A Study of the Applicability of Idea Generation Techni

1

A Study of the Applicability of Idea Generation Techniques

Chan-Li Lin, Jon-Chao Hong1, Ming-Yueh Hwang

2, Ya-Ling Lin

3

PhD Candidate, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan 1Professor, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan

2Professor, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan

3 PhD Student, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan

Abstract

Idea generation techniques have been widely recognized as highly useful tools

for generating ideas to solve problems. To investigate the reasons why some

techniques are used more often than others in different contexts, survey questionnaires

were delivered to professional consultants with extensive experiences in using idea

generation techniques. This study examines the applicability of ten selected idea

generation techniques in twelve idea generation contexts based on Rhodes theory and

the six Ps (person, process, product, please, press, persuasion and place) of creativity.

The results of this study may serve as guidelines for evaluating and selecting idea

generation techniques and help to optimize selection of techniques and maximize

effectiveness of idea generation.

Keywords: Idea generation, Idea generation techniques, Brainstorming, KJ

method, TRIZ, Checklist, NGT, Delphi.

2

I. Introduction

Organizational innovation is the key to an organizations sustainable

development. It is usually achieved by extensive collaboration, individual and team

innovation and experiments so that problems can be properly approached and solved.

Innovation is a result of a teams interactive process (Agrell and Gustafson, 1994;

Shalley and Gilson, 2004); in other words, idea generation and idea testing (Amabile,

Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Mumford and Gustafson, 1988) are the key

factors of organizational innovation. Furthermore, problem solving may be more

creative through idea sharing and generation (Davenport and Volpol, 2001; van

Beveren, 2002).

The evolution of creative thinking and problem solving processes can be divided

into five stages: presentation, preparation, generation, validation, and assessment

(Amabile, 1988). Moreover, some scholars suggested that creative processes involve

the following stages: 1)identifying a problem/opportunity, 2)gathering information or

resources, 3)generating ideas, 4)evaluating and modifying ideas, and

5)communicating ideas (Amabile, 1996; Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; M. D Mumford

and Connelly, 1991; Stain, 1967).

In light of the aforementioned problem solving stages, it is obvious that idea

generation is crucial to a problem solving process (Majaro, 1988; McAdam, 2004).

Idea generation usually happens in a team through mutual interaction and idea/

information sharing. (Quinn, 1985) stated that idea generation is a social

constructionism to support knowledge sharing, and (Amabile, 1998) suggested that

idea generation is to share a teams goal, strategy, and knowledge.

(Ford, 1996) believes that organizational creativity encompasses the ability to

utilize idea generation techniques, which assists individuals to break free from

cognitive, habitual, and mental association and pattern of thought (Ford, 2000; Parnes,

1988). (Runco and Okuda, 1988) pointed out that idea generation techniques increase

creativity, originality, and flexibility. Without applying specific idea generation

techniques, most people use their past knowledge to solve problems. Idea generation

techniques can be acquired by training to increase individual and team creativity for

problem solving (Feldman and Goh, 1995). With the techniques, individuals or teams

consider more thoroughly the causes of problems, and thus figure out new or different

solutions (Shalley and Gilson, 2004). With the aid of idea generation techniques, the

effect of idea generation will be more profound, and more techniques will be

developed (McAdam, 2004), such as Brainstorming and SCAMPER (substitute,

combine, adapt, modify, put to other use, eliminate, rearrange) proposed by Osborn

(1963). (Smith, 1998) identified 172 idea generation techniques quoted in scientific or

practitioners publications. (Takahashi, 1993) indicated that more than 300 idea

3

generation techniques have been invented, but only a few are applied often. Therefore,

the purpose of this study is to examine the application frequency of selected

techniques and their applicability in different contexts.

II. Theoretical Background

(Rhode, 1961) proposed four factors affecting creativity: person, process,

product, and place, or 4 Ps. (Amabile, 1983) believed that for individuals, creativity

comes from domain relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation.

(Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993) proposed that organizational creativity is

associated with members personality variables, cognitive factors, intrinsic motivation,

and knowledge. It is Fords belief (1996) that organizational creativity comes from

personal sense-making, motivation, knowledge, and ability, in which the ability to

apply innovation techniques is also included. Leaders may strengthen organizational

creativity through various techniques, such as promoting members motivation to

create (Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004).

