TRIZ Future 2012, Lisbon, Portugal
Does TRIZ change people? evaluating the impact of TRIZ training within an organisation: implications
for theory and practice
Lilly Haines-Gadd
Birkbeck College, University of London / Oxford Creativity
TRIZ Innovation Centre
Hanborough business park
Hanborough
Oxford OX29 8LJ
Abstract
The author conducted research into the impact of TRIZ training within a global FMCG organisation,
repeating the research of Birdi et al (2010) [1], which was conducted within a global engineering
company. This research is based on Birdi et al's (2010) [1] model, which suggests that different individual
and contextual factors are required for different parts of the innovation process (idea generation, followed
by implementation). This study has highlighted potential mechanisms that underlie creative behaviour:
namely, cognitive factors (creative thinking skills), and affective factors (motivation to innovate and
creative self-efficacy ; and developed further a method of measuring them.
The questionnaire (n=122) found that Birdi et al.’s (2010) [1] suggested mechanism of how TRIZ training
improves idea generation - by improving levels of cognitive and affective factors - was partially
supported. Trainees reported higher levels of creative self-efficacy, motivation to innovate, idea
generation and patent submissions than non-trainees: while creative thinking skills were shown to be
associated with higher levels of idea generation, no difference was found comparing trainees to nontrainees. Birdi et al. (2010) [1] predicted environmental support for innovation would influence idea
generation and implementation, which was not supported, however as predicted, some of the measures of
job-relevant capabilities were better predictors for idea implementation than training. Different levels of
impact were found according to how much training the participants had received.
This study therefore suggests some of the mechanisms by which TRIZ improves innovative behaviour at
work: by providing an understanding of the functional changes as a result of training, better evaluation
can be conducted by measuring individual's changes in cognitive and affective factors, providing a more
rigorous measure of the impact of TRIZ training.
The implications for practitioners in delivering the most effective TRIZ training are discussed (in terms of
focus, structure and learning outcomes), as well as the limitations of TRIZ training and the other factors
organisations need to consider in order to increase their innovative output.
This research contributes to the literature by being one of the few evaluations of innovation training
2
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
which is theoretically driven, conducted within an organisation, and repeats past work using the same
training content (TRIZ).
The research was conducted as part of the author's MSc in Occupational Psychology, and while she is a
TRIZ trainer and practitioner herself, this research was conducted at an organisation which had received
training in TRIZ from another consultancy.
Keywords: TRIZ training; evaluation; creativity; innovation
1. Introduction
Innovation is increasingly considered a key component of organisations’ success (Ford & Gioia, 2000),
and research has shown that innovating firms grow faster and experience 4 times the sales growth of noninnovating firms (Roper et al., 2008).
Organisations are recognising that in order to maintain a competitive edge they need innovative
employees and many are looking to training as one way of improving their innovative thinking abilities
(Clapham, 2003), working on the basis that most employees are capable of being creative at work (Farr,
1990; Weisberg, 1986), and if they are not, it is due to lack of skills or motivation (Steinmetz, 1968).
1.1 What is innovative behaviour?
Innovative behaviour involves both the generation of creative ideas and their implementation for
organisational benefit (Amabile, 1988,1996; West & Farr, 1990). Creative ideas are defined as both novel
and useful (Amabile,1983; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991,1995,1996;
Ochse,1990). While the literature often uses the terms “creativity”, “innovation” and “creative problem
solving” as synonymous, creativity can be understood as a crucial part of the innovation process
(Anderson et al.,2004): a two-stage process where creativity dominates in the first stage, followed by
implementation (West, 2002). Creativity is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition for
innovation at work (Amabile, 1996). Successfully innovative individuals must therefore be able to
generate creative ideas and then implement them (Birdi, 2007).
1.2 How do we increase innovative behaviour? The impact of training
Training tends to focus on improving abilities in the first stage of innovation process - generating creative
ideas - as ideation is often the part of the creative process that individuals find the most difficult (Basadur
et al.,1982).
