Best known group problem solving methods    Osborn-Parnes CPS (Parnes, 1967)          Synectics (Gordon, 1961)           T...
Basadur’s Simplex creative problem solving method
Simplified Basadur’s creative problem solving method                                                       The four-step m...
93 StudentsMethod                   Groups                   Students                  University               Facilitato...
Table 1 – Mean differences and its significance level, before and after CPS sessions, in the factors “Avoiding concentrati...
Table 2 - Mean differences and significance levels, before and after CPS sessions, between factors “ Affective commitment”...
Table 3 – Mean differences and significance levels of the average ratings of judges to the output criteria of Originality,...
•   Creative problem solving methods proved to be able to provide effectiveness in changing individuals’    attitudes towa...
•   Subjects’ evaluations leads us to conclude that the difference between methods may not be only its    duration but its...
coisas que eu podia ter feito e nao fiz
coisas que eu podia ter feito e nao fiz
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

coisas que eu podia ter feito e nao fiz

407 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
407
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

coisas que eu podia ter feito e nao fiz

  1. 1. Best known group problem solving methods Osborn-Parnes CPS (Parnes, 1967) Synectics (Gordon, 1961) TRIZ (Altshuller, 1996) Soft Systems (Checkland & Poulter, 2006)De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats (De Bono, 1965)
  2. 2. Basadur’s Simplex creative problem solving method
  3. 3. Simplified Basadur’s creative problem solving method The four-step method
  4. 4. 93 StudentsMethod Groups Students University Facilitator A--------------B A--------------B5 steps/8 hours 3 32 1--------------2 1---------------1,24 steps/4 hours 3 30 2-------------1 1,2------------2Control 3 31 2-------------1 -Instruments O1 (observation before) to O2 (observation after)A 14-item questionnaire( Basadur, Pringle, Speranzini, & Bacot, 2000) - Preference for avoiding premature closure[AW1] anddeferring judgement,A 14-item team commitment[AW2] questionnaire (Almeida, Faísca, & Jesus, 2007)At the end of the last session, participants were asked to evaluate the process and write their opinion about it.Three judges independently evaluated the problem definition, solution and/or action plan of each group, against three criteria(Besemer & Quin, 1987): originality, resolution and elaboration, and the Interrater Reliability Index (IRI)[AW3] was calculated.
  5. 5. Table 1 – Mean differences and its significance level, before and after CPS sessions, in the factors “Avoiding concentratingonly in idea quality”, and “Deferral of judgement” Divergent thinking factorsCondition Moment N Avoiding concentrating only Deferral of judgement in idea quality Before the sessions 2.31 3.59 After the sessions8h 32 2.71 3.89 Sig. .00 .00 Before the sessions 2.18 3.80 After the sessions4h 30 2.40 3.82 Sig. .00 .81 Before the sessions 2.40 3.79 After the sessionsControl 31 2.51 3.77 Sig. .19 .75
  6. 6. Table 2 - Mean differences and significance levels, before and after CPS sessions, between factors “ Affective commitment”,“Normative commitment” and “Instrumental commitment” Commitment factors Condition Moment N Affective commitment Normative commitment Instrumental commitment Before the sessions 4,30 5,44 3.99 8h After the sessions 32 4,45 5,67 4,21 Sig. .05 .08 .08 Before the sessions 4.28 4.56 3.36 4h After the sessions 30 4.56 5.00 3.77 Sig. .00 .01 .01 Before the sessions 3.73 4.68 3.01 Controlo After the sessions 31 4.00 4.71 3.13 Sig. .13 .89 .61
  7. 7. Table 3 – Mean differences and significance levels of the average ratings of judges to the output criteria of Originality,Resolution and Usefulness, in each condition (N=93). Rating criteriaCondition Elaboration Originality Resolution Total 4h 2.9 3.7 3.7 3.4 8h 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.8 Control 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.1 Significance .01 .01 .00 .00Scheffe test: All groups differ to p<.01 in Originality, and the Control group differs from the others to p<.01 inevery criteriaInterrater Reliability Index .85
  8. 8. • Creative problem solving methods proved to be able to provide effectiveness in changing individuals’ attitudes towards divergent thinking, namely by avoiding premature closure, acceptance of other’s ideas and less self-censorship.• Methods’ capability in providing team commitment, especially of the emotional type.• The subjects also agreed as to the methods’ capability in providing a professional, efficient way of organizing knowledge in such a way that can help individuals to find original solutions to problems, and an important instrument to lead teams to creativity and innovation.• As to the differences between the five-step, eight-hour CPS method, and the four-step, four-hour method, one does not lose effectiveness just by reducing the method’s duration, even when cutting the time in a half.
  9. 9. • Subjects’ evaluations leads us to conclude that the difference between methods may not be only its duration but its entire conception.• The reduction of the importance of the method, now simplified in just two steps (problem finding and action planning), increases the probability that the organization may adopt the method as a way of working, the only difficulty being the facilitation skills needed.• The need for previous training in CPS and the importance of problem definition are not imperatives• About future research, the “great secret” still lies outside the method, either in team composition or in what happens during the execution of the action plan, where ideas are implemented

×