ICSC Graduate Stavros Michailidis discussing Building Momentum for Great Ideas TedxGramercy

ICSC Graduate Andy Burnett discusses Frictionless Creativity at TEDxGramercy -

Book Review: Think! Before it's too late by Edward deBono

Book Review: Think! Before it's too late (by Edward de Bono)

written by Patrick Wirth

Creativity is universally linked to the notion of novel ideas and solutions to challenges. At the core of creative problem solving is the act of thinking. This is a book review of de Bono, E. (2009). Think! Before it’s too late. Great Britain:Ebury Publishing. This nonfiction book authored by Edward de Bono provides the reader with an introduction to his extensive work on the subject of creative thinking. De Bono is a classic scholar in the field of creative thinking and is widely recognized for his theories of creative thinking, in particular lateral thinking. His life’s work has been devoted to studying the mechanics of the mind as it relates to creative thinking.

The broad appeal of de Bono’s work results from techniques he outlines to propel traditional thinking beyond the status quo. His models provide a practical means to drive creative break-through thinking. His work in this area is extensive. In this book, de Bono promotesthat traditional thinking was developed over 2,400 years ago by the GG3. This was the Greek Gang of Three. They were Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. From them emerged the traditional approachesto thinking of argument, truth, and logic. These still exist today as the foundation of traditional thinking models.

The overall theme of the book is that the existing traditional linear thinking systems are excellent, but not enough. De Bono, as an advocate for creative thinking, feels there’s a huge deficiency in our creative thinking habits. De Bono argues that the human brain is not designed to be creative. “It is designed to set up routine patterns and to use and follow these patterns” (p. 21). These patterns can be linked back to the thinking models that emerged from the GG3. He devotes the vast majority of this book dissecting the limiting nature of traditional thinking approaches in education, government and everyday life, as well as drawing out the immense opportunity for creative thinking.

De Bono believes that creativity is an inborn talent which can be nurtured, developed and taught. “There is a need for more deliberate processes to encourage and enhance creativity actively” (p. 27). De Bono’s solution to supporting the development of creative thinking is his life’s work: lateral thinking methods. Where traditional thinking of argument, truth and logic is linear, lateral thinking means moving across patterns instead of moving along them. The movement in lateral thinking comes from provocation. He provides a brief overview of the key lateral thinking tools he has developed and weaves several examples of the favorable impact these tools have had in his review of education, government and day-to-day life.

I have a personal interest in the notion of creative thinking. I have done some cursory reading about Edward de Bono in the past and thought I would use this opportunity to take a closer look at his work. I’m glad I did as I really enjoyed this book. The book is 250 pages long, costs less then $20 US dollars and is a fast, easy and very interesting read. I highly recommend this book to the reader that is interested in getting an introduction to Edward de Bono’s thoughts about creativity, traditional thinking and creative thinking. This isn’t a deep dive into de Bono’s lateral thinking models and tools. He provides a brief overview of lateral thinking executed in an easy to understand manner that has provoked me to do further research and reading. I think there is something in this book for everyone who has an interest in the area of creativity from school teachers, university professors, government officials, business leaders and parents.

For me, the primary connection was with myprofessional work as a business person. He devotes an entire chapter to leadership and thinking in the business world. It was very interesting to read that in his many years of experience in the field, de Bono believes the business sector is more interested in thinking than any other sector of society. I certainly would agree that the business sector relies on and needs more creative thinking. As a parent, I find this concerning as it relates to education for our children. Children today have access to so much information and answers are so readily available to virtually everything on the internet, where is “thinking” going in our traditional school education? Where is the focus on developing creative thinking skills?

