creative problem solving process (cpsp)

• Board of Directors

What is CPS?

Cps = c reative p roblem s olving, cps is a proven method for approaching a problem or a challenge in an imaginative and innovative way. it helps you redefine the problems and opportunities you face, come up with new, innovative responses and solutions, and then take action..

Why does CPS work?

CPS begins with two assumptions:

• Everyone is creative in some way.
• Creative skills can be learned and enhanced.

Osborn noted there are two distinct kinds of thinking that are essential to being creative:

Divergent thinking.

Brainstorming is often misunderstood as the entire Creative Problem Solving process.   Brainstorming is the divergent thinking phase of the CPS process.   It is not simply a group of people in a meeting coming up with ideas in a disorganized fashion. Brainstorming at its core is generating lots of ideas.  Divergence allows us to state and move beyond obvious ideas to breakthrough ideas. (Fun Fact: Alex Osborn, founder of CEF, coined the term “brainstorm.” Osborn was the “O” from the ad agency BBDO.)

Convergent Thinking

Convergent thinking applies criteria to brainstormed ideas so that those ideas can become actionable innovations.  Divergence provides the raw material that pushes beyond every day thinking, and convergence tools help us screen, select, evaluate, and refine ideas, while retaining novelty and newness.

To drive a car, you need both the gas and the brake.

But you cannot use the gas and brake pedals at the same time — you use them alternately to make the car go. Think of the gas pedal as Divergence , and the brake pedal as Convergence . Used together you move forward to a new destination.

Each of us use divergent and convergent thinking daily, intuitively. CPS is a deliberate process that allows you to harness your natural creative ability and apply it purposefully to problems, challenges, and opportunities.

The CPS Process

Based on the osborn-parnes process, the cps model uses plain language and recent research., the basic structure is comprised of four stages with a total of six explicit process steps. , each step uses divergent and convergent thinking..

Learner’s Model based on work of G.J. Puccio, M. Mance, M.C. Murdock, B. Miller, J. Vehar, R. Firestien, S. Thurber, & D. Nielsen (2011)

Explore the Vision.   Identify the goal, wish, or challenge.

Gather Data.   Describe and generate data to enable a clear understanding of the challenge.

Formulate Challenges. Sharpen awareness of the challenge and create challenge questions that invite solutions.

Explore Ideas. Generate ideas that answer the challenge questions.

Formulate Solutions. To move from ideas to solutions. Evaluate, strengthen, and select solutions for best “fit.”

Formulate a Plan.  Explore acceptance and identify resources and actions that will support implementation of the selected solution(s).

Explore Ideas. Generate ideas that answer the challenge question

Core Principles of Creative Problem Solving

• Everyone is creative.
• Divergent and Convergent Thinking Must be Balanced.  Keys to creativity are learning ways to identify and balance expanding and contracting thinking (done separately), and knowing  when  to practice them.
• Ask Problems as Questions.  Solutions are more readily invited and developed when  challenges and problems are restated as open-ended questions  with multiple possibilities. Such questions generate lots of rich information, while closed-ended questions tend to elicit confirmation or denial. Statements tend to generate limited or no response at all.
• Defer or Suspend Judgment.  As Osborn learned in his early work on brainstorming, the  instantaneous judgment in response to an idea shuts down idea generation . There is an appropriate and necessary time to apply judgement when converging.
• Focus on “Yes, and” rather than “No, but.”  When generating information and ideas, language matters.  “Yes, and…” allows continuation and expansion , which is necessary in certain stages of CPS. The use of the word “but” – preceded by “yes” or “no” – closes down conversation, negating everything that has come before it.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 10 min read

Creative Problem Solving

Finding innovative solutions to challenges.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Imagine that you're vacuuming your house in a hurry because you've got friends coming over. Frustratingly, you're working hard but you're not getting very far. You kneel down, open up the vacuum cleaner, and pull out the bag. In a cloud of dust, you realize that it's full... again. Coughing, you empty it and wonder why vacuum cleaners with bags still exist!

James Dyson, inventor and founder of Dyson® vacuum cleaners, had exactly the same problem, and he used creative problem solving to find the answer. While many companies focused on developing a better vacuum cleaner filter, he realized that he had to think differently and find a more creative solution. So, he devised a revolutionary way to separate the dirt from the air, and invented the world's first bagless vacuum cleaner. [1]

Creative problem solving (CPS) is a way of solving problems or identifying opportunities when conventional thinking has failed. It encourages you to find fresh perspectives and come up with innovative solutions, so that you can formulate a plan to overcome obstacles and reach your goals.

In this article, we'll explore what CPS is, and we'll look at its key principles. We'll also provide a model that you can use to generate creative solutions.

About Creative Problem Solving

Alex Osborn, founder of the Creative Education Foundation, first developed creative problem solving in the 1940s, along with the term "brainstorming." And, together with Sid Parnes, he developed the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process. Despite its age, this model remains a valuable approach to problem solving. [2]

The early Osborn-Parnes model inspired a number of other tools. One of these is the 2011 CPS Learner's Model, also from the Creative Education Foundation, developed by Dr Gerard J. Puccio, Marie Mance, and co-workers. In this article, we'll use this modern four-step model to explore how you can use CPS to generate innovative, effective solutions.

Why Use Creative Problem Solving?

Dealing with obstacles and challenges is a regular part of working life, and overcoming them isn't always easy. To improve your products, services, communications, and interpersonal skills, and for you and your organization to excel, you need to encourage creative thinking and find innovative solutions that work.

CPS asks you to separate your "divergent" and "convergent" thinking as a way to do this. Divergent thinking is the process of generating lots of potential solutions and possibilities, otherwise known as brainstorming. And convergent thinking involves evaluating those options and choosing the most promising one. Often, we use a combination of the two to develop new ideas or solutions. However, using them simultaneously can result in unbalanced or biased decisions, and can stifle idea generation.

For more on divergent and convergent thinking, and for a useful diagram, see the book "Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making." [3]

Core Principles of Creative Problem Solving

CPS has four core principles. Let's explore each one in more detail:

• Divergent and convergent thinking must be balanced. The key to creativity is learning how to identify and balance divergent and convergent thinking (done separately), and knowing when to practice each one.
• Ask problems as questions. When you rephrase problems and challenges as open-ended questions with multiple possibilities, it's easier to come up with solutions. Asking these types of questions generates lots of rich information, while asking closed questions tends to elicit short answers, such as confirmations or disagreements. Problem statements tend to generate limited responses, or none at all.
• Defer or suspend judgment. As Alex Osborn learned from his work on brainstorming, judging solutions early on tends to shut down idea generation. Instead, there's an appropriate and necessary time to judge ideas during the convergence stage.
• Focus on "Yes, and," rather than "No, but." Language matters when you're generating information and ideas. "Yes, and" encourages people to expand their thoughts, which is necessary during certain stages of CPS. Using the word "but" – preceded by "yes" or "no" – ends conversation, and often negates what's come before it.

How to Use the Tool

Let's explore how you can use each of the four steps of the CPS Learner's Model (shown in figure 1, below) to generate innovative ideas and solutions.

Figure 1 – CPS Learner's Model

Explore the Vision

Identify your goal, desire or challenge. This is a crucial first step because it's easy to assume, incorrectly, that you know what the problem is. However, you may have missed something or have failed to understand the issue fully, and defining your objective can provide clarity. Read our article, 5 Whys , for more on getting to the root of a problem quickly.

Gather Data

Once you've identified and understood the problem, you can collect information about it and develop a clear understanding of it. Make a note of details such as who and what is involved, all the relevant facts, and everyone's feelings and opinions.

Formulate Questions

When you've increased your awareness of the challenge or problem you've identified, ask questions that will generate solutions. Think about the obstacles you might face and the opportunities they could present.

Explore Ideas

Generate ideas that answer the challenge questions you identified in step 1. It can be tempting to consider solutions that you've tried before, as our minds tend to return to habitual thinking patterns that stop us from producing new ideas. However, this is a chance to use your creativity .

Brainstorming and Mind Maps are great ways to explore ideas during this divergent stage of CPS. And our articles, Encouraging Team Creativity , Problem Solving , Rolestorming , Hurson's Productive Thinking Model , and The Four-Step Innovation Process , can also help boost your creativity.

See our Brainstorming resources within our Creativity section for more on this.

Formulate Solutions

This is the convergent stage of CPS, where you begin to focus on evaluating all of your possible options and come up with solutions. Analyze whether potential solutions meet your needs and criteria, and decide whether you can implement them successfully. Next, consider how you can strengthen them and determine which ones are the best "fit." Our articles, Critical Thinking and ORAPAPA , are useful here.

4. Implement

Formulate a plan.

Once you've chosen the best solution, it's time to develop a plan of action. Start by identifying resources and actions that will allow you to implement your chosen solution. Next, communicate your plan and make sure that everyone involved understands and accepts it.

There have been many adaptations of CPS since its inception, because nobody owns the idea.

For example, Scott Isaksen and Donald Treffinger formed The Creative Problem Solving Group Inc . and the Center for Creative Learning , and their model has evolved over many versions. Blair Miller, Jonathan Vehar and Roger L. Firestien also created their own version, and Dr Gerard J. Puccio, Mary C. Murdock, and Marie Mance developed CPS: The Thinking Skills Model. [4] Tim Hurson created The Productive Thinking Model , and Paul Reali developed CPS: Competencies Model. [5]

Sid Parnes continued to adapt the CPS model by adding concepts such as imagery and visualization , and he founded the Creative Studies Project to teach CPS. For more information on the evolution and development of the CPS process, see Creative Problem Solving Version 6.1 by Donald J. Treffinger, Scott G. Isaksen, and K. Brian Dorval. [6]

Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Infographic

See our infographic on Creative Problem Solving .

Creative problem solving (CPS) is a way of using your creativity to develop new ideas and solutions to problems. The process is based on separating divergent and convergent thinking styles, so that you can focus your mind on creating at the first stage, and then evaluating at the second stage.

There have been many adaptations of the original Osborn-Parnes model, but they all involve a clear structure of identifying the problem, generating new ideas, evaluating the options, and then formulating a plan for successful implementation.

[1] Entrepreneur (2012). James Dyson on Using Failure to Drive Success [online]. Available here . [Accessed May 27, 2022.]

