A unified process model for creativity-technique based problem solving processes Florian Forster, Michele Brocco Technische Universität München, Germany Abstract. In this paper, we present a unified model for creativity- technique based processes that considers the key properties of each of these creativity techniques. For the construction of this model we first analyze processes of various creativity techniques with respect to their key properties. Afterwards, we use these findings to formalize a unified model and discuss its use for more flexible creativity support systems. Introduction Creativity techniques are used in many domains to guide creative problem solv- ing processes [1]. Depending on the domains, context, problem type or people involved in the creative problem solving process, specific creativity techniques can be more or less adequate for finding appropriate solutions. Hence, their effective use is driven especially according to their strengths and weaknesses. Collaborative tools for the support of creativity-technique based problem solving processes should address the main shortcomings of theses processes which may also include typical problems for interacting groups such as the factors pro- duction blocking, group pressure and social loafing [2]. In addition certain cre- ativity support systems (CSS) allow for the collaboration of distributed groups and virtual teams in creative problem solving processes. As of today, CSS are tailored for a specific creativity technique (e.g. Mind- manager1 ) or have a quite limited portfolio of supported techniques for idea generation (divergent phase) and idea evaluation (convergent phase) (e.g. Think- tank2 ). Hence, for a given context (i.e. problem type, group, situation, etc.) the available techniques may be not appropriate or be less effective than an alter- native technique. Furthermore, using different techniques on the same problem can be beneficial for the process. In order to support a broad set of creativity techniques, CSS need a uni- fied model of creative processes that considers each of these techniques. As in any modeling process, the question of the appropriate level of abstraction has to be faced: A higher level of abstraction increases flexibility, but decreases the semantic information. E.g. a collaborative drawing tool on a virtual whiteboard may be very flexible for the use of creativity techniques. However, because of 1 http://www.mindjet.com 2 http://www.groupsystems.com/technology/thinktank its high level of abstraction, the key properties of creativity-technique based processes are not comprehensively supported. This includes e.g. the possibil- ity to anonymize group members or to set time limits for the divergent phase as required in specific techniques. Additionally the semantic of the single user contributions may be lost (e.g. no differentiation between ideas, evaluations or messages in the system). In this paper, we present a unified model for creativity-technique based pro- cesses that considers the key properties of each of these creativity techniques. For the construction of this model we first analyze processes of various creativity techniques with respect to their key properties. Afterwards, we use these find- ings to formalize a unified model. This model can in turn be used to implement a corresponding software system that can support different creative-technique based problem solving processes. Process analysis The aim of the process analysis is to examine creative problem solving processes and to identify the key properties that can have a positive impact on the process outcomes. Obviously, a process model of a CSS should focus on these properties. Creative processes are typically seen as a sequence of divergent and conver- gent process phases [3] [4]. In the divergent phase, the participants try to find ideas for a given problem. In the convergent phase, the participants evaluate the previously generated ideas [5]. Keeping the two phases strictly separated improves the effectiveness of the process [2]. Hence, a process model for CSS should comprise both types of process phases and avoid improper mixing of the phases. The abstract perspective on the process is helpful to set the frame for a model for creative processes, but no advice is given on how the activities within the phases can be supported. Since creativity techniques claim to support creative problem solving processes, they can be regarded as a source for such parame- ters. Given their highly practical orientation, it is likely that they can give more concrete advice than an abstract process model. Based on this idea, we analyzed a multitude of common creativity techniques [6]. First, we wanted to find out if the processes the techniques imply actually fit in the cyclic model of divergent and convergent phases. Second, we were interested in the parameters the tech- niques impose on the different phases. Our analysis confirmed that the creative problem solving processes implied by the investigated creativity techniques could all be appropriately modeled as sequence of divergent and convergent process phases. Furthermore our analysis showed that there is a surprisingly low number of different parameters the various techniques impose on the processes. In the meanwhile, we examined 14 additional creativity techniques3 and further refined the list of important process phase parameters in creativity- technique based processes. The following parameters were found for both phase types: 3 For descriptions