Task Appraisal and Process Plannning: Managing change methods

By Scott G. Isaksen

Originally appeared in the International Creativity Network Newsletter, volume 6, number 1, 1996, pages 4-7, 10-11.

Introduction

The future of civilization as we know it depends upon our ability to respond effectively to change. Individuals, groups and organiza- tions as well as communities, gov- ernments and international orga- nizations are all learning how to deal with increasing demands to change, cope with complexity and handle competition. As a result there has been a corresponding in- crease in the development and use of a variety of change methods.

A change method is a proposed way of dealing with a needed transformation. Change methods are ways individuals, groups and organizations deal regularly with demands for novelty and improved effectiveness. These can be changes, for example, in the marketpplace, customer needs, technology, regulations, weather, or the structure of knowledge. They are how people cope with modifications, major or revolutionary shifts, and incremental improvements. Change methods can be reactive or proactive; implicit or explicit; deliberate or unintentional.

Change often involves something new, may create some ambiguity and usually contains some level of complexity. To varying degrees, change creates a need for people to use their problem solving ability and creativity.

This article will focus on the creative problem solving (CPS) family of change methods which has a fifty year history of research and application and deliberately blends creativity with problem solving. The CPS family currently includes a dozen various models of its basic framework. Following a summary of the family history, recent developments within this group of change methods will be explained. The new mechanisms of Task Appraisal and Process Planning, which can help qualify change methods and plan your approach for using them, will be shared.

The Contributions and Challenges of the Osborn-Parnes Tradition

One of the earliest change methods was offered by Osborn (1952) and called creative problem solving (CPS). Osborn was concerned about the deliberate development and improved application of the human imagination. The purpose of CPS was to offer a process frame- work and an array of tools to help people be proactive and deliberate when dealing with creative opportunities. Over the past fifty years, the Osbom-Parnes traditoin of CPS has offered a deliberate process framework for nurturing creative behavior (Parnes, 1992).

This tradition includes the original work by Osborn (1952,1953,1957, 1963, 1967) additional contributions by Parnes (1966,1967a & b, 1988) and his colleagues (Noller, Parnes & Biondi, 1976; Parnes, Noller & Biondi, 1977; Treffinger, Isaksen & Firestien, 1982). Al- though Osborn had changed the number of stages within the mod- els of CPS in his various editions of Applied Imagination, the Osborn- Parnes tradition has become well- know to include five specific stages preceded by problem sensitivity and objective finding followed by action. There were many positive contributions of the Osborn-Parnes tradition of CPS. An academically- based program was established which tested, validated and now continuously improves the process framework. A large international network of informed professionals has been developed. There has been broad involvement from both re- searchers and practitioners to develop a variety of support materials and resources which have been made widely available. In short, progress has been made in articulating and disseminating a deliberate system for CPS.

There were also a number of challenges within and limitations to the Osbom-Parnes approach. It was seen as focusing largely on divergence; the entire method was often confused with the single group tool called brainstorming. Supporters and advocates saw CPS as a way of life or even a panacea, good for all problems. Those using CPS were intuitive practitioners and were just naturally better than most others at learning and applying CPS. The resulting lack of explicit guidance and support for repeatable and replicatable performance was a major challenge to those seeking to learn and apply the method. De- spite admonitions to the contrary from authors and trainers, CPS was often run through as a complete and prescribed linear sequence of stages. For example, although Parnes (1981) indicated that the five steps wee merely a guide and not a strict formula for problem solving, each illustration and exercise he provided showed the steps as occurring in the same linear sequence. This raised a variety of questions about how creative this kind of problem solving really was for those who were used to thinking about creativity as an absence of structure (or at least a very loose structure). Many who initially learned CPS would describe their use in terms of applying a few CPS tools or stages as necessary rather than using the entire sequence of stages. Their mental model of the CPS process was limited to using the entire framework- all or none! Finally, even though there was in- creasing evidence to support the method, those involved in the tradition still needed to better understand what worked when, for whom, and under what conditions (Stein, 1975).