The primary issue raised in this book was the limited nature of traditional thinking methods and the opportunity for creative thinking methods to be taught. I absolutely agree with the limited nature of traditional thinking methods. I find this to be self validating in my personal life and professional experience. I’m profoundly intrigued by the notion of creative thinking being a skill that can be developed. In my role as a husband, father, businessperson and contributing member to society, I know I have untapped creative thinking talent that is latent within me, that if unleashed, could help me be better at working through life’s challenges and helping others. I’m motivated to take further action. I will be reading more about the de Bono thinking systems and investigating formal training in lateral thinking going forward.

This book challenges the status quo approach to the traditional thinking methods of argument, truth and logic. It supports the notion that creative thinking is a skill that resides in all people and is not reserved for intellects, geeks and those living on the edge. The author provides an introduction to the tools of lateral thinking which has a demonstrated track record for developing the skills of creative thinking.

My advice for those considering reading this book, do it. It will provoke you to think more about your own approach to thinking and challenge you to become a more creative thinker.

Patrick Wirth has 25 years professional experience in product development, finance, operations strategic planning and lean. He is currently Director of Product Development Support and Lean Champion at Mattel for Fisher-Price Brands. Patrick holds a BS in Finance from Canisius College, a BS in Industrial Technology from Buffalo State, an MBA from Canisius College and professional certifications in Production and Inventory Control, Certified Lean Professional and Foursight. Patrick has 9 credit hours remaining to complete Masters in Creativity and Change Leadership at the ICSC.

Book Review: Collective creativity: Collaborative work in the sciences, literature and the arts

Written by Graduate Student Beth Donohue Templeton

Creative expression manifests itself in almost every aspect of modern life. Curious minds, digging deeply into the practice of this expression seem to be divided into two camps: the staunch individualists, who believe that the creative impulse exists primarily in the individual mind, and those who believe that creativity is collective, an amalgam of personal experience and interaction with nature, society and certain images from the collective unconscious. When the call for papers went out on behalf of the Sydney German Studies Symposiumon Collective Creativity (2009), this dichotomy formed the very heart of the opening question. Recipients were asked to submit an essay answering the question: “Is there such a thing as collective creativity?” The eventual editors further elaborated in paragraphs detailing positions both for and against the idea. The works selected form the twenty-four chapters that comprise Collective Creativity: Collaborative work in the sciences, literature and the arts, edited by Gerhard Fisher and Florian Vassen. In the introduction, they tell the story of moving beyond “traditional binary opposites” and develop a conversation that might be more productive. They write about searching out the intersections and cross-pollination of artistic, scientific and cultural manifestations of creativity. In this grey area, this interfacing, we might find a new creative energy (in the synergy between individual and collective creative experiences), or we might uncover previously obscured truths about ourselves. The resulting book, at 367 pages was daunting, but the writing within proved to be more than worth the effort.

This fascinating collection of scientific study, philosophy and arts practice certainly promotes new thinking in the reader. The writing, while at times densely academic, provides some of the latest thinking on collective creative practice. The essays are divided into five sections, each focusing on their particular domain. Each area holds a treasure of inquiry for those already interested, and the book invites the reader to enter at any point they see fit. I chose to enter into the essays at the intersection of theater and collective creativity. A representative sample of the type of scholarship in this book can be seen in the editor, Florian Vassan’s own essay titled: From author to spectator: Collective creativity as a theatrical play of artists and spectators. The article is an absorbing journey through different observations and executions of collective creativity in theatrical form. He weaves in historical perspective with his eye on the larger question of the difference between individual and collective expression and delightfully dissects Brecht’s theatrical objectivism, or involving the audience as spectator and vocal judge of the action on stage. Vassen also delves into the work of experimental German playwright Heiner Mueller in exploring the synergy between actors and audience. As a veteran audience member of his 1985 production “Hamlet Machine,” where eight actresses played Ophelia, simultaneously with three Hamlets, while performing a two hour script comprised of eight pages of repeated text, I was delighted to see his name in a serious exploration of post-modern collective creativity. He embraced this synergy as a vital part of performance.

