( •n

< DEBORAH K . SMITH, DAVID B . PARADICE,

AND STEVEN M . SMITH

PrepareYour Mind

CreativityAn asset in most cases, extensive experience can ^

trip up the adaption of new technology—when fresh thinking isneeded above all else. But methods exist to recognize

impediments to creativity and to sharpen rusty creative skills.

The adoption of new technologyoften disrupts an organization—the husiness environment

changes, rules change, and the tried-and-true methods of conducting business loseeffectiveness. A creative approach isneeded to best match technology solu-tions to business problems in such situa-tions. If they are to prosper, organizationsmust identify and nurture creativeemployees, who for their part must max-imize their creative potential to remainemployable. But how? For one, individu-als and organizations alike can benefitfrom increased awareness of the keybehaviors known to enhance creativity, aswell as those that impede it.

Creativity is rather difficult to defmebut easy to recognize. Cognitive psychol-ogists who study creativity call a product

or service "creative" if it is at least noveland useful. The usefulness criterion neednot exclude works of art or entertainingproductions, and the novelty criterion canbe satisfied at either a personal or societallevel. If a student produces a bubble-sortprogram without previous exposure tothe bubble-sort algorithm, the program isa creative work for that student. Such per-sonal novelty is far more commonplacethan societal novelty, which occurs whensomething never before experienced isproduced. The first bubble-sort program,the first network, and the first computervirus are examples of societal novelty.When measures of novelty and usefulnessare combined, mundane and exceptionalcreativity become endpoints of a contin-uum used to rank creative productions, asillustrated in Figure 1.

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM July 20(X)/Vol 43. No 7

Figure I. Creativity scale with examples.

Student'i Excuie for LaCe Homework(high novelty, low usefulnei))

Stud ent'i TermProject

Mundane Creativity

Eintteln'i Theory of Relativity .(high novefty and uiefulneii)

Olicovery of DNAStructure

Exceptional Creativity

Student'! I FIntVInnBubble-Sort I Protection Software I

FIntEmail

First FirftNetwork Computer

Figure 2. Alternative creativityscale wiith example.

Creative

Student's excusefor tate homework

FirstVirus

IdealisticComputerViruses

Conservative

First Computer H

First Network

Creative Realism

RealisticStudent's

Bubble-Sort

Adapted from [4], page 306.

By nature, humans are creative and some believe itis this trait that distinguishes humans from other ani-mals [12]. All humans don't appear to be equally cre-ative or have equal creative potential, however. Effortsto predict creative potential include measures of per-sonality type, general intelligence, and performance oncreativity tests that correlate puzzle-solving ability togeneral creativity. Each of these methods has some sta-tistical validity, but the more commonly used indica-tors tend to be more direct: actual creative output andmastery of the discipline.

Measuring creativity by creative output relies on theassumption that those with higher creative potentialhave higher creative output. This measure, which hasbeen used to validate less direct assessments of creativ-ity, like intelligence, personality type, and problemsolving ability, has commonsense appeal, but it alsohas two major drawbacks. First, assessments of creativ-ity are extremely subjective, situational, and some-times, wrongheaded. Einstein's special theory ofrelativity was largely ignored by Poincare, Mach, Plankand Lorentz—^among the most revered scientists of

that time [4]. The Rite of Spring, one of Stravinsky smost famous works, originally met with hostility [4].Friends and critics alike reacted adversely to Picasso'sLes demoiselles d'Avignon, a work now believed criticalto the rise of cubism [4]. Failures to recognize creativepotential are not unique to the creative arts. AT&Tdeclined to take over the operation of the ARPAnet inthe early 1970s because it was incompatible with exist-ing telephone networks [8]. In the early 1980s, bothPrime Computer and Digital Equipment turneddown the opportunity to be involved in what becameSun Microsystems [8].

Measuring creativity solely by output also lacksdimensionality. A usefiil alternative to the one-dimen-sional creativity scale in Figure 1 is Finke's two-dimen-sional creativity scale [3] {see Figure 2), which containsfour categories of creative output: creative and conser-vative idealism, and creative and conservative realism.

