THE CREATIVITY CONTINUUM 131

The Creativity Continuum: Towards a

Classification of Creative Problem
Solving Techniques
Elspeth McFadzean

It can be argued that companies may innovate on a more regular basis if groups and
individuals can be encouraged to think more creatively. One method of encouraging novel
ideas is to undertake creative problem solving (CPS). There are a number of different
techniques that can enhance creative thinking. Some of these techniques require less
imagination and produce less novel results than others. Individuals and group facilitators
must choose which creative problem solving technique(s) to use for their specific situation.
Some techniques, for example, may leave an inexperienced group feeling uncomfortable (e.g.
if they are asked to draw pictures or develop fantasies) although they are often more effective
than the more analytical methods. It may be helpful, therefore, to classify creative problem
solving techniques so that individuals can easily choose an appropriate technique for their
specific situation. This paper offers such a classification, which categorises the creative
problem solving techniques into paradigm preserving, paradigm stretching and paradigm
breaking. Some implications and future research are also presented.

``Dreams, not desperation, move organiza-
tions to the highest levels of performance.''
Robert Waterman
Introduction
C arr (1994) and Couger (1995) both
suggest that organisations must be
innovative in today's environment in order
to gain a competitive advantage. Innovation
is defined by Couger (1995, p. 35) as ``the
process by which new ideas are put into
practice''. This involves, in the first instance,
the generation of novel ideas, then develop-
ing these ideas into a workable product,
process or service. Sometimes this process
may take years. For example, the Swiss
chemist George Andeman discovered cellu-
losic material but it was almost half a century
later when it was developed into a workable
product by Comte Hilaire de Chardonnet
who produced artificial silk under the name
of Rayon (Hall and Smith, 1987).
In order to develop unique and practical
processes, products or services, organisations
must encourage their employees to produce
numerous creative ideas. In other words, they
must develop an environment within the
organisation that encourages creativity (Carr,
1994). According to Couger (1995, p. 34):
``Management can concentrate on hiring
and selection to employ persons with
proven creativity. However, it is more
important to enable the existing workforce
to become more creative.''
One method of encouraging creativity is to
bring together teams of people so that
participants can spark off new ideas from
other group members as suggestions are
made (VanGundy, 1992). Top quality ideas
have also been shown to occur when groups
use a group support system that allows the
participants to remain anonymous (Dennis
and Valacich, 1993; Jarvenpaa, Rao and
Huber, 1988). This is especially the case
when larger groups are utilised (Dennis and
Valacich, 1993; Gallupe et al, 1992). A third
method of encouraging creativity is the use of
creative problem solving (CPS) techniques.
The most commonly used technique in
organisations is that of Brainstorming
(Osborn, 1957). This, however, has been
shown not to be the most creative. Research
has shown that other techniques produce

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF
and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998

