Creativity is a process

Creativity is a process

We often struggle with innovation and creativity in organisations; assuming you need a sprinkling of lone creative geniuses – a few “Steve Jobs-type” people – to make new breakthroughs.

This is not true. What you need is a deliberate creative process, as described in the embedded PBS video. I list some of the key points from the video later in this post.

 

  • You need “negative capability” – suspension of judgment until you have chased down a number of ideas
  • The creative impulse is one piece of the process, but at some point you need to sit down and do the work
  • Creativity is a spiral of excitement and despair and you have to keep working at it
  • “Inspiration is for amateurs, the rest of us just get to work”
  • Creativity proceeds through cognitive stages. There is a preparation stage, an incubation stage (where you let the task go for a while), an insight stage, and a verification stage.
  • Collaboration makes a creative process better. There is no “lone creator” – the members of the group makes up a single meta-creator. The conversations create more than the sum of the individual viewpoints
  • You have to believe that criticism of your ideas is not criticism of you, and you have to be willing to let go of your ideas as well
  • You have to work with people who are very different to you
  • When you work in a group, what you create is much grander
  • Additional perspectives make the result better, 
  • Nothing is original. There is no creation without being influenced. 
  • We create new ideas by remixing. You innovate by transforming on top of platforms that already exist. 
  • Anyone can be creative in the domain that best works for them. It could be a work of art, it could be making dinner. It could even be making process or product improvements in your own organisation.
In Knoco, the creative process we offer is the Deep Dive process, based on the principles of business-driven action learning. This is a structured collaborative process, put together to address a big audacious challenge by working through the cognitive stages mentioned above, using a disparate team with a mix of personality types. Contact us for more detail.

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

Problem-focused innovation process at De Beers

Innovation should be focused on problems first, ideas second, and should follow a structured process. Here’s an example from the mining sector

Image of the De Beers AUV from Sonardyne.com

A few years ago, my then colleague Ian Corbett published a really interesting case study entitled “Learning for the long view – A case study in enabling learning to deliver breakthrough innovation in the offshore diamond mining industry” (part of an Ark Group report on Organisational learning).

The context to the study was the need for the mining giant De Beers to radically improve their ability to map the seabed offshore Namibia, in order to understand where the offshore diamond-bearing deposits might lie. Use of a small submarine had already told them that the seabed morphology was highly variable, even over short distances, and that an order of magnitude improvement in mapping resolution was needed if they were to be able to predict where diamonds could be found.

They needed to, and eventually managed to, develop a highly innovative technology involving an Autonomous Underwater Vessel (pictured). This was done by setting up a diverse and motivated Innovation Team that was willing to challenge the barriers of what was currently known, using a structured Innovation process

The steps in the innovation process are listed by Ian, and illustrated with quotes from the innovation team themselves, as follows:

  • Setting the challenge – “The team felt the responsibility the company had given them to basically design their own future around a leading technology. They felt the gravity of it and responded in kind.”
  • Enablement through leadership support – “Any organisation can do anything they put their minds to, the crucial thing is putting your mind to it in the first place. And the crucial thing about that is uniting as a group and saying ‘This is the thing we are going to do’. It’s the attitude and unity of vision that you create to do it.”
  • Team leadership and the creative process to deliver deliberate innovation. “Once a team crosses the threshold and commits to action, their ability to manage the creative process then determines future success or failure”.
  • Attention to team dynamics.“We compared our (personal) profiles – it immediately became apparent why we were experiencing conflict. Once we were conscious of our different styles we could manage our relationship more effectively.”
  • Designing and enabling creative networks for accelerated learning. Here De Beers built a deliberate innovation network of three types of actors – Users; Product developers; and Knowledge sources.
  • They also applied a structured Innovation process of divergence and convergence, similar to the one shown in this video
  • “Managing people down” at the end of the project was also key – “Few people can probably fully appreciate what this team has done –it has been brilliant, brilliant. And it’s all [been done] through the learning experience.” 

Ian offers these lessons for building and managing a breakthrough innovation project.

