Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Creative problem-solving.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Creative problem-solving
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Creative problem-solving is the mental process of searching for an original and previously unknown solution to a problem.[1] To qualify, the solution must be novel and reached independently.[1][2] The creative problem-solving process was originally developed by Alex Osborn and Sid Parnes. Creative problem solving is a way of using creativity to develop new ideas and solutions to problems. The process is based on separating divergent and convergent thinking styles, so that one can focus their mind on creating at the first stage, and then evaluating at the second stage.
Creative solution types
[edit]The process of creative problem-solving usually begins with defining the problem. This may lead to finding a simple non-creative solution, a textbook solution, or discovering prior solutions developed by other individuals. If the discovered solution is sufficient, the process may then be abandoned.[1][3]
A creative solution will often have distinct characteristics that include using only existing components, or the problematic factor, as the basis for the solution. However, a change of perspective may in many cases be helpful.[4] A solution may also be considered creative if readily available components can be used to solve the problem within a short time limit.
If a creative solution has a broad application, such that the usage goes beyond the original intent, it may be referred to as an innovative solution, or an innovation (some innovations may also be considered an invention).
Techniques and tools
[edit]A wide range of techniques and tools used to develop effective solutions is surveyed in the articles on creativity techniques and problem-solving.
Creative problem-solving technique categories
[edit]Mental state shift and cognitive re-framing: changing one's focus away from active problem-solving and towards a creative solution set.
Multiple idea facilitation: increasing the quantity of fresh ideas based on the belief that a greater number of ideas will raise the chances that one of these is valuable. This may include randomly selecting an idea (such as choosing a word from a list) and thinking about its similarities to the situation. In turn, this random act may inspire a related idea that would lead to a solution.
Inducing a change of perspective: efficiently entering a fresh perspective may result in a solution that thereby becomes obvious. This is especially useful for solving particularly challenging problems.[5] Many techniques to this end involve identifying independent dimensions that differentiate closely associated concepts.[5] Differentiating concepts help overcome a tendency to use oversimplified associative thinking, in which two related concepts are so closely associated that their differences are overlooked.[5]
Idea generation techniques
[edit]Brainstorming: an idea generation method invented by Alex Osborn and further developed by Charles Hutchison Clark. Brainstorming aims to encourage the generation of new and unusual ideas in a group of people. Alex Osborn based his development of brainstorming on the Indian technique Prai-Barshana, which has been around for about 400 years. He named brainstorming after the idea of this method, namely "using the brain to storm a problem."
Creative thinking: coming up with ideas, especially innovative ideas, needs creativity and can be supported by certain creativity techniques. The creativity process is usually applied through a person, product, process, and place. Thus, creativity means that a creative person develops great ideas and novel products through a creative process in a creative environment. Creativity processes use these influencing factors as they support the search for ideas, problem solving and evaluation, and selection of ideas via rules, a group of people, and a creative process.
Design thinking: an approach to problem-solving and ideation process that works through four key elements.
The user as the starting point Interdisciplinary team Iterative process Creative environment. In the design thinking process, the customer's needs are first determined through an iterative process and a question is defined, then creative solutions and ideas are generated through brainstorming and visualized via prototypes for user feedback.
Complex opportunity recognition techniques: Opportunity recognition describes the identification of opportunities to generate growth for companies. The different idea generation techniques of opportunity recognition are based either on the market, the company, or the company's environment. In order for this approach to be suitable for young companies, it must fulfill the following attributes:
Not too resource-intensive Suitable for workshops High growth potential Don't require existing structures or certain age of the company
See also
[edit]Related articles
[edit]
Related lists
[edit]List of creative thought processes
List of decision-making processes
References
[edit]- ^ a b c [http://www.creativeeducationfoundation.org/creative-problem-solving/ Definition of creative problem solving] on Alex Osborn's (inventor of the term and process of brainstorming) Creative Education Foundation website.
- ^ Michigan State University. "Creative problem solving for teachers".[dead link]
- ^ "Why Do Most Creative Problem-Solving Attempts Never Reach the Creative Stage?". 5 June 2025.
- ^ [http://www.creativethinkingassoc.com/mikevance.html Mike Vence about the 9 dots as a corporate promotion of creative thinking] at the Walt Disney Company (Creative Thinking Association website)
- ^ a b c Fobes, Richard (1993). The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox: A Complete Course in the Art of Creating Solutions to Problems of Any Kind. Solutions Through Innovation. ISBN 0-9632221-0-4.