[2] Creative Education Foundation (2015). The CPS Process [online]. Available here . [Accessed May 26, 2022.]

[3] Kaner, S. et al. (2014). 'Facilitator′s Guide to Participatory Decision–Making,' San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[4] Puccio, G., Mance, M., and Murdock, M. (2011). 'Creative Leadership: Skils That Drive Change' (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[5] OmniSkills (2013). Creative Problem Solving [online]. Available here . [Accessed May 26, 2022].

[6] Treffinger, G., Isaksen, S., and Dorval, B. (2010). Creative Problem Solving (CPS Version 6.1). Center for Creative Learning, Inc. & Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. Available here .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

4 logical fallacies.

Avoid Common Types of Faulty Reasoning

Everyday Cybersecurity

Keep Your Data Safe

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Gain essential management and leadership skills

Busy schedule? No problem. Learn anytime, anywhere. 

Subscribe to unlimited access to meticulously researched, evidence-based resources.

Join today and save on an annual membership!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Better Public Speaking

How to Build Confidence in Others

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

How to create psychological safety at work.

Speaking up without fear

How to Guides

Pain Points Podcast - Presentations Pt 1

How do you get better at presenting?

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

7 ways to combat anxiety.

Using simple techniques to de-stress

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• About us

Creative problem solving: basics, techniques, activities

Why is creative problem solving so important.

Problem-solving is a part of almost every person's daily life at home and in the workplace. Creative problem solving helps us understand our environment, identify the things we want or need to change, and find a solution to improve the environment's performance.

Creative problem solving is essential for individuals and organizations because it helps us control what's happening in our environment.

Humans have learned to observe the environment and identify risks that may lead to specific outcomes in the future. Anticipating is helpful not only for fixing broken things but also for influencing the performance of items.

Creative problem solving is not just about fixing broken things; it's about innovating and creating something new. Observing and analyzing the environment, we identify opportunities for new ideas that will improve our environment in the future.

The 7-step creative problem-solving process

The creative problem-solving process usually consists of seven steps.

1. Define the problem.

The very first step in the CPS process is understanding the problem itself. You may think that it's the most natural step, but sometimes what we consider a problem is not a problem. We are very often mistaken about the real issue and misunderstood them. You need to analyze the situation. Otherwise, the wrong question will bring your CPS process in the wrong direction. Take the time to understand the problem and clear up any doubts or confusion.

2. Research the problem.

Once you identify the problem, you need to gather all possible data to find the best workable solution. Use various data sources for research. Start with collecting data from search engines, but don't forget about traditional sources like libraries. You can also ask your friends or colleagues who can share additional thoughts on your issue. Asking questions on forums is a good option, too.

3. Make challenge questions.

After you've researched the problem and collected all the necessary details about it, formulate challenge questions. They should encourage you to generate ideas and be short and focused only on one issue. You may start your challenge questions with "How might I…?" or "In what way could I…?" Then try to answer them.

4. Generate ideas.

Now you are ready to brainstorm ideas. Here it is the stage where the creativity starts. You must note each idea you brainstorm, even if it seems crazy, not inefficient from your first point of view. You can fix your thoughts on a sheet of paper or use any up-to-date tools developed for these needs.

5. Test and review the ideas.

Then you need to evaluate your ideas and choose the one you believe is the perfect solution. Think whether the possible solutions are workable and implementing them will solve the problem. If the result doesn't fix the issue, test the next idea. Repeat your tests until the best solution is found.

6. Create an action plan.

Once you've found the perfect solution, you need to work out the implementation steps. Think about what you need to implement the solution and how it will take.

7. Implement the plan.

Now it's time to implement your solution and resolve the issue.

Top 5 Easy creative thinking techniques to use at work

1. brainstorming.

Brainstorming is one of the most glaring CPS techniques, and it's beneficial. You can practice it in a group or individually.

Define the problem you need to resolve and take notes of every idea you generate. Don't judge your thoughts, even if you think they are strange. After you create a list of ideas, let your colleagues vote for the best idea.

2. Drawing techniques

It's very convenient to visualize concepts and ideas by drawing techniques such as mind mapping or creating concept maps. They are used for organizing thoughts and building connections between ideas. These techniques have a lot in common, but still, they have some differences.

When starting a mind map, you need to put the key concept in the center and add new connections. You can discover as many joints as you can.

Concept maps represent the structure of knowledge stored in our minds about a particular topic. One of the key characteristics of a concept map is its hierarchical structure, which means placing specific concepts under more general ones.

3. SWOT Analysis

The SWOT technique is used during the strategic planning stage before the actual brainstorming of ideas. It helps you identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of your project, idea, or business. Once you analyze these characteristics, you are ready to generate possible solutions to your problem.

4. Random words

This technique is one of the simplest to use for generating ideas. It's often applied by people who need to create a new product, for example. You need to prepare a list of random words, expressions, or stories and put them on the desk or board or write them down on a large sheet of paper.

Once you have a list of random words, you should think of associations with them and analyze how they work with the problem. Since our brain is good at making connections, the associations will stimulate brainstorming of new ideas.

5. Storyboarding

This CPS method is popular because it tells a story visually. This technique is based on a step-creation process. Follow this instruction to see the storyboarding process in progress:

• Set a problem and write down the steps you need to reach your goal.
• Put the actions in the right order.
• Make sub-steps for some steps if necessary. This will help you see the process in detail.
• Evaluate your moves and try to identify problems in it. It's necessary for predicting possible negative scenarios.

7 Ways to improve your creative problem-solving skills

1. play brain games.

It's considered that brain games are an excellent way to stimulate human brain function. They develop a lot of thinking skills that are crucial for creative problem-solving.

You can solve puzzles or play math games, for example. These activities will bring you many benefits, including strong logical, critical, and analytical thinking skills.

If you are keen on playing fun math games and solving complicated logic tasks, try LogicLike online.

We created 3500+ puzzles, mathematical games, and brain exercises. Our website and mobile app, developed for adults and kids, help to make pastime more productive just in one place.

2. Practice asking questions

Reasoning stimulates you to generate new ideas and solutions. To make the CPS process more accessible, ask questions about different things. By developing curiosity, you get more information that broadens your background. The more you know about a specific topic, the more solutions you will be able to generate. Make it your useful habit to ask questions. You can research on your own. Alternatively, you can ask someone who is an expert in the field. Anyway, this will help you improve your CPS skills.

3. Challenge yourself with new opportunities

After you've gained a certain level of creativity, you shouldn't stop developing your skills. Try something new, and don't be afraid of challenging yourself with more complicated methods and techniques. Don't use the same tools and solutions for similar problems. Learn from your experience and make another step to move to the next level.

4. Master your expertise

If you want to keep on generating creative ideas, you need to master your skills in the industry you are working in. The better you understand your industry vertical, the more comfortable you identify problems, find connections between them, and create actionable solutions.

Once you are satisfied with your professional life, you shouldn't stop learning new things and get additional knowledge in your field. It's vital if you want to be creative both in professional and daily life. Broaden your background to brainstorm more innovative solutions.

5. Develop persistence

If you understand why you go through this CPS challenge and why you need to come up with a resolution to your problem, you are more motivated to go through the obstacles you face. By doing this, you develop persistence that enables you to move forward toward a goal.

Practice persistence in daily routine or at work. For example, you can minimize the time you need to implement your action plan. Alternatively, some problems require a long-term period to accomplish a goal. That's why you need to follow the steps or try different solutions until you find what works for solving your problem. Don't forget about the reason why you need to find a solution to motivate yourself to be persistent.

6. Improve emotional intelligence

Empathy is a critical element of emotional intelligence. It means that you can view the issues from the perspective of other people. By practicing compassion, you can understand your colleagues that work on the project together with you. Understanding will help you implement the solutions that are beneficial for you and others.

7. Use a thinking strategy

You are mistaken if you think that creative thinking is an unstructured process. Any thinking process is a multi-step procedure, and creative thinking isn't an exclusion. Always follow a particular strategy framework while finding a solution. It will make your thinking activity more efficient and result-oriented.

Develop your logic and mathematical skills. 3500+ fun math problems and brain games with answers and explanations.

Home | Services | Articles | Report 103 eJournal | Books | Videos | ACT Questions | About | Contact

Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Basics

By jeffrey baumgartner.

I wrote this article on creative problem solving (CPS) in 2010. However, not long after writing it, a growing unhappiness with the method as a creativity technique caused me to analyse the CPS methodology in detail, identify its flaws and devise a better approach. In 2011, I did that with anticonventional thinking (ACT) . I believe that ACT is a far better method for generating highly creative ideas than is CPS. To learn more about the flaws of CPS (and it's simpler variation of brainstorming), read this .

Nevertheless, a large number of creativity consultants and others swear by CPS. So, I leave the original text of the article below.

Creative ideas do not suddenly appear in people's minds for no apparent reason. Rather, they are the result of trying to solve a specific problem or to achieve a particular goal. Albert Einstein's theories of relativity were not sudden inspirations. Rather they were the result of a huge amount of mental problem solving trying to close a discrepancy between the laws of physics and the laws of electromagnetism as they were understood at the time.

Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison and other creative geniuses have always worked in the same way. They do not wait for creative ideas to strike them. Rather they focus on trying to solve a clearly stated, at least in their minds, problem.

This approach has been formalised as Creative Problem Solving (CPS). CPS is a simple process that involves breaking down a problem to understand it, generating ideas to solve the problem and evaluating those ideas to find the most effective solutions. Highly creative people tend to follow this process in their heads, without thinking about it. Less naturally creative people simply have to learn to use this very simple process.

Although creative problem solving has been around as long as humans have been thinking creatively and solving problems, it was first formalised as a process by Alex Osborn, who invented traditional brainstorming, and Sidney Parnes. Their Creative Problem Solving Process (CPSP) has been taught at the International Center for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo College in Buffalo, New York since the 1950s.

However, there are numerous different approaches to CPS. Mine is more focused on innovation (that is the implementation of the most promising ideas). It involves seven straightforward steps.

• Clarify and identify the problem
• Research the problem
• Formulate creative challenges
• Identify insights
• Generate ideas
• Combine and evaluate the ideas
• Draw up an action plan
• Do it! (ie. implement the ideas)

Let us look at each step more carefully.

