The Use of Soft Systems Methodology to Enhance Group Creativity

Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 DOI 10.1007/s11213-007-9078-0 ORIGINAL PAPER The Use of Soft Systems Methodology to Enhance Group Creativity John Molineux Æ Tim Haslett Published online: 11 October 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract Soft Systems Methodology is especially useful in diagnosing and addressing organizational problems and designing new systems in cultures that are characterised by pluralistic views and values. This paper demonstrates how SSM workshops in a large government agency resulted in a high level of creativity. SSM is then proposed as a methodology that could enhance group creativity in organizational design contexts. Keywords Soft systems methodology
Creativity Introduction This article puts forward the proposition that Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) can be used as a methodology to enhance group creativity in organizational contexts. It analyses the theoretical basis of creativity to understand the factors that enhance group creativity in the work context, such as group environment and individual motivation and personality, with a view to understanding how these factors are enabled through SSM. With this in mind, SSM is reviewed in relation to its creativity and learning aspects. It is our view that SSM, if used appropriately, enables group creativity, and is a better methodology to use in the design of work systems. To demonstrate the practical application of SSM in generating creative outputs, the article describes several design workshops using SSM conducted by the first author in a large government agency, which resulted in highly creative outputs. Later, alternative creativity methodologies and techniques recommended in the literature are compared with SSM. The potential of SSM to generate creative outcomes was not realized until after the workshops reported in the case mentioned. Interestingly, Checkland and Scholes (1990:287) note that SSM will ‘‘potentially yield methodological lessons in addition to J. Molineux 8 Churchill Close, Murrumbeena, Melbourne, VIC 3163, Australia J. Molineux (&)
T. Haslett Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: John.Molineux@buseco.monash.edu.au 123 478 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 those about the situation of concern’’. They also note that these potential lessons will ‘‘always be there, awaiting extraction by conscious reflection on the experience of use’’. This was true for the first author, on realizing the results of evaluation of the SSM workshops, so explanation was sought for the surprisingly creative outputs of the workshops and subsequent organizational innovation. Creativity To understand how SSM enables creativity in a group design situation, we must first understand the factors that enable creativity in groups. We note that creativity is a psychological thinking process which has interested theorists over the last half-century. However, as this is a very broad topic, the focus on creativity in this article is around its use in organizational group contexts. In defining creativity, Barron (1988:80) states that is ‘‘an ability to respond adaptively to the needs for new approaches and new products’’. Torrance (1988:47) describes the creative thinking process as: sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing elements, something askew; making guesses and formulating hypotheses about these deficiencies; evaluating and testing these guesses and hypotheses; possibly revising and retesting them; and finally communicating the results. In organizations, creativity is important for innovation as well as for the development of new products and processes, and in many organizations, the creative thinking process is enabled through some form of intervention. In one article, Amabile et al. (1996:1154) note that ‘‘all innovation begins with creative ideas’’. Creativity is not innovation, though. It may lead to innovation. Amabile et al. (1996:1155) believe that ‘‘creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation’’ and that creativity is ‘‘a necessary but not sufficient condition’’ for innovation. However, there are other factors, such as management priorities, production practicalities, organizational culture and politics, which will impact on creative ideas becoming innovative products. To enable innovation, organizations may need to actively intervene in design and development activities. This is where SSM could be used as an enabler for the generation of creative ideas. The major factors in group creativity appear to be categorized into (1) the work context and environment, (2) group interaction and facilitation, and (3) individual motivation and personality. These factors are further explored in the next few sections and the SSM workshops will later be evaluated against group creativity conditions. The Work Context and Environment for Creativity One of the most important factors in enabling group creativity is the environmental context, as creativity does not exist in isolation. It is highly contextual. Sternberg (1999) confirms this proposition in his statement that creative contributions must always be defined in some context. The creative environment is particularly important in being able to generate new ideas through such influences as: an environment of psychological safety and freedom; a toleration of ambiguity and individual differences; and supporting and rewarding creative ideas (Isen et al. 1987; Rogers 1954; Sternberg and Lubart 1996). 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 479 The social context (Simonton 1988) or social system (Harrington 1990) helps create the environment by providing the ingredients for creativity, including the presence of interesting, solvable problems, novel techniques and new perspectives to apply to the problem. Janssen et al. (2004:130) state that the generation of creative ideas is ‘‘often triggered by work-related problems, incongruities, and discontinuities which employees are confronted with at work’’. Clearly related to this is the culture of the society or work organisation involved, and the worldviews which may be dominant (Lubart 1999). These factors could have a positive, negative or neutral influence on creativity and may contain some elements in the culture that may ‘‘foster creativity and others that stifle it’’ (Lubart 1999:346). Martins and Terblanche (2003:68) state that organisational culture ‘‘affects the extent to which creative solutions are encouraged, supported and implemented’’ and that it becomes ‘‘enacted in established forms of behaviours and activity and are reflected as structures, policy, practices, management practices and procedures’’ that ‘‘impact directly on creativity in the workplace’’. In the work context, researchers have found a number of factors that either enhance or impede creativity. Those that enhance creativity include: freedom and play in work; good management; sufficient resources; a positive climate for ideas; encouragement from the organisation (includes a licence for employees or project teams to be creative and organisational mechanisms that support the consideration of new ideas); work challenge and risk taking; encouragement from senior management, the supervisor and the work group; positive feedback; recognition; accurate communication; sufficient time; and a sense of challenge (Amabile 1988, 1996; Amabile et al. 1996; Ekvall 1996; George and Zhou 2001; Zhou 1998). Stimulation and complexity of the work is considered positive by Cummings and Oldham (1997), as it supports novelty in work. Complex jobs may in fact ‘‘demand creative outcomes’’ by encouraging individuals to ‘‘focus simultaneously on multiple dimensions of their work’’ (Oldham and Cummings 1996:610). Amabile et al. (1996) outline many of these aspects that have significant empirical support. Zhou (1998) found that positive support encouraged creative behavior, whereas criticism tended to discourage creative behavior. Fagan (2004:79) suggests that ‘‘particular attention might be paid to team members’ perceptions of the creative climate stimulants of challenging work, freedom and work group support’’. Also, Miron et al. (2004:194) note that ‘‘creative people implement their ideas and produce innovative products when working in an environment that supports innovation’’. On the other hand, the style of management in an organisation can be an influence, as Williams and Yang (1999:374) found that ‘‘traditional concepts of organizations that so heavily emphasize control have had the effect of minimising employee creativity’’. In relation to job complexity, Cummings and Oldham (1997) believe that more complex jobs may encourage employees to be more