Creativity in MS/OR: Choosing theAppropriate Technique

ELSPETH MCFADZEAN Henley Management CollegeGreenlandsHenley-on-ThamesOxfordshire, RG9 3AU, England

2 I« +A T < X

'o TT . «$ "n' -

There is a great need for creativitywithin the MS/OR envirorunent.

Managers must be capable of definingproblems, developing novel solutions, andimplementing them effectively. A lot ofresearch has focused on creativity. For ex-ample, Evans [1993] and McFadzean[forthcoming] discussed methods of im-proving creative thinking in people;Couger [1995], McFadzean [1998a], andVanGundy [1988] presented techniquesthat can encourage participants to developmore novel ideas; and Evans [1997a,1997b] and VanGundy [1992] describedthe creative problem-solving process.

I focus on creative problem-solving(CPS) techniques and how best to choosethe most appropriate for a given situation.To this end, therefore, I have categorizedthe techniques and placed them in a con-tinuum ranging from paradigm-preserving

techniques to paradigm-breakingtechniques.The Creativity Continuum

Many creative problem-solving tech-niques are more effectively used bygroups that are supported by a facilitator.This is because the facilitator can help toguide the participants through the processand help the group members to behave ina positive and constructive manner[McFadzean 1998b; Nelson andMcFadzean 1998; Osborn 1957; Schwarz1994]. In addition, the facilitator can alsoadvise the participants on the most appro-priate and effective methods for their par-ticular situation. The most commonly usedcreative problem-solving technique isbrainstorming, but there are countlessother techniques that can be utilized.These include force field analysis, 5Ws +H, morphological analysis, word diamond.

Copyright © 1999 INFORMS0092-2102/99/2905/OnO/$05.001526-551X electronic ISSNThis paper was refereed.

ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES—DECISION MAKINGGAMES/GROUP DECISIONS—TEAMS

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

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

rich pictures, reversals, and object stimula-tion [Couger 1995; McFadzean 1998a;VanGundy 1988,1992].

Garfield et al. [1997] and McFadzean[1996] have found that some creativeproblem-solving techniques can encouragemore novel ideas than others. Conse-quently, McFadzean [1998c, 1998d] hasclassified these techniques into the follow-ing categories: paradigm-preserving,paradigm-stretching, and paradigm-breaking (Figure 1).

(1) Paradigm-preserving techniques donot force the participants to venture out-side their own perspectives in exploringthe situation. In other words, the bound-aries around the problem remain un-changed. Paradigm-preserving techriiquesinclude such methods as brainstorming,force field analysis, and brainwriting[McFadzean 1998a]. In brainstorming, forexample, the facilitator encourages partici-pants to build on other people's ideas.Consequently, they develop existing ideasbut do not change them significantly.These techniques, however, can be veryuseful because they are easy to use and donot require participants to move outsidetheir comfort zones.(2) Paradigm-stretching techniques en-courage the participants to stretch their ex-isting paradigms. The facilitator encour-ages this by utilizing unrelated stimuliand forced association. For example, theparticipants can force two unrelatedwords or concepts together to developnew ideas. The Internet, for instance, wasdeveloped by using two unrelated con-cepts, the telephone and the computer. Itrequires imagination to use these tech-niques effectively, and as a result, they

may make some participants feeluncomfortable.(3) Paradigm-breaking techniques can bevery powerful and can encourage partici-pants to develop very novel ideas. Theparticipants produce creative ideas bybringing new elements into the problemsituation and by developing new relation-ships between existing elements. By usingthis technique, the facilitator encouragesthe participants to break down their per-ceptions and to completely smash theproblem's boundaries. Paradigm-breakingtechniques, like paradigm-stretching tech-niques, use unrelated stimuli and forcedassociation. In addition, these techniquesalso tend to call for modes of expressionother than verbal or written, such asdrawing, dreaming, and role playing. Thiscan make participants feel very uncom-fortable, and therefore these techniquesshould be used only by groups of peoplewho have a high degree of cohesion andtrust.

