Changing the Perspective: Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation (Knoll, S.W. &a

Changing the Perspective: Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation STEFAN WERNER KNOLL and GRAHAM HORTON Stefan Werner Knoll is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Computer Science in the research field of ideation and collaboration engineering at Otto-von-GuerickeUniversity, Magdeburg, Germany, from which received his M.Sc. in computational visualistics. Since 2008, his research has been funded by a scholarship from the state of Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany. The goal of his Ph.D. dissertation is to define requirements for a collaboration engineering modeling language that supports the collaboration engineering approach.

Graham Horton is a professor of simulation and modeling in the Computer Science Department at Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg, Germany. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Erlangen, Germany, and received his Habilitation from the same university, in the field of simulation. His research interests include efficient solution algorithms for Markov chains, state space-based simulation methods, and idea engineering.

Abstract: In the field of collaboration engineering, thinkLets describe reusable and transferable collaborative activities to reproduce known patterns of collaboration.

This paper focuses on thinkLets of the pattern Generate, which define collaboration activities to produce and share new contributions by a group. We address the question whether the small number of published Generate thinkLets can adequately represent the various approaches contained in published idea generation techniques. We used a cognitive model to analyze 101 idea generation techniques with regard to the underlying mental principles that stimulate the ideation process by deliberately activating larger areas of the knowledge network. We present three changes of perspective based on these principles, which can be used to formalize the underlying mechanisms of idea generation techniques. The paper shows how these three principles can be used to improve Generate thinkLets and discusses how this formalization can improve the applicability of information systems for ideation processes.

Key words and phrases: change of perspective, cognitive model of ideation, collaboration engineering, idea generation, thinkLet.

In a world of rapid change, both profit-making and non-profit-making organizations have to be innovative to maintain their competitive position. In order to obtain synergy effects, organizations may implement an innovation process to combine the expertise Journal of Management Information Systems / Summer 2011, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 85–114. Š 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 0742–1222 / 2011 $9.50 + 0.00.

DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-1222280104

86

KNOLL and HORTON

and knowledge of their employees. These multistage processes combine a variety of phases, including idea generation and assessment, concept development and project planning, development, prototyping and testing, as well as production and market introduction [8].

Cooper sees the predevelopment phase, which ranges from the generation of an idea to either its approval for development or its termination, as a weak link in the innovation process: “deficiencies here—poor ideas, too few ideas, and poor screening—result in costly problems in later stages of the process” [7, p. 241]. In order to improve the predevelopment phase, many innovation processes implement the ideation phase by workshops that make use of idea generation techniques. These techniques provide a variety of approaches to support the generation of a large number of ideas. There are many different innovation goals—for example, incremental product improvements, radical new solutions to customer problems, new business models, or future business platforms—and ideally, idea generation techniques should inspire ideas that meet these goals by construction. However, in practice, these techniques tend to be generic in nature and therefore have a very low success rate. We believe that understanding the principles underlying ideation can enable more goal-oriented generation processes.

Today, collections with more than 100 idea generation techniques can be found to support the ideation process in a face-to-face workshop [23, 44, 45]. Several studies exist that characterize and classify the large number of existing idea generation techniques [22, 41, 44], but little research attention has been given to idea generation techniques that are explicitly geared toward a given innovation goal. As a result, no clear guidelines exist to support the selection of an appropriate idea generation technique for the ideation process.

Besides a face-to-face workshop, organizations can use technological support to implement the ideation processes in distributed environments with global teams.

An example of this technical support is a group support system (GSS), a meeting environment based on information technology (IT). A GSS offers a variety of local or Web-based tools that link a group via computers and assists them in structuring activities and improving communication [36, 48]. Many information systems implement ideation as a divergent thinking process. In this process, the participants use the provided tools and methods to contribute ideas individually while also reading and elaborating on the ideas of others to improve the overall result. Research shows that factors such as the type of used stimuli [20, 21] or the group size [16, 43] can influence the quality of an ideation process. As a result, experience is necessary for the implementation of an ideation process using technological support, especially in the case of the technological implementation of face-to-face idea generation techniques.

Many of these techniques recommend the use of physical tools or materials (e.g., balloons, newspapers, or whiteboards) to support the ideation process, but provide no information on how these tools and materials influence the cognitive process of the individuals and the social process of a group, or how they might be implemented analogously using ITs. In the field of collaboration engineering, the concept of the thinkLet represents a technology-independent approach to support ideation in face-to-face as well as

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

87

technology-supported workshops. Collaboration engineering is an approach to designing collaboration work processes for recurring high-value tasks and deploying those designs for practitioners to execute for themselves without ongoing support by professional facilitators [5]. In this approach, collaboration processes can be classified into six key patterns of collaboration. Each pattern describes the collaborative activities of a group over a period of time as the group moves from a starting state to some end state [27]. Researchers can use this classification to collect, create, document, and test design patterns, called thinkLets, for each of the patterns of collaboration [4]. With regard to the ideation process, thinkLets of the collaboration pattern Generate can be used to design ideation processes that can be implemented in face-to-face as well as technology-supported workshops. Generate thinkLets define collaboration activities that move from having fewer to more concepts in the pool of concepts shared by the group [5]. Given the large number of idea generation techniques, it is interesting to consider that so far only seven Generate thinkLets have been published [3]. From the literature, it remains unclear if the given Generate thinkLets provide all possible approaches represented by existing idea generation techniques. Furthermore, thinkLets place the interventions necessary to perform the techniques in the “Modifier,� discussed later. One result of this study is that this is insufficient and that Generate thinkLets should be extended to include an element that is dedicated to facilitating the various ideation principles that we describe.

Our interest is in improving the methodological foundation for idea generation. In this study, we use a cognitive model to analyze published idea generation techniques with respect to their underlying mental principles that influence the cognitive process of an individual and lead to new ideas. Each principle defines a sequence of formal steps that stimulates and guides the ideation process by providing a change of perspective. In this paper, we show how these changes of perspective can be used to support ideation. We introduce a new approach that implements these changes of perspective with Generate thinkLets and argue how it can be used to improve ideation either in a traditional face-to-face workshop or in an IT-based group meeting environment.

State of the Art in Ideation Research The purpose of this paper is to understand the mental activities of individuals that lead to ideas and the idea generation techniques that correspond to them. In a manner consistent with other researchers [2, 17, 22], we focus on ideation as a process for generating ideas that can be guided by idea generation techniques. During ideation, the mental process of an individual can be described as the exploration and transformation of conceptual spaces to generate new ideas [30].

Different stepwise models [1, 22, 37, 49] exist that assume that various phases occur in the ideation process of an individual. A generic model is given by Warr and O’Neill [50], who combine common models and divide the process of the generation of an idea into the following three mental phases: problem preparation, idea generation, and idea evaluation. Problem preparation involves building knowledge about the problem from information resources. By gathering relevant information about the problem and

88

KNOLL and HORTON

reviewing it, the individual knows what a potential solution may necessitate. In the idea generation phase, the individual produces novel ideas through a combination of existing knowledge. Idea evaluation assesses the novel ideas for their appropriateness as a solution to the given problem.