of all mentioned creativity techniques in this article see [7] and [8]. – Anonymity: In divergent phases, shame or fear of rejection can inhibit the expression of unusual ideas. In convergent phases, group pressure can in- fluence the voting behavior. It has been shown that by making anonymous contributions, this negative effects can be avoided [9]. – Time limit: Imposing a time limit on a process phase can be necessary due to organizational reasons, since this way, an upper limit for the duration of creative processes can be set. Time limits are also helpful for synchronyzing creative processes in which the initial group is split up in smaller subgroups (e.g. Brainwriting-6-3-5 ). The following parameters were found for the divergent phases only: – Stimuli: Mental stimuli are pieces of information that are presented to par- ticipants in order to influence their thinking processes during the convergent phases. Stimuli are only rarely statically defined by the creativity technique itself. Instead, they are often contributed by the participants in previous phases (e.g. random stimuli technique). – Start ideas: Start ideas are available from the beginning of a divergent phase and can directly be used to combine new ideas with. The ideas are typically generated in preceding divergent phases (e.g. morphological analysis). – Constraints of idea representations: While for most techniques a verbal or textual representation of the generated ideas is assumed, a few techniques restrict the way the participants may express their ideas. The greeting card technique specifies the use of pictures that should be combined to compose ideas. During brainsketching, participants can only use sketches to explain their ideas. – Limitation of idea quantity: Looking futile at the first glance, bounding the idea quantity may be necessary for practical reasons (e.g. Brainwriting-6-3- 5 ). The following parameters were found for the convergent phases only: – Scenarios: A scenario is the description of a plausible future. A scenario defines a hypothetical context for the idea evaluation. The scenarios may be defined by the technique itself (e.g. four future technique) or may be generated by the participants in a previous process. – Criteria: With criteria, the evaluation of ideas can be restricted to a certain aspect. Techniques mostly define static criteria (e.g. the castle technique defines effectivity, practicality and originality), but the criteria could also be dynamically generated by the participants in a previous process. – Scoring: Scoring refers to assigning numerical values to ideas. Many tech- niques for convergent process phases imply using scores of a given range as evaluation measure (e.g. sticking dots technique). Idea evaluations from nu- merous participants expressed as scores can be easily processed and merged (e.g. by computing average values). – Comments: By using comments, participants can evaluate ideas with free texts. With comments, participants can advance their opinion in a much more detailed way than with scoring. However, it is harder to aggregate these pieces of information than in the case of scoring. Formalization of a unified process model The parameters presented in the previous section can be regarded as require- ments for a unified process model since we empirically found out that the pro- cesses implied by the techniques can be seen as a sequence of divergent and convergent phases based on these parameters. For being used in the context of a computer system, the process model has to be formalized. For the process phases, we suggest the formalization depicted in figure 1: ProcessPhase acts as ProcessPhase problem : Problem participants: Set ideas : Set timelimit : Integer anonymous : Boolean DivergentPhase ConvergentPhase stimuli : Set scenario : Scenario maxIdeas : Integer criterion : Criterion allowSketch : Boolean allowComments : Boolean allowText : Boolean allowScoring : Boolean allowImage : Boolean maxScore : Integer Fig. 1. Formal model of the phases of creativity-technique based processes. the base class for the two different types of process phases. ProcessPhase must declare the following attributes: – problem: The problem that should be solved in the process phase. Problems are commonly represented as plain text strings, but as concrete implemen- tations of CSS (e.g. for special domains) may have additional requirements we suggest to define a dedicated class Problem. – participants: The persons that are participating in the process phase. – ideas: The ideas of the process phase. For divergent phases this attribute can be initialized with start ideas if needed, but in most cases the set is empty at the beginning of a divergent phase. In convergent phases, the set is initialized with the ideas from the precedent divergent phase so the ideas can be evaluated by the users. The results of the process analysis makes some implications about the functionality of the Idea class. For the divergent phases, it should support the expression of ideas as text, with images and with sketches. For the convergent phases, it should be able to store user ratings as numerical values and as text. Further adoption to a target domain of a CSS can be necessary. The remaining attributes of ProcessPhase are formalizations of the creativity technique parameters found for both types of process phases: – timelimit: Timelimits in a process phase are represented with an integer value that stores the remaining seconds for the phase or is undefined if no