In the latest issue of Pacific Standard, Paul Silvia reviews Roberta Ness' new book, Innovation Generation: How to Produce Creative and Useful Scientific Ideas.
Full disclosure: I haven't yet read the book, so my impressions are based entirely on Silvia's review. It sounds like a useful (albeit imperfect) contribution the literature, and I look forward to getting hold of a copy.
Many innovation books fall into what I affectionately think of as the Platitude Pitfall: exhorting the reader to be more creative, to think "outside the box," to challenge assumptions and preconceptions, etc., whilst simultaneously providing no guidance whatsoever on just how to go about this. I don't know whether Ness' book falls into the Platitude Pitfall, but I fear that it does.
For example, "Incubate" - one of the six innovation steps in Ness' gimmicky "PIG IN MUD" mnemonic - is not, in fact, a practical or actionable technique for developing new ideas. Instead, it amounts to saying, "Take a break and hope that something will come to you." And sure, this does sometimes happen; we have all had good strike us out of nowhere. But hoping for the best has no place in a formal innovation process.
The same holds true for steps 1 ("Phrase a Question"), 5 ("Meld your Best Idea"), and 6 ("Disseminate"). None of this has anything to do with developing new ideas; they are instead pre-work (i.e., picking a specific topic), or they involve analysis, communication, and consensus-building. I don't object to any of that, but let's be clear: analysis, communication, and consensus-building have nothing to do with innovation. Rather, they take place only after the radical new idea has been conceived.
I look forward to reading "Innovation Generation," and perhaps the book contains some useful nuggets. But I would predict that these methods are inferior to, for instance, Edward de Bono's group of Lateral Thinking innovation tools, which definitely do not fall into the Platitude Pitfall.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
2012 Global Innovation Index
The 2012 Global Innovation Index is here! This report, developed jointly by the INSEAD business school and WIPO (a division of the United Nations), creates a league table of innovation and ranks every country in the world.
Before we look at the results, an obligatory word about the methodology. As with any ranking system, one can always take issue with the methodology and the relative weights of different variables. That doubtless holds true here, as well. In this case, the rankings are compiled based on "creative inputs" (which include institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication) and "creative outputs" (e.g., knowledge/technology). Further explanation of the methodology is available here.
The value of such indices does not lie in the actual results. For example, it's largely irrelevant whether the UK's "correct" placement is third, fifth, or seventh. More importantly, league tables of this sort invite conversation and thinking around trends in innovation. How have the world's top innovators achieved such success? What factors contribute to their innovation efforts, and how can other countries emulate them? Also, what regional trends can we spot? Are there certain factors that hold back a particular region from being more innovative? If so, there may be scope for regional collaboration amongst policymakers, academics, and businesses to jointly overcome these hurdles.
But enough qualifying and footnoting. Who are the world's leading innovators? The top five:
Before we look at the results, an obligatory word about the methodology. As with any ranking system, one can always take issue with the methodology and the relative weights of different variables. That doubtless holds true here, as well. In this case, the rankings are compiled based on "creative inputs" (which include institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication) and "creative outputs" (e.g., knowledge/technology). Further explanation of the methodology is available here.
The value of such indices does not lie in the actual results. For example, it's largely irrelevant whether the UK's "correct" placement is third, fifth, or seventh. More importantly, league tables of this sort invite conversation and thinking around trends in innovation. How have the world's top innovators achieved such success? What factors contribute to their innovation efforts, and how can other countries emulate them? Also, what regional trends can we spot? Are there certain factors that hold back a particular region from being more innovative? If so, there may be scope for regional collaboration amongst policymakers, academics, and businesses to jointly overcome these hurdles.
But enough qualifying and footnoting. Who are the world's leading innovators? The top five:
- Switzerland
- Sweden
- Singapore
- Finland
- United Kingdom
Friday, April 13, 2012
Forbes has a nice interview with Tina Seelig, author of the new book inGenius: A Crash Course on Creativity. I haven't read the book (though it's on my list), but the interview is worth a read.