Of the recent meta-analyses into the impact of training, most have criticised current research as relying
too heavily on lab-based research, more research is therefore needed within organisations, to understand
whether the positive results of creativity training found in experimental studies can be replicated in the
workplace. Very little research has investigated the mechanisms which underlie creative ability (Runco,
2004) or seek to explain why individual and contextual factors influence an individual’s creativity (Choi,
2004).
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
Effective evaluation of the impact of training in the workplace should be theoretically driven; we should
understand the mechanisms by which the training changes an employee (Birdi, 2005, 2007).
Birdi et al. (2010) studied the impact of TRIZ training within an engineering company. TRIZ (Teoriya
Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch = Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) is a toolkit and problem
solving process developed in the former Soviet Union. The TRIZ community analysed the most inventive
patents and developed a series of tools for understanding and solving problems based on analogous
thinking: there are heuristics for modelling problems conceptually in order to access innovative solutions,
and tools for stimulating creative thinking (Altshuller & Altov, 1996). While training in TRIZ is
becoming increasingly popular in the UK, very little research has been conducted into its impact (Birdi et
al. 2010).
1.3 Evaluating training: how does training work? Influences on Idea Generation
Training can improve an individual’s ability to think creatively by providing them with methods or
heuristics for generating more ideas (Amabile, 1983; Clegg et al, 2002; Scott et al, 2004b; Hennessey &
Amabile, 2010); i.e. improving their creative thinking skills.
However for training to be most effective, it must also involve changes in intrinsic motivation to innovate
(an interest and involvement in the work, driven by curiosity and enjoyment (Amabile, 1983)), as this
have been shown to be critical for individual creativity at work (e.g. Amabile, 1983,1988,1996; Sternberg
& Lubart, 1996) and for long-term behavioural change following training (Basadur et al, 1982).
Nickerson (1999) suggested that affective factors such as motivation were more important than domainspecific knowledge or creativity-relevant skills.
Nickerson (1999) also suggested that beliefs about creative ability are critical: if people believe that
creativity can be enhanced through learning, they are more likely to be motivated in and following
training. Therefore investigating individual’s beliefs about their creative abilities is also important, as they
may underlie and impact on their motivation.
Numerous studies report the positive association between creative self-efficacy and innovative behaviour
(Axtell et al, 2000; Farr & Ford, 1990; Parker et al, 2006; Patterson et al, 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002,
2004; and creativity (Beghetto, 2006; Ford, 1996; Bandura, 1997; Phelan, 2001). Self-efficacy is
conceptually distinct from motivation to innovate, as it incorporates elements of confidence, courage
(Patterson et al., 2009) and one’s perceived ability for conducting a specific task (Bandura, 1997). Selfefficacy can mediate the relationship between motivation and performance (Bandura, 1982). Choi (2004)
found that self-efficacy mediated creative ability, but it may also mediate motivation to innovate: this has
not yet been investigated.
Few studies have investigated the impact of training on creative self-efficacy, but there is evidence that
training can increase levels of creative self-efficacy (Robbins & Kegley, 2010; Mathisen & Bronnick,
2009; Locke et al., 1984; Gist, 1989).
2. Statement of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Individuals who have been trained will show higher levels of innovative behaviour at work.
3
4
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
Birdi et al’s (2010) suggested that training improved innovative behaviour by improving cognitive
(creative thinking skills) and affective factors (motivation to innovate). TRIZ trainees should therefore
show higher levels of both of these factors, and they should be associated with higher levels of innovative
behaviour at work. Creative self-efficacy may also be improved by training and be associated with higher
levels of idea generation.
Hypothesis 2:
Individuals who have been TRIZ trained will show higher levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to
innovate and creative self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 3:
Higher levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy will be
associated with higher levels of idea generation.