The definition of place extends to working environments or conditions

including time pressure, team members, etc. (Nemeth, 1986) and (Ancona and

Caldwell, 1992) pointed out that in the process of problem solving, diverse

perspectives come from the diversity of the team members who possess diverse sets of

values. This assumption is based on the fact that increasing member diversity may

expand the scope of team knowledge (Amabile, 1988; Kanter, 1988; Payne, 1990;

Woodman, et al., 1993). The more diverse a team is, such as the diversity in gender

and expertise, the more chaos it will produce. If chaos can be kneaded into

consistency, ideas will thus be generated (Gilson, 2001; Reiter-Palmon and Illies,

2004; Runco, 1986). However, if the kneading process takes too long, its effect might

be consumed by the pressure of time.

In other words, a homogenous team shares a mental model that may help

understand the value of idea (M. D Mumford, Feldmen, Hein, & Nagao, 2001), and it

is easier for them to reach a consensus and reduce the time spent on idea generation.

That is to say that creation takes time (Gruber and Davis, 1988) for it must go through

the process of brainstorming, testing, and evaluation. Time is a critical resource; only

with sufficient time can brainstorming be proceeded (Amabile and Gryskiewicz, 1987;

Shalley and Gilson, 2004).

(Amabile, et al., 2003) also indicated that under time constraint, some are less

likely to brainstorm. In this fast-track society, it is unlikely or impossible to have

sufficient time for idea generation (Shalley and Gilson, 2004). In addition to time,

other resources, such as software, hardware, and documents are profoundly connected

to creativity (Katz and Agrell, 1988). Hardware, software, and documents are

4

normally in positive relation to creativity while too much of these resources may bring

negative impacts instead (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). In the process of idea generation,

resources may also affect application of idea generation techniques.

(Amabile, 1983) believed that organization creativity is related to its members

scopes of knowledge and passion, and the passion to create is associated with the

organizational ambience (Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004). The larger the knowledge

scope is involved, the more ideas will be generated (Woodman, et al., 1993).

(Lancaster, 1988) indicated that framing of problem could affect the choice of idea

generation technique. If the solution-generating process is characterized by

opportunity of try and error, the solution achieved is more likely to work. In brief, a

team of higher member diversity is more likely to use different idea generation

approaches to work out their problems (Heinstrom, 2003). Moreover, (Wilson, 2000)

discovered that psychological, demographic, role-related, environmental, and

source-related traits influence idea generation processes.

III. Research Design

1. Methodology

Survey questionnaires were designed and distributed to technical consultants

whose work regularly involves problem solving and idea generating to investigate the

application frequency of the selected techniques and their applicability in different

contexts. In the questionnaire, the participants were first instructed to indicate the

frequency of using the selected techniques with the following scale: 1) never used

before, 2) once a year, 3) several times a year, 4) once a month, 5) several times a

month, 6) once a week, 7) several times a week, 8) once a day, and 9) several times a

day. The participants filled out the questionnaires by way of ex post facto recalling.

The participants were then instructed to evaluate the applicability of these techniques

by using the following scale: 1) very applicable, 2) applicable, 3) passable, 4)

inapplicable, and 5) very inapplicable.

Three hundred and fifteen questionnaires were distributed with 280 returned. The

overall return rate is 88.9%. Among them, 130 questionnaires were distributed to

members of Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan, with 111 returned, a

return rate of 85.4%. 30 questionnaires were distributed to members of Corporate

Strategy Development Center, Taiwan, with 29 returned, a return rate of 96.7%. 120

questionnaires were distributed to members of PMC, with 110 returned, a return rate

of 91.7%. 35 questionnaires were distributed to members of China Productivity

Center with 30 returned, a return rate of 85.7%.

2. Research Tool

The research tool used in this study includes two parts: 1) survey of application

5

frequency of the selected idea generation techniques and 2) survey of applicability of

the techniques in different contexts. After pilot interviews were conducted to

investigate the techniques most familiar to technical consultants in Taiwan, ten idea

generation techniques were selected to be included in the questionnaire.

