Creative Thinking and Innovation Techniques - Coursework Example

Creative thinking and innovation techniques Name Institution Course Instructor Date of submission Introduction Creative thinking and innovation Creativity and innovation are considered to be close relatives in the filed of science and management. Sawyer (2006) argues that there is need to explain and define creativity well in order for one to identify certain talents in individuals that may not be explicit. He says “without explaining creativity, it is easy to fail to recognize and nurture individuals with important creative ability. If we hope to solve all of the pressing problems facing our society and our world, we must take advantage of the creative talents of everyone” (p 4). This indicates the fundamental importance of innovation and creative thinking in the field of management. To achieve creativity and innovation in the workplace, there are a number of techniques that have been proposed by a number of authors that direct thinking in a creative manner that leads to innovation of new products and services. Most importantly, creative thinking and innovation have been categorized into five major fields namely Idea generation Idea implementation Idea selection Problem definition Processes Idea generation is simply the conception of a new idea inspired by needs and other surroundings. Baxter (73) writes that “idea generation is at the heart of creative thinking. The ideas produced are the lifeblood of the creative process. They are what puts the ‘creative’ into creative thinking.” He further adds that to achieve creative inspiration and generate unique ideas, bisociative thinking is a requisite. By this he implies that there is need to bring many participants together to make a working connection that is viable enough to generate ideas. However, as one of the many techniques of idea generation, bisociative thinking is often flawed and inefficient since the process of bringing participants together is time consuming. This technique however, is necessary in focus groups, teams and brainstorming meetings. Vogel (2005) in discussing idea generation methodology in creative thinking argues that there is no allocation of time for idea generation in any person or company’s time schedule. He therefore argues that idea generation is a spontaneous process that should be continuous in all aspects and processes. Nonetheless, this does not imply that there are no techniques and ways through which creative thinking and innovation can be encouraged in prearranged time sessions. Some authors however note that, many contemporary scholars give weight to the monitoring of the idea generation process and evaluation of ideas but give little attention to the generation of ideas itself (Vogel 2005, Baxter 1995: Sawyer 2006). There are a number of techniques which have been brought forward by different authors with an aim of influencing creative thinking and innovation. Majority of these techniques are categorized as idea generation. This paper explores in depth some common creative thinking and innovation techniques articulating their benefits and limitations in entrepreneurship and commercialization (Vogel 2005). PDCA Michalko (2006) writes that this technique is simply an abbreviation for plan, do, check and act. This technique was originally created by one Walter Shewart who combined management thinking with a bit of statistics to develop a sequence of actions that induce creative thinking and innovation. This technique is favored by most managers as it tends to concentrate on improving existing ideas. As such, the technique is also applicable in total quality management (TQM). Its greatest strength lies in its simplicity in use and its step by step formation that is easier to implement. However, this technique faces a lot of negative criticism. First and foremost is that PDCA wrongly generalizes the entire process of idea generation and improvement as a planned-for process. This oversimplification of the whole improvement process started as a result of meaning lost through translation into Japanese and later to English. Initially, the technique was more complicated than this modern version. However, when the original technique was adopted by the Japanese in improving tight loop production in their industries using continuous measurement and statistical control techniques, some meaning was lost. Due to this oversimplification, the PDCA hardly ever succeeds because it does not echo the diverse actions necessary for successful improvement activities. This technique assumes actions are delegated to the management and not the low level worker which is misplaced in this age of employee empowerment. According to Vogel (2005), employee empowerment is an incentive thinking and creativity in the workplace. In modern times therefore, empowering the ordinary employee has no impact on creativity and innovation in the workplace according to this technique. PDCA assumes that every idea generation process starts with planning which is not practical. As aforementioned, thinking is spontaneous and cannot be planned for except for brainstorming cases. Vogel (2005) is of the opinion that planning stifles creativity in areas such as innovation and invention. The same author further adds that it is possible to achieve creative thinking and innovation without necessary going through all the stages mentioned in this particular technique. Adaptive reasoning This is another popular creative thinking and innovation technique that basically involves directing thinking and creativity towards solving a particular problem. Adaptive Reasoning encompasses the capacity to think logically about the relationships amongst models/theories/ideas/concepts and existing situations. Reasoning in this case is considered correct and valid from careful consideration of alternatives, and includes knowledge of how to justify the conclusions (West 2002; Crawford, Schalger & Toyama 2005). One of the most notable benefits of adaptive reasoning is that is its flexibility in that the precision of the solution of idea being sought can be