A follow-up post to “creativity and invention in brainstorming scenarios”.
______________________
conception scenario
In essence, I create in a three step process. First, I contemplate and research the context of the problem and consider possible ideas, this step rarely results in an actual design. Then, as I gain some distance from the initial task – generally preoccupied by something else, the answer dawns on me and I record it in a freehand sketch. Similar experiences are reported by the majority of people with extensive experience in design, invention and creating all manner of things. Beginners tend to understate the connection and the structure of these three phases and are likely to say that the idea just came to them out of the blue.
The pattern of these three stages: seeding, subconscious reflecting and the synthesis or discovery is worth focusing on in an attempt to identify a methodology for creative problem-solving. The task of defining an effective technique, especially in context of brainstorming scenarios, will readily benefit by harnessing that pattern and in particular the introduction of a priming/seeding stage. Ronald Finke (Finke et al 1992) describes this as “generation of preinventive structures”, a key stage of the Geneplore model - a methodology for collaborative creative design process.
Finke's (Generate/Explore) model prescribes a deliberate temporary suspension of professional expertise in order to maximise the emergence of unique solutions. Habitual application of expertise carries the implication of routine outcomes limited by mental blocks imposed by existing heuristics. Novel and original solutions, and invention in particular, require a fresh and open minded approach to the problem at hand and the consideration of the likely possibilities.
In my opinion, this is an ideal opportunity to exploit the synergy offered by brainstorming sessions instead of expectancy and reliance on the conscious avoidance of conventional thinking by people with deep and specialised field expertise. The procedure would consist of a priming brief presented by experts e.g. scope and usability objectives of the proposed project, followed by a period of reflection, which may involve other activities and finally a core session for the exploration of multiple contributions in a traditional brainstorming meeting.
______________________
left vs right brain
A core criteria in adopting a suitable methodology is actually a very personal thing. The critical guiding principle is the compatibility with individual tendencies in cognitive disposition. At large, people can be classified as left or right hemisphere dominant in their processing of mental tasks. A balance of both is a desirable trait in everyday life, but problem solving situations benefit from a fusion of the two extremes. Collaboration between people representing the opposite sides of the spectrum, generally approaches optimal results by combining the strengths of their respective predispositions.
A number of cognitive dimensions can be identified as characteristic of the left and right brain dominance. These include: decomposition vs holistic (reductionist vs systems view), sequential vs random, symbolic vs concrete (diagrams vs prototypes), logical vs intuitive, verbal vs visual and reality vs fantasy. On one hand, left hemisphere dominant people are more productive at decomposing problems into components and meticulously constructing the desired outcome. Yet on the other, the right hemisphere dominant people work in a less structured manner, tending to veer off on tangents and discover unexpected results. Creative problem-solving situations call for a combination of both groups in order to deliver innovative and disruptive outcomes.
______________________
our objectives
The dimension of innovation can be distilled as a continuum from routine craft to creative invention. The routine path is grounded in specialised insight and leads to predictable results with great certainty, but little or nil innovation. As the process tends towards the creative path with an increasing potential for discovery of novel and disruptive product, the confidence in reaching valid outcomes inevitably diminishes. For every innovation in the marketplace there are thousands of failed concepts we may never hear about, even if some of these possess ample characteristics of killer applications. Similarly, countless mundane “me too” products will never reach the proverbial 15 seconds of fame for anyone to take notice, regardless of the stated objectives; like aiming to change the landscape of the industry or other claims expressed at launch time.
The salient question is: how to increase the likelihood of desirable results on the unpredictable path of invention?
The big-picture answer of course isn't simply a design process issue, many other factors contribute to success and countless examples readily illustrate this. What would iPad's chance of success be, without Apple and its religious consumer loyalty born with the iPod and iPhone range. Even without brand equity as such – consider Google without the initial support at Stanford or Facebook launched at some two-bit school instead of Harvard. All three examples are very cryptic, so I'll forgo any attempt at a deep analysis beyond a few thoughts to ponder on.
Apple is a company specialising in easy to learn and a pleasure to use products without any user research. Google's success has more to do with the demise of Altavista under consecutive takeovers of the parent company Digital, first by Compaq and in turn HP, than its page rank algorithm, the speed or for that matter the proposed business and monetisation model – there wasn't one. Similarly, Facebook only began to look like money when MySpace was strapped onto News Corp. for a hefty 580 million dollars and slapped with a very ambiguous expectation of delivering the online market to Murdoch – a disaster considering the widely reported stats like 4 in 10,000 click-through rates on ads in SN.
