All posts by steverawling

Six ways brainstorms fail

Uncategorized,

Ever since brainstorms were invented they’ve had their detractors. I’m sure ‭you’ve sat through plenty of bad ones (excruciating) or good ones which achieved nothing (frustrating). Here’s why academics say brainstorms fail – and here’s what I reckon, from  my experience, you can do about it.

Problem: Free-riders – ‭can sit back and let ‭everyone else in a group do the work. People think there’s nothing at stake and so don’t take it ‭seriously.

Fix: Break larger groups into subgroups ‭of two to four people during the brainstorm. It is much harder to free-ride in a smaller group. Build in feedback time. If people know they will have to ‭share, test or pitch their ideas ‭at the end of a session, they pay ‭more attention.

Problem: Fixation – participants fix on weak ‭ideas because they ‭don’t know enough about the subject.

Fix – Set ‘homework’ in advance so that everyone arrives at the session ‭properly briefed with good data.

Problem: Social matching – we have a natural tendency to conform with out peers and bosses.

Fix: try Brainwriting techniques which allow ‭‘weaker’ voices to be heard. ‭Devil’s advocate techniques make it ok to break away from an apparent consensus.

Problem: ‭Safety first – people who think their ideas will be judged won’t volunteer unusual or wild ideas.

Fix: explicitly encourage wild ideas during ‭the divergent or playful phase. ‭Reassure more sceptical members ‭of the group that wild ideas can be ‭tamed in the convergent or serious phase.

Problem: ‭Production blocking – listening to someone else’s idea stops you realising your own.

Fix: Use silent techniques and small group discussions.

Problem: ‭Cognitive overload – there’s too much ‭chatter for people to think clearly.

Fix: Build in plenty of breaks which allow people to ‘incubate’ their own ideas.

 

Credit: ‭Kohn, N. and Smith, S.M. (2011) Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’
‭ideas on brainstorming, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.

How radical can you be? LEGO has the answer

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Here’s a tool I found in David Robertson’s marvellous book on LEGO’s creative process, Brick by Brick. It could help distinguish practical ideas (that you need) from game-changing innovations (that you might love, but will be really hard to pull off).

15 years ago, LEGO was scared that the rise of video games would kill their business. So they embarked on a rush of new innovations to try and keep kids’ attention. They diversified into TV shows, comics, action-figures and digital toys. Costs went through the roof, but sales didn’t. After 3 years of runaway innovation, LEGO nearly went bust. To save the company, they went back to basics – making plastic bricks for kids who like building. And they decided that every future innovation should be assessed on a grid like this:

LEGO innovation matrix

At one end you’ve got Incremental Improvements within business-as-usual – like creating LEGO Harry Potter based on the success of LEGO Star Wars.

Then you’ve got New Offerings in existing categories – like LEGO Bionicle, which used a skeleton structure rather than bricks, but was still a toy you build and play with.

Finally you’ve got Redefine Category – innovations which are game changers, affecting the whole industry. LEGO tried to create an online brick-building platform, but they were too slow and Minecraft beat them to it.

What LEGO learned is that you should probably only attempt ONE game changing innovation every year – because they are so demanding, bewildering and disruptive. LEGO nearly broke their company when they had multiple innovations in play, all of them trying to be game-changers. But not every successful innovation has to be a game-changer – and you CAN attempt several simultaneous innovations in the other two categories.

Stuck for ideas? Keep trying…

Uncategorized

Giving up is the enemy of creativity, so says this research in the Harvard Business Review. Well, so far, so obvious. But the science backs it up – in study after study, people underestimated their own ability to keep coming up with ideas if they just kept trying. What’s more, when the guinea-pigs did stick at a problem for longer, the ideas they eventually came up with were rated by others as their best.

“Not only did participants underestimate their ability to generate ideas while persisting, they underestimated their ability to generate their most creative ideas.”

The study backs up what we already know about divergent thinking: the more you look for quantity of ideas, the more you are likely to get novelty. The authors- Brian J.Lucas and Loran Nordgren – conclude that we should ignore our first instinct to stop when ideas run dry, because our best idea might be just a few moment’s persistence away. They also suggest a bit of subtle reframing: remind yourself that creativity is meant to feel hard. That way, you won’t feel such a failure while you’re sat scratching your head.

Ten Commandments of Creative Thinking

Uncategorized

I’ve just finished re-reading Ed Catmull’s wonderful account of life inside Pixar, Creativity, Inc.

Based on this book – and my own experiences over the past few years as a creative thinking trainer inside and outside the BBC – I would like to venture Ten Commandments of Creative Thinking.

  1. This is meant to be fun.
  2. Creativity is a way of working, not a “natural” gift.
  3. Don’t expect the “right” answer yet, just a series of options.
  4. If you put me under pressure, I’ll give you the safe option.
  5. All new ideas are risky, they all suck at first.
  6. If a new idea doesn’t suck, it probably isn’t that new.
  7. We need each other’s help to make our ideas not suck.
  8. Other people will see things I miss.
  9. We’re trying something new, we’re bound to make mistakes.
  10. We will learn from our mistakes and grow.

