Challenging different Creative Problem Solving (CPS) processes as to its effectiveness Fernando C. Sousa Ileana P. Monteiro IV Colóquio de Psicologia INUAF, 23 de Março 2012

1. Solving
Problem
Creative
Challenging different Creative Problem
Solving (CPS) processes as to its
effectiveness
Fernando C. Sousa
Ileana P. Monteiro
IV Colóquio de Psicologia
INUAF, 23 de Março 2012

2. Best known group problem solving methods
Osborn-Parnes CPS (Parnes, 1967)
Synectics (Gordon, 1961)
TRIZ (Altshuller, 1996)
Soft Systems (Checkland & Poulter, 2006)
De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats (De Bono, 1965)

4. Basadur’s Simplex creative
problem solving method

5. Simplified Basadur’s creative problem The four-step
solving method method

6. 93 Students METHOD
Method Groups Students University Facilitator
A--------------B A--------------B
5 steps/8 hours 3 32 1--------------2 1---------------1,2
4 steps/4 hours 3 30 2-------------1 1,2------------2
Control 3 31 2-------------1 -
Instruments O1 (observation before) to O2 (observation after)
A 14-item questionnaire( Basadur, Pringle, Speranzini, & Bacot, 2000) - Preference for avoiding premature closure[AW1] and
deferring judgement,
A 14-item team commitment[AW2] questionnaire (Almeida, Faísca, & Jesus, 2007)
At the end of the last session, participants were asked to evaluate the process and write their opinion about it.
Three judges independently evaluated the problem definition, solution and/or action plan of each group, against three criteria
(Besemer & Quin, 1987): originality, resolution and elaboration, and the Interrater Reliability Index (IRI)[AW3] was calculated.

7. Table 1 – Mean differences and its significance level, before and after CPS sessions, in the factors “Avoiding concentrating
only in idea quality”, and “Deferral of judgement”
Divergent thinking factors
Condition Moment N
Avoiding concentrating only
Deferral of judgement
in idea quality
Before the sessions
2.31 3.59
After the sessions
8h 32 2.71 3.89
Sig.
.00 .00
Before the sessions
2.18 3.80
After the sessions
4h 30 2.40 3.82
Sig.
.00 .81
Before the sessions
2.40 3.79
After the sessions
Control 31 2.51 3.77
Sig.
.19 .75

8. Table 2 - Mean differences and significance levels, before and after CPS sessions, between factors “ Affective commitment”,
“Normative commitment” and “Instrumental commitment”
Commitment factors
Condition Moment
N Affective commitment Normative commitment Instrumental commitment
Before the sessions 4,30 5,44 3.99
8h After the sessions 32 4,45 5,67 4,21
Sig. .05 .08 .08
Before the sessions 4.28 4.56 3.36
4h After the sessions 30 4.56 5.00 3.77
Sig. .00 .01 .01
Before the sessions 3.73 4.68 3.01
Controlo After the sessions 31 4.00 4.71 3.13
Sig. .13 .89 .61

9. Table 3 – Mean differences and significance levels of the average ratings of judges to the output criteria of Originality,
Resolution and Usefulness, in each condition (N=93).
Rating criteria
Condition
Elaboration
Originality Resolution Total
4h 2.9 3.7 3.7 3.4
8h 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.8
Control 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.1
Significance .01 .01 .00 .00
Scheffe test: All groups differ to p<.01 in Originality, and the Control group differs from the others to p<.01 in
every criteria
Interrater Reliability Index .85

10. STUDENT EVALUATIONS

11. • Creative problem solving methods proved to be able to provide
effectiveness in changing individuals’ attitudes towards divergent thinking,
namely by avoiding premature closure, acceptance of other’s ideas and less
self-censorship.
• The methods are able to provide team commitment, especially of the
emotional type.
• The subjects also agreed as to the methods’ capability in providing a
professional, efficient way of organizing knowledge in such a way that can
help individuals to find original solutions to problems, and an important
instrument to lead teams to creativity and innovation.
• As to the differences between the five-step/eight-hour CPS method, and
the four-step/four-hour method, one does not lose effectiveness just by
reducing the method’s duration, even when cutting the time in a half.

12. • Subjects’ evaluations leads us to conclude that the difference between methods
may not be only its duration but its entire conception.
• The reduction of the importance of the method, now simplified in just two steps
(problem finding and action planning), increases the probability that the
organization may adopt the method as a way of working, the only difficulty being
the facilitation skills needed.
• The need for previous training in CPS and the importance of problem definition are
not imperatives
• About future research, the “great secret” still lies outside the method, either in
team composition or in what happens during the execution of the action plan,
where ideas are implemented