creative problem solving innovation and meaningful r & d

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Design Thinking & Why Is It Important?

• 18 Jan 2022

In an age when innovation is key to business success and growth, you’ve likely come across the term “design thinking.” Perhaps you’ve heard it mentioned by a senior leader as something that needs to be utilized more, or maybe you’ve seen it on a prospective employee's resume.

While design thinking is an ideology based on designers’ workflows for mapping out stages of design, its purpose is to provide all professionals with a standardized innovation process to develop creative solutions to problems—design-related or not.

Why is design thinking needed? Innovation is defined as a product, process, service, or business model featuring two critical characteristics: novel and useful. Yet, there’s no use in creating something new and novel if people won’t use it. Design thinking offers innovation the upgrade it needs to inspire meaningful and impactful solutions.

But what is design thinking, and how does it benefit working professionals?

What Is Design Thinking?

Design thinking is a mindset and approach to problem-solving and innovation anchored around human-centered design . While it can be traced back centuries—and perhaps even longer—it gained traction in the modern business world after Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO, published an article about it in the Harvard Business Review .

Design thinking is different from other innovation and ideation processes in that it’s solution-based and user-centric rather than problem-based. This means it focuses on the solution to a problem instead of the problem itself.

For example, if a team is struggling with transitioning to remote work, the design thinking methodology encourages them to consider how to increase employee engagement rather than focus on the problem (decreasing productivity).

The essence of design thinking is human-centric and user-specific. It’s about the person behind the problem and solution, and requires asking questions such as “Who will be using this product?” and “How will this solution impact the user?”

The first, and arguably most important, step of design thinking is building empathy with users. By understanding the person affected by a problem, you can find a more impactful solution. On top of empathy, design thinking is centered on observing product interaction, drawing conclusions based on research, and ensuring the user remains the focus of the final implementation.

The Four Phases of Innovation

So, what does design thinking entail? There are many models of design thinking that range from three to seven steps.

In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase innovation framework. The phases venture from concrete to abstract thinking and back again as the process loops, reverses, and repeats. This is an important balance because abstract thinking increases the likelihood that an idea will be novel. It’s essential, however, to anchor abstract ideas in concrete thinking to ensure the solution is valid and useful.

Here are the four phases for effective innovation and, by extension, design thinking.

The first phase is about narrowing down the focus of the design thinking process. It involves identifying the problem statement to come up with the best outcome. This is done through observation and taking the time to determine the problem and the roadblocks that prevented a solution in the past.

Various tools and frameworks are available—and often needed—to make concrete observations about users and facts gathered through research. Regardless of which tools are implemented, the key is to observe without assumptions or biased expectations.

Once findings from your observations are collected, the next step is to shape insights by framing those observations. This is where you can venture into the abstract by reframing the problem in the form of a statement or question.

Once the problem statement or question has been solidified—not finalized—the next step is ideation. You can use a tool such as systematic inventive thinking (SIT) in this stage, which is useful for creating an innovative process that can be replicated in the future.

The goal is to ultimately overcome cognitive fixedness and devise new and innovative ideas that solve the problems you identified. Continue to actively avoid assumptions and keep the user at the forefront of your mind during ideation sessions.

The third phase involves developing concepts by critiquing a range of possible solutions. This includes multiple rounds of prototyping, testing, and experimenting to answer critical questions about a concept’s viability.

Remember: This step isn’t about perfection, but rather, experimenting with different ideas and seeing which parts work and which don’t.

4. Implement

The fourth and final phase, implementation, is when the entire process comes together. As an extension of the develop phase, implementation starts with testing, reflecting on results, reiterating, and testing again. This may require going back to a prior phase to iterate and refine until you find a successful solution. Such an approach is recommended because design thinking is often a nonlinear, iterative process.

In this phase, don’t forget to share results with stakeholders and reflect on the innovation management strategies implemented during the design thinking process. Learning from experience is an innovation process and design thinking project all its own.

Check out the video about the design thinking process below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

Why Design Thinking Skills Matter

The main value of design thinking is that it offers a defined process for innovation. While trial and error is a good way to test and experiment what works and what doesn’t, it’s often time-consuming, expensive, and ultimately ineffective. On the other hand, following the concrete steps of design thinking is an efficient way to develop new, innovative solutions.

On top of a clear, defined process that enables strategic innovation, design thinking can have immensely positive outcomes for your career—in terms of both advancement and salary.

As of December 2021, the most common occupations requiring design thinking skills were:

• Marketing managers
• Industrial engineers
• Graphic designers
• Software developers
• General and operations managers
• Management analysts
• Personal service managers
• Architectural and engineering managers
• Computer and information systems managers

In addition, jobs that require design thinking statistically have higher salaries. Take a marketing manager position, for example. The median annual salary is $107,900. Marketing manager job postings that require design thinking skills, however, have a median annual salary of $133,900—a 24 percent increase.

Overall, businesses are looking for talent with design thinking skills. As of November 2021, there were 29,648 job postings in the United States advertising design thinking as a necessary skill—a 153 percent increase from November 2020, and a 637 percent increase from November 2017.

As businesses continue to recognize the need for design thinking and innovation, they’ll likely create more demand for employees with those skills.

Learning Design Thinking

Design thinking is an extension of innovation that allows you to design solutions for end users with a single problem statement in mind. It not only imparts valuable skills but can help advance your career.

It’s also a collaborative endeavor that can only be mastered through practice with peers. As Datar says in the introduction to Design Thinking and Innovation : “Just as with learning how to swim, the best way to practice is to jump in and try.”

If you want to learn design thinking, take an active role in your education. Start polls, problem-solving exercises, and debates with peers to get a taste of the process. It’s also important to seek out diverse viewpoints to prepare yourself for the business world.

In addition, if you’re considering adding design thinking to your skill set, think about your goals and why you want to learn about it. What else might you need to be successful?

You might consider developing your communication, innovation, leadership, research, and management skills, as those are often listed alongside design thinking in job postings and professional profiles.

You may also notice skills like agile methodology, user experience, and prototyping in job postings, along with non-design skills, such as product management, strategic planning, and new product development.

Is Design Thinking Right for You?

There are many ways to approach problem-solving and innovation. Design thinking is just one of them. While it’s beneficial to learn how others have approached problems and evaluate if you have the same tools at your disposal, it can be more important to chart your own course to deliver what users and customers truly need.

You can also pursue an online course or workshop that dives deeper into design thinking methodology. This can be a practical path if you want to improve your design thinking skills or require a more collaborative environment.

Are you ready to develop your design thinking skills? Explore our online course Design Thinking and Innovation to discover how to leverage fundamental design thinking principles and innovative problem-solving tools to address business challenges.

About the Author

AICTE - NITTT - Module 7 Creative Problem Solving , Innovation and Meaningful R & D

Page Visits

Course layout, books and references, instructor bio.

Dr. P. K. Tulsi

DOWNLOAD APP

SWAYAM SUPPORT

Please choose the SWAYAM National Coordinator for support. * :

• Skip to main content
• Skip to header right navigation
• Skip to site footer

Unleash Your Greatest Leadership Impact

What is Creative Problem Solving?

“Every problem is an opportunity in disguise.” — John Adams

Imagine if you come up with new ideas and solve problems better, faster, easier?

Imagine if you could easily leverage the thinking from multiple experts and different points of view?

That’s the promise and the premise of Creative Problem Solving.

As Einstein put it, “Creativity is intelligence having fun.”

Creative problem solving is a systematic approach that empowers individuals and teams to unleash their imagination , explore diverse perspectives, and generate innovative solutions to complex challenges.

Throughout my years at Microsoft, I’ve used variations of Creative Problem Solving to tackle big, audacious challenges and create new opportunities for innovation.

I this article, I walkthrough the original Creative Problem Solving process and variations so that you can more fully appreciate the power of the process and how it’s evolved over the years.

On This Page

Innovation is a Team Sport What is Creative Problem Solving? What is the Creative Problem Solving Process? Variations of Creative Problem Solving Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Criticisms of Creative Problem Solving Creative Problem Solving 21st Century FourSight Thinking Profiles Basadur’s Innovative Process Synetics SCAMPER Design Thinking

Innovation is a Team Sport

Recognizing that innovation is a team sport , I understood the importance of equipping myself and my teams with the right tools for the job.

By leveraging different problem-solving approaches, I have been able to navigate complex landscapes , think outside the box, and find unique solutions.

Creative Problem Solving has served as a valuable compass , guiding me to explore uncharted territories and unlock the potential for groundbreaking ideas.

With a diverse set of tools in my toolbox, I’ve been better prepared to navigate the dynamic world of innovation and contribute to the success and amplify impact for many teams and many orgs for many years.

By learning and teaching Creative Problem Solving we empower diverse teams to appreciate and embrace cognitive diversity to solve problems and create new opportunities with skill.

Creative problem solving is a mental process used to find original and effective solutions to problems.

It involves going beyond traditional methods and thinking outside the box to come up with new and innovative approaches.

Here are some key aspects of creative problem solving:

• Divergent Thinking : This involves exploring a wide range of possibilities and generating a large number of ideas, even if they seem unconventional at first.
• Convergent Thinking : Once you have a pool of ideas, you need to narrow them down and select the most promising ones. This requires critical thinking and evaluation skills.
• Process : There are various frameworks and techniques that can guide you through the creative problem-solving process. These can help you structure your thinking and increase your chances of finding innovative solutions.

Benefits of Creative Problem Solving:

• Finding New Solutions : It allows you to overcome challenges and achieve goals in ways that traditional methods might miss.
• Enhancing Innovation : It fosters a culture of innovation and helps organizations stay ahead of the curve.
• Improved Adaptability : It equips you to handle unexpected situations and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Boosts Confidence: Successfully solving problems with creative solutions can build confidence and motivation.

Here are some common techniques used in creative problem solving:

• Brainstorming : This is a classic technique where you generate as many ideas as possible in a short period of time.
• SCAMPER: This is a framework that prompts you to consider different ways to Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Magnify/Minify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, and Rearrange elements of the problem.
• Mind Mapping: This technique involves visually organizing your ideas and connections between them.
• Lateral Thinking: This approach challenges you to look at the problem from different angles and consider unconventional solutions.

Creative problem solving is a valuable skill for everyone, not just artists or designers.

You can apply it to all aspects of life, from personal challenges to professional endeavors.

What is the Creative Problem Solving Process?

The Creative Problem Solving (CPS) framework is a systematic approach for generating innovative solutions to complex problems.

It’s effectively a process framework.

It provides a structured process that helps individuals and teams think creatively, explore possibilities, and develop practical solutions.

The Creative Problem Solving process framework typically consists of the following stages:

• Clarify : In this stage, the problem or challenge is clearly defined, ensuring a shared understanding among participants. The key objectives, constraints, and desired outcomes are identified.
• Generate Ideas : During this stage, participants engage in divergent thinking to generate a wide range of ideas and potential solutions. The focus is on quantity and deferring judgment, encouraging free-flowing creativity.
• Develop Solutions : In this stage, the generated ideas are evaluated, refined, and developed into viable solutions. Participants explore the feasibility, practicality, and potential impact of each idea, considering the resources and constraints at hand.
• Implement : Once a solution or set of solutions is selected, an action plan is developed to guide the implementation process. This includes defining specific steps, assigning responsibilities, setting timelines, and identifying the necessary resources.
• Evaluate : After implementing the solution, the outcomes and results are evaluated to assess the effectiveness and impact. Lessons learned are captured to inform future problem-solving efforts and improve the process.

Throughout the Creative Problem Solving framework, various creativity techniques and tools can be employed to stimulate idea generation, such as brainstorming, mind mapping, SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, Reverse), and others.

These techniques help break through traditional thinking patterns and encourage novel approaches to problem-solving.

What are Variations of the Creative Problem Solving Process?

There are several variations of the Creative Problem Solving process, each emphasizing different steps or stages.

Here are five variations that are commonly referenced:

• Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving : This is one of the earliest and most widely used versions of Creative Problem Solving. It consists of six stages: Objective Finding, Fact Finding, Problem Finding, Idea Finding, Solution Finding, and Acceptance Finding. It follows a systematic approach to identify and solve problems creatively.
• Creative Problem Solving 21st Century : Creative Problem Solving 21st Century, developed by Roger Firestien, is an innovative approach that empowers individuals to identify and take action towards achieving their goals, wishes, or challenges by providing a structured process to generate ideas, develop solutions, and create a plan of action.
• FourSight Thinking Profiles : This model introduces four stages in the Creative Problem Solving process: Clarify, Ideate, Develop, and Implement. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the problem, generating a range of ideas, developing and evaluating those ideas, and finally implementing the best solution.
• Basadur’s Innovative Process : Basadur’s Innovative Process, developed by Min Basadur, is a systematic and iterative process that guides teams through eight steps to effectively identify, define, generate ideas, evaluate, and implement solutions, resulting in creative and innovative outcomes.
• Synectics : Synectics is a Creative Problem Solving variation that focuses on creating new connections and insights. It involves stages such as Problem Clarification, Idea Generation, Evaluation, and Action Planning. Synectics encourages thinking from diverse perspectives and applying analogical reasoning.
• SCAMPER : SCAMPER is an acronym representing different creative thinking techniques to stimulate idea generation. Each letter stands for a strategy: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Rearrange. SCAMPER is used as a tool within the Creative Problem Solving process to generate innovative ideas by applying these strategies.
• Design Thinking : While not strictly a variation of Creative Problem Solving, Design Thinking is a problem-solving approach that shares similarities with Creative Problem Solving. It typically includes stages such as Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. Design Thinking focuses on understanding users’ needs, ideating and prototyping solutions, and iterating based on feedback.

These are just a few examples of variations within the Creative Problem Solving framework. Each variation provides a unique perspective on the problem-solving process, allowing individuals and teams to approach challenges in different ways.

Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving (CPS)

The original Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process, developed by Alex Osborn and Sidney Parnes, consists of the following steps:

• Objective Finding : In this step, the problem or challenge is clearly defined, and the objectives and goals are established. It involves understanding the problem from different perspectives, gathering relevant information, and identifying the desired outcomes.
• Fact Finding : The objective of this step is to gather information, data, and facts related to the problem. It involves conducting research, analyzing the current situation, and seeking a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing the problem.
• Problem Finding : In this step, the focus is on identifying the root causes and underlying issues contributing to the problem. It involves reframing the problem, exploring it from different angles, and asking probing questions to uncover insights and uncover potential areas for improvement.
• Idea Finding : This step involves generating a wide range of ideas and potential solutions. Participants engage in divergent thinking techniques, such as brainstorming, to produce as many ideas as possible without judgment or evaluation. The aim is to encourage creativity and explore novel possibilities.
• Solution Finding : After generating a pool of ideas, the next step is to evaluate and select the most promising solutions. This involves convergent thinking, where participants assess the feasibility, desirability, and viability of each idea. Criteria are established to assess and rank the solutions based on their potential effectiveness.
• Acceptance Finding : In this step, the selected solution is refined, developed, and adapted to fit the specific context and constraints. Strategies are identified to overcome potential obstacles and challenges. Participants work to gain acceptance and support for the chosen solution from stakeholders.
• Solution Implementation : Once the solution is finalized, an action plan is developed to guide its implementation. This includes defining specific steps, assigning responsibilities, setting timelines, and securing the necessary resources. The solution is put into action, and progress is monitored to ensure successful execution.
• Monitoring and Evaluation : The final step involves tracking the progress and evaluating the outcomes of the implemented solution. Lessons learned are captured, and feedback is gathered to inform future problem-solving efforts. This step helps refine the process and improve future problem-solving endeavors.

The CPS process is designed to be iterative and flexible, allowing for feedback loops and refinement at each stage. It encourages collaboration, open-mindedness, and the exploration of diverse perspectives to foster creative problem-solving and innovation.

Criticisms of the Original Creative Problem Solving Approach

While Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving is a widely used and effective problem-solving framework, it does have some criticisms, challenges, and limitations.

These include:

• Linear Process : CPS follows a structured and linear process, which may not fully capture the dynamic and non-linear nature of complex problems.
• Overemphasis on Rationality : CPS primarily focuses on logical and rational thinking, potentially overlooking the value of intuitive or emotional insights in the problem-solving process.
• Limited Cultural Diversity : The CPS framework may not adequately address the cultural and contextual differences that influence problem-solving approaches across diverse groups and regions.
• Time and Resource Intensive : Implementing the CPS process can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring significant commitment and investment from participants and organizations.
• Lack of Flexibility : The structured nature of CPS may restrict the exploration of alternative problem-solving methods, limiting adaptability to different situations or contexts.
• Limited Emphasis on Collaboration : Although CPS encourages group participation, it may not fully leverage the collective intelligence and diverse perspectives of teams, potentially limiting the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving.
• Potential Resistance to Change : Organizations or individuals accustomed to traditional problem-solving approaches may encounter resistance or difficulty in embracing the CPS methodology and its associated mindset shift.

Despite these criticisms and challenges, the CPS framework remains a valuable tool for systematic problem-solving.

Adapting and supplementing it with other methodologies and approaches can help overcome some of its limitations and enhance overall effectiveness.

Creative Problem Solving 21st Century

Roger Firestien is a master facilitator of the Creative Problem Solving process. He has been using it, studying it, researching it, and teaching it for 40 years.

According to him, the 21st century requires a new approach to problem-solving that is more creative and innovative.

He has developed a program that focuses on assisting facilitators of the Creative Problem Solving Process to smoothly and confidently transition from one stage to the next in the Creative Problem Solving process as well as learn how to talk less and accomplish more while facilitating Creative Problem Solving.

Creative Problem Solving empowers individuals to identify and take action towards achieving their goals, manifesting their aspirations, or addressing challenges they wish to overcome.

Unlike approaches that solely focus on problem-solving, CPS recognizes that the user’s objective may not necessarily be framed as a problem. Instead, CPS supports users in realizing their goals and desires, providing a versatile framework to guide them towards success.

Why Creative Problem Solving 21st Century?

