Ideation and Design Thinking

Ideation is another one of these buzzwords that are often thrown around when people are talking about innovation. However, people don’t seem to always understand what it means. Ideation is the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas where an idea is seen as a basic element of thought that can be either visual, concrete, or abstract.³ Rather than focusing on a specific technique, it consists of a list of methods and ways to come to a new idea or solution. Graham and Bachmann proposed the methods such as problem solution (finding a solution for a problem), derivative idea (use an existing idea and use it somewhere else), symbiotic idea (multiple ideas are combined), revolutionary idea (an idea away from traditional thought), and others such as serendipitous discovery (coincidences leading to new solutions), targeted innovation (direct path to discovery), artistic innovation (no constraints for the generation of ideas), philosophical ideas (abstract ideas that live in the minds of the thinker), and finally computer-assisted discovery.

When you read through these methods, you can see that several of the techniques we saw before come back in a new coat. The term “ideation” has led to quite some criticism as it is very broad and covers a whole range of techniques that were already known without really bringing something new to the table. Some techniques that are covered in the ideation framework are brainstorming, brainwriting, sketching, prototyping, and the worst possible idea.⁴ The aim of ideation in the design process is to generate ideas (shocking but true) where the ideas themselves form the fuel and the source material for the later prototypes and testing of innovative solutions. Some of the core ideas behind ideation are that you should ask the right questions where innovation should focus on all involved stakeholders and the users in particular. The more insights you have to use in this phase of the process, the better your ideas will focus on really solving the problem. The team that takes part in this process should be diverse enough to bring perspectives from all over the company together in the ideation sessions. And as we have seen before, also here the focus lies on generating a lot of ideas that try to look out of the box and as such bring real innovation and change to the organization. By discussing the obvious ideas early on, you can drive the team forward toward other ideas that might be much more interesting.

Even though it thankfully makes use of other techniques and frameworks, there are some interesting concepts that are introduced by the design thinking process (where ideation is a part of). Before you jump into the ideation itself, you should make work of two other phases: empathize and define. With the empathize phase, you try to better understand the people and the context in which the ideation process takes place. What problem are we trying to solve, and more importantly, for who? Only when we have proper empathy for the end user can we hope to come up with ideas that are truly valuable. The more research we perform in this phase, the closer we stand to the customers and users we are targeting. We can gather more information by making use of observations, interviews, fieldwork, questionnaires, user feedback, and call center log analysis. The second phase before we enter the actual ideation is where we make sense of all the information that we have gathered. This can either be the customer empathy or deeper market research. Common tools that can be used in this phase to gain this deeper understanding are affinity diagrams, user stories, empathy maps, and personas. These can all help us to define a clear problem statement which we can use in the ideation process itself. The problem statement is also known as “the point of view” in design thinking.

The point of view is called this way because we want to know exactly what the point of view is of our user. We try to define what the most essential needs are of our users and where we are still lacking in filling in these needs. If you really want to completely make use of the design thinking framework, these needs should be defined as verbs. What insights have you been able to gather over these needs of the user? Only when you properly understand these needs on a deeper level will you be able to provide true answers. Some things to remember when we are talking about the point of view: each of the items you identify should have a narrow focus, we should frame the identified problem as a problem statement, and it should work as a guide for the innovation process. With this information you can enter the ideation process with all of this information and start asking questions, but the right way. What does this mean? Rather than asking yes/no questions on the problem statement and the points of view, we should make use of “how might we” questions which can lead to interesting insights. Start asking these questions from the actual points of view and slowly start to break them down so that you can find specific answers that can help you along the way to finding a real solution. Some final guidelines when you make use of the ideation process: you should be able to switch quickly between questions, certainly when you run into a dead end, you should question all the beliefs people have of the problem, turn abstract ideas into clear concepts by making use of pictures or stories, try out unknown concepts and fields to come up with new ideas, ask uncomfortable questions if necessary that make people think even more out of the box, and recognize patterns so that we can use these to create solutions.

Whether you are a believer in ideation or not, the framework was able to collect some of the best ideas and concepts from other frameworks together in one way of working. That is why it certainly deserves a place in this chapter and it might come in handy if you explore it a bit more yourself.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is probably known by most of you. It is a technique where you try to find a solution to a problem by making use of a group coming up with ideas. The goal is to remove most inhibitions of a group so that people dare to come up with innovative ways to solve a problem. It is these inhibitions that stop people from sharing their ideas which could in turn lead to a great solution. By allowing people to think freely and allowing them to speak their minds without having to worry about what they are saying, you allow spontaneous ideas to be generated. It is only once all ideas have been noted down, they are being evaluated to see if one of the ideas sticks and can be used to solve the problem. This technique was first developed by Alex F. Osborn in 1939. As you can see, this technique has also had some time to mature over several decades and has proven its worth as well.

