| Print version | |
Related Links |
|
| The Rocky Road to Innovative Software Products – An Example | |
Background Links |
|
| Review of Leonardo's Laptop (Ben Shneiderman) | |
By Gerd Waloszek, SAP User Experience, SAP AG – August 21, 2001
We live in creative times. Everywhere, people's creativity is in demand - at work, in the kitchen, and not least in the design of dialogs and graphics for applications. No wonder there is a profusion of books, training courses, and advice on how to generate creativity. Companies send employees on creativity training; design gurus divulge the secrets of their creativity to conventions and other audiences.
But it isn't as if this were a new issue. For a century, cognitive psychology has sought the roots of creativity and ways to encourage its growth. If you cast a critical eye on some recent books and published views on creativity, you might soon come to the conclusion that there is much old wine about in new bottles. Is creativity research in the throws of a creativity crisis? Just when production cycles are becoming ever shorter, and demands on creativity are becoming ever greater?
In this article, I do not propose to again rehearse what cognitive psychology has discovered and what the many publications on creativity tell us. All that is accessible enough, and you often find it is of no practical application in your work. Rather, I will address particular points that I have become aware of, and offer some recommendations to help everyone get in touch with their "creative selves."
One of the most well known ways of bringing out creative ideas is brainstorming, where everybody shares their spontaneous ideas in a criticism-free environment before evaluating them. You should only really use this method if you are going to follow the recommended guidelines. Many groups meet to collect ideas in an impulsive, rather unorganized fashion, and call this brainstorming. But they don't always remember to hold back on the criticism. The main point of brainstorming is that you collect together as many ideas as possible and then evaluate them and select some - the more, the merrier.
I must confess that I don't believe quantity is always a good thing. Of course, it's good to have more than one alternative when you are selecting an idea; moreover, you end up with lots of ideas that complement each other. However, quantity does not ensure quality. Great ideas are few and far between. More frequently, good ideas are emulated: Barely has one car got a new rounded shape and sales are up, then all cars have this rounded form; somebody designs a user interface with 3D effects and suddenly they are all 3D. I daresay that brainstorming produces a huge number of average or run-of-the-mill ideas, and certainly a lot more than if one person ponders over the problem. But extraordinary ideas seldom make their entrance on these occasions. It remains to be seen whether average ideas are enough to ensure a company's success. They are for routine tasks; you often need mainstream ideas when new, creative ones would rock the boat. Nevertheless, what about when you are looking for new directions and concepts?
At a time of constantly changing requirements, speed and pressure are very important - time is money, the early bird catches the worm, and so on. Some people claim that they can only work under pressure. It's a good job they live in this era then.
Brainstorming sessions should throw up as many creative ideas as possible within a limited period. But is it really possible for everyone to have their best ideas at this time and place, in this group? I'm sure there are some people who are bubbling over with ideas. Then again, not everyone is like that. My ideas never come to me during brainstorming sessions - it's all too fast for me and they come two hours, two days, or even two weeks later. Naturally, I don't know if these ideas would have been chosen, but I just don't believe in creativity on command.
One argument for pressure is that you have to be the first to market or that you have to corner the market early on. Although it is important to corner the market at the right time, you don't have to be the first. There are enough examples of this in the software industry: the first ones on the market have disappeared and those that arrived on the scene later came away (and still are) successful. Maybe it's not even important to have the good ideas yourself, you only need to know when to make your move or jump on the bandwagon.
So that last remark left the idea of needing to develop your own creativity high and dry. First, let's assume that we still want to come up with creative ideas ourselves. What can we do to come up with ideas, that is good, new ideas?
Nothing comes from nothing, goes the old proverb. It is certainly sometimes beneficial to let heterogeneous groups who are unfamiliar with the material develop ideas. This can help to break out of the usual thinking mould and try new directions without being restricted. Unfortunately, many of these ideas don't stand up to closer scrutiny since they don't take significant constraints into consideration. That's why I think precisely the opposite is necessary - you need to fully commit yourself to a task or problem so that you can study it from every aspect. This sometimes requires hours of concentrated effort - something that is rarely possible in offices today. With complex problems, it can sometimes be a long time before you've gathered all the threads together - a slight knot and you have to start again. After three knots, you've missed the chance. Nowadays, the office environment is totally unproductive to demanding, intellectual activity. It is the good, clever companies that give their employees the opportunity to find a quiet location for this activity - whether at home, close to nature, or in a calm, relaxing environment. The expectation that employees who can work under pressure can achieve high performance even in a noisy office is a misconception - particularly when it is a matter of solving complex problems or developing new ideas.
