FOUR

How to Write and Evaluate Innovation
Challenge Questions

Notables such as Aristotle (“Well begun is half done”) and educator/philosopher John Dewy (“A problem well-defined is half solved”) have echoed Nobel Prize–winner Herbert Simon’s notion that a well-defined problem is a solved problem. The closer a problem frame approaches a desired goal, the more likely it is to become a solution or, at least, it has the potential to be turned into one.

Instances of this situation often occur when people who are brainstorming potential challenge definitions incorporate solutions within their definitions or challenge statements. Although that scenario generally should be avoided, it actually is quite appropriate when first attempting to frame a challenge. That is because you should defer judgment when generating challenges, just as you should when generating ideas. Otherwise, you risk losing the potential stimulation value of even poorly worded challenges. However, once you’ve generated all possible challenges, you should review them and make modifications as appropriate, based on the criteria discussed in this chapter as well as any others you think might apply. This chapter will discuss framing innovation challenges for the most productive and effective idea generation.

When a solution is included as part of a challenge, I call it a “nested” challenge. The reason is that it could stand alone as a challenge, but it is part of a broader objective within which it is nested. An example is the question: “How might we increase our sales by creating a more emotional connection with our customers?” This type of frame is fairly common, but totally inappropriate because of the ambiguity it can create. In this case, the obvious primary goal—that is, the “superordinate” goal—is increasing sales. It is obvious because the phrase that follows it implies that the goal of increasing sales can be achieved by creating a more emotional connection with customers. However, in addition to being a solution, this goal itself is a challenge objective to be achieved. As a result, it can be viewed as a secondary or “subordinate” goal. In other words, it can stand by itself or serve as a means to an end—in this case, the primary goal of increasing sales. Thus, the initial challenge might be deconstructed into two separate challenges as follows:

1.How might we increase sales?

2.How might we create a more emotional connection with our customers?

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
INNOVATION CHALLENGES

All the challenge statements used previously in this book are based on the assumption that they are well-framed. In real life, however, that often is not the case. Well-framed challenges must satisfy various criteria before even considering how to link them together or determine their priority. Nested challenges, as discussed previously, are just one example of a criterion against which all challenges should be assessed—that is, whether or not they contain a nested challenge.

Evaluation criteria typically can be classified as general or specific. General criteria apply to most decisions and typically involve resources such as time, people, materials, and money. Specific criteria pertain directly to the nature of the alternatives available. Based on research and experience, I believe that the seven most important criteria required for evaluating and selecting innovation challenges are:

1.Begins with the phrase, “How might we . . . ?”

2.Singularity of objectives?

3.Absence of evaluative criteria?

4.Absence of solutions?

5.Appropriate level of abstraction?

6.Appropriate use of positioning elements?

7.Clear and unambiguous?

1.Begins with the phrase, “How might we . . . ?” Posing challenges as open-ended questions helps to ensure they can be used to generate specific ideas for specific challenges. Otherwise, the challenge might be better focused in another direction. For instance, the challenge “What will be the most important business performance indicators over the next fifty years?” is a question calling for conjecture about trends and predictions. As phrased, it requires idea generators to converge on a limited set of options. It is not a call for unlimited innovative ideas designed to resolve product, process, or service problems. A better statement might be “How might we increase awareness about our new line of floor-care products?” This statement is divergent and more likely to elicit a variety of possible responses.

2.Singularity of objectives? This means that there should be a focus on only one objective in each challenge. It is difficult enough to generate ideas for one challenge, let alone two or more at the same time. Although this may seem obvious, it occurs frequently in the real world. People have multiple tasks to achieve and their priorities may not always be well sorted out. So, it is important to evaluate every challenge for the presence of competing objectives.

Consider this example from a major produce distributor: “How might we differentiate ourselves from our competition and radically increase consumption of our produce?” There obviously are two objectives: “differentiation” and “increase consumption.” They both can be used, but not at the same time. Better wording would be: “How might we differentiate ourselves from our competition?” and “How might we increase consumption of our produce?”