Emboldened, I dove into chapters I perceived to be more challenging. While the quality of the writing was universally high, some of the essays offered fascinating portrayals of individuals within a collective arts experience and, even, articles about successful artistic and scientific collaboration. Alison Lewis’schapter: The romancing of collectivecreativity: The ‘Bitterfelder Weg’ in Brigitte Reimann’s letters and diaries, can be found in the section on collective writing and offers a tantalizingly human tale of seduction and infidelity as an unintended (and largely unnoticed) by-product of a cultural experiment conducted by the German Democratic Republic from 1959-64. The juxtaposition of diary entries with political philosophy is compelling and makes for a thought-provoking read. Likewise, the chapter detailing the partnership between a visual artist and a group of scientists in Australia, which resulted in various x-ray and microscopic images of the artist’s insides forming a unique self-portrait in the atrium of the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute (Melbourne), provides interesting insights into collective creative process in an unusual context.

Collective creativity:Collaborative work in the sciences, literature and the arts is not for the faint of heart and lightens the wallet considerably at a hefty $105.00 on amazon. However, for the serious student of creative thinking in the arts and the arts practitioner interested in this creative combination, this book provides a valuable collection of research. It is a comprehensive inter and trans-disciplinary account of collective creativity and its many applications and offers a wealth of insight into the rare place where the individual and the collective come together.

Beth Donohue Templeton is an actor and arts learning specialist currently completing her Masters of Science at the InternationalCenter for Studies in Creativity. Beth has performed on many local and regional stages and is a founding member of Berkeley’s Shotgun Players, a theater company now celebrating their 20^th season. Beth has worked as a Teaching Artist, Trainer and Curriculum designer for affiliates of the Lincoln Center Institute for Arts in Education in Northern California and Western New York and has created arts learning camps and classes for ages pre-K through adult, with an emphasis on student populations with special learning needs. Beth’s graduate work is focused on uncovering the unique relationship between creative thinking and the arts.

Book Review: Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom

Book Review: Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom written by Hanne Marie Bratsberg

Nurturing Creativity in theClassroom is an edited collection of essays on how to bring creative and critical thinking into the classroom. Lately, the discussion on creativity in schools has flourished yet again. This book focuses on preparing students of today for the future of tomorrow. It is no longer enough to teach them about knowledge; they now have to be able to think for themselves. Torrance called the same discussion ‘a quiet revolution’ that has been ongoing since the 1960s. With this book the editors, Ronald A. Beghetto and James C. Kaufman, are making a true effort to make this a loud revolution.

Both editors are well known within the Creative Studies field where Beghetto’s research focuses on K-12classroom creativity and Kaufman has dedicated his career to studying how to nurture and encourage creativity. Together these two editors create a collaboration that brings the importance of creativity in the classroom to the forefront of education. There are a total of 28 different contributors dispersed on 20 chapters and 418 pages. A quick look at the list of contributors is enough to heighten anyone’s anticipation. The essays are written by both American- and foreign authors, including well-known researchers Mark A. Runco and Robert J. Sternberg.

But, how can you nurture creativity in the classroom? The editors suggest it starts with educating the teachers and the decision makers. Most teachers, especially the ones favoring creativity, do not fully understand what creativity is and what itactually means. This has to change if progress is going to be made.

The different essays presented examine and respond to the increasing tension many educators face when having to deal with curriculum constraints while trying to balance student creativity in the classroom. Most chapters refer to the constraining effects of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 but they all show concrete examples on how to work within these restrictions.

The book begins with a bold chapter written by Raymond S.Nickerson, where he lists all the ways to discourage creative thinking in the classroom. The chapter is written in a sarcastic but powerful tone. However,the next 19 chapters teach you how to nurture creativity in the classroom. With clear examples and easy-to-follow steps the different essays discuss in various degrees four topics viewed from different angles. The chapters examine how formal and informal learning blended together represents the ideal act of learning,which can then lead to creative productivity. In addition, the authors review how dependence and passive learning should be replaced with independence andengaged learning.