Particularly intriguing is the fact that Seelig is a neuroscientist, so she approaches creativity from a very different perspective than most writers and thinkers. In the interview, Seelig states that creativity is both a natural characteristic and a learned skill, rather like musical or athletic abilities. I look forward to reading the book and learning what neuroscience has to say about innovation.
Particularly intriguing is the fact that Seelig is a neuroscientist, so she approaches creativity from a very different perspective than most writers and thinkers. In the interview, Seelig states that creativity is both a natural characteristic and a learned skill, rather like musical or athletic abilities. I look forward to reading the book and learning what neuroscience has to say about innovation.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Six Thinking Hats: the Stand-Up Routine?
Wild. An Aussie comedian has developed a routine based on the Six Thinking Hats. You can read about it here (and buy tickets, if you happen to be Down Under). The rest of us will have to content ourselves with Chortle's review.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Innovation @ Google
Is Google still as innovative as it once was? Lately, this question has occupied the attention of the press and blogosphere.
The CSM lauds Google as an innovative company. The main thrust of the article is the race for innovation at the international level - how innovation varies in China vs. Europe vs. America. But the author implicitly endorses Google as being at the forefront of innovation.
James Whittaker, a former Google employee, thinks otherwise. He explains his decision to leave Google, saying, "The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovation. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus." Whittaker goes on to describe how Google missed the social-media boat, leaving Facebook to dominate the hottest internet trend.
As companies grow and mature, growth and innovation invariably slow. Managing a large organization requires formal processes and procedures, and bureaucracy creeps in. Has Google reached that point? What do you think?
The CSM lauds Google as an innovative company. The main thrust of the article is the race for innovation at the international level - how innovation varies in China vs. Europe vs. America. But the author implicitly endorses Google as being at the forefront of innovation.
James Whittaker, a former Google employee, thinks otherwise. He explains his decision to leave Google, saying, "The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovation. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus." Whittaker goes on to describe how Google missed the social-media boat, leaving Facebook to dominate the hottest internet trend.
As companies grow and mature, growth and innovation invariably slow. Managing a large organization requires formal processes and procedures, and bureaucracy creeps in. Has Google reached that point? What do you think?
Thursday, March 15, 2012
How to Be Creative
Jonah Lehrer's article, How to Be Creative, is spot-on. Whilst the media likes to lionize so-called "creative types," the fact remains that creativity does not reside our genes. Rather, as Lehrer correctly observes, it is a skill that can be learned and developed like any other.
Regular readers of this blog will know that Lateral Thinking, invented by Dr. Edward de Bono, provides a set of techniques for spurring innovation. Moreover, anybody can learn these techniques with great success.
In this sense, creativity is like tying your shoes. No child is born with an innate gift for tying shoes, nor is one child a naturally better shoe-tier than another. Rather, it is a learned skill that children acquire through teaching, practice, and perseverance.
Regular readers of this blog will know that Lateral Thinking, invented by Dr. Edward de Bono, provides a set of techniques for spurring innovation. Moreover, anybody can learn these techniques with great success.
In this sense, creativity is like tying your shoes. No child is born with an innate gift for tying shoes, nor is one child a naturally better shoe-tier than another. Rather, it is a learned skill that children acquire through teaching, practice, and perseverance.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Innovation Week is Just Around the Corner!
Join us at de Bono Consulting for our upcoming Innovation Week, March 20-23 in Des Moines, Iowa!
We're holding end-user courses and trainer certifications in Edward de Bono's powerful creativity systems, Six Thinking Hats and Lateral Thinking.
Can't make this session? Not a problem. We run Innovation Week periodically through the year - see our training calendar for full details.
We're holding end-user courses and trainer certifications in Edward de Bono's powerful creativity systems, Six Thinking Hats and Lateral Thinking.
Can't make this session? Not a problem. We run Innovation Week periodically through the year - see our training calendar for full details.
