Comments on: What do cloud watching and new product ideas have in common? http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/12/what-do-cloud-watching-and-new-product-ideas-have-in-common/ Thu, 17 May 2012 16:10:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Adam http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/12/what-do-cloud-watching-and-new-product-ideas-have-in-common/#comment-659 Adam Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:57:51 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=225#comment-659 Very helpful Amnon. Thanks a lot. And BTW, I don't mind you guys pushing your wares at all. There's nothing sinister about that. But the standards of science are higher than the standards of business and if you guys mean to use science as a key differentiator then I'd like to keep you honest. If you had said from the start that you guys have been doing this stuff for a while and find that X works, we wouldn't be having this conversation. BTW, I LOVE that you wrote: "the difference between FFF and FFF"!!! This is maybe the most innovative thing I've ever seen :) Shana tova, Adam Very helpful Amnon. Thanks a lot. And BTW, I don’t mind you guys pushing your wares at all. There’s nothing sinister about that. But the standards of science are higher than the standards of business and if you guys mean to use science as a key differentiator then I’d like to keep you honest. If you had said from the start that you guys have been doing this stuff for a while and find that X works, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

BTW, I LOVE that you wrote: “the difference between FFF and FFF”!!! This is maybe the most innovative thing I’ve ever seen :)

Shana tova,
Adam

]]> By: amnon http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/12/what-do-cloud-watching-and-new-product-ideas-have-in-common/#comment-648 amnon Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:52:06 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=225#comment-648 As a person who is usually a bit bored with blogs and posts, I was pleasantly surprised with this lively and biting Adam-SIT dialogue (BTW - why would we ever even consider "moderating out" your post Adam? I dont think it even occurred to any of us.) Disclosure - Rony is a good friend of mine (and partner), so my first concern is to defend him from what I judge to be misplaced accusations. I agree, though, that the phrasing "This is how Finke proved that people tend to me more creative when a form is dictated to them and the function is open." is not so great, although i tend to ascribe it to the superficiality of the blog medium more than anything else. I think also that Rony, and the rest of us, have quoted so much of Finke's work that what I at least mean these days is "Finke, in numerous experiments, has demonstrated how much more effective people tend to be in searching the need space based on a form, than on searching the function space based on a function, and our experience in 14 years really bears this out pretty convincingly." As to the camel-cloud reference, here is how i understand it. There are, among others, two approaches to develop a child's visual imagination. The first (more common, and Form Follows Function) is: think of something you want to depict, say a camel. This is now the function of the form you will create, because what you will do with pen on paper is to try to create a form that corresponds to the function you defined. Then one can check how well your created form corresponds to the function. The other approach, which lazy Rony recommends, is the opposite. Point out to your child a form (or clump of forms), and tell them to now "work back" and answer the question "If this as yet non-defined form would be something (thus fulfilling a "function") what would it be?" Working back in this manner the child is taking a form and ascribing to it a function ("be a camel") in the sense that a form's function is to depict or represent an object in the world. I recommend interpreting the camel story in this way, rather than the more sinister "push SIT's wares" version. True, we do hope our blog will help spread the SIT word and expand the SIT business, but i think we're being pretty soft sell about the whole thing - for example, it took us a couple of months of deliberation just to add the relatively innocent "we'd be happy to talk to you about innovation" at the end of each post. I agree by the way, that there are all kinds of methodological challenges one can pose to the Finke experiment. It is possible, for instance, that at least some people in the other group also used a Function Follows Form approach, but since they could select whichever components they wanted, they lost precious time on selection. In fact, my (anecdotal) observations are that the immediate advantage of constraining options in workshop settings is a huge saving in time and reduction in procrastination. Even before the difference between FFF and FFF kicks in, the great advantage of constraints is that they facilitate focus. Someone should really constrain the length of these comments, BTW. Thanks for the kick in our intellectual butt, Adam(: Amnon As a person who is usually a bit bored with blogs and posts, I was pleasantly surprised with this lively and biting Adam-SIT dialogue (BTW - why would we ever even consider “moderating out” your post Adam? I dont think it even occurred to any of us.)
Disclosure - Rony is a good friend of mine (and partner), so my first concern is to defend him from what I judge to be misplaced accusations. I agree, though, that the phrasing “This is how Finke proved that people tend to me more creative when a form is dictated to them and the function is open.” is not so great, although i tend to ascribe it to the superficiality of the blog medium more than anything else. I think also that Rony, and the rest of us, have quoted so much of Finke’s work that what I at least mean these days is “Finke, in numerous experiments, has demonstrated how much more effective people tend to be in searching the need space based on a form, than on searching the function space based on a function, and our experience in 14 years really bears this out pretty convincingly.”
As to the camel-cloud reference, here is how i understand it. There are, among others, two approaches to develop a child’s visual imagination. The first (more common, and Form Follows Function) is: think of something you want to depict, say a camel. This is now the function of the form you will create, because what you will do with pen on paper is to try to create a form that corresponds to the function you defined. Then one can check how well your created form corresponds to the function. The other approach, which lazy Rony recommends, is the opposite. Point out to your child a form (or clump of forms), and tell them to now “work back” and answer the question “If this as yet non-defined form would be something (thus fulfilling a “function”) what would it be?” Working back in this manner the child is taking a form and ascribing to it a function (”be a camel”) in the sense that a form’s function is to depict or represent an object in the world.
I recommend interpreting the camel story in this way, rather than the more sinister “push SIT’s wares” version. True, we do hope our blog will help spread the SIT word and expand the SIT business, but i think we’re being pretty soft sell about the whole thing - for example, it took us a couple of months of deliberation just to add the relatively innocent “we’d be happy to talk to you about innovation” at the end of each post.
I agree by the way, that there are all kinds of methodological challenges one can pose to the Finke experiment. It is possible, for instance, that at least some people in the other group also used a Function Follows Form approach, but since they could select whichever components they wanted, they lost precious time on selection. In fact, my (anecdotal) observations are that the immediate advantage of constraining options in workshop settings is a huge saving in time and reduction in procrastination. Even before the difference between FFF and FFF kicks in, the great advantage of constraints is that they facilitate focus.
Someone should really constrain the length of these comments, BTW.
Thanks for the kick in our intellectual butt, Adam(:

