Посты с тэгом: systematic creativity

Strategy+Business: Thinking Inside the Box

Books about business innovation seem to arrive as quickly as ideas on a whiteboard in a brainstorming session. But Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results  (Simon & Schuster, 2013), by Drew Boyd and Jacob Goldenberg, jumps out for its counterintuitive take on creativity.

In the book, Boyd, assistant professor of marketing and innovation at the University of Cincinnati and former director of Johnson & Johnson’s Marketing Mastery program, and Goldenberg, professor of marketing at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s School of Business Administration, assert that thinking inside the box enhances idea generation. Thus, they argue, innovation initiatives should be limited to resources close at hand, and function should follow form—that is, we should start with a solution and then consider the problem it addresses, rather than vice versa. When I asked the authors why thinking inside the box is a more productive, reliable way to pursue business innovation than thinking outside the box, here’s what they said:

“Thinking outside the box is a complete myth. It is based on flawed research from the 1970s. Subsequent research shows that simply telling people to think outside the box does not improve their creative output. It sends people on cognitive wild goose chases.
“Thinking inside the box constrains the brain’s options and regulates how it produces ideas. By constraining and channeling our brains, we make them work both harder and smarter to find creative solutions. Contrary to what most people believe, the best ideas are usually nearby. Thinking inside the box helps you find these novel and surprising innovations.
“Innovation usually results from a set of five simple patterns:
• Subtraction: removing a component that was previously thought essential to a product or service, such as the elimination of the record function in the Sony Walkman
• Task unification: combining tasks within a product or service, such as warmth and deodorizing in Odor-Eaters socks
• Multiplication: copying an existing component, such as “picture-in-picture” TVs
• Division: separating a component from the product, such as the remote control
• Attribute dependency: making two previously independent attributes dependent in a meaningful way, such as a baby bottle that changes color when the liquid inside reaches the proper temperature
“For thousands of years, people embedded these patterns in their inventions, usually without realizing it. In our method, Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT), the patterns have been structured into techniques that enable creativity on demand. SIT takes a product or service and breaks it down into components. Then, you use one or more of the techniques to manipulate the components and generate new-to-the-world ideas. This allows you to tap into the very rich world inside the box.”

This article by Theodore Kinni first appeared in Strategy+Business, July 7, 2013.

The Marker on the Board (Jacob’s Story)

Published date: July 4, 2013 в 2:17 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

