Creativity in MS/OR: Choosing the Appropriate ... - Semantic Scholar

Creativity in MS/OR: Choosing the Appropriate Technique Elspeth McFadzean

T

Henley Management College Greenlands Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU, England

here is a great need for creativity within the MS/OR environment. Managers must be capable of defining problems, developing novel solutions, and implementing them effectively. A lot of research has focused on creativity. For example, Evans [1993] and McFadzean [forthcoming] discussed methods of improving creative thinking in people; Couger [1995], McFadzean [1998a], and VanGundy [1988] presented techniques that can encourage participants to develop more novel ideas; and Evans [1997a, 1997b] and VanGundy [1992] described the creative problem-solving process. I focus on creative problem-solving (CPS) techniques and how best to choose the most appropriate for a given situation. To this end, therefore, I have categorized the techniques and placed them in a continuum ranging from paradigm-preserving

techniques to paradigm-breaking techniques. The Creativity Continuum Many creative problem-solving techniques are more effectively used by groups that are supported by a facilitator. This is because the facilitator can help to guide the participants through the process and help the group members to behave in a positive and constructive manner [McFadzean 1998b; Nelson and McFadzean 1998; Osborn 1957; Schwarz 1994]. In addition, the facilitator can also advise the participants on the most appropriate and effective methods for their particular situation. The most commonly used creative problem-solving technique is brainstorming, but there are countless other techniques that can be utilized. These include force field analysis, 5Ws Ⳮ H, morphological analysis, word diamond,

Copyright 䉷 1999 INFORMS 0092-2102/99/2905/0110/$05.00 1526–551X electronic ISSN This paper was refereed.

ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES—DECISION MAKING GAMES/GROUP DECISIONS—TEAMS

INTERFACES 29: 5 September–October 1999 (pp. 110–122)

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR rich pictures, reversals, and object stimulation [Couger 1995; McFadzean 1998a; VanGundy 1988, 1992]. Garfield et al. [1997] and McFadzean [1996] have found that some creative problem-solving techniques can encourage more novel ideas than others. Consequently, McFadzean [1998c, 1998d] has classified these techniques into the following categories: paradigm-preserving, paradigm-stretching, and paradigmbreaking (Figure 1). (1) Paradigm-preserving techniques do not force the participants to venture outside their own perspectives in exploring the situation. In other words, the boundaries around the problem remain unchanged. Paradigm-preserving techniques include such methods as brainstorming, force field analysis, and brainwriting [McFadzean 1998a]. In brainstorming, for example, the facilitator encourages participants to build on other people’s ideas. Consequently, they develop existing ideas but do not change them significantly. These techniques, however, can be very useful because they are easy to use and do not require participants to move outside their comfort zones. (2) Paradigm-stretching techniques encourage the participants to stretch their existing paradigms. The facilitator encourages this by utilizing unrelated stimuli and forced association. For example, the participants can force two unrelated words or concepts together to develop new ideas. The Internet, for instance, was developed by using two unrelated concepts, the telephone and the computer. It requires imagination to use these techniques effectively, and as a result, they

may make some participants feel uncomfortable. (3) Paradigm-breaking techniques can be very powerful and can encourage participants to develop very novel ideas. The participants produce creative ideas by bringing new elements into the problem situation and by developing new relationships between existing elements. By using this technique, the facilitator encourages the participants to break down their perceptions and to completely smash the problem’s boundaries. Paradigm-breaking techniques, like paradigm-stretching techniques, use unrelated stimuli and forced association. In addition, these techniques also tend to call for modes of expression other than verbal or written, such as drawing, dreaming, and role playing. This can make participants feel very uncomfortable, and therefore these techniques should be used only by groups of people who have a high degree of cohesion and trust.

