Tag: creativity

3 Activities to Help Your Team: Generate, Develop and Judge Ideas

Design ThinkingPublished onUpdated on33 Comments on 3 Activities to Help Your Team: Generate, Develop and Judge Ideas

There are hundreds of different activities you can use for generating and developing ideas. I thought I would share a trio that works well together. They each require a specific type of thinking or mindset to be successful. The three activities are good representative examples of Divergent, Emergent and Convergent thinking.[1]

I have picked these three because they flow well together, and although they work well on their own, they complement each other well.

1. Crazy 8s

Time: 5mins / Skills: Idea generation / Mindset: Divergent or Open thinking / Resources: 8 Post-it notes per person, felt tip pens / Group: Ideal for small-medium sized groups, you will need a timekeeper. Independent work.

Generate eight different ideas in 5 minutes.[2]

Sounds easy enough, but this is a challenging little task. For each round, participants have 40 seconds to draw an idea on a post-it note. When the first round is done, the timer is immediately reset, and the second round begins for eight rounds in total, 5 minutes.

The most challenging part for most participants is that you can only draw the idea – stick to the no words rule. It means they have to generate an idea and then communicate that. It is worth spending some time being clear about the mindset of divergence and openness. All too often, we are our own worst filters, and people find this hard to shake.

2. Idea Pairs

Time: 15–20mins / Skills: Idea development / Mindset: Emergent or Exploratory thinking / Resources: Post-it notes, felt tip pens / Group: Ideal for small-medium sized groups that are comfortable working in pairs.

Combine ideas and discuss in a pair how they could work together.

I like the simplicity of this next step, and it flows seamlessly from the intensity of Crazy 8s[3]. Once you have finished the first step task (Crazy 8s), each participant will have many ideas; hopefully, they will have eight post-it notes in front of them, so long as they didn’t bail halfway through.

Ask the group to get themselves into pairs to discuss some idea combinations. Each person in the team picks one of their ideas at random and combines it with the arbitrary choice of their partner. Placing the two post-it notes side by side. Through discussion, the combination is explored, and new ideas are noted; this should increase the pool of ideas around the table.

I find this simple step is a great way to collide ideas that might have remained in isolation. It also helps participants talk through their thoughts, developing them further. An Exploratory or Emergent mindset is needed here, which emphasises the need for developing, pushing and prodding ideas in new directions.

3. Impact Vs Effort Matrix

Time: 20–30mins / Skills: Idea filtering / Mindset: Convergent or Closed thinking / Resources: Post-it notes, felt tip pens, whiteboard or large flip chart paper (tabletop also works fine) / Group: Small to medium group size for discussion.

Judge each idea created against a High/Low measure for Effort to implement and the impact it could have.

I always enjoy using this little matrix[4] to judge a smaller handful of ideas. You might have anything from 30–50 ideas from the group, depending on the group size. You might ask the whole team to pick 2–4 of their ideas to bring into this round; perhaps the pairs from the previous activity will discuss what to keep and what to cut. Once you have done that first filter, you can decide what High/Low for Effort and Impact is.

Draw up a four-quadrant matrix on a whiteboard or use some masking tape to do the same on those furry display boards! Label the axes accordingly:

  • HIGH EFFORT
  • LOW EFFORT
  • HIGH IMPACT
  • LOW IMPACT

Now, all you have to do as a team is discuss each idea and place it, measuring/judging the effort needed and its potential impact. This process is always a great way to converge into a small pocket of ideas that fit your requirements. You should pin up the post notes and shuffle them around as you chat about their potential.

From doing this many times, I would say that it is useful, as more ideas are added to the matrix, to compare ideas directly: “Will this be harder to implement than this one?” etc. Another tip would be to consider the trajectory of the ideas over time. Efforts to implement and impact may reduce or increase – mark up the future course and discuss what this means.

This is an effective task to help the group understand what is practical under the constraints you have as a team. It pushes you to make comparisons between ideas and prioritise and rank them in interesting ways. When you are in this state, you narrow your options and are thinking in a more Convergent manner.

Well, I hope those three little tasks prove helpful to you and your teams/students in the future. They flow well together and require barely any unique resources. They also fit within an hour if someone is cracking the whip and facilitating well – typical of the ideation phase. The critical thing for each step is to explicitly flag the mindset or thinking state needed to be successful. They are great examples of the three different thinking states: Divergent, Emergent and Convergent.