creative as they can see the significance of the work and can use a variety of skills. By contrast, impediments or obstacles in a work context include: a climate that has little regard for innovation; constraints; disinterest; poor management; criticism and external evaluation; insufficient resources; time pressures; emphasis on status quo; and competition (Amabile 1988, 1996). Another view is proposed by Pirola-Merlo and Mann (2004:239). They note that the way ‘‘task components are integrated will determine the specific form of emergence for group-level performance’’. They suggest that ‘‘in typical interdependent project teams team creativity emerges as a combination of lower-level elements (individual creativity)’’, which ‘‘produce the group-level construct (team creativity)’’. This form of emergence is subject to 123 480 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 the various contextual factors noted in earlier. As a result, they note that ‘‘creative team products emerge in a dynamic process that unfolds over time’’ (p. 256). Group Interaction and Facilitation Researchers have found that there are a number of conditions where groups will be more effective in creative output. In fact, groups can be naturally more creative than individuals as Paulus (2000) found that novel associations are created through mutual stimulation within groups. Task cohesiveness, defined as the group’s shared commitment to a task (Hackman 1976), and interpersonal cohesiveness, defined as the group members’ attraction to or liking of the group (Evans and Jarvis 1980) are found as factors which will improve performance in groups that are required to ‘‘create, imagine, or generate novel ideas or products’’ (Craig and Kelly 1999:255). Groups that laughed and smiled more as well as made more verbal support statements and fewer critical statements performed better creatively (Firestein 1990). The alignment of personal goals of group members is a factor suggested by Ford (1999) in enabling group creativity. King and Anderson (1990) believe that in addition to cohesiveness, other factors in group creativity include a democratic and collaborative leadership, an organic structure, and individual diversity. This latter point is also confirmed by Simonton (2003) who states that a group whose membership is heterogeneous in expertise, experience and status may prove more creative than a homogeneous group. The mood of a group is also considered an important factor in creativity. According to Fredrickson (2001:219), positive mood ‘‘broadens people’s momentary thought-action repertoires’’. It also permits more flexible cognitive processes, leading to a wider variety of behavioral options. Grawitch et al. (2003:50) found that in temporary workgroup settings, groups in a positive mood condition ‘‘significantly outperformed groups in the neutral and negative conditions’’. They presume that positive mood has both ‘‘a direct and an indirect effect on creative group performance, due to its effect on individuals and groups’’ (p. 52). Martins and Terblanche (2003) note that effective teamwork is another factor that enables creativity, to the extent that team members show trust and respect, understand one another’s perspectives, communicate effectively, and are open to explore and question new ideas. The importance of diversity in the group is noted by Santanen et al. (2004:173), who state that ‘‘attention to the ideas of others, presence of conflict, heterogeneity of participants, divergent style, and incubation of ideas lead to increased creativity’’. Facilitation is a type of intervention itself, and can be quite critical in group situations. Schwarz (1994:4) describes group facilitation as: a process in which a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, substantively neutral, and has no decision-making authority intervenes to help a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to increase the group’s effectiveness. Haner (2005:291) notes that providing support for creativity and innovation processes means ‘‘facilitating activities carried out during those processes’’. This includes knowing both when to diverge and engage the group in expansive or discovery activities and also when to converge, in analyzing and deciding on options. Mostert (2007) reinforces the need for openness and trust between the participants and for the facilitator to enable the group to produce a flow of ideas. 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 481 Individual Motivation and Personality Individual motivation is another important aspect of group creativity. Hennessey and Amabile (1988:11) state that they ‘‘have found that there exists a strong and positive link between a person’s motivational state...and the creativity of the person’s performance’’. There are two forms of motivation for an individual. One is intrinsic or ‘‘motivation that arises from the individual’s positive reaction to qualities of the task itself’’ and the other is extrinsic or ‘‘motivation that arises from sources outside of the task itself’’ (Amabile 1996:115). Intrinsic motivation may occur because the task itself is interesting and involving, and the individual has a drive to engage in the activity. In fact, some individuals have a natural propensity to be creative and to actively seek knowledge (Kristensen 2004). Extrinsic motivation may work when rewards, recognition and feedback confirm individual competence or provide important information on how to improve competence (Deci and Ryan 1985). According to Dudek and Côté (1994), individuals may also be intrinsically motivated by activities they have chosen for themselves, rather than activities that have been selected for them by others, or in which they are obliged to engage in for reasons beyond their control. Deci and Ryan (1985:85) have also found that the motivational process is determined by its ‘‘psychological meaning for the individual’’. According to their findings, an event can be perceived by an individual as either informational, controlling, or amotivating, and this perception will influence their motivational state. For example, an informational event increases intrinsic motivation if it signifies competence and decreases intrinsic motivation if it signifies incompetence. It is also affected by the perceiver’s sensitivities and past experiences as well as by the actual configuration of the event itself. Individual capability and personality are further factors in the complexity of creativity. Woodman et al. (1993) state that individual creativity is a function of antecedent conditions, cognitive style and ability, personality factors, relevant knowledge, motivation, social influences, and contextual influences. The individual is influenced by an interaction of the various factors. Individual characteristics, such as broad interests, attraction to complexity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, toleration of ambiguity, and self-confidence are proposed by Oldham and Cummings (1996) as relating positively to measures of creative performance. Openness to experience is another factor found to positively influence creative performance by George and Zhou (2001:514), who claim that people who are high on this characteristic have ‘‘greater access to a variety of feelings, thoughts, perspectives, and ideas, may be more adaptable to changing circumstances’’ and tend to ‘‘be willing and able to come up with and think about new ideas’’. Personality theory would also indicate that some personality types are more likely to be naturally creative (e.g. intuitive types as described in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs Myers and McCaulley 1985). Intuitive types are more likely to ignore standard frameworks and reframe the problem, seeking insightful and creative solutions. Creative thinking types tend to think in a way that is ‘‘expansive, innovative, inventive, unconstrained thinking’’ according to Nickerson (1999:397). It is associated with exploration and idea generation and can be ‘‘daring, uninhibited, fanciful, imaginative, freespirited, unpredictable, revolutionary’’. He contrasts this with critical thinking, which is ‘‘focused, disciplined, logical, constrained thinking’’ and claims this is ‘‘down to earth, realistic, practical, staid, dependable, conservative’’ (p. 397). Sternberg et al. (1997:12) describe this as an ‘‘inventing style’’ of thinking preference. They state that it consists of the use of intellectual abilities of synthetic thinking, analytical thinking and practical 123 482 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 thinking. However, the three are independent, so the synthetic ability must be used first to see connections, redefine problems and generate options. A Systemic View of Creativity