problem solving related to innovation

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

Drive Innovation with Better Decision-Making

• Linda A. Hill,
• Emily Tedards,

Despite their embrace of agile methods, many firms striving to innovate are struggling to produce breakthrough ideas. A key culprit, according to the authors, is an outdated, inefficient approach to decision-making. Today’s discovery-driven innovation processes involve an unprecedented number of choices, from which ideas to pursue to countless decisions about how to conduct experiments, what data to collect, and so on. But these choices are often made too slowly and informed by obsolete information and narrow perspectives.

To align their decision-making processes with agile approaches, businesses need to include diverse (customer, local, data-informed, and outside) points of view; clarify decision rights; match the cadence of decisions to the pace of learning; and encourage candid conflict in service of a better experience for the end customer. Only then will all that rapid experimentation pay off.

The article suggests best practices for these interventions, drawing on the story of the transformation at Pfizer’s Global Clinical Supply, which would go on to play a critical role supporting the rapid development of the pharma giant’s Covid vaccine.

Don’t let old habits undermine your organization’s creativity.

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Despite their embrace of agile and lean methodologies, many organizations looking to become more innovative are still struggling to move quickly on new ideas. That’s often because of their outdated, inefficient approach to decision-making.

The Research

Over the past two decades the authors have worked with innovative companies across the globe, most recently focusing on incumbent firms that were transforming themselves into nimbler businesses, to learn what key challenges they faced and how they addressed them.

The Solution

Businesses need to strengthen and speed up their creative decision-making processes by including diverse perspectives, clarifying decision rights, matching the cadence of decisions to the pace of learning, and encouraging candid, robust conflict in service of a better experience for the end customer. Only then will all that rapid experimentation pay off.

To stay competitive, today’s business leaders are investing millions in digital tools, agile methodologies, and lean strategies. Too often, however, those efforts produce neither the breakthrough operational processes nor the blockbuster business models companies need—at least not before their competitors introduce their own advances. And a key culprit is the inability to make quick and effective innovation decisions.

• Linda A. Hill is the Wallace Brett Donham Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, the author of Becoming a Manager , and a coauthor of Being the Boss and Collective Genius .
• Emily Tedards is a doctoral student at Harvard Business School in the Organizational Behavior Unit.
• TS Taran Swan is a managing partner at Paradox Strategies, a provider and creator of advisory services, experiences, and tools that enable organizations to navigate the paradoxes of leadership, innovation, and diversity.

Partner Center

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 10 min read

Creative Problem Solving

Finding innovative solutions to challenges.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Imagine that you're vacuuming your house in a hurry because you've got friends coming over. Frustratingly, you're working hard but you're not getting very far. You kneel down, open up the vacuum cleaner, and pull out the bag. In a cloud of dust, you realize that it's full... again. Coughing, you empty it and wonder why vacuum cleaners with bags still exist!

James Dyson, inventor and founder of Dyson® vacuum cleaners, had exactly the same problem, and he used creative problem solving to find the answer. While many companies focused on developing a better vacuum cleaner filter, he realized that he had to think differently and find a more creative solution. So, he devised a revolutionary way to separate the dirt from the air, and invented the world's first bagless vacuum cleaner. [1]

Creative problem solving (CPS) is a way of solving problems or identifying opportunities when conventional thinking has failed. It encourages you to find fresh perspectives and come up with innovative solutions, so that you can formulate a plan to overcome obstacles and reach your goals.

In this article, we'll explore what CPS is, and we'll look at its key principles. We'll also provide a model that you can use to generate creative solutions.

About Creative Problem Solving

Alex Osborn, founder of the Creative Education Foundation, first developed creative problem solving in the 1940s, along with the term "brainstorming." And, together with Sid Parnes, he developed the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process. Despite its age, this model remains a valuable approach to problem solving. [2]

The early Osborn-Parnes model inspired a number of other tools. One of these is the 2011 CPS Learner's Model, also from the Creative Education Foundation, developed by Dr Gerard J. Puccio, Marie Mance, and co-workers. In this article, we'll use this modern four-step model to explore how you can use CPS to generate innovative, effective solutions.

Why Use Creative Problem Solving?

Dealing with obstacles and challenges is a regular part of working life, and overcoming them isn't always easy. To improve your products, services, communications, and interpersonal skills, and for you and your organization to excel, you need to encourage creative thinking and find innovative solutions that work.

CPS asks you to separate your "divergent" and "convergent" thinking as a way to do this. Divergent thinking is the process of generating lots of potential solutions and possibilities, otherwise known as brainstorming. And convergent thinking involves evaluating those options and choosing the most promising one. Often, we use a combination of the two to develop new ideas or solutions. However, using them simultaneously can result in unbalanced or biased decisions, and can stifle idea generation.

For more on divergent and convergent thinking, and for a useful diagram, see the book "Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making." [3]

Core Principles of Creative Problem Solving

CPS has four core principles. Let's explore each one in more detail:

• Divergent and convergent thinking must be balanced. The key to creativity is learning how to identify and balance divergent and convergent thinking (done separately), and knowing when to practice each one.
• Ask problems as questions. When you rephrase problems and challenges as open-ended questions with multiple possibilities, it's easier to come up with solutions. Asking these types of questions generates lots of rich information, while asking closed questions tends to elicit short answers, such as confirmations or disagreements. Problem statements tend to generate limited responses, or none at all.
• Defer or suspend judgment. As Alex Osborn learned from his work on brainstorming, judging solutions early on tends to shut down idea generation. Instead, there's an appropriate and necessary time to judge ideas during the convergence stage.
• Focus on "Yes, and," rather than "No, but." Language matters when you're generating information and ideas. "Yes, and" encourages people to expand their thoughts, which is necessary during certain stages of CPS. Using the word "but" – preceded by "yes" or "no" – ends conversation, and often negates what's come before it.

How to Use the Tool

Let's explore how you can use each of the four steps of the CPS Learner's Model (shown in figure 1, below) to generate innovative ideas and solutions.

Figure 1 – CPS Learner's Model

Explore the Vision

Identify your goal, desire or challenge. This is a crucial first step because it's easy to assume, incorrectly, that you know what the problem is. However, you may have missed something or have failed to understand the issue fully, and defining your objective can provide clarity. Read our article, 5 Whys , for more on getting to the root of a problem quickly.

Gather Data

Once you've identified and understood the problem, you can collect information about it and develop a clear understanding of it. Make a note of details such as who and what is involved, all the relevant facts, and everyone's feelings and opinions.

Formulate Questions

When you've increased your awareness of the challenge or problem you've identified, ask questions that will generate solutions. Think about the obstacles you might face and the opportunities they could present.

Explore Ideas

Generate ideas that answer the challenge questions you identified in step 1. It can be tempting to consider solutions that you've tried before, as our minds tend to return to habitual thinking patterns that stop us from producing new ideas. However, this is a chance to use your creativity .

Brainstorming and Mind Maps are great ways to explore ideas during this divergent stage of CPS. And our articles, Encouraging Team Creativity , Problem Solving , Rolestorming , Hurson's Productive Thinking Model , and The Four-Step Innovation Process , can also help boost your creativity.

See our Brainstorming resources within our Creativity section for more on this.

Formulate Solutions

This is the convergent stage of CPS, where you begin to focus on evaluating all of your possible options and come up with solutions. Analyze whether potential solutions meet your needs and criteria, and decide whether you can implement them successfully. Next, consider how you can strengthen them and determine which ones are the best "fit." Our articles, Critical Thinking and ORAPAPA , are useful here.

4. Implement

Formulate a plan.

Once you've chosen the best solution, it's time to develop a plan of action. Start by identifying resources and actions that will allow you to implement your chosen solution. Next, communicate your plan and make sure that everyone involved understands and accepts it.

There have been many adaptations of CPS since its inception, because nobody owns the idea.

For example, Scott Isaksen and Donald Treffinger formed The Creative Problem Solving Group Inc . and the Center for Creative Learning , and their model has evolved over many versions. Blair Miller, Jonathan Vehar and Roger L. Firestien also created their own version, and Dr Gerard J. Puccio, Mary C. Murdock, and Marie Mance developed CPS: The Thinking Skills Model. [4] Tim Hurson created The Productive Thinking Model , and Paul Reali developed CPS: Competencies Model. [5]

Sid Parnes continued to adapt the CPS model by adding concepts such as imagery and visualization , and he founded the Creative Studies Project to teach CPS. For more information on the evolution and development of the CPS process, see Creative Problem Solving Version 6.1 by Donald J. Treffinger, Scott G. Isaksen, and K. Brian Dorval. [6]

Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Infographic

See our infographic on Creative Problem Solving .

Creative problem solving (CPS) is a way of using your creativity to develop new ideas and solutions to problems. The process is based on separating divergent and convergent thinking styles, so that you can focus your mind on creating at the first stage, and then evaluating at the second stage.

There have been many adaptations of the original Osborn-Parnes model, but they all involve a clear structure of identifying the problem, generating new ideas, evaluating the options, and then formulating a plan for successful implementation.

[1] Entrepreneur (2012). James Dyson on Using Failure to Drive Success [online]. Available here . [Accessed May 27, 2022.]

[2] Creative Education Foundation (2015). The CPS Process [online]. Available here . [Accessed May 26, 2022.]

[3] Kaner, S. et al. (2014). 'Facilitator′s Guide to Participatory Decision–Making,' San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[4] Puccio, G., Mance, M., and Murdock, M. (2011). 'Creative Leadership: Skils That Drive Change' (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[5] OmniSkills (2013). Creative Problem Solving [online]. Available here . [Accessed May 26, 2022].

[6] Treffinger, G., Isaksen, S., and Dorval, B. (2010). Creative Problem Solving (CPS Version 6.1). Center for Creative Learning, Inc. & Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. Available here .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

What is problem solving.

Book Insights

The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas With Pictures

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Try Mind Tools for FREE

Get unlimited access to all our career-boosting content and member benefits with our 7-day free trial.

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Team Briefings

Onboarding With STEPS

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

New pain points podcast - perfectionism.

Why Am I Such a Perfectionist?

Pain Points Podcast - Building Trust

Developing and Strengthening Trust at Work

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Dealing with high team turnover.

Managing in Turbulent Times

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• 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
• 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 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 Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

• Back to All Programs /

Creative Thinking: Innovative Solutions to Complex Challenges

Learn how to grow a culture of creativity to innovate competitive solutions.

All Start Dates

8:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET

2 consecutive days

Registration Deadline

May 28, 2024

October 8, 2024

Overview: Creative Thinking Skills Course

The tech breakthrough that makes smartphones irrelevant, a new viral ad campaign, your company’s next big revenue generator — ideas like these could be sitting in your brain; all you need are the creative thinking skills and strategies to pull them out.

This interactive program focuses explicitly on the creative thinking skills you need to solve complex problems and design innovative solutions. Learn how to transform your thinking from the standard “why can’t we” to the powerful “how might we.” Crack the code on how to consistently leverage your team’s creative potential in order to drive innovation within your organization. Explore how to build a climate for innovation, remove barriers to creativity, cultivate courage, and create more agile, proactive, and inspired teams.

You will leave this program with new ideas about how to think more productively and how to introduce creative thinking skills into your organization. You can apply key takeaways immediately to implement a new leadership vision, inspire renewed enthusiasm, and enjoy the skills and tools to tackle challenges and seize opportunities.

Innovation experts Anne Manning and Susan Robertson bring to this highly-interactive and powerful program their decades of experience promoting corporate innovation, teaching the art of creative problem solving, and applying the principles of brain science to solve complex challenges.

Who Should Take Creative Thinking Skills Training?

This program is ideal for leaders with at least 3 years of management experience. It is designed for leaders who want to develop new strategies, frameworks, and tools for creative problem solving. Whether you are a team lead, project manager, sales director, or executive, you’ll learn powerful tools to lead your team and your organization to create innovative solutions to complex challenges.

All participants will earn a Certificate of Participation from the Harvard Division of Continuing Education.

Benefits of Creative Thinking Skills Training

The goal of this creative thinking program is to help you develop the strategic concepts and tactical skills to lead creative problem solving for your team and your organization. You will learn to:

• Retrain your brain to avoid negative cognitive biases and long-held beliefs and myths that sabotage creative problem solving and innovation
• Become a more nimble, proactive, and inspired thinker and leader
• Create the type of organizational culture that supports collaboration and nurtures rather than kills ideas
• Gain a practical toolkit for solving the “unsolvable” by incorporating creative thinking into day-to-day processes
• Understand cognitive preferences (yours and others’) to adapt the creative thinking process and drive your team’s success
• Develop techniques that promote effective brainstorming and enable you to reframe problems in a way that inspires innovative solutions

The curriculum in this highly interactive program utilizes research-based methodologies and techniques to build creative thinking skills and stimulate creative problem solving.

Through intensive group discussions and small-group exercises, you will focus on topics such as:

• The Creative Problem Solving process: a researched, learnable, repeatable process for uncovering new and useful ideas. This process includes a “how to” on clarifying, ideating, developing, and implementing new solutions to intractable problems
• The cognitive preferences that drive how we approach problems, and how to leverage those cognitive preferences for individual and team success
• How to develop—and implement— a methodology that overcomes barriers to innovative thinking and fosters the generation of new ideas, strategies, and techniques
• The role of language, including asking the right questions, in reframing problems, challenging assumptions, and driving successful creative problem solving
• Fostering a culture that values, nurtures, and rewards creative solutions

Considering this program?

Send yourself the details.

Related Programs

• Design Thinking: Creating Better Customer Experiences
• Agile Leadership: Transforming Mindsets and Capabilities in Your Organization

June Schedule

• Creative Challenges: A Team Sport
• The Place to Begin: Reframe the Challenge
• Ideas on Demand
• Building a Creative Organization

October Schedule

Instructors, anne manning, susan robertson, certificates of leadership excellence.

The Certificates of Leadership Excellence (CLE) are designed for leaders with the desire to enhance their business acumen, challenge current thinking, and expand their leadership skills.

This program is one of several CLE qualifying programs. Register today and get started earning your certificate.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

• Utility Menu

Google Fonts

Creativity & problem-solving.

The Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard (LISH) is conducting research and creating evidence-based approaches to problem-solving. Researchers at LISH are identifying the best way to approach a problem, starting with problem formulation, and experimenting with solvers on the best way to find solutions.

Key Questions

How does the nature of the problem to be solved impact the most optimal problem-solving approaches to be used?

How can problems be best formulated so that outsiders can help solve them, how does diversity in knowledge and skills impact problem-solving, can creativity be enhanced through teams and/or exposure to peers, these four research questions frame projects in this track, pushing the boundaries of medical imaging and computational biology through artificial intelligence and algorithm development, extensive crowdsourcing work with nasa and other federal agencies, and using data science to help create a history of the partition of british india. see below for more information on each of the individual projects in this research track., nasa tournament lab.