3.2.1 Brief Descriptions of Idea Generation Techniques

According to (Takahashi, 1993), more than 300 idea generation

techniques have been invented around the world. Some of them are very

popular, while others are seldom used in Taiwan. A meeting with experts was

called upon to select the most frequently used techniques by technical

consultants Taiwan. The top 10 techniques selected are: brainstorming, KJ

method, checklist, SCAMPER, 1H5W, TRIZ, Delphi, 5Why, NGT, and mind

mapping. The idea generation techniques are briefly introduced as follows:

1. Brainstorming: Brainstorming was first proposed by Osborn in 1963. It helps

people who hold different perspectives to come up with cascades of ideas in a

short period of time. This technique was invented before all others, so it is also

known as the mother of idea generation techniques(Osborn, Rona, Dupont,

& Armand, 1971).

2. K.J. Method: The method is named after the Japanese anthropologist, Jiro

Kawakita, who developed a method of establishing an orderly system from

chaos of information(Kawakita, 1977). When using K.J method to generate

ideas, all relevant facts and information are written on individual cards which

are collated, shuffled, spread out and read carefully. The cards are then

reviewed, classified, and sorted based on idea similarity, affinity and

characteristics. K.J. Method, in its narrow sense, allows members to classify

cards by putting together those which share similar content, concrete or

abstract; integrated K.J. method allows members to express ideas in tangible

form by writing each idea on one card; cumulative K.J. method is to iterate the

narrow sense KJ (Kawakita, 1991).

3. Checklist: This method includes attribute listing, wishful thinking, and demerit

listing. Attribute listing explores personal and physical attributes; wishful

thinking explores ideals; demerit listing explores possibilities to improve the

status quo.

4. SCAMPER: The SCAMPER technique is a brainstorming method that builds

one idea into several ideas by asking questions about the actions represented

by the SCAMPER acronym: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other

use, eliminate, and rearrange.

5. 1H5W: Questions are approached by asking How, When, Where, Who, What ,

6

and Why.

6. TRIZ: TRIZ is a Russian acronym, and its English translation is Theory of

Incentive Problem Solving (TIPS). TRIZ was invented in 1946 by a Russian

engineer and scientist, Genrich Altshuller, and his team by analyzing legal

patent documents. It helps to analyze problems and pinpoint contradictions,

which are later divided into two categories, physical and technical. Different

solutions will then be sought .

7. Delphi Method: Delphi comes from the name of Apollos temple, where

apocalypse was given. Delphi Method allows members to communicate and

solve problems without face-to-face contact. It features individual thinking,

autonomy, and stress-free evaluation (Uhl, 1990).

8. 5-Why Method: 5-Why Method helps to deconstruct a question layer by layer

by repeatedly asking Why. The deconstruction process will not stop until the

final root cause is found. The whole process, if drawn out, will look similar to

a tree diagram.

9. NGT (Nominal Group Technique): NGT is conducted anonymously.

Participants can candidly express opinions and feel equally respected. It takes

less time and the result is usually surprising. NGT is often employed to help a

team pinpoint the key question and work out its solution. The process of NGT

includes individual thought, collecting responses, vote, and discussion.

10. Mind Mapping Technique: Tony Buzan proposed Mind Mapping Technique in

1974. This is a very powerful graphic technique because it unlocks the

potential of the brain; it also helps to express emotions and strengthen

memories. Mind mapping technique starts with a single idea, which then

incurs more follow-up concepts. In the end, it connects all related ideas and

presents them together in a concrete way (Buzan, 1995).

2.2 Different contexts in which idea generation techniques are applied

Theories regarding idea generation context adopted by this research is based on

Rhodes research (1961) and the 6 Ps of creativity: person, process, product, place,

pressure, and persuasion. After reviewed by professionals, 12 contexts in which

people use idea generation techniques were identified: time constraint, differences

among participants, availability of information, knowledge background of participants,

opportunity of try and error, democratic process in meetings, constructive dialogues,

lively intercommunication, positive phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, elaboration of

ideas, and variety of ideas. Of all of the 12 contexts, member differences and

background knowledge fall into the person category; availability of information

and democratic leadership fall into the process category; thoroughness, diversity,

7

and elaboration of ideas are placed under product category; lively

inter-communication is placed under place category; time pressure and

opportunity of try and error fall into pressure category; constructive dialogue

and positive phrasing fall into persuasion category. Detailed explanation of

contexts is as follows:

1. Time Constraint (pressure): The generation of ideas is under time constraint.

2. Differences among Members (person): A team is composed of members of

different backgrounds, experiences, positions, seniority, genders, and so on.

