"Insightful solutions to problems often happen when people reuse knowledge that they did not realize would be valuable when they learned it. ... That kind of creativity requires three components: 1) improving your knowledge about the way all kinds of things in the world function; 2) developing strategies to pull out the knowledge you need when you need it; and 3) developing thinking habits to support these skills."
Author: Art Markman, Chicago Tribune, May 23, 2012

"Ever find yourself going over and over a problem in your business, only to hit a dead end or draw a blank? Find an innovative solution with one simple technique: re-describe the problem."
Author: Nadia Goodman, Entrepreneur, May 23, 2012

The toy that makes every young girl an artist, an engineer, an architect, and a visionary!

Displays a random oblique strategy to help you see a problem in a new way, or find inspiration to help get through a creative block.

Is your problem a puzzle or a mystery?
Refers to the "Designing for Growth" book -- showing the key chart that forms the framework of the book.

"The process of melding individuals into effective, problem-solving groups should involve empowering individuals to realize they have important ideas to share.Dr. Bryan Bonner, an associate professor at the University of Utah's David Eccles School of Business, believes the first step to building successful organizations is deceptively simple: self-realization by each participant of his or her unique knowledge and experience."
Author: ScienceDaily, Mar. 27, 2012

"When we've got a problem to solve, we don't just use our brains but the rest of our bodies, too. The connection, as neurologists know, is not uni-directional. Now there's evidence from cognitive psychology of the same fact. 'Being able to use your body in problem solving alters the way you solve the problems,' says University of Wisconsin psychology professor Martha Alibali. 'Body movements are one of the resources we bring to cognitive processes.'"
Author: ScienceDaily, June 2, 2011

"Stuck solving a problem? Seek the obscure, says Tony McCaffrey, a psychology PhD from the University of Massachusetts. "There's a classic obstacle to innovation called 'functional fixedness,' which is the tendency to fixate on the common use of an object or its parts. It hinders people from solving problems." McCaffrey has developed a systematic way of overcoming that obstacle: the "generic parts technique" (GPT), which he describes in the latest issue of Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science."

"Here's how GPT works: "For each object in your problem, you break it into parts and ask two questions,' explains McCaffrey, who is now a post-doctoral fellow in UMass's engineering department.
"'Can it be broken down further? and 2. -- this is the one that's been overlooked -- Does my description of the part imply a use?'"

Author: ScienceDaily, Mar. 7, 2012

"Fatigue can lead to dangerous errors by doctors, pilots and others in high-risk professions, but individuals who work together as a team display better problem-solving skills than those who face their fatigue alone, new research shows."
Author: ScienceDaily, Aug. 17, 2011

"Want to think outside the box? Try actually thinking outside of a box. In a study to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, researchers had students think up solutions to problems while acting out various metaphors about creative thinking and found that the instructions actually worked."
Author: ScienceDaily, Jan. 23, 2012

From Austin Center for Design: Jon Kolko's book was started with the intent of changing design and social entrepreneurship education. As these disciplines converge, it becomes evident that existing pedagogy doesn't support either students or practicioners attempting to design for impact. This text is a reaction to that convergence, and will ideally be used by various students, educators, and practicioners:

The Delphi Method is used to reach a properly thought-through consensus among experts.
"he Delphi Method works through a number of cycles of anonymous written discussion and argument, managed by a facilitator. Participants in the process do not meet, or even necessarily know who else is involved: the facilitator controls the process, and manages the flow and consolidation of information."

The Stepladder Technique is a simple tool that manages how members enter the decision-making group. Developed by Steven Rogelberg, Janet Barnes-Farrell and Charles Lowe in 1992, it encourages all members to contribute on an individual level BEFORE being influenced by anyone else. This results in a wider variety of ideas, it prevents people from "hiding" within the group, and it helps people avoid being "stepped on" or overpowered by stronger, louder group members.

As useful as brainstorming or crowdsourced "initiatives are, it is sometimes more effective to bring a small group of people together and encouragement them to have a conversation in which they talk about the problem and potential solutions and even begin to develop more complete concepts based on those solutions. Although comprising far fewer people, such conversations can be very powerful. Think about it. Remember a time when you and a small number of people talked through a problem in a relaxed environment? Perhaps you were even in a pub having a drink. Can you recall such a time when you and the others came up with a handful of very clever solutions to a problem? It may not have been a business problem. It may have been a personal challenge one of you faced. Or it may indeed have been a business problem that drove you and your colleagues mad. And even though you knew management would never change, you had great fun dreaming up solutions to this shared and frustrating problem."

"Compare that to any structured brainstorming or ideation event you have attended recently. Very likely it was a more serious environment. Drinks were most likely not alcoholic. Doubtless you generated a lot of ideas at the brainstorm. But the results were most likely very different to what came out of the conversation. The brainstorm probably ended up with a large number of ideas with potential. Your conversation most likely ended up with very few solutions – perhaps only one. But they were probably developed beyond the kind of raw ideas that come out of a brainstorm."
Author: Jeffery Paul Baumgartner, undated, [viewed April 15, 2012]