Two authors, Joseph S.Renzulli and Chatharina F. Dewet, propose how teachers should stop teachingand, instead, become facilitators of learning. Further, they discuss how the best thing for a school system is to take away the many enforced curriculum constraints (rules, standardized tests, closed curriculum). However, theauthors note the difficulty of instituting such practices and recommend as econd best option which is to infuse creativity in every subject, in every class, and in every mind, body and heart of both students and teachers.

The last topic touches on the many definitions of creativity.With the literature being so broad on how to define creativity, the best way to fulfill the creative potential in every classroom has become very difficult.

One might believe this is another book in a long line of promising additions to the growing debate about school and creativity but this book will surprise you. With concrete tips and detailed steps on how to implement creative and critical thinking in the classroom, the work is way ahead of its competitors. Beghetto and Kaufman have done an excellent job editing; making this a useful, must read for teachers, decisions makers, andothers with an interest in teaching to nurture creativity.

Some might find the book repetitive, because some chapters present similar techniques on how to nurture creativity. Therefore, a next step for the editors could be to put together small themed instructional books for teachers. The creative teaching techniques would then be the only thing in focus and there would be no feeling of repetitiveness. On the other hand, the book is an easy read and it lets you skip from chapter to chapter. A teacher will find great benefit from the book’s lessons for not only their students’ learning experience, but also for their own personal value.

However, you do not need to be an expert in creative thinking or teaching to gain value from this book. If you are a teacher who is new to creative teaching you will go along way with an open mind and a willingness to learn. If you are a consultant like me, I can assure you the book will liftyour spirits and encourage you to go out and implement what is presented. If I were a well-set teacher I would rearrange my lessons plan for the coming week tonight.

Runco nicely sums up the spirit of the book when he says, “Imagine what the world could be if everyone made even the slightest gain in their creative potentials. The total impact would be enormous and amazing...even if there is no guarantee, it is worth trying” (p. 248-249).Preparing children of today for the future of tomorrow starts with nurturing creativity in the classroom.

HanneMarie Bratsberg graduated from Oslo School of Management, Norway in 2010 with aBachelor Degree in Innovation, Creativity and Business Development. Shortly thereafter she started a consultant company with two classmates called IC. The company focuses on bringing creative thinking into schools. The company filled a gap in the Norwegian school system but Hanne felt she needed more experience and knowledge before making it into a full time job. She is now enjoying every minute of her graduate studies at ICSC at Buffalo State. Hanne’s passion and interests include creativity in education, nurturing creativity in others,teaching creative thinking and facilitating CPS-sessions.

Simple. Simplex. Simplexity: Interview with Dr. Min Basadur by Dorte Nielsen

Simple. Simplex. Simplexity.

Interview with Dr. Min Basadur by Dorte Nielsen

at the 12^th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation

Introduction

It’s not every day you get the chance to meet a person of Dr. Min Basadur’s stature, let alone be given the privilege of interviewing him face to face. It’s perhaps testament to his talent that he is difficult to describe accurately with one professional title. He’s an Author, Thinker, Inventor, Consultant, Strategist, Innovator, Speaker, Researcher, Professor, Problem Solver and Founding Director of Basadur Applied Creativity Inc. and The Center for Research in Applied Creativity.

In the early 70’s Min Basadur went to the CPSI conference held by the Creative Education Foundation at the State University College at Buffalo. At CPSI (Creative Problem Solving Institute) Min Basadur was introduced to the work of Alex F. Osborn and Sid Parnes. Back at work, at Procter and Gamble, Min Basadur started to apply what he’d learned at the conference, and this became the beginning of his work in the field of applied creativity and problem solving.