3. Availability of Information (process): Due to the time constraint, it may be

difficult to obtain original data whereas decision-making and analyses must be

done immediately.

4. Background Knowledge of Participants (person): Team members have

sufficient background knowledge to participate in idea generation.

5. The Willingness to Try and Err (pressure): Team members can try or

experiment at will.

6. Democratic Leadership (process)Members are given the opportunity to plan and present a project; opinions are expressed bottom-up.

7. Constructive Dialogues (persuasion): Only positive comments and suggestions

of improvement will be given.

8. Vibrant Discussion (place): Each member will have the chance to speak up.

9. Positive Phrasing (persuasion): Comments such as flaws will be replaced by

room for improvement, and an idiot replaced by a slow learner.

10. Thoroughness of Ideas (product): The thoroughness of ideas depends first on

the quantity of ideas and the quality of ideas comes second.

11. Elaboration of Ideas (product): the depth of an idea

12. Diversity of Ideas (product)The more diverse ideas generated the better.

IV. Results of Research

1. Application Frequencies of Selected Idea Generation Techniques

This section discusses the application frequency of the 10 selected idea

generation techniques (or team innovation techniques) used by technical consultants

in Taiwan. The techniques for consideration include K.J. Method, Checklist,

SCAMPER, 1H5W method, TRIZ method, Delphi method, 5-why method, Mind

Mapping method, and NGT method. The participants were instructed to specify the

idea generation techniques familiar to their team, and indicated the application

frequency. The results of the survey are presented as follows.

8

All the techniques were sorted according to their application frequency. If two

techniques have the highest frequency, each of them would receive 1/2 of the score. If

three techniques have the highest application frequency, each of them will receive 1/3

of the score. The application frequency of the ten selected techniques is shown in

Table 1.

Table 1 Survey Results: Application Frequency of Selected Idea Generation

Techniques

Application

Frequency

Idea Generation

Techniques

No. of Times the

technique was Selected

Percentage (%)

1 Brainstorming 122 43.57 2 Checklist 76 27.14 3 1H5W Method 33 11.79 4 5Why Method 22 7.85 5 Mind Mapping Method 7 2.5 6 Delphi Method 5 1.79 7 TRIZ Method 4 1.43 8 SCAMPER Method 4 1.43 9 K.J. Method 4 1.43 10 NGT Method 3 1.07

280 100

Among all the techniques, Brainstorming has the highest application frequency

(with 122 selections and 43.57% selection rate). It is not surprising that Brainstorming

is the most frequently used technique as the survey shows. This is mainly because the

technique was invented by Osborn in 1963 and is the best-known technique by far.

Checklist, 1H5W Method, and 5-Why Method also have very high application

frequencies because they are simple and convenient to use. On the contrary,

professional techniques, such as Delphi, TRIZ, and SCAMPER are less popular

among technical consultants in Taiwan.

2. Applicability Analysis of Idea Generation Techniques in Different Contexts

Applicability of the ten idea generation techniques in different contexts is

analyzed and discussed in this section. Chi-square test was performed to examine

applicability differences of selected techniques in twelve different contexts.

Participants of the survey were required to evaluate the applicability of each technique

by using the following scale: very applicable, applicable, passable, inapplicable, and

very inapplicable.

9

2.1 Applicability Analysis of Brainstorming

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in all contexts (Table 2): time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information,

knowledge background of participants, opportunity of try and error, democratic

process in meetings, constructive dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive

phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, elaboration of ideas, and variety of ideas.