Creative Problem Solving 21st Century addresses challenges with the original Creative Problem Solving method by adapting it to the demands of the modern era. Roger Firestien recognized that the 21st century requires a new approach to problem-solving that is more creative and innovative.

The Creative Problem Solving 21st Century program focuses on helping facilitators smoothly transition between different stages of the problem-solving process. It also teaches them how to be more efficient and productive in their facilitation by talking less and achieving more results.

Unlike approaches that solely focus on problem-solving, Creative Problem Solving 21st Century acknowledges that users may not always frame their objectives as problems. It recognizes that individuals have goals, wishes, and challenges they want to address or achieve. Creative Problem Solving provides a flexible framework to guide users towards success in realizing their aspirations.

Creative Problem Solving 21st Century builds upon the foundational work of pioneers such as Osborn, Parnes, Miller, and Firestien. It incorporates practical techniques like PPC (Pluses, Potentials, Concerns) and emphasizes the importance of creative leadership skills in driving change.

Stages of the Creative Problem Solving 21st Century

• Clarify the Problem
• Generate Ideas
• Develop Solutions
• Plan for Action

Steps of the Creative Problem Solving 21st Century

Here are stages and steps of the Creative Problem Solving 21st Century per Roger Firestien:

CLARIFY THE PROBLEM

Start here when you are looking to improve, create, or solve something. You want to explore the facts,  feelings and data around it. You want to find the best problem to solve.

IDENTIFY GOAL, WISH OR CHALLENGE Start with a goal, wish or challenge that begins with the phrase: “I wish…” or “It would be great if…”

Diverge : If you are not quite clear on a goal then create, invent, solve or improve.

Converge : Select the goal, wish or challenge on which you have Ownership, Motivation and a need for Imagination.

GATHER DATA

Diverge : What is a brief history of your goal, wish or challenge? What have you already thought of or tried? What might be your ideal goal?

Converge : Select the key data that reveals a new insight into the situation or that is important to consider throughout the remainder of the process.

Diverge : Generate many questions about your goal, wish or challenge. Phrase your questions beginning with: “How to…?” “How might…?” “What might be all the ways to…?” Try turning your key data into questions that redefine the goal, wish or challenge.

• Mark the “HITS” : New insight. Promising direction. Nails it! Feels good in your gut.
• Group the related “HITS” together.
• Restate the cluster . “How to…” “What might be all the…”

GENERATE IDEAS

Start here when you have a clearly defined problem and you need ideas to solve it. The best way to create great ideas is to generate LOTS of ideas. Defer judgment. Strive for quantity. Seek wild & unusual ideas. Build on other ideas.

Diverge : Come up with at least 40 ideas for solving your problem. Come up with 40 more. Keep going. Even as you see good ideas emerge, keep pushing for novelty. Stretch!

• Mark the “HITS”: Interesting, Intriguing, Useful, Solves the problem. Sparkles at you.
• Restate the cluster with a verb phrase.

DEVELOP SOLUTIONS

Start here when you want to turn promising ideas into workable solutions.

DEVELOP YOUR SOLUTION Review your clusters of ideas and blend them into a “story.” Imagine in detail what your solution would look like when it is implemented.

Begin your solution story with the phrase, “What I see myself doing is…”

PPCo EVALUATION

PPCo stands for Pluses, Potentials, Concerns and Overcome concerns

Review your solution story .

• List the PLUSES or specific strengths of your solution.
• List the POTENTIALS of your solution. What might be the result if you were to implement your idea?
• Finally, list your CONCERNS about the solution. Phrase your concerns beginning with “How to…”
• Diverge and generate ideas to OVERCOME your concerns one at a time until they have all been overcome
• Converge and select the best ideas to overcome your concerns. Use these ideas to improve your solution.

PLAN FOR ACTION

Start here when you have a solution and need buy-in from others. You want to create a detailed plan of action to follow.

Diverge : List all of the actions you might take to implement your solution.

• What might you do to make your solution easy to understand?
• What might you do to demonstrate the advantages of your solution?
• How might you gain acceptance of your solution?
• What steps might you take to put your solution into action?

Converge : Select the key actions to implement your solution. Create a plan, detailing who does what by when.

Credits for the Creative Problem Solving 21st Century

Creative Problem Solving – 21st Century is based on the work of: Osborn, A.F..(1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of Creative Problem Solving. New York: Scribner’s. Parnes, S.J, Noller, R.B & Biondi, A. (1977). Guide to Creative Action. New York: Scribner’s. Miller, B., Firestien, R., Vehar, J. Plain language Creative Problem-Solving Model, 1997. Puccio, G.J., Mance, M., Murdock, M.C. (2010) Creative Leadership: Skills that drive change. (Second Edition), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Miller, B., Vehar J., Firestien, R., Thurber, S. Nielsen, D. (2011) Creativity Unbound: An introduction to creative process. (Fifth Edition), Foursight, LLC., Evanston, IL. PPC (Pluses, Potentials & Concerns) was invented by Diane Foucar-Szocki, Bill Shepard & Roger Firestien in 1982

Where to Go for More on Creative Problem Solving 21st Century

Here are incredible free resources to ramp up on Creative Problem Solving 21st Century:

• PDF of Creative Problem Solving 21st Edition (RogerFirestien.com)
• PDF Worksheets for Creative Problem Solving (RogerFirestien.com)
• Video: Roger Firestien on 40 Years of Creative Problem Solving

Video Walkthroughs

• Video 1: Introduction to Creative Problem Solving
• Video 2: Identify your Goal/Wish/Challenge
• Video 3: Gather Data
• Video 4: Clarify the Problem: Creative Questions
• Video 5: Clarify the Problem: Why? What’s Stopping Me?
• Video 6: Selecting the Best Problem
• Video 7: How to do a Warm-up
• Video 8: Generate Ideas: Sticky Notes + Forced Connections
• Video 9: Generate Ideas: Brainwriting
• Video 10: Selecting the Best Ideas
• Video 11: Develop Solutions: PPCO
• Video 12: Generating Action Steps
• Video 13: Create Your Action Plan
• Video 14: CPS: The Whole Process

FourSight Thinking Profiles

The FourSight Thinking Skills Profile is an assessment tool designed to measure an individual’s thinking preferences and skills.

It focuses on four key thinking styles or stages that contribute to the creative problem-solving process.

The assessment helps individuals and teams understand their strengths and areas for development in each of these stages.

Why FourSight Thinking Profiles?

The FourSight method was necessary to address certain limitations or challenges that were identified in the original CPS method.

• Thinking Preferences : The FourSight model recognizes that individuals have different thinking preferences or cognitive styles. By understanding and leveraging these preferences, the FourSight method aims to optimize idea generation and problem-solving processes within teams and organizations.
• Overemphasis on Ideation : While ideation is a critical aspect of CPS, the original method sometimes focused too heavily on generating ideas without adequate attention to other stages, such as problem clarification, solution development, and implementation. FourSight offers a more balanced approach across all stages of the CPS process.
• Enhanced Problem Definition : FourSight places a particular emphasis on the Clarify stage, which involves defining the problem or challenge. This is an important step to ensure that the problem is well-understood and properly framed before proceeding to ideation and solution development.
• Research-Based Approach : The development of FourSight was influenced by extensive research on thinking styles and creativity. By incorporating these research insights into the CPS process, FourSight provides a more evidence-based and comprehensive approach to creative problem-solving.

Stages of FourSight Creative Problem Solving

FourSight Creative Problem Solving consists of four thinking stages, each associated with a specific thinking preference:

• Clarify : In this stage, the focus is on gaining a clear understanding of the problem or challenge. Participants define the problem statement, gather relevant information, and identify the key objectives and desired outcomes. This stage involves analytical thinking and careful examination of the problem’s context and scope.
• Ideate : The ideation stage involves generating a broad range of ideas and potential solutions. Participants engage in divergent thinking, allowing for a free flow of creativity and encouraging the exploration of unconventional possibilities. Various brainstorming techniques and creativity tools can be utilized to stimulate idea generation.
• Develop : Once a pool of ideas has been generated, the next stage is to develop and refine the selected ideas. Participants shift into a convergent thinking mode, evaluating and analyzing the feasibility, practicality, and potential impact of each idea. The emphasis is on refining and shaping the ideas into viable solutions.
• Implement : The final stage is focused on implementing the chosen solution. Participants develop an action plan, define specific steps and timelines, assign responsibilities, and identify the necessary resources. This stage requires practical thinking and attention to detail to ensure the successful execution of the solution.

Throughout the FourSight framework, it is recognized that individuals have different thinking preferences. Some individuals naturally excel in the Clarify stage, while others thrive in Ideate, Develop, or Implement.

By understanding these preferences, the FourSight framework encourages collaboration and diversity of thinking styles, ensuring a well-rounded approach to problem-solving and innovation.

The FourSight process can be iterative, allowing for feedback loops and revisiting previous stages as needed. It emphasizes the importance of open communication, respect for different perspectives, and leveraging the collective intelligence of a team to achieve optimal results.

4 Thinking Profiles in FourSight

In the FourSight model, there are four preferences that individuals can exhibit. These preferences reflect where individuals tend to focus their energy and time within the creative problem-solving process.

The four preferences in FourSight are:

• Clarifier : Individuals with a Clarifier preference excel in the first stage of the creative problem-solving process, which is about gaining clarity and understanding the problem. They are skilled at asking questions, gathering information, and analyzing data to define the problem accurately.
• Ideator : Individuals with an Ideator preference thrive in the second stage, which involves generating a wide range of ideas. They are imaginative thinkers who excel at brainstorming, thinking outside the box, and generating creative solutions. Ideators are known for their ability to explore multiple perspectives and come up with diverse ideas.
• Developer : Individuals with a Developer preference excel in the third stage of the process, which focuses on refining and developing ideas. They are skilled at evaluating ideas, analyzing their feasibility, and transforming them into actionable plans or solutions. Developers excel in taking promising ideas and shaping them into practical and effective strategies.
• Implementer : Individuals with an Implementer preference shine in the final stage of the process, which is about planning for action and executing the chosen solution. Implementers are skilled at organizing tasks, creating action plans, and ensuring successful implementation. They focus on turning ideas into tangible outcomes and are known for their ability to execute projects efficiently.

It’s important to note that while individuals may have a primary preference, everyone is capable of participating in all stages of the creative problem-solving process.

However, the FourSight model suggests that individuals tend to have a natural inclination or preference towards one or more of these stages. Understanding one’s preferences can help individuals leverage their strengths and work effectively in a team by appreciating the diversity of thinking preferences.

Right Hand vs. Left Hand

The FourSight model is a way to understand how people approach the creative process. It measures our preferences for different stages of creativity.

A good analogy for this is writing with your right or left hand. Think about writing with your right or left hand. Most of us have a dominant hand that we use for writing. It’s the hand we’re most comfortable with and it comes naturally to us. But it doesn’t mean we can’t write with our non-dominant hand. We can still do it, but it requires more effort and focus.

Similarly, in the creative process, we have preferred stages or parts that we enjoy and feel comfortable in. These are our peak preferences. However, it doesn’t mean we can’t work on the other stages. We can make a conscious effort to spend time and work on those stages, even if they don’t come as naturally to us.

Combinations of FourSight Profiles

Your FourSight profile is determined by four scores that represent your preferences in the creative process. Your profile reveals where you feel most energized and where you may struggle.

If you have a single peak in your profile, refer back to the description of that preference. If you have two or more peaks, continue reading to understand your tendencies when engaging in any kind of innovation.

Here are how the combinations show up, along with their labels:

2-Way Combinations

• High Clarifier & High Ideator = “Early Bird
• High Clarifier & High Developer = “Analyst”
• High Clarifier & High Implementer = “Accelerator”
• High Ideator & High Developer = “Theorist”
• High Ideator & High Implementer = “Driver”
• High Developer & High Implementer = “Finisher”

3-Way Combinations

• High Clarifier, Ideator & Developer = “Hare”
• High Clarifier, Ideator & Implementer = “Idea Broker”
• High Clarifier, Developer & Implementer = “Realist”
• High Ideator, Developer & Implementer = “Optimist”

4-Way Combination Nearly Equal for All Four Preferences = “Integrator”

Where to Go for More On FourSight

• FourSight Home
• FourSight Thinking Profile Interpretive Guide PDF
• FourSight Technical Manual PDF

Basadur’s Innovative Process

The Simplex Process, developed by management and creativity expert Min Basadur, gained recognition through his influential book “The Power of Innovation” published in 1995.

It consists of a sequence of eight steps organized into three distinct stages:

• Problem Formulation
• Solution Formulation
• Solution Implementation

You might hear Bsadur’s Innovative Process referred to by a few variations:

• Simplex Creative Problem Solving
• Basadur SIMPLEX Problem Solving Process
• Basadur System of innovation and creative problem solving
• Simplexity Thinking Process

What is Basadur’s Innovative Process

Here is how Basadur.com explains Basadur’s Innovation Process :

“The Basadur Innovation Process is an innovative thinking & creative problem solving process that separates innovation into clearly-defined steps, to take you from initial problem-finding right through to implementing the solutions you’ve created.

Its beauty is that it enables everyone to participate in an unbiased, open-minded way.

In the absence of negativity, people can think clearly and logically, building innovation confidence. A wide range of ideas can be proposed and the best ones selected, refined and executed in a spirit of openness and collaboration.

“That’s a great idea, but…”

How often have you heard this phrase? In most group decision-making processes, ideas are killed off before they’ve even got off the ground. With The Basadur Process on the other hand, judgment is deferred. Put simply, opinions on ideas don’t get in the way of ideas.”

3 Phases and 8 Steps of Basadur’s Innovative Process

The Basadur’s Innovative Process consists of three phases, subdivided into eight steps:

Phase 1: Problem Formulation

Problem Formulation : This phase focuses on understanding and defining the problem accurately. It involves the following steps:

• Step 1 : Problem Finding . Actively anticipate and seek out problems, opportunities, and possibilities. Maintain an open mind and view problems as opportunities for proactive resolution. Identify fuzzy situations and recognize that they can open new doors.
• Step 2 : Fact Finding . Gather relevant information and facts related to the fuzzy situation. Seek multiple viewpoints, challenge assumptions, listen to others, and focus on finding the truth rather than personal opinions. Utilize different lines of questioning to clarify the situation.
• Step 3 : Problem Definition . Define the problem accurately and objectively. View the problem from different angles and consider new perspectives. Uncover fresh challenges and recognize that the perceived problem might not be the real issue.

Phase 2: Solution Formulation

Solution Formulation . Once the problem is well-defined, this phase revolves around generating and evaluating potential solutions.  The steps involved are:

• Step 4 : Idea Finding . Generate ideas to solve the defined problem. Continuously seek more and better ideas, build upon half-formed ideas, and consider ideas from others. Fine-tune seemingly radical or impossible ideas to make them workable solutions.
• Step 5 : Evaluate & Select . Evaluate and select the most promising ideas to convert them into practical solutions. Consider multiple criteria in an unbiased manner, creatively improve imperfect solutions, and re-evaluate them.

Phase 3: Solution Implementation

Solution Implementation . In the final phase, the focus shifts to implementing and executing the selected solution effectively. The steps in this phase include:

• Step 6 : Plan Devise specific measures and create a concrete plan for implementing the chosen solution. Visualize the end result and motivate others to participate and support the plan.
• Step 7 : Acceptance Gain acceptance for the solutions and plans. Communicate the benefits of the solution to others, address potential concerns, and continuously revise and improve the solution to minimize resistance to change.
• Step 8 : Action Implement the solutions and put the plan into action. Avoid getting stuck in unimportant details, adapt the solutions to specific circumstances, and garner support for the change. Emphasize the need for follow-up to ensure lasting and permanent changes.

The SIMPLEX process recognizes that implementing a solution can reveal new problems, opportunities, and possibilities, leading back to Step 1 and initiating the iterative problem-solving and innovation cycle again.

Where to Go for More on Basadur’s Innovation Process

• Basadur’s Innovative Process Home
• Simplexity Thinking Explained
• Ambasadur Affiliate Program

Synectics is a problem-solving and creative thinking approach that emphasizes the power of collaboration, analogy, and metaphorical thinking. It was developed in the 1960s by George M. Prince and William J.J. Gordon.

Synectics is based on the belief that the most innovative ideas and solutions arise from the integration of diverse perspectives and the ability to make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts.

The Story of Synetics

Here is the story of Syentics according to SyneticsWorld.com:

“Back in the 1950s, our founders Bill Gordon, George Prince and their team studied thousands of hours of tape recorded innovation sessions to find the answer to

‘What is really going on between the people in the group to help them create and implement successfully?’

They called the answer the Synectics Creative-Problem-Solving Methodology, which has expanded into the Synecticsworld’s expertise on how people work creatively and collaboratively to create innovative solutions to some of the world’s most difficult challenges.

The unique Synecticsworld innovation process to the art of problem solving has taken us to many different destinations. We have worked on assignments in both the public and private sectors, in product and service innovation, business process improvement, cost reduction and the reinvention of business models and strategies.

It is our on-going goal to guide and inspire our clients to engage the Synectics innovation process to create innovative ideas, innovative solutions, and activate new, powerful, and innovative solutions.”

Why Synetics?

Synectics addresses challenges of the original Creative Problem Solving process by introducing a unique set of tools and techniques that foster creative thinking and overcome mental barriers.

