Paramountperformance.weebly.com



Analytical and Creative Problem Solving Methods Karen L. HatchSiena Heights UniversityNovember 30, 2018Analytical and Creative Problem Solving MethodsIn today’s work industry, employers are attracted to hiring employees that are innovative and creative with a good problem solving skills. Being able to solve problem is essential in the professional arena, as well as in everyday life (Whetten, 2002). Research suggest that problem solving and creativity should be address as early as possible in college courses and curricula (Martz, 2017). According to Whetten (2002), management and leadership jobs are essentially problem solving positions. Enhancing or mastering problem solving skills may be the determining factor for career success and failure. Problem solving begins with an assessment that will support generating alternatives for solutions.This literature will discuss two types of problem solving techniques that are most likely to be used in the work industry: The analytical methodology, which is a four step approach of: 1) defining the problem, 2) generating solutions, 3) evaluating and selecting alternatives and 4) Implementing solutions (Whetten, 2002). The second approach is creative problem solving techniques, which also includes four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. Both require a four step process, however, there are variations in the first step (Whetten 2002). Albeit, there are downsides of conceptual blocks and constraints that may inhibit progress completion or require tools to refine ( Haviland, 2004; Whetten, 2002). Analytical and Creative Problem Solving The difference in creative problem solving and analytical problems solving is the variations in the first step. Creative problem solving allows more flexibility and fluent in data gathering and problem definition, alternatives generation and examination of options (Whetten, 2002, p. 178). Analytical problem solving are more constrained by having ridged analytical approaches (Whetten, 2002). According to Whitten (2002), research suggests that the first stages of creative problem solving is where training can be most effective in learning to become a problem solver. Moreover, problem solving is becoming a foundational base for communication and math. Creative problem solving is also considered an opening for teamwork within corporations; therefore its value insinuates, a required competency for education. Both methodologies have pitfalls of challenges within their processing stages, known as “constraints” for analytical problem solving and “conceptual blocks” for creative problem solving methods, which will be defined later (Whetten, 2002). Analytical Problem Solving Analytical problem solving has four major steps ( Haviland, 2004; Whetten, 2002); and it begins with defining the problem by detecting all possibilities. The second step is to collect all data pertaining to the problem (who, what where, when, and why). Wetten (2002) suggests that the quality of resolution can be expressively heightened by considering numerous answers. Moreover, it is best not to jump to conclusion by making immediate determinations (Haviland, 2004; Whetten, 2002). The third step is to evaluate and select alternatives. Alternatives are appraised to finest, standard of systematic contemplations. The final step is to implement solution(s) with follow-ups. The phases of steps 1-4 are essential in sequential order to be successful without skipping the first three steps (Whetten, 2002). The down side of analytical problem solving methods is known as constraints which can be tied to various reasons such as not defining the problem correctly, not generating enough possible solutions, embracing early solutions(s), or evaluating challenges.(Wetten, 2002).Other Possible Solutions Subsequently, research suggest six sigma methodologies are another example of quality problem-solving relevant to world class levels of defect free products and services (Haviland, 2004). From a quality perspective, investment in six sigma quality testing is an “up-front” problem solving methods, rather than an “after the fact “ method where the business is impacted later. This up-front processing is more beneficial to business because it solves problems upstream before they become more expensive to resolve down the line. Businesses find that “problem prevention” or “error proofing” first far out weighs the pay later approach (Haviland, 2004). Creative Problem SolvingAccording to Wetten (2002), creative problem solving is a skillset that is not an innate talent, but one that can be developed. Research suggest that stakeholders, and accrediting bodies of educators, are generating tension to business school to generate a creative problem solving curriculum; as employers across multiple industries encourage these characteristics as a quality skill (Martz, 2016; Wetten, 2002). In general, research suggest that Creative Problem Solving (CPS) is a less linear or strict approach. It is interdependent; and does not require sequential processing. Creative Problem Solving is used when problem solvers want to create something innovative. Divergent thinking will benefit here, because the number of ideas should be significant. Creative Problem Solving involves four stages: Preparation, Incubation, Illumination and Verification (Wetten, 2002). The preparation stage requires a robust definition, an inordinate amount of data and alternatives. The variance between creative problem solving and analytical problem solving lies within the process of the first stages because the first stage allows a great deal of fluency and flexibility. The preparation involves gathering, defining, and generating alternatives from data (Wetten, 2002). Moreover, research suggests that the first stage allows flexibility for leaders to acquire competency of creative problem solving. In other words, leaders can effectively learn to become creative problem solvers in this stage because the next three stages are not reliant on abstract creativity (Wetten, 2002). Correspondingly, Couger (1993) suggests that “divergent thinking”, generates robust possibilities within the first stage. Afterwards the convergent process will follow by narrowing solutions to the best possible options. (Couger, 1993; Poon, 2001). The second stage of Creative Problem Solving is known as the incubation stage. The incubation stage is where a multitudes of ideas come in pursuit of a solution. The more ideas generated, the better possibilities of connecting to real solutions (Wetten, 2002). Illumination is the third stage that arises where insight to a solution is recognized and communicated. The final stage is the verification stage. In this stage, the insight gained is applied as a solution and is evaluated