Give them a try, and let me know how you get on. Remember that these three tools are three of many, and you should do everything you can to expand the choices you have in your toolset. When you have more options, you can make better combinations of activities such as this trifecta.

  1. It is through these different thinking states that we typically experience a creative process. They often fall in the order written above but just as frequently break that rhythm. You can read a little more about the ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking in my previous blog post.  ↩
  2. I first came across the Crazy 8s ideation strategy from Google Ventures and a Jake Knapp blog post which is worth a read – lots of other ideas there too.  ↩
  3. I’d recommend building in some time to debrief after Crazy 8s. It is quite an intense task requiring focus and individual effort. Spend some time asking how people felt and how they found the task – giving the participants some time to chat will help the overall flow.  ↩
  4. The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.  ↩

The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking

Design Thinking, Featured, ThinkingPublished onUpdated on63 Comments on The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking

I thought I would take the opportunity to return to an article I wrote a few days ago. My blog post outlined a few of the key issues for developing creative teams. The article that inspired it from HBR[1] gave a broad definition of innovation and creativity which resonated strongly with my own experience in schools.

According to the author, Roger Schwarz[2], researchers commonly make a distinction between the definition of creativity and innovation.

Innovation involves two stages—the generation of new ideas and the implementation of the ideas. Creativity is considered to be the first stage of innovation.

I would call implementing ideas Prototyping and this typically comes after a range of ideas have been sorted, filtered and judged in different ways during Ideation. I always see a change in the energy levels during Ideation as people begin to flex their creative muscles more intensely.

Later in the article Schwarz outlines a conflict in factors that affect innovation, explaining that a different type of thinking is needed.

Creativity and the second stage of innovation require different individual skills and team structures and processes. The idea generation stage is often referred to as divergent thinking or exploration. The implementation stage is often referred to as convergent thinking or exploitation. Unless you plan to have your team hand off its creative ideas, you will need to create a team that can operate in both modes, switching among them as appropriate.

This whole area is invariably complex and more research is needed. However even from my own experience the requirements on an individual are much more intricate. I agree that we need to be in a divergent thinking state when we generate ideas, but this changes when we have to decide on which ideas are worth investing further in. It changes to a convergent thinking state. In order to identify our choices we have to narrow our field, we have to purge the ideas that don’t make the cut. For us to successfully judge a set of ideas we have to be able to converge and begin to make choices. Thinking big (divergently) and generating ideas at this stage would certainly be counterintuitive.

The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking at the ideation stage is quite important and much more frequent than is suggested in the article. Idea generation is but one part of Ideation. Of course we may identify Emergent thinking as well at this stage which is exploratory and helps when we want to develop our ideas further. I see Ideation being made up of the sequence below:

  1. Generate Ideas (Divergent or Open Thinking)
  2. Explore and develop ideas (Emergent or Exploratory Thinking)
  3. Judge and shortlist (Convergent or Closed Thinking)

It is extremely useful to have a language for the thinking state or mindset needed. I would highly recommend sharing the definitions and helping others understand them. Talking explicitly about the thinking that is needed to be most successful helps signpost people to such expectations, and has helped countless teams of adults and students I have worked with. Don’t let this be a wishy washy stage, identify a process, like the sequence above and stick to it. Trust in the process.[3]

Once ideas have been explored and narrowed down then a team would move on to implementation. Taking a concept into a working or minimal viable prototype phase. Again the type of thinking here is not simply convergent as Schwarz outlines, in my opinion it is equally fluid and perhaps also made up of the combination of divergent, emergent and convergent thinking states.

  1. Harvard Business Review  ↩
  2. Roger Schwarz is an organisational psychologist, find him on Twitter @LeadSmarter  ↩
  3. And the force.  ↩

How to Keep People at the Heart of Your Next Problem Solving Process

Design ThinkingPublished onUpdated on25 Comments on How to Keep People at the Heart of Your Next Problem Solving Process

 

Problem solving is a skill we want all of our students to be honing whilst at school. However one of the issues I stumble upon during my work is the weaker focus on problem finding.

In many ways problem finding can be more accurately and more broadly defined as the time when we check that a problem is worth solving in the first place. This is something students don’t experience enough.[1] All too often they are presented with a problem and get busy generating ideas, or as adults we assume that the problem is clear when it is not and start from a much weaker position.

