• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Barriers to idea generation for collaborative problem solving
 

Barriers to idea generation for collaborative problem solving

on

  • 271 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
271
Views on SlideShare
271
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Barriers to idea generation for collaborative problem solving Barriers to idea generation for collaborative problem solving Document Transcript

    • Barriers to Idea Generation for Collaborative Problem Solving - Enhancing Creativity through Mental Diversity Heung Ryong WOO * *Seoul National University of Technology C/o College of Art & Design 172 Gongreung-dong Nowon-ku, Seoul 139-743 KOREA, hrwoo@snut.ac.kr Abstract: The primary purpose of this study was to find out the barriers to creative thinking for collaborative problem solving. During the process of idea generation, personal and/or social blocks from these milieus can arise. Unfortunately these blocks are often out of our awareness, or consciousness. These uncertainties distorted our creative and intellectual abilities. Therefore, to remove obstacles to creativity, we need to identify the hurdles on the creative process. One of the effective ways an individual or a group can maximized creative potential is to find and overcome these blocks. We have hypothesized that idea generation is influenced by the barriers, and it has close relationships with the types of brain dominance. Each Brain Dominance Profile(BDP) tends to have preferences for specific processing modes (Skills). The creative idea generation process and the Synergistic Extrinsic Motivator (SEM) for group have reviewed. We have looked into the idea generation process using the technique of protocol analysis. By working out formulae to identify BDP and surveying the blocks to idea generation, we found that close relationships between BDP and Skills, examined barriers to the idea generation, and suggested an approach to mental diversity as a Synergistic ExtrinsicMotivation(SEM). This research has implications on overcoming barriers to idea generation. It could also lead to the development of better approach to expand and enrich our creativity. Especially, it suggests possible advices to enhance the creativity in the Computer-Supported Environment. Keywords: idea generation, collaborative thinking, mental diversity, brain dominance profile 1. Introduction The Nomura Institute’s proposition is that creativity will be the next economic activity, replacing the current focus on information. Just as the industrial revolution replaced agriculture as the dominant economic activity, creativity will replace the ‘information age’ as the next dominant global economic focus. There are many aspects to creativity, but one definition would include the ability to take existing objects and combine them in different ways for new purposes. Design is a goal-directed activity for problem solving. We want to bring about a desired solution of the problem, which is something new and valuable. For that reason, design is more open-ended novel, socially valued products. It is best described as the human capacity to solve problems or to fashion products in a domain. In a way, that is initially novel but ultimately acceptable in a culture. We believe that it can be an effective resource that resides in all people.[1] And it is cultivated and enhanced through the use of deliberate tools, techniques and strategies. The primary purpose of this study was to find out the barriers to creative thinking for collaborative problem solving. During the process of idea generation, personal and/or social blocks from these milieus can arise. Unfortunately these blocks are often out of our awareness, or consciousness. These uncertainties distorted our creative and intellectual abilities. Therefore, to remove obstacles to creativity, we need to identify the hurdles on the creative process. One of the effective ways an individual or a group can maximize creative potential is to find and overcome these blocks. It is necessary to survey the creative thinking processes, and to discuss how to integrate the Hermann’s brain modes for the collaborative design activities. We have paid attention that creativity can be blocked and hampered during the idea generation, and tried to identify them. From our previous research we found that a web-based synchronous groupware (for example, Collaborative Group Thinking System: CGTS)
    • is an important media, which have influences to the collaborative thinking process. For this study, we need to examine the blocks to idea generation and developed the formulae for Brain Dominance Profile (BDP) as a thinking preferences can be coined and presented. Also we have questioned that there are any relationships between the brain dominances(BDP) and processing modes(Skills). In this paper we aimed at helping designer to develop the path of least resistance and create sustainable creative advantage. We have studied how to design out blocks and build in competitive advantage, explored thinking preferences, and identified bottlenecks. 2. Collaborative Thinking with Whole Brain Modes 2.1 Collaborative Thinking Professional design requires some level of collaboration among people involved in the project, such as the designers, builders (or manufacturers), and users. Groze describes collaboration as working jointly with another person/system where interaction only requires working on something. If creativity is defined as the ability to combine different elements of knowledge and experience, the creative potential of a group of people should be larger than that of an individual. [2] The different perspectives of the team members are helpful for group thinking, which provide significant savings of monies and time wasted on ‘misfires’. We have adopted the HermannNehdi’s Whole Brain Mode in order to support the collaborative thinking. He described that the brain is visualized as a circle divided into four quadrants. The four quadrants describe different processing modes that we all have access to. [3] They would be grouped with people whose thinking preferences complemented this person. The potential for synergy is greatly enhanced by forming groups so that each quadrant is accessed relatively equally (thus the