As will be discussed later, a decision then is needed as to which of these, if either, should be subordinate, or secondary, to the other. For instance, in this case, it might be assumed that if the company can differentiate itself effectively, then consumption will increase correspondingly. Therefore, the framers might decide to focus first on differentiation. If this challenge is resolved satisfactorily, it might not even be necessary to work on the primary challenge because it may take care of itself.

3.Absence of evaluative criteria? Perhaps the most common mistake in framing innovation challenges is including evaluation criteria. You might wonder why this is a mistake because criteria always are involved whenever a decision is made. The problem is that the human mind has trouble generating concepts while simultaneously trying to determine if they would satisfy all possible criteria. Juggling criteria at the same time you are attempting to generate ideas can create information overload and result in lower-quality ideas that are unlikely to satisfy the criteria. Thus, a focus on judgment during creative activity can restrict the potential of any challenge or the creativity of any idea.

Sometimes, even output viewed initially as unsatisfactory might actually be more than satisfactory when modified, combined with other challenges (as long as they don’t represent multiple objectives), or used simply to trigger new ones. Numerous examples exist of this phenomenon. A focus on judgment also creates a negative thinking climate—within an individual or a group—that can detract from both the quantity and quality of creative output. So, the issue is not whether to use criteria but when. Whenever possible, use criteria later, after you have generated all possible challenges. There is a choice, so use it.

4.Absence of solutions? As discussed at the outset of this chapter, it may appear paradoxical, but there can be a fine line between challenges and solutions. One reason is that challenge objectives and criteria are often both included within a single challenge. In addition to the example used previously, here is another example from a restaurant chain: “How might we increase the number of diners in our restaurants by creating a more healthy menu?” It appears that the primary objective is to increase the number of diners. Thus, creating a healthier menu is one potential solution for achieving that objective. Or, the challenge might be framed as, “How might we make our menu healthier?” The solution becomes a challenge based on the assumption that a healthier menu will increase the number of customers.

Moreover, the emphasis on health also could be a criterion or a positioning element. In this instance, it probably would be better to eliminate the focus on health from the challenge, but include it as a positioning element or as a separate challenge. That is, the challenge might be reframed as, “How might we increase the number of diners in our restaurant chain? Solutions may involve healthy menu items, but other approaches also should be considered.” Or, a new challenge might be, “How might we make our menu healthier?” Of course, both challenges could be used separately.

5.Appropriate level of abstraction? This can be a difficult criterion to apply. In general, the broader the level of challenge abstraction, the better the challenge. Broad challenges encompass a greater number and diversity of potential challenges. Overly specific challenges can be limiting in scope and not contribute much from a strategic point of view.

For instance, a company might become so focused on increasing the sales of one product model that it neglects its overall strategic marketing campaign, with a resulting negative impact on profit margins. Or, in the example used regarding an absence of solutions (Criterion #4), a healthy menu could be used as a subordinate challenge to increase the number of customers (as implied in discussing Criterion #4). What is appropriate depends on values, priorities, and the efficiency with which different objectives can be achieved. To help make such decisions, challenge maps can be created consisting of visual diagrams of how different challenges might be related. These maps can illustrate more vividly the hierarchical relationships that are perceived to exist among various challenges. (This concept will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.)

6.Appropriate use of positioning elements? Positioning elements are types of criteria that help to frame the scope of the primary challenge. Although they typically are used to help select ideas after ideation, they should not be emphasized as the primary focus. For this reason, they should not be overly specific, nor should they be included as part of the challenge statement.

Instead, positioning criteria should be more general. In the restaurant example, it could be stated that ideas for increasing restaurant customers should, in some way, emphasize health. Or, consider an executive recruitment firm using the following challenge: “How might we brand ourselves as the leader in online job placements?” The firm might position this question by noting that ideas should reflect the use of advances in digital technology. Or, a beverage company may want new beverage ideas that somehow convey a sense of physical or mental energy.