Alex F. Osborn believed that two main principles could help generate new ideas which in turn could lead to innovative solutions: defer judgment and reach for quantity. By withholding criticism, people dare to speak their minds. As long as people have the feeling that they are going to be judged for what they are sharing or, even worse, laughed at, the ideation process is limited. When we are able to break through these limitations, this leads to a higher quantity of ideas being produced by the group and the idea here is that “quantity breeds quality.” In the same line wild ideas should be welcomed and even encouraged. These wild ideas come from leaving certain assumptions and can lead to even better solutions. In the end, you can also combine several ideas to come to a solution. In the beginning these wild ideas might sound insane, but it will allow others to share their ideas as well. This doesn’t mean we should only think of completely crazy ideas but rather that we need to open up our minds so that we can think out of the box.

Based on this initial technique, several other brainstorming techniques were created while always keeping the same goal in mind.

Reverse Brainstorming

Reverse brainstorming is another technique which is linked to brainstorming (as you might have guessed from the name). However, the focus of the session is a bit different. Instead of focusing on solutions, we are going to focus on and think about the problems. What are possible reasons the plan could fail. Naturally, most of us find it easier to define problems instead of solutions. By turning around the way of thinking, it might become easier for people to come up with suggestions. When we have been able to define all the problems or possible issues, we can start thinking on how we could tackle these issues in an efficient manner. With reverse brainstorming we can protect ourselves and the company from possible mistakes and problems which are easily overlooked when people become enthusiast about a certain idea. If we try to run before we are able to walk, problems will arise and take place. Hence, reverse brainstorming on a project plan, innovation, or idea can give us the best overall image of what trouble we might run into.

Rolestorming

Rolestorming is a technique that might help with a brainstorming session. Certainly when you are working in an environment where people are afraid to share all of their ideas, this might help people to break through their own barriers. To reduce the limitations that are often hindering people to come up with ideas, people are asked to take on the identities of other people in the group. By taking on a different identity, people are more able to speak their minds and at the same time consider different perspectives. This allows them to come up with more original ideas. As they try to fit the role of someone else, we also get a better look at how people see us and what they believe our perspective is. In turn, we get more ideas which can help us later on in the innovation process.

Business War Games

For companies that have a more competitive environment, business war games might be the way to go to stimulate innovation and new ideas. The idea stems from military war gaming where military leaders are prepared for real-world events. This type of training has been around since the time of ancient Greece and probably even before that. As decision makers are forced in harsh environments and are forced to make decisions, the results of their decisions are simulated so that these can be evaluated in case a similar event would take place in real life. In more recent times, this technique was used in World War II where the US Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was able to play out the battles of the Pacific. The only tactic he didn’t account for was the use of kamikazes. Also Desert Storm, the outcome of the cold war, and other military strategies were developed and played out in such sessions. Only when all decisions and their consequences are properly simulated can you achieve proper results. If the technique isn’t properly executed, it can lead to military leaders making the wrong choices in real-life events as well.

During the 1980s the technique made its way into the business world. In the corporate war game, senior managers within the company lead their own fictitious companies, while other parties within the company act as the competitors. There is a set of business conditions, but once the game starts, the game must reflect the reality as much as possible: mergers and acquisitions, fierce competition, disasters (economic, natural, or others), and so on. These types of games do last over a couple of days, really forcing the teams to think out of the box on how they can compete and eventually win the game. Of key importance is that the participants don’t have control over the environment and have to face changing market demands, new technologies, and more so that long-term perspectives are important. Management has to undergo the circumstances as if they were acting in a real market environment. It cannot be that senior management bends the rules of the game to their will in order to win the game. To be able to achieve this, you need to have people in place (probably also part of senior management or, even better, a neutral third party) to help lead the business war game.

The technique is well-known for helping companies with the development of strategies and is sometimes proposed as a framework that can help where traditional planning sessions fail.⁵ However, the business war game can also help with innovation challenges in the company as people from all over the enterprise are forced to think out of the box and this way create new approaches that help to solve common problems. It can solve some of the issues that come with other techniques such as brainstorming. People can make use of their own ideas in their own company environments when they are competing with one another. Where risks will stop certain people from taking action in the business environment, the business war game is the ideal environment where people can try out new things with a minimum of consequences.

TRIZ

TRIZ, or “the theory of the resolution of invention-related tasks,” is a theory that was developed in 1946 by Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues. The framework is also known in English as “TIPS.” This theory offers a systematic approach for both the understanding and definition of challenging problems. It focuses both on the innovation challenge and on problem solving in general. And what can be more challenging than the struggles offered by innovation within the company? TRIZ offers a set of strategies and tools to find inventive solutions. One of the main ideas is that difficult problems are caused because there is a need to overcome a dilemma or a trade-off between two contradictory elements. We generally don’t want to make one given problem worse in favor of another and rather overcome the contradiction altogether. The goal of this theory is to find a superior solution that overcomes the need for a compromise or a trade-off between these two elements. This is easier said than done of course, and that is why the theory comes with an entire set of tools to help you along the way.

