Creative Group

Asking how to set up a creative group is only one half of the picture. Creative thinking occurs in context and varies and is responsive to context.You also have to have a good analysis of what tools and materials are available to you and what the time frame is and what degree of precision with which you need to effect the desired changes - maintain the status quo. (I am avoiding saying 'solve the problem'because that is a kind of metaphor which may not always apply.) Also one assumes a creative group would have a client, the prson who wants some kind of change. Communication with the client IMO is about 90% of the challenge - cf trying to set up a database for someone - they usually don't knowwhat they want, what they want to do or what they could do and are likely to change their minds half way through.

Actually I think a creative group would have to go through a very similar process to that of someone designing a database for a client. This problem - of trying to find out exactly what they want - is convergent, not divergent - there is one optimum way to do it. Once you get this right, you have found the constraints for the topic (I am trying not to say 'problem',because it may not be one). Then you could list the possible permutations of the topic features - the ones that are apparnt the goups anyway. This would be a process similar to fault testing - you check through the possibilities. Another way of expressing this would be to say Methodically check out all possible algorithms you can think of (knowing your list will likely be incomplete.)

Now when you have exhausted all the obvious, methodical donkey work, then you can become creative by going back and reconsidering all the possibilites you previously discarded, because some of them may work after all with a tweak or a reframing.

I suppose I am suggesting a meta-algorthim here. I actually believe there is a solution to any problem -i.e thee is always a way forward for a human being or a human group, but the problem may have to be radicallly reframed. But I don;t think you ever actually have to conceptualize yourself as being forced to 'give up'. I think this attitude/ viewpoint is vital to creativity - because you wanted todo the work involved unless you believe it will pay off. As the Romans said They can because they believe they can. Long comment but complex question

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on May 2, 2010 at 14:18

Ok, communication with the client is important.

I like the idea of a meta-algorithimn. (In chess, positions can be widely different, but some types of plastic methods can be applied to almost any situation. Also, one chess writer said if you want to do something badly enough, you will find a way to make it work.)

One difference between designing a database for a client, and developing creative ideas for a client, is that with a database you are giving them the complete package.

With the ideas, ultimately they have the final say on how or what ideas are implemented.

It came to me, to provide a client with a number of creative possibilities and likely outcomes (and other details) and present these in a way that they can make a choice based on all their information etc. (they will always tend to have more information than what can be passed on to a third party.)

To put things in perspective, the group are not likely to be specialist consultants in a certain field, but nonetheless may generate ideas that might not have necessarily been generated.

Here are some steps that might be used in such a process.
(a) The client presents the situation and what they are seeking
(b) Group discusses same
(c) Group interacts with client to gather more information from client about situation until enough data is
received (white hat)
(d) Ideas generated using tools (interaction with client could continue)
(e) Ideas consolidated, ranked etc. (some removed) to improve presentation to client
(f) Feedback received from client
(g) Process continues if necessary

This is a bit rough. What do others think steps could be?

Permalink Reply by Diane Yeldon on May 2, 2010 at 17:51

Hi, I guess there is an issue here whether the client has a closed problem or an open-ended problem. If it's a closed problem, then I think this can be compared to setting up a database for them - and the problem is actually convergent i.e an optimum solution exists -or one right answer and one right(best) way to find it.
On the other hand, if the problem is not closed, then I dont think I want to be involved because I'd be wasting my time. This would be just like a kid asking me to get him what he likes to eat but not telling me what that is. I could be guessing forever.
I mean other people's creativity cannot be usefully applied when the client doesn't know what he wants.
Other people cannot actually be creative on behalf of the client. They might use their own creativity to help solve his problem but that is not the same thing. I'm not sure that I am explaining this distinction well enough. Will wait for feedback.

Yes, I like the process you have outlined. How much data is enough? A tricky problem to decide what is sufficient information, especially if conditions are changing.
Am not keen on interaction with client during the process. I would be suspicious that s/he might subtlely change the rules of the game halfway through and not all parties would end up being on the same pagge i.e cross communication amounting to non-communciation.
Also not sure about giving the client a choice of solution. That might start him/her dithering. Better would be to present him/her with a yes/no. If it's no, present him/her with the next on the list (after a little time space). People can often recognize what they want when they see it. But they couldn't describe it beforehand.