132
more creative and better quality ideas
(McFadzean, 1996). Object Stimulation and
Guided Fantasy, for example, encourage
participants to use unrelated stimuli, which
helps them to develop more novel (and
useful) ideas (McFadzean, 1996; Garfield,
Satzinger, Taylor and Dennis, 1997).
Creative problem solving techniques have
been classified in a number of ways. For
example, VanGundy (1992) classifies them by
individual and group techniques and Bright-
man (1988) uses Simon's (1977) three stage
model of problem solving ± intelligence,
design and choice ± to classify them. This
paper will explore and evaluate these classi-
An alternative fications before offering an alternative frame-
framework work. A realistic and useful framework for
classifying CPS techniques is important be-
cause it can act as a guide for both facilitators
and/or users for choosing the most appro-
priate creativity tool(s). Moreover, a classifi-
cation will be useful for researchers who are
exploring, comparing and contrasting differ-
ent creativity techniques.
The next section of this paper describes
and evaluates the different classifications of
creative problem solving techniques that are
in the literature. A new classification is then
presented in Section 3, showing a continuum
ranging from paradigm preserving tech-
niques to paradigm breaking techniques.
The penultimate section discusses the impli-
cations of this classification and presents
directions for future research. Finally a short
summary of the paper is presented.
Techniques to facilitate creativity
Opportunity finding involves looking at the
present and future environments and trying
to ascertain potential opportunities and how
these can be best implemented. For instance,
G. D. Searle and Co., a pharmaceutical com-
pany, was undertaking research on a new
anti-ulcer drug. Through an unlikely chain of
circumstances and accidents, the laboratory
staff discovered a new substance that,
although would not help in reducing ulcers,
was sweet to taste. Even though the company
was not in the food business, they eventually
developed and marketed the substance as the
artificial sweetener NutraSweet (Robinson
and Stern, 1997). In addition, existing prod-
ucts may be adapted for new market as was
the case for 3M's Post-it note. In fact, the
Classifications by company was searching for new, strong glue.
theorists One type of glue that was produced was too
weak. This less aggressive glue was adapted
for a new market and the Post-it note was
born (Nayak and Ketteringham, 1991).
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
New opportunities can also be found by
looking at today's problems. Chester Carlson,
for example, developed photocopying tech-
nology because he recognised the difficulty
of copying patent documents in the 1930s.
Having produced the process of xerography,
Carlson tried to sell his technology to over
20 US manufacturers including IBM, Kodak
and General Electric. In 1947, the Haloid
Corporation acquired the rights and Carlson
went on to earn more than $200 million from
his invention (Kennedy, 1991).
These ideas have been developed by look-
ing at the problem or opportunity from a
different point-of-view. Creativity can there-
fore occur by looking at the situation from a
different perspective. This change of perspec-
tive can be encouraged and nurtured and is
not necessarily a talent that a person is born
with (Couger, 1995). Edwards (1993, p. 3), for
example, believes that people can be taught
to draw:
``The magical mystery of drawing ability
seems to be, in part at least, an ability to
make a shift in brain state to a different
mode of seeing/perceiving. When you see in
the special way in which experienced artists see,
then you can draw. This is not to say that the
drawings of great artists such as Leonardo
da Vinci or Rembrandt are not still won-
drous because we may know something
about the cerebral process that went into
their creation. Indeed, scientific research
makes master drawings seem even more
remarkable because they seem to cause a
viewer to shift to the artist's mode of
perceiving. But the basic skill of drawing
is also accessible to everyone who can learn
to make the shift to the artist's mode and
see in the artist's way'' (original author's
emphasis).
Edwards shows the transformation made by
some of her pupils before and after they
learnt to perceive as artists. Within a few
months there was a huge improvement
in their drawing skills (see Edwards, 1993,
pp. 11±13). A different way of seeing there-
fore is an important aspect of the creative
process. This process can be encouraged by
using creative problem solving techniques.
There is a large number of creative problem
solving techniques ranging from the well-
known Classical Brainstorming which was
developed by Osborn to the more imaginative
techniques such as Wishful Thinking. These
techniques have been classified by theorists in
a number of different ways. For instance,
Harvey Brightman (1988) used Simon's (1977)
three stage model of the strategic problem
solving process to classify the creativity
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998