The NASA Tournament Lab was originally established in 2010 as a joint initiative between NASA’s Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (CoECI), Harvard Business School, and the Institute for Quantitative Social Science, to design and field challenges and contests... Read more about NASA Tournament Lab

Computational Biology Algorithms

Drivers of medical imaging diagnoses, integrating crowds into academic labs, advanced analytics challenges.

With the digital transformation in business and academia, the demand for advanced data analytics is increasing. LISH partners with foundations, government agencies, and research labs to access data analytics solutions through the crowd.... Read more about Advanced Analytics Challenges

Crowdsourcing for Social Good

Crowdsourcing memories from the 1947 partition of british india.

Working with the Lakshmi Mittal and Family South Asia Institute at Harvard University, this project aims to collect and analyze oral histories and memories of the 1947 Partition of British India with a focus on minority voices. Aspects of this project include gathering discrete historical data such as locations and descriptions of refugee camps; mapping geographical locations... Read more about Crowdsourcing Memories from the 1947 Partition of British India

Developing a Process to Foster Co-creation by Patients and Caretakers and our Research Communities

A joint project with Harvard Catalyst — Reactor , this initiative aims to pair patient- and caregiver-derived solutions with research labs at Boston-area medical schools to develop innovative tools to benefit the patients, their disease communities, and others with similar needs.... Read more about Developing a Process to Foster Co-creation by Patients and Caretakers and our Research Communities

City Challenges

LISH researchers are designing experiments wrapped around NYU GovLab’s City Challenges. The City Challenges program aims to use competitions and coaching to solve urban problems. See here for information on a prior challenge.

Related Publications

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has become a critical part of the modern economy. There are tens of millions of FOSS projects, many of which are built into software and products we use every day. However, it is difficult to fully understand the health, economic value, and security of FOSS because it is produced in a decentralized and distributed manner. This distributed development approach makes it unclear how much FOSS, and precisely what FOSS projects, are most widely used. This lack of understanding is a critical problem faced by those who want to help enhance the security of FOSS (e.g., companies, governments, individuals), yet do not know what projects to start with. This problem has garnered widespread attention with the Heartbleed and log4shell vulnerabilities that resulted in the susceptibility of hundreds of millions of devices to exploitation.

This report, Census II, is the second investigation into the widespread use of FOSS and aggregates data from over half a million observations of FOSS libraries used in production applications at thousands of companies, which aims to shed light on the most commonly used FOSS packages at the application library level. This effort builds on the Census I report that focused on the lower level critical operating system libraries and utilities, improving our understanding of the FOSS packages that software applications rely on. Such insights will help to identify critical FOSS packages to allow for resource prioritization to address security issues in this widely used software.

The Census II effort utilizes data from partner Software Composition Analysis (SCA) companies including Snyk, the Synopsys Cybersecurity Research Center (CyRC), and FOSSA, which partnered with Harvard to advance the state of open source research. Our goal is to not only identify the most widely used FOSS, but to also provide an example of how the distributed nature of FOSS requires a multi-party effort to fully understand the value and security of the FOSS ecosystem. Only through data-sharing, coordination, and investment will the value of this critical component of the digital economy be preserved for generations to come.

In addition to the detailed results on FOSS usage provided in the report, we identified five high-level findings: 1) the need for a standardized naming schema for software components, 2) the complexities associated with package versions, 3) much of the most widely used FOSS is developed by only a handful of contributors, 4) the increasing importance of individual developer account security, and 5) the persistence of legacy software in the open source space.

Karim R. Lakhani, Anne-Laure Fayard, Manos Gkeredakis, and Jin Hyun Paik . 10/5/2020. “ OpenIDEO (B) ”. Publisher's Version Abstract In the midst of 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic was unfolding, OpenIDEO - an online open innovation platform focused on design-driven solutions to social issues - rapidly launched a new challenge to improve access to health information, empower communities to stay safe during the COVID-19 crisis, and inspire global leaders to communicate effectively. OpenIDEO was particularly suited to challenges which required cross-system or sector-wide collaboration due to its focus on social impact and ecosystem design, but its leadership pondered how they could continue to improve virtual collaboration and to share their insights from nearly a decade of running online challenges. Conceived as an exercise of disruptive digital innovation, OpenIDEO successfully created a strong open innovation community, but how could they sustain - or even improve - their support to community members and increase the social impact of their online challenges in the coming years?

This paper presents NASA’s experience using a Center of Excellence (CoE) to scale and sustain an open innovation program as an effective problem-solving tool and includes strategic management recommendations for other organizations based on lessons learned.

This paper defines four phases of implementing an open innovation program: Learn, Pilot, Scale and Sustain. It provides guidance on the time required for each phase and recommendations for how to utilize a CoE to succeed. Recommendations are based upon the experience of NASA’s Human Health and Performance Directorate, and experience at the Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard running hundreds of challenges with research and development organizations.

Lessons learned include the importance of grounding innovation initiatives in the business strategy, assessing the portfolio of work to select problems most amenable to solving via crowdsourcing methodology, framing problems that external parties can solve, thinking strategically about early wins, selecting the right platforms, developing criteria for evaluation, and advancing a culture of innovation. Establishing a CoE provides an effective infrastructure to address both technical and cultural issues.

The NASA experience spanned more than seven years from initial learnings about open innovation concepts to the successful scaling and sustaining of an open innovation program; this paper provides recommendations on how to decrease this timeline to three years.

Tomohiro Ishibashi (Bashi), chief executive officer for B to S, and Julia Foote LeStage, chief innovation officer of Weathernews Inc., were addressing a panel at the HBS Digital Summit on creative uses of big data. They told the summit attendees about how the Sakura (cherry blossoms) Project, where the company asked users in Japan to report about how cherry blossoms were blooming near them day by day, had opened up opportunities for the company's consumer business in Japan. The project ultimately garnered positive publicity and became a foothold to building the company's crowdsourcing weather-forecasting service in Japan. It changed the face of weather forecasting in Japan. Bashi and LeStage wondered whether the experience could be applied to the U.S. market.

BACKGROUND: The association of differing genotypes with disease-related phenotypic traits offers great potential to both help identify new therapeutic targets and support stratification of patients who would gain the greatest benefit from specific drug classes. Development of low-cost genotyping and sequencing has made collecting large-scale genotyping data routine in population and therapeutic intervention studies. In addition, a range of new technologies is being used to capture numerous new and complex phenotypic descriptors. As a result, genotype and phenotype datasets have grown exponentially. Genome-wide association studies associate genotypes and phenotypes using methods such as logistic regression. As existing tools for association analysis limit the efficiency by which value can be extracted from increasing volumes of data, there is a pressing need for new software tools that can accelerate association analyses on large genotype-phenotype datasets.

RESULTS: Using open innovation (OI) and contest-based crowdsourcing, the logistic regression analysis in a leading, community-standard genetics software package (PLINK 1.07) was substantially accelerated. OI allowed us to do this in <6 months by providing rapid access to highly skilled programmers with specialized, difficult-to-find skill sets. Through a crowd-based contest a combination of computational, numeric, and algorithmic approaches was identified that accelerated the logistic regression in PLINK 1.07 by 18- to 45-fold. Combining contest-derived logistic regression code with coarse-grained parallelization, multithreading, and associated changes to data initialization code further developed through distributed innovation, we achieved an end-to-end speedup of 591-fold for a data set size of 6678 subjects by 645 863 variants, compared to PLINK 1.07's logistic regression. This represents a reduction in run time from 4.8 hours to 29 seconds. Accelerated logistic regression code developed in this project has been incorporated into the PLINK2 project.

CONCLUSIONS: Using iterative competition-based OI, we have developed a new, faster implementation of logistic regression for genome-wide association studies analysis. We present lessons learned and recommendations on running a successful OI process for bioinformatics.

Most United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent documents contain drawing pages which describe inventions graphically. By convention and by rule, these drawings contain figures and parts that are annotated with numbered labels but not with text. As a result, readers must scan the document to find the description of a given part label. To make progress toward automatic creation of ‘tool-tips’ and hyperlinks from part labels to their associated descriptions, the USPTO hosted a monthlong online competition in which participants developed algorithms to detect figures and diagram part labels. The challenge drew 232 teams of two, of which 70 teams (30 %) submitted solutions. An unusual feature was that each patent was represented by a 300-dpi page scan along with an HTML file containing patent text, allowing integration of text processing and graphics recognition in participant algorithms. The design and performance of the top-5 systems are presented along with a system developed after the competition, illustrating that the winning teams produced near state-of-the-art results under strict time and computation constraints. The first place system used the provided HTML text, obtaining a harmonic mean of recall and precision (F-measure) of 88.57 % for figure region detection, 78.81 % for figure regions with correctly recognized figure titles, and 70.98 % for part label detection and recognition. Data and source code for the top-5 systems are available through the online UCI Machine Learning Repository to support follow-on work by others in the document recognition community.

Invention and Innovation as Creative Problem-Solving Activities

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 24 October 2020
• pp 1458–1471
• Cite this reference work entry

• Frank Beckenbach 2 &
• Maria Daskalakis 2  

21 Accesses

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

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. Harv 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 Evol Econ. 2012;22(3):513–42.

Article   Google Scholar  

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. Pers 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 J Econ. 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. Cambridge, 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 Polit 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. Prentice- Hall: Englewood Cliffs; 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/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 226–50.

Weisberg RW. Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken: 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, Kassel, Germany

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 and Technology, Management, European Union Research Center, GWU School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Elias G. Carayannis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Beckenbach, F., Daskalakis, M. (2020). Invention and Innovation as Creative Problem-Solving Activities. In: Carayannis, E.G. (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15347-6_370

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15347-6_370

Published : 24 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-15346-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-15347-6

eBook Packages : Business and Management 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

• Open access
• Published: 05 February 2018

The role of problem solving ability on innovative behavior and opportunity recognition in university students

• Ji Young Kim 1 ,
• Dae Soo Choi 1 ,
• Chang-Soo Sung 1 &
• Joo Y. Park 2  

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity volume  4 , Article number:  4 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

24k Accesses

31 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Universities engage in entrepreneurship education to increase social value creation, through students’ new opportunities recognition. However, there are not enough of empirical researches on whether the current entrepreneurship education can be differentiated from other curriculum to improve the opportunity recognition process. This study argues that it is very important for cognitive abilities to be manifested as behavior when students in university are new opportunities recognition. For this purpose, the relationship between problem solving ability, innovation behavior, and opportunity perception was verified empirically. This study was conducted on 203 students who took entrepreneurship education courses at Korean universities. The results of this study showed that problem solving ability positively influenced innovation behavior and opportunity perception. Innovation behavior was identified as a key parameter that partially mediated the relationship between problem solving ability and innovation behavior. The implication of this study is to prove the relationship between individual ‘s problem - solving ability considering the characteristics of education in Korea and the opportunity through innovative behavior and various learning strategies to help entrepreneurship education to design better courses for the future It has important implications for strategic pedagogy that can enhance behavioral elements in development.

It is the new opportunity recognition that all firms focus on for a new economic paradigm (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992 ). Recognizing high opportunities can significantly improve profit, growth, and / or competitive positioning. And this new opportunity leads to innovation. From a conceptual point of view, research is continuing on the question of ‘what is opportunity’ and ‘where is opportunity’ (Gartner and Carter, 2003 ; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001 ). Research on the discovery and realization of new opportunities is a very important research area that suggests how to discover and utilize creative opportunities that create new value and profit for pre-service workers, and is the ultimate goal of entrepreneurship education. (Kim et al., 2016 ). Particularly, there is a lot of debate about the relationship between opportunity perception and personal characteristics. Despite many arguments, however, research on individual characteristics and opportunity perceptions is still insufficient, and a unified opinion has not been created due to differences between cognitive and behavioral theories (Ko & Butler, 2003 ). In particular, there is much controversy over the relationship between opportunity recognition and personal traits, and research has been continuing to demonstrate that organizational learning in organizations can influence opportunity recognition (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000 ). In particular, learning enhances cognitive ability, which is an opportunity that leads to opportunity recognition through the manifestation of behavior (Lumpkin and Dess, 2004 ). Many studies have also demonstrated the difference in behavior that successful entrepreneurs see as contributing to their ability to recognize opportunities and create innovative business ideas (Dyer et al., 2008 ; Kim et al., 2017 ). For example, Alvarez and Barney ( 2005 ) argue for mountain climbing and mountain building to understand the implications of entrepreneurial behavior in relation to these theories. In other words, a new opportunity for entrepreneurs is not a passive case that is generally found and climbed by climbers such as mountains, but rather by the actions of entrepreneurs, creating competition for the market, creating another market, Is the same. Therefore, in order for a person’s cognitive ability to recognize a new opportunity, it must focus on manifesting an action that can realize an innovative idea. In this regard, Kanter ( 1988 ) proved the relationship between new opportunity recognition and those with innovative tendencies and regarded this new opportunity recognition as innovation activity through organizational education. Scott and Bruce ( 1994 ) have integrated a number of research flows into innovation pioneers to develop and test individual innovative behavioral models. In particular, they argued that individual problem-solving styles are very important to induce innovative behavior. Although there are a number of studies on problem solving ability, innovation behavior, and new opportunities, most of the opportunistic researches have been conducted in organizational units of companies. Is still insufficient. Furthermore, unified opinions were not created due to differences between cognitive theory and behavioral theory (Ko & Butler, 2003 ). It is also true that the effects of entrepreneurship education in university have not been studied empirically because they are mainly focused on promoting cognitive ability and applied to various kinds of teaching methods.

This study argues that it is very important for cognitive abilities to be manifested as behavior that. “Through” courses, In other words, it is very important to induce students to act through ‘learning through process’ learning through behavioral learning by providing students with some (virtual or real) business to start doing some of the actions of the entrepreneur. When students in university are new opportunity recognition. Especially, entrepreneurship education, which ultimately focuses on whether it is a new opportunity, is very important to induce behavior through behavior learning beyond the cognitive ability as the general education curriculum. Particularly, innovative behaviors that create and realize innovative ideas are very important for new opportunity recognition (Paine & Organ, 2000 ).In order to achieve this, various kinds of teaching methods are being pursued in the university, but studies on the effectiveness of behavioral learning have not been studied yet. In this study, we are based on team-based learning among various teaching methods for behavior learning that leads to innovative behaviors. Team learning instructional activity sequence designed by Michaelsen and Sweet ( 2008 ), the most well known team-based learning in entrepreneurship education as in class-primarily group work and outside class-primarily individual work. In this way, we demonstrate empirically the relationship between individual problem solving ability and opportunity through innovative behavior, and develop a variety of learning strategies that help entrepreneurship education to design better courses for the future. I would like to point out some implications for strategic pedagogy to increase the element.