Table 2 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of Brainstorming in Different Contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas

Very Applicable 45 90 29 79 83 97 50 126 34 30 15 124 Applicable 32 63 47 64 42 54 61 53 41 46 54 64 Passable 43 50 107 59 44 38 75 28 98 103 97 24

Inapplicable 32 13 30 15 24 19 21 7 27 31 34 8 Very Inapplicable 75 11 11 7 16 6 6 5 13 12 20 2

-square 27.339 100.291 122.429 90.554 64.230 116.981 76.272 227.187 100.122 109.757 100.591 231.063 Significance Level .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000*

Applicability Symbol

Table 2 shows that brainstorming is considered as a very applicable technique

when the idea generation process is characterized by differences among participants,


process in meetings, lively intercommunication, or variety of ideas. Respondents also

indicated that brainstorming as a passable technique when the process is

characterized by availability of information, constructive dialogues, positive phrasing,

thoroughness of ideas, or elaboration of ideas. Nevertheless, brainstorming is

identified as a very inapplicable technique when the idea generation process is

under time constraint.

2.2 Applicability Analysis of K J Method

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in four contexts: differences among participants, availability of information, lively

intercommunication, and variety of ideas, as shown in Table 3.

10

Table 3 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of K J Method in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



-square 5.214 12.769 9.429 5.077 0.769 4.667 6.308 10.538 4.556 3.370 5.407 15.407 Significance Level .266 .005* .024* .166 .857 .097 .177 .032* .207 .338 .248 .004*


Table 3 shows that K.J is regarded as an applicable technique when the

generation process is characterized by knowledge background of participants,

thoroughness of ideas, or variety of ideas. It is considered passable when the

process is characterized by time constraint, differences among participants,

availability of information, opportunity of try and error, democratic process in

meetings, constructive dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive phrasing, or

elaboration of ideas.

2.3 Applicability Analysis of Checklist

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in all contexts: time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information, knowledge

background of participants, opportunity of try and error, democratic process in

meetings, constructive dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive phrasing,

thoroughness of ideas, elaboration of ideas, or variety of ideas (Table 4).

Table 4 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of Checklist in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas


11




Checklist is identified as an applicable technique when the idea generation

process is characterized by availability of information, knowledge background of

participants, constructive dialogues, or thoroughness of ideas. The technique is

considered passable when the process is characterized by time constraint,

differences among participants, opportunity of try and error, democratic process in

meetings, lively intercommunication, positive phrasing, elaboration of ideas, or

variety of ideas (Table 4).

2.4 Applicability Analysis of SCAMPER

Test results indicated no statistically significant differences in any of the 12

contexts: time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information,


process in meeting, constructive dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive

phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, elaboration of ideas, or variety of ideas (Table 5).

Table 5 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of SCAMPER in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



-square 3.471 3.400 5.333 3.400 6.385 3.923 6.385 4.538 2.769 5.533 1.333 6.600 Significance Level .325 .334 .255 .334 .094 .270 .094 .209 .597 .137 .856 .086


SCAMPER is considered very applicable when the idea generation process is

characterized by knowledge background of participants. It is indicated as applicable

when the process is characterized by differences among participants, availability of

information, democratic process in meeting, constructive dialogues, or elaboration of

ideas. It is considered as a passable technique when the idea generation process is

characterized by time constraint, opportunity of try and error, lively

intercommunication, positive phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, or variety of ideas

12

(Table 5).

2.5 Applicability Analysis of 5W1H

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in all twelve contexts: time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information,


process in meeting, constructive dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive

phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, elaboration of ideas, and variety of ideas (Table 6).

Table 6 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of 1H5W in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas





1H5W is an applicable technique when the idea generation process is

characterized by knowledge background of participants, thoroughness of ideas, or

elaboration of ideas, and a passable technique when the process is characterized by

time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information,

democratic process in meeting, constructive dialogues, lively intercommunication,

positive phrasing, or variety of ideas. It is regarded as inapplicable when the process

is characterized by opportunity of try and error (Table 6).

2.6 Applicability Analysis of TRIZ

-square test indicated statistically significant difference in one context: elaboration of ideas (Table 7).