September–October 1999

111

Visioning focuses on the future. According to McFadzean [1996] and Nagasundaram and Bostrom [1993], paradigm-preserving techniques do not tend to break or stretch the boundaries of the problem. These include brainstorming, brainwriting, and force field analysis [McFadzean 1998a]. Brainstorming Brainstorming was first devised by Alex F. Osborn in the late 1930s to stimulate small groups of individuals to come up with ideas on new product development, new methods of positioning existing prod-

McFADZEAN

Figure 1: These techniques can be placed in a continuum ranging from paradigm-preserving to paradigm-breaking techniques.

ucts, and new uses for old products. Later, however, brainstorming was used for different applications in a variety of settings, such as education, health, manufacturing, and government circles. Osborn [1957] describes his philosophy and approach in his two essential guiding principles: (1) The idea-generation phase must take place without any analysis or evaluation, which should be done only after the ideageneration phase has concluded; and (2) The quantity of ideas will ultimately yield quality. In other words, the more ideas generated, the more likely it is that the group will produce some good quality ideas. A facilitator can support a group of participants undertaking brainstorming using the following instructions: (1) Develop a problem statement and write it on a flip chart. (2) Reiterate the problem statement to the group, set out the ground rules, instruct the group on the purpose and process of

brainstorming, and, if necessary, conduct a warm-up exercise. (3) Ask the participants to generate possible solutions, without criticism, for about 30 to 45 minutes. The ideas should be recorded on a flip chart. Encourage the group members to continue generating ideas. (4) Lead the participants back through the list of ideas and encourage them to combine statements and identify valuable ideas. (5) Designate one person to receive and record any additional ideas that may occur to members after the meeting. To use brainstorming effectively, the participants must develop a focused problem statement [Evans 1996]. A statement that is too broad will only encourage participants to develop solutions that are also too broad to be effective. LeBoeuf [1980] presents a number of examples of brainstorming:

INTERFACES 29:5

112

—The Advertising Club in Cleveland carried out a brainstorming exercise to de-

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

—Argus Camera used brainstorming to develop methods of economizing on purchasing. The managers conducted three idea-generation sessions and produced a number of practical ideas that could yield savings of $46,000 per year. There has been extensive research on brainstorming over the past few years [Bouchard, Barsaloux, and Drauden 1974; Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Gallupe and Cooper 1993; Gallupe et al. 1992; Hill 1982; Madsen and Finger 1978]. This has resulted in some criticism regarding Osborn’s ideas. For example, nominal groups have consistently been shown to outperform interacting brainstorming groups in both the quantity and the quality of ideas produced [Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Hill 1982; Madsen and Finger 1978]. A nominal group consists of members who privately write down their ideas pertaining to the problem statement before presenting them to the group. Next, the ideas are discussed and then ranked independently by each group member. Finally, the group decision is made using a pooled ranking system [Stumpf, Zand, and Freedman 1979]. An interactive group, on the other hand, gen-

erates the alternatives, discusses the options and makes the decision by using verbal interaction from the outset of the process. In addition, Hitchings and Cox [1992] suggest that there are aspects of brainstorming that can be greatly improved. They found, for example, that one or two members of any group tended to be dominant, which reduced the free flow of ideas; many group members felt inhibited even though they were in an evaluation-free environment; and the sessions tended to become unstructured and informal unless a strong group leader was appointed. To combat these weaknesses, researchers have developed other techniques based on the idea of brainstorming. These techniques include brainwriting, SIL (Successive Integration of Problem Elements) method, and the stepladder technique [Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell, and Lowe 1992; VanGundy 1992]. Brainwriting Brainwriting does not require a lot of imagination and can therefore be used by groups that are newly formed or inexperienced. Moreover, the facilitator does not need much skill because it is very easy to set up and implement. The instructions for brainwriting are as follows: (1) Write the problem statement on a flip chart. (2) Ask the group members to write their ideas about the statement on separate sheets of paper (one statement per sheet) and put them in a pile on the center of the table (the pool). (3) Instruct individuals who need stimulation or want to piggyback ideas to exchange their sheets of paper with others

September–October 1999

113

velop effective methods to publicize Opera Week and to encourage as many people as possible to buy tickets. The club members generated 124 ideas, of which they implemented 29. Their solutions were effective because the seats at the opera were filled. —A management executive team developed ideas through brainstorming for a problem about engineering shortages. In 25 minutes, it produced 110 ideas, of which six were good enough to adopt.

