 26–38. Isaak, M. I. and M. A. Just. 1995. “Constraints on Thinking in Insight and Invention.” In The Nature Li, J. 1997. “Creativity in Horizontal and Vertical of Insight, edited by R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson, Domains.” Creativity Research Journal 10 (2–3): 281–325. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 107–132. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1988. “Freedom and Constraint in Livingston, P. 2007. Art and Intention: A Philosophical Creativity.” In The Nature of Creativity: Contempor- Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 ary Psychological Perspectives, edited by R. J. Livingston, P. 2009. “Poincare´’s ‘Delicate Sieve’: On Sternberg, 202–219. New York: Cambridge Univer- Creativity and Constraints in the Arts.” In The Idea sity Press. of Creativity, edited by M. Krausz, D., and K. Bards- Joyce, C. K. 2009. “The Blank Page: Effects of Con- ley, 129–146. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. straint on Creativity.” PhD diss., University of Cali- Lo¨wgren, J., and E. Stolterman. 2004. Thoughtful Inter- fornia, Berkeley. action Design: A Design Perspective on Information Kaplan, C. A., and H. A. Simon. 1990. “In Search of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Insight.” Cognitive Psychology 22 (3): 374–419. Lubart, T. I. 1999. “Creativity Across Cultures.” In Kaufman, J. C., and R. J. Sternberg, eds. 2010. The Handbook of Creativity, edited by R. J. Sternberg, Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: 339–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge University Press. Press. Kavakli, M., and J. S. Gero, 2002. “The Structure of Con- Maher, M. L., and J. Poon. 1996. “Modeling Design current Cognitive Actions: A Case Study on Novice Exploration as Co-evolution.” Computer-Aided Civil and Expert Designers.” Design Studies 23 (1): 25–40. and Infrastructure Engineering 11 (3): 195–209.

59 Biskjaer and Halskov

Mamykina, L., L. Candy, and E. Edmonds. 2002. “Col- Processes.” In Proceedings of the First Conference laborative Creativity.” Communications of the ACM on Creativity and Innovation in Design (DESIRE 45 (10): 96–99. 2010), 83–89. New York: ACM. Mathews, H., and A. Brotchie, eds. 2005. Oulipo Com- Pearce, M., and G. A. Wiggins. 2002. “Aspects of a Cog- pendium. Revised and updated ed. London: Atlas nitive Theory of Creativity in Musical Composition.” Press/Make Now Press. In Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Crea- McDonnell, J. 2011. “Impositions of Order: A Compari- tive Systems, 21–26 July 2002, Lyon, 17–24. son between Design and Fine Art Practices.” Design Amsterdam: IOS Press. Studies 32 (6): 557–572. Peterson, D. R., J. D. Barrett, K. S. Hester, I. C.

Digital Creativity, Vol. 25, No. 1 Miller, A. I. 2000. Insights of Genius: Imagery and Robledo, D. F. Hougen, E. A. Day, and M. D. Creativity in Science and Art. Cambridge, MA: Mumford. 2013. “Teaching People to Manage Con- MIT Press. straints: Effects on Creative Problem-solving.” Creativity Research Journal 25 (3): 335–347. Nelson, H. G., and E. Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable Reitman, W. R. 1964. “Heuristic Decision Procedures, World. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Open Contraints, and the Structure of Ill-defined Problems.” In Human Judgments and Optimality, Norman, D. A. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. edited by M. W. Shelley and G. L. Bryan, 282– Reprint ed. New York: Basic Books. 315. New York: Wiley. Nuseibeh, B., and S. Easterbrook. 2000. “Requirements Reitman, W. R. 1965. Cognition and Thought: An Infor- Engineering: A Roadmap.” In Proceedings of the mation Processing Approach. Oxford: Wiley. Future of Software Engineering Conference (ICSE 2000), 35–46. New York: ACM. Robinson, K. 2011. Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative. 2nd ed. Chichester: Capstone/Wiley. Onarheim, B. 2012a. “Creativity from Constraints in Engineering Design: Lessons Learned at Coloplast.” Runco, M. A., and R. S. Albert. 2010. “Creativity Journal of Engineering Design 23 (4): 323–336. Research: A Historical View.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by J. C. Kaufman Onarheim, B. 2012b. “Creativity under Constraints: and R .J. Sternberg, 3–19. New York: Cambridge Creativity as Balancing ‘Constrainedness’.” PhD University Press. diss., Copenhagen Business School. Scho¨n, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Onarheim, B., and M. Friis-Olivarius. 2013. “Applying New York: Basic Books. the Neuroscience of Creativity to Creativity Train- ing.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (656). Scho¨n, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Prac- doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656. Accessed Septem- titioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ber 21, 2013. Available from: http://www. Simon, H. A. 1973. “The Structure of Ill Structured Pro- frontiersin.org/Journal/Abstract.aspx?s¼537& name blems.” Artificial Intelligence 4 (3–4): 181–201. ¼human%20neuroscience&ART_DOI¼10.3389 Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd ed. /fnhum.2013.00656. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 Onarheim, B. and M. M. Biskjaer. 2013. “An Introduc- Simon, H. A., and A. Newell. 1972. Human Problem tion to ‘Creativity Constraints’.” In Proceedings of Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. the XXIV ISPIM Conference – Innovating in Global Markets: Challenges for Sustainable Stacey, M., and C. Eckert. 2010. “Reshaping the Box: Growth (ISPIM 2013). Helsinki, June 16–19, Creative Designing as Constraint Management.” 2013, 1–16. International Journal of Product Development 11 (3): 241–255. Onarheim, B., and M. M. Biskjaer. Forthcoming. “Bal- ancing Constraints and the Sweet Spot as Coming Stefik, M. 1981. “Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Topics for Creativity Research.” In Creativity in Part 1).” Artificial Intelligence 16 (2): 111–139. Design: Understanding, Capturing, Supporting, Stember, M. 1991. “Advancing the Social Sciences edited by L. J. Ball, B. T. Christensen, J. Mota, and through the Interdisciplinary Enterprise.” The J.-B. Martens. Social Science Journal 28 (1): 1–14. Onarheim, B., and S. Wiltschnig. 2010. “Opening and Sternberg, R. J., and J. C. Kaufman. 2010. “Constraints Constraining: Constraints and Their Role in Creative on Creativity: Obvious and not so Obvious.” In The