An idea generation technique represents a formalized protocol [40] that provides step-by-step sequences of actions or instructions to guide the individual during the ideation process. Different collections of idea generation techniques have been published that provide a large number of idea generation techniques for ideation in a traditional face-to-face workshop [23, 44, 45]. Many of these techniques are generic, that is, they are presented in a non-problem-specific form. Several studies exist that characterize and classify a large number of existing idea generation techniques [22, 41, 44]. For example, VanGundy [44] subdivides idea generation techniques into group and individual techniques and characterizes them along several dimensions: whether idea generation is verbal or silent, whether ideas are produced by forced relationships or free association, and whether the technique employs stimuli that are related or unrelated to the problem. However, from the literature, we found no approach that provides guidelines for selecting a technique for a given problem or innovation goal; the faithful appropriation of idea generation techniques for ideation is still a challenge.

During ideation workshops, individuals work with others as part of a formal or informal group to generate ideas. Under these conditions, the collaboration process of a group guided by idea generation techniques is both a cognitive process within individual group members and a social process as group members interact [11]. The resulting behavior of the group can lead to different social phenomena such as production blocking [13], evaluation apprehension [12], or intrinsic motivation [1] that may influence the performance of ideation.

IT can be used to reduce certain negative social phenomena that occur in a face-toface workshop [10, 15, 39]. For example, ITs such as GSS can provide anonymity during the ideation process, which mitigates evaluation apprehension [35]. Ideas can be generated and stored simultaneously, so there is less production blocking [9].

Today, several tools and methods have been built to support ideation with ITs (e.g., electronic brainstorming tools [10] or the design pattern thinkLet [5, 27]) to design collaboration processes that can be implemented with IT. However, it remains unclear if the given tools and methods provide all possible mental approaches that are given by published idea generation techniques to support the mental process of an individual.

We see this as a research gap and use a cognitive model to analyze idea generation techniques against their underlying mental principles that influence the cognitive process of an individual.

Idea Engineering: An Engineering Approach for Ideation Our research looks at idea generation techniques from an engineering perspective [24]. We view the ideation process as a manufacturing process, and our research is aimed toward developing a scientific basis for ideation using idea generation techniques that provide a theoretical understanding of the ideation process and practical rules

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

89

for practitioners to improve it. We focus on idea generation techniques as formalized protocols that guide the ideation process of a group of individuals. Under this condition, an idea generation technique guides both a cognitive process within individual group members and a social process as group members interact. In order to analyze and understand the underlying principles of idea generation techniques that support ideation, we adapt an approach by Smith [41], who regards idea generation techniques as a combination of different ingredients. As a result, we define the ingredients of an idea generation technique by the terms Algorithm, Format, and Setting: • Algorithm defines a sequence of formal steps that guides the mental activities of the individual. These formal steps can use stimuli to lead the individuals to different areas of their knowledge and support the exploration and transformation of conceptual spaces of an individual to generate new ideas [20, 30].

• Format refers to the implementation of the Algorithm when carried out. It defines how the group members interact during the ideation process as well as what tools or materials can be used to support the mental activities of the individuals. For example, Format could define if the participants will work in a group or individually, or if they generate ideas verbally or silently [44].

• Setting refers to the implementation of the Algorithm by using the Format for a given group situation. The ideation process and its outcomes are affected by a myriad of factors such as characteristics of the group (e.g., group size, group proximity, and the experience of the individuals) and the context (e.g., organizational culture and environment). The resulting social phenomena can influence the performance of an idea generation technique; for example, evaluation apprehension [12] (the fear of negative evaluation by others) may cause group members to withhold their ideas. The Setting defines how possible social phenomena can be affected by changing the Format to create an environment that supports the ideation process. For example, if the group is susceptible to evaluation apprehension, the format can be changed from verbal to silent in order to generate ideas in an anonymous form.

Lubart [29] argues that in terms of a comprehensive understanding of the ideation process, researchers need to specify their fundamental subprocesses. Several researchers [14, 31, 32, 40, 51] have used cognitive models to specify and study these cognitive processes of an individual and their application to existing knowledge structures for the generation of ideas. In order to gain a better understanding of the underlying mental activities of the individual, we used a cognitive model called search for ideas in associative memory (SIAM) [32, 33, 34] to analyze the Algorithm of an idea generation technique.

SIAM: A Cognitive Model for Ideation The cognitive model SIAM is based on Raaijmakers and Shiffrin’s [38] model of memory retrieval, which rests on a foundation of standard cognitive psychology assumptions. Like most cognitive models, SIAM assumes that humans have two memory

90

KNOLL and HORTON

Figure 1. Network of Knowledge

systems: the long-term memory (LTM) and the working memory (WM). The LTM is assumed to be a storage area that is essentially permanent and has unlimited capacity for previously acquired knowledge. Knowledge is stored as a richly interconnected network with numerous levels, categories, and associations. This network is partitioned into images: knowledge structures that consist of a central concept and a number of features of that concept or associations with that concept. For example, the concepts Employee, Department, Lab, Warehouse, Product, and Service may be grouped together into the image called Organization (see Figure 1). Images have fuzzy boundaries, may overlap to a considerable degree, and have mutual associations. Thus, a concept within an image has links of different strength to other images that contain related concepts. For example, the concept Lab of the image Organization is also strongly associated with the images for University, Science, and Pharmacy. The strength of the link may be due to the frequency of its traversal, or the relatedness among the images that it connects [6].

The WM is assumed to be a temporary storage system that has limited capacity and functions. Humans may use the WM to execute conscious operations, such as rehearsal, recognition, and decision making.

The Cognitive Ideation Process Based on SIAM, the ideation process of an individual can be described as a controlled associative process that proceeds in two stages [32]. In the first stage, the individual activates knowledge in the LTM as a result of a search cue. The search cue is generated in the WM by external stimuli that are received through the five senses of the individual, such as a word, a picture, or a smell. The individual can modify a given search cue by adding previously retrieved knowledge or combining different stimuli.

Which image in the LTM will be activated is probabilistic and depends on the association between the search cue and the concepts of the image. The activated image

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

91

will be temporarily stored in the WM, after which the concepts and associations of that image become accessible.

In the second stage, active knowledge is used in the WM to generate ideas by forming new associations or by applying knowledge to a new domain [30]. The individual combines the concepts of the image with one another or with elements of the search cue. Thus, generated ideas will be semantically related to each other. Over a period of time, the individual will generate more ideas that have already been mentioned.

Smith [42] explains this effect with the assumption that a generated idea is strongly associated with the problem, the search cue, and the active image from which it is generated. This association will increase the chance that a particular idea is generated again. In this case, the individual activates new knowledge by creating a new search cue that can incorporate some of the recently generated ideas. The process will be terminated if the individual gets the impression that only a few additional ideas can be generated.

