Stage Ten. Generating Alternatives

Abstract

In any system study, there comes a time when it is required to offer possible solutions to the problem. The process of advancing, inventing, and designing such options is called generating alternatives.

In any system study, there comes a time when it is required to offer possible solutions to the problem. In the described technology, this action is performed in two stages:

1. Identification of discrepancies between the problem and target messes. The differences between the present (and unsatisfactory) state of the organization and the future, the most desirable, ideal state to which one is supposed to aspire should be clearly stated. These differences are the gaps, the elimination of which should be planned;
2. the proposal of possible options to eliminate or reduce the detected discrepancies. The actions to be carried out, the procedures, the rules, the projects, the programs, and the policies are all the components of the management that should be developed.

The process of advancing, inventing, and devising such options is called generating alternatives. This is undoubtedly an act of creativity, and the question arises how to organize it and how to make it so that it is executed as best as possible.

Factors affecting creativity. Not being able to penetrate into the underlying mechanisms of the creative process, psychologists have, nevertheless, found numerous factors that influence the effectiveness of attempts to create. Both positive factors contribute to creativity and negative factors hinder it (do you recognize the black box model? See Figure 5.13). It is clear that in a conscious organization of the stage of generating alternatives, positive factors should be deliberately encouraged and used, and negative ones should be blocked, excluded, and muted. Since this can be done in different ways and in different combinations, there are many proposed and operated methods for generating alternatives. For example, in “hard” methodologies aimed at solving well-formalized problems (such as technical ones), there are dozens of such technologies.

For “soft” technologies that work with “loose” and poorly formalized problems, especially in the management of social systems, there are fewer well-established technologies for generating alternatives (see, for example, [4]). Before describing these technologies, let us describe the factors used in them.

The first group of factors includes the external conditions associated with the physiological characteristics of a person: temperature, lighting, air condition, sound background, and cozy environment, all of which affect the creativity. Without going into details, we will just recommend to take into account these factors: it is necessary to create some sufficient comfort for participants while generating alternatives, and suitability on the premises for work: availability of means for presenting results, computer support for work, communication facilities, etc.

The second group of “internal” factors is connected with our psychological features.

Among the positive factors, the most powerful for generating new' ideas is communication with other people (it’s not for nothing that scientists attach great importance to their participation in symposia, conferences; politicians to congresses, rallies; leaders to meetings; doctors to consultations, etc.). Hence, the recommendation to conduct this stage in the form of collective, group work. It turns out that people generate more ideas when interacting with each other rather than trying to come up with something separately. It has been proved that a group of experts who have information about a problem generates many more solutions to it, if they w'ork and exchange information in the course of working rather than acting separately.

Of course, individuals differ in their creative potential, and it is desirable to have the highest possible result, gathering talented people, but in real situations, a number of factors limit us.

First, access to reputable, experienced, highly qualified experts is usually limited (including financial reasons); second, the requirement to take into account the opinions and interests of the direct participants in the problem situation under consideration (the goal is to create the improving intervention) implies that they must be involved in personal participation in a system study, so you have to work with those who are, with their various inherent creative abilities. Therefore, the technology and method of generating alternatives must be invariant to the inventive abilities of its participants.

The observation that “one mind is good, and two is better”, has two bases. The first is that new ideas are an emergent result of combining several well-known ideas, so that a person searches the answer to a question rummaging through the nooks of his memory, looking for something that is useful. Since the information area (the world of models) is different for each individual, there is necessarily something that one of them knows, while the other does not. Therefore, the general ability to search for “suitable” is w'ider for two more than for one (see Figure 5.14); and, therefore, another recommendation arises by induction: the more people, the wider the general area of a priori information on which they will look for suitable ideas.

FIGURE 5.13 Black box model for creativity.