Amnon

]]> By: Adam http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/12/what-do-cloud-watching-and-new-product-ideas-have-in-common/#comment-647 Adam Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:43:11 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=225#comment-647 Michal: My issue is primarily with the overall thrust of the post as I tried to make clear in what I wrote. Citing academic studies as "proof" of anything is not very responsible or respectful to the process of science and the advance of knowledge. My comment about the cloud was less about whether camelness is a function of clouds - which it clearly isn't - and more about Roni's need to call it a function in order to make the language fit the point he was trying to make. This is evidence of a not very open-minded perspective and I take issue with the use of the language of certainty and the selective citation of academic studies. If, in fact the primary support for SIT is a utilitarian one (i.e., it works) then why not make the argument on those grounds and highlight the academic and scientific background as a support rather than using the almost religious language of proof and certainty as if scientific studies could ever offer that. As a former academic psychologist, I am very turned off by the way you guys talk about what you do. As a former innovation manager I am intrigued by your work and would want to try it out. Why put me through that cognitive dissonance? Now on to the substance: I am not surprised that constraints make it easier. In the real world I have never seen a brainstorm that took place without constraints. The reason that people try to emphasize that nothing is off limits is that people already come with so many built-in constraints that telling them there are no constraints might pull them closer to the middle. In the end though, I feel you are arguing against a straw man here. So constraints make it easier. Sounds great. But do they lead to more creative or innovative ideas? I don't know. And I'm not convinced by Roni's post or Finke's study. BTW, very cool of you guys for not moderating my post out. I'm impressed! Adam Michal:

My issue is primarily with the overall thrust of the post as I tried to make clear in what I wrote. Citing academic studies as “proof” of anything is not very responsible or respectful to the process of science and the advance of knowledge. My comment about the cloud was less about whether camelness is a function of clouds - which it clearly isn’t - and more about Roni’s need to call it a function in order to make the language fit the point he was trying to make. This is evidence of a not very open-minded perspective and I take issue with the use of the language of certainty and the selective citation of academic studies.

If, in fact the primary support for SIT is a utilitarian one (i.e., it works) then why not make the argument on those grounds and highlight the academic and scientific background as a support rather than using the almost religious language of proof and certainty as if scientific studies could ever offer that.

As a former academic psychologist, I am very turned off by the way you guys talk about what you do. As a former innovation manager I am intrigued by your work and would want to try it out. Why put me through that cognitive dissonance?

Now on to the substance: I am not surprised that constraints make it easier. In the real world I have never seen a brainstorm that took place without constraints. The reason that people try to emphasize that nothing is off limits is that people already come with so many built-in constraints that telling them there are no constraints might pull them closer to the middle. In the end though, I feel you are arguing against a straw man here.

So constraints make it easier. Sounds great. But do they lead to more creative or innovative ideas? I don’t know. And I’m not convinced by Roni’s post or Finke’s study.

BTW, very cool of you guys for not moderating my post out. I’m impressed!

