Disagree to Innovate

In a recent article from one of the designers at continuum, the idea of innovation occurring when disagreement happens is laid out. Daniel Sobol, puts forward 5 things you need to keep arguments in line with the creative process. One that particularly stood out to me was the paragraph about saying "No".

He suggests that where traditional brainstorming is mostly about building on the ideas of others and using the improv technique of saying "yes, and..." leads to a nice group dynamic, the power of saying "No, because..." can lead into a dialogue of critical thinking. This is an interesting idea and something I am keen to see how well it works. I think the value of this technique maybe after an actual brainstorm session has occurred and you are more in the mode of evaluating the ideas you have come up with and maybe looking for the best to build upon. My biggest concern would be controlling the group dynamic of criticism and keeping people from feeling to personal about the responses. I would also think that it could easily lead the generation of ideas to a halt as you analyze each idea in your mind. Still it is an interesting idea and I think with the right people and teams it can be an effective tool in brainstorming.

He outlines the other techniques to help in this augmentative approach as,

No Hierarchy. No one rules the ideas, and everyone is welcome to add to the idea pot.

Say "No, because..." Find another perspective that proves the original idea wrong. Say Why.

Diverse perspectives. T shaped people, and diverse backgrounds brings fresh perspectives.

Focus on common goal. Make sure everyone remembers the purpose and point of the exercise.

Keep it fun. Fun and happiness help people think and create outside the box.

Maybe when combined with all these other aspects he outlines the concerns I have disappear from the group. Still an interesting article and something I would love to try sometime.

Brainstorming 2.0

Fast Company and Jonah Lehrer, have recently written some interesting ideas around the value of brainstorming, and whether it even works. Is brainstorming really a waste of time?

Brainstorming as a tool for creative people has been used since the 1940's when Alex Osborn (BBDO) came up with this process for idea generation for his teams of advertising gurus. This was part of 6 phases he proposed for creative problem solving.

  1. Mess-finding (Objective Finding) 
  2. Fact-finding 
  3. Problem-Finding 
  4. Idea-finding 
  5. Solution finding (Idea evaluation) 
  6. Acceptance-finding (Idea implementation)Idea generation is a vital part of each phase, as is deciding which ideas are most relevant to carry forward to the subsequent phase.

He sheltered the ideas and creativity from criticism in the early stages so that the individuals were more free to imagine and not face criticism when ideating, which he believed would stifle input from people. Alex promoted this concept as part of BBDO's secret sauce to creativity. Now any company worth their salt in the innovation space uses brainstorming as part of the creative process. So have we be fooled?

So what is wrong with brainstorming? Is it broken, or does it just not work?

Well one argument that Lehrer puts forward is that some research suggests that people can be more creative working alone. It seems putting people into large groups doesn't increase creativity and idea generation. Instead group dynamics affect each person's contribution. This makes a lot of sense and groupthink is something that has been researched and written about by Susan Cain. I have also come across this idea in "The Innovation Killer" by Cynthia Rabe. Groupthink was an observation put forward by Irving Janus, that groups can make faulty decisions and behave irrationally even when presented with facts. 


Janus outlines some of the symptoms of group think as:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

People in groups have dynamics they bring to the group such as hierarchy in the team and social interactions. We like to be agreeable to fit in better with peers rather than upset the status quo. This doesn't really suggest brainstorming doesn't work, but is definitely something that can be fixed with better organisation and realization that this groupthink problem can arise. The real point is not just bringing groups of people together, but bringing the right people to the group and sessions. Outside thinkers, or zero gravity thinkers as Rabe suggest can help in this, by not having the same associations with the group performing the brainstorming these personality types might be more open to making comments and not falling prey to group thinking. Also, just being aware of the problem can help the group realize that it might be occurring and find ways to stop groupthink occuring


The next argument brings up that criticism actually improves the brainstorming process, which I think is maybe missing the point of brainstorming. Brainstorming is about idea generation not the next pahse which would be evaluation. The argument goes that in an experiment where two groups brainstormed with one allowing criticism and the other didn't that the critical group actually performed better with the number of ideas. Now of course not knowing exactly the process they used, I would assume that maybe what happened is that the criticism actually generated new ideas. This would fall inline with one of the brainstorming rules or build on the ideas of others. I don't think criticism actually was the catalyst for new ideas, but probably got people focusing on one idea at a time, as they would have discussed one idea a little further, then generated ideas from that original, just as brainstorming is meant to. 