Diving deeper into his work as I prepared for the interview I was very impressed, not only by the sheer volume of work, but also by his contributions to the field. He has written more than 30 peer-reviewed articles in leading scientific journals, several book chapters and two books of his own on innovation, problem solving and creativity. As a creativity scholar he has a unique position in the field. He is renowned for bringing together academic research with the practical application of creativity processes, tools and skills working very closely with businesses. What started as the Simplex process almost 30 years ago has evolved into The Simplexity Thinking System – a method of applied creativity that interconnects process, personal style profiles, thinking skills and tools.

I’m delighted to have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with Dr. Min Basadur at the 12^th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation in September 2011 and I learned a lot about him and his professional achievements. He is an interesting and charismatic man who talked with enthusiasm and professionalism. The interview was conducted in four different parts as different time over a 2-day period.

The story behind the Simplexity Thinking

Meeting the creator of The Simplexity Thinking System, I was keen to hear more about its origins. I asked Dr. Min Basadur to tell me a little about how it was conceived.

“The Simplexity Thinking System was conceived in the real world, based on the way problem solving happens successfully in organizations. It's built on the Osborn-Parnes’ concept, but greatly deepens and expands it, as the Osborn-Parnes process is a limited process, especially in its original form.

When I went to the Creative Problem Solving Institute (the CPSI conference on creativity and innovation), Osborn and Parnes gave us their five step process. It was a start, and meshed very well with my own ideas about creativity and problem solving. I said to myself – I'm going to jump off the diving board and start using what I have learned. When I returned to Procter & Gamble, I began to adapt the process to the many situations we had at the company. I was very uncomfortable at first. Here I was, telling a bunch of very highly qualified PhD Chemists that I might be able to help them. To my surprise, they liked what I did, and I began to realize that I could do something that they couldn't do well, and with that success grew my confidence. I started to work with other people on other problems, and little by little I began to weld it all together. I learned a tremendous amount about how problem solving and creativity works in real organizations. The fact that it was a circular never ending process was one of the most important discoveries. I integrated psychological, educational and behavioral research which I was learning at the University of Cincinnati into my on-the-job experience and out of that came “Simplex” which evolved into “The Simplexity Thinking System”. It's a way of operating. It's a system of thinking (and thinking simply). It integrates the behaviors, attitudes, and thinking skills that are required to make the process work, into a flowing continuous process, a process of adaptability, if you like. It's not a change management process; it's a change-making process. It's proactive and deliberate. And it recognizes that problem finding and problem definition, as well as implementation are critical and difficult for most people. Effective organizations implement such a process of adaptability into their everyday life.”

Key contributions to the field of creativity

Having been given this rare opportunity to get to know Dr. Min Basadur a little better, I asked him what he thought his major contributions to the field of creativity have been.

“Getting my PhD was the biggest joy in my career, although it was quite a hurdle to get to. I did it while I was working at Procter & Gamble, raising a young family, and responding to requests from local organizations to share and present my work. Working on my PhD let me integrate all of the key components I was experiencing into a flow and all my work came together. I wrote an award-winning dissertation in which I showed that people can be trained in creativity by following and building skills in a structured system of problem solving. I converted the dissertation into several published articles.

When I finished my PhD I came to a crossroads. I had a good job and yet I realized deep down I’d outgrown the company. I was getting requests for consulting from other companies. I was faced with a decision; would I become an independent consultant or a full time professor? It was then that I made the decision that I would do both. I would become a consultant, and I would become a professor and continue my research as well. So when I left Procter & Gamble, I joined McMaster University with a tenure track professorship and formed my own company, the Centre for Research in Applied Creativity. I soon began to get more calls for help from various companies. At the university, teaching has always been my passion; however doing the research was the harder part. At both universities, Cincinnati and McMaster, I built upon the research of Sid Parnes and other academics, which had been done mostly in the laboratory. So I took Sid Parnes’ research and advanced it into the context of real world organizations and situations. I found myself pioneering research in applied creativity in the real world of organizational life. At the time, there was virtually no one else researching creativity in this way. Which was actually a good thing, because I didn't have anybody telling me 'you can't do this, and you can't do that.' I had to discover, analyze and measure new concepts myself.

