Brainstorming is an approach for a worthwhile idea generation. Typically it is used as a tool in a workshop activity that encourage a group’s parallel and full-spectrum thinking participation to arrive on something that the group needs to understand better and make a decision about. Note that leaders used discussion to give the group the idea that they have a voice and an input into decisions.
2 Phases – Paul Burek
1. Collection of information in the form of sentences / List generation (aiming for quantity of ideas to be considered for new products and/or the like) which is the brain dump of ideas. Note that there is lots of research out there about which way or ways to generate greater quantity or more creative ideas. Moreover, it is guided by Alex Osborn’s rules characteristically as follows:
a. Criticism is ruled out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be withheld until later.
b. “Free-wheeling” is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is easier to tame down than to think up.
c. Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the more the likelihood of winners.
d. Combination and improvement are sought. In addition to contributing ideas of their own, participants should suggest how ideas of others can be turned into better ideas; or how two or more ideas can be joined into still another idea. (p. 84)
2. Clarification (aiming for quality) where ideas are categorized (grouped by like items to create a process map), analyzed, reviewed, discussed, expanded, and ultimately kept or discarded based on their value of achieving the purpose of the activity. It is guided by the desire to achieve consensus (alignment, acceptance, and buy-in on the decisions made).
The Process
1. Elicit the ideas for which the Team should draw out, in sequence, objective data, reflective responses and reactions, interpretations, and/or decisions. This includes:
a. Getting the Team to write their ideas (contribution to the idea development: creativity, alternatives, proposals, what is interesting, provocations and changes) privately on the subject that the member, pairs, or threes would find interesting to suggest/recommend toward something that might actually work and then bring them in on/before the meeting.
b. Introducing the open-ended question.
c. Inviting each member to present their own logical responses, such as intuition, feelings, and/or emotions regarding his answer why it will / will not work and offer benefits. Note that a member may pass if he likes.
d. Writing the answers on flipchart.
e. Clustering ideas using the open-ended question as a guide and putting ideas together “where they most helpfully illuminate a larger idea/solution.” This uses the principle of scientific inquiry rather than scientific analysis, thus creating ideas that are more insightful than any one member has come up with.
f. Naming the new ideas created by the clustering.
g. “Eliminating overlap” so that the widest diversity of ideas is captured.
h. Allowing each member respond (agree or disagree) to what the speaker had said, esp. challenging statements. This includes minimizing interruptions. Then letting each member explain or point out why the information does not fit the facts, the available experience, the system in use, and/or the policy that is being followed in commando fashion. Acknowledge their good part of responses. Next, allowing the speaker respond to what each member had said for open and spirited conversation. Lastly, writing opposing solutions in outside parts of overlapping circles.
i. Every few minutes, restating where they are in the flow toward agreement – agreement and not agreement. Use visuals as well as voice.
j. If sequential questioning, repeating the Step 3b with the remaining open-ended question.
2. The whole thing is brought to a resolve through a discussion which may include mapping road to agreement, prioritizing, generating alternative ideas, making decision, developing individual or group action plan, re-scoping the sequence, scheduling, writing statements, and/or etc.
This follows a natural pattern of human thinking, involving both intuitive and rational thought, and is much bigger than an individual can create alone.
Notes
1. Face-to-face brainstorming groups produce fewer ideas than nominal groups (i.e., individuals who generate ideas without interacting with other ideators). Note that increasing group size inhibits the performance of face-to-face brainstorming-Process blocking and evaluation. Apprehension appears to provide the fullest explanation of this phenomenon.
2. More recent research indicates that electronic brainstorming groups generate more ideas than do nominal groups. Note that increasing group size facilitates the performance of electronic brainstorming.
Problems
1. Participants continue not to engage in discussion which is vital to the work of the group.-Ask if they agree or disagree and what they would suggest to make the group work more effectively.
2. Small group discussion worked, while large group discussion has not.-a.) Explore and break whatever barriers there are that prevent you from using breakout groups every time you meet. b.) Explore what prevents open discussion in the whole group. Maybe it’s just size and amount of air time per person, but there might be other issues.
3. They want to ignore the hard work of narrowing the provocative ideas to feasible ones, and the even harder work of picking the ones to be acted on.
4. Fails to do the list analysis.
5. Brainstorming sessions get off to a shaky start because the participants think the approach is not a good idea.
6. Brainstorming sessions get bad ideas, or produce not a really good idea.
7. Brainstorming sessions is used to distribute blame in the event of failure.
8. Brainstorming sessions that leave groups to their own devices produce bad ideas.
9. Creativity and its mulish muse can’t be scheduled between a certain time.
10. Someone hijacks the theme at hand, finds a way to syndicate things, uses creative energy trying to tell others their ideas are bad, tries to prove everyone else wrong, works to impress the superiors who are present, and/or just plain blathers for his own enjoyment. Another, someone crosses his fingers that the session would deteriorate into what some people call “blamestorming” or “coblabberation,” where you get nowhere or settle on something mediocre to be done with it.
11. Sometimes group sessions can result in one member’s bad idea tainting and limiting the range of others’ ideas – David Perkins, a professor.
12. End up with more pedestrian solution that you would have had had you not held the session.
13. Participants don’t truly give all their ideas that come into their heads – especially when they know there will be an evaluation of ideas in the next step. They censor all their ideas and only call out what they have decided will receive a favorable judgment.
Root Cause of the Problems
The reasons for our failure to brainstorm adequately for creative problem solving are simple:
1. Resisting change
2. Either people do not want to see their problems
3. They have an utopian view of the solution (‘a panacee’) – which means also resisting change.
So, in the end, we continue to do more of the same: “i complain a lot”. And brainstorming becomes just another to complain about!
Solution
Set up is key. Setting out some clear expectations for behavior and operationalizing the facilitator’s role congruent with the agreements you may have established allows a group of people the intellectual relief that enables their participation. I would offer here that “set up” includes letting people know what will likely happen AFTER brainstorming,