1. Clarify and identify the problem

Arguably the single most important step of CPS is identifying your real problem or goal. This may seem easy, but very often, what we believe to be the problem is not the real problem or goal. For instance, you may feel you need a new job. However, if you break down your problem and analyse what you are really looking for, it may transpire that the actual issue is that your income does not cover your costs of living. In this case, the solution may be a new job, but it might also be to re-arrange your expenses or to seek a pay rise from your existing employer.

The best way to clarify the problem and understand the underlying issues is to ask yourself -- or better still, ask a friend or family member to ask you -- a series of questions about your problem in order to clarify the true issues behind the problem. The first question to ask is simply: "why is this a problem?" or "why do I wish to achieve this goal?". Once you have answered that, ask yourself "why else?" four more times.

For instance, you might feel you want to overcome your shyness. So, you ask yourself why and you answer: "because I am lonely". Then ask yourself "why else?" four times. You answer: "because I do not know many people in this new city where I live", "because I find it hard to meet people", "because I am doing many activities alone" and "because I would like to do activities with other people who share my interests". This last "why else" is clearly more of the issue than reducing shyness. Indeed, if you had focused your creative energy on solving your shyness issue, you would not have actually solved the real problem. On the other hand, if you focused your creative energy on finding people with whom to share activities, you would be happier without ever having to address the shyness issue.

And More Questions

In addition, you can further clarify your problem by asking questions like: "what do I really wish to accomplish?", "what is preventing me from solving this problem/achieving the goal?", "how do I envision myself in six months/one year/five years [choose most relevant time span] as a result of solving this problem?" and "are my friends dealing with similar problems? If so, how are they coping?"

By the time you have answered all these questions, you should have a very clear idea of what your problem or real goal is.

The final step is to decide what criteria you will eventually use to evaluate or judge the ideas. Are there budget limitations, timeframe or other restrictions that will affect whether or not you can go ahead with an idea? What will you want to have accomplished with the ideas? What do you wish to avoid when you implement these ideas? Think about it and make a list of three to five evaluation criteria. Then put the list aside. You will not need it for a while.

2. Research the Problem

The next step in CPS is to research the problem in order to get a better understanding of it. Depending on the nature of the problem, you may need to do a great deal of research or very little. The best place to start these days is with your favourite search engine. But do not neglect good old fashioned sources of information and opinion. Libraries are fantastic for in-depth information that is easier to read than computer screens. Friends, colleagues and family can also provide thoughts on many issues. Fora on sites like LinkedIn and elsewhere are ideal for asking questions. There's nothing an expert enjoys more than imparting her knowledge. Take advantage of that. But always try to get feedback from several people to ensure you get rounded information.

3. Formulate Creative Challenges

By now, you should be clear on the real issues behind your problems or goals. The next step is to turn these issues into creative challenges. A creative challenge is basically a simple question framed to encourage suggestions or ideas. In English, a challenge typically starts with "In what ways might I [or we]...?" or "How might I...?" or "How could I...?"

Creative challenges should be simple, concise and focus on a single issue. For example: "How might I improve my Chinese language skills and find a job in Shanghai?" is two completely separate challenges. Trying to generate ideas that solve both challenges will be difficult and, as a result, will stifle idea generation. So separate these into two challenges: "How might I improve my Chinese language skills" and "How might I find a job in Shanghai". Then attack each challenge individually. Once you have ideas for both, you may find a logical approach to solving both problems in a coordinated way. Or you might find that there is not co-ordinate way and each problem must be tackled separately.

Creative challenges should not include evaluation criteria. For example: "How might I find a more challenging job that is better paying and situated close to my home?" If you put criteria in the challenge, you will limit your creative thinking. So simply ask: "How might a I find a more challenging job?" and after generating ideas, you can use the criteria to identify the ideas with the greatest potential. ( Here's a more detailed article on formulating creative challenges )

4. Identify Insights and Inspiration

You are almost ready to start generating ideas, but before you work on ideas in response to your challenge, think about what might provide insight and inspiration that will help you generate ideas. Some forms of inspiration are unrelated to the challenge. For instance, I like to go for long walks for inspiration. I also find the music of Bach provides me with deeper vision into problems. Other people like to lay down or take a bath. Whatever works for you is great.

You may seek inspiration before you generate ideas, for instance by reading up on research related to the problem. Or you might seek inspiration during the idea generation session by brainstorming in a beautiful location. If the challenge is a B2B (business to business) issue, why not brainstorm in one of your customers' premises?

5. Generate Ideas

Finally, we come to the part most people associate with brainstorming and creative problem solving: idea generation. And you probably know how this works. Take only one creative challenge. Give yourself some quiet time and try to generate at least 50 ideas that may or may not solve the challenge. You can do this alone or you can invite some friends or family members to help you.

Irrespective of your idea generation approach, write your ideas on a document. You can simply write them down in linear fashion, write them down on a mind-map, enter them onto a computer document (such as MS Word or OpenOffice) or use a specialised software for idea generation. The method you use is not so important. What is important is that you follow these rules:

Write down every idea that comes to mind. Even if the idea is ludicrous, stupid or fails to solve the challenge, write it down. Most people are their own worst critics and by squelching their own ideas, make themselves less creative. So write everything down. NO EXCEPTIONS!

If other people are also involved, insure that no one criticises anyone else's ideas in any way. This is called squelching, because even the tiniest amount of criticism can discourage everyone in the group for sharing their more creative ideas. Even a sigh or the rolling of eyes can be critical. Squelching must be avoided!

If you are working alone, don't stop until you've reached your target of 50 (or more) ideas. If you are working with other people, set a time limit like 15 or 20 minutes. Once you have reached this time limit, compare ideas and make a grand list that includes them all. Then ask everyone if the have some new ideas. Most likely people will be inspired by others' ideas and add more to the list.

If you find you are not generating sufficient ideas, give yourself some inspiration. A classic trick is to open a book or dictionary and pick out a random word. Then generate ideas that somehow incorporate this word. You might also ask yourself what other people whom you know; such as your grandmother, your partner, a friend or a character on you favourite TV show, might suggest.

Brainstorming does not need to occur at your desk. Take a trip somewhere for new inspiration. Find a nice place in a beautiful park. Sit down in a coffee shop on a crowded street corner. You can even walk and generate ideas.

In addition, if you browse the web for brainstorming and idea generation, you will find lots of creative ideas on how to generate creative ideas!

One last note. If you are not in a hurry, wait until the next day and then try to generate another 25 ideas, ideally do this in the morning. Research has shown that our minds work on creative challenges while we sleep. Your initial idea generation session has been good exercise and has certainly generated some great ideas. But it will probably also inspire your unconscious mind to generate some ideas while you sleep. Don't lose them!

6. Combine and Evaluate Ideas

After you have written down all of your ideas, take a break. It might just be an hour. It might be a day or more. Then go through the ideas. Related ideas can be combined together to form big ideas (or idea clusters).

Then, using the criteria you devised earlier, choose all of the ideas that broadly meet those criteria. This is important. If you focus only on the "best" ideas or your favourite ideas, the chances are you will choose the less creative ones! Nevertheless, feel free to include your favourite ideas in the initial list of ideas.

Now get out that list of criteria you mad earlier and go through each idea more carefully. Consider how well it meets each criterion and give it a rating of 0-5 points with five indicating a perfect match. If an idea falls short of a criterion, think about why this is so. Is there a way that it can be improved in order to increase its score? If so, make a note. Once you are finished, all of the ideas will have an evaluation score. Those ideas with the highest score best meet your criteria. They may not be your best ideas or your favourite ideas, but they are most likely to best solve your problem or enable you t achieve your goal.

Depending on the nature of the challenge and the winning ideas, you may be ready to jump right in and implement your ideas. In other cases, ideas may need to be developed further. With complex ideas, a simple evaluation may not be enough. You may need to do a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) or discuss the idea with others who will be affected by it. If the idea is business related, you may need to do a business case, market research, build a prototype or a combination of all of these.

Also, bear in mind that you do not need to limit yourself to one winning idea. Often you can implement several ideas in order to solve your challenge.

* There are a number of variations on the approach to CPS. All follow roughly the same steps. This is the approach I used to use.

© 2010, 2014 creativejeffrey.com

Recent Articles

Leading Diverse Teams Filed under: Business Innovation Diverse teams are more innovative and smarter than homogeneous ones. But, they are also harder to manager. Here are some tips. By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Questions you should ask when an innovative project fails Filed under: Business Innovation You can learn a lot from the failure of an innovative project, but you need to ask the right questions. Here are those questions. By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Unmarketing the Competition Filed under: Business Innovation A look at creative, but unethical dirty trick marketing campaigns designed to damage the competition By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Imaginativefulness and the Fisherman Filed under: Creativity What does a fisherman wearing a cycling helmet have to do with imaginativefulness? Quite a lot, it seems. By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Actually, Criticising Ideas Is Good for Creativity Filed under: Creativity People have long assumed criticising ideas in a brainstorm inhibits creativity. Research and experience shows that is wrong By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Imaginativefulness Filed under: Creativity Imaginativefulness is a state of heightened imagination in which your mind allows thoughts, memories and ideas to play with each other freely. By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Why and How to Exploit Alternative Uses for Your Products Filed under: Business Innovation Discovering new ways customers use, misuse and could use your products can inspire innovation. Jeffrey Baumgartner explains. By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

The Cost of Not Innovating Filed under: Business Innovation If your company fails to innovate, you pay a steep price in terms of loss of leadershop, tight margins, missed opportunities and more. By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Don't Trust the Status Quo Filed under: Creativity Jeffrey Baumgartner has never trusted the status quo. He explains why this is so and why you should also not trust the status quo By Jeffrey Baumgartner -- Read the article...

Index of all creative articles...

Return to top of page

Jeffrey Baumgartner Bwiti bvba

Erps-Kwerps (near Leuven & Brussels) Belgium

My other web projects

Creativity - An Overview/Creative Problem Solving Process (CPS)

The Creative Problem Solving Process (CPS), also known as the Osborn-Parnes CPS process, was developed by Alex Osborn and Dr. Sidney J. Parnes in the 1950s. [1] CPS is a structured method for generating novel and useful solutions to problems. CPS follows three process stages, which match a person's natural creative process, and six explicit steps: [2]

CPS is flexible, and its use depends on the situation. The steps can be (and often are) used in a linear fashion, from start to finish, but it is not necessary to use all the steps. For example, if one already has a clearly-defined problem, the process would begin at Idea Finding.

