Seeing the elephant

Some see innovation as a solo heroic trek, others see the assemblage of efforts from multiple sources.

One of my favorite stories for discussing the nature of complex creativity is "The Blind Men and the Elephant" in which blind men each encounter a different part of the animal and then argue that each completely understands reality. 

There are two opposing lessons that can be taken from the story.  One is that one should explore each of the aspects and become an expert on the whole elephant - to open your eyes.  The other is that by listening to each other, the blind men can share their knowledge, develop a synergy between their individual experience and a shared image of reality to take effective action to manage the elephant.

These are also two different visions of innovation.  In the heroic model, an individual possesses a unique mix of knowledge (if it wasn't unique, everyone would see the possibilities) and takes action to make something new.  Often the story is about how the innovator had most of the knowledge and then became aware of the last element and made things happen.  In others, the hero had a vision and called on other experts to deliver the needed components.

But I am more intrigued by a co-creative vision of innovation in which the equal participants learn to listen to each other and share a basic understanding of each others perspective, then work together to accomplish a goal which requires the synergy of their detailed knowledge and abilities.  It seems to me that the first model is limited to the size of the hero's head, but the co-creative model, while limited by communication capacity, has the potential to manage extremely complex goals and solutions.

 Going further, in The Knowledge Creating Company, Nonaka points out the hyper-text nature of teams, the idea that a team consists not just of its members and their abilities, but of all the resources they are connected to, like the links on a hyper-text web page.  With good process, such a linked network can handle much greater innovation both by contributing more elements and by learning with the innovation team the perspectives that will make the value of the innovation obvious.

So as I attempt to contribute to improved process for innovation, I am more attracted to the innovation than the idea, more attracted to the group AHA than individual creativity.

Co-creativity and democracy

Co-creativity is more than getting the ideas and perspectives of disparate players into our idea generation, but includes changing participants in ways which make new ideas possible.

One way to clarify this key aspect of co-creativity is to compare the democracy of the ancient Greeks to the electoral battles of today.

In the original democratic process, not only were a wide range of issues and perspectives welcomed into the discussion, but the decision makers participated in the debate and were open to having their knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions shifted by the process. As the debate proceeded, not only were ideas proposed and rejected, but the problem owners changed their expectations of a solution. It was a co-creative learning process.

A great example is the family vacation. Assume that one person gathers all the various ideas, criteria, wishes, expectations of each family member and uses the best analysis and logic to calculate the optimum vacation to make the most people most happy.

Bring the plan to your family and as they each evaluate it in their perspectives, they will hate you for letting them down.

However, if you bring the family together to share and discuss their inputs and ideas, various insights and compromises of expectations emerge. When a final plan emerges, each is prepared to satisfice, to decide to be satisfied.

This is certainly not the case in modern politics in which the goal is to keep reshaping and redescribing the bill or the candidate until just enough disparate people will vote in favor. There is no process of co-creation, of transformation, of becoming a community ready to accept a common solution.

In a co-creative approach to problem solving, it is accepted that no one person understands the problem and there is no one ultimate coherent decision framework. As I often tell my students and clients, if you have a clear understanding of the problem, you do not understand the problem, because the problem is not clear in and of itself.

But as you assemble people who understand bits and pieces of the relevant knowledge, dynamics, and values, and build a cohesive ability to respect and co-create with each other, a new reality can emerge that is ready to be satisfied by a new idea. This is not an easy process.

It is critical to note that it may also be necessary to transform the perspectives of people who were not immersed in the co-creativity to create the context for acceptance and implementation of the ideas developed.

At one of my employers I led a 40 hour study of an organizational issue by about 30 people drawn from all the levels and areas of the company. Interestingly, although all ideas were rejected by senior management when we briefed them, every idea was implemented across the entire company in less than a year. Each participant had moved to a point where the new solutions were obvious, and took action within their authority to make it so. Then they told their peers, who quickly saw the advantages and copied the ideas.

In other words, although the quality of the ideas was great, the greatest impact of the study may well have been the shift in perspective by representative managers, a shift which made the new ideas obvious. With the right participation, not only are the ideas more responsive to the organization's realities, but the organization is more responsive to the ideas.

So as we design deliberate creativity and innovation efforts, it is critical that we include processes which will allow the disparate experts and stakeholders to move their perspectives in ways which not only make new ideas obvious, but make them possible.