Further reading
[edit]Alex Osborn, Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving, Creative Education Foundation Press, 1953/2001, ISBN 0-930222-73-3
Edward de Bono, Lateral Thinking : Creativity Step by Step, Harper & Row, 1973, trade paperback, 300 pages, ISBN 0-06-090325-2
Altshuller, Henry. 1994. The Art of Inventing (And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared). Translated by Lev Shulyak. Worcester, Massachusetts: Technical Innovation Center. ISBN 0-9640740-1-X
Creative problem-solving
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Creative problem-solving (CPS) is a structured, deliberate process that integrates divergent thinking—generating diverse ideas—and convergent thinking—evaluating and refining them—to address challenges imaginatively and produce effective, innovative solutions.[1] Developed as a systematic method for enhancing creativity, CPS emphasizes exploring opportunities, redefining problems, and implementing actions that meet real-world needs, distinguishing it from routine analytical approaches by prioritizing novelty and adaptability.[1]
The origins of CPS trace back to the 1940s, when advertising executive Alex F. Osborn introduced early concepts in his book Applied Imagination (1953), outlining a seven-stage process including fact-finding, idea-finding, and solution-finding to stimulate creative output in professional settings.[2] Osborn collaborated with educator Sidney J. Parnes in the 1950s and 1960s, refining the approach into the foundational Osborn-Parnes model, which featured five core stages: mess-finding (identifying issues), data-finding (gathering information), problem-finding (clarifying objectives), idea-finding (brainstorming solutions), and solution-finding (selecting and planning).[2] This evolution was supported by the Creative Studies Project at Buffalo State College, where empirical research validated CPS as a teachable skill, leading to its adoption in educational programs during the 1960s and 1970s.[1]
Over decades, CPS has advanced through contributions from researchers like Donald J. Treffinger and Scott G. Isaksen, culminating in the current Version 6.1 framework, which includes three main components: Exploring the Vision (appraising tasks and designing processes), Understanding the Challenge (constructing opportunities, exploring data, and framing problems), Generating Ideas (producing potential solutions), and Planning for Action (developing solutions and building acceptance).[2] This flexible model accommodates individual differences in thinking styles and environmental factors, such as creative climates, and has been substantiated by over 1,200 studies demonstrating its efficacy in boosting problem-solving abilities.[1]
CPS finds broad applications across domains, including gifted education—where it supports talent development by linking creativity to curriculum standards—and business, where it aids innovation in complex, undefined scenarios.[2] In engineering and design fields, it promotes exploratory mixed-methods for tackling ill-structured problems, while tools like the VIEW assessment help tailor its use to diverse users.[1] Overall, CPS remains a cornerstone for cultivating creative potential, with ongoing research emphasizing its role in addressing contemporary challenges through balanced, evidence-based practices.[1]
Overview and History
Definition and Core Principles
Creative problem-solving (CPS) is defined as a deliberate, structured process that integrates creative and critical thinking to generate innovative solutions for ill-defined or complex problems, aiming to foster originality in decision-making beyond conventional approaches.[3] This method emphasizes redefining challenges as opportunities for novel outcomes, distinguishing it from routine analytical techniques by prioritizing imagination and flexibility in addressing uncertainties.[4] At its core, CPS operates on principles such as deferred judgment, which encourages idea generation without immediate evaluation to preserve openness and creativity; the pursuit of quantity over quality during initial ideation to maximize diverse possibilities; and a balanced integration of novelty with practical feasibility to ensure viable implementation.[4] The foundational Osborn-Parnes model further reinforces these by promoting the reframing of problems as opportunities, thereby shifting focus from obstacles to potential innovations.[5] Divergent thinking serves as a key enabler in this framework, expanding options before convergence refines them.[6] A primary distinction of CPS lies in its application to "wicked" problems—those characterized by ambiguity, multiple stakeholders, no definitive formulation, and no single correct solution—contrasted with "tame" problems that have clear parameters, objective solutions, and analyzable components.[7] This approach emerged briefly in mid-20th century advertising contexts as a response to the limitations of linear thinking in dynamic environments.[8]Historical Development
Creative problem-solving (CPS) originated in the 1940s through the work of Alex Osborn, an advertising executive and co-founder of the BBDO agency, who sought to systematize idea generation in professional settings. In his 1948 book Your Creative Power, Osborn introduced the concept of "brainstorming" as a method to produce a high quantity of ideas by deferring judgment, laying foundational principles for CPS that emphasized creative collaboration over individual effort. This approach was further elaborated in Osborn's 1953 book Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking, recognized as the first comprehensive guide to deliberate creative problem-solving techniques, including structured ideation processes applicable to business and education.