timelimit is set. – anonymous: The need of anonymity can be represented by a boolean flag. If the flag is set, the CSS must keep all person-related information hidden during the process phase. The divergent phases are represented by the class DivergentPhase, having the following attributes in addition to the ones from the base class: – stimuli: A set of mental stimuli which must be presented to the participants by the CSS. If the value is not set, no stimuli are used in this divergent phase. Since stimuli are often generated by the group in previous phases and thus are formulated as ideas, the Stimuli class should be modeled similar to the Idea class or the same classes should be used. – maxIdeas: Integer value that limits the number of ideas that may be gener- ated in the process phase. If the value is not set, the number of ideas is not limited. – allowSketch: If the boolean value is set, the users may sketch to express their ideas. – allowText: If the boolean value is set, the users may use text to express their ideas. – allowImage: If the boolean value is set, the users may use images to express their ideas. The convergent phases are represented by the class ConvergentPhase, having the following attributes in addition to the ones from the base class: – scenario: The scenario that should be considered when evaluating the ideas in the process phase. In most cases it will be sufficient to represent scenar- ios as a string describing the particular scenario, but a dedicated class is preferable. If no scenario should be considered, the value is not set. – criterion: The criterion that should be evaluated in the process phase. For the representation of criteria, the same considerations apply as for scenarios. If no criterion is set, the idea is to be evaluated as a whole. – allowComments: If the boolean value is set, the users may evaluate the ideas using textual comments. – allowScoring: If the boolean value is set, the users may assign scores to the ideas. – maxScore: If scoring is allowed, this value defines the scoring range (from 0...maxScore). The simplicity of the presented formalization for process phases of creativity- technique based processes makes it easy to be used in CSS implementations, yet it is powerful enough to represent creative problem solving processes of numer- ous creativity techniques and even combinations, since it contains all the key properties found in our process analysis. Example processes To illustrate the use of the unified process model, we present formalizations of creative processes that correspond to some well-known creativity techniques. As explained beforehand, a creative process is understood as a sequence of divergent and / or convergent phases, each having a particular set of attribute values. The complete set of possible attributes was presented in the previous section. In this example section, for clarity we will omit attributes that are not important for the given creativity technique. For the not-listed attributes, default values (e.g. ”no restriction” for restricting attributes or ”arbitrary number of participants” for the participant attribute) can be assumed. Brainstorming (and variants) The major principle of the brainstorming technique is to avoid any idea evaluation during the idea generation Begin phase. Since idea evaluation is not possible in divergent DivergentPhase phases of the proposed model, this principle is achieved problem: "How could the problem by modeling brainstorming as a divergent phase. Addi- #P be solved? Wild and unusual ideas are welcome. Try to build on tional information to the given problem (here labeled the ideas of other participants." anonymous: true #P) in the problem attribute makes the participants aware of the remaining brainstorming principles (wild End ideas, building up on ideas of others). The classic brain- storming needs no further attribute values in the diver- gent phase, since no further restrictions are made by the technique. Alternative brainstorming variants can be achieved by setting at- tributes of the phase, e.g. Anonymous Brainstorming by setting the anonymous attribute (as depicted in the figure on the left) or Brainsketching by setting allowSketch to true and allowText as well as allowImage to false, so only sketches can be used for expressing ideas. Brainwriting 6-3-5 A creative process with two partici- pants U1, U2 based on the Brainwrit- Begin ing 6-3-5 technique can be modeled by DivergentPhase objects as shown in DivergentPhase DivergentPhase problem: "Find three solutions for problem: "Find three solutions for the figure to the left. In the first round the problem #P." the problem #P." participants: U1 timelimit: 300 participants: U2 timelimit: 300 (upper two phases), the participants maxIdeas: 3 maxIdeas: 3 are asked to find three solutions for the {I4,I5,I6} {I1,I2,I3} given problem. The participants have DivergentPhase DivergentPhase to work separately on their solutions, problem: "Try to improve these problem: "Try to improve these three ideas of your group member." three ideas of your group member." so U1 and U2 are in separate phases participants: U1 timelimit: 300 participants: U2 timelimit: 300 (participants attribute). The tech- ideas: I1,I2,I3 ideas: I4,I5,I6 nique imposes a timelimit of 5 minutes, End which is modeled with a value of 300 for the timelimit attribute, and sets an upper limit of 3 ideas with the maxIdeas attribute. When the timelimit has exceeded, the ideas generated by the partici- pants are exchanged and placed in