What distinguishes the Osborn-Parnes CPS process from other "creative problem solving" methods is the use of both divergent and convergent thinking during each process step, and not just when generating ideas to solve the problem. Each step begins with divergent thinking, a broad search for many alternatives. This is followed by convergent thinking, the process of evaluating and selecting.

This method is taught at the International Center for Studies in Creativity, [3] the Creative Problem Solving Institute, [4] and CREA Conference. [5] It is specifically acknowledged as a key influence for the Productive Thinking Model. [6]

References [ edit | edit source ]

• ↑ What is CPS? . Creative Education Foundation, 2010. Retrieved on 2010-06-13.
• ↑ "ICSC Course Descriptions" . International Center for Studies in Creativity . Retrieved 2007-12-22 .
• ↑ "Creative Problem Solving Institute" . Creative Education Foundation . Retrieved 2007-12-22 .
• ↑ "Programs" . CREA Conference . Creativity European Association . Retrieved 2008-01-07 .
• ↑ Hurson, Tim (2007). Think Better: An Innovator's Guide to Productive Thinking . New York, New York: McGraw Hill. pp. xii. ISBN   978-0071494939 . {{ cite book }} : Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= ( help )

• Book:Creativity - An Overview
• CS1 errors: empty unknown parameters

Navigation menu

The Basics of Creative Problem Solving – CPS

By: Jeffrey Baumgartner

Creative problem solving isn’t just brainstorming, although that’s what many people may associate it with. It’s actually a well-defined process that can help you from problem definition to implementing solutions, according to Jeffrey Baumgartner.

Creative ideas do not suddenly appear in people’s minds for no apparent reason. Rather, they are the result of trying to solve a specific problem or to achieve a particular goal. Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity were not sudden inspirations. Rather they were the result of a huge amount of mental problem solving trying to close a discrepancy between the laws of physics and the laws of electromagnetism as they were understood at the time.

Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison and other creative geniuses have always worked in the same way. They do not wait for creative ideas to strike them. Rather they focus on trying to solve a clearly stated, at least in their minds, problem. This is just like important TED talks to ideate for business innovation specifically discussed to get a better solution for existing problems.

This approach has been formalized as Creative Problem Solving (CPS). CPS is a simple process that involves breaking down a problem to understand it, generating ideas to solve the problem and evaluating those ideas to find the most effective solutions. Highly creative people tend to follow this process in their heads, without thinking about it. Less naturally creative people simply have to learn to use this very simple process.

A 7-step CPS framework

Although creative problem solving has been around as long as humans have been thinking creatively and solving problems, it was first formalised as a process by Alex Osborn, who invented traditional brainstorming, and Sidney Parnes. Their Creative Problem Solving Process (CPSP) has been taught at the International Center for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo College in Buffalo, New York since the 1950s.

However, there are numerous different approaches to CPS. Mine is more focused on innovation (that is the implementation of the most promising ideas). It involves seven straightforward steps.

How to Turn Crowdsourced Ideas Into Business Proposals

In October 2020, Pact launched AfrIdea, a regional innovation program supported by the U.S. Department of State. This was geared towards unlocking the potential of West African entrepreneurs, social activists, and developers in uncovering solutions to post-COVID challenges. Through a contest, training, idea-a-thon and follow-on funding, they sought to activate a network of young entrepreneurs and innovators from Guinea, Mali, Senegal, and Togo to source and grow innovative solutions. Learn their seven-stage process in the AfrIdea case study.

Get the Case Study

• Clarify and identify the problem
• Research the problem
• Formulate creative challenges
• Generate ideas
• Combine and evaluate the ideas
• Draw up an action plan
• Do it! (implement the ideas)

Let us look at each step more closely:

1. Clarify and identify the problem

Arguably the single most important step of CPS is identifying your real problem or goal. This may seem easy, but very often, what we believe to be the problem is not the real problem or goal. For instance, you may feel you need a new job. However, if you break down your problem and analyse what you are really looking for, it may transpire that the actual issue is that your income does not cover your costs of living. In this case, the solution may be a new job, but it might also be to re-arrange your expenses or to seek a pay rise from your existing employer.

Five whys: A powerful problem-definition technique

The best way to clarify the problem and understand the underlying issues is to ask yourself – or better still, ask a friend or family member to ask you – a series of questions about your problem in order to clarify the true issues behind the problem. The first question to ask is simply: “why is this a problem?” or “why do I wish to achieve this goal?” Once you have answered that, ask yourself “why else?” four more times.

For instance, you might feel you want to overcome your shyness. So, you ask yourself why and you answer: “because I am lonely”. Then ask yourself “Why else?” four times. You answer: “Because I do not know many people in this new city where I live”, “Because I find it hard to meet people”, “Because I am doing many activities alone” and “Because I would like to do activities with other people who share my interests”. This last “why else” is clearly more of the issue than reducing shyness. Indeed, if you had focused your creative energy on solving your shyness issue, you would not have actually solved the real problem. On the other hand, if you focused your creative energy on finding people with whom to share activities, you would be happier without ever having to address the shyness issue.

More questions you can ask to help clearly define the problem

In addition, you can further clarify your problem by asking questions like: “What do I really wish to accomplish?”, “What is preventing me from solving this problem/achieving the goal?”, “How do I envision myself in six months/one year/five years [choose most relevant time span] as a result of solving this problem?” and “Are my friends dealing with similar problems? If so, how are they coping?”

By the time you have answered all these questions, you should have a very clear idea of what your problem or real goal is.

Set criteria for judging potential solutions

The final step is to decide what criteria you will eventually use to evaluate or judge the ideas. Are there budget limitations, timeframe or other restrictions that will affect whether or not you can go ahead with an idea? What will you want to have accomplished with the ideas? What do you wish to avoid when you implement these ideas? Think about it and make a list of three to five evaluation criteria. Then put the list aside. You will not need it for a while.

2. Research the problem

The next step in CPS is to research the problem in order to get a better understanding of it. Depending on the nature of the problem, you may need to do a great deal of research or very little. The best place to start these days is with your favourite search engine. But do not neglect good old fashioned sources of information and opinion. Libraries are fantastic for in-depth information that is easier to read than computer screens. Friends, colleagues and family can also provide thoughts on many issues. Fora on sites like LinkedIn and elsewhere are ideal for asking questions. There’s nothing an expert enjoys more than imparting her knowledge. Take advantage of that. But always try to get feedback from several people to ensure you get well-rounded information.

3. Formulate one or more creative challenges

By now, you should be clear on the real issues behind your problems or goals. The next step is to turn these issues into creative challenges. A creative challenge is basically a simple question framed to encourage suggestions or ideas. In English, a challenge typically starts with “In what ways might I [or we]…?” or “How might I…?” or “How could I…?”

Creative challenges should be simple, concise and focus on a single issue. For example: “How might I improve my Chinese language skills and find a job in Shanghai?” is two completely separate challenges. Trying to generate ideas that solve both challenges will be difficult and, as a result, will stifle idea generation. So separate these into two challenges: “How might I improve my Chinese language skills?” and “How might I find a job in Shanghai?” Then attack each challenge individually. Once you have ideas for both, you may find a logical approach to solving both problems in a coordinated way. Or you might find that there is not a coordinated way and each problem must be tackled separately.

Creative challenges should not include evaluation criteria. For example: “How might I find a more challenging job that is better paying and situated close to my home?” If you put criteria in the challenge, you will limit your creative thinking. So simply ask: “How might a I find a more challenging job?” and after generating ideas, you can use the criteria to identify the ideas with the greatest potential.

4. Generate ideas

Finally, we come to the part most people associate with brainstorming and creative problem solving: idea generation. And you probably know how this works. Take only one creative challenge. Give yourself some quiet time and try to generate at least 50 ideas that may or may not solve the challenge. You can do this alone or you can invite some friends or family members to help you.

Irrespective of your idea generation approach, write your ideas on a document. You can simply write them down in linear fashion, write them down on a mind map, enter them onto a computer document (such as Microsoft Word or OpenOffice) or use a specialized software for idea generation. The method you use is not so important. What is important is that you follow these rules:

Write down every idea that comes to mind. Even if the idea is ludicrous, stupid or fails to solve the challenge, write it down. Most people are their own worst critics and by squelching their own ideas, make themselves less creative. So write everything down. NO EXCEPTIONS!

If other people are also involved, insure that no one criticizes anyone else’s ideas in any way. This is called squelching, because even the tiniest amount of criticism can discourage everyone in the group for sharing their more creative ideas. Even a sigh or the rolling of eyes can be critical. Squelching must be avoided!

If you are working alone, don’t stop until you’ve reached your target of 50 (or more) ideas. If you are working with other people, set a time limit like 15 or 20 minutes. Once you have reached this time limit, compare ideas and make a grand list that includes them all. Then ask everyone if the have some new ideas. Most likely people will be inspired by others’ ideas and add more to the list.

If you find you are not generating sufficient ideas, give yourself some inspiration. A classic trick is to open a book or dictionary and pick out a random word. Then generate ideas that somehow incorporate this word. You might also ask yourself what other people whom you know; such as your grandmother, your partner, a friend or a character on you favourite TV show, might suggest.

Brainstorming does not need to occur at your desk. Take a trip somewhere for new inspiration. Find a nice place in a beautiful park. Sit down in a coffee shop on a crowded street corner. You can even walk and generate ideas.

In addition, if you browse the web for brainstorming and idea generation, you will find lots of creative ideas on how to generate creative ideas!

One last note: If you are not in a hurry, wait until the next day and then try to generate another 25 ideas; ideally do this in the morning. Research has shown that our minds work on creative challenges while we sleep. Your initial idea generation session has been good exercise and has certainly generated some great ideas. But it will probably also inspire your unconscious mind to generate some ideas while you sleep. Don’t lose them!

5. Combine and evaluate ideas

After you have written down all of your ideas, take a break. It might just be an hour. It might be a day or more. Then go through the ideas. Related ideas can be combined together to form big ideas (or idea clusters).