Using positioning criteria effectively can be tricky. Management often wants to ensure that people who generate ideas understand the exact objectives to be achieved. And they may feel pressured to complete an assignment exactly as they think their superiors have requested. As a result, they sometimes include too much information, either as part of a challenge or as auxiliary information. If this information is not stated clearly and distinctly from the primary objective, it may serve only to confuse idea generators, rather than to clarify management’s intentions. Positioning criteria should be used sparingly and not “positioned” as separate challenges. Instead, they can be used later on as criteria for evaluating the final ideas. So, one way or another, they can be involved in a challenge. (This is especially important in political situations in which different parties may be competing for scarce resources.)

7.Clear and unambiguous? This criterion is rather subjective and difficult to satisfy. The degree of clarity and ambiguity in a challenge can be viewed differently by people from varying occupations. This is known as functional myopia, a perceptual state in which people tend to view the world from their occupational frameworks. To test this criterion, review the challenge to be sure that all of the previous criteria have been considered and that there is a clean, simple, and straightforward challenge capable of generating ideas.

Most important, before beginning any idea generation session, ask all participants if they understand the challenge. However, even if no one says anything and the challenge is not clear, this fact usually becomes obvious once ideation starts. Although it may not be intentional, an ill-framed initial challenge often becomes apparent when brainstorming participants begin generating ideas so diverse that they reflect different perceptions as to what the actual challenge is. You may have been in idea generation sessions where, after brainstorming for a while, someone says, “Now exactly what is our problem?”—that is the major sign that additional framing is required.

A challenge is well framed if it satisfies all the preceding criteria, because they all represent the general criteria needed to qualify a challenge as appropriate and useful for productive idea generation. As a rule of thumb, if one to three criteria are not satisfied, then the challenge in question may be considered as “semi well framed”; if more than three criteria are not satisfied, then it could be characterized as “ill framed.” Any challenges not satisfying at least three criteria should be reevaluated. However, remember that this is just a rough rule of thumb. The ability to satisfy the best criteria for a given situation always has priority over the number of criteria satisfied.

Therefore, use caution in basing any challenge selection decisions on these guidelines. The specific criteria not satisfied also should have an impact on this decision. Perhaps the most pivotal criteria in this respect would be the inclusion of evaluative criteria and the level of challenge abstraction. Evaluative criteria within a challenge can bog down an idea generation session by considering the merits of individual ideas before all possible ones have surfaced. The level of abstraction, however, is probably more important because it can determine the order in which challenges should be used to achieve strategic objectives. A too narrow or too broad challenge can be just as detrimental, if not more so, than trying to implement a bad idea.

If there is any doubt as to whether or not a challenge satisfies a criterion, try to gather more information to increase your understanding of the challenge and/or solicit opinions from others, including experts and those who may not be as close to the topic. The Q-bank process described in Chapter 2 is an example of how to involve a diversity of stakeholders in generating and evaluating challenges.

RELATIVELY SIMPLE CHALLENGE FRAMING

To illustrate how to apply these criteria, here is an actual, relatively simple challenge from a consumer products company:

How can the Big Bucks Company develop brand awareness for its new XYZ brand of products with little marketing or PR funds?

A quick scan of the seven criteria discussed previously suggests that this challenge contains two criteria (“little marketing” or “little PR funds”) that should be removed and used as positioning elements or reserved for later use as evaluation criteria. After presenting these options to the client, the company decided to do the latter and frame the challenge as:

How might the Big Bucks Company improve the brand awareness of its XYZ line of consumer products? Solutions ideally would not involve significant marketing or PR funds.

The primary challenge was to increase awareness, so it stands alone. In this instance, however, the positioning elements themselves might be so specific that they still could interfere with open-ended idea generation. As stated, too much focus on them could be distracting if they are viewed as criteria that must be satisfied by every idea generated. Thus, it probably would have been better to have reserved them as decision-making criteria later on.