Here’s how Synectics addresses some common challenges of the original Creative Problem Solving process:

• Breaking Mental Barriers : Synectics recognizes that individuals often have mental blocks and preconceived notions that limit their thinking. It tackles this challenge by encouraging the use of analogies, metaphors, and connections to break through these barriers. By exploring unrelated concepts and drawing parallels, participants can generate fresh perspectives and innovative solutions.
• Promoting Divergent Thinking : The original CPS process may sometimes struggle to foster a truly divergent thinking environment where participants feel comfortable expressing unconventional ideas. Synectics creates a safe and non-judgmental space for participants to freely explore and share their thoughts, regardless of how unusual or unconventional they may seem. This encourages a wider range of ideas and increases the potential for breakthrough solutions.
• Enhancing Collaboration : Synectics emphasizes the power of collaboration and the integration of diverse perspectives. It recognizes that innovation often emerges through the interaction of different viewpoints and experiences. By actively engaging participants in collaborative brainstorming sessions and encouraging them to build upon each other’s ideas, Synectics enhances teamwork and collective problem-solving.
• Stimulating Creative Connections : While the original CPS process focuses on logical problem-solving techniques, Synectics introduces the use of analogy and metaphorical thinking. By encouraging participants to find connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, Synectics stimulates creative thinking and opens up new possibilities. This approach helps overcome fixed thinking patterns and encourages participants to explore alternative perspectives and solutions.
• Encouraging Unconventional Solutions : Synectics acknowledges that unconventional ideas can lead to breakthrough solutions. It provides a framework that supports the exploration of unorthodox approaches and encourages participants to think beyond traditional boundaries. By challenging the status quo and embracing innovative thinking, Synectics enables the generation of unique and impactful solutions.

Synectics complements and expands upon the original CPS process by offering additional tools and techniques that specifically address challenges related to mental barriers, divergent thinking, collaboration, creative connections, and unconventional solutions.

It provides a structured approach to enhance creativity and problem-solving in a collaborative setting.

Synetic Sessions

In the Synectics process, individuals or teams engage in structured brainstorming sessions, often referred to as “synectic sessions.”

These sessions encourage participants to think beyond conventional boundaries and explore novel ways of approaching a problem or challenge.

The approach involves creating an open and non-judgmental environment where participants feel free to express their ideas and build upon each other’s contributions.

Synectics incorporates the use of analogies and metaphors to stimulate creative thinking. Participants are encouraged to make connections between unrelated concepts, draw parallels from different domains, and explore alternative perspectives.

This approach helps to break mental barriers, unlock new insights, and generate innovative ideas.

Steps of the Synetics Process

The Synectics process typically involves the following steps:

• Problem Identification : Clearly defining the problem or challenge that needs to be addressed.
• Idea Generation: Engaging in brainstorming sessions to generate a wide range of ideas, including both conventional and unconventional ones.
• Analogy and Metaphor Exploration : Encouraging participants to explore analogies, metaphors, and connections to stimulate new ways of thinking about the problem.
• Idea Development: Refining and developing the most promising ideas generated during the brainstorming process.
• Solution Evaluation : Assessing and evaluating the potential feasibility, effectiveness, and practicality of the developed ideas.
• Implementation Planning : Creating a detailed action plan to implement the chosen solution or ideas.

Synectics has been used in various fields, including business, design, education, and innovation. It is particularly effective when addressing complex problems that require a fresh perspective and the integration of diverse viewpoints.

Example of How Synetics Explores Analogies and Metaphors

Here’s an example of how Synectics utilizes analogy and metaphor exploration to stimulate new ways of thinking about a problem:

Let’s say a team is tasked with improving customer service in a retail store. During a Synectics session, participants may be encouraged to explore analogies and metaphors related to customer service. For example:

• Analogy : The participants might be asked to think of customer service in terms of a restaurant experience. They can draw parallels between the interactions between waitstaff and customers in a restaurant and the interactions between retail associates and shoppers. By exploring this analogy, participants may uncover insights and ideas for enhancing the customer experience in the retail store, such as personalized attention, prompt service, or creating a welcoming ambiance.
• Metaphor : Participants could be prompted to imagine customer service as a journey or a road trip. They can explore how different stages of the journey, such as initial contact, assistance during the shopping process, and follow-up after purchase, can be improved to create a seamless and satisfying experience. This metaphorical exploration may lead to ideas like providing clear signage, offering assistance at every step, or implementing effective post-purchase support.

Through analogy and metaphor exploration, Synectics encourages participants to think beyond the immediate context and draw inspiration from different domains .

By connecting disparate ideas and concepts , new perspectives and innovative solutions can emerge.

These analogies and metaphors serve as creative triggers that unlock fresh insights and generate ideas that may not have been considered within the confines of the original problem statement.

SCAMPER is a creative thinking technique that provides a set of prompts or questions to stimulate idea generation and innovation. It was developed by Bob Eberle and is widely used in problem-solving, product development, and brainstorming sessions.

SCAMPER provides a structured framework for creatively examining and challenging existing ideas, products, or processes.

Recognizing the value of Alex Osterman’s original checklist, Bob Eberle skillfully organized it into meaningful and repeatable categories. This thoughtful refinement by Eberle has made SCAMPER a practical and highly effective tool for expanding possibilities, breaking through creative blocks, and sparking new insights.

By systematically applying each prompt, individuals or teams can generate a wide range of possibilities and discover innovative solutions to problems or opportunities.

What Does SCAMPER Stand For?

Each letter in the word “SCAMPER” represents a different prompt to encourage creative thinking and exploration of ideas.

Here’s what each letter stands for:

• S – Substitute : Consider substituting a component, material, process, or element with something different to generate new ideas.
• C – Combine : Explore possibilities by combining or merging different elements, ideas, or features to create something unique.
• A – Adapt : Identify ways to adapt or modify existing ideas, products, or processes to fit new contexts or purposes.
• M – Modify : Examine how you can modify or change various attributes, characteristics, or aspects of an idea or solution to enhance its functionality or performance.
• P – Put to another use : Explore alternative uses or applications for an existing idea, object, or resource to uncover new possibilities.
• E – Eliminate : Consider what elements, features, or processes can be eliminated or removed to simplify or streamline an idea or solution.
• R – Reverse or Rearrange : Think about reversing or rearranging the order, sequence, or arrangement of components or processes to generate fresh perspectives and uncover innovative solutions.

Example of SCAMPER

Let’s take a simple and relatable challenge of improving the process of making breakfast sandwiches. We can use SCAMPER to generate ideas for enhancing this routine:

• S – Substitute : What can we substitute in the breakfast sandwich-making process? For example, we could substitute the traditional bread with a croissant or a tortilla wrap to add variety.
• C – Combine : How can we combine different ingredients or flavors to create unique breakfast sandwiches? We could combine eggs, bacon, and avocado to create a delicious and satisfying combination.
• A – Adapt: How can we adapt the breakfast sandwich-making process to fit different dietary preferences? We could offer options for gluten-free bread or create a vegan breakfast sandwich using plant-based ingredients.
• M – Modify : How can we modify the cooking method or preparation techniques for the breakfast sandwich? We could experiment with different cooking techniques like grilling or toasting the bread to add a crispy texture.
• P – Put to another use : How can we repurpose breakfast sandwich ingredients for other meals or snacks? We could use the same ingredients to create a breakfast burrito or use the bread to make croutons for a salad.
• E – Eliminate : What unnecessary steps or ingredients can we eliminate to simplify the breakfast sandwich-making process? We could eliminate the need for butter by using a non-stick pan or omit certain condiments to streamline the assembly process.
• R – Reverse or Rearrange : How can we reverse or rearrange the order of ingredients for a unique twist? We could reverse the order of ingredients by placing the cheese on the outside of the sandwich to create a crispy cheese crust.

These are just a few examples of how SCAMPER prompts can spark ideas for improving the breakfast sandwich-making process.

The key is to think creatively and explore possibilities within each prompt to generate innovative solutions to the challenge at hand.

Design Thinking

Design thinking provides a structured framework for creative problem-solving, with an emphasis on human needs and aspirations .

It’s an iterative process that allows for continuous learning , adaptation , and improvement based on user feedback and insights.

Here are some key ways to think about Design Thinking:

• Design thinking is an iterative and human-centered approach to problem-solving and innovation. It’s a methodology that draws inspiration from the design process to address complex challenges and create innovative solutions.
• Design thinking places a strong emphasis on understanding the needs and perspectives of the end-users or customers throughout the problem-solving journey.
• Design thinking is a collaborative and interdisciplinary process . It encourages diverse perspectives and cross-functional collaboration to foster innovation. It can be applied to a wide range of challenges, from product design and service delivery to organizational processes and social issues.

What is the Origin of Design Thinking

The origin of Design Thinking can be traced back to the work of various scholars and practitioners over several decades.

While it has evolved and been influenced by multiple sources, the following key influences are often associated with the development of Design Thinking:

• Herbert A. Simon : In the 1960s, Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon emphasized the importance of “satisficing” in decision-making and problem-solving. His work focused on the iterative nature of problem-solving and the need for designers to explore various alternatives before arriving at the optimal solution.
• Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber : In the 1970s, Rittel and Webber introduced the concept of “wicked problems,” which are complex and ill-defined challenges that do not have clear solutions. They highlighted the need for a collaborative and iterative approach to tackling these wicked problems, which aligns with the principles of Design Thinking.
• David Kelley and IDEO : Design firm IDEO, co-founded by David Kelley, played a significant role in popularizing Design Thinking. IDEO embraced an interdisciplinary and human-centered approach to design, focusing on empathy, rapid prototyping, and iteration. IDEO’s successful design projects and methodologies have influenced the development and adoption of Design Thinking across various industries.
• Stanford University : Stanford University’s d.school (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design) has been instrumental in advancing Design Thinking. The d.school has developed educational programs and frameworks that emphasize hands-on experiential learning, collaboration, and empathy in problem-solving. It has played a significant role in spreading the principles of Design Thinking globally.

While these influences have contributed to the emergence and development of Design Thinking, it’s important to note that Design Thinking is an evolving and multidisciplinary approach.

It continues to be shaped by practitioners, scholars, and organizations who contribute new ideas and insights to its principles and methodologies.

Key Principles of Design Thinking

Here are key principles of Design Thinking:

• Empathy : Design thinking begins with developing a deep understanding of the needs, emotions, and experiences of the people for whom you are designing solutions. Empathy involves active listening, observation, and engaging with users to gain insights and uncover unmet needs.
• Define the Problem : In this phase, the problem is defined and reframed based on the insights gained through empathy. The focus is on creating a clear problem statement that addresses the users’ needs and aspirations.
• Ideation : The ideation phase involves generating a wide range of ideas without judgment or criticism. It encourages divergent thinking, creativity, and the exploration of various possibilities to solve the defined problem.
• Prototyping : In this phase, ideas are translated into tangible prototypes or representations that can be tested and evaluated. Prototypes can be physical objects, mock-ups, or even digital simulations. The goal is to quickly and cost-effectively bring ideas to life for feedback and iteration.
• Testing and Iteration : Prototypes are tested with end-users to gather feedback, insights, and validation. The feedback received is used to refine and iterate the design, making improvements based on real-world observations and user input.
• Implementation : Once the design has been refined and validated through testing, it is implemented and brought to life. This phase involves planning for execution, scaling up, and integrating the solution into the intended context.

Where to Go for More on Design Thinking

There are numerous resources available to learn more about design thinking. Here are three highly regarded resources that can provide a solid foundation and deeper understanding of the subject:

• “Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work” (Book) – Nigel Cross: This book offers a comprehensive overview of design thinking, exploring its history, principles, and methodologies. Nigel Cross, a renowned design researcher, delves into the mindset and processes of designers, providing insights into their approaches to problem-solving and creativity.
• IDEO U : IDEO U is an online learning platform created by IDEO, a leading design and innovation firm. IDEO U offers a range of courses and resources focused on design thinking and innovation. Their courses provide practical guidance, case studies, and interactive exercises to deepen your understanding and application of design thinking principles.
• Stanford d.school Virtual Crash Course : The Stanford d.school offers a free Virtual Crash Course in design thinking. This online resource provides an introduction to the principles and process of design thinking through a series of videos and activities. It covers topics such as empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing. The Virtual Crash Course is a great starting point for beginners and offers hands-on learning experiences.

These resources offer diverse perspectives and practical insights into design thinking, equipping learners with the knowledge and tools to apply design thinking principles to their own projects and challenges.

Additionally, exploring case studies and real-life examples of design thinking applications in various industries can further enhance your understanding of its effectiveness and potential impact.

Dr. John Martin on “Psychological” vs. “Procedural” Approach

Dr. John Martin of the Open University in the UK offers an insightful perspective on how various Creative Problem Solving and Brainstorming techniques differ.

In his notes for the Creative Management module of their MBA Course in 1997, he states:

“In practice, different schools of creativity training borrow from one another. The more elaborate forms of creative problem-solving, such as the Buffalo CPS method (basically brainstorming), incorporate quite a number of features found in Synectics.

However there is still a discernible split between the ‘psychological’ approaches such as Synectics that emphasize metaphor, imagery, emotion, energy etc. and ‘procedural’ approaches that concentrate on private listings, round robins etc.. Of course practitioners can combine these techniques, but there is often a discernible bias towards one or other end of the spectrum”

Brainstorming was the original Creative Problem-solving Technique, developed in the 1930s by Alex Osborn (the O of the advertising agency BBDO) and further developed by Professor Sidney Parnes of the Buffalo Institute.

The Osborn-Parnes model is the most widely practised form of brainstorming, though the word has become a generic term for any attempt to generate new ideas in an environment of suspending judgement. It may include elements of other techniques, such as de Bono’s Lateral Thinking.”

Creative Problem Solving vs. Brainstorming vs. Lateral Thinking

Creative Problem Solving, brainstorming, and lateral thinking are distinct approaches to generating ideas and solving problems. Here’s a summary of their differences:

Creative Problem Solving:

• Involves a systematic approach to problem-solving, typically following stages such as problem identification, idea generation, solution development, and implementation planning.
• Focuses on understanding the problem deeply, analyzing data, and generating a wide range of potential solutions.
• Encourages both convergent thinking (evaluating and selecting the best ideas) and divergent thinking (generating multiple ideas).
• Incorporates structured techniques and frameworks to guide the problem-solving process, such as the Osborn-Parnes model.

Brainstorming:

• A specific technique within Creative Problem Solving, developed by Alex Osborn, which aims to generate a large quantity of ideas in a short amount of time.
• Involves a group of individuals openly sharing ideas without judgment or criticism.
• Emphasizes quantity over quality, encouraging participants to build upon each other’s ideas and think creatively.
• Typically involves following guidelines, such as deferring judgment, encouraging wild ideas, and combining and improving upon suggestions.

Lateral Thinking (Edward de Bono’s Lateral Thinking):

• Introduced by Edward de Bono, lateral thinking is a deliberate and structured approach to thinking differently and generating innovative ideas.
• Involves deliberately challenging traditional thinking patterns and assumptions to arrive at unconventional solutions.
• Encourages the use of techniques like random stimulation, provocative statements, and deliberate provocation to shift perspectives and break fixed thought patterns.
• Focuses on generating out-of-the-box ideas that may not arise through traditional problem-solving methods.

While there can be overlaps and combinations of these approaches in practice, each approach has its distinct emphasis and techniques.

Creative Problem Solving provides a structured framework for problem-solving, brainstorming emphasizes idea generation within a group setting, and lateral thinking promotes thinking outside the box to arrive at unconventional solutions.

Creative Problem Solving Empowers You to Change Your World

The Creative Problem Solving process is a valuable framework that enables individuals and teams to approach complex problems with a structured and creative mindset.

By following the stages of clarifying the problem, generating ideas, developing solutions, implementing the chosen solution, and evaluating the outcomes, the process guides participants through a systematic and iterative journey of problem-solving.

Throughout this deep dive, we’ve explored the essence of Creative Problem Solving, its key stages, and variations. We’ve seen how different methodologies, such as Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving, FourSight Thinking Profiles, Basadur’s Innovative Process, Synectics, SCAMPER, and Design Thinking, offer unique perspectives and techniques to enhance the creative problem-solving experience.

By embracing these frameworks and techniques, individuals and teams can tap into their creative potential , break free from conventional thinking patterns, and unlock innovative solutions.

Creative Problem Solving empowers us to approach challenges with curiosity, open-mindedness, and a collaborative spirit , fostering a culture of innovation and continuous improvement.

Remember, creative problem solving is a skill that can be developed and honed over time. By adopting a flexible and adaptable mindset , embracing diverse perspectives, and applying various creativity tools, we can navigate the complexities of problem-solving and uncover solutions that drive positive change.

Let’s enjoy our creative problem-solving journey by embracing the unknown and transforming challenges into opportunities for growth and innovation.

You Might Also Like

Frameworks Library 10 Best Change Management Frameworks 10 Best Go-to-Market Frameworks 10 Best Innovation Frameworks 10 Best Marketing Frameworks Appreciative Inquiry vs. Problem Solving Orientation

About JD Meier

I help leaders change the world.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

To Find Creative Solutions, Look Outside Your Industry

• Bill Taylor

Why gamble on untested strategies when you could quickly apply an approach that’s already been proven elsewhere?

The chaos and crises of the last two years have created all kinds of questions for leaders and organizations. One of the biggest questions is: Do we have new ideas about where to look for new ideas? When it comes to innovation and problem-solving, there will always be a place for old-fashioned, time-consuming R&D — research & development. Today, though, there is also a place for a different kind of R&D — rip off and duplicate. The fastest way for organizations to make sense of challenges they are seeing for the first time is to survey unrelated fields for ideas that have been working for a long time. Why gamble on untested strategies and insights if you can quickly apply strategies and insights that are already proven elsewhere? That’s how leaders can help their colleagues keep learning as fast as the world is changing.

A big challenge in times of disruption and uncertainty is for people and organizations to keep learning as fast as the world is changing — to analyze problems they haven’t encountered before, to make sense of opportunities they haven’t thought about before, to process emotions they haven’t experienced before.

• Bill Taylor  is the cofounder of Fast Company  and the author, most recently, of  Simply Brilliant: How Great Organizations Do Ordinary Things in Extraordinary Ways .   Learn more at williamctaylor.com.