I think adding a new rule that allows criticism is not the answer, it is going to quickly lead to resentment, of the idea generator, who will feel personally criticized and more importantly bring back the problem of quiet people not speaking up for fear of "stupid ideas". I do however think that building on peoples ideas gives this concept a positive spin, focusing people on ideas one at a time. Interestingly the Fast Company article does go on to say that criticism allows refining and redefining the problem, which increases creativity. I agree that problem definition is one of the hardest and most important steps, I am not sure you need criticism to do this but I do agree that it is an important part of brainstorming, to know what exactly you are trying to solve.


Lehrer goes on the describe that creativity is about happenstance not planning. This I agree with having a team of diverse experts working together is indeed more important for innovation to happen than having teams spread out across buildings or countries. This makes a lot of sense, there are more chance interactions and shared knowledge moments when people are closer together. I also agree that fresh approaches from new team members and outsiders can be invigorating for a stale team that is churning over the same ideas and problems for a long time. I would even consider idea pollination through collaborative workspaces. Environments are known to have a huge affect on what happens in them, create a creative space and people will feel more creative.

So the final question is do we need to drop brainstorming or can it be reworked. I believe that brainstorming is a valuable tool in idea generation and some of the rules outlined here are incredibly useful for making it work.  Yes there are good sessions and bad sessions, the real problem exists when people become complacent and think that it is some magical process to have the next big idea. Brainstorming is really a catalyst of idea creation, it can help teams bond across departments, it can fuel lateral thinking and also generate amazing ideas outside of the problem space. Brainstorming, needs to be part of your culture, the more you do it the better it gets. With the right facilitator, I believe that brainstorming can address all the problem Lehrer puts forward, all that needs to be remembered is that you are dealing with people and as such they have feelings(and don't like to be criticized) and need motivations(positive feedback) to work together problem solving. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all the work that companies like IDEO and Stanford's d.school have put forward to make successful brainstorming sessions, these companies and teams have proven the power of brainstorming and show that great ideas can be found in these sessions. It takes work and effort but the results can be very rewarding and the process a great deal of fun.

Seems I am not the only one whom sees a flaw in the article about brainstorming, Bob Sutton with way more clout and experience than me, has a similar feeling that brainstorming when done correctly can be a very effective way to produce ideas. He suggests that giving people the problem in advance of a brainstorm can let individuals come prepared to contribute having already immersed themselves in the problem space. He makes some excellent points and more importantly knows the pros and cons of brainstorming first hand. He sees brainstorming as a combination of individual and group thinking all happening in parallel when facilitated correctly with good techniques. The switch from individual to social modes can be done easily by expert brainstorming facilitators. One important insight is that the work of Robert Zajonc, that suggests that people are unable to withhold judgement on anything they encounter.

I put together the rules of what leads to a great brainstorming session here.

Here is a summary of what Jonah Lehrer proposes would help fix some of the issues with brainstorming.

• Rather than brainstorm with the traditional “no criticism, every idea is worthy” rule, encourage debate. It isn’t pretty or polite, but team members engage more with their colleagues’ ideas. They often come up with more thoughts–many of them unpredictable and original–after facing conflicts (the conclusions of a study by U.C. Berkeley psychology professor Charlan Nemeth).

• Take a cue from the most successful Broadway musicals (Lehrer points to empirical evidence conducted by Brian Uzzi, a sociologist at Northwestern University), which tend to have a mix of repeat collaborators and new talent on their creative teams, rather than closed circles of long-time co-workers, or all-new groups who aren’t familiar with each other.

• Collaborate physically near others to promote better group ideas. The ideal distance? Thirty-two feet. This is based on research by Harvard Medical School researcher Isaac Kohane, who used the numbers of citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers as a metric. Those groups with the most citations for their collaborative papers were working within 32 feet of one another. Those with the least were at least a half a mile apart.

• Force teams into chance encounters in the workplace, via architecture. Lehrer cites Walter Isaacson’s recent biography of Steve Jobs: Jobs guided the design of Pixar’s headquarters to offer an atrium that housed the only bathrooms in the building (later, more were added)–thus increasing the odds that writers and programmers would discuss cross-disciplinary ideas, even during their breaks.