However, the emergent effect of group creativity is explained not just by the fact that individual knowledge is combined. Associativity begins to play the main role, which is a feature of our thinking. Left to itself, our brain is continuously working, moving from one thought to another. At the same time, each subsequent thought is connected with the previous one, as if repelling from it. As a result, the course of our thoughts can be depicted in the form of a continuous walk curve along the field of our information (Figure 5.15; the asterisks represent ideas “suitable” for our problem). Thinking alone, we use internal associations and look for useful ideas. If we hear what others have invented, then we sort of jump from our internal trajectory into an area of our memory where we wouldn’t have looked at without this external influence. Thus, an external association is turned on, which may lead to a new idea that was not found when searching on internal associations (Figure 5.16). This is the second and main reason for the effectiveness of group creativity. Hence, the next recommendation: to increase the efficiency of the technology for generating alternatives, it should ensure communication between performers.

However, other psychological characteristics of people also come into play. It turns out that the hard work on inventing solutions to a problem may not last long: 30-45 minutes, a maximum of an hour (it’s not for nothing that the academic hour in our educational institutions lasts 45 minutes). After this, the activity of the subject drops sharply, and communication between two people takes some time. This means that during the time of creative activity, a limited number of contacts (about 100) can be provided. This leads to a new recommendation: the number of participants should not exceed 6-12 people. (This restriction is not rigid, but deviation from it, less than six reduces and more than 12, does not increase the productivity of work.)

Together with the first feature of group thinking (combining individual knowledge), we can formulate another recommendation: it is desirable to select participants for

FIGURE 5.15 Trajectory of looking for useful information.

FIGURE 5.16 Trajectories of mutual looking for useful information.

generating alternatives as different as possible, according to their background, age, profession, education, life experience, etc. This will ensure the maximum expansion of the information area for the search of new ideas with a limited number of participants (see Figure 5.17).

Unfortunately, it can be noted that there are many more factors that negatively affect the creative process than positive ones. We have to take measures to neutralize them. Three such factors are noticeably distinguished by their strength. The first is the responsibility for the proposal. If a person feels that a proposal of an idea may be followed in some form by responsibility for it, he will most likely refrain from saying it. The advancement of an idea and its realization require different personal qualities, and they are rarely combined in one person. This is not always understood and accepted (recall the times when all scientists in the USSR were required to “introduce” their discoveries into practice, and the saying “The initiative should be punished”, meaning the imposition of the execution of an idea on its author). Hence, the recommendation: to release the participants in generating alternatives from responsibility for the proposals made. This can be done in different ways: either legally (just as staff officers offering options for the upcoming battle are not responsible for the consequences of the option chosen by the commander), or organizationally, ensuring the anonymity of the author (following the example of scientific journals, hiding the names of referents who criticize submitted articles).

The second factor that seriously interferes with creativity is criticism. The human psyche is designed so that if they anticipate criticism in their personal address for the proposed proposal, they will not speak out at all. Hence, the following recommendation: in alternatives generation technologies, measures should be taken to block personal criticism. In some social systems, this moment is interpreted differently; let us recall the slogan of the Soviet times: “Criticism and self-criticism are the driving force of our society”. In fact, criticism plays a positive role only if it is constructive, that is, it is not aimed at the individual, but at the promotion of competing ideas and their comparison. This should also be taken into account in the technologies of this stage.

The third reason that strongly inhibits creativity is the a priori restrictions on the desired solutions. In an effort to reduce intellectual effort, we consciously or subconsciously cut off those parts of our memory where “it is not worth” to look. In addition, external influences (ideology, faith, or prejudice) may impose their own prohibitions. But sometimes (and at this stage, often) it turns out that the most effective solutions lie precisely “where you shouldn’t look”.

As a clear example, let us reproduce the problem of R. Ackoff [2]. Let us consider nine points on the sides and in the center of the square (Figure 5.18). Task: (1) connect all points with a continuous line; (2) the line must be broken (i.e., consist of straight line segments); (3) the number of segments should not exceed four. It usually turns out that many have difficulty in finding a solution, and only because they themselves have imposed a limitation: the broken line should not go beyond the square. With this restriction, there is no solution! This limitation is not in the formulation of the problem! It is necessary to refuse it, and as many as four solutions appear (one is shown in Figure 5.19). Some may be surprised to know that there are solutions with a number of segments less than four. But the surprise will disappear if you again remove the unconscious limitation that the sheet on which the points are drawn cannot be folded: it can be folded so that three, two, and even one segment will connect all the points. Moreover, if you remove a priori restriction that the line must be thin, then with the line of the whole square width you may solve the task without folding the paper with only one move.