  1. Make sure you really understand the challenge you are trying to solve;
  2. Build dynamic learning networks with the best people you can find who ‘fit’ the team culture; 
  3. Select the right team members and ensure there is a well-balanced mix of cognitive diversity;
  4. Make sure you have a committed sponsor with a facilitative, supporting outlook that understands the importance of helping to ensure progress;
  5. Make sure the team understands what is at stake and ensure they see the importance of the task they are being asked to do;
  6. Help the team to understand how work style influences the ability to deliver different phases of the creative process; 
  7. Create a high-trust environment that provides the team with freedom to determine how to do it and the autonomy to make it happen; and
  8. Most importantly, trust the team – and share in the joy of their success.

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

Knowledge Management and Innovation

What’s the link between Innovation and KM? Are they opposites? Are they the same? Are they two sides of the same coin? This post from the archives explores the relationship between the two.

 Here are some of our thoughts. As ever we would like to hear from you on whether you agree or disagree with our assertions on this topic.
  • Knowledge management takes over from Innovation at the point where an idea becomes knowledge, which is when you first test the idea, and first gain experience from which you can learn. 
  • New ideas can often spring from old knowledge combined in new ways – the Remix approach to innovation. 
  • Proactive innovation beats reactive innovation. Systems where employees volunteer innovative ideas are nowhere near as powerful as systems where planned conversations are held around work process. The Technical Limit process, for example, where work crews are led through a structured discussion seeking new approaches, often leads to step changes in performance. 
  • Networked innovation is a favoured model. Bringing together a series of fresh minds can lead to breakthrough solutions. The more diverse the network, the more radical the innovations can be, and we have experienced this ourselves at innovation-focused peer assists. Networked innovation forms the core of our Business Driven Action Learning approach. 
  • Both Innovation and KM need to sit within a single strategic umbrella, focused on organisational competence. This could be an Organizational Learning Strategy, for example. This strategy would map out the competence of the organisation, both current and desired, and map out its knowledge, both existing and missing. Missing knowledge, if it exists, can be learned or bought in, or created/innovated.
  • Innovation and KM are both driven by challenge. If people are not challenged, they will do what they have always done, using the knowledge they already have. The best way to get someone to actively seek for knowledge (either through innovation or re-use) is to give them a challenge they don’t know how to solve. We saw this when studying innovation in the Innovene (Chemicals) process, where innovation was driven by the sales force making promises that were beyond current technology. Ford drove incremental innovation by continually decreasing operating budgets. BP drives innovation by promising a continuous improvement in operating efficiency.  
  • Innovation and KM only come into conflict when used inappropriately. Reuse of old knowledge is inappropriate if it can’t do the job. This is known in English as “flogging a dead horse”. Innovation is a waste of time if sufficient knowledge already exists. This is known as “reinventing the wheel”. See the discussion here. 

Perhaps the greatest waste of all is when great ideas are lost because organisations fail to manage their knowledge holistically. Our South African colleague Ian remembers a classic example that demonstrates why it is important:

 ‘The importance of managing knowledge was highlighted during the 1990s in De Beers. Ilana, a young metallurgist, was given a project. Ilana found the solution in a visionary internal report written in 1971 – an idea that appeared before its time. The innovative solution radically improved diamond recoveries and cut costs – the new technology was rapidly deployed across the group’.

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

Why receptivity is so important to innovation

Innovation happens only when inspiration hits the receptive mind. You can’t manage inspiration, but you can manage receptivity.

All knowledge creation activities are based around approaches to helping people to move outside their boxes, and open their minds; on helping them to be receptive, rather than judgmental, and on helping people to step outside the “known” – outside the box – and to be open to looking at things differently.

  • For example, the Deep Dive process  that we use in Knoco is based not only on a rigorous approach to problem analysis, but also on a series of exercises to de-limit the thinking of the team members. Deep Dive is used as a way to bring innovative thinking to the biggest business issue.
  • Similarly the Technical Limit process used by Shell involves challenging teams to deliver the best result possible, encouraging them to challenge the way things have always been done.  Technical limit is used in the project planning phase.
  • Even the humble After Action Review can include a knowledge creation step, when the team discusses “How will we do this differently next time”.

Innovation and knowledge creation can be encouraged by any of these processes, and although you cannot manage inspiration, you can use processes such as these to encourage receptivity.