I guess I'm as much concerned about not having my time wasted in fruitless activity as I am helping the client solve his/her problem.I mean, it's not very creative or sensible for me to be banging my head against a brick wall. Things have to be do-able to be done. I've found a great test of do-ability is to ask WHERE would be a good place to do that.

Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on May 3, 2010 at 0:45

ok then
(a) The client presents the situation and what they are seeking
(b) Group interacts with client to gather more information from client about situation until enough data is received (white hat)
(c) Ideas generated using thinking tools/framework
(d) Ideas consolidated, ranked etc. (some removed) to improve presentation to client
(e) Feedback received from client
(f) Process continues if necessary (next item on the list)

ok, communication with client during process removed. Point taken about the 'shifting goalpost'
phenomenon.

Communication with client to make it clear it is understand what they want, for white hat thinking and for feedback (so its clear the client understands the response.) I have heard a programmer does what he thinks the client thinks he has told him.

In some cases the process could be simple and quick. In simpler specific cases a closed end approach would be effective.

The idea of a number of possibilities came from imagining a more complex scenario like a company losing money. There might need to be a number of actions that need to be done.

Permalink Reply by Diane Yeldon on May 3, 2010 at 8:12

Hi, yeah, I think you have got something testable there. I really like "a programmer does what he thinks the client thinks he has told him." Hah!

But now there are all sorts of human problems to get all the players playing this game.
First the client is going to have to admit s/he has a problem he can't solve and which someone else might be able to. Isn't that going to make him feel inferior?

And mightn't s/he be concerned about confidentiality?

Have we got a creative group willing to work with clients yet ? Ah! say with - not for , and don't exclude him from the probem solving group and process after all. Because then you can make the offer more attractive and not present it as a scenario where s/he must lose face to accept it in the first place.
I think a creative group should be able to learn the tact and diplomacy necessary -and make their problem solving process explicit enough to entertain the client. An added advantage for the client is that he gets an opportunity to learn new skills. Er um, actually, it might be better still to present the whole thing as an eduational package and get the client to bring up a specific problem of his as an example to work on. There are plenty of corporate budgets which would already allow for creative problem solving training.
I really think this problem of people not wanting to look stupid is a huge obstacle to them learning from example how not to be. Actually I suspect the smarter you are the less worried you are about looking stupid .. because you can see it doesn't pay off.

Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on May 3, 2010 at 11:23

It might be good to start applying some tools/framework to these kind of issues.

Did you ever see the TV show Ramsey, the guy who visits restaraunts who aren't doing so well and abuses them? I guess he didn't need tact, because they were appearing on tv.

Permalink Reply by Paul Wythe on May 16, 2010 at 17:03

Hi guys. Very interesting discussion. The hardest part of any organisation is to introduce new ideas and change. Abuse rarely works in getting people to solve problems. I would suggest that one needs to add to the mix: a CEO who will inspire his people to be creative; client to drive the process and timescales using internally generated ideas; provocation only to come from outside; selection from inside.

Perhaps, the thinking group would provide the PO and the internal would be taught to understand PO and to separate evaluation.

Permalink Reply by Diane Yeldon on May 16, 2010 at 18:41

Hi, the ramifications of human resistance to change is something I have just been discussing with Dr Vicki Lee, a Psychology PhD, ex-academic, original researcher and writer of learned books, who just happens to be my sister.
She said to me that when to persist in a behaviour and when to change strategy (negatively called 'giving up') is the hardest question abut human behaviour. (She will probably take me to task for expressing it like this - she makes incredibly fine distinctions when talking about human behaviour.)