Table 7 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of TRIZ under various conditions

13

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



-square 1.333 2.455 .273 3.182 4.909 3.182 1.727 1.000 3.182 .237 9.000 1.727 Significance Level .856 .484 .965 .364 .297 .364 .631 .801 .364 .965 .029* .631


TRIZ is identified as an applicable technique when the idea generation process

is characterized by knowledge background of participants, opportunity of try and error,

thoroughness of ideas, or elaboration of ideas. It is considered as a passable

technique when the process is characterized by time constraint, differences among

participants, availability of information, democratic process in meeting, constructive

dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive phrasing, or variety of ideas (Table 7).

2.7 Applicability Analysis of Delphi

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in the following contexts: time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information,

knowledge background of participants, opportunity of try and error, constructive

dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, or

variety of ideas (Table 8).

Table 8 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of Delphi in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



-square 1.333 2.455 .273 3.182 4.909 3.182 1.727 1.000 3.182 .237 9.000 1.727 Significance Level .856 .484 .965 .364 .297 .364 .631 .801 .364 .965 .029* .631


Delphi is identified as an applicable technique when the idea generation

process is characterized by availability of information, knowledge background of

14

participants, and thoroughness of ideas. It is indicated as a passable technique when

the process is characterized by differences among participants, opportunity of try and

error, democratic process in meeting, constructive dialogues, positive phrasing,

elaboration of ideas, or variety of ideas. It is regarded as an inapplicable technique

when the process is characterized by lively inter-communication, and a very

inapplicable technique when the process is under time constraint (Table 8).

2.8 Applicability Analysis of 5Why

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in eleven contexts: differences among participants, availability of information, knowledge background of

participants, opportunity of try and error, democratic process in meeting, constructive

dialogues, lively intercommunication, positive phrasing, thoroughness of ideas,

elaboration of ideas, or variety of ideas (Table 9).

Table 9 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of 5Why in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



-square 5.636 38.000 32.488 30.167 17.610 30.590 41.293 19.000 32.375 35.977 46.659 23.500 Significance Level .228 .000* .000* .000* .001* .000* .000* .001* .000* .000* .000* .000*


As table 9 illustrates, 5Why is considered applicable when the idea generation

process is characterized by knowledge background of participants, lively

intercommunication, or thoroughness of ideas. It is regarded as passable when the

process is characterized by time constraint, differences among participants,

availability of information, opportunity of try and error, democratic process in

meeting, constructive dialogues, positive phrasing, elaboration of ideas, or variety of

ideas.

2.9 Applicability Analysis of Mind Mapping

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in the following nine contexts: differences among participants, availability of information, knowledge

15

background of participants, opportunity of try and error, constructive dialogues, lively

intercommunication, positive phrasing, elaboration of ideas, or variety of ideas.

Table 10 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of Mind Mapping in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



-square 8.316 19.895 14.895 15.684 13.316 4.737 9.308 10.750 13.179 6.231 11.053 9.590 Significance Level .081 .000* .005* .003* .010* .192 .025* .030* .010* .101 .011* .048*


Mind-mapping is considered applicable to idea generation processes

characterized by knowledge background of participants, or elaboration of ideas (Table

10). It is identified as passable when the process is characterized by time constraint,

differences among participants, availability of information, opportunity of try and

error, democratic process in meeting, constructive dialogues, lively

intercommunication, positive phrasing, thoroughness of ideas, or variety of ideas

(Table 10).

2.10 Applicability Analysis of NGT

-square test indicated statistically significant differences in the following six contexts: time constraint, differences among participants, availability of information,

knowledge background of participants, democratic process in meeting, or positive

phrasing (Table 11)

Table 11 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of NGT in different contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas



16

-square 19.793 10.828 10.310 12.897 1.467 13.667 5.467 4.276 10.828 5.655 8.069 8.759 Significance Level .001* .029* .016* .012* .690 .008* .141 .370 .029* . 226 .089 .067


NGT is identified as a very applicable technique when the idea generation

process is characterized by knowledge background of participants, and an

applicable technique when the process is characterized by elaboration of ideas, or

variety of ideas. It is identified as passable when the process is characterized by

differences among participants, availability of information, opportunity of try and

error, democratic process in meeting, constructive dialogues, lively

intercommunication, positive phrasing, or thoroughness of ideas, and is regarded as

very inapplicable when the process is under time constraint (Table 11).