Change of Perspective: How to Overcome Occupational Blindness The cognitive model SIAM allows us to answer the question of why problem solvers often consider only a small area of the solution space and think primarily within bounded areas of their knowledge networks [19, 30]. Nijstad and Stroebe [32] assume that the individual uses a search cue to retrieve knowledge. Without any external stimuli, the individual will modify the search cue by adding previously retrieved knowledge or generated ideas. Therefore, the active knowledge during the ideation process will be semantically related. The likelihood of forming new associations between previously unrelated images decreases. However, ideation research assumes that these unexpected associations between previously unrelated images lead to the formation of creative ideas [30].

Research proposes using external stimuli as an intervention to lead the individuals to different areas of their knowledge networks. The resulting new perspectives on a given problem or task allow the individual to combine concepts of semantically unrelated images. Therefore, generated ideas will cover larger areas of the possible solution space. We see the use of external stimuli as a basic requirement for an ideation process and call the resulting mental process of an individual a “change of perspective.” We define the change of perspective as a mental principle that uses external stimuli to activate larger areas of the knowledge network of an individual that would not be activated by an associative process. We assume that the change of perspective helps the individual to leave well-trodden thought paths and overcome occupational blindness (see Figure 2).

Idea generation techniques provide several approaches to generate and use external stimuli as an intervention to support the ideation process. For example, Combo Chatter [45] combines different words related to the given task and uses the combination as semantic stimulation. In contrast, Greeting Cards [45] uses random pictures from magazines as stimuli to generate ideas. Obviously, these idea generation techniques vary in the Format ingredient, but whether they differ in the Algorithm ingredient is

92

KNOLL and HORTON

Figure 2. Change of Perspective

not apparent. Furthermore, the influence of external stimuli on the mental activities of the individual is not well understood.

Research Method In order to gain a theoretical understanding of the different ways that stimuli enhance mental activities, we analyzed the Algorithm ingredient of a large, representative set of idea generation techniques using the cognitive model SIAM. The guiding analytical question was: Which mental principle is used by this technique to promote idea generation?

The methodology used is similar to that used by Smith [41] and is focused on the relationship between the creative task and the instructions provided, the material used, and the intended outcome of an idea generation technique. We analyzed the intended mental and physical activities for the given instructions of a collection of 101 idea generation techniques [45]. This collection contains all of the well-known ideation methods (albeit often using unconventional terminology), and we consider it to be representative of the techniques in current ideation practice. The cognitive model SIAM was used to describe possible mental processes that result from these instructions and the interaction of the individuals as a group. The activities were formalized to a specific sequence of activity steps of a given technique. Each sequence of steps was subsequently normalized: recurring steps were deleted, similar steps were consolidated, and complex steps were divided into basic steps such as knowledge activation, selection, and association forming.

To illustrate what was done, consider the following analysis of the idea generation technique Turn Around [45, p. 225]. This technique has four steps:

1. Instruct the group to state their problem simply and clearly and write it on a flip chart for all to see.

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

93

2. Tell the group to list all assumptions about their problem on a flip chart. Remind them that even obvious assumptions might be valuable.

3. Tell them to reverse each assumption in any way possible and write each reversal down on flip-chart paper.

4. Tell the group to use each assumption as a trigger for new ideas, write each idea on a sticky note, and attach these to a flip-chart for evaluation.

The analysis of the instructions reveals a number of different mental and physical activities of an individual. The first step of the technique includes the mental activity “to think about the problem,” which can be described as a mental process of using the problem as a search cue to activate knowledge in the LTM. The activated knowledge in the WM will be collected by the physical activity “to write a problem statement down.” The second step represents an activity loop between the mental activity “to create an assumption” and the physical activity “to collect the assumption.” During the mental activity, the problem statement is used as a task-related stimulus to activate a knowledge area in the LTM related to the problem. Assumptions in this knowledge area will be concepts that are strongly associated with the image for the problem statement. In the third step, the individual is requested “to select an assumption,” “to create a reversed assumption,” and “to collect this reversed assumption.” The assumptions used result from the image “problem statement” and therefore represent task-related stimuli for the mental activity “to create a reversed assumption.” During the mental activity, the individual challenges the existing relationships in the WM between the image and concept. The last step instructs the individual “to select a generated reversed assumption” and to use it as a stimulus “to create new ideas” as well as “to collect generated ideas.” In this step, the individual uses a selected reversed assumption in combination with the problem statement as a stimulus to activate knowledge areas about consequences of the resulting situation. The activated images are used in the WM to generate ideas by forming new associations or by applying knowledge to the problem domain.

We discovered that the mental activities involved can be mapped onto just three mental principles: Jumping, Dumping, and Pumping. Each of these principles represents a formalized protocol to guide the ideation process for an individual. Depending on the characteristic of the used stimuli, these principles create a change of perspective by setting a focus in the knowledge network and modifying the given associations in the knowledge network or activating knowledge areas that would not be activated by an associative process.

Mental Principle: Jumping The mental principle Jumping refers to a cognitive mechanism called analogical thinking, in which the individual transfers information from different situations and uses it to generate new ideas [14, 18, 51]. When these situations are unrelated to the creative task, we refer to them as random; when they are related, they are known as analogies. The formalized Algorithm of an idea generation technique uses external

94

KNOLL and HORTON

stimuli to activate distant knowledge areas that have no or only a weak association to the image of the creative task (we jump to a distant location in the associative network).

By definition, the mental principle Jumping creates a change of perspective.

To find a similar situation, the individual uses task-related stimuli: concepts of the images of the given creative task. These characteristic concepts will be combined with an external stimulus (i.e., facilitator instruction) that requests the individual to search for an analogous situation with the same concepts. The resulting search cues lead to images of analogous situations.

To find a random situation, the individual uses task-unrelated stimuli: random elements that have no relation to the given creative task. These random elements are mostly provided as words (e.g., the techniques Picled Brains, Say What?, or Fairy Tale Time) or physical elements such as sculptures or inkblots (e.g., the techniques Sculptures or Rorschach Revisionist) [45].

Analogous and random images are used by the individual to activate knowledge about analogous tasks and how these have been or might be solved. The resulting ideas will be incorporated into a new search cue with the goal of applying these ideas to the original task.

The following list presents the mental principle Jumping as a formal sequence of steps using task-related stimuli (compare to Figure 3): The creative task: We are looking for new ideas for our supermarket.

1. Select a characteristic attribute of the creative task.

A supermarket sells goods whose demand fluctuates.

2. Find an analogous situation with the same attribute.

A stock exchange.

3. Imagine how the task might be solved in this analogous situation.

The stock exchange has real-time prices that are based on current supply and demand.