Hypothesis 4:
Creative self-efficacy will mediate the impact of creative thinking skills and motivation to innovate on
idea generation.
One important way that this sample varied from Birdi et al.’s (2010) original sample is that the training
programme was substantially different. In Birdi et al.’s (2010) sample, the trainees had all attended a
single day of training. In this sample, three levels of training programme were available: there may be
different levels of change in cognitive and affective factors as a consequence of amount of training
completed. This may also effect training satisfaction and transfer.
Hypothesis 5:
The more training attended, the higher the levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to innovate,
creative self-efficacy, training satisfaction and transfer.
3. Methodology
3.1 Organisational Context
The study was conducted at the UK site of an international fast moving consumer goods (FMCG)
company. TRIZ training was offered to all 60 members of the Product Futures department.
However the response to the training so far was mixed, and it was uncertain how useful TRIZ had been
and how much it was being used. Therefore the company was keen to undertake evaluation in order to
understand whether TRIZ training had improved individual’s creative behaviour at work and resulted in
more innovative ideas being implemented.
3.2 Procedure
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
The Product Futures department was compared to Applied Research, a similar department which hadn’t
received any TRIZ training.. A questionnaire was sent to 122 employees, all 60 members of the Product
Futures department and all 62 members of Applied Research. 67 responses were collected – a 55%
response rate – with no significant difference in response rate between departments.
3.3 Measures
Innovative Behaviour Measures:
Idea Suggestion
Respondents were asked how much over the last 3 months they had suggested ideas to others in 5 relevant
areas of work Responses were scored on a five-point scale item from 1=to a very great extent to 5=not at
all, and were averaged to provide a single score (alpha=.76).
Idea Implementation
Respondents were asked how much over the last 3 months their ideas had been implemented in the same
5 areas as above. Responses were scored on a five-point scale item from 1=to a very great extent to 5=not
at all, and averaged to provide a single score (alpha=.78).
Patent Submissions
Respondents were asked how many patents they had submitted in 2010.
Creativity Training Measures
Respondents were asked whether they had participated in any training, if so, how many months ago, and
to what level (Level 1, 2 or 3). Respondents completed 19 measures of training satisfaction, averaged to
provide a single score (alpha=.97). Respondents indicated how much they have consciously used TRIZ
since attending training as a measure of training transfer. Responses were scored on a five-point scale
from 1=Very frequently to 5=Not at all. Participants were also asked “why” to capture reasons for use or
non-use of TRIZ, and asked to describe an example of where TRIZ had been applied to their work.
Individual Measures
Respondents rated their self-reported creative thinking skills on a 7-item measure. Responses were scored
on a five-point scale from 1=highly skilled (i.e. can coach others in this) to 5=not skilled at all, and
averaged to form a single score (alpha=.90).
Motivation to innovate was measured using a 4-item measure. Items were scored on a five-point scale
from 1=Strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree, and averaged to form a single score (alpha=.80).
Creative self-efficacy was measured using Tierney & Farmer’s (2002) 3-item measure. Items were scored
on a five-point scale from 1=Strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree, and averaged to form a single score
(alpha=.87).
5
6
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
4. Results
Hypothesis1: Individuals who have been trained will show higher levels of innovative behaviour at work.
T-tests were conducted to compare the difference between TRIZ trainees and non-trainees.
Table 1: Results of T-Tests comparing TRIZ trainees and non-trainees
Trainees
Mean
Idea Suggestion
Idea Implementation
Creative Thinking Skills
Motivation to Innovate
Creative Self-Efficacy
Patent Applications
2.86
2.17
4.00
4.23
4.27
1.67
Standard
Deviation
.85
.76
.60
.52
.68
2.38
Non-trainees
Mean
2.41
1.98
3.71
3.84
3.81
.43
Standard
Deviation
1.00
.96
.70
.58
.67
.79
T
Value
Df
-2.0*
-.92
-1.9
-3.0**
-2.8**
-2.8*
66
67
67
67
67
40
*p<.05, **p<.01
TRIZ trainees reported higher levels of idea suggestion at work (mean=2.90, SD =.85) than non-trainees
(mean=2.41, SD 1.00), t(66)=-2.0, p<.05.
