I decided it was high time I got on the LinkedIn boat. I had a vague memory of opening an account, once upon a time. (Alright, I’ll admit it. Maybe I was trying to spy on someone. But we all do that. Isn’t that the point?) So, just to be sure, I went on to the website and searched for myself. I did not appear. Not terribly surprising news so far. Fresh out of maternity leave, I’m well aware of my memory not being as sharp as it once was.

No worries though. I filled out the form, clicked “join now”, and waited to become one of the 60 million professionals. LinkedIn was quick to inform me in bold writing “Unable to add robyn@sitsite.com. Email address is associated with another LinkedIn account.” Voila! I exist!

While it’s quite possible that when searching for myself I misspelled my own name, I chose to ignore this option and instead, found it humorous that there were parallel worlds in which one of them I existed, while in the other I did not. It got me thinking - why should LinkedIn do this? What’s in it for them?

The first thing that came to mind was “Limit Rather than Delete”, a possible spinoff of the SIT principle “Limit Rather than Dilute” in which we implement ideas in a limited version rather than diluting them due to constraints. But more on that another time.

Giving it some more thought, the LinkedIn episode can be compared to the Parking Lot Concept that we at SIT advise our clients to employ. Through SIT sessions, organizations come up with a robust list of potential ideas. However, when it’s time for implementation, ideas are chosen based on a pre-determined set of criteria – time to market, level of investment, technology required, and so on. While the more feasible ideas get pushed forward, ideas that spark our interest initially often don’t make the cut for not meeting one criterion or another. 

This is where the Parking Lot Concept comes in to play. We tell our clients – don’t throw out those ideas you felt so passionate about, but don’t spend time on them either. Make a note of what prevents them from making it to the project’s idea list, and then - park them on the side. With the right conditions, those ideas might turn out to be a clandestine pipeline just waiting to emerge. So for now, leave them be. Set a date to go back and review them. Six months from now, your technology may have changed. That budget could come in. You want to have those ideas within arm’s reach, but you don’t want them obstructing your vision.

It appears that LinkedIn has a Parking Lot of its own. They may have looked at me and said: “She’s not that interesting, certainly not as active as our other users. But there’s something about her that in the future might just work out. Let’s park her on the side, invisible to the naked eye. But we know she’s there. And when she’s ready to step up to the plate, we’ll gladly let her swing”.

Robyn Taragin-Stern is the Knowledge Manager at SIT. She is now available on LinkedIn.

Click here to contact us

The PIG developed from the idea of finding a way to use SIT’s thinking methodology to apply innovation to everyday tasks. This new application helps users unleash their imagination and generate original ideas for their next party.

Using a series of fun triggers based on the Subtraction and Multiplication tools, PIG users can “invent” with everyday party items (e.g. Guests, Drinks, Music), transforming them into wild and wacky themes and activities for their party.

Here are two examples of different kinds of triggers generated when the user chooses to work with the “food” item – one is more open and the other is more directional:

a.    “Trigger for Thought: At your party everyone will be eating their favorite food. How can you make this happen?”

b. “Retirement Party- The theme of your party is going to be an elderly party. Everyone will have to come dressed up as an old person, only soft foods will be served and the party will end at a reasonable time…”

“As well as being a useful tool for spicing up your party, we also want the PIG to leave users with the realization that they can be really creative and inventive thinkers”, said a source close to the PIG.

To experience the PIG in action, you can either download it at iTunes App Store or visit the PIG’s website.

Now there’s a creative, relaxing activity to do with the kids! Think about a kid who looks up at the sky and sees a cloud in the shape of a camel. The shape of the cloud is, of course, determined before the child attributes it with the function of being a camel.

How does creativity change in the transition from a process that begins with a function to a process that begins with a form? The cognitive psychologist, Finke, examined this in an interesting experiment:

A test group was given the task of creating an idea for a new product. The invention had to be made up of 3 items (or forms) out of a collection of 15 items that were presented to them. The items included a circle, a cone, a rod, wheels, string, and … additional 10 shapes.

Each person was asked to create a new, useful, product out of 3 items.

To keep the thinking process more focused, a general category was chosen - toys, for example, and their invention had to fit in to this category.

Here’s an example: the rod, string and cone could be used to create a mobile. We’ll hold the rod horizontally and tie the string to the rod (not in the center) from which the mobile will hang. We’ll then hang the cone on one end of the rod (the end closer to where the string is tied) and this will balance the other side of the rod when the mobile is hanging up. (OK, I know this isn’t the idea of the century, but I needed an instant example!)