2.11 Comprehensive Applicability Analysis of All Idea Generation Techniques

Table 12 Comprehensive Statistic Analysis: Applicability of All Idea Generation

Techniques in Different Contexts

Context

Applicability

Under tim

e

constrain

t

Differen

ces

among

particip

ants

Availab

ility of

inform

ation

Knowled

ge

back

ground of

particip

ants

Opportu

nity

of try

and erro

r

Dem

ocratic

process in

meetin

gs

Constru

ctive

dialo

gues

Lively

interco

mmuni

-cation

Positiv

e phrasin

g

Thoroughness o

f

ideas

Elab

oratio

n of

ideas

Variety

of id

eas

Brainstorming K.J.

Checklist SCAMPER

1H5W TRIZ Delphi 5Why

Mind Mapping NGT

.05 very applicable applicable passable inapplicable very inapplicable

2.12 Discussion Summary: Applicability Analysis of idea generation techniques in

different contexts

1. Brainstorming: Brainstorming is identified as applicable to idea generation

processes characterized by high differences among participants, knowledge

background of participants, opportunity of try and error, democratic process in

meeting, lively intercommunication, or need for variety of ideas. It is less

17

applicable to processes under time constraint.

2. K.J: KJ is identified as an applicable technique when the generation process is

characterized by high knowledge background of participants, need for

thoroughness of ideas, or variety of ideas. It is identified as an inapplicable

technique in none of the contexts.

3. Checklist: Checklist is identified as applicable to processes characterized by

availability of information, knowledge background of participants, need for

constructive dialogues, and thoroughness of ideas. It is identified as inapplicable

in none of the contexts.

4. SCAMPER: SCAMPER is identified as an applicable technique to processes

characterized by knowledge background of participants, high differences among

participants, availability of information, democratic process in meeting,

constructive dialogues, or need for elaboration of ideas. It is identified as

inapplicable in none of the contexts.

5. 1H5W: 1H5W is identified as applicable when the process is characterized by

knowledge background of participants, need for thoroughness of ideas, or

elaboration of idea. It is indicated as less applicable when the process is

characterized by opportunity of try and error.

6. TRIZ: TRIZ is identified as applicable to processes characterized by knowledge

background of participants, need for opportunity of try and error, thoroughness of

ideas, or elaboration of ideas. It is identified as inapplicable in none of the

contexts.

7. Delphi: Delphi is identified as applicable to processes characterized by

availability of information, knowledge background of participants, or need for

thoroughness of ideas, but is less applicable when the processes are characterized

by time constraint or lively intercommunication.

8. 5Why: 5Why is identified as an applicable technique to processes characterized

by knowledge background of participants or need for thoroughness of ideas. It is

identified as inapplicable in none of the conditions.

9. Mind-Mapping: Mind-mapping is identified as applicable to processes

characterized by knowledge background of participants or need for elaboration of

ideas. It is indicated as inapplicable in none of the conditions.

10. NGT: NGT is identified as an applicable technique to processes characterized by

knowledge background of participants, need for elaboration of ideas, or variety of

ideas. It is indicated as less applicable when the generation process is under time

constraint.

V. Conclusion:

18

Dictionary of Creativity published by Japan Creativity Association indicates that

more than 300 idea generation techniques had been invented around the world

(Takahashi, 1993). The advantages and disadvantages of these techniques have been

widely debated, analyzed and researched through the years. Nevertheless, few

researches systematically examine the applicability of the techniques in different idea

generation contexts. This study investigates applicability of selected techniques under

different idea generation conditions. Its findings may serve as useful guidelines for

evaluating and selecting suitable techniques for different idea generation contexts. For

examples, brainstorming is applicable to contexts characterized by high differentiation

among participants, democratic process of meeting, or need for idea variety, but less

applicable to generation processes under time constraint. TRIZ is a suitable technique

for contexts characterized by high knowledge background of participants, need for

thoroughness of ideas, or elaboration of ideas, but less applicable to idea generation

processes under time constraint.

