Brainstorm Troubles
Job van der Zwan
22-02-2016
Need to come up with something novel?
Time to ideate!
Woohoo,
brainstorm session!
storming brains!
floating light bulbs!
heads full of thoughts!
thoughts that are exchanged!
thoughts that are written on sticky notes!
STICKY NOOOOOTES!!!!!
OVERFLOWING WITH INSPIRATION!!!
BRAAAAIN STOOOORM!!!1!
Now, you might see that and think...
… and honestly, I wouldn’t blame you.
(disclaimer: the current speaker is pretty strongly biased against (classic style) brainstorming)
brainstorming: what is it?
“popularized by Alex Faickney Osborn in the 1953 book Applied Imagination. Osborn claimed that brainstorming was more effective than individuals working alone in generating ideas, although more recent research has questioned this conclusion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming
classic brainstorming
(usually done by the person who called the session)
… and lots and lots of sticky notes
classic brainstorming
“Oh but that just means that you haven’t done any REAL, PROPER brainstorming”
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN ALERT!
classic brainstorming
“Oh but that just means that you haven’t done any REAL, PROPER brainstorming”
discussions about brainstorming
brainstorming, problems with it
Classic Brainstorming has been shown to lead to:
… compared to letting people ideate alone and pool their ideas later.
Why?
Before answering that...
issue zero:
what to brainstorm about
(A fundamental problem ignored by classic brainstorming)
please state the nature of your creative emergency
is brainstorming necessary?
are you innovating for innovation’s sake?
framing the initial question
Compare:
framing the initial question
“What new features can we put in our camera?”
framing the initial question
“Make a better device that allows people to capture and share memories!”
This is a Venn diagram
Do you all understand how it works?
“Make a better device for
capturing and sharing memories!”
“What new features can we put in our camera?”
“Make a better device for
capturing and sharing memories!”
EITHER question can be more appropriate,
Point is: take time to think about which one!
“What new features can we put in our camera?”
Anyway, once you have done all of this...
FOUR FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS
i
Generating ideas together
produces more/more creative ideas than generating ideas alone
ii
generating many ideas guarantees a few of them will be creative
iii
criticism during idea generation stifles creativity
iv
people in charge know how to select the best idea
summary
all proven to be wrong
A story to give a you an idea...
Imagine: you are Gordon Ramsay
On second thought...
Imagine: you are Gordon Ramsay
Imagine: you are Gordon Ramsay
I don’t think he is the type to brainstorm
Imagine: you are Jordan Clamsey
Imagine: you are Jordan Clamsey
Terrible cook, but never verbally abusive
Imagine: you are Jordan Clamsey
Terrible cook, but never verbally abusive
I come from the mirror dimension!
Staff meeting:
Your restaurant is not doing well!
We should brainstorm!
Wait: why is the restaurant not doing well?
Our menu is boring
Time to brainstorm new dishes!
brainstorming a menu
Imagine what kind of food your staff would come up with...
My prediction: this method spells certain doom for your restaurant
brainstorming a menu
Recipes you cannot prepare are useless
brainstorming a menu
Pretty sure your customers will disagree
brainstorming a menu
Cannot test all recipes (budget, time), so how do we find the good ones?
brainstorming a menu
Cannot test all recipes (budget, time), so how do we find the good ones?
brainstorming a menu
Answer: by picking the ones you already know will taste good
brainstorming a menu
Answer: by picking the ones you already know will taste good
Safe bets are by definition not innovative
slide 66: restate my assumptions
Dissecting them one by one
i
Generating ideas together produces more/more creative ideas than generating ideas alone
First tested at Yale University in 1958
96 male undergraduates were given creative puzzles
48 were divided into groups of four, and instructed to follow classic brainstorming techniques
The other 48 worked individually
Solo students produced about twice as many ideas
Panel of judges deemed solo solutions
more “feasible” and “effective.”
Caveat: relying on experts has problems of its own
Panel of judges deemed solo solutions
more “feasible” and “effective.”
This has been repeatedly found in follow-up experiments
In short:
groupthink 1
What happens when everyone ideates together:
groupthink 2
What happens when everyone ideates together:
(remember, we are talking about timed brainstorming)
ii
generating many ideas guarantees a few of them will be creative
stress and exploration
“Come up with as many ideas as you can in 15 minutes!”
better: giving participants space
why quantity over quality in the first place?
lazy associations
“running out of easy associations”
fixing lazy associations
A warm-up from improv theatre: the Disassociation Game
iii
Criticism during idea generation stifles creativity
Just right enough to be terribly wrong
y u no criticism?!
constructive/destructive criticism
Being respectful and open to ideas makes all the difference!
way?”
“that will never work”
“that will never work”
Common complaint at this point:
“People should be more rational!”
“that will never work”
Common complaint at this point:
“People should be more rational!”
Emotions exist and have influence. Acknowledging that is the rational thing to do.
“boring and conventional”
“boring and conventional”
Again: Emotions exist and have influence, acknowledging that is the rational thing to do
“what about these issues”
criticism provokes inspiration
Staring does not lead to better perception, but reframing your point of view does
... like how this animation shows how the Earth spins in space by reframing your point of view. Obvious when you see it, right?
note benefits of ideating alone
note benefits of diversity
discussion is more than criticism
communication is important!
