Innovation Compression

A tiny little robot busies himself. Seemingly alone on a planet he collects rubbish and scrap and compacts it. Neatly stacking thousands of these efficient little cubes in an effort to clean up. Efficiency is the order of the day and all the mess is taking up too much space. Collect, compact, stack. Repeat.

You may remember the scenes from Wall-E, as he goes about his business on an error strewn planet left behind. When it comes to rubbish, compacting is good, we don’t want the discarded to take up space we could use for other things. When it comes to great ideas and innovations the opposite might be true. We need to expand and spread ideas, we want innovations to impact far and wide. We want them to be known, understood and in the open.

And yet all too often they get compacted.

How much is on your plate right now? Are those who bought the crockery removing stuff as well as piling things on?

Innovation compression might be when good ideas or innovative programmes are introduced [forced] into a space still occupied by previous innovations.

Programmes get compacted as nothing is removed, nothing is freed up.

When little Wall-E compacts and compresses, the items he collects have to change and bend to fit the new shape. When our ideas get compressed they also may suffer from such a change. They may have to, in order to actually exist in that crowded space. We keep them alive on a resource diet, we lament the time we wish we had to devote to them.

This is about new and old(er) innovations attempting to co-exist and it typically leads to a reduction in efficacy of the newer innovation. I suppose the incumbent might hold existing ground and resources. In many ways this concept is most applicable to overlapping programmes. Let’s imagine an example.

In a school you might have a range of literacy support programmes that are both general offerings as well as interventions that support the individual needs of different children. Literacy improvement is the category, and yet the writing, reading, speech and language programmes all overlap to some degree. As time passes a number of reading support programmes begin to overlap very closely, they have the same intended outcomes but the “innovation” might be different: using technology, home-school partnership, one to one support, phonic development etc. The school might be loathe to abandon or hospice the innovation due to sustained financial and emotional (human) investment. And yet new literacy improvement ideas emerge from research or professional development courses, even marketed products. When new programmes are introduced, that draw down on the finite energy and effort from those involved without stopping other parallel ideas and releasing resource reserves, we get innovation compression, and a potential weakening of the original ideas.

Of course we are not looking for a single idea to solve them all. Far from some Tolkeinesque improvement strategy, we need to understand how we avoid unnecessary compression of programmes and how to prune those innovations in schools or across your organisation that can (should) be succeeded by alternatives.

Run through some of these questions to discuss with your teams as new ideas and improvements are developed and as you review developments.

Status quo

How do we measure the impact of our current programmes? What impact have they had over the longer term? What gaps are there? How much investment have we made so far in these existing ideas?

New ideas

How are we identifying new innovations or programme ideas? What overlaps do they have with existing working ideas? What gaps do they address? Will they require “as much”, “more” or “less” resourcing to implement?

Clearing the way

How might we fully appreciate the resources needed to introduce these new ideas and what they overlap with? How can we create space for people to make the most of this idea and for it to have the impact we want? Which programmes or existing innovations might be discarded to release energy and resources?

As with most complex organisations like schools, efficiency cannot be the only value you abide by. When improving such organisations we need to strike a balance between Wall-E type efficiency and implementing unique hard-to-scale ideas as well.

Importantly though we need to lead with a deep appreciation for what is on people’s plates. We need to avoid innovation compression by clearing the way, closing existing programmes and providing people the resources they need to make things work.

Dear Mr Judgy Pants,

Thanks for squashing my idea. You cut me off as I was sharing it and threw it on the ground. You trampled on my idea. You made me watch as you extinguished that precious little spark and yeah, you squashed it.

We obviously approached the chat from different places. You see, I thought we were there to share some ideas. You know, like new things we hadn’t considered yet. It seemed you had just brought your pre-loaded high calibre idea sniper rifle. Those ideas didn’t stand a chance; I mean they barely had a moment to breathe.

But did you hear that other sound? No? Well, you were busy dropping and squashing ideas, so how could you. That was the sound of a crack in my creative confidence. It’ll be a while before that gets fixed. I hope it gets fixed.

When you look around the room and notice others, yeah, those other quieter voices. Or even the silent ones. You know why they are silent, right? The cracks in their confidence haven’t been fixed. Creative cracks just grew. They still have ideas; I know that. They just keep quiet, choosing not to participate in the fortnightly Idea Duck Hunt.

