PROBLEM SOLVING: METHODS AND PEOPLE 331 experimental evidence, he will not feel too guilty if he has merely solved the problem, without providing material for a theoretical treatment. Never- theless, many experimentalists feel frustrated because they are rarely able to follow through on the theoretical side once a problem has been solved from the practical standpoint. In discussing the results of his work with non-technical people, the experi- mentalist is sometimes at a disadvantage. His language, his approach and his end result may appear to be deceptively clear, so that the layman feels that he really understands what has been going on. The oversimplification of the process in his own mind leads him to question the expenditure of time and--let's face it--money on the problem. The model-builder is less likely to find himself challenged in this way. The layman stands in awe of him. His work is much less readily under- stood (or perhaps we should say misunderstood) by the layman and he is less vulnerable to criticism. On the other hand, the layman is more skepti- cal of the theoretical approach to "real" problems, and is often reluctant to utilize this technique when the problem justifies it. The third method of solving problems now available to industry is called Operational Creativity. It is obvious, of course, that the creative process is a necessary part of the techniques which we have previously discussed. Without it, the most rigorous scientific approach or the most carefully con- structed experimental system cannot advance into the unknown. How- ever, the exponents of Operational Creativity have deliberately set out to control and exploit the creative process, rather than let it happen in a hap- hazard fashion. They do this repeatedly, and at will. The technique now being used has evolved over the past ten years or so, primarily by the efforts of a group led by Dr. W. J. J. Gordon of Arthur D. Little, Inc. During the conception stage of an idea, their tools are talk and a tape recorder. They work in groups of four to five people, in sessions lasting two to three hours, trying by means of free association to determine, first of all, the fundamen- tal basis of the problem, and then ways to solve it. Ideas presented by the individual in the group need not always be practical, for they may stimu- late other ideas leading to a practical solution. Necessarily, therefore, their problems must be couched in broad terms, and in the conception stage they avoid becoming side-tracked by detail. Since innovation is their prime purpose, their choice of problem needs careful consideration. They measure their efficiency at innovation by their success in obtaining basic patents, as opposed to design patents. As might be expected, groups embarking on such a new approach to prob- lem solving will initially be somewhat inhibited in their reaction to free discussion. It is sometimes necessary in the early stage for the leader to withhold the specific problem until a session has got well under way by dis- cussing some basic concept such as "opening things." When the time is

332 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS ripe, the leader will then throw in the real problem: "We want a new can- opener." Later, as the group becomes closer-knit, this device can be dispensed with. The members learn to identify themselves very intimately with the prob- lem-become part of it, in a sense. There are probably less than six groups of people practicing Operational Creativity at the moment. One successful project which can be mentioned was the development of a new product for the Kimberley-Clark Corpora- tion. Because Operational Creativity produced an answer to a problem which had eluded other approaches, Kimberley-Clark is setting up their own group. Another recent success of Dr. Gordon's group was the develop- ment for the Horto Corporation of a new technique for anchoring the foun- dations of light buildings, such as greenhouses and garages, to the ground. One technique for collecting ideas, which bears a superficial resemblance to Operational Creativity (O. C.) has become known as "Brainstorming." There are, however, a number of fundamental differences between these two approaches: 1. O.C. groups take the concept through reduction to practice brain- stormers "think up" ideas only. 2. Brainstorming sessions may be short, and repeat sessions usually de- crease in productivity. O.C. takes considerable time--as many as 30 ses- sions have been held on one problem. The group becomes closely knit, and tends to increase in productivity with time. 3. O.C. is most useful in attacking and defining basic, broad problems, whereas brainstorming usually concentrates on narrow, well-defin•d prob- lems. 4. O.C. relies on the group working as a whole toward a unique solu- tion brainstorming encourages a competitive attitude within the group, and thus every suggestion is an individual solution. 5. Brainstorming emphasizes the quantity of ideas generated O. C. the quality. At the moment, the "blue skyers" are too small a group to permit us to generalize about personality. It ii obvious, however, that they must be articulate--if not eloquent--since their concepts arise only from discussion. They must learn to work together without inhibitiYn's wh'ich would tend to dampen the flow of ideas and concepts. O.C. adherents believe that indi- vidual creativity can be enhanced by participation in group sessions. Their educational background is varied, but the group must contain or have ac- cess to a person skilled in the technical area under examination. How do these groups fit together to form our problem-solving society? We should be unrealistic if we expected them to get along with one another all the time. The model-builder says of the experimentalist, "There he goes again--re-inventing the second law!," and the experimentalist corn-