- May 8-11 in New York
- June 12-15 in Des Moines
- September 25-28 in Des Moines
- November 13-16 in New York
- December 4-7 in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Thursday, March 08, 2012
How to Create a Culture of Innovation
Today, few people would describe AT&T as a particularly innovative (or for that matter, particularly admired) company. But once upon a time, Bell Labs was a bastion of innovation.
In fact, Jon Gertner describes Bell Labs in its heyday as "the most innovative scientific organization in the world." He points to a number of conscious decisions that fostered an innovative, collaborative environment:
1) Physical co-location - AT&T intentionally put various unrelated teams in the same place, which encouraged cross-disciplinary conversations. This interaction was further enhanced by the building architecture, which encouraged researchers to mingle.
2) Empowerment - Bell Labs gave its researchers the autonomy to pursue their ideas without senior managers breathing down their necks.
3) Time -AT&T realized that sometimes, it's important to let ideas percolate for a while. They gave time to their scientists, without worrying overmuch about instant results.
Gertner's article is quite good - you should read the whole thing. The one thing he fails to describe is Bell Labs decision-making processes. I'd like to know how they analyzed their projects and made decisions - did they employ a process akin to, for example, the Six Thinking Hats? How did Bell Labs evaluate their results? And ultimately, what led to their decline?
In fact, Jon Gertner describes Bell Labs in its heyday as "the most innovative scientific organization in the world." He points to a number of conscious decisions that fostered an innovative, collaborative environment:
1) Physical co-location - AT&T intentionally put various unrelated teams in the same place, which encouraged cross-disciplinary conversations. This interaction was further enhanced by the building architecture, which encouraged researchers to mingle.
2) Empowerment - Bell Labs gave its researchers the autonomy to pursue their ideas without senior managers breathing down their necks.
3) Time -AT&T realized that sometimes, it's important to let ideas percolate for a while. They gave time to their scientists, without worrying overmuch about instant results.
Gertner's article is quite good - you should read the whole thing. The one thing he fails to describe is Bell Labs decision-making processes. I'd like to know how they analyzed their projects and made decisions - did they employ a process akin to, for example, the Six Thinking Hats? How did Bell Labs evaluate their results? And ultimately, what led to their decline?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Innovation Week in New York City: Feb. 7-10
It's not too late to register for the upcoming Innovation Week in New York, Feb. 7-10!
We're offering a variety of innovation programs, including Six Thinking Hats on Feb. 7, Lateral Thinking on Feb. 8, and the full Course in Creativity on Feb. 7-8, which covers both Six Hats and Lateral Thinking. This programs will give you a solid grasp of in Dr. de Bono's tools, and you'll receive plenty of practice with their application. You'll leave ready to apply Six Hats and Lateral Thinking to your own organization and context.
We also offering trainer certification in Six Hats, Lateral Thinking, and the Course in Creativity. After this intensive, four-day program (Feb. 7-10), you'll be prepared to teach the de Bono methods in your own organization.
Are you already a de Bono trainer? If so, This is also a convenient opportunity to re-certify, or save 15% when you certify in a new course.
Register online for Innovation Week in New York, or call us at 515.278.1292.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Edward de Bono to Speak at Learning Technologies 2012
Dr. Edward de Bono will be a keynote speaker at Learning Technologies 2012 conference in London on 25-26 January. It promises to be a great event for professionals in the field learning and development. See the conference brochure for full details.
Friday, November 04, 2011
The Bias Against Creativity
Corporate creativity is a hot topic, and innovation determines whether a company lives or dies. So why do people reject creative ideas?
Jennifer Mueller, Shimul Melwani, and Jack Goncalo have a theory. In their new paper, The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas, they explore the idea of covert biases, and they find that uncertainty produces a subconscious hostility towards creativity.