Visioning focuses on thefuture.

According to McFadzean [1996] andNagasundaram and Bostrom [1993],paradigm-preserving techniques do nottend to break or stretch the boundaries ofthe problem. These include brainstorming,brainwriting, and force field analysis[McFadzean 1998a].Brainstorming

Brainstorming was first devised by AlexF. Osborn in the late 1930s to stimulatesmall groups of individuals to come upwith ideas on new product development,new methods of positioning existing prod-

September-October 1999 111

McFADZEAN

Problem Boundaries

Creative Stimulation

Techniques

PARADIGM PARADIGM PARADIGMPRESERVING STRETCHING BREAKING

1 1 1Unchanged

Low

Brainstonning

Brainwriting

Force Field Analysis

Stretched

Medium

Object Stimulation

Metaphors

Broken

High

Wisliful Thinking

Rich Pictxires

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

ucts, and new uses for old products. Later,

however, brainstorming was used for dif-ferent applications in a variety of settings,such as education, health, manufacturing,and government circles.

Osborn [1957] describes his philosophyand approach in his two essential guidingprinciples:(1) The idea-generation phase must takeplace without any analysis or evaluation,which should be done only after the idea-generation phase has concluded; and(2) The quantity of ideas will ultimatelyyield quality. In other words, the moreideas generated, the more likely it is thatthe group will produce some good qualityideas.

A facilitator can support a group of par-ticipants undertaking brainstorming usingthe following instructions:(1) Develop a problem statement andwrite it on a flip chart.(2) Reiterate the problem statement to thegroup, set out the ground rules, instructthe group on the purpose and process of

brainstorming, and, if necessary, conduct awarm-up exercise.(3) Ask the participants to generate possi-ble solutions, without criticism, for about30 to 45 minutes. The ideas should be re-corded on a flip chart. Encourage thegroup members to continue generatingideas.(4) Lead the participants back through thelist of ideas and encourage them to com-bine statements and identify valuableideas.(5) Designate one person to receive andrecord any additional ideas that may oc-cur to members after the meeting.To use brainstorming effectively, the par-ticipants must develop a focused problemstatement [Evans 1996]. A statement thatis too broad will only encourage partici-pants to develop solutions that are alsotoo broad to be effective. LeBoeuf [1980]presents a number of examples ofbrainstorming:—The Advertising Club in Cleveland car-ried out a brainstorming exercise to de-

INTERFACES 29:5 112

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

velop effective methods to publicize OperaWeek and to encourage as many people aspossible to buy tickets. The club membersgenerated 124 ideas, of which they imple-mented 29. Their solutions were effectivebecause the seats at the opera werefilled.

—A management executive team devel-oped ideas through brainstorming for aproblem about engineering shortages. In25 minutes, it produced 110 ideas, ofwhich six were good enough to adopt.

—Argus Camera used brainstorming todevelop methods of economizing on pur-chasing. The managers conducted threeidea-generation sessions and produced anumber of practical ideas that could yieldsavings of $46,000 per year.

There has been extensive research onbrainstorming over the past few years[Bouchard, Barsaloux, and Drauden 1974;Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Gallupe andCooper 1993; Gallupe et al. 1992; Hill 1982;Madsen and Finger 1978]. This has re-sulted in some criticism regarding Os-born's ideas. For example, nominal groupshave consistently been shown to outper-form interacting brainstorming groups inboth the quantity and the quality of ideasproduced [Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Hill1982; Madsen and Finger 1978]. A nominalgroup consists of members who privatelywrite down their ideas pertaining to theproblem statement before presenting themto the group. Next, the ideas are discussedand then ranked independently by eachgroup member. Finally, the group decisionis made using a pooled ranking system[Stumpf, Zand, and Freedman 1979]. Aninteractive group, on the other hand, gen-

erates the alternatives, discusses the op-tions and makes the decision by using ver-bal interaction from the outset of theprocess.