The paper proceeds as follows: Initially we present the theory of innovative behavior with individual problem-solving ability, innovative behavior and opportunity recognition. We develop hypotheses to confirm its basic predictions in the student context. Finally, we link the findings with the wider social effect of entrepreneurship literature and highlight the theoretical contributions and practical implications.

Theoretical background

‘opportunity recognition’ as entrepreneurship education unit of analysis.

A commonly focused analysis in entrepreneurship research over the last 30 years has been the ‘opportunity’, most simply defined as any situation in which new products or services can be development of production (Casson, 1982 ; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000 ; Venkataraman, 1997 ). The definition of opportunity recognition is defined in many ways, but opportunity is defined as a perceived means of generating economic value (ie, profit) that has not been exploited previously and is not currently exploited by others. If opportunity is defined in this way, opportunity recognition can be defined as a cognitive process (or process) that concludes that an individual has identified an opportunity (Baron and Ensley, 2006 ). Kirzner ( 1997 ) pointed out that the distribution of information in society affects the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities and that only a few individuals can identify and recognize specific opportunities in the market. The process of finding opportunities also depends on the individual’s ability and discovery (Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985 ). For example, people may miss opportunities due to a lack of cognitive ability to change external environments (Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985 ). Only those who recognize and value the existence of opportunity can benefit from new opportunities (Ardichvili et al., 2003a , b ; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000 ). Opportunity recognition is an early step in transforming value into a business concept that creates value and generates revenue and distinguishes it from the aggressive stages of detailed assessment and development of recognized opportunities and potential economic value. The focus of the new venture business is also an innovative opportunity to create new opportunities rather than merely expanding or repeating existing business models (Gaglio & Katz, 2001 ). As a result, universities need to make use of a variety of initiatives to educate students to recognize innovative opportunities. Therefore, entrepreneurship education aimed at a new opportunity recognition should be able to provide learning opportunities based on various theories of favorable conditions for new business creation and the types of traits required for new ventures (Garavan & O’Cinne’ide, 1994 ).

Based on these considerations, we also define opportunity recognition as the formation of beliefs that can be translated into actions in order to understand the signals of change (new information on new conditions) and respond to these changes.

Problem-solving ability and innovative behavior of education for students

Problem-solving abilities have been proven to be one of the key factors for success in organizations and personal careers (Anderson & Anderson 1995 ). Through decades of research data, organizations and schools have studied factors that affect improvement. Problem-solving abilities are defined in a number of prior studies, and problem-solving abilities in a volatile and sophisticated knowledge- and technology-based industry are an important ability to drive innovation and sustainable growth and development in the industry. Table  1 show the concept of problem solving ability defined in previous research.

There have been a number of previous studies, emphasis has been placed on the importance and meaning of rational problem-solving processes in order to improve problem-solving abilities, and research has focused on individual problem solving styles (Woodman et al., 1993 ; Scott & Bruce, 1994 ). According to the personal innovation behavior model of Scott and Bruce ( 1994 ), climate has shown individual innovative behavior as a result of individuals signaling the organization’s expectations of behavior and the potential consequences of action. Innovative organizations are, last but not least, equipment, facilities and time, including the direction of creativity and innovative change (Kanter, 1983 ; Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978 ) Proper supply of such resources is important to innovation (Amabile, 1988 ; Van de Ven & Angle, 1989 ; Dubickis & Gaile-Sarkane, 2017 ). Based on a study of Koestler’s ( 1964 ) creative thinking, Jabri conceptualized a problem-solving style consisting of two independent thinking styles. He uses a structured problem-solving styles that is based on associative thinking, follows a set of rules, resolves reasonably logically, and uses an intuitive problem-solving ability that focuses on problem-solving, not tied to existing rules with multiple ideas. Intuitive problem solving styles tend to process information from different paradigms simultaneously. It is therefore more likely to create new problem solutions as possible (Isaksen, 1987 ; Kirton, 1976 ). However, style assessment is not desirable because the style of problem solving affects style differently depending on the individual problem-solving situations (Scott & Bruce, 1994 ). We are proposing a role for the University to encourage innovative behavior based on the individuality of our students in order to recognize new opportunities through education about Scott and Bruce’s innovative behavioral models and diverse entrepreneurship education approaches. And involvement of resources, such as entrepreneurship awareness programs, ultimately leads to the identification of individual characteristics and innovation. In addition, current Korean entrepreneurship education is mainly focused on cognitive learning to improve problem solving ability, and one aspect of cognitive learning plays an important role in learning process of new venture firms. This study has a more direct focus on behavior learning such as team-based learning.

Hypothesis development

Problem-solving ability and innovative behavior.

Problem solving is to discover knowledge and skills that reach the target country by interfering with a set of processes and goals where the solution is unknown, unfamiliar, or reaching a new state of goal (Jonassen, 2004 ; Inkinen, 2015 ). There are various approaches to solve this problem. To solve problems and improve problem solving with a successful solution experience, you should adopt the method that best suits your problem solution. You need to select the appropriate inputs for the solution elements and a flexible process structure. Problem solving ability has been recognized as a key element of innovative behavior in responding to rapid changes with the ability to find various alternatives and predict outcomes from these alternatives to maximize positive results, minimize negative consequences, and select solutions to problems (Barron & Harrington, 1981 ; Jabri, 1991 ; Kirton, 1976 ). We pose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Individual problem-solving ability has an effect on the innovative behavior of students.

Innovative behavior and opportunity recognition

Innovation involves introducing ideas from outside the organization, through creative processes, and linking these ideas to products or processes. Many scholars studying innovation recognize that designing ideas is only one step in the innovation process (Kanter, 1988 ). Innovation is changing at the organizational or individual level. Kanter, Scott and Bruce defined personal innovation. In other words, an innovation act starts with recognition of a problem, adoption of a new idea, or creation of a solution, and an individual with an innovative tendency wants to create a realistically realizable group with the sympathy of such an idea. Innovative individuals create prototypes for innovations that enable ideas to be realized specifically with goods or services and become productive use and social day merchandising. According to previous studies, opportunity perception can be seen as an individual’s corporate strategy that focuses on the perception and exploitation of individuals about potential business ideas and opportunities and finds resources to create innovative outcomes (Manev et al., 2005 ). New Venture Ideas (NVI) are imaginary combinations of product/service offerings; potential markets or users, and means of bringing these offerings into existence (Davidsson, 2015 ). From the viewpoint of a potential entrepreneur like a university student, entrepreneurship starts with an idea. This process continues with a range of practices including attractiveness and feasibility of an idea, gathering information to minimize value-related uncertainty and possibility and perhaps the main idea’s conformity ratio in terms of newly discovered needs (Hayton & Cholakova, 2012 ). Earlier we proposed that the program as a whole increases the students’ innovative behavior and that innovative performance is the new venture ideas. Since it is logical to assume that the relationship between innovative behavior and opportunity recognition. We pose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Innovative behavior will be a more potent inducer of opportunity recognition.

Problem-solving ability and opportunity recognition

Among the many factors influencing opportunity perception, the problems that arise in the fourth industry, the knowledge-based industry of the twenty-first century, are unpredictable and unstructured; they cannot be solved with existing solutions and require creative problem-solving skills. In order to determine how to solve problem situations that are different from the current situation and have unknown results, problems are solved through the process of adjusting previous experience, knowledge, and intuition (Charles & Lester, 1982 ). Experience, knowledge, and intuition are applied simultaneously to a single problem, not individually or collectively, and the intellectual and creative results that can be quickly and effectively solved in problem solving are seen as problem solving abilities (Ardichvili et al., 2003a , b ). Empirical studies of problem-solving abilities and opportunity perceptions have provided strong evidence that there is a positive relationship between theoretical integrative processes and corporate opportunity recognition (Ucbasaran et al., 2009 ). Therefore, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 3: Problem solving ability has an effect on the opportunity recognition.

The respondents for this study were randomly selected from three universities in Korea. Most of the respondents in this study were Korean university students who experienced team-based learning during behavioral learning through entrepreneurship education. Since then, we have been guided by two main criteria when choosing these universities. First, students who take entrepreneurship courses are critical to their innovation behavior. This led us to realize that innovative behavior is an important factor in an individual’s survival and growth. The second is that the parallel process of theoretical and behavioral learning is highly satisfied. A pilot study was conducted to verify the reliability and validity of the research measurements with 28 students at a university. The results of the pilot study showed high clarity and reliability (Cronbach ‘s alphas were all above 0.70) ​​of the research measurements. The sample of the pilot study was not incorporated in the present study.

This study was conducted in a four - year undergraduate course (various majors) that took entrepreneurship courses in Korea university programs. Students in this course have a mix of students who have previously experienced entrepreneurship and those who have not. During the course, students were taught the theoretical lessons for 8 weeks and the team for the 8 weeks. The questionnaire was administered during the last week of the course.

The data were analyzed from 203 participants, out of a total of 209, of which 7 were not appropriate. Of the 203 participants, 27% were female and 73% were male and the grade distribution was 3% for freshmen, 12% for grade 2, 26% for grade 2, and 59% for grade 2. The main distribution is 26% in social science, 16% in business and economics, 39% in engineering, 11% in music and athletics and 7% in others (see Table  2 ).

Measurement

The structure of the model was measured by questionnaires (problem-solving ability, innovation behavior and opportunity recognition questionnaire) consisting of the scale taken from questionnaires verified in previous studies. Tool selection was performed on two criteria. First, the selected tool should measure the same structure (ie, the original measured structure had to be conceptually identical to the way the structure was defined in this study model). Secondly, the psychometric qualities of the instrument for the student had to be high.

Assessment of the factors was carried out through principal component analyses (varimax rotation with eigenvalues of 1.0 or above) of the scales connected to the same level of the model to confirm the uniqueness of the scales with respect to each other. This was supplemented by the computation of the internal consistency reliability of the scales (Cronbach’s α). These analyses were executed using the individual participants’ responses (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994 ).

Problem- solving ability was measured on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’; 7 = ‘completely agree’). Jabri ( 1991 ) used a measurement tool to measure individual problem solving ability.

Innovative behavior was measured on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’; 7 = ‘completely agree’). In order to measure innovation behavior, we modified the questionnaire items to fit the intention of this study among the questionnaire items used by Scott and Bruce ( 1994 ) and Kim and Rho ( 2010 ).

Opportunity recognition was measured on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’; 7 = ‘completely agree’). In order to measure opportunity recognition, we modified the questionnaire items to fit the intention of this study among the questionnaire items used by Kim and Rho ( 2010 ).

Methods of analysis

The first two parts of the analysis were primarily based on (multiple) regression analyses. The last part of the analysis was informed through the path analyses. The adequacy of the models was assessed by AMOS 18(Arbuckle & Wothke, 2003 ). Models were all tested with standardized coefficients obtained from the Principal Component Analysis. To ascertain the model fit, we analyzed the comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the Root Mean Square Err of Approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the chi-square test statistic.

Reliability and validity are essential psychometrics to be reported. The first step to evaluate those aspects was to use the Cronbach’s alpha and the composite reliability to test reliability of the proposed scales. The usual threshold level is 0.7 for newly developed measures (Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ). Values range from 0.69 to 0.79 in the case of Cronbach’s alpha, and from 0.85 to 0.92 in the case of composite reliability (see Table  3 ). Therefore, these scales may be considered as reliable. Next, we estimated the research model, displayed in Fig.  1 , using structural equation modeling (SEM) and AMOS 18 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 2003 ). Our analysis revealed an adequate measurement model with high factor loadings for all the items on the expected factors and communalities of each item exceeding 0.50. We discuss three fit indices that are generally considered as important (Hu & Bentler, 1998 ). First, the CFI-value represents the overall difference between observed and predicted correlations. A value of 0.04 which is situated well below the cut-off value of 0.08, suggests that the hypothesized model resembles the actual correlations. Secondly, Bentler’s CFI (comparative fit index) greater than 0.90 and 0.95 which is above the cut-off of 0.90 (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996 ). Thirdly, NFI greater greater than 0.90 and 0.95 which is above the cut-off of 0.90 (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996 ). Fourthly, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value of 0.0392 which is situated well below the cut-off value of 0.05(Hu & Bentler, 1998 ), and the chi-square value of 3581.622 which is situated well below the cut-off value of 0.0005. Finally, the RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) equals 0.04 with a 90% confidence interval between 0.03 and 0.05.

Analysis of mediation effect

The value and confidence interval are situated over but below the cut-off value of 0.1 which suggests not a great but a good fit. Factor analysis was verified by factor analysis using principal component analysis and only factors with an eigenvalue of 1 or more by orthogonal rotation method were selected. Factor loading was considered to be significant at 0.5 or more (Hair et al., 2006a , b ). As a result of the analysis, cumulative explanation for 72.4% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis thus supported the differentiation of the three components Also we tested the confirmatory validity of the construct by testing whether the structural linkage of each square is greater than the mean variance extraction (AVE) of each structure. The AVE ranged from 0.52 to 0.53, reaching the recommended level of .50 for both Fornell and Larcker ( 1981 ). Therefore, all constructs showed sufficient convergent validity (see Table 3 ).

As shown in Table  4 , the AVE value of each variable has a higher value than that of other factors. Therefore, the discriminant validity of the proposed model can be judged as appropriate.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are shown in Table  5 .

The mean scores for the conceptual model were as follows for problem-solving ability (MD. 5.20, SD.1.08), innovative behavior (MD.5.20, SD.1.03), and opportunity recognition (MD. 5.14, SD. 1.06) conditions. The means of problem-solving ability, innovative behavior, and opportunity recognition were high. Furthermore, those variables correlated positively with each other.

Figure  1 showed that all paths and their significance levels are presented in Table  6 . The path between the latent variables problem-solving ability and innovative behavior was significant (p, 0.001), consistent with Hypotheses 1. In addition, there was innovative behavior and opportunity recognition (p, 0.01), this result provide empirical support for Hypothesis 2.

H3 proposed that Problem-solving ability is positively related to opportunity recognition. The results of the correlation analysis: The coefficient of problem solving and opportunity perception weakened from .717 to .444, but it is still partly mediated because it is still significant (C. R  = 7.604 ***). This supports H3 (see Table 6 ).

In order to verify the significance of the indirect effect, the bootstrapping must be performed in AMOS, and the actual significance test should be identified using two-tailed significance. As a result, the significance of indirect effect is 0.04 ( p  < 0.05), which is statistically significant (see Table  7 ).

Discussion and conclusion

We have tried to demonstrate the effects of behavior and its significance by differentiating from the general curriculum emphasizing cognitive effects as a model of problem solving ability emerging as innovative behavior through opportunity of university entrepreneurship education.. This supports the premise that entrepreneurship education can improve opportunities or processes through behavioral learning. The results of this study support the role of entrepreneurship education in creating opportunities for innovative behavior and problem solving abilities. Entrepreneurship education should provide different types of learning for new opportunities and focus on what is manifested in behavior.

