Tag: design thinking

6 Emotional Barriers to Generating Ideas and How to Overcome Them

LearningPublished on13 Comments on 6 Emotional Barriers to Generating Ideas and How to Overcome Them

So it would seem that I have stumbled on to a little running theme in the last few blog posts about coming up with ideas. No reason to kick that habit just yet as it is one of the most intriguing of subjects. In this post I want to share some of the emotional barriers to idea generation.

In one of my favourite books: Conceptual Blockbusting, James Adams[1] outlines a range of these emotional blocks to the creative process. Behaviours and habits that can stultify our efforts.

  1. A fear to make mistakes, to fail, to risk.
  2. Preference for judging ideas rather than generating them.
  3. No tolerance for ambiguity or chaos.
  4. A lack of challenge – not engaging enough.
  5. Excessive zeal – too much speed, pace and haste.[2]
  6. An inability to relax and to incubate ideas.

Which ones do you recognise in your colleagues or students, or even sometimes in your own behaviour?

emoblocks

Most of these are of course directly linked. For example when you have a low tolerance for any sort of uncertainty you are risk averse and have a heightened fear of making mistakes. If there is too much pace, either by design or by accident, then you are less likely to relax and incubate ideas. None of these descriptions are ideal for the idea generation process. None of these are ideal for creative learning.

Let’s flip them around so that they become positive descriptions of a learning environment and see how they sound.

  1. “Make excellent mistakes.”[3]
  2. Nurture nascent ideas.
  3. Encourage uncertainty and ambiguity.
  4. Develop the mindset needed for idea generation.
  5. Provide a real, challenging and engaging purpose or context.
  6. Provide the time and space for learners to incubate their ideas.[4]:

reverseblocks

They sound like some useful guidelines to stick to. Again they have the same causal links as before. The mindset of idea generation is divergent = increasing ambiguity = the chance to make a better type of mistake. Slow the pace down = increased opportunity to ponder and cogitate a little. You get the idea.

A big take away here is that much of this is bound by the explicit development of the mindset that is needed at this part of the process. This shouldn’t be something that is secret or assumed. Learning about and enacting the most appropriate mindset is crucial for successful idea generation. Divergent thinking all the way.[5]

Another interesting element is the importance of challenge. Adams refers to a lack of engagement that is caused by this, but it does not simply mean it is not hard enough. Challenge comes in different guises and a lack of engagement can also be caused by pseudo problems or fake scenarios that are meaningless to students. If it is not engaging enough idea generation will stall. Seek out real contexts to engage your students so that ideation is purposeful.

Let me know what you make of some of these barriers and our look at the positive side of the concepts too. It would be great to hear from you, learn about what resonates with you and what you recognise in your own practice or experience.

  1. Adams, James L., Conceptual Blockbusting, W.W.Norton & Company.13, (1976)  ↩

  2. “No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him… that incomplete was your training.”  ↩

  3. Thanks to Daniel Pink for this useful imperative.  ↩

  4. I will spend some time in the future writing about the pace of the ideation process, in fact all of the creative process.  ↩

  5. You can read more about divergent thinking and the different thinking states, in my blog post: The Ebb and Flow between Divergent and Convergent Thinking.  ↩

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.  ↩

Convene your Classroom Creative Council

28 Days of Writing, CreativityPublished on3 Comments on Convene your Classroom Creative Council

Creative Council Member Ada Byron

During some research on Thomas Edison I stumbled on the fact that he deliberately surrounded himself with a diverse range of expertise in order to generate new thinking and ideas, a creative council. In a recent post I referred to the concept of “casting widely” to make creative connections, Edison gathered people into his creative council to accelerate this. It is a practice that has been replicated by many visionaries, inventors and, more recently, innovative companies.

Classroom Creative Council

Andrew Carnegie called this creative council a “mastermind group alliance” a gathering of people towards a common creative goal. I was struck by this lovely idea, not so much in the sense of connecting classrooms with a varied external expertise, but the idea that you could convene an imaginary Classroom Creative Council.

Encouraging a creative mindset and learning about what this actually means can be done through creative inquiry processes such as design thinking. They emphasise the imperative of thinking and connecting deeply with a topic and developing a range of dispositions. But one hugely important element within an experience of creative inquiry is the modelling from peers, adults and who we might learn about.

Just picture an imaginary Classroom Creative Council of visionaries, inventors and innovators from our past and present, who epitomise the mindsets and dispositions we all want to uphold. A Creative Council filled with members that everyone in the class has learned about and who we recognise for their individual strengths.

Who Would Have A Seat?

You might plan for literacy, science and history lessons about these characters as they are introduced, or indeed offer the opportunity for the class to put forward their own recommendations for the council. The reason you would have such a reference group would be as Wily Walnut puts it, to:

“tune in” to the vibration, to the morphic field, to the archetypal meme, perhaps to the very soul of that person in order to share in their wisdom, insight and ways of thinking, acting and being.

With one of the members of the Creative Council in mind we might ask a series of questions and provocations to establish a new point of view about a project or idea. Imagine if Edison or Da Vinci, or any number of creative visionaries, were the subject of the following prompts:

  • What would…think?
  • How would … approach this problem?
  • What historical precedent or example can inform us about what to do next?
  • Who would be smiling about what we are doing and why?
  • What would … say are the biggest challenges to this approach?
  • What actions would … take next?
  • What would … say we had forgotten and why?
  • Would … be proud of us?

In order to answer these questions well, with a depth and authority that allows a new perspective to contribute to our work, we would need to better understand the people involved. The members of our council should be familiar to us, we would need to know their mindset and approach to work and life. Equipped with a deeper knowledge of these role models, we might be able to gain insight from their imaginary mentorship.

I am always inspired myself by historical figures who are beacons of creative light for us to follow and in some future posts I will outline some of the elements we might look for in those figureheads.

In the meantime why not make a suggestion in the comments as to who would be in your Creative Council. Who inspires you? Who would you like as a virtual mentor contributing to your ideas? Who would have a seat in your Creative Council chambers? I would be fascinated to learn who you would nominate.

pic – Portrait of Ada by British painter Margaret Sarah Carpenter (1836)