Spectrum Analysis
Often there is a simple and straightforward way in which to generate good ideas within a setting where there is considerable divergence. As I noted in one of my previous essays in this series (Bergquist, 2023d), a spectrum analysis can be engaged that brings an appreciative perspective to all ideas that are offered in a problem-solving setting. Each idea resides somewhere on a line (spectrum) between great idea (regarding both current and desired state) to bad idea. There is always the kernel of a good idea in anyone that is presented. The most creative thing that can be done is identifying this kernel and building on it.
In this setting, it is the obligation not of the person presenting the idea but of other people to identify its merits. Psychological safety resides in this approach to the generation of useful ideas. The more diverse the population of those who are generating the ideas the richer will be not only the variety and scope of ideas being offered but also the variety and scope of suggestions made about the value inherent in each idea. It often takes a few minutes for spectrum analysis to be engaged for a creative yet practical idea to be identified and accepted by the group. It is important to note that this appreciative approach goes beyond just the generation of ideas; it requires the appreciative analysis of each idea.
Divergence and Convergence
The most obvious (and often distracting) difference between ideas concerns how “out of the box” they are. Ideas are often dismissed in many settings because they are too creative or not creative enough. Some ideas are of value between they build on the current way this are done (staying close to the domain of information). These ideas are considered convergent and are often dismissed as “boring” or too conservative. Other ideas are more “blue sky” and highly creative (staying close to the domain of intentions). These ideas are considered divergent. They are often dismissed as being “crazy” or too radical. Both the divergent and convergent perspective can be of great value. It is a matter of finding time and setting up processes that facilitate both divergent and convergent thinking and imagining.
Idea generation usually involves two steps. The first is based on the value of expanding the range of possible actions. This is “divergent” problem-solving. Returning to the distinction between NOISE and BIAS, we are trying to increase the NOISE associated with our idea generation. The second step is based on the value of homing in on a small number of potential actions—selecting from the broader range of options identified in the first step. This second “convergent” step moves us toward greater clarity and commitment. It might be increasing the BIAS. Thoughtful, slow thinking (Kahneman, 2011) is required.
Many divergent “brainstorming” and “out of the box” planning tools are available to help open the doors for the production of diverse ideas. We are particularly fond of a tool called Morphological (Shape) Analysis (Bergquist and Phillips, 1979, pp. 150-154). A problem-solving team engages in divergent and creative processes when they change the shape of a situation (information). Instead of designing a program for fifty people, what if you first designed it for one person or for 500 people. The shape of a target (intentions) can also be modified. What if a program is designed to bring together urbanites from New York City with members of a primitive tribe in Papua? Instead, the program can be directed toward teaching a new set of leadership skills not to adults but instead to five-year-old children. Finally, the shape of possible solutions (ideas) can be altered. The solutions can be absolutely “silly” or absurd. They can be absolutely unattainable or require massive financial outlays (or require no money at all).