MODERATELY COMPLEX CHALLENGE FRAMING

Consider this moderately complex challenge from an international hotel and resort chain, with the pseudonym “Beds-R-Us”:

With a diverse and creative workforce, what strategies can Beds-R-Us implement to deliver a new level of service? We want ideas that can be implemented that would also make the Beds-R-Us brand more distinctive and result in a more emotional connection with travelers.

Rather than use this presented challenge as it is, let’s see how we might deconstruct it for more effective ideation. The first task is to create a single objective using the “How might we . . . ?” format. In this case, the phrase “a new level” is ambiguous. So, the challenge might be reframed as: “How might we improve customer service?”

As stated in the presented challenge, “. . . ideas that can be implemented,” might be reserved as a criterion. Brand distinctiveness could be used either as a criterion or as another challenge objective. And “a closer and more emotional connection with travelers” might be posed as the following challenge: “How might Beds-R-Us create a more emotional connection with travelers?” (This was the challenge the client selected.) One potential concept map for Beds-R-Us is shown in Figure 4-1.

This diagram incorporates all the elements of the presented challenge. As displayed, the goal of improving customer service directly affects creating a more emotional connection with travelers. The emotional connection is critical to making the brand more distinctive, which, in turn, directly impacts the occupancy rate. Customer service also affects the occupancy rate directly, as do an emotional connection and making the brand more distinctive.

COMPLEX CHALLENGE FRAMING

Some presented challenges are quite complex, reflecting in-depth research and input from a variety of stakeholders. For instance, consider this presented challenge from an international mailing service organization (“Mail-Is-Us”):

The objective for this challenge is to develop a new product/service/process or an enhancement to an existing product/service/process that will result in increased revenue for Mail-Is-Us. This can be accomplished by:

1.Developing a new product/service/process for current customers

2.Enhancing an existing product/service/process for current customers

FIGURE 4-1. Strategic objectives concept map for Beds-R-Us.

3.Developing a new product/service/process for new customers

4.Enhancing an existing product/service/process for new customers

5.And/or developing new marketing/partnership opportunities

Whew! That’s a lot to take in and far too much for any productive ideation in one bite. This challenge definitely needs to be deconstructed and sorted out.

The primary objective seems to be increasing revenue, which is what management indicated was the primary goal. So this objective can be described as the core challenge, at least based on an initial analysis. (A case might better be made for profitability since revenue enhancement may or may not have an impact on the bottom line.) The remaining information serves only to increase complexity by suggesting a focus on all the possible combinations present—for example, develop a new product for new customers, enhance an existing product for new customers, or develop a new service for existing customers, ad nauseam. Clearly, the presented challenge does not have a singular focus.

Evaluating these possibilities against the decision criteria suggests that the only criteria satisfied by these challenges are an absence of evaluation criteria and including solutions. However, this is not quite accurate because the complex wording implies that there are multiple, general paths to solutions—for example, “developing a new product/service/process for current customers.” Also, there are too many variables to process while simultaneously generating ideas. More important, specific objectives other than increasing revenue or profitability need to be identified.

To identify these objectives, I reviewed multiple documents from the client involving strategic issues such as the competition, markets, strengths and weaknesses, and trends—much as would be done using a Q-bank (Chapter 2). Based on this research, I then harvested twenty-one potential challenges that key stakeholders reviewed and narrowed down to nine and were approved by the client (Chapter 3).

The task then was to decide which challenges would be secondary to others—that is, which should be accomplished first to achieve the primary objective of increasing revenue? It also was important to decide how the different objectives might be interdependent—that is, linked in ways so that achieving one will help to achieve another. Because of the complexity of priorities involved with this process, I created a challenge map depicting potential relationships for the client to consider (see Figure 4-2).

For instance, Figure 4-2 indicates that two primary challenges secondary to increasing revenue are increasing access and awareness of the company’s products and services. These challenges, in turn, are likely to be affected by the challenges indicated in this figure. For example, increasing awareness should increase delivery volume, which, in turn, should increase revenue directly. Finally, facilitating online commerce should increase access so that revenue also increases.

FIGURE 4-2. Mail-Is-Us concept map.