The first cornerstone of the theory is that of generalizing problems and their solutions. Research shows that problems and solutions are often repeated across industries, sciences, and companies. Each time people focus on the same problems (in general) but come up with their own solutions. Often these even seem like copies of one another even though they have been developed completely independent from one another. Similarly, patterns of technical evolution tend to be repeated across these same industries and companies. With new technical solutions come new opportunities, and as we tend to look at our industry alone, we often miss the big picture. This once again leads to a lot of repetition and the work being done again and again. Here we can see that great value can be created from innovations using scientific effects outside of the field where they were originally developed. This means that a scientific breakthrough in one field can lead to breakthroughs across a myriad of industries that were originally not targeted by the first invention. TRIZ focuses on recognizing these patterns of problems and solutions, understanding the scientific effects that can be used, and what contradictions are present in each of these situations. By removing the specific characteristics of certain solutions and only taking in scope those elements that really differentiate a solution, we can get a better view of where a solution could be used as well. This means that from an organization’s specific problem, a general problem is derived for which a general solution can be thought of. This general solution is eventually adapted to fit the specific solution necessary for our organization. To be able to do this, we need to take a step back. It is very easy to say that a problem is industry specific and that we need to look for a specific solution. It is much harder to derive those elements that we might have seen somewhere else as well and use these to create a solution where we don’t have to do all the heavy lifting ourselves.

The second cornerstone of the framework is that of eliminating contradictions. TRIZ states that fundamental contradictions are the root of most problems. These contradictions can be divided in two major groups: technical and physical contradictions. The first consists of classic engineering trade-offs where you cannot reach your desired state as another system prevents you from reaching your goal. Examples can be that you want customized services for each of your customers which can be very good for customer experience but this heavily impacts the delivery system which gets expensive and complicated. This contradiction can make it difficult or even impossible to continuously customize the solution for all of our customers. The second type of contradictions consists of objects of our systems having opposite requirements. A good example here is that the application should offer you everything you want to do while at the same time they remain easy to learn. Nowadays most people want to be able to open up a program, application, or website without having to learn a lot of instructions on how they should be using it. At the same time they want to be able to solve all of their problems in the same environment. This more often than not proves to be quite a challenge and requires people to really think out of the box. Something that is easy and clear for you isn’t that for someone else with a different background. How do you find common ground?

For the technical contradictions TRIZ offers a contradiction matrix that can help you to find a solution, while there are the TRIZ separation principles that can be used to overcome physical contradictions. The framework is very widely documented and offers a lot of generalized solutions to generalized problems and as such greatly supports innovation efforts in any organization. As it is already in use for several decades, it has proven that it can really be used as a problem solving framework that actually brings value to the innovation process. Rather than trying to conceive of something that is completely new, we could work on generalized solutions and fit them to our specific situation at hand.

This framework has been adapted by Samsung, Rolls-Royce, General Electric, Mars, Johnson & Johnson, and many other companies that have a focus on innovation and change. This proves that it can give your company a competitive advantage to make use of TRIZ, even though it isn’t a magic tool that is going to solve all of your problems.

USIT

USIT, or “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking,” is a methodology related to TRIZ and was invented in Israel. While also functioning as a structured problem solving methodology, the framework is a lot easier to implement than the TRIZ methodology. USIT works in three separate phases: problem definition, problem analysis, and application of solution concepts. The first phase works on the development of a well-defined problem which is key if you want to continue on the next steps. The goal is not to explain the problem but to follow an iterative process where the problem is described in terms of objects, attributes, and a single, unwanted effect. Everyone in the team needs to have the same common understanding of the problem we are working on. Only if we are able to clear this out and have support for the problem definition from everyone can we move on to the next step in the process.

This phase is followed by the problem analysis where two different ways of thinking can be used. The first one is where the approach is called “closed-world” analysis so that you can understand the intended functional connectivity of objects in case there was no problem to begin with. How would it look like and why aren’t we there in our current situation? It can help to highlight those components that are currently causing problems. The second method is called “particles method” where we create an ideal solution and work back to the situation where we are currently and can close down on the problem. Both approaches focus on the same thing: singling out those components that currently are causing issues and should be adapted to achieve the ideal situation.

We end with the third phase which focuses on the solution implementation. Here we try to implement techniques which eliminate or nullify the effects of the problem so that we actively can remove at and move toward the ideal situation. Based on the results of the previous phase, we can determine the next steps quite clearly in how we can actually achieve the proper solution.