term whole-brain groups) [4]. An understanding of different thinking styles is the foundation for any team or group wishing to work on problems creatively. Appreciating different thinking approaches will allow every member of a group to share their thinking and ideas openly. Once that openness occurs, the team’s creativity begins to emerge, taking advantage of the different thinking styles, rather than Cerebral Limbic Right Left A B C D Rational Factual Quantitative Academic Mathematical Authoritarian Analytical Critical Realistic Logical Financial Technical Rational Factual Quantitative Academic Mathematical Authoritarian Analytical Critical Realistic Logical Financial Technical Dominant Organized Tactical Risk-Avoiding Conservative Administrative Scheduled Procedural Sequential Reliable Detailed Intuitive Symbolic Teaching Expressive Reaching-Out Interpersonal Sensitive Supportive Spiritual Feeling Musical ⓒ The Ned Hermann Group Fig. 1 Thinking Characteristics Page 3 experiencing them as obstacles. For the collaborative thinking, we adopted Geschka‘s viewpoint. He argued that creativity is the ability to leave structured paths and modes of thinking, and merge previously unconnected pieces of knowledge and
    • experience to arrive at an idea of how to solve a given problem. Understanding our Brain Dominance Profile(BDP) and the Geschka’s viewpoint provides a new definition of the thinking boundaries we may have created for us. Engaging different thinking strategies and techniques through the heuristic collaborative thinking process we are able to discover new ideas and potential solutions abundantly. [5] Our thinking preferences characterize our approaches to problem solving, creativity, and communicating with others. All use their particular approaches based on successful experiences. We have explored a model of thinking preferences that will be helpful to creative problem solving. Ned Hermann came to recognize that the brain is specialized in the way it functions. These specialized modes can be metaphorically organized into four distinct quadrants, each with its own language, values, and “ways of knowing.” Each person is a unique mix of these modes of thinking preferences and has one or more strong dominances. Dominance has advantages: quick response time and higher skill level, and we use our dominant mode for learning and problem solving. The stronger our preference for one way of thinking, the stronger is our discomfort for the opposite mode. “Opposite” people have great difficulty communicating and understanding each other because they see the world through very different “filters.” [6] (Fig. 1) Therefore the ultimate outcome of idea generation is greatly enhanced by a collaborative team, which is organized with four types of brain dominance. To get out of the limits of the idea generation, it is important to know what the thinking preferences and mental defaults are, and how to generate ideas through the heuristic approaches. The thinking preferences could be discovered by taking an assessment such as the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) or other assessment tools. We took notice of Ned Hermann’s viewpoint that each brain mode is best for the tasks it was designed to perform. What is sorely needed is a better balance and an appreciation for all thinking abilities. We must learn how to find out and integrate our Brain Dominance Profiles (BDP) for whole-brain thinking and problem solving. (X A ,y A ) (X B ,y B ) (X C ,y C ) (X D
    • ,y D ) A D C B O P (X, y) X y Fig. 2 Brain Dominance Profile(BDP) 2.2 Finding Brain Dominance Profile (BDP) It is important to know that a preference for a particular thinking style and an avoidance of another style are of equal consequence to an individual. A preference, particularly a very strong preference, will lead to turn-on work. A lack of preference or an actual avoidance in a quadrant results in being turned off to the mentality of the work elements in the particular quadrant. Being turned on is highly motivational and often represents a state of self-actualization. For these reason, the HBDI profile is quite predictive of a person’s acquisition of competencies and engagement in collaborative thinking.[7] The four-quadrant profile is a metaphor describing Page 4 how a person prefers to acquire and process information, not how fast or accurately they do it. The scoring protocol results in a quantified measure of an individual’s preference for each mental quadrant, which is then charted on a circular grid to make a personalized visual metaphor. [8] To get at the total brain dominance, we changed the scoring protocol into coordination system. We work out some formulae to calculate the center of gravity in order to find and decide the types of brain dominance, Brain Dominance Profile (BDP). From the scoring protocol, we draw points (A, B, C, and D) on the circular grid (Fig.2) P( x , y )↔ OP = ( x , y ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) OA = (x A ,y A ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2)
    • OB = (x B ,y B ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) OC = (x C ,y C ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) OD = (x D ,y D ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) The Cumulative Vector OP is, OP = OA + OB + OC + OD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (6) In the Point A (x A, y A ), x A = OA * (√2 / 2 ), y A = OA * (√2 / 2 ) ------------------------------------------------------------------- (7) (OA = Vector of the brain dominance in ‘A’ quadrant, cosθ = 1 /√2, sinθ = 1 /√2) x B = OB * (√2 / 2 ), y B = OB * (√2 / 2 ) ------------------------------------------------------------------- (8) x C = OC * (√2 / 2 ), y C = OC * (√2 / 2 ) ------------------------------------------------------------------- (9) x D = OD * (√2 / 2 ), y D = OD * (√2 / 2 ) ------------------------------------------------------------------ (10) To find accumulated vectors(OP) in a specific group(major); coordinates of the Point. X = ∑x n , Y = ∑y m → P ( X,Y) ------------------------------------------------------------------- (11) When we have calculated these accumulated vectors from formula (1) to (11), we can find the location of the cumulative Brain Dominance Profile(BDP) as thinking preferences.