In addition, based on previous research, we propose whether the following contents are well followed and whether it is effective. First, the emergence of innovative behavior in problem-solving abilities increases as the cognitive diversity of students with diverse majors and diverse backgrounds increases. Second, the more entrepreneurial learning experiences, the greater the chance of new opportunities. Third, it is necessary to investigate students’ problem solving style and problem-solving ability first, and then a teaching strategy based on this combination of systematic and effective theory and practice is needed. Of course, as demonstrated by many studies, it may be easier to enhance the effectiveness of opportunity recognition through cognitive learning. This is because it emphasizes the achievement of knowledge and understanding with acquiring skills and competence. This process, however, is not enough for entrepreneurship education. However, we do not support full team-based behavioral learning in the class designed by Michaelsen and Sweet ( 2008 ). As with the results of this study, problem solving ability is positively related to opportunity perception directly. As previously demonstrated in previous studies, problem solving ability can be enhanced by cognitive learning (Anderson et al., 2001 ; Charles & Lester, 1982 ).

Therefore, it has been demonstrated that it is more efficient to balance a certain level of cognitive learning and behavior learning in consideration of the level of students in a course. Also this study satisfies the need for empirical research by Lumpkin and Lichtenstein ( 2005 ) and Robinson et al. ( 2016 ) and others. This will help to improve understanding of how entrepreneurship training is linked to various learning models and their effectiveness and to design better courses for the future. Finally, this study sought to provide an awareness of entrepreneurship education as the best curriculum for solutions that evolved into innovative behaviors that create new values and ultimately represent new opportunities. This study shows that it can positively influence the social effect of creating new value, that is, not only the cognitive effect of general pedagogy, but also the innovation behavior. By providing this awareness, we have laid the groundwork for empirical research on entrepreneurship education in order to create more opportunities for prospective students in education through education and to expand their capabilities.

Limitation and future research

Indeed, the concepts presented here and the limitations of this study have important implications that can fruitfully be addressed in future research. First, we selected a sample of college students taking entrepreneurship training. However, since it is not the whole of Korean university students, it is difficult to extend the research results to all college students in Korea. Second, there is no precedent research on the role of innovation behavior as intermedia in college students. Therefore, we were forced to proceed as an exploratory study.

The ability to recognize opportunities can provide significant benefits that can remain firm and competitive in an ever-changing environment. Future research should therefore expand these insights and try to empirically test more ways in which entrepreneurship pedagogy teaches how learning methods can be integrated into venture creation and growth processes to help new process opportunities. By providing this study, we will help entrepreneurship education in the university to create more opportunities and expand the capacity of prospective members.

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31 (5), 776–793.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10 (1), 123–167.

Google Scholar  

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3 (3), 321–341.

Anderson, P. M., & Anderson, P. M. (1995). Analysis of faulted power systems (Vol. 445). New York: IEEE press.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy . New York: Longman Publishing.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (2003). AMOS 5 user’s guide . Chicago: Smallwaters.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003a). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (1), 105–123.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003b). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (1), 105–123.

Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52 (9), 1331–1344.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual review of psychology, 32 (1), 439–476.

Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Charles, R., & Lester, F. (1982). Teaching problem solving: What, why & how . Palo Alto: Dale Seymour Publications.

Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (5), 674–695.

Dubickis, M., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2017). Transfer of know-how based on learning outcomes for development of open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation : Technology, market, and complexity , 3 (1), 4.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2 (4), 317–338.

D'zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the social problem-solving inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2 (2), 156.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research , 39–50.

Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16 (2), 95–111.

Garavan, T. N., & O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: A review and evaluation-part 1. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18 (8), 3–12.

Gartner, W. B., & Carter, N. M. (2003). Entrepreneurial behavior and firm organizing processes. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 195–221). New Mexico: Springer US.

Hair, E., Halle, T., Terry-Humen, E., Lavelle, B., & Calkins, J. (2006a). Children's school readiness in the ECLS-K: Predictions to academic, health, and social outcomes in first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 431–454.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006b). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc..

Hayton, J. C., & Cholakova, M. (2012). The role of affect in the creation and intentional pursuit of entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36 (1), 41–68.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3 (4), 424.

Inkinen, T. (2015). Reflections on the innovative city: Examining three innovative locations in a knowledge bases framework. Journal of Open Innovation : Technolodgy, market. Complexity, 1 (1), 8.

Isaksen, S. G. (1987). Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics. Bearly Ltd.

Jabri, M. M. (1991). The development of conceptually independent subscales in the measurement of modes of problem solving. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51 (4), 975–983.

Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide (Vol. 6). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Binnovation and entrepreneturship in the American corporation. Touchstone Book.

Kanter, R. M. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15 (5), 509–523.

Kim, H. C., Song, C. H., & An, B. R. (2016). A study on effects of personal characteristics on start-up opportunity and entrepreneurial intention of start-up. Korean Management Consulting review, 16 (3), 75–87.

Kim, S. A., Ryoo, H. Y., & Ahn, H. J. (2017). Student customized creative education model based on open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation : Technology, Market, and Complexity , 3 (1), 6.

Kim, T. H., & Roh, J. H. (2010). A Study of the Impact of Public Service Motivation on Innovative Behavior of Organizational Members. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 48(3).

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (5), 622.

Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35 (1), 60–85.

Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. (2003). Alertness, bisociative thinking ability, and discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities in Asian hi-tech firms.

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation: A study of the conscious and unconscious processes of humor, scientific discovery and art.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2004). E-Business Strategies and Internet Business Models: How the Internet Adds Value. Organizational Dynamics, 33 (2), 161–173.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (4), 451–472.

Manev, I. M., Gyoshev, B. S., & Manolova, T. S. (2005). The role of human and social capital and entrepreneurial orientation for small business performance in a transitional economy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5 (3–4), 298–318.

Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New directions for teaching and learning, 2008 (116), 7–27.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Validity. Psychometric theory, 99–132.

Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10 (1), 45–59.

Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., & Krueger, N. F. (2016). New horizons in entrepreneurship education: from teacher-led to student-centered learning. Education+ Training, 58(7/8), 661–683.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling . Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Google Scholar.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 580–607.

Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 217–226.

Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (5), 553–562.

Spivack, G., Platt, J. J., & Shure, M. B. (1976). The problem-solving approach to adjustment . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stevenson, H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship.

Stevenson, H. H. & J. C. Jarillo (1990). 'A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management', Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp. 17–27.

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2009). The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (2), 99–115.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Angle, H. L. (1989). Suggestions for managing the innovation journey (No. 9). Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota.

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 3 (1), 119–138.

Venkataraman, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Strategy and entrepreneurship: Outlines of an untold story.

Warner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture, 14 (1), 49–90.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18 (2), 293–321.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept. of Technology Entrepreneurship (Graduate School), Dongguk University, 904 Chungmurogwn, Toegye-ro 36Gil, Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-272, South Korea

Ji Young Kim, Dae Soo Choi & Chang-Soo Sung

Yonsei School of Business, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-749, South Korea

Joo Y. Park

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joo Y. Park .

Ethics declarations

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kim, J.Y., Choi, D.S., Sung, CS. et al. The role of problem solving ability on innovative behavior and opportunity recognition in university students. J. open innov. 4 , 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-018-0085-4

Download citation

Received : 12 September 2017

Accepted : 22 January 2018

Published : 05 February 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-018-0085-4

Share this article

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

• Problem-solving ability
• Innovative behavior
• Opportunity recognition
• Entrepreneurship education

Courses for Students Fall 2024  > Spring 2024  > Enrollment FAQs  >

Courses for Professionals VC for Tech  > ELPP-Silicon Valley  > ELPP-Global Online > Emergent Tech Management > Growth Marketing >

Programs For Berkeley Students  > For Global Participants  > For Professionals  > For Companies  > Collider Labs  >

Connect News & Events > Newsletter > Jobs & Opportunities >

About What We Do > People > Instructors > Advisory Board > Fellows >

<  Berkeley Engineering Site

Innovation Engineering: Principles and Methodology

By Ikhlaq Sidhu  | May 22, 2019

Let’s start with the problem.  The fact is that most innovation projects fail.  In fact, even when they go forward, they often result in  ineffective, overly complex, and/or overly expensive solutions. Sometimes, these projects never get internal funding approvals. Other times, they start but completely miss the mark in terms of serving customers or even solving the problem they were intended to solve.

Innovation Engineering is defined as a method for solving technology and business problems  for organizations who want to innovate, adapt, and/or enter new markets   using expertise in  emerging technologies ( e.g. data, AI, system architecture, blockchain), technology business models, innovation culture, and high-performing networks .

When Dave Kelly specified the IDEO process for design in 1971, he changed the predictability of design projects around the world and made each design project more likely to serve its users well. In a similar way, this Innovation Engineering process is intended to make innovation projects in engineering more successful. The process builds upon many best practices in innovation, but it also brings them into a domain of more technically sophisticated areas. 

The concept of Innovation Engineering also integrates many years of observing our students who have engineered novel technologies and companies. The goal is to specify an approach that anyone can use to better architect, design, and more effectively build things that are technically novel, useful, and valuable. And further, the goal is to be able to do this efficiently, on-time, and repeatably.

This article offers both:

• a list of inductively developed Innovation Engineering principles and,
• a high-level process based on experimentation with emerging technology projects during the last 15 years at Berkeley and the Sutardja Center. 

At its core, Innovation Engineering is the result of using the approaches, processes, behaviors, and mindsets of entrepreneurs/innovators with the context of engineering projects.  This is illustrated in the figure immediately below.

One thing that we have observed is that innovative technical leaders employ similar behavioral patterns as entrepreneurs even in areas of engineering architecture, design, and implementation.  And further, these behaviors can be amplified within a process.

A high-level process example is shown below.  It simply illustrates the concept of brainstorming a problem/solution, converting the problem/solution into a ‘story’ called a low tech demo, and then using agile sprints to develop the project. The project ends with a final demonstration.  We have used  this simple process in our Data-X course with hundreds of students at UC Berkeley for almost 3 years. And we have found that the results of what people are able to build and demonstrate in just 13 weeks are far more effective than with a standard project process.  (See the actual projects at data-x.blog)

This simple process flow can be extended to include business and/or organizational context. The graphic below shows a process flow for Innovation Engineering with greater detail and broader context.  The flow illustrates that effective projects start always with a story or narrative.  This narrative is generally based on background of the team and an observation of changes in the world ( e.g. market, technical, societal, or regulatory changes). When a project does not start with a story narrative, it is typically too narrowly defined and generally goes off target in our experience. Note, the “Low Tech Demo” in the example above maps to the Technical Story in the lower diagram which is used to kick-off an Agile project leading to an Implementation.

The story narrative is used to collect initial stakeholders, resources, and obtain initial validation for the project. In our experience, there is no better way to attract resources than by testing a story and/or initial prototype. 

From here, the story narrative can be broken into two sub-narratives, one for the technical story and another for the broader context or business story.  Each story is the starting point of a learning path, and specifically not an execution path.  The technical path is an agile process that leads to an implementation starting first from the user’s viewpoint.  For example, in Data-X, we use the following components as part of the technical story which we call a “low tech demo”.

Low tech demo outline, an example of a technical story:

• What is it supposed to do – and ideally why
• User’s perspective, top 3 user expectations
• Key technical components with risk levels
• An architecture, and
• Short-term plan and assignments towards the simplest demonstration.

In contrast, the business learning path is intended to result in

• an industry ecosystem of customers, partners, suppliers, etc.  and
• the discovery of a working business model or fulfillment of a mission in a government organization. 

These learning paths converge when the business model / mission and the technology are all working and integrated. Only after this step can the innovation be scaled via execution and planning. Innovation Engineering tends to focus more on the technical path as required for successful implementation, but must include the broader process as described to be successful.

While all of this is a very quick overview of the process, it does set the context for a set of important principles that are required for the process to be successful. Like with any other organizational activity, Innovation Engineering requires a set of shared beliefs and behaviors to be successful.  These ‘Guiding Principles’ for Innovation Engineering are outlined in the section below are intended to be synergistic with the process flow explained above.

Guiding Principles for Innovation Engineering:

• Start with Story: Virtually all successful projects start with a story narrative. The story is the means of validation, consensus building, and collecting stakeholders. Any project that starts without a validated story likely jumps to an invalidated conclusion about the problem. Stories can vary in length and complexity, i.e. the problem of a user and its resolution, or the famous NABC story developed at SRI which stands for Needs, Approach, Benefit, and Competition. However, the key to a good story is that there is an insight that others have not seen and that there is substantial benefit of the solution to at least some segment or stakeholder.
• Scale or Invent: Determine if the project is about creating something new ( i.e. a new product, new service, new technology, new customer, etc.) then it’s a learning process, and in that case it requires a team with corresponding behaviors. If the project is about scaling something that already works ( i.e. serving more customers, increasing the capacity of a system, etc.) then it’s an execution process best accomplished by someone who has done it or something like it before. In this later case, the team can jump immediately to the scaling phase at the end of the process.
• User-first: The technical story must highlight a solution first from the user’s viewpoint. Note that entrepreneurial stories typically explain how a venture will both solve a problem and achieve a working business model, the technical story must explain the user’s viewpoint first and only then lead to the system architecture and the implementation.
• Effectuation : Great technical innovators and entrepreneurs all use “Effectuation Principals” in a natural manner. It roughly means to start with what you have, and sometimes it means you must take inventory of what you have first. To illustrate, if you were to make a dinner, do you first choose an intended dish and then gather the ingredients (not effectuation), or would you look at what you already have in the kitchen and then invent a new recipe from the ingredients you already have (effectuation). This principle can be applied to technical and business projects in the same manner. 
• Break it down :  Components, interfaces, and interconnections.  Evaluate potential solutions by breaking the proposed system down into simple sub-systems with minimal inter-connections. Understand the interactions and causal relationships between subcomponents.  And of course, if a sub-component already exists or can be easily obtained, then there is no need to build or redesign that subcomponent.  For example, when Tesla created its battery, it created it from thousands of cells that were already being produced in mass scale, instead of designing a completely new battery architecture.
• Look for Insight in the technical story : This is related to having insight about the location of value, the power, or “the magic” in the system design. What will make it effective or exciting? This principal is a technical parallel to the entrepreneurial behavior of understanding the user’s true needs or what they actually care about, or what they are willing to pay for.
• Minimal Viable System Architecture : Get as quickly as possible to a 1.0 version. Distill the story as quickly as possible to the simplest possible implementation. From this, a more complex system can be evolved using an agile, iterative model to develop greater capability. This is parallel to the entrepreneurial approach of building a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for testing product market fit, but in this case the focus is the system architecture for testing technical feasibility.
• Start with the simplest possible demonstration on the path to the best solution.
• Use a technology strategy that allow easiest adaptation.
• Be agile driven.  We can’t predict final product in advance.
• Keep it Simple : The focus of the project should be on keeping the design simple, easy to explain, easy to verify, and easy to debug. Technical architects and designers are often interested in technically brilliant and complex solutions, but true elegance lies in simplicity. As quoted from a historical Apple advertisement, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”  You might think of this in parallel to timeless works of art, which are characterized by having exactly what is needed to convey the message, but never a single extra music note or an extra paint stroke.
• Reduce the Downside: Optimize to reduce downside risk and failure, not to maximize performance/cost. Always evaluate corner cases. This is the parallel of broad vs narrow thinking within engineering. The broad thinking version in business would be used to avoid business risk as well as a predict the expected outcome in the broadest terms.
• Measurable Objectives: Develop measurable objectives to know when goals are being achieved because you cannot improve what you cannot measure. For example, in a data science algorithm, how will you know that the prediction is good enough. Having both a measure and a target allows you to estimate whether the marginal (extra) work to get a better result is worth the expense of doing that extra work.   To understand this more, learn about the concept of “Value of Perfect Information”.
• Create a support ecosystem : Build a support ecosystem with the highest quality partners that you can both reach and trust. Many technical leaders are tempted to reach out to the lower quality contacts (as team members, suppliers, partners, and customers) who are easiest to contact, but it is better to push our comfort zones to find the best people and organizations that you can — as long as trust can still be generated.