My input into this conversation was to comment on what a tiny number of food plant species human beings have made use of. Virtually every culture had found the bare minimum that does the job of keeping them alive and relatively healthy and then stopped experimenting. And any one raising little kids knows they hate to try new foods and really dislike their foods mixed up.
You can see a possible genetic selection for conservative behaviour -- the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know when the latter might kill you.
However in our present situation, where we are the victims of our own technological "success", it will be the devil we know that will kill us if we don't change and change dramatically and fast.
So how do we encourage change of human behaviour?
I am guessing here but I think my sister would say we shape it i.e we try to get closer and closer tothe desired behaviour for whatever reason and by whatever means,in contrast to the ususal theory of trying to create a sense of purpose in a person i.e trying to make them want to and choose to do something.This is reminiscent of successful Artificial Intelligence experiments. But it also obviously raising alarming ethical questions - what right do some human beings have to manage and/or manipulate other human beings? Which in turn raises the question of whether they are already in a sense being manipulated and/or managed anyway - the sort of argument B F Skinner raised against objections to what he wrote in Beyond Freedom and Dignity.

Do you notice how few people have joined this group? Maybe in itself that is a demonstration of human conservativeness

Permalink Reply by Franis on May 20, 2010 at 23:45

Agreed!
In dealing with business owners who are just starting out, my experience has been being the first designer in charge of creating their first "image" for their business. I was their sign painter, often the finishing touch before they opened their doors for business. This sometimes evolved into doing logo design with them.

I found that it helps to come up with questions for the client to answer so I can do my job for them. It was a way to deal with a useless battle of wills about "taste" that begs the question about who is going to get to determine what gets selected. With well-formed questions, answering the question defines the selection criteria (and sometimes the priority) of what is "best."

For instance, in selecting a lettering style that projects the qualities of the business, I would have the business owners think of three qualities they would like their business to project as an image to their customers. "Reliable, fast, and cheerful" image for a mail service would indicate a very different lettering style than "curious, generous, educational" of a gift store for kids toys. Then I would give them a few choices of lettering styles that do project those qualities, so every choice they make fulfills the needs of communicating what sort of business they are in to the public.

Perhaps we could develop these questions for specific categories of needs?
Or perhaps we could do some thinking about what these categories of needs are to start off?

Permalink Reply by Diane Yeldon on May 18, 2010 at 12:47

Hi,I'd rather think of one topic at a time - so will look at the idea of business and ethics. I've thought about what we call business - it's usually transfer of ownership by agreement (input welcome on these ideas as I am still exploring them). There can be three kinds of business IMO assuming the actors are buyer and seller and environment (both physical and social etc). (I love tables but I can''t put one here so you'll have to imagine one.)`
1) Buyer win, seller win, environment win.
2) Buyer win, seller lose, environment win
3) Buyer lose, seller win, environment win.

Now repeat those three possibilities with environment lose.

Only one of these (seller win, buyer win and environment win) is ethical behaviour, Or Good Work in Schumacher's sense. The other possibilities can be called fraud, corruption, exploitation or taking unfair advantage of someone. These activities can be carried out by groups as well as individuals (includes collusion and conspiracy. )
It seems very strange to me that all these widely differing activities are usually called 'business or trade or economic activity' when only one is ethical behaviour.
Creating problems for people so you can sell them a solution is clearly not ethical IMO.

Permalink Reply by Diane Yeldon on May 19, 2010 at 9:53

A matter of opinion whether these examples are ethical or not, I think

Permalink Reply by Paul Wythe on May 19, 2010 at 14:13

A useful diversion. But I suggest we move on. Can we perhaps build on the ideas presented? How would one market the service? Would one intend to get paid? Do we believe we have over come objections to the process of being outsiders providing creative input? How would we deal with confidentiality? Would we work with six hats, brain storming, or other ideas set out in Lateral Thinking for Management? Would we decide to use a set of tools provided by Edward's literature?

Could we work on a case study and see what happened?

Paul.

Permalink Reply by Diane Yeldon on May 19, 2010 at 15:43

I don't think we have enough creative problem solvers interested in participating yet. How to get more? What about a case study competition? I wouldn't like to have to figure out how to set it up and provide incentives for entry though.