Then, using the criteria you devised earlier, choose all of the ideas that broadly meet those criteria. This is important. If you focus only on the “best” ideas or your favorite ideas, the chances are you will choose the less creative ones! Nevertheless, feel free to include your favorite ideas in the initial list of ideas.

Now get out that list of criteria you made earlier and go through each idea more carefully. Consider how well it meets each criterion and give it a rating of 0 to 5 points, with five indicating a perfect match. If an idea falls short of a criterion, think about why this is so. Is there a way that it can be improved in order to increase its score? If so, make a note. Once you are finished, all of the ideas will have an evaluation score. Those ideas with the highest score best meet your criteria. They may not be your best ideas or your favorite ideas, but they are most likely to best solve your problem or enable you to achieve your goal.

Depending on the nature of the challenge and the winning ideas, you may be ready to jump right in and implement your ideas. In other cases, ideas may need to be developed further. With complex ideas, a simple evaluation may not be enough. You may need to do a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis or discuss the idea with others who will be affected by it. If the idea is business related, you may need to do a business case, market research, build a prototype or a combination of all of these.

Also, keep in mind that you do not need to limit yourself to one winning idea. Often you can implement several ideas in order to solve your challenge.

6. Draw up an action plan

At this point, you have some great ideas. However, a lot of people have trouble motivating themselves to take the next step. Creative ideas may mean big changes or taking risks. Some of us love change and risk. Others are scared by it. Draw up an action plan with the simple steps you need to take in order to implement your ideas. Ideas that involve a lot work to implement can be particularly intimidating. Breaking their implementation down into a series of readily accomplished tasks makes these ideas easier to cope with and implement.

This is the simplest step of all. Take your action plan and implement your idea. And if the situation veers away from your action plan steps, don’t worry. Rewrite your action plan!

CPS and innovation

Any effective innovation initiative or process will use CPS at the front end. Our innovation process does so. TRIZ  also uses elements of CPS. Any effective and sustainable idea management system or ideation activity will be based on CPS.

Systems  and methods that do not use CPS or use it badly, on the other hand, tend not to be sustainable and fail early on. Suggestion schemes in which employees or the public are invited to submit any idea whatsoever are effectively asking users of the system to determine a problem and then offer a solution. This will result not only in many ideas, but many different problems, most of which will not be relevant to your strategic needs. Worse, having to evaluate every idea in the context of its implied problem – which may not be clear – is a nightmare from a resource point of view.

Systems and methods which are based on CPS, but in which creative challenges are poorly defined, also deliver poor results either because users do not understand the challenge or the problem is poorly understood and the resulting challenge stimulates ideas which in themselves are good, but which are not actually solutions to the true problem.

That said, CPS is a conceptually simple process – but critical to any innovation process. If you do not use it already, familiarize yourself with the process and start using it. You will find it does wonders for your innovativeness.

By Jeffrey Baumgartner

About the author

Main image: young person thinking with glowing puzzle mind from Shutterstock.com

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Privacy overview.

Using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) for Diagnosing and Solving Real-World Problems

Min Basadur Basadur Applied Creativity Center for Research, CAN

Garry Gelade Basadur Applied Creativity Center for Research, CAN

Introduction

Organizations around the world face a common challenge: the need to improve their performance in order to capitalize on rapid change. In North America, restructuring and downsizing have become a way of life as organizations struggle to regain market share from global companies producing higher-quality products. In eastern Europe, managers and employees strive to establish new behaviors and procedures that will allow their companies to compete in the free market. In the developing world, countries hungry for economic development look for growth markets abroad. In Japan, organizations that once had a clear target—to overtake their western competitors—now lack a blueprint for further progress.

A SIMPLE BLUEPRINT

Mott (1972) presented evidence that effective organizations display three characteristics: efficiency, adaptability, and flexibility. The efficient organization follows well-structured, stable routines for delivering its product or service in high quantities, with high quality, and at low cost. In a stable world, efficient organizations may be successful. But in a changing world, organizations also need adaptability. While efficiency implies mastering a routine, adaptability means mastering the process of changing a routine. Adaptable organizations monitor the environment for new technologies, ideas, and methods, anticipate threats and opportunities, and implement changes accordingly. They deliberately and continually change their routines to improve quality, raise quantities, reduce costs, and stay ahead of their competitors. The most effective organizations are both efficient and highly adaptable. While adaptability is a proactive process of looking for ways to change, flexibility is reactive. Flexibility allows the organization to react quickly to unexpected disruptions without getting mired in organizational bureaucracy. It allows the efficient organization to deal with disruptions while maintaining its routines. In today's rapidly changing world, leaders of effective organizations aiming to achieve sustained competitive edge induce not merely efficiency and flexibility but adaptability.

THE PROCESS APPROACH TO APPLIED CREATIVITY

Basadur (1992, 1995) provided evidence that organizations can attain sustainable competitive edge by institutionalizing creativity as an organization-wide process. In this article, we suggest a multi-stage process model for understanding and implementing organizational creativity. We outline this multi-stage process in terms of different ways of gaining and using knowledge. Recognizing that individual preferences vary for different stages of the process, the article describes the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory, a practical tool that helps in understanding organizational creativity as a process and serves as a method of diagnosing and solving real-world problems. We outline several real-world applications of the CPSP and suggest avenues for future research.

A NEW THEORY OF CREATIVITY AS A CIRCULAR, MULTI-STAGE PROCESS

Adaptability is driven by organizational creativity, which can be defined as a continuous process of thinking innovatively, or of finding and solving problems and implementing new solutions. Various researchers have focused on the circular nature of adaptability, or the creative process. Gordon (1956, 1971) recognized that knowledge acquisition (learning) and knowledge application (for inventing) flow continuously and sequentially into one another. Field research by Carlsson et al. (1976) supported Gordon's approach by showing that the organizational research and development (R&D) process follows a continuous, circular flow of creating new knowledge to replace old knowledge. Consistent with these findings, Basadur's field work (1974, 1983) on organization-wide deliberate change depicted the creative process as a circle, recognizing that new problems and solutions lead continuously to further problems and opportunities. Each quadrant in the circle corresponds to a specific stage of a four-stage creative process. The first two quadrants represent the components of problem finding: generation and conceptualization. The third and fourth quadrants represent problem solving (optimization) and solution implementation as the final two stages of the creative process. In each stage, people gain and use knowledge and understanding in various ways.

Figure 1 The four stages of the creative process

The complete process is called the Simplex Creative Problem Solving process (Figure 1). Basadur et al. (1982) demonstrated that individuals and organizations could deliberately develop skills in executing each stage of this process, and in executing the complete process. Additional field research supporting the practicality of applying this process in organizations is summarized in Basadur (1994, 2000).

THE FOUR STAGES OF CREATIVITY

Following is a brief description of the four quadrants integrating the concepts of the various researchers above.

Quadrant 1: Generating

The first quadrant gets the creative process rolling. Creative activity in this quadrant involves gaining knowledge and understanding by physical contact and involvement in real-world activities, and utilizing this knowledge to create new problems, challenges, opportunities, and projects that are potentially worth defining and undertaking through subsequent solving and implementing. Understanding is derived from what is experienced, including emotions and feelings of self and others through empathy. New possibilities are imagined from what is concretely experienced. Quadrant 1 activity thus consists of sensing, seeking, or anticipating problems and opportunities, and is called generation . An outcome of this stage is a problem worthy of investigation but not yet clearly defined or understood.

Edwin Land, in a Life magazine cover story (Callahan, 1972), told the tale of his invention of the Polaroid camera. Having snapped the last exposure on his film, he suggested to his young daughter that they take the film for processing so that they could see the pictures in about a week's time. Her frustrated response was, “Why do I have to wait a week to see my picture?” Like a flash bulb going off in his mind, her simple question sparked a challenge that had never occurred to him: “How can we make a device that yields instantaneous pictures?” Within about an hour, he had formulated several directions toward a solution. And within about four years, he had commercialized a product that has changed our lives. Looking back, the then-chairman of Polaroid said that the most important part of the process was not finding the solution itself—the camera—but finding the problem—how to get instantaneous pictures. If Land had not experienced the chance encounter, he might never have created the problem to be solved. He thus demonstrated the generation stage of the creative process: initiating problems to solve instead of waiting for problems to be provided.

At Japan's electronics giant Toshiba, most engineers and scientists beginning their careers in research and development actually start working in the sales department (Basadur, 1992). This apparently backward approach is designed to teach them the process of problem finding. Since they will spend their working lives creating products to solve customers' problems, what better start than by learning first-hand about their customers, their needs, their habits, and their problems—both visible and hidden. At Nippondenso, a major auto parts supplier, employees are trained and encouraged from day one to find problems, to be discontented with their jobs. Employees write down their “discontents” and post them for co-workers to read. Here and at many other Japanese companies, this is the start of the creative process called the employee suggestion system. What is important is that the entire suggestion system hinges on problem finding.

Quadrant II: Conceptualizing

The second quadrant, conceptualizing, keeps the creative process going. Creative activity in this quadrant involves gaining knowledge and understanding mentally, or working in the abstract—analyzing, pondering, and theorizing about the information received to create a sound conceptualization or model of the problem domain. Understanding is not gained by direct experience, but instead by detached, abstract thinking. What is understood through rational, systematic analysis is turned into new insights that help define problems, and create theoretical models and ideas to explain things. Quadrant II activity consists of turning a problem recognized in Quadrant I into a well-understood problem definition and some fledgling solution ideas and, thus, is called conceptualization .

For example, the senior author was once asked for help by a Procter & Gamble product development team formed at short notice to respond to a competitor's new product. Colgate's green-striped Irish Spring had been the first striped soap bar introduced to North America. With its aggressive advertising campaign emphasizing “refreshment,” Colgate's new product was finding ready consumer acceptance. Procter & Gamble worked by the rule that, if a team (or person) was the second entrant into a new market, it had to demonstrate a product's competitive advantage before it could carry out a market test. When asked what was going wrong, the team members said that they had been unable to produce a green-striped bar that worked better than Irish Spring in a consumer preference blind test. The team had experimented with several green striped bars, all of which merely equaled Irish Spring in blind testing. It became evident that the team had chosen to define its problem as: “How might we make a green-striped bar that consumers will prefer over Irish Spring?”