Now let’s get back to Finke’s experiment. According to the usual procedure in these experiments, the test group was randomly divided into two sub-groups. One group was told to choose 3 items out of the 15 items presented to them, and the second group was given 3 items that were randomly chosen by a computer without the individuals themselves having any choice.

As mentioned previously, each individual had to create an idea for a new product. The ideas were to be evaluated by a panel of five judges (who, of course, were not aware of the source of the ideas.) The judges were asked to evaluate each idea according to two criteria - originality and applicability. (The idea was to be considered creative if it had a high score in originality and applicability)

And now the question we’ve all been waiting for: Which group produced more creative ideas? Was it the group whose members could choose freely or the group in which the items were chosen for them? I’m sure you know the answer, but I’m going to keep you in suspense a little longer!

The participants of the first group (those who could choose three items) are in a position to allow themselves to think about an idea (function) and afterwards to choose the item (form) to support this function.

The participants in the second group needed to make do with the three items that were given to them. Most likely, this group played with the items until they came up with a form that seemed to fulfill a useful function.

As you probably realized, but in complete contradiction to the intuition of most people regarding creativity, the participants of the second group (the ones whose freedom of choice was taken away from them) produced more creative ideas by far (almost double).

This is how Finke proved that people tend to me more creative when a form is dictated to them and the function is open. Paradoxically, a more constrained situation proved to be more successful in allowing people to be more productive and creative.

It is also further proof of the importance and effectiveness of the Closed World condition! (Sorry, I had to put this in…)

Incidentally, the producers of the comedy TV show, ‘Whose Line is it Anyway?’ which is based on ‘real time’ improvisation, are well aware of this. That’s why, in one of the segments, the comedians are given an object for which they need to come up with various uses.

For a detailed information about Finke’s experiment and other very interesting experiments related to creativity read the book:

Creative Cognition : Theory, Research, and Applications by Ronald A. Finke, Thomas B. Ward, Steven M.Smith

The book is highly recommended - one of the very few real good books about creativity.

See you all in my next post,

Roni

Roni and the rest of us at SIT would be happy to talk to you about innovation.

Click here to contact us

Visit Roni at the start2think website

Here are just a few of the classics. You have no doubt heard them, or similar versions of them, numerous times.

Ivory Soap

In 1878, in a Procter & Gamble soap production factory, one of the employee’s lunch breaks took longer than expected. The whole thing would have gone unnoticed, if not for a malfunction that got out of hand. One of the soap-mixers had kept on spinning all through the long lunch break. The result became evident a few days later: the soap bars emerging from the production line were peppered with tiny air bubbles and they were lighter than usual. The perplexed P&G executives, in what can only be described as a bold… gamble, decided to market the soap as is, hoping the consumers would not notice the difference.

A gamble they took, indeed. A few days later, letters started piling up in the customer service department. Surprisingly enough, the consumers did not use the letters to express their dismay over the faulty soap, but rather to express their satisfaction with P&G’s new remarkable soap invention.

P&G’s executives were flabbergasted: Could they have inadvertently invented a new product? The consumers commended P&G for the new clever soap that did not sink in the tub, was easy to use and lasted longer.

The commercial success of Ivory soap continues even today and it is available on shelves around the world.

Potato chips/crisps
In the summer of 1853, George Crum was employed as a chef at an elegant resort in Saratoga Springs, New York, where French-fried potatoes were a favorite on the menu.

One evening, a particularly fussy diner, railway magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, repeatedly refused to eat the fries he had been served with his meal, complaining that they were too thick and too soggy. After he had sent back several plates of increasingly thinly-cut fries, Crum decided to serve the guest fried wafer-thin slices of potato in grease, hoping to annoy the extremely fussy customer.

The plan backfired. The guest initially protested that the chef’s latest efforts were too thin to be picked up with a fork, but upon trying a few, the chips were an instant hit. In fact, other guests began asking for them as well, and soon Crum’s “Saratoga Chips” became one of lodge’s most popular treats, before later being sold all over the world.

Yet again, this success was not planned. Never in his right mind did Crum believe that these greasy slices were something people would actually pay for! And, had he asked his customers what new and interesting concoction he should whip up, this certainly wouldn’t have been one of their answers!

Post-It Notes

The story begins in 1968 with the inadvertent discovery by 3M research scientist, Dr. Spence Silver, of a highly unusual new adhesive that did not stick very strongly when coated onto tape backings. In 1973, Art Fry, a fellow 3M employee, applied some of his colleague’s low tack adhesive to some scrap paper and began using these as bookmarks for his church choir hymnal. Since then, the Post-it® Note concept has become one of 3M’s best selling product lines.

