If your consulting partner or internal change agent is about to run a brainstorming session in the hope of generating an innovative solution to a long-standing business problem, let me stop you now. I will save you 2 points on the bottom line and put some time back in your diary.
Modern innovation is neither the result of trial-and-error, nor is it based on the amount of ideas you generate. And it is certainly not an accident.
The process of innovation requires a systematic approach to creativity and is underpinned by empirically supported research. It is led by a coach that can drive meaningful learning and is honed through many hours of practice.
Unfortunately, most people seem to conflate the results of brainstorming and simple solution generation with innovation. In business, brainstorming is often nothing more than a tool used for light steering or pseudo team building. The reality is, most managers and consultants come to the table with a solution in mind long before they’ve completed problem decomposition; or worse yet, before they’ve even kicked off the project. One consultant from a large firm boasted about his approach when he said “I had the solution months ago, I’m just bird feeding it to them.” I’ll let the impact of that detonate in your mind for a second.
Trial-and-error methods like brainstorming are time-intensive, overloaded with empty trials, and rarely result in the higher level innovation they seek to achieve (Altshuller, 1984). If you have a standing army of personnel and several thousand hours of spare capacity at your disposal, this may be the way forward for you. However, few executives have the appetite for this approach.
When market differentiating innovation is what you seek, let me suggest an alternative line—consider directing your teams to start with abstraction. The process of abstraction is considerably more robust, efficient, and yields substantially higher quality results than brainstorming (Souchkov, 1997).
This process of abstraction requires your teams to gain an understanding of the core concept of the problem, identify its structure, and abstract it into something completely unrelated to the original structure. This makes it easier to work with a long-standing problem. And in doing so, it will help break up the psychological inertia of tenured staff. From here, they can turn the focus onto generating an abstract solution, which will later be converted into the specific solution that was originally sought.
Work towards implementing an approach that creates repeatable, reproducible, innovation—and you will no longer have a need for consultant-led brainstorming.
Until next time –
References:
Altshuller G.S. (1984). Creativity as an exact science: The theory of the solution of inventive problems. (A. Williams, Trans.). New York, NY: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers.
Souchkov V. (1997). Accelerate Innovation with TRIZ. Retrieved from http://www.xtriz.com/publications/AccelerateInnovationWithTRIZ.pdf
Mike is the Founder and General Manager of Redshift Consulting, Founder of Praetorian Code, and Board Member to the International Business TRIZ Association. He holds a Masters in Innovation and Entrepreneurship (UMD) and a Bachelors in Psychology and Education (UCSB). He is a Certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt (UTS); Certified Practitioner of Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ); former US Army Ranger and a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fanatic.