CATWOE

SSM (soft systems methodology) was developed by Peter Checkland by the end of the 1960s.⁶ In 1975 the CATWOE method was developed by David Smyth to enhance the SSM model. The acronym stands for customers, actors, transformation process, worldview, owners, and environmental constraints.

The checklist helps problem solving processes and stimulates considering several ways of thinking toward a solution. The different perspectives are what make up the very name of this methodology. By considering the perspective of the customer, you can gain a new perspective on the problem. You should determine who the customer is and how they are being influenced by the problem at hand. Second are the actors of the organization. They are responsible for the process and the transformation of the organization. This is followed by the consideration of the “worldview.” How do the participants see the world and what are their goals? Do they have conflicting views and how might we resolve these? This step is crucial if we want to achieve success with this methodology. The owners are the decision makers that have the power to start or stop a project. Finally, we have to consider the environmental constraints: what is limiting us and what should we take into account when we are looking at our solution? Think about regulation, financial constraints, ethical bounds, and so on.

This can be a very interesting methodology to use in conjunction with some of the other processes and frameworks that are discussed in this book. It helps you to maintain all the perspectives which you should consider when evaluating ideas and help rank them based on feasibility.

ORAPAPA

ORAPAPA is another checklist that can help you to make better decisions. The acronym stands for opportunities, risks, alternatives, past experience, analysis, people, and alignment. Similar to the previous framework, also here you are encouraged to consider different perspectives on the problem you are facing. By considering the opportunities and risks, you are already broadening the view. With considering the alternatives, you can stimulate the creation of different solutions. It is too easy to only consider the same solutions and ideas every time and again. By looking for alternatives, you are able to look for ideas outside of the “old and tried” group of possibilities. We need to take past experience into account because we have tried certain approaches before in the past. If a certain approach has already failed before, then there must be a reason for this. Only by taking past experience of all participants into account can we make sure that mistakes of the past aren’t repeated. On the other hand, we don’t have to create certain decisions or ideas from scratch as we have already used similar solutions for other problems in the past. The next step in the framework is “analysis” where we need to make proper use of the data we have to evaluate our opportunities and risks. Based on all of this information, we need to consider the opinions of all stakeholders that are going to be affected by the decision you are about to make. They all have their own perception and view on both the problem statement and the solution you are presenting. Based on their input you can still refine the solution you are presenting to build maximum support throughout the organization. Finally, there is alignment where we are going to check if the decision we are about to make actually fits the culture and overall strategy of the company.⁷ We don’t want to work with a solution that doesn’t fit the organization at all or which doesn’t have any real long-term future.

The ORAPAPA methodology doesn’t promise you that you are able to make 100% the right decisions all the time but rather can help you along the way to make the best decision with the information you are given.

The Five Ws

The five Ws are questions that date back to Aristotle and his work Nicomachean Ethics. Even though there have been a lot of other philosophers and scientists that have been working with the same ideas, it is still in use today and forms the basis for problem solving and information gathering. The five Ws refer to who, what, where, when, and why. Only if all of these questions have been answered can you assume that the problem at hand has been solved. Some of the authors that followed also added the “How,” which has led to the acronym “5W1H.” It is one of those other techniques that can help you to come up with the right answers to help solve a problem.

SWOT

SWOT analysis refers to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It is an analysis technique which is quite common in the business environment. While it is often used to analyze the current situation of a company, one shouldn’t underestimate the power of the SWOT analysis when looking toward future processes and decisions. Also this tool isn’t a creativity tool or framework such as the other, but it can provide a new perspective on existing problems. This way innovative thinking can still be stimulated, while at the same time it allows to help you make the go/no-go decision.

The SWOT tool is an oldie but a good one. If you feel you start to get stuck on a certain solution, idea, or problem, it might just be the thing that helps people get a better view on the current situation. Rather than getting stuck in a debate, you might push the conversation forward by making use of this tool.

Thought Experiments

While most of us are aware of what thought experiments are, they aren’t as much used as they should be. Even though the word only first appeared in English in 1897, the use of thought experiments goes back to some of the earliest philosophers and scientists. These thought experiments can force people to think outside of the box and consider the theoretical outcomes of possible cases. A famous example is “Schrödinger’s cat” of the famous physicist Erwin Schrödinger. To help explain the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, he challenged people to think of a cat in a box. With the cat is a flask of poison. The flask will break when a single atom decays (radioactivity is released) and as such kills the cat. After a while the cat can be thought of as both dead and alive simultaneously. This is a state known as quantum superposition which is linked to a random subatomic event. Only when we have a look in the box can we know whether the cat is dead or alive, and as such the quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.