The main enemy of receptivity is prior knowledge. As Epictetus said, “you cannot teach someone something they think they already know”. This means that if you give people problems they know how to solve, they will not look for additional knowledge, and they will not think outside the box. They will say – “We know how things work. These new ideas are not needed”.

So the key cultural behaviours that drive Knowledge Creation are these

  • challenge to the way things are currently done,
  • continually looking for a better way, and
  • non-judgmentalism when faced by new ideas.

Innovation and knowledge creation therefore is an active combination of process and behaviour, rather than a passive waiting for inspiration to strike, because Inspiration, when it meets a closed mind, will be killed by judgment.

You can’t manage inspiration. You can manage receptivity.

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

Driving innovation by setting out-of-the-box targets

If you want people to think outside the box, give them a problem that’s outside the box.

Image by nicubunu on Public Domain Clipart

There is a game I often play with a class, when we are on an innovation retreat such as a Business Driven Action Learning exercise.

We put people in a large circle, and give them a Koosh ball. The rules of the game are simple –

  • All hold out your hands
  • The person with the ball throws it to someone holding out their hands
  • They remember who that someone is
  • Once you have thrown the ball, put your hands down
  • Continue until everyone has their hands down.
You, as facilitator, time how long this takes. Imagine it took 80 seconds.You say “Now do it again, passing the ball in the same order, but do it in 40 seconds”.
You keep the exercise going, in several rounds, but you time each round, then cut this time in half to form the target for the next round. 20 seconds – 10 seconds – 5 seconds – 2 seconds.

What happens, is instructional.

  • Firstly, people take the same approach as before, but try to work faster.
  • Then, they tighten up the circle, reducing waste time
  • Then they reorganise – reforming the circle so they are standing in the correct order
  • Then when challenged even further, they start to think outside the box. They start to come up with radically creative solutions. Maybe we don’t need to be in a circle? Maybe we lay our hands on the ground, and roll the ball over them? Maybe we form a tube with our hands (in the correct order), and drop the ball down the tube?

While the target can be achieved by working in the known way (working inside the box), creativity is limited to incremental innovations such as reorganisation or “working faster”. 

When the target is outside the box – outside the realm of the known solution – people need to be radically creative. When they roughly know what to do, they use known solutions. When they don’t know what to do to meet the target, they become radically innovative.

Impossible targets drive innovation. “Put a man on the moon and return him safely, before the end of the decade”.  “Fly 500 people nonstop across the USA and be able to land at La Guardia”. “A h-fi system you can put in your pocket”. These were the impossible targets that resulted in the space program, the modern airliner, and the Sony Walkman.

If you want people to be innovative, set outrageous goals. If you want them to think outside the box, set them out-of-the-box targets.

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

Innovation starts with problems, not with ideas.

We often think of innovation as starting with an idea nobody has had before. More often it starts with a problem or opportunity nobody has noticed before. 

3D Problem Solving
3D problem solving, by Chris Potter, on Flickr

You want to become an innovative organisation?  If so, it is tempting to focus on the ideation process, and to create an innovation funnel to filter out ideas (even though this really doesn’t work well at all).

However you may be starting at the wrong end.

In his blog “The 4 Types of Innovation and the Problems They Solve“, Greg Satell states that

 “every innovation strategy fails eventually, because innovation is, at its core, about solving problems — and there are as many ways to innovate as there are types of problems to solve. There is no one “true” path to innovation.”

The path to innovation is to find new problems and new opportunities which will really help the organisation.  And so long as it is really relevant to the business, the more difficult, scary, or audacious the problem the better. You cannot get people to step outside the box if you give them a problem they can solve inside the box. Or you find what Mukesh Gupta calls the “invisible problems” – the ones that nobody has noticed.

Once you have selected the correct problem, there is a crucial intermediary step, which is to fully explore the problem.

  • You can see this in the deep dive process shown in this video – where the team has 3 days to innovate and spends the first whole day exploring the problem. 
  • You can see this in the after action review process (often a trigger for incremental innovation), where the questioning process includes identifying the things that did not go to plan  and performing a root cause analysis of these problem areas before suggesting solutions.
  • You can see this in this blog post from Anita Campbell, who describes a structured process for creating a Problem Definition, after which innovation can begin. 
Only once you have started with a problem or an opportunity which you have fully explored, understanding the constraints and the complexities, can you start to create, combine and remix existing ideas to solve these problems.