McFADZEAN from the pool. (4) Continue the process of writing ideas and gaining stimulation from other people’s ideas for 10 to 15 minutes. (5) When the idea-generation phase ends, ask each group member to read an idea from the pool. Then stick the idea on the wall. Continue the process until all the ideas have been presented and clarified. This technique maintains a form of anonymity, thus reducing inhibitions, and also allows parallel communication, thus negating domination by one or more individuals. Force Field Analysis Force field analysis was designed to help users to identify factors that contribute to the problem or impede the implementation of its solution. Force field analysis can be undertaken using the following instructions: (1) Develop a problem statement and write it on a flip chart. (2) Ask each individual to write two scenarios: a description of what the situation would be like if a complete catastrophe were to occur; and a description of the ideal situation. (3) Arrange all the catastrophic and ideal scenarios on a continuum with a center line drawn between them. Ask the group members to list the forces that could contribute to making the situation catastrophic and those that will make the situation ideal. Couger [1995] believes that force field analysis stimulates creativity by helping users to define a vision and identify strengths that need to be enhanced and weaknesses that need to be reduced. From

the output of the force field analysis, the participants can develop a new strategy by strengthening the positive forces, weakening the negative forces, or developing new positive forces. Couger [1995] describes an example of force field analysis: An electronics firm decided to use the technique of force field analysis to explore how it could enhance the creative climate within the organization. The managers defined their problem as “How to ensure that creativity techniques are utilized.” They then defined their catastrophic statement as “Minimal use of creativity techniques despite training in the techniques and the availability of creativity resource materials” and their ideal statement as “Use of creativity techniques in everyday activities, for all employees.” The group then discussed the forces that would encourage the catastrophic scenario and those that would encourage the ideal scenario. They generated seven negative forces and seven positive forces. They implemented all seven of the positive factors to encourage the firm to move toward the ideal scenario. After the first year, they found that the program had indeed been successful. One department, for instance, found that its client ratings had improved, and after measuring the seven factors, the managers found that six of the factors had improved, with the overall rating increasing by 20 percent. Force field analysis can be used by individuals or by groups. The advantage of using it in a group session is that participants will have different perceptions of the scenarios and the forces that may affect them. Again, this technique can be used by groups with less experience, and

INTERFACES 29:5

114

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR it does not require a highly skilled facilitator. Paradigm-Transformation Methods De Bono [1992, p. 53] suggests that changing a paradigm requires lateral thinking. He describes lateral thinking as moving “sideways” in order to try different concepts and perceptions. Evans [1993], Keeney [1993], and Solomon [1990] suggest that people can enhance their creativity by looking at a problem from a variety of perspectives and by breaking old mind patterns and forming new connections and perceptions. Several methods can encourage a change of perspective. These include using unrelated stimuli and using different modes of expression. These modes may include drawing, role playing, fantasizing, and visioning.

Group members must trust their fellow participants and their facilitator. Visioning is unlike traditional problem solving because it focuses on the future, that is, the goals and purposes of the organization or department rather than what is going wrong. This allows the decision makers to view the situation from a different perspective and encourages the use of more creative problem-solving techniques, such as picture stimulation. In using picture stimulation, participants look at colorful photographs or graphic words and try to link the images to a future scenario [Johnson 1991; McFadzean 1998a]. This in turn may spark further creative ideas, which can ultimately be linked back to the present problem. According to Glassman [1989], creativity

September–October 1999

is enhanced when people mix experience, ideas, and diverse elements together and then transform them by using new combinations. This is known as association, and it is the basis of many creative problemsolving techniques, such as the heuristic ideation technique, analogies, rolestorming, and object stimulation [Couger 1995; McFadzean 1998a; McFadzean, Somersall, and Coker 1998; VanGundy 1988]. In the heuristic ideation technique, for example, the problem-solving group develops a list of words that are completely unrelated to the problem. The group chooses two words and forces them together to stimulate ideas pertaining to the problem or situation. For instance, by forcing together the words fan and skirt, a number of practical ideas can be developed, such as a craft that can run across water (the hovercraft) or a piece of clothing that is cool during the summer months. VanGundy [1992] suggests that the purpose of such stimuli is to present a completely different problem perspective. In fact, McFadzean [1998d] and Nagasundaram and Bostrom [1993] claim that this type of problemsolving technique encourages paradigm transformation. In other words, the boundaries of the problem are either stretched or broken. Using paradigmstretching and paradigm-breaking techniques encourages creativity because they may incorporate —the presence of unrelated stimuli, —the forced association of stimuli, —the use of multiple stimuli, and —the presence of an unusual mode of expression, for example, role playing, fantasizing, or drawing.