    • 3. Processing Modes and Barriers 3.1 Thinking Preferences and Processing Modes [9] Ned Hermann suggested that ‘Differences in Processing Modes’ on the basis of the four-quadrant model.[10] In this study, we have considered that the four quadrants of thinking modes have close relationships with thinking differences in processing modes (Skills). We have taken notice of thinking characteristics and “clues” of the Skill a ・ Analytical ・ Financial ・ Problem solving ・ Scientific Analogies ・ Statistical ・ Technical Skill b ・ Administrative ・ Implementation ・ Organizational ・ Planning ・ Sequential ・ Supervising Skill c ・ Expressing Ideas ・ Interpersonal ・ Teaching ・ Training ・ Writing ・ Persuading Skill d ・ Causing Change ・ Conceptualizing ・ Creative ・ Integrative ・ Intuitive ・ Visualizing Table.1 Differences in Processing Modes (Skills) Page 5 Hermann brain dominance model. [11] The HBDI displays mental preferences, not abilities or competences. However, there is a strong relationship between references and competencies in that typically one lead to another. [12] In order to avoid the barriers to collaborative idea generations, the diversity of processing modes are essential. (Table.1) 3.2 Blocks to Creativity Creative thinking and problem solving is admired and generally encouraged by organizations. Although interpersonal and organizational changes can help unleash creativity, psychological blocks can arise at each stage of the creative process. Conceptual blocks are mental walls which lock the problem-solver from correctly perceiving a problem or conceiving its solution. Everyone has them. However, they vary in quantity and in intensity from individual to individual. The blocks are closely related, as you will see when you begin to consider them. [13] (Table. 2) a) Perceptual Blocks: Perceptual blocks are obstacles which prevent the problem-solver from clearly perceiving
    • either the problem itself or the information that is necessary to solve the problem. They affect the way we see things. b) Cultural Blocks: Cultural blocks are acquired by exposure to a given set of cultural patterns. They include all the effects of society on the individual. c) Environmental Blocks: Environmental blocks are imposed by our immediate social and physical environment. The most obvious blocks are the physical. d) Emotional Blocks: Emotional blocks may interfere with the freedom with which we explore and manipulate ideas, with our ability to conceptualize fluently and flexibly- and prevent us from communicating ideas to others in a manner which will gain them acceptance. e) Intellectual Blocks: Intellectual blocks result in an inefficient choice of mental tactics or a shortage of intellectual ammunition. Expressive blocks inhibit one’s vital ability to communicate ideas-not only to others, but to oneself as well. [14] One of the quickest ways an individual or a group can maximize creative potential is to find and overcome these blocks. Unfortunately these blocks are often out of our awareness, or consciousness. They stem from our Perceptual ・ Difficulty in Isolating the Problem ・ Tendency to Delimit the Problem Area Too Closely ・ Inability to See the Problem from Various Viewpoints ・ Seeing What You Expect to See – Stereotype ・ Saturation ・ Failure to Utilize All Sensory Input Cultural ・ Fantasy and reflection are a waste of time, laze, even crazy ・ Playfulness is for children only ・ Problem-solving is a serious business and humor is out of place ・ Reason, logic, numbers, utility, practicality are good ・ Tradition is preferable to change ・ Taboo Environmental ・ Lack of cooperation and trust among colleagues ・ Autocratic boss who values only his ideas ・ Distractions-phone, easy intrusions ・ Lack of support to bring ideas into action ・ Forced atmosphere ・ Uncomfortable interior environment Emotional ・ Fear to make a mistake, to fail, to risk ・ overriding desires for security, order ・ Preference for judging ideas, rather than generating them ・ Inability to relax, incubate, and “sleep on it” ・ Lack of challenge ・ Excessive zeal; over motivation to succeed quickly Intellectual ・ Solving the problem using an incorrect language (verbal, mathematical, visual) ・ Inflexible or inadequate use of intellectual problemsolving ・ Lack of, or incorrect, information ・ Inadequate language skill to express and record ideas (verbally, musically, visually, etc.) ・ Lack of understanding of related information ・ Lack of mental faculties of the specialized area