Interesting how such a popular innovation among consumers was, in fact, the product of a failed attempt at something else whose value was only discovered five years later.

But is there another moral to this tale?

In addition to the understandable drive to find solutions to problems, there may be a benefit to looking at what you hold in your hand and searching for the problems that it could potentially solve.

No question about it! These stories are wonderful – and may we all be so lucky to have our next accident make us our next million…

But, the real question still remains: Should we wait for good fortune to bring about a lucky accident that will awaken a latent need we were not previously aware of? Is that how we should plan our new product development pipeline?

Or is it possible to generate an imaginary malfunction and explore its potential consequences and benefits?

By using a structured procedure, called Function Follows Form, which works by (virtually) manipulating an existing product to create mutations similar to those created in accidents, we can produce a variety of interesting new forms. Then, through a series of filters (marketing and implementation) we can determine which of these forms could have real market value.

So, whoever said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”?

Go ahead, break it – ruin it – let it get moldy – fill it with air – fry it in grease! You never know where you may end up – but it is surely worth a shot!

Shiri and the rest of us at SIT would be happy to talk to you about innovation.

Click here to contact us

What is more challenging: coming up with an innovative idea, or sharing it with a group of people that may love it or hate it? Most of us will agree that this is a simple question. We might, however, disagree on the answer… In the previous post in this series I called the group of barriers relating to the act of coming up with innovative idea “Cognitive Barriers.” The complementary group of barriers – those that have to do with sharing innovative ideas with others – were labeled “Psychological Barriers.”

Although people differ in their “susceptibility” to these different barriers, most us will agree that objectively (whatever that means..) the cognitive barriers to innovation are harder to overcome. The importance of the psychological barriers is due, to a great extent, to the fact that some of the best ideas come up during group discussions. The worn-out saying goes: “none of us is as smart as all of us.” While I have several issues with this approach (as, I suspect, you may as well) – there is some truth to it, especially when it comes to ideation sessions.

It is the bouncy nature of idea development – starting with a raw thought shared by one participant, developed further by another, taking an interesting turn in the mind of a third, and landing in the end zone by a fourth – that makes the ability to voice imperfect ideas so crucial for innovation. It is the fact that the innovative and cognitively-flexible members of the group are not necessarily the most outspoken – that makes the creation of a ‘speaker-friendly” atmosphere so important. And it is the fact that at the core of so many innovative ideas lies something that will, at first, seem strange, illogical, or even stupid – that makes the culture of respect for each other’s thoughts so vital.

There is no doubt – psychological barriers decrease the efficacy of group discussions. They skew the discussion towards certain group members and certain types of ideas. They push the discussion towards the “safe side”, the “more of the same” zone, and the “let’s not rock the boat” approach. Mark Twain said once that: “‘It’s better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” This quote beautifully exemplifies one of the key elements in this set of barriers – our fear of being wrong.

In his wonderful TED talk , Sir Ken Robinson discusses the importance of being prepared to be wrong as a prerequisite for creativity. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong,” he says, “you will never come up with anything original.” For those of you who might find this statement a tad too radical – just think about this: any idea that is truly original and innovative has elements in it that are new to the world. These elements might be “wrong”, and it is exactly the fact that they are so new that devoids us of the ability to safely asses their rightfulness. Sir Robinson also claims that our education system trains us to fear mistakes; that “we are running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make.” Whenever an ideation session is run, anywhere in the world, it takes place in a room full of people that have graduated from these education systems! That fear – that reluctance to be wrong – will hold us back if we do not address it.

It was in the late 1930s that Alex F. Osborn introduced a creativity methodology that was designed to do exactly that. This methodology was published in a book called “Applied Imagination” and is widely known as “Brainstorming.” Although there are mixed opinions about the efficacy of brainstorming, there is no doubt that it enjoys a very wide fan-base. Many of these fans are not fully aware of the principles of the methodology, and may use a distant version of the original methodology. It is, however, exactly these principles that are relevant to our discussion regarding psychological barriers.
The first principle of brainstorming is that quantity breeds quality. The basic idea is that the more ideas we generate – the higher the chances that some of them will be valuable. Regardless of the validity of this assumption, think about the atmosphere it fosters. “More ideas..,” “come on..,” “what else..” are typical phrases you may hear from a brainstorming facilitator. This atmosphere helps in convincing, motivating and even peer-pressuring participants into sharing their thoughts and ideas.