Unfortunately, we can only dream of our political process becoming co-creative, and thus truly democratic.

Deliberate Creativity: Idea production or learning?

Being raised almost from birth immersed in the deliberate development of creativity, I learned to constantly focus on getting better ideas and on getting people to accept the ideas.

One of the key tricks was that changing the way we describe and  understand a situation can make better alternatives obvious and possible.  Ironically, I my research forced me to realize that the practice of deliberate creativity can be improved by reconceptualizing it.

When I began to research team creativity, certified professionals in the field of value engineering were kind enough to answer about eighty questions each on three different projects they had done.

As I analyzed the data, I began to see impossibilities. The value engineering process, like the creative problem solving process and many other deliberate creativity approaches is taught as a series of about six steps separating fact finding, problem redefinition, idea generation, idea evaluation and analysis, and preparing proposals to sell the ideas. Most value engineers manage this process in a fixed schedule of steps over a one week, 40 hour, five day sequence with a presentation to management or client on the Friday afternoon.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the best ideas came from teams that spent more time in idea evaluation and proposal writing. If ideas are generated before these steps, how can investing more time in the later steps generate better ideas earlier in the process?

As I examined my own working experience, I noticed something. Many projects had one or more really cool ideas that made a major impact. As I examined them, I realized that many of these ideas had popped into our heads as we were immersed in the tedium of analysis and proposal writing. I informally surveyed my colleagues and found that most of them had similar stories.

Here is my interpretation. The deliberate creative processes tend to be described like a manufacturing process. You get your specifications, you acquire resources (facts and knowledge), produce ideas, inspect for quality, pack and ship. Of course in a manufacturing process, you don't make the product better in inspection or in packaging.

It seems to make more sense to think of the creative process as an individual or team getting smarter and smarter about the problem until a solution is obvious. Even in creative techniques like brainstorming the ideas generated are not as important as the way the process changes the group culture and enables team members to learn about other perspectives on the project. In this view, it makes sense that the team is best prepared to create as it leaves at the end of the presentation.

In response to this model I have made a few changes in my attempts to help teams be more creative. I plan all the creative steps and techniques for the effect on the team's attitudes and knowledge, as well as for output. I take breaks during the documentation phase and throw some impossible problem we have already given up on at the team for a silly creativity exercise to refresh their minds before they get back to writing. The resulting ideas are amazing. And I try to schedule time after the presentations so that if the listeners raise objections, the team can immediately rethink a better solution in the light of the new information provided by the evaluator. Again, this is when the team is at the peak of their powers, and can amaze you.

So, just as we see that some of the best creative ideas are hidden by the way we think about things, the ways we think about improving creativity can also hide great potential.

When your brand has been poisoned...

Those attempting deliberate approaches to innovation leadership are often rejected because their clients, managers or organizations have had a bad experience with someone else using the same name for their approach.  Companies with valuable brands spend a lot of money defending their brands and their reputations, but little is done in the areas of deliberate creativity and innovation.

There are some incredible potentials and competencies in areas such as team building, brainstorming, organizational development, value engineering, Six Sigma, TQM, etc. Unfortunately, there have been some really bad implementations using these names that now cause people to reject anything with those labels.

Since Alex Osborn and The Creative Education Foundation started promoting the concept of brainstorming in the late 40's and early 50's, everyone in the world seems to use the word.  They often use it for awful meetings in which ideas are thrown up and immediately shot down, in which rigid problem definitions make it obvious that nothing can be done.  Others endure forced silliness with no resulting insights.  Trying to sell a brainstorming session to people with repeated experiences like this is basically impossible.

Ironically, one reason for this situation is that few of these processes are done right because many managers will only embrace crippled versions of these techniques. Managers who really need culture improvement seem to select consultants who don't require them to actually do culture improvement. In TQM, Deming warned that it cannot be about motivational programs and banners, but those are the programs that got hired and implemented. Re-Engineering as described is an incredibly powerful process with lots of great benefits, but generally was used to sell computer hardware and software services, rarely taking a functional look at processes, especially when that made it obvious the computers were not needed.

Part of the problem is "experts" who think they understand a process, but actually have a shallow and inaccurate view.  I have seen people who think they understand brainstorming completely blow up a meeting into chaos and conflict.

This means that those who intend to be innovation leaders need to address two issues. The first, obviously, is to make sure you are actually competent in the processes you are using.  The other is to make sure that decision-makers understand the differences between your approach and the ones they have heard about or experienced.