I enjoyed this recent article from Emily Heyward[2] that focused attention on ensuring a problem is worth solving in the first place. Instead of immediately jumping ahead there are significant gains to be had by staying in the problem for much longer.

Staying focused on the problem also prevents you from falling into the fatal trap of assuming the world is waiting with bated breath for your product to launch. When I used to work in advertising, we would joke that the “insight” in the creative brief was often something along the lines of, “I wish there were a crunchy cereal with raisins that was healthy and also delicious.” But people do not wish this. They might have a hard time finding a quick breakfast that doesn’t make them feel fat or sluggish. And maybe your crunchy raisin cereal is the perfect response to this issue. But they are not waking up in the morning wishing for raisiny, crunchy goodness. Similarly, people are not wishing for your idea to exist, because they don’t even know it’s an option. So when you sit down to clarify what problem you’re solving, a great initial test is to imagine someone’s inner monologue. Is the problem you’ve identified something that a real human might actually be thinking?

The last line emphasises the importance of empathy in any problem solving/finding process. We have to be able to put ourselves in other people’s shoes to fully appreciate what the need is. I suppose that is the difference between something we might want and something that is a true need.

So spend longer in the problem state. Encourage your students and colleagues to remain in that state, often characterised by asking questions, for as long as you can. Technology and habits cause us to jump out of this inquiry/problem finding state all too quickly. That in itself is a habit or mindset we need to wean our students off.

John Dewey talked about inquiry in a similar way, inquiry in my opinion being synonymous with any creative process, saying that we need to protract the state of uncertainty for much longer.

To be genuinely thoughtful, we must be willing to sustain and protract that state of doubt which is the stimulus to thorough inquiry.[3]

That has always resonated strongly with me. Whether in a design agency as Heyward refers to or as a curriculum based inquiry, it is the deliberate and sustained period of doubt that most characterises an inquiry. When we experience this with an open mindset to learn and empathise with those involved we are more likely to identify a problem worth our time to try and fix.

Further into her piece Emily Heyward also refers to the 5 Whys[4] technique which we commonly use with teams we are working with. I suspect you have probably come across this too. However I like the slight change in the wording of the question, not just “Why?” but “Why does that matter?”. I think this small change resets the question back into one of relevance to the human being at the heart of the issue. It will be a small change I make when I use the 5 Whys technique in the future.

By focusing on the problem you’re solving, you move beyond a functional description of what your product is, to an emotional solution that connects with people at their core. It also keeps us honest that what we’re doing really matters…

In the start-up and design world it is critical to remain focused on the people at the heart of new ideas, but this is just as relevant for the creative inquiry we help our students experience. In many ways the core experience of “school” should be about creating something that matters. I imagine a time when that becomes a new education standard.

  1. The design thinking process emphasises this precursive step. Participants immerse themselves in an issue or topic and then synthesise the insights they gain. It is through these two significant stages that a problem is identified and ratified. You don’t start with a problem, and even if you did you still orientate yourself to ensure it is worthy of our time.  ↩
  2. Emily Heyward is s a founding partner at Red Antler, a branding consultancy specialising in start-ups and new ventures.  ↩
  3. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company. (p. 16)  ↩
  4. The 5 Whys technique is used to dig deeper into the causes of an issue. You start with a simple identified problem and then ask why is that an issue and then repeat again with the answer. It deliberately opens the issue up and ensures a team identifies the root causes. The technique is commonly attributed to the Toyota Motor Corporation during the evolution of its manufacturing methodologies.  ↩

The Three Pillars of Powerful Team Collaboration

CreativityPublished onUpdated on15 Comments on The Three Pillars of Powerful Team Collaboration

One of the perennial challenges I come across in my work in schools and other organisations is the ability of a team to collaborate well. Put simply: to create something together.

This piece from Harvard Business Review highlights a number of issues related to the success of a group working together. They drew upon a range of research meta-analysis and raise some good questions about group creativity.

I thought I would spend a short while exploring my take on those most related to learning.

A Compelling Vision

Teams are more innovative when members have a common understanding of team objectives and are also committed to them.

Most schools have the trifecta of a Vision, Mission and Values. They may also have the Whole School Pedagogy statement thrown in there too. But admittedly I have rarely come across a vision that is Compelling.