trained with efficiency towards the problem at hand. Additionally, in adaptive reasoning, irrelevant ideas to the problem at hand are avoided In comparison to other idea generation techniques such as brainstorming, adaptive reasoning does not inspire innovation and creativity far from the status quo. This is because the technique is only applicable and relevant where there are problems. It does not function inside the comfort zone implying that new products and service development might not be achieved through this technique. Entrepreneurs need to think beyond solving their challenges and move into creating new opportunities (West 2002). Focus groups/ teams This technique comprises the act f bring a number of persons into working together to develop one single idea. The strength of their unique ideas lies in the fact that it is brainchild of many ideas which have been vetted by members of the group. However, West (2002) notes that very little attention has been directed to wards research understanding the factor that influence groups’ innovation and creativity. Advantages Relatively easy to assemble, inexpensive and flexible in terms of format, types of questions and desired outcomes ▪ Good for groups with lower literacy levels (e.g. young children, English as a second language) ▪ Open recording allows participants to confirm their contributions ▪ Provide rich data through direct interaction between researcher and participants, ▪ Spontaneous, participants not required to answer every question; able to build on one another's responses; ▪ Help people build new connections Limitations Findings may not represent the views of larger segments of the population ▪ Requires good facilitation skills, including ability to handle various roles people may play (“expert”, “quiet”, “outsider’, “friend”, “hostile”, etc.); ▪ Tough rich, data may be difficult to analyze because it is unstructured ▪ Possible conformance, censoring, conflict avoidance, or other unintended outcomes of the group process need to be addressed as part of the data analysis (Carey, 1995) The effectiveness of the team and the feasibility of the ideas generated by such groups and teams is subject to the human interaction and the support for innovativeness provided by such environments. This is unlike in other situations where the an individual is involved (West 2002) Brainstorming According to Heslin (2001), the free atmosphere present in brainstorming meetings, where social and formal inhibitions are excluded encourages creativity and thinking outside the box which is very effective in challenging the status quo and generating new ideas. He says in a recent study, participants showed preference to brainstorming meetings than other forms of idea generation techniques. As such, its acceptance by participants is a relevant factor in encouraging the success of the idea generation process in the long run. Brainstorming allows exposure to other people’s ideas which stimulates novel associations that are not present in solitary idea generation situations. Nonetheless, this technique has its shortcomings. Heslin (2001) identifies the most common problem as possible denial of attention to very plausible ideas that may escape the enough attention of the participants in such meeting to be pursued further. He compares this to the solitary idea generation situation where a single idea is exposed to through scrutiny and analysis. Additionally, he says that the uninhibited atmosphere in brainstorming might prove troublesome for some participants who may not be bold enough to share particular ideas in the belief that their ideas are not “good enough” or worth sharing. The productivity of the brainstorming is negatively affected by social loafing, negative competition and wrong impressions of productivity. Some participants may feel inferior by comparing themselves to other people and the ideas that they generate. On the other hand, brainstorming often functions same way as teams and collective productivity may affect individual productivity negatively while under performers take cover in the success of collective effort (Heslin 2001; Michalski 2006). Gap analysis Harper (2006) describes gap analysis as the identification of gaps in the thinking process or business operations. He says that this technique is guided by the element of “what if.” This is important in exploring all the possibilities that exist in the business process. He says that these gaps expressed in the “what ifs” represent the “market pull” of nature of entrepreneurship where customers looking for businesses that can fill gaps in the market place. In the same way, a creative entrepreneur should be able to identify the opportunities and the needs that may exist in the marketplace that he can be able to adequately fulfill. Again, lack of these opportunities should not also limit the idea of developing products and creating demand for them. This makes gap analysis as a creative thinking tool unique to the other tools in that it explores the imagination of the thinker in connection with the status quo. Again, it identifies where knowledge of an issue is absent and research is required, thus prompting entry into research arrangements with research organizations. It also improves efficiency of investment by ensuring unnecessary monitoring is not undertaken (Harper 2006). Gap analysis faces heavy criticism in that it does not indicate the direction that thinking in filling out the identified gaps should take. In other words, it identifies deficiencies in ideas and innovation but provides no viable way through which to fill out those gaps. Consequently, gap analysis can never be utilized alone though it best operates in collaboration with brainstorming (Harper 2006). Mind mapping. This is one of the more complex creative and thinking tools. A mind map is basically a n expression of how things are connected in out brain as ideas in recognition of the fact that the brain does not operate in a straight line but rather uses interconnected ideas to develop a unitary one. Therefore, mind mapping is technique developed to capture and understand