So my major contribution is that I have combined academic creativity research and my work in the real world to advance the science of applied creativity by doing work 'in the trenches'. I considered every single client as a research partner. While working together, we experimented with new ways of doing things, like the mapping tool 'Why? What’s stopping you?' We’d run an experiment, observe the effect, make a hypothesis, and validate the results. This work has resulted in 30 or 40 published scientific articles and book chapters and two books. My field work has had me working with Presidents, Managers and Shop Workers. The work has resulted in the development of frameworks for understanding creativity, such as a system of key elements including content, process, process skills, cognitive styles and tools such as: Why? What’s Stopping you?, Challenge Mapping, the Creative Problem Solving Profile, and an interconnected circular process. So basically, I strove to give credibility to the science of applied creativity, have developed new ways of thinking in this area and have identified a structured innovative problem solving system that anyone can learn. The work we have done has advanced the field, and I am pretty happy with that.”

Why? What’s stopping you? and How might we?

I was intrigued as to how Dr. Min Basadur came about the now well established tool – “Why, what’s stopping you?” and the expression “How might we?” I asked him if he could elaborate.

“I remember how I invented 'How might we?' and 'Why? – What’s stopping you?' At CPSI we were taught to ask 'Why?' and 'How?' But I found that the 'How?' didn’t work because it puts people into a solution mode rather than diving deeper into the real root of the challenge. So, in 1978 I had a group of Industrial Engineers from different parts of Procter & Gamble coming to a seminar. They each had to bring a problem. I put them into small groups, and they had to tell each other about the problem they came with. One of the groups had moved through problem definition, and they were helping each other define the problem. A gentleman from Sacramento insisted that he didn’t really have a problem. He said, 'I thought I did, but I don't'. I went over to help. They said: 'This guy says he doesn't have a problem.' I said: 'What do you mean?' And he said: 'I came here with a problem. How do we get our plant to move from 8 boilers to 4 boilers? But I have talked to the guy from the Atlanta plant, and they already gone from 8 boilers to 4. So, I don't really have a problem anymore.' So I am thinking, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. To help I said: 'What’s stopping you?' It just came out of my mouth; 'What's stopping you from going from 8 boilers down to 4?' and he said: 'Well nothing, Atlanta already knows how to do it.' So I asked again: 'What's stopping you and your company from doing it?' He replied again: 'Well nothing,' So then I asked him: 'What's stopping you walking out of here now and moving the plant to 4 boilers?' and he said: 'The department managers are not interested in energy conservation'– and that was the real answer to the question! The new 'How might? was 'How might I get the department managers interested in energy conservation?' I'll never forget it. I thought that's it! If you ask people 'How?' - they're just going give you a solution. But the 'What’s stopping you?' forces them to think about the real facts underlying the challenge. It's very difficult for people to think that way when they're used to giving solutions, rather than facts.

'How might we?' came about in 1973 or 74, when I was working at Procter & Gamble. Sid Parnes was using 'In what ways might we?' That was the original phrase. But 'In what ways might we?' is long-winded and is not going to work in a business environment. So we used 'How might we?' which is very quick, much more intuitive, and has consequently proven to work better. It also becomes a battle cry for optimistic problem finding and solving, and a simple concept for culture change."

The Creative Problem Solving Profile

I went on to ask Dr. Min Basadur to elaborate on the origins of The Creative Problem Solving Profile and how that came about.

“In 1981 I was asked by the Ford Motor company if I could do some work with them and come up with something that people could share with their colleagues or family after participating in Simplexity training or problem solving workshops. So that's where I created the profile styles that match with the Simplexity four stage, eight step process. The styles are based on different combinations of the mental operations of Guilford’s landmark Structure Of Intellect (SOI) model. From then on, when Ford Motor Company participants came in for a workshop, they filled out a form identifying their style profile, and then took a fresh form home to involve a spouse or colleague in sharing their process and skill learnings in a 'learning by doing way'. It worked very well! It was then that I began to realize how powerful this tool was. The Ford Motor company said to me: 'This profile is probably the most important thing you've done.' And I’d have to agree."