Partner Center

Greater than the sum of its parts: The role of minority and majority status in collaborative problem-solving communication

Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) is a vital skill used both in the workplace and in educational environments. CPS is useful in tackling increasingly complex global, economic, and political issues and is considered a central 21st century skill. The increasingly connected global community presents a fruitful opportunity for creative and collaborative problem-solving interactions and solutions that involve diverse perspectives. Unfortunately, women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) often face obstacles during collaborative interactions that hinder their key participation in these problem-solving conversations. Here, we explored the communication patterns of minority and non-minority individuals working together in a CPS task. Group Communication Analysis (GCA), a temporally-sensitive computational linguistic tool, was used to examine how URM status impacts individuals’ sociocognitive linguistic patterns. Results show differences across racial/ethnic groups in key sociocognitive features that indicate fruitful collaborative interactions. We also investigated how the groups’ racial/ethnic composition impacts both individual and group communication patterns. In general, individuals in more demographically diverse groups displayed more productive communication behaviors than individuals who were in majority-dominated groups. We discuss the implications of individual and group diversity on communication patterns that emerge during CPS and how these patterns can impact collaborative outcomes.

Keywords  collaborative problem solving   ⋅ ⋅ \cdot ⋅ socio-cognitive processes   ⋅ ⋅ \cdot ⋅ natural language processing   ⋅ ⋅ \cdot ⋅ underrepresented minorities   ⋅ ⋅ \cdot ⋅ text analysis   ⋅ ⋅ \cdot ⋅ Group Communication Analysis

1 Introduction

During collaborative problem-solving (CPS) tasks, individuals work together, exchange ideas, and share information to solve a problem [ 1 , 2 ] . CPS is at the center of teamwork and learning across many fields and particularly in STEM education [ 1 ] . The integral role of CPS in solving complex learning, workplace, and global problems makes it a key 21st century skill [ 3 ] and a central transversal skill for the workforce [ 4 ] . In educational contexts, successful team interactions have the potential to improve not only student outcomes, but also students’ psychological lived experiences (e.g., sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and confidence) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] . Given the benefits of successful collaborative interactions, it is imperative that fruitful collaborative activities benefit students across diverse demographic backgrounds. To date, disparities in collaborative settings continue to impact women and traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities (URMs) (Black, Latinx, Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), Indigenous, and other minority communities) at a disproportionate rate [ 11 ] . For instance, women and URMs can often feel left out by their peers and are given limited opportunities to speak and interact with other students in face-to-face and online interactions [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ] . These differences across minority and majority students are troublesome given that increased globalization has also increased the diversity in teams in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and culture [ 16 ] . Addressing these inequities can help marginalized student populations benefit from successful collaborative interactions while also allowing teams to benefits from more fruitful problem-solving discussions.

Previous research has shown that race/ethnicity can sometimes (but not always [ 17 ] ) impact students outcomes and experiences during collaborative interactions [ 18 , 19 ] . Notably, these previous findings focus on students psychological experiences or performance outcomes. However, what is less clear is how individuals communicate during collaborative interactions and how these discussions impact student outcomes. Communication, and specifically language patterns, can help identify the important psychological processes that occur during CPS tasks [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ] . More recently, some studies have leveraged language to explore how gender can impact the sociocognitive dynamics that occur in CPS [ 24 , 25 , 26 ] . A few studies have explored the communication patterns that occur during collaborative interactions across different cultures [ 27 , 28 , 29 ] and race/ethnicity [ 30 ] . Many studies focus mostly on analyzing survey data or manually coding communication behaviors. Although these approaches provides some insight on the linguistic characteristics across race/ethnicity, communication during CPS is inherently, temporally interdependent. As such, communication patterns during collaborative settings are shaped by individuals influence on one another. This temporal interdependence between individuals can be difficult to capture via surveys. Furthermore, manual coding schemes can often be timing-consuming and constrained by available resources. Moreover, to date, no study has considered how individuals’ URM status and group majority/minority composition impacts communication patterns. In the current study, we aim to investigate these differences by using computational linguistics to leverage URM and non-URM individuals’ linguistic patterns. These findings can inform our understanding of the intrapersonal sociocognitive process that occur during a CPS task.

In the sections that follow, we review the background literature on disparities in CPS for underrepresented minorities, particularly across race/ethnicity. Specifically, we discuss how communication during CPS tasks can inform our understanding of the sociocognitive processes that occur during collaborative interactions. Next, we discuss what it means to be a minority and how minority status can impact racial/ethnic groups differently. Then, we review our methodological approach for exploring the impact of minority/majority status on group communication and discuss how we use an innovative natural language processing (NLP) technique, Group Communication Analysis (GCA) [ 25 ] to inform our understanding of the linguistic patterns during a CPS task across URM status. Finally, we present our results and discuss their implications in the context of understanding how CPS can be leveraged to create more equitable interactions and experiences across racial/ethnic groups.

2 Background

2.1 collaborative problem solving.

Collaborative problem solving (CPS) involves individuals working together to exchange information, share ideas, maintain communication, and use this combined knowledge to solve a problem [ 1 , 2 ] . These group processes are often separated into two domains: social and cognitive. The social domain stems from the collaborative nature of CPS. Social processes involve the social interactions between individuals including their communication and the dialogue exchanged while working through a problem. The cognitive domain stems from the problem-solving aspect of CPS. Cognitive processes involve the acquisition of knowledge, and formation and understanding of the problem. CPS is necessary for solving highly complex problems and therefore is considered a key central 21st century skill [ 3 ] that has been also considered essential for educational and workplace settings [ 20 , 31 ] . Unfortunately, despite the global need for individuals to master CPS skills, a Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report revealed that CPS is a skill that remains poorly underdeveloped in students [ 31 ] . Students’ CPS scores from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessment on collaboration revealed that that less than 10 percent of students performed at the highest level of CPS skills. This deficient in CPS skills extends to college students, and the incoming workforce [ 32 , 33 , 34 ] . Although employers often report that collaboration and problem-solving skills are among the top skills needed for workforce readiness [ 32 , 33 ] they also report that recent graduates have not mastered these skills. Furthermore, recent graduates report feeling a lack of preparation in CPS skills from their undergraduate education [ 33 ] . The notable gap between the global need for effective CPS skills and the lack of students’ mastery in these skills underscores the need to examine how students engage in during collaborative activities in order to support the acquisition of CPS skills.

2.2 Collaborative Interactions: Majority and Minority Students

One clear barrier to addressing the CPS skills gap is the disproportionate disadvantage that women and URM students (e.g., Black, Latinx, AAPI, Indigenous, and other minority communities) face in collaborative group settings. Women and URMs often do not benefit from the fruitful outcomes of collaborative teamwork to the same extent as non-URM students [ 12 , 35 , 36 ] . Differences across racial/ethnic minority and majority individuals are evident across outcomes such as performance [ 1 , 37 ] and perceptions and experiences [ 18 , 19 , 35 ] . For example, women in engineering classes report lower perceptions of learning while working in collaborative teams than men [ 35 ] . In addition, women and URM students often report being less involved in the groups’ work and also dealing with more overbearing and dominate teammates than non-URM individuals. URM students also differ in their perceptions of CPS activities compared to non-URM students [ 18 , 19 ] . Cintron et al., 2019, explored self-reported perceptions of undergraduate students URM and non-URM students across three computer science courses. Students were asked to self-report their perceptions on instructor support, collaborative learning, and motivation for their class. URM students reported lower levels of professor support as well as less positive perceptions of their collaborative learning activities than their non-URM peers. In addition, URM students found their class to be more relevant than non-URM students. Minority students have the potential to benefit from online collaborative learning, but barriers such as a lack of multicultural inclusion and a sense of marginalization, still do not allow for equitable experiences in collaborative groups across racial/ethnic lines [ 19 ] . Exploring how minority and majority individuals perceive collaborative interactions provides valuable information on their experiences in collaborative settings. However, what remains unclear is what interactions occur during collaborative activities that can lead to these disparities for different racial/ethnic groups.

Minority and majority students can have different experiences and benefit differently from collaborative activities. However, another factor that can influence collaborative teams is the demographic composition of the group [ 38 , 39 , 28 ] . The literature provides strong support for the complex effects of team diversity on group outcomes [ 40 , 41 ] . For example, increased team heterogeneity has been shown to increase innovative solutions and satisfaction [ 41 ] , but also reduce team empowerment and increase conflict [ 40 , 41 ] . The intricate role of team diversity on group outcomes is further complicated by individuals’ own minority and majority status. Previous research suggests that minority individuals tend to participate less when they are a part of a majority White group compared to when they are a part of mostly minority group [ 39 ] . Minority students also tend emerged as leaders in majority-dominated groups only when they self-report high levels of learning goal orientation, or the desire to learn or master skills [ 38 ] . Notably, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been shown to mitigate some of the effects of group racial/ethnic diversity [ 28 , 42 , 30 ] . Robert et al., (2018) examined the impact of face-to-face interactions versus text-based communication on gender and race-diverse teams. Race-diverse teams that communicated via text-based interactions were found to have higher levels of knowledge sharing and information integration compared to racially diverse teams who had face-to-face interactions [ 30 ] . Text-based communications benefit from less salient demographic cues that may be more apparent in face-to-face interactions. Although these findings provide important information on the impact of racial/ethnic diversity in teams and minority versus majority status, most are limited to self-reported survey measures of team dynamics. Furthermore, previous research has primarily focused on racial/ethnic diversity rather than minority vs majority group status. Different cultures and countries may define minority and majority status differently. Individual and therefore group overall majority/minority status may have nuanced but important impacts on teams’ communication behaviors.

Disentangling the complexities of how individuals and teams communicate during team CPS interactions, and more importantly, how these differences may differ across student’s minority or majority status, can be a promising start to address inequalities in collaborative interactions. In addition, gaining insight into the key linguistic differences across URM and non-URM status individuals and groups can help shape interventions and specialized support strategies catered to specific groups.

2.3 Defining an underrepresented minority

One notable challenge in examining communication differences across different minority and majority groups, is identifying what it means to be an URM. According to the National Science Foundation [ 43 ] , URM individuals are those who identify as “Women, persons with disabilities, and three racial and ethnic groups—Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians or Alaska Natives.” By this account, all other racial/ethnic groups such as White, Asian, Asian-American and international students are considered non-URM students. This categorization is most evident in STEM fields in which Asian and White students are typically over-represented groups while URM are underrepresented [ 44 ] . To date, the studies that have explored the collaboration process across URM status often include Asian and White males and females [ 18 ] as part of non-URM students. However, recent research has highlighted the unique position of Asian and Asian-American students in society compared to other minority groups [ 45 , 46 , 47 ] . Asian and Asian-American individuals are not often considered part of the initiatives designed to support minority groups. Recently, the American Psychologist made a call for a special issue that focused on the unique position of Asian and Asian-Americans in our society. Specifically the “model minority” or potentially marginalized minority [ 45 ] . Recent reports suggest that since 1992, less than 1% of all National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has supported projects that are focused on Asian and Asian-American individuals [ 46 ] . This limited funding for Asian individuals is even more troublesome considering that Asian and Asian Americans are one of the fastest group racial/ethnic groups in the United States [ 45 ] . In addition, previous research suggests that Asian and Asian Americans can face invisible barriers towards identifying as a “majority” group in U.S society [ 47 , 48 ] . Although large representation of Asian individuals in STEM fields has been well documented, their unique role in society as “model-minorities” sheds an important light on how Asian individuals are impacted during group interactions [ 47 , 48 ] . Furthermore, this invisible, but often reported, boundary suggests that perhaps Asian students, and their experiences in collaborative group settings, may be different than other non-URM students. Here we aim to explore this distinction by including Asian and Asian American students as their own group and therefore not grouped under the non-URM category. As such, we explored how minority/majority status impacts Asian, URM, and non-URM students sociocognitive linguistic patterns in a CPS task.

2.4 Communication and Collaborative Problem Solving

Previous research has demonstrated the important role of communication and language in collaborative group interactions [ 20 , 21 ] . In fact, communication between teammates is one of the main differences between individual problem-solving and collaborative problem solving [ 21 , 49 ] . Communication is a central aspect of CPS not only because it is one of the key differences between CPS and individual problem-solving [ 20 , 21 ] , but also because important psychological processes during CPS tasks can be identified through communication and language [ 24 , 50 ] . The increased use of massive open online courses (MOOCs), computer-supported collaborative communication (CSCC), and large-scale online discussion posts have provided an influx of available student data that has enabled researchers to explore students’ team communication patterns at scale. Specifically, language has been used to understand the communication patterns that occur during team interactions and how these interactions can impact psychological and behavioral outcomes [ 51 , 50 , 24 , 52 ] . Communication patterns during team discussions have been used to determine how linguistic characteristics and team/individual outcomes differ across a variety of contexts such as gender [ 53 , 54 , 50 , 24 ] and race/ethnicity [ 27 , 30 ] . For example, researchers have found gender differences in linguistic patterns during CPS tasks, such as differences in participation levels in online collaborative settings [ 53 , 54 , 24 , 23 , 55 , 56 , 57 ] .

Beyond traditional surface-level measures such as participation, previous research has leveraged natural language processing (NLP) techniques to understand the social and cognitive process that occur during collaborative group interactions. For example, Lin et al., (2019) explored gender communication pattern differences using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) [ 58 , 22 ] , a dictionary-based analysis tool used to infer psychological process from text-based data. The authors found that women display more intrapersonal linguistic characteristics that signal more effective communication such as eliciting responses from their peers than males [ 24 ] . More recently, Dowell et al., 2019 expand on these findings using Group Communication Analysis (GCA), a novel multi-party communication analysis that is uses semantic analysis to obtain measures of intra-and interpersonal communication behaviors. As such GCA, produces six measures: participation, internal cohesion, social impact, responsivity, newness, and communication density (More details on this can be found in section 4.2). In a similar fashion, previous research has leveraged GCA to demonstrate that both females and males tend to have more fruitful socoiocognitive language patterns when part of a female majority group in an online CPS task [ 50 ] . We explore racial/ethnic composition as a variable of interest here, but GCA can also be used to analyze text across other categories (gender, culture, personalities, disciplines etc). Although there have been several studies that have explored the role of gender in communication patterns, less research has been focused on exploring differences across racial/ethnic lines, including differences for URM groups [ 30 ] . Exploring how minority and majority students communication can help expand our understanding of how race/ethnicity impacts students experiences during collaborative activities. Importantly, exploring communication patterns can inform our understanding of how minority and majority students engage in collaborative teams beyond traditional survey measures [ 17 ] .

3 Current Study

Diverse collaborative environments have the potential to benefit both individual and group outcomes. However, in order to maximize these benefits, it is imperative that all team members (regardless of demographic background) benefit from the interaction. Previous research has used group discourse and communication to find that gender can impact the sociocognitive processes that take place during online reflective posts [ 24 ] and CPS tasks [ 26 , 50 , 51 ] . Notably these gender differences in collaborative environments have been found even when teammates have no visible cues to indicate their teammates gender. Similarly, other forms of demographic composition (majority vs minority status) have also been shown to impact team dynamics [ 30 , 39 ] . Here, we examine the impact of undergraduate students linguistic patterns during a CPS task for URM, non-URM, and Asian undergraduate students. In addition, we explore the impact of groups racial/ethnic demographic composition on both individual and group communication patterns. Five group demographic compositions are analyzed: Asian Majority, URM Majority, non-URM Majority, Ethnic Parity, and Mixed Ethnicity. We consider not only the importance of minority/majority status in a communication behaviors from collaborative interactions, but also the delineation of Asian and Asian American students as separate from non-URM students. Furthermore, we leverage deep NLP techniques to capture the fine-grained and temporally-dependent linguistic patterns that emerge in diverse collaborative groups. Specifically, GCA helps to identify the inter-and intrapersonal communication patterns during team collaboration. The insights gained from this study have the potential to inform our understanding of how we can support URM students in CPS tasks in order to achieve more equitable learning outcomes across racial/ethnic lines. As such, we aimed to address the following questions:

RQ1: Are there race/ethnic differences (based on URM status) in socio-cognitive linguistic features displayed during an online CPS task?

RQ2: Does group composition impact individual students’ socio-cognitive linguistic features displayed during an online CPS task?

RQ3: Does group composition impact the group’s socio-cognitive linguistic features displayed during an online CPS task?

4.1 Participants

We sourced data from a large university database aimed at exploring the undergraduate experience and cognitive, psychological and academic performance outcomes. [ 59 ] . A total of 134 groups, 508 undergraduate students completed an online CPS hidden profile task. Participants were randomly assigned to a group with other students. Groups consisted of mostly four individuals and a few groups of three or five participants. In order to define group composition the same across all groups, only groups of four were used in the final analysis of 102 groups and 408 individuals. The final dataset consisted of URM students ( N = 150), Asian students ( N = 178) and non-URM students ( N = 80). URM students included, Black ( N = 7), Hispanic ( N = 133), Pacific Islander ( N = 1), and Mixed-Ethnicity ( N = 9) students. Asian students included Asian and Asian American ( N = 178) students. Non-URM students included White/non-Hispanic ( N = 53) and International ( N = 27) students. Five racial/ethnic group compositions emerged from the data: Asian Majority ( N = 22), URM Majority ( N = 16), non-URM Majority ( N = 4), Ethnic Parity ( N = 23), Mixed Ethnicity ( N = 37). Asian Majority, URM Majority, and non-URM Majority were each defined as groups that had three or more members of each respective group. For example, Asian Majority groups included at least three members that identified as Asian. URM Majority groups included at least three URM members, and non-URM Majority included at least three non-URM members. Ethnic Parity groups were defined as groups with equal distribution of two groups (e.g., two URM/two non-URM, two Asian/two URM or two Asian/two non-URM). Finally, all other groups were categorized as Mixed Ethnicity groups. For example, Mixed Ethnicity groups could include one URM student, on Asian student, and two non-URM students or any other 1:1:2 student ratio.