THE CREATIVITY CONTINUUM
techniques. VanGundy (1988) also used the
problem solving process to classify his tech-
niques. For example, he uses techniques to
re-design and analyse the problem, to
generate new ideas and to evaluate and
choose the most appropriate ideas that will
solve the problem. In his book ``Idea Power'',
VanGundy (1992) also classifies creative
problem solving techniques according to
group and individual use. Neither classifi-
cation, however, gives a clear, distinctive
guideline of where the techniques should be
categorised. Classical Brainstorming, for in-
stance, could be used for both problem
analysis and idea generation and Object
Stimulation could be used both as an indi-
vidual technique and as a group technique.
A more powerful classification has been
put forward by Couger (1995). He suggests
that creativity techniques can be classified
into two groups: analytical and intuitive.
Couger (1995, p. 44) defines analytically-
oriented techniques as those that ``use a
structure to generate a logical pattern of
thought''. These techniques include Force-
Field Analysis and Progressive Abstraction.
Intuitive techniques, on the other hand, allow
the participant to make giant leaps or to
observe images or symbols in order to arrive
at a solution. Wishful Thinking and Meta-
phors are two techniques that can be classi-
fied under the intuitive category. According
to Couger (1995, p. 45):
``It is not surprising that technical people
are predisposed toward the use of analy-
tical techniques and behaviorally oriented
people toward the intuitive techniques.
Nevertheless, a wider range of solution
possibilities can be derived if both types of
techniques are applied.''
Couger suggests, therefore, that people, as
individuals, prefer to use only certain types of
techniques depending on their personalities.
The techniques themselves, however, also
produce radically different results. Analytical
techniques follow a step-by-step structure,
taking a logical path towards its conclusion.
The solutions therefore tend to be less
imaginative. Intuitive techniques, on the other
hand, encourage the participants to burst out
of the problem paradigm and look at the
situation from a completely new and novel
perspective. This generally helps participants
to generate ideas that are a lot more creative.
Work by Gryskiewicz proposed that the
Creative Problem Solving approach adopted
could be suggested by the style of creative
idea needed (Gryskiewicz, 1988).
A framework that classifies the different
types of ideas generated by groups or indi-
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
133
viduals may therefore be useful to help
classify creative problem solving techniques.
One such framework was developed by
Nagasundaram and Bostrom (1993). They
suggest that ideas can be categorised into
two general groups: paradigm preserving
and paradigm modifying. When no new
elements are introduced and the relation-
ship between the elements of the problem
remains unchanged then the idea is said to
be paradigm preserving. Paradigm modifica-
tion will occur when (1) new elements are
introduced into the problem, (2) the relation-
ship between the elements are changed, and
(3) when both the relationship between the
elements are altered and a new element is
introduced. This framework, however, does
not classify the techniques themselves, only
their solutions. A more effective framework,
therefore, would be a classification of both the
techniques and the ideas/solutions they
would be expected to produce.
A new classification of creative
problem solving techniques
A new framework for classifying creativity A three category
techniques can be developed using three cat- framework
egories, namely paradigm preserving, para-
digm stretching and paradigm breaking.
These three categories can be defined using
Nagasundaram and Bostrom's classification:
1. Paradigm preserving ± where no elements
or relationships are introduced.
2. Paradigm stretching ± where either new
elements are introduced or new relation-
ships are conceived. In other words, the
problem space or paradigm boundary is
stretched to enable group members to
consider something new.
3. Paradigm breaking ± where both new
elements and new relationships are intro-
duced. This occurs when the paradigm's
boundary is completely broken by the
participants.
These three categories describe the poten-
tial solutions or ideas that can be gained by
utilising the creativity tools within them.
Paradigm preserving techniques
The paradigm preserving techniques include
the analytically-oriented techniques described
by Couger (1995) plus other techniques, such
as Brainstorming, that do not necessarily
encourage participants to step out of their
mindset.
Brainstorming was first devised by Alex F.
Osborn in the late 1930s in order to stimulate
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998
 14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
134 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

small groups of individuals to come up with

ideas on new product development, new
methods of positioning existing products
and new uses for old products. Later, how-
ever, Brainstorming was being used for
different applications in a variety of settings
such as education, health, manufacturing,
government circles, and so on.
There are four principles or rules to
Brainstorming (Osborn, 1957). These are as
follows:
1. There should be strictly no criticism or
analysis during the idea generation phase.
A relaxed and judgement-free atmosphere
encourages the flow of ideas which would
be severely impeded if participants were
allowed to convey their judgement on each
idea (Majaro, 1988).
2. Free-wheeling must be encouraged by the
facilitator. The group members must be
allowed to communicate an idea, however
mundane, strange or wild, to the rest of
the group. An idea that may seem im- Figure 1. Brainstorming
practical may contain a germ of a great
solution.
3. The group's participants are encouraged by looking at the problem from a variety of
to think of as many ideas as possible. The perspectives and by breaking old mind
more ideas generated, the more likely that patterns and forming new connections and
some very useful solutions will be de- perceptions. De Bono (1992, p. 53) describes
veloped. creativity as moving ``sideways'' in order to
4. Finally, the facilitator must encourage try different concepts and perceptions.
the group to combine and improve their Jerry Rhodes and his colleague (Rhodes,
ideas. The participants should build on 1991; Rhodes and Thame, 1988) suggest a new
the previous ideas ± called piggybacking ± tool for thinking creatively. This is based
and to look for ways of combining two around twenty-five mental operations called
or more ideas to generate a third idea not ``thunks''. The twenty-five thunks are divided
thought of previously. into three colours of thinking: blue, green and
red. These, in turn, are split into hard and
According to Nagasundaram and Bostrom
soft. The blue thunks represent a person's
(1993), Classical Brainstorming does not
attention to influence and form judgements
produce very many ideas that challenge or
based on reason and values. The hard blue
break away from a prevailing paradigm i.e.
thunks represent a sound approach to judg-
this technique produces more paradigm
ing issues whereas the soft blue help people
preserving ideas than paradigm breaking
to strive towards what is ``good''. The red
ideas. This is because these techniques only
thunks help decision-makers to discover and
use free association. They do not force the
convey information that is true. The two sides
participants to use their imagination to de-
of ``truth'' are represented by the hard and the
velop ideas (although some may do so)
soft; that is the hard, factual and specific
but piggyback on the ideas of others thus
information and the soft, holistic perceptions.
participants tend to follow a more struc-
Finally, the green represents the discovery of
tured process (see Figure 1). Other paradigm
new ideas. According to Rhodes and Thame
preserving techniques include Brainwrit-
(1988, p. 17):
ing, Force Field Analysis and Progressive
Abstraction. ``Hard green breaks the boundaries of
systems, rules and procedures in order to
experiment with possibilities of change.
Paradigm stretching/paradigm Fertile with wild speculation, hard green is
breaking techniques extravagant with its ideas. Out of the
abundance of its quick mind it turns and
Keeney (1993), Solomon (1990) and Evans twists, deviates and doubles back. The soft
(1993) suggest that creativity can be enhanced mode of green brings mystery and magic.

Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998


THE CREATIVITY CONTINUUM
Visions, dreams and inspiration are the
invited guests of the intuitive soft green.
The mind awaits the moment of awaken-
ing, in openness and receptivity, having
prepared itself through hope, questions,
and images of what might be possible.''
Breakthrough Thinking, a concept developed
by Nadler and Hibino (1994), also enables
decision maker(s) to view problems from a
different perspective. They define this type of
technique as follows (Nadler and Hibino,
1994, p. vii):
``Breakthrough Thinking is `software for
the mind', the new principles and new
processes to plan, design, reengineer, im-
prove and find solutions to the problems
you confront. It leads you to develop a
vision of where you need to be and enables
you to get there without ponderous data
collection. Breakthrough Thinking extends
the creative process to determine the right
purposes to be accomplished, generate a
large number of imaginative and original
options, and develop the systems you need
to implement effective solutions. This `full-
spectrum creativity' provides structure
for the imaginative mind and freedom for
the structured mind. With Breakthrough
Thinking, you can think smarter, not
harder.''
Breakthrough Thinking is unlike traditional
problem solving because it focuses on the
future, that is the goals and purposes of the
organisation or department, rather than what
went wrong. This allows the decision-makers
to view the problem from a different perspec-
tive and encourages the use of more creative
problem solving techniques such as Excur-
sion. Here, participants look at colourful
photographs or graphic words and try to link
the images to the problem (Johnson, 1991).
This in turn may spark off a more creative
solution.
According to Glassman (1989), creativity is
enhanced when experience, ideas and diverse
elements are mixed together and then trans-
formed using new combinations. This is
known as association and is the basis of many
creative problem solving techniques. One
such technique is known as Object Stimu-
lation. This technique involves the problem
solving group developing a list of objects that
are unrelated to the problem. The group
describes each object and then uses these
descriptions to stimulate ideas pertaining to
the problem. VanGundy (1992) suggests that
the purpose of such stimuli is to present a
completely different problem perspective. In
fact, Nagasundaram and Bostrom (1993)
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
135
claim that this type of problem solving
technique encourages paradigm stretching
or paradigm breaking. This is because para-
digm stretching and paradigm breaking tech-
niques may involve the following:
. the presence of unrelated stimuli;
. the forced association of stimuli;
. the use of multiple stimuli;
. the use of a collective memory (i.e. more
than one person working on the problem);
. not using any idea-filtering rules;
. disallowing evaluation;
. the presence of an unusual mode of expres-
sion e.g. dancing, singing and drawing.
According to Nagasundaram and Bostrom
(1993), the above issues together will produce
more paradigm stretching or paradigm break-
ing ideas. This is primarily due to the pres-
ence of unrelated stimuli, which encourages
participants to change their perspective of the
problem. For example, in Guided Fantasy,
participants are asked to describe a scenario
including their feelings, sounds, colours and
smells. New ideas are developed from these
scenarios and they are then linked back to the
problem (see Figure 2). In this fashion, more
novel and innovative solutions should be
created.
The creativity continuum
The above sections show that creativity tech-
niques can be placed into a creativity con-
tinuum ranging from paradigm preserving
tendencies to paradigm breaking tendencies
(see Figure 3). Paradigm preserving techni-
ques, which would include Brainstorming
and Brainwriting, would be seen to be ``safe'',
that is, they will not embarrass anybody or
make them feel uncomfortable. No imagina-
tion is required although it would be a bonus
if it were used. Therefore, it is not necessarily
expressive or revealing. Free association or
piggybacking is used to spark off other ideas
and thus produce new solutions. Paradigm
preserving techniques therefore do not re-
quire experienced groups to use them and
individuals will be quite happy to participate. Association and
In addition, paradigm preserving techniques creative problem
are much easier to learn, both as a partici- solving
pant and as a facilitator. Training in creative
problem solving is always beneficial and
using paradigm preserving techniques as a
foundation to the course can prove to be
invaluable.
Paradigm breaking tools, on the other
hand, sit at the opposite end of the spectrum
(see Figure 3). Only an experienced group
should use these techniques or a group that
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998