    • Table.2 Blocks to Idea Generation Page 6 uncertainty about ourselves, specifically that we feel insignificant, incompetent, and/or unlikable. These uncertainties typically distort our creative and intellectual abilities since they lead us to try to avoid, respectively, being ignored, humiliated, and rejected. Although these blocks may seem unnoticed to the creative process, in fact, identifying them is the key to expanding and enriching our creativity. Recognizing these blocks to idea generation is the first step toward removing the blocks to creativity and, ultimately, toward feeling better about ourselves.[15] 3.3 Motivation and Mental Diversity for Creativity We have reviewed of theories on the motivation for creativity. Creativity can arise from a complex interplay of motivational forces. Here we focused two types of motivation that stems from the individual’s personal involvement in the collaborative idea generation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Amabile proposed two prolonged hypothesis about how motivation affects creativity: “The intrinsically motivated state is conducive to creativity, whereas the extrinsically motivated state is detrimental”. We adapted the definitions by Collins & Amabile. Intrinsic motivation is defined as the motivation to engage in an activity primarily for its own sake, because the individual perceives the activity as interesting, involving, satisfying, or personally challenging. By contrast, extrinsic motivation is defined as the motivation to engage in an activity primarily in order to meet some external goals to the work itself, such as attaining an expected reward, winning a competition, or meeting some requirement. [16] We paid attention to a revised understanding of how extrinsic motivation affects creativity. The concept of extrinsic motivation has been refined to include two facets: control and information. Under many conditions, extrinsic motivation will be perceived as externally controlling, but there are times when it may actually be perceived as providing useful, and desired, information. Amabile identified two types of extrinsic motivators: Synergistic extrinsic motivators, which provide information or enable the person to better complete the task and which can act in concert with intrinsic motives; and non-synergistic, extrinsic motivators, which lead the person to feel controlled and are incompatible with intrinsic motives. Thus, although intrinsic motivation may be inversely related to some types of extrinsic motivation (non-synergistic), it may combine additively with others, synergistic, extrinsic motivators. We adopted this concept of motivational synergy for our study, which has contributed to a
    • revision of the intrinsic motivation hypothesis: “Intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity; controlling extrinsic motivation is detrimental to creativity, but informational or enabling extrinsic motivation can be conducive, particularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high.” [17] In enhancing creativity, it is important to consider not only the Brain Dominance Profile(BDP), but also their interaction: mental diversity. It suggests that creativity will be highest in that area the members of group are connected each other. In other words, people are most likely to be creative within their “creative intersection.” Identifying this interconnection can be an important step toward enhancing creativity. Non-Synergistic Extrinsic Motivation Synergistic Extrinsic Motivation Fig. 3 Synergistic & Non-Synergistic Extrinsic Motivation Page 7 [18] The new theoretical conceptions of motivational synergy also have implications for enhancing the motivational component of creativity (Amabile, 1993). Any extrinsic factors that support one’s sense of competence without undermining one’s sense of self-determination should positively contribute to intrinsic motivation. These are the synergistic extrinsic motivators which has been connected each other. We have applied the mental diversity of BDP to Synergistic Extrinsic Motivation(SEM). (Fig. 3) shows the synergistic and nonsynergistic connections among the Extrinsic Motivators. We examined the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for the idea generation by investigating several theories about creativity. From the previous studies and arguments, we believe that creativity can be enhanced by Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators (SEM) with mental diversity. Therefore, it needs to be more investigated to enhance the collaborative idea generation in the cyber space. 4. Experiments and Discussion In order to make up mental diversity, first of all, we need to identify personal Brain Dominance Profile (BDP) then group’s one. Secondly, we examined the relationships between BDPs and blocks to idea generation. Especially, from formulae of Brain Dominance Profile (BDP), we have calculated the accumulated vectors of the cumulative BDPs, then analyzed them. 4.1 Hypothesis We have formed the following hypotheses to address the questions posed at Introduction. Hypothesis 1: There are close relationships between the brain dominance types and the types of competences to problem solving. This is based on the belief that Ned Hermann’s ‘Differences in Processing Mode’.