4.2 Quantifying Conversations: Group Communication Analysis

To explore the sociocognitive communication patterns of URM, Asian, and non-URM individuals during a CPS task, we employed Group Communication Analysis (GCA) [ 25 ] . GCA is a computational linguistic analysis that uses text-based data from multi-party interactions to examine the fine-grained time-sensitive discourse that occurs during collaborative activities. GCA draws on Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and cross-correlational and autocorrelational analysis used in time-series analysis to extract the semantic relationship between individuals contributions in the group discourse. The goal of GCA is to capture the structural dynamic of the conversation (when individuals contribute), but also the semantic-relatedness and cohesion that takes place in conversation (what individuals contributed). To capture these sociocognitive processes, GCA leverages both the semantic structures and temporally-interdependent conversations of online group communication. GCA results in six measures: participation , internal cohesion , social impact , overall responsivity , newness and communication density . Participation measures the number of contributions of each member of the group compared to the contributions of all other members in the group. Compared to the other five measures, participation is the only measure that does not rely on semantic-based metrics, and instead relies on more traditional surface-level measures of mean individual contributions. Internal cohesion , measures how semantically similiar one individual’s contribution is to their previous contributions during the task. As such, internal cohesion was designed to be a reflection of individuals self-regulation and self-monitoring tendencies, two key skills necessary for successful group outcomes [ 60 ] . Social Impact , is a measure of how much one individuals’ contributions trigger follow-up responses from their teammates. This measure draws on the literature of co-regulation and its role in collaborative interactions [ 61 ] . Overall Responsivity , is a measure of how much one individual responded to their teammates contributions. This measure focuses on how much an individual takes up their teammates contribution and uses it to move the conversation along. As such, this measure draws on the literature of monitoring, regulating, and integrating teammates information [ 25 ] . Newness , is the proportion of new information that the individual provides to the conversation. The sixth measure is Communication Density, the amount of semantically meaningful information related to the number of words used to deliver that information. Communication Density was not analyzed for the current study. At the time of the analysis, this version of GCA was being moved to an API and Communication Density was not finalized at the time. However, given the short nature of this CPS task, lacking this measure did not have crucial implications related to the current CPS environment. Combined, these GCA measures provides important information about the intrapersonal and interpersonal communication that occurs during online collaborative activities.

This novel computational linguistics approach has been tested for reliability and validity across three large datasets [ 25 ] . GCA attempts to tackle some aspects of multiparty communication, and although it is not designed to be exhaustive, its novel ability to extract key sociocognitive processes in collaborative processes make it a useful tool for taking a deeper look at communication patterns in teams. Previous research has shown that GCA can be used to capture the gender differences in communication behaviors during collaborative group settings [ 50 ] . For example, in a study looking at female-majority, male-majority, and gender-parity groups, females in female-majority groups engaged in more fruitful inter and intrapersonal behaviors (i.e., greater internal cohesion, social impact, overall responsivity) than females in either of the other two groups. In addition, the authors found that males engaged in more socially engaged patterns (e.g., social impact and overall responsivity) when there were more females in the group [ 50 ] . GCA has also been used to understand emergent roles (e.g.,Lurkers, Followers) in CPS tasks [ 51 ] and also in combination with other computational techniques such as Social Network Analysis (SNA) [ 52 ] . However, to date no study has leveraged GCA to explore racial/ethnic differences in collaborative environments.

5 Procedure

A CPS hidden profile task was administered via the ETS Platform for Collaborative Assessment and Learning (ECPAL) platform. Participants completed the task on separate computers and were randomly assigned to work virtually in a group with other students in the same classroom. The task was divided into two general parts. First, participants were asked to rank a set of options from a given category (e.g., best job candidate). To help participants in their ranking decisions, they were are given a set of characteristics (e.g., list of pros and cons) for each option. In each group, individuals were given the same information (shared information) and also information that only they could see (unique information). After reviewing the characteristics, participants are asked to rank the three options from most favorable to the least favorable. Participants were given ten minutes to review their list and rank the options. Next, participants were asked to discuss the task and the ranking options with their teammates via a text-based chat. In order to reach the most optional ranking decision, individuals had to combine their unique information. The goal was for teams to discuss not only their shared information but their unique information as well. Successful ranking was achieved when individuals were able to effectively pool their information together. After discussing the ranking options with their teammates for 20 minutes, participants were once again asked to provide individual rankings for their given scenario. Participants could enter any ranking order and they did not have to match their teammates rankings.

URM Status impact on individual sociocognitive linguistic features.

To examine the role of a student’s URM status on the individual sociocognitive linguistic features (RQ1), we performed a mixed effects model for each of the five GCA measures. GCA scores were included in each model separately as the dependent variable, and student URM status was included as the independent variable. Given that groups were given different task types (e.g., categories), we include task type as a random effect. The null model contained only the random effects of task type. For all models Asian status was used as the reference group. Results from the likelihood ratio tests reveal that the full model for Participation yielded a significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2) = 7.936, p = .019, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .02, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .02. The full model for Internal Cohesion was marginally significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2) = 5.98, p = .05, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .01, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .02. For Social Impact, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2) = 1.17, p = .55, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .00, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .03, Overall Responsivity, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2) = 5.46, p = .07, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .01, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .03, and Newness, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2) = 4.23, p = .12, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .01, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .01, we found that the full model was not significantly better fit than the null model. Estimates ( β 𝛽 \beta italic_β ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CI ) for all models are found in Table 1. Both URM ( M = -0.12, SD = 1.01) and non-URM students ( M = -0.12, SD = 1.01) had significantly lower levels of participation than Asian students ( M = 0.15, SD = 0.98) (Figure 1 ). In addition, non-URM individuals ( M = 0.22, SD = 1.04) had slightly higher levels of internal cohesion than Asian individuals M = -0.08, SD = 0.94), although this was only marginally significant.

Group composition impact on individual sociocognitive features.

For RQ2, we examined the role of group composition on the individual sociocognitive linguistic features. As with RQ1, five mixed effects models for each GCA measure were performed and each measure was included separately as the dependent variable. Group racial/ethnic composition was included as the independent variable. The null model contained only the random effects of task type. For all models, Asian Majority was used as the reference group. Likelihood ratio tests revealed that the full model for Participation did not yield a significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 0.01, p = 1, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = 0, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = 0. The full model for Internal Cohesion was a significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 13.403, p = .009, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .03, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .03. For Social Impact, the full model was a significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 13.53, p = .009, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .03, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .05. The model for Overall Responsivity was also significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 13.42, p = .009, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .03, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .05. Finally, for Newness, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 8.72, p = .07, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .02, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .02, we found that the full model was not significantly better fit than the null model. Estimates ( β 𝛽 \beta italic_β ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CI ) in Table 2 demonstrate that group composition impacted three of the five GCA measures. Individuals who were a part of Asian Majority groups ( M = -0.29, SD = 0.81) had significantly lower levels of internal cohesion compared to individuals who were part of non-URM Majority ( M = 0.45, SD = 1.21), Ethnic Parity ( M = 0.03, SD = 1.05), and Mixed Ethnicity groups ( M = 0.15, SD = 1.07) (Figure   2 ). Similarly, individuals who were part of Asian Majority groups ( M = -0.31, SD = 0.73) had lower levels of Social Impact compared to individuals who were a part of URM Majority ( M = 0.09, SD = 1.07), non-URM Majority ( M = 0.50, SD = 1.30), and Mixed Ethnicity ( M = 0.12, SD = 1.08) groups. Finally, individuals in Asian majority groups ( M = -0.32, SD = 0.72) had lower levels of overall responsivity compared to all other group compositions, URM Majority ( M = 0.10, SD = 1.09), non-URM Majority ( M = 0.48, SD = 1.10), Ethnic Parity ( M = -0.01, SD = 1.14), Mixed Ethnicity ( M = 0.09, SD = 1.03).

Group composition impact on group sociocognitive features.

For RQ3, we examined the role of group composition on the individual sociocognitive linguistic features. As with RQ1, five mixed effects models for each GCA measure were performed and each measure was included separately as the dependent variable. Group racial/ethnic composition was included as the independent variable. As with the previous models, the Asian Majority group was selected as the reference group. The null model contained only the random effects of task type. Likelihood ratio tests revealed that the full model for Participation did not yield a significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 1.789, p = .77, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .02, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .02. The full model for Internal Cohesion was a significantly better fit than the null model, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 9.911, p = .041, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .09, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .09. For Social Impact, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 5.88, p = .207, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .06, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .07, Overall Responsivity, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 5.85, p = .210, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .06, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .06. Finally, for Newness, χ 2 superscript 𝜒 2 {\chi}^{2} italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4) = 5.31, p = .256, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT m = .05, R 2 superscript 𝑅 2 R^{2} italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT c = .05, the full model was not significantly better fit than the null model. Estimates ( β 𝛽 \beta italic_β ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CI ) for all models are shown in Table 3. Internal Cohesion was the only GCA measure that group composition was able to predict over and above the task type. Asian Majority groups had lower levels of Internal Cohesion ( M = -0.31, SD = 0.57), compared to non-URM Majority groups ( M = 0.50, SD = 0.52) and Mixed Ethnicity group ( M = 0.12, SD = 0.84)(Figure 3 ).

7 Discussion

The rise of globalization and international communication has increased opportunities for group collaboration among racially/ethnically diverse teams. Unfortunately, previous research demonstrates that racial/ethnic minorities do not benefit from the same collaborative experiences as individuals from traditionally majority groups [ 12 , 36 , 35 ] . Communication is a central aspect of group collaboration and can provide central insights into the underlying processes that occur during collaboration [ 20 , 21 ] . For example, previous studies have explored how communication behaviors during CPS impact students sociocognitive linguistic patterns across gender [ 24 , 26 , 50 ] and cultural lines [ 29 ] . However, less research has focused on how individual and group minority/majority status can impact the fundamental social and cognitive processes underlying CPS [ 30 ] . Here, we leveraged a theoretically-grounded NLP technique, GCA [ 25 ] to identify the the linguistic communication patterns of minority and majority individuals across different ethnic compositions (i.e., majority and minority groups) during a CPS task. Given the increased call to consider the struggles of Asian students as minorities [ 36 , 46 ] , we also expanded our analysis to include Asian and Asian American students independently from non-URM students. Individuals minority/majority status impacted students’ individual communication patterns (mostly participation) during CPS tasks. In addition, the demographic composition of the group influenced the individual sociocognitve linguistic patterns and to a less extent groups’ sociocognitive linguistic patterns. In what follows, we discuss the implications of our findings, a general focus for future directions, and our study limitations.

Individual URM status mainly impacted Asian students’ sociocognitive linguistic patterns. Asian students had the highest levels of participation which suggests that they were relatively active members in their collaborative team compared to both URM and non-URM students. Notably, Asian students’ levels of participation did not align with the group they are traditionally grouped with (non-URM) nor the group they are generally compared against (URM). Asian students also had relatively lower levels of internal cohesion compared to non-URM students. Internal cohesion has been previously linked with less self-regulatory skills and greater tendency for simply echoing other teammates’ views [ 52 , 25 ] . These findings suggest that compared to non-URM students, Asian students’ high participation was coupled with less consistent and more surface-level contributions. In contrast, non-URM students participated less in their team interactions. However, non-URM students’ contributions were more consistent (higher internal cohesion) compared to Asian students’ contributions. High levels of internal cohesion have also been shown to be associated with a static mindset and inability to expand beyond ones initial thoughts [ 52 ] . What is clear from these findings is that students identification as either a URM, non-URM or Asian student, did not impact individual sociocognitive linguistic patterns beyond participation. Other measures of fruitful team interactions, such as social impact and responsivity [ 52 , 24 , 25 ] , did not differ across URM, non-URM and Asian students. These findings support previous research that finds that race/ethnicity impacts team interactions, particular participation [ 27 ] . The limited influence of individual racial/ethnic background on students’ communication patterns is even more informative when we consider that group majority/minority composition did impact individuals interpersonal and intrapersonal communication behaviors beyond participation.

Students’ communication patterns were more impacted by the demographic composition of their team, than by their own identification as an URM, non-URM or Asian individual. In this case, the group played a more crucial role in the communication behaviors of the individual than the individual members. Prior research has found a similar greater influence of the group (rather than the individual) on group outcomes [ 62 , 63 ] Furthermore, our findings support previous research that shows that majority- and minority-dominated groups can impact individuals communication behaviors such as knowledge sharing and integration [ 30 ] . We expand on this knowledge by demonstrating that group demographic composition mostly influenced three individual GCA measures: internal cohesion, social impact, and overall responsivity. In general, individuals in Asian Majority groups had consistently lower levels of all three linguistic features compared to individuals in non-URM Majority and Mixed Ethnicity groups. Combined, these GCA measures have been previously been found to be markers of engaged and more fruitful collaborative interactions [ 52 , 25 , 24 , 51 ] . For example, students with high levels of internal cohesion, social impact, and overall responsivity take on important roles within the team and display productive collaborative discussions that signal deliberate and thoughtful involvement in the task (see discussion on Drivers and Influential Actors in [ 25 ] ). The potentially limited collaborative interactions by members in Asian Majority groups may have been driven by the homogeneous nature of the group (we further discuss the impact of group diversity below) [ 64 ] . Our findings expand on previous findings by demonstrating that these communication differences across majority/minority groups can also lead to more engaged and productive collaborative interactions. Specifically, communications by impacting how individuals impact their teammates conversations. Not only does group composition impact and individual coherency within their own thoughts (internal cohesion), but it also impacts how they respond to others (overall responsivity) and how they prompt responses from others (social impact).

Our findings support previous findings [ 64 ] that suggest that the influence of diversity in teams is complex. In the current study, Asian Majority teams were consistently the most homogeneous groups based on race. Each Asian Majority team had at least three Asian and Asian American students. In contrast, URM Majority groups had at least three URM individuals which could include either Hispanic, Black, Pacific Islander, or Mixed-Raced individuals. Non-URM Majority groups were made up of at least three non-URM individuals which included either international students and White/non-Hispanic individuals. By this account, Asian Majority groups were always represented by majority Asian students while URM and Non-URM Majority groups were not necessarily dominated by any one racial/ethnic group. As the most homogeneous group, members of Asian Majority groups displayed the lowest levels of internal cohesion, social impact, and overall responsivity. These findings suggest that the high level of homogeneity in the group may have negatively impacted the communication behaviors that typically result in more engaged CPS outcomes. One possible explanation for this finding is that groups dominated by one racial group may be less inclined to engage with their teammates in a way that can be captured by sociocognitive contributions to the team. In contrast, the non-URM Majority group with potentially the second highest level of group diversity had the highest levels of internal cohesion, social impact, and overall responsivity. Here we find that groups dominated by typically “majority” individuals actually produced the more engaged communication behaviors. The homogeneity of the group benefited individuals, perhaps by removing any potential for conflict or cultural/ethnic communication differences.

Our study has a few key limitations. First, our sample study was taken from a institution that is designated both as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI). This designation suggests that our student sample was drawn from a population where Hispanic and Asian students may be viewed as the “majority”. In fact, Hispanic and Asian students made up the majority of the participant pool in our study. Although it is possible that attending a minority-dominated university can have impacts on students perceptions and team interactions, we note that students’ experiences as minority/majority individuals are shaped by their minority/majority status both within and outside of their educational institutions’ demographic breakdown. To tease apart the potential impact of institution demographic representation, it would be beneficial for future studies to examine minority individuals experience communication behaviors when they are a part of a majority-dominated institution. Second, and related to the first limitation, our group composition sample for non-URM Majority was relatively small ( N = 4) compared to the other four group compositions. This low sample for non-URM groups may be responsible for the large degree of variability within the non-URM Majority group (large error bars). However, even with the smaller sample size we still found consistent similiarities between non-URM Majority groups and Mixed Ethnicity groups for which we had a larger sample size ( N = 37). Third, the proportion of variance explained was relatively low across all analyses performed which suggests that even though individual URM status and even more so group composition predicted some GCA measures, the proportion of variance explained by this relationship was low. One potential reason for this could be that students received only subtle cues about the demographic composition of their teammates. Notably, research suggests that computer-mediated communication can help to mitigate, and therefore reduce, some of the potential effects of racial/ethnic diversity in team activities [ 30 ] . In our study, students did not receive any audio or visual cues that revealed their teammates racial/ethnic background. Unless students revealed these details in the chat discussion, students were unaware of the demographic composition of their team. Given the design of our study were are unable to investigate how explicit cues about their teammates demographic could impact communication patterns. However, future studies could explore how/if these linguistic patterns differ when student are provided with some cues (e.g., audio, visual, explicitly disclosing) regarding their teammates demographic background. Notably, the findings from the present study still showed differences in communication patterns based on minority/majority status. This result suggests that even some indirect subtle cues based on minority/majority status were enough salient to impact their communication behaviors. To date, GCA, is the most comprehensive NLP technique that can capture the temporally-sensitive content from group communication. Although GCA-derived measures are not exhaustive, (there are other behaviors important for CPS), the insights gleaned from GCA measures provides rich information about the teams sociocognitive processes.

8 Conclusion

Our study provides three central contributions to the present literature. First, we demonstrate how students’ identification with majority and minority groups can impact team communication in an online collaborative team setting. Specifically, we focus on both how individual URM/non-URM status and the groups’ composition of URM and non-URM individuals can play a role in the inter- and intrapersonal communication behaviors that emerge when individuals work together. These differences based on majority/minority group composition informs our understanding of how diversity, beyond gender and culture, can shape how individuals communicate in collaborative environments. Second, the delineation of Asian and Asian American students as distinct from traditional “majority” students adds to the increasing call to consider their struggles as a “model” minority group and highlights the importance of considering the experiences of various minority groups. Third, our methodological approach leveraged deeper NLP techniques in order to capture how minority/majority status impacts linguistic patterns that emerge in diverse collaborative groups. This approach allowed us to examine the complex dynamics involved in team interactions and allowed us to capture the underlying differences in communication. Differences in inter- and intrapersonal communication based on group composition were coupled with similar levels of individual participation across all groups. This finding highlights the need to explore team dynamics beyond levels of participation. The deeper level measures accessible via GCA, revealed important sociocognitive processes that signal participation played a role in the team dynamics. Combined, these contributes provide advances towards understanding the role that group majority/minority composition has in shaping the underlying foundations in online communication. This understanding has the potential to expand how researchers, practitioners, and educators promote meaningful and engaged communication in diverse teams.

9 Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by The Gates Foundation (INV - 000752) and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (1806- 05902). The authors would like to thank the Next Gen- eration Undergraduate Success Measurement Project team members for their efforts in data collection. Thanks to Educational Testing Services for the experiment information.