In addition, Hitchings and Cox [1992]suggest that there are aspects of brain-storming that can be greatly improved.They found, for example, that one or twomembers of any group tended to be domi-nant, which reduced the free flow of ideas;many group members felt inhibited eventhough they were in an evaluation-free en-vironment; and the sessions tended to be-come unstructured and informal unless astrong group leader was appointed.

To combat these weaknesses, research-ers have developed other techniques basedon the idea of brainstorming. These tech-niques include brainwriting, SIL (Succes-sive Integration of Problem Elements)method, and the stepladder technique[Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell, and Lowe 1992;VanGundy 1992].Brainwriting

Brainwriting does not require a lot ofimagination and can therefore be used bygroups that are newly formed or inexperi-enced. Moreover, the facilitator does notneed much skill because it is very easy toset up and implement. The instructions forbrainwriting are as foUows:(1) Write the problem statement on a flipchart.(2) Ask the group members to write theirideas about the statement on separatesheets of paper (one statement per sheet)and put them in a pile on the center of thetable (the pool).(3) Instruct individuals who need stimula-tion or want to piggyback ideas to ex-change their sheets of paper with others

September-October 1999 113

McFADZEAN

from the pool.(4) Continue the process of writing ideasand gaining stimulation from other peo-ple's ideas for 10 to 15 minutes.(5) When the idea-generation phase ends,ask each group member to read an ideafrom the pool. Then stick the idea on thewall. Continue the process until all theideas have been presented and clar-ified.

This technique maintains a form of ano-nymity, thus reducing inhibitions, andalso allows parallel communication, thusnegating domination by one or moreindividuals.Force Field Analysis

Force field analysis was designed tohelp users to identify factors that contrib-ute to the problem or impede the imple-mentation of its solution. Force field anal-ysis can be undertaken using thefollowing instructions:(1) Develop a problem statement andwrite it on a flip chart.(2) Ask each individual to write two sce-narios: a description of what the situationwould be like if a complete catastrophewere to occur; and a description of theideal situation.(3) Arrange all the catastrophic and idealscenarios on a continuum with a centerline drawn between them. Ask the groupmembers to list the forces that could con-tribute to making the situation cata-strophic and those that will make the situ-ation ideal.

Couger [1995] believes that force fieldanalysis stimulates creativity by helpingusers to define a vision and identifystrengths that need to be enhanced andweaknesses that need to be reduced. From

the output of the force field analysis, theparticipants can develop a new strategy bystrengthening the positive forces, weaken-ing the negative forces, or developing newpositive forces. Couger [1995] describes anexample of force field analysis: An elec-tronics firm decided to use the techniqueof force field analysis to explore how itcould enhance the creative climate withinthe organization. The managers definedtheir problem as "How to ensure that cre-ativity techniques are utilized." They thendefined their catastrophic statement as"Minimal use of creativity techniquesdespite training in the techniques and theavailability of creativity resource materi-als" and their ideal statement as "Use ofcreativity techniques in everyday activi-ties, for all employees." The group thendiscussed the forces that would encouragethe catastrophic scenario and those thatwould encourage the ideal scenario. Theygenerated seven negative forces and sevenpositive forces. They implemented allseven of the positive factors to encouragethe firm to move toward the ideal sce-nario. After the first year, they found thatthe program had indeed been successful.One department, for instance, found thatits client ratings had improved, and aftermeasuring the seven factors, the managersfound that six of the factors had im-proved, with the overall rating increasingby 20 percent.