To quote the authors, "Because there is such a strong social norm to endorse creativity and people also feel authentic positive attitudes towards creativity, people may be reluctant to admit that they do not want creativity." The authors conclude that "we cannot assume that organizations, institutions or even scientific endeavors will desire and recognize creative ideas even when they explicitly state they want them. This is because [organizations] may [extol creativity] in ways that promote uncertainty by requiring gate-keepers to identify the single 'best' and most 'accurate' idea, thereby creating an unacknowledged aversion to creativity. In addition, our results suggest that... the field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identifying how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity."
Jennifer Mueller, Shimul Melwani, and Jack Goncalo have a theory. In their new paper, The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas, they explore the idea of covert biases, and they find that uncertainty produces a subconscious hostility towards creativity.
To quote the authors, "Because there is such a strong social norm to endorse creativity and people also feel authentic positive attitudes towards creativity, people may be reluctant to admit that they do not want creativity." The authors conclude that "we cannot assume that organizations, institutions or even scientific endeavors will desire and recognize creative ideas even when they explicitly state they want them. This is because [organizations] may [extol creativity] in ways that promote uncertainty by requiring gate-keepers to identify the single 'best' and most 'accurate' idea, thereby creating an unacknowledged aversion to creativity. In addition, our results suggest that... the field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identifying how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity."
Friday, October 28, 2011
Edward de Bono on BVO
Dr. de Bono was recently on BVO, the Business Voice. In this half-hour interview, he addresses the difference between innovation and creativity, why the business sector has been particularly quick to recognize the importance of thinking, what the internet age means for thinking, and more. Highly recommended.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Creativity Quote of the Day
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimension." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Friday, July 01, 2011
Creativity Quote of the Day
"Anyone can be creative provided they learn and develop their skills." - Edward de Bono
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Meetings Don't Have to Be a Waste of Time
I recently had dinner with a friend who wished the new company she works for would incorporate the de Bono thinking systems, specifically Six Thinking Hats, into all of their meetings. She has one weekly meeting in particular that lasts two hours or longer. The group inevitably gets derailed discussing details unrelated to the topic at hand. Arguments ensue and the group leaves frustrated, with no action steps laid out.
We hear this a lot.
Everyone has participated in meetings that are plagued by personal attacks, low energy and boredom, competition, power plays, groupthink, rushed decision making or indecisiveness, and lack of follow through.
You know your meeting is heading in the wrong direction when no one has defined a clear focus. Why are we having this meeting? How long will the meeting last? How much time will we spend on each part of the agenda? How will we ensure everyone participates? Who will take what action after the meeting? These are the types of "Blue Hat" questions we ask at the beginning of meetings that use the Six Thinking Hats process.
When used as a meeting management tool, Six Thinking Hats gives teams a process that directs everyone towards the same objective. In Six Hats meetings you "unbundle" your thinking so you can focus on one type of thinking at a time (idea generation, etc.).
Six Hats meetings are particularly effective in neutralizing employee rank. There are also frequent requests for every person to contribute, which ensures you get the best thinking from everyone, even individuals who tend to be more introverted. Oftentimes clients will report that their typical meeting times are reduced by 50-75% once their teams are trained in the Six Hats process.
Six Thinking Hats can be used with all levels, and helps teams get to the right solution quickly and with a shared vision.
We'd love to hear from you!
What frustrates you most about meetings? What strategies have you used that resulted in more productive and effective meetings?
We hear this a lot.
Everyone has participated in meetings that are plagued by personal attacks, low energy and boredom, competition, power plays, groupthink, rushed decision making or indecisiveness, and lack of follow through.
You know your meeting is heading in the wrong direction when no one has defined a clear focus. Why are we having this meeting? How long will the meeting last? How much time will we spend on each part of the agenda? How will we ensure everyone participates? Who will take what action after the meeting? These are the types of "Blue Hat" questions we ask at the beginning of meetings that use the Six Thinking Hats process.