In this article, we have introduced a combination of a process flow as well as a technical set of cultural characteristics or principles that allow people to use Innovation Engineering. Why is this important and powerful? The reason is that even today, most innovation projects continue to fail. Even when skilled technical resources are brought together for a project, the result can still be useless. By compiling and integrating this process and these principles, we have demonstrated at least one effective, validated method for achieving innovation projects. Of course, further variations of this method are inevitable and feedback is always welcome.

Discover #WhatsNext

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter!

Problem Solving

Read our most recent articles about problem solving. how do you approach your organization's most difficult challenges.

5 Elements to Consider when Commercializing Your Ideas

Sarah Vandenberg 2022-07-06T16:12:47-07:00 July 6th, 2022 |

In this article, we look at five tips to launch your next innovation, using a proven framework for successful launch and scale.

What Is Idea Management?

Sarah Vandenberg 2022-06-23T15:51:03-07:00 June 27th, 2022 |

Traditional innovation can only take your business so far, and without an evolution of processes, you might find it harder than ever to move new ideas forward. Introducing structures and systems to formulate, organize, and act upon new ideas is one of the best ways to optimize internal innovation. This practice is better known as idea management, and in this article we will define and discuss idea management in full.

What is the Process for an Employee Innovation Challenge?

Sarah Vandenberg 2022-01-04T15:07:32-08:00 January 19th, 2022 |

A growing trend over the past several years has been to host internal innovation challenges. Companies do this because they find it’s an excellent way to find solutions to long-standing problems, positively create culture (particularly in a remote workplace), and also to nurture the budding intrapreneurs who want to find career growth and new opportunities.

Calculating the ROI of an Idea: Ideas That Saved Time

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-10-06T09:37:16-07:00 September 29th, 2021 |

Crowdsourcing and open innovation initiatives are vital by bringing vast stakeholders together to share ideas on complex problems and opportunities. Much of the focus is set on engaging the crowd yet deciding which ideas to take a risk on requires data on the likely impacts and costs. 

How Do You Uncover Unseen Problems?

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T14:35:39-08:00 August 18th, 2021 |

Anyone who works in the problem definition space knows the pitfalls of hidden issues. Solving a problem is sometimes dependent on who is articulating the problem, the lens with which they view the world, and the space that they have at the table...

Create a Team of Master Problem Solvers

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-07-27T20:26:57-07:00 July 29th, 2021 |

Problem-solving is an essential skill as an innovator. If problems stump your employees, how can your organization ever innovate for customers? Luckily, problem-solving skills can be learned, and as a leader you can create a team of master problem solvers and innovators.

In Search of the Perfect Brainstorm: An Update of Collaborative Ideation

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T14:32:13-08:00 July 26th, 2021 |

Imaginary scenario: you have been invited to a meeting to explore new approaches to a wicked problem. Loudmouth Number 1 describes his solution. Loudmouth Number 2 vehemently disagrees. A heated argument ensues. Some people take sides. Others remain silent. There are bruised egos. You are not the only one who feels frustrated. All that time just one single idea has been considered. Have you ever experienced such a meeting? Have you ever wondered why brainstorming came to be? Brainstorming Today: Why It Needs an Update These days the noun “brainstorming” and the verb “to brainstorm” are used (and misused) extensively and in many different ways. Our working definition in this article is that brainstorming is a “process to enable purposeful, [...]

Leveraging Alien Thinking: Exclusive Interview with Cyril Bouquet, Jean-Louis Barsoux, and Michael Wade

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-06-08T10:19:28-07:00 June 8th, 2021 |

For the past decade,  Cyril Bouquet ,  Jean-Louis Barsoux , and  Michael Wade , professors of innovation and strategy at IMD Business School, have studied inventors, scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, and artists. These people, or “aliens,” as the authors call them, are able to make leaps of creativity, and use five patterns of thinking that distinguish them from the rest of us.

What Can We Learn from the Innovation Averages in 2020?

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-03-24T19:37:01-07:00 January 11th, 2021 |

Every year, IdeaScale conducts an in-depth study of their customer trends in order to write an annual report, provide benchmarks to our clients (and ourselves), and better understand the marketplace. This data gathering and analysis takes up the better part of our first quarter and our report is generally published in March, but 2020 is a unique year for the crowdsourced innovation community (and indeed for everyone in the world).

Why Your Employees Are the Key to Recovery

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-03-24T19:37:05-07:00 November 26th, 2020 |

In this article, we will look at how to identify and understand employee contributions, and learn how to work with idea generators, evaluators, and activators.

Agile Development for Manufacturers: The Emergent Gating Model

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-11-16T13:16:11-08:00 November 10th, 2020 |

Agile is employed within Stage-Gate for new-product development by manufacturers with positive performance results; but must be adjusted from the software version of Agile – the result: the emergent Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid model.

How to Digitally Spark Corporate Innovation

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-22T17:13:47-08:00 July 9th, 2020 |

To maintain relevance in the global competitive market, many companies already focus on the development and implementation of innovations, even using digital tools. But, in times of crisis, this focus is most likely to be lost when most businesses concentrate on keeping the daily business running.

Human Creativity: The Critical Survival Skill of the 4th Industrial Revolution that Cannot be Automated

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T12:02:51-08:00 July 3rd, 2020 |

While 4th Industrial Revolution technologies are fast becoming the way to go in the world of the "new normal," they are driven by something far superior to robots: human creativity. Let's have a look at the importance of creativity in this article.

How Mind Mapping Boosts Your Creativity

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T11:55:09-08:00 May 22nd, 2020 |

Everyone has the power to be creative, but how can you bring your innovative thoughts to life? Discover how Mind Mapping can unlock your creative potential in this article.

Five Innovation Practices for Building & Managing an Innovation Program

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T11:41:02-08:00 April 1st, 2020 |

There is no “one size fits all” formula for innovation management success. Demystifying innovation takes experiments and practices. In this article, we'll explore five tactics to use in order to develop and manage a successful innovation program.

Innovators, How Do You Find Your Next Problem to Solve?

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T11:38:16-08:00 March 23rd, 2020 |

If you’re working in innovation there’s nothing as rewarding as making the long journey from inspiration to implementation.

Four Innovation Themes from Open Nation 2019

Ideascale 2021-12-20T11:13:49-08:00 December 4th, 2019 |

Every year, IdeaScale hosts innovation leaders and creative thinkers from around the world in a global summit that shares innovation best practices. These leaders share success stories, failures, challenges, and solutions as they get to know each other so that they can call on one another throughout the year (long after the event is over).

What’s the Best Idea Criteria for Innovation Programs?

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T11:11:59-08:00 November 27th, 2019 |

One of the most popular webinars that IdeaScale has ever hosted is our webinar on how to select the best ideas . We are constantly being asked by our customers and prospects, “how do I know a good idea when I see one?” Some people are looking for financial predictions, some people want to know how an idea measures up to their organizational objectives, but everyone is looking for the perfect set of criteria so that they can evaluate ideas at some point during the innovation process and validate them.

The 3 C’s: Complex Problem Solving, Creativity and Critical Thinking – Core Soft Skills Required in the Workplace of the 4th Industrial Revolution

Ideascale 2021-12-20T10:31:26-08:00 November 8th, 2019 |

The next in our series on the 4th Industrial Revolution, from the Business Optimization Training Institute (BOTI). Start with Part I here .

Innovation Via the Customer Journey

Ideascale 2021-12-20T10:52:06-08:00 October 25th, 2019 |

Innovation is usually spoken of in relation to products, research, and development. However, every aspect of your business can be innovated. In fact, one of the most important – and often overlooked – is customer service. Innovative customer service helps you build loyalty, encourages repeat business, and can also bring in new buyers as they observe how you care for your consumers.

Psychology Tips to Get Honest Feedback from Your Employees

Ideascale 2021-12-20T10:49:13-08:00 October 18th, 2019 |

Learn four essential tips that employers and HR departments should consider when trying to get honest input from their employees.

How Many Types of Innovation Are There?

Sarah Vandenberg 2021-12-20T10:38:10-08:00 September 23rd, 2019 |

Innovation thought leader Nick Skillicorn recently did a pretty good job summarizing all of the innovation theories. And we noticed that there are a few key similarities between most (or all) of these theories that we think are interesting! Download this infographic to learn more about the 15 Theories of Innovation.

Five Business Shifts That Will Put Learning at The Heart of The Agenda

Ideascale 2021-12-20T08:29:15-08:00 May 31st, 2019 |

In our recent book The Future Reinvented , we are argued that, in the face of seemingly unprecedented change across society, learning at every level is central to survival and growth.

Recent Innovations in Healthcare

Ideascale 2021-12-20T08:22:05-08:00 May 17th, 2019 |

From patient care technology and equipment to public health research and new alternative treatments for sufferers of chronic pain, the healthcare field has always relied on innovation.

Five Perspectives of Innovators

Ideascale 2021-12-17T12:44:55-08:00 January 29th, 2019 |

Innovators are among us and within us, spot them by how they think and do things differently.

How To Effectively Deal With Unhappy Clients

Ideascale 2021-12-17T12:42:26-08:00 January 21st, 2019 |

No matter what the nature of your business is, you will inevitably encounter unhappy clients. Whether this is because it’s the fault of the company or something that couldn’t have been prevented – your first priority needs to be solving the problem.

A More Innovative Europe? Think Different About Innovation!

Ideascale 2021-12-17T12:17:47-08:00 December 20th, 2018 |

In Brussels, the Research & Innovation Program Horizon Europe (FP9) is the talk of ‘EU town’. Horizon Europe is hoped to be the great leap forward of Europe to close the innovation gap to the US and stay ahead of the emerging innovation giant China in the coming years.

Why Aptitude Tests Are Important for Jobs in Innovation

Ideascale 2021-12-15T07:28:52-08:00 September 25th, 2018 |

Innovation is one of the main ways in which a business can differentiate itself from the competition. Innovation could take place by improving business processes or by entering new markets after upgrading current product and service offerings. To be innovative, companies need creative employees who have the ability to transform ideas into reality.

Privacy Overview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Learn Health Syst
• v.6(2); 2022 Apr

Creativity in problem solving to improve complex health outcomes: Insights from hospitals seeking to improve cardiovascular care

Amanda l. brewster.

1 Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley California, USA

Yuna S. H. Lee

2 Health Policy and Management, Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, New York New York, USA

Erika L. Linnander

3 Global Health Leadership Initiative, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven Connecticut, USA

Leslie A. Curry

4 Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven Connecticut, USA

Associated Data

Introduction.

Improving performance often requires health care teams to employ creativity in problem solving, a key attribute of learning health systems. Despite increasing interest in the role of creativity in health care, empirical evidence documenting how this concept manifests in real‐world contexts remains limited.

We conducted a qualitative study to understand how creativity was fostered during problem solving in 10 hospitals that took part in a 2‐year collaborative to improve cardiovascular care outcomes. We analyzed interviews with 197 hospital team members involved in the collaborative, focusing on work processes or outcomes that participants self‐identified as creative or promoting creativity. We sought to identify recurrent patterns across instances of creativity in problem solving.

Participants reported examples of creativity at both stages typically identified in problem solving research and practice: uncovering non‐obvious problems and finding novel solutions. Creativity generally involved the assembly of an “ecological view” of the care process, which reflected a more complete understanding of relationships between individual care providers, organizational sub‐units, and their environment. Teams used three prominent behaviors to construct the ecological view: (a) collecting new and diverse information, (b) accepting (rather than dismissing) disruptive information, and (c) employing empathy to understand and share feelings of others.

Conclusions

We anticipate that findings will be useful to researchers and practitioners who wish to understand how creativity can be fostered in problem solving to improve clinical outcomes and foster learning health systems.

1. INTRODUCTION

Improving performance often requires health care teams to employ creativity in problem solving, a key attribute of learning health systems. Creativity is defined the process of generating approaches that are both novel and useful. 1 , 2 Incorporating creativity into problem solving can help to address unique, site‐specific complexities that influence performance in health care, 3 , 4 and to enhance the positive impact of evidence‐based strategies adapted from outside the organization. 5 While some advances in health care can be applied generically across settings, researchers have documented the importance of innovation and adaptation by local implementation teams, 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 and customization to patients and context is a key part of patient‐centered, high‐quality care. 10 These observations from health care cohere with management research from other industries, which posits that when innovation depends on complex contextual information that is difficult to codify and transfer, innovation‐related problem solving needs to occur where that information is held, 11 and by the individuals who have agency to act on these solutions. 12 That is, key innovations must be made by staff located at each implementation site.