There was no significant difference between groups in number of ideas implemented (see table 2).
TRIZ trainees applied for more patents (mean=1.67, SD=2.38) than non-trainees (mean=.43, SD=.79)
t(40)=-2.81, p=.008.
Hypothesis 2:
Individuals who have been TRIZ trained will show higher levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to
innovate and creative self-efficacy.
There was no significant difference between trainees and non-trainees for levels of creative thinking
skills.
TRIZ trainees showed higher levels of motivation to innovate (mean=4.23; SD=.52) compared to nontrainees (mean=3.84, SD-.58) t(67)=-3.02, p<.01; TRIZ trainees also showed higher levels of creative
self-efficacy (mean=4.27, SD=.68) than non-trainees (mean=3.81, SD=.67) t(67)=-2.82, p<.01.
Hypothesis 3:
Higher levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy will be
associated with higher levels of idea generation.
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
Levels of creative thinking skills were correlated with idea suggestions (r=.42, p<.001), patent
applications (r=.33, p<.05) and idea implementation (r=.43, p<.001).
Levels of motivation to innovate correlated with idea suggestion (r=.37, p<.01), patent applications
(r=.42, p<.01), and idea implementation (r=.38, p<.01).
Levels of creative self-efficacy correlated with idea suggestion (.53, p<.001), patent applications (r=.47,
p<.001), 2009(r=.45, p<.001), and idea implementation(r=.56, p<.001).
Hypothesis 4:
Creative self-efficacy will mediate the impact of creative thinking skills and motivation to innovate on
idea generation.
To test for mediation, the Baron & Kenny (1986) steps were followed:
-
the mediator was regressed on to the predictor variable to demonstrate a correlation
the criterion variable was regressed on to the predictor variable to demonstrate a direct effect for
the predictor on the criterion
- the criterion variable was regressed on to the predictor variable and the mediator
Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for the mediation effects of creative self-efficacy on
creative thinking skills (n= 65)
Regression 1 a)
Creative thinking skills
F
R²
Change in R²
Regression 2 b)
Creative Thinking Skills
Creative Self-efficacy
F
R²
Change in R²
Step 1
Step 2
β
β
.75***
86.29
.56***
.42***
13.82
.17***
.04
.50**
12.74
.28***
.11**
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Criterion Variable
a) Creative self-efficacy
b) Idea suggestion
As can be seen in Table 2, regression 1 demonstrated a correlation between the creative thinking skills
and creative self-efficacy (r=.75, p<.001). Regression 2 demonstrates a direct effect of creative thinking
7
8
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
skills on idea suggestion (β=.42, p<.001), however when creative self-efficacy is added to the regression,
it is independently significant (β=.50, p<.001), while creative thinking skills becomes non-significant,
indicating complete mediation.
Table 3 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for the mediation effects of creative self-efficacy on
motivation to innovate (n= 64)
Step 1
Step 2
β
Regression 1 a)
Motivation to Innovate
F
R²
Change in R²
Regression 2 b)
Motivation to Innovate
Creative Self-efficacy
F
R²
Change in R²
β
.76***
91.48
.58***
.37**
10.29
.14**
-.07
.58**
12.82
.28***
.15**
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Criterion Variable
a) Creative self-efficacy
b) Idea suggestion
Looking at motivation to innovate, as seen in Table 3, regression 1 demonstrated a correlation between
the motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy (r=.58, P<.001). Regression 2 demonstrates a direct
effect of motivation on idea suggestion (β=.37, p<.01), however when creative self-efficacy is added to
the regression, it is independently significant (β=.58, p<.001), while creative thinking skills becomes nonsignificant, indicating complete mediation.