The company and its culture is yet another aspect on the bumpy road to product success. We need people with the conviction and the passion that Steve Jobs had selling jelly-bean iMacs despite the dated bubble design in the days of sexy and slim LCD screens. When Jobs returned to Apple, then on a brink of bankruptcy, he found the frustrated Jony Ive who showed him the iMac designs shelved by previous management and so the company was salvaged, to top the profit stakes now. Can such a transformation be replicated? Certainly it can, but tweaking the knobs while making exaggerated claims is not likely to deliver the results.
The answer is: talent, audacity, open-mindedness and of course a suitable process.
______________________
take the world by storm
Give or take some prescriptions and the earlier priming session, a brainstorming event could closely follow the well known process and guidelines. Anything goes as far as the idea capture and documentation are concerned. Those comfortable with verbal or bullet point descriptions should be mindful that input from other group members needs to be integrated on ad-hock basis, even if the resulting lists aren't quite so orderly or as neat as intended. Mind maps should be considered for their inherent flexibility of structure. However, feehand visual representation provides the most fluid and open-ended means to capture the rich picture of the problem and solution domains and my “doodling and sketching” article may be worth reviewing.
The idea generation process, should diverge as wide as possible at the early stages. In the event that an emerging concept reaches a wide acceptance or various ideas appear to converge on a common theme, the process shifts into deeper (more specific) exploration of its entities and personas or actors, including all implied aspects of context situations. Each stage of the divergent “what if?” exploration should reach an optimal phase when different “stories” present common attributes (converge) and this may be documented in greater detail.
______________________
low fidelity prototypes
Lo-Fi prototypes provide a very rich form for exploration and capture of ideas. Paper, pens and scissors, post-it notes, Lego or even screen based contraptions; whatever the medium - prototype props will aid and empower the brainstorming process. By making a simulation of Use Cases more tangible especially for the “right brain” participants, prototypes extend the dialogue and motivate both different and deeper persona descriptions. I strongly encourage role-play and the use of props (Lo-Fi prototypes) with particular attention paid to the scarcest resources (see below) for each persona and situation, with a view to minimise the effort where it is feasible.
______________________
guiding principles
The core guidelines are: simplicity and reflection in action. BJ Fogg proposed a very convincing model of “simplicity” as a function of the scarcest resource in a given situation. The scarce resources include: time, money, physical effort, brain cycles, social deviance (unfamiliarity) or non-routine actions. Ideally a use case would present just one scarce resource, but more often a combination of of a few will need to be balanced out.
My own interpretation of Gary Rolfe's “Reflection in Action” (or Reflective Practice Model) comprises three questions posed by practitioners at each stage of concept exploration or production cycle. What if? So What? and What Now? In this form of analysis a description of the situation is obtained, which leads to scrutiny of the outcomes and construction of knowledge learnt in the process. The net effect of this approach constantly improves the product itself and promotes individual mastery of the practitioner.
Aside note: In context of workplace Performance Reviews and self improvement, the principle of Reflection in Action provides an opportunity to elaborate on the integrity of one's responses and the influence of the impressions arrived at in the process of asking the three questions.
______________________
judgement
Providing that ideas are elicited in the brainstorming scenario, electing the most promising candidates for further development and obtaining a consensus in order to reach a shared vision and a sense of commitment, is likely to present a formidable problem in itself. Competent design professionals should be able to address this dilemma by recognising and championing the merits of outstanding concepts, however, the validity of this methodology and the whole process is clearly in someone's hands or rather at the peril of their emotional intelligence.
______________________
handover
While not a terminal stage in absolute terms, the design and engineering members of the team would take over the project at this stage, introducing the regular delivery process e.g. Agile, Kanban, Lean etc. Further critiques and reviews of the product under development lend themselves to additional iterations in settings analogous to the described brainstorming sessions and benefit from the “check-in” of results against the originally stated goals and objectives.
______________________
why not?
If company culture and value structures are greatly at odds with the notion of unpredictability and trust placed on methods with a relatively low level of confidence, perhaps a more pragmatic approach of routine processes should be adhered to, forgoing the potential for invention and the goals of delivering disruptive products.
______________________
REFERENCES
Ronald A. Finke, Thomas B. Ward and Steven M. Smith, 1992, “Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Applications”.
Another worthy read on the subject: "The Brainstorming Process Is B.S. But Can We Rework It?".
No comments:
Post a Comment