For my dutch thesis I was experimenting on how to make agents, in a simulation, produce a creative action. Translating the concept literary from dutch gives us "improper use". The literal translation does not capture the essence. Missing the proper words to suggest what the research did I came up with "appropriation" as title (Kiemen 2003). Only in 2013 I found a better word and a research community I can relate to. The proper word is "exaptation": an evolutionary process in which a given adaptation is first naturally selected for, and subsequently used by the organism for something other than its original, intended purpose (Gould, S. J. and S. Vrba. 1982). To understand how expatiation was investigated in my agent simulations see the 2006 EMCR paper ( see publications)
The research has shifted a study on individual creativity to organization innovation. The problem with simulations and novelty-theory is the lack of embodied complexity. Simulations are good to create complex interaction, but novelty requires complex embodiment of environment and agents. In simulations, embodied complexity is pruned out, making it hard to do realistic experiments. Virtual worlds are too much simplified (saving process power) and real robots are not complex in their embodiment. To avoid shifting the research on building complex environments and bodies this part has postponed in the attempt to learn more on novelty by investigating support for radical innovation and working with people (real agents and real environments). The shift has an interesting reverse of control. While agent simulation use free interactions, but build the agents. The support framework are regulating the interaction with free agents.