I just wanted to let you know that there are thousands of idea headstones carved because of people like you. We mourn those precious little sparks, those little glimpses of something new, different and unexpected. We still think about those ideas and the fleeting moments we had with them.

Although our gradual creative grief makes us not want to share, our ideas keep coming. They brim up when we least expect it — entrusted to our notebooks, napkins and daydreams. We know they will have their time in the sun probably when you and your shadow have moved on.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Nobody told me what to do

For maybe three years now I have been listening to a particular Daft Punk track and mulling over the lyrics. Whilst I am writing now I have the track on, take a few moments to listen to it.

https://open.spotify.com/track/0oks4FnzhNp5QPTZtoet7c

Giorgio by Moroder is a documentary song about the early life and musical influence of the Italian musician Giovanni Giorgio Moroder. It specifically refers to his pioneering work in electronic music composition and use of the synthesiser. He refers to his choices in creating a “sound of the future”, about adding a synthesised click on a track, a choice which eventually heralded a new era in music.

It is his latter comments (4:58) that are captured on the track that have, in turn, captured my attention for so long.

Once you free your mind about a concept of harmony and of music being correct, you can do whatever you want. So, nobody told me what to do, and there was no preconception of what to do.

It is this fascinating reference to a deliberate freeing of his mindset which resonates with me so much. The awareness of the “correct” musical theory and deliberately unshackling himself from it in order to be creatively free.

The final words uttered on the track are also telling and seemingly refer to a lack of precedent, an untrodden path yet to be explored. Moroder explains there were no leaders in those moments, no plans to follow, no guidebook — just rules to break.

1*F1F1JkJJ1Ijy3fYlEyK NA
New ideas may come from others but trying new stuff can still be isolating

It reminds me of something Phil ‘dm’ Campbell recently shared about his desire to not be a repeater or relay station, but to find something in himself that is powerful and true and unique.

Being a repeater or relay station is holding you back from tapping into your true self and creative core. I firmly believe that.

Perhaps Moroder was able to strip away the reference bias others were relying on and steer clear of relaying and repeating musical styles. He made creative choices with no precedent, choices that took music to a different place. Not just repeating, relaying or even remixing.

Phil goes on to challenge us all.

So ask yourself, what moment today could you have changed to instead of relaying and repeating could you have done something that was really worth relaying or repeating, something that came from your core of concern.

Let’s temper some of this with a different perspective, a comment from John Hegarty and his book Hegarty On Creativity, There Are No Rules:

the truth is that everything we create is based on something that’s gone before. It has to be. Nothing happens in a vacuum, least of all creativity and ideas.

Maybe for Giorgio in his creative exploration he had discovered a vacuum. An ill defined musical space that was ready for better definition. He was the first there, when everyone else was repeating, remixing and relaying something else. It would make sense that in the 70s there were fewer musical ideas and so more vacuumous space to discover.

It takes creative courage to be in such a place on your own, to test ideas with little or no waymarkers or sense of correctness. It is both freeing and burdensome, as you know, soon others will follow.

I wonder about how that creative isolation is true of other breakthrough ideas or pioneering souls.


Just a footnote about the Daft Punk track I discovered from the associatedWikipedia article:

When Moroder arrived in the studio to record his monologue, he was initially perplexed that the booth contained multiple microphones; he briefly wondered if the extra equipment was a precaution in case one of the microphones broke. The recording engineer explained that the microphones varied with origin dates that ranged from the 1960s to the 21st century, and that each microphone would be used to represent the different decades in Moroder’s life. The engineer added that although most listeners would not be able to distinguish between each microphone, Thomas Bangalter of the duo would know the difference.

Now that is attention to detail.

How to Strike a Balance when Generating Ideas

When you use an activity to generate ideas it typically comes with a standard pace setting. The way I see it, the pace dial is usually set between Incubate/Slow OR Force/Fast. This is also the intensity with which we are working or generating ideas.

Force

One idea generation activity is 100 Ideas in 10 Minutes. It is really effective at generating lots of potential ideas for a problem in a short space of time. From the name you can tell the pace is high. Another activity I have written about recently is the Crazy 8s, in which you draw 1 idea every 40 seconds for 5 minutes. This sets a similarly intense creative pace for those involved.

As much as the higher pace, higher intensity tasks tangibly increase the creative energy in the room, they also force the hand of that creative thinking. There are limits and constraints and higher pace. As a result, you create pressure, for some participants (and students) they love that edge. For others, it becomes harder and actually works counter to the general mindset we need for generating ideas: divergence. Too much pressure and pace can be a block to creativity. So we have to handle this carefully and create opportunities for a balance in speed settings if we can.