[9][5] In the 1950s, Osborn partnered with psychologist Sidney J. Parnes to refine and expand these ideas into a more formal model. Together, they developed the Osborn-Parnes CPS process, which integrated cognitive and behavioral elements to guide systematic creativity. In 1954, Osborn founded the Creative Education Foundation (CEF) to promote CPS education, and Parnes joined the following year, co-establishing the Creative Problem Solving Institute (CPSI) as a platform for training and conferences.[10] Parnes further contributed to the model's dissemination through his 1967 book Creative Behavior Guidebook, which provided practical exercises and case studies for applying CPS in diverse contexts.[11] The evolution of CPS in the pre-2000 era was influenced by psychological research, notably J.P. Guilford's 1950 Structure of Intellect model, which distinguished divergent thinking—essential for idea generation—from convergent thinking, providing a theoretical basis that Osborn and Parnes incorporated to enhance the model's effectiveness. During the 1960s and 1970s, CPS expanded through academic programs, such as the graduate courses in creative studies launched in 1967 at SUNY Buffalo State College by Parnes and Ruth Noller, marking the establishment of the Creative Studies Center and formalizing CPS within higher education curricula.[12][13] By the 1980s, CPS had integrated into corporate training programs at major firms, where it supported innovation and problem-solving in organizational settings, reflecting its growing adoption beyond academia.[5]Theoretical Foundations
Psychological and Cognitive Bases
Creative problem-solving draws on foundational psychological theories that emphasize divergent production as a key mechanism for generating novel solutions. J. P. Guilford introduced the concept of divergent production in 1950, positing it as a cognitive operation distinct from convergent thinking, where the mind explores multiple pathways to yield varied outcomes rather than a single correct answer.[14] This theory identifies four primary dimensions of creativity: fluency (the ability to produce numerous ideas), flexibility (shifting between different perspectives or categories), originality (generating unique or uncommon responses), and elaboration (adding detail to ideas).[14] These dimensions underpin creative problem-solving by enabling individuals to break free from conventional constraints and explore unconventional associations, forming the basis for innovative responses to complex challenges. Cognitive processes central to creative problem-solving involve associative thinking and periods of incubation. Sarnoff Mednick's 1962 theory describes creativity as the forming of associative elements into new combinations, with creative individuals exhibiting flatter associative hierarchies that facilitate connections between remote concepts. Mednick developed the Remote Associates Test to measure this ability, presenting triads of words (e.g., "cottage/swiss/cake") and requiring participants to identify a common remote associate (e.g., "cheese"), thereby assessing the capacity for divergent associations essential to problem-solving. Complementing this, Graham Wallas outlined in 1926 the stages of the creative process—preparation (gathering information), incubation (unconscious processing), illumination (sudden insight), and verification (testing the idea)—with incubation allowing subconscious reorganization of ideas to foster breakthroughs in problem-solving.[15] Behavioral factors, including motivation and environmental influences, significantly shape creative problem-solving outcomes. Teresa Amabile's 1983 componential theory of creativity posits three intrinsic components: domain-relevant skills (expertise in the problem area), creativity-relevant processes (cognitive styles like tolerance for ambiguity), and task motivation (intrinsic drive versus extrinsic pressures). Intrinsic motivation enhances persistence and openness in problem-solving, while extrinsic rewards can undermine it by shifting focus to external evaluation; supportive environments that provide autonomy and resources further amplify these effects. Empirical research validates these bases through standardized assessments and meta-analytic reviews. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, introduced in 1966, evaluate divergent thinking via verbal and figural tasks scored on fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration, with longitudinal studies demonstrating their predictive validity for real-world creative achievements.[16] Meta-analyses confirm that interventions in creative problem-solving, such as problem-solving pedagogies, positively influence cognitive flexibility by promoting adaptive thinking and idea generation across educational contexts.[17] A particularly optimal psychological state for engaging in creative problem-solving is the flow state, characterized by deep immersion and intrinsic enjoyment. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described flow in 1990 as occurring when challenges match one's skills, leading to heightened focus, loss of self-consciousness, and enhanced creativity, thereby facilitating sustained problem-solving efforts without fatigue.[18]Divergent and Convergent Thinking