Our view of creativity is that the work context and environment, group interaction and facilitation, and individual motivation and personality factors are all inter-related and need to be considered in the desire of obtaining creative behaviour from an organisational group. The work context and environment provide the foundations for creativity to occur in a group. The motivation and personality of individuals supply the intellectual power to enable creativity to occur. The group interaction and facilitation factors enable free flow of information and encouragement during the actual process of creating. Therefore creative behaviour in organizational groups may be seen as an emergent property arising from the interaction of these factors. A conceptual model of this is shown as Fig. 1. The model at Fig. 1 shows a group of people with individual motivation and personality factors. This group is operating within an influence sphere of an organisational work context and environmental factors. Many of the individual and contextual factors will be passive in the sense that they are present in the group situation. The extent of the influence of these factors may vary, depending on the make-up of the group itself. No two group contexts will be the same. However, the group interaction and facilitation will influence creativity in a more active way. The combination of all these factors should lead to some creative outcomes. SSM could be introduced as an intervention through group interaction and facilitation. Soft Systems Methodology Soft Systems Methodology arose from an action research program at Lancaster University (Checkland 1981) as an answer to the lack of specific applicability of other systems approaches to the complex area of human activity systems. Work context and environment factors Individual motivation and personality factors Group interaction and facilitation factors Fig. 1 Simplified diagram of factors enabling group creativity 123 Creative outcomes Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 483 SSM Description and Purpose Soft Systems Methodology is a methodology that extends systems thinking methodologies from their origins in what Checkland (1981) calls ‘hard systems thinking’ to the human activity systems or ‘soft systems’. The word ‘soft’ indicates the essential sociological, cultural and political elements embedded in systems that have human dynamics. The purpose of SSM in extending systems thinking to incorporate human activity systems has helped to broaden its influence in organisational decision making. The concept of ‘human activity system’ is defined by Checkland (1981:314) as a ‘‘notional purposive system which expresses some purposeful human activity, activity which could in principle be found in the real world’’. These systems are necessarily intellectual constructs, and Checkland further defines that they are ‘‘ideal types for use in a debate about possible changes which might be introduced into a real-world problem situation’’. SSM is about ‘‘applying systems principles to structure thinking about things that happen in the world’’ (Rose and Haynes 1999). Any use of SSM is seen by Checkland (2000b:821) as involving four elements: (1) a perceived real-world problem situation; (2) a process for tackling that situation in order to bring about some kind of improvement; (3) a group of people involved in this process; and (4) the combination of these three (intervention in the problem situation) as a whole with emergent properties. The use of SSM is seen by Flood and Jackson (1991) as most relevant to complex pluralist situations. In the framework System of Systems Methodologies, a number of systems methodologies are evaluated and are grouped based on the assumptions they make about problem contexts. The context of the performance system re-design at the Agency is pluralist and complex and therefore is aligned to the context recommended by Flood and Jackson. It should be noted that SSM has had wide success, particularly in these contexts. Many examples of its use are given in Checkland (1981), Checkland and Scholes (1990), and Checkland and Holwell (1998). Also, Mingers and Taylor (1992) and Ledington and Donaldson (1997) have both conducted surveys of OR and systems practitioners and have discovered that SSM is in wide use. In the first survey, over 90% of 300 respondents reported their success with SSM as reasonable, good, or very good. These users covered a wide range of occupations and organizations, and the application areas included organizational design, information systems, performance evaluation, education, and general problem solving. The Creativity of SSM In this article, we are particularly concerned with SSM’s creative and innovative characteristics, such as in Checkland and Holwell’s (1998:164) claim that SSM can be used as ‘‘a sense-making device’’ and additionally, that the methodology itself is inherently creative and flexible. They relate that SSM’s principles allow for (p. 171) ‘‘room for creative, innovative use of those principles, use which is specific to a particular situation, particular participants and particular users of the methodology’’. Soft Systems Methodology’s allows for the suggestion of new ideas and changing perceptions (Attwater 1999); enables individuals to be more open to new ideas (Clarke 2000); and when a process is consciously structured by the use of SSM, it is ‘‘more capable of generating insights and producing commitments’’ (Checkland 2000b:823). 123 484 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 One of the most creative elements in SSM is the use of rich pictures, which Checkland (2000a:S22) states ‘‘are a better medium than linear prose for expressing relationships’’ and that ‘‘pictures can be taken in as a whole and help to encourage holistic rather than reductionist thinking about a situation’’. He also sees them as ‘‘invaluable as an item which can be tabled as the starting point of exploratory discussion with people in a problem situation’’ (p. S22). In one study, the use of rich pictures in an SSM intervention ‘‘surfaced some important (and, hithertofore, unarticulated) issues’’ (Luckett et al. 2001:539). This latter statement is certainly true of the first author’s own experience in the use of SSM over several years, both as a participant and facilitator. This is because the introduction of the concept of undertaking a rich picture early on in a SSM intervention immediately opens up individuals to creative expression. This will be discussed later as a prime difference to other recommended processes for the development of creativity. In our opinion, the building of conceptual models of human activity systems through the CATWOE and the root definition process is the other highly creative set of elements of SSM. This process allows individuals to move out of their real-world comfort, and into a world of possibilities. Learning and Thinking Aspects of SSM The generation of learning is central to the use of SSM and the methodology’s ability to facilitate learning is an important aspect of its usefulness in generating creative ideas. Checkland (1981:213) notes that the outcome of an intervention is ‘‘never an optimal solution to a problem, it is rather a learning which leads to a decision to take certain action’’. He also notes that SSM ‘‘is a learning system’’ (p. 214). As noted in the introduction, SSM is a methodology, not a technique, and its use yields methodological lessons in addition to learning about the problem situation. Jackson (2000:S6) states that SSM’s cyclic learning process ‘‘articulates natural processes of management that occur in organizations’’ which allows propositions for alternative action and changes to happen. SSM is seen as ‘‘a framework which can be used to guide learning’’ by Davies and Ledington (1991:6). This purpose of guiding learning has an important place in relation to enabling SSM to work in a practical way. The methodology can open thinking ‘doors’, enable systemic understanding to occur, and thus help to work out solutions that take into account the whole system, incorporating the complex sociological, cultural and political factors that might influence any solutions proposed. In relation to this, Checkland and Scholes (1990:284) state that ‘‘...SSM was always perceived as an organised use of systems ideas in a methodology for learning one’s way to purposeful action to improve a problem situation’’. Soft Systems Methodology’s ability to facilitate learning is enhanced by its flexibility, as highlighted by Kane and Del Mistro (2003:121) who state that ‘‘SSM is a flexible tool which can be used to generate individual knowledge and understanding’’ and by Taylor and DaCosta (1999:265) who state that in the process of SSM ‘‘as models are constructed, the direction of learning is changed and further questions are prompted about the problematical situation’’. To generate creative output in a group, creative thinking may need to be facilitated, and SSM ‘‘provides ‘thinking tools’ to assist in the exploration and interpretation of the complex human or socio-political situations...