Unit 4: Ideation and Creative Problem Solving - Subjective Questions

Ideation is the process of generating a wide range of ideas and possible solutions for a clearly defined problem. It usually follows the empathise and define stages of design thinking.

Purpose of ideation:

• To move beyond obvious or conventional solutions.
• To encourage divergent thinking and explore many alternatives.
• To combine insights from users, stakeholders, and the problem context.
• To create opportunities for innovative and user-centred solutions.

Ideation is important in complex problem solving because complex problems often have several interacting causes, affected groups, and possible solutions. Generating multiple alternatives reduces premature commitment to the first idea and supports more informed evaluation and selection.

Divergent thinking expands the solution space by producing many varied ideas without immediately judging them. It focuses on quantity, variety, and imagination.

Convergent thinking narrows the solution space by analysing, evaluating, prioritising, and selecting ideas according to defined criteria.

Effective ideation alternates between both modes. Excessive divergence may produce impractical ideas, while premature convergence may prevent creative and innovative solutions from emerging.

Brainstorming is a group or individual idea-generation technique in which participants produce many ideas in response to a specific problem statement.

Important rules include:

• Defer judgement during idea generation.
• Encourage a large quantity of ideas.
• Welcome unusual and ambitious suggestions.
• Build on and combine the ideas of others.
• Keep the problem statement visible and focused.
• Give all participants an opportunity to contribute.
• Record every idea clearly for later evaluation.

The facilitator should establish psychological safety, manage time, prevent one person from dominating, and separate idea generation from idea evaluation. Ideas can be reviewed later using criteria such as desirability, feasibility, viability, sustainability, and ethical acceptability.

SCAMPER is a checklist for modifying an existing product, service, or process. The letters represent:

• S — Substitute: Replace a material, step, person, or feature.
• C — Combine: Join two functions, products, or processes.
• A — Adapt: Adjust an idea for a new context or user group.
• M — Modify: Change the size, shape, colour, speed, or functionality.
• P — Put to another use: Apply the product or process in a different situation.
• E — Eliminate: Remove unnecessary features, steps, or costs.
• R — Reverse or rearrange: Change the sequence, direction, or structure.

For example, a university can improve its library service by combining physical and digital borrowing, eliminating unnecessary registration steps, adapting the service for mobile users, and rearranging the book-return process. SCAMPER helps teams systematically explore alternatives instead of relying only on spontaneous ideas.

A mind map is a visual representation of ideas arranged around a central problem or concept. The central topic is placed at the centre, with branches representing related themes, causes, users, needs, features, or possible solutions.

Mind mapping supports creative problem solving by:

• Making relationships between ideas visible.
• Encouraging free association and lateral thinking.
• Organising complex information into categories.
• Revealing gaps, patterns, and connections.
• Allowing ideas to be expanded without a rigid linear structure.
• Supporting both individual reflection and group discussion.

A team solving a public-transport problem might create branches for cost, accessibility, safety, technology, user behaviour, and environmental impact. Each branch can then produce further solution alternatives.

Analogy, metaphor, and forced connections stimulate creative thinking by transferring characteristics from one context to another.

• Analogy: A team asks how a similar problem is solved in another field. For example, hospital patient flow may be improved by studying airport check-in systems.
• Metaphor: A problem is represented through an unrelated image or concept, such as viewing an organisation as an ecosystem. This can reveal new relationships and possibilities.
• Forced connection: Two apparently unrelated objects or ideas are deliberately combined to create a new concept, such as combining a backpack with solar charging.

These methods are useful because they challenge assumptions and encourage designers to search outside the usual boundaries of a problem. The resulting ideas must still be tested for user value, feasibility, cost, and ethical consequences.

Brainwriting is a silent or partially silent idea-generation method in which participants write their ideas instead of presenting them verbally at the start of the session.

Differences from verbal brainstorming:

• Brainwriting gives quieter participants an equal opportunity to contribute.
• It reduces the influence of dominant or senior participants.
• Participants can think independently before reacting to others.
• It lowers evaluation anxiety and supports more honest suggestions.
• Written ideas can be combined, circulated, and developed systematically.