You want to be innovative? Start with finding a new problem

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

How to innovate

Innovation has a recipe. Here is how it works

It’s tempting to think of innovation as a “flash of inspiration” – a blinding idea – a lightbulb going off.  However – counterintuitively – many of the most innovative and imaginative teams and companies use a structured and deliberate process to innovate; a process that starts not with an idea, but with a problem.

We can see this structure below in the clip from IDEO, which shows their innovation DeepDive process applied to the problem of innovating the humble Shopping Trolley.

Notice how they go through several deliberate steps in their Deep Dive – a process similar to our Business Driven Action Learning Innovation process. The steps are

1) Identification of the problem
2) Data gathering around the problem
3) Sharing and consolidation of the findings and re-definition of the problem
4) Idea creation and mock-up
5) Idea combination
6) Solution testing

Note how they spend the enitre first day just working on the problem, long before any ideas are generated.

The ground rules are interesting;

  • Stay focused on topic
  • One conversation at a time
  • Encourage wild ideas
  • Build on the ideas of others
  • Defer judgment

Note also the deliberate time pressure, and listen to the summary at the end.

Innovation has a recipe. It can be deliberate. It can be structured. Don’t wait for inspiration to strike – go out there and hunt it down.

View Original Source (nickmilton.com) Here.

The personality traits needed for innovation (example of the Wright brothers)

Why were the Wright brothers the first to invent the aeroplane? Perhaps because there were two of them!

Wilbur and Orville Wright, from wikimedia commons

Anyone who is interested in innovation should read the Basadur Applied Creativity site. They have some very interesting models for the innovation cycle, but also a really useful model about the character traits required for innovation. They also offer an online (paid) service for assessing the creativity styles of your team.

Basadur recognise 4 main types of person needed for innovation:
  • The Generators are the big thinkers – the ones who spot a potential untapped area, a gap in the market, or a new innovation opportunity. They find problems.
  • The Conceptualisers are the ones who like to work with a problem until they fully understand the forces at work, and the possible ways in which the problem might be addressed. They understand problems.
  • The Optimisers are the people who like to look for solutions, and to fix things. They solve problems.
  • The Implementers are the people who like to get things done. They implement solutions.
You need all 4 types of people within the creativity cycle, if an idea is to be created, understood, solved and implemented.

However these people are very different in outlook and working style. 

The Generators and Optimisers do not understand each other at all. Once is looking for problems, the other for solutions. They find each other frustrating to work with. The Conceptualisers and Implementers also are chalk and cheese. One is pressing for deadlines, the other saying “hang on, we don’t understand what we are dealing with yet”. Each is a source of huge exasperation for the other.

This is one of the reasons why lone creators are so rare; they tend to represent only one of the four types above, so look at only one aspect of teh innovation cycle. Innovation is a team activity, and an activity for  balanced and well managed team with LOADS of creative friction and tension.
And that may be why the Wright brothers won the race for powered flight. They were brothers, they had contrasting personalities, and they argued like anything.
According to Notable Biographies

“Their personalities were perfectly complementary (each provided what the other lacked). Orville was full of ideas and enthusiasms. Wilbur was more steady in his habits, more mature in his judgments, and more likely to see a project through”.

And according to the Smithsonian National Air and Space museum

“Relying on each other’s strengths and compensating for each other’s weaknesses was crucial to their invention of the airplane. Neither probably could have achieved alone what they did as a team. “I like scrapping with Orv,” Wilbur said, “he’s such a good scrapper.” Heated discussions were a frequent and significant aspect of the Wrights’ creative process. Their ability to defend a position with genuine passion, while considering the other’s point of view, was essential to their inventive success”.

Orville was a Conceptualiser, Wilbur was an Implementer, and they managed their creation tension through a brotherly bond and heated arguments.

The challenge for any innovation team leader is to create a team with similar diverse character traits,  to build a bond as strong as the Wright brothers’, and to manage the heated arguments and scraps that will surely be necessary as part of the creative process.

If you can do this, maybe you too can match the same level of success the Wright brothers demonstrated.

View Original Source Here.