• OECD [2013] OECD. Pisa 2015 collaborative problem solving framework, 2013.
• PISA [2017] PISA. Pisa 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving, 2017.
• Burrus et al. [2013] Jeremy Burrus, Teresa Jackson, Nuo Xi, and Jonathan Steinberg. Identifying the most important 21st century workforce competencies: An analysis of the occupational information network (o* net). ETS Research Report Series , 2013(2):i–55, 2013.
• Fiore et al. [2018] Stephen M Fiore, Arthur Graesser, and Samuel Greiff. Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce. Nature human behaviour , 2(6):367–369, 2018.
• Walton and Cohen [2007] Gregory M Walton and Geoffrey L Cohen. A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of personality and social psychology , 92(1):82, 2007.
• Dasgupta et al. [2015] Nilanjana Dasgupta, Melissa McManus Scircle, and Matthew Hunsinger. Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112(16):4988–4993, 2015.
• Niler et al. [2020] Ashley A Niler, Raquel Asencio, and Leslie A DeChurch. Solidarity in stem: How gender composition affects women’s experience in work teams. Sex Roles , 82(3):142–154, 2020.
• Snyder et al. [2016] Julia J Snyder, Jeremy D Sloane, Ryan DP Dunk, and Jason R Wiles. Peer-led team learning helps minority students succeed. PLoS biology , 14(3):e1002398, 2016.
• Graesser et al. [2011] Arthur C Graesser, Nia Dowell, and Christian Moldovan. A computer’s understanding of literature. Scientific Study of Literature , 1(1):24–33, 2011.
• Cade et al. [2014] Whitney Cade, Nia Dowell, Art Graesser, Yla Tausczik, and James Pennebaker. Modeling student socioaffective responses to group interactions in a collaborative online chat environment. In Educational Data Mining 2014 , 2014.
• Chemers et al. [2011] Martin M Chemers, Eileen L Zurbriggen, Moin Syed, Barbara K Goza, and Steve Bearman. The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues , 67(3):469–491, 2011.
• Dasgupta and Stout [2014] Nilanjana Dasgupta and Jane G Stout. Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Steming the tide and broadening participation in stem careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 1(1):21–29, 2014.
• Varma et al. [2006] Roli Varma, A. Prasad, and D. Kapur. Confronting the socialization barrier: cross-ethnic differences in undergraduate women’s preference for it education. In J. Cohoon and W Aspray, editors, Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation , pages 301–323. MIT Press, Cambridge,MA, 2006.
• Ong [2005] Maria Ong. Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social problems , 52(4):593–617, 2005.
• Du et al. [2015] Jianxia Du, Xun Ge, and Jianzhong Xu. Online collaborative learning activities: The perspectives of african american female students. Computers & Education , 82:152–161, 2015.
• Chun and Evans [2009] Edna Chun and Alvin Evans. Bridging the diversity divide–globalization and reciprocal empowerment in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report , 35(1):1–144, 2009.
• Pearson et al. [2018] Nelson Pearson, Justin Major, Allison Godwin, and Adam Kirn. Using social network analysis to study the social structures of inclusion. In ASEE annual conference & exposition , 2018.
• Cintron et al. [2019] Leslie Cintron, Yunjeong Chang, James Cohoon, Luther Tychonievich, Brittany Halsey, Devon Yi, and Genevieve Schmitt. Exploring underrepresented student motivation and perceptions of collaborative learning-enhanced cs undergraduate introductory courses. In 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2019.
• Kumi-Yeboah et al. [2017] Alex Kumi-Yeboah, James Dogbey, and Guangji Yuan. Online collaborative learning activities: The perspectives of minority graduate students. Online Learning Journal , 21(4), 2017.
• Fiore et al. [2010] Stephen M Fiore, Michael A Rosen, Kimberly A Smith-Jentsch, Eduardo Salas, Michael Letsky, and Norman Warner. Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors , 52(2):203–224, 2010.
• Graesser et al. [2018a] Arthur C Graesser, Peter W Foltz, Yigal Rosen, David Williamson Shaffer, Carol Forsyth, and Mae-Lynn Germany. Challenges of assessing collaborative problem solving. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills , pages 75–91. Springer, 2018a.
• Tausczik and Pennebaker [2010] Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology , 29(1):24–54, 2010.
• Schneider et al. [2021] Bertrand Schneider, Nia Dowell, and Kate Thompson. Collaboration analytics—current state and potential futures. Journal of Learning Analytics , 8(1):1–12, 2021.
• Lin et al. [2019] Yiwen Lin, Nia Dowell, Andrew Godfrey, Heeryung Choi, and Christopher Brooks. Modeling gender dynamics in intra and interpersonal interactions during online collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on learning analytics & knowledge , pages 431–435, 2019.
• Dowell et al. [2019a] Nia MM Dowell, Tristan M Nixon, and Arthur C Graesser. Group communication analysis: A computational linguistics approach for detecting sociocognitive roles in multiparty interactions. Behavior research methods , 51(3):1007–1041, 2019a.
• Lin et al. [2020] Yiwen Lin, Renzhe Yu, and Nia MM Dowell. Liwcs the same, not the same: Gendered linguistic signals of performance and experience in online stem courses. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages 333–345. Springer, 2020.
• Kim and Bonk [2002] Kyong-Jee Kim and Curtis J Bonk. Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of computer-mediated communication , 8(1):JCMC814, 2002.
• Zhang et al. [2007] Dongsong Zhang, Paul Benjamin Lowry, Lina Zhou, and Xiaolan Fu. The impact of individualism—collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. Journal of Management Information Systems , 23(4):53–80, 2007.
• Weinberger et al. [2013] Armin Weinberger, Miika Marttunen, Leena Laurinen, and Karsten Stegmann. Inducing socio-cognitive conflict in finnish and german groups of online learners by cscl script. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 8:333–349, 2013.
• Robert Jr et al. [2018] Lionel P Robert Jr, Alan R Dennis, and Manju K Ahuja. Differences are different: Examining the effects of communication media on the impacts of racial and gender diversity in decision-making teams. Information Systems Research , 29(3):525–545, 2018.
• Peña-López et al. [2017] Ismael Peña-López et al. Pisa 2015 results (volume v). collaborative problem solving. 2017.
• McGunagle and Zizka [2020] Doreen McGunagle and Laura Zizka. Employability skills for 21st-century stem students: the employers’ perspective. Higher education, skills and work-based learning , 2020.
• Sarkar et al. [2016] Mahbub Sarkar, Tina Overton, Christopher Thompson, and Gerry Rayner. Graduate employability: Views of recent science graduates and employers. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education , 24(3), 2016.
• Griffin and Care [2015] Patrick Griffin and Esther Care. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach . Springer, 2015.
• Wolfe et al. [2016] Joanna Wolfe, Elizabeth A Powell, Seth Schlisserman, and Alexandra Kirshon. Teamwork in engineering undergraduate classes: What problems do students experience? In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , 2016.
• Micari and Pazos [2021] Marina Micari and Pilar Pazos. Beyond grades: improving college students’ social-cognitive outcomes in stem through a collaborative learning environment. Learning Environments Research , 24(1):123–136, 2021.
• OECD [2017] OECD. Pisa 2015 technical report, 2017.
• Mitchell and Coyle [2019] Tyree D Mitchell and Patrick Coyle. When racial/ethnic minorities emerge as leaders: The role of learning orientation and team minority composition. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 23(3-4):195, 2019.
• Li et al. [1999] Ji Li, Leonard Karakowsky, and Jacob P Siegel. The effects of proportional representation on intragroup behavior in mixed-race decision-making groups. Small Group Research , 30(3):259–279, 1999.
• Kirkman et al. [2004] Bradley L Kirkman, Paul E Tesluk, and Benson Rosen. The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management , 29(3):334–368, 2004.
• Stahl et al. [2010] Günter K Stahl, Martha L Maznevski, Andreas Voigt, and Karsten Jonsen. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of international business studies , 41(4):690–709, 2010.
• Giambatista and Bhappu [2010] Robert C Giambatista and Anita D Bhappu. Diversity’s harvest: Interactions of diversity sources and communication technology on creative group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 111(2):116–126, 2010.
• Foundation [2014] National Science Foundation. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering : Introduction. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/introduction/ , 2014. Accessed: 2022-03-31.
• for Science and Statistics [2019] National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, 2019.
• Yip et al. [2021] Tiffany Yip, Charissa SL Cheah, Lisa Kiang, and Gordon C Nagayama Hall. Rendered invisible: Are asian americans a model or a marginalized minority? American Psychologist , 76(4):575, 2021.
• Doan et al. [2019] Lan N Doan, Yumie Takata, Kari-Lyn K Sakuma, and Veronica L Irvin. Trends in clinical research including asian american, native hawaiian, and pacific islander participants funded by the us national institutes of health, 1992 to 2018. JAMA Network Open , 2(7):e197432–e197432, 2019.
• Kiang et al. [2017] Lisa Kiang, Virginia W Huynh, Charissa SL Cheah, Yijie Wang, and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. Moving beyond the model minority. Asian American Journal of Psychology , 8(1):1, 2017.
• Wing [2007] Jean Yonemura Wing. Beyond black and white: The model minority myth and the invisibility of asian american students. The Urban Review , 39(4):455–487, 2007.
• Graesser et al. [2018b] Arthur C Graesser, Stephen M Fiore, Samuel Greiff, Jessica Andrews-Todd, Peter W Foltz, and Friedrich W Hesse. Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19(2):59–92, 2018b.
• Dowell et al. [2019b] Nia MM Dowell, Yiwen Lin, Andrew Godfrey, and Christopher Brooks. Promoting inclusivity through time-dynamic discourse analysis in digitally-mediated collaborative learning. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages 207–219. Springer, 2019b.
• Dowell et al. [2020] Nia MM Dowell, Yiwen Lin, Andrew Godfrey, and Christopher Brooks. Exploring the relationship between emergent sociocognitive roles, collaborative problem-solving skills, and outcomes: A group communication analysis. Journal of Learning Analytics , 7(1):38–57, 2020.
• Dowell and Poquet [2021] Nia MM Dowell and Oleksandra Poquet. Scip: Combining group communication and interpersonal positioning to identify emergent roles in scaled digital environments. Computers in Human Behavior , 119:106709, 2021.
• Prinsen et al. [2007] Fleur Ruth Prinsen, Monique LL Volman, and Jan Terwel. Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 23(5):393–409, 2007.
• Sullivan et al. [2015] Florence R Sullivan, Manu Kapur, Sandra Madden, and Stefanie Shipe. Exploring the role of ‘gendered’discourse styles in online science discussions. International Journal of Science Education , 37(3):484–504, 2015.
• Dowell et al. [2021] Nia MM Dowell, Timothy A McKay, and George Perrett. It’s not that you said it, it’s how you said it: Exploring the linguistic mechanisms underlying values affirmation interventions at scale. AERA Open , 7:23328584211011611, 2021.
• Joksimović et al. [2019] Srećko Joksimović, Nia Dowell, Dragan Gašević, Negin Mirriahi, Shane Dawson, and Arthur C Graesser. Linguistic characteristics of reflective states in video annotations under different instructional conditions. Computers in Human Behavior , 96:211–222, 2019.
• Joksimović et al. [2018] Srećko Joksimović, Nia Dowell, Oleksandra Poquet, Vitomir Kovanović, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, and Arthur C Graesser. Exploring development of social capital in a cmooc through language and discourse. The Internet and Higher Education , 36:54–64, 2018.
• Pennebaker et al. [2015] James W Pennebaker, Ryan L Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. The development and psychometric properties of liwc2015. Technical report, 2015.
• Arum et al. [2021] Richard Arum, Jacquelynne S Eccles, Jutta Heckhausen, Gabe Avakian Orona, Luise von Keyserlingk, Christopher M Wegemer, Charles E Wright, and Katsumi Yamaguchi-Pedroza. A framework for measuring undergraduate learning and growth. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 53(6):51–59, 2021.
• Chan [2012] Carol KK Chan. Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A discussion. Metacognition and learning , 7:63–73, 2012.
• Azevedo et al. [2004] Roger Azevedo, Fielding I Winters, and Daniel C Moos. Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn science? the dynamics of self-and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 31(3):215–245, 2004.
• Kuhn et al. [2020] Deanna Kuhn, Noel Capon, and Hueiyi Lai. Talking about group (but not individual) process aids group performance. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 15:179–192, 2020.
• Cen et al. [2016] Ling Cen, Dymitr Ruta, Leigh Powell, Benjamin Hirsch, and Jason Ng. Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: Performance prediction, individual assessment, and group composition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 11:187–225, 2016.
• Wang et al. [2019] Jie Wang, Grand H-L Cheng, Tingting Chen, and Kwok Leung. Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 40(6):693–708, 2019.

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Office Buildings

RCC Headquarters / Foster + Partners

• Curated by Paula Pintos
• Architects: Foster + Partners
• Area Area of this architecture project Area:  18450 m²
• Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2021
• Photographs Photographs: Oleg Kovalyuk
• Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Manufacturers:   POHL , Irline , Mobil , Solo
• Vertical Circulation : D2E
• Lighting Design Consultants : Jason Bruges Studio
• Traffic Engineer : MIC
• Acoustic engineer : Sandy Brown
• Landscape consultant : Hyland Edgar Driver
• Main Contractor: : A1
• Client:  RCC (Russian Copper Company)
• Design Team:  Norman Foster, David Nelson, Spencer de Grey, Luke Fox, Angus Campbell, Jeremy Kim, Jonathan Parr, Mike Holland, Stefan Bench, Dimitri Chaava, Julija Cholopova, Louise Clausen, Amy Company Butler, Patrick Crocock, Elisa Fernandez Ramos, Charlotte Gallen, Raphael Giacomuzzo, Michelle Hudson, Martin Kehoe, Paul Kennedy, Alena Kereshun, Anton Khmelnitskiy, Annabel Knightley, Andy Lister, Sarah Lister, Yuen Nam, Connie Luk, Maria Mallalieu, Luke Moloney, Aleksejus Nevemdomskis, Charlie Parford Plant, Mariia Pashenko, Stelios Psaltis, Dina Timartseva, Harry Twigg, Vincent Westbrook, Michael Woodrow
• Foster+Partners Engineers:  Andrew Jackson, Andrew Coward
• Other Foster+Partners Team Members:  Paul Kalkhoven, Armstrong Yakubu, Sarah Villar-Furniss, George Fereday, Thouria Istephan, Matthew Burger
• Collaborating Architect:  P. M. VostokProekt
• Structural, Mechanical And Electrical Engineer:  Foster + Partners/P. M. VostokProekt
• Kitchen & Logistics:  Cini-Little International
• Façade Engineering:  Priedemann Fassadenberatung GmbH
• Security System:  WSP
• City:  Yekaterinburg
• Country:  Russia
• Did you collaborate on this project?

Text description provided by the architects. RCC Headquarters in Ekaterinburg has officially opened. The practice’s first office building in Russia, the building reimagines the conventional cellular office to set new standards in quality, comfort and flexibility. The 15-storey building’s innovative modular office units are enveloped in an energy efficient enclosure, which provides a distinctive symbol for the organisation in Ekaterinburg.

RCC is one of the world’s leading producers of copper and the triangulated form draws inspiration from the chemical structure of copper. The crown of the building integrates RCC’s new logo – a rebranding which has, in turn, been inspired by the architecture.

The starting point for the office floors was to reinvent the headquarters as a ‘house for staff’ – instead of the conventional large, communal workspaces, the rooms are of a more intimate, domestic scale. The practice’s workplace consultancy group analysed the client’s operations and helped to devise the innovative modular system for these rooms. This was then developed with the in-house engineering teams to enable rapid construction and ensure ideal levels of natural daylight for concentrated work.

Each two-storey module comprises a pair of offices, stacked one on top of the other – this is expressed externally through the double-storey cladding module. The modules are arranged in rows on either side of a central hallway, which functions as a breakout space, with lounge seating and views of the city through the glazed lift shaft. At level fifteen, the space is top-lit to create a flexible space for company-wide gatherings and events.

The design targets a BREEAM Excellent rating. Responding to Ekaterinburg’s wide temperature range between seasons – often from +30°C to -30°C – the balance between solid and glazed areas is designed as a reaction to low level winter sun, while mitigating the heat of direct sunlight during the summer. The site overlooks the city and the recently landscaped river bank. Extending this greenery to the base of the building, the footprint is shifted to create a private garden for staff. The landscaping echoes the cellular internal arrangement, with a sequence of ‘external rooms’ that provide peaceful spaces for staff to relax and eat lunch. Further facilities within the building include a video conference room and boardroom, meeting spaces and an executive dining area.

Project gallery

Project location

Address: yekaterinburg, sverdlovsk oblast, russia.

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

俄罗斯铜业公司总部 / 福斯特建筑事务所

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Check the latest Media Walls

Check the latest Suspended Lights

• Places - European, Western and Northern Russia

YEKATERINBURG: FACTORIES, URAL SIGHTS, YELTSIN AND THE WHERE NICHOLAS II WAS KILLED

Sverdlovsk oblast.

Sverdlovsk Oblast is the largest region in the Urals; it lies in the foothills of mountains and contains a monument indicating the border between Europe and Asia. The region covers 194,800 square kilometers (75,200 square miles), is home to about 4.3 million people and has a population density of 22 people per square kilometer. About 83 percent of the population live in urban areas. Yekaterinburg is the capital and largest city, with 1.5 million people. For Russians, the Ural Mountains are closely associated with Pavel Bazhov's tales and known for folk crafts such as Kasli iron sculpture, Tagil painting, and copper embossing. Yekaterinburg is the birthplace of Russia’s iron and steel industry, taking advantage of the large iron deposits in the Ural mountains. The popular Silver Ring of the Urals tourist route starts here.

In the summer you can follow in the tracks of Yermak, climb relatively low Ural mountain peaks and look for boulders seemingly with human faces on them. You can head to the Gemstone Belt of the Ural mountains, which used to house emerald, amethyst and topaz mines. In the winter you can go ice fishing, ski and cross-country ski.

