Individual Creativity Equation

Ooops.   There's something fundamental I should have shared in a much earlier post. It's a terribly basic pseudo-scientific equation for individual creativity, as follows:

C = VIMTO     or     C = VIMT(B/D)

Where:
   C is creative product
   V is the variety of stimulus
   I is the native propensity for ideation
   M is the motivating influence from the surrounding culture
   T is the gestation time
   O is the "oblong factor" (B/D), with
        B as the breadth of knowledge of the problem space, and
        D as the depth of knowledge of the problem space

If we overlook the pseudo-science then the assertion is simply that individual creative product is maximised when the following conditions apply.  And of course there's the more sinister contrapositive interpretation that it can easily come to nothing if any are missing ...

• There are plenty of outside influences from a variety of sources
• You're not entirely without imagination
• Your organisation actively encourages new ideas, or can at least tolerate them
• You have both free time and elapsed time to think
• You have broad knowledge of a particular business problem or opportunity, but critically not too much depth of knowledge, which can be narrowing

It's a fun concept for an ex-mathematician like me, but not without merit.  I've experimented with these levers in the past, and am convinced they each have a part to play.   And I'm not the only one, in fact my biography page is full of VIMTO enthusiasts, whether they know it or not!  To name a few:  
- Webb Young and the Sticky Wisdom team have addressed the importance of V
- de Bono believes that M is a make-or-break factor
- MacKenzie writes eloquently about the value of T
- Patterson identifies T and M as being important factors 

I make no attempt to address the more sophisticated equation that would be needed to model "organisational creativity" with the inevitable interference from social dynamics.  Nor will I consider a broader "innovation equation", which others have surely addressed, and which would demand consideration of a wider set of variables en route to the implementation of a successful idea.

In the interests of fairness I should point-out that others have attempted to model this kind of thing, notably Ruth Noller (see http://russellawheeler.com/resources/learning_zone/creativity_formula/).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this subject or any other, and will be happy to refine the equation if I've missed anything obvious.  Thanks in advance to the constructive critics.

Grey Balls of Fur

I've just started reading a fantastic book.  It's really, really inventive - most especially in its presentation.


Its central message is uncannily similar to my very first posting back in August:  Be yourself; free your creative spirit from its shackles; don't let them grind you down (attempt to ignore them instead!)


However the book differs from this blog in two rather devastating respects:  It's incredibly visually stimulating, and uses plenty of wonderfully elaborate turns-of-phrase.


The author likens traditional work to a "Gordian knot of corporate normalcy" which begins with a single hair (or rule).  The hairs accumulate as the organisation learns, and ultimately acquires it's own gravitational pull.  More and more hairs arrive, and none escape, as workers seek to preserve and reuse the experiences of their past successes at the expense of anything new.


The escape (and the only route to real creativity) is to break-away from the hairball into an orbit which still allows you to draw on its resources where you choose.  This, he claims, requires the courage to be genuine, work out which of your organisation's goals really resonate with you, then find better ways to get the associated jobs done.  The alternative is the "pallid path of corporate appropriateness".


There are some fantastic analogies in the first few chapters:
1. Don't be like the mesmerised chickens, frozen to the establishment (full story omitted here!)
2. Be like the cow instead - do what you're good at, don't over-work or over-commit, look relaxed on the surface 90% of the time, but still produce, recognising that good ideas need research and thinking time which doesn't always bear tangible output early


The book is called "Orbiting the Giant Hairball".  (No really ... it is.)  The author is Gordon MacKenzie, a former greetings card artist at Hallmark.  I concur with all the 4 and 5 start ratings at Amazon.  I've read nothing else so far which goes so far to justify why we must all live our dreams at work, not just for ourselves, but for the benefit of our employers too!

Is Creativity Necessary?

Often I find myself having to justify the necessity of creative working in the non-creative industries.  Attacks on my stance are rarely fierce; more often apathetic.  But I'm not sure which is the more dangerous.

It's all quite simple really: 

1.  Over the years computers and other inexpensive forms of automation have diminished the relative number of manual labour and clerical jobs.  And it hasn't stopped there:  Increasingly we're automating management decisions, statistical analysis, sales support and other knowledge work which can be handled analytically.

2.  Where it's been too hard to automate tasks, the march of globalisation has meant outsourcing of jobs from developed to lower cost economies.  What remains in the developed economy is that which depends heavily on local context, and cannot easily go offshore.