Even when you didn’t understand all of the physics at work here, the thought experiment of “Schrödinger’s cat” helps you certainly understand some of the concepts better than if I would have provided you only with the theory of physics. This example should also help you understand the value of thought experiments in problem solving and innovation processes.

Provocation

Provocation is another technique that can help with the generation of new ideas and solutions.⁸ By understanding the problem at hand, you can develop a provocative challenge. This can be done by asking a first important question: “why is this a problem?” By thinking about the problem we can land on the center of what is really bothering us and what we should be focusing on. Often people think they understand the problem they are facing or the core of their problem, while the reality teaches us the proposed solutions focus on the symptoms rather than the root cause itself. Next, we have to ask ourselves: “why has this occurred?” This way we can identify the root cause of the problem. Once we have been able to answer these questions, we can go to the final step of the technique. By looking on how competitors are dealing with these issues, we can learn what techniques have proven to be useful in the past. Applying exactly the same solution might not help you with your situation, depending on the problem you are dealing with.

Other techniques that can help you here are the use of superlatives so that you are forced to change the way you are thinking. Similarly, extremes can further the way you are looking at a situation. By adding emotion to the question you are asking, you can further add to the questions being asked. Also the use of metaphors, chance, and random input can enhance how you are approaching a problem and the solutions that might be thought of. Even though this might not represent a methodology or a framework, it can be a very interesting technique to force a different way of thinking. You might be able to lead people away from their own prejudice and open up new perspectives. On top of that, it can help people to adopt new solutions that don’t only focus on the annoying symptoms of a problem but actually try to solve the core of the issue.

Random Input

Random input is a creative thinking strategy that is closely linked to lateral thinking.⁹ It is now a common creative thinking technique that helps people to think out of the box. A random word, picture, sound, or whatever can be used to inspire new ways of thinking. The theory states that you should start from a clearly defined problem. By generating a random image or word, you start a process of association around the word or picture. This association process can help to generate new information because of the new directions the thinking process is forced to take. These unique outcomes can clearly be used to help creativity sessions. Random input can be a great tool to help people step out of their comfort zone and at the same time allow them to come up with new ideas without having to worry about the feedback from others. Sometimes the random generated word or image can be so far off that the ideas you come up with are just the same. Even though the idea seems very simple, it might just be what you need to get people to take the next step.

Personas

Personas can help you to evaluate your ideas.¹⁰ What are they? Basically they are fictional characters which you create based on your research. These personas represent the different users that might make use of your product, service, brand, or anything else you are working on. When you have a rich enough set of personas, they can help you understand the behavior, goals, needs, and experiences of your users. They can also help you to assess your design efforts of the solution you want to implement. How would they react on certain changes you are trying to make? In general, you can define four different types of personas. The first type is called the “goal-directed persona.” The objective of this type of user is to examine the process and workflow they would prefer in order to achieve their objectives. The “role-based persona” on the other hand focuses on the behavior of the user. What is the purpose of the product and how might our users actually use it? Both of these personas require you to understand your users. Either based on data analysis or on direct interaction and interviews with your users, you can create these personas. However, be always careful that you don’t trust too much on your own assumptions. Third are the “engaging personas” which we want to make use of to produce insights and involvement. Here we want to move away from looking at users as stereotypes but rather simulate how their users interact with the solution. Here we want to understand the emotions of the users as well as the background and their psychology. This takes it a step further than the previous types of personas as we really want to understand our personas. Finally, there are the “fictional personas.” These are created based on the experience of the people involved in the solution design or problem solving process.

Empathy Maps

The empathy map is a collaborative tool where teams use it to gain insight into their customers.¹¹ It is very similar to the creation of user personas, but rather than creating a single user, the empathy map represents a customer segment. You make use of insights, personas, data, and more to create your empathy map. You should ask yourself questions such as the following:

• What does the user feel?

• What does the user think?

• What does the environment of the user think/feel?

• What are the pain points of the solution?

• What is the user experience of the product?

Based on the answers of these questions, we can start filling out a template where we can structure all the information we have. All of this information can help us to gain deeper insight on the solution and the problem we are trying to solve.

T.O.T.E Model

The T.O.T.E model or test-operate-test-exit technique is one that can help to generate new ways of thinking and help with the development of new and revolutionary ideas. First published by George Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl H. Pribram in 1960, the technique is still in use today.¹⁵

The technique consists of a strategy which has in total five steps: test, operate, test, exit, and finally result. The first test is used as a trigger to start the entire process. Here we determine the criteria we are going to use in the process and what will be the basis for the second test. The operate step gives us access to data by helping us remember, create, or collect information necessary for the second test. In the second test we are going to compare the results based on the criteria we were able to determine based on the first test. Next, we have the exit step where we needed to make a decision. If we find a match that can help us solve the test, we can exit the process. If we can’t, the process continues and starts again from the first step where we can determine to use a different strategy, change the criteria, refine the results, and so on.