the ideas attributes of the successive phases. The participants are now asked to improve the received ideas instead of gener- ating completely new ones. SCAMPER Begin The SCAMPER technique can be modeled as a se- DivergentPhase quence of divergent phases, where in each phase a problem: "How could you improve an existing solution for your problem #P slightly different approach towards a solution is sug- by substituting place, time, material gested using the problem attribute of the phase ob- or people?" ject. The figure on the left shows the first 3 phases DivergentPhase problem: "What materials, features, of the SCAMPER technique (Substitute, Combine, processes, people, products etc. could you combine to find better Adapt), the remaining phases (Modify, Put to an- solutions for your problem #P?" other use, Eliminate and Reverse) are modeled sim- DivergentPhase ilarly. This way, all type of checklist-based tech- problem: "How could you improve an nique (e.g. Osborn-checklist, CATWOE) can be rep- existing solution for #P by altering or changing the function of elements?" resented. Since the techniques impose no further re- strictions, the remaining phase attributes are not set. ... By setting some of the attributes, combinations of End techniques could be achieved: e.g. setting the anony- mous attribute in the phases leads to an Anonymous SCAMPER process. Castle Technique Begin The Castle Technique is an evaluation technique that ConvergentPhase suggests to judge ideas in sense of their effectivity, criterion : "Effectivity" allowComments : false practicality and originality. To speed up the decision allowScoring : true maxScore : 1 process, the participants may only say if the crite- rion is met or not. Formalized by the unified pro- ConvergentPhase criterion : "Practicality" cess model, a castle technique process is a sequence allowComments : false allowScoring : true of convergent phases (ConvergentPhase objects). In maxScore : 1 each phase, the participants have to decide if the ConvergentPhase given ideas (in general coming from a previous di- criterion : "Originality" allowComments : false vergent phase) fulfill the criterion defined by the at- allowScoring : true maxScore : 1 tribute criterion. To express their decision, partic- End ipants may only use score values (allowScoring is true while allowComment is false) and can only make a binary decision, since the maxScore attribute is set to 1. Conclusion In this article we proposed a formalization for creativity-technique based problem solving processes as sequence of process phases. We first described how creativity techniques are currently supported in creative support systems. Then, we argued why a unified process model is a way towards more flexible CSS. In the second section we summarized the results of our analysis of a large set of creativity- techniques with respect to their key properties. Finally, we presented a formal unified model comprising the key properties of creativity-technique based prob- lem solving processes and illustrated the approach with some example process formalizations. Since creativity techniques guide creative processes by affecting the param- eters we identified in the process analysis, they can be interpreted as presets of attribute values in the process model (e.g. a specific configuration of the attributes timelimit, stimuli etc.). Following this concept, a formalization of cre- ativity techniques (in contrast to concrete creative processes) can be achieved. Furthermore, the key properties of creativity techniques can be regarded as a framework for analyzing creativity techniques themselves: by varying single attribute values of the specific process phases it is possible to investigate the effects on the produced outputs. For instance by varying the timelimit attribute value in different creative processes, a better general understanding on the effect of time limits in creative problem solving processes can be gained. As a framework for evaluation, we are currently implementing a CSS proto- type which is based on the here discussed unified process model. Thereby, our goal is to assess the completeness of the proposed key components. References 1. Fernald, L.W., Nickolenko, P.: The creative process: Its use and extent of formal- ization by corporations. Journal of Creative Behaviour 27(3) (1993) 214–220 2. Isaksen, S.G.: A review of brainstorming research: Six critical issues for inquiry. Technical report, Creative Problem Solving Group, Buffalo, New York (1998) 3. Parnes, S.J.: Source Book for Creative Problem Solving : A Fifty Year Digest of Proven Innovation Processes. Creative Education Foundation (1992) 4. Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M.: Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Application. Bradford, The MIT Press (1992) 5. VanGundy, A.B.: Idea Power. AMACOM (1992) 6. Forster, F., Brocco, M.: Understanding creativity-technique based problem solving processes. In Lovrek, I., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C., eds.: 12th International Confer- ence on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. Volume 5178 of LNAI., Heidelberg, Springer (2008) 806–813 7. VanGundy, A.B.: Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. Van Nostrand Rein- hold (1988) 8. Mycoted: Creativity & innovation, science & technology. http://www.mycoted.com 9. Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M., Valacich, J.S.: Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manage. Sci. 36(6) (1990) 689–703