Though an early skeptic about Twitter, I gradually joined the revolution. First I connected with a few social-tech-savvy friends, then added some colleagues and acquaintances. Eventually, a random tweet would grab my attention and I’d decide to follow its author. Soon I was reading the microblogs of dozens of strangers.

Twitter has a way of polarizing. It’s either a distracting waste of time or a modern method of exchanging information. It all depends on how you use it. One friend of mine never tweets and follows only news sources, journalists and recognized thought leaders. Twitter is how he aggregates his daily news into one constant feed. Keep reading »

So much depends on getting the right people in the room. A workshop designed to produce innovative outcome can fail – even with the perfect agenda design and the most astute facilitators – if the people who’ve been assembled don’t have the right spirit and motivation to help it succeed.  But how do you get the right minds in the right place?

Bharat Maldé is an organisational psychologist who works closely with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the first proponent of the Sandpit process.  We believe his guidance is critical to the success of these workshops, which is why we asked him to talk about his experience working with the EPSRC and other scientific research organizations, screening applicants for the intense Sandpit event. Keep reading »

The way we talk about our problems says a lot about how likely we are to solve them creatively. When we state a problem as a fact, it becomes a heavy weight. For instance: Nobody’s been able to model the XXX process. Indeed, that’s a problem. It’s also a negative statement – already a downer – and it doesn’t lead to any ideas. It’s a static problem.

A productive problem is one that’s phrased as a question: How might we understand how to model this process? It asks you to wonder about the problem, and even suggests other questions: In what ways is it like other processes that we can model? How might we understand and model aspect of it piece by piece? A problem posed as a question invites ideas that might be a solution. Not even just one solution; an open-ended, wondering question hints that there might be many approaches that could work. Keep reading »

We see it happen in working groups all the time. A new idea gets suggested – whether it’s playfully put out or seriously proposed – and someone in the group, often a senior person with some status or authority, shoots it down. Fairly typical phrases are used to do this: That’ll never work. We’ve tried it before. We’ll never get that approved. It’s just not possible.

But hasn’t just about every major or radical innovation been about doing the very thing that couldn’t be done before? You’ve heard the examples: how Thomas Edison got it wrong 10,000 times before he got the light bulb right. Or how Richard Branson‘s been wrong as much as he’s been right, but that risk-taking is what makes him such a notorious and successful entrepreneur. Keep reading »

A recent Newsweek article sparked an age-old debate between two camps in the innovation field: those for and against brainstorming. The term dates back to 1930s, when Alex Osborn first employed organized ideation in the advertising agency he headed. In his book, Applied Imagination, published in 1953, Osborn defined brainstorming as “a creative conference for producing a list of ideas – ideas which can be subsequently evaluated and further processed.”

Five years later, in 1958, Yale University conducted a study to test brainstorming and concluded that brainstorming individually was more effective than brainstorming in a group, but it was widely misinterpreted as “brainstorming didn’t work.” The Yale study created a debate that has percolated for fifty years. Does brainstorming work or not? Does a group generate more and better ideas than the same people would if they were working individually? Keep reading »

The big round tables are stocked with pads of paper and pens, Post-it notes and Sharpies. The agenda is printed, after the last finishing touches to the intended choreography of the event. Flip-chart stands are positioned around the room. The projector has been tested, our slide pack is ready to go. But it isn’t time to start a Knowinnovation meeting until the toys are out on the table.

The playful gizmos and gadgets we bring along help make the conference room look less sterile and corporate, but the toys are not just for show. If you’re a tactile person, being able to pick up a squeezy rubber ball, or twist the beads of a wooden wand, fumble with a Rubik’s cube or stack tiny colored magnets into small mountains can actually aide the fluidity of your thinking. While your hands are fidgeting, new things can pop into your mind. Keep reading »

There is an alchemy of elements to create a successful workshop. It includes a casual setting that creates an open climate, a thoughtful agenda design, delivery by facilitators who can build a rapport with the participants, and the presence of willing, committed participants.

We recently facilitated a retreat for an organization that brought together their staff for strategic alignment and team building purposes, and it was impressive how smoothly the meeting flowed. Every activity, from the ice-breakers to the serious up-to-your-elbows addressing-conflict exercises worked like a charm. When it was time to change sub-groups, the groups shifted around. When we switched activities, the group followed. When it was time to reflect, they went quiet and made notes. When it was time to debrief, they talked, with passion and commitment. When it was time for play, the group played. After three days together, we met all the objectives of the meeting. Keep reading »

Most of the work we do – running Sandpits, facilitating training and problem solving sessions – involves working in groups. Our innovation process calls for collecting an often diverse group of people and perspectives and creating opportunities for them to catalyze and connect with each other to re-frame a problem or generate new ideas to solve it. We try to mix it up; working in large groups, sub-groups, pairs, trios and foursomes. We shift the groups over the course of the program so different minds get to meet and merge. Keep reading »

Some people think that creativity is a matter of luck. You’re lucky enough to have good ideas. You were lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time. That guy has all the luck…

Is it luck? Or is luck what happens to you when you do the things that increase your chances of seeing new opportunities? Keep reading »

What do you do when the email message lands in your inbox, inviting you to the latest departmental brainstorming meeting? Do you grin or do you groan?

If it makes you groan just to think about it, you’re like a lot of people. Brainstorming sessions can feel like a waste of time, and don’t always generate new ideas, which can make them feel like a useless activity. Keep reading »