Different Kinds of Change

The benefits and challenges of the Osbom-Parnes CPS tradition provided the opportunity for a variety of experiences and rich learning for those who used this method. It is clear that CPS is only one among many change methods. The reason for the large number of change methods is, in part, due to the existence and need to cope with many different types of change. Those who learn and apply change methods need some way to decide which method to use for what purposes. The methods they choose to use also need to fit both the people involved and the situation in which the method is applied.

It is a simple reality, of course, that no single method, however power- nil, can function effectively the same way for all people, situations or needs. Methods that make the claim of universal application are upon close examination, likely to have weak conceptual foundations and questionable evidence for validity. There is a need to identify and use change methods across a broader spectrum.

There are many different kinds of change. Some situations call for an incremental or continuous kind of change. These situations may involve limited resources, clear and agreed upon measures of success, outcomes close to the strategic objective, attention to detail, and focus on short-term benefits and optimization. Such situations demand the effective use of what Kirton (1994) called a more adaptive kind of creativity. This kind of creativity is more likely to emerge as important within relatively stable environments and involves a higher need for structure.

Other situations call for a more discontinuous kind of change. These situations may involve a grand but unclear vision for a great future opportunity, a radically new de- sign, the occurrence of a disruptive technological breakthrough or need for paradigmatic shift, urgent crises (often with high stakes), a precipitory event, and strategies that call for changing the game be- cause incremental change is not seen as working. These situations demand the effective use of what Kirton (1994) called a more innovative kind of creativity and usually contain a lower need for structure than those requiring more adaptive kind of change. Prescriptive change methods can not respond well to both innovative and adaptive change. Responding to different kinds of change requires a more flexible or descriptive approach.

Given the broad spectrum of possible changes we have seen a proliferation of change methods. More than thirty different commercially available change methods can be documented. Also, as a result of working with large and complex change efforts inside some of the world's largest organizations, it is clear that the "of the month" syndrome is alive and well. One organization, for example, rolled out continuous improvement only to have it replaced in a little more than a year by business process reengineering. People who had been trained in learning and, applying the continuous improvement method and tools were con- fused, frustrated and uncertain how their investment in this learning was to be used within the new context of reengineering. One of the ways people cope with the vast number and kind of change methods is to only use their favorite one, or cynically dismiss the need to learn and apply any (because they will certainly be replaced by another flavor very soon).

Moving Toward a Metacognitive Approach to CPS

These developments occurred within our applied work as we were also attempting to improve the Osborn-Parnes model of CPS. We had made several improvements within the system including: clarifying the roles of facilitator, client and resource group and developing specific convergent guidelines and tools to improve the balance of the process (Treffinger, Isaksen & Firestien, 1982). These improvements were made within the prevailing Osbom-Parnes paradigm of the five-stage model which focused primarily on the cognitive activity involved within CPS.

The first deliberate move toward a metacognitive approach to CPS involved adding an explicit stage on the "front end" of the model which dealt with ownership, outcomes and obstacles, personal orientation and situational outlook (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985). Although the concepts of objective finding and fuzzy mess were within the earlier Osborn-Parnes paradigm, they were not explicitly included in de- liberate instructional or application efforts. Instead, they were seen as starting positions for entry into the Osborn- Parnes' five stages.

We originally pack- aged all these in the Mess-Finding stage of the process, but soon found that by addressing these issues as a part of the process, people were precluded from running through our process the way they did with the Osborn-Parnes five-stage model. As a result, we broke the process into components (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1987 & 1991; Isaksen & Dorval, 1993 & 1994; Isaksen, Dorval, Noller & Firestien, 1993) in order to package the stages more closely to the way people actually used them.