115

McFADZEAN According to Garfield et al. [1997], McFadzean [1996], and Nagasundaram and Bostrom [1993], groups utilizing paradigm-stretching and paradigmbreaking techniques produce more creative ideas than groups that use only paradigm-preserving techniques. Paradigm-Stretching Techniques Object stimulation is an idea-generation technique that people can use to explore the problem space and to develop solutions. The facilitator encourages participants to view the situation from a different perspective by using unrelated stimuli. The instructions for object stimulation are as follows: (1) Write the problem statement on a flip chart. (2) Ask the group members to list objects that are completely unrelated to the problem. (3) Ask one individual to select an object and describe it in detail. The group should use this description as a stimulus to generate new and novel ideas. (4) Write each idea on a flip chart. (5) Continue the process until each group member has described an object or until all the objects have been described. (6) Ask the participants to relate the ideas back to the problem and to develop them into practical solutions. The objects people choose can range from garden tools to animals to organizations to pictures. This technique requires much more imagination than the paradigm-preserving techniques and may irritate some team members who may feel that it is “a waste of time.” In fact, research has shown that object stimulation is a more powerful tool in terms of creativity

than such paradigm-preserving techniques as brainwriting [McFadzean 1996]. Here is an example of object stimulation: A car company used object stimulation to improve its sales, servicing, and marketing potential. A group of managers explored other organizations outside the automobile industry that have a good reputation for sales and marketing. They looked at a range of companies, including Disneyland, Virgin Airways, McDonalds, IBM, and Kmart. This allowed them to view the problem from a number of different perspectives; for example, Disneyland encourage customers by supplying entertainment for both adults and children, McDonalds provides quick and efficient service, and IBM can build computer systems to order. By using this technique, the group developed 52 novel and creative ideas, of which the company adopted 12. To make both paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking techniques effective, the group members must be experienced in the use of creative problem-solving techniques, they must trust their fellow participants and their facilitator, and they must have a vested interest in the outcome of the session [McFadzean 1996, 1998d; McFadzean et al. 1996]. Metaphors Group members can use metaphors, another paradigm-stretching technique, to create a fantasy situation so that they can gain a new perspective on the problem. This technique can be used in the following way: (1) Develop a problem statement and write it on a flip chart. (2) Ask the group to select a metaphor category or stipulate a category, for exam-

INTERFACES 29:5

116

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR ple, the journey metaphor. (3) Invite each individual to describe the situation using the metaphor category. Stipulate whether the description should cover the present situation or the ideal situation. (4) Ask participants to use the descriptions developed by each team member to generate new ideas. (5) Ask the group to relate these ideas back to the problem statement. Couger [1995] used metaphors as a tool for developing novel ideas in a petroleum company: An information-systems department in a petroleum company needed to motivate employees to adopt computeraided software engineering (CASE) tools that simplify the development of new software applications. Members of the technology-assessment group were given the responsibility for solving this problem. Under the instructions of a facilitator, the group used metaphors to solve the problem. The metaphor it used was: “Dislike of canned spinach.” The group identified factors relating to the dislike of spinach that included taste (for example, subdued compared to beans), appearance (for example, dull compared to carrots), contribution to health (for example, more iron provided by breakfast cereal), and so on. The group then transferred the items listed to the problem statement. For instance, for taste, some of the pleasurable activities of CASE tools are subdued and less enjoyable than those of the existing methodology; for appearance, the thought of using CASE tools is not as attractive as using their favorite approach; for health, converting to using CASE tools is not necessarily seen as improving their health, that is, their security