In the end, the client chose to focus on both increasing access and awareness. Of course, this does not mean that the other challenges would be abandoned. All of them could be used to facilitate these dual objectives, which, in turn, should increase revenue (with the implicit assumption that profitability also would result). Moreover, the remaining challenges can be reserved for later innovation challenge projects.

Reviewing Additional Framing Examples: Financial Services

Here are some examples, modified from an actual C-bank process used in a financial services organization (the wording has been changed in several cases to maintain confidentiality), to illustrate further how to deconstruct and clarify presented challenges. Each presented challenge is listed—that is, as submitted to the C-bank—followed by comments and suggested reframes.

PRESENTED CHALLENGE #1

Comments

The first action is to determine the primary objective. This can be somewhat tricky because differentiation from competitors and attracting new customers both could be objectives. In this case, it appears that differentiation would be the primary objective for two reasons: (1) it was mentioned first; and (2) achieving differentiation could help achieve the objective of attracting new customers—most likely the umbrella or superordinate objective in this situation. However, both could be used for ideation, so both should be included, either in priority order or jointly as dual objectives to be worked on.

The phrase “with value pricing and convenience” initially seems to represent two criteria that ideas for either of the objectives might need to satisfy. However, because of the wording, “with [italics added] value pricing and convenience,” they probably would best be classified as solutions, even though that may not have been the intent. Thus, they should be removed from the challenge statement. Nevertheless, solutions also can be used as criteria—when stated in the context used—so that possibility should be considered. For instance, offering value pricing and convenience together might attract new customers or they might be used to evaluate solutions for differentiating the organization from its competitors. (Other criteria, of course, can be used, but pricing and convenience are mentioned only because they were contained within the presented challenge.)

Suggested Reframe #1

•How might our process differentiate us from our competitors?

Evaluation Criteria

Solutions should be likely to improve customer satisfaction, to attract new customers with value pricing, and to increase convenience.

Suggested Reframe #2

•How might our process attract new customers?

Evaluation Criteria

Solutions should be likely to improve customer satisfaction, to attract new customers with value pricing, and to increase convenience.

PRESENTED CHALLENGE #2

Comments

This is a fairly complex presented challenge in that it contains multiple objectives, solutions, and criteria, plus parts are relatively ambiguous with inappropriate levels of abstraction. So, let’s break it down:

Potential objectives include exceeding customer expectations, an implied, superordinate objective of increasing customer satisfaction (derived from the intention to exceed expectations); increasing customer referrals; and becoming more effective and efficient—the latter two would have to be defined operationally so that outcomes could be measured. The nested potential solution involves using resources and technology in optimal ways (to redefine “fullest” slightly more specifically). Finally, providing “value-added functionality” (an ambiguous quality) and “at a competitive, fair price” clearly are evaluation criteria and should not be included in a challenge.

Suggested Reframes

•How might we exceed customer expectations?

•How might we increase customer satisfaction?

•How might we increase client referrals?

•How might we improve product quality?

Evaluation Criteria

Solutions should be likely to provide value-added functionality, to use resources and technology efficiently and effectively, and to involve a competitive, fair price.

However, as stated, these criteria should be operationalized and made more specific. For instance, value-added functionality might be defined as “the ability to reduce errors or eliminate steps in a process.” Efficiency and effectiveness should also be defined specifically.

PRESENTED CHALLENGE #3

Comments

This is a solution and not a challenge. Therefore, it cannot be used as an innovation challenge as presented. Solutions, however, typically contain implicit challenges, so wording in the presented challenge could be used to suggest challenges that would satisfy the criteria. In addition, it can be set aside as a solution or used to create criteria such as “likely to meet customer expectations,” which also could be used as a reframe, as shown next.

Suggested Reframes

•How might we improve the work-flow process?

•How might we better monitor all aspects of the work-flow process?

•How might we improve the quality of process outcomes?

•How might we better understand customer expectations?