Recent research in team dynamics has found the following:
“Teams with higher average I.Q.s didn’t score much higher on our collective intelligence tasks than did teams with lower average I.Q.s. Nor did teams with more extroverted people, or teams whose members reported feeling more motivated to contribute to their group’s success. Instead, the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics.”
communication is important!
Recent research in team dynamics has found the following:
“Teams with higher average I.Q.s didn’t score much higher on our collective intelligence tasks than did teams with lower average I.Q.s. Nor did teams with more extroverted people, or teams whose members reported feeling more motivated to contribute to their group’s success. Instead, the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics.”
communication is important!
Recent research in team dynamics has found the following:
“Teams with higher average I.Q.s didn’t score much higher on our collective intelligence tasks than did teams with lower average I.Q.s. Nor did teams with more extroverted people, or teams whose members reported feeling more motivated to contribute to their group’s success. Instead, the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics.”
“First, their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group.”
“Second, their members scored higher on a test called “Reading the Mind in the Eyes,” which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible.”
“First, their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group.”
“Second, their members scored higher on a test called “Reading the Mind in the Eyes,” which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible.”
“Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. [...] This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindreading” than men.”
“[The most important factors were the same online:] members who communicated a lot, participated equally and possessed good emotion-reading skills.”
“Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others”
“Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. [...] This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindreading” than men.”
“[The most important factors were the same online:] members who communicated a lot, participated equally and possessed good emotion-reading skills.”
“Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others”
keep it playful
keep it playful
iv
people in charge know how to select the best idea
mo’ brainstorming, mo problems
mo’ brainstorming, mo problems
mo’ brainstorming, mo problems
truly original ideas are scary
how i learned to stop worrying and love novelty
oh, and about those sticky notes…
sticky issues
sticky issues
sticky issues
Visual art: the medium influences what your image looks like
Programming analogy: a data structure influences what you can effectively do with the data
from a philosophical angle
the limits of my medium are the limits of my world
fixing the sticky problems
Wait, “bodystorming?”
�What’s that?
It is physically (re-)enacting what you are brainstorming about
Then reflecting on what you did, what you observed, physically experienced
Then acting out the new ideas again, and so on
Ideally you end up in a creative doing-reflecting loop
Example: the following designer treated the act of selling ice-cream as a public performance for the customer and acted it out
By acting it out she physically felt the discomfort and social disconnection of the action
This let her re-design and improve the whole process
(note that this appears to break the rule that you should “know the problem”)
(discovering problems while brainstorming can inspire new ideas, so it’s actually great)
(it just should not be the main reason to brainstorm)
Another example: designers re-enacting a road trip. Or a train ride, I don't remember, but you get the idea.
“Playing things out”
is one of the most overlooked methods of creativity
the power of play
Sidetrack:
Participatory Design, or Co-Design
Co-Design is about facilitating or “designing” collaboration between experts and non-experts
“Tools and techniques support the user at taking the role of expert of experience. This photograph shows a presentation technique with a cartoonesque TV-frame that can help shy people to express their opinions more readily”
Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, Sanders & Stappers
The props involved in these co-design events are not required to be “realistic”
The point is to give the users ways to express their stories and engage in a dialogue
These dialogues can result in long-lasting impressions
The DAIM project was a co-design project around waste management
Waste-handling employees expressed their stories using small-scale doll scenarios
(among other media)
Three years after the project ended, one employee emailed a researcher
a picture of such a scenario with the note “Remember DAIM? We do…”
Co-Designing is about questioning ownership
Co-Designing is about
creating ownership
Who generates the added value of a hospital?
Who should get a say in the design of a hospital?
Who would “own” the hospital that comes out of this?
Back to bodystorming...
VS
Does this trigger a dialogue between the participants?
Does this?
Look at this clip and focus on the conversation
“Doing” can be “observing”!
“Doing” can be “thinking”!
“Doing” can be “communicating”!
classic brainstorming
less bad brainstorming - i
less bad brainstorming - ii
Let’s put that in a scenario...
Remember me?
Caveat: the author has never worked in a restaurant, so apologies to anyone with catering experience who sees obvious problems with the following scenario
Our menu is boring
... AND you insist on creating a new menu together with the entire staff (the necessity of which is questionable)
... but let’s say you want to sneakily assess the skill levels of your employees, to see where you can help each of them grow
You benevolent Machiavelli you
First, decide on a creative goal for what the menu should be
Ask everyone of the staff to experiment with recipes fitting that goal outside of work
Challenge them to pick something they are not familiar with!
Encourage trying out unusual ingredients/methods, or at least ingredients unusual for them
After a week, everyone brings samples of their favourite experiments to work
Have an open tasting/debating session
Discuss how it was prepared,
try “remixing” plates, etc.
Have a playfully competitive debates about how you would improve each other’s dishes
“Improve” can mean better taste, meeting the original goal more clearly, a greater ease or lower cost of preparation, etc.
Do quick tests of improvements, if possible (more or less salt is easy, spending hours on cooking to try a small change is not)
After healthy discussions and unhealthy amounts of food,
reach a consensus of what is going into the new menu
Given the choice between these two scenarios, which would you prefer?