Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity David Cropley and Arthur Cropley University of South Australia University of Hamburg Creativity and the “failure” of engineers Creativity has been a topic of interest to writers in different areas for many years, stretching back to antiquity. However, earlier discussions focused mainly on art, literature, music, dance and similar areas, what we will refer to later in this chapter as “aesthetic” or “artistic” creativity. This situation changed drastically about 50 years ago. The turning point was the successful launching in 1957 by the then Soviet Union of the first artificial earth satellite, Sputnik I. In the United States of America and most North American-Western European societies this event led to a wave of self-criticism that centered mainly on the argument that the western world’s engineers had failed. At first it was not clear where the cause of their failure lay. However, the 1949 address of the incoming president of the American Psychological Association (Guilford, 1950) had already laid the groundwork for an answer that was quickly seized upon when the crisis occurred. Guilford argued that psychologists (and as a result teachers, educational theorists, parents, even politicians) had in their definitions of human intellectual functioning placed too much emphasis on acquiring factual knowledge, recalling it rapidly and accurately, reapplying it in a logical manner in order to find the single best answer to a problem, applying existing skills in a well- practiced, economical and tidy way in new situations, having clearly defined and concretely specified goals, working quickly, resisting distractions, following instructions, and similar processes. According to Guilford these define “convergent” thinking. They are undoubtedly of great value. Indeed, as Sternberg (1997) pointed out, abilities of this kind have dominated the definition of intelligence from the beginning of its widespread use in about 1920.