136
Figure 2. Guided fantasy
has a great deal of trust in the facilitator. An
inexperienced group may feel uncomfortable
and unsafe in this environment. Imagination
and expression is actively encouraged by the
use of fantasies or other unrelated stimuli.
Wishful Thinking and Guided Fantasy are
examples of techniques that may encourage
paradigm breaking.
In the middle of the creativity continuum
are the techniques that encourage participants
to stretch their prevailing paradigm. These
are safer and more comfortable to use than
the paradigm breakers and may therefore
beutilised by more inexperienced groups.
Paradigm stretching techniques require less
imagination and are certainly less expressive
although they still use unrelated stimuli to
spark off new ideas. Examples of techniques
that may stretch the paradigm include Object
Stimulation and Metaphors.
Importance of
preparation Discussion
Problem solving and opportunity finding can
be undertaken effectively by using certain
creative problem solving techniques such as
those discussed above. The framework de-
scribed in the previous section shows a con-
tinuum of creative techniques and outputs.
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
This has a number of implications for both
practitioners and theorists. For example, it
is very important that the problem owner
chooses an appropriate facilitator to support
the problem solving process. The facilitator
must be able to pre-plan the session(s) effec-
tively in order to produce an appropriate
agenda (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998). In
addition, he or she must be skilled at
choosing the relevant creative problem sol-
ving technique. For instance, different tech-
niques can be used for problem formulation
or idea generation. Likewise, certain types of
people and/or groups may feel more com-
fortable using paradigm preserving tech-
niques. The facilitator, therefore, must have
a good working knowledge of a variety of
creative methods. In addition, he or she must
use them appropriately and must be receptive
to the group if the participants are feeling
uncomfortable using the technique.
The facilitator must also be aware of the
group's cohesiveness and their experience of
using different CPS techniques. A group that
is in conflict or lacks cohesion may be more
effective utilising paradigm preserving tech-
niques. Moreover, a dysfunctional or aggres-
sive group may benefit from using techniques
that allow a certain degree of anonymity such
as Brainwriting. The participants are more
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998