Divergent thinking refers to the cognitive process of generating a wide array of ideas by exploring multiple possibilities without immediate judgment, emphasizing breadth and fluency in ideation.[19] This mode, central to creativity, involves combining diverse information in novel ways to produce original solutions, as outlined in J.P. Guilford's Structure of Intellect model.[20] In contrast, convergent thinking focuses on narrowing down options to identify the most feasible and effective solution, prioritizing depth, evaluation, and logical convergence toward a single or optimal outcome.[21] Guilford positioned convergent thinking as complementary to divergent thinking, essential for transforming raw ideas into practical applications within creative processes.[22] In creative problem-solving (CPS), divergent and convergent thinking operate sequentially to drive innovation: divergence first expands the exploration of possibilities, followed by convergence to refine and select viable options.[3] This interplay, rooted in Guilford's 1967 model, alternates like a "gas and brake" mechanism, where unchecked divergence risks impracticality, while premature convergence stifles originality.[3] The balanced application ensures comprehensive problem exploration before focused resolution, enhancing overall creative output.[23] Key principles guide each mode in CPS. During divergence, the "yes, and..." rule promotes non-judgmental building on ideas, fostering an inclusive environment that encourages elaboration and prevents premature criticism, as emphasized in the Osborn-Parnes CPS framework.[3] In convergence, criteria-based evaluation assesses ideas against factors such as feasibility, novelty, and usefulness, often using tools like scoring matrices to prioritize solutions that balance innovation with practicality.[3] These concepts ensure divergence generates diverse inputs while convergence applies rigorous filters for actionable results. Research from the 1970s and beyond underscores the impact of divergent phases on idea quality. Studies in creativity, building on Guilford's work, have shown that structured divergent thinking increases the novelty and originality of generated ideas.[24] For instance, empirical tests of CPS methods demonstrated that alternating divergence and convergence led to more creative solutions overall, as measured by fluency and flexibility metrics.[24] Basadur's 1994 model advances this duality by integrating divergent and convergent thinking into a continuous spectrum across ongoing CPS stages, treating them not as discrete but as synchronized oscillations within problem-finding, solving, and implementation.[25] This approach views CPS as a circular process where the ideal ratio of ideation to evaluation varies by context—favoring more divergence early on—enabling sustained innovation in dynamic environments, supported by training studies showing improved problem-solving performance.[25]The CPS Process
Standard Stages
The standard stages of creative problem-solving are outlined in the classic model developed by Alex Osborn and Sidney Parnes, providing a systematic framework for applying creativity to challenges.[4] This model builds on Osborn's foundational work in Applied Imagination (1953), which introduced core procedures for deliberate idea production, later expanded by Parnes.[9] The stages emphasize a balance of exploration and focus, assuming familiarity with divergent thinking for generating options and convergent thinking for refinement, with the idea-finding stage particularly leveraging divergent approaches to expand possibilities.[4] The model is cyclical, allowing teams to revisit earlier stages as new insights emerge, which is essential for tackling complex, multifaceted problems.[26] The classic model consists of five stages: objective-finding (sometimes termed mess-finding), fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding.[4][27] Mess-Finding (or Objective-Finding): This initial stage involves identifying the broad goal, challenge, or "mess" at hand, sensitizing participants to underlying issues, concerns, or opportunities without premature judgment.[4] The goal is to define the overall direction for problem-solving, establishing a clear starting point that motivates the team.[4] For instance, in a business context, this might highlight symptoms like operational inefficiencies before deeper analysis.[4] Fact-Finding: Here, relevant data, facts, and feelings about the identified mess are gathered through targeted questioning, such as the 5 Ws (who, what, where, when, why) and how.[4] The primary goal is to build a comprehensive understanding of the situation, uncovering pertinent details that inform subsequent steps and prevent assumptions.[4] This stage ensures the process is grounded in reality, with iteration possible if initial data collection reveals gaps.[4] Problem-Finding: Building on the facts, this stage reframes the mess into specific, solution-oriented challenge questions using prompts like "How to..." or "How might...".[4] The goal is to sharpen focus by transforming vague issues into actionable statements that invite innovative responses, often requiring iteration to refine questions based on emerging insights.[4] Idea-Finding: Participants generate a wide array of ideas to address the formulated challenge questions, prioritizing quantity and novelty over immediate feasibility, often using supportive tools like mind mapping to visualize connections.[4] The objective is to produce a diverse list of potential options, fostering an environment free from criticism to maximize creative output.[4] Iteration here allows for additional rounds if the initial ideas do not sufficiently cover the challenge.[4] Solution-Finding: The generated ideas are evaluated, strengthened, and selected based on criteria such as practicality and alignment with goals, using methods to assess pros, cons, and refinements.[4] This stage aims to transform raw ideas into viable, tailored solutions that best fit the context, with possible returns to idea-finding for enhancements.[4] The focus remains on convergence to narrow options effectively.[4] Acceptance-Finding: Finally, an implementation plan is developed, identifying necessary actions, resources, potential obstacles (resisters), and supports (assisters) to gain buy-in and ensure execution.[4] The goal is to secure acceptance and commitment from stakeholders, addressing barriers proactively to facilitate real-world application.[4] Due to its cyclical design, this stage may loop back to earlier ones if implementation uncovers new challenges.[4] This classic model has evolved into the modern CPS Version 6.1 framework, which reorganizes the process into four main components to better accommodate contemporary applications.[4]Variations and Adaptations