PRESENTED CHALLENGE #4

Comments

The primary objective of this challenge appears to be reducing processing time, while the remaining parts are either spin-off objectives or evaluation criteria. In this instance, spin-off objectives are linked in some way to one or more different objectives. Thus, ideas for reducing processing time might suggest or be in some way related to increasing accuracy, achieving higher customer service, and generating twice the revenue. So, all of these goals, plus the reduction of processing time, could be set up as separate challenges. A case might be made that the primary objective is reducing processing time in half, although it usually is better to save such constraints as criteria. Otherwise, idea generators might focus too much on how likely it is that their ideas would result in a 50 percent reduction. So, the primary objective should focus on reducing processing time.

Suggested Reframe

•How might we reduce the time involved in processing customer orders?

Evaluation Criteria

Solutions should be likely to increase accuracy, improve customer satisfaction, and increase revenue.

If the implied criteria are used as objectives, they might be framed as follows:

•How might we increase processing accuracy?

•How might we improve the quality of our processing service?

•How might we double our revenue?

•How might we improve customer satisfaction?

Just these four challenges alone demonstrate the close relationship between challenges and solutions and how challenges are interrelated in terms of priority. For instance, increasing processing accuracy would be one solution for improving the quality of processing, which, in turn, could improve customer service.

To illustrate the overall interrelationship among the challenges, a concept map might show how increasing processing accuracy would contribute to processing quality, which might increase—either in tandem or sequentially—customer satisfaction and/or revenue. That is, increasing customer satisfaction could directly affect revenue enhancement or it may not be a causal relationship and just occur at the same time as an increase in revenue. (For more information on concept maps, see Chapter 5.)

PRESENTED CHALLENGE #5

Comments

This is another instance of a proposed solution, but with a bit of emotional, persuasive rhetoric thrown in. The contributor appears to feel rather strongly about his or her prescriptions to improve things. However, any emotional reactions—whether in agreement or disagreement—should be cast aside. The focus, instead, should be on generating challenges from their input. The presented challenge leads with the notion of retaining customers, so that is a logical first challenge. The other challenges then can be extracted by sifting through the remainder of the statement, as shown in the following reframes:

Suggested Reframes

•How might we retain our retail Category 1 customers?

•How might we improve the Schmelkin process?

•How might we better clarify customer expectations?

•How might we increase understanding of the rank and file with regard to process changes?

•How might we communicate better with rank-and-file employees?

Writing the Challenge Briefing Document

Once you have reframed potential challenges and selected one or more for idea generation, the next activity is to create a briefing document (“brief”) for the ideators (people who will be generating the ideas who may or may not always be stakeholders). This document is second in importance to selecting a final challenge because it is designed to frame the challenge so that it is positioned correctly in the minds of the ideators. It aids in placing the challenge in the intended perspective with respect to the objective and desired scope of the challenge. If possible, the document should be aligned clearly with organizational strategy and vision.

In general, most briefing documents address positioning criteria as discussed previously regarding challenge evaluation criteria. These documents may vary considerably from one challenge to another, but most contain three major parts:

1.Background information

2.Desired scope of the challenge (what is wanted and what is not wanted as the focus)

3.Other considerations that might be included but are not mandatory

Background information can vary depending on the knowledge and experience level of the ideators, plus how much information is available or can be made available, given constraints such as time, access, and confidentiality. If a specific market segment is targeted, some general background on it should be provided. Some challenges are relatively broad in scope, such as, “How might we better market our line of consumer appliances?” Other challenges can be more focused, such as, “How might we market our appliances to create an emotional connection with millennials?” In this instance, two more data points are added: “emotional connection” and “millennials.” This probably should be the extent of the challenge’s content. Although creating an “emotional connection” could be used as a criterion, it also could be an objective. If the intention is to limit the challenge objective to a specific line of appliances—for example, portable beverage appliances—that should be noted as well, but as a positioning element in the brief. Finally, a brief might hint at some wishes as opposed to needs. For example, it could be mentioned that the focus is on millennials in North America and South America, but not countries in other continents.