within the department. The group explored each of the resulting issues and developed solutions to counteract them. For example, to emphasize other pleasurable activities by pointing out that using CASE tools will speed up the process, giving users more time for other activities, such as designing the system. Members of the group were impressed with this technique, stating that it gave them an approach to identifying and resolving the problem that was both complete and comprehensive. A number of different types of metaphors can be useful for solving problems and finding opportunities. These include nature metaphors, vehicle metaphors, creational metaphors, and journey metaphors. Again, this method requires some imagination by the group. Developing metaphors may be difficult for some people and requires practice. Nevertheless, once they master it, they can produce very creative results. Paradigm-Breaking Techniques Problems that are ill structured and open ended may require more creative thinking than problems that are well structured and clearly defined. VanGundy [1988, p. 127] suggests that, “When a problem is open-ended, some degree of fantasy can provide the degree of loosening needed to produce many unique ideas.” Paradigm-breaking techniques can help participants to develop fantasies that may help them to generate novel ideas. Wishful Thinking Wishful thinking forces participants to look at a perfect future. By using this method, group members can develop a goal that they can attain. Moreover, wishful thinking can increase their motivation

September–October 1999

117

McFADZEAN and change their perspectives. The instructions for wishful thinking are as follows: (1) Develop a problem statement and write it on a flip chart. (2) Inform the group to assume that everything is possible. Ask each individual to develop some fantasy statements about the future using such terms as, In the future, it would be nice if the organization did. . . .What really needs to happen for the company to be great is. . . .If I were in charge of this situation, I would do. . . . (3) Ask the group members to examine each fantasy statement and develop ideas on how to achieve these outcomes. (4) Help participants to explore the new ideas that have been developed and link them back to the present problem situation. Ask them to use such statements as, Although this is difficult to achieve, we can. . . .It might be possible to do that if we. . . . This technique can be difficult to facilitate because some of the fantasies can be difficult to develop into practical solutions. Group members must be very patient and enthusiastic about the process. Again, to use this technique effectively, the participants and the facilitator should be experienced at using this type of CPS method. Moreover, the participants and the facilitator should have worked together before and have developed a high degree of trust [McFadzean 1998b]. If they use the technique properly, a group can produce a number of different perspectives that they would not have developed using paradigm-preserving techniques. Couger [1995] presents the following example of wishful thinking: The manager of the systems department of an electronics

company decided to use wishful thinking to develop both an enterprise model and a new business-planning technique. The group members developed a model of their ideal organization and a wish list that included the opportunity to reengineer the company’s process flows. They generated a series of what-if questions that related to the wishes. They then converted the wish list into practical solutions, which included Hoshin planning, enterprise modeling, and reengineering processes. Rich Pictures Rich pictures is another technique that can help participants look at problems from a totally different perspective. It can change the patterns of thinking within the group. Rich pictures can be used as follows: (1) Develop a problem statement and write it on a flip chart. (2) Ask each individual to draw two pictures. The pictures may be metaphors for the situation, for example, vehicles or animals. The first drawing should be a picture of how the participant would like to see the situation in the future. The second picture should be a drawing of how the participant sees the present situation. (3) Ask each participant to first describe the picture of the present. Not only should he or she describe the picture but also the properties of the objects drawn and why they were drawn that way. Next, the individual should describe the picture of the future, again including the properties and the relationships of the objects. (4) Ask the participants to generate new ideas based on the descriptions. Rich pictures is a useful technique because the group can very quickly see what

INTERFACES 29:5

118

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR each member’s perception of the problem is and what he or she would like in the future. Moreover, a picture can very effectively show a vast amount of information, such as patterns, relationships, and properties. It can easily be shared with the other group members, and they can all see the problem in its entirety in a single glance. This method can also be used as a quick icebreaker at the beginning of a session. The group, however, needs to be persuaded of the technique’s effectiveness before participating because many people feel inhibited and embarrassed about their poor drawing skills. The facilitator needs to convince the group that pictures do not have to be works of art as long as they make sense to their creators and can easily be described to the group. The facilitator needs to be skilled at teasing information out of the participants as they describe their pictures. There are times when participants leave out information because the facilitator has failed to ask the correct questions. The following is an example of the use of rich pictures: An accounting department in a British Health Trust hospital wanted to develop a new strategic plan. A facilitator asked seven people from the department to draw cars that depicted what they thought of the present situation within the department. The facilitator then asked them to draw cars depicting what they would see as the ideal department. The first pictures showed small, dilapidated vehicles that lacked drivers and had very few occupants. These pictures represented a department that lacked leadership and focus. The pictures depicting the