4. Generate ideas by applying a solution to the creative task.

Implement a dynamic pricing system in the supermarket that is based on current stock levels and demand.

The following list presents the mental principle Jumping by using task-unrelated stimuli (compare to Figure 4): The creative task: How could we raise awareness of our luxury hotel facilities in the local business community?

1. Select a random element.

Bacchus

Figure 3. Mental Principle Jumping Using Task-Related Stimuli

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation 95

Figure 4. Mental Principle Jumping Using Task-Unrelated Stimuli

96 KNOLL and HORTON

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

97

2. Select a characteristic attribute of the random element.

Bacchus enjoys drinking wine.

3. Select a characteristic attribute of the creative task.

Our hotel has a spacious lounge.

4. Generate ideas by combining these attributes.

Host a wine-tasting event for local business leaders in the lounge.

We found that 36 of the 101 idea generation techniques [45] use the mental principle Jumping. Analogous images were activated by 10 of these techniques using task-related stimuli. These idea generation techniques used analogous situations as stimuli or created analogous situations by their instructions. For example, the techniques Stereotype and Imaginary Mentor instruct the participants to imagine how a stereotype or experienced person would solve the creative task. Bionic Ideas and I Like It Like That analyze the creative task and search for similar principles that they use to generate new ideas. By using task-unrelated stimuli, 26 of the 101 idea generation techniques activate images with no relation to the image of the creative task. These unrelated stimuli can be provided as words (e.g., Picled Brains, Say What?, or Fairy Tale Time) or physical elements such as sculptures or inkblots (e.g., Sculptures or Rorschach Revisionist).

Mental Principle: Dumping The mental principle Dumping challenges the assumptions contained in the creative task to generate a new perspective on the creative task (we discard or “dump� an assumption). This will help the individual to leave well-trodden thought paths and generate a change of perspective. Idea generation techniques based on this principle use task-related stimuli to activate the image of the creative task. The individual selects concepts that describe the creative task. These concepts will be modified by an external stimulus that challenges the existing relationships between the image and concept (i.e., by switching the concepts or combining random elements with the concept). The individual analyzes the resulting situation for consequences or processes and uses them as stimuli to generate ideas for the creative task.

The following list presents the mental principle Dumping as a formal sequence of steps using task-related stimuli (compare to Figure 5): The creative task: How can we improve the selection process for management positions in our organization?

1. Select a characteristic attribute of the creative task.

Employees are evaluated by their superiors.

2. Challenge the characteristic attribute of the creative task.

Employees are evaluated by their subordinates.

Figure 5. Mental Principle Dumping

98 KNOLL and HORTON

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

99

3. Find consequences that result from the challenged attribute.

This would ensure that employees who evaluate positively for promotion have the necessary social skills and personality characteristics to manage subordinates well.

4. Generate ideas by applying this consequence to the creative task.

Include evaluations by subordinates as part of the promotion selection process.

Our analysis has shown that 18 of the 101 idea generation techniques [45] use the mental principle Dumping to support the creative process. Checklists were used as stimuli to challenge the creative task (i.e., Bend It, Shape It, or SAMM I Am). A generalized checklist for this modification is represented by Osborn’s checklist [37], which includes the following verbs: put to other uses, adapt, modify, magnify, minify, substitute, rearrange, reverse, and combine.

During our research, we found no idea generation technique that uses the principle Dumping with task-unrelated stimuli. However, a possible idea generation technique would challenge random assumptions and instruct one to use the consequences that result from this challenge to generate new ideas.

Mental Principle: Pumping The mental principle Pumping refers to a cognitive mechanism called application, the adaptive use of existing knowledge in its habitual context to generate new ideas [51].

The formalized Algorithm of an idea generation technique uses external stimuli to change the focus of an association process onto specific concepts within the image of the creative task (we pump specific knowledge areas). These concepts will be used by individuals in an associative process to activate knowledge that may overlap to a considerable degree with the image of the creative task and can be used to generate ideas.

Idea generation techniques such as Directed Brainstorming [40] that use this mental principle instruct a group of individuals to use a set of predefined stimuli to activate specific knowledge areas of the creative task. The resulting concepts of these knowledge areas provide different starting points to generate new ideas. The facilitator changes the perspective by guiding the cognitive process of the individuals to knowledge areas of the creative task.

The following list presents the mental principle Pumping as a formal sequence of steps using task-related stimuli (compare to Figure 6): The creative task: We are looking for ideas on how to improve our hotel.

1. Select an aspect of the creative task to focus on.

Customer experience.

Figure 6. Mental Principle Pumping

100 KNOLL and HORTON

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

101

2. Repeatedly select a characteristic aspect of the previous step until it inspires an idea.

A new guest arrives at the hotel.

The guest enters his or her room.

The guest enters the bathroom.

3. Write down the idea for solving the creative task.

The guest discovers that shampoo has been provided in a choice of scents.

We found that only three of VanGundy’s 101 idea generation techniques [45] use parts of the mental principle Pumping. One of them—Parts Purge—performs one single-focus step by using categories to generate attributes systematically. Another such set of categories is formed by the “eight Ps” (parts, properties, problems, people, processes, places, parameters, and purposes). By asking questions such as “What parts does the creative task have?,” “What properties does the creative task have?,” or “What problems are associated with the creative task?” a large set of task-related attributes can be generated. However, the Dumping principle requires that, in general, several focus steps be carried out.

No Guiding Principle: The Influence of the Format Ingredient We defined the ingredient Algorithm of an idea generation technique as a sequence of formal steps that guide the mental activities of the individual. Under this condition, the analysis has shown that 44 of the 101 idea generation techniques [45] do not guide the mental activities at all. These idea generation techniques (e.g., Classical Brainstorming [37]) instruct the individual to think about the creative task and simply use his or her knowledge about this task to generate ideas. Furthermore, most techniques suggest a group of individuals share their resulting ideas as stimuli to inspire one another. Under this condition, an idea generation technique only changes the perspective at random.

Depending on the characteristics of the shared external stimuli, the individual will use a cognitive process similar to one of the presented mental principles: Jumping, Dumping, or Pumping. As a result, the facilitator has no significant influence on the cognitive process of the individuals.

An explanation for the large number of techniques that do not deliberately steer the change of perspective can be found in the other ingredients of an idea generation technique. Many common techniques instruct the individuals to generate ideas for the creative task and only differ in their Format or Setting. For example, the Format of the idea generation technique Idea Pool [45] instructs the group members to write down ideas on a sheet of paper, collect them in the center of a table, and use the ideas of others as stimuli to generate new ideas. In contrast, the technique Museum Madness [45] defines the Format to write ideas individually on sheets of flip-chart paper, walk around and read each other’s ideas, and use these ideas as stimuli for new ideas. In this manner, many idea generation techniques have been published that are algorithmically equivalent to Classical Brainstorming and vary only in their Format.