    • Hypothesis 2: There are close relationships between the brain dominance types and the types of blocks to idea generation. This is based on the belief that psychological blocks can arise at each stage of creative process. 4.2 Examination We have designed the experiments and its procedures to verify the hypothesis. Followings are experiment measures. Fig. 4 Brain Dominance Types of Four Majors. a) Subjects are asked to fill a questionnaire with 5 point Likert type scales: The focus of these experiments is to examine the Brain Dominance Profile(BDP). b) Investigation: We set up four investigations: - Brain Dominance Mode Thinking Characteristics - Blocks to Idea Generation - Differences in Processing Modes(Skills) - Barriers to Effective Communication c) Period: April 1st 30 th 2003. d) Subject: total 950 subjects were participated for the experiments. All subjects were under graduate students from 33 departments in ‘A’ university in Seoul, Korea. Page 8 4.3 Discussion a) The personal Brain Dominance Modes are calculated and changed into Brain Dominance Profile(BDP) separately. After we had gained the quantified measures of an individual’s preferences of brain dominances, we had calculated the coordinates, then have drawn graphs. Fig.4 show us the different cluster of BDP from the four different majors. These graphs tell us the obvious the specific major of subjects. Total clusters of the 33 majors show no specific directions and scattered in all directions. (Fig. 4) Table.3 Relationship between Brain Types and Skills. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 / N = 210 Brian Type A B C D skill a 0.49817 0.40886 0.03984 0.28046 <.0001 <.0001 0.5659 <.0001 skill b 0.39969 0.39877 0.15599 0.22702 <.0001 <.0001 0.0238 0.0009
    • skill c 0.01051 -0.05268 0.35712 0.26633 0.8797 0.4477 <.0001 <.0001 skill d 0.23160 0.14845 0.41134 0.52732 <.0007 0.0315 <.0001 <.0001 b) The output of Correlation Analysis shows the brain type ‘A’ and ‘skill a’ has fairly close relationship (0.498) at 0.0001 significance.; type ‘B’ and ‘skill b’ 0.398, type ‘C’ and ‘skill c’ 0.357, type ‘D’ and ‘skill d’ 0.527 at 0.0001 significance. Four shaded ellipses show coincident ratios between brain types and skill. (Table. 3) c) Different Skills under a specific brain types are prominent. Especially, it is clear that ‘statistical’, ‘writing’, ‘interpersonal’, ‘problem solving’, and ‘analytical’ skills between type A and type C as the diagonally opposing quadrant are prominent, and ‘causing change’, ‘visualizing’, and ‘intuitive’ skills between type B and type D are also obvious. Differences of skills between type A and type B in the left brain dominance are larger at ‘intuitive’, ‘statistical’, ‘causing change’, and ‘visualizing’; Differences of skills between type C and type D in the right brain dominance ‘statistical’, ‘visualizing’, and ‘interpersonal’ than others. Differences of skills between brain dominances are greater in the diagonally opposing quadrant between type A and type C, type B and D than left/right dominances or cerebral/limbic modes. On the whole, the differences between left brain and right one are vivid. We examined the hypothesis 1 as (Table 4). We can assume that there are close relationships between brain types and skills. d) Differences of the blocks to idea generation under a specific brain types are prominent. Firstly, between type A and C as the diagonally opposing quadrant, emotional, intellectual blocks are prominent; between type B and D, emotional, cultural, and perceptual blocks are prominent. Secondly, between type A and D as the same cerebral dominance, emotional and perceptual blocks are salient: g s i n g r
    • s o n a l e c al m S o lv i n g c a l s t r at i o n g C h an g e d i n g in g Skills A D C B Brain Type Strongly Agree Agree In Between Disagree Legend * P l a n n in * S u p e r v i * I n t e r p e *I n t u i t
    • i v * A n a l y ti * P r o b l e * S t a t i s t i * A d m i n i * C a u s in * P e r s u a *W r it in g * V i s u a l iz Table. 4 Relationship between Brain Types and Skills. Page 9 between type B and C as the same limbic dominance, cultural and perceptual block are salient. Thirdly, between type A and B as the same left brain dominance, cultural blocks are remarkable: between type C and D as the same right brain dominance, emotional block are salient.(Fig.5) On the whole, environmental and intellectual blocks are not greater than others. And emotional, cultural