ideal situation, however, showed cars that were sleek, fast, had chauffeurs and a number of occupants (representing customers). There were also signs on the roadway pointing the car in an appropriate direction. The exercise took 15 minutes and showed the managers what everybody thought of the department and how they would like it to change. In other words, the drawings showed the extent of the problem to everybody present very quickly. Discussion According to Nagasundaram and Bostrom [1993] and McFadzean [1996, 1998d], classical brainstorming, brainwriting, and force field analysis do not produce very many ideas that challenge or break away from a prevailing paradigm, that is, these techniques produce more paradigm-preserving ideas than paradigm-transforming ideas. Paradigmpreserving techniques generally use related stimuli and free association (Figure 2). In addition, participants express their ideas using verbal or written communication. This is comfortable for participants and reduces the likelihood that they will feel apprehensive or confrontational about using the technique [McFadzean 1998b]. Moreover, the use of free association encourages participants to build on other people’s ideas, thus reducing the possibility of group-process losses, such as cognitive inertia, groupthink, and incomplete task analysis. Nunamaker et al. [1991] and Janis [1972] define these three process losses as follows:

September–October 1999

119

—With cognitive inertia, the discussion moves along one train of thought without

McFADZEAN

Figure 2: Each type of technique in the creativity continuum has different characteristics, ranging from the less inspiring, but generally comfortable, techniques of the paradigm-preserving category to the highly creative, but potentially uncomfortable, techniques of the paradigmbreaking category.

—Incomplete task analysis occurs when the group fails to understand and examine the task completely. This results in superficial and disjointed discussions. Although paradigm-preserving techniques can be creative, paradigmstretching and paradigm-breaking techniques can produce more imaginative and original ideas [McFadzean 1996;

Nagasundaram and Bostrom 1993]. To use these techniques successfully, however, the group members must be enthusiastic, trusting, and committed to each other and have confidence that the CPS method will encourage them to generate novel and valuable ideas. Moreover, the facilitator should be experienced at using these techniques and be capable of developing a trusting rapport within the group. Paradigm-stretching and paradigmbreaking methods help groups to change their patterns of thinking and to view situations from different perspectives. Consequently, they can produce more novel and creative ideas using these techniques if

INTERFACES 29:5

120

deviating because group members refrain from contributing comments that are not directly related to the current theme. —Groupthink occurs when the group participants become extremely close and consensus seeking becomes the dominant force.

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

Bouchard, T. J.; Barsaloux, J.; and Drauden, G. 1974, “Brainstorming procedure, group size, and sex as determinants of the problemsolving effectiveness of groups and individuals,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 135–138. Couger, J. D. 1995, Creative Problem-Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd and Fraser Pub-

lishing Co., Danvers, Massachusetts. De Bono, E. 1992, Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas, Harper Collins, London. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. 1987, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 497–509. Evans, J. R. 1993, “Creativity in MS/OR: Overcoming barriers to creativity,” Interfaces, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 101–106. Evans, J. R. 1996, “Creativity in OR/MS: Creativity-enhancing strategies,” Interfaces, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 58–65. Evans, J. R. 1997a, “Creativity in OR/MS: The creative problem-solving process, Part 1,” Interfaces, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 78–83. Evans, J. R. 1997b, “Creativity in OR/MS: The creative problem-solving process, Part 2,” Interfaces, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 106–111. Gallupe, R. B.; Dennis, A. R.; Cooper, W. H.; Valacich, J. S.; Bastianutti, L. M.; and Nunamaker, J. F. 1992, “Electronic brainstorming and group size,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 350–369. Gallupe, R. B. and Cooper, W. H. 1993, “Brainstorming electronically,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 27–36. Garfield, M.; Satzinger, J.; Taylor, N.; and Dennis, A. 1997, “The creative road: The impact of the person, process and feedback on idea generation,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the AIS, Indianapolis, Indiana. Glassman, E. 1989, “Creative problem solving,” Supervisory Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 21–26. Hill, G. W. 1982, “Group versus individual performance: Are NⳭ1 heads better than one?” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 517– 539. Hitchings, G. and Cox, S. 1992, “Generating ideas using randomized search methods: A method of managed convergence,” Management Decision, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 58–61. Janis, I. 1972, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascos, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts. Johnson, V. 1991, “Creative problem solving,” Successful Meetings, Vol. 40, No. 13, pp. 60– 66.