‘‘ according to Kane and Del Mistro (2003:120). Poulter (2000:815) sees that for him, ‘‘the greatest achievement in the 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 485 development of SSM is its articulation of a natural systemic thinking process’’, which he sees as adding rigour to participants ‘‘mental processes and the ability to explain to others what they are doing’’ (p. 813). Fuenmayor (2000:765) talks about SSM as providing a ‘‘space for thinking––thinking about a plurality of interpretations impinging in a problematic situation’’. The methodology, then, allows room for creative thinking. Alternative Approaches in Facilitating Creativity There are several methodologies and techniques proposed in the creativity literature that enable groups to bring about creative outputs. However, we propose that non-contextual approaches will not work as effectively as a methodology such as SSM, which has a holistic and systemic approach to the situation under review. The most simple approach is a technique that is very common and in widespread use called brainstorming, which was originated by Alex Osborn in 1938 as a method for improving group problem-solving. Osborn (1963) believes that brainstorming is most useful for idea-finding. Amabile (1983:190) states that brainstorming ‘‘does generally result in a larger number of ideas than do procedures that admit judgment during ideageneration’’. However, she also claims that ‘‘the quality of ideas does not show noticeable improvement’’. Another approach is Synectics, which is a creativity-stimulation program developed by William Gordon in 1944 (Gordon 1961). Synectics, like brainstorming, uses deferment of judgment during idea generation. In synectics sessions, however, there is generally more use of emotion to generate ideas, and there is greater external direction of ideas. The use of various types of analogy is a key part of the process. A more complex approach, titled, Creative Problem Solving, is a training program developed by Parnes (1967). The program comprises both individual and group techniques, including brainstorming and the use of checklists for generating new ideas from old ones. Over several sessions, participants in the program are taught to follow six stages of problemsolving: mess finding, data finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding. This technique is probably the closest to SSM Mode 1 in its format, but of course does not include any specific techniques for application to problems relating to specified systems, and is not in essence a comprehensive methodology like SSM. Rose and Lin (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies of major long-term creativity training programs and found that the Creative Problem Solving program accounted for a higher percentage in total creativity scores (approximately 40%) than did the other programs (which varied from approximately 11–28%). Amabile (1996:258) reports that other studies on creativity training have found that ‘‘brainstorming can be effective in increasing idea generation under some circumstances’’ and that Synectics training may be effective ‘‘only in a favorable social climate and only in the case of a well-defined problem’’. Amabile adds that ‘‘most of the creativity-training programs rely primarily on cognitive mechanisms such as learning to take new perspectives on problems’’ (pp. 258–9). Sutton and Hargadon (1996) have found that people in face-to-face brainstorming meetings are less efficient at generating ideas than working alone, but the brainstorming technique could also be highly effective because of efficiency in idea generation. Guastello (2002:181) raises the issue that in real-time brainstorming groups ‘‘some participants have difficulty getting a word in edgewise, particularly if the flow of ideas is heading in another direction’’. Craig and Kelly (1999:253) state that ‘‘the simple additive nature of 123 486 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 brainstorming tasks does not allow for the potential benefits of synergy and coordination of action that can occur in groups’’. Sternberg and Lubart (1999:5) are more critical as they state that ‘‘these approaches lack any basis in serious psychological theory, as well as serious empirical attempts to validate them’’ although they acknowledge that the ‘‘techniques can work in the absence of psychological theory or validation’’ (p. 6). A more recent creative technique, the Vision Conference, is outlined by Vidall (2004:386–7), who states that its purpose: is not only to create ideas and visions about the future but also to create ideas and visions that are suitable as a basis for the process of strategy development to be carried out by the organization in question. Vidall (2004:387) states that the Vision Conference ‘‘is both a learning and a creative experience...‘‘ and that ‘‘some creativity techniques will be used to support the creative process in each subgroup’’ (p. 388). He describes the process of a Vision Conference as ‘‘usually of one-working-day duration’’. The morning phase is called the divergent phase and consists of ‘‘work in subgroups...combined with plenary sessions, with the purpose of producing as many ideas, projects, visions, and objectives as possible’’. The afternoon phase is called the convergent phase which ‘‘is focused on the most promising ideas’’. This phase also works in ‘‘the same combination of work in subgroups and plenary sessions’’ (p. 388). In an example of a conference, Vidall (2004:400–2) describes the use of the Creative Problem Solving technique and a range of other possible techniques, including brainwriting (an adaptation of brainstorming), verbal checklists (which ‘‘enhance flexibility’’), picture stimulation (another adaptation of brainstorming), photo excursion (used to stimulate creativity), and mind maps (used to structure complex situations). Vidall notes (2004:391) that the plenary sessions ‘‘reflected a good atmosphere and it was a lot of laughter, a good sign of creative work’’. Although Vidall explains that the ‘‘success of the Vision Conference is determined by the effectiveness and creativity of the group work’’, he does not provide examples of evidence of creativity. The approaches outlined in this section will be later compared with SSM as methods of generating group creativity. The SSM Workshops The Problem Context The Performance Team of a large Australian Public Service agency had been set the task by senior management of the agency to redesign the agency’s performance system. The agency’s performance system had four clear goals—employee development; internal alignment of performance; accountability for outcomes; and building effective working relationships. A design project team had been set up, and were conducting research and consulting with stakeholders. However, the team members were looking for a methodology and a suitable practitioner who could facilitate design workshops for them. The first author’s education of HR graduates in systems thinking techniques was a catalyst for the selection of SSM as a suitable methodology for the redesign of the system. One of these graduates was a member of the agency’s performance system re-design project, and approached the first author about using SSM as a suitable methodology for developing new ideas, involving clients and designing new features of the system. 