Sverdlovsk Oblast and Yekaterinburg are located near the center of Russia, at the crossroads between Europe and Asia and also the southern and northern parts of Russia. Winters are longer and colder than in western section of European Russia. Snowfalls can be heavy. Winter temperatures occasionally drop as low as - 40 degrees C (-40 degrees F) and the first snow usually falls in October. A heavy winter coat, long underwear and good boots are essential. Snow and ice make the sidewalks very slippery, so footwear with a good grip is important. Since the climate is very dry during the winter months, skin moisturizer plus lip balm are recommended. Be alert for mud on street surfaces when snow cover is melting (April-May). Patches of mud create slippery road conditions.

Yekaterinburg

Yekaterinburg (kilometer 1818 on the Trans-Siberian Railway) is the fourth largest city in Russia, with of 1.5 million and growth rate of about 12 percent, high for Russia. Located in the southern Ural mountains, it was founded by Peter the Great and named after his wife Catherine, it was used by the tsars as a summer retreat and is where tsar Nicholas II and his family were executed and President Boris Yeltsin lived most of his life and began his political career. The city is near the border between Europe and Asia.

Yekaterinburg (also spelled Ekaterinburg) is located on the eastern slope of the Ural Mountains in the headwaters of the Iset and Pyshma Rivers. The Iset runs through the city center. Three ponds — Verkh-Isetsky, Gorodskoy and Nizhne-Isetsky — were created on it. Yekaterinburg has traditionally been a city of mining and was once the center of the mining industry of the Urals and Siberia. Yekaterinburg remains a major center of the Russian armaments industry and is sometimes called the "Pittsburgh of Russia.". A few ornate, pastel mansions and wide boulevards are reminders of the tsarist era. The city is large enough that it has its own Metro system but is characterized mostly by blocky Soviet-era apartment buildings. The city has advanced under President Vladimir Putin and is now one of the fastest growing places in Russia, a country otherwise characterized by population declines

Yekaterinburg is technically an Asian city as it lies 32 kilometers east of the continental divide between Europe and Asia. The unofficial capital of the Urals, a key region in the Russian heartland, it is second only to Moscow in terms of industrial production and capital of Sverdlovsk oblast. Among the important industries are ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, machine building and metalworking, chemical and petrochemicals, construction materials and medical, light and food industries. On top of being home of numerous heavy industries and mining concerns, Yekaterinburg is also a major center for industrial research and development and power engineering as well as home to numerous institutes of higher education, technical training, and scientific research. In addition, Yekaterinburg is the largest railway junction in Russia: the Trans-Siberian Railway passes through it, the southern, northern, western and eastern routes merge in the city.

Accommodation: There are two good and affordable hotels — the 3-star Emerald and Parus hotels — located close to the city's most popular landmarks and main transport interchanges in the center of Yekaterinburg. Room prices start at RUB 1,800 per night.

History of Yekaterinburg

Yekaterinburg was founded in 1723 by Peter the Great and named after his wife Catherine I. It was used by the tsars as a summer retreat but was mainly developed as metalworking and manufacturing center to take advantage of the large deposits of iron and other minerals in the Ural mountains. It is best known to Americans as the place where the last Tsar and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and near where American U-2 spy plane, piloted by Gary Powers, was shot down in 1960.

Peter the Great recognized the importance of the iron and copper-rich Urals region for Imperial Russia's industrial and military development. In November 1723, he ordered the construction of a fortress factory and an ironworks in the Iset River Valley, which required a dam for its operation. In its early years Yekaterinburg grew rich from gold and other minerals and later coal. The Yekaterinburg gold rush of 1745 created such a huge amount of wealth that one rich baron of that time hosted a wedding party that lasted a year. By the mid-18th century, metallurgical plants had sprung up across the Urals to cast cannons, swords, guns and other weapons to arm Russia’s expansionist ambitions. The Yekaterinburg mint produced most of Russia's coins. Explorations of the Trans-Baikal and Altai regions began here in the 18th century.

Iron, cast iron and copper were the main products. Even though Iron from the region went into the Eiffel Tower, the main plant in Yekaterinburg itself was shut down in 1808. The city still kept going through a mountain factory control system of the Urals. The first railway in the Urals was built here: in 1878, the Yekaterinburg-Perm railway branch connected the province's capital with the factories of the Middle Urals.

In the Soviet era the city was called Sverdlovsk (named after Yakov Sverdlov, the man who organized Nicholas II's execution). During the first five-year plans the city became industrial — old plants were reconstructed, new ones were built. The center of Yekaterinburg was formed to conform to the historical general plan of 1829 but was the layout was adjusted around plants and factories. In the Stalin era the city was a major gulag transhipment center. In World War II, many defense-related industries were moved here. It and the surrounding area were a center of the Soviet Union's military industrial complex. Soviet tanks, missiles and aircraft engines were made in the Urals. During the Cold War era, Yekaterinburg was a center of weapons-grade uranium enrichment and processing, warhead assembly and dismantlement. In 1979, 64 people died when anthrax leaked from a biological weapons facility. Yekaterinburg was a “Closed City” for 40 years during the Cold Soviet era and was not open to foreigners until 1991

In the early post-Soviet era, much like Pittsburgh in the 1970s, Yekaterinburg had a hard struggle d to cope with dramatic economic changes that have made its heavy industries uncompetitive on the world market. Huge defense plants struggled to survive and the city was notorious as an organized crime center in the 1990s, when its hometown boy Boris Yeltsin was President of Russia. By the 2000s, Yekaterinburg’s retail and service was taking off, the defense industry was reviving and it was attracting tech industries and investments related to the Urals’ natural resources. By the 2010s it was vying to host a world exhibition in 2020 (it lost, Dubai won) and it had McDonald’s, Subway, sushi restaurants, and Gucci, Chanel and Armani. There were Bentley and Ferrari dealerships but they closed down

Transportation in Yekaterinburg

Getting There: By Plane: Yekaterinburg is a three-hour flight from Moscow with prices starting at RUB 8,000, or a 3-hour flight from Saint Petersburg starting from RUB 9,422 (direct round-trip flight tickets for one adult passenger). There are also flights from Frankfurt, Istanbul, China and major cities in the former Soviet Union.

By Train: Yekaterinburg is a major stop on the Trans-Siberian Railway. Daily train service is available to Moscow and many other Russian cities.Yekaterinburg is a 32-hour train ride from Moscow (tickets RUB 8,380 and above) or a 36-hour train ride from Saint Petersburg (RUB 10,300 and above). The ticket prices are round trip for a berth in a sleeper compartment for one adult passenger). By Car: a car trip from Moscow to Yekateringburg is 1,787 kilometers long and takes about 18 hours. The road from Saint Petersburg is 2,294 kilometers and takes about 28 hours.

Regional Transport: The region's public transport includes buses and suburban electric trains. Regional trains provide transport to larger cities in the Ural region. Buses depart from Yekaterinburg’s two bus stations: the Southern Bus Station and the Northern Bus Station.

Regional Transport: According the to Association for Safe International Road Travel (ASIRT): “Public transportation is well developed. Overcrowding is common. Fares are low. Service is efficient. Buses are the main form of public transport. Tram network is extensive. Fares are reasonable; service is regular. Trams are heavily used by residents, overcrowding is common. Purchase ticket after boarding. Metro runs from city center to Uralmash, an industrial area south of the city. Metro ends near the main railway station. Fares are inexpensive.

“Traffic is congested in city center. Getting around by car can be difficult. Route taxis (minivans) provide the fastest transport. They generally run on specific routes, but do not have specific stops. Drivers stop where passengers request. Route taxis can be hailed. Travel by bus or trolleybuses may be slow in rush hour. Trams are less affected by traffic jams. Trolley buses (electric buses) cannot run when temperatures drop below freezing.”

Entertainment, Sports and Recreation in Yekaterinburg

The performing arts in Yekaterinburg are first rate. The city has an excellent symphony orchestra, opera and ballet theater, and many other performing arts venues. Tickets are inexpensive. The Yekaterinburg Opera and Ballet Theater is lavishly designed and richly decorated building in the city center of Yekaterinburg. The theater was established in 1912 and building was designed by architect Vladimir Semyonov and inspired by the Vienna Opera House and the Theater of Opera and Ballet in Odessa.

Vaynera Street is a pedestrian only shopping street in city center with restaurants, cafes and some bars. But otherwise Yekaterinburg's nightlife options are limited. There are a handful of expensive Western-style restaurants and bars, none of them that great. Nightclubs serve the city's nouveau riche clientele. Its casinos have closed down. Some of them had links with organized crime. New dance clubs have sprung up that are popular with Yekaterinburg's more affluent youth.

Yekaterinburg's most popular spectator sports are hockey, basketball, and soccer. There are stadiums and arenas that host all three that have fairly cheap tickets. There is an indoor water park and lots of parks and green spaces. The Urals have many lakes, forests and mountains are great for hiking, boating, berry and mushroom hunting, swimming and fishing. Winter sports include cross-country skiing and ice skating. Winter lasts about six months and there’s usually plenty of snow. The nearby Ural Mountains however are not very high and the downhill skiing opportunities are limited..

Sights in Yekaterinburg

Sights in Yekaterinburg include the Museum of City Architecture and Ural Industry, with an old water tower and mineral collection with emeralds. malachite, tourmaline, jasper and other precious stone; Geological Alley, a small park with labeled samples of minerals found in the Urals region; the Ural Geology Museum, which houses an extensive collection of stones, gold and gems from the Urals; a monument marking the border between Europe and Asia; a memorial for gulag victims; and a graveyard with outlandish memorials for slain mafia members.

The Military History Museum houses the remains of the U-2 spy plane shot down in 1960 and locally made tanks and rocket launchers. The fine arts museum contains paintings by some of Russia's 19th-century masters. Also worth a look are the History an Local Studies Museum; the Political History and Youth Museum; and the University and Arboretum. Old wooden houses can be seen around Zatoutstovsya ulitsa and ulitsa Belinskogo. Around the city are wooded parks, lakes and quarries used to harvest a variety of minerals. Weiner Street is the main street of Yekaterinburg. Along it are lovely sculptures and 19th century architecture. Take a walk around the unique Literary Quarter

Plotinka is a local meeting spot, where you will often find street musicians performing. Plotinka can be described as the center of the city's center. This is where Yekaterinburg holds its biggest events: festivals, seasonal fairs, regional holiday celebrations, carnivals and musical fountain shows. There are many museums and open-air exhibitions on Plotinka. Plotinka is named after an actual dam of the city pond located nearby (“plotinka” means “a small dam” in Russian).In November 1723, Peter the Great ordered the construction of an ironworks in the Iset River Valley, which required a dam for its operation. “Iset” can be translated from Finnish as “abundant with fish”. This name was given to the river by the Mansi — the Finno-Ugric people dwelling on the eastern slope of the Northern Urals.

Vysotsky and Iset are skyscrapers that are 188.3 meters and 209 meters high, respectively. Fifty-story-high Iset has been described by locals as the world’s northernmost skyscraper. Before the construction of Iset, Vysotsky was the tallest building of Yekaterinburg and Russia (excluding Moscow). A popular vote has decided to name the skyscraper after the famous Soviet songwriter, singer and actor Vladimir Vysotsky. and the building was opened on November 25, 2011. There is a lookout at the top of the building, and the Vysotsky museum on its second floor. The annual “Vysotsky climb” (1137 steps) is held there, with a prize of RUB 100,000. While Vysotsky serves as an office building, Iset, owned by the Ural Mining and Metallurgical Company, houses 225 premium residential apartments ranging from 80 to 490 square meters in size.

Boris Yeltsin Presidential Center

The Boris Yeltsin Presidential Center (in the city center: ul. Yeltsina, 3) is a non-governmental organization named after the first president of the Russian Federation. The Museum of the First President of Russia as well as his archives are located in the Center. There is also a library, educational and children's centers, and exposition halls. Yeltsin lived most of his life and began his political career in Yekaterinburg. He was born in Butka about 200 kilometers east of Yekaterinburg.

The core of the Center is the Museum. Modern multimedia technologies help animate the documents, photos from the archives, and artifacts. The Yeltsin Museum holds collections of: propaganda posters, leaflets, and photos of the first years of the Soviet regime; portraits and portrait sculptures of members of Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of various years; U.S.S.R. government bonds and other items of the Soviet era; a copy of “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, published in the “Novy Mir” magazine (#11, 1962); perestroika-era editions of books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vasily Grossman, and other authors; theater, concert, and cinema posters, programs, and tickets — in short, all of the artifacts of the perestroika era.

The Yeltsin Center opened in 2012. Inside you will also find an art gallery, a bookstore, a gift shop, a food court, concert stages and a theater. There are regular screenings of unique films that you will not find anywhere else. Also operating inside the center, is a scientific exploritorium for children. The center was designed by Boris Bernaskoni. Almost from the its very opening, the Yeltsin Center has been accused by members of different political entities of various ideological crimes. The museum is open Tuesday to Sunday, from 10:00am to 9:00pm.

Where Nicholas II was Executed

On July, 17, 1918, during this reign of terror of the Russian Civil War, former-tsar Nicholas II, his wife, five children (the 13-year-old Alexis, 22-year-old Olga, 19-year-old Maria and 17-year-old Anastasia)the family physician, the cook, maid, and valet were shot to death by a Red Army firing squad in the cellar of the house they were staying at in Yekaterinburg.

Ipatiev House (near Church on the Blood, Ulitsa Libknekhta) was a merchant's house where Nicholas II and his family were executed. The house was demolished in 1977, on the orders of an up and coming communist politician named Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin later said that the destruction of the house was an "act of barbarism" and he had no choice because he had been ordered to do it by the Politburo,

The site is marked with s cross with the photos of the family members and cross bearing their names. A small wooden church was built at the site. It contains paintings of the family. For a while there were seven traditional wooden churches. Mass is given ay noon everyday in an open-air museum. The Church on the Blood — constructed to honor Nicholas II and his family — was built on the part of the site in 1991 and is now a major place of pilgrimage.

Nicholas and his family where killed during the Russian civil war. It is thought the Bolsheviks figured that Nicholas and his family gave the Whites figureheads to rally around and they were better of dead. Even though the death orders were signed Yakov Sverdlov, the assassination was personally ordered by Lenin, who wanted to get them out of sight and out of mind. Trotsky suggested a trial. Lenin nixed the idea, deciding something had to be done about the Romanovs before White troops approached Yekaterinburg. Trotsky later wrote: "The decision was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of he punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing."

Ian Frazier wrote in The New Yorker: “Having read a lot about the end of Tsar Nicholas II and his family and servants, I wanted to see the place in Yekaterinburg where that event occurred. The gloomy quality of this quest depressed Sergei’s spirits, but he drove all over Yekaterinburg searching for the site nonetheless. Whenever he stopped and asked a pedestrian how to get to the house where Nicholas II was murdered, the reaction was a wince. Several people simply walked away. But eventually, after a lot of asking, Sergei found the location. It was on a low ridge near the edge of town, above railroad tracks and the Iset River. The house, known as the Ipatiev House, was no longer standing, and the basement where the actual killings happened had been filled in. I found the blankness of the place sinister and dizzying. It reminded me of an erasure done so determinedly that it had worn a hole through the page. [Source: Ian Frazier, The New Yorker, August 3, 2009, Frazier is author of “Travels in Siberia” (2010)]

“The street next to the site is called Karl Liebknecht Street. A building near where the house used to be had a large green advertisement that said, in English, “LG—Digitally Yours.” On an adjoining lot, a small chapel kept the memory of the Tsar and his family; beneath a pedestal holding an Orthodox cross, peonies and pansies grew. The inscription on the pedestal read, “We go down on our knees, Russia, at the foot of the tsarist cross.”

Books: The Romanovs: The Final Chapter by Robert K. Massie (Random House, 1995); The Fall of the Romanovs by Mark D. Steinberg and Vladimir Khrustalëv (Yale, 1995);

See Separate Article END OF NICHOLAS II factsanddetails.com

Execution of Nicholas II

According to Robert Massie K. Massie, author of Nicholas and Alexandra, Nicholas II and his family were awakened from their bedrooms around midnight and taken to the basement. They were told they were to going to take some photographs of them and were told to stand behind a row of chairs.

Suddenly, a group of 11 Russians and Latvians, each with a revolver, burst into the room with orders to kill a specific person. Yakob Yurovsky, a member of the Soviet executive committee, reportedly shouted "your relatives are continuing to attack the Soviet Union.” After firing, bullets bouncing off gemstones hidden in the corsets of Alexandra and her daughters ricocheted around the room like "a shower of hail," the soldiers said. Those that were still breathing were killed with point black shots to the head.

The three sisters and the maid survived the first round thanks to their gems. They were pressed up against a wall and killed with a second round of bullets. The maid was the only one that survived. She was pursued by the executioners who stabbed her more than 30 times with their bayonets. The still writhing body of Alexis was made still by a kick to the head and two bullets in the ear delivered by Yurovsky himself.

Yurovsky wrote: "When the party entered I told the Romanovs that in view of the fact their relatives continued their offensive against Soviet Russia, the Executive Committee of the Urals Soviet had decided to shoot them. Nicholas turned his back to the detachment and faced his family. Then, as if collecting himself, he turned around, asking, 'What? What?'"

"[I] ordered the detachment to prepare. Its members had been previously instructed whom to shoot and to am directly at the heart to avoid much blood and to end more quickly. Nicholas said no more. he turned again to his family. The others shouted some incoherent exclamations. All this lasted a few seconds. Then commenced the shooting, which went on for two or three minutes. [I] killed Nicholas on the spot."

Nicholas II’s Initial Burial Site in Yekaterinburg

Ganina Yama Monastery (near the village of Koptyaki, 15 kilometers northwest of Yekaterinburg) stands near the three-meter-deep pit where some the remains of Nicholas II and his family were initially buried. The second burial site — where most of the remains were — is in a field known as Porosyonkov (56.9113628°N 60.4954326°E), seven kilometers from Ganina Yama.