3.  Analytical thinking gives us a range of predictable answers to a given problem.  And it gives us some basis for selecting a preferred answer from the set.  Creative thinking can complement that set by yielding a range of new and unusual answers, which our competitors might not easily have tumbled to.  If we can adopt one of those, we could advance into a gap which is non-competitive - at least in the short-term.

I also tend to make the point that creative thinking is a great deal of fun, and I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that work should be fun. ( I try to make this appear an afterthought, because it's far too easily criticised.)

One day when I'm not having a "bad brain day" I might just tackle the sister question:  "Is Creativity Sufficient?"   In the meantime I'd welcome your comments on both questions.

The Drone's Blog Post

There comes a time in the lives of all great (and not so great ) men where they're just juggling too many other balls to commit serious thought to that 17th concurrent activity.

So it is with this week's blog.  My intention is to give you higher-than-average content, but with lower-than-average work on my part!

So without further ado, I present my top five URLs/tools on the subject of creativity at work.  I hope you find them enlightening ...

1.  http://www.southbeachinc.com/index.html is still top of my list.  It's absolutely content-free, but its potential is massive, at least in my estimation.  The assets are the simple but powerful notation and the free modelling tool which uses it.  (Such is my commitment to the cause that I've taken the trouble to meet the author, and become a beta tester of new releases!)

2.  Springwise is a site dedicated to product innovations.  Its army of "spotters" report what they've seen, and that's compiled into a weekly newsletter available at http://www.springwise.com/newsletter/.

3.  http://www.innovationmanagement.se/  is a website full of interesting material.  In particular there's a weekly newsletter which always has at least one article I feel compelled to read.

4.  http://www.jpb.com/report103/index.php is well worth a read too.  Plenty of content extending way beyond creativity through the whole innovation lifecycle.

5.  And last but certainly not least, http://mindtools.com/pages/main/newMN_CT.htm is the page at Mindtools dedicated to creativity.  There's plenty of advice here on using the well-known creativity techniques, some of which I've blogged about in previous posts.

Have fun with those, and I'll write properly next week (if I can be bothered!)

Space to be Creative

I had a fascinating extra-curricular discussion this week with a Californian architect.  She works for a global Oil and Gas company, and her brief is to “optimise workspaces”.

It turns out that a large part of the job concerns making people more productive at work.  We’re not just talking about faster coffee machines and shorter walks to the desk, but also about building the propensity for creativity at work (hurray!)

This, it transpires, is a seriously interesting challenge.  The publically-available research seems to be lacking in many respects, but there are some documented findings.  She kindly sent me a few articles she’s collected, so I’ll condense a few of the main messages in this post …

Pharmaceutical GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) seems to be a much-lauded paragon of creative innovation—at least by UK standards.   Working with an agency, it has created “Focus Booths” (for concentrated sole-working) and “Buzz Space” (for collaboration).

GSK’s thinking is that Buzz Space supports ad hoc collaboration as a routine part of work, and that against such a backdrop Focus Booths will be needed to allow people some peace and quiet to concentrate.  (As I’ve written before, I consider both modes of working to be very valuable in creativity.  It’s not all about collaboration.)

Both types of space at GSK are adorned with evocative imagery—both literal and abstract—something which we discussed at length by phone as I evangelised about the power of the random object (see earlier posts).  The partitions between spaces are mostly transparent, so GSK avoids the sense of segregation which can dominate other office environments.

Elsewhere in the world, architects have experimented with:

·         The blending of indoor and outdoor spaces (fine in California; less fine in Aberdeen)

·         Games rooms, slides and waterfalls

·         Programmable lights which can transform the look and feel of a room

·         Buildings heavily modelled on other objects such as a tent, town centre or a farm

·         Very high ceilings, which apparently encourage us to think more freely and abstractly, with less attention to detail

What I found most interesting though was the likely impact of colour:  A 2009 study in Science magazine found that we remember details best when surrounded by red, but are more imaginative in the presence of blue.

It’s a good thing I opted for that eggshell blue in my study at home.  Now if only I could do something about the ceiling …

Are you Genuine and Mature?

I recently attended an event at which one of the speakers invited audience response along these lines:

"Which of the following best describes your organisation?
"1. Says it's not interested in innovation
"2. Says it's interested, but doesn't really mean it
"3. Is interested in innovation, but doesn't have a meaningful plan
"4. Is interested in innovation, and has a plan"

It occurs to me that this question could actually form the basis for examining organisations—a sort of poor man's "maturity model" for innovation, if you'll indulge me!

So where would we place our own organisations on this scale?   And what's to be gained by so doing?