Force Held analysis can be used by indi-viduals or by groups. The advantage ofusing it in a group session is that partici-pants will have different perceptions ofthe scenarios and the forces that may af-fect them. Again, this technique can beused by groups with less experience, and

INTERFACES 29:5 114

CREATIVITY IN IMS/OR

it does not require a highly skilledfacilitator.Paradigm-Transformation Methods

De Bono [1992, p. 53] suggests thatchanging a paradigm requires lateralthinking. He describes lateral thinking asmoving "sideways" in order to try differ-ent concepts and perceptions. Evans[1993], Keeney [1993], and Solomon [1990]suggest that people can enhance their cre-ativity by looking at a problem from a va-riety of perspectives and by breaking oldmind patterns and forming new connec-tions and perceptions. Several methodscan encourage a change of perspective.These include using unrelated stimuli andusing different modes of expression. Thesemodes may include drawing, role playing,fantasizing, and visioning.

Group members must trusttheir fellow participants andtheir facilitator.

Visioning is unlike traditional problemsolving because it focuses on the future,that is, the goals and purposes of the orga-nization or department rather than what isgoing wrong. This allows the decisionmakers to view the situation from a differ-ent perspective and encourages the use ofmore creative problem-solving techniques,such as picture stimulation. In using pic-ture stimulation, participants look at color-ful photographs or graphic words and tryto link the images to a future scenario[Johnson 1991; McFadzean 1998a]. This inturn may spark further creative ideas,which can ultimately be linked back to thepresent problem.

According to Glassman [1989], creativity

is enhanced when people mix experience,ideas, and diverse elements together andthen transform them by using new combi-nations. This is known as association, andit is the basis of many creative problem-solving techniques, such as the heuristicideation technique, analogies, rolestorm-ing, and object stimulation [Couger 1995;McFadzean 1998a; McFadzean, Somersall,and Coker 1998; VanGundy 1988]. In theheuristic ideation technique, for example,the problem-solving group develops a listof words that are completely unrelated tothe problem. The group chooses twowords and forces them together to stimu-late ideas pertaining to the problem or sit-uation. For instance, by forcing togetherthe words fan and skirt, a number of prac-tical ideas can be developed, such as acraft that can run across water (the hover-craft) or a piece of clothing that is coolduring the summer months. VanGundy[1992] suggests that the purpose of suchstimuli is to present a completely differentproblem perspective. In fact, McFadzean[1998d] and Nagasundaram and Bostrom[1993] claim that this type of problem-solving technique encourages paradigmtransformation. In other words, theboundaries of the problem are eitherstretched or broken. Using paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking tech-niques encourages creativity because theymay incorporate

—the presence of unrelated stimuli,

—the forced association of stimuli,

—the use of multiple stimuli, and

—the presence of an unusual mode of ex-

pression, for example, role playing, fanta-

sizing, or drawing.

September-October 1999 115

McFADZEAN

According to Garfield et al. [1997],McFadzean [1996], and Nagasundaramand Bostrom [1993], groups utilizingparadigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking techniques produce more crea-tive ideas than groups that use onlyparadigm-preserving techruques.Paradigm-Stretching Techniques

Object stimulation is an idea-generationtechnique that people can use to explorethe problem space and to develop solu-tions. The facilitator encourages partici-pants to view the situation from a differ-ent perspective by using unrelated stimuli.The instructions for object stimulation areas follows:(1) Write the problem statement on a flipchart.(2) Ask the group members to list objectsthat are completely unrelated to theproblem.(3) Ask one individual to select an objectand describe it in detail. The group shoulduse this description as a stimulus to gener-ate new and novel ideas.(4) Write each idea on a flip chart.(5) Continue the process until each groupmember has described an object or untilall the objects have been described.(6) Ask the participants to relate the ideasback to the problem and to develop theminto practical solutions.

The objects people choose can rangefrom garden tools to animals to organiza-tions to pictures. This technique requiresmuch more imagination than theparadigm-preserving techniques and mayirritate some team members who may feelthat it is "a waste of time." In fact, re-search has shown that object stimulation isa more powerful tool in terms of creativity

than such paradigm-preserving techniquesas brainwriting [McFadzean 1996]. Here isan example of object stimulation: A carcompany used object stimulation to im-prove its sales, servicing, and marketingpotential. A group of managers exploredother organizations outside the automobileindustry that have a good reputation forsales and marketing. They looked at arange of companies, including Disneyland,Virgin Airways, McDonalds, IBM, andKmart. This allowed them to view theproblem from a number of different per-spectives; for example, Disneyland encour-age customers by supplying entertainmentfor both adults and children, McDonaldsprovides quick and efficient service, andIBM can build computer systems to order.By using this technique, the group devel-oped 52 novel and creative ideas, of whichthe company adopted 12.