One of the best methods is still putting some distance between you and the problem or task so that you gain some space to allow ideas to come to you. Cognitive psychologists cite many reasons why this is effective; for employers, it is rather suspect because they have to resign themselves to their employees not dealing with important tasks for a while, even when time is limited. Instead of working, maybe employees do nothing, go fishing, or go shopping in town. Sadly, employees are all too often judged on the time they spend sitting in the office rather than on the work they actually produce. This judgement is often accompanied by "You would achieve a lot more if you actually sat down and did something in the time you spend wandering about," but leisure time is essential for the method to be effective.
It is hard to say as there are many times when things occur to me. Yet it is easier to say when I can't think of anything, namely when there's a great deal going on in my office or I'm in meetings with colleagues. I don't know if that's the same for other people, but I would imagine so. Of course, I can't insist on the colleagues in my office being silent; no more than they can me. Nevertheless, it is important to know about opportunities to escape, when this opportunity is needed, and that colleagues accept this escape - and that they do the same when they need to.
Back to the initial question, however. Everyone knows when his or her ideas start to flow - people are all very different. My ideas come to me when I get up in the morning, cycle in to work, walk to and from the bathroom, when I go for a walk - obviously not when I'm at my computer. So tip number 1 is always leave your computer and have a change of scenery when you get bogged down or simply feel the need.
However, ideas do come to me at the computer when I've built up a high level of concentration, the threads are unraveled, and my thoughts are flowing. Tip number 2 is be sufficiently involved in something and fully concentrate and ideas will come to you - this can be at your computer, as many developers and authors will confirm.
Tip number 3 is a natural progression: Find the right interplay between concentrated effort and distance from the task in hand. Tip number 4 is find a working environment that lets you build up the required level of concentration.
I've already touched on the topic of ideas on command and questioned this approach. Here is another reason why I am so skeptical toward many creativity methods: They do not take our subconscious into account. Now, the subconscious is something that we do not understand and cannot control. We've known since Freud's time that it can control us, and many people see it as mysterious or even dangerous. That's why many cognitive methods concentrate solely on rationale - all problems should be solved with your full awareness. Yet, the subconscious can be our ally, because it works for us. When we have long since left work and are relaxing at home, it is continuing to work for us - creating associations, highlighting significant facts, and letting the unimportant be forgotten. And suddenly - plop - an idea rises to the surface without having caused us too much effort. Then it is important to switch on your awareness so that you can evaluate the idea and decide whether it is worth pursuing.
You can even make your brain work unconsciously. For example, I couldn't remember the name of the Romanian president. So, I ordered my brain to find it for me. Of course, that doesn't work without some help. An example: I knew the name of the Bulgarian president; this and a few other associations and I had set my brain on the right track. After half an hour, the answer was there.
Often enough, we have ideas of which we are very proud, only to soon realize that other people have also had this idea. Then we get angry that we weren't the only ones to have this idea; never mind that that's not fair to the other people. No, ideas do not appear from nowhere; they are "born" in a particular climate. This climate is the environment in which we live along with many other people, whether at work, in society, or in a particular community. Since ideas are often a combination of or variations on existing ideas, you often find that many people in this biotope plan the same transformations of existing ideas and then develop the same ideas. You even hear that the time is "right" for particular ideas; people talk about a convergence of ideas. This circumstance even inspired Sheldrake's hypothesis that something like an intellectual medium exists, called morphic fields (a kind of global, intellectual ether) in which we all participate, that we can all tap into, and via which these convergent ideas are developed. Everyone can decide for themselves whether to believe in such hypotheses or whether they are content with a less spectacular explanation. Nevertheless, we can conclude that creativity necessitates the creation of a climate in the community - whether in a development or a design team - in which ideas are developed and openly discussed. I rather doubt whether brainstorming sessions are a suitable medium for creating such a climate.
It is important for the development of ideas that new ideas stem from old ones and that we feed out brain with as many associations as possible before we set it free. This counts equally for simple search tasks as I described earlier or for the solution of complex problems and development of new approaches. That is surely one of the operating principles of the intellectual climate I described above - associations are developed not only by us but also by the entire community.
How much creativity do we need at work, particularly how many ideas outside the usual thinking patterns do we require? It isn't easy to answer this. I don't want to claim that a graphic designer has to be more creative than a developer or user interface designer, or the other way round. At some point, everyone needs new ideas, and at other times, everyone needs ideas that are inherent in what has gone before. Even the pressure to continuously generate new kinds of ideas can itself be inherent in the work of professions such as advertising. To me, the crucial aspect seems to be that everyone should know the right balance for his or her task: between tried-and-tested and new ideas, between involvement and distance, and between work and leisure.
Where do you think I wrote this article - in the office or while relaxing at home? You've got three guesses but I bet you get it in one…