Creativity And Innovation: The Spitting Contest

 There is an interesting competition of sorts that goes on in the innovation field. It tends to sound like “My innovation model is better than your innovation model.” or “Design thinking is more comprehensive than creative problem solving.” or “TRIZ techniques are more useful than DeBono methods.” Or the inverse of any of these statements. We've heard every variation. This is all good, innovation fostering conversation. But we have a warning.

The moment someone seems to be convincing people that they have reached the pinnacle of possibility with respect to fostering innovation, run. Fast. Like you stole something from a drug cartel.

We think they’re allgood, and what we see is that master practitioners in any of these disciplines tend to practice their craft in very similar, and very comprehensive ways. Master practitioners steal. Not from drug cartels but from any process, system or set of tools that will help them get elegantly and efficiently to a great outcome.

We’ve been participating in conversations about the differences between Creative Problem Solving and Design Thinking of late, and have found mostly similarities, but some great tools and modes of thinking in Design Thinking that augment the practice we’ve built on the Creative Problem Solving process.

We’ve been engaged in discussions with our colleagues within the Creativity Skills Training Council and have been enjoying a lively list-serve dialog as well as a couple of group conference calls. This blog was sparked by a read of an article by Heather Fraser titled “Turning Design Thinking Into Design Doing” Fraser talks in the article about creating the “…right emotional circumstances to inspire to inspire courage to experiment and play with new ideas.” She sees three thematic areas of focus to create this right mindset: “Open minded collaboration, courage, and conviction.” We’re reminded here of the “humility and fierce resolve” that characterizes level 5 leaders, or our own “ITCCH” model (Integrity, Tenacity, Courage, Curiosity, Humility). While we all package it up with different words, in truth, all collaborative creativity (meaning innovation at work) requires that we drive toward a more mature dynamic around these fundamental characteristics.

What we love that design thinking brings to the picture is… well, the picture! Left to their own devices, many of the innovation models trend toward auditory-verbal interactions (not because of the model, but because alternate perspectives are not baked into the practice) Design seems to do a better job of assuring that we think and create in non-verbal ways. Draw, sculpt, build, move, and interact physically. These modes of thinking and creating draw out different ideas and competencies. To use Fraser’s words “DO something together focusing on a few core competencies rather than on a litany of rules, process maps and formulas.”  Linda Naiman, a colleague in the innovation world, and sponsor of the first telecon on Design at the CTSC, has some interesting things to say on the subject at her blog. (and interesting things to say on other subjects as well. Plus, her blog has an elegant design... go figure.)

The overall lesson? Keep learning about innovation in innovation method. Unless you’ve become convinced that New & Improved knows all there is to know about it. If that’s the case, run. We’re crazy.

Comments

[Jonathan]

I like what you're saying. Based on many of my conversations on DT vs CPS, I'm convinced that the main differences are in the primary purpose of the technique. CPS is designed to be a broad process that applies across industries, challenges, perspectives. DT was developed for Design challenges, and has been adapted for customer experiences, and more. Think about your purpose, and have it shape your process.

Also, whichever process you use, look for tools, techniques, and approaches the hit may different styles/modalities: auditory, verbal, cognitive, kinaesthetic, tactual, pictoral, scent-based, etc. DT's focus on prototyping is a great example of kinaesthetic/tactual. Sid Parnes' use of scented cotton balls is a great example of appealing to the olfactory senses. The more styles/modalities you try, the more likely you are to hit something really new and innovative.