102

KNOLL and HORTON

Summary Our analysis has shown that many common idea generation techniques can be classified by the ingredient Algorithm (see Table 1). By using external stimuli, these mental principles can lead to activation of areas of the knowledge network that would not be activated by an associative process. The resulting new perspectives on a given task allow the individual to combine concepts of semantically unrelated images. Therefore, generated ideas will cover larger areas of the possible solution space. We further found a large number of idea generation techniques that do not guide the mental activities by a predefined sequence of formal steps and can lead to different mental principles.

These techniques only ask for ideas and define how the group members interact during the ideation process.

Generate thinkLet: A Collaboration Pattern for Ideation Our approach for supporting ideation in face-to-face as well as technology-supported workshops uses the concept of thinkLets that were developed in collaboration engineering. The purpose of collaboration engineering is to design collaboration work processes for recurring high-value tasks and deploy those designs for practitioners to execute for themselves without ongoing support by professional facilitators [5].

To reach this goal, collaboration engineering classifies collaboration into six key patterns of collaboration: Generate, Reduce, Clarify, Organize, Evaluate, and Build Consensus [5]. Researchers can use this classification to collect, create, document, and test design patterns for best facilitation practice, called thinkLets, for each of the patterns of collaboration [4]. thinkLets are defined as named, scripted, and reusable collaborative activities for creating a known pattern of collaboration among people working together toward a goal [5]. The original specification of a thinkLet comprises the following components [47]: • Identification—contains a name attribute that is intended to emphasize the specific group dynamics the thinkLet invokes.

• Script—contains rules for a participant in a defined role for creating the required pattern of collaboration. These rules describe the actions a participant has to execute using the capabilities under some set of constraints.

• Selection Guide—contains different attributes such as patterns of collaboration to support the practitioner in the selection of a thinkLet. A formal specification of a thinkLet as a technology-independent logical design element is given by the thinkLet class diagram [28]. This specification uses the unified modeling language (UML) notation to illustrate the key concepts and relations of a thinkLet. An essential component is the concept Rule, whose instances define the script of a thinkLet. A Rule defines the Actions a Participant must do individually in a given Role, the Constraints under which he or she must act, and the Capabilities he or she will require to execute the Actions. According to the given design approach for collaboration processes [26], a collaborative process can be designed as a sequence of

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

103

Table 1. Classification of 101 Idea Generation Techniques [45] by Their Underlying Mental Principles Task-related stimuli Mental principle: Jumping Copy cat Stereotype Switcheroo Imaginary mentor Bionic ideas Chain alike I like it like that What’s the problem?

Battle of the sexes It’s not my job

Task-unrelated stimuli Excerpt excitation Idea shopping A likely story Picled brains Picture tickler Rorschach revisionist Say what?

Text tickler Tickler things Mad scientist Preppy thoughts 666

Word diamond!

Puzzle pieces Fairy tale time Best of . . .

Grab bag forced association Rolestorming Roll call Sculptures Super hero Balloon, balloon, balloon Bouncing ball Doodlin’ around the block Greeting cards Post it, partner

Mental principle: Dumping Bend it, shape it Get crazy Biwordal Circle of opportunity Combo chatter Ideas in a box

Noun action Noun hounds Parts is parts SAMM I am Exaggerate that Tabloid tales

What if . . . ?

Law breaker Problem reversal Turn around Be #1 Altered states handout

Mental principle: Pumping Mental breakdown

Parts purge

Modular brainstorming

What is it?

Blender Drawing room Get real!!!

Idea showers Pass the hat Phillips 66 Play by play Rice storm Spin the bottle Story boards That’s the ticket!

Brain splitter As easy as 6-3-5 Brain purge

Group not Idea mixer Idea pool Museum madness Organizational brainstorms We have met the problem and it is we Out-of-the-blue lightning bold cloudbuster You’re a card, Andy!

Your slip is showing Brainsketching The name game Pass the buck The shirt off your back

No guiding principle Brain borrow Dead head deadline Idea diary Music mania Name change Wake-up call Ideatoons Brain mapping Doodles Essence of the problem Idea links Lotus blossom Say cheese Sense making Skybridging Force-fit game

104

KNOLL and HORTON

the design pattern thinkLet that transfers facilitation skills as well as knowledge about the group dynamics that are needed to engender the pattern of collaboration. Research has shown that practitioners who know the specification of a thinkLet can predictably and repeatedly reproduce the patterns of collaboration for a designed collaboration process by following the description of the thinkLet [46].

With regard to the ideation process, we focus on the thinkLets of the pattern Generate, which define collaboration activities that move from fewer to more concepts in the pool of concepts shared by the group [5]. thinkLets of the pattern Generate are FreeBrainstorming, OnePage, ComparativeBrainstorming, LeafHopper, Dealers足Choice, Plus-Minus-Interesting, and BranchBuilder. Kolfschoten and Santanen [27] studied the use of published Generate thinkLets for the ideation process. They define two key objectives for the collaboration pattern Generate: to guide the cognitive process of generating ideas and to stimulate participants to share ideas that emerge during the cognitive process. An analysis of the published Generate thinkLets has shown that some thinkLets are simple variations of one another. As a result, they refine the given Generate thinkLets and define a specific set of basic Generate thinkLets that use the concept Modifiers to impact both the creative processes and their resulting outcomes. These basic Generate thinkLets can be described by a set of formal rules as following: ThinkLet: OnePage

1. Allow participants to add in parallel any number of contributions to the list.

2. Allow participants to add only contributions that match the contribution specification.

3. Ensure that participants read the contributions of others for inspiration.

ThinkLet: LeafHopper

1. Allow participants to add in parallel any number of contributions to any category.

2. Allow participants to add only contributions that are relevant to the categories in which they are placed.

3. Allow participants to add only contributions that match the contribution specification.

4. Let participants shift focus from category to category as interest and inspiration dictate.

5. Ensure that participants read the contributions of others for inspiration.

ThinkLet: FreeBrainstorming

1. Allow participants to add one contribution to each page they receive, one at a time, in parallel.

2. Ensure that participants randomly swap pages after each contribution.

3. Allow participants to add only contributions that match the contribution specification.

4. Ensure that participants read the contributions of others for inspiration.

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

105

ThinkLet: BranchBuilder

1. Allow participants to add any number of subcontributions to any heading in parallel.

2. Allow participants to add any number of subcontributions to subcontributions in parallel.

3. Allow participants to add only subcontributions that are relevant to the categories or subcontribution to which they are placed.