One prominent variation of the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process is the four-stage model—clarify, ideate, develop, and implement—influenced by design thinking principles, which condenses the traditional framework to address time constraints in dynamic settings.[28] This adaptation prioritizes rapid problem definition, idea generation, and solution refinement, making it suitable for environments requiring quick iterations without sacrificing core creative elements. Another key variation integrates CPS with agile methodologies for iterative software development, where short cycles of clarification and ideation align with sprints to enable ongoing adaptation and feedback incorporation.[29] Adaptations of CPS also account for individual versus group dynamics, with individual versions emphasizing personal reflection techniques like solo journaling to clarify challenges and generate ideas independently.[30] In contrast, group adaptations leverage collaborative divergence to build on diverse perspectives, often adjusting facilitation to mitigate issues like social loafing. Cultural adaptations further tailor CPS for non-Western contexts by incorporating collectivist elements, such as emphasizing group harmony and shared idea synthesis, which research shows enhances creativity in instructed problem-solving tasks for collectivistic mindsets.[31] Notable examples include Disney's Imagineering process, developed in the 1990s based on Walt Disney's earlier practices, which structures CPS around three sequential roles—dreamer for ideation, realist for development, and critic for evaluation—to balance imagination with practicality in theme park and entertainment design.[32] The Synectics method, originating in the 1950s from William J.J. Gordon's work, represents a metaphor-based adaptation of CPS that uses analogies from unrelated fields to disrupt conventional thinking and foster novel connections.[33] During the 1980s, corporate adaptations streamlined CPS for efficiency in organizational settings, as exemplified by Min Basadur's Simplex Process, a three-phase, eight-step model that includes problem formulation (encompassing finding and definition), solution formulation, and implementation to support business innovation.[34] Studies on these adapted models demonstrate their efficacy, with implementations showing significant improvements in divergent thinking skills and overall problem resolution compared to conventional instruction.[35] TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving), a systematic methodology developed in Russia in the 1940s by Genrich Altshuller and popularized in the West during the 1990s, uses 40 inventive principles and contradiction resolution tools to generate solutions in engineering and innovation, and has been combined with CPS in some applications.[36]Techniques and Tools
Ideation Methods
Ideation methods in creative problem-solving focus on expanding possibilities during the divergent thinking phase, where the goal is to produce a wide array of ideas without immediate judgment. These techniques encourage free association and novelty to overcome mental blocks and explore unconventional solutions. Brainstorming, one of the most foundational ideation methods, was developed by Alex Osborn in his 1953 book Applied Imagination. It involves a group collaboratively generating ideas verbally in a structured session, guided by four key rules: focus on quantity over quality to encourage prolific output; defer criticism to maintain a supportive environment; welcome wild or freewheeling ideas to foster originality; and encourage building on or combining others' suggestions to spark synergies.[37] These principles aim to harness collective creativity while minimizing inhibitions. A variant, brainwriting, emerged in the late 1960s as a quieter alternative, where participants silently write ideas on paper or digital slips and pass them around for others to build upon, reducing social loafing and production blocking often seen in verbal sessions.[38] Studies indicate that brainwriting can generate up to twice as many ideas as traditional group brainstorming in some contexts, due to its emphasis on individual contribution before group interaction.[39] SCAMPER is a checklist-based ideation framework introduced by Bob Eberle in 1971 in his book SCAMPER: Games for Imagination Development. It prompts users to manipulate an existing idea or product by asking targeted questions across seven categories: Substitute components or materials; Combine with other elements; Adapt for new contexts; Modify attributes like shape or size; Put to other uses; Eliminate unnecessary parts; and Reverse or rearrange the process. This systematic approach helps break down problems into modifiable attributes, promoting incremental innovations.[40] Mind mapping, popularized by Tony Buzan in the 1970s through his 1974 book Use Your Head, is a visual ideation technique that organizes thoughts radially around a central problem or theme. Starting with a core keyword, branches extend to related sub-ideas, using colors, images, and keywords to mimic the brain's associative structure, which enhances memory and idea connections during divergent exploration. Attribute listing involves dissecting a problem, product, or process into its core attributes—such as function, materials, or user interaction—and then generating variations by modifying each one individually or in combination. This method, rooted in early 20th-century creativity practices and refined in problem-solving contexts, facilitates targeted recombination for novel solutions.