Thus, we come to the recommendation that alternative technologies should include measures that, if possible, remove or weaken a priori restrictions. This is not easy since these restrictions are implicit. But in two examples you can see how this is done. Architecture students are encouraged to strain their imagination and design a house, provided that the force of gravity is not directed downwards but sideways. Sometimes the proposed new designs can be used in normal conditions. The second example is idealized design according to R.L. Ackoff [4] when performers are invited to create a project that suits them (instead of existing and nonsatisfactory) without taking into account its physical and financial feasibility. Subsequently, it

FIGURE 5.18 A configuration for setting a problem.

turns out that many of the qualities of an idealized project can be realized even with inevitable limitations.

For solving problems of managing an organization (management), recommendations can be made about how to remove a priori constraints. In this case, these limitations lie in which model of the organization the manager is guided by. The removal of restrictions consists of reporting about the existence of other models and proposing to look at their problem situation from the standpoint of those other models (see the fourth stage).

Different technologies for generating alternatives. Since the abovementioned (and also other) factors affecting creativity can be used in different ways and in different combinations, it is not surprising that many different technologies for generating alternatives have been proposed and are being used. There are different views on how to do it. In two points (comfort and collectivity), everyone agrees, and then the differences begin.

There are two fundamentally different approaches. Supporters of the former consider it absolutely necessary to separate the stage of proposing alternatives and the stage of evaluating suggested proposals. This approach is justified by the consideration that the evaluation of the alternative is its criticism, which can keep from offering other ideas. With this approach, the main goal of the generation of alternatives is to generate the maximum number of ideas, since this increases the likelihood of a really good proposal (the analogy can be artillery firing on the area where the target with unknown coordinates is located: the more shells are fired, the higher probability of hitting the target). Typical technologies of the first approach are brainstorming, Delphi method, and morphological analysis.

Proponents of the second approach proceed from the admissibility of criticism and discussion while generating alternatives and considering the goal is not a large number of alternatives, but access to a small but qualitative number of them (two or three, and sometimes only one). Typical technologies of this approach: TKJ method, synectics, search conference, dialectical approach, idealized design, Altshuler’s TRIZ, devil’s advocate technique, etc. Briefly consider some of these technologies.

Brainstorming. This a very effective, easily implemented, and widely used method proposed by A. Osborne “for the sole purpose of obtaining a complete list of ideas”. An important feature of the method is an absolute ban on criticizing the ideas expressed; the participants are strongly warned about this and in case of violation of the ban, the guilty person is immediately removed from the group.

The brainstorming procedure can be described as the following sequence: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

6. using internal associations in which participants are invited to write down each of their idea on a separate card (for the convenience of subsequent analysis);
7. including external associations, each participant (in no particular order) announces its results of the previous stage. The remaining write down their new ideas emerging during the listening process;
8. announcing new cards continues until the imagination of the participants in the brainstorming is exhausted. This usually happens in 30-40 minutes with a score of several proposed alternatives. Then all the cards are collected and transferred for analysis to another group of experts (although quite often the participants in the brainstorming show a desire to participate in analysis as well).

This classic version of brainstorming is complemented by several modifications:

- before a “real” attack, carry out a “warm-up” brainstorming on a simple problem that is not related to the main one. This is especially useful if everyone in a group participates in the brainstorming for the first time;
- repeatedly alternate the internal and external associations: three to five minutes of silence (and reflections) are replaced by three to five minutes of discussing ideas, followed again by a period of silence, etc.;
- repeated brainstorming of the same problem in two or three days. Here we use the fact that in the subconscious, information is constantly being actively processed, and over the days following the attack, new ideas may arise; there are even known cases when ideas were born in a dream, on a walk, etc.;
- “reverse” brainstorming, in which the goal is not the generation of new ideas but the search for flaws in the existing ideas and the ways to eliminate them;
- written versions of brainstorming (“brainwriting"):

