Brainstorming, as practiced in its various forms, has achieved widespread acceptance as a tool for solving problems creatively. Recent research now suggests that the yield of brainstorming sessions isn't much better than the results of just asking all participants to generate ideas not in a formal session but in whatever way they wish [Brown 2002]. Explanations for this finding differ, and I suspect that a consensus explanation has yet to emerge. In the meantime, people who must solve difficult problems need an approach of some kind, and it's up to them to fashion or adopt whatever method they think will work.
Because of ongoing debate about measuring the effectiveness of brainstorming, there is at least some doubt about these recent findings. A metric such as ideas generated per unit time seems on its face to ignore other benefits, like strengthening interpersonal relationships, or disseminating organizational knowledge, to name just two. But for now, let's accept that brainstorming might not be the "one best way" to create ideas. Because examining alternatives might be worthwhile, I looked at one that goes by the name speedstorming.
In a brainstorming session, there is a facilitator, a scribe, and a group of up to 20 or 25 participants. In my experience, groups above 15 might need an additional scribe. The group addresses an issue captured in a problem statement. Participants contribute ideas that might relate to a solution, either in turns or at random, as the scribe records the contributions. Brainstorming might not
be the "one best way"
to create ideasSpeed is important, and no idea is too crazy. The most important rule of brainstorming is that evaluation of ideas is banned.
In speedstorming, contributors work in pairs, recording the ideas their own pair generates [Hey 2009]. To support a group of, say, 20, the room is equipped with ten pairs of chairs. The pairs are arranged far enough apart to enable each pair of participants to converse without hampering its neighbors. One chair of each pair is designated for a Stationary participant, and the other for a Mobile participant. Each pair of chairs is labeled in some ordered way, numerically or alphabetically. The session begins with a problem statement, as in brainstorming, and then each pair of participants generates a set of contributions. After a short time, of order five or ten minutes, everyone seated in a Mobile chair moves to the Mobile chair of the next station in order, and the new pairs begin work. It's a little like speed dating. At the end of the session, the group compiles all contributions from all pairs. In a group of 20, there will be 190 unique pairs. One hundred of them will be covered by the process above, which omits pairing members of the Mobile group with each other (45 pairs in this example), and members of the Stationary group with each other (45 pairs).
So that's how the two structures work, mechanically. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
One difference between these two approaches is their degree of parallelism. In brainstorming, when one participant makes a contribution, and the scribe records it, all other participants must wait. Contributions are thus captured serially. In speedstorming, because each pair works independently, all pairs work in parallel. The rate of contribution generation in speedstorming is therefore much higher than in brainstorming.
But there's another very important consequence of the difference in structures of these two methods. When one person makes a contribution, it can trigger new ideas on the part of the rest of the participants (in brainstorming) or on the part of the contributor's partner (in speedstorming). In brainstorming, some of these triggered ideas are lost because people might need to wait to get a chance to comment to the group. That doesn't happen in speedstorming, because each conversation is between only two people. Triggered ideas are then much more likely to be captured in speedstorming.
Are your virtual meetings plagued by inattentiveness, interruptions, absenteeism, and a seemingly endless need to repeat what somebody just said? Do you have trouble finding a time when everyone can meet? Do people seem disengaged and apathetic? Or do you have violent clashes and a plague of virtual bullying? Read Leading Virtual Meetings for Real Results to learn how to make virtual meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot shorter. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:
- Project Improvisation as Group Process
- When project plans contact reality, things tend to get, um, a bit confused. We can sometimes see the
trouble coming in time to replan thoughtfully — if we're nearly clairvoyant. Usually, we have
to improvise. How a group improvises tells us much about the group.
- Workplace Politics and Type III Errors
- Most job descriptions contain few references to political effectiveness, beyond the fairly standard
collaborate-to-achieve-results kinds of requirements. But because true achievement often requires political
sophistication, understanding the political content of our jobs is important.
- Rationalizing Creativity at Work: I
- Much of the work of modern organizations requires creative thinking. But financial and schedule pressures
can cause us to adopt processes that unexpectedly and paradoxically suppress creativity, thereby increasing
costs and stretching schedules. What are the properties of effective approaches?
- Wishful Significance: I
- When things don't work out, and we investigate why, we sometimes attribute our misfortune to "wishful
thinking." In this part of our exploration of wishful thinking we examine how we arrive at mistaken
assessments of the significance of what we see, hear, or learn.
- On Assigning Responsibility for Creating Trouble
- When we assign responsibility for troubles that bedevil us, we often make mistakes. We can be misled
by language, stereotypes, and the assumptions we make about others.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.