THE CREATIVITY CONTINUUM
Figure 3. The creativity continuum
likely to air their views and opinions under
anonymous circumstances (Connolly, Jessup
and Valacich, 1990; Jessup, Connolly and
Galegher, 1990). In addition, a group that
lacks cohesion or contains members who are
in conflict with one another are less likely
to use techniques that require them to com-
municate their dreams or personal feelings
that may be required whilst utilising para-
digm breaking techniques. An experienced
group, on the other hand, contains members
who have worked together in the past. A
cohesive group, with members who trust each
other and the facilitator, may feel more
comfortable using techniques that are more
expressive such as drawing pictures or
dreaming of a better future. Thus, these
paradigm breaking techniques, which allow
participants to look at the situation from a
number of different perspectives, encourage
more creative and novel ideas. It must be
emphasised, however, that no type of tech-
nique will be effective if a meeting is poorly
prepared or if an inadequate facilitator sup-
ports the session (McFadzean and Nelson,
1998).
Further research needs to be undertaken by
management theorists on the creativity con-
tinuum. For instance, Moger (1997) and
Garfield et al. (1997) have undertaken studies
on CPS techniques and preferred creativity
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
137
style (as defined by Kirton, 1976). Moger
(1997) found that innovators and adaptors do
have a preference on which techniques they
use. In addition, Couger (1995) suggests that
technical people prefer to use the analytically-
oriented techniques whereas behaviourally-
oriented people tend to prefer the intuitive
techniques. McFadzean (1996), however, sug-
gests that members of a group who trust each
other and are experienced at using CPS
techniques will be comfortable utilising para-
digm breaking techniques because it may give
them a better opportunity to generate more
novel ideas. Research, therefore, needs to be
undertaken on how and by whom these
techniques are best utilised. Nagasundaram
(1995), for example, found that newly formed
MBA groups did not use the technique of
Guided Fantasy appropriately. Consequently,
the ideas that were generated remained
paradigm preserving. By implication, there-
fore, if paradigm stretching and paradigm
breaking techniques are misunderstood or
misused, for whatever reason, the ideas
produced by the group are more likely to be
paradigm preserving.
According to VanGundy (1988, p. 127),
``Wishful Thinking [a paradigm breaking
technique] is frequently overlooked by prag-
matic-minded individuals. Such persons
often assume that alternative problem per-
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998

138
spectives must be based upon logical or
rational modes of analysis. Although this
type of analysis is especially useful for well-
structured problems, it will not work as well
with most ill-structured problems.'' Different
creative problem solving techniques are
therefore useful for different types of problem
solving situations. Paradigm stretching or
paradigm breaking techniques may be more
useful for ill-structured problems whereas
paradigm preserving techniques can be used
to solve more structured problems. If a prob-
lem is open-ended and ill-structured, it may
be useful to generate a fantasy or a metaphor
in order to find and explore a desired state
for the situation. A more structured problem,
however, may benefit from a less imaginative
method. Research needs to be undertaken on
the different types of creative problem solving
techniques in order to ascertain the types of
problems they would help to solve effectively.
Summary
This paper has discussed the importance of
being able to encourage both individuals and
groups to view problems and opportunities
from different perspectives. There are a
number of different methods that can help
this process. Some of these techniques can be
used by inexperienced groups and require
little imagination. The ideas developed, how-
ever, tend to be paradigm preserving. More
experienced groups whose members trust
one another (as well as the facilitator) may
use other techniques. A well trained group
can use paradigm stretching and paradigm
breaking techniques effectively without feel-
ing uncomfortable. The ideas produced will
tend to be more novel and imaginative.
Creativity techniques can therefore be placed
in a continuum ranging from paradigm pre-
serving to paradigm breaking. Facilitators
must be careful to choose the appropriate
technique for a given situation and group.
Further research needs to be undertaken on
how groups use these techniques and which
method is most appropriate under specific
circumstances.
References
Brightman, H. J. (1988) Group Problem Solving: An
Improved Managerial Approach, Business Publish-
ing Division, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Carr, C. (1994) The Competitive Power of Constant
Creativity, AMACOM, New York.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S. (1990)
Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups,
Management Science, 36, 689±703.
Couger, J.D. (1995) Creative Problem Solving and
Opportunity Finding, Boyd & Fraser Publishing
Co., Danvers, Massachusetts.
De Bono, E. (1992) Serious Creativity: Using the
Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas,
Harper Collins, London.
Dennis, A.R. and Valacich, J.S. (1993) Computer
Brainstorms: More Heads are Better than One,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531±537.
Edwards, B. (1993) Drawing on the Right Side of the
Brain: How to Unlock Your Hidden Artistic Talent,
New Revised Edition, Harper Collins, London.
Evans, J.R. (1993) Creativity in MS/OR: Over-
coming Barriers to Creativity, Interfaces, 23,
101±106.
Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H.,
Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. and Nunamaker,
J.F. (1992) Electronic Brainstorming and Group
Size, Academy of Management Journal, 35,
350±369.
Garfield, M., Satzinger, J., Taylor, N. and Dennis,
A. (1997) ``The Creative Road: The Impact of the
Person, Process and Feedback on Idea Gener-
ation'', Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference
of the AIS, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Glassman, E. (1989) Creative Problem Solving,
Supervisory Management, 34, 21±26.
Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1988) ``Trial by Fire in an
Industrial Setting: A Practical Evaluation of
Three Creative Problem Solving Techniques'',
in Gronhaug, K. and Kaufmann, G., Innovation:
A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, Norwegian uni-
versity Press, Oslo, 205±232.
Hall, A.R. and Smith, H.A.F. (1987) ``Invention'',
The Encyclopaedia Americana, Grolier, Inc.,
Danbury, CT.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Rao, V.S. and Huber, G.P. (1988)
Computer Support for Meetings of Groups
Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field
Experiment, MIS Quarterly, 12, 645±666.
Jessup, L.M., Connolly, T. and Galegher, J. (1990)
The Effects of Anonymity on GDSS Group
Process With an Idea Generating Task, MIS
Quarterly, 14, 313±321.
Johnson, V. (1991) Creative Problem Solving,
Successful Meetings, 40, 60±66.
Keeney, R.L. (1993) Creativity in MS/OR: Value-
Focused Thinking ± Creativity Directed Toward
Decision Making, Interfaces, 23, 62±67.
Kennedy, C. (1991) ``Xerox Charts a New Strategic
Direction'', in Henry, J. and Walker, D. (eds),
Managing Innovation, Sage Publications Ltd.,
London.
Kirton, M. (1976) Adaptors and Innovators: A
Description and Measure, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 622±629.
Majaro, S. (1988) The Creative Gap: Managing Ideas
for Profit, Longman, London.
McFadzean, E.S. (1996) ``New Ways Of Thinking:
An Evaluation Of K-Groupware and Creative
Problem Solving'' Doctoral Dissertation, Henley
Management College/Brunel University,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.
McFadzean, E.S. and Nelson, T. (1998) Facilitating
Problem Solving Groups: A Conceptual Model,
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998