a. method “6-3-5”. Six people write down (each on their own sheet) three ideas. Then the sheets are transferred to the neighbor on the left who complements the ideas of the leaf that has come to him by his own associations in the development of the original three ideas. Then the next transfer of the sheets in a circle in the same direction is made, and the next participant replenishes the initial three ideas wdth his owm additions. There will be five such transfers (hence the name of the method). The result of the work will be six sheets, on each of which there are three root ideas of the first author and their development by five coauthors. If each coauthor adds only one alternative to each of the three original ones, then even then there w'ill be 18 ideas on each sheet and 108 on all six sheets,

b. the “brainwritingpool” (“written pooling”) method. Unlike “6-3-5”, there can be any number of participants. Leaflets with the first three ideas are thrown into the general heap (“pool”), from w'hich each one at random takes another sheet, complements it, and returns to the pool. (If you accidentally came across a piece of paper that you already had, it is replaced by another one.) The process is completed at the request of the participants.

The effectiveness of brainstorming is widely known.

The Delphi method is more often used for collective expertise, but it can also be used to generate alternatives. In this version, the method differs from brainstorming in that the participants are kept anonymous and their proposals are made public without attribution of authorship. This was first carried out by handing over the cards to the coordinator, who replicated them in printed form and distributed them to the participants; in recent years, software has been created that supports the Delphi procedure in the network configuration of personal computers: each participant enters his offers via the keyboard and receives the offers of all the others on the screen of his computer. Due to the anonymity of the texts, the Delphi method removes the ban on criticism: it cannot automatically have a personal focus. Therefore, there are peculiar dialogues and discussions entailing the introduction of amendments and additions to the original versions.

Although theoretically the number of cycles of the Delphi procedure is not limited, in practice, it ends after three or four iterations.

Morphological analysis. Another original simple and very effective method for generating alternatives was proposed by Zwicky. Participants are encouraged not to invent alternatives on their own, but only to propose their required properties and reasonable gradations of these requirements. This is really an analytical method, essentially, it is a matter of generating a composition model, that is, a set of components from which alternatives can be subsequently constructed. The scheme for morphological analysis is given in Table 5.3.

The participants try to propose as many requirements as possible for the future system, the appearance of which should solve the problem, and for each requirement to find a rational set of gradations for implementing a certain degree of expression of the proposed quality. For example, we will conduct a morphological analysis of the problem of choice in the section “Stage Eleven. Choice or Decision-Making”.

Morphological analysis generates a large number of alternatives. After all, alternatives can differ by at least one value. Consequently, the number N of alternatives is IIiij, where m is the number of qualities; tij is the number of grades of the yth quality; N easily reaches many thousands for a single act of analysis. The care of the specialists will subsequently decide which of these alternatives deserve to be implemented; and participants in the morphological analysis have only one concern, that

TABLE 5.3

Morphological Analysis of Options

Properties
Property gradations

is, to offer as many options as possible. The advantage of morphological analysis is the possibility of its implementation by one person.

We now turn to other technologies that generate alternatives but do not strictly separate the generation of alternatives from other systems analysis operations, both from preliminary steps (e.g., structuring a problem) and subsequent ones (e.g., evaluating and screening out the alternatives themselves).

The TKJ method (this abbreviation is not deciphered in the available sources) was proposed by S. Kobayashi and A. Kawakita. In this method, it is first proposed to find a general formulation of the problem situation acceptable to all stakeholders, and then formulate a generalized solution to the problem using the same technology.

The TKJ method includes the fact that the participants generate, at the first stage, the statements of facts relating to the problem, and at the second, proposals for concrete actions to solve it. Then the ideas submitted are aggregated and summarized to a single sentence.

The algorithm of the TKJ method can be summarized as follows:

Phase 1. Identify the problem.