Incubate

When we incubate ideas we are taking our time to mull and ponder them over. We cogitate on them and allow ideas to be twisted and turned at a more leisurely pace. No time limits, no facilitator telling you, “Next one, move on!” When we incubate ideas we actively create conditions for our brain to slowly generate new connections and new ideas.

When you look through these brainstorming routines from Melanie Pinola, for example, you will see that the majority of them require the pace-setting to be quite low. Take a walk; in the shower; take a nap. The slower pace allows our brain to continue to work the connections. I have written before about Purposeful Napping, the deliberate use of sleep inertia to unlock our creativity. Take Edison’s lead on this one.

Suffice it to say that when we are engaged and motivated around a meaningful problem, we can guarantee our subconscious brain will continue to work hard. It has evolved to make connections from stimuli and will continue to work away at developing ideas or trying to break open a problem. We just need to give it deliberate time to work and create simple methods for capturing those ideas and connections if and when they are generated. Notebook in the shower type stuff.

Strike a Balance

A way to combine the power of these different pace settings is to seek out a balance, not only in the pace but the style of activity too. Here are a few ideas for you to takeaway:

  1. Combine activities so that they complement each other, go fast and slow.
  2. Provide time after an intense activity to go for a walk or work on something else, deliberately choosing to switch off.
  3. Arrange for these Force activities to happen at the end of the day so that the pace shifts overnight.
  4. You may even ask your students or participants to not think about the task anymore. Invariably new ideas are created and developed.
  5. Plan for downtime. Don’t overfill time with your students or colleagues that is for idea generation. Plan for deliberate Incubate style sessions.
  6. Talk explicitly with your team about the pace settings of the different tasks. Build up a picture of the pace settings for each tool in your creative toolset, share that understanding.
  7. Differentiate. This comes straight out of Teaching 101. Each team member or student will respond to the pace and intensity of an idea generation task differently. Talk about how they feel after different sessions and plan for the most appropriate combination of tasks for teams in the future.
  8. Increase your awareness of the pace-setting for tasks. When you debrief about different activities consider the intensity and pace. By staying aware of how others respond to them you are better equipped to choose suitable tasks. Understand the task design and the expected pace and observe how this impacts on those involved.

I find the Force Vs Incubate spectrum to be a really effective way to design idea generation tasks for any group. Just ask any group about when they generate their best ideas and it typically is not during a set-piece task. Strike the pace balance and we are much more likely to be utilising the best creative activities from our toolset.

As ever, let me know what resonates by sharing a comment below.

Photo by Startup Stock Photos from Pexels

Challenge the borders of your thinking

I know that a network map of the brain is a thing. I wonder if there is a way you could map your conceptual understanding beyond a simple mind map.

Stick with me as I explore this idea of a “map of our thinking” out loud, it has been something I have long pondered and used in discussions with others. I would primarily refer to it when talking about how provocation changes our thinking.

  • Say we could create a spatial representation of what we know about a topic.
  • It might take up a certain area and have borders.
  • It might be something we can draw.
  • Perhaps there are neighbouring relevant topics.
  • Let’s say the size is relative to our understanding, the bigger the area the more we understand about that topic.
  • We might also be able to quantify the amount of knowledge there is for any given topic, leading to a point of reference of what potential understanding there still is to discover.
  • This map is not necessarily about the connections like a mind map, but more about the aggregate “space” the discovered or known concepts take up.
  • There would be an edge. A thinking border.
  • There would be unknown territory still to be discovered.

So what happens when the borders change.

I have always wondered about the power of using provocation to challenge our thinking. To challenge the borders of what we know. I imagine a provocation being something like a newly discovered perspective on an issue or a series of facts previously not seen. All manner of things can serve as a provocation. They would break that thinking border and create a new space on the map, forcing us to draw a new edge of our thinking. That newly identified space and albeit uncharted thinking would then need some exploring, some thinking and processing. But it would soon be subsumed within the wider map of what we know about that topic.

De Bono refers to how provocations can create movement in our thinking if they are used to challenge a set of ideas. Perhaps the borders of our conceptual understanding become equally fluid when we are faced with different provocations. Perhaps those borders shift and expand, contract and become redrawn as we continue to learn.