On visiting Ganina Yama Monastery, one person posted in Trip Advisor: “We visited this set of churches in a pretty park with Konstantin from Ekaterinburg Guide Centre. He really brought it to life with his extensive knowledge of the history of the events surrounding their terrible end. The story is so moving so unless you speak Russian, it is best to come here with a guide or else you will have no idea of what is what.”

In 1991, the acid-burned remains of Nicholas II and his family were exhumed from a shallow roadside mass grave in a swampy area 12 miles northwest of Yekaterinburg. The remains had been found in 1979 by geologist and amateur archeologist Alexander Avdonin, who kept the location secret out of fear that they would be destroyed by Soviet authorities. The location was disclosed to a magazine by one his fellow discovers.

The original plan was to throw the Romanovs down a mine shaft and disposes of their remains with acid. They were thrown in a mine with some grenades but the mine didn't collapse. They were then carried by horse cart. The vats of acid fell off and broke. When the carriage carrying the bodies broke down it was decided the bury the bodies then and there. The remaining acid was poured on the bones, but most of it was soaked up the ground and the bones largely survived.

After this their pulses were then checked, their faces were crushed to make them unrecognizable and the bodies were wrapped in bed sheets loaded onto a truck. The "whole procedure," Yurovsky said took 20 minutes. One soldiers later bragged than he could "die in peace because he had squeezed the Empress's -------."

The bodies were taken to a forest and stripped, burned with acid and gasoline, and thrown into abandoned mine shafts and buried under railroad ties near a country road near the village of Koptyaki. "The bodies were put in the hole," Yurovsky wrote, "and the faces and all the bodies, generally doused with sulfuric acid, both so they couldn't be recognized and prevent a stink from them rotting...We scattered it with branches and lime, put boards on top and drove over it several times—no traces of the hole remained.

Shortly afterwards, the government in Moscow announced that Nicholas II had been shot because of "a counterrevolutionary conspiracy." There was no immediate word on the other members of the family which gave rise to rumors that other members of the family had escaped. Yekaterinburg was renamed Sverdlov in honor of the man who signed the death orders.

For seven years the remains of Nicholas II, Alexandra, three of their daughters and four servants were stored in polyethylene bags on shelves in the old criminal morgue in Yekaterunburg. On July 17, 1998, Nicholas II and his family and servants who were murdered with him were buried Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg along with the other Romanov tsars, who have been buried there starting with Peter the Great. Nicholas II had a side chapel built for himself at the fortress in 1913 but was buried in a new crypt.

Near Yekaterinburg

Factory-Museum of Iron and Steel Metallurgy (in Niznhy Tagil 80 kilometers north of Yekaterinburg) a museum with old mining equipment made at the site of huge abandoned iron and steel factory. Officially known as the Factory-Museum of the History of the Development of Iron and Steel Metallurgy, it covers an area of 30 hectares and contains a factory founded by the Demidov family in 1725 that specialized mainly in the production of high-quality cast iron and steel. Later, the foundry was renamed after Valerian Kuybyshev, a prominent figure of the Communist Party.

The first Russian factory museum, the unusual museum demonstrates all stages of metallurgy and metal working. There is even a blast furnace and an open-hearth furnace. The display of factory equipment includes bridge crane from 1892) and rolling stock equipment from the 19th-20th centuries. In Niznhy Tagil contains some huge blocks of malachite and

Nizhnyaya Sinyachikha (180 kilometers east-northeast of Yekaterinburg) has an open air architecture museum with log buildings, a stone church and other pre-revolutionary architecture. The village is the creation of Ivan Samoilov, a local activist who loved his village so much he dedicated 40 years of his life to recreating it as the open-air museum of wooden architecture.

The stone Savior Church, a good example of Siberian baroque architecture. The interior and exterior of the church are exhibition spaces of design. The houses are very colorful. In tsarist times, rich villagers hired serfs to paint the walls of their wooden izbas (houses) bright colors. Old neglected buildings from the 17th to 19th centuries have been brought to Nizhnyaya Sinyachikha from all over the Urals. You will see the interior design of the houses and hear stories about traditions and customs of the Ural farmers.

Verkhoturye (330 kilometers road from Yekaterinburg) is the home a 400-year-old monastery that served as 16th century capital of the Urals. Verkhoturye is a small town on the Tura River knows as the Jerusalem of the Urals for its many holy places, churches and monasteries. The town's main landmark is its Kremlin — the smallest in Russia. Pilgrims visit the St. Nicholas Monastery to see the remains of St. Simeon of Verkhoturye, the patron saint of fishermen.

Ural Mountains

Ural Mountains are the traditional dividing line between Europe and Asia and have been a crossroads of Russian history. Stretching from Kazakhstan to the fringes of the Arctic Kara Sea, the Urals lie almost exactly along the 60 degree meridian of longitude and extend for about 2,000 kilometers (1,300 miles) from north to south and varies in width from about 50 kilometers (30 miles) in the north and 160 kilometers (100 miles) the south. At kilometers 1777 on the Trans-Siberian Railway there is white obelisk with "Europe" carved in Russian on one side and "Asia" carved on the other.

The eastern side of the Urals contains a lot of granite and igneous rock. The western side is primarily sandstone and limestones. A number of precious stones can be found in the southern part of the Urals, including emeralds. malachite, tourmaline, jasper and aquamarines. The highest peaks are in the north. Mount Narodnaya is the highest of all but is only 1884 meters (6,184 feet) high. The northern Urals are covered in thick forests and home to relatively few people.

Like the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States, the Urals are very old mountains — with rocks and sediments that are hundreds of millions years old — that were one much taller than they are now and have been steadily eroded down over millions of years by weather and other natural processes to their current size. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: “The rock composition helps shape the topography: the high ranges and low, broad-topped ridges consist of quartzites, schists, and gabbro, all weather-resistant. Buttes are frequent, and there are north–south troughs of limestone, nearly all containing river valleys. Karst topography is highly developed on the western slopes of the Urals, with many caves, basins, and underground streams. The eastern slopes, on the other hand, have fewer karst formations; instead, rocky outliers rise above the flattened surfaces. Broad foothills, reduced to peneplain, adjoin the Central and Southern Urals on the east.

“The Urals date from the structural upheavals of the Hercynian orogeny (about 250 million years ago). About 280 million years ago there arose a high mountainous region, which was eroded to a peneplain. Alpine folding resulted in new mountains, the most marked upheaval being that of the Nether-Polar Urals...The western slope of the Urals is composed of middle Paleozoic sedimentary rocks (sandstones and limestones) that are about 350 million years old. In many places it descends in terraces to the Cis-Ural depression (west of the Urals), to which much of the eroded matter was carried during the late Paleozoic (about 300 million years ago). Found there are widespread karst (a starkly eroded limestone region) and gypsum, with large caverns and subterranean streams. On the eastern slope, volcanic layers alternate with sedimentary strata, all dating from middle Paleozoic times.”

Southern Urals

The southern Urals are characterized by grassy slopes and fertile valleys. The middle Urals are a rolling platform that barely rises above 300 meters (1,000 feet). This region is rich in minerals and has been heavily industrialized. This is where you can find Yekaterinburg (formally Sverdlovsk), the largest city in the Urals.

Most of the Southern Urals are is covered with forests, with 50 percent of that pine-woods, 44 percent birch woods, and the rest are deciduous aspen and alder forests. In the north, typical taiga forests are the norm. There are patches of herbal-poaceous steppes, northem sphagnous marshes and bushy steppes, light birch forests and shady riparian forests, tall-grass mountainous meadows, lowland ling marshes and stony placers with lichen stains. In some places there are no large areas of homogeneous forests, rather they are forests with numerous glades and meadows of different size.

In the Ilmensky Mountains Reserve in the Southern Urals, scientists counted 927 vascular plants (50 relicts, 23 endemic species), about 140 moss species, 483 algae species and 566 mushroom species. Among the species included into the Red Book of Russia are feather grass, downy-leaved feather grass, Zalessky feather grass, moccasin flower, ladies'-slipper, neottianthe cucullata, Baltic orchis, fen orchis, helmeted orchis, dark-winged orchis, Gelma sandwart, Krasheninnikov sandwart, Clare astragalus.

The fauna of the vertebrate animals in the Reserve includes 19 fish, 5 amphibian and 5 reptile. Among the 48 mammal species are elks, roe deer, boars, foxes, wolves, lynxes, badgers, common weasels, least weasels, forest ferrets, Siberian striped weasel, common marten, American mink. Squirrels, beavers, muskrats, hares, dibblers, moles, hedgehogs, voles are quite common, as well as chiropterans: pond bat, water bat, Brandt's bat, whiskered bat, northern bat, long-eared bat, parti-coloured bat, Nathusius' pipistrelle. The 174 bird bird species include white-tailed eagles, honey hawks, boreal owls, gnome owls, hawk owls, tawny owls, common scoters, cuckoos, wookcocks, common grouses, wood grouses, hazel grouses, common partridges, shrikes, goldenmountain thrushes, black- throated loons and others.

Activities and Places in the Ural Mountains

The Urals possess beautiful natural scenery that can be accessed from Yekaterinburg with a rent-a-car, hired taxi and tour. Travel agencies arrange rafting, kayaking and hiking trips. Hikes are available in the taiga forest and the Urals. Trips often include walks through the taiga to small lakes and hikes into the mountains and excursions to collect mushrooms and berries and climb in underground caves. Mellow rafting is offered in a relatively calm six kilometer section of the River Serga. In the winter visitor can enjoy cross-mountains skiing, downhill skiing, ice fishing, dog sledding, snow-shoeing and winter hiking through the forest to a cave covered with ice crystals.

Lake Shartash (10 kilometers from Yekaterinburg) is where the first Ural gold was found, setting in motion the Yekaterinburg gold rush of 1745, which created so much wealth one rich baron of that time hosted a wedding party that lasted a year. The area around Shartash Lake is a favorite picnic and barbecue spot of the locals. Getting There: by bus route No. 50, 054 or 54, with a transfer to suburban commuter bus route No. 112, 120 or 121 (the whole trip takes about an hour), or by car (10 kilometers drive from the city center, 40 minutes).

Revun Rapids (90 kilometers road from Yekaterinburg near Beklenishcheva village) is a popular white water rafting places On the nearby cliffs you can see the remains of a mysterious petroglyph from the Paleolithic period. Along the steep banks, you may notice the dark entrance of Smolinskaya Cave. There are legends of a sorceress who lived in there. The rocks at the riverside are suited for competitive rock climbers and beginners. Climbing hooks and rings are hammered into rocks. The most fun rafting is generally in May and June.

Olenii Ruchii National Park (100 kilometers west of Yekaterinburg) is the most popular nature park in Sverdlovsk Oblast and popular weekend getaway for Yekaterinburg residents. Visitors are attracted by the beautiful forests, the crystal clear Serga River and picturesque rocks caves. There are some easy hiking routes: the six-kilometer Lesser Ring and the 15-kilometer Greater Ring. Another route extends for 18 km and passes by the Mitkinsky Mine, which operated in the 18th-19th centuries. It's a kind of an open-air museum — you can still view mining an enrichment equipment here. There is also a genuine beaver dam nearby.

Among the other attractions at Olenii Ruchii are Druzhba (Friendship) Cave, with passages that extend for about 500 meters; Dyrovaty Kamen (Holed Stone), created over time by water of Serga River eroding rock; and Utoplennik (Drowned Man), where you can see “The Angel of Sole Hope”., created by the Swedish artist Lehna Edwall, who has placed seven angels figures in different parts of the world to “embrace the planet, protecting it from fear, despair, and disasters.”

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: Federal Agency for Tourism of the Russian Federation (official Russia tourism website russiatourism.ru ), Russian government websites, UNESCO, Wikipedia, Lonely Planet guides, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, National Geographic, The New Yorker, Bloomberg, Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, Yomiuri Shimbun and various books and other publications.

Updated in September 2020

•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  Google+
•  e-mail

 Page Top

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of country or topic discussed in the article. This constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you are the copyright owner and would like this content removed from factsanddetails.com, please contact me.

Invention and Innovation as Creative Problem-Solving Activities

• Reference work entry
• pp 1118–1131
• Cite this reference work entry

• Frank Beckenbach 2 &
• Maria Daskalakis 2  

380 Accesses

4 Citations

Creativity ; Novelty creation

Background: Microeconomics of Novelty Creation and Problem Solving

Obviously, invention and innovation can be hardly analyzed from the usual cost/benefit perspective of economics. These processes are conjectural by their very nature:

Because ex ante results of the search endeavor cannot reasonably be anticipated (or even expected)

Because there is no guarantee for the social acceptance of a possible result

Because there is the risk that an accepted result cannot be used as a source of (additional) private yield (Nelson 1959a , b , 1982 )

Due to these intricacies, invention and innovation have previously been either considered as coming “out of the blue” (Kirzner 1979 ; Vromen 2001 ) or have been simply postulated as an outcome of mesopatterns in terms of paradigms, routines, and institutions (Dosi 1988 ; Lundvall 1992 ).

Notwithstanding these caveats and provisos, various attempts to conceptualize the novelty creating process from a microeconomic...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Amabile TM. Creativity in context. Boulder/Oxford: Westview Press; 1996.

Google Scholar  

Amabile TM. How to kill creativity. Havard Bus Rev. 1998;76(5):77–87.

Arrow K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Rosenberg N, editor. The economics of technological change. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1971. p. 43–72.

Beckenbach F, Daskalakis M, Hofmann D. Agent-based modelling of novelty creating behavior and sectoral growth effects—Linking the creative and the destructive side of innovation. J Evolut Econ. 2012;22(3):513–542.

Bijker WE. The social construction of bakelite: towards a theory of invention. In: Hughes TP, Bijker WE, Pinch T, editors. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987. p. 159–87.

Chand I, Runco M. Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personal Individ Differ. 1992;14(1):155–62.

Csikszentmihalyi M. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999a. p. 313–38.

Csikszentmihalyi M. The creative person. In: Wilson RA, Keil FC, Editors. New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1999b.

Cyert RM, March JG. A behavioral theory of the firm. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell; 1992.

Dosi G. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit. 1988;26:1120–71.

Dosi G, Faillo M, Marengo M, Moschella D. Toward formal representations of search processes and routines in organizational problem solving: an assessment of the state of the art. Seoul Journal of Economics. 2011;24(3):247–86.

Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE. Mind over machine – the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press; 1986.

Finke A, Ward T, Smith S. Creative cognition. Theory, research and applications. Cambridge/London: MIT Press; 1992.

Gilfillan SC. The sociology of invention. Cambrige, MA: MIT Press; 1970.

Guilford J. Creativity. Am Psychol. 1950;5:444–54.

Guilford J. Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1959.

Heuss E. Allgemeine Markttheorie. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr; 1965.

Hughes T. Inventors: the problems they choose, the ideas they have, and the inventions they make. In: Kelly P, Kransberg M, editors. Technological innovation: a critical review of current knowledge. San Francisco: San Francisco Press; 1978. p. 166–82.

Kirton M. Adaptors and innovators: styles of creativity and problem solving. London: Routledge; 1989.

Kirzner I. Perception, opportunity and profit. Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press; 1979.

Kline SJ, Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation, the positive sum strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1986.

Lubart TI. Models of the creative process: past, present and future. Creat Res J. 2001;13(3/4):295–308.

Lundvall B-Â. National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London/New York: Pinter; 1992.

March JG. A primer on decision making. New York: The Free Press; 1994.

Nelson RR. The economics of invention: a survey of the literature. J Bus. 1959a;32(2):101–27.

Nelson RR. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J Political Econ. 1959b;67(3):297–306.

Nelson RR. The role of knowledge in r&d efficiency. Q J Econ. 1982;96:453–70.

Newell A, Simon HA. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall; 1972.

Nickerson JA, Zenger TR. A knowledge-based theory of the firm – the problem solving perspective. Organ Sci. 2004;16(6):617–32.

Noteboom B. Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

Policastro E, Gardner H. From case studies to robust generalizations: an approach to the study of creativity. In: Sternberg HRJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 213–25.

Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press; 1995.

Rossman J. Industrial creativity: the psychology of the inventor. New York: University Books; 1964.

Runco MA. Creativity – theory and themes: research, development, and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007.

Runco MA, Sakamoto SO. Experimental studies of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 62–92.

Schumpeter JA. The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1983.

Simon HA. Administrative decision making. Public Adm Rev. 1965;25(1):31–7.

Simon HA. The structure of ill structured problems. Artif Intell. 1973;4(3–4):181–201.

Simon HA. Problem solving. In: Wilson RA, Keil FC, editors. The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press; 1999. p. 674–6.

Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 3–15.

Usher AP. Technical change and capital formation. In: Rosenberg N, editor. The economics of technological change. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1971. p. 43–72.

Vromen JJ. The human agent in evolutionary economics. In: Laurent NJ, Nightingale J, editors. Darwinism and evolutionary economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2001. p. 184–208.

Wallas G. The art of thought. London: Watts; 1946.

Ward TB, Smith SM, Finke RA. Creative cognition. In: Sternberg HRJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 189–212.

Weisberg R. Creativity: beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman; 1993.

Weisberg RW. Creativity and knowledge. In: Sternberg HRJ, editor. Handbook of creativity. New York/Melbourn: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 226–50.

Weisberg RW. Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hobocken: Wiley; 2006.

Wertheimer M. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. Prinzipielle Bemerkungen. Psychol Forsch. 1922;1(1):47–58.

Witt U. Propositions about novelty. J Econ Behav Organ. 2009;70(1–2):311–20.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Kassel, FB Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Untere Königsstr. 71a, 34109, Kassel, Germany

Prof. Dr. Frank Beckenbach & Maria Daskalakis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Beckenbach .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Information Systems & Technology, Management, School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Elias G. Carayannis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Beckenbach, F., Daskalakis, M. (2013). Invention and Innovation as Creative Problem-Solving Activities. In: Carayannis, E.G. (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_370

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_370

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3857-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3858-8

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research