Creativity in MS/OR: Choosing the
Appropriate Technique
ELSPETH MCFADZEAN
« + 'o
2 I A T < X
T here is a great need for creativity
within the MS/OR envirorunent.
Managers must be capable of defining
problems, developing novel solutions, and
implementing them effectively. A lot of
research 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], 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 con-
tinuum ranging from paradigm-preserving
Copyright © 1999 INFORMS
0092-2102/99/2905/OnO/$05.00
1526-551X electronic ISSN
This paper was refereed.
INTERFACES 29: 5 September-October 1999 (pp. 110-122)
Henley Management College
Greenlands
Henley-on-Thames
Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU, England
TT .«
$ "n' -
techniques to paradigm-breaking
techniques.
The Creativity Continuum
Many creative problem-solving tech-
niques 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 appro-
priate and effective methods for their par-
ticular 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 +
H, morphological analysis, word diamond.
ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES—DECISION MAKING
GAMES/GROUP DECISIONS—TEAMS
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 creative
problem-solving techniques can encourage
more novel ideas than others. Conse-
quently, McFadzean [1998c, 1998d] has
classified these techniques into the follow-
ing categories: paradigm-preserving,
paradigm-stretching, and paradigm-
breaking (Figure 1).
(1) Paradigm-preserving techniques do
not force the participants to venture out-
side their own perspectives in exploring
the situation. In other words, the bound-
aries around the problem remain un-
changed. Paradigm-preserving techriiques
include such methods as brainstorming,
force field analysis, and brainwriting
[McFadzean 1998a]. In brainstorming, for
example, the facilitator encourages partici-
pants 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 en-
courage the participants to stretch their ex-
isting paradigms. The facilitator encour-
ages 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 con-
cepts, the telephone and the computer. It
requires imagination to use these tech-
niques effectively, and as a result, they
September-October 1999
may make some participants feel
uncomfortable.
(3) Paradigm-breaking techniques can be
very powerful and can encourage partici-
pants to develop very novel ideas. The
participants produce creative ideas by
bringing new elements into the problem
situation and by developing new relation-
ships between existing elements. By using
this technique, the facilitator encourages
the participants to break down their per-
ceptions and to completely smash the
problem's boundaries. Paradigm-breaking
techniques, like paradigm-stretching tech-
niques, 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 uncom-
fortable, and therefore these techniques
should be used only by groups of people
who have a high degree of cohesion and
trust.
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-
111
McFADZEAN
PARADIGM
PRESERVING
1 1
Problem Boundaries Unchanged
Creative Stimulation Low
Techniques Brainstonning
Brainwriting
Force Field Analysis
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 dif-
ferent 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 idea-
generation 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 par-
ticipants 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
INTERFACES 29:5
PARADIGM PARADIGM
STRETCHING BREAKING
1
Stretched Broken
Medium High
Object Stimulation Wisliful Thinking
Metaphors Rich Pictxires
brainstorming, and, if necessary, conduct a
warm-up exercise.
(3) Ask the participants to generate possi-
ble solutions, without criticism, for about
30 to 45 minutes. The ideas should be re-
corded 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 com-
bine statements and identify valuable
ideas.
(5) Designate one person to receive and
record any additional ideas that may oc-
cur to members after the meeting.
To use brainstorming effectively, the par-
ticipants must develop a focused problem
statement [Evans 1996]. A statement that
is too broad will only encourage partici-
pants to develop solutions that are also
too broad to be effective. LeBoeuf [1980]
presents a number of examples of
brainstorming:
—The Advertising Club in Cleveland car-
ried out a brainstorming exercise to de-
112
CREATIVITY IN MS/OR
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 imple-
mented 29. Their solutions were effective
because the seats at the opera were
filled.
—A management executive team devel-
oped ideas through brainstorming for a
problem about engineering shortages. In
25 minutes, it produced 110 ideas, of
which six were good enough to adopt.
—Argus Camera used brainstorming to
develop methods of economizing on pur-
chasing. 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 re-
sulted in some criticism regarding Os-
born's ideas. For example, nominal groups
have consistently been shown to outper-
form 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-
September-October 1999
erates the alternatives, discusses the op-
tions and makes the decision by using ver-
bal interaction from the outset of the
process.
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 two
members of any group tended to be domi-
nant, which reduced the free flow of ideas;
many group members felt inhibited even
though they were in an evaluation-free en-
vironment; and the sessions tended to be-
come unstructured and informal unless a
strong group leader was appointed.
To combat these weaknesses, research-
ers have developed other techniques based
on 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 of
imagination and can therefore be used by
groups that are newly formed or inexperi-
enced. Moreover, the facilitator does not
need much skill because it is very easy to
set up and implement. The instructions for
brainwriting are as foUows:
(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 stimula-
tion or want to piggyback ideas to ex-
change their sheets of paper with others
113
McFADZEAN
from the pool.
(4) Continue the process of writing ideas
and 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 idea
from the pool. Then stick the idea on the
wall. Continue the process until all the
ideas have been presented and clar-
ified.
This technique maintains a form of ano-
nymity, 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 contrib-
ute to the problem or impede the imple-
mentation of its solution. Force field anal-
ysis 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 sce-
narios: 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 con-
tribute to making the situation cata-
strophic and those that will make the situ-
ation 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
INTERFACES 29:5
the output of the force field analysis, the
participants can develop a new strategy by
strengthening the positive forces, weaken-
ing the negative forces, or developing new
positive forces. Couger [1995] describes an
example of force field analysis: An elec-
tronics 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 cre-
ativity 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 materi-
als" and their ideal statement as "Use of
creativity techniques in everyday activi-
ties, 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 sce-
nario. 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 im-
proved, with the overall rating increasing
by 20 percent.
Force Held analysis can be used by indi-
viduals or by groups. The advantage of
using it in a group session is that partici-
pants will have different perceptions of
the scenarios and the forces that may af-