The moment I walked into the classroom, I could see that something was different. The students were  excited, I could feel the anticipation in the air—and something about their faces made me think that they were planning something mischievous.
I understood their amusement as soon as I tried to erase the whiteboard, which was still covered with diagrams and equations from my previous class. As hard as I tried, I couldn’t erase the remnants of the previous lecture. Someone had apparently switched my markers last time, and I had unknowingly used an indelible marker.
Students were now leaning back in their chairs, openly smiling. As plainly as if spoken out loud, they were waiting for me to prove that my systematic creativity method really worked. If I had to describe the feeling in the classroom, I would have guessed it to be: “The professor isgoing down in flames!”
I decided to accept the challenge. “All right, class,” I said with determination. “The worst thing that can happen is that there is no creative solution to this situation. But if there is one, we should be able to find it with what we have learned in the previous classes.”
First, I asked them to define a good traditional but noncreative solution to the problem.
“Getting some liquid from the janitor to dissolve the indelible marker?” suggested one student. “Right,” I replied, beginning to feel more confident. Perhaps my students were with me now. “Remember the Closed World concept: let’s confine our searches for a creative solution to resources that are inside this classroom. If we find something, it should be more original, even if not necessarily more useful or efficient than going to the janitor.”
“Why would we go for a solution that was less useful than one we could easily find outside this room?” one student wanted to know.
“In this class, we are looking only for creative solutions,” I said. “Let’s leave the noncreative ones outside the Closed World—in this case, literally outside this room.”
Students started rummaging through their bags, pulling out nail polish remover, perfume bottles, and other alcohol-based liquid (including a can of cold beer). None of them would work as is, but everyone was amazed at what their classmates had brought into the room.
“You see?” I smiled. “There are more resources than you imagine if you search inside, rather than expanding your search outside. For some reason, a search inside yields ideas that we all tend to overlook.” (But what was he thinking bringing beer to my class?)
With growing confidence, I continued, “Now let’s see what else we can find if we look even closer to the Closed World of the problem. Let’s confine the space we are searching even more and include only the things that are at the very core of the problem: the whiteboardwriting world.”
Silence, of the blessed kind. The students were actually thinking.
“We could use an erasable marker to erase the indelible one,” whispered one student. “The erasable marker should have enough solvent to dissolve the markings on the board.” I tested the suggestion by using a regular marker to write over one of the lines on the board. When I then used an eraser to erase the line, it worked. Almost no sign of the indelible mark underneath remained. After the initial shock, the class became wildly enthusiastic. I tried to ignore the noise and began erasing the board.
But writing over every stroke of every letter and number from the last class was a long, slow process. I was beginning to wonder if I should attempt to complete the task, or assume that I had made my point and begin teaching. Just then, another student shouted out, “Hey! What if we can erase the board using the indelible marker itself?”
When I tried this, I found that the indelible marker—the very source of the problem—contained enough solvent to dissolve the marks on the whiteboard. After some trials, the students saw that the indelible marker was just as effective as a regular whiteboard marker. If they wrote over the marks on the board and erased them immediately before the liquid solvent evaporated, the old marks were erased by the solvent in the new marks drawn on top of them. The source of the problem became the solution.
Note that this is not a better solution than the previous one—it’s just as slow—but it is more original, more surprising, and more inside the Closed World. I turned back to the class, gratified but surprised that the exercise had gone so well. Keep in mind that this incident took place years ago, before we’d accumulated empirical evidence (evidence from observation or experimentation) about the richness of the Closed World.
“Okay, people, point made! The Closed World is not endless, but the resources inside it exceed our initial perceptions, and we should make it a habit to look inside, especially if our only options are contained
there.”
I triumphantly made my victory speech. “Sometimes traditional solutions do not fit, sometimes they do not exist. What if the janitor’s office were closed? Looking inside, to resources we usually overlook, might be challenging cognitively but effective when a creative solution is required.” With a sigh of relief, I added, “Now, could someone please go to the janitor and bring me something to clean the board?”
 
From Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results (Simon & Schuster)

Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results

Published date: June 4, 2013 в 5:55 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

Next week, Jacob Goldenberg and I will launch our new book, Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results. It is the first book to detail the innovation method called Systematic Inventive Thinking, the subject of this blog for the last six years.

In the twenty years since its inception, SIT has been expanded to cover a wide range of innovation-related
phenomena in a variety of contexts. The five techniques within SIT are based on patterns
used by mankind for thousands of years to create new solutions. These
patterns are embedded into the products and services you see around you
almost like the DNA of a product or service. SIT allows you to extract
those patterns and reapply to other things.

The five techniques are:

  • Subtraction:
    Innovative products and services tend to have had something removed,
    usually something that was previously thought to be essential to use the
    product or service. The original Sony Walkman had the recording
    function subtracted, defying all logic to the idea of a “recorder.” Even
    Sony’s chairman and inventor of the Walkman, Akio Morita, was surprised
    by the market’s enthusiastic response.
  • Task Unification:
    Innovative products and services tend to have had certain tasks brought
    together and “unified” within one component of the product or service,
    usually a component that was previously thought to be unrelated to that
    task. Crowdsourcing, for example, leverages large groups of people by
    tasking them to generate insights or tasks, sometimes without even
    realizing it.
  • Multiplication: Innovative products and services
    tend to have had a component copied but changed in some way, usually in a
    way that initially seemed unnecessary or redundant. Many innovations in
    cameras, including the basis of photography itself, are based on
    copying a component and then changing it. For example, a double flash
    when snapping a photo reduces the likelihood of “red-eye.”
  • Division:
    Innovative products and services tend to have had a component divided
    out of the product or service and placed back somewhere into the usage
    situation, usually in a way that initially seemed unproductive or
    unworkable. Dividing out the function of a refrigerator drawer and
    placing it somewhere else in the kitchen creates a cooling drawer.
  • Attribute
    Dependency: Innovative products and services tend to have had two
    attributes correlated with each other, usually attributes that
    previously seemed unrelated. As one attribute changes, another changes.
    Transition sunglasses, for example, get darker as the outside light gets
    brighter.