Adam

]]> By: Michal Naishtein http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/12/what-do-cloud-watching-and-new-product-ideas-have-in-common/#comment-646 Michal Naishtein Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:52:37 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=225#comment-646 Adam Hello, Thank you for your detailed response to Roni's post. I tend to agree with you that the Camel isn't a "Function" of the cloud, but I think that lingering on this detail misses the main point of the post, which - to my understanding - is about the benefits of imposing constraints on our thinking, and going from "idea form" to "function" when we ideate. This method of idea generation is SIT's principle approach when it comes to idea generation with companies for the simple reason, that it proves to be very effective. People simply find it easier to get to new ideas for a particular problem, when applying a process of evaluating "virtual forms" and discerning their potential function or value from a market or business perspective. Not only do good ideas come quicker, it also helps people overcome many of the assumptions or fixedness that in our experience, prevents them from getting to the really fresh, unchartered ideas territory. Adam Hello,

Thank you for your detailed response to Roni’s post. I tend to agree with you that the Camel isn’t a “Function” of the cloud, but I think that lingering on this detail misses the main point of the post, which - to my understanding - is about the benefits of imposing constraints on our thinking, and going from “idea form” to “function” when we ideate. This method of idea generation is SIT’s principle approach when it comes to idea generation with companies for the simple reason, that it proves to be very effective. People simply find it easier to get to new ideas for a particular problem, when applying a process of evaluating “virtual forms” and discerning their potential function or value from a market or business perspective. Not only do good ideas come quicker, it also helps people overcome many of the assumptions or fixedness that in our experience, prevents them from getting to the really fresh, unchartered ideas territory.

]]> By: Adam http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2009/12/what-do-cloud-watching-and-new-product-ideas-have-in-common/#comment-638 Adam Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:41:03 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=225#comment-638 First of all, being a camel is not a function for a cloud. This sounds like a trivial point. I will come back to it later. More importantly, your post seems highly agenda driven. No good scientist would speak this way and I rather doubt that Finke is an exception. Peer-reviewed papers in the field of cognitive psychology will highlight how results offer evidence in support of X but they really don't say things like "see, I've now proved that..." There's a reason that scientists speak the way they do and since you tend to base your work on academic psychology, I would advise you to communicate with at least as much humility as do the academics in their peer-reviewed work. Finke's experiment is interesting as is your post. The explanation (theory) is plausible. But I'm not completely sold. For one thing, I'm not sure the experimental paradigm adequately simulates real-world problem situations. Also, I'm not convinced that these 5 judges are in any position to decide what is creative, original or innovative. Now on to camels. Your post is a strenuous effort to fit not only the point of a piece of research to your way of thinking, but even the very language. I can see where you are matching up the terminology of the experiment with SIT terminology. You needed to use the word "function" because that is a critical SIT word. But it doesn't fit the example at all. Even kids - with all of their imagination - do not think the camel-shaped cloud has the function of being a camel. They understand very well that it's just a shape. You'd be better off calling that a form. This is just another example of how you come across as agenda drive. Your bias is very clear and it seems to me that you are highly selective in how you pick data and talk about it. Biases are fine. We all have them. But my feedback to you is that when I read your posts I find that the strength of your conviction greatly exceeds the strength of your evidence and this erodes the credibility for me. First of all, being a camel is not a function for a cloud. This sounds like a trivial point. I will come back to it later.

More importantly, your post seems highly agenda driven. No good scientist would speak this way and I rather doubt that Finke is an exception. Peer-reviewed papers in the field of cognitive psychology will highlight how results offer evidence in support of X but they really don’t say things like “see, I’ve now proved that…” There’s a reason that scientists speak the way they do and since you tend to base your work on academic psychology, I would advise you to communicate with at least as much humility as do the academics in their peer-reviewed work.

Finke’s experiment is interesting as is your post. The explanation (theory) is plausible. But I’m not completely sold. For one thing, I’m not sure the experimental paradigm adequately simulates real-world problem situations. Also, I’m not convinced that these 5 judges are in any position to decide what is creative, original or innovative.

Now on to camels. Your post is a strenuous effort to fit not only the point of a piece of research to your way of thinking, but even the very language. I can see where you are matching up the terminology of the experiment with SIT terminology. You needed to use the word “function” because that is a critical SIT word. But it doesn’t fit the example at all. Even kids - with all of their imagination - do not think the camel-shaped cloud has the function of being a camel. They understand very well that it’s just a shape. You’d be better off calling that a form.

This is just another example of how you come across as agenda drive. Your bias is very clear and it seems to me that you are highly selective in how you pick data and talk about it. Biases are fine. We all have them. But my feedback to you is that when I read your posts I find that the strength of your conviction greatly exceeds the strength of your evidence and this erodes the credibility for me.

]]>