4. Allow participants to add only contributions that match to the contribution specification.

5. Let participants shift focus from heading to heading as interest and inspiration dictate.

6. Ensure that participants read the contributions of others for inspiration.

According to our definition of the ingredients of an idea generation technique, Generate thinkLets present different ways for the group members to interact during the ideation process, similar to the ingredient Format. To support the mental process of the individuals and to influence social phenomena, Kolfschoten and Santanen [27] use a concept called Modifier. A thinkLet Modifier is defined as a named, documented, reusable variation that can be applied to a set of thinkLets to create a predictable change in the group dynamics those thinkLets produce [5]. Like the ingredient Setting of an idea generation technique, a thinkLet Modifier alters the described collaboration process by adding rules to a thinkLet, or by replacing existing thinkLet rules with different rules. This modification of a basis collaboration process allows the facilitator to affect possible social phenomena. For example, the modifier Anonymity influences the social phenomenon evaluation apprehension and proposes to generate ideas anonymously during a Generate thinkLet [27].

Besides affecting social phenomena, Kolfschoten and Santanen [27] use a think足Let Modifier to influence the cognitive process of an individual during the ideation process, similar to the ingredient Algorithm. For example, they provide the Modifier Direction, which alters the rules of a Generate thinkLet by providing a set of stimuli to guide the focus of the participants [27]. Analogy is a thinkLet Modifier that proposes to use an analogous situation to generate ideas [27]. However, the given thinkLet Modifier does not describe all the mental principles that we found during our research. As a result, it is not possible to implement all idea generation techniques using existing Generate thinkLets and thinkLet Modifiers.

We think that the redesign of Generate thinkLets is a first step to improve ideation in face-to-face as well as technology-supported workshops. The combination of Generate thinkLets and thinkLet Modifiers can be used to design common idea generation techniques, such as Brainstorming, and to influence social phenomena such as production blocking [13] or evaluation apprehension [12]. In contrast to Kolfschoten and Santanen [27], we do not think that the concept of a thinkLet Modifier should be used to influence the cognitive process of an individual during the ideation process.

These mental processes represent a basic requirement for an ideation process and not a variation of a collaboration process. Instead of generating new thinkLet Modifiers,

106

KNOLL and HORTON

we propose to enhance Generate thinkLets and thinkLet Modifiers by the concept Change of Perspective, which represents the formalized mental principles as a basis element of each ideation process.

Formalizing Mental Principles Our research has shown that based on a set of 101 published methods, the mental activities of an individual who uses given idea generation techniques can be broken down into three mental principles. We believe that these principles can serve as the basis to influence the cognitive process by a sequence of reusable steps that aid the individuals in covering larger areas of their knowledge networks. The following list presents these three mental principles formalized as a Change of Perspective and describes the individual activity to generate ideas.

Change of Perspective: Directed Jumping Description: Participants use this change of perspective to jump to a related location in the associative network. They use characteristic attributes to find an analogous situation for the creative task. Existing solutions for the analogous problem will be collected and applied to the original creative task.

Steps: 1. Ensure that participants understand the creative task.

2. Ensure that participants understand the change of perspective.

3. Let participants collect a characteristic attribute of the creative task.

4. Let participants collect an analogous situation with the same characteristic attribute.

5. Let participants collect a similar creative task for the given analogous situation.

6. Let participants collect a solution for how this task has been or might be solved in this analogous situation.

7. Let participants collect an idea for how this solution can be applied to the original task.

Selection Guide: Directed Jumping focuses on the given task and corresponds to the classical analogy technique. It is very versatile, since by choosing the attribute to focus on, the type of analogy can be controlled. In a very conservative form, it amounts to little more than observing or benchmarking the competition, whereas more exotic attributes yield more exotic analogies. For this reason, directed jumping can be applied to a large variety of creative tasks. For tasks that others have solved many times already, then conservative analogies are usually sufficient; this is the case for many business applications such as creating new business models or improving products and services. In a condensed form, it generates questions such as “What would our competitors do in this situation?” or “How would IBM solve our problem?”

Change of Perspective: Random Jumping Description: Participants use this change of perspective to jump to a random location in the associative network. Random elements will be used to create a new perspective.

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

107

Characteristic attributes of the random element will be collected and transferred to the creative task.

Steps: 1. Ensure that participants understand the creative task.

2. Ensure that participants understand the change of perspective.

3. Let participants select a random element.

4. Let participants collect a characteristic attribute of the random element.

5. Let participants collect an idea for how the characteristic attribute can be used to solve the creative task.

Selection Guide: Random Jumping is appropriate for very open problems, such as finding a theme for an article, since these have a very large space of valid solutions.

By contrast, it does not work well when the ideation task has many boundary conditions or must meet specific criteria. It is therefore used more for artistic and creative tasks, rather than in business settings. Random Jumping is easy to perform and can produce unexpected ideas, but also has a high failure rate.

Change of Perspective: Dumping Description: Participants use this change of perspective to dump assumptions of the creative task. Resulting consequences or processes for the given situation will be collected and used to generate ideas for the creative task.

Steps: 1. Ensure that participants understand the creative task.

2. Ensure that participants understand the change of perspective.

3. Let participants collect a characteristic attribute of the creative task.

4. Let participants challenge the characteristic attribute.

5. Let participants collect a positive consequence that results from the new assumption for the given situation.

6. Let participants collect an idea for how the positive consequence can be used to solve the creative task.

Selection Guide: Dumping supports the generation of innovative ideas by challenging the given associations in the knowledge network. It is appropriate when familiarity with a problem is a hindrance, that is, when occupational blindness blocks the view to new solutions. It can lead to significant innovations that break with previous policies or assumptions. Consider, for example, the invention of cash value life insurance (“What if the customer got cash for not dying?”) or photocopier leasing (“What if the customer paid per copy made rather than for the machine itself?”). It is also appropriate when solutions can benefit from the element of surprise, for example, in advertising.

Change of Perspective: Pumping Description: Participants use this change of perspective to change the focus of an association process on specific concepts in the image of the creative task. They inspire one another by sharing their knowledge and generated ideas as external stimuli.

Steps: 1. Ensure that participants understand the creative task.

2. Ensure that participants understand the change of perspective.

108

KNOLL and HORTON

3. Select an aspect to focus on.

4. If this does not inspire an idea, return to 3. Otherwise, let participants collect an idea for how the creative task may be solved.

Selection Guide: Pumping focuses the attention on selected aspects of the creative task. In doing so, it activates more concrete images in the participants’ minds, which increases the chances of inspiring a new idea. It can be applied successfully to any creative task, simply by listing aspects of the task, for example, by applying the “eight Ps” as already described. Pumping is particularly useful when approaches to solving the problem are available but are very abstract. Consider, for example, the task of improving a given product or service. One suggestion on how to achieve this might be “Increase the customer value of the product.” This suggestion, while sound business advice, is too abstract to inspire ideas. Pumping focuses on one aspect of this suggestion, such as reducing risk, increasing convenience, or decreasing costs; that is, we have to answer the question “What ways are there to increase customer value?”

“How can we reduce the risk to the customer?” is a more concrete, and therefore more productive, question than the initial one. By applying the pumping one more time, we would obtain questions such as “How can we reduce a financial risk?” or “How can we reduce a health risk?” that are even better.