To make both paradigm-stretching andparadigm-breaking techniques effective,the group members must be experiencedin the use of creative problem-solvingtechniques, they must trust their fellowparticipants and their facilitator, and theymust have a vested interest in the outcomeof the session [McFadzean 1996,1998d;McFadzean et al. 1996].Metaphors

Group members can use metaphors,another paradigm-stretching technique, tocreate a fantasy situation so that they cangain a new perspective on the problem.This technique can be used in the follow-ing way:(1) Develop a problem statement andwrite it on a fiip chart.(2) Ask the group to select a metaphorcategory or stipulate a category, for exam-

INTERFACES 29:5 116

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

pie, the journey metaphor.(3) Invite each individual to describe thesituation using the metaphor category.Stipulate whether the description shouldcover the present situation or the idealsituation.(4) Ask participants to use the descrip-tions developed by each team member togenerate 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 petroleumcompany: An information-systems depart-ment in a petroleum company needed tomotivate employees to adopt computer-aided software engineering (CASE) toolsthat simplify the development of new soft-ware applications. Members of thetechnology-assessment group were giventhe responsibility for solving this problem.Under the instructions of a facilitator, thegroup used metaphors to solve the prob-lem. The metaphor it used was: "Dislike ofcanned spinach." The group identified fac-tors relating to the dislike of spinach thatincluded taste (for example, subdued com-pared to beans), appearance (for example,dull compared to carrots), contribution tohealth (for example, more iron providedby breakfast cereal), and so on. The groupthen transferred the items listed to theproblem statement. For instance, for taste,some of the pleasurable activities of CASEtools are subdued and less enjoyable thanthose of the existing methodology; for ap-pearance, the thought of using CASE toolsis not as attractive as using their favoriteapproach; for health, converting to usingCASE tools is not necessarily seen as im-proving their health, that is, their security

within the department. The group ex-plored each of the resulting issues and de-veloped solutions to counteract them. Forexample, to emphasize other pleasurableactivities by pointing out that using CASEtools will speed up the process, givingusers more time for other activities, suchas designing the system. Members of thegroup were impressed with this technique,stating that it gave them an approach toidentifying and resolving the problem thatwas both complete and comprehensive.

A number of different types of meta-phors can be useful for solving problemsand finding opportunities. These includenature metaphors, vehicle metaphors,creational metaphors, and journey meta-phors. Again, this method requires someimagination by the group. Developingmetaphors may be difficult for some peo-ple and requires practice. Nevertheless,once they master it, they can produce verycreative results.Paradigm-Breaking Techniques

Problems that are ill structured andopen ended may require more creativethinking than problems that are well struc-tured and clearly defined. VanGundy[1988, p. 127] suggests that, "When a prob-lem is open-ended, some degree of fantasycan provide the degree of looseningneeded to produce many unique ideas."Paradigm-breaking techniques can helpparticipants to develop fantasies that mayhelp them to generate novel ideas.Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking forces participants tolook at a perfect future. By using thismethod, group members can develop agoal that they can attain. Moreover, wish-ful thinking can increase their motivation

September-October 1999 117

MCFADZEAN

and change their perspectives. The instruc-tions for wishful thinking are as follows:(1) Develop a problem statement andwrite it on a flip chart.(2) Inform the group to assume that ev-erything is possible. Ask each individualto develop some fantasy statements aboutthe future using such terms as. In the fu-ture, it would be nice if the organizationdid... .What really needs to happen forthe company to be great is If I were incharge of this situation, I would do . . . .(3) Ask the group members to examineeach fantasy statement and develop ideason how to achieve these outcomes.(4) Help participants to explore the newideas that have been developed and linkthem back to the present problem situa-tion. Ask them to use such statements as.Although this is difficult to achieve, wecan... .It might be possible to do that ifwe . . . .