A common procedure is the -- method: six participants write three ideas in five minutes, then pass the ideas to others for further development. The exact numbers can be adapted to the group size and time available.

A How Might We question reframes a problem as an open-ended opportunity for action. It should be broad enough to allow several solutions but focused enough to guide ideation.

Characteristics of a good question:

• Begins with the phrase "How might we".
• Focuses on a user need or opportunity.
• Avoids embedding a particular solution.
• Encourages multiple possible responses.
• Is neither too broad nor too narrowly defined.

Examples for online learning:

• How might we help students remain engaged during long online classes?
• How might we make online learning more accessible to students with limited internet connectivity?
• How might we provide timely and useful feedback in a virtual classroom?

Such questions create a shared direction while preserving creative freedom.

Evaluation criteria are standards used to judge how well each alternative satisfies the problem objectives and stakeholder needs. They should be defined before comparison to improve fairness and consistency.

Importance of clear criteria:

• They connect the decision to the original objectives.
• They reduce personal bias and arbitrary judgement.
• They make trade-offs visible.
• They allow different ideas to be compared using a common basis.
• They improve transparency and stakeholder acceptance.
• They help identify why an idea succeeds or fails.

Useful criteria may include desirability, feasibility, viability, affordability, sustainability, scalability, accessibility, risk, and ethical impact. Criteria should be measurable where possible and should reflect the priorities of the users and organisation.

The three dimensions examine different aspects of whether a solution should be pursued:

• Desirability: Whether users need, value, understand, and are willing to adopt the solution.
• Feasibility: Whether the organisation has, or can obtain, the technical, operational, human, and legal resources required to implement it.
• Viability: Whether the solution can be financially and strategically sustained over time.

For example, a smart public-service application may be highly desirable because users want convenience, but it may be infeasible if the required data systems do not exist. It may also be unviable if maintenance costs exceed the available budget. A strong solution seeks an acceptable balance among all three dimensions rather than maximising only one.

A weighted decision matrix compares alternatives against multiple criteria while recognising that some criteria are more important than others.

Procedure:

1. List the solution alternatives in rows.
2. Define the evaluation criteria in columns.
3. Assign each criterion a weight such that the total weight is commonly or .
4. Rate every alternative against each criterion using a consistent scale, such as to .
5. Calculate the weighted score for each criterion using
   
   where is the rating of alternative on criterion .
6. Add the weighted scores:
   
7. Compare totals and review the assumptions, risks, and qualitative evidence.

The highest score is not automatically selected. The team should also check minimum requirements, ethical concerns, uncertainty, and stakeholder perspectives.

Use the weighted-score formula:

Solution A:

Solution B:

Solution C:

Recommendation: Solution B has the highest weighted score of . It should be recommended for further testing because it performs particularly well on user value and has a strong sustainability rating. However, the team should validate its feasibility and cost assumptions before final implementation.

Screening is the initial filtering of ideas to remove alternatives that clearly violate essential requirements, such as safety, legality, budget, or technical constraints.

Prioritising is the ranking of the remaining alternatives according to their relative importance, expected value, urgency, or strategic fit. Several ideas may remain high priority.

Selecting is the final decision to adopt one solution or a defined combination of solutions for prototyping, implementation, or further investigation.

The stages are related but not identical. Screening asks whether an idea is acceptable at a basic level. Prioritisation asks which acceptable ideas deserve attention first. Selection asks which option will actually be pursued. Separating these stages prevents a promising idea from being rejected too early and makes the final decision more transparent.

An impact-effort matrix plots ideas according to their expected positive effect and the effort required to implement them.

The four common categories are:

• High impact, low effort: Quick wins that should usually be addressed first.
• High impact, high effort: Strategic projects requiring planning and resources.
• Low impact, low effort: Possible improvements to implement when resources are available.
• Low impact, high effort: Ideas that are normally postponed, redesigned, or rejected.

The matrix supports prioritisation by making trade-offs visible and encouraging discussion about value and resources. However, estimated impact and effort may be uncertain. Therefore, the team should validate assumptions through research, experiments, prototypes, and stakeholder feedback before making major commitments.