1.1. Identify a concern.
1.2. Participants record the facts related to the problem, with each fact listed on a separate card. (The facts cited by experts must meet two conditions: (1) they must be substantially related to the problem; (2) they must be objectively verifiable.)
1.3. Cards are collected and multiplied by the number of participants, and each participant receives a complete set of cards.
1.4. The entries on each card are alternately read out loud.
1.5. Participants select from their own set of facts related to the fact just announced, forming a group of interrelated facts.
1.6. To each such group of facts the participant looks for a generic name that reflects the essence of the entire group. These names are entered into individual cards.
1.7. Then, Steps 1.4 and 1.5 are performed until all the facts are entered into a group.
1.8. Cards are announced with the names of groups.
1.9. Participants try to combine group names into new, more general groups with their generalizing characteristic descriptions. This process continues until a single description is obtained, covering all the facts. This will be a description of the problem situation (the problem mess) as a whole.

Phase 2. The search for improving intervention.

2.1. Brainstorming (see above).
2.2. Cards with suggestions for possible solutions to the problem are multiplied and distributed to participants.
2.3. The content of the next card is announced.

2.4. Participants select offers that can be combined into a single, more general offer.
2.5. This summary sentence is formulated explicitly and recorded on a new card of the next level.
2.6. The generalizations are announced again, and efforts are being made to combine them into even more general formulations until the most general formulation for the problem-solving measures is obtained.

As a result, a project of improving intervention should appear, taking into account the interests of all parties involved in the problem situation.

Synectics. Synectics is a procedure developed by W. Gordon, who defined it as “a combination of different and seemingly incompatible elements” to resolve a paradox or problem. It is based on thinking by analogy and generation of metaphors, that is, establishing the compatibility of completely different concepts in relation to one problem. The aim of synectics is to produce one but of high-quality alternative.

Synectics technology begins with defining the “essence” of the problem situation. Its conflicts and paradoxes are expressed in the form of a question, covering in its most general form the uniqueness of the situation, and then a metaphor is sought that answers it. The metaphor is sought in the area as far as possible from the problem situation; for example, if the problem is related to hearing, you can try to look for a metaphor associated with vision or touch.

The illustration can be a problem caused by the fact that one of the people living in one room wants to listen to loud music, while the other wants to read in silence. The essence of the situation is expressed by the question: “How to achieve loud silence?” The metaphor answering the question: “A bullet that has entered one body cannot hit another”. This suggests a proposal for a lover of loud music to use headphones.

The procedure of synectics can be described as follows:

1. Search for the essence of the problem.
1.1. Description of the problem.
1.2. Analysis of the problem.
1.3. The wording of the essence of the problem.
2. Search for metaphor.
2.1. Transform the wording of the essence into the form of a question that evokes memories and emotions that activate the imagination.
2.2. Finding the metaphor that answers the question.
2.3. Analysis of the resulting analogy.
3. Search for a solution to the problem.
3.1. Determination of functional requirements for the solution by “fitting” the analogy to the problem.
3.2. Final wording of the decision.

Search conference. F. Emery and T. Williams have developed a “search conference” method, that is, a research seminar whose goal is to find effective ways to adapt the organization to environmental changes. The method is close to the well-known SWOT analysis in economics and management, but differs in details. Algorithmically, search conference can be described as follows:

1. participants are encouraged to give their perception of “trends in society as a whole”;
2. the answers are summarized to create a “picture of changes taking place in the broad social field to which the system in question belongs, but over which it does not have (almost or completely) direct control”;
3. participants consider “the forces that determined or are likely to determine the evolution of their organization or community. At this stage, participants can make important judgments about the respective goals of their system”;
4. they should “identify the limitations that are inevitable stem from a lack of resources, from existing structures and culture”;
5. they further formulate “strategies for planned adaptation”;
6. then “the question of what steps are needed to begin the agreed changes” is discussed.

