This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe the move is in order, as the current title "provocative operation" is just one of the operationalisations used by Edward de Bono. --Gurubrahma 10:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really understand this article because it seems to be written as a refresher or summary for people who already understand the concept. That needs to be changed to explain the concept better to people who have never heard of it… if the article is worth keeping:

Because the references are all from the same person, who is also the only person mentioned in the article as having studied/written about this concept, I'm not sure it's notable. It may be a fringe theory. The article may also be biased against the mainstream views even if its subject is not a fringe theory. I can't fix this stuff myself because I don't understand the concept. –PointyOintment (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]