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 487 The first author subsequently presented the agency’s Performance Team, and the major stakeholder, the Director of Performance, with an outline of SSM, a statement of its benefits, and a copy of the paper Molineux and Haslett (2001), which outlined the use of SSM in re-designing the employment system in the same agency. The corporate Performance Team coordinated the performance system within the agency with members of a cross-business line Reference Group. The use of SSM for the workshops was agreed to by the Performance Team first, and then the Reference Group. The author explained the holistic nature of SSM and the proposed workshop process to the Reference Group, and distributed outlines of the process and SSM approach. Four 2-day workshops were planned. The Performance Team sent out an open invitation through the Reference Group and other key stakeholders to nominate to attend or invite other interested staff members to attend one of the workshops. Over 60 people volunteered to attend a workshop, which included representatives from each of the agency’s 17 business lines. Participants included members of the Reference Group, the Performance Team, and managers and staff members from various line areas. Workshop Design and Outcomes The design consisted of a 2-day workshop, based around an SSM Mode 1 design (slightly modified), with the addition of an analysis from SSM Mode 2 of systemic viability, cultural feasibility, and political acceptability; and a self-evaluation adapted from Checkland and Tsouvalis (1997). Flood (1999:58) states that Mode 2 SSM is ‘‘a conceptual framework to be incorporated in everyday thinking’’. The reason for its incorporation in this process is the relevance of social system analysis to interventions in human activity systems. Many organisational interventions seem to forget that there is a culture in existence in the organisation and it has significant impact and influence on the behaviour of individuals. As a part of the culture, political influences within an organisation need to be considered. Checkland and Scholes (1990:50) discuss this with the comment that: ‘‘any human situation will have a political dimension, and needs to explore it.’’ The introduction of the workshops included a brief explanation of systemic thinking, an outline of the SSM process to be used, and an outline of the purpose of the project. A statement of encouragement to be creative was relayed from the CEO of the agency, so that participants would not feel constrained by existing organisational processes. The participative part of the workshops commenced with the building of rich pictures of the current state. The facilitator split each workshop into small groups of three or four, to discuss and draw or diagrammatically represent their understanding of the current state. In some cases, the facilitator needed to encourage the use of drawings and the minimization of written words. This worked effectively, and many rich pictures were developed. The pictures were then placed around the room and the other groups were asked to view them. Later, each group was asked questions, clarified meaning, and defended or further adapted their rich pictures. This resulted in a fuller understanding of the current state. The next part of the workshop involved the development of ideal systems. The facilitator encouraged the small groups to think about what an ideal performance system would look like in the future, and to consider its possible components and sub-systems. The small groups drew up long lists, and were then encouraged to link the common ideas and themes, and choose one that was important for the group to develop further in the workshop. After this, the root definitions were developed and the TWOACES version of CATWOE was 123 488 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 utilized to work on the transformation required. After each stage of the process, the small groups were asked to share their ideas with the larger group to obtain feedback, creative suggestions and critical review. On the second day, the groups were asked to develop the actions that were associated with their ideal system and draw a conceptual model as a diagram, flow map and picture. Later, the comparisons were made between ideal state and current state, and the designs were reviewed from the perspective of systemic viability, cultural feasibility and political acceptability. Following this, action plans were developed and the evaluation framework used. One of the outputs from the workshops included the naming of ideal systems, which then took on another life through later processes of implementation and trial. Some of these named systems included the ‘frequent recognition of people’ system, the ‘team song’ system, the ‘engagement’ system, the ‘consequences’ system, the ‘joint ownership’ system, the ‘conversation’ system, the ‘actualisation’ system, the ‘relationship, trust and values’ system, and the ‘self assessment’ system. Design features of these included new ways to undertake performance conversations that build positive working relationships, the expansion of reward and recognition programs, the responsibility for realistic selfassessment of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of performance, the development of new education products to enable more useful and reliable feedback, the development of performance kits suitable for different situations, the development of an electronic multi-source feedback system, and the enhancement of learning and development opportunities through performance discussions. According to Kratzer et al. (2004), measuring creative performance is notoriously difficult, but they recommend a process which includes the self-evaluation of creativity by group members. In this case, we followed the self-evaluation process and also review some of the outcomes to the organization’s performance system following the implementation of many of the creative designs. In the workshop evaluation, participants were asked to complete an evaluation form at the end of the SSM workshops. The evaluation form contained both open-ended questions and Likert-type scale questions. Completion of the forms was entirely voluntary. A total of 80% of participants completed the evaluation forms. Results from the Likert-scale questions are shown in Table 1. Nearly all (97.1%) participants thought the use of SSM in the workshop was either good or excellent. There was a similar high rating (97.1% either excellent or good) for the delivery of the workshops. Participants also thought they were fully involved (56.3%) or mostly involved (35.4%) in the process and the workshop also largely met their expectations. The results showed an improvement in the results from a previous set of workshops run in the same agency by the first author, but for a different set of clients. These results were reported in Molineux and Haslett (2001). Specifically, both the use of SSM and the delivery of the workshop had improved from 87.1% of participants rating SSM good or excellent to 97.1%. Of particular note, the ‘‘excellent’’ delivery rating had increased from 48.4 to 62.5%. These results may confirm Checkland and Holwell’s (1998) opinion that the experience of a facilitator in using SSM improves its flexibility and performance as a methodology. The client team were amazed (personal communication) at the enormous creativity of the workshops, with 11 sub-systems created or redesigned and 73 changes suggested. It was this high level of creativity that led the first author to consider that SSM was a significant factor in generating creative solutions at the workshops, and that SSM probably would be able to achieve this in a range of situations and contexts. 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 489 Table 1 Ratings by participants of SSM workshops Percentage Excellent Good Satisfactory Opinion on the use of SSM 50.0 47.9 2.1 Delivery of workshop 62.5 35.4 2.1 Percentage Fully Mostly Partly Level of involvement 56.3 35.4 8.3 Met own expectations 50.0 47.8 2.2 Borderline Not well Poor Did not It should be noted that there were no actual questions about creativity in the workshop evaluation. The responses were entirely spontaneous to the open-ended questions. In examining responses to an open-ended question that asked participants to state the key messages they took away from the workshop, a number of the responses noted the creativity seen in the workshops. In one response, for example, a participant commented ‘‘The methodology drew out creativity’’ and another commented ‘‘Innovation; creation; make it happen’’. Answers to another open-ended question which asked participants on the benefits of using a systemic approach (i.e. SSM) also drew on the creative theme, for example, one commented ‘‘creating a change in the system for viability’’. Others stated ‘‘It is structured but encourages free and creative thinking’’; ‘‘Encouraged ‘out there’ ideas’’; and ‘‘Encourages creative/innovative ideas’’. The ideas and designs from the workshops were presented to a further three-day workshop of the Performance Team and Reference Group, which were then evaluated for implementation and categorised as to their probable time-scales. Volunteers from different business lines were called to trial many of the proposed changes, and a paper was later completed to seek approval from the agency’s executive group of the major system changes suggested. Following that, many of the ideas related to the short-term were implemented or had undergone trial. Later, other long-term ideas were further developed, approved and implemented. Outcomes of the implementation of various ideas from the workshop have been measured indirectly through the agency’s annual survey of the performance