We completed a series of impact studies and set about to acquire extensive feedback about how people were actually using the new CPS components (Avarello, 1993; De Shryver, 1992; Firestien & McGowan, 1992; Firestien & Lunken, 1993; Isaksen & Murdock, 1990; Isaksen, Murdock & De Shryver, 1991; Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; Keller-Mathers, 1990; Lunken, 1990; Neilson, 1990; Pershyn, 1992; Vehar, 1994). It became apparent that the issues we had packaged into the process were, in fact, a separate and important aspect of process management. Further, during the early 1990's we purposely moved away from the prescriptive conceptual approach of Osborn-Parnes to a more descriptive orientation to process. Rather than setting out the optimal and prescribed way through the creative process, we embraced the idea that there were many possible pathways through the creative process. Thinking about and planning for any particular pathway through the process is something we now call Task Appraisal and Process Planning.

Task Appraisal: A Key Mechanism in the Current Version of CPS

The current version of CPS includes a new component called Task Appraisal and Process Planning (Isaksen, Dorval & Treffinger, 1994). This mechanism provides a deliberate metacognitive structure for thinking about problem solving for tasks which require the use of creativity. Given our research and its implications it was no longer possible or desirable for us to force a particular and prescribed sequence of stages. We needed an explicit way to decide where to enter and exit the process. Thinking about problem solving is distinct from actually engaging in problem solving; thus we developed a new component. This new component is more metacognitive than the Understanding the Problem, Generating Ideas or Planning for Action components which mainly focus on the cognitive activity during CPS.

We found that Task Appraisal is helpful for our current view of CPS, but might also be productive for managing other change methods (Holmes, 1994; Mance, In preparation). Task Appraisal provides a deliberate opportunity to qualify the use of the method, examine both the people and the context, as well as the desired outcome.

You may use Task Appraisal individually, or as a group facilitator. Others who use or design process and change models may use Task Appraisal to qualify the appropriate application of methods and enhance their understanding of the people, situation and desired out- comes from the method.

Appraising a task includes under- standing something about the people who might be involved. Working to understand personal orientation includes a focus on ensuring that there is sufficient ownership to effectively use the method. For example, you may be the actual sponsor of the change, the agent responsible for implement- mg the change, the target who must actually change, or an advocate who wants to achieve a change but lacks the legitimate power to make it happen. Attempting to under- stand personal orientation also includes knowing about the level of both content and process expertise of the people involved in the task. Finally, becoming aware of the personal and cognitive styles of the people involved may be helpful to more fully comprehend and influence the decisions about how to approach the task.

From the perspective of personal orientation, there are three possible results. You may find that there is sufficient ownership, clientship and sponsorship to proceed. In other words, you are working with the right people who know enough about the task and can take action without having to ask permission. A second option is that you may want to modify the task so that you can continue to work with the same people. The task might be modified or redefined so that it is within their area of ownership and sponsorship. The third option is that you may keep the task and find the right sponsor or client. In fact, you could probably even use the people with whom you are working to help locate the better client or sponsor.

Another aspect of Task Appraisal includes examining situational outlook. Situational outlook focuses on understanding the con- text surrounding the task. The basic question is, Does your under- standing of the context support the use of the method? Situational out- look includes: understanding the climate, culture and history for creativity and change; the perceived priority, importance and immediacy of the task; and the level of resources, time and budget avail- able for the task.

In considering situational outlook, you may end up in three different places. The context may be ready for the task and the method to be used. Second, you may need to intervene to modify either the context itself or the task upon which you will work. Finally, after considering the context you may de- cide to wait or withdraw.

Comprehending the desired outcome provides information about the content and the needs within the task. In considering the desired outcome you will determine if the content knowledge on the part of the people involved is sufficient for productive Process Planning. In other words, Do you know enough about the desired outcome in order to make effective choices about where to enter the process and how you will know you were successful? Understanding the desired outcome also includes knowing the kind and degree of novelty that is necessary as well as acquiring an image of the preferred future.

