A Study of the Applicability of Idea Generation Techniques

Chan-Li Lin, Jon-Chao Hong1, Ming-Yueh Hwang2, Ya-Ling Lin3 PhD Candidate, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan Professor, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan Professor, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan 3 PhD Student, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
2 1

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.

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
2

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
3

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
4

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 ,
5

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,
6

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.
7

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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Idea Generation Techniques Brainstorming Checklist 1H5W Method 5Why Method Mind Mapping Method Delphi Method TRIZ Method SCAMPER Method K.J. Method NGT Method No. of Times the technique was Selected 122 76 33 22 7 5 4 4 4 3 280 Percentage (%) 43.57 27.14 11.79 7.85 2.5 1.79 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.07 100

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.
8

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
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol

45 90 29 79 32 63 47 64 43 50 107 59 32 13 30 15 75 11 11 7 27.339 100.291 122.429 90.554 .000* .000* .000* .000*

83 97 50 126 34 30 15 124 42 54 61 53 41 46 54 64 44 38 75 28 98 103 97 24 24 19 21 7 27 31 34 8 16 6 6 5 13 12 20 2 64.230 116.981 76.272 227.187 100.122 109.757 100.591 231.063 .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .000*

Table 2 shows that brainstorming is considered as a very applicable technique when the idea generation process is characterized by differences among participants, knowledge background of participants, opportunity of try and error, democratic 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, intercommunication, and variety of ideas, as shown in Table 3. lively

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

Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 4 4 9 8 3 5.214 .266 4 6 14 2 0 12.769 .005*

6 9 12 1 0 9.429 .024*

9 9 6 2 0 5.077 .166

5 7 8 6 0 0.769 .857

5 8 14 0 0 4.667 .097

6 5 9 4 1 6.308 .177

7 6 10 2 1 10.538 .032*

4 9 10 4 0 4.556 .207

5 10 8 4 0 3.370 .338

6 7 8 5 1 5.407 .248

4 12 8 2 1 15.407 .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
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable 20 43 48 25 50 52

30 62 36

51 56 33

16 34 56

23 32 58

22 51 50

29 36 53

19 44 63

27 57 49

19 46 59

33 46 51

10

Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol

21 12 34.403 .000*

15 5 59.769 .000*

17 1 70.781 .000*

6 2 83.959 .000*

24 10 46.571 .000*

25 2 58.071 .000*

20 1 63.847 .000*

20 4 46.803 .000*

11 4 86.057 .000*

10 3 76.192 .000*

13 8 68.483 .000*

12 5 56.231 .000*

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, 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 5). Table 5 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of SCAMPER in different contexts
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 2 3 7 5 0 3.471 .325 0 6 4 4 1 3.400 .334

2 6 4 2 1 5.333 .255

6 2 5 0 2 3.400 .334

1 1 6 5 0 6.385 .094

3 6 3 0 1 3.923 .270

2 7 3 1 0 6.385 .094

2 4 6 0 1 4.538 .209

2 4 4 2 1 2.769 .597

1 6 6 0 2 5.533 .137

4 3 4 2 2 1.333 .856

0 2 8 3 2 6.600 .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
11

(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, 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, and variety of ideas (Table 6). Table 6 Results of Statistic Analysis: Applicability of 1H5W in different contexts
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 17 33 35 12 4 35.782 .000* 8 26 50 11 4 71.556 .000*

9 40 47 4 3 87.049 .000*

22 41 31 6 0 26.480 .000*

9 19 28 30 9 21.158 .000*

9 23 46 13 4 58.211 .000*

8 27 41 16 4 47.021 .000*

8 23 40 21 4 42.021 .000*

15 30 38 9 2 47.170 .000*

16 47 27 7 4 60.337 .000*

11 43 32 10 4 55.500 .000*

16 27 34 13 10 20.500 .000*

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

12

Opportunity of try and error

Positive phrasing

Thoroughness of ideas

Context Under time constraint

Variety of ideas

Knowledge background of participants

Availability of information

Elaboration of ideas

Lively intercommuni -cation

Constructive dialogues

Differences among participants

Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 2 2 4 2 2 1.333 .856 0 4 4 2 1 2.455 .484

3 3 2 3 0 .273 .965

3 5 2 1 0 3.182 .364

2 5 2 1 1 4.909 .297

1 3 5 0 2 3.182 .364

3 3 4 0 1 1.727 .631

2 3 4 2 0 1.000 .801

1 3 5 2 0 3.182 .364

3 3 3 2 0 .237 .965

1 7 1 2 0 9.000 .029*

3 4 3 0 1 1.727 .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
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 2 2 4 2 2 1.333 .856 0 4 4 2 1 2.455 .484

3 3 2 3 0 .273 .965

3 5 2 1 0 3.182 .364

2 5 2 1 1 4.909 .297

1 3 5 0 2 3.182 .364

3 3 4 0 1 1.727 .631

2 3 4 2 0 1.000 .801

1 3 5 2 0 3.182 .364

3 3 3 2 0 .237 .965

1 7 1 2 0 9.000 .029*

3 4 3 0 1 1.727 .631

Delphi is identified as an applicable technique when the idea generation process is characterized by availability of information, knowledge background of
13

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
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 14 16 26 18 14 5.636 .228 7 28 32 15 3 38.000 .000*

14 27 32 8 5 32.488 .000*

25 29 20 6 4 30.167 .000*

13 18 28 12 6 17.610 .001*

11 18 33 12 4 30.590 .000*

10 20 37 12 3 41.293 .000*

11 27 23 13 6 19.000 .001*

13 25 30 10 2 32.375 .000*

16 34 25 12 1 35.977 .000*

11 21 38 10 2 46.659 .000*

12 16 34 13 9 23.500 .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
14

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
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable -square Significance Level Applicability Symbol 3 7 13 10 5 8.316 .081 2 11 20 5 0 19.895 .000*

6 11 15 4 2 14.895 .005*

11 14 9 3 1 15.684 .003*

4 9 15 8 2 13.316 .010*

6 8 15 9 0 4.737 .192

6 11 17 5 0 9.308 .025*

9 12 12 6 1 10.750 .030*

7 12 14 3 3 13.179 .010*

10 10 15 4 0 6.231 .101

4 16 13 5 0 11.053 .011*

10 9 13 5 2 9.590 .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

Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability Very Applicable Applicable Passable Inapplicable Very Inapplicable 2 5 5 2 15 9 4 11 3 2

2 7 14 6 0

11 6 9 1 2

6 8 10 6 0

10 6 11 2 1

9 9 10 2 0

6 8 5 8 2

6 8 11 3 1

4 8 9 6 2

4 11 5 7 2

3 12 5 4 5

15

-square Significance Level Applicability Symbol

19.793 .001*

10.828 .029*

10.310 .016*

12.897 .012*

1.467 .690

13.667 .008*

5.467 .141

4.276 .370

10.828 .029*

5.655 . 226

8.069 .089

8.759 .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
Opportunity of try and error Positive phrasing Thoroughness of ideas Context Under time constraint Variety of ideas Knowledge background of participants Availability of information Elaboration of ideas Lively intercommuni -cation Constructive dialogues Differences among participants Democratic process in meetings

Applicability

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
16

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:
17

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., &
18

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.
19

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
20

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.

21