Hypothesis 5:
The more training attended, the higher the levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to innovate,
creative self-efficacy, training satisfaction and transfer.
As only 2 people had completed Level 3 training, a new variable was created combining Level 2 and
Level 3.
An independent samples one-way analysis of variance showed a significant difference between groups in
levels of creative thinking skills, motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy.
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
9
Table 4: One-way ANOVA showing difference in cognitive and affective factors
Mean
Standard
Number
Deviation
No
95% Confidence Intervals
Lower
Upper
3.71
.69
33
3.47
3.96
Creative
training
Thinking
Level 1
3.66
.59
14
3.32
4.00
Level
4.22
.53
22
4.00
4.46
3.87
.60
33
3.66
4.09
Level 1
4.00
.62
14
3.62
4.33
Level
4.36
.37
22
4.20
4.53
3.84
.69
33
3.60
4.09
Level 1
3.83
.62
14
3.47
4.19
Level
4.52
.59
22
4.25
4.78
Skills
2&3
No
training
Motivation to
Innovate
2&3
No
training
Creative SelfEfficacy
2&3
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
10
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
Table 5: Tukey HSD Multiple Comparisons
Mean Difference
Creative
Thinking
Skills
Motivation to Innovate
Creative Self-Efficacy
No training
Level 1
-.05
No training
Level 2&3
.51*
Level 1
Level 2&3
.56*
No training
Level 1
.10
No training
Level 2&3
.49**
Level 1
Level 2&3
.39
No training
Level 1
.01
No training
Level 2&3
.67**
Level 1
Level 2&3
.68**
*p<.05, **p<.01
Tukey HSD tests were used to examine the differences between levels of training (no training, Level 1,
and Levels 2&3: see Table 8). There was no significant difference between no training and Level 1 for
any of the measures. There was a significant difference in means between no training and Levels 2&3 and
Level 1 and Levels 2&3 for creative thinking skills and creative self-efficacy, and a significant difference
between no training and Levels 2&3 for motivation to innovate.
Table 6: T-tests showing difference in training satisfaction and use of TRIZ
Level 1
Mean
Level 2&3
Standard
Mean
Deviation
T Value
Df
Standard
Deviation
Training Satisfaction
2.11
.66
3.13
.85
-3.83**
34
TRIZ Use
1.93
.83
3.00
1.07
-3.81**
34
**p<.01
T-tests were used to compare the level of training satisfaction and use of TRIZ according to amount of
training completed. Significant differences were found in training satisfaction, with respondents
completing Level 1 reporting a lower satisfaction level (mean=2.11,SD=.66) than those completing
Levels 2&3 (mean=3.13,SD=.85), t(34)=-3.83, p<.001. Respondents completing Level 1 reported a lower
level of TRIZ use (mean=1.93,SD=.83) than those completing Levels 2&3 (mean=3.00,SD=-1.07),
t(34)=-3.81, p<.001.
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
Reasons for Using TRIZ
Respondents who reported using TRIZ “frequently” or “very frequently” gave reasons for this around
TRIZ’s usefulness, seeing it being used by others, and job support for the use of TRIZ.
Respondents who reported using TRIZ “rarely” or “not at all” gave reasons for this which were focused
strongly around the lack of opportunity. Other reasons were that, it wasn’t easy enough to use, it wasn’t
needed and lack of support.
Consequences of TRIZ
Responses to this focused around the generation of many more and more novel ideas, including ideas
which wouldn’t have been generated without TRIZ, and ideas which were more simple. More patents
were generated, and patents extended as a result of TRIZ use. Respondents also reported more clear and
structured thinking, better thought processes, faster problem solving, an objective focus and a new way of
thinking.
Changes to training
Respondents focused on ease of use (or lack thereof). One respondent reported “level 1 was the download
of the theory and level 2 was more about its application”. Many responses suggested that the training was
easier to use, simplified, more pragmatic, in smaller chunks and more fun.