Using these patterns correctly relies on two key
ideas. The first idea is that you have to re-train the way your brain
thinks about problem solving. Most people think the way to innovate is
by starting with a well-defined problem and then thinking of solutions.
In our method, it is just the opposite. We start with an abstract,
conceptual solution and then work back to the problem that it solves.
Therefore, we have to learn how to reverse the usual way our brain works
in innovation.

This process is called “Function Follows Form,”
first reported in 1992 by psychologist Ronald Finke. He recognized that
there are two directions of thinking: from the problem-to-the-solution
and from the solution-to-the-problem. Finke discovered people are
actually better at searching for benefits for given configurations
(starting with a solution) than at finding the best configuration for a
given benefit (starting with the problem).

The second key idea to
using patterns is the starting point. It is an idea called The Closed
World. We tend to be most surprised with those ideas “right under
noses,” that are connected in some way to our current reality or view of
the world. This is counterintuitive because most people think you need
to get way outside their current domain to be innovative. Methods like
brainstorming and SCAMPER use random stimulus to push you “outside the
box” for new and inventive ideas. Just the opposite is true. The most
surprising ideas (“Gee, I never would have thought of that!”) are right
nearby.

We have a nickname for The Closed World…we call it Inside the Box.

Academic Focus: Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) for S.I.T.

Published date: April 15, 2013 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

The University of Cincinnati announced it will launch its first Massive Open Online Course (called MOOC) next fall. It will be the first MOOC to teach Systematic Inventive Thinking (S.I.T.), an innovation method based on templates.

MOOCs are unique because they allow literally thousands of students to learn together via distance learning technology. MOOCs provide students from around the world the opportunity to learn from industry experts at little or no cost. They are a great way for individuals to learn new concepts and test their readiness for continued professional development.

S.I.T. is a structured process of innovating new products, services, and processes used by many corporations globally.  A growing number of universities are teaching the method including Columbia University, University of Chicago, Wharton, MIT, and several outside the U.S..

Open online courses have risen in popularity over the past year, but they have generally not been tied to a university credential. UC is addressing this issue by launching an innovative new program this fall known as MOOC2Degree. In MOOC2Degree, the UC MOOCs will feature the same academic content and taught by the same instructors as our traditional classes. More importantly, students who successfully complete the MOOC2Degree course and enroll in an applicable UC degree program may earn credit.

As noted by Dr. Larry Johnson, UC’s interim provost notes, “We’re confident that once MOOC students begin interacting with our expert faculty and their fellow classmates, they’ll begin forming a lasting educational relationship with the university.”
Since Academic Partnerships and UC’s announcement of the MOOC2Degree program in late January, the revolutionary program has already been featured in articles from The New York Times, Inside Higher Ed and The Cincinnati Enquirer.

The first UC class to be offered in the MOOC2Degree initiative will be Innovation and Design Thinking, a cross-disciplinary course collaboratively offered by the Carl H. Lindner College of Business and the College of Engineering & Applied Sciences. The MOOC will be taught by assistant professors Drew Boyd and Jim Tappel.  Students who complete the MOOC and enroll in a UC Business or Engineering degree program can apply the credits.

For more information on the UC MOOC2Degree program, please contact BJ Zirger (bj.zirger@uc.edu) (513-556-7148) at the Lindner College of Business or Eugene Rutz (Eugne.Rutz@uc.edu) (513-556-1096) at the College of Engineering and Applied Science.

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.