This is a classic problem solving technique where we almost use a scientific approach to come up with a solution which might give us an answer on the problem we are facing. By taking cyclical process approach, you can continuously look into improvements upon your ideas and solutions so that you can solve the problem at hand.

Creative Problem Solving Process

The creative problem solving process is another technique that can help with the innovation process. First developed by Alex Osborn and Sid Parnes in the 1940s, it consists of four core principles. First there are two thinking techniques that must be balanced: divergent and convergent thinking. It is of key importance that someone knows when to follow which path to come to an innovative solution. Convergent thinking is the process of finding a single best solution for the problem we are trying to solve. It is this line of thinking which we require to come up with the final solution that will solve the problem at hand. However, it will lead to nothing if we don’t properly make use of its counterpart. Divergent thinking is the process of creating many unique solutions in order to solve a problem. Here we don’t follow a specific path but rather create a web of ideas where we try to come up with a rich myriad of solutions. As you can see, only with the proper balance between the two can we achieve real success. Too much divergent thinking will lead to many different ideas without a real path to pick the right solution. Too much convergent thinking will cancel out too many ideas too early so that we might miss the best solution as we don’t give enough ideas the room.¹⁶

The second core principle is that problems need to be rephrased to questions. When you create an open-ended question, you leave all possibilities open to what the answer might be. Leaving someone with a question generally will help to generate more and richer ideas than leaving someone with a problem to solve. You should also make use of open questions, as this really requires people to think and give a clear answer. The third core principle is the same one we saw when we were discussing brainstorming: leaving out judgment in the beginning of the process as it will shut down and limit idea generation. We should start the process with an open mind rather than having our own prejudice cloud our judgment. Finally, we have to consider how we reply to other people in the idea generation process. Instead of reacting to people with the classic “no, but,” people should learn to use “yes, and.” Because we all know that anything that comes before the “but” in a sentence doesn’t really matter. It has a clear negative connotation, and we should prevent as much as we can negative feedback in the idea generation process. This can work as a psychological block and as such limit idea generation, which can hurt the search for a proper solution. Coming in with a positive approach regarding people their ideas can help building up new ideas. We do have to mention here that this is a difficult environment to achieve. You cannot act as the person that gives everyone “constructive” criticism and afterward expect that people will trust you to listen to them with an open mind.

The first step in the creative problem solving process is called “clarify.” This first step is necessary to make very clear what the goal of the exercise is. What do we want to achieve? Anyone that is familiar with the problem solving process knows that one of the greatest issues is that people have different understandings of the problem at hand. Clarifying this problem to all participants is key to achieve any solution. Within this step the gathering of data is also necessary to help further define the problem and supply the participants with more detailed information. The final part of the “clarify” step in the process is the development of questions that in the end will help to create solutions. In the next phase, called “ideate,” we explore the ideas of the participants. It can be tempting to make use of ideas and solutions that you have tried before, but it is during this phase that we should really try to make use of our creativity. With the ideas we have collected in this step, we enter the “develop” phase where we actually try to select those ideas which we can use to develop a durable solution. This selection eventually leads us to the final phase called “implement” where we pick the solution we want to make use of and develop a plan of action for its implementation.

The Four-Step Innovation Process

The four-step innovation process is an easy methodology that has been created to help with the innovation and problem solving process in a company environment. And as you might have imagined, it consists of four different steps.

The first step focuses on the observation of problems. By observing what is happening in your company, you can already learn a lot of what the issues are or where you see possible problems. Similarly, by observing your customers, you can learn what bothers the customer when they are interacting with your company. Once you have observed a problem, it poses an opportunity for change within your company. Rather than focusing on new markets, you should consider how you can make the lives of your current customers better. They are already a customer and as such are already paying attention to you. Once you have identified a problem, you can start with developing a solution.¹⁷ Developing these solutions is the core of the four-step process, as we need solutions that are both practical to use and profitable for the company. If the solution will never be profitable down the line, there is little to no reason to implement the solution to begin with. Next, we have the testing step. Based on the solution we have chosen, we start testing it out with a pilot. Based on the feedback from the pilot, we can refine the solution and repeat the process (if necessary).

Once we have been able to go through the testing phase, we can go to the final step: implementation. Here the process doesn’t simply stop as there is still a need for continuous monitoring and improvement, even when the solution has already been implemented.

Hurson’s Productive Thinking Model

This model was developed by Tim Hurson and was published in 2007 in his book Think Better. The model proposed for creative problem solving by Hurson consists of six different steps.