During a creative problem solving meeting, one of the important activities was to develop alternative ways to define the challenge. The flash of inspiration came from an answer to a question posed from a consumer's point of view: “We want to make a bar that makes people feel more refreshed.” This led to the new conceptualized challenge: “How might we better connote refreshment in a soap bar?” This less restrictive conceptualization, which included no mention of green stripes, provided more room for creative solutions. The team broke this new problem into three separate components: “How might we better connote refreshment in appearance, shape, and odor?”—a new conceptualization—and then focused their imaginations on ideas. Beginning with the product's appearance, they visualized scenes, images, and situations that suggested refreshment. One pictured himself at the sea coast. Another imagined sitting on a beach and looking at a blue sky and white clouds. Later, when the team sat back to evaluate its many ideas, these two ideas were selected and combined. The result was the concept of a blue-and-white swirled bar with a unique odor and shape. The concept later achieved market success under the brand name Coast. By leaping prematurely into solutions, the team had wasted almost six months before coming up with a superior conceptualization.

Quadrant III: Optimizing

The third quadrant moves the creative process further. Creative activity in this quadrant involves gaining knowledge and understanding mentally by working in the abstract: thoroughly analyzing a defined problem and utilizing this knowledge to develop and evaluate ideas and options and create an optimal, practical solution. What is understood through rational, systematic, and orderly analysis is used to mentally evaluate situations and options to convert abstract ideas into practical solutions and plans. Quadrant III activity is called optimization. At this point, a good solution to an important, well-defined problem exists, but has not yet been implemented.

For example, the newly defined concept of a refreshment bar in the example above still had to be converted into a practical solution. The team's engineering members created and evaluated several optional versions of the new appearance, odor, and shape. The options were evaluated on several criteria, including cost, feasibility, and time to implement. A final optimal prototype was chosen and successfully tested with consumers, demonstrating an exploitable competitive advantage over its competitor.

Quadrant IV: Implementing

The fourth quadrant completes the creative process. Apprehension in this quadrant involves gaining knowledge and understanding by physical contact and involvement in the real world. Utilization consists of employing evaluation to convert this knowledge into implemented solutions that work and accomplish valuable results. What is experienced and felt is used to evaluate. Creative activity in this quadrant consists of gaining experience with new solutions, evaluating the outcomes, and making adjustments to implement them successfully. Thus this stage is called implementation .

For example, in the above refreshment bar example, the team was still not finished. Before the new soap formula could be sold, a patent problem in the machinery design had to be overcome. There were already no fewer than six worldwide patents restricting how blue-and-white soap pastes could be blended. The team had to find a machine design to make the new product without infringing on anybody else's technique. The team assembled diverse points of view in a special group of engineers, technicians, lawyers, and even a few people who were unfamiliar with soap technology. Sketches and prototypes of the patented processes were displayed and examined and the equipment was adjusted and rebuilt repeatedly until a breakthrough insight emerged and the new product was finally produced satisfactorily for delivery and purchase. A full cycle of the creative process was now complete.

CONSTRUCTING THE FOUR-STAGE CPSP THEORY

In most of the research literature from the 1950s to the 1980s (see review by Basadur, 1994), creativity was perceived largely as generating ideas to presented problems using techniques such as brainstorming. However, practitioners who employ such limited conceptions of the creative process seldom attain practical results (Sternberg et al. , 1997). More recently research has focused on creativity as a multi-stage process (Basadur, 1994, 1995; Kabanoff & Rossiter, 1994; Rickards, 1994). Other models of creativity as a process of stages include Wallas's (1926) four stages of preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification; the Osborn-Parnes five-step process of fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding (Parnes et al. , 1977); Amabile's (1988) five stages of presentation, preparation, generation, validation, and assessment; Boyd's OODA (Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act; Hammond, 2001); and Kelly's (1955) theory of personal constructs. Additional models are provided in Rickards (1994), Kabanoff & Rossiter (1994), and Basadur (1995).

Beyond merely identifying stages or steps, our model explains and measures each of four stages through established psychological cognitive constructs that differentiate each stage from the others. Each stage represents a different kind of creativity that contributes to the complete creative process of Figure 1. These explanations and measures are based on selected fundamental theories and constructs of intelligence and mental operations associated with creative thinking. These theories are Guilford's (1967) landmark Structure of Intellect (SOI); Sternberg's (1988) triarchic intelligence; Osborn's (1953) pioneering four brain functions concept; and Parnes et al. 's (1977) disciplined freedom paradigm.

OSBORN'S FOUR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND GUILFORD'S FIVE MENTAL OPERATIONS

Osborn (1953) modeled the brain as having four distinct functions: absorb (gaining knowledge), retain (memory), imagine, and judge. Osborn advocated developing skill in deferring judgment, or using the imagination and judgment functions independently. Developing Osborn's model further, Parnes et al. (1977) created a simplified formula for creativity as follows: C (creativity) = K (knowledge) × I (imagination) × E (evaluation). Their term “disciplined freedom” emphasizes that creativity requires a balance of knowledge and imagination and good judgment.

Guilford (1967) identified two very different ways of gaining knowledge. One way is the mental operation of cognition, or gaining knowledge by experiencing, which he described as the immediate discovery, awareness, rediscovery, or recognition of information. We suggest that some people gain understanding preferentially by such physical processing of information—what we call experiential intelligence (Basadur & Gelade, 2002). The other way of gaining knowledge is what Guilford called the mental operation of convergent production. Guilford described convergent production as the generation of information from given information to achieve unique or conventionally accepted best outcomes in which the given information often fully determines the response. This is also what Sternberg (1996) defined as theoretical, analytical intelligence. We suggest that some people gain understanding preferentially by such mental processing of information. Further, we suggest that people use knowledge by two very different methods, no matter how that knowledge is gained. One way of using knowledge is what Guilford called the mental operation of divergent production, or creating options from information. This operation resembles Sternberg's construct of creative intelligence. The other way of utilizing knowledge is what Guilford called the mental operation of evaluation, or evaluating options (the main component of what Sternberg called practical intelligence).

Figure 2 Four combinations of different methods of gaining and using knowledge

We suggest a new simplified formula: C = (K X + K T ) × I × E, in which K X is knowledge apprehension by experiencing and K T is knowledge apprehension by theoretical analysis (thinking); see Figure 2. We also suggest that there are two dimensions underlying the process of Figure 1. The first dimension, apprehension, involves acquiring knowledge or understanding in two different ways. One is relatively more open, non-rational, experiential, nonanalytical, and divergent (cognition); the other is more closed, rational, theoretical, analytical, and convergent (convergent production). The second dimension of Figure 2, utilization, involves applying knowledge or understanding (however acquired) in two different ways: nonjudgmentally creating new information to increase the variety of options (divergent production), and judgmentally reaching decisions about new information to reduce the variety of options (evaluation).

In Figure 2, the four stages depicted in Figure 1 are explained as combinations of these two bipolar dimensions. Combining the preference for learning experientially (K X ) with the preference for creating options (I = ideation) yields a measure of preference for the first stage of the process, or generation (KX ∪ I). Combining the preference for learning theoretically (K T ) with the preference for creating options (I) yields a measure of preference for the second stage, or conceptualization (K T ∪ I). Combining the preference for learning theoretically (K T ) with the preference for evaluating options (E) yields a measure of preference for the third stage, or optimization (K T ∪ E). Combining the preference for learning experientially (K X ) with the preference for evaluating options (E) yields a measure of preference for the fourth stage, or implementation (K X ∪ E).

MEASURING INDIVIDUAL STYLES AND PREFERENCES

Individuals in organizations have varying preferences for each of the quadrants or stages in the creative process because they have varying preferences for the bipolar modes of apprehension and utilization. Generating ideas for new products, services, and methods must start somewhere. Individuals inclined toward generating are continually experiencing and scanning the environment, picking up data and cues from customers, suppliers, and others, and suggesting possible opportunities for change and improvement. Thus, the generation stage is where new information and possibilities are raised—usually not fully developed but in the form of starting points for new projects. People with dominant conceptualizer styles lead in compiling facts and idea fragments from the generator stage into well-defined, insightful problems and challenges and more clearly developed ideas and projects worth further evaluation. Skilled conceptualizers give sound structure to fledgling ideas and opportunities. People inclined toward optimization usually lead in taking these well-defined ideas and finding a practical best solution and detailing efficient plans for proceeding. Finally, implementers lead in carrying forward the practical solutions and plans, including convincing colleagues or customers of the worth of the changes, and adapting the solutions and plans to make them fit real-life situations and conditions.

THE CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING PROFILE (CPSP) INVENTORY

The Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory measures an individual's unique blend of preferences for the four stages of the process in Figures 1 and 2. Plotting inventory scores on a two-dimensional graph displays an individual's preferred blend of the four different stages. The largest quadrant on the graph represents the preferred or dominant style, with relative sizes of the other quadrants representing supporting orientations. The unique blend of styles is the individual's profile. Figure 3 shows how individual differences in orientation can yield different creative problem solving process styles and profiles. If the area of quadrant 1 is largest, the primary process style is generating; if quadrant 2, then conceptualizing; if quadrant 3, then optimizing; and if quadrant 4, then implementing. Each of these styles reflects individual preferences—and preferences of teams and entire organizations—for ways of gaining and using knowledge.

Figure 3 Examples of different profiles of creative problem solving with the same style dominant and with different styles dominant.

The CPSP's scale construction, scoring, interpretation, reliability, and validity have been fully described by Basadur and Gelade (2002), but a brief summary is presented here.

The CPSP questionnaire consists of 12 scored items, and six distractor items that are not scored. Each scored item consists of four words, descriptive, respectively, of learning experientially (KX), learning theoretically (KT), creating options (I), and evaluating options (E). Respondents are asked to decide which words are most characteristic of their problem solving style, and to rank the four words from one (“least characteristic of me as a problem solver”) to four (“most characteristic of me as a problem solver”) within each item accordingly. An individual's CPSP profile is obtained by summing their scores on KX, KT, I, and E respectively; plotting the resulting totals on the axes shown in Figure 2, and constructing the quadrants as shown in Figure 3, gives a pictorial representation of the respondent's problem solving preferences.

