CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 6 A Creativity Model for the Analysis of Continuous Improvement Programmes: A Suggestion to Make Continuous Improvement Continuous’ Christian De Cock Continuous improvement programmes constitute an area in which creativity seems to play a vital role. This paper shows how continuous improvement may be studied more effectively in ‘a framework which reveals relationships between the four facets of creativity: products, processes, people, and the press or environment. It is suggested that such a systematic analysis can enhance continuous improvement efforts by indicating how momentum is maintained as the company develops seli-reflective (‘learning’) skills. Introduction lem finding and problem solving skills among employees (Melcher et al., 1990). Creativity lontinuous iny iprovement (Cl) is widely training promises to develop exactly such assumed to be a Japanese inverttion. skills (Richards, 1990; Isaksen, 1988), thus Although this assumption has been chal- _ offering a strong supporting factor for CI, but lenged Schroeder & Robinson, 1991), it is an aura of fuzziness seems to surround the clear that the major application of CI until notion of creativity in this application area as recently has been in Japan. Continuous im- _ well (De Cock, 1992; Mumford & Gustafson, provement is actually a translation from the 1988). Japanese word ‘Kaizen’ which literally means ‘The above seems to indicate the need for “never ending improvement’ (Imai, 1986). A methods of relating practical applications of widely accepted working definition of CI creativity — in this case in CI - within. a sound would susgest that CI is about continuous __ theoretical base. The first step in this process incremental innovations (Bessant et al., is an examination of the concept creativity. 1992). Bessant (1992) opposed CI to the big bang solution to manufacturing problems we . have tended to look for in the West. Inrecent Pinning dawn creativity management literature (Thomas, 1992; Nonaka, 1991) one can find more and more Do we need definitions in order to make evidence that CI might be the only source of _ progress in the research and application of lasting competitive advantage in an environ- creativity? The obvious answer seems to be: ment where the only certainty is uncertain! ‘yes’. Definitions structure our thinking; they However, the maintenance of momentum _ help us to perceive what we are doing, where over an extended period of improvement — we are, and where we are (should be) going. efforts seems to be a major problem area in It should therefore not be surprising that the many organizations® (Cook & Blaxter, 1991). _ relatively young field? of creativity spawned if ey requirement in the process of CI is scores of definitions in which the respective A the unleashing of employees’ creativit) authors tried to pin down what exactly this Unleashing Whereas creativity remains poorly defined im new field was ail about. However, of the employee the CI literature, there seems tobe an implied hundreds of definitions that have been pro- creativity need for teamwork, involvement, and prob- posed over the years ne single one has Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993 © Bas Blackwell 1d. 1993. 108 Cowley Rd, Oxford OX4 IF and 238 Main St, Cambeldge, MA T2142, USA,CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES 157 gained general acceptance. This has created a, maybe exaggerated, image of confusion and contradiction? One could start to wonder whether ‘creativity’ was a legitimate field of research in view of its resistance to clear characterization. Arguably the difculty in speaking ot “writing about creativity fies in the intrinsic complexity and elusive nature of the phenom- enon. It seems to delineate something useful and beneficial, although as Mumford and Gustafson (1988) commented, A review of the extant literature leaves one feeling like Alice, who, upon reading ‘Jabberwocky’ commented, ‘Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas -— only I don’t exactly know what they are’ (p. 27). Although the adjective creative has a long heritage (Stein, 1984) one had to wait until 1983 before it was possible to find a definition of creativity in the Oxford English Dictionary. It went like this: “ability to create, creative power or faculty” (Zaleznick, 1986). Today dictionary definitions remain unhelpful. Take Webster's for example: “to bring into being; ‘cause to exist; produce; specifically to evolve from one’s own thought or imagination . ..”