[41] Random stimulation introduces unrelated external stimuli, such as random words, images, or objects, to provoke associative leaps and disrupt habitual thinking patterns. Practitioners select a stimulus (e.g., "umbrella" for a car design challenge) and force connections to the problem, yielding unexpected ideas through lateral associations.[42] Morphological analysis, pioneered by astronomer Fritz Zwicky in the 1940s and formalized in his 1969 book Discovery, Invention, Research through the Morphological Approach, breaks a problem into independent parameters (e.g., dimensions, materials) and systematically combines their possible states in a matrix to reveal viable configurations. This forced-connection technique excels in generating comprehensive idea sets for complex, multi-dimensional challenges.[43] A notable real-world application of ideation methods occurred at 3M in the 1970s, where chemist Spencer Silver's accidental weak adhesive (discovered in 1968) was reimagined through creative sessions into the repositionable notes that became Post-it Notes, launched in 1980 after iterative brainstorming on uses like temporary bookmarks and memos. This example illustrates how ideation can transform serendipitous findings into practical innovations.[44]Evaluation and Implementation Tools
In the convergent phase of creative problem-solving (CPS), evaluation tools help prioritize and refine ideas generated during ideation by applying structured criteria to assess feasibility and potential impact. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT), developed by Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson in 1975, facilitates group decision-making through a process of individual idea generation in silence, round-robin sharing for clarification, and ranked voting to select top options, reducing dominance by vocal participants and enhancing collective judgment.[45] Multi-voting, a simpler variant, allows group members to allocate a limited number of votes (e.g., five dots) across ideas to identify priorities democratically.[46] For more rigorous criteria-based evaluation, the Pugh matrix—also known as the decision matrix—compares alternative solutions against a baseline (often the current state) using a scoring system of plus (+ for better), zero (0 for comparable), or minus (- for worse) across key factors such as cost, feasibility, and impact.[46] This method, introduced by Stuart Pugh in the context of design selection, enables quantitative tallying of scores to highlight strengths and weaknesses, promoting objective selection without exhaustive numerical weighting unless needed.[47] To challenge assumptions and mitigate biases in evaluation, devil's advocacy involves assigning a team member to deliberately critique an idea by identifying flaws and counterarguments, originating in 1970s organizational psychology as a structured conflict technique.[48] In contrast, dialectical inquiry builds on this by presenting a thesis (proposed solution) and antithesis (opposing assumptions and alternatives), then synthesizing a refined plan through debate, as explored in comparative studies showing both approaches improve decision quality over consensus alone.[49] Implementation tools in CPS shift focus from selection to execution, addressing barriers and timelines to ensure viable ideas translate into action. Force-field analysis, pioneered by Kurt Lewin in the 1940s, visualizes change as a balance between driving forces (e.g., benefits like efficiency gains) that propel adoption and restraining forces (e.g., resistance from habits or resource constraints) that hinder it, guiding strategies to strengthen drivers or weaken barriers.[50] For instance, in organizational change management, a company implementing a new workflow might identify employee training as a driving force and fear of job loss as a restraining one, then allocate resources to communication and support to tip the equilibrium toward success.[51] Complementing this, action planning often employs Gantt charts to map tasks, dependencies, and timelines in a horizontal bar format, originating from Henry Gantt's early 20th-century project management innovations and now standard for visualizing implementation phases. These tools collectively ensure CPS outcomes are not only evaluated but practically realized, aligning with convergent thinking's emphasis on feasibility.Applications and Case Studies
In Business and Innovation
Creative problem-solving (CPS) has become integral to business strategies, enabling organizations to foster innovation by systematically addressing complex challenges through ideation, prototyping, and iteration. In professional settings, CPS is applied to enhance product development, streamline operations, and drive competitive advantage, often integrating human-centered approaches to align solutions with user needs. Firms adopting CPS report improved adaptability and outcomes, as it encourages reframing problems to uncover novel opportunities.[52] A prominent example of CPS in product development is IDEO's redesign of the shopping cart in the late 1990s, which exemplified human-centered design principles central to CPS. The multidisciplinary team observed shoppers' behaviors, prototyped multiple concepts addressing maneuverability, child safety, and maintenance, and iterated rapidly to create a modular cart that improved user experience and store efficiency. This project, featured on ABC's Nightline in 1999, demonstrated how CPS can transform everyday objects into innovative solutions, influencing broader design thinking practices in business.[53][54] Procter & Gamble's Connect + Develop program, launched in the mid-2000s, illustrates CPS through open innovation by sourcing external ideas to accelerate R&D. The initiative shifted from internal-only development to collaborative partnerships, resulting in over 35% of innovations coming from outside sources by 2006, including breakthroughs in consumer products like Swiffer and Olay Regenerist. This approach embodies CPS stages of clarification and ideation by engaging global networks, reducing time-to-market and enhancing creativity in a traditionally closed R&D environment.