As reported in Basadur and Gelade (2002), factor analysis of the questionnaire scores confirms the existence of two orthogonal bipolar dimensions corresponding to KX-KT and I-E, and scores on these dimensions show satisfactory reliability (alpha = .80). Convergent validity has also been demonstrated with the Kirton Adaptation Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (Basadur et al. , 1990; Basadur, 1998; 2000).

STATES NOT TRAITS, AND ALL FOUR QUADRANTS ARE CREATIVE

This Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory measures states , not traits . No one quadrant is considered any more “creative” than any other. All four quadrants require creativity of different kinds. Each quadrant contributes uniquely to the overall innovative process and innovative results. An individual's unique creative problem solving profile shows only their preferred activities within the Simplex Creative Problem Solving process. Most people enjoy some stages more than others. A particular style reflects relative preferences for each of the stages of the process: generating, conceptualizing, optimizing, and implementing. A person's thinking processes cannot be pigeonholed in any single quadrant. Rather, they are a combination or blend of quadrants. A person will likely prefer one quadrant in particular, but also have secondary preferences for one or two adjacent quadrants, as shown in Figure 3. Skills are needed in all stages.

Everyone has a different valuable creative contribution to make to the innovation process as a whole. One goal is to capitalize on an individual's preferred orientation, thus making their work more satisfying and pinpointing development opportunities. Another goal is to tap resources in all four quadrants to help the individual, team, or organization cycle skillfully through the complete innovation process.

ORGANIZATIONS HAVE THEIR OWN PROFILES

Entire organizations also have creative process profiles. An organization's profile reflects such factors as the kinds of people it hires, its culture, and its values. For example, if an organization focuses almost entirely on short-term results, it may be overloaded with implementers with few conceptualizers or generators. The organization will show strengths in processes that deliver its current products and services efficiently. But it will show weaknesses in long-term planning and product development that might help it to stay ahead of change. Rushing to solve problems, this organization will continually find itself reworking failed solutions without pausing to conduct adequate fact finding and problem definition. By contrast, an organization with many generators or conceptualizers and few implementers will continually find good problems to solve and great ideas for products and processes to develop. But it will never carry them to their conclusion.

Following are a case study and additional real-world examples of how organizations may apply the CPSP to diagnose problems and improve creativity and innovation performance.

REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS OF THE CPSP

A case study.

By 1981, an automobile manufacturer had suffered several losing business quarters. In an effort to change its operations, the company had launched many initiatives. One of the most important was its decision to involve its people in improving quality and customer satisfaction and increasing innovation. The company wished to involve managers in actually “managing the business” rather than just “doing my job.”

The company and its union had agreed to implement a joint employee involvement (EI) program for unionized employees. Both sides provided resources, including both unionized and salaried employees, to diagnose important training needs and to create strategies and programs to meet those needs. Their first step was to form problem solving groups in the plants, guided by local and national joint steering committees. To build skills in problem solving, these groups had been taught standard analytical tools borrowed from statistical process control and total quality management programs (such as “cause-and-effect diagramming” and “cause-unknown diagnosis”).

The company now wished to expand employee involvement to include salaried employees, and to develop problem solving processes that were better suited for their jobs. The organization hoped that these employees and their managers would take more initiative in identifying opportunities for improvement and tackling them creatively. During a pre-consult and preliminary training workshop for several key employees, we agreed on a strategy to train a number of employees in applying the Simplex process and in training others in the company.

During this training, we had a chance to apply the process to a problem at a newly modernized plant that made a major component of the company's new front-wheel-drive automobiles. The plant was setting new records for quality and low cost, but one department was struggling. Only about one-third of its output met the company's high quality standards, and employees had to work heavy overtime schedules in order to keep up with orders. The plant managers had tried several quick-fix solutions to resolve the production and quality problems, but none had worked. We established a cross-functional team of 15 plant managers and supervisors in order to apply the Simplex Creative Problem Solving process to the problem.

Along with one of the company's internal consultants who was training as a Simplex facilitator and trainer, the senior author conducted the application session with this team. About half a day was set aside for training in the Simplex process and process skills, and two and a half days to apply the process to the team's fuzzy situation. During the training, the team members were asked to complete the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory to identify individual differences in preferences for various stages of the creative problem solving process.

The team discovered a very revealing insight. Of the 15 team members, eight showed creative problem solving styles heavily oriented toward quadrant 4, or implementation. The other seven showed styles heavily oriented toward quadrant 3, or optimization. None had creative problem solving styles oriented toward quadrants 1 or 2 (generation and conceptualizing). The team was composed of people who preferred to jump quickly to action rather than carry out fact finding and problem definition. Team members were able to identify many instances when they had mistakenly made assumptions about this particular problem, leading to one failed solution after another. Rather than take the time to define the problem accurately, they had simply jumped from the fuzzy situation to one solution after another. They had spent all of their time alternating between quadrants 3 and 4, and none in quadrants 1 or 2 (Figure 4).

These solution- and action-oriented individuals agreed to spend two days in quadrant 1 and 2 activity, gathering facts and defining problems (Figure 5)—even though the whole exercise was against their nature. Three specific problem definitions emerged from this exercise. On the third day, the group was able to create simple but specific solutions to each defined problem that it could quickly implement. Within several months, most of the plant's production was high quality and was still improving.

Figure 4 The results of heavy orientation toward quadrant 3 and 4 thinking styles.

Figure 5 Balancing orientations toward all four thinking styles.

A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL

On the following pages are four examples of CPSP scatter diagrams, which depict the array of preferences for each of the four quadrants of the creative process for individuals within a team or organization. Each • symbol represents an individual's pair of coordinates derived from their score on the vertical apprehension axis (XT) coupled with their corresponding score on the horizontal utilization axis (IE).

The first scatter diagram displays the preferences of a typical group of managers in a large engineering company servicing the aircraft, airline, and aerospace industries (Figure 6). Most middle and senior managers in the company are strongly oriented toward action rather than toward generating new opportunities. The company has established high growth targets into new products and markets, but is failing to achieve them because of a strong organizational culture that favors quick fixes to short-term problems. To improve its short- and long-term balance, the company is developing a major training effort to increase awareness and encourage more generation and is also creating structures that will encourage employees to participate more in quadrant 1 and 2 activities.

Figure 6 Scatter diagram example #1 Not enough generators.

Figure 7 Scatter diagram example #2 Not enough time devoted to conceptualization and optimization.

In the second example, a large bank had formed teams to bring many new financial products to market quickly in a very competitive environment, but those teams were encountering a high percentage of failures. The organization's teams were found to be heavily weighted toward implementers (Figure 7). Further discussion showed that the teams often developed new products by rushing from an initial idea directly into implementation, without spending much time in conceptualization and optimization. Had the teams taken more time for conceptualization, they likely would have identified more limitations in many new product ideas. With more time in optimization, they would have reduced the frequency of product flaws reaching the market. By taking more time through these second and third stages of the process, the teams began to make wiser choices about which new, fledgling ideas to pursue (and which to terminate) and to develop more reliable product designs for market testing.

Figure 8 Scatter diagram example #3 Not enough implementers

In the third example, a new managing director was hired specifically to develop a breakthrough product concept and bring it to market. He assembled a team that, in very little time, created a great new idea. However, the team had subsequently ground to a standstill. Members failed to attend meetings regularly and several felt that there was nothing important remaining to be done. Subsequent diagnosis found that all of the team members whom the managing director had intuitively selected were oriented toward quadrants 1 and 2. In Figure 8, the managing director is the lone individual in quadrant 3, and there is no one in quadrant 4, implementation. He now realized that the team needed to add people oriented toward quadrants 3 and especially 4 in order to implement the new product concept successfully.

Figure 9 Scatter diagram example #4 An imbalance—not enough generators or optimizers.

The fourth example comes from the management team of a small engineering company that was growing too quickly, allowing many human resource problems to pile up. The company had more business than it could handle: new engineering projects were being designed and implemented with customers all over the world. Left unidentified and ignored by the busy management team, the human resource problems left people feeling severely stressed, overworked, and underappreciated. Resulting high turnover and its deteriorating corporate reputation made it difficult for the company to hire replacements or new staff. As shown in Figure 9, the management team was unbalanced, being virtually devoid of generators and optimizers. Most members were implementers or conceptualizers, demonstrating little interest in either surfacing problems or solving them. As a first step toward ensuring that it identified and solved important people problems, the company hired its first human resources manager for this explicit purpose.

IMPROVING TEAM PERFORMANCE

In a creative organization, everyone is responsible for doing at least one of the four stages defined by Figure 1. Some people initiate new things. Some are responsible for understanding and defining new initiatives and planning. Some produce practical solutions to new problems and initiatives. Others are responsible for finishing things off, or taking action to implement new solutions. If the four-stage process of creativity outlined above adequately represents the creative process, it would be expected that teams with a heterogeneous mix of preferred creative process styles (Figure 1) would significantly outperform teams with a homogeneous mix of creative process styles in innovative work. In the former case, all stages of the process are readily available within the team. One could also predict that members of homogeneous teams would experience more satisfaction working with like-minded team mates.

The predictions were confirmed by a study by Basadur and Head (2001), which assessed groups of MBA students on a problem solving task. Groups including individuals with different styles (heterogeneous groups) outperformed homogeneous groups whose members all had the same style. Rated by a judges' panel on four dimensions of innovative performance, the mean score for the 21 heterogeneous groups was 4.22 ( sd = 0.42) and the mean for the homogeneous groups was 3.69 ( sd = 0.64); a statistically significant difference (Student's t = 3.0, p < .01). Asked about their teamwork experience, individuals in the heterogeneous groups expressed less satisfaction than those in the homogeneous groups. The mean overall satisfaction for the 57 participants in the heterogeneous groups was 7.50 ( sd = 1.98) compared to 8.15 ( sd = 1.32) for the 85 participants in the homogeneous groups; a statistically significant difference (Student's t = 2.2, p < .05).

Heterogeneity is often an inherent characteristic of cross-functional teams, as people in various occupations favor different CPSP styles. For example, people in industrial engineering, training and development, and other improvement and change-initiation departments often favor the generator style. Employees in market research, strategic planning, and R&D often favor conceptualizing. People in accounting, finance, engineering, and systems development gravitate toward optimizing. People in manufacturing production, logistics/distribution/warehousing, sales, administrative support, customer service, and operations favor implementation.