fect them. Again, this technique can be
used by groups with less experience, and
114
CREATIVITY IN IMS/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 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 old
mind patterns and forming new connec-
tions 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 orga-
nization or department rather than what is
going wrong. This allows the decision
makers to view the situation from a differ-
ent perspective and encourages the use of
more creative problem-solving techniques,
such as picture stimulation. In using pic-
ture stimulation, participants look at color-
ful 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 combi-
nations. This is known as association, and
it is the basis of many creative problem-
solving techniques, such as the heuristic
ideation technique, analogies, rolestorm-
ing, 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 stimu-
late ideas pertaining to the problem or sit-
uation. For instance, by forcing together
the words fan and skirt, a number of prac-
tical ideas can be developed, such as a
craft that can run across water (the hover-
craft) 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 problem-
solving technique encourages paradigm
transformation. In other words, the
boundaries of the problem are either
stretched or broken. Using paradigm-
stretching and paradigm-breaking tech-
niques 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 ex-
pression, for example, role playing, fanta-
sizing, or drawing.
115
McFADZEAN
According to Garfield et al. [1997],
McFadzean [1996], and Nagasundaram
and Bostrom [1993], groups utilizing
paradigm-stretching and paradigm-
breaking techniques produce more crea-
tive ideas than groups that use only
paradigm-preserving techruques.
Paradigm-Stretching Techniques
Object stimulation is an idea-generation
technique that people can use to explore
the 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 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 gener-
ate 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 organiza-
tions 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, re-
search has shown that object stimulation is
a more powerful tool in terms of creativity
INTERFACES 29:5
than such paradigm-preserving techniques
as brainwriting [McFadzean 1996]. Here is
an example of object stimulation: A car
company used object stimulation to im-
prove 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 per-
spectives; for example, Disneyland encour-
age 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 devel-
oped 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 follow-
ing way:
(1) Develop a problem statement and
write it on a fiip chart.
(2) Ask the group to select a metaphor
category or stipulate a category, for exam-
116
CREATIVITY IN MS/OR
pie, 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 descrip-
tions 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 depart-
ment in a petroleum company needed to
motivate employees to adopt computer-
aided software engineering (CASE) tools
that simplify the development of new soft-
ware 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 prob-
lem. The metaphor it used was: "Dislike of
canned spinach." The group identified fac-
tors relating to the dislike of spinach that
included taste (for example, subdued com-
pared 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 ap-
pearance, 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 im-
proving their health, that is, their security
September-October 1999
within the department. The group ex-
plored each of the resulting issues and de-
veloped 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 meta-
phors can be useful for solving problems
and finding opportunities. These include
nature metaphors, vehicle metaphors,
creational metaphors, and journey meta-
phors. Again, this method requires some
imagination by the group. Developing
metaphors may be difficult for some peo-
ple 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 struc-
tured and clearly defined. VanGundy
[1988, p. 127] suggests that, "When a prob-
lem 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, wish-
ful thinking can increase their motivation
117
MCFADZEAN
and change their perspectives. The instruc-
tions 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 ev-
erything is possible. Ask each individual
to develop some fantasy statements about
the future using such terms as. In the fu-
ture, 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 d o . . . .
(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 situa-
tion. 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 facili-
tate because some of the fantasies can be
difficult 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 should
be experienced at using this type of CPS
method. Moreover, the participants and
the facilitator should have worked to-
gether 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 perspec-
tives that they would not have developed
using paradigm-preserving techniques.
Couger [1995] presents the following ex-
ample of wishful thinking: The manager of
the systems department of an electronics
INTERFACES 29:5
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 reengi-
neer 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 pic-
tures. The pictures may be metaphors for
the situation, for example, vehicles or ani-
mals. The first drawing should be a pic-
ture 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 indi-
vidual 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 be-
cause the group can very quickly see what
118
CREATIVITY IN MS/OR
each member's perception of the problem
is 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 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 ses-
sion. The group, however, needs to be per-
suaded of the technique's effectiveness be-
fore 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 par-
ticipants 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 depart-
ment in a British Health Trust hospital
wanted to develop a new strategic plan. A
facilitator asked seven people from the de-
partment 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, dilapi-
dated vehicles that lacked drivers and had
very few occupants. These pictures repre-
sented a department that lacked leader-
ship and focus. The pictures depicting the
September-October 1999
ideal situation, however, showed cars that
were sleek, fast, had chauffeurs and a
number of occupants (representing cus-
tomers). There were also signs on the
roadway pointing the car in an appropri-
ate direction. The exercise took 15 minutes
and showed the managers what every-
body thought of the department and how
they would like it to change. In other
words, the draw^ings showed the extent of
the problem to everybody present very
quickly.
Discussion
According to Nagasundaram and
Bostrom [1993] and McFadzean [1996,
1998d], classical brainstorming, brainwrit-
ing, and force field analysis do not pro-
duce 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. Paradigm-
preserving techniques generally use re-
lated stimuli and free association (Figure
2). In addition, participants express their
ideas using verbal or written communica-
tion. 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 en-
courages participants to build on other
people's ideas, thus reducing the possibil-
ity of group-process losses, such as cogni-
tive inertia, groupthink, and incomplete
task analysis. Nunamaker et al. [1991] and
Janis [1972] define these three process
losses as follows:
—With cognitive inertia, the discussion
moves along one train of thought without
119
MCFADZEAN