The second principle is deferred judgment. Simply put, participants are asked to withhold their criticism of ideas, and focus on expending and developing. By postponing criticism to a later stage in the process we can create a supportive atmosphere where participants feel more comfortable and more likely to voice unusual ideas.
The third principle endorses exactly that by claiming that unusual ideas are welcome. This direct invitation to steer away from the mundane and the expected helps in supporting an atmosphere that encourages (even celebrates) unorthodox thinking. This principle takes advantage of our sensitivity to our role description. We want to do well in any assignment we receive, especially when others are present. “If the facilitator and the methodology want unusual ideas – I’ll give them unusual ideas.”

The forth principle of brainstorming asks us to combine and improve ideas. We are meant to understand that there is no be-all and end-all idea that we are waiting for. That the best results will come from putting our heads together and developing interesting starting points into fuller, more robust ideas. This approach is valuable regardless of its positive impact on the discussion’s atmosphere, but it also strengthens the type of atmosphere supported by the previous principles.

In the conclusion section of Wikipedia’s article about Brainstorming you can find the following statement: “Although it does not appear to provide a measurable advantage in creative output, brainstorming is an enjoyable exercise that is typically well received by participants.” I believe that the main reason it is so well received is that it addresses the psychological barriers that affect us in “regular” discussions. Sitting is a brainstorming session is safe and nice – where else are you so safe from making a mistake? However, as we have discussed some 1,000 words ago – it is one thing to create a supportive atmosphere, and something very different to inspire the creation of innovative ideas.

To achieve that, however, we will have to address our cognitive barriers. If we can understand these barriers, and successfully address them, we may well be on the right track to an effective ideation methodology. We will further discuss these cognitive barriers and the potential ways to overcome them in the next post of this series.

Dr. Gadi Segal, a business partner and a good friend, told me once that “the more therapeutic options you have for a disease, the more likely it is that none of them is really effective.”

When I make the analogy to the realm of innovation I hesitate to conclude that none of the innovation methodologies available is really effective… Let’s just agree that the abundance of approaches and technique is indicative of the magnitude of the challenges posed by innovation.

Some of these challenges have to do with the process of ideation itself – other with that of implementation. Some are more relevant on an individual level – others are more organizational. For the purpose of this discussion we can define one set of barriers that stop us from coming up with the right ideas (ideation / individual), and another set of challenges involved in the attempt to implement these ideas (implementation / organizational). This series of posts will focus on barriers to ideation. We may touch upon implementation challenges at a later date.

Think for a minute about the last time you participated in an innovation session. Think about yourself and about your colleagues. What where the barriers you were facing within that session? Did they have to do with fear of criticism? With the insecurity that comes from not knowing how good your ideas are, or how well they will be received? Were these barriers connected to the fact that some of your ideas might have been a little too innovative? Or was it simply a reluctance to take an active a part in such a public discussion?

If you answered any of these questions with a “yes” – you were facing some of the most common psychological barriers to innovation. While some of these barriers are as relevant in many types of discussions, others are more innovation-specific. Many of these barriers have to do with our common fear of making mistakes – a fear developed and cultivated by mistake-phobic education systems and organizational cultures.

There are several innovation methodologies that focus on dealing with these fears & barriers – the most familiar of which is Brain Storming. These methodologies employ various rules and principles designed to mitigate these fears.

(The next post in this series will further discuss psychological barriers and the methodologies developed around them).

You will notice that these barriers are relevant to voicing or sharing innovative ideas that we, as individuals, have already come up with. These barriers are serious, no doubt, but they have little to do with the actual act of coming up with an innovative idea. The barriers relevant to that elusive phase are quite different. They have less to do with our psychology and more to do with our cognitive capacity.

Take the story of the refrigerator as an example. When this product was introduced to the market (early 20th century) it replaced the formally used ice-box. This simple device used blocks of ice that were put in a designated compartment at the top (the actual “ice-box” that gave it its name). The products kept in the ice-box were organized so that the ones requiring colder temperatures were placed higher (closer to the ice) and the ones requiring more moderate temperatures were placed lower (further from the ice). Does this design sound familiar?

For years we have been bending down to take out our veggies from the bottom drawer of our modern refrigerator, while the freezer door (which most of use much less) is located much more conveniently at the top of the appliance. When you think about it now it seems strange and irrational. Why didn’t the refrigerator industry offer us a refrigerator with the freezer at the bottom and the main compartment above it? And why didn’t we, as consumers, ask for such a design? The answer has to do with a cognitive phenomenon called “Structural Fixedness.” Both engineers and customers have created a strong link between the product and its structure. We have become structurally fixated. That fixedness has survived not only the transition from the ice-box to the refrigerator, but also decades of advance in refrigeration technologies that have followed.

