tce

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

creative engines
Thinking creatively is not the preserve of artists and media-types, says Jamie Cleaver. Its a crucial attribute for all problem-solving engineers
30 www.tcetoday.com june 2013

Start your

HEN I ask young chemical engineers about their experience of creativity in engineering, I usually get blank or confused looks, as if I was asking them what colour scheme would look best for the new tank farm. More informed or experienced individuals may mutter something about brainstorming, or the work of polymath Edward de Bono, as if these were abstract concepts or theoretical exercises. And yet in spite of the apparent disconnection, combining the words creativity and engineering seems logical tous. There is universal acceptance of the principle that engineering is by definition a creative activity. For example, the American Engineers Council for Professional Development defines engineering as the creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes , and the Engineering Council considers creativity to be one of the attributes required by a Chartered Engineer. IChemEs technical policy document Chemical Engineering Matters brings to life this requirement for us to be creative. It lays out a matrix of essential issues and concerns, and the key challenges that face society. It is clear, for example, that addressing the issue of sustainability in the context of energy, or food and nutrition is going to call for some pretty inspired work. However, we dont necessarily have to be at the cutting edge of technology to benefit from a creative approach to our work. A typical engineering project has a number of viable solutions using a range of technologies and a complex array of constraints. Meeting project challenges requires a creative approach that is embedded within a robust project management system for creative problem solving.

mind the gap

I dont know about you, but I sense a massive gap between the ideal of engineering being a creative activity, and the reality of everyday professional life for many chemical engineers who consider the most creative thing they do is choosing a screensaver. The gap may exist for a number of reasons. First, evidence from research at the UKs University of Northampton suggests that engineering creativity is not taught effectively in universities, with too much emphasis placed on the outcome of problems and not enough on the process of reaching a solution. Secondly, there is a tendency in industry to rely on triedand-tested solutions without proper consideration of better alternatives for

PROJECT CAREERS MANAGEMENT

tce

Engineering
is by definition a

creative activity:

the creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes
reasons of minimising cost and time, and not compromising process safety. This is understandable and reasonable, until it becomes entrenched as an accepted form of operation. Thirdly, creativity often has the stigma of being the domain of artists or people who work in media, marketing or advertising, and therefore not credible in engineering. This is far from the truth; some very powerful systems have been created specifically for creative engineering, as we will see. Finally, the success of any creative system will depend primarily on the key skills of the individuals; were talking here about communication, team-working and leadership. Without these skills in place, engineering creativity is not going to get off the ground. Its high time to take a long hard look at our levels of engineering creativity to see if there is room for improvement. The most important concept to grasp, and one that is frequently overlooked, is that engineering creativity is conducted within a framework that we will call a creative system (CS). This is essentially a robust and logical procedure that gives the best solution to a complex problem without compromising safety or integrity. By applying a CS, engineers can be creative and accountable; we will compare three that have been specifically generated or adapted for solving engineering problems (see Table 1). Each CS comprises a number of well-defined steps. Whilst each differs in detail, the essential components are similar. Three distinct phases can be identified:
Bailey: Disciplined creativity for engineers1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Problem enquiry Specifying goals Determining means Solution optimisation Construction and verification Convincing others

This phase, indicated in the table by red shading makes sure that the correct problem is being addressed, that it is well defined, and that the right information is available. It ensures that the problem is sufficiently understood and put into context.
P
HAS

HAS

ONE

PREPARATION FOR CREATIVITY

TWO

THE CREATIVE ENGINE

This lies at the heart of each CES process, highlighted here in blue. In this phase judgement is suspended, conventional thought patterns are put to one side and we are encouraged to think in a new way. This is the step that people immediately associate with creative problem solving. In this phase we can introduce our own favourite techniques, whether they are based on brainstorming, the thinking strategies of de Bono, or a method such as TRIZ but more on that later. The important point is that this phase alone does not constitute a CS. These creative techniques in phase 2 have to be part of a framework that includes phases 1 and 3.
P
HAS

the process should be adhered to, with each phase treated as a distinct activity rather than trying to tackle everything in an afternoon. Naturally the whole system needs to be tied together with accurate and actionable minutes. Given the three options in Table 1, which one is best? Of course, there is no straight answer as it depends on your preferences and circumstances. If youre looking to introduce a reasonably flexible and accessible system then the Adapted McMaster approach is arguably the best bet. Its rigorous, but can be understood by non-engineers. If youre looking for a flexible and well-established system with plenty of support then the Osborn-Parnes CPS system would be worth considering. Baileys Disciplined Creativity for Engineers is a thorough and beautifully logical system that may suit an organisation that engages in disciplined creativity as their mainstream activity. However, it exists only as an out-of-print textbook. Another option would be to develop your own custom CS using the features and approaches that fit with your circumstances.