When I sold my first 40 hour value engineering workshop to my employer, even though I had strong support from a very strong general manager, I visited every member of the general manager's team and discussed the program and its benefits for them, and especially how it differed from the cost reduction programs they had experienced in the past.

I also explained its benefits to their departments.  I asked the engineers if they were tired of marketing asking for impossible features and explained that the process would give engineering a chance to push back.  I asked marketing if they were tired of engineering designing stuff they could not sell, and explained how the process would let them clarify their needs with engineering.  And so on with each department head, showing how improved interdepartmental communication in a creative meeting would resolve many of their frustrations.

When I made a short overview presentation to the division manager's meeting, I had complete support.

This fits the "instant salesmanship" course I often teach to my students.  Step one is sell to their pain, not yours.  You may love innovation, but they often just want things to work better. You have to disconnect them from all the pain they have about "flavor of the month" programs, and show how you will effectively and safely address their key concerns.

The second element is that as soon as they raise an objection, you say "You are absolutely right, and that is why you should accept my plan..."  then use your creativity to finish the sentence.  If they say that innovation is a waste of time, you say they are absolutely right and but your structured process gives much better results in the time used, or whatever.

Most importantly, remember again and again that your mind is a bad predictor of the perspective of another.  You may see group brainstorming as one of your favorite uses of time, while the other has countless painful memories of awful meetings labeled brainstorming.  Until you break that "brand identity" link, you will not get their cooperation.

Once they start to attach an image of quality to you and your approach like a brand, you will get busier and busier.

It's not resistance to change ... you are wrong!

We are hurt and frustrated when people and organizations reject our ideas, the AHA's which were such a profound experience for us.

It may be that they reject highly creative ideas or do not understand your idea and its benefits, but there is a very real possibility that you are wrong! That your idea responds well to the problem as you understand it, but fails on critical issues that you are unaware of.

I found an interesting dynamic when I surveyed working innovation leaders certified in value engineering. Among the many questions, I asked if there were ideas that involved multiple departments, that involved multiple company levels, or that were so different that they had to re-explain the problem to the company.

I think that most people would label ideas high on these factors as highly creative, because they have to overcome so many barriers to acceptance. They would expect that these ideas would be least likely to be accepted.

Amazingly, these were the teams which had the highest level of idea acceptance!

As I looked over this data and my experience in the field, I realized that many "creative" ideas are too focused, and do not respond to the breadth of real world issues that affect the client. In other words, the ideas are inadequate ... we are wrong!!!

Ideas grow out of our understanding and values. If an engineering team does not understand the marketing dynamics, the ideas they generate to best fit the engineering context may have negative effects on marketing. This all-engineering team can have an AHA that is relevant to engineering, but is incapable of a "relevant AHA" that fits the whole problem.

Therefore, when we propose our ideas and encounter rejection, we should seriously consider that they might be seeing a part of the problem which we do not see. Instead of trying to "sell" them on our great idea, we should continue our creative efforts, including this new factor. We should treat the person who rejects us as our co-creator.

Of course, it is better if we manage to include that knowledge and values in the creative process. It may be that deliberate creativity and innovation is all about finding/constructing an individual, team, collaboration, or organization that has enough breath of knowledge and perspective to have a relevant AHA on the problem.

Organizations are designed to sub-divide problems into chunks that fit the minds of the available employees. We give engineering problems to engineers and accounting problems to accountants. Managers are expected to be capable of sub-dividing the problems, then synergizing the various sub-solutions into an optimal outcome. This has the advantage of letting people go deep into special issues without being distracted by other issues

We can increase the breadth of perspective and knowledge in various ways. We can hire or develop individuals who have a broader perspective. This is the rationale for rotating people through different departments to attain those various perspectives or to have students study multiple disciplines like engineering and medicine and law and business. Unfortunately, knowledge evolves so fast that by the time the process is complete, half the knowledge is obsolete and even wrong.

Another solution is to have a superHero problem solver who interacts with many different knowledge holders, gaining knowledge from each and having them check the details of the area of the solution they are familiar with.

My preference is assembling a team of people who in combination cover all the relevant knowledge, issues, and values, then working to maximize their creativity, cooperation, cohesiveness, and insight. This is not easy, especially as communication is deformed by differences in style, personality, national culture, values, etc. If you assemble a group with more diversity that you can handle, the collaboration will dissolve into confusion, anger, and chaos.

