SPEAKERS &
CONSULTANTS
Arthur B. VanGundy, Ph.D.
How to Create the Ideal Brainstorming Session
Over the years, many management fads have come and gone or lingered
on. We've had management by objectives (MBO), T-groups and sensitivity
training, quality circles, total quality management, and reengineering,
to name a few. One popular management tool which has lingered on is group
brainstorming. As a popular management technique, brainstorming was popularized
by advertising executive Alex Osborn beginning in the late 1930s.
Although brainstorming may not receive the attention today it once did, it still continues as a useful problem solving process. It is widely used to help companies generate new product ideas, improve existing ideas, devise radically new manufacturing processes, and to increase market share. Over the years, it undoubtedly has helped resolve many problems and increased productivity in a variety of organizations.
As productive as brainstorming can be, however, it is far from the ideal idea generation tool. Even when brainstorming rules are followed (i.e., defer judgment, build on ideas, free wheeling is welcome, generate as many ideas as possible), the desired results frequently aren't achieved. Nevertheless, given all the research conducted on it and the experiences in using brainstorming over the years, it should be possible to analyze the variables which reduce its effectiveness. That is, it should be possible to isolate variables which could help design the ideal brainstorming group.
THE BAD NEWS ABOUT BRAINSTORMING
Before looking at some of these variables, let's consider what's "wrong"with small group brainstorming. Most brainstorming veterans lament the lack ofdirection and creativity in many brainstorming groups. Dominant members and interpersonal conflicts contribute to negative reactions and a climate unconducive to new problem perspectives. Participation in such groups rarely is equal and the potentially useful contributions of some group members often go untapped. After studying research and working with thousands of brainstorming participants over the years, I have developed a few conclusions.
First, the typical unstructured brainstorming session (i.e., no facilitator or ground rules followed) produces only moderately satisfactory results-at best. Members of such sessions usually are not trained in brainstorming procedures. Without a trained facilitator or trained participants, brainstorming is viewed as a waste of time. In such brainstorming groups, a new idea is buffeted about by other group members as soon as it is mentioned. Other group members seem bent on uncovering every negative feature of each new idea. Moreover, ideas are generated and evaluated sequentially. After protracted discussion on an idea's negative features, it is pushed aside and forgotten. The next idea is subjected to the same process. The outcome usually is creation of a negative group climate and little progress toward problem resolution.
Another negative feature of brainstorming groups is a lack of equal participation among group members. A major potential benefit of group problem solving is that group members are a valuable resource. Group members collectively possess knowledge and a variety of perspectives not possible with a single person. Unfortunately, most traditional brainstorming groups don't fully exploit the potential benefits of their human resources. Dominant personalities monopolize time and prevent less aggressive members from participating. Conflicts and disagreements over an idea's merits also contribute to these detrimental effects. The outcome usually is frustrating and unproductive. If the same people who work with the same problems every day meet and discuss these problems using the same language and procedures, the outcome also is predictable. Sameness breeds more sameness. Group norms which encourage maintaining the status quo may help influential members satisfy their control or security needs. Maintaining the status quo, however, usually contributes little toward new and innovative problem solving. Seeing the world with old eyes only helps produce old ideas. The same holds true when managers give lip service to creativity. Just saying that creativity is supported is not enough. New perspectives must be visibly encouraged if employees are to suggest new ideas.
THE "FOUR P'S" OF BRAINSTORMING
To avoid sameness, different problem perspectives are needed. Different perspectives force us to view problems with new eyes. These perspectives, in turn, help open up our thinking to new ideas. You won't get these perspectives, however, if your approach is business as usual. What business needs is a new philosophy:"Business as Unusual."Business as unusual is possible if you understand the basic ingredients of successful group idea generation. One way to do this is to examine the "Four Ps"of an ideal brainstorming session: (1) People, (2) Process, (3) Pressure, and (4) Product.
People
People are the most important ingredient. All things being equal, a group of "naturally"creative people will outperform a group of less creative people (In this case, creative people are those who can view problems from different perspectives and have the ability to rapidly generate many, different kinds of novel ideas). The most effective brainstorming groups consist of four to six people (five is ideal). If possible, multiple groups should generate ideas in the same room. The presence of others can facilitate more spontaneous idea generation. Participants from different organizational areas also might be used to vary group composition. Diversity of group membership provides different perspectives which, in turn, can help trigger unique ideas. People who are knowledgeable and highly motivated by a problem also should be considered. However, too many knowledgeable people in a group could be counterproductive. Again, sameness can breed even more sameness.
