Creative Problem Solving (CPS)

The original model of Creative Problem Solving (CPS for short), distinguished from the lowercase term creative problem-solving denoting the body of methods and models developed by researchers, practitioners and consultants to solve problems creatively, is the brainchild of the late Alex Osborn and was first publicized in his 1952 book, Wake up your mind (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004). The original CPS method was an extension of the four-stage Wallas model of the creativity, discussed earlier in this chapter, adding more deliberate stages of orientation, analysis, hypothesis, and synthesis.

The steps to the original seven-stage CPS model can be summarized as follows (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004):

1. Orientation: Drawing up the problem;

2. Preparation: Collecting relevant information; 3. Analysis: Decomposing the relevant material;

4. Hypothesis: Generating multiple alternatives or ideas; 5. Incubation: Stopping to invite illumination;

6. Synthesis: Creating new combinations of ideas; 7. Verification: Judging the resultant ideas.

However, in 1963 Osborn streamlined his original CPS model into a three-stage model, consisting of Fact-finding (problem definition and preparation), Idea-Finding (idea production and development), and Solution-Finding (evaluation and adoption) to reflect his practical advertising experience, as well as his study of tools used by highly creative individuals (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004). This would prove to be the first of many refinements of the CPS model over its 60-year history.

As Puccio and Cabra (2009) noted, the CPS was created to elicit deliberate creativity. Specifically, Osborn was particularly interested in achieving this end in the sphere of education. It was during this time that Osborn collaborated with Sidney Parnes at the Buffalo State College of the State University of

New York on an academic programme based on CPS, as well as refinements that would eventually become known as the Osborn-Parnes model of CPS (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004), outlined below:

1. Fact finding: Fact finding involves observing carefully while collecting and exploring objective facts and subjective experiential information about the problem situation.

2. Problem finding: This stage involves considering different ways of viewing the problem and thinking about those possibilities.

3. Idea Finding: Idea finding entails searching for a variety of ideas, approaches, options, routes, ways of creating, and tools. Here, potential ideas will be tentatively selected.

4. Solution finding: This stage involves exploring the ideas in various ways, from other perspectives and using different criteria. Then, the implications and reactions to the selected ideas must be assessed. Selecting ideas and developing an action plan conclude this stage.

5. Acceptance finding: Acceptance finding involves deciding how to implement the action plan. Then, thinking of ways to increase the strength, attractiveness, effectiveness, acceptability, and benefits of your chosen solution. Finally, a working plan for implementation is developed.

CPS has undergone eight refinements to date based on research and development. However, according to Puccio, Cabra, Fox, and Cahen (2010), two aspects have remained unchanged. First, CPS balances divergent and convergent thinking as each step starts with a divergent phase (characterised by the search for alternatives) followed by a convergent phase (hallmarked by the development of the most promising ideas). This ‘dynamic balance’ separates creative and critical thinking by generating ideas and delaying their evaluation. Second, Puccio and Cabra (2009) noted that the structure of every CPS version to date closely follows the natural stages of thought that individuals use when confronted with ill-structured problems, namely Identification (forming an understanding of the problem), Development (of possible solutions), and Selection (or the decision regarding the best solution).

The current version is known as the Thinking skills model (Table 2.5), which consists of three phases that align with individuals’ natural creative processes (Puccio & Cabra, 2009). In the Thinking skills model the phases are named Clarification, Transformation, and Implementation with each consisting of two steps.

Table 2.5

The CPS Thinking Skills Model

Executive step Phase Step

A ssessi ng the S itua tion

Clarification Exploring the Vision: A vision of the desired outcome is developed.

Formulating the Challenges: Challenges to be overcome are identified.

Transformation Exploring Ideas: Novel ideas to address challenges are generated.

Formulating Solutions: Ideas are developed into practical solutions.

Implementation Exploring Acceptance: Here, the problem solvers must consider factors in their context that will affect whether others will adopt the solution.

Formulating a Plan: An implementation plan is developed.

Note. Adapted from “Creative problem solving: Past, present and future,” by G.J. Puccio and J.F. Cabra, 2009, The Routledge companion to creativity, p. 331-332. Copyright 2009 by Routledge.

The model always starts with assessing the situation, which is an executive step as it occurs throughout the model, allowing problem-solvers to fast-forward or revisit steps and determine their own progression through the model (Puccio & Cabra, 2009). During this step, information relevant to the problem is identified and the next step in the CPS process is determined (Puccio & Cabra, 2009). This step has added a meta-cognitive element to CPS as it allows the problem-solver to monitor and regulate his or her thinking in relation to his or her cognitive objectives. The inclusion of this meta-cognitive step has also made CPS even more non-linear and flexible in practice.

The CPS Thinking skills model derives its name from the seven main thinking skills involved with each step delineated (Puccio & Cabra, 2009). During the first step, assessing the situation, diagnostic thinking (i.e. making a careful examination and description of the problem) is involved. When reaching the second step, exploring the vision, the problem-solver must use visionary thinking (i.e. articulating a vivid image of the desired outcome). During the third step, formulating the challenges, strategic thinking (i.e. identifying the critical aspects that must be overcome and routes toward the desired outcome) is

involved. At the fourth step, exploring the ideas, the problem-solver is required to use ideational thinking (i.e. creating original mental images to address challenges). During the fifth step, formulating solutions, evaluative thinking (i.e. judging ideas on the basis of reasonableness and quality in order to create a usable solution) is needed. When the sixth step, exploring acceptance, is entered, contextual thinking (i.e. thinking about those conditions in the environment that will help or hinder the success of the solution) gains importance. The final step, formulating a plan, requires tactical thinking (i.e. creating a plan or roadmap with specific and measurable steps to the desired outcome as well as ways of monitoring progress).

Perhaps the most serious disadvantage of CPS is that it has developed into a large framework within which any number of tools can be used with no consistent set of tools. For example, if it possible to use seven tools for one of the steps in CPS, this must cause great variability in its efficacy and user opinions of its efficacy. In the current researcher’s opinion, another consequence of this is that truly comprehensive CPS training should include a contingency approach. In other words, training should offer guidelines in a ‘during step two, it is best to use tool Y under condition A, but under condition B tool Z should be used’ manner. With such a large number of tools to choose from for each step, training requirements in terms of time may be taxing.

Another limitation is related to the non-linearity and flexibility in the Thinking skills model brought about by the inclusion of the step, assessing the situation. This researcher is of the opinion that the fact that CPS is continually refined and developed, based on research, has left it susceptible to the modern academic obsession with non-linearity, this despite the practical need for guidance via structure in problem-solving methods. The originators of the thinking skills model tout this non-linearity and flexibility as an advantage. Up to a point, the current researcher sees the benefit of flexibility. However, the fact that a problem-solver may choose to fast forward through some steps must raise questions about the depth of thinking during, as well as the outcomes of such ‘skimmed’ steps.