. Apparently there is ‘no choice left for re- searchers and practitioners interested in a definition of creativity but to turn back to the specialized literature of the field. Table 1 includes a selection of definitions assembled for a recent research activity (De Cock, 1991), Clearly’ there exists a practical difference between the process of defining concepts that Table 1: Definitions of creativity thrive on ambiguity like creativity, culture, and leadership and those like ‘acid’ or ‘copper’ which can easily be described in terms of: “the following are sufficient and necessary characteristics for X to be unargu- ably X".5 Thus answers to questions like “What is creativity?” reveal more to us about the set of beliefs of the person who provides the answer than about the phenomenon itself Rickards, 1993). ‘My own set of beliefs about creativity con- tains the following assumption: creativity is a dynamic concept and thus can only be struc- tured and reflected upon by a semantic element which includes or implies that dynamic quality. A definition by its very nature seeks to pin down, chopping-up reality which results in boundaries being, drawn around concepts. For this reason, over-concern with definitions may not advance the study of creativity very fa In this proposal I take comfort in the reflection of MacKinnon (1978) who sug- gested that a fixed, generally accepted det nition of creativity ‘would violate its essence which is sensitive to the incomplete and always searching for something better. The problem in ignoring any definition is the inherent danger that creativity could degenerate into a blurred catch-all concept. Rickards (1991) has pointed out that this danger is all-too-real at present now that creativity has become a best-selling buzz- word. I intend to show that a model which helps us get creativity into focus can provide an improved way of highlighting and plan- ning future research and application efforts © acreative act depends upon the ability of talented people to break out of traditional modes of thinking, to see the world in new ways and to arrive at a novel synthesis @aleznick, 1986) ‘© creativity is the ability of a subject in a choice situation to modify self-imposed constraints so as to enable him to select courses of action or produce outcomes that he would not otherwise select or produce, and which are more efficient for or valuable to him than any he would otherwise have chosen (Ackoff & Vergara, 1981) © true creativity involves a response or an idea that is novel or at the very least statistically infrequent that must to some extent be adaptive to, or of, reality (MacKinnon, 1978) © creativity . . . sudden change in total field of perception in which a new pattern is the reproduction of a new viewpoint or the solution of a problem (Vaags, 1983) * the creative process is the emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances on the other (Rogers, 1959) * creativity is the ability to leave structured paths and modes of thinking and merge previously unconnected pieces of knowledge and experiences to arrive at an idea of 1ow to solve a given problem (Geschka, 1983) ed cel L199 Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT ! 158 The 4ps of creativity |The bedrock of creativity research Wherever possible, the connections between the facets of the creativity model and CI will be demonstrated. Beyond definition: the 4P model Researchers have made more extensive surveys of definitions of creativity than the ones contained in Table 1. These were found to range from the notion that creativity is an aspect of problem solving to conceiving it as, the full realization of an individual's unique potentialities. Rhodes (1961) discovered that these definitions were not mutually exclusive but overlapped and intertwined, He isolated four strands each highlighting a different aspect of creativity, and called these the four Ps of creativity: the creative person, the cre- ative product, the creative process and the creative press. This four dimensional frame- work is still used as a structuring device for books (e.g. MacKinnon, 1978), articles, and conferences (e.g. the joining instructions prior to the International Conference on Creativity Research, Buffalo, August 1990). The appeal of this model lies in its sim- Bikty and wide scope for application. Ie offers a permanent reminder for researchers and practitioners to keep the four variables and the interactions between them in their attention span, thus enabling them to incor- porate the dynamic aspects of creativity in their efforts. The inherent danger of the ‘model is that it may turn into a mere classifi- cation scheme; people might focus only upon fone source of variables and thus forget to take into account the interactions which exist between the different strands (Puccio, 1990). That way we are back to square one of strug- gling with definitions and personal constructs Of creativity. Isaksen (1988) argued that real operational value occurs when all facets are taken into consideration. Thus the model provides a means of representing a holistic, integrating systems view.” Figure I contains a representation of the 4P model that captures its dynamic quality Examination of its four components demon- strates that it is impossible to find a pervasive explanation of creativity by looking at each strand in isolation. The creative product The study of creativity by means of products seems obvious. Of all the four aspects of creativity the creative product is the most tangible. There is very little we can know about anyone unless he or she does or says something (Welsh, 1973). Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993 ‘MacKinnon (1978), one of the all-time ‘greats in the field of creativity, considered the analysis of creative products to be “the bed- rock ofall creativity research (p. 187)", Such a statement implied a determination of what makes creative products different from more mundane products. Therefore MacKinnon set up three criteria a product must meet if it is to be qualified as “cres * the product must be novel and original * the product must be adaptive to reality; it must serve to solve a problem or fit a certain need ‘+ the product must be produced; the insight must be sustained, developed and com- ‘municated to others A recent development in the study of cre- ative products is O’Quin and Besemer’s (1989) Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS). Their matrix incorporates three sets of criteria: novelty; resolution; and elabor- ation and synthesis. Novelty is described as. the product’s ability to transform the nature of reality or to yield a new perspective. Resol- ution measures the extent fo which a product meets the practical needs of the problem situation. The third set of criteria evaluates the product's stylistic qualities. But does it really make sense to formulate objective criteria for something as ambiguous asa creative product? Csikszentmihalyi (1990) argued that it is impossible to tell whether or not an object or idea is creative by simply looking at it. He proposed a model in which the creativeness of a product is deter- mined by the interaction of a set of social institutions ~ the “field” ~ that selects from ‘the variations produced by individuals those that are worth preserving; a stable cultural domain that will preserve and transmit the selected ideas or forms; and an individual who brings about some change in the domain that the field will consider creative. By con- sidering the product as a personal attribute based on the current conditions of the social system Csikszentmihdlyi thus integrated product, person and the environment. In continuous improvement the most tan- gible products are by implication the ones that have a direct impact on components of organizational systems in terms of flexibility, productivity and customer satisfaction. Im- portant aspects of products we can look at include: quality (reliability, capability of meeting specifications, . . .), delivery (on- full, waste (cost of rejected materials, rework, . ..) and cycle time (order processing time, inventory turnover time, . . .) (Lynch & Cross, 1991).CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES PRODUCT Figure 1: The 4P Model Table 2: O’Quin and Besemer’s Creative Product Semantic Scale novelty resolution elaboration & synthesis surprising logical__understandable original "useful well-crafted germinal valuable organic elegant complex The creative person Guilford (1967) was widely acclaimed for his pioneering work into the cognitive attributes Of the creative person. Through factor analysis he was able to identify cognitive abilities associated with an individual’s ability to gen- erate multiple, high-quality solutions to problems. These abilities included: fluency and flexibility in thinking, originality, evalu- ation, sensitivity to problems, and redefi- nition. The fluency, flexibility, and originality factors form a cluster of abilities which Guiil- ford identified as divergent thinking. This cluster has been incorporated into many sub- sequent measures designed to measure cre- ativity of persons,? such as, for example, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (e.g. Torrance, 1987). Hocevar and Bachelor (1989) investigated over a hundred measures which claimed a relationship with creativity, and found that frequently they did not correlate with each other. They concluded that different re- searchers were studying different phenom- ena by virtue of the measures that they selected. Partly due to the lack of progress in PROCESS the study of the creative person one can find more and more examples of a shift to study- ing an individual in the broader context of cultural processes of influence and engage- ment (Albert and Runco, 1990). In this per- spective the individual, regardless of his or her obvious talent, is only a part of a matrix of change and is, in part, its product. Csikszent- mihdlyi (1990) summarized this perspective succinctly in a gardening metaphor. To study creativity by focusing on the individual alone is like trying to under- stand how an apple tree produces fruit by looking only at the tree and ignoring the sun and the soil that support its’ life (p. 202). He argued therefore that the specific traits associated with individual creativity will depend on the characteristics of the field and the domain in which that individual evolves. This implies that creativity is not a fixed trait but something that waxes and wanes de- pending on the environment. Therefore one must always consider characteristics of domains and fields before one can predict what a creative person will be lik Continuous improvement studies have set a clear goal of releasing creativity across an entire culture or organization (e.g. Melcher et al., 1990). This means that organizations will have to improve their problem solving continuously and strive to be dynamic learn- ing companies. A process that will inevitably involve gradual culture changes. The key to this process is personal commitment and the development of a sense of identity and unity with the organization and its mission in each employee (Nonaka, 1991). Training plays a very important role in this process. Employees need to be able to i Prove the methods by which their work is Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993 Creativity measures do not correlateCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT. The Creative Press Double loop learning done. This requires that they learn problem- finding and problem-solving techniques (Schroeder & Robinson, 1991) and learn how the very way they go about defining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right (Argyris, 1991), Thomas (1992) remarked in this respect: Continuous improvement can only be achieved through a sustained investment that is aimed at increasing human resource capabilities while systematically reducing organizational barriers to the maximization of those capabilities (p. 155). The main issue in reducing these barriers is the distribution of power to the lowest levels in the organization (Leonard-Barton, 1992). Creativity training, with its focus on build- ing a cooperative, participative climate and developing problem solving and problem finding skills, might provide the philosophy and techniques which could assist organiz~ ations to bring the change processes involved in CI to a good (provisional) end. The creative press! Study of the creative person and product indicates that no human being acts in iso- lation from an environment. There is always a particular person who carries out a series of specific behaviours in a concrete set of circumstances. Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1988) reported results from a study examining creativity within an organization. The data suggested that, although personal qualities certainly played a role, factors in the work environ- ment had the biggest impact on the creative outcome of projects. Factors mentioned fell into three broad categories: factors of organ- izational climate or corporate culture; factors of management style; and resources. These factors occurred (in differing specific formats) in lists of stimulants and obstacles. The most frequently mentioned stimulant was the joint occurrence of freedom and control; freedom. to pursue one’s own areas of interest, and control over one’s own work and ideas. The most frequently mentioned obstacle was a oor organizational climate. Rickards (1985) and Isaksen (1988) have both advanced lists of suggestions to shape an atmosphere conducive to creativity, rep- resenting a synthesis of the work of earlier researchers. Many of the above mentioned suggestions, such as freedom to try new ways of performing tasks, tolerance of a diversity of views, and respect for an indi- vidual’s need to work alone, surfaced in these lists. Ekvall (1991) developed a creative Volume 2. Number 3 September 1993 climate questionnaire to distinguish creative from less creative organizations. Dimensions of the questionnaire included: challenge, freedom, idea-support, trust, dynamism, playfulness, debates, conflicts, risk taking, and idea-time. The influence of the environment on cre- ativity is not easy to assess. Ex-post it is possible to evaluate what the impact of the milieu on the person was but we can never say for sure if a person who did not show any creative behaviour was hampered by his environment or not (Welsh, 1973). Simonton conducted numerous studies (e.g., 1987) using historiometric techniques which have shown that not ali eminently creative people share identical life experiences. Some reser- vation is thus needed when interpreting data on cultural or organizational creativity. There exists no guarantee that they will have the same consequences for other organizations or even for all their employees (MacKinnon, 1978). To understand the influence of a certain context we have to go back to the specific information about the individual and the product he or she produces. ‘The fundamental problem in implementing, continuous improvement programmes in organizations is how to let go of old ways of thinking and managing while preserving and enhancing what is good and endu (Bessant et al., 1992). Argyris and Schon (1978) pointed’ out that not all change in ‘eganizational norms and practices is necess- arily positive, These negative changes were labelled ‘organizational entropy’. Continuous improvement, on the contrary, strives to operate in a continuously self renewing ‘press’. This is a way of describing a culture open to positive change. These have to be fundamental, not superficial, changes what Argyris and’ Schén have labelled ‘double loop’ learning. The field of creativity makes strong claims that dealing with and understanding change need not be a chance occurrence. Techniques and frameworks have been developed over the years to assist managers in dealing with all forms of stuckness and ambiguous situ- ations (Rickards, 1990; Isaksen, 1988; Ackoff and Vergara, 1981). When considered in iso- lation they are not enough to bring around a positive culture change. They can, neverthe- less, play an essential role in helping people to reconceptualize certain procedures, struc- tures, and roles in the organization. ? The creative process The process facet has two implications. On the one hand it points to the dynamic quality‘CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES 161 of the concept creativity: the need for inte- gration and interaction of persons, products, and the context in which these evolve (Isaksen, 19881). Process