Creative idealism describes novel products of lim-ited usefiilness, while conservative idealism describesproducts low in both usefiilness and novelty. Conserv-ative realism describes products that, while not highlyoriginal, are useflil, and creative realism denotes useRilnovelty. While this approach does not make judg-ments of novelty and usefulness any easier, it elimi-nates the need to combine measurements into a singlecomposite score.

Mastery of the discipline, the second method forassessing creative potential, relies on the observationthat creativity tends to be domain-specific—that is,most highly creative people are creative only within asingle discipline [4, 7]. The usefulness of mastery as ameasure of creative potential lies in its availability. Notests of creativity, intelligence, or personality need beadministered; an examination of work history anddemonstrated knowledge of the field will suffice.When taken together, actual creative output and mas-tery of the discipline are the most direct and accessibleindicators of creative potential.

Fostering CreativityHaving identified creative individuals, organizationsneed to protect and nurture their talents, enablingthem to perform up to their potential. Numerous .self-help guides on the market teach creativity-enhancingtechniques for individuals and groups. One of the bestfor IS professionals is Couger's Creativity & Innovationin Information Systems Organizations [1]. Couger givesthe same advice for nurturing creativity that the worksof Tom Peters and others have made almost cliche:

• Because not all creative efforts will be fruitful,organizations must be willing to take risks andtolerate failure.

12 July 2000/Vol. 43. No 7 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM

• Managers should shield employees from any exter-nal forces, particularly those within the organiza-tion, that tend to discourage creativity.

• Managers should reduce workload pressure, espe-cially unrealistic deadlines and excessive productiv-ity expectations.

• Managers should be supportive and encouragingof creative endeavors.

• Employees should have freedom to pursue ideasand to decide how to do their jobs.

• Employees need ch;il!enging work, along withawareness that what they do is important.

• Sufficient resources must be available for employeesto accomplish their tasks.

Unfortunately, implementing these su^estions isnot enough to ensure the fostering of employee cre-ativity. Other impediments to creativity exist that self-help books tend to overlook. One is the effect of priorknowledge on creative efforts. Cognitive psychologistsuse two terms to describe this effect: fixation and struc-tured imagination. Fixation—sometimes referred to as

Figure 3.Two-string problem.

The subject must tie the free ends ofthe strings toeelhe

ming elements in a table, and the addition statement isthen replaced with a move statement, virtually theentire class will give the same incorrect response. Stu-dents will continue to sum the elements ftom thetable, even though the critical line of code does notcontain any arithmetic operators. Merely stating thatthe response is incorrect and circling the offending line

< INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ALIKE CANBENEFIT FROM INCREASED AWARENESS OF THE KEYBEHAVIORS KNOWN TO ENHANCE CREATIVITY, ASWELL AS THOSE THAT IMPEDE IT.

"mental rut" [9]—is an inability to switch from aninappropriate solution approach to a more productiveone, while "structured imagination" refers to the com-mon tendency not to deviate from what is alreadyknown during creative efforts.

A classic example of fixation occurs with Luchins'water-jar problems [2]. Here, subjects are told theyhave an infinite supply of water in one reservoir, sev-eral different size containers for transporting water,and a second empty reservoir into which a preciseamount of water is to be transferred. Several problemsare presented that can be solved using the same algo-rithm. A final problem is presented that cannot besolved using this algorithm—but can be solved usingan easier method. Subjects take substantially longer tosolve the final problem than the previous ones.

Subjects working on the water-jar problems tend tomechanize one solution method. This kind of mecha-nization has also been observed in an introductoryprogramming course when teaching for-loops. Whengiven a series of examples in which the for-loop is sum-

of code generally produces a collective "ah ha" from theclass. Students know the difference between additionand assignment, but the mental set induced by previ-ous problems prevents them from retrieving the appro-priate solution method from memory.

Fixation may also result firom functional fixedness,or inability to use familiar objects in an unfamiliar way.A classic example is Maier's two-string problem [2].Here, a subject is placed in a room where two stringshang ftom a ceiling. He or she is asked to tie the twostrings together without moving the anchor points ofthe strings or modifying the striiigs. The strings aresufficiently far apart so it is not possible to grab the endot one string and walk over to the other, as shown inFigure 3. The only other object in the room is a pair ofscissors. The challenge is to use the scissors as a pen-dulum bob rather than to cut the strings. After tyingthe scissors to the end of one string, the subject can setthe pendulum in motion. Then, while holding the endof the other string, the subject can catch the scissors,thus bringing the ends of the two strings together.