No matter which process style an individual prefers, however, a team's members have to learn to use their differences to advantage. Teams, especially those involved in continuous improvement and innovation, require a mix of people who enjoy working in different steps around the Simplex Creative Problem Solving process: finding new problems and opportunities, clarifying and refining those problems and creating ideas, developing practical solutions and plans, and making new solutions work. Whether in teams or not, helping individuals learn to shift among orientations also ensures that the entire organization has a complete blend of process styles. In fact, an individual's dominant orientation is less important than their ability to shift among the different orientations. Preferences for certain quadrants within the innovation process are not static “traits,” but dynamic “states.” Individuals can learn to work in any of the four CPSP quadrants in order to complement others in a given situation.

APPLICATION TO ORGANIZATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

Basadur and Gelade (2002) report CPSP scores for a sample of 3,942 adults (39 percent female, 61 percent male) in 38 different occupations and working in a wide variety of organizations, including large and small corporations, banks, schools, universities, and hospitals. In this sample, 36 percent were in nonmanagement or supervisory roles, 27 percent in managerial roles, and 25 percent in professional or technical roles; the remainder were in other roles or did not specify their role. High percentages of generators were found in fields such as teaching (56 percent), academia (38 percent), and art (34 percent), and low percentages in fields such as IT systems development (9.5 percent), manufacturing engineering (9 percent), and engineering/engineering design (7.5 percent). Overall, the results suggested that few business and industrial occupations had a high proportion of generators (see Figure 10).

This raises some interesting questions, because the most perplexing challenge for many organizations is how to be more innovative in the face of accelerating change. Indeed, many leading management consultants exhort corporations to “begin their revolutions”—to expand their thinking and do things differently. Rather than simply improve existing methods and procedures, they advocate deliberate change. They advise corporations not to defend old markets, but to explore new ones. Many corporations find this an appealing strategy, although one that is difficult to implement. While one could speculate that a reason for this difficulty may be the lack of employees who prefer the generator style of thinking, this may be an overly simplistic explanation. For example, a single generator might initiate enough work for ten “implementers.” A more productive approach might be to raise broader questions and hypotheses about the appropriate mixes or ratios of the four quadrant preferences within various organizational departments and functions, or within an organization as a whole.

Figure 10 Occupations by dominant quadrant mix.

From an intra -organizational perspective, different ratios of the four quadrants might be appropriate within, say, manufacturing or service organizations, or within the particular departments of a given organization, such as R&D, sales, IT, or finance. The optimal mix for a top management team might differ from that for a lower-level team. Our previous research (Basadur, 1994, 1995) has suggested that a business unit's optimal ratio may depend on the typical proportion of work oriented toward problem finding rather than toward problem solving or implementation.

From an inter -organizational perspective, management consultants exhorting client organizations to initiate deliberate change could be viewed as performing the generator function from outside the organization. However, outside consultants are considered as being weak at delivering whole projects (e.g., IT implementations). On the other hand, organizations are often seen as too reliant on outside consultants to identify problems for them and suggest solutions. Perhaps a successful consultant-client relationship requires an optimal blend of quadrant styles among the organization's staff and the consulting or advisory team. Analysis of organizational quadrant styles might identify organizations that would benefit from hiring consultants, and whether project management consultants (project implementers) or change-initiating consultants might be more effective. We also speculate that successful consultants or consultant teams function effectively in more than one CPSP quadrant in order to maintain an optimal balance of quadrant styles when working with organizational teams. Other inter-organizational ecosystems, such as customer-supplier relationships, may be viewed similarly. The success of inter-organizational strategic alliances, mergers, or acquisitions may also be dependent on achieving an optimal blend of creative thinking styles, especially at the top level.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

We have presented a theory of organizational creativity as a process comprising four stages: generating, conceptualizing, optimizing, and implementing. We explain and measure each stage of the process using cognitive constructs from established models of intelligence and educational psychology. These constructs differentiate the mental activities in each stage of the process from those of the other stages. Each stage represents a different kind of creativity that contributes to the complete creative process.

We have also presented a psychological instrument that measures the constructs and stages of the process, called the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory. Individuals, teams, and organizations may use the CPSP to help diagnose inadequate organizational problem solving and performance. The CPSP also provides a blueprint for people to understand organizational creativity as a process of continually finding and defining important organizational problems, solving those problems, and implementing the solutions.

The four-stage process represented by the CPSP is built on two underlying dimensions: apprehension and utilization. Apprehension involves acquiring knowledge or understanding in two different ways: more open, non-rational, experiential, nonanalytical, and divergent, versus more closed, rational, theoretical, analytical, and convergent. Utilization involves applying knowledge or understanding in two different ways: nonjudgmentally creating new information to increase the variety of options, versus judgmentally reaching decisions about new information to reduce the variety of options. The four stages of the creative process are explained as combinations of these two bipolar dimensions. Individuals in organizations have varying preferences for each of the stages because they have varying preferences for the bipolar modes of apprehension and utilization. The CPSP inventory measures an individual's unique blend of preferences of the four stages, or their creative process “profile.”

Teams and entire organizations also have unique creative process profiles, and the CPSP can be applied to diagnose problems and improve creativity and innovation performance. Heterogeneity of CPSP styles is often an inherent characteristic of interdisciplinary teams, as people in various occupations tend to favor different CPSP styles. Because CPSP preferences are not static “traits” but dynamic “states,” individuals can learn to work effectively in any of the four CPSP quadrants in order to complement other team members' preferences and help the team move smoothly through the four-stage process. Research has shown that more heterogeneous teams outperform more homogeneous teams in innovative work but experience less satisfaction.

Our research indicates that generators (people who prefer stage 1 activity) are the least represented of the four CPSP styles in industrial (business) organizations. In fact, few industrial occupations had a high proportion of generators. The other three stages were better represented occupationally. The overall distribution favored implementers (highest) followed by conceptualizers, optimizers, and generators (lowest). These data suggest several interesting intra-organizational and interorganizational ecosystem questions that might be approached through the framework presented in this article. For example, the effectiveness of organizations, departments, or functions—and relationships among organizations, advisers, customers, suppliers, and strategic partners—may depend partly on the ability to exploit diverse thinking styles and on how well the mix of available styles matches the cognitive work.

Similar considerations might, in principle at least, be extended to the dynamics of creativity and change at higher (supra-organizational) ecosystem levels. Dealing effectively and creatively with change is a challenge not merely for organizations but for entire economic systems, industries, and societies. Our experience of innovation at this level has generally been painful. The charismatic and visionary “generator” with a remedy for society's ills is a well-known archetype. But even the best intentioned of these is likely to cause more harm than good if the thinking stops at this stage. Continued inertia and excessive conservatism are likely either to cause atrophy and decay or build irresistible pressures, leading to an uncontrolled and destructive catharsis. A better understanding of the dynamics of creativity, and the diversity of thinking processes needed to navigate change at the micro level, might contribute to a better understanding of how to avoid such difficulties at the macro level.

Amabile, T. M. (1988) “A model of creativity and innovation,” in B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 10, 123-67.

Basadur, M. S. (1974) “Think or sink,” The Deliberate Methods Change Bulletin, July- September, Cincinnati, OH: Procter & Gamble Management Systems Division.

Basadur, M. S. (1983) “Employee involvement creative problem-solving workshop,” Ford Education and Training Catalog, September, Dearborn, MI: Ford Education and Personnel Research Department: 115.

Basadur, M. S. (1992) “Managing creativity: A Japanese model,” Academy of Management Executive, 6(2): 29-42.

Basadur, M. S. (1994) “Managing the creative process in organizations,” in M. A. Runco (ed.), Problem Finding, Problem Solving and Creativity, New York: Ablex: 237-68.

Basadur, M. S. (1995) Power of Innovation, Toronto: AC Press.

Basadur, M. S. (1998) “The Basadur Simplex creative problem-solving profile inventory: Development, reliability and validity,” Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, Working Paper No. 83, December, Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University.

Basadur, M. S. (2000) “Evaluating the psychometric improvements provided by Basadur CPSP 2-Experimental,” Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, Working Paper No. 99, September, Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University.

Basadur, M. S. & Gelade, G. (2002) “Knowing and thinking: A new theory of creativity,” Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, Working Paper No. 105, December, Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University

Basadur, M. S. & Head, M. (2001) “Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive style within a process framework,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(4): 227-48.

Basadur, M. S., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982) “Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding in an applied research organization,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30: 41-70.

Basadur, M. S., Takai, J., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990) “Cross-validation of creative problem solving/creative style inventories: Validating Basadur's CPSP with Kirton's KAI inventory,” in J. Misumi, B. Wilpert, & H. Motoaki (eds), Organizational and Work Psychology: Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 1, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: 153-5.

Callahan, S. (1972) “Dr. Land's Magic Camera,” Life, 27 October: 42.

Carlsson, B., Keane, P, & Martin, J. B. (1976) “R&D organization as learning systems,” Sloan Management Review, 17(1): 1-15.

Gordon, W. J. J. (1956) “Operational approach to creativity,” Harvard Business Review, 9(1).

Gordon, W. J. J. (1971) The Metaphorical Way, Cambridge, MA: Porpoise Books.

Guilford, J. P (1967) The Nature of Human Intelligence, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hammond, G. T. (2001) The Mind of War, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Kabanoff, B. & Rossiter, J. R. (1994) “Recent developments in applied creativity,” International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9: 283-324.

Kelly, G. A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.

Mott, P E. (1972) Characteristics of Effective Organizations, New York: Harper & Row.

Osborn, A. F. (1953) Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem- Solving, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977) Guide to Creative Action, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Rickards, T. R. (1994) “Creativity from a business school perspective: Past, present, and future,” in S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (eds), Nurturing and Developing Creativity: The Emergence of a Discipline, Norwood, NJ: Ablex: 155-76.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988) The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence, New York: Viking.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996) Successful Intelligence: How Practical and Creative Intelligence Determine Success in Life, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sternberg, R. J., O'Hara, L. A., & Lubart, T. I. (1997) “Creativity as investment,” California Management Review, 40(1): 8-21.

Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought, New York: Harcourt Brace.