Task 1: Applying Creative Style to Products of Design andInvention In this essay, I would like for you to explore the‘creative style’ and ‘creative level’ of a contemporary product (ofyour choosing) that has had an impact on today’s society. In doingso, you will be extending the concepts of creative style andcreative level to the analysis of this new product in order to gainfurther insight into the ‘type of innovation’ this productrepresents in relation to the prevailing paradigm in which theproduct is found. For this engineering design assessment, I wouldlike for you to apply the criteria detailed in the article entitled“Sorting Out Creativity in Design AssessmentPreview thedocumentView in a new window” by Jablokow and DeCristoforo (2008).Specifically, your task is as follows: First, select a contemporaryproduct that has had an impact on today’s society (e.g., ipod;tablet PCs; smartphones; digital cameras, etc.) as well as theproduct's predecessor(s) that you will use as a benchmark toevaluate the product’s design change. Provide an overview of theprevailing paradigm in which the predecessor product is found.Assess the creative level of the new product using the criteriadetailed in Table 1 of Jablokow and Decristoforo’s (2008) article.Next, apply the creative style assessment framework to evaluate thenew product in light of the six factors proposed by Jablokow andDecristoforo – namely, the type of technological change,acceptability, feasibility, efficiency, method and knowledgecontent. Please include an explanation to justify your rating ofcreative style for each of the six factors. Based on yourevaluation of this product, would you conclude that the style ofchange generally represents an evolutionary or incremental (andtherefore, more adaptive) change to the currenttechnical/scientific/business paradigm, or is it more of arevolutionary or tangential (and therefore, more innovative)change? Finally, describe how the Paradox of Structure applies tothis particular product. Task 2: Looking Forward – A New Group (andProblem A) to Analyze Throughout this course, you will be asked toapply what we are learning to a specific professional group ofwhich you are NOW a member. The group can be large or small (Note:a group of at least 3 members is required, but preferably ~5members) and your role in the group can be of any variety (justjoined or long-time member, junior or senior position, etc.). Twocaveats apply, however: You must be willing to discuss the dynamicsof this group openly in your assignments (potentially sharing somedetails with your classmates, although you need not reveal actualnames - you can use aliases) There must be some “interesting”dynamics involved that you would like to (perhaps need to)understand better; these assignments are aimed at giving youpractical experience that will be useful immediately! Choose agroup that will provide some rich ground for analysis (and someexperimentation on your part) during the course. NOTE: If you areunsure of your choice of group, please confer with your instructor.Task 2 Requirements: For your analysis, you will be performing acognitive diversity audit of your group by first characterizing theproblem solving profiles of each team member, performing ananalysis of the nature of Problem A, as well as the Person-Personand Person-Problem cognitive gaps. With this backdrop, the specificrequirements of the task are as follows: 1. Identify and describethe group’s members in detail (including yourself!), based on thefour principal variables of problem solving – i.e., level, style,motive, and opportunity: Please begin with some basic facts abouteach individual to help set the stage – i.e., who are they, whatare their functions/roles in the group, how long have they been amember of the group, etc. Proceed to describe each individual’sproblem solving profile in as much detail as you can – i.e.,provide a description of each person’s level (both type anddegree), style (your estimation),motives, and access to (andperceptions of) opportunity – all as relevant to the group’scurrent Problem A (see #2 below). 2. Identify, describe, andanalyze the group’s shared Problem A in detail – using Lesson 2,Section B as your guide. That is: consider level, style, motive,opportunity, and the problem as a moving target in your analysis ofthe problem. Remember to consider why this particular group wasformed in general, as well as the particular problem of interest.3. Identify, describe, and analyze Person-Person and Person-Problemgaps in your analysis, using the following steps to guide you:Describe in detail the cognitive gaps within your problem solvinggroup (Person-Person and Person-Problem; level, style, motive, andopportunity). Use diagrams to help illustrate your cognitive gapanalysis (see Lesson 2, Section A and Lesson 3, Section A for someoptions). Discuss how you might begin to “narrow” some of the gapsyou have just described and experiment (briefly, but deliberately)with at least one of your ideas – then report on the results(whatever your degree of success!).