5. Discussion
5.1 Idea Suggestion & Patent Applications
The TRIZ trained group reported higher levels of Idea Suggestion at work than non-trainees, indicating
the training may have improved their ability to generate ideas. Trainees reported submitting more patents
than non-trainees.
5.2 Creative Thinking Skills, Motivation to Innovate and Creative Self-Efficacy
Birdi et al. (2010) suggested that improved creative thinking skills and motivation to innovate as a result
of training provided the means by which training had a positive impact on innovative behaviour:
therefore, it was expected to find higher levels of these factors in trainees compared to non-trainees, and
for these factors to be associated with higher levels of innovative behaviour. Creative self-efficacy was
also investigated, as previous studies have shown that it can be improved by training and have a positive
influence on innovative behaviour (e.g. Robbins & Kegley, 2010; Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009).
Higher levels of motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy were found in trainees compared to
non-trainees, but unexpectedly there was no significant difference between the two groups in creative
thinking skills. This may indicate a difference in training: the TRIZ training delivered in this company
was different in content and length to the training in Birdi et al (2010), so it may be that the training this
sample received was effective in changing motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy, but not
creative thinking skills.
11
12
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
Higher levels of these factors were expected to be associated with higher levels of innovative behaviour:
medium-sized to large correlations were found between all of measures of innovative behaviour and these
factors, with creative self-efficacy showing stronger relationships than the other two factors for idea
suggestion (r=.53), patent applications (r=.47) and idea implementation (r=.56).
5.3 Creative Self-Efficacy
Creative self-efficacy completely mediated the effect of creative thinking skills, supporting Choi’s (2004)
findings, and motivation to innovate (suggested by Bandura, 1982). This is an interesting addition to
understanding the potential impact of training, and has practical implications: it is not enough to teach
individuals creative thinking skills and motivate them towards the task of innovating: people must have
confidence in their ability to be creative for training to be effective. As creative self-efficacy can be
improved by training, it indicates that training programmes aiming to teach individuals creativity-relevant
skills and motivation should include elements intended to raise creative self-efficacy. This can be
improved by positive experiences (Bandura 1982; Patterson, 2002) and may explain the finding that
training programmes including exercises and practical application of newly-learned skills are more
effective (Scott et al., 2004b).
There is little research investigating the interaction of these constructs, and what there is often
investigates self-efficacy as a generalised construct and/or a trait (e.g. Prabhu et al., 2008). More research
is needed to uncover the relationship between creative self-efficacy, creative thinking skills and
motivation to innovate.
5.4 Level of Training
How much training individuals attended was significantly related to the subsequent impact on creative
thinking skills, motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy. Crucially, the biggest difference was
between Levels 1 and 2. This could mean that the training at Level 1 was not sufficient to change
participants’ skill and affective orientation levels, and further training was required to increase this.
One explanation may be the fact that the training is much longer: if one of the most important outcomes
from innovation training is increased self-belief and motivation then 1 day of training may be
inspirational, but 5 days too hard to put into practice. An additional 5 days may give individuals the
practice and confidence in the use of the tools to then see the benefits of increased affective orientation to
innovation. Respondents who have completed Level 2 or 3 report higher levels of satisfaction with the
training and use of TRIZ, suggesting that completing the advanced training is beneficial: this may be the
reason. If this is the case, perhaps the most important part of innovation training is not the tools
themselves but the self-belief than an individual can be creative. This has important implications for the
focus on innovation training at work.
Another key aspect is that the training was not delivered by the same provider. The company where Birdi
et al. (2010) conducted their research had created their own in-house TRIZ programme: this company had
a consultancy run in-house programmes. It may be that this company’s Level 1 training was less effective
in improving creative thinking skills: TRIZ is public domain, and the approaches taken by different
companies can vary significantly in the choice of tools (Moerhle, 2004); this company may have been
taught different tools.