After acquiring enough information about the desired outcome you are in a better position to understand the need for novelty and the image of the preferred future. This allows you to proceed to qualify the method you want to use. You may need to modify the task to adjust it so that it includes a clear need for novelty. If not, you may need to modify the expectations people have for the method.

Task Appraisal also provides for deliberate qualification of the methods to be employed. To determine appropriateness of method you need to know the costs and benefits of the various options. The level of knowledge and skill people have in using the methods is another consideration. The guiding question for this aspect of Task Appraisal is, Does the method fit the people, situation and desired outcome?

Once you have enough knowledge of these issues, there are three possibilities regarding method: it can be applied as designed; it can be adjusted, modified, redesigned or combined with another method for appropriate application; or it should not be used and an alternative method that better fits the appropriate application; or it should not be used and an alternative method that better fits the people, situation and desired outcome should be applied.

The Need for Process Planning

Task Appraisal qualifies the use of change method. It provides an opportunity to consider the needed outcomes as well as the people and context issues surrounding the task. The qualification of the method comes from an improved under- standing of the method itself, the people involved, the context and the content of the task.

Once the determination is made that a method is appropriate, that there is sufficient ownership and that the context will support its use, the next challenge is to design the process approach you will take. This is called Process Planning. Its purpose is to determine how to proceed with the operation of the method and requires an under- standing of the method to be employed. In making decisions about various methods, you would want to know the kind of change for which the method was designed, the kind of method it is (descriptive or prescriptive), and something about the actual framework, language and tools included within the method.

If you had qualified the use of CPS for a particular task, then Process Planning would include determining your entry and exit points within the CPS framework. Of course, you would use the learning and results from Task Appraisal to help manage your Process Planning efforts. For example, the identified needs from the desired out- come will drive decision making about which CPS components may be most useful, which CPS stages may be employed and which CPS tools may be utilized.

From an understanding of the de- sired outcome, the context, and the people involved in the task, you will be in a better position to know if it is necessary or useful to use a group. If the method can be employed effectively with a group, additional Process and Session Planning may be helpful. For ex- ample, if using a group it may also be necessary to prepare the client for interacting with the resources group as well as define and clarify roles (client, resource group and facilitator) prior to the session. Decisions made during Process Planning will influence the concrete and specific plans for the actual working session.

Combined, Task Appraisal and Process Planning help determine the need (content) and the readiness (process) to engage in the change method. Process becomes the servant of the people using it. The method becomes a means to various but selected ends, rather than an end unto itself.

Although these mechanisms have been developed within the current approach to CPS, they should find useful applications for those who use a variety of change methods. Those who learn and apply the methods may find Task Appraisal and Process Planning to be a productive way to qualify their methods and plan their approaches. Those involved in the management of change can use these mechanisms to determine core contingencies for any particular context. These can then function as design parameters for various process interventions.

Additional applications include: building a collection of methods with an understanding of the particular pros and cons of each; tracking what specific process pathway worked well for whom, under what circumstances and toward what outcomes; and improving the selection and qualification of methods before they are applied. Task Appraisal and Process Planning can also serve as means to further the ecological approach to creativity research (Isaksen, Puccio & Treffinger, 1993) by investigating a similar set of contingencies in applied research and practice.

References

Avarello, L. L. (1993). An exploratory study to determine the impact of a Creative Studies course on at-risk students. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

De Schryver, L. (1992). An impact study of creative problem solving facilitation training in an organizational setting. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Firestien, R- L. , & McCowan, M J. (1992). Effects of creative problem solving training on quality of ideas generated in small groups: A working paper. In L. Novelli, (Ed. ), Collected research papers from the 1992 International Creativity and Networking Conference (pp. 44-51). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Firestien, R. L. , & Lunken, H. P. (1993). Assessment of long-term effects of the master of science degree in creative studies on its graduates. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27 188-199.

Holmes, K. (1994). Profiling creativity: An innovator path. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Isaksen, S. G. , & Dorval, K. B. (1993). Changing views of CPS: Over 40 years of continuous improvement. International Creativity Network, 3,1-5.