also incorporates the components or stages of thinking which are indicative of the production and im- plementation of new ideas. Although there may be various sub-stages which are sub- sumed within the three major categories, there is a considerable agreement in the liter- ature describing these phases (Kaufmann, 1988). They are: preparation, production of ideas, and application, ‘One of the earliest descriptions of the creative process which had a significant impact upon later developments was pro- vided by Graham Wallas (1926). He delin- eated four distinct stages on the basis of retrospective reports: preparation, incu- bation, illumination, and verification. Wallas’ description of the creative process ‘was only an ex-post depiction of how creative people were presumed to behave. However, itserved as a precursor to the development of pro-active models which are the prominent features of courses which promote the devel- ‘opment of creative thinking skills. One of the most popular of these models has been the Creative Problem-Solving process or CPS (Torrance, 1987) developed from Osborn’s ideas (1963). It encompassed three stages: fact finding; idea finding; and solution find- ing. Other scholars, such as Parnes, have built upon Osborn’s conception of CPS and this has resulted in a six-stage model: mess finding, data finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding (e.g. Isaksen, 1988; Parnes, 1985). Each of the stages of CPS requires the use of divergent operations to extend the possi- bilities, and then convergent operations to narrow these options down to the most important ones. Variations of this model are used by numerous European researchers and practitioners in the field of creativity (e.g., Vanosmael and De Bruyn, 1984; Rickards, 1990; Buys, 1990). The processes proposed for CI have their origins in a mechanistic paradigm. An example is the Deming or PDCA (Plan-Do- Check-Act) cycle which relies heavily on statistical techniques. In practice the Cl Processes invite a non-mechanistic execution (Melcher et al., 1990). Within this paradox lies the creative challenge for the future: how to add on or replace with more dynamic, creativity supporting components. The ulti- mate question to be answered is “How to improve continuously the continuous im- provement efforts?” Imai (1986) pointed out that many of the Cl Table 3: Wallas’ stages in the creative process 1. A period of preparation during which the problem to be solved is detected and one acquires the elements of experience and cognition which make it possible to pose the problem; and period of concentrated effort which may quickly solve the problem but sometimes turns counterproductive and leads to such a level of frustration and discomfort that one leaves the problem alone for a while. 2. A time away from the problem; all the accumulated facts are left to simmer in our unconsciousness. 3. A moment of insight when suddenly the pieces of the puzzle fit together and anew idea or relationship emerges, often accompanied by an “aha” ex- perience. 4, A period of evaluation and elaboration during which the idea is tested against the harsh reality. attempts in the West were in essence results- oriented, which goes against the essence of Kaizen, a basically process-oriented way of thinking. Thinking about CI as ‘results’ or ‘products’ is very different from considering Clas a continuous learning process or even more a ‘learning to learn’ process. Less tan- gible than improvements in working prac- tices, but I argue vital in order to sustain continuous improvement efforts, is this re- flective discovery of the nature of working practices. This is the ‘double-loop learning’ (Argyris & Schén, 1978) concept we touched upon when discussing the creative press; others refer to this process as organizational knowledge creating (Nonaka, 1991). Argyris (1991) provides us with a vision of how this process thinking can impact on individuals: They are not just solving problems but developing a far deeper and more textured ‘understanding of their role as members of the organization, They are laying the groundwork for continuous improvement that is truly continuous. They are learning how to learn (p. 109). Knowledge is a product of learning; knowing how you came to acquire such knowledge and conceptualize it, is awareness of learning as a process. It is a shift from “I am right, you are wrong” to “how does this really work?” (enge, 1992) This concept of process can in turn influ- ence the organizational context and may ‘The creative challenge’ Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT Table 4: An organizing framework for studying creativity and innovation People Processes Products Press Level 1 individual learning, insights, psychological scientists, discovering, inventions, climate managers, inventing, decisions, workers, ete. etc, ete Level 2 teams, problem shared team climate Project groups _solving and insights and learning in discoveries teams Level 3 organisations _—_ innovation innovations: organisational efforts, product, climate, organisational process, culture earning Organisational Level 4 macro changing societal socio- ‘economies, cultures innovations technical, societies cultural, and economic pressures ‘Adapted from Rickards (1951) eventually lead