Process
A second ingredient is the actual process used to generate ideas. A good facilitator will structure problem solving to take advantage of group resources and coordinate interactions among group members. This often requires establishing certain ground rules at the outset. The most important of these is to generate as many ideas as possible. This requires separating idea generation from evaluation. The idea generation process also should include a variety of idea generation methods. More methods increase the odds of producing different perspectives. The order in which techniques is used also is important. Groups should begin with a "brain purge" in which they generate ideas in writing and share them with each other (a so-called "brainwriting technique"). Then, they might move to methods which rely on different types of stimuli. The most effective techniques help create stimuli which can be used for free association and then idea generation.
Examples of such methods include Assumption Reversals, the Product Improvement CheckList (PICL), and Semantic Intuition (For a more complete description of these and other methods, see VanGundy, A.B. Brain Boosters for Business Advantage, San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company, 1995.) What follows is a step-by-step description of how to use these techniques, plus an example of each.
Assumption Reversals
This technique was developed by consultant Steve Grossman (1984) who noticed that the assumptions we make about problems often affect our ability to solve them. Reversing these assumptions sometimes can produce unique perspectives which, in turn, can trigger creative ideas. The steps are:
1. List all problem assumptions, no matter how obvious are trivial they may seem.
2. Reverse (i.e., change) each assumption in any way possible. There is no "correct"way to do this. Just alter the basic assumption.
3.Use each assumption reversal as a stimulus for suggesting new ideas.
Here's an example based on the "assumption" that you own a restaurant. You want to increase the number of customers and decide to give assumption reversals a try. You begin by listing obvious
- assumptions about your problem:
- restaurants serve food to people
- people eat the food
- restaurants are located outside the home
- people pay for the food
- people sit on chairs at tables to eat the food
- the food is prepared by the restaurants
Next, you might reverse these assumptions as follows:
- restaurants don't serve food to people
- people don't eat the food
- restaurants are located in the home
- people receive free food
- people sit on the floor to eat
- customers prepare the food in restaurants
Finally, you use one or more of these reversed assumptions to trigger ideas. For instance, you might think of some of the following ideas:
- Develop a special room for customers' pets to eat
- Start a catering service with food which still needs some preparation (e.g., the catering service delivers ingredients for sandwiches which you assemble in your house)
- Start a "Frequent Eaters"program in which customers receive a free meal after patronizing the restaurant five times
- Give customers the option of cooking their own food
Semantic Intuition
This technique originated at the Battelle Institute in Frankfurt, Germany (Warfield, Geschka, & Hamilton, 1975). Battelle engineers developed a number of unique idea generation methods to help resolve various engineering problems. To create semantic intuition, they reversed the process normally used to name new products. Thus, instead of inventing a product and then naming it, they decided to name a product and then invent it. The result, in this case, is new ideas. The steps are relatively simple:
1. Generate two sets of words related to the problem.
2. Randomly combine one word from one set with another word from the other set.
3. Use the combination to help stimulate ideas.
An illustration will help clarify this technique. Assume you manufacture umbrellas and want some new product ideas. First, generate two sets of words related to the problem:
| Things an umbrella does | Parts of an umbrella |
|---|---|
|
Opens Closes Collapses Folds Protects |
Handle Button Stem Ribs Case |
Next, randomly select word pairs (one word from each list) and use them to suggest ideas:
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Improvement CheckList (PICL) PICL is a two-sided poster VanGundy developed which contains 576 stimulus words organized into four categories:
- Try to... (e.g., sketch it, wipe it, tighten it)
- Make it... (e.g., soft, transparent, magnetic)
- Think of... (e.g., escalators, oatmeal, time bombs)
- Take Away or Add... (e.g., layers, sex appeal, friction)
To generate ideas, randomly select one word from a category and see if it sparks any new ideas. There also, are a few variations. PICL can be used in groups where members take turns selecting words. It can be used by combining one PICL word with a word related to your problem and then using this combination to trigger ideas. Or, you can combine two or more words from within or from between different categories. You don't need the PICL poster to do this, randomly selecting words from a dictionary can substitute.