They shouldn’t be trophy statements that only provide us with useful brochure-ware. A vision statement is a chance to compel a group of people forwards in terms of innovation. An opportunity to challenge and create excitement about what the future might hold.

When we are excited about that future direction and we share it with others innovation and creativity is more likely to flourish. I suppose it helps us all understand ‘the why’.

Support for Innovation

Teams are more innovative when managers expect and approve of innovation, support members when their attempts to innovate are not successful, and recognize and reward new ideas and their implementation. This means encouraging risk and expecting failures.

The interesting part here is the support team members receive when things go wrong and when ideas are not successful. At first, I thought this might just relate to the work of teachers as they develop new ideas for their work, but it is also an issue for students too.

Generating a bunch of ideas is one step but trying them out is another. When leaders and managers give us agency and license to mess stuff up we are much more likely to create and implement more ideas. This is linked to how high or low stakes the learning environment is. You might ponder on that for a second and try to settle on an aggregate sense of what the wider school or organisation environment is.

When a school has a generally high stakes environment students and staff don’t feel safe enough to try things out. Failing is not seen as part of the learning process and it is likely that there is an emphasis on the end product or outcome and not the path a student takes.

As you probably can tell when we start talking about “stakes” we quickly bump up against the assessment system, process and environment in a school. If you really want to have a creative, innovative school start by looking closely at your assessment culture.

A Cohesive Team

Cohesion represents commitment to the team and a desire to be part of the team. Researchers see cohesion as creating a psychologically safe environment that enables members to challenge each other and the status quo.

Related to my previous point about creating a safe enough culture for taking a risk is this interesting definition of “cohesion”. When we are united together behind a common goal there is a degree of comfort, that comfort stems from the acceptance of others around us. It is this acceptance that creates a desire to be together in a team and commitment to work successfully together.

When we have this sort of team baseline in effect we are much more likely to challenge the world around us. This includes our propensity, within that team, to provide critique or feedback to each other. We know that feedback is a key element of the process of learning that has a significant impact. But the success of any feedback interaction relies on the cohesion of the people who create that interaction.

No surprise that cohesion is synonymous with relationships. This is especially true in the classroom and in terms of learning. A useful reminder for us all that building stronger relationships with our colleagues and students will help feedback to be more successful.

The other element referenced here by HBR is the ability of a team to challenge the status quo. I often say that “assumptions lead to mediocrity”. I have worked with teams where challenging long-held beliefs within an industry is a bridge too far. It loops back to the relationships we have with those working around us and of course vertically throughout an organisation. When there is little cohesion or support for change the well-worn path is a safe and predictable choice.

If we want to develop the creative capacity of our teams, our students or those we are leading we must challenge the status quo. We all did this well as 6-year-olds. It would help if we enabled those around us to ask more questions and challenge the long-held practices of our industries.

–

Re-build our individual capacity to challenge assumptions, within a culture of “yeah let’s try it!”, under a compelling banner for what might lie ahead, and we all may be on to something.

How One Man Overcame Ridicule and Changed Rocket Science Forever

Creativity, SciencePublished onUpdated on30 Comments on How One Man Overcame Ridicule and Changed Rocket Science Forever

The New Horizons space probe has been on a decade long mission to reach the dwarf planet Pluto, and the imagery is amazing. It would seem that this is just the first waypoint. Next on the itinerary is a Kuiper Belt object, 1 billion miles away.

[UPDATE] “As of March 2019, New Horizons was about 4.1 billion miles (6.6 billion kilometres) from Earth, operating normally and speeding deeper into the Kuiper Belt at nearly 33,000 miles (53,000 kilometres) per hour.”

Imagine for a moment how complex the New Horizons project has been. Persisting for over a decade with such a specific purpose. But in many ways, the first part of the journey was the hardest. Leaving our Earth’s atmosphere is hard – gravity will do that for you.

Robert Goddard is now considered one of the founding fathers of modern rocket science. He was visionary. It is due to his discoveries and his own form of persistence that we even have interplanetary missions.

One of the reasons I share the story with you is that it wasn’t such a smooth ride for Robert Goddard. The number of doubters speaking out against him at times must have felt like a gravitational force he may never draw away from. The creative conflict in his story is intriguing. We may add his tale to many who were considered ahead of their time, but ostracised for their originality.