Dot voting is a participatory prioritisation technique in which each participant receives a fixed number of votes, represented by dots, and places them beside the ideas they consider most valuable.

Advantages:

• It is quick and easy to understand.
• It gives every participant a visible opportunity to contribute.
• It helps reduce a long list of ideas to a manageable shortlist.
• It makes group preferences immediately visible.

Limitations:

• It may favour popular or familiar ideas rather than the most effective ones.
• Participants may be influenced by earlier votes or senior members.
• It does not show the reasons behind each vote.
• Equal voting power may ignore differences in expertise or responsibility.

Dot voting is best used as an initial prioritisation step, followed by evidence-based evaluation using defined criteria.

The Kano model classifies features according to their effect on user satisfaction:

• Must-be features: Basic requirements whose absence causes strong dissatisfaction, but whose presence may not create high satisfaction.
• One-dimensional features: Satisfaction increases as performance improves.
• Attractive features: Unexpected features that can greatly increase satisfaction when present.
• Indifferent features: Features that have little effect on user satisfaction.
• Reverse features: Features whose presence may reduce satisfaction for some users.

The model helps teams prioritise essential features before investing in attractive innovations. It also shows that user expectations change over time, so features should be reassessed through research and feedback. A solution with attractive features but missing must-be requirements should not be selected for implementation.

Stakeholders include users, employees, managers, technical specialists, regulators, suppliers, and communities affected by the solution. Their involvement improves decision quality in several ways:

• Users provide evidence about desirability and real-world context.
• Technical staff assess feasibility, integration, reliability, and maintenance.
• Financial stakeholders examine cost, value, and long-term viability.
• Regulators and community representatives identify legal, social, safety, and ethical issues.
• Different perspectives reveal risks and unintended consequences.

Stakeholder involvement should be structured through interviews, workshops, surveys, co-design sessions, and transparent feedback on criteria. It should not become an uncritical popularity contest. The decision team must balance stakeholder preferences with evidence, organisational objectives, equity, and the needs of less powerful groups.

A prototype is a simplified representation of a product, service, or process used to learn about an idea. It may be a sketch, storyboard, paper model, role-play, clickable interface, or functional minimum viable product.

Prototyping supports selection by:

• Testing whether users understand and value the idea.
• Revealing usability problems and hidden requirements.
• Checking technical or operational feasibility.
• Producing evidence instead of relying only on opinions.
• Allowing inexpensive failure and rapid improvement.
• Comparing alternatives under realistic conditions.

Experiments should define a hypothesis, target users, measures, time frame, and decision rule. For example, a team might test whether a redesigned form reduces completion time by at least . Results can lead to adoption, modification, further testing, or rejection.

The desirability-feasibility-viability triad is a framework for assessing whether a solution is attractive to users, possible to implement, and sustainable for the organisation.

• Desirability asks: Do users want or need it?
• Feasibility asks: Can it be built, delivered, operated, and maintained?
• Viability asks: Can it create sufficient value relative to its costs and risks?

A solution may be desirable but infeasible, feasible but financially unsustainable, or viable for an organisation but undesirable or harmful to users. Selection should therefore consider all three dimensions together. In complex problems, the team may use prototypes and pilot programmes to increase desirability, reduce technical uncertainty, and test the financial model before scaling the solution.

Cognitive biases can distort judgement during idea evaluation and selection.

Common biases include:

• Anchoring: Relying too heavily on the first idea or estimate presented.
• Confirmation bias: Seeking evidence that supports a preferred solution.
• Groupthink: Avoiding disagreement to preserve group harmony.
• Availability bias: Overvaluing information that is recent or memorable.
• Status quo bias: Preferring existing methods simply because they are familiar.
• Authority bias: Giving excessive weight to the opinion of a senior person.

Reduction methods:

• Define criteria and weights before reviewing alternatives.
• Use independent scoring before group discussion.
• Include diverse participants and assign a devil's advocate.
• Request evidence and record assumptions.
• Test ideas through prototypes and experiments.
• Conduct a pre-mortem asking why the selected solution might fail.

These practices make evaluation more deliberate, transparent, and evidence-based.