Best case Brainstorming
Perspectiv’s Andy Wilkins looks at what it takes to get the best results from of Brainstorming.
The situation and challenge
I was chatting with a client when we got into a conversation about ‘Brainstorming’ and how Brainstorming’s popularity has led to it being applied in many different ways that have resulted in negative associations.
For example, Brainstorming has been referred to as:
cerebral popcorn or nothing more than a crapshoot
being synonymous with and the only way of generating ideas and being creative
the new panacea
executive entertainment
a waste of time
old fashioned and passé
a way of generating lots of options that then have to be rejected
a way to get together and have a casual discussion (ties off) in order to come up with a few ideas.
Because we at Perspectiv were taught Creative Problem Solving (CPS) and Brainstorming by Scott Isaksen and Brian Dorval who both worked with Sid Parnes who worked with Alex Osborn who introduced Brainstorming, we believe we are sitting on the shoulders of giants and have a role to protect the integrity of Brainstorming. We have also taught and applied CPS hundreds of times in many countries. As a result, the client and I both concluded that ‘Brainstorming’ might be both the most used and abused thinking tool around and so he asked me to write this article.
Some background to brainstorming
Brainstorming is probably one of the best-known tools in the world (i) – second only to the hammer! Its popularity stems from:
it has existed for over 70 years – Alex Osborn introduced it in 1939
the pervasive need to both improve the productivity of groups and to involve people
it is simple to use and easy to learn
In his fabulous book Applied Imagination, Osborn outlined a variety of tools and approaches CPS – one of which was Brainstorming which could dramatically improve the effectiveness of groups generating options. In one study, a group using Brainstorming produced 44% more worthwhile options than individuals thinking up ideas without the benefit of group discussion. As a result, many were keen to use this new approach and it quickly became a sensation.
This increased popularity created some myths, misunderstandings, and misuses of the term and the tool. (This article from The Wall Street Journal discusses some common perceptions of Brainstorming: Brainstorming Works Best if People Scramble For Ideas on Their Own.) But for many professionals who work with individuals, groups, and organisations to educate and facilitate creative abilities and skills, Brainstorming has a specific and more technical definition.
Best Case Brainstorming
Osborn felt that the creative productivity of groups was often hindered due to the primarily evaluative orientation of most people in meetings. His popular metaphor for this condition was described as ‘driving with the brakes on.’ He designed the Brainstorming session as a creative conference for the sole purpose of producing a checklist of ideas which can subsequently be evaluated and further processed. Brainstorming was identified as only one of a variety of tools for generating ideas, and idea generation was outlined as only one aspect of the entire CPS process. Group Brainstorming was also suggested as a supplement to individual ideation, not a replacement (ii).
1. Ensure the four generating guidelines are used
The fundamental principle of Brainstorming is ‘deferment of judgement’ which means the postponement of judgement whilst generating options or ideas. It is one of four guidelines for Brainstorming to help overcome ‘premature evaluation’ and the over emphasis of judicial thinking that dominates most meetings. The four guidelines are:
Defer judgement: Judgement of ideas must be withheld until later. The purpose of the Brainstorming session is the generation of many, varied and unusual options.
Freewheeling is welcomed: The wilder the idea, the better – it is easier to tame down than to fire up. Since criticism is temporarily ruled out, it’s acceptable and desired that really wild and unusual ideas are shared.
Quantity is wanted: The greater the number of ideas, the greater the likelihood of useful ideas.
Combination and improvement are sought: In addition to contributing ideas of their own, participants should suggest how the ideas of others can be turned into better ideas; or how two or more ideas can be joined into still another idea.
Although deferment of judgement was the central principle outlined by Osborn, he made it clear that judgement had an important role to play. Since the purpose of Brainstorming was for group generation of options, sorting and evaluation were postponed or became the main agenda for another separate time or meeting.
The four guidelines were central for successful Brainstorming, but Osborn was also very clear that they were not sufficient. He outlined a number of considerations for managing groups and preparing for a productive session.
2. Brainstorming was designed for group application
Since Brainstorming was designed to be applied in a group setting, Osborn outlined many guidelines and suggestions for those who might choose to lead or facilitate a Brainstorming session.
2a. Use a skilled facilitator
He recommended the use of a facilitator who should take a least one formal course in CPS and should, at least, be able to:
Ensure role clarity – especially of the task owner.
