In order to solve today's complex problems in the world of software development, technical knowledge is no longer enough. Previous studies investigating and identifying nontechnical skills of software engineers show that creative skills also play an important role in tackling difficult problems. However, creativity is typically a very vague concept to which everyone gives their own interpretation. Also, there is little research that focuses specifically on creativity in the field of software engineering. To better understand the role of creativity in this field, we conducted four focus groups, inviting 33 experts from four nationally and internationally renowned companies in total. This resulted in 399 minutes of transcripts, further coded into 39 sub-themes grouped into seven categories: technical knowledge, communication, constraints, critical thinking, curiosity, creative state of mind, and creative techniques. This study identifies the added value of creativity, which creative techniques are used, how creativity can be recognized, the reasons for being creative, and what environment is needed to facilitate creative work. Our ultimate goal is to use these findings to instill and further encourage the creative urge among undergraduate students in higher education.

When making an architectural design, many criteria (e.g. budget, function, expression, environment) have to be taken into account. Structural stability is one of these criteria. Since the shape of the building is directly related to the structure which holds it together, the structural system of the building is basically designed when the shape is designed. Therefore it is important for architect and structural engineer to work together early in the design process in order to design architectural shape and structure together.The work of the structural engineer consists mainly of an incomputable creative part (e.g. designing the structural system) and of a computable scientific part (e.g. dimensioning a structural element). When designing the structural system, the engineer operates within the logics, objectives and culture of the engineering field. The same can be stated about the architect when designing the architectural shape. When the design step is taken considering the logics, objectives and culture of only one discipline, the author calls this mono-disciplinary creativity.This type of creativity often occurs when the design process develops through a sequence of single solution propositions (e.g. a dimensioned structure) in answer to precise defined questions from the opposite field(e.g. to dimension the structure for an already designed shape). This type of sequential decision making process, follows a leader/follower protocol (Lewis & Mistree 1997). The collaboration between architect and engineer is then mainly a negotiation of the volumetric dimensions of the architectural shape and the structure.The author's research wants to promote a design process where the design steps operate within the logics, objectives and culture of both fields, and architectural shape and structure are designed simultaneously and not in consecutive order: the design of the architectural shape is considering structural objectives and the design of the structure is considering architectural objectives. This design process involves a multi-disciplinary creativity, as the author has called it, and refers to Arup's search for an 'integral design' (Arup 1970).

Despite extensive knowledge on disaster risk reduction and knowledge transfer studies since the 1970s in management and classroom situations, the adoption of knowledge to reconstruct more hazard-resistant housing after a natural disaster is still rare in self-recovery processes. Approximately 85% of the disaster affected populations recover without humanitarian or governmental shelter assistance. Hazard-resistant construction guidelines are infrequently applied, and new insights from scientific research rarely lead to changes in policy and practice. As a result, disaster affected populations remain vulnerable in case of recurring disasters. The focus of this study is to understand where and why the exchange of knowledge and adoption of knowledge fails in the self-recovery process. The literature presents causes for the rejection of knowledge as the lack of institutional structures and communicating science, and proposes to engage both ends of the producer-user spectrum in a dialogue to negotiate a consensual view of what is feasible and desirable. Currently, governmental and humanitarian organisations involved in recovery aid have difficulty designing communicative interactions effectively in communities using and diffusing hazard-resistant construction guidelines. To reach and support the 85% in self-recovery processes, there is a need to develop an adequate understanding of how knowledge exchange and adoption in such interactions can be more effective. To address this challenge, we propose an analytical framework to evaluate knowledge transfer interventions in self-recovery processes. Current knowledge interactions in post-disaster recovery are examined and critically analysed using existing knowledge exchange literature. The framework intends to highlight barriers and failure mechanisms that may hamper the knowledge adoption. This analysis provides proposals based on logic to overcome these obstacles; lifting barriers, strengthening trust, matching need and knowledge and reducing risk of adoption failure. The value of these proposals needs to be verified in field research. In line with the proposals a second framework is proposed, that enables the analysis of knowledge exchange interventions, as knowledge exchange is essential for adoption.