to the knowledge-creating Conclusion company where everyone in it is involved in a non-stop process of personal and organiz- ational renewal (Nonaka, 1991). Frameworks for applying the 4P model A theoretical application of the 4P model as an organizing framework for studying cre- ativity and innovation was proposed by Rickards (1991) following Magyari-Beck (1985) and Rhodes (1961). Table 4 represents a slightly adapted version of that framework. The table shows that if we study the four strands of the creativity model at differing levels, innovations can be regarded as prod- ucts at an organizational or societal level. Insights and inventions occur at the personal level and are thus distinguished from inno- vation. In Table 5 I demonstrate how the 4P frame- work can help us to analyze CI and consecu- tively how the integration of the 4 Ps can help in the application and maintenance of CI efforts. It also provides a tentative answer to future research efforts in CI. The integration of the 4 Ps will ideally lead to a Continuous Improvement System where the performance of the firm is continuously challenged and incrementally upgraded (Melcher et al., 1990), thus preventing the loss of momentum. Volume 2. Number 3. September 1993 It was my aim to demonstrate that by study- ing the concept of creativity we can acquire some new perspectives on how to structure continuous improvement efforts. Although none of the ideas proposed in this paper are new for the fields of creativity or Cl, the forced fit of concepts from these two fields might create an outlook that goes beyond the sum of the individual perspectives. Thave emphasized the process component in CI because it is often, in the sense that I attach to it, neglected. However, it is both founded upon, and generative of, more tan- gible products. And without empowered, involved people it is clearly an impossible task to create that self-renewing press for CI which is the essence of the knowledge- creating company: a company fit for survival in the next century. Notes 1L. The constructive comments of the editors and. Reg Talbot on earlier drafts of this article are gladly acknowledged, 2. Preliminary findings from organizations I am currently studying seem to indicate that this is, widely seen as the main problem. 3. Guilford’s presidential address to the American Peychological Association (1950) in which he at Bache a. 3CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES: 163 Table 5: The 4P model and continuous improvement People Processes Products Press initiated by | setting up a ‘* waste reduction _ pressure ‘talented’ system for # reduced cycle imposed by top, ® | people top+ | improvements time customers, 2 middle (e.g. statistical * delivery time quality Z| management, process * improved ROI... certification z control); (e.g. BS 5750, a ISO 9000); is external to system all employees, on-going same as above plus | tied up with may even opportunity for | more qualitative daily pattern of, include people creativity and | factors: emphasis on | organisational & from outside making things process when life, self- E | the happen; also. considering results; _reflective S| organisation learning creation of new climate will | such as process to organisational assure self- suppliers, prevent loss of knowledge renewing press E | customers momentum; for CI; internal a) active searches to system: self for operational regulating Problems identified the appalling neglect of the study of creativity is generally considered to be a start- ing point of the development of the field (e.g. Barron, 1988). However, Stein (1984) points ‘out that the use of the adjective creative can be traced back to the later part ofthe 17th century. Serious efforts to study creativity in Europe only took off 20 years later (Rickards, 1992; Vanosmael & De Bruyn, 1984). 4. One of the very first texts on creativity I ever read was an essay by the Dutch author Dresden (1987) of which the opening sentence sounded something like: “writing about cre- ativity proves of a recklessness that almost inevitably will entail failure” (Schnjven over creatvitelt getuigt van een overmoed die vnjel onvermijdeliik een mislukking ten gevolge zal hebben), A nice example to illustrate the impotence that results from the lack of inte- gration in the field, but not exactly an encour- agement to ever start writing something about creativity myself. 5. This problem of definition is intrinsic to social phenomena. In the natural sciences the ident- ity of phenomena is determined by their intrinsic composition and structure. Thus, for example, copper is defined as an element with atomic number 29 and atomic weight 63.54. In contrast phenomena such as creativity that relate to human actions are essentially relational in nature. Their identity is determined by their 6. Lwould like to compare it to the Plan Do Check ‘Act cycle that often surfaces in one form or other inthe literature of Total Quality manage- ment and which provides a common language for prattiones ahd researchers. 