these connections. Essentially, it unlocks the brains potential by graphically depicting how several ideas are connected (Lewis & Evans 2008). Mind mapping holds several advantages over other creative thinking techniques in that it helps in stimulating critical, strategic and creative thinking by linking new developments to the status quo in business. Consequently, mind mapping is best suited for managing change as it helps to identify how one previous idea is linked with the newer one. Vogel (2005) says that employees and managers who are afraid of change can employ this tool in understanding the improvement process and the importance of adapting changes. Mind mapping provides a clearer way forward than other tools as it shows a step by step development of thoughts and ideas and how they are connected. This reduces time and stress on managers and entrepreneurs who have to explain to employees and other stakeholders the reasons behind certain decisions. Lateral thinking This tool is one of the most famous tools in entrepreneurship and most widely used in other fields. Its popularity emanates from its wide applicability and the fact that t lightly borrows from other creative thinking tools such as gap analysis. This technique emphasizes of a addressing a problem from a different perspective assuming that every problem or need has more than one solution. It allows a decision to be suspended before all the alternative solutions to a particular problem are reviewed and evaluated. Lateral thinking has been criticized as an inhabitant of creativity as it explores variation of processes to a small extent rather than overhauling the whole system. Additionally, it has been accused of polarizing situations and workforce due to the fact that it offers no new solutions but different perspectives of the same issue (Paton 1999) Another limitation cited by this tool is that it is a potential time waster given that it calls for suspension of all decisions before all alternative ways of addressing a single problem are review. Therefore although, this technique is applicable at the individual and group level, it is tedious and time wasting when applied at the group level. Osborn’s checklist (scamper) This is also known as a Scamper which is an acronym for Substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other uses, eliminate and reverse. This technique was developed by Alex Osborn who introduced way of comparing a series of words to the situation at hand. A person places one chosen word against the situation and then the benefits and limitations of that particular word are reviewed (Green, 2007). This technique is superior to other creative thinking techniques in that it focuses on the very heart of the problem at hand by laying emphasis on one element of a problem at a time. Essentially, it breaks down a problem down into smaller units thereby giving attention to all the details within a single problem. One major problem that lies in breaking down a larger problem in to smaller ones lies in the fact that some of the solutions suggested for each of the smaller problems might be contradictory. This has the potential of affecting the success of the large-scale solution to the large-scale problem. Conclusion Creative thinking and innovation is one of the fundamental drivers of entrepreneurship and creation of ideas. However, generation of ideas does in itself give birth to entrepreneurship and commercialization of ideas or conversion of ideas into business ventures. The feasibility of these ideas is most relevant and important in the business process. In order to remain ahead of competition, entrepreneurs and firms need to continuously developed new ideas and develop new products and services that will give them competitive advantage. This underscores the importance of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship. These firms do not have resources to complete with established players hence rely on their creative and innovative arm to stay afloat. Lateral thinking, gap analysis and the other mentioned tools have all been developed with a view of assisting entrepreneurs develop new ideas in line with their industries and business processes that will help them in achieving their goals and objectives. However, each of these tools have their own benefits and limitations. As aforementioned, it is best to utilize a combination of these techniques in order for the shortcomings and benefits to cancel out. References Baxter, M. (1995). Product design: a practical guide to systematic methods of new product development. New York: CRC Press Crawford, V. Schalger, M & Toyama, Y. (2005). Characterizing adaptive research in science teaching. http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/MAESTRoAdEx.pdf Green, A. (2007). Creativity in Public Relations. London: Kogan Creativity and Innovation Techniques (n.d.) http://www.mycoted.com/Category:Creativity_Techniques Harper, S. (2006). Extraordinary Entrepreneurship: The Professional's Guide to Starting an Exceptional Enterprise. New York: John Wiley and Sons Heslin. Creative idea generation: beyond brainstorming Lewis, C Evans, R. Mind (2008). Mapping for a Business Advantage. New York: American Society for Training and Development Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys: a handbook of creative-thinking techniques. 2nd ed. Chicago: Ten Speed Organizational gap analysis guidelines http://www.careacademy.org/learningresources/orgdiv_gap.pdf Paton, B. (1999). Lateral thinking. http://www.solutioneers.net/solutioneering/lateralthinking.html http://pheslin.cox.smu.edu/download/publications/CreativeIdeaGeneration.pdf Focus goups http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/hsg/documents/QUICK_GUIDE_-_focusgroupsDS.pdf Sawyer, Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation Vogel, G. 2005). Process development: from the initial idea to the chemical production plant. New York: Wiley-VCH West, Michael. (2005). “Sparkling fountains of stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups.” Applied psychology: an international review, 51(3) 355-424 Read More