Research results presented in this study should be regarded as exploratory since

no more than ten idea generation techniques were investigated. Inclusion of a wider

range of techniques in the future is necessary to increase applicability of research

results of the kind, which would in turn optimize selection of techniques and

maximize effectiveness of idea generation.

Reference

Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1994). The team climate inventory (tci) and group

innovation: A psychometric that on a swedish sample of work groups. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 143-151.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organization.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Wertriew.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-89.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the

work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39,

1154-1184.

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. (1987). Creativity in the r&d laboratory:

Technical report 30. Greenboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., &

19

Fleming, L. (2003). Time pressure and creativity in organization: A

longitudinal field study: HBS Working Paper.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new

product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321-341.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and

inventions. NY: Harper Collins.

Davenport, T. H., & Volpol, S. C. (2001). The rise of knowledge towards attention

management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 212-221.

Feldman, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and assessing creativity: An

integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research

Journal, 8, 231-247.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory,

research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.

Academy of Management Journal, 21, 1112-1142.

Ford, C. M. (2000). Creative development in creativity theory. Academy of

Management Review, 25(2), 284-285.

Gilson, L. L. (2001). Diversity, dissimilarity and creativity: Does group composition

or being different enhance or binder creative performance. Washington DC:

Academy of Management Meetings.

Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. (1988). Inching our way up mount olympus: The

evolving system approach to creative thinking. In e. a. R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),

The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp.

243-270). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heinstrom, J. (2003). Five personality dimensions and their influence on information

behavior. Information Research, 9(1), 165-.

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and

social conditions for innovation in organization. In B. M. Staur & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior (pp. 169-211).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Katz, R., & Agrell, A. (1988). Project performance and locus of influence in the r&d

matrix. In R. Katz (Ed.), Managing professionals in innovative organizations:

A collection of reality (pp. 469-484). Cambridge, MA: Ballinges.

Kawakita, J. (1977). A scientific exploration of intellect ("chi" no tankengaku). Tokyo:

Kodansha.

Kawakita, J. (1991). The original kj method. Tokyo: Kawakita Research Institute.

Lancaster, F. W. (1988). Toward paperless information system. NY: Academic Press.

Majaro, S. (1988). Managing ideas for profit. London: McGraw-Hill.

20

McAdam, R. (2004). Knowledge creative and idea generation: A critical quality

perspective. Technovation, 24, 597-705.

Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance

and problem solving in ill-defined domains. The Leadership Quarterly, 2,

298-315.

Mumford, M. D., Feldmen, J. M., Hein, M. B., & Nagao, D. J. (2001). Tradeoffs

between ideas and structure: Individual versus group performance in creative

problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 1-23.

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration,

application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43.

Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of minority vs. Majority influence.

Psychological Review, 17, 45-56.

Osborn, A. F., Rona, G., Dupont, P., & Armand, L. (1971). L'imagination constructive:

Comment tirer partie de ses ides; principes et processus de la pense crative

et du brainstorming. Paris: Dunod.

Parnes, S. (1988). Visioning. NY: East Aurora Pub.

Payne, R. (1990). The effectiveness of research teams: A review. In M. S. West & J. L.

Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and

organizational strategies (pp. 101-122). NY: Wiley.

Quinn, J. (1985). Managing innovation: Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review,

85(3), 73-84.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding

leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15, 55-77.

Rhode, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 15(3), 28-39.

Runco, M. A. (1986). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted,

talented, and nongifted children. Psychology in the School, 23, 308-315.

Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the

creative processes. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 17, 211-220.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leader need to know: A review of social

and contextual function that can foster or hidden creativity. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15, 33-53.

Smith, G. J. (1998). Idea-generation technique: A formulary of active ingredients.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 107-133.

Stain, M. I. (1967). Creativity and culture. In R. Mooney & T. Razik (Eds.),

Exploration in creativity (pp. 109-119). NY: Harper.

Takahashi, M. (1993). Dictionary of creativity. Tokyo: Mo To Publishing.

van Beveren, J. (2002). A model of knowledge acquisition that refocuses knowledge

21

management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 18-22.

Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-56.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of

organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.

Date post:	20-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-onyango
View:	10 times
Download:	0 times

A Study of the Applicability of Idea Generation Techni

Documents