The dialectical approach to solving problems was developed by S. Churchman, R. Mason, J. Emshoff, I. Mitroff, and others. The main goal is to clearly highlight the assumptions on which the problem-solving plan will be based. The method consists in the deliberate collision of contrary opinions. Two or more teams deliberately develop different and conflicting solutions to the same problem. Groups are completed so that they represent different positions (different levels of hierarchy in the organization, short- and long-term planning horizons, different strategies, etc.). Confrontation between them and their decisions exposes the assumptions underlying their proposals. During the debate, parties are allowed to ask questions to clarify and elaborate positions. For example, what is the difference between their initial assumptions? Which of the stakeholders is the most important for the party? How different are their assessments of the importance of the intended interventions? What assumptions of the other side cause the greatest doubts or objections? Following the discussion, the parties may make changes to their proposals.

Then the decision-maker synthesizes his decision taking into account the arguments of both parties.

As in most situations of rivalry, the dialectical approach is dramatic. Each of the parties in the final debate tries to do everything possible to convince the decision-maker that its proposed option is better than the other. The arbitrator, after hearing both conflicting parties and using the arguments of both, makes his own decision.

The dialectic procedure exposes the arbitrariness of some restrictive assumptions and reveals their consequences. It focuses on the implications of the data and shows that the same data can be interpreted differently depending on the assumptions made.

You can set forth a dialectical process in the form of the following algorithm.

1. Preparation.
1.1. The decision-maker creates two or more groups, providing them with identical targets and a set of source data.
1.2. Each group develops a solution that is wittingly in conflict with the proposal of the other group. In this case, the assumptions are formulated as explicitly and clearly as possible.
2. Confrontation.
2.1. Each team presents its version to the decision-maker in the presence of the opposing side and protects it with all his might.
2.2. After the presentations, each team attacks the other team, trying to weaken the positions of the enemy and strengthen their own.
2.3. The decision-maker can ask questions of any of the parties at any time.
3. Synthesis.

The decision-maker formulates his own decision using the information provided by both warring parties, and explicitly identifies the arguments on which the arbitration decision is based so that they can be followed during the implementation of the decision.

Idealized design. We have already described the method developed by Ackoff when considering the target detection stage. We now give a more detailed description of the method.

An idealized project is what stakeholders would like to have if they could have any desired system. This project should be technologically implementable and operationally viable, that is, could exist, being implemented, but it can be made without taking into account when and how it can be implemented. In addition, the system must be designed to be able to learn and adapt quickly and efficiently. This requires that:

1. system stakeholders could make changes to the project if desired at any stage;
2. if an objectively unsolvable condition of the project now arises, then a practical procedure must be built into the system design itself to resolve it;
3. the system should be designed so that all decisions made in it, and the assumptions on which these decisions are based, are subject to continuous monitoring.

The result of such a design is not utopian and is not an idealistic system since it can be improved from the outside and self-improved; rather, it is the best system, striving for the ideal that its creators can imagine.

Idealized design can be described in the form of three actions: ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]

The final project should cover every aspect of the system: its social and technological processes, organization, management system, inputs, outputs, etc., that is, all the three basic models of the system (black box, parts, and structure).

Two versions of a project are usually made: limited (i.e., without significant changes in the environment of the existing system) and unrestricted (i.e., with its change).

The process of idealization frees its participants from even the unconsciously imposed restrictions on themselves since it discards feasibility considerations. When such a project is completed, its developers usually realize that most of its parts are completely realizable and that they themselves are the main obstacle for the future they desire.

Interactive planning consists of six interrelated actions that are carried out simultaneously since the entire process is carried out continuously:

1. the formulation of the problem mess;
2. planning goals (technologically feasible);
3. planning of means (policies, programs, projects, operations, etc.);
4. planning resources (money, personnel, equipment, premises, necessary goods and services, information);
5. designing the process of implementing plans (who, what, where, and when should do, how resources are allocated);
6. management design (how the organization will be monitored, trained, and adapted).

A detailed description of this method is given in the book by R. Ackoff et al. [4].

About other technologies. There are several other technologies that contribute to the creative process, which are not based on theoretical principles, but on practical experience; they are more “engineering” than “scientific”. Just as engineers launched rockets earlier than ballistic theory was developed; as bridges, dams, and buildings were built before the creation of theories of structures and materials, and a number of procedures that improve the creative process were proposed without defining the concept of creativity itself and the theory explaining it. A section devoted to the review of such methods is contained in the article by R. Ackoff and E. Vergar [7] (it should be immediately noted that a substantial part of this paragraph is based on this remarkable article). Among the methods mentioned there, we present the method of “lateral thinking” proposed by de Bono 30years ago, which consists of restructuring data and conceptual combinations into something new.