When used as a meeting management tool, Six Thinking Hats gives teams a process that directs everyone towards the same objective. In Six Hats meetings you "unbundle" your thinking so you can focus on one type of thinking at a time (idea generation, etc.).
Six Hats meetings are particularly effective in neutralizing employee rank. There are also frequent requests for every person to contribute, which ensures you get the best thinking from everyone, even individuals who tend to be more introverted. Oftentimes clients will report that their typical meeting times are reduced by 50-75% once their teams are trained in the Six Hats process.
Six Thinking Hats can be used with all levels, and helps teams get to the right solution quickly and with a shared vision.
We'd love to hear from you!
What frustrates you most about meetings? What strategies have you used that resulted in more productive and effective meetings?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Use Six Thinking Hats for Success in Facilitating Virtual Meetings
Does your organization use virtual meetings to save time and money?
Recent research by CWT Travel Management Institute reveals that while the use of virtual meetings is on the rise, many people feel that virtual meetings cannot match the quality of face-to-face meetings in terms of attention and interaction between participants.
Using Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats® to facilitate meetings offers improvement in both of these areas.
Click to read: Use Six Thinking Hats for Success in Facilitating Virtual Meetings
Recent research by CWT Travel Management Institute reveals that while the use of virtual meetings is on the rise, many people feel that virtual meetings cannot match the quality of face-to-face meetings in terms of attention and interaction between participants.
Using Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats® to facilitate meetings offers improvement in both of these areas.
Click to read: Use Six Thinking Hats for Success in Facilitating Virtual Meetings
Friday, February 11, 2011
Quote of the Day
"If you wait for opportunities to occur, you will be one of the crowd."
- Edward de Bono
- Edward de Bono
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Innovation Week April 4-8, 2011
Make 2011 the year you invest in innovation training to help boost your organization's productivity and profits. Join us at the de Bono Consulting corporate headquarters in Des Moines for the following training seminars.
April 4: Lateral Thinking
Deliberate, systematic process that sparks creative thinking
7 Lateral Thinking tools lead to innovation in process, product, and problem solving.
April 5: Six Thinking Hats
Organize and maximize individual and team thinking
Learn how to enhance meeting effectiveness by methodically channeling group attention in six key directions. Six Thinking Hats is our most popular course and will quickly become an indispensable organizational tool!
April 4-5: Course in Creativity
Combines and integrates Lateral Thinking & Six Thinking Hats
Learn powerful methods that will enable you to lead effective meetings, rigorously evaluate ideas, manage risks, maximize opportunities, and drive innovation.
April 5-8: Focus on Facilitation
Learn Advanced Facilitator Tools & Become an Accredited de Bono Facilitator
Focus on Facilitation is the optimal application course for leading group innovation.
Visit our de Bono Events Calendar or call 866.621.3366.
April 4: Lateral Thinking
Deliberate, systematic process that sparks creative thinking
7 Lateral Thinking tools lead to innovation in process, product, and problem solving.
April 5: Six Thinking Hats
Organize and maximize individual and team thinking
Learn how to enhance meeting effectiveness by methodically channeling group attention in six key directions. Six Thinking Hats is our most popular course and will quickly become an indispensable organizational tool!
April 4-5: Course in Creativity
Combines and integrates Lateral Thinking & Six Thinking Hats
Learn powerful methods that will enable you to lead effective meetings, rigorously evaluate ideas, manage risks, maximize opportunities, and drive innovation.
April 5-8: Focus on Facilitation
Learn Advanced Facilitator Tools & Become an Accredited de Bono Facilitator
Focus on Facilitation is the optimal application course for leading group innovation.
Visit our de Bono Events Calendar or call 866.621.3366.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Innovation: Tubeless Toilet Paper from Kimberly-Clark
Kimberly-Clark estimates that the 17 billion toilet paper tubes produced each year in the U.S. generate 160 million pounds of trash. According to a recent USA Today article, the company will launch tube-free Scott toilet paper. This innovation removes an unnecessary element of their product to help the environment and reduce material costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)