A Design Approach for Custom-Made Ideation Processes In this section, we present a design approach for an ideation process that combines the concepts of Change of Perspective, Generate thinkLets, and thinkLet Modifiers.

The basic assumption of this design approach is that the ideation process of a group is both a cognitive process within individual group members and a social process as group members interact. Similar to an idea generation technique, we further regard the ideation process as a combination of different ingredients that define and influence the cognitive and social activities of the group: • Change of Perspective—defines the mental principle as a sequence of formal steps that will be used to guide the cognitive activities of the individuals.

• Generate thinkLets—refers to the implementation of the Change of Perspective in a collaboration process. It defines how the group members share ideas that emerge during the cognitive process.

• thinkLet Modifier—refers to the implementation of the Change of Perspective by using Generate thinkLets for a given group situation. It defines variations of the Generate thinkLets in order to affect possible social phenomena.

Our design process for an ideation process (shown in Figure 7) combines these three ingredients to design a custom-made ideation process that fits a specific group setting and the strategic goal of the given task. In order to demonstrate the design process, we focus on the implementation of an ideation process for a given task: we are considering creating a first-class category of customers in our supermarket. What could we offer these first-class customers?

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

109

Figure 7. Design Process for Custom-Made Ideation Processes

In a first step, the facilitator analyzes the strategic goal of the task and selects the Change of Perspective that best fits the given situation. For example, the facilitator wants to generate ideas that can be implemented with medium effort or without effort by using the knowledge from similar situations to generate ideas. As a result, he or she could select the change of perspective Directed Jumping, which defines a sequence of reusable cognitive activities. This sequence describes the cognitive activities of each participant by formal steps but does not define how these activities can be implemented as a collaboration process. In the case of the first-class supermarket customer task, Directed Jumping is an appropriate choice because there are many services that have already successfully implemented first-class offers.

In a second step, the facilitator uses Generate thinkLets to define the collaboration activities for each of the given cognitive activities. In this connection, different Generate thinkLets can be combined. For example, the thinkLet OnePage can be used to collect characteristic attributes about the creative task (see Change of Perspective: Directed Jumping/Step 3). In the example, these attributes might be arrival, shopping, payment, service, or customer experience. These attributes can be used with the thinkLet LeafHopper to collect an analogous situation (see Change of Perspective: Directed Jumping/Step 4). For the example task, analogous situations could be airlines, hotels, theaters, or railways. The solutions to the creative task in these analogous situations can then be collected and their appropriateness for the supermarket evaluated.

In the last step, the facilitator analyzes the given group situation for possible social phenomena that could influence the performance of the ideation process. He or she will select thinkLet Modifiers to design a situation that supports the creative process for the given group situation. For example, the social activities of a heterogeneous group can lead to evaluation apprehension. This apprehension can be reduced by the thinkLet Modifier Anonymity, which allows the participants to make contributions in an anonymous form. Other thinkLet Modifiers refer to the media used during the

110

KNOLL and HORTON

creative process. The facilitator decides how stimuli will be presented (i.e., as video, image, or audio file) or how the participants will contribute their ideas and adapt.

The design process combines simply a limited number of formal cognitive and social principles that can be found in many common idea generation techniques. To improve the applicability of ITs for ideation processes, we assume that the resulting ideation processes can be described by a formal set of rules that can be implemented in a face-to-face workshop or with technology support. These rules define which activities should be implemented by a given group and give general information on how to implement these activities. For example, an IT that provides only a text-based tool to contribute and share contributions could implement all mental principles as a question-and-answer process.

Discussion and Conclusions This paper used an analytical approach and a cognitive model to reduce the large number of published idea generation techniques to a small number of fundamental principles. A new approach to describing idea generation techniques is introduced by three ingredients: • Algorithm—a sequence of formal mental activities of the individual • Format—defines the organization of the participants, the role of the facilitator, and the use of materials or tools • Setting—defines the adaption of the Format with regard to the social process of the group.

Ideation research can use this approach to analyze and compare idea generation techniques against their active ingredients. We think that these ingredients can be formalized and combined into new techniques. Furthermore, this formalization can be used to define guidelines for the selection of an appropriate technique for a given group task or a specific group setting.

One hundred and one idea generation techniques were analyzed to gain a theoretical understanding of the different ways the ingredient Algorithm stimulates the ideation process. The analysis showed that there are three mental principles that support the individuals in covering larger areas of their knowledge network, which they might not achieve unaided. These mental principles are: • Jumping—using external stimuli to jump to a related or random location in the associative network • Dumping—using external stimuli to dump assumptions of the creative task • Pumping—using external stimuli to change the focus of an association process on specific concepts in the image of the creative task.

In order to use technological support to improve the ideation processes, we formalized these mental principles by the concept Change of Perspective, which defines the mental principle as a sequence of formal steps that will be used to guide the cognitive activities of the individual. Our research suggests that a basic ideation process can be designed by the combination of cognitive activities (the way the group generates

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

111

ideas) with social activities (the way the group collaborates). This basic ideation process can be adapted to a specific group situation by using thinkLet Modifiers that influence social phenomena.

We present a design process that combines simply a limited number of formal cognitive and social principles by enhancing the given concepts of Generate thinkLets and thinkLet Modifier by the concept Change of Perspective. The resulting ideation processes describe a formal script that can be implemented in a face-to-face workshop or with ITs. We assume that the design process fulfills the characteristics of traditional engineering methods: • Predictability: By understanding and controlling the underlying mental and collaboration principles used during the ideation process, we are better able to predict the output of the ideation process.

• Teachability: The ingredients of the design process are well founded and provide a simple approach to explain and teach the design of an ideation process [24] and the collaboration engineering approach [5].

• Efficiency: The design process provides mechanism for implementing an ideation process in a way that most efficiently utilizes the given resources and group situation.

• Well-Founded: All ingredients of the design process are based on scientific results.

For example, a cognitive model provides a theoretical foundation for the Change of Perspective; Generate thinkLets result from the research field collaboration engineering; theories on small group work and social processes can be used to define new elements or rules for the ingredients modifier.

• Adaptability: An understanding of the different ingredients can help to define appropriate ideation processes for a given goal or group situation.

Further research is needed to improve our design approach for ideation. Existing idea generation techniques need to be analyzed against their modifiers that influence the ideation process. In this context, the current thinkLet Modifier needs to be redefined and classified with regard to possible social phenomena. To improve ideation with ITs, methods and tools need to be implemented for the Generate thinkLets in connection with the given modifiers.

At this stage, the change of perspective is described by formal rules. However, we have only started research into defining clear guidelines for the selection of characteristic attributes or the design of facilitation instructions [25]. Therefore, we appeal to other researchers to take part in our research and to define guidelines and functionalities that support the facilitator in designing, configuring, and selecting an appropriate idea generation technique that can be used to improve ideation in a traditional face-to-face workshop as well as in an IT-based group meeting environment.