To illustrate a brief, I will use the previous challenge: “How might we market our appliances to create an emotional connection with millennials?” A sample brief for this challenge might be written as follows:

Millennials (aka NextGen, GenY, echo boomers, C generation) are part of the Friendster, MySpace, and YouTube generation. Although there isn’t complete agreement on their age range, most sources cite people born between 1980 and 2001. In the United States, they represent a potential market of roughly 80 million individuals, closely approximating the number of baby boomers now heading into retirement. The oldest millennials are beginning to become established in their careers and are estimated by some to have a purchasing power base of over $1 billion (although well short that of baby boomers). As a group, they tend to be leading the “wired,” digital revolution by embracing electronic gadgets such as cell phones, iPods, computers, and especially being online as part of numerous social and peer-to-peer networks of e-mails, instant- and text-messaging, blogs, photos, videos, and music. Self-expression characterizes this generation, which thrives on being connected 24/7. They may not be technically savvy, but they do know how to use technology “under the hood” to stay connected. They can be impatient multitaskers who expect their products to be customizable.

CHALLENGE FOR THIS PROJECT

We are not interested in any particular segment of the millennials market and your focus primarily should be on small kitchen appliances in both North and South America, but no other continents. We have a special interest in beverage appliances, but you are not limited to them.

PREFRAMED GENERIC CHALLENGES

Wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to generate your own challenges and then hope they satisfied all the criteria discussed in this chapter? Or, at least not have to bother with evaluating them? If so, you might be interested in reviewing the challenges in this section and the next one.

The list immediately following represents a compilation of fairly general challenge questions that can be applied across a variety of industrial, educational, and governmental sectors. I have organized them into the same broad categories used in previous chapters. This organization should make it easier to find challenges most appropriate for your needs. In some cases, only slight changes in wording are required. For instance, if you were a director of admissions at a higher-education institution, instead of using the word customer, you might modify challenges by substituting the word student for customer. (A frame of students as customers, however, also might provoke more unique ideas.)

This list and the one that follows (based on case studies) are by no means exhaustive. However, just as any idea—regardless of its apparent merit on first seeing it—can spark newer, more productive ideas, all of the challenges in this list have the potential to trigger new ways to frame challenges.

Customers

1.How might we acquire new customers?

2.How might we reacquire old customers?

3.How might we improve our customer service?

4.How might we reduce the time to process customer orders?

5.How might we increase the transparency of our customer policies?

6.How might we increase customer access to our products or services?

7.How might we make it easier for customers to ______?

8.How might we better anticipate customer needs?

9.How might we create a more emotional connection with our customers?

10.How might we increase our customer retention rate?

11.How might we reduce the costs of acquiring new customers?

12.How might we better identify our customers?

13.How might we reward our customers?

14.How might we better deal with customer complaints?

15.How might we reduce the time to resolve customer complaints?

16.How might we reduce the number of customer complaints?

17.How might we better assess the validity of customer feedback?

18.How might we better determine why our customers like our products or services?

19.How might we better determine why our customers do not like our products or services?

20.How might we learn more about our customers?

21.How might we better use media to reach our customers?

22.How might we better evaluate our customer service?

23.How might we ensure management commitment to customer service?

24.How might we discover what our customers don’t know they want?

25.How might we make it more convenient for customers to place orders?

26.How might we better communicate with our customers?

27.How might we increase customer satisfaction?

28.How might we reduce customer dissatisfaction?

29.How might we involve customers in product development?

30.How might we encourage customers and suppliers to collaborate?

31.How might we convert customers into corporate promoters?

32.How might we increase the number of wealthy customers?

33.How might we help potential customers qualify for our products and services?

34.How might we increase the number of qualified customers?

35.How might we increase the number of gift card users?

36.How might we help current customers increase their credit ratings?

37.How might we encourage customers to increase their debt?

38.How might we increase customer access to financial services?

39.How might we better meet customer expectations?

40.How might we improve our customer service?

41.How might we better understand our customers?

Products or Services

42.How might we increase access to our products or services?

43.How might we create products or services to _______?