The first step is called “ask what is going on.” This step of the process is the most extensive one as it is further split up in four parts. First of all, you have to define the problem. You can do this via brainstorming or use different techniques to define the essence of what you are dealing with. Next, you have to define the impact of the problem you defined. How are the stakeholders affected by the problem and why is this important? Third, we want to gather information about the problem so that we can better understand what we are dealing with. Finally, we need to determine the vision. Where do we want to be in the future? The second step is “ask what is success.” Here the target future is further developed, and one good way of doing this is by implementing DRIVE (do, restrict, invest, values, and essential outcomes). This can help with the definition of our future state and what requirements we want to use. The third step is “ask what is the question.” Here we generate a list of questions that, once answered, will solve the problem we have been dealing with. Based on the previous steps, we should be able to define what is of key importance to ask. The fourth step is directly linked to this step as it is focused on generating answers on all of these questions.

Based on these answers we forge the solution so that all the ideas and answers we have generated can be used to create the solution. The final step focuses on the alignment of resources. What do we need to develop and implement the solution?

The Simplex Process

The simplex process is another problem solving approach which consists of three phases which are divided in a total of eight steps.¹⁸

The first phase is called “problem definition” which is split in three distinctive steps. The first step is “problem discovery” where you try to define precisely what the problem is that you are dealing with. Does everyone have the same perception of the problem or are there different angles that we should take into consideration? If we are starting off from a different perception of the problem statement, we are setting ourselves up for failure. All stakeholders should have the same perception of the problem we are trying to solve. The second step is the “data collection” where we will gather data to really underpin with our analysis what we are dealing with so that we can land at the third step: “problem definition.” Only when we know exactly what we are dealing with can we start with the next phase. Even though these two steps can be described in only a few words, do not underestimate their importance. If we fail here, we should repeat these steps until we are satisfied with our analysis, confirm the same view on the problem, and as such define a clear problem statement that works for everyone.

The second phase is called “solution definition.” Here there are only two steps that can help during this phase. The first one is the “ideation” or “solution discovery” step which leads to a set of possible solutions. When we have enough solution proposals, we can start with the selection via the next step called “selection and evaluation.” With the evaluation of the ideas we have, we can decide with which solutions we would like to continue to the final phase: “applying the solution.” Again, we can easily define these few steps in a couple of words, but this doesn’t mean that we can rush through these steps in the process. They require time and possibly the use of other frameworks and methodologies to help us along the way.

In the final phase we have to deal with three steps. The first one is called “planning” where we need to define all the steps that have to be taken for the solution implementation. Only with careful planning can we make sure that the solution is properly implemented and not rushed just because we think we can do so. We risk failing with a great solution if we don’t properly plan each step of the implementation. Next, we need to create “stakeholder involvement” with all the involved stakeholders so that they support the solution. Even though this step only comes quite late in the process, this doesn’t mean that you cannot look for stakeholder support sooner in the process. Finally, we end the process with the actual “implementation.”

However, it is not simply an end at the “implementation” step, as simplex should be seen as a cyclical process. There is always room for improvement, and often people make the comparison between the simplex process and the PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle of Deming.

Lateral Thinking Process

Once coined by Edward de Bono, lateral thinking refers to the counter of conventional or vertical thinking.¹⁹ While lateral thinking doesn’t refer to a framework or a specific process, it is one of those key terms one should know when interested in problem solving and innovation. The idea is simple to explain but often proves to be difficult to implement: approaching existing problems from new directions. There were four main aspects defined by de Bono: the recognition of dominant, polarizing ideas, the search for different perspectives, the relaxation of the rigid control of vertical thinking, and the use of chance. I think all of you know that there are almost always dominant ideas, assumptions, rules, beliefs, and conventions that influence the way that people think. Also simply the way you “are” influences your dominant perspective (i.e., introvert vs. extrovert, paranoid vs. trusting, right-winged vs. left-winged). You can try to move away from these dominant ideas that apply to your specific situation by acknowledging them and writing them down. One way to stimulate lateral thinking is by turning these ideas upside down. Where do we land when we reverse our dominant perspectives? Do we learn something new? You can combine this with asking the “what if” question. By asking this question, and sometimes landing at ridiculous situations, you can stimulate creative thinking and innovation. The role of chance in the land of discovery and innovation is well documented. Penicillin, x-rays, and the transmission of radio waves are famous examples of inventions that were based on chance. Randomizing the input in the thinking process can help to come up with new and refreshing ideas that can lead to solutions. By stimulating people their senses with different stimuli such as songs, movies, art, and pictures can help to come up with new ideas. Albert Einstein was a great fan of taking walks to generate new ideas and unconsciously work on problems he was facing in his research and work. Together with divergent thinking, it is one of those thinking processes which is crucial for creativity and innovation within any organization. Ways you can stimulate lateral thinking are by breaking existing patterns, generating a lot of different ideas, and solving challenging problems in new ways. You can stimulate this by creating an environment where curiosity and creativity are stimulated. This can be achieved by stimulating learning, where curiosity is a major stimulus as well, and rewarding people for coming up with new ideas to face old challenges. Another major stimulus is allowing for debate within the organization. This should be done in a controlled environment, where all people can share and defend their views. Open communication and room for debate between co-workers leave people with new ideas and insights on their own conclusions which in turn can lead to innovations.²⁰