Despite the known importance of creativity in problem solving, relatively few studies detail how workers incorporate creativity into problem solving during the natural course of work—in health care or in other industries. 13 Prior research on creative problem solving in the workplace has been largely theoretical, 14 , 15 with some empirical research deriving from industries such as new product development 16 , 17 where novelty is an explicit goal of work. Such research also focuses on creative outcomes while neglecting processes that incorporate creativity as habit and routine, that is, as part of the organizational culture. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 Detailed studies of front‐line problem solving in the automotive industry provide a useful framework for considering the dimensions of problem solving—including an important distinction between problem definition and generation of solutions 22 —but do not focus on creativity and innovation. More research is needed to better understand how creativity manifests during complex problem solving in health care. 18

Prominent learning and quality improvement models in health care assume that both problem definition and generation of solutions can be important sites of creativity. Models including Lean/Six‐Sigma, 23 the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Model for Improvement, 24 the strategic problem‐solving process, 25 and user‐centered design 26 focus on uncovering nonobvious problems through an emphasis on root cause analysis and understanding user experience. More research is needed to understand the process by which creativity manifests when grappling with the complexity and customization that health care demands. 20

Even as more health care organizations seek to become learning organizations by implementing structured improvement interventions, 23 reports of such efforts highlight the fact that these improvement interventions do not always achieve intended results. Health care teams must overcome distinctive and substantial barriers to creativity, including strong hierarchies, aversion to risk, highly specialized professionals, and emphasis on standardization of care to promote reliability and quality. 27 , 28 There can be tension between creativity and health care performance improvement, as health care delivery often seeks to minimize variation, and the core of creativity is enhancing variation. 29 Yet, influencing performance in health care often requires moving beyond stability and the status quo, a process well served by incorporating creativity. 27 Accumulating grounded evidence on how creative problem solving manifests in a variety of health care contexts is important for advancing understanding of this phenomenon. 30

2. QUESTION OF INTEREST

To describe in detail how creativity emerges as health care workers engage in problem solving, we sought to characterize the processes through which creativity emerged in problem solving within hospitals seeking to reduce mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as part of a 2‐year performance improvement collaborative called leadership saves lives (LSL). Mortality for AMI, now publicly reported and included in the value‐based purchasing bundle, 31 is influenced by components of care delivery that cross multiple boundaries within and outside of the hospital. 32 , 33 One important contributor to lower AMI mortality is clinicians' ability to resolve open‐ended problems through creative thinking. 34 Creative problem solving is especially relevant to AMI care teams working to reduce mortality because of the multifaceted nature of the problem, which spans multiple units and levels of hierarchy within the hospital, and extends past hospital boundaries to pre‐hospital and post discharge systems. Each care setting is unique in numerous important ways, making it essential for teams to develop novel solutions that work in their own contexts (ie, apply creativity).

The LSL collaborative involved 10 hospitals in which AMI care teams engaged in a curriculum designed to foster group learning and problem solving. While teams were encouraged to be creative in their problem solving, the limitations of prior evidence meant that the intervention could not be prescriptive about exactly how creativity was expected to be cultivated. As described elsewhere, 35 participating hospital teams reported increased capacity for learning and problem solving, and their hospitals experienced significant decreases in risk‐stratified mortality rate (RSMR) over the course of the study period, suggesting that these hospitals would be an ideal context for examining multiple instances of creative problem solving and distilling common patterns. We anticipate that findings will be useful to researchers and practitioners who wish to understand how creativity can be fostered in problem solving to improve clinical outcomes.

3.1. Study design and setting

We conducted a qualitative study to understand how creativity was fostered during problem solving in the 10 hospitals that took part in the LSL collaborative from 2014 to 2016. As previously described, 35 hospitals were selected for participation from the membership of the Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN), a national group of medical systems committed to quality improvement through collaboration. From the 21 MCCN members (as of January 2014), hospitals were identified as candidates if they met all three eligibility criteria: (a) at least 200 AMI discharges per year to ensure sufficient experience in caring for patients with AMI, (b) average or below average national performance on 30‐day RSMR between January 07, 2009 and June 30, 2012 as reported by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare in Spring 2014, suggesting opportunity for improvement, and (c) the largest hospital in the system, for hospitals in multihospital systems. From the list of 18 hospitals that met eligibility criteria, random sampling with a purposeful component 36 as used to select hospitals that were diverse in geography and teaching status. The first 10 hospitals were approached to determine receptivity; two declined and were replaced with sites similar in geography and teaching status. Hospital characteristics are presented in Table  1 .

Hospital characteristics (n = 10 hospitals)

3.2. LSL intervention

The LSL intervention, previously described in detail, 37 was implemented from June 2014 to June 2016. LSL was designed to foster reductions in AMI mortality by supporting the implementation of evidence‐based strategies and fostering improvements in domains of organizational culture related to hospital performance. Each hospital established a guiding coalition of approximately 15 staff involved in care of patients with AMI, representing multiple departments, and including senior executives as well as front‐line staff. Guiding coalition members participated in four, 1‐day workshops in which they were coached through a strategic problem‐solving methodology 25 to define a shared problem (ie, RSMR is too high) and objective (ie, reduce RSMR), and then use root cause analysis to generate, implement, and evaluate strategies designed to achieve the defined objective. Erika Linnander led intervention workshops at multiple LSL hospitals, and Erika Linnander and Leslie Curry engaged with guiding coalitions in three annual workshops that convened representatives of all 10 hospitals participating in LSL. LSL coalitions were encouraged to develop strategies that fit their unique contexts, through both tailoring existing evidence‐based practices and introducing completely novel approaches. The evidence‐based practices include monthly meetings with emergency medical services personnel to review AMI cases, identification of both physician and nurse champions for AMI care, nurses dedicated to the catheterization lab (not cross‐staffing from other units), pharmacist rounding on all inpatients with AMI, and creative problem solving. As noted earlier, the intervention did not prescribe specific approaches to cultivate creativity. Guiding coalitions were also encouraged to foster improvements in hospital culture related to AMI performance, focusing on domains of: learning environment, 38 psychological safety, 39 senior management support, 40 commitment to the organization, 41 and time for improvement efforts. 39

3.3. Data collection

We collected qualitative data about the use of creativity in problem solving in LSL hospitals using in‐depth, in‐person interviews 36 at the start of the LSL intervention, and at 6 months and 18 months into the 2‐year intervention. A team of interviewers who included individuals with backgrounds in qualitative research, health care management, and clinical care conducted interviews with staff involved in the guiding coalition as well as other clinicians and hospital executives, using a standardized interview guide ( Data S1 ). The interview guide asked about implementation of creative problem‐solving strategies as part of a broader set of interview questions examining the hospital's experience with LSL. Amanda Brewster and Leslie Curry were members of the team that conducted interviews. Interview participants were aware of the LSL intervention and aware that research was being conducted to understand the process of implementing the LSL intervention as well as its impact. Interviews took place at the hospitals where participants worked, generally in a quiet room. A total of 197 individuals participated in one or more interviews, with 162 interviews at baseline, 118 at 6 months, and 113 at 18 months into the intervention, for a total of 393 interviews (Table  2 ). The number of individual interviewees per hospital ranged from 15 to 26. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and were audiotaped and professionally transcribed. The research procedures were reviewed and determined to be exempt by the Yale University Institutional Research Board.

Interview participant characteristics

3.4. Data analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed by a 6‐member multidisciplinary team using the constant comparative method of analysis. 42 The current analysis of creative problem solving focused on content in which participants discussed work processes that they self‐identified as creative or promoting creativity, that is, ideas that were both novel and useful. Participants did not have to use the terms “creative” or “creativity” explicitly. Content could be coded as referring to creative problem solving if participants were providing examples in response to the structured interview questions on creative problem solving strategies, or if participants discussed processes for generating novel and useful ideas in response to other interview questions. We considered that participants would be best positioned to assess whether something was creative in the context of their environments, and therefore relied on participants' own judgements regarding novel and useful elements of the phenomenon. Each transcript was coded independently by at least three analysts, with discrepancies reconciled through negotiated consensus. A hybrid coding approach 43 in which we began with a small number of a priori codes based on key LSL program elements and added new codes as additional themes emerged during coding. Iterative coding and analysis occurred across each wave of data collection, with refinement and review by the full team of six analysts, until a final code structure was established and reapplied to the full dataset. We used Atlas.ti to facilitate coding and organization of data. The analysis team included members with diverse perspectives, representing expertise in health services research, management, organizational theory, social work, nursing, medicine, and anthropology. We sought to generate recurrent themes that characterize essential aspects of creative problem solving in hospital contexts, examining instances in which creativity emerged in uncovering nonobvious problems or finding novel solutions.

Across hospitals, participant descriptions of creativity in problem solving generally entailed the use of three prominent behaviors: (a) collecting new and diverse information, (b) accepting (rather than dismissing) disruptive information, and (c) employing empathy (ie, to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position). Each of the three behaviors appeared at times sufficient to advance creative problem solving by fostering a broad, inclusive new view of AMI care, which we term an “ecological view” (Figure  1 ). The following sections detail the three behaviors, followed by the emergent concept of an ecological view of AMI care.

Concepts identified as important to creative problem solving. Working from the right‐hand side of the figure, creativity in problem solving was promoted by the assembly of a new, ecological view of AMI care. At least one of three behaviors was typically used by LSL coalitions to foster this ecological view

4.1. Collecting new and diverse information

Collecting new and diverse information was a behavior that routinely contributed to creativity in problem solving for LSL coalitions. Sometimes the new information came from assembling new data or analyzing data in new ways; for example, conducting new analyses of mortality data helped LSL coalitions at several hospitals to expand their conception of their AMI mortality challenges to include non‐STEMI patients (patients with non‐ST segment elevation myocardial infarction). This was a significant shift, as most prior quality improvement efforts had focused exclusively on STEMI patients. As an example, a cardiologist on one hospital's team undertook a close and systematic review of AMI deaths, as part of a root cause analysis recommended in the LSL intervention, and noticed that non‐STEMI care seemed to offer greater opportunities for improvement, explaining:

With STEMI's there was never any waiting… but in non‐STEMIs [there were] delays… STEMI's, they all die after you've revascularized them. You've done everything you could… But the non‐STEMI's are coming in. Somebody thought they were stable, and then they deteriorate which makes you think you've got really more of an opportunity with them. (Hospital J, Physician).

In other cases, new and diverse information came from the LSL coalitions engaging personnel who had not previously been involved in problem solving related to AMI mortality. For example, an emergency medicine physician in one hospital described how input from personnel outside the LSL coalition informed plans for introducing a dedicated cardiology physician assistant (PA) role that would remain on site at all times. After the hospital's LSL coalition coalesced around the idea to add this role, the coalition sought out opinions from different stakeholders elsewhere in the organization, who brought to light a wide range of issues that would need to be worked out in order to successfully implement this solution. A physician on the LSL coalition described:

Then [a senior administrator] presented the other stuff, that I never thought of. Who technically has ownership of that PA?… How does the funding for that position come from everyone, if the revenue goes through one of our different cardiology groups?… I never thought of that. I said, “Give me a body, and have them there 24/7.”…Then the cardiologists say, “Well, it's great. What we do with the PAs when they're not in the cath lab?… That creative problem solving comes from listening to everyone's different opinions, and having the ability to separate me from the project. Taking out my own biases. (Hospital B, Emergency Medicine Physician).

Synthesizing diverse views allowed the team to gain a more accurate understanding of implementation challenges, enhancing the practical utility and likely impact of their ideas.

4.2. Accepting (rather than dismissing) disruptive information

Leveraging new and diverse information sources for creative problem solving typically required a second, distinct behavior: accepting (rather than dismissing) disruptive or unwelcome information. In describing instances where new information contributed to the development of novel and useful solutions, participants routinely described processes to overcome resistance to new information. For example, after the LSL coalition at Hospital J shifted to thinking about non‐STEMI care as a potential problem to address, team members identified another problem: high‐risk non‐STEMIs were difficult to identify. After getting input from other physicians and nurses and reviewing non‐STEMI risk guidelines from the American College of Cardiology, the LSL coalition recommended two major changes to improve care for patients with non‐STEMI AMI: a new protocol to equip nurses to initiate care for inpatients with evolving AMIs, and a new set of algorithms and procedures for attending cardiologists to more consistently review at‐risk cases. These new procedures met with initial resistance from other cardiologists within the hospital, but the opponents “knew that they couldn't just blow it off completely,” according to an LSL coalition member, because the LSL coalition had carefully documented a previously unrecognized pattern of non‐STEMI deaths pointing to the need for change. The LSL coalition helped to engineer this acceptance of information that diverged from prior beliefs by employing data, methodology, and a respected cardiologist as the messenger that would be compelling to the cardiologists.

In other situations, accepting disruptive information involved elevating the weight given to input from frontline personnel lower in the organizational hierarchy. The LSL guiding coalitions included perspectives not traditionally included in hospital process improvement discussions, such as EMS representatives external to the hospital. The perception that these representatives occupied positions that were more peripheral to the hospital and lower in the organizational hierarchy could have set up their perspectives to be dismissed. This risk was exemplified by the concerns of a paramedic on one LSL coalition, who reported initially feeling skeptical about the value he could add to a group that included high status individuals such as cardiovascular surgeons and department heads, who were seen as intimidating. (“I'm like, what's pre‐hospital's role? I mean this is a big, huge hospital system.”) Over time though, this paramedic saw that his perspective was actively accepted, and he was empowered to share his opinions with the group. Intentional emphasis on the importance of EMS by the LSL intervention facilitator aided this effort:

One of the first things [the team facilitator] brought up was the statistics on pre‐hospital, how much they're involved… Then I have [a physician] sitting right next to me, who looks at me and says, “What do you think about it? What can we do to improve the pre‐hospital side of things?” To me that brought me right into the team. (Hospital A, Paramedic).

Although hospital leaders were generally aware of the need to improve pre‐hospital processes, listening to and valuing the input from the EMS representative was key for the LSL coalition at Hospital A to understand the specific problems occurring at the interface of pre‐hospital and hospital care, a situation seen at other LSL hospitals as well. Once the problems had been identified, solutions could be introduced. In the case of Hospital A, the solution was for the hospital to hire an EMS liaison with experience as a paramedic to manage communication between pre‐hospital, emergency department, and other staff from the hospital who need to be activated to care for AMI patients. This solution was so widely recognized as effective in facilitating coordination across these systems that the hospital leadership agreed to fund a second liaison position.

Experience at another hospital illustrated how the hospital's senior management played an important role in getting team members to take new information seriously and thereby spurred creativity in problem solving. As part of the LSL project, this hospital started documenting the wait times for EKG results. These new data showed that slow EKG results routinely delayed AMI care. The EKG wait time measure represented new and disruptive information for the hospital, because EKG wait time had not previously been tracked or understood to delay AMI care. Senior managers within the hospital held firm on the need to substantially reduce EKG wait times, even after multiple barriers to solving this problem were identified: from limitations on which staff could perform EKGs, to transmission of results being slowed by wireless connectivity drops in different parts of the floor, to EKG results being printed in an area where they weren't immediately noticed. The stance of leaders, who were encouraging but very firm about the need to improve on the EKG wait time measure, forced ED teams to develop creative solutions rather than accept the inevitability of delays. The introduction of new, disruptive information about EKG wait times, coupled with active endorsement by multiple managers, represented a departure from previous quality improvement efforts in which teams were seen to resign themselves to the status quo. One manger explained:

[In earlier improvement efforts] I would hear an answer from one team that says, “No. This can't be done.” [Now] I think we have leaders who… are very good at saying, “Why not?” Then when we start looking at “why not,” we often find that, oh yeah, maybe it's possible… If [the leader] says I'm satisfied with, “This can't be done,” then you're not going to have much creative thinking. (Hospital I, Manager).