COMMUNICATIONS QF THE ACM July 2000/Vol 43. No 7 13

< THE SELF-HELP INDUSTRY OFFERS GOOD ADVICE ONENHANCING CREATIVITY, BUT TENDS TO OVERLOOKTHE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

Functional fixedness can also be observed in anintroductory programming class, when students arerequired to produce traditional Input-Process-Outputcharts. Most students produce these charts using athree-column table, which is perfectly acceptable, butmost don't realize the table needs only one row. Stu-dents tend to isolate each line of text in the IPO in itsown row in the table, making the chart more difficultto change when errors are discovered. While there isnothing in the software to dictate this decision, stu-dents are unable to overcome the idea, established inearlier courses, that a table cell contains a single num-ber or line of text. Similarly, when the programminglanguage syntax for creating matrices is introduced,students have difficulty using complex data structuresas an element of the matrix. The idea that the functionof a cell in a table ot an element in a matrix is to holda single piece of information is difficult to relinquish.This difficultv is symptomatic of functioniil fixedness.

Fixation in the Late 1980s.

A small thirci-party administrator of employee

benefits produces a large quantity of reports

from its nightly batch processing. Some reports must

be sorted and printed in two different sequences

while others must have an associated summary

report.

Rather than constructing a subroutine which could

be called upon after each sort, the individual primar-

ily responsible for the original programming of these

reports elects to duplicate code within these pro-

grams such that most of the programs contain twice

the lines of code necessary to accomplish the task.

Also, the idea that summary reports could be pro-

duced simultaneously with the more lengthy detail

reports and simply written to a separate file never

occurs to the programmer. In these programs, not

only was the program size excessive, processing took

twice as long because two posses were made through

the input files when one could have done the job.

The large quantity of redundant code makes

maintenance a nightmare. The quantity of redundant

processing increases until nightly processing can no

longer be completed in the available time. U

The classic experiments in structured imagination,another problem of prior knowledge, ask subjects toimagine life on a planet (dis)similar to Earth, and tosketch examples of these life forms [10]. The majorityof subjects produce creatures with bilateral symmetryand obvious sensory organs, even when instructed tobe as wildly imaginative as possible. The undergradu-ate psychology students normally subject to theseexperiments are not the only ones suffering fromstructured imagination. In design experiments withprofessional engineers, subjects given product specifi-cations and asked to sketch possible designs tend toinclude design features they have been exposed to pre-viously, even when those features make the productunusable [6]. Another example of structured imagina-tion is the continued use of two-digit date fields yearsin information systems long after all reasonable argu-ments in favor of this practice have been dismissed. Infact, this practice is so ingrained in the culture thatsome current programming textbooks still use two-digit years in their examples, even when they feature adiscussion of the Y2K problem [5].

Overcoming Creative LimitationsWhen in the midst of grappling with an intractableproblem, it can be difficult to distinguish betweenstructured imagination and fixation, but this distinc-tion can help prescribe a cure. Treatments for fixationinclude procrastination, or a time period where one isnot consciously working on the problem, and alteredcontext [9]. When either treatment produces an/>y/^/;//w/solution to the problem, incubation is said tohave occurred. Insight is the "eureka" or "ah ha" phe-nomenon so often described in studies of creativity.

Structured imagination is not remedied by procras-tination or altered context. While those suffering fromfixation are usually all too aware they have not solvedthe problem, individuals experiencing structuredimagination remain blissfully ignorant of their failure.Procrastination is effective against fixation because theindividual knows how to solve the problem but inap-propriate knowledge is blocking tetrieval of the neededinformation. Procrastination alone cannot alleviatestructured imagination because the required knowl-edge is simply not there. Recognizing the problem has

14 July 2000/Vol. 43, No 7 COMHUNICAT1ONS OF THE ACM

not been solved is the first step in overcoming struc-tured imagination. Following recognition, acquiringknowledge of alternative approaches, and increasingthe level of abstraction at which the problem isaddressed are the best methods for overcoming struc-tured imagination [11].