What do you think? Any you’d add, or can I call the stonemasons?

picture courtesy of Pixabay.com

“Motor-babbling” baby steps

Uncategorized, , ,

Thinking of a new venture for the New Year? What can we learn from babies?

Babies in the womb – and some very clever robots – learn about their bodies by making tiny random movements and then observing the consequences. This is called “motor babbling”, apparently meaningless twitches that actually grow our motor skills and self-awareness. This process of trial and error is also called “goal babbling” – isn’t science brilliant?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129604.500-robot-elephant-trunk-learns-motor-skills-like-a-baby.html#.VRaSHzorWyM

https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/cs/research/ir/robots/icub/dev-icub/

So what could we learn from this? I doubt many of us would admit to babbling our way through our day jobs. But what about baby steps, tiny bits of trial and error with a sharp eye on the consequences?

Every time I hear a new idea I start asking “how could you pilot this? What is the low cost, low risk, pop-up version? How can we try, (maybe) fail, learn and repeat?

3 steps to avoid the bull

Uncategorized, ,

Why do so many smart people in business and public service write and speak so badly? A UK judge recently accused a social worker of writing in such dense bureaucratic terms she might as well have been speaking a foreign language. What did “imbued with ambivalence” and “having many commonalities emanating from their histories” actually mean? And how did this help anyone decide if a child should be taken away from its mother?

If you’re writing bull, here’s three steps to help you sound more human.

Step 1: Work out why you write so badly.

It’s probably down to fear. Many of us are afraid we don’t belong, afraid someone will tap us on the shoulder and say “I’m sorry, there’s been a terrible mistake. We’ve just realised you don’t know what you’re doing, please leave.” So we copy the language and manners of those around us, the better to fit in.

Then there’s the fear that what we need to say is unpleasant and will upset the listener. So we reach for euphemisms like “downsizing”. The pain is still there, but with added confusion and mistrust.

Keep an eye out for these fears when you sit down to write, they are red flags predicting bull.

Step 2: Be sure of what you want to say and why.

What do you believe in? What are your values? How do they inform what you’re trying to do? In the case of the social worker, I bet she believes in giving vulnerable children the best chance of happiness. Does that mean sometimes making tough, painful decisions? Yes? Then say so. Explain why your values make you act the way you do.

Think about your listener. What are their values? Do they trust you to be honest? What language do they feel comfortable with? You owe it to them to be as clear as you can – on their terms, not yours.

Step 3: Re-write, with help from the masters of 20th century prose.

Write down everything you want to say. Read it back and underline all the moments you felt fear. Underline any section where you’re not sure about the values behind it. Chances are this is where you’re writing bull.

Now re-write, with advice from three masters of 20th century prose: Winston Churchill, George Orwell and David Ogilvy.

Churchill: “Short words are best and the old words, when short, best of all.” So engage in a process of extinguishing, eliminating, de-prioritising… No, try to strike out any long, modern word and use old, short words instead.

Orwell: “Never use the passive when you can use the active.” Passive is a fudge, allowing responsibility to be evaded. “Concerns were raised…” No, tell me who raised concerns about what and who responded.

Ogilvy: “Write the way you talk. Naturally. Never use jargon words like reconceptualize, attitudinally, judgementally. They are hallmarks of a pretentious ass.” Enough said.

For more tips on great prose writing:

Five writing tips from Winston Churchill’s “finest hour” speech.

George Orwell’s five rules for effective writing.

And David Ogilvy’s 10 tips on writing clearly.

99 problems (but my pitch ain’t one)

Uncategorized, ,

This technique could give you confidence going into a pitch. I’ve adapted it from a divergent creative tool called List of 100 (sources below), with a nod to Jay-Z.

As you prepare to pitch your project or idea, write a list of 99 problems that it could face.

  • Any lingering doubts about your pitch will come out in the first 30.
  • The next 40 will reveal any patterns.
  • The last 29 will be unusual and could contain useful insights.

When you’ve completed your list, highlight any urgent problems. Turn these problems into “How could we….?” questions to brainstorm solutions.

So why does 99 Problems work – and won’t it discourage me?

It’s much better to spot a potential problem before the person you’re pitching to does. That way, you can address it before you go through the door, or at least show you’re aware of it.

Don’t worry that deliberately looking for problems will dishearten you.

Ironically, the harder we have to search for evidence of something, the less likely we are to believe it. If I asked you to find just two problems with your pitch, that would be so easy you’d suspect there must be more out there.

You’ll struggle to find 99 problems, and so you’ll instinctively feel your pitch is stronger. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls this the “availability heuristic.”

Try it out. You’ll have 99 Problems, but your pitch ain’t one.

Try the original List of 100 technique here:

https://litemind.com/tackle-any-issue-with-a-list-of-100/

For more on the availability heuristic, see chapter 12 of Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin 2011).