Disinterested
If an organisation rates itself thus, there are some serious questions to be asked.  First of all, we'll probably find that "Disinterested Plc." is already investing in non-operational matters, so by many people's definitions there will actually be plenty of innovation going on.  If there isn't, the company can't be sustainable in the long-term.  Even if there is, the lack of recognition suggests that more focus might improve results.

Pretender
Companies which feign interest in innovation may just be trying to protect their reputations in a market which has suddenly become obsessed with the term "innovation".  I'd worry more about "Pretender.com" than about "Disinterested Plc.", because the latter is likely to be more open-minded.  Pretender.com sounds to me like an organisation lacking in integrity, so probably has bigger problems to worry about anyway.  Perhaps it devotes a lot of time to finessing, subterfuge and in-fighting?

Well-Intentioned
"Well-Intentioned, Lost Ltd." (WILL) could well be on a journey, but it's not clear in which direction.  With any luck it's recognised the need for developing creative propositions, but not yet found the time, budget or cultural motivation to take the subject seriously.  If so, it's likely that will change in time.  The alternative is that WILL has evolved from a product to a services company (haven't we all?)  If so, then perhaps it has always believed in innovation, but has struggled to apply its former R&D specialism in a services context, and may never realise that aspiration.

Effective
Organisations like "Now We're Cook-Inc." are clearly in a good place, and should thrive for as long as their competitors remain less effective.  The important art here is balance:  It would be easy for an evangelistic company like this to allow its excitement about "new stuff" to dominate, and allow margins to erode, and leadership attention to divert entirely away from matters operational.  

So on reflection, perhaps there's a fifth level of maturity, where innovation is a natural function of the business, self-improving and self-optimising, sensitive to external "PESTLE" forces.

What do you think?   Do these levels make sense?  Where do you sit, and why?

Learning to Think

It's funny how things come in threes (apparently).  This week the theme seems to be education ...

1.  Lately I've been considering how little coverage of the subject of thinking featured in my schooling.  It was an unspoken rule throughout that thinking was something you just did, and you were either good or bad at it.

Our old friend de Bono would argue that there has been a major deficiency in Western education over the years, in that we've been focusing solely on left-to-right, critical analytical thinking (so-called Socratic method).  I feel there's something in this.   In response to this problem, he developed his CoRT programme for schools, designed to help children find alternative and better ways to think.

But having quickly trawled the web to bring myself up-to-date, I found evidence of change at
http://www.teachingtimes.com/publications/teaching-thinking-and-creativity.htm.  Not being a regular at schools these days I've asked for more details, and if I find evidence of strong take-up I'll post again on this subject.

2.  Whilst mulling this over in my mind, I found myself en route to an open forum at the House of Commons on Wednesday morning.  The event was run by NESTA, and centred around its publication "Creative Clusters".  Although I didn't spot education as a major theme of the report, many of the audience were extremely exercised about the policies of the cross-party panel of MPs, which they felt threatened education in support of the creative industries.   They're right to worry: the creative industries are footloose and could migrate away from the UK more easily than other sectors. 

(I've yet to understand exactly why Feargal Sharkey was there.  He was only two seats away, so perhaps I should have asked him?)

One of the MPs on the panel was Damian Collins (Con) who regaled us with stories of his time at Saatchi and Saatchi advertising agency. 

3.  Lo-and-behold on the train home I found a Times article quoting the CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi.  Apparently Kevin Roberts has recently said:

"Originally I thought business schools gave you a fantastic toolkit, a great framework, but sent you out with zero creativity and innovation skills.

"But as I gained knowledge about business schools and the MBA, I realised that not only is there a lack of creativity and innovation, but also they miss business-savvy judgment and decision-making skills."


If we're to take any of this at face-value, it seems a shake-up is beginning.  There's room for improved education about modes of thinking other than the analytical at primary schools (where the really deep changes can take root), in secondary and higher education (where we all too often follow the paths prescribed by others), and certainly in vocational education such as the MBA (where we should have long ago recognised that effective business leadership demands individuals to apply creative thinking as a matter of course.

The Left Hand MUSTN'T know what the Right Hand is doing

We often chide the organisations with which we work for their apparent poor communication.  If the "left hand doesn't know that the right hand is doing" then that's a bad thing, yes?

In the dissemination of information, it certainly is a bad thing.  But the purposeful separation of concepts in the initial stages of innovation can be a very powerful tool indeed, especially where functional divides are already deeply entrenched.

It's best to explain this paradox by example:

I often see product developers exploring opportunities in early collaboration with operational or IT staff, and just occasionally there's an immediate meetings-of-minds.