60 Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design

Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by J. C. edited by R. J. Sternberg, 226–250. Cambridge: 1 No. 25, Vol. Creativity, Digital Kaufman and R. J. Sternberg, 467–482. New Cambridge University Press. York: Cambridge University Press. Weisberg, R. W. 2010. “The Study of Creativity: From Sternberg, R. J., ed. 1999. Handbook of Creativity. Cam- Genius to Cognitive Science.” International bridge: Cambridge University Press. Journal of Cultural Policy 16 (3): 235–253. Sternberg, R. J., and J. E. Davidson, eds. 1995. The Wiltschnig, S., and B. Onarheim. 2010. “Insights into Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Insight – How Do In-Vitro Studies of Creative Stokes, D. R. 2006. “Minimal Creativity: A Cognitive Insight Match the Real-World Complexity of In- Model.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia. Vivo Design Processes?” In Proceedings of the Conference (DRS 2010), Stokes, D. R. 2008. “A Metaphysics of Creativity.” In 7–9 July 2010, Montreal. Article no. 130. Accessed New Waves in Aesthetics, edited by K. Stock and January 27, 2013. http://www.drs2010.umontreal. K. Thomson-Jones, 105–124. New York: Palgrave ca/data/PDF/130.pdf. MacMillan. Wiltschnig, S., B. T. Christensen, and L. J. Ball. Stokes, P. D. 2006. Creativity from Constraints: The 2013. “Collaborative Problem–Solution Co- Psychology of Breakthrough. New York: Springer. evolution in Creative Design.” Design Studies Stokes, P. D. 2007. “Using Constraints to Generate and 34 (5): 515–542. Sustain Novelty.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativ- Zimmerman, J., E. Stolterman, and J. Forlizzi. 2010. ity, and the Arts 1 (2): 107–113. “Analysis and Critique of Research Through Stokes, P. D. 2008. “Creativity from Constraints: What Design: A Formalization of a Research Approach.” Can We Learn from Motherwell? From Mondrian? In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive From Klee?” The Journal of Creative Behavior 42 Systems Conference (DIS 2010), 310–319. (4): 223–236. New York: ACM. Stokes, P. D. 2009. “Using Constraints to Create Novelty: A Case Study.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Michael Mose Biskjaer is a PhD fellow, MA, at Creativity, and the Arts 3 (3): 174–180. the Department of Aesthetics and Communication Stokes, P. D., and D. Fisher. 2005. “Selection, Con- at Aarhus University, Denmark. Working at the straints, and Creativity Case Studies: Max Beck- intersection of philosophy, aesthetics, design and mann and Philip Guston.” Creativity Research creativity, his current research focuses on the Journal 17 (2): 283–291. role of creativity constraints and especially volun- Symes, C. 1999. “Writing by Numbers: OuLiPo and the tary self-restraint in creative processes. Previous Creativity of Constraints.” Mosaic (Winnipeg) 32 work includes an innovation project with the (3): 87–107. LEGO Group and recently a stay as a visiting Thagard, P., and K. Verbeurgt. 1998. “Coherence as Con- researcher at Stanford University in California. straint Satisfaction.” Cognitive Science 22 (1): 1–24. Downloaded by [50.161.102.194] at 14:25 22 January 2014 Vandenbosch, B., and K. Gallagher. 2004. “The Role of Kim Halskov is Professor of Interaction Design at Constraints.” In Managing as Designing, edited by R. J. Boland Jr. and F. Collopy, 198–202. Palo the Department of Aesthetics and Communication Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. at Aarhus University, Denmark, where, in addition to being director of the Centre for Advanced Visu- Weisberg, R. W. 1986. Creativity: Genius and Other Myths. New York: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/ alization and Interaction (http://www.CAVI.au. Henry Holt. dk), he is also co-director of the Centre for Weisberg, R. W. 2006. Creativity: Understanding Inno- Participatory Information Technology (www.PIT. vation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and au.dk). From a background in participatory the Arts. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. design, Kim Halskov’s research areas include Weisberg, R. W. 1999. “Creativity and Knowledge: A innovation processes, design processes and Challenge to Theories.” In Handbook of Creativity, transformation of design ideas.

61