Taking the data on EKG wait times as a serious indicator of problems led to a variety of creative solutions being implemented in the ED over the course of the LSL project, including training new categories of staff members to perform EKGs, putting existing communication technologies to new uses, establishing a new space where EKGs could be performed when the ED was full, and printing EKGs in a new location, near the physicians who needed to interpret them. The changes were effective: the proportion of at‐risk patients receiving EKGs within the target time of 10 minutes rose from under 30% to 80%.

4.3. Employing empathy

Employing empathy—having problem‐solving staff consciously shift their mindsets to empathize with the experiences of colleagues or patients—was the third behavior regularly observed to foster creative problem solving for LSL coalitions. An example of empathizing with colleagues at referring facilities was reported by participants from Hospital F, which served as a referral center for AMI patients across a large region. As part of the LSL initiative, a nurse from the LSL coalition visited facilities that frequently transferred AMI patients to the hospital and followed the transfer process alongside providers at one referring facilities, which allowed her to experience the frustration of transfers from the referring facility's perspective (ie, empathize). She described the experience as follows:

I got myself involved in [a patient transfer] with their emergency physician, trying to help coordinate the transfer of that patient [from the outlying facility to our hospital]. It was amazing how complicated our system had made it to get a patient transferred. I was able to be that advocate and see it from that view and then experience that frustration from that provider standpoint. (Hospital F, Nurse).

Seeing transfers from the perspective of referring facilities revealed several flaws in the process, which were delaying patient care and led to the development of new approaches to streamline communication with referring facilities.

Another example of empathizing with colleagues was seen at Hospital D, where the director of cardiac services discussed the importance of understanding, in detail, the perspective of EKG technicians in order to address problems with EKG processes. He encouraged his team to go observe the EKG techs at work, to understand “steps to their job” and consider how to help them:

The first part is, don't be afraid to call and say, “I have a problem.” The second part is…go back, and [ask] what does the EKG tech do? They didn't know….[I said] maybe you ought to go with them for a while. You gotta go figure out…what are the steps to their job, and how can we make it more efficient, help them in quality? We learned together. We problem solve together. (Hospital D, Physician).

An example of empathizing with patients motivating creative problem solving was reported by a nurse coordinator explaining what happened when the LSL coalition reviewed the hospital's discharge education materials for patients with AMI. It was clear that the materials were inadequate to help patients effectively discharge (“It was horrid. I can't even believe that's what we were giving patients”). The team knew that improved materials were needed, but felt overwhelmed by the range of options. Ultimately, they took an approach of trying to put themselves in the patient's shoes, which led to the development of a patient education resource that was regarded as the best patient education tool in the hospital:

We just had to sit down and really problem solve and be the patient in the matter. What is going to make a difference? What's going to grab my attention as a patient to better adhere to my discharge instructions and understand them? All the praise goes to [three team members] because they put together the best patient education tools that we have in the hospital. (Hospital F, Nurse).

4.4. Ecological view

While we observed three distinctive behaviors fostering creative problem solving, as described in the sections above, the behaviors tended to accomplish the same thing: the assembly of a broad, inclusive new view of AMI care, which we term an “ecological view.” This ecological view, fostered by teams collecting new and diverse information, accepting (rather than dismissing) disruptive information, and employing empathy, routinely contributed to LSL coalitions creatively uncovering nonobvious problems and finding novel solutions. Figure  1 outlines our concept of how creativity in problem solving was driven by development of an ecological view of the care process.

We adopt the biological metaphor of ecology, which is often used in the study of organizations (Freeman 2006), 44 to connote the development of a shared understanding of AMI care that reflected the relationships among a wide range of different individual care providers, organizational sub‐units, and their environment. Organization scholars commonly analyze populations of organizations in an ecological context. We use the term “ecological view” to describe the emergence of self‐awareness inside the organization of this ecological context, as some of these providers and relationships were previously unknown, or known to only some but not all team members. The ecological view, in turn, infused the problem‐solving process with creativity—allowing team members to see the contours of problems that not previously been identified and to develop novel solutions.

5. DISCUSSION

In instances where creativity emerged during the problem‐solving process within LSL hospitals, a characteristic process was observed in which team members generated an ecological view of the AMI care process, reflecting a more complete understanding of relationships between care providers, organizational sub‐units, and their environment. The ecological view of AMI care sparked teams to define previously unrecognized problems, and to develop novel, tailored solutions. The experiences of the LSL hospitals indicated that identifying nonobvious problems represented an important site of creativity in the problem‐solving process. While our results stem from an initiative to improve AMI mortality, they could apply to initiatives to improve outcomes for other complex conditions involving care that spans disciplines, departments, and organizations, such as stroke, heart failure, and diabetes.

The emergence of the ecological view that supported creativity in problem solving was regularly fostered by at least three different behaviors: collecting new information, accepting disruptive information, and employing empathy. Although the role of the ecological view in creative problem solving was not theorized during the development or delivery of the LSL intervention, several of the LSL intervention components explicitly encouraged behaviors that we observed to promote an ecological view, and could be helpful for other hospitals seeking to promote creativity in problem solving. Specifically, the LSL intervention team facilitated the development of guiding coalitions with diverse membership, advised hospital teams to conduct root cause analyses, which fed the collection of new information, and coached on group processes to promote psychological safety to foster the process of surfacing disruptive information from individuals whose perspectives might not be known. Efforts to encourage empathy were not an intentional component of the LSL intervention although raising awareness of psychological safety could have heightened participants' focus on the feelings of others. Empathy—the exercise of intentionally placing oneself in a new perspective—emerged as an especially powerful tactic to leverage exposure to new information. This is consistent with prior research on problem solving in manufacturing, which identifies advantages of observing, first‐hand, a mechanical part in the situation where it is malfunctioning, as a way of getting richer information. 22 In the context of our study, the immersive quality of exercises in empathy may have provided richer information, and also emotional cues, which enhanced LSL coalition members' motivation to act on novel ideas that would have dissipated in the face of less compelling experiences. Intrinsic motivation has been theorized as an important contributor to individual creativity. 1

The behaviors we identified promoting an ecological view are not new to the quality improvement literature—other commonly used quality improvement models such as Lean and Six Sigma emphasize collection of new data and inclusion of diverse perspectives in understanding variability, waste, and poor performance. 45 , 46 Empathy for end‐users features as a component of the design‐thinking process, which is being used by some health care organizations for quality improvement. 26 Our results, however, provide real‐world examples of how these concepts foster creative problem solving in the context of a quality improvement intervention that targeted an outcome measure influenced by complex processes. While we reported the three behaviors that featured most prominently in participants' descriptions of examples where an ecological view emerged to promote creativity in problem solving during the LSL intervention, it is possible that other behaviors and supporting structures may promote the emergence of an ecological view in different settings. Notably, in the hospitals we studied, these three behaviors depended on support from a critical mass of team members in diverse clinical and managerial roles as well as hospital senior leadership. It is hard to say whether individual clinicians or staff members could enhance their own creative problem‐solving capabilities by applying these behaviors in isolation.

Our results should be interpreted in light of several study limitations. First, with 10 hospitals, our sample was relatively small, although hospitals were selected to be diverse in terms of geography, size, and teaching status, and each hospital tackled several dimensions of AMI care, thus accumulating a larger number of examples of problem solving. Further, the robust, longitudinal qualitative design allowed for deep characterization of the improvement process in each hospital. Second, hospitals in the study were exposed to a leadership development curriculum that encouraged a structured approach to problem solving; the process of creativity in problem solving may proceed differently in hospitals that had not been supported in this way. Third, we were not able to collect data on whether particular interventions introduced by the LSL hospitals were effective, or sustained over time beyond the study period, which prevents us from concluding whether solution quality was improved by creative problem solving in this study. We do know that LSL hospitals reduced AMI RSMR more quickly than the national average over the same time period, 35 suggesting that LSL hospitals did make changes that improved RSMR during the study period.

Our results provide a refined depiction of the creative problem‐solving process based on empirical observations across multiple hospitals. These findings suggest that health systems seeking to promote creative problem solving could encourage the three behaviors we have documented to advance an ecological view of care processes. As exploratory research, these findings point toward several opportunities for further study. First, it would be useful to examine the creative problem‐solving process in a different set of hospitals, working to improve a different outcome, to confirm the generalizability of our findings. A next step could include quantitatively testing the hypothesis that forming an ecological view is indeed constitutive of the creative problem‐solving process, and improves solution quality. Doing this could involve developing a survey‐based measure of the extent to which quality improvement teams have developed an ecological view of their target process, and evaluating the creativity and effectiveness of their solutions.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Creativity is crucial to performance improvement in health care, and evidence from other industries has linked individual traits such as motivation and values, as well as organizational traits such as leadership style, team climate, and decentralized structure to creative performance. 14 , 18 , 47 Seeking to illuminate the process by which creative problem solving occurs in health care, we observed a characteristic process that occurred across different hospitals, in which distinctive patterns of acquiring and processing new information contributed to creativity. These distinctive behaviors can be fostered by health care leaders seeking to improve performance on consequential clinical outcomes, including AMI mortality.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1. Qualitative interview guide

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for the Leadership Saves Lives (LSL) collaborative and its evaluation was provided through a research grant to Yale University from The Medicines Company, Parsippany, New Jersey. The authors thank the hospitals and guiding coalition members that participated in LSL for their time and dedication.

Brewster AL, Lee YSH, Linnander EL, Curry LA. Creativity in problem solving to improve complex health outcomes: Insights from hospitals seeking to improve cardiovascular care . Learn Health Sys . 2022; 6 ( 2 ):e10283. 10.1002/lrh2.10283 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Funding information Medicines Company

14 innovative projects helping to save the planet and make the world a better place

UpLink helps communities across the world face the threats of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Image:  Unsplash/Noah Buscher

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Natalie Marchant

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} COVID-19 is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

• Digital crowdsourcing platform UpLink was created to address the world’s most pressing problems.
• The initiative seeks sustainable solutions to tackle issues such as climate change and social injustice.
• Projects are also aimed at tackling the impact of the global coronavirus pandemic.

The importance of sustainable solutions came to the fore in 2020 as communities across the world faced the threats of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Digital crowdsourcing platform UpLink was created to address such challenges and help speed up the delivery of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.

Unveiled at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in 2020, the platform - launched with founding partners Deloitte and Salesforce - connects the next generation of change-makers and social entrepreneurs to networks of contacts with the resources, expertise and experience to help bring about change.

Since its launch, UpLink has surfaced the best entrepreneurial solutions through competitions such as its Ocean Solutions Sprint , Trillion Trees Challenge , COVID-19 Social Justice Challenge and COVID Challenges . Here are some of the most innovative.

Have you read?

3 innovations leading the fight to save our forests, these 15 innovations are helping us fight covid-19 and its aftermath, 4 ideas that could make our response to covid-19 more equal.

Ocean Solutions Sprint

Cubex Global

Oman-based Cubex Global aims to cut global shipping emissions by enabling businesses to easily buy and sell unused container space on existing cargo routes. The company claims that its blockchain-based marketplace could help reduce emissions from shipping vessels by up to 20% and recover about $25 billion in lost freight revenue each year.

Waste management service RecyGlo works with businesses in Myanmar and Malaysia to recycle and process material in a safe and non-hazardous manner, helping to avoid mismanaged plastic being dumped in the region’s rivers and ending up in the ocean. The Yangon-based company manages 500 tonnes of waste and saves 1,470 tonnes of CO2 each month .

Scottish biotech start-up Oceanium uses sustainably-farmed seaweed to create food and nutrition products and compostable biopackaging. It believes that a sustainable seaweed farming industry can help mitigate the effects of climate change and create jobs.

COVID Challenge

Intelehealth

Developed at Johns Hopkins University, Intelehealth is a telemedicine platform that connects patients and frontline health workers with remote doctors to deliver primary care services at a distance in countries such as India.

UpLink is a digital platform to crowdsource innovations in an effort to address the world’s most pressing challenges.

It is an open platform designed to engage anyone who wants to offer a contribution for the global public good. The core objective is to link up the best innovators to networks of decision-makers, who can implement the change needed for the next decade. As a global platform, UpLink serves to aggregate and guide ideas and impactful activities, and make connections to scale-up impact.

Hosted by the World Economic Forum, UpLink is being designed and developed in collaboration with Salesforce, Deloitte and LinkedIn.

Emergency services app Flare provides next-generation 911 for those who do not have access to help in case of an emergency. In Kenya, its ‘Uber for ambulances’ platform has reduced response times by 87% and helped save 2,500 lives since its 2017 launch.

Carbon Health

Tech-enabled primary care provider Carbon Health aims to improve access to world-class healthcare. In the US, it established pop-up COVID clinics in 30 cities, with doctors available on video call, and has so far tested more than 500,000 people .

Desolenator

Desolenator’s solar-powered water purification systems help remote communities produce clean drinking water, without the need for filters, chemicals or external energy sources. This helps them build water resilience in the face of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic .

Trillion Trees Challenge

Borneo Nature Foundation

For over a decade, Borneo Nature Foundation has developed planting methods to reforest degraded deep peatland, which is an important carbon store, key to local economies and home to populations of orangutans. It has planted more than 30,000 seedlings , and established community seedling nurseries in villages near Borneo’s remaining tropical rainforests.

Reforestum and Ecosphere+

Spain-based CO2 offsetting service Reforestum teamed up with UK climate solutions company Ecosphere+ to enable individuals and businesses to finance forest conservation and restoration by offsetting their carbon footprint.

Inga Foundation

Slash-and-burn farming is the only source of income for millions of farmers but it’s devastating the world’s rainforests. This is something that the UK-based Inga Foundation wants to counter through its Inga Alley farming method, which helps farmers build long-term food security on one plot of land.

Social Justice Challenge

Global platform citiesRise seeks to transform mental health policy and practice for young people across the world through its Mental Health and Friendly Cities framework – something that is only likely to become even more relevant in the COVID-19 era.

Philippines-based telerehabilitation platform TheraWee aims to improve access to rehabilitation services for children with difficulties by connecting their parents with individuals, groups and communities that can offer them support.

Noora Health

US start-up Noora Health provides families with medical skills training to help look after their loved ones, both in health facilities and at home. Its Care Companion Program has already reached more than 1 million relatives in India and Bangladesh .