Six Thinking Hats

The theory of “six thinking hats” was written by Dr. Edward de Bono in 1985. It introduced the idea of parallel thinking for groups to plan out thinking processes in a detailed and cohesive way so that they can think together in a more effective manner. The premise made by the theory is that the human brain is wired to think in a number of distinctive ways but this can be challenged so that people can come up with new ideas and solutions.

De Bono was able to identify six different directions in which the brain can be challenged. When following one of these directions, the brain can bring into conscious thought certain aspects of the problem we are working on. Important to consider is that, depending on the person, the hat can feel unnatural, uncomfortable, or even counterproductive so that they should only be used for a limited time. The six hats are represented by a color so that they literally and metaphorically help the conscious change. The six colors are commonly blue, white, red, black, yellow, and green. The blue hat represents the big picture, white the facts and information, red the feelings and emotions, black focuses on critical judgment, yellow on the positive, and green on new ideas.

Each step takes about two minutes where people are challenged to change their perspective. Again, this can greatly differ based on the situation, people, and what you are trying to focus on. Other examples are that the red hat is generally used for a shorter period as this can really cut through ideas. The white hat should force people to land on the same page so that this session might be extended until the group can land on the common view. In the innovation and problem solving process, this could help with generating new ideas and solutions.

Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

Over time some tools have been developed based on this model such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Learning Orientation Questionnaire, DISC assessments, and others. While on itself it doesn’t provide you a framework for innovation and change, it can help to identify certain types of thinking which can be beneficial to the innovation process. It does have to be noted that there have been quite some criticisms to the model as creativity cannot be simply assigned to a certain brain hemisphere or a type of thinking. Nevertheless, it is always a good thing if you are able to determine what types of thinking you have naturally in your team or group of people and what types of thinking need to be stimulated to create an environment that is really innovative.

6-3-5 Brainwriting

This technique was developed by Bernd Rohrbach who published it in 1968. The idea is that six different participants take part in a brainstorming session, moderated by a seventh person. Before starting the actual process, the problem statement that we are looking at needs to be clearly defined. Everyone needs to be working on the same problem. Each of the participants needs to write down three different ideas within five minutes. The sheets of papers are then swapped between the participants, and the process is repeated until each participant receives back their original piece of paper. What is the outcome? 108 ideas are generated in a session of 30 minutes. Of course, this cannot simply be done by a random group of people, and it is assumed that each participant has a deep understanding of the problem and the bigger picture as a whole. It is recommended that a preliminary session is organized so that all the participants can prepare fully for the session and have a common understanding of the problem at hand.

This technique comes with both advantages and disadvantages as the time constraint, readability of written text, and unclear thoughts can cause clear issues in the process. The main advantage is that you are able to generate 108 ideas on a very high pace. And as always, the idea here is that quantity eventually leads to quality.

Mass Collaboration

Mass collaboration relies on the idea that innovation and creativity cannot be distilled in office buildings but is something that can be generated by making use of collective knowledge.²¹ As you might imagine, the idea here is to get as much as possible people involved and ask from them what their ideas are on a certain subject. By collecting a massive amount of ideas, insights, and remarks, you might distill just what is of key importance for your next steps in the innovation process.

An example is Fiat which received over 2 million visitors on its Fiat Mio website, where 50,000 comments and over 10,000 ideas were submitted from over 160 different countries.²² It had never been tried before and was completely unprecedented in the automotive industry. However, it did show that customers and stakeholders alike wanted to be involved in the product development process. Another major advantage of this type of strategy is that you are raising awareness with the public that you are working on innovation, allowing for a stronger emotional bond between brand and business. This also allows you to receive better insight in how the market is perceiving you currently and what future direction resonates with your customers.

Of course, this isn’t an easy strategy and takes both money and time. On top of that, there is also the need for considerable coordination to prevent the company from drowning in the information flows. An important aspect here as well is that the customer must have the feeling that they have been heard and that their ideas, suggestions, and criticism are taken seriously moving forward. This also requires a corporate culture that supports collaboration and openness to change and new ideas. If you wish to hide your innovation efforts and/or you are currently working on solutions you wish to patent or keep secret from the competition, this is clearly not the way to go. Only if you are ready as an organization to involve everyone can this be a solution to your current way of working and support the development process.