September–October 1999

121

they apply them effectively. Since paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking techniques utilize unrelated stimuli and forced association, they cause participants to explore many more perspectives. Thus, these types of techniques are more likely to reduce cognitive inertia, incomplete task analysis, and groupthink than paradigm-preserving techniques. However, asking participants to use imagination and unfamiliar forms of expression can make them feel uncomfortable, and therefore such techniques can be ineffective and may cause animosity within the group. It is therefore vital that only cohesive, experienced groups, whose members have high levels of trust and commitment to each other, should use these techniques [McFadzean 1998b]. In addition, facilitators must ensure that teams have both goal and process congruence [McFadzean, Somersall, and Coker forthcoming]. In other words, the members of the group must have the same goals; otherwise they will start pulling in different directions. Likewise, process congruence is important; if one or more of the participants do not wish to undertake the suggested techniques, then, at best, the noncooperating group member(s) will rely on the other participants to accomplish the goals, or at worst, they will become argumentative or aggressive. References

McFADZEAN Keeney, R. L. 1993, “Creativity in MS/OR: Value-focused thinking—Creativity directed toward decision making,” Interfaces, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 62–67. LeBoeuf, M. 1980, Creative Thinking, Piatkus, London. Madsen, D. B. and Finger, J. R. 1978, “Comparison of a written feedback procedure, group brainstorming and individual brainstorming,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 120–123. McFadzean, E. S. 1996, “New ways of thinking: An evaluation of k-groupware and creative problem solving,” Doctoral dissertation, Henley Management College, Brunel University, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England. McFadzean, E. S. 1998a, The Creativity Tool Box: A Practical Guide for Facilitating Creative Problem-Solving Sessions, TeamTalk Consulting Ltd, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. McFadzean, E. S. 1998b, “The attention wheel: How to manage creative teams,” Working Paper No. 9823, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England. McFadzean, E. S. 1998c, “Enhancing creative thinking within organisations,” Management Decision, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 309–315. McFadzean, E. S. 1998d, “The creativity continuum: Towards a classification of creative problem solving techniques,” Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 131–139. McFadzean, E. S. forthcoming, “What can we learn from creative people? The story of Brian Eno,” Management Decision. McFadzean, E. S.; Briggs, R.; Bulcock, D.; and Berry, N. 1996, “Creativity in organisations: People-based solutions,” Working Paper No. 9624, Henley Management College, Henleyon-Thames, Oxfordshire, England. McFadzean, E. S.; Somersall, L.; and Coker, A. 1998, “Creative problem solving using unrelated stimuli,” Journal of General Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 36–50. McFadzean, E. S.; Somersall, L.; and Coker, A. forthcoming, “A framework for facilitating group processes,” Strategic Change. Nagasundaram, M. and Bostrom, R. P. 1993, “The structuring of creative processes using

GSS: A framework for research,” Working paper No. 81, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E. S. 1998, “Facilitating problem solving groups: Facilitator competences,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 72–82. Nunamaker, J. F.; Dennis, A. R.; Valacich, J. S.; Vogel, D. R.; and George, J. F. 1991, “Electronic meeting systems to support group work,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp. 40–61. Osborn, A. F. 1957, Applied Imagination, revised edition, Scribner, New York. Rogelberg, S. G.; Barnes-Farrell, J. L.; and Lowe, C. A. 1992, “The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 5, pp. 730–737. Schwarz, R. M. 1994, The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Solomon, C. M. 1990, “What an idea: Creativity training,” Personnel Journal, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 64–71. Stumpf, S. A.; Zand, D. E.; and Freedman, R. D. 1979, “Designing groups for judgmental decisions,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 589–600. VanGundy, A. B. 1988, Techniques of Structured Problem-Solving, second edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. VanGundy, A. B. 1992, Idea Power: Techniques and Resources to Unleash the Creativity in Your Organization, AMACOM, New York.

INTERFACES 29:5

122