Simple, Simplex, Simplexity

Dr. Min Basadur then went on to talk more about The Simplexity Thinking System and how it’s developed over the years.

“Right from the beginning people have asked me: What is it you do? and How do you do that? So I had to give it a name… Simplex was the idea of simple with an X. Over the years I have been asked, what I do, so many times that I realized what we really are doing is helping people solve problems. That's it! The problems will vary, but the approach in solving problems stays the same. Because of globalization and cross cultural integration of international commerce the problems are getting more and more complex. So a good way of communicating what we do for people, in a way that will engage them, is to describe it as: We make complex problems simple – Simplexity. I wish I'd thought of the name Simplexity twenty five years ago, but I’d have to admit that I wasn’t one hundred percent clear in what I was actually doing back then. I thought that I was just helping people generate ideas, break through barriers and think outside the box. But little by little I began to realize, it was much more than that. We help people work together and collaborate. We understand that problem solving has a huge amount of emotion in it. We know how to get people to converse with each other, and not to be afraid. We can get senior people to admit to their mistakes, which can be very challenging. But we know that, if we can get people to speak in simple language and follow the simple steps of the Simplexity Thinking System we can make even their very complex problems very simple.

We are branding everything as Simplexity now. Simplexity is a system. It involves a process, which we call Simplexity. It requires process skills, which we call Simplexity Process Skills. We have Simplexity Tools, and Simplexity Styles. I would like to establish Simplexity Thinking as the new highest-level managerial skill obtainable. Higher than Design Thinking, which I understand is the current buzz-word. It is our goal to make Simplexity Thinking the most recognized brand when it comes to problem solving and innovation. I can understand it if people still call it Simplex though. After all, we've been working hard for so many years to establish that brand. Although, strictly speaking, it should now be called The Simplexity Thinking System.

The key to our success has been building self-sufficiency. If you come to us as a client, we won't just help you solve your problems. We will train you to do what we do, and we will train you to teach others what we do. We are very comfortable in making agreements where there's something in it for us, and something in it for them. We give our clients all the knowledge, materials and skills they require and we want them to use everything. It's in our interests to make them successful. When they're successful, they tell other companies. They say: 'Phone this outfit. They can teach you how to solve your problems.' So that's the way we work.”

New publications

I was also keen to hear about Dr. Min Basadur’s current projects. I asked him what he was working on at the moment.

“My most recent publications are about increasing awareness about the need for a process and subsequently the skills needed to drive the process in creativity, problem solving and innovation in the real world. Those skills are attitudinal, cognitive and behavioral. It’s what I believe that Sid Parnes and Alex Osborn were trying achieve ; it’s what we call creative behavior. Creative behavior is more than having a process you use briefly to solve a problem over in some corner. Rather, it's the way we behave all the time, 24/7/365. We're trying to induce creative behavior, and raise it beyond a process. That's what I mean by system. Creative thinking is what you want as a way of life in your organization. Ultimately, we want people coming in every day eager to solve problems. Not to say: 'This is not my job, I've got to run the machine (or track sales)'. There's process, there's tools, there’s behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive skills, and styles. When you have everyone applying them every day, you have got yourself a culture of creativity.

Part of my ongoing research continues to be improving the Creative Problem Solving Profile, that is making it psychometrically tighter and tighter, and showing that it connects meaningfully to the real world. I established the first Profile version in 1982, and it has been significantly improved five times. I have a son who is studying for a PhD right now in Chicago in the same area. Because of his interest, I've completed even more research than normal in the past five years. My son is carrying my work forward and connecting it with newer concepts like social networks and regulatory mode theory and explaining the complex motivation – creativity process relationship. I’m in the lucky situation, were I can continue to work, experiment and learn with help from many others. Our system and Profile has been translated into more than ten different languages. So again, it's another example of how I've taken the theoretical work of Sid Parnes and Alex Osborn and taken it into the real world.