To illustrate PICL, suppose you want to improve a common household flashlight. To generate ideas, you select different PICL stimulus words and use them to prompt ideas. Here are some examples for the flashlight problem:
1. Make a flashlight buoyant so it floats in water if dropped accidentally (from "Try to inflate it").
2. Make the flashlight handle out of rubber so it can be twisted into different shapes as a novelty or secured to some object to target the light beam (from "Try to twist it") (Note: this idea was developed before the Black & Decker "Snake Light"reached the market!)
3. Make the flashlight transparent, like a transparent telephone (from "Make it transparent").
4. Include a timer so the flashlight turns off automatically after a certain amount of time (from "Think of time bombs").
5. Design the flashlight so that it turns on whenever pressure is applied to the handle (from "Take away or add anticipation").
In addition to these techniques, another way to influence group process is to vary group composition. You can do this by rotating group composition after each technique (or every other technique). This can be especially helpful if one or more groups bogs down during idea generation. Varying group composition this way can ensure a diversity of perspectives and help spur idea production for whatever technique is used.
After a group has generated many ideas, it should consider how to evaluate and select the best ones. In addition to evaluating ideas at the end of an idea generation session, a group may want to to screen ideas periodically throughout a session. This provides a break from divergent idea generation and provides group members with a sense of closure. For instance, groups might read aloud their ideas after each technique. (If little time is available, they could select the best ones to report.) Other group members then could try to build on these ideas for consideration later.
Pressure
Pressure refers to environmental influences on a group. These forces can be both negative and positive. A negative pressure might be a deadline a group has to meet. If the deadline is not viewed as realistic, group members may feel distressed. A positive pressure might be the psychological and material support given to a group to help deal with their problems.
Pressures also can be categorized as either internal or external to a group. External pressures include unrealistic time demands to achieve a solution. They also include other unrealistic criteria, such as those which pertain to costs and technical feasibility. (In contrast, realistic time deadlines, may even be positive in that they often serve to motivate group members.)
Research suggests that the most effective group environment for creativity is one in which there is a spirit of fun, humor, spontaneity, and playfulness. Creating such a climate is not easy. The best way is to use group members who are naturally playful and skilled at free association. Sometimes it is important to include outside members or facilitators who can bring a new perspective. If neither of these options is possible, facilitators can try to model playful behavior. Or, they can introduce warmup exercises which require group members to break out of their more sedate behaviors. There also are certain idea generation methods which promote playfulness. For instance, one method involves writing down on slips of paper two sets of words. One set is related to the problem and the other, unrelated. Both sets are inserted into balloons, blown up, and tossed around by group members. The balloons are burst, group members select two slips, and then they use the two-word combinations to trigger ideas.
A fun climate also can be created by having groups engage in playful activities at the beginning of a session and between techniques. A simple exercise involves group members tossing around foam balls, or simply walking around outside and using what is seen as stimuli to trigger ideas.
Product
The last ingredient for effective idea sessions is the creative product-the ideas produced. Most people assume that the initial ideas generated must be highly polished. Unfortunately, this puts a lot of pressure on participants and usually results in dull ideas. A more productive approach is to view ideas as the raw material of solutions. With this perspective, each idea produced doesn't have to be a winner. Instead, initial ideas should be viewed as potential triggers for more workable ideas.
The morale is, if you want to get good ideas, you need lots of ideas-any one of which might trigger a home run. Remember, Babe Ruth didn't hit a home run every time he went to bat. To succeed, he had to become the ‡"‡strike-out king."Do that with your new ideas, and you‡'‡ll hit lots of home runs too.
TEST OF THE IDEAL BRAINSTORMING GROUP
The "Four P's" were put to test in a research study conducted by VanGundy in 1993. The study was designed to compare different idea generation methods and to see how these methods might stand up against an ideal idea generation format. The first part of the study involved a comparison of basic brainstorming and brainwriting procedures. The second part looked at how to "tweak"idea generation groups to optimize their idea productivity. This latter procedure has been referred to as the "Eureka!"condition. Eureka! is an idea generation process used by Doug Hall, president of the consulting firm, Richard Saunders International. The Eureka! method is based largely on techniques described in VanGundy's Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, 2nd Ed., plus many of the "Four P"concepts presented in this chapter.
To begin the experiment, I randomly assigned six, four-person groups to each condition in the first part and four, four-person groups to the Eureka! condition. (The Eureka! condition only used four groups because that is the number used by Richard Saunders in their business.) Each group was given 45 minutes to generate as many ideas as possible for new snack food products for the Frito-Lay corporation (a participant in the study).