This technique can be difficult to facili-tate because some of the fantasies can bedifficult to develop into practical solu-tions. Group members must be very pa-tient and enthusiastic about the process.Again, to use this technique effectively,the participants and the facilitator shouldbe experienced at using this type of CPSmethod. Moreover, the participants andthe facilitator should have worked to-gether before and have developed a highdegree of trust [McFadzean 1998b]. If theyuse the technique properly, a group canproduce a number of different perspec-tives that they would not have developedusing paradigm-preserving techniques.

Couger [1995] presents the following ex-ample of wishful thinking: The manager ofthe systems department of an electronics

company decided to use wishful thinkingto develop both an enterprise model and anew business-planning technique. Thegroup members developed a model oftheir ideal organization and a wish listthat included the opportunity to reengi-neer the company's process flows. Theygenerated a series of what-if questions thatrelated to the wishes. They then convertedthe wish list into practical solutions, whichincluded Hoshin planning, enterprisemodeling, and reengineering processes.Rich Pictures

Rich pictures is another technique thatcan help participants look at problemsfrom a totally different perspective. It canchange the patterns of thinking within thegroup. Rich pictures can be used asfollows:(1) Develop a problem statement andwrite it on a flip chart.(2) Ask each individual to draw two pic-tures. The pictures may be metaphors forthe situation, for example, vehicles or ani-mals. The first drawing should be a pic-ture of how the participant would like tosee the situation in the future. The secondpicture should be a drawing of how theparticipant sees the present situation.(3) Ask each participant to first describethe picture of the present. Not only shouldhe or she describe the picture but also theproperties of the objects drawn and whythey were drawn that way. Next, the indi-vidual should describe the picture of thefuture, again including the properties andthe relationships of the objects.(4) Ask the participants to generate newideas based on the descriptions.

Rich pictures is a useful technique be-cause the group can very quickly see what

INTERFACES 29:5 118

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

each member's perception of the problemis and what he or she would like in the fu-ture. Moreover, a picture can very effec-tively show a vast amount of information,such as patterns, relationships, and prop-erties. It can easily be shared with theother group members, and they can all seethe problem in its entirety in a singleglance. This method can also be used as aquick icebreaker at the beginning of a ses-sion. The group, however, needs to be per-suaded of the technique's effectiveness be-fore participating because many peoplefeel inhibited and embarrassed about theirpoor drawing skills. The facilitator needsto convince the group that pictures do nothave to be works of art as long as theymake sense to their creators and can easilybe described to the group. The facilitatorneeds to be skilled at teasing informationout of the participants as they describetheir pictures. There are times when par-ticipants leave out information because thefacilitator has failed to ask the correctquestions.

The following is an example of the useof rich pictures: An accounting depart-ment in a British Health Trust hospitalwanted to develop a new strategic plan. Afacilitator asked seven people from the de-partment to draw cars that depicted whatthey thought of the present situationwithin the department. The facilitator thenasked them to draw cars depicting whatthey would see as the ideal department.The first pictures showed small, dilapi-dated vehicles that lacked drivers and hadvery few occupants. These pictures repre-sented a department that lacked leader-ship and focus. The pictures depicting the

ideal situation, however, showed cars thatwere sleek, fast, had chauffeurs and anumber of occupants (representing cus-tomers). There were also signs on theroadway pointing the car in an appropri-ate direction. The exercise took 15 minutesand showed the managers what every-body thought of the department and howthey would like it to change. In otherwords, the draw^ings showed the extent ofthe problem to everybody present veryquickly.Discussion