THREE

The problem isnt solved until its solved. After the free-rein of imagination in phase 2, we come back down to earth in phase 3, highlighted yellow. Phase 3 is all about identifying the best course of action, communicating, implementing and evaluating the solution. The three phases of a CS are essential, and if shortcuts are taken or phases omitted then we are likely to end up with more problems than we started with. The timeframe for the course of a CS may be days or weeks, depending on the nature and complexity of the challenge. However, even for apparently trivial problems, or ones with ostensibly obvious solutions
Fogler and LeBlanc: Adapted McMaster 5-point strategy3 Define the problem Generate solutions Decide course of action Implement solution Evaluate solution

Osborn-Parnes: Creative problem solving (CPS)2 Objective finding Data finding Problem finding Idea finding Solution finding Acceptance finding

E E E

the creative engine

Given that a CS is a problem-solving vehicle with a choice of creative engine, lets have a look at what we can put under the bonnet in phase 2 of the process. First of all, what are the essential requirements? We need to suspend judgement, we need to break away from established thought patterns, we need time and space for the process, and we need to converge and organise our ideas. Suspending judgement is fundamental. If people are quick to judge, new ideas may be rejected before they are fully explored. Alternatively, new ideas may be accepted too quickly without the proper evaluation or exploration of potentially better solutions. Unfortunately, judgement is a natural activity for human beings. De Bono4 noted that we are hard-wired to follow routine patterns of perception and behaviour. Judgement or evaluation helps to keep us on the straight and narrow, but doesnt help us to generate creative solutions. So, we have our problem-solving team sitting round the table and everyone has agreed to suspend judgement whilst ideas are

ACTION STATIONS

Table 1: Comparison of three creative systems june 2013 www.tcetoday.com 31

tce

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
By running through this list, our creative team would be able to take an existing idea and develop it in an unconstrained way. There are numerous other tools that can help us to think creatively in an attempt to break established conventions. We could consider futuring , in which we imagine ourselves looking at an ideal solution to the problem at some time in the future. Alternatively we could choose analogy , in which we learn from problems from related or unrelated fields. We could make forced connections that help us to see things in a new way by relating items that are apparently unrelated. Another good way of generating ideas is to use the thinking pairs technique. This works by splitting the team into pairs; one thinks aloud whilst the other actively listens without interruption. After a given length of time they swap roles. This is part of a larger framework developed by Kline6 known as the thinking environment . It is an excellent concept for getting the best out of people. The point is that there are plenty of tools in the creative problemsolving toolbox that can be used if the team gets stuck. A key component of the divergent thinking process is the allowance of sufficient time and space for creative thought. Here, de Bono4 has developed a system of six hats to facilitate this. Each metaphorical hat has a different colour to indicate a different type of thinking. Individuals put on various hats according to the type of thinking that is required at a specific stage of the process. White-hat thinking denotes consideration of facts and figures; wearing a red hat denotes intuitive or emotive thought; a black hat relates to judgement and caution; a yellow hat relates to identifying positive values and benefits; a green hat relates to creative alternatives and provocative ideas; and the blue hat is worn when considering the overall problem-solving process and not the problem itself. An awareness of the six hats system is useful as it assists in running the creative process and helps teams to allocate sufficient time and space to problem solving. Another aspect relating to time is the importance of incubation. After a session of creative thought, it is often useful to stop, and allow some time for the subconscious mind to work on the task. The different creative engines considered so far generate solutions based on a random process, with the help of various tools to maximise the chance of a successful outcome. An alternative process known as TRIZ has been developed by engineer and scientist Genrich Altshuller and co-workers in the former Soviet Union. TRIZ is a Russian acronym that translates as theory of inventive problem solving . The beauty of TRIZ is that it is systematic

Edward de Bonos six hats thought exercise

Each metaphorical hat has a different colour to indicate a different type of thinking. Individuals put on various hats according to the type of thinking that is required at a specific stage of the process.

FACTS & FIGURES,

WHITE

INFORMATION

EMOTIVE

INTUITIVE,

RED

BLACK
JUDGEMENT,

CAUTION

POSITIVE VALUES,

YELLOW
BENEFITS

CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES,

GREEN

PROVOCATIVE IDEAS

OVERALL PROBLEM-

BLUE

SOLVING PROCESS

generated. This is a classic brainstorming session. Everyone chips in with their ideas. Nothing gets discussed or evaluated at this stage; its all about capturing thought. Hopefully someone says something that leads to a breakthrough and progress can be made. However, there is still something missing. It is not usually sufficient to suspend judgement, because our thought processes are still adhering to established patterns and traditional solutions; in other words we tend to stick to the straight and narrow path that is familiar. Our thinking is constrained by our experiences. To overcome this barrier we need to break away from the established thought patterns. There are many techniques to encourage this. The most well-known are the lateral thinking methods developed by de Bono such as using a provocation operation (PO). The provocation for new thinking comes from a bold, eccentric or unusual statement about the problem. This moves the thinking towards fresh solutions. Another lateral thinking technique involves using random word input (random stimulation) to get us out of a thinking rut and down a new

