============

“The key to being consistently innovative is to create a new form for something familiar and then to find a function it can perform. maybe we have no ideaThat is why, when we first hear about a new idea, we often experience a sense of disappointment with ourselves: Gee, why didn’t I think of that? The most consequential ideas are often right under our noses, connected in some way to our current reality or view of the world.”

Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results <Boyd & Greenberg authors>

==================

I hate brainstorming. I love thinking <and encouraging everyone to do so>… and I love innovative ideas <and encourage everyone to believe they can think of an innovative idea> … but hate brainstorming.

I have been in so many of those brainstorming sessions that either never got going … or just devolved into a company bitch session as soon as a senior person left the room … that I have not only become quite cynical with regard to brainstorming … I actually hate them <i.e., believe they are ineffective>.

Oh. And worse? When the session is over … everyone goes back to their desks … and … DOH! … another meeting is scheduled <because the senior person went back to THEIR desk thinking ‘that was cool … everyone got to be creative and we got lots of ideas!’>.

Painful. Think bamboo shoots under fingernails painful. There were not a lot of useful ideas and the time was most likely not very useful to everyone. In other words? Useless.

Anyway. These 2 guys <Boyd & Greenberg> published a book discussing brainstorming and outlines what every competent common sense business person already know. Typical brainstorming is not effective and not very useful.

brainstorming box peopleNow. That doesn’t mean the book doesn’t have a value because I think it will probably be worth it solely because it attacks the “think outside of the box” tripe.

Their book? I have always called what they are writing about “working backwards” <but they will make gobs of money and I won’t>. Or maybe what I like about what they say is that it is a smarter version of how I describe ‘renovating’ or ‘taking existing pieces and putting them back together differently” or any of those things.

To me brainstorming has always been ludicrous in that it makes people <or key people> invest absurd amount of energy to get a group of people, people who the last thing they want to do is leave their comfort zone, to leave their comfort zone.

Dictionary of Corporate Bullshit  – Brainstorming:

“A supposedly relaxed forum in which no idea is a bad idea – that is, until you generate a bad idea and are met with uncomfortable silence/looks that suggest you are retarded or really uncool/the feeling that you are about to be fired.”

 

By the way … has anyone noticed that the shorthand for brainstorm is B.S.? Coincidence? <I think not>. Here is what I do know for sure. When most senior executives hear the word ‘brainstorming’ they roll their eyes and maybe make some exasperated noise <a very un-CEO-like noise … one which you do not want to be in a room and hear it … especially directed at you>. As someone wrote:  Brainstorming conjures up images of employees wasting hours, even days, sitting in beanbag chairs, tossing Frisbees and regurgitating ideas they had already considered. “Brainstorming” has become a byword for tedium and frustration.brainstorming silliness

You want to know how bad that is?

Well. In survey after survey senior management <C-level type folk> rate the importance of innovation very high <say maybe a nine or 10 on a 10 point scale>. In addition there is not one senior executive worth their salt that disputes innovation is the most important source of growth.

Uh oh. So innovation is important but they dislike brainstorming <as it wastes time>. Why? They dislike brainstorming because 90% of the time it doesn’t come up with innovative ideas.

Personally I believe that most people think most creatively  not when they are ‘broad thinking’ but rather when they are focused on specific aspects of a situation or problem. In other words when they constrain their options.

By avoiding some grand abstract ideas the thinking can be pragmatically driven and yet consistently creative. Most people like to solve problems therefore that is where they ‘go’ when thinking. But innovation isn’t always about solving a problem … it’s most often all about discovering a new need.

Look.

I don’t believe I am sharing any epiphanies … most is used in any common sense <non buzz driven leader>. The main problem is that most people think innovation starts with establishing a well-defined problem and then thinking of solutions …”start with a problem and then brainstorm ideas for a solution.” Unfortunately that is fine for solving problems, but not really for truly innovative ideas. In addition … the traditional view of brainstorming leverages from the idea that true creativity is almost unstructured and mostly is derived by not following rules or patterns <which is possibly the furthest thing from the truth>.

Well.

This is all kind of nuts … slightly counter intuitive … and mostly unrealistic <or have anything to do with reality>. In fact … in The New Yorker author Jonah Lehrer, in a long, excellent article, argues that the only problem with all this brainstorming thinking is that it is total bullshit:

 

–          You’re More Creative Working Alone:

Putting people into big groups doesn’t actually increase the flow of ideas. Group dynamics themselves—rather than overt criticism—work to stifle each person’s potential.