According to Nagasundaram andBostrom [1993] and McFadzean [1996,1998d], classical brainstorming, brainwrit-ing, and force field analysis do not pro-duce very many ideas that challenge orbreak away from a prevailing paradigm,that is, these techniques produce moreparadigm-preserving ideas thanparadigm-transforming ideas. Paradigm-preserving techniques generally use re-lated stimuli and free association (Figure2). In addition, participants express theirideas using verbal or written communica-tion. This is comfortable for participantsand reduces the likelihood that they willfeel apprehensive or confrontational aboutusing the technique [McFadzean 1998b].Moreover, the use of free association en-courages participants to build on otherpeople's ideas, thus reducing the possibil-ity of group-process losses, such as cogni-tive inertia, groupthink, and incompletetask analysis. Nunamaker et al. [1991] andJanis [1972] define these three processlosses as follows:

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

September-October 1999 119

MCFADZEAN

PARADIGMPRESERVmG

Problem Boundaries

Reduction inCognitive Inertia

Potential Apprehensior

Use of Imagination

Expression

Stimuli

Association ofInformation

Group Experience

Creative Stimulation

1Unchanged

Low

Low

Not necessary

VerbalAVritten

Related stimuli

Free association

Can be used by experiencedand inexperienced groups

Low

PARADIGMSTRETCHING

1Stretched

Medium

Medium

Necessary

VerbalAVritten

Unrelated stimuli

Forced association

Groups require someexperience

Medium

PARADIGMBREAKING

1Broken

High

High

Necessary

VerbalAVritten/Role playing/Drawing/Visioning

Fantasy and unrelated stimuli

Forced association

Should only be used byexperienced groups

High

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

deviating because group members refrainfrom contributing comments that are notdirectly related to the current theme.—Groupthink occurs when the group par-ticipants become extremely close and con-sensus seeking becomes the dominantforce.

—Incomplete task analysis occurs when thegroup fails to understand and examine thetask completely. This results in superficialand disjointed discussions.

Although paradigm-preserving tech-niques can be creative, paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking tech-niques can produce more imaginative andoriginal ideas [McFadzean 1996;

Nagasundaram and Bostrom 1993]. To usethese techniques successfully, however,the group members must be enthusiastic,trusting, and committed to each other andhave confidence that the CPS method willencourage them to generate novel andvaluable ideas. Moreover, the facilitatorshould be experienced at using these tech-niques and be capable of developing atrusting rapport within the group.Paradigm-stretching and paradigm-breaking methods help groups to changetheir patterns of thinking and to view situ-ations from different perspectives. Conse-quently, they can produce more novel andcreative ideas using these techniques if

INTERFACES 29:5 120

CREATIVITY IN MS/OR

they apply them effectively.

Since paradigm-stretching and

paradigm-breaking techniques utilize un-

related stimuli and forced association, they

cause participants to explore many more

perspectives. Thus, these types of tech-

niques 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 nnake them feel uncom-

fortable, 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 congru-

ence [McFadzean, Somersall, and Coker

forthcoming]. In other words, the mem-

bers of the group must have the same

goals; otherwise they will start pulling in

different directions. Likewise, process con-

gruence 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 argu-

mentative or aggressive.

ReferencesBouchard, T. J.; Barsaloux, J.; and Drauden, G.

1974, "Brainstorming procedure, group size,and sex as determinants of the problem-solving effectiveness of groups and individu-als," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59,No. 2, pp. 135-138.

Couger, J. D. 1995, Creative Problem-Solving andOpportunity 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, "Productivityloss in brainstorming groups: Toward the so-lution of a riddle," Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 497-509.

Evans, J. R. 1993, "Creativity in MS/OR: Over-coming 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: Thecreative problem-solving process. Part 1," In-terfaces, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 78-^3.

Evans, J. R. 1997b, "Creativity in OR/MS: Thecreative problem-solving process. Part 2," In-terfaces, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 106-111.

Gallupe, R. B.; Dennis, A. R.; Cooper, W. H.;Valacich, J. S.; Bastianutti, L. M.; andNunamaker, J. F. 1992, "Electronic brain-storming and group size," Academy of Man-agement Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 350-369.