I think this may be the true definition of innovation leadership: the ability to assemble people with disjoint knowledge and values and create a process of interaction that overcomes differences and enables them to discover ideas and relevant AHA's that are invisible to others.

Developing these abilities in yourself and others is a complex but worthwhile endeavor.

Unappreciated Insights - The Fool on the Hill

It can be very lonely to be right. It is not enough to figure things out, because action so often requires the cooperation and acceptance of others who see the world differently.

The frustrated person with a creative insight or idea often concludes that the other has the quality of "resistance to change". A little thought experiment proves there is no such thing. Imagine the most "resistant" person you know. Imagine someone comes in and explains their income will double next year with no negative effects. That is a major change. Do you think there would be any resistance? Of course not.

People resist change they think is bad. That is their job. If there was a universal job description, it would be to resist change. If you are an accountant, your first job is to make sure that no one makes any changes that interfere with collecting and analyzing the financial data. If you are an engineer, your first job is to make sure no one makes a change that harms the customer.

First of all, lets save to another time the very obvious possibility that you are wrong, that there is some fact or factor that you did not know to include in your thinking. Too many creative people have a hard time considering this possibility.

For this discussion, lets assume that your idea has great merit.

The problem is that the creator has shifts of insight or perspective that make the new solution obvious, the result of weeks or months of hard work and thinking. That difference of perspective is what makes the idea evident, even obvious. Without that same process to shift perspective, the boss or client or colleague just thinks we are crazy. To expect them to make the same shift instantly seems a bit unfair. Once you realize that the advantages are not obvious to them you can begin finding ways to shift their perspective, then when you announce your idea, you are a genius!!

Beware the contra-conformist...

I have a tendency to drive people crazy.

I am often not clear enough in my respect for the great effort, diligence, grace, and success involved in developing established knowledge, because I am biased to look for the next thing, the thing they missed, or the exception to their rule.

For example, I am greatly respectful of my MBA and other graduate students for their abilities to use so many powerful tools of insight and analysis, but I am drawn to point out how many of these approaches require forecasts of impossible accuracy and reliability. I love to share books with them that demonstrate that the world is so unpredictable that you cannot possibly make plans today for ten years out. You can only plan to be ready to spot and plan for emerging new realities.

I guess I don't see this as criticizing the experts' hard work but rather as exploring the edges of growth in knowledge. However, I suspect that my colleagues in the study of creativity might be repelled by my conviction that the approach of researching idea generation in individuals

and undifferentiated groups was exhausted 40 years ago. I am intrigued by studying creativity as a process of learning, of shifting one's knowledge in ways that make new possibilities obvious. I am even more interested in the success factors of collaborations of individuals with disjoint perspectives and conflicting values.

I guess I learned to be skeptical of accepted knowledge at an early age from a very creative father. One of my earliest memories was working with my mother on my spelling words as my father returned from work. As I correctly spelled "earn", my father insisted it was spelled "urn". Then we got out the dictionary and there it was, a different word with the same pronunciation.

He had even more fun as the nuns in my Catholic school tried to teach me about the all powerful nature of God when he sent me in with the question: "Can God build a building so big he can't pick it up?"

My life is full of experiences where I discovered opportunity by ignoring or going beyond well established truth. I often explain this with the classic creative idea "Don't raise the bridge, lower the river." If you are told to figure out a way to raise the bridge, lowering the water is a highly unsatisfactory idea. But when you realize the question is wrong, that your goal is to get a gap big enough, because you want to get boats past the bridge, all kinds of new possibilities open up. My favorite is where they sink the bridge under the water to let the boats go over it.

This contra-conformist attitude drives much of my work and fun. When students seeking jobs complain of all the defects in their background, I love to work with them to demonstrate how those features are huge advantages when they look for the right job.

But I also have a belief that our perspective can greatly improve our effectiveness. One way I teach this is by asking people to multiply two numbers written as Roman numerals, such as XLIX times LXIV without converting them to the Arabic equivalent: 49 times 64. The first problem is impossible, the second is easy, many can do it in their heads.

With clients I love to help them find new opportunities for improvement to existing designs by re-examining their intentions and assumptions. I get to see them delighted in applying their considerable expertise in new and exciting ways to get better answers than they got before.

So I am constantly looking for places where the way we describe a problem or hidden assumptions may be hiding easy answers from us. There is often a discovery, and even when it fails, the journey is often a blast.