environment. The survey was designed in accordance with the performance continuum developed by the Institute of Public Administration and is sent to a 25% random stratified sample of employees. The survey completion rate is around 59%. The results are mapped against a performance maturity continuum where level 1 is very low, level 2 is low, level 3 is moderate, level 4 is good, and level 5 is high. In the three years since the re-design occurred, the maturity level has risen from 2.97 to 3.42 for reward and recognition. It has also risen from 3.42 to 3.93 for performance relationships. The improvements to reward and recognition and to performance systems suggested in the workshops would have contributed to these improvements, particularly as these improvements focused on building more productive working relationships. SSM Enables Group Creativity Soft Systems Methodology, we believe, should be used to bring about group creativity, given appropriate context and circumstances. It may be used for the creative design of systems in the manner described earlier in ‘‘Workshop Design and Outcomes’’. The 123 490 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 authors believe that is a better approach than the existing approaches used in common creative practice: brainstorming; synectics; and creative problem solving. It is especially more useful in complex problem solving situations, and in contexts where a ‘human activity system’ is the major focus of concern. It is especially ideal for situations in systems design. It has also been frequently used in conjunction with other methodologies, thus enhancing its flexibility and usefulness, according to Mingers (2000). The reasons for these opinions favouring SSM as a creative tool are, in part, based on the experience generated from the workshops mentioned in this article. They are also based on a comparison of the literature surrounding both SSM and creativity. Comparison of SSM Workshop Outcomes with Conditions for Creativity The context and process of the SSM workshops in this study closely matched the work conditions that enhance creativity, mentioned earlier in the article. For example, the workshops encouraged freedom of exploration and play. Play is a fairly natural part of SSM, as noted by Clarke (2000:804), who states that in experiencing SSM, individuals enjoy ‘‘rediscovering the fun of work’’. Checkland (2000b:822) also states that ‘‘for those taking part in the process, it should be a lively, playful experience; the participants should, in fact, feel it to be serious fun’’. Many participants remarked on their ‘‘enjoyment’’ of the workshops. The facilitator noted the high degree of laughter and fun that participants were having, particularly in drawing rich pictures and in building conceptual models (direct observations). As mentioned earlier, Firestein (1990) noted that groups that laughed and smiled more, performed better creatively. The rich picture aspect of SSM mode 1, particularly as it occurs early in the SSM process, set an enjoyable tone for the rest of the workshop. Positive group mood is also correlated to creative performance (Fredrickson 2001). The mood created in the workshops was noted as being positive, and the methodology lends itself as a process ‘‘encouraging...the creation of accommodations between conflicting viewpoints’’ leading to ‘action to improve’ the situation’’ (Checkland 2000b:822). In Clarke (2000:804)’s view, ‘‘it allows people to be heard explicitly and encourages the reduction of fear and anger that can sometimes accompany the discussion of ideas’’, which ‘‘allows measured discussion that enables the reaching of accommodation or agreement’’. The SSM process, if facilitated properly, creates an environment that reduces conflict and enhances focus on the issue, accommodating various viewpoints. A focus of SSM workshops is through working in teams or small groups. Leemhuis (2000:812) states that in SSM, ‘‘engaging in these processes encourages teambuilding and enhances team-work, which is relevant for tackling real-world problematical situations’’. This emphasis on working in small teams is certainly aligned to the factors for group creativity, particularly that of interpersonal cohesiveness, which was found by Craig and Kelly (1999) to be a key condition. The conditions for creativity listed earlier in this article in relation to work context and group creativity were also noted as factors in the workshops that may have positively enhanced the creative output. A comparison of the conditions and the workshop outcomes is shown in Table 2. Intrinsic motivation is an important factor, and elements such as self choice bring about enhanced creativity (Dudek and Côté 1994). In this case, the workshop participants were volunteers, who all had some interest in the topic. Also, the workshops were informational 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 491 Table 2 Conditions for group creativity noted in the literature and the SSM workshops Conditions for group creativity noted in the literature Conditions noted from the SSM workshops Diversity of group members The group was quite diverse, with a range of personality types and work roles represented Encouragement from organisational mechanisms The workshops were part of a large process that would assess and implement changes Sufficient time The workshops had two full days to complete the task, and participants were freed from other work responsibilities Encouragement from senior management A statement of encouragement was given on behalf of the CEO to participants A positive climate The facilitator created a positive climate at the start of the workshop, and continued this by providing encouragement and positive and constructive feedback during the sessions A sense of challenge The task itself was quite complex and difficult, and presented a significant challenge for participants Play and enjoyment The facilitator noted high levels of fun and laughter during the workshops, and the rich pictures also contributed to the play aspect Intrinsic motivation The group participants were volunteers who had interest in the workshop topic Collaboration The group participants were encouraged to operate collaboratively consistently throughout the process (Deci and Ryan 1985) about the context of the system, the methodology, and systemic thinking, which is another factor that is more likely to enable creativity (Amabile 1996). A Safe Environment It is important to have a safe environment for people to experiment. However, as McFadzean (2002) noted, participants may feel uncomfortable in drawing pictures and ‘playing’ at work. Checkland (2000a:S22) also notes that ‘‘producing such graphics is very natural for some people, very difficult for others’’ and suggests that ‘‘users need to develop skill in making ‘rich pictures’ in ways they are comfortable with, ways which are as natural as possible for them as individuals’’. In the design workshops, the facilitator encouraged small groups to select volunteers to do the drawing. In this case, others who were reluctant, or who felt uncomfortable, could still participate by suggesting ideas for drawings, without having to actually draw them. This actually defused the issue for these particular workshops, but we note that this technique would probably not work in a homogeneous group that consisted of non-creative personality styles. McFadzean (2002) claims drawing rich pictures is a paradigm breaking technique, and that only groups that the facilitator supports in their emotional context are able to do this effectively. This may be true, however, SSM allows a safe place for this exploration to happen, particularly if it is facilitated well. Our view of creativity is that the work context and environment, group interaction and facilitation, and individual motivation and personality factors are all inter-related and need to be considered in the desire of obtaining creative behaviour from an organisational group. The work context and environment provide the foundations for creativity to occur in a 123 492 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 group. The motivation and personality of individuals supply the intellectual power to enable creativity to occur. The group interaction and facilitation factors enable free flow of information and encouragement during the actual process of creating. Therefore creative behaviour in organizational groups may be seen as an emergent property arising from the interaction of these factors. A model of this is shown as Fig. 1. Much of the learning by participants in using SSM stems from the richness of the process when used by a skilled facilitator, which also seems to be claimed as necessary by Wang and Smith (1988:17), where they state that SSM is ‘‘very sophisticated and mature: it requires highly experienced analysts and is dependent on a high intellectual input.’’ Björkman (2004) finds that the skills of the facilitator in engaging participants is one of the key factors in the success of a group creativity process, including the ability to control any negative factors such as social loafing and groupthink. In another SSM commentary, Callo and Packham (1999:315) argue that ‘‘the role of facilitation and/or facilitator has an equal, if not more important part in ensuring genuine participation’’ and that ‘‘the personality of the researcher-facilitator will certainly have a strong bearing on how well participation can be achieved’’. This confirms Checkland and Holwell’s (1998) opinion that the experience of a facilitator in using SSM improves its flexibility and performance as a methodology. In our workshops, the role of the facilitator was important, and this is described in ‘‘Workshop Design and Outcomes’’. The evaluation by workshop participants noted in Table 1, where the delivery of the workshop (by the facilitator) was rated at 62.5% excellent and 35.4% good, is a testament to the positive facilitation process that occurred in all four workshops. Findings About SSM’s Ability to Enable Creativity From the evidence above, we find that SSM can enhance creativity in a group situation. However, we are careful not to generalise too broadly with this finding. Although the results were generated from four different workshop groups, and all of these proved highly creative, we note that the conditions for group creativity outlined in the literature were all present in these workshops. The first author was also experienced in the use of SSM, and had improved his performance as a facilitator of SSM over time. Another factor was that the problem was complex and pluralistic, which are the conditions that SSM is recommended for by Flood and Jackson (1991). We therefore conclude that SSM is a tool that can enhance creativity in a group situation where the problem context is complex and pluralistic, the conditions for creativity are positive, and the facilitator is experienced in using the methodology. Comparison of SSM and Other Approaches for Group Creativity In reference to other approaches, (Amabile 1996) notes that synectics is considered more appropriate for well-defined problems. According to (Craig and Kelly 1999:253) brainstorming is a ‘‘simple additive’’ process and is not as suitable for solving complex system problems. Vidall (2004:400) adds that brainstorming ‘‘is not appropriate for broad and complex problems demanding highly-qualified expertise and know-how’’. This leaves creative problem solving (CPS) and the Vision Conference as an alternate to SSM. CPS is ‘‘a model designed to make explicit the steps involved in the creative process’’ (Puccio 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 493 et al. 2006:20) and it has been quite successfully used to generate creativity. The CPS process incorporates brainstorming as a specific tool for divergent thinking. CPS allows a balance between convergent and divergent thinking, and follows a process from problem definition through to idea generation and action planning. However, we believe that the major drawback in CPS is that it is a systematic process and not a holistic systemic process, and therefore it may miss the complexity and pluralism that SSM allows. It also doesn’t contain the highly creative mechanisms such as rich pictures and conceptual models, which may weaken its creativity output. The Vision Conference may have more power in this area, but Vidall (2004) does not give any empirical evidence of its outcomes. According to McFadzean (2002), creativity techniques can be divided into three categories, which are: paradigm preserving techniques; paradigm stretching techniques; and paradigm breaking techniques. She states that brainstorming is a paradigm preserving technique as it ‘‘encourages participants to build on other people’s ideas’’ (p. 470). The consequence of this is that ‘‘ideas are developed but not significantly changed’’ and the paradigm boundaries are maintained. However, she includes rich pictures in the paradigm breaking techniques, as it ‘‘uses unrelated stimuli and forced association to encourage creativity’’ (p. 471). These techniques, she claims, also ‘‘help participants to use all their senses and to express themselves using other modes of communication such as drawing, dreaming and role-playing’’. Soft Systems Methodology incorporates the technique of rich pictures, and therefore should be more conducive to breaking paradigms and therefore enhancing group creativity. However, McFadzean (2002:473) notes that ‘‘paradigm breaking techniques should only be used if trust has been developed between the participants themselves and the participants and the facilitator’’. These techniques, she claims, should only be undertaken by groups where attention is given to team feelings and the facilitator supports the participants regarding their emotions, identity and self-awareness. Similarly, the facilitation of groups is seen as a significant issue in enabling creativity in work groups. From the comments related to facilitation, we note that facilitation would not just be important in SSM workshops, but in all the creative approaches mentioned in this article. In view of these findings, and compared with earlier research by Rose and Lin (1984) and Amabile (1996), we conclude that SSM is a more effective process to enhance group creativity than the techniques of brainstorming, synectics and creative problem solving. This is due to its use of paradigm-breaking techniques and its alignment with many of the conditions for group creativity. However, we were unable to compare SSM with the Vision Conference, and would like to see more evidence of its outcomes. Also, we note that the SSM setting for the first researcher’s work is highly contextual in relation to the specific problem, i.e. a complex and pluralistic issue. Therefore we qualify our finding, by concluding that SSM is a more effective process to enhance group creativity than brainstorming, synectics and creative problem solving, in situations where the issue is complex and pluralistic. Conclusion There is little evidence of research into the relationship between SSM and the psychology of creativity. In this article, we have attempted to show that SSM is a methodology that is inherently creative, as the SSM workshops conducted in a large Australian government agency delivered a significant number of creative ideas. Many of these ideas have since 123 494 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 been implemented and have contributed to improvement in the maturity of the agency’s performance system. A comparison with other creative techniques has shown that SSM has significant advantages over the others, particularly in complex problem and system contexts. We found that elements of SSM, such as the rich picture in particular, supported creativity in a group environment. We would therefore recommend that SSM be used as a methodology for enhancing group creativity in organisational contexts. It should be particularly relevant for enabling creative options when designing systems, processes and practices. A limitation on these findings is that the article uses only one case study with four workshops to put forward as evidence. However, further empirical research should be conducted into the relationship between SSM and creativity, and the comparison with other techniques to enable our contentions to be confirmed. References Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity. Springer-Verlag, New York Amabile TM (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 10. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 123–167 Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context. Westview Press, Boulder Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad Manage J 39(5):1154–1184 Attwater R (1999) Pragmatist philosophy and soft systems in an upland Thai catchment. Syst Res Behav Sci 16(4):299–309 Barron F (1988) Putting creativity to work. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 76–98 Björkman H (2004) Design dialogue groups as a source of innovation: factors behind group creativity. Creativ Innov Manage 13(2):97–108 Briggs Myers I, McCaulley MH (1985) Manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto Callo VN, Packham RG (1999) The use of soft systems methodology in emancipatory development. Syst Res Behav Sci 16(4):311–319 Checkland PB (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Checkland PB (2000a) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17(S1):S11–S58 Checkland PB (2000b) The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):799–823 Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Information, systems and information systems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Checkland PB, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Checkland PB, Tsouvalis C (1997) Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models. Syst Res Behav Sci 14(3):153–168 Clarke S (2000) Features of SSM’s process. In: Checkland PB (ed) The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):799–823 Craig TY, Kelly JR (1999) Group cohesiveness and creative performance. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 3(4):243–256 Cummings A, Oldham GR (1997) Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high potential employee. Calif Manage Rev 40(1):22–38 Davies LJ, Ledington PWJ (1991) Information in action: soft systems methodology. Macmillan, London Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York Dudek SZ, Côté R (1994) Problem finding revisiting. In: Runco MA (ed) Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex, Norwood, pp 130–150 Ekvall G (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. Eur J Work Org Psychol 5(1):105–123 Evans CR, Jarvis PA (1980) Group cohesion: a review and re-evaluation. Small Group Behav 11:359–370 123 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 495 Fagan MH (2004) The influence of creative style and climate on software development team creativity: an exploratory study. J Comput Inform Syst 44(3):73–80 Firestein RL (1990) Effects of creative problem solving training on communication behaviors in small groups. Small Group Res 21:507–521 Flood RL (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline. Routledge, London Flood RL, Jackson MC (1991) Creative problem solving: total systems intervention. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Ford C (1999) Thinking big about small groups in the real world: comment on Craig and Kelly. Group Dyn: Theory Res Pract 3(4):257–262 Fredrickson BL (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol 56(3):218–226 Fuenmayor R (2000) A brief crack of light? Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):757–772 George JM, Zhou J (2001) When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. J Appl Psychol 86(3):513–524 Gordon W (1961) Synectics: the development of creative capacity. Harper & Row, New York Grawitch MJ, Munz DC, Kramer TJ (2003) Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary workgroups. Group Dyn: Theory Res Pract 7(1):41–54 Guastello SJ (2002) Managing emergent phenomena: nonlinear dynamics in work organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah Hackman JR (1976) Group influence on individuals. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand-McNally, Chicago, pp 1455–1525 Haner U-E (2005) Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations. Creativ Innov Manage 14(3):288–298 Harrington DM (1990) The ecology of human creativity: a psychological perspective. In: Runco MA, Albert RS (eds) Theories of Creativity. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 143–169 Hennessey BA, Amabile TM (1988) The conditions of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 11–38 Isen AM, Daubman KA, Nowicki GP (1987) Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. J Personal Soc Psychol 52(6):1122–1131 Jackson MC (2000) Checkland, Peter Bernard (1930). Syst Res Behav Sci 17(S1):S3–S10 Janssen O, Van De Vliert E, West M (2004) The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction. J Org Behav 25(2):129–145 Kane L, Del Mistro R (2003) Changes in transport planning policy: changes in transport planning methodology? Transportation 30(2):113–131 King N, Anderson N (1990) Innovation in working groups. In: West MA, Farr JL (eds) Innovation and creativity at work. Wiley, Chichester, pp 81–100 Kratzer J, Leenders R, van Engelen J (2004) Stimulating the potential: creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativ Innov Manage 13(1):63–71 Kristensen T (2004) The physical context of creativity. Creativ Innov Manage 13(2):89–96 Ledington P, Donaldson J (1997) Soft OR and management practice: a study of the adoption and use of soft systems methodology. J Oper Res Soc 48(3):229–240 Leemhuis J (2000) SSM in action: observations from a practitioner. In: Checkland P (ed) The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):799–823 Lubart TI (1999) Creativity across cultures. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 339–350 Luckett S, Ngubane S, Memela B (2001) Designing a management system for a rural community development organization using a systemic action research process. Syst Pract Action Res 14(4):517–542 Martins EC, Terblanche F (2003) Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. Eur J Innov Manage 6(1):64–74 McFadzean E (2002) Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: Part 1—a conceptual model. Manage Decis 40(5/6):463–475 Mingers J (2000) An idea ahead of its time: the history and development of soft systems methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):733–755 Mingers J, Taylor S (1992) The use of soft systems methodology in practice. J Oper Res Soc 43(4):321–332 Miron E, Erez M, Naveh E (2004) Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? J Org Behav 25(2):175–199 Molineux J and Haslett T (2001) The use of soft systems methodology to redesign an organisational employment system. Proceedings of the 7th ANZSYS conference, Perth, WA Mostert N (2007) Diversity of the mind as the key to successful creativity at unilever. Creativ Innov Manage 16(1):93–100 123 496 Syst Pract Act Res (2007) 20:477–496 Nickerson RS (1999) Enhancing creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 392–430 Oldham GR, Cummings A (1996) Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad Manage J 39(3):607–634 Osborn A (1963) Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking. Scribner’s, New York Parnes S (1967) Creative behavior guidebook. Scribner’s, New York Paulus PB (2000) Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Appl Psychol Int Rev 49(2):237–262 Pirola-Merlo A, Mann L (2004) The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: aggregating across people and time. J Org Behav 25(2):235–257 Poulter J (2000) What happens when soft systems methodology is used in a real-world problem situation. In: Checkland P (ed) The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):799–823 Puccio GJ, Firestein RL, Coyle C, Masucci C (2006) A review of the effectiveness of CPS training: a focus on workplace issues. Creativ Innov Manage 15(1):19–33 Rogers C (1954) Towards a theory of creativity. ETC Rev Gen Semantics 11:249–260 Rose J, Haynes M (1999) A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex interventions in the public sector. J Appl Manage Stud 8(2):199–216 Rose L, Lin H (1984) A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. J Creativ Behav 18(1):11– 22 Santanen EL, Briggs RO, De Vreede G-J (2004) Causal relationships in creative problem solving: comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. J Manage Inform Syst 20(4):167–197 Schwarz RM (1994) The skilled facilitator: practical wisdom for developing effective groups. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Simonton DK (1988) Creativity, leadership and change. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 386–426 Simonton DK (2003) Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychol Bull 129(4):475–494 Sternberg RJ (1999) A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Rev Gen Psychol 3(2):83–100 Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1996) Investing in creativity. Am Psychol 51(7):677–688 Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1999) The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–15 Sternberg RJ, O’Hara LA, Lubart TI (1997) Creativity as investment. Calif Manage Rev 40(1):8–21 Sutton RI, Hargadon A (1996) Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Adm Sci Q 41(4):685–718 Taylor MJ, DaCosta JL (1999) Soft issues in IS projects: lessons from an SME case study. Syst Res Behav Sci 16(3):263–272 Torrance EP (1988) The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 43–75 Vidal1 RVV (2004) The vision conference: facilitating creative processes. Syst Pract Action Res 17(5):385– 405 Wang M, Smith GW (1988) Modelling CIM systems; Part 1: methodologies. Comput Integr Manuf Syst 1(1):13–17 Williams WM, Yang LT (1999) Organizational creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 373–391 Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW (1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad Manage Rev 18(2):293–321 Zhou J (1998) Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative behavior. J Appl Psychol 83(2):261–276 123