[55][56] Similarly, 3M's 15% time policy, introduced around 1948, allocates up to 15% of employees' work hours for self-directed projects, cultivating CPS to spark organic innovation. This freedom led to iconic products like the Post-it Note, developed in the 1970s when an engineer pursued a weak adhesive idea during allocated time. The policy continues to drive 3M's portfolio, with thousands of patents annually, underscoring how unstructured CPS fosters sustained breakthroughs.[57][58] In high-stakes pivots, Airbnb applied CPS during its 2008-2009 funding crisis by reframing the problem from poor listings to user trust and visual appeal. Founders manually photographed hosts' homes, boosting bookings by 2-3 times and validating the approach before scaling, which transformed the struggling startup into a billion-dollar company. This iterative reframing highlights CPS's role in crisis-driven innovation.[59] Conversely, Kodak's failure to adapt CPS effectively during the 1980s digital shift exemplifies missed opportunities despite early invention of the technology in 1975. Internal resistance and overreliance on film revenue hindered reframing the business model, leading to market share erosion as competitors like Canon capitalized on digital cameras; by the 2010s, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.[60][61] Tesla's battery innovations in the 2010s leveraged iterative CPS to overcome energy density and cost barriers, using rapid prototyping and cross-functional teams to develop advancements like the 4680 cells announced in 2020. This process reduced production costs by integrating vertical supply chains and experimentation, enabling scalable electric vehicles and contributing to Tesla's market leadership.[62][63] Studies from the 2010s link founders' creativity—key to CPS—with positive sales revenue growth in firms, as innovative problem-solving enhances business model adaptability and market expansion. CPS workshops further demonstrate ROI by shortening idea-to-launch timelines through structured ideation, with some implementations achieving up to 30-40% reductions in development cycles via minimum viable product approaches.[65]In Education and Everyday Life
Creative problem-solving (CPS) has been integrated into educational curricula through approaches like project-based learning (PBL), which emerged prominently in the 1990s as a method to foster real-world application of knowledge via open-ended challenges and investigative processes.[66] PBL encourages students to engage in creative decision-making and knowledge construction, aligning with cognitive science research from the era that emphasized authentic, ill-defined problems to build flexible thinking skills.[66] One key tool is the Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSPI), founded in 1974 to equip K-12 students with CPS skills through a structured six-step process applied to future-oriented topics like nanotechnology and climate change.[67] The program held its first National Bowl in 1978 and has since expanded internationally, now involving participants from over 14 countries via competitions, community projects, and classroom resources that promote interdisciplinary creative thinking.[67][68] Studies from the 2000s demonstrate that CPS training in educational settings enhances student creativity, as measured by improvements in divergent thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking following targeted interventions like role-playing and divergent instruction exercises.[69] For instance, explicit creativity instruction in science curricula has been shown to boost problem-solving abilities and innovative idea generation among undergraduates.[70] UNESCO's 2015 emphasis on global education goals, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, highlighted CPS as essential for preparing learners to address 21st-century challenges, such as infrastructure development and environmental issues, by fostering critical and creative skills in curricula worldwide.[71] In everyday life, CPS enables individuals to tackle personal challenges through idea generation and evaluation, such as brainstorming career transitions by weighing unconventional options like skill pivots or side ventures.[72] For conflict resolution, it supports de-escalation by reframing disputes—e.g., identifying root causes and prototyping compromises—leading to more collaborative outcomes in relationships.[73] Practical examples include meal planning, where one might divergently list ingredients on hand, converge on recipes that minimize waste, and adapt based on family preferences to optimize nutrition and budget.[74] In home settings, parents apply CPS to foster children's development, such as guiding siblings through resolving disputes by encouraging them to articulate feelings, generate mutual solutions like shared play rules, and test agreements iteratively.[75] CPS also extends to therapeutic contexts, where adaptations in narrative therapy from the 1990s—developed by Michael White and David Epston—empower clients to externalize problems as separate stories, facilitating creative re-authoring through deconstruction and unique outcome exploration.[76] Community problem-solving workshops, often modeled on FPSPI's community projects, bring residents together to address local issues like neighborhood sustainability by applying CPS steps in collaborative sessions, resulting in actionable initiatives.[77] Classroom activities may briefly reference ideation methods, such as brainstorming, to spark student-led CPS in group projects.[66]Challenges and Future Directions
Common Challenges