More often though, when the two groups meet too early we find that embryonic business ideas are killed-off quickly by a storm of parochial objections, and valuable process and technology assets just seem meaninglessly abstract in the context of the business opportunity.

If instead, we first support different groups in exploring their own worlds, we may find that when they do join forces:
 - There's much richer raw material for each to share
 - There are many more chances to link the two worlds (see figure)
 - There's a greater likelyhood of mutual respect and future engagement

But the two "hands" in the metaphor needn't always represent marketeers and technologists, they could equally well be ...
... analytical problem-solvers and creative problem-solvers,
... upper management and trainees, or
... researchers and service teams

We shouldn't think of this philosophy as counter-collaborative; in fact it allows us to guide the overall creative effort so as to make collaborations richer and ultimately more successful.  Initial introspection amongst the separate teams should last hours or days, never weeks or months, and should not be considered a valid end in itself.

"Meetings kill creativity." Discuss ...

Just yesterday I read an article titled "Is Your Calendar Managing You?"   The material therein is nothing new: it's been the topic of many a management diatribe over the years.  But its relevance to creativity at work is actually rather profound, and that justifies a little dedicated attention in this column.

We're all really, really, really busy.  It goes without saying.

But should our calendars be full if our appointments don't directly support our avowed priorities?

How sensible is it to spend an hour each week updating a weekly activity report, when most of the tasks referenced are only of nominal importance?

How vital is it that we attend three status meetings every Tuesday, spending 70% of each meeting hearing our peers slip their actions, and then excuse the slippage in ever more elaborate ways?

How critical that we review that 12th technical specification, when others will contribute much more meaningfully to the process?

Chris Guillebeau is famous for telling us that only around 20% of traditional white-collar work is actually useful.  I find it hard to disagree, but at least I now try to challenge-down the offending 80% of my own work, and often that of my clients too.

If we let it, our diary will fill with meaningless work.  And if we're not thinking straight, we'll consider the depth of that time commitment to be a minor victory!

So if you're spending 30 hours a week in meetings (and still finding time to read this blog) then consider the following for a moment:

1. Saving just half that time would give you three hours back each day.  You could use 90 minutes to get some of the actual work done, and still have 90 minutes free for thinking, to sharpen your edge.
2. Attending fewer meetings would keep more of your mind from meaningless junk, and perhaps permit a bit more space for intelligent views to form.
3. Optimum creativity demands a bit of leisure time, to open the mind
4. Creativity can be stifled by repeating the same old patterns time-after-time.  The synaptic pathways in our brains deepen, and we become "old dogs" before our time.

If you've been paying attention so far, you'll have developed a nice counter-argument for me:  "Surely," you'll say, "the best creative ideas are arrived at in meetings?"

Having reflected on this extensively in the past, I don't think your canny counter-argument is as clear-cut as we first imagine.  Firstly, what's required for new ideas is a blending of disjoint concepts, and that needn't happen in a face-to-face meeting.

Perhaps more fundamentally, we shouldn't underestimate the extent to which we can be creative alone.  With a little preparation and training this quickly becomes an invaluable skill, and certainly something I'd be loath to trade-in for another "Morning Prayers".

Facing the Cynics

Antisthenes

If you're lucky, you might start with reasonable freedoms when you first experiment with creative techniques at work, even if you're in a traditionally analytical sector. 

But it doesn't usually last long.  For all sorts of reasons, you're likely to be challenged about the value of your new approach, and you'll need to consider how to tackle that.

The obvious responses are supported by:

Evidence - Demonstrate where the approach has generated something of business value rather than purely of academic interest.  Ideally this should have occured where other more sequential methods had failed.  For maximum impact the exercise should have been conducted like a scientific experiment, with an initial hypothesis, controlled variables, and measured outputs.

Opinion - Draw on support from steady, well-regarded people who have always believed in the value of creative thinking, and more importantly from those who have recently become converts.

Direct action - Cajole, wheedle or reward your cynic for getting directly involved in creative brainstorming (though you might improve your chances if you call it something else!)  This is one area where your cynics' pre-dispositions can help:  Invite them to critically analyse the effectiveness of other competing techniques, and also to recognise the merits of experimentation.

Analysis - Consider what might be behind the cynicism.  Is it that the opposition results from previous experience (find out what happened), too little time (take some load away), jealousy (be inclusive) or just received opinion (arrange for alternative opinions to be aired).

Creativity - Use your preferred techniques for creative thinking to arrive at your own alternative responses, by focusing on the specifics of your situation.

If all else fails ... ignore the cynics, and try to take comfort in knowing something they don't!