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
This is also a different industry: Scott et al. (2004a) suggest that population and setting might moderate
the effectiveness of training. TRIZ was developed for engineers, and Birdi et al’s (2010) research was in
an engineering company, while this sample is largely chemists and scientists. TRIZ may not have the
same impact on this community: the tools in particular may be more suited to engineering problems,
which might explain the different outcome in creative thinking skills.
5.5 Implications for Training
This research demonstrates the importance of making TRIZ training fun, easy to use and focuses on
giving people confidence in using TRIZ. As beneficial effects of TRIZ training were shown without any
change in actual thinking skills, this study demonstrates that perhaps the most important aspect of training
is changing people’s feelings about innovation at work and improving their confidence levels in problem
solving and generating creative ideas.
5.6 Implications for Organisations
People who use TRIZ most often report having support in their job, while the most commonly cited
reason for not using TRIZ was the lack of opportunity. This suggests that organisations which have
invested in training should not only support but also encourage the use TRIZ in order to see widespread
organisational benefits.
6. Conclusions
This study provides modest support for Birdi et al.’s (2010) model of the different individual and
contextual factors that influence the two stages of innovation: idea generation and idea implementation.
The questionnaire developed from this model therefore forms a good basis for understanding the impact
of innovation training at work. Birdi et al. (2010) suggested that training works by improving creative
thinking skills and motivation to innovate: this study supports their positive influence on innovative
behaviour at work, and higher levels in motivation to innovate were found in respondents who had been
trained, indicating training has a beneficial effect on individual creativity. Not all of Birdi et al.’s (2010)
findings were replicated – there was no evidence that creative thinking skills were higher in trainees,
however this may be due to differences between the samples and the TRIZ training. Further replication of
this study within organisations who have received TRIZ training would be vital for improving the
generalisability of this questionnaire: however this study is rare in repeating the evaluation of training of
the same content, when content is a key source of variation in outcome (Scott et al, 2004b).
Birdi et al’s (2010) model for understanding the various inputs to innovative behaviour at work has been
partially supported. His questionnaire may therefore be an effective way to measure the impact of training
– even after completion– however it could be improved by making it shorter via factor analysis. This
study contributes to the literature as it has highlighted potential mechanisms that underlie creative
behaviour: namely, creative thinking skills, motivation to innovate and creative self-efficacy; and
developed further a method of measuring them.
13
14
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
References
Altshuller, G. & Altov, H. (1996) And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive
Problem Solving . Worcester, MA: Technology Innovation Centre
Amabile, T.M. (1983) The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376
Amabile, T.M. (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations Research in Organizational
Behavior, 10, 123-167
Amabile, T. M. (1996) Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO:
Westview
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K.W. & Nijstad, B.A. (2004) The routinization of innovation research: a
constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147173
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unwsorth, K.L., Wall, T.D. & Waterson, P.E. (2000) Shopfloor innovation:
facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas Journal of Occupation and Organizational
Psychology, 73, 265-285
Bandura, A. (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Basadur,M., Graen, G.B. & Green, S.G. (1982) Training in creative problem solving: effects on ideation
and problem finding and solving in industrial research organization Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 30, 41-70
Beghetto, R.A. (2006) Creative self-efficacy: correlates in middles and secondary students Creativity
Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457
Birdi, K. (2005) No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training Journal of European
Industrial Training, 29(2), 102-111
Birdi, K. (2007) A lighthouse in the desert? Evaluating the effects of creativity training on employee
innovation Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(4), 249-270
Birdi, K. (2010) Practicing ideas? Evaluating the impact of creativity training on employees’ innovative
behaviour The 2nd Biennial Institute of Work Psychology Conference on Work, Well-being &
Performance, Sheffield, UK, 29 June-1 July 2010.