line of thought. When problems involve a human element, for example, designing a process control interface, adopting the lateral thinking technique of other peoples views (OPVs) can be beneficial. By empathising with the operators views, a fresh perspective is introduced. The concept of lateral thinking has been boosted by vertical thinking. Fogler and leBlanc3 explain vertical thinking as the process of building on existing ideas. A useful technique for vertical thinking is to apply the instructions laid out by Eberle5 encapsulated in the mnemonic SCAMPER. This encourages us to:

S C A M P

Substitute something Combine components, ideas, concepts Adapt an existing solution or system Magnify make it bigger, stronger, faster, more frequent Put it to a new use Eliminate what can be removed, simplified? Reverse what happens if we do the opposite?

Improving our creative problem-solving abilities could be good for business, as well as for society as a whole.
32 www.tcetoday.com june 2013

E R

PROJECT CAREERS MANAGEMENT

rather than random. It is based on the principle that someone somewhere has already solved your problem, or one very like it, and that conflicting requirements or technical contradictions can be resolved. The best outcome to a problem is arrived at by considering 39 technical parameters and 40 inventive principles. TRIZ is gaining popularity worldwide and is well worth considering, although it suffers from a reputation of being a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut . Its adoption by an organisation would certainly require investment of time and careful management. However, if engineering innovative solutions is your core business activity then it might be the tool for you. Many good books and web resources are available, for example that by Gadd7. Improving our creative problem-solving abilities could be good for business, as well as for society as a whole. It is important to view engineering creativity within the context of a CS, and to ensure that a suitable system is in place. At the heart of the system lies the creative engine. It is up to us to select an engine that is appropriate for our purposes. The effectiveness of the entire system is critically dependent on the level of communication, team-working and leadership skills of the players. tce Jamie Cleaver (www.jamiecleaver.co.uk) is a freelance trainer in key skills, and lectures in chemical engineering in his spare time. Jamie runs a one-day Creativity Skills course for IChemE, currently held once a year in Rugby, UK. To find our more and register your interest in the next course contact courses@icheme.org

tce

Disciplined Creativity for Engineers (Bailey)

Robert Bailey is an electrical engineer who learned his trade at General Electric before taking up an academic post at the University of Florida, US. His Disciplined Creativity for Engineers comprises a six-point plan, the elements of which are connected logically in the form of a complex flow chart. Baileys system is built by an engineer, for engineers. For example, he introduces the concept of creativity enhancers and inhibitors in the form of exponential coefficients. The importance of communication throughout the process is stressed, and includes this wonderful last step of convincing others.

Adapted McMaster five-point strategy (Fogler and LeBlanc, 2008)

The McMaster five-point strategy is a generic problem-solving approach that was developed by Don Woods in the chemical engineering department at McMaster University, Canada. It has been adapted by Scott Fogler and Steve LeBlanc, also chemical engineers, into a powerful tool for creative engineering. Whilst their system has much in common with the other two systems, it is worth mentioning their use of the Kepner-Tregoe approach to help define the problem and decide the course of action in a structured way, making the process as objective as possible.

Osborn-Parnes creative problem solving (CPS)

CPS was first developed in the 1950s by Alex Osborn who was an advertising executive. He also developed brainstorming as part of the CPS process. In the 1970s Osborn collaborated with psychologist Sidney Parnes to develop the model into a more generic method. It has undergone a number of revisions. The version presented here is from Isaksen and Treffinger2. They advocated six steps that can be identified into components of understanding the problem (steps 13), generating ideas, (step 4), and planning for action, (steps 56). The main theme of the CPS approach is that each step involves divergent thinking to consider all the possibilities, followed by convergent thinking to obtain the best option.

references
1. Bailey, RL, Disciplined Creativity for Engineers, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, US, 1978. 2. Isaksen, SG, Dorval, KB, and Treffinger, DJ, Creative Approaches to Problem Solving: A Framework for Innovation and Change, 3rd edition, Sage Publications, 2011. 3. Fogler, HS and LeBlanc, SE, Strategies for Creative Problem Solving, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 2008. 4. de Bono, E, Serious Creativity , Journal for Quality and Participation, 18, 5, p1218, 1995. 5. Eberle, B, Scamper: Creative Games and Activities for Imagination Development, Prufrock Press, Texas, US, 1997. 6. Kline, N, Time to Think, Cassell Illustrated, London, UK,1999. 7. Gadd, K, TRIZ for Engineers, Enabling Inventive Problem Solving, John Wiley, UK,2011.
june 2013 www.tcetoday.com 33