Family Mask’s #PPEforAll

Global Citizen Capital and its company Family Mask’s #PPEforAll initiative was set up to boost access to affordable personal protective equipment (PPE) as the pandemic hit. By July 2020, more than 1 million masks had been distributed to elderly people across the world.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Health and Healthcare Systems .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

This Earth Day we consider the impact of climate change on human health

Shyam Bishen and Annika Green

April 22, 2024

Scientists have invented a method to break down 'forever chemicals' in our drinking water. Here’s how

Johnny Wood

April 17, 2024

Young people are becoming unhappier, a new report finds

Promoting healthy habit formation is key to improving public health. Here's why

Adrian Gore

April 15, 2024

What's 'biophilic design' and how can it benefit neurodivergent people?

Fatemeh Aminpour, Ilan Katz and Jennifer Skattebol

Why stemming the rise of antibiotic resistance will be an historic achievement

Carel du Marchie Sarvaas

April 11, 2024

More From Forbes

The power of diversity and inclusion: driving innovation and success.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Jason Miller helps influential brands and celebrities create generational wealth with their businesses | CEO, Strategic Advisor Board .

Diversity and inclusion is a strategic advantage that promotes innovation in organizations, better decision making and stronger workplace cultures. See the strategies for building a diverse and inclusive organization to achieve long-term business success.

The value of diversity and inclusion has become increasingly recognized in society and in business. Organizations that promote diversity and cultivate inclusive environments are reaping huge rewards in terms of innovation, better decision making and better performance overall. The positive impact of diversity and inclusion extends beyond social responsibility; it is a strategic imperative that drives success and positions companies for long-term sustainability.

The Business Case For Diversity And Inclusion

Diversity can stimulate innovation by challenging conventional thinking, encouraging fresh ideas and promoting creative problem-solving. In research studies, diverse groups with people who have different backgrounds, genders, experiences and perspectives consistently generate more innovative solutions than homogeneous groups. Embracing diversity unlocks the potential for innovative products, services and approaches.

Enhanced Decision Making And Problem-Solving

Organizations can make better decisions by leveraging their workforce's diverse expertise and knowledge. Individuals are empowered to share their opinions and unique insights in inclusive environments. Organizations can benefit from well-rounded discussions and comprehensive evaluations by valuing and incorporating diverse perspectives. As a result of considering a wider range of possibilities and challenging groupthink, diverse teams are more effective at solving complex problems.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, benefits of diversity and inclusion for organizations.

The financial performance of companies prioritizing diversity and inclusion consistently outperforms their peers. Financial returns are strongly correlated with diverse executive boards. Although, it’s important to note that diversity and inclusion should come from a place of increasing better work environments and employee satisfaction, and not firstly from a financially charged approach.

Increasing market share and customer loyalty is easier for companies that focus on diversity since they are better equipped to understand and connect with a broader customer base. Diversity can also foster a competitive advantage for companies attracting and retaining rockstar employees.

Enhanced Employee Engagement And Productivity

An inclusive culture cultivates a sense of belonging, respect and psychological safety, which increases employee engagement and productivity . This is because employees are more likely to feel valued for their unique contributions when they are celebrated and recognized. This type of environment encourages collaboration and innovation, as individuals from a variety of backgrounds bring with them different skills, perspectives and life experiences.

Strengthened Employer Brand And Reputation

Companies prioritizing diversity and inclusion are considered employers of choice by top talent. In today's socially conscious world, committed and dedicated employees are more likely to feel valued for their unique contributions if they are committed and dedicated to achieving organizational culture and promoting diversity in their workforce. This positive perception attracts diverse talent and strengthens relationships with customers, partners and the community.

Benefits Of Diversity And Inclusion For Employees

Creating a diversified workforce provides equal opportunities for all employees to grow and advance in their careers. Employees can then be inspired to push harder if they are celebrated for achieving organizational goals and given the ability to continue developing as staff members and individuals.

To strive towards an inclusive workspace, promote employees' sense of belonging, acceptance and well-being. In addition, you can promote improved mental health by creating supportive environments that encourage open communication, empathy and work-life balance. If employees associate good feelings with their workplaces, they can perform better.

Expanded Cultural Competence And Global Perspective

Diversity and inclusion can expose employees to various cultures, traditions and perspectives. This exposure can foster cultural competence. In my opinion, employees must be motivated, committed and dedicated to achieving organizational goals to feel valued for their unique contributions. Employees can learn and benefit from one another, better navigate diverse markets and build relationships based on cultural understanding and empathy. This cultural competence goes far beyond the workplace and creates stronger communities and a better world.

Strategies For Embracing Diversity And Fostering Inclusion

Creating a diverse and inclusive organization begins with leadership commitment and accountability. Senior leaders must champion diversity and inclusion as strategic priorities and set the tone for the organization. By leading by example, they can inspire others and strive to ensure diversity and inclusion initiatives are integrated into business strategies and practices.

Inclusive Recruitment And Hiring Practices

Organizations can promote diversity by adopting inclusive recruitment and hiring practices. This includes widening the candidate pool, leveraging diverse sourcing channels and hiring individuals from underrepresented communities. Establishing clear diversity goals and promoting diverse representation in all levels of the organization, including leadership positions, is essential and demonstrates the organization's commitment to inclusive practices.

Building Inclusive Work Cultures

Organizational culture can take some time to cultivate, but the effort is worth it. Organizations can achieve this by encouraging collaboration on projects across departments, honest communication and teamwork, and providing opportunities and resources. Training programs and workshops on unconscious bias, cultural competence and inclusive leadership can also help cultivate understanding and awareness.

Continuous Evaluation And Improvement

Building a diverse and inclusive organization is an ongoing journey. It is essential to continuously evaluate diversity and inclusion efforts through metrics, surveys and feedback mechanisms. By gathering data and insights, organizations can identify areas for improvement and develop targeted strategies. Your employees are one of your greatest resources as a business owner. Ask for feedback regularly and work to incorporate new ideas and suggestions generated by employees from all levels of the organization.

Inclusivity is not only the right thing to do, but it is a strategic advantage for organizations aiming to thrive in today's evolving workplace. By building diverse workforces, organizations can propel innovation, improve company decision-making and create an engaging and supportive work environment. Through leadership commitment, inclusive recruitment practices and cultural development, organizations can unlock the full potential of their teams and position themselves for long-term success. Let us embrace diversity and foster inclusion, not just for the benefit of our organizations but society at large.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

World Creativity And Innovation Day 2024: History, Significance and Quotes to Inspire

Published By : Nibandh Vinod

Trending Desk

Last Updated: April 21, 2024, 06:20 IST

Mumbai, India

World Creativity and Innovation Day 2024 theme is Inspire. (Image: Shutterstock)

World Creativity and Innovation Day is celebrated on April 21 to raise awareness about the role of creativity and innovation in human development.

Every year World Creativity and Innovation Day is celebrated on April 21 to raise awareness about the role of creativity and innovation in human development. This day encourages every individual to use their creativity and innovation for the overall development of humankind. The day is dedicated to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that are set out by the United Nations. The theme of this year’s World Creativity and Innovation Day is ‘Inspire’.

Quotes to Inspire You on World Creativity and Innovation Day

• “Innovation is seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” — Dr. Albert Szent- Györgyi
• “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ” — George Bernard Shaw
• “Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It’s all about saying no to all but the most crucial features” – Steve Jobs
• “Creativity is intelligence having fun!” – Albert Einstein
• “There is no innovation and creativity without failure” – Brene Brown

World Creativity and Innovation Day 2024: Messages To Share

There is always a scope to learn a new way to solve issues around us and we must always be open to find them and try them. Happy World Creativity and Innovation Day.

Let’s celebrate the occasion of World Creativity and Innovation Day by thinking out of the box and looking for creative solutions to our problems. Warm wishes on this day to all.

There is always some other way of solving a problem. Wishing a very Happy World Creativity and Innovation Day to you.

We all are creative in some or the other way and that is what the occasion of World Creativity and Innovation Day reminds us to be. Warm greetings on this day to you.

This World Creativity and Innovation Day let us pledge to find innovative ideas to solve modern problems.

World Creativity and Innovation Day: History

World Creativity and Innovation Day is celebrated as a part of World Creativity and Innovation Week which begins on April 15 and ends on April 21. In 2002, Marci Segal the famous creativity specialist and futurist from Canada founded this day to inspire people to develop creative innovations that will have an impact on human development.

The United Nations declared April 21 as World Creativity and Innovation Day in 2017, recognising the importance of creativity and Innovation for the sustainable development of humans. The United Nations also included the ‘World Creativity and Innovation Day’ in its initiative “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The World Creativity and Innovation Day was celebrated for the first time in 2018.

World Creativity and Innovation Day: Significance

World Creativity and Innovation Day speaks about the importance of creativity and innovation in human development and solving global problems. This day encourages people and institutions to use their creativity and innovation to develop new innovative solutions that can address global problems. In Addition, the day promotes the need for economic growth, employment and quality of life, which all can be achieved by creativity and innovation.

• art and culture
• World Creativity and Innovation Day

JUST IN: Supreme Court will take up the legal fight over ghost guns, firearms without serial numbers

Climate advocates want to solve their ‘biggest problem’ in the US: Turning out voters

April 21, 2024, 4:45 PM

• Share This:
• share on facebook
• share on threads
• share on linkedin
• share on email

In battleground states across the country, environmental activists like Dr. Emily Church are canvassing on behalf of an organization called the Environmental Voter Project in an effort to turn out people who care the most about climate change — but who haven’t shown up for past elections.

During a recent effort in Pittsburgh, Church, a biology professor who leads local canvasses for the project, recalled to ABC News how she used to lobby lawmakers directly to take action on climate change, but they told her voters don’t care about the issue.

She said she’s now trying to prove them wrong.

“The people who prioritize climate and the environment need to show up,” Church said. “That’s how we’re going to get anything done.”

The Environmental Voter Project, or EVP, is targeting very specific individuals: registered voters who list climate change as their No. 1 issue but who are unlikely to cast ballots in November’s election based on their voting history.

“Our biggest problem in the climate movement right now [is] we don’t have enough voting power,” EVP founder and executive Nathaniel Stinnett said.

EVP takes a targeted approach to door knocking, Stinnett explained. Using polling, the group first determines which registered voters in a particular area, like Pittsburgh, would rank climate as their top voting issue. They then cross-reference profiles with voting records to find people who have not come out to the polls recently or regularly.

By Stinnett’s accounting, the group has been successful across general elections, primaries and even in local races.

“We’ve sometimes increased turnout by as much as 1.8 percentage points in general elections, 3.6 points in primaries and 5.7 points in local elections,” he said, noting that while 1.8 percentage points might sound small, it could determine an election. Pennsylvania, for example, was only won by President Joe Biden in 2020 by 1.17%.

For the canvassing effort in Pittsburgh, Stinnett said EVP targeted people who didn’t vote in the 2020 election or elections in the years since. He added that they identified 22,135 voters in the city who are highly likely to rank climate as their top priority but unlikely to vote in November.

The group claims nonpartisanship but acknowledges that right now it’s Democrats working on climate change almost exclusively. One of their hopes is to bring more Republicans to the table, too.

“We want to scare the bejesus out of as many politicians as possible, no matter what side of the aisle they’re on, until they think, ‘You know what, the only way I can win elections is if I start recognizing the biggest crisis,'” Stinnett said.

Over time, climate change has become a more salient voting issue. In 2010, only a slim majority of Americans agreed that global warming was occurring, according to polling by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Now, 72% of Americans agree.

But climate is currently not one of the biggest motivators for people this election cycle, surveys have indicated — though climate advocates hope to change the electorate by encouraging turnout of climate-concerned voters.

According to a February poll by the Wall Street Journal, registered voters listed immigration (20%), the economy (14%), abortion (8%) and democracy (8%) as their top issues. Climate change ranked 11th, with 2% of voters choosing it as their top issue.

More broadly, Gallup’s tracking of what Americans say is the country’s most important problem over time shows climate, pollution and the environment at 2% in March, far below economic issues and immigration.

Polling has also shown that in addition to a partisan divide on the issue, a generational shift may be at play.

“Young voters in general tend to be more Democratic, and that is kind of tied up inextricably with their belief that climate is really important,” said Nathaniel Rakich, a senior editor and senior elections analyst at 538. “So if Republicans don’t want to basically be losing this upcoming electorate by large margins for decades to come, they’re going to have to eat into that Democratic support by at least proposing some solutions and addressing climate change.”

Even the Biden administration, which has prioritized fighting climate change, is being pushed by progressives to do more on the issue.

Twenty-one activists with the environmental advocacy group Sunrise Movement were arrested outside of Biden campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, in February. That group and other advocates have additional demonstrations planned in the run-up to the November election.

“I think there were some missteps by the administration — permitting the Willow project in Alaska was a step backwards. That was unfortunate,” Evergreen Action Executive Director Lena Moffitt said, referring to a large-scale oil drilling initiative backed by Alaska lawmakers and others in the state for its economic value, but which environmentalists criticized as undercutting the White House’s climate goals.

“We know that we need to move away from fossil fuels and, at the same time, the administration is doing a lot to hasten that move away from fossil fuels,” Moffitt said.

The choice for voters in November, on the issue of climate, is stark. President Biden has spoken urgently of the dangers of not slowing climate change and has pushed renewable energy solutions, backed electric vehicle infrastructure and created a new Climate Corps to train and expand the environmental workforce.

Biden last week finalized new protections against oil and gas production for some13 million acres of land in Alaska and, through the Environmental Protection Agency, has imposed aggressive emissions standards for vehicles to cut future greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, who has long questioned climate science, without evidence, has opposed Biden’s clean energy policies and promised to roll them back — arguing they are a drag on the economy and make the U.S. less competitive and independent.

“The fact is President Biden has done more to address climate change than any president in U.S. history. And there’s a lot more to be done,” Moffitt said. “Scientists have said that we still can avoid the worst of the worst of the climate crisis. But what we do in these next few years is essential to which path we choose.”

Stinnett agreed, telling ABC News that too often Americans have been told to focus on their own individual habits rather than government policy.

“[Politicians say,] ‘Hey, don’t pay attention to that coal-fired power plant back there. Instead, it’s all your fault for having a plastic water bottle in your hand.’ And we bought it. We bought it hook, line and sinker,” he said. “In truth, it is far more of a political and a systemic problem that needs political and systemic solutions.”

In Pittsburgh, Church said that despite the difficulty in getting new, environmentally-minded voters to the polls, she thinks the challenge is worth it.

“The science is very clear. So we know what we need to do,” she said, “it’s just a matter of getting it done.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Related News

In race for his Senate seat, Joe Manchin endorses West Virginia Democratic Mayor Glenn Elliott

Kennedy says he loves his family ‘either way’ after relatives endorse Biden’s campaign over his

Puerto Rico Republicans award Trump all 23 of their delegates

Recommended.

How to hear Virginia’s ‘forgotten’ history along the James River

DC's most expensive street? Maine Avenue

Autism Society of Maryland's hiring program helps adults on the spectrum find jobs

Related categories:.