    • and perceptual blocks have more salient influence on idea generation. From the experiments we coined some findings as followings: Firstly, we found some results that Brain Dominance Modes reflect their specific characteristics in the major field of study. These mean we can set up more efficient Synergistic Extrinsic Motivator (SEM) for a problem solving with mixed majors. Secondly, Relationships between Brain types and blocks tell us that every brain type has some blocks. However, these are not typical ones in them. As results, we found that there are no fixed types of blocks in a brain type. Brain Types and Blocks to Idea Generation 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Perceptual Block Cultural Blocks Environmental Blocks Emotional Blocks Intellectual Blocks Type A Type B Type C Type D Fig. 5 Brain Types and Blocks to Idea Generation 5. Conclusion In this paper, we examined the skills and blocks under each BDP and found the ways of breaking barriers and making synergy through mental diversity from four quadrants. Our experience has shown there is a clear advantage to having all four thinking modes represented on a team rather than those with similar preferences. This is based on the findings that each brain dominance mode has its own processing modes, Skills. Idea generation could be continuously increased their dimensions through collaborative thinking process, which is coined of mental diversity. We have confirmed that the relationships between Brain Dominance Profile (BDP) and the Skills are close. And when we have mental diversity formed with BDP, it is conduced to the collaborative idea generation process. The findings suggest that an approach for conducing the design idea generation through Synergistic Extrinsic Motivation(SEM). Also it is discussed the compound of dominances of four brain modes (A, B, C, and D-Mode) are significantly positive to the creativity.
    • Although, we have not yet identified the full extrinsic motivation, these findings support the group thinking process, and these results are helpful to reinforce the bases for design idea generation. In order to generalize these results, we need to apply these results into other problem solving fields. Also, it is necessary to do more studies on the cognitive thinking process. There seems to be a broad consensus among researchers that internal, or intrinsic, motivation is more effective determinant of creativity than external, or extrinsic, motivation. We have noted several approaches to the enhancement of creativity which is suggested by the assumptions and thinking of many researchers in the field. In most cases, direct and compelling evidence of their effectiveness is Page 10 lacking. Situational and contextual variables may also interact with motivation to influence creativity. Our understanding of the relationship between motivation and creativity cannot stand on its own but must be complemented by attention to personality, talent, culture, cognition, and other factors affecting the creative process. The future of research on motivation and creativity holds many exciting new questions. Perhaps the most promising area for future investigations of motivation and creativity concerns the consideration of barriers and overcoming them in the Computer-Supported Environment. Acknowledgements This paper was supported by the research fund of “Seoul National University of Technology” References 1. Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligence: The theory in practice. Basic Books: New York, 14 (1993). 2. Geschka, H., Creativity techniques in product planning and development; A view from West Germany, R&D Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 169-183 (1983). 3. Hermann-Nehdi, A. Creative and Strategic Thinking: The Coming Competencies, http://www.hbdi.com/docs/Ann_CreativityandStrategicThinking.pdf, 2001;3. 4. Lumsdane, E. and Lumsdane, M. Creative Problem Solving. McGraw Hill: New York, 1995; 30-73, 75-80. 5. ibid. Hermann-Nehdi, A., p.3. 6. Lumsdane, E. Lumsdane, M., Shelnutt, J. William, Creative Problem Solving and Engineering Design, McGraw Hill: New York, 51,(1999). 7. Hermann Ned, The Whole Brain Business Book, McGrawHill, 31, (1996). 8. Hermann Ned. The Creative Brain. The Ned Hermann Group. 70, (1995). 9. ibid Hermann Ned. The Creative Brain, 425. 10. ibid. Hermann Ned, The Whole Brain Business Book, 118. 11. Edward Lumsdane, Monika Lumsdaine, J. William Sheluntt. Creaticve Problem Solving and Engineering Desing McGrawHill 1999. p53 12. ibid. Hermann Ned, The Whole Brain Business Book, 30. 13. Adams, James L., Conceptual Blockbusting, W.W.Norton & Company.13, (1976).
    • 14. Ibid. Adams, James L., 13-74. 15. Will Schutz, Overcoming Barriers to Creativity, R&D Innovator Vol.4. Number 6. 16. Collins, Mary Ann and Amabile, Teresa M. “Motivation and Creativity” in Handbook of Creativity Robert J. Sternberg ed. Cambridge University Pres: New York, 299-300, (1999). 17. ibid. p304 18. ibid. p307