Edward de Bono’s approach is based on the idea of attracting right-hemisphere (imaginative, emotional, intuitive) thinking to generate alternatives, along with left- hemisphere (logical, formal). In most of his publications, he proposed a collection of heuristic, empirical techniques that promote the emergence of new ideas (e.g., the “Ten rules of simplicity” by E. de Bono [8]) or such tips as: ^[9] ^[10] ^[11]

4. identify the use of stereotypes and replace them;
5. identify repeated obstacles and overcome them;
6. consciously direct attention to areas previously unnoticed;
7. identify aspects of the situation, considered for the first time, and already known but viewed from a different viewpoint;
8. find other ways to decompose and aggregate the problem situation;
9. use the random introduction of new elements into the problem situation.

However, de Bono proposed two alternative generation technologies.

The first technology is named by him “Random Entry”, a method of random associations. Randomly (e.g., at random from the dictionary) a few words are picked out, and then the group looks for associations of each word with a solvable problem with the aim of solving it. For example, to search for ideas on attracting bank customers by providing them with new services, the words “group (of musicians)”, “church”, “computer”, and “joke” were chosen. Associations of the first word gave rise to proposals for background musical accompaniment in the bank; according to the second, to use pleasant aromas in the bank, as in a church; among the ideas for the third word, providing customers with free access to the Internet at bank branches, customer protection measures while using an ATM, donating electronic calculators to customers; on the fourth, the creation of a w'itty marketing slogan showing funny animated cartoons in the waiting room; etc.

The second technology of E. de Bono — “Six Thinking Hats” — alternates group consideration of important aspects of the desired solution to the problem. According to de Bono, the comprehensive consideration of any problem consists of taking into account six aspects. In a number of technologies (e.g., in ordinary brainstorming), each participant is invited to reflect in any of these areas at his discretion. De Bono believes that due to the impossibility of focusing attention on all aspects at once, many useful ideas are missing. He suggests focusing the group on each of the six main aspects in turn. To do this, put one of the six colorful hats on the table, and the group conducts brainstorming only in this direction:

1. collection of facts — white hat;
2. positive aspects: opportunities — yellow hat;
3. negative aspects: threats — black hat;
4. options that differ from the proposed — green hat;
5. the emotions associated with the proposed option — red hat;
6. organizational and operational aspects — blue hat.

As we see, the method is aimed not only at proposing alternatives but also at questions of their implementation and consideration of the consequences.

In conclusion, we note that all the above methods are designed to solve “soft” and “loose” problems (“hard” problems are solved by optimization methods). The following list of methods contains those that are most tested and made public; this does not exhaust all possibilities and there are many publications on others (mostly empirically found) technologies. Let us single out among them the Altshuler theory of inventive problem-solving (TRIZ).

Questions and Tasks

1. Why at this stage group creativity is preferable to individual creativity?
2. What are the three factors most hindering the creative process?
3. Describe the brainstorming algorithm.
4. Why the Delphi technology allows criticism of the ideas expressed?
5. How is morphological analysis different from brainstorming?

[1] selecting several possible different participants;
[2] familiarizing them with the rules of work, especially with the very strictlyforbidden criticism;
[3] presenting a summary of all available information about the problem;
[4] using any psychological methods to increase the desire to achieve success,creating an atmosphere of working excitement and group inspiration;
[5] explicitly formulating foreseeable a priori limitations and orienting the participants to overcome them;
[6] the choice of mission — the general purpose of the designed system, itsrole in the encompassing larger system, of which the system itself and itsstakeholders are a part;
[7] determining the properties of the future system desired by the designer andstakeholders;
[8] system design, that is, determining how to implement named properties.
[9] generate alternative ways to describe the situation;
[10] explicitly formulate assumptions and subject them to critical examination;
[11] identify duplicate topics and modify them;