Katrina E. Bedell-Avers

Applying Multiple Knowledge Structures in Creative Thought: Effects on Idea Generation and Problem-Solving

Prior studies have indicated that multiple knowledge structures, schema, associations, and cases, are involved in creative thought. Few studies, however, have examined how these different knowledge structures operate together in idea generation and creative problem-solving. Accordingly, in the present study 247 undergraduates were asked to generate ideas relevant to a social innovation problem and then provide a potential solution to the problem. A training manipulation was used to encourage application of schematic, associational, or case-based knowledge either alone or in combination. It was found that prompting use of a single knowledge structure, specifically schema or associational knowledge, resulted in the production of more high quality ideas. However, prompting use of multiple knowledge structures, specifically combining either schema or associations with cases, resulted in the production of higher quality and more original problem-solutions. The implications of these findings for understanding the role of different knowledge structures in creative thought are discussed.

Planning for innovation: A multi-level perspective

Scholars continue to debate whether planning, in fact, contributes to creativity and innovation. In this chapter, we argue that planning is critical to innovation and will contribute to the generation of viable new ideas. Effective planning, however, must be based on an incremental approach involving a viable portfolio of projects. The implications of this model for the management of innovation at the organizational, group, and individual levels are discussed. Potential new directions for research are considered, along with the models implications for the management of creative ventures.

Constraints on innovation: Planning as a context for creativity

Plans and planning have a long and checkered history. In their commentaries, Ettlie (this volume) and Miller and Osborn (this volume) take rather different views on the need for planning in innovative projects. In this commentary, we take the position that innovation requires constraints. These constraints induce certain risk factors that warrant attention, such as oversystemization. By the same token, they produce conditions, including social conditions that make sustained innovation possible. Based on these observations, some potential directions for future research are discussed.