Gallupe, R. B. and Cooper, W. H. 1993, "Brain-storming electronically," Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 27-36.

Garfield, M.; Satzinger, J.; Taylor, N.; andDennis, A. 1997, "The creative road: The im-pact of the person, process and feedback onidea generation," Proceedings of the Third An-nual 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 per-formance: Are N+l heads better than one?"Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 517-539.

Hitchings, G. and Cox, S. 1992, "Generatingideas using randomized search methods: Amethod of managed convergence," Manage-ment Decision, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 58-61.

Janis, 1.1972, Victims of Groupthink: A Psycholog-ical Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fias-cos, Houghton MifHin, Boston,Massachusetts.

Johnson, V. 1991, "Creative problem solving,"Successful Meetings, Vol. 40, No. 13, pp. 60-66.

September-October 1999 121

McFADZEAN

Keeney, R. L. 1993, "Creativity in MS/OR:Value-focused thinking—Creativity directedtoward 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, "Compari-son of a written feedback procedure, groupbrainstorming and individual brainstorm-ing," 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 creativeproblem solving," Doctoral dissertation,Henley Management College, Brunei Univer-sity, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire,England.

McFadzean, E. S. 1998a, The Creativity Tool Box:A Practical Guide for Facilitating CreativeProblem-Solving Sessions, TeamTalk Consult-ing Ltd, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire,England.

McFadzean, E. S. 1998b, "The attention wheel:How to manage creative teams," WorkingPaper No. 9823, Henley Management Col-lege, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire,England.

McFadzean, E. S. 1998c, "Enhancing creativethinking within organisations," ManagementDecision, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 309-315.

McFadzean, E. S. 1998d, "The creativity contin-uum: Towards a classification of creativeproblem solving techruques," Creativity andInnovation Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.131-139.

McFadzean, E. S. forthcoming, "What can welearn from creative people? The story ofBrian Eno," Management Decision.

McFadzean, E. S.; Briggs, R.; Bulcock, D.; andBerry, N. 1996, "Creativity in organisations:People-based solutions," Working Paper No.9624, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England.

McFadzean, E. S.; SomersaU, L.; and Coker, A.1998, "Creative problem solving using unre-lated stimuli," Journal of General Management,Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 36-50.

McFadzean, E. S.; Somersall, L.; and Coker, A.forthcoming, "A framework for facilitatinggroup processes," Strategic Change.

Nagasundaram, M. and Bostrom, R. P. 1993,"The structuring of creative processes using

GSS: A framework for research," Workingpaper No. 81, University of Georgia, Athens,Georgia.

Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E. S. 1998, "Facili-tating problem solving groups: Facilitatorcompetences," Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment 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, "Elec-tronic meeting systems to support groupwork," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34,No. 7, pp. 40-61.

Osborn, A. F. 1957, Applied Imagination, revisededition, Scribner, New York.

Rogelberg, S. G.; Barnes-Farrell, J. L.; and Lowe,C. A. 1992, "The stepladder technique: An al-ternative group structure facilitating effectivegroup decision making," Journal of AppliedPsycholo^, Vol. 77, No. 5, pp. 730-737.

Schwarz, R. M. 1994, The Skilled Facilitator: Prac-tical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Solomon, C. M. 1990, "What an idea: Creativitytraining," Personnel Journal, Vol. 69, No. 5,pp. 64-71.

Stumpf, S. A.; Zand, D. E.; and Freedman, R. D.1979, "Designing groups for judgmental deci-sions," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4,No. 4, pp. 589-600.

VanGundy, A. B. 1988, Techniques of StructuredProblem-Solving, second edition. Van Nos-trand Reinhold, New York.

VanGundy, A. B. 1992, Idea Power: Techniquesand Resources to Unleash the Creativity in YourOrganization, AMACOM, New York.

INTERFACES 29:5 122