44.How might we reduce the product development cycle time?

45.How might we increase consumption of our products?

46.How might we improve our products or services?

47.How might we make it easier to assemble our products?

48.How might we make it easier to use our products or services?

49.How might we provide R&D with more freedom?

50.How might we increase our new product success rate?

51.How might we reduce the time to launch new products?

52.How might we communicate better with design and engineering when developing new products?

53.How might we increase internal commitment to new products?

54.How might we persuade sales personnel to market new products?

55.How might we better differentiate our products from competitors’?

56.How might we improve our service infrastructure?

57.How might we make it easier to contact service specialists?

58.How might we add value to our products or services?

59.How might we better position our products or services in customers’ minds?

60.How might we better identify new product opportunity areas?

61.How might we increase the number of our product extensions?

62.How might we reduce perceived risk of the “fuzzy front end?”

63.How might we improve our new product screening and evaluation process?

64.How might we better communicate new product/service features and benefits?

65.How might we improve the new product prototype development process?

66.How might we increase the number of products in our pipeline?

67.How might we improve the interface between new product development and marketing?

68.How might we better meet production deadlines?

69.How might we increase the number of patents we generate?

Branding/Marketing

70.How might we become better known as the ______ company?

71.How might we penetrate the ______ market?

72.How might we acquire more customers at point of sale?

73.How might we differentiate ourselves from our competition?

74.How might we increase market share?

75.How might we reduce sales training costs?

76.How might we increase our aided brand awareness?

77.How might we increase our unaided brand awareness?

78.How might we increase awareness of specific brand attributes?

79.How might we better monitor consumer perceptions of our brand?

80.How might we use branding to contribute more directly to long-term business development?

81.How might we increase our brand equity?

82.How might we use our brand to differentiate ourselves from our competitors?

83.How might we strengthen our brand with business-to-business companies?

84.How might we better identify our brand values?

85.How might we increase the perceived reliability of our brand?

86.How might we ensure that we don’t overlook important communication channels?

87.How might we better position ourselves in our customers’ minds?

88.How might we be perceived as the number one financial services provider in the world?

89.How might we brand ourselves as being the company for the ______ market?

Processes

90.How might we reduce the costs of ______?

91.How might we improve communication between ______?

92.How might we reduce waste?

93.How might we increase the number of employee suggestions?

94.How might we improve our supply chain?

95.How might we reduce regulatory restrictions?

96.How might we improve product or service quality?

97.How might we reduce bureaucratic procedures?

98.How might we improve our infrastructure for servicing customers?

99.How might we become a more nimble organization?

100.How might we improve our public relations?

101.How might we become the number one ______ company in the world?

102.How might we achieve financial targets related to our target markets?

103.How might we reduce equipment idle time?

104.How might we improve the fit in corporate mergers?

105.How might we better execute our strategy?

106.How might we improve our strategic planning process?

107.How might we better merge our corporate acquisitions?

108.How might we reduce managerial decision-making time?

Human Resources

109.How might we recruit more employees?

110.How might we train employees more efficiently?

111.How might we acquire more employee tacit knowledge?

112.How might we better use employee knowledge?

113.How might we reduce employee turnover?

114.How might we reduce conflict in ______?

115.How might we streamline our hiring process?

116.How might we improve our existing interview process?

Financials

117.How might we better capitalize our R&D?

118.How might we ensure ethical accounting procedures?

119.How might we improve our accounting procedures?

120.How might we increase our cash flow?

121.How might we improve our financial reporting?

122.How might we reduce production costs?

123.How might we increase profits?

124.How might we reduce debt?

125.How might we increase earnings per share?

126.How might we improve our asset turnover?

127.How might we increase our sales per dollar of assets?

128.How might we increase our book value?

129.How might we increase bond yield?

130.How might we reduce the time to convert accounts receivable into cash?

131.How might we reduce our debt-to-capital ratio?

132.How might we improve our efficiency ratio (overhead burden)?

133.How might we increase investor confidence?

134.How might we increase R&D-generated revenues?