Isaksen, S. G. , & Dorval, K. B. (1994). Expanding views of CPS: A synergy methodology. In H. Geschka, S. Moger, & T. Rickards (Eds. ), Creativity and innovation- The power of synergy: Proceedings of the fourth European Conference on creativity and innovation (pp. 129-139). Darmstadt, Germany: Geschka & Partner Unternehmensbertung.

Isaksen, S. G. , Dorval, K B. , Noller, R B. , & Firestien, R. L. (1993). The dynamic nature of Creative Problem Solving. In S. S. Gryskiewicz (Ed. ), Discovering creativity: Proceedings of the 1992 international creativity & innovation networking conference (pp. 155-162). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Isaksen, S. G. , Dorval, K. B. , & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative ap proaches to problem solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Isaksen, S. G. &

Murdock, M. C. (1990). Project Discovery evaluation report: A comprehensive quantitative and qualitative im- pact report on a program designed to intro- duce exploratory consumer research meth odologies and develop new consumer products. Unpublished Research Report. Buffalo, NY: The Center for Studies in Creativity.

Isaksen, S. G. , Murdock, M. C. , & De Schryver, L. (1991). How continuous improvement and creative problem solving are impacting Exxon's marketing organization. Unpublished research report. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo.

Isaksen, S. G. , & Puccio, G. J. (1988). The impact of training creative-thinking skills: A quantitative and qualitative study of the impact of training within Procter & Gamble's two-day course on creative thinking skills. Unpublished research report. Buffalo, NY: The Center for Studies in Creativity.

Lsaksen, S. G. , Puccio, G. J. , & Treffinger, D. 1. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 149-170.

Isaksen, S. G. , & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving. The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

L-,aksen, S. G. , & Treffinger, D. J. (1987). Creative problem solving: Three components and six specific stages. Instructional handout. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Isaksen, S. G. , & Treffinger, D. J. (1991). Creative learning and problem solving. In A. L. Costa (Ed. ), Developing minds: Programs for teaching thinking (Volume 2, pp. 89-93). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Keller-Mathers, S. (1990). Impact of creative problem solving training on participants' personal and professional lives: A replication and extension. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Kirton, M. J. (Ed. ) (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving. London: Routledge.

Lunken, H. P. (1990). Assessment of long term effects of the master of science degree in creative studies on its graduates. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Mance, M. (In preparation). An exploratory examination of methodology core contingencies with task appraisal. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Neilson, L. (1990). Impact of creative problem solving training: An in-depth evaluation of a six-day course in CPS. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Noller, R. B. , Pames, S. J. , & Biondi, A. M. (1976). Creative actionbook. New York Scribners.

Osborn, A. F. (1952). How to become more creative: 101 rewarding ways to develop potential talent. New York: Scribners.

Osborn, A. F. (1953,1957,1963,1967). lied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solvingNew York: Charles Scribners Sons.

Parnes, S. J. (1966). Manual for institutes and programs. . Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.

Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribners.

Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior workbook. New York: Scribners. Parnes, S. J. (1981). The magic of your mind. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited and CEF.

Parnes, S. J. (1988). Visionizing. Buffalo, NY: DOK Publishers.

Parnes, S. J. (Ed. ). (1992). Source book for creative problem solving. Buffalo, New York: Creative Education Foundation Press.

Parnes, S. J. , Noller, R. B. , & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Guide to creative action. New York: Scribners.

Treffinger, D. J. , Isaksen, S. G. , & Firestien, R. L. (1982). Handbook for creative learning. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

Pershyn, G. S. (1992). An investigation into the graphic depiction of natural creative problem solving processes. Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Stein, M. 1. (1975). Stimulating creativity: Group procedures. New York Academic Press.

Vehar, 1. R. (1994). An impact study to improve a five-day course in facilitating creative problem solving Unpublished Masters Project. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.