I'm also writing a new book now, called 'What's missing?' That may not be the final title. It's about why people have come to me over the last 30 years. Why are they coming? Why can't they do it themselves? What can't they do? Why does the Simplexity System provide the answers? What’s missing in our educational systems? I’ve have experiences and story after story to illustrate deficiencies in skill, which we're transforming into a structured book.”

Connection with the International Center for Studies in Creativity

As Dr. Min Basadur’s found a lot of his early inspiration in the work of Alex Osborn and Sid Parnes, which grew into The International Centre for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo, I was keen to hear what his connections with the Center were today.

“I am very closely connected with the Centre especially with department chair Dr. Gerard Puccio. We're partners. I help him with research, and he helps me. Gerard's very open minded and a very good scientist and researcher. In recent years, he has started to discover the basic research I had done in my early career, where previously very few were interested. I have presented for Gerard and Sid Parnes at the Center at conferences, and teaching workshops. Several students from the Center have been using our instruments such as the Ideation-Evaluation Preference Scale in their training and research. Several years ago I shared my Creative Problem Solving Profile inventory with Gerard, to help him validate his own work on styles."

The Guilford connection

Finally Dr. Min Basadur talked enthusiastically about his connection with the work of J. P. Guilford:

“I am a big fan of Guilford. He was one of the people who added structure to creativity. I had lunch with him when I was looking for ideas and inspiration for my dissertation.

My Creative Problem Solving Profile is based on the mental operations of his Structure Of Intellect model: Cognition, Divergent Production, Evaluation and Convergent Production.

Now, if you look carefully, Cognition is one way of learning. As children we learn by doing. We touch. We feel. The opposite is learning by Convergent production. People give us problems at school, and we have to converge to the right answer. It's a way of thinking, which converges to the right answer from a given set of information. So it's producing knowledge by thinking, as opposed to producing knowledge by doing. When we take kids into school, we make them switch. We force them how to learn by thinking, when they're so used to learning by doing. Individuals have personal preferences for learning one way or the other. You can see this reflected in one of the two bipolar axes (vertical) of the Profile. (See Basadur’s Profile Overview). The other bipolar axis reflects how individuals differ in their preferences for how they use their knowledge however gained. On the horizontal axis, one side is evaluation and the other side is divergent production. If you combine the mental operations in various ways, you've got the different styles. So the first style is learning by doing and using knowledge for diverging. That's the Generator. The next one is learning by thinking and using knowledge for diverging. That’s the Conceptualizer. So that's when you get people to understand. It is when they can see the whole picture. It makes sense to them. It comes together. The third style is the Optimizer. They think abstractly. And they evaluate. It's got to make sense. They want the single best solution. Finally, you get to the Implementers. They also learn by doing, but they're always evaluating but always eager to get something finished. They're coming through, and they've got to implement. And that's the way the combinations go. I am just so pleased, that I could make something that Guilford did become so useful to people.”

And finally, an admission.

Finally, I asked Dr. Min Basadur, if he could tell me something about himself and his professional life, that nobody else knows… He thought for a while, and with a smile he replied:

“After all these years, I still have to work very hard to defer judgment. I have to work at not being too impatient. Most might not know my struggle. People would probably say: 'He just does that so naturally, but I must admit that I have to work hard at it.”

Dorte Nielsen is an Associate Professor at the Danish School of Media Journalism, where she is Head of Department and a Course Leader of ”Creative Communication” a BA education for Art Directors and Conceptual Thinkers. Dorte teaches creativity and creative thinking, and is the author of numerous books and articles on the subject. In recent years Dorte held the position of Chair of Creative Circle, the Danish society for the creative industries.