 

–          Criticism Improves the Brainstorming Process:

Usually, inventions often begin when an inventor spots a problem <or a need>. Good ideas usually don’t hang by themselves, unattached. They come about as solutions. Thus, allowing criticism into a room full of people trying to brainstorm allows them to refine and redefine a problem. <note: that means criticism is good>

 

brainstorming cognitive–          Creativity Is About Happenstance, Not Planning:

Too much familiarity breeds groupthink. Too little meant that they didn’t have enough chemistry to challenge each other. The most productive groups were those with a baseline of familiarity but just enough fresh blood to make things interesting. . . . Studies have shown that the most successful groups of scientists also work in extremely close physical proximity. Just being around another creative person is vital to the process.

Ok.

All the ranting aside … I have been involved with a number of successful brainstorming sessions. In addition I have been fortunate enough to have worked with one of the best innovation idea generator people I have ever seen. He maintained a very methodical pragmatically driven creativity process. He successfully designed a dual approach methodology which I thought was brilliant:

–          The ‘all ideas are good ideas’ side:

Oh. It was designed as an online forum.

This was all about quantity … and then the quantity of ideas <no matter how wacky> was filtered through an online funneling process. No face to face … no politicking or egos … simply idea generation.

–          The ‘collaborative session’ side:

Face to face multi-functional group. Short session. Tight construct … problem to be solved … the ‘game’ or ‘put yourself in this scenario’ idea generation design … capture the ideas. Thank you very much for playing <no discussion of quality of ideas>.  Moderator <or the expert> assesses and evaluates the ideas.

Now.

What to do when you don’t know what to do.

Realistically not everyone has the ability to come up with ideas but if you do brainstorming thinking hatsfeel compelled to have a brainstorming session I continue to believe the best brainstorming methodology is the tried & true Role Playing model <6 thinking hats> designed by Edward de Bono.

It has the benefit of blocking the confrontations that happen when people with different thinking styles discuss the same problem as well as lets people wear a different thinking hat and try it on for size just to see how it feels. By the way … the variant of this methodology I have found to be effective is to not designate a person in each group a hat but rather segment time in the session where EVERYONE wears that color hat. It is a nice trim but chunky session. It forces everyone to wear the same ‘thinking Hat’ <a different style of thinking> at the same time which means someone will be uncomfortable and someone will be uncomfortable at each segment. But everyone will be comfortable at some point. The thinking hats::

 

–          White Hat:
With this thinking hat you focus on the data available. Look at the information you have, and see what you can learn from it. Look for gaps in your knowledge, and either try to fill them or take account of them.

This is where you analyze past trends, and try to extrapolate from historical data.

–          Red Hat:
‘Wearing’ the red hat, you look at problems using intuition, gut reaction, and emotion. Also try to think how other people will react emotionally. Try to understand the responses of people who do not fully know your reasoning.

–          Black Hat:
Using black hat thinking, look at all the bad points of the decision. Look at it cautiously and defensively. Try to see why it might not work. This is important because it highlights the weak points in a plan. It allows you to eliminate them, alter them, or prepare contingency plans to counter them.

Black Hat thinking helps to make your plans ‘tougher’ and more resilient. It can also help you to spot fatal flaws and risks before you embark on a course of action. Black Hat thinking is one of the real benefits of this technique, as many successful people get so used to thinking positively they often they cannot see problems in advance. This leaves them under-prepared for difficulties.

–          Yellow Hat:
The yellow hat helps you to think positively. It is the optimistic viewpoint that helps you to see all the benefits of the decision and the value in it. Yellow Hat thinking helps you to keep going when everything looks gloomy and difficult.

–          Green Hat:
The Green Hat stands for creativity. This is where you can develop creative solutions to a problem. It is a freewheeling way of thinking, in which there is little criticism of ideas. There are gobs of creativity thinking tools & tricks to use here if you want.

–          Blue Hat:
The Blue Hat stands for process control. This is the hat worn by people chairing meetings. When running into difficulties because ideas are running dry, they may direct activity into Green Hat thinking. When contingency plans are needed, they will ask for Black Hat thinking, etc.

 

It is a safe useful effective methodology. But. In general … where I end up in my own head … brainstorming is stupid and a suckhole of valuable time that could be well invested elsewhere. In addition it is a suckhole for motivation … because 90% <I made that number up but suffice it to say it may not be 100% but it is way above 50%> of the time brainstorming participants walk away feel like it was wasted time <which is demotivating>.idea_stealing

In the end? <beyond the fact you are now clear I believe it is a suckhole>

Tricks & gizmos & ‘offsite head clearing forums’ aside … just keep aiming at finding some need to solve. In groups … as individuals … doesn’t really matter. If you aim brains at something specific <a need to meet in this case> … there will eventually be a storm of ideas.

But you know what? You don’t need a frickin’ storm of ideas … you need just one.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Written by Bruce