References 1. Amabile, T.M. The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer, 1983.

2. Bostrom, R.P., and Nagasundaram, M. Research in creativity and GSS. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.

112

KNOLL and HORTON

3. Briggs, R.O., and Vreede, G.-J. de. ThinkLets: Building Blocks for Concerted Collaboration. Omaha: Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska, 2003.

4. Briggs, R.O.; Vreede, G.-J. de; and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. Collaboration engineering with thinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 4 (Spring 2003), 31–63.

5. Briggs, R.O.; Kolfschoten, G.L.; de Vreede, G.-J.; and Dean, D.L. Defining key concepts for collaboration engineering. In I. Garcia and R. Trejo (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Atlanta: Association for Information Systems, 2006, pp. 121–128.

6. Collins, A.M., and Loftus, E.F. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.

Psychological Review, 82, 6 (1975), 407–428.

7. Cooper, R.G. Predevelopment activities determine new product success. Industrial Marketing Management, 17, 3 (1988), 237–247.

8. Cooper, R.G., and Kleinschmidt, E.J. New Products—The Key Factors in Success. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1990.

9. Dennis, A.R., and Valacich, J.S. Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 4 (1993), 531–537.

10. Dennis, A.R.; and Williams, M.L. Electronic brainstorming: Theory, research, and future directions. In P.B. Paulus and B.A. Nijstad (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 160–178.

11. Dennis, A.R.; Aronson, J.E.; Heninger, W.G.; and Walker, E.D., II. Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 23, 1 (1999), 95–108.

12. Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 3 (1987), 497–509.

13. Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 3 (September 1991), 31–63.

14. Finke, R.A.; Ward, T.B.; and Smith, S.M. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992.

15. Fjermestad, J., and Hiltz, S.R. Group support systems: A descriptive evaluation of case and field studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 3 (Winter 2000–2001), 115–159.

16. Gallupe, R.B.; Dennis, A.R.; Cooper, W.H.; Valacich, J.S.; Bastianutti, L.M.; and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 2 (1992), 350–369.

17. Garfield, M.J.; Taylor, N.J.; Dennis, A.R.; and Satzinger, J.W. Research report: Modifying paradigms—Individual differences, creativity techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Information Systems Research, 12, 3 (2001), 322–333.

18. Gentner, D.; Brem, S.; Ferguson, R.; Wolff, P.; Markman, A.B.; and Forhus, K.D. Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, and J. Vaid (eds.), Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997, pp. 403–459.

19. Gettys, C.F.; Pliske, R.M.; Manning, C.; and Casey, J.T. An evaluation of human act generation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 1 (1987), 23–51.

20. Hender, J.M.; Dean, D.L.; Rodgers, T.L.; and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. An examination of the impact of stimuli type and GSS structure on creativity: Brainstorming versus non-brainstorming techniques in a GSS environment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 4 (Spring 2002), 59–85.

21. Hender, J.M.; Rodgers, T.L.; Dean, D.L.; and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. Improving group creativity: Brainstorming versus non-brainstorming techniques in a GSS environment. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001.

22. Herring, S.R.; Jones, B.R.; and Bailey, B.P. Idea generation techniques among creative professionals. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2009.

Using a Cognitive Model to Improve thinkLets for Ideation

113

23. Higgins, J.M. 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques: The Handbook of New Ideas for Business. Winter Park, FL: New Management, 1994.

24. Horton, G. Idea engineering: Teaching students how to generate ideas. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Engineering Education, San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 23–28, 2006.

25. Knoll, S.W., and Horton, G. The impact of stimuli characteristics on the ideation process: An evaluation of the change of perspective “analogy.” In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2011.

26. Kolfschoten, G.L., and de Vreede, G.-J. A design approach for collaboration processes: A multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 1 (Summer 2009), 225–256.

27. Kolfschoten, G.L., and Santanen, E.L. Reconceptualizing generate thinkLets: The role of the modifier. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2007.

28. Kolfschoten, G.L.; Briggs, R.O.; Vreede, G.-J. de; Jacobs, P.H.M.; and Appelman, J.H. A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64, 7 (2006), 611–621.

29. Lubart, T.I. Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 3–4 (2001), 295–308.

30. Mednick, S.A. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 3 (1962), 220–232.

31. Mumford, M.D.; Mobley, M.I.; Reiter-Palmon, R.; Uhlman, C.E.; and Doares, L.M. Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 2 (1991), 91–122.

32. Nijstad, B.A., and Stroebe, W. How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of ideation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 3 (2006), 186–213.

33. Nijstad, B.A., and Stroebe, W. Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 6 (2007), 933–946.

34. Nijstad, B.A.; Stroebe, W.; and Lodewijkx, H.F.M. Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 6 (2002), 535–544.

35. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr.; Applegate, L.M.; and Konsynski, B.R. Facilitating group creativity: Experience with a group decision support system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3, 4 (Spring 1987), 5–19.

36. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr.; Dennis, A.; Valacich, J.; Vogel, D.R.; and George, J.F. Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34, 7 (1991), 40–61.

37. Osborn, A.F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner and Sons, 1963.

38. Raaijmakers, J.G., and Shiffrin, R.M. Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 2 (1981), 93–134.

39. Santanen, E.L.; Briggs R.O.; and de Vreede, G.-J. The cognitive network model of creativity: A new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2000.

40. Santanen, E.L.; Briggs, R.O.; and Vreede, G.-J. de Causal relationships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 4 (Spring 2004), 167–197.

41. Smith, G.F. Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 2 (1998), 107–133.

42. Smith, S.M. The constraining effects of initial ideas. In P.B. Paulus and B.A. Nijstad (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 15–31.

43. Valacich, J.S.; Dennis, A.R.; and Connolly, T. Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 3 (1994), 448–467.

114

KNOLL and HORTON

44. VanGundy, A.B. Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, 2d ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.

45. VanGundy, A.B. 101 Activities for Teaching Creativity and Problem Solving. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons, 2005.

46. Vreede, G.-J. de, and Briggs, R.O. Collaboration engineering: Designing repeatable processes for high-value collaborative tasks. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2005.

47. Vreede, G.-J. de; Kolfschoten, G.L.; and Briggs, R.O. ThinkLets: A collaboration engineering pattern language. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 25, 2–3 (2006), 140–154.

48. Vreede, G.-J. de; Vogel, D.R.; Kolfschoten, G.L.; and Wien, J.S. Fifteen years of GSS in the field: A comparison across time and national boundaries. In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2003.

49. Wallas, G. The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1926.

50. Warr, A., and O’Neill, E. Understanding design as a social creative process. In E.A. Edmonds, L. Candy, P. Brown, T.T. Hewett, and J. Jefferies (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Creativity & Cognition. New York: ACM Press, 2005, pp. 118–127.

51. Welling, H. Four mental operations in creative cognition: The importance of abstraction.

Creativity Research Journal, 19, 2–3 (2007), 163–177.