One major psychological barrier to effective creative problem-solving (CPS) is functional fixedness, where individuals struggle to perceive objects beyond their typical uses, limiting innovative applications. This was demonstrated in Karl Duncker's 1945 candle problem experiment, in which participants were tasked with attaching a candle to a wall using a box of tacks and matches but often failed to envision the tack box as a potential candle holder due to its preconceived role as a container. Similarly, the Einstellung effect, identified by Abraham S. Luchins in his 1942 water jar experiments, occurs when prior successful solutions create a mental set that blocks recognition of simpler alternatives, as participants repeatedly applied a complex formula to measure specific water volumes despite easier methods being available. Fear of failure further inhibits divergence in CPS by heightening anxiety and reducing willingness to explore unconventional ideas, as evidenced by studies showing that individuals with high fear of failure exhibit lower creative output in problem-solving tasks due to avoidance of potential errors. In group settings, production blocking hampers CPS by forcing members to wait their turn to speak, which disrupts idea flow and causes ideas to be forgotten or inhibited. Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe's 1987 experiments revealed that this mechanism accounts for much of the productivity loss in interactive brainstorming groups compared to nominal ones, as participants mentally rehearse ideas while listening, leading to cognitive interference. Additionally, dominance by vocal members exacerbates imbalances, where assertive individuals monopolize discussions, suppressing contributions from quieter participants and reducing overall idea diversity, as observed in analyses of vocal behavior in brainstorming sessions. Practical obstacles, such as time constraints, often force rushed evaluations that curtail thorough exploration of options, negatively impacting the quantity and originality of ideas generated in CPS processes. Resource limitations similarly pose challenges by restricting access to necessary materials, expertise, or support for prototyping and testing solutions, thereby hindering implementation in real-world scenarios. Research on premature convergence, where groups prematurely narrow options without sufficient divergence, indicates it as a primary reason for CPS failure, with meta-analyses of creativity training highlighting its role in limiting innovative outcomes. Cultural biases against risk-taking also contribute, as societies with high uncertainty avoidance prioritize safe, conventional approaches over bold ideas, diminishing CPS effectiveness in diverse contexts. Overreliance on convergent thinking early in the process represents another pitfall, as it prematurely evaluates ideas and stifles the generation of novel possibilities.Emerging Trends with AI
The integration of generative AI into creative problem-solving (CPS) has accelerated since 2022, particularly through tools like ChatGPT, which augment ideation by generating diverse ideas and facilitating brainstorming in human-AI collaborations. Experimental studies have shown that access to such AI enhances individual creativity in tasks like story writing, with outputs rated as more novel and valuable, especially for less inherently creative users. For instance, a 2024 preregistered experiment with university students demonstrated that ChatGPT improved performance in complex CPS tasks by providing structured prompts and alternative perspectives, reducing cognitive load during ideation. Recent research from INFORMS further highlights the double-edged nature of generative AI in creative processes, where it boosts output quality but requires careful human oversight to maintain originality.[78][79][80] Publications from 2023 to 2025 underscore the transformative role of generative AI in CPS frameworks. A 2025 Springer chapter explores how these tools restructure traditional CPS stages, from problem definition to solution prototyping, by enabling rapid iteration and multimodal outputs like text and images. Similarly, a Wiley analysis from the same year adopts a metacognitive lens to describe AI-augmented CPS, emphasizing how generative models shift human focus from idea generation to evaluation and refinement, potentially increasing efficiency in professional settings. In education, a 2025 Frontiers PRISMA review of 20 studies reveals that AI chatbots enhance student brainstorming by acting as facilitators, improving collaborative ideation and creative output in diverse learning contexts without replacing human agency. Tools like Adobe Firefly, launched in 2024, exemplify this trend by supporting visual ideation through generative image models trained on licensed data, allowing designers to explore concepts iteratively for commercial applications.[81][82][83][84] Google's Gemini 2.0, released in December 2024, advances collaborative CPS by integrating multimodal reasoning for agentic tasks, enabling users to co-solve problems through enhanced planning and creative synthesis across text, images, and code. However, challenges persist, such as AI biases in generated solutions; a 2025 MDPI mixed-methods study on AI-created texts in Spanish contexts found that social biases amplify stereotypes in creative outputs, limiting diversity and requiring bias-detection protocols. Looking ahead, hybrid human-AI models promise further evolution, with a 2025 ScienceDirect study on higher education showing that student-AI co-creation boosts ideation quality by combining human intuition with AI's pattern recognition. Ethical considerations remain central, including risks of misinformation, copyright issues, and environmental impacts from AI training, as outlined in a 2025 analysis of generative art in creative industries, urging frameworks for equitable and transparent deployment.[85][86][87][88]References
- https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/[psychology](/page/Psychology)/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.892716/full