Prepare before using the tool.
Understand flavours of newness and people’s orientation to change.
Enable people to generate individually, in pairs, and in small groups.
Organise into groups 5-10 people.
Use the generating and focusing guidelines such as defer judgment and affirmative judgment.
Be capable of using Brainstorming enhancers such as SCAMPER.
Understand and apply the principle of extended effort.
Create a productive team climate.
Ensure the planning and scheduling of follow-up.
A study (iii) of the effects of facilitators on the performance of Brainstorming groups set out to establish what effect facilitators would have on the performance of groups using Brainstorming. It compared the performance of facilitators with different levels of training (High, Trained, Student), groups without a facilitator (Interactive), and individuals (Nominal) – see following table.
Mean Number of Ideas Generated for Each Five-Minute Period of Brainstorming
| Condition | 5 min | 10 min | 15 min | 20 min | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The results of this study show that to get the best out of using the Brainstorming tool in groups, organisations should invest resource in the training and development of facilitators.
Some of the specific skills and knowledge that a highly trained facilitator brings to a group are the following:
An understanding of the principal of extended effort (iv): Ideas generated early in a creativity meeting tend to be more typical or obvious. As time progresses during generation, ideas become more unusual or novel. In the later stages, the familiar options often blend with the highly unusual ideas to make novel ideas that are useful. A highly skilled facilitator is able to help a group extend its effort because it often takes this time and effort for the better ideas to be generated.
The use of Brainstorming enhancers: When a group starts to dry up or when a new direction for ideas is required, there a number of additional tools a facilitator can use to stimulate the group. SCAMPER, Forced Fitting and Visually Identifying Relationships (VIR) are three tools among many. Forced Fitting and VIR do this using unrelated objects or images. A random object or image is introduced to the group and members are asked to try and make a connection between the object or image and the task. SCAMPER is a mnemonic menu of questions – Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse.
2b. Group size, composition and timing
A group of 5-10 participants should be selected based on the nature of the problem to be brainstormed. Participants should generally have a range of experience with the task. Brainstorming meetings should last from 30-45 minutes (although idea generation can last for many months), and need to be supported by an appropriate way to share and collect ideas during the session - today this can be achieved using digital white boards or or by using Brainstorming with Post-its®.
2c. Group Brainstorming is complementary to individual ideation
Since Brainstorming was designed for group application, the session was designed to supplant individual ideation. Individual ideation was to happen prior to the group session and as a follow-up to allow for plenty of incubation time. Participants should be given the task and asked to note their own ideas at least two days before the meeting and ideally two weeks before.
3. Preparation before using the tool
Osborn recommended that preparation take place on two levels. First, the type of task to be approached had to be carefully prepared and second, the participants attending the session had to be oriented in advance or during the session.
3a. Clear task definition, roles and ownership
The task has to be ready for generation depending on where the task is diagnosed to enter the CPS process. It should provide a single target for participants’ generating efforts. Osborn recommended sending a one-page background and invitation memo with a few examples of the type of options desired by the task owner/s. This preparation memo also requested individuals to generate options on their own in advance of the group session.
3b. Training the participants and task owner
If the participants were not previously trained, Osborn recommended the facilitator of the meeting provide a 30-minute orientation in such areas as:
training on the Brainstorming guidelines (what today we call the Generating Guidelines)
complementary tools and techniques to encourage generation
where they are in the CPS process
the desired outcomes.
50 years since Osborn wrote these guidelines as part of Creative Problem Solving version 1, we have researched and learned considerably about what it takes for a group to perform at its best. Today we are using Creative Problem Solving version 6 and we would add the following:
clarifying roles and responsibilities
coaching the problem owner/s in how to be effective change leaders
explaining peoples’ different orientations to innovation and change using VIEW
deliberately and explicitly establishing a working climate that encourages rather than hinders productive thinking.
MAIN References
(i) Isaksen. S. G. A Review of Brainstorming Research: Six Critical Issues for Inquiry. Creative Problem-Solving Group-Buffalo. June 1998.
(ii) Ibid
(iii) Oxley, Dzindolet and Paulus. The Effects of Facilitators on the Performance of Brainstorming Groups. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality. 1996, 11 (4), pp. 633-646.
(iv) Parnes. S. J. Effectives of extended effort in creative problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(3), 119-122. 1961.