Pasteur once said, "chance fevors the preparedmind." A review ofthe creativity literature reveals threecategories of knowledge essential to prepare the mindfor creative endeavors.

• Knowledge of the domain in which one intendsto create. In order to be creative one must seek outproblems and develop solutions. Without knowl-edge of what is going on in the field, one will behard-pressed to identify unmet needs. Furthermore,an understanding of what has been tried in the pastand why it failed is essential to avoid repeating mis-takes.

• Knowledge of techniques that enhance creativityand factors that inhibit creative efforts. Thisknowledge cannot guarantee a solution to everyproblem, but given a variety of creativity enhancingtools and an understanding of their appropriateapplication, one need not be a victim of fixation orstructured imagination.

• Knowledge of other domains. Knowledge ofother domains provides the material needed forconstructing useful analogies, which several creativ-ity-enhancing techniques incorporate. Also, onedomain may have a solution that can be adaptedand reused in another.

In addition to knowledge, a distillation of self-helpbooks and studies of creativity suggest fout behaviorsto help prepare the mind for creativity.

• Learn something new every day. The body ofknowledge needed for creative endeavors in anyfield is growing and changing constandy

• Seek out constructive criticism. Structured imagi-nation is insidious because its victims are generallyunaware of its effects. When developing productsintended to solve business problems, constructivecriticism is needed in order to detect ersatz solu-tions. When the occasional failure occurs, it shoiJdbe treated as a learning experience.

• Incubate. Most people have experienced wrestlingunsuccessfully with a problem they know is solv-able. Our knowledge of fixation suggest that, underthese circumstances, it is often best to walk awayfi"om the problem for a while. This period of pro-crastination need not be idle. The term productiveprocrastination describes periods when some work

Structured Imaginationin the Early 1990s

A small software firm produces, martlets, and

supports a mainframe-based transaction pro-

cessing system whose major strength is its nightly

balancing of all accounts in the system. The stan-

dard procedure requires the system manager to

examine each night's reports and verify that various

totals balance. This process works well until the

product becomes popular with larger clients, and

several hours are needed to verify the previous

night's processing. Because the system manager has

been using a spreadsheet application to assist the

balancing process, someone proposes producing an

additional report with all the required totals, to

make data entry easier.

But the idea of producing reports on paper rather

than to a file that could be imported into a spread-

sheet application is a clear case of functional fixed-

ness. Additionally, if all totals can be brought into o

single program for reporting, why could the program

not also verify that the totals balanced?

is suspended to allow for incubation, while work onother projects continues.

• Above all else, put knowledge to work- Many ofthose regularly engaged in problem-solving activitieshave intuitive awareness of fixation and structuredimagination effects, as well as ofthe importance ofthe three types of knowledge and the four behaviorsmentioned here. Unfortunately, knowledge alone isnot enough. It is necessary to practice the behaviors.

If the programmer from the sidebar "Fixation in theLate 1980s" had sought constructive criticism, hewould have received a few relatively simple design sug-gestions that could make a dramatic difference in theperformance of the nightly processing system. Or, ifthe programmer had made efforts to learn more aboutsofiware design or to study methods used by others toimplement similar systems, he might have discoveredthe solution himself

Similarly, if the employees described in the sidebar"Structured Imagination in the Early 1990s" hadtaken time to incubate, they might have arrived at abetter solution to the nightly balancing problem.However, because the transaction-processing systemexample in the sidebar represented the only project forthe individuals involved, the client involved was thelargest uset of the product, and "idle time" was notacceptable to the management of̂ the firm, an imme-diate solution was required to allow the group tomove on to other issues.