7. Barron (1988) remarked in this respect that, Many products are processes, and many rocesses are products. And a person is th a product and a process. Each is in a sense a ‘field within a field’ — a field that never closes, for we are talking about open systems, mutually interdependent, with no hard and fast line dividing product from process from person (p. 80). He points to the recursive nature of systems: each subsystem contains elements from other subsystems and is partly contained in each of them, 8, Some readers might wonder whether I am not confusing processes and products. As there exists no sharp dividing line between the two, this seems almost inevitable. However, I will provide an additional defence of my approach to products in CI when I discuss the process strand of the creativity model. 9. The implicit assumption was that divergent thinking abilities are of central importance to real-life creativity. This assumption has been criticised from the early 1970's onwards (e.g. Treffinger, Renzuli & Feldhusen, 1971). relation to phenomena extrinsic to them 10, When talking about creativity training, I specifi- (Greenwood, 1991) © baat awa Ld. 1983 cally focus on the programmes I studied at Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993164 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMEN] Manchester Business School of which the impact was reported in De Cock (190. 11, Inaychology pres is generally considered as a powerful serey of conditioning factors (the hature!nurture debate) Al that isnot genetic fe blleved to be conditioned by prest (e-g parental influences, working condone, et) Inthis paper concentrate mainly on press as the orgenzational environment 12. Peter Senge (1992) eves us the example ofthe brilliantly intuitive CEO whose greatest frus tration in ife is “Why cannot other people see what 1 see?” (p. 70). Because he cannot cone Ceptualze the intrrelationships that seem £0 Clear intuitively, there i no reable process whereby others can see what he or she sees Senge therefore argues tha besides the ence organizational memory which is embedded in routines, polkies, and procedures and, in general, ‘the way we do things around here’ it ISalso necessary to develop sconcptual organ: izational memory. This captures why these procedures, structures, and. policies made Sense in the fist place. 13, "A teacher cannot teach the creative process the same way as a lesson on some epeling ‘words, To teach forthe creative process the teacher must also consider the characteristics ofthe student, what the students are engaged in producing andthe appropriate climate within to facitate the occurence of creative behaviour (saksen, 198, p. 185)” 14. In table 5 the AP model i sed fist nace how Cl efforts are usualy initiated in many Wester organizations, and then to indicate how the aplication ofan integrated 4P model Can assist the implementation and mainen- tnce of continuous improvement efforts (in order to capture the dynamic aspect of the process tha is going on wve shoud actually Eanspose the contents of the lower half ofthe table into the dimensions of figure 1; this was mot done in order fo make the drawing, not overscompicted, References Ackoff, R.L. and Vergara, A. (1981) ‘Creativity in problem solving and planning: a review’, Euro- pean Journal of Opentional Research, Vol. 7, pp. 1-13, 5 Albert, B'S. & Runco, M.A. (1990) ‘Observations, Conclusions, and Gaps’, Theories of Creativity M.A. Runco and R'S. Albert (eds.), Newbury ParkiLondon, Sage, pp. 255-269. Amabile, TM. & Gryskiewicz, 8.5. (1988) ‘Cre- ative Human Resources in the R&D Laboratory: How Environment and Personality Affect Inno- vation’, Handbook for creative and inovative managers. R.L, Kuhn (ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York. Argyris, C. (1991) “Teaching smart people how to learn’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 99-109. Atgyris, C. and Schén, D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge (Mass.). Volume 2. Number 3 September 1993 Barron, F. (1988) ‘Putting Creativity to Work’, The Nature of Creativity. RJ. Sternberg, (ed.), Cam. bridge University Press, New York, pp. 76-58, Bessant, J. (1992) ‘Big bang or continuous eval ution: why incremental innovation is gaining attention in successful organisations’, Creativity and _Innouation Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 59-62. Bessant, J., Burnell, J., Harding, R. & Webb, S, (1992) “Continuous” improvement in_ British manufacturing’, working paper, Brightor Business School, Buys, J. (1990) ‘Het ontwikkelen van ideeén’, ‘Management van Technologie, Utrecht, pp. 5.2-01- 52-18. ‘Cook, D: & Blaxter, T. (1991) ‘Maintaining Momen. ‘tum’, TOM Magazine, June, pp. 149-151. (Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) “The Domain of Cre ativity’, Theories of Creativity. M.A. Runco ane RSS, Albert (ed.), Newbury ParkiLondon, Sage, pp. 190-212. De Cock, C. (1991) The impact of creativity training programmes on managerial samples: an explorators study. Unpublished MSc. dissertation, University fof Manchester, Faculty of Business Adminis tration. De Cock, C. (1992) Your guestions answered: What is the evidence that creativity training works?, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 1, No, 2, pp. new a Dresden, 5. (1987) Wat is creativiteit. Meulenhoff, ‘Amsterdam Ekvall, G. (1991) ‘The organizational culture 0: ideal management: a creative climate for the management of ideas’, Managing Innovation, J. Henry and D. Walker (eds.), Sage, pp. 73-79 Geschika, H, (1983) ‘Creativity Techniques in Prod- ‘uct Planning and Development: A View from West Germany’, R and D' Management, Vol. 13, July, pp. 169-183. Greenwood, J.D. (1991) Relations and Represen {ations: an introduction to the philosopty of soci. psychological science, Routledge, London. Guilford, J.P. (1967) The Nature of Human Intel ‘gence, McGraw-Hill, New York, Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989) ‘A Taxonomy and Critique of Measurements Used in the Stud) of Creativity’, Handbook of Creativity Research J.A. Glover, R, Ronning and C. Reynolds (eds.), Plenum, New York, pp. 53-75, Imai, M, (1986) Kaizen The Key to Japan's Competitive Success, Random House, New York. Isaksen, 5.G. (1988) ‘Educational Implications of Creativity Research: An Updated Rationale for Creative Learning’, Innocaton: A Cross-Disiplinars Perspective. K. Gronhaug and G. Kaufman (eds.) Norwegian University Press, Oslo, pp. 167-204 Kaufmann, G. (1988) ‘Problem Solving and Cre: ativity’, Innovation: A cross-iscplinary perspective. K. Gronhaug and G. Kaufmann (eds.), Nor ‘wegian University Press, Oslo, pp. 87-138. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) ‘The factory as a learn ing laboratory’, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 23-38, ‘MacKinnon, D.W. (1978) In Search of Human Effex tiveness. The Creative Education Foundation, BuffaloCONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES 165 Magyari-Beck, I (1985) Creaological Studies, Vol. 1-2, Budapest, Karl Marx University of Economics Melcher, A., Acar, A., DuMont, P, & Moutaz, K. (990) ‘Standard maintaining and continuous improvement systems: experiences and com- parisons’, Interfices, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 24-40. Mumford, M. and Gustafson, 5, (1988) ‘Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Inno- vation’, Paychalogica! Bullet, Vo\. 103, pp. 27-83 Nonaka,” 1. (1981) “The knowledge creating company’, Hareard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp. 96-104, (0/Quin, K. & Besemer, S.P. (1989) ‘The develop- ment, reliability, and validity of the revised Creative Product Semantic Scale’, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 267-278, Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied imagination. Scribner's Sons, New York. Parnes, S.J. (1985) A facilitating style of leadership. Bearly, Bulialo, Puccio, G. (1990) Person-Envircnment Fit: using Kirton’s Adaptor-Inncvatar Theory fo determine the Effect of Stylistic Fit upon Stress, Job Satisfaction, fand Creative Performance. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester Rhodes, M. (1961) ‘An analysis of creativity’, Phi Delta Kappa, Vol. 42, pp. 305-310. ‘Rickards, T. (1985) Stimulating Innovation: A Systems Approach, Frances Pinter, London, Rickards, T. (1990) Creativity and Problem Solving at Work. Gower, Aldershot (UK) Rickards, T. (1991) ‘Innovation and creativity: woods, trees and pathways’, RED Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 97-108. Rickards, T. (1993) ‘The Creative Product: A Re- view of Twenty Years Practical Experiences and Theoretical implications in Industrial Contexts’, Understanding and recognising creativity: the emer gence of a discipline, S.C. Isaksen et al. (ed.), Ablex, New York, Rogers, C. (1959) ‘Toward a theory of ereativity’, Creativity and. its cultiation. HH. Anderson (ed.), Harper & Brothers, New York, pp. 69-82. Schroeder, "D.M. & Robinson, A.G. (1991) “America’s most successful export to Japan: Continuous improvement programmes’, Slaan ‘Management Review, Spring, pp. 67-81. 2st lakes Lid 198 Senge, P.M. (1992) ‘Creating the learning organiz- ation’, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1, pp. 58-78. Simonton, D.K. (1979) ‘Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance?” fournal of Personality and ‘Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1603-1616. Stein, ML (1984) ‘Creative: the adjective’, Cre- ativity and Innovation Network, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 115-117. ‘Thomas, B. (1992) Total quality training: the quality culture and quality trainer, McGraw-Hill, Maiden- head, UK. Torrance, EP. (1987) "Teaching for creativity’, Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics S.G. Isaksen (ed.), Bearly, Buffalo, pp. 189-218. Treifinger, D.J., Renzuli, '5., & Feldhusen, ).F (1971) ‘Problems in the Assessment of Creative ‘Thinking’, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 105-112. Vaags, D.W. (1983) ‘Creativiteit en innovatie’, Technick, innovatie en maatschappij. D.W. Vag and.’ Wemelsfelder (eds.), Het Spectrum, Utrecht. Vanosmael, P. and De Bruyn, R. (1984) Handbook ‘wor crenief denken. De Nededandsche Boek- handel, AntwerpeniArnsterdam. Wallas, G. (1925) The at of thought. Franklin Watts, New York. Welsh, G.S. (1973) ‘Perspectives in the Study of Creativity’, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.7, pp. 231-245. Zaleznick, A. (1986) ‘Organizational reality and psychological necessity in creativity and inno- ‘vation’, Frontiers in creative and innovative manage- ment. R.L. Kuhn (ed.), Ballinger, Cambridge (MA), pp. 41-56, Christian De Cock is Research Assistant and member of the Doctoral Programme at Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Volume 2 Number 3 September 1993