relevant to quality and satisfactory standards. Conceptual Blocks Consequently, there is a downside to creative problem solving as well; it is known as “conceptual blocks (Wetten, 2002). Four known barriers in conceptual blocks are known as Constancy, Commitment, Compression, and Complacency. Barriers with the constancy blocks are vertical thinking and/or or lateral thinking; coined by Edward Debono. “Vertical thinking” parallels an ‘Analytical Thinking’ structure. It concerns itself with choices, continuity, stability, searching for what is right, where did it come from, and developing ideas (Wetten, (2002). “Lateral Thinking” is more of a creative problem solving structure which concerns itself with discontinuity, changes, instability, searches for what is different, stimulating, provocative, where is the idea going, and discovering new ideas. At the same me, constancy includes practices multiple words, imagery and, emotion called ‘thinking language’ (Wetten,2002). The second type of conceptual block is commitment blocks. A commitment block is a perceptual stereo type of mind set that leads to the breakdown of ridged defenses of past experiences, while ignoring other possible commonalities (Wetten, 2002). In this case, problem solvers project solving a current problem defined by past experiences. The third conceptual block is known as compression blocks, which entraps the mindset into artificial thinking of assuming things that does not truly exist. For example, a photographer take a photo of two individuals standing from two separate distances , one person can stand at a distance holding their hand out, a second persons stands at a further distance behind the first person whereby it appears that the second person is standing in the hand of the first. The photo image appears to be holding the second person, in the hand of the first person; when the reality is, they are not. The final conceptual block is known as the complacency block. Complacency is an entrapment of being mentally indolent, non-inquisitive, or biases against thinking (Wetten, 2002). Moreover, is the challenge of not having anyone to ask questions or challenge the status quo. Research suggests that challenging questions are most effective when solving creative problems creatively (Wetten, 2002). Research suggests that overcoming conceptual blocks is possible because conceptual blocks are habits produced by years of thought forming processing. Overcoming its challenge takes practice (Wetten, 2002). Approaches to Communication Based CreativityA realistic approach to problem solving is to follow steps of: planning your approach, understanding the challenge, generating ideas, and preparing for action. These do not have to be processed in sequential format (Lucas, 2018). Creative problem solving is not a fast process; solutions will come with time. Leaders should not fear being offensive by questioning ideas or theories; research suggest the team member are more effective when they challenge the team process, and not go with the status quo (Wetten, 2002). Amabile (2018), suggests enabling all stake holders to overcome long standing issues to move ahead. It also important to enhance diversity by allowing flexibility and being open-minded about to how others think. Finally, putting the right people together to perform the right task.Approaches to various Block IssuesThere are tools to help and support each stage of the creativity process by helping groups to get unstuck or when working with difficult situations. Moreover, such tools can help with the process of staying on track and to move forward and make creative ideas happen. For instance, when problem is huge and not moving forward, leaders can encourage to group to divide problems into steps, and start working through the problem at different point for different situations (Osborne, 2018).Personal Experience of conceptual BlocksWetten (2002) suggests that there are habits of poor thinking or inappropriate assumptions. He further suggests that fear, ignorance, insecurities or mental laziness can be the cause. Self-evaluation has determined complacency as a personal experience. Over the years, the quick answer or solution became sufficient enough to move on and to get to another project. Taking time to invest into solving problems sufficiently has been a force of habit. Without thought, quality processing never hit the radar. Wetten (2002) also suggest that the inability to solve problems from the complacency blocks stem from the unwillingness to ask questions, obtain or search for data. Over the year, the habit of asking questions presented the risk of exposing ignorance, or becoming a project in and of itself, which may be threatening. When questions were not satisfied, it became a problem to find answers. Such threats caused fear and apprehension about being ridiculed by others. Therefore, complacency produces false realities (Wetten, (2002). Conceptual Blocks come from the force of habits of daily living. Research suggests that creative problem solving can be learned (Wetten, 2002). Research suggests that some problems are not as simple or amendable. Leaders who invest in the competencies of learning systematic and analytical solving skill will be the most effective and successful leaders (Wetten). They can achieve success by following the five stages of creative or analytical problem solving methods.ReferencesAmabile, (2018). Increased Innovation and Creativity: Lecture notes: Siena Heights University.Costigan, R. D. & Brink, K.E (2015). On the prevalence of linear versus nonlinear thinking in undergraduate business education: A lot of rhetoric, not enough evidence. Journal of Management and Organization, 21 (4), 535-547.Couger, D.J., Higgins, L.F. & McInyre, S. (1993). (Un)structured creativity in information systems organizations. MIS Quarterly, Minneapolis, 17, 4, 375. Haviland, P. R. (2004). Analytical problem solving: Quality congress. ASQ’s...Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 58, 273-81.Lucas, D. (2018). A realistic approach to creative problem solving lecture. Siena Heights University.Martz, B., Hughes, J. & Braun, F. (2016). Creativity and problem-solving: closing the skills gap. The Journal Of Computer Information Systems 57 (1), 39-48.Osborne, A. (2018). Creative problem solving. Siena Heights University.Poon, J.T., Fatt, T., & Joo, T. (2001). Learning styles: Implications for designed technology education: Management Research News: Patrington, 24(5), 24-34.Thomas, M.P. (1993). The skills of inquire and advocacy: Why managers need both: Business Premium Collection (7), 95.Whetten, D. A, & Cameron, K. M. (2002). Solving problems analytically and creatively. Developing Management Skills, 155-178. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download