PARADIGM PARADIGM PARADIGM

PRESERVmG STRETCHING BREAKING

1 1 1
Problem Boundaries Unchanged Stretched Broken

Reduction in
Low Medium High
Cognitive Inertia

Potential Apprehensior Low Medium High

Use of Imagination Not necessary Necessary Necessary

VerbalAVritten/Role playing/
Expression VerbalAVritten VerbalAVritten
Drawing/Visioning
Stimuli Related stimuli Unrelated stimuli Fantasy and unrelated stimuli

Association of
Free association Forced association Forced association
Information
Can be used by experienced Groups require some Should only be used by
Group Experience
and inexperienced groups experience experienced groups

Creative Stimulation Low Medium 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-preserving
category to the highly creative, but potentially uncomfortable, techniques of the paradigm-
breaking category.

deviating because group members refrain
from contributing comments that are not
directly related to the current theme.
—Groupthink occurs when the group par-
ticipants become extremely close and con-
sensus seeking becomes the dominant
force.
—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 tech-
niques can be creative, paradigm-
stretching and paradigm-breaking tech-
niques 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 tech-
niques and be capable of developing a
trusting rapport within the group.
Paradigm-stretching and paradigm-
breaking methods help groups to change
their patterns of thinking and to view situ-
ations from different perspectives. Conse-
quently, they can produce more novel and
creative 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.
References
Bouchard, 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 and Successful Meetings, Vol. 40, No. 13, pp. 60-
Opportunity Finding, Boyd and Fraser Pub-
September-October 1999
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 so-
lution of a riddle," Journal of Personality and
Social 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: The
creative problem-solving process. Part 1," In-
terfaces, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 78-^3.
Evans, J. R. 1997b, "Creativity in OR/MS: The
creative 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.; and
Nunamaker, 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 Management
Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 27-36.
Garfield, M.; Satzinger, J.; Taylor, N.; and
Dennis, A. 1997, "The creative road: The im-
pact of the person, process and feedback on
idea 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, "Generating
ideas using randomized search methods: A
method 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,"
66.
121
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, "Compari-
son of a written feedback procedure, group
brainstorming 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 creative
problem 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 Creative
Problem-Solving Sessions, TeamTalk Consult- Schwarz, R. M. 1994, The Skilled Facilitator: Prac-
ing Ltd, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire,
England.
McFadzean, E. S. 1998b, "The attention wheel:
How to manage creative teams," Working
Paper No. 9823, Henley Management Col-
lege, 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 contin-
uum: Towards a classification of creative
problem solving techruques," 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, 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 facilitating
group processes," Strategic Change.
Nagasundaram, M. and Bostrom, R. P. 1993,
"The structuring of creative processes using
INTERFACES 29:5
GSS: A framework for research," Working
paper No. 81, University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia.
Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E. S. 1998, "Facili-
tating 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, "Elec-
tronic 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 al-
ternative group structure facilitating effective
group decision making," Journal of Applied
Psycholo^, Vol. 77, No. 5, pp. 730-737.
tical 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 deci-
sions," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4,
No. 4, pp. 589-600.
VanGundy, A. B. 1988, Techniques of Structured
Problem-Solving, second edition. Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, New York.
VanGundy, A. B. 1992, Idea Power: Techniques
and Resources to Unleash the Creativity in Your
Organization, AMACOM, New York.
122