When we suffer from Structural Fixedness we do not choose or intend to overlook potential changes in structure. We fail to consider these possibilities and at the same time fail to recognize our own failure. That is exactly the problem with structural fixedness and other cognitive barriers to innovation. These sneaky bastards are like stealth bombers – they stop us from coming up with innovative ideas and we do not even know they are there (The 3rd post in this series will further discuss the different types of cognitive barriers)

Although we have only touched on the barriers to innovation briefly, one thing is already clear: if we are to develop effective innovation methodologies they must deal with more than one type of barriers. Hopefully the insights we may gain throughout this series will take us in the right direction.

Today, whenever someone wants to summon a group of people to think together, he/she invites them to a brainstorming session.

And indeed brainstorming is a great name. It seems to have the effect of charging energy and stimulating enthusiasm in most individuals.

But does it really work? Do the nice ideas of cross-fertilization among team members and suspense of judgment really deliver?

In all the brainstorming sessions that I’ve participated in, I noticed that although the brainstorming techniques were explained, most people reacted to other people’s ideas judgmentally, without displaying even a sign of being “cross-fertilized”.

Having said that, in this article I’d like to outline some existing brainstorming techniques and brainstorming tips that can help you better manage your brainstorming sessions.

Choose the physical setting for the brainstorming session well.

It’s not by chance that I mention this first. I have learned that the physical setting of the brainstorming session is a critical factor in its success. It is highly recommended to meet in a comfortable place outside the company facilities. It is also advised to spread flip charts around so that everyone who needs to illustrate his/her ideas will have one nearby. A U-shaped layout of the chairs is a good arrangement too.

Assign one member of the team to write down ideas and comments

It’s critically important to have one of the participants assigned to writing each idea and comment. In real time, due to varying energy and enthusiasm levels, good ideas or good comments can be ignored. Many people believe that ‘”good ideas will be remembered”,but my experience has taught me that this is far from the truth.

It’s best to write the meeting summary without referring to the person suggesting the idea

This way, at least when reading the report, there will be no diversion due to the social status of the person proposing the idea.

Facilitating brainstorming sessions:

The brain storming session must have a facilitator. This person needs to set the rules (and there must be brainstorming rules) and make sure they are obeyed. The facilitator also needs to keep an eye on the time. It’s very easy to lose track of the time and produce poor results in brain storming sessions. An important role of the facilitator is not to let participants spend too much time defending their ideas or attacking other people’s ideas. He or she must also insist on elaborating raw ideas and abandoning far-fetched ideas.

When the process get stuck (as it often does) the facilitator should suggest other lines of thought and new angles of looking at the topic at hand in order to get the process going again.

Brainstorming participants:

The ideal number for brainstorming sessions is 8-12 participants. The participants should reflect any angle of the problem at hand. It is advisable to bring in people from outside the organization, such as big customers or suppliers.

Brainstorming rules:

The traditional brainstorming rules are as follows:

- Postpone and withhold the judgment of your ideas
- Encourage wild and exaggerated ideas
- Quantity counts at this stage, not quality
- Build on the ideas put forward by others
- Every person and every idea has equal worth

Personally I don’t like these rules. My experience shows that wild ideas don’t help the process, but are very attention consuming.Everybody laughs, but the ideation process is not advanced. Which brings me to the concept of humor in brainstorming…

Most people believe that humor is a good thing. My experience shows that humor can be time consuming and encourage a cynical approach regarding the process. The facilitator needs to be very sensitiveas regards humor and not let the process deteriorate into a series of cynical discussions.

In addition, I believe that ideas need to be elaborated on close to the time of their being conceived. It’s impossible to elaborate on ideas without some kind of judgment.

There are actually two kinds of judgments. The first refers to the benefit of the idea (if we implement it, what will we achieve), the second refers to the difficulties in implementing the ideas (such as prohibitively high implementation cost) or to the negative side effects after the idea is implementing (such as high operating cost). I believe that it is the second kind of judgment that needs to be suspended. It is rational to first establish the very merit or value of the idea and only then (if the idea does have value) discuss possible implementation difficulties.

If the idea does not have value, there is no point in discussing implementation difficulties. If the idea has a lot of value, the implementation problems will eventually be solved.

See you all in my next post,

Roni

Visit Roni at the start2think website