Inspiration and Support

Robert was captivated by the allure of space. This came primarily from reading The War of Worlds by HG Wells – he was hooked. Fast forward twenty years and he was making pioneering discoveries in rocket propulsion. His contemporaries did not understand him and he found it almost impossible to gain financial backing to continue his work. In 1915 he even considered abandoning his efforts in the face of such continued challenge and isolation.

The Assistant Secretary of The Smithsonian, Charles Greeley Abbot, did not hold the same opinion. After reviewing an application for support from Goddard he provided a grant of $5,000 in 1917 to accelerate his efforts. This proved pivotal to Robert Goddard, encouraging him to persist when so many around him were full of doubt.

Squashing Ideas

In 1919, the Smithsonian published Goddard’s classic treatise “A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections” (Vol. 71, No. 2). This scientific report exacerbated the challenge and doubt from his peers. Goddard had outlined a proposal for a rocket leaving the Earth’s atmosphere. His proposed rocket flight to The Moon drew wider public ridicule from the press. Everyone doubted his theory, and the press made a mockery of his ideas.

This had a profound effect on Goddard’s perspective and disposition. He became more guarded and isolated in his work. The list of those he trusted with his thinking dwindled. At the time a peer at the Californian Institute of Technology highlighted the challenges of not collaborating:

The trouble with secrecy is that one can easily go in the wrong direction and never know it.

Despite this on March 16, 1926, Goddard constructed and successfully tested the first rocket using liquid fuel. A flight as significant to history as that of the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk.

He never got to see the fruit of his labours and died in 1945 from throat cancer. He was posthumously awarded over 200 patents for his discoveries and pioneering thinking in the field of rocket propulsion. Nowadays he is a celebrated creative scientist who paved the way for human exploration.

Creative Traits

In my opinion one of the most important traits of creative individuals is vision. It is clear that due to Goddard’s unique insight into the field he brought the horizon closer much more quickly than others. It is perhaps his Tenacity and Courage in the face of such widespread doubt that defines his creative spirit.

A further element that is clear within this story is the impact of the people around him. The negative voices were there from the start and they persisted. But it is the people that championed his ideas and said, “Yes!” that had the crucial impact. His wife continued to share and celebrate his work after his death, raising awareness and appreciation for his foresight. The support he received throughout his career from the Smithsonian in finances and belief is likely to be regarded as having the most impact. When others doubted, Charles Abbot believed. Mirroring the foresight that Goddard showed himself. In Goddard’s own words of appreciation to Abbot:

I am particularly grateful for your interest, encouragement, and far-sightedness. I feel that I cannot overestimate the value of your backing, at times when hardly anyone else in the world could see anything of importance in the undertaking.

Your Next Steps

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum and the story of Robert Goddard is as much about those who encouraged him. The open-mindedness to encourage and nurture nascent ideas is a critical dynamic as new thinking develops. Yes, we may need to show Courage and Tenacity when our ideas are out there, but new ideas rely on the courage of others too.

  • Something we can do, with our colleagues and students, when developing new creative ideas is to say “Yes“. It changes everything and signals openness to what might be next. It signals encouragement.
  • When we know that ideas are at an early phase we need to adjust our critique appropriately. In other words, when we hear new thinking we must be more delicate and encouraging as they take their first steps into the wild.
  • “Hold your ideas lightly“, is a good way to explain the mindset we need to have when sharing early ideas too. As the bearer of those new ideas, we have to be willing and open to others helping to make them better.

Just imagine the conversation fifteen, maybe twenty years ago:

“I think we should try and send a probe into the furthest reaches of our solar system. To Pluto.”

“That’s over 4.6 billion miles away.”

“Yes and the technology has not been invented yet and it will take us over a decade to get there.”

“Yes, great. We’ll call it the Decadal Survey. Let’s start.”

Goddard would have cherished the opportunity to see the images of our solar system and those from the New Horizons mission. I am certain he would have quietly approved of the tenacity and conviction of those who held the early theories and ideas. But also he would have recognised the value of those who showed similar “far-sightedness” in their unwavering support and encouragement.

References

“See New Horizons’ Entire Pluto Flyby in 23 Seconds.” 2015.
“Robert H. Goddard: American Rocket Pioneer | Smithsonian …” 2012.
“Robert H. Goddard – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” 2011.
“NASA – Dr. Robert H. Goddard, American Rocketry Pioneer.” 2004.