• Consider abandoning beautiful design when attempting to create an effective creative space. Lehrer cites Building 20 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (which has been demolished), originally a temporary building nicknamed the “plywood palace.” Bose Corporation used it as an incubator. The first video game was created there. And linguistic study was revolutionized within Building 20, too. It was so ugly and underdesigned, researchers who worked there were forced to customize their work spaces. The room numbering made no sense, and people got lost. So they wandered into each other’s genuinely creative, personalized labs and offices. And exchanged ideas.

• Think about it: brainstorming, for all its ostensible freedom of thought, actually asks teams to follow a script of non-criticism and free-flowing associations. Consider re-writing it.

So you want to brainstorm

Brainstorming is a fundamental part of any design thinking process. It helps people to think about innovation. I have been involved in many design brainstorms throughout my career, and some proved amazingly effective and a few were not as good as everyone had hoped. In the years that I have been brainstorming I have instinctively found what works and what doesn't and find that now things move along way smoother now than they did when I first started using this technique. Brainstorming is not a magic bullet to creative problem solving, and certainly it is powerful if used in the right way and for the right problems, but like anything if used incorrectly or with the wrong intention and approach it can be less than effective. The best time to use brainstorming is when the team is already saturated with a concept or idea space - from the discovery phase - then the team can effectively start to ideate with a clear mind on the problem space and maybe even existing solutions that can add to the mix. Without proper preparation by the team as a whole and individually brainstorms can be too wild and end up with too much on the "cutting room floor" because of a lack of understanding of the real problem space. It is important to have a facilitator that "owns" the problem and can guide and prepare the brainstorming session, I suggest where possible to invite a diverse team of people that would work well together, and are experts within their fields of expertise, but whom are open to problem solving outside their comfort space of knowledge. Diversity of backgrounds often leads to radical thinking about a problem from a new angle.

So that said, lets look at the rules for brainstorming that are defined and I agree work best in a good brainstorming session.

The first thing to realize is that there are some well defined rules for an effective brainstorm session and although I didn't define these rules, I do now apply them in all session I hold, they have proven to be very effective and produce the best results.

The rules of effective brainstorming are:

1. Defer Judgement. 
- Get the ideas out, evaulate the real value and feasibility later, it will only hinder the session if you keep stopping to evaluate ideas, plus it can be quite a show stopper when people start feeling like their ideas are being scutinized, they will tend to clam up and stop sharing thoughts.

2. Encourage Wild Ideas 
- Sometimes it is great to start the session off with a game related to the problem space, that makes people think about the topic and experience at hand. Then when the ideas start coming keep them loose and fun. Wild ideas can sometimes be great insights to why problem already exist, asking the question "why not?" can be very effective way to see the problem space.

3. Build on the Ideas of others 
- Sometimes following a path of thought by someone else can get your mind to shift the problem space you are in from your point of view. You might have been sitting thinking something very perfectly in your mind, but having to stop that and work from another point of view can free your mind from being trapped in "group thinking"

4. Stay focused on topic 
- Always note on a whiteboard or large piece of paper, the actual question or problem you are trying to solve, brainstorms often can get wild and people get excited about all the ideas and creative thinking, but actually forget the real task at hand.

5. One conversation at a time 
- Allow everyone to have their say, even if you don't think it is a good idea, or is wrong. Remember the first rule of brainstorming - defer judgement. Learn to listen to people on the brainstorm team someone might just have something very valuable to add to the idea pool. Nothing is worse than too many conversations at a time, and missing great ideas because no-one heard it or captured it.

6. Be visual 
- Putting things down in a visual form gets the brain excited and stimulated, remember we are mostly visual creatures, this helps whiteboards to not be a jumble of just text it produces a visula remind to ideas already discussed.

7. Headline 
- Some people are very capable of talking and describing ideas that make sense to them but no one else, or they take 15 mins to get the idea across, encouraging headline summary of an idea helps to be focused on the concept and solution, plus make the originator of the idea think a little more clearly about the concept in a bite sized chunk. Remember deep diving and investigation into any concepts will occur later, just make a note for now.

7. Go for quantity 
- This is more about the idea of encouraging people to produce ideas rapidly, not be too judgmental early on. Of course hopefully as more ideas start appearing on the walls, more ideas start to form. I have never had a problem with quantity of ideas, once people start they often get really into idea generation.

So there you have it the rough guide to brainstorming. Some of the best meetings you'll ever have if you follow these rules and have fun doing it.