Choi, J.N. (2004) Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of
psychological processes Creativity Research Journal, 16(2&3), 187-199
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
Clapham, M.M. (2003) The development of innovative ideas through creativity training. In L.V.
Shavinina (Ed.) The International Handbook on Innovation, (pp366-376)
Clegg, C. Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O. & Parker, G (2002) Implicating trust in the innovation process
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 409-422.
Cole, D.A. & Maxwell, S.E. (2003) Testing meditational models with longitudinal data: questions and
tips in the use of structural equation modelling Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112 (4), 558-577
Dewberry, C. (2004) Statistical methods for organizational research: theory and practice. Oxon:
Routledge
Farr, J.L. (1990) Facilitating individual role innovation. In M.A. West & J.L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work Psychological and organizational strategies (pp.207-230). Chichester: Wiley
Farr, J.L. & Ford, C.M. (1990) Individual innovation. In M.A. West & J.L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley
Ford, C.M. (1996) A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142
Ford, C. & Gioia, D. (2000) Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making
Journal of Management, 26(4), 705-732
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among
managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787–805.
Hennessey, B.A. & Amabile, T.M. (2010) Creativity The Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598
Judd, C.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1981) Process Analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations
Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies
on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241–251.
Mathisen , G.E. & Bronnick, K.S. (2009) Creative self-efficacy: an intervention study International
Journal of Educational Research, 48, 21-29
Moerhle, M. G. (2004) How combinations of TRIZ tools are used in companies – results of a cluster
analysis R&D Management, 35(3), 285-296
Mumford, M. & Gustafson, S. (1988) Creativity syndrome: integration, application and innovation
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392430). New York: Cambridge University Press
15
16
First Authors Name / TRIZ Future 2012
Ochse, R. (1990) Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genius. Cambridge
University Press.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. & Turner, N. (2006) Modeling the antecedents of proactive behaviour at
work Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652
Patterson, F. (2002) Great minds don’t think alike? Person-level predictors of innovation at work
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17, 115-143
Patterson, F., Kerrin, M., Gatto-Roissard, G., & Coan, P. (2009) Everyday innovation: how to enhance
innovative working in employees and organisations NESTA Report Accessed online at
http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/everyday_innovation_how_to_enhance_inno
vative_working_in_employees_and_organisations on 16 January 2010
Phelan, S.G. (2001) Developing creative competence at work: the reciprocal effects of creative thinking,
self-efficacy and organizational culture on creative performance. Dissertation Abstracts International,
62(2), 1059B. (UMI No. AA13003909)
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C. & Sauser, W. (2008) Creativity and certain personality traits: understanding the
mediating effect of intrinsic motivation Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 53-66
Robbins, T.L. & Kegley, K. (2010) Playing with thinkertoys to build creative abilities through online
instruction Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 40-48
Roper, S., Hales, C., Bryson, J.R. & Love, J. (2009) Measuring sectoral innovation capability in nine
areas of the UK economy Report for NESTA Innovation Index Project. Accessed online at
www.nesta.org.uk/publications.reports/assets.features/measuring_sectoral_innovation_capability_in_nine
_areas_of_the_uk_economy on 27 July 2010
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,657–687.
Scott, S.G. & Bruce, R.A. (1994) Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a) Types of creativity training: approaches and their
effectiveness Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(3), 149-179
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). The effectiveness of creativity training: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388.
Steinmetz, C.S. (1968) Creativity training: a testing program that became a sales training program
Journal of Creative Behavior, 2(3), 179-186
Lilly Haines-Gadd / TRIZ Future 2012
Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1991) An investment theory of creativity and its development Human
Development, 34, 1-32
Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1996) Investing in Creativity American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688
Sternberg & Lubart (1999) Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 315). New York: Cambridge University Press
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45,1137–148.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004) The Pygmalion process and employee creativity Journal of
Management, 30(3), 413-432
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–424.
West & Farr, 1990
Weisberg, R.W. (1986) Creativity, genius and other myths. New York: Freeman.
17