So as you may have seen in our previous post, we do not believe that brainstorming—that go-to approach to generating new ideas since the 1940s—is the golden ticket to innovation after all. Science shows that brainstorms can activate a neurological fear of rejection and that groups are not necessarily more creative than individuals. Brainstorming can actually be detrimental to good ideas.
BUT . . . . the idea behind brainstorming is not an inherently bad idea! To innovate, we need environments that support imaginative thinking, where we can go through many crazy, tangential, and even bad ideas ( and yes, there are bad ideas!) to come up with good ones. However, in order to do this we need to work both collaboratively and individually, we also need a healthy amount of heated discussion, even arguing. We need places where someone can throw out a thought, have it honestly critiqued, and not feel so judged that they become defensive and shut down. Yet as we discussed in our previous post, this creative process is not necessarily supported by the traditional tenets of brainstorming: group collaboration, all ideas held equal, nothing judged.
So, as IMentor need to engage with company employees, we looked at how we would encourage creative thinking and innovation from within the companies that we were engaged with, to effectively deliver our Company Turnaround & Rescue and Process Auditing activities.
At IMentor we developed our “I-Storm ” platform to allow for electronic collaboration to enable others to share ideas and to comment, raise concerns or issues on each members of the “I-Storm team” ideas. At this “Asynchronous brainstorming” stage – all input is anonymous (although monitored by our consultants) this is the I1 stage, the reason for this stage is to remove the issues that some personalities in Face-To-Face (FTF) Brainstorming, such as evaluation apprehension, social loafing and production blocking. The advantage of this stage is that it can be opened up to a higher number of individuals – for example, at IMentor we encourage Department Leaders to involve all members of the department to contribute – the leader is able to access the system in their weekly meeting and the entire team feels engaged and listened to – this is an added value.
Part of the process is to brand everything from the Online Platform, the mobile app and all branding with the statement of purpose at the outset of each project. Every time that a participant logs into the platform, they are entering into a liminal play space—call it a playing field. The statement of purpose establishes the rules: It reminds each participant that we are working together to move the ball down the field. As much as we may argue and disagree, anything that happens in the room counts toward our shared goal. This enables us to discuss and even disagree without it becoming personal.
Our I1 process is open for 1 week, during this time, the key stakeholders are encouraged to review and commenting what their peers are contributing – both in terms of new ideas and contributions on their own ideas -which they should respond to. The key here is that the stakeholders have the opportunity to “publish” their ideas anonymously and receive anonymous feedback as well as review and comment on other ideas raised. We find that this allows the most passive team members contribute with confidence and leads to further stimulation whilst removing the distraction which can impact the thought process in an atypical Brainstorming session. The I-Storm platform is flexible and the option of turning off the collaboration (so the system becomes and idea collating tool) until a certain time or date is frequently used – when the distraction of other ideas is actively being prevented- this allows us to control the distraction Vs stimulation battle into a single paradigm to allow participants the benefits of both.
This I1 stage is usually limited to 5 working days, at which point the key stakeholders enter the “review and revise” I2 Stage – in this stage each contributor is asked to complete a final review of their proposed ideas – it is at this point that they are able to “retire” their idea if they do not wish them to be taken any further or the contributions that their colleagues have made has impacted on the perceived efficacy of the proposal. The “retired” ideas are removed from the general view and reviewed by IMentor consultants to ensure that the ideas being retired are not ideas we would like to explore further. Whilst the individuals are reviewing their own ideas, they are encouraged to “score” all ideas on the system using a 1-5 scale – this allows the IMentor consultants to begin to build the physical “Decision Making” session (DMS) which completes the exercise.
Our final session is the Decision Making Session – it is here that the IMentor Consultancy team correlate all the suggestions and plan the session to ensure maximum return. In the DMS all the active ideas are printed out and each stakeholder is responsible for delivering her/his ideas, our facilitator ensures that the highest scored ideas (those scored highest by the whole group – in I2 stage) are the ideas initially discussed. This becomes the “Critical evaluation” session, where the ideas are evaluated and the number of ideas reduced – There are clear differences between this session and traditional brainstorming;
1: The Idea creation process has already happened! No more “zoning out” after listening to initial ideas – the participants clearly understand the ideas which are going to be evaluated and hopefully – they will have shared their comments, thoughts and feelings on each idea!
2: Because the creation process is completed, there is room for a more deliberative discourse. Our take on Aristotle’s Rhetoric is “Argue, Discuss,Argue,Discuss, Agree”
Deliberative Discourse refers to participative and collaborative (but not critique-free) communication. Multiple positions and views are expressed with a shared understanding that everyone is focused on a common goal. There is no hierarchy. It’s not debate because there are no opposing sides trying to “win.” Rather, it’s about working together to solve a problem and create new ideas.
Now, we need to be clear that this is not a freeform, standup exercise in yelling and confrontation! Here are our five key rules of engagement that we’ve found to yield fruitful sessions and ultimately lead to meaningful discussion and ultimately solutions.
1. NO HIERARCHY
Breaking down hierarchy is critical for deliberative discourse. It’s essential to creating a space where everyone can truly contribute. The breakdown of hierarchy creates a space where ideas can be invented— and challenged—without fear.
2. PERMISSION TO SAY “NO, BECAUSE”
So we know brainstorms rely on acceptance of all ideas and judgment of none. Many refer to the cardinal rule of saying “Yes, AND”—for building on others’ ideas. This is a very useful way to approach discussions, however we also, equally encourage the “no, BECAUSE.” option! No is a critical part of our process, our only stipulation is that if you’re going to say no, you better be able to say why. Backing up an argument is integral in any deliberative discourse, and that “because” should be grounded in real people other than ourselves.
3. WE HAVE TO KEEP IT FUN
We work on projects ranging from million pound kickstarter projects to charitable enterprises improving the lives of a starving population. Our work requires intensity, thoughtfulness, and rigor and this must match the organisation which we are working with. But no matter the nature of the project, we keep it fun. During the I1 Creative stage, we often share both humorous and thought provoking cartoons, animations and video clips as well as a range of materials related to the issue being looked at and in our Decision Making Sessions, it’s rare for an hour to pass without laughter erupting from the project room. Deliberative discourse is a form of play, and for play to produce great ideas and solutions, we have to take it seriously!
Our Final “Isol” stage is to ensure the DMS reaches a resolutory outcome. How this is achieved will have already been decided in the initial scoping meeting – typically we offer the following:
Isol 1: A decision is agreed in the DMS -this is completely “storyboarded” during the session and the IMentor consultant can produce an animated storyboard / presentation to deliver the decision or the organisation can take the decision away – with or without the IMentor consultant’s assistance.
Isol 2: An agreed number (never more than 3) of potential resolutions are agreed upon and the IMentor consultant can produce an animated storyboard / presentation for each of the potential solutions or the organisation can take the potential solutions away – with or without the IMentor consultant’s continued assistance.
Isol 3: Depending on the project that IMentor are completing in the organisation – it may be that IMentor own the solution and are responsible for briefing the senior stakeholders and then designing and implementing the solution.
[icegram campaigns=”412″]
If you are interested in our IStorm platform or any of our services please click here for more information and to arrange a demo!