The results were rather interesting. I predicted that groups which generated ideas without deferring judgment, would produce the fewest ideas. As predicted, these groups generated significantly fewer ideas than brainstorming groups which deferred judgment (an average of 30 ideas per group versus 52). Another prediction was that brainwriting groups in which members did not share their ideas with each other (nominal brainwriting) would generate fewer ideas than brainwriting groups in which ideas were shared by passing them around to other group members (interacting brainwriting). Again, the results were as predicted. Interacting brainwriting groups generated significantly more ideas per group than nominal brainwriting groups. The margin of difference was quite impressive: 120 ideas on average for the interacting brainwriting groups versus 45 ideas for nominal brainwriting groups. The interacting brainwriting groups also produced four times as many ideas as the brainstorming groups which did not defer judgment (120 vs. 30).
Although it is tempting to conclude that interacting brainwriting should replace brainstorming, such an action would be premature. Brainwriting group members are not supposed to talk during idea generation. As a result, the social satisfactions available with brainstorming are not available with brainwriting. I usually recommend that a combination of both procedures be used during group idea generation.
In spite of these relatively impressive results, the most remarkable outcomes were obtained with the Eureka! method of optimizing group idea generation. Each four-person group in this condition consisted of two college students (similar in age to the other conditions) plus two professional idea generation facilitators, proficient in using idea generation techniques and capable of generating many, different ideas on different topics. (None of the facilitators had prior experience in generating snack food ideas.) The four Eureka! groups began their 45 minute session with interacting brainwriting. They then progressed through a variety of techniques using unrelated problem stimuli. For instance, they free associated on objects unrelated to the problem and used these associations as idea triggers. Thus, a light bulb might suggest the idea of potato chips with luminescent flecks on them. Upbeat music was played and balloons were bounced around throughout the session to create a lively atmosphere. The groups rotated their membership after each technique and were encouraged to defer all judgment.
The results from this part of the study were dramatic. The four Eureka! groups generated an average of 310 ideas each (all within the 45 minute time period). This is almost ten times as many ideas as generated by brainstorming groups not using deferred judgment. (For those of you with some statistical background, this difference was statistically significant-i.e., there was only a five percent probability that the difference would be due to chance.)
The success of the Eureka! approach suggests that concrete actions can be taken to enhance idea generation productivity. One essential factor is to train at least some group members in idea generation methods. Ideally, several members also would have the ability to generate ideas fluently. Another ingredient is to structure the idea generation process using a variety of formal techniques. Unlike the first part of the study, groups in the Eureka! condition used multiple techniques, including both brainwriting and brainstorming methods. A third essential ingredient is the creation of a"fun"atmosphere by encouraging playfulness and using upbeat music and spontaneous exercises to provide a more stimulating environment. Although the effects of a time limit were not assessed in this study, realistic time constraints also may enhance idea productivity. Finally, all the Eureka! groups were encouraged to defer judgment during idea generation and to build on each other's ideas (turning ideas into solutions). This is a highly recommended procedure.
We don't have to accept frustrating, unproductive brainstorming groups. A few simple alterations can overcome many common brainstorming limitations. The important thing is to set guidelines and follow them. You may not get a big Eureka!, but you will get a lot more ideas to consider.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Grossman, S. (1984). Releasing problem solving energies. Training and Development Journal, 38, 94-98. Osborn, A. (1963). Applied Imagination, 3rd Ed. New York: Scribner.
VanGundy, A. B. (1981, 2nd Ed. 1988). Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
VanGundy, A. B. (1984). Managing Group Creativity: A Modular Approach to Problem Solving. New York: AMACOM (Div. of the American Management Association).
VanGundy, A. B. (1985). The Product Improvement CheckList (PICL). Norman, OK: VanGundy & Associates, Inc.
VanGundy, A. B. (1993). Productivity loss in brainstorming and brainwriting groups. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Unpublished paper.
VanGundy, A. B. (1995). Brain Boosters for Business Advantage: Ticklers, Grab Bags, Blue Skies, and Other Bionic Ideas. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
Warfield, J. N., Geschka, H., and Hamilton, R. (1975). Methods of Idea Management. Columbus, OH: The Academy for Contemporary Problems.