THE CREATIVITY CONTINUUM
Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
19, 6±13.
Moger, S. (1997) ``Structured Techniques for
Supporting R&D and Design Activities: A Study
Extending the Preference ± Practice ± Perform-
ance Model of Basadur, Graen and Green'',
Proceedings of The R&D Management Confer-
ence, Manchester, UK.
Nadler, G. and Hibino, S. (1994) Breakthrough
Thinking: The Seven Principles of Creative Problem
Solving, Second Edition, Prima Publishing,
Rocklin, California.
Nagasundaram, M. (1995) ``The Structuring of
Creative Processes with Group Support
Systems'', Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Nagasundaram, M. and Bostrom, R.P. (1993) ``The
Structuring of Creative Processes Using GSS:
A Framework for Research'', Working Paper,
No. 81, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Nayak, P.R. and Ketteringham, J.M. (1991) ``3M's
Little Yellow Note Pads: Never Mind. I'll Do It
Myself'', in Henry, J. and Walker, D. (eds),
Managing Innovation, Sage Publications Ltd.,
London.
Osborn, A.F. (1957) Applied Imagination, Revised
Edition, Scribner, New York.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998
14678691, 1998, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8691.00101 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
139
Rhodes, J. (1991) Conceptual Toolmaking: Expert
Systems of the Mind, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford.
Rhodes, J. and Thame, S. (1988) Modelling Work
Through a New Thinking Profile, Industrial and
Commercial Training, 20, 15±18.
Robinson, A. and Stern, S. (1997) Corporate Creativity:
How Innovation and Improvement Actually Happen,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Simon, H.A. (1977) The New Science of Management
Decision, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Solomon, C.M. (1990) What an Idea: Creativity
Training, Personnel Journal, 69, 64±71.
VanGundy, A.B. (1988) Techniques of Structured
Problem Solving, Second Edition, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
VanGundy, A.B. (1992) Idea Power: Techniques and
Resources to Unleash the Creativity in Your Organ-
isation, AMACOM, New York.
Elspeth McFadzean is a Faculty member at
Henley Management College, Henley-on-
Thames, UK.
Volume 7 Number 3 September 1998