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM July 2000/Vol 43. No 7 15

ConclusionThe selF-help industry offers good advice on enhanc-ing creativity, but tends to overlook the detrimentaleffects of prior knowledge. When the task of imple-tnenting new information systems is undertaken bypeople more familiar with the old ways of doing busi-ness, both fixation and structured imagination are pre-dictable consequences and the results of these effortsare likely to be unsatisfactory. This does not meanthese experienced individuals are no longer assets tothe organization, but simply that these individualsmust make the effort to learn about new technology,business practices, and ways of meeting business needswith technology solutions. They must also learn torecognize and take precautions against fixation andstructured imagination. Through awareness of imped-iments to creativity and the use of creativity-enhancingtechniques, individuals and organizations can maxi-mize their creative potential and better meet the chal-lenges of a dynamic business environment. H

REFERENCES1. Couger, D.J. Creatimty & Innovation in Information Systems Organiza-

tions. Boyd & Frascr Publishing Company, Danvcrs, MA, 19%.2. Finkc, R.A.. Ward. T.B., and Smith, S.M. Creatiw Coalition: theory,

research, and applications. MIT I'ress, Cambridge, MA, 1992,3. Finkt, R,A. Creative realism. In The Creative Cognition Approach. Smith,

S.M., Ward. 'I'.B,. and Finke, R.A.. Eds. MIT l'tess. Cainbridgc, MA,1995.303-326.

4. Gardner, H. Creating Minds: an Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through theLives of Freud. Einstein, Picasso. Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi.Bajic Books. New York, NY. 1993,

% Craucr. R.T.. Villar. C,V.. and Bu^s, A.R, COBOL From Micro to Main-frame: Preparing for the New MiUeiinium. 3rd cd, I'rcncice Hall. Upper 'Saddle Rivtr. NJ, 1998.

6. jins5Oii, D.C. and Smith, S.M. Design Fixation, Desigti Studies 12, 1(1991). 3^11-

7. Luban, T.I. aiid Sitmberg. R,J. An invcscmenr approach to crrativity: ihc-ory and daca. In The Creative Cognition Approach. Smith. S.M,, WardT,B. and Finkc, R.A.. Eds, MiT Press. Cambridge. MA, 1995. 271-302.

8. Segiiller. S. Nerds 2.0.1: A Brief History of the Internet. TV Books. NewYork, NY. 1998.

9. Smi[h, S.M. Gftiing mto and out of Mental Ruts: a theory of fixjtioii,incubation, and insight. In 7he Nature of /might. Stcrnbcrg, R.J. .indDavidson, J.B,. Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA. 1995. 229-2'l l .

10, Ward. T.B. Structured Imagination; tbe role of category structure inexemplar generation. Cofftitive Psychology 27. 1 (1994), 1-40.

11, Ward. T.B.. Finkc. R.A., and Smith, S.M. Creativity and the Mind: Dis-covering the Genius Within. I'lenuJii Press. New York, NY. 1995.

12, Ward, 'r,B.. Smith. S.M., and Vaid. J. Conceptual Structures andProcesses iti Creative Thought. In Creative Thought: An Investigation ojConceptual Structures and Processes. ^.itd.J.b.. Smith, S.M., ind Wild.].,Eds. American Psychological Association. Washington, DC, 1997. 1-27.

D E B O R A H K . S M I T H (smiihdc'&^maiLccu.cdu) is an assistant

pru[cs.sor at the Department ot Decision Sciences. East Carolina

Universitv'. (Jreenvillf, N C .

D A V I D B . P A R A D I C E {e-paradicc@tamu.edu) is an associate

professor And Director of the Center tor tbe Mdiiagetnent of

intbrmatiiin Systems. Texas A&M Universiiy. College Station, TX.

S T E V E N M . S M I T H (smsfe^psyc.tamu.edti) is an associate professor

and Cognitive Psychology Area Coordinator, Texas A&cM University,

College Station, TX.

© 2000 ACM 0002-0782/00/0700 J5.00

CommunicationsSeptember 2000

Interfaces and ProcessfncSpeech is as innate to humans as breathing. By incorporating various degrees of"understanding," speech recognition transforms acoustic signals into text, freeing usersfrom the constraints of traditional windows-icons-mouse-puU-down menu interfaces.

Applications for this include online shopping and car driving; and voicebiometrics.

We will also discuss how to overcome speech's natural error-proneaspects like the speaker, the speaker's voice, and the acoustic environment.

For more information contact:ACM Advertising 212-626-0687acm-advertising@acm.org

July2000/Vol 43 No 7 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM