The workshops that Knowinnovation runs are often fascinating: we get to collect a diverse group of very intelligent minds in a room for a week, around an important challenge, and walk them through an intense process where they often re-define the problem and generate a number of ideas for potential research projects that will help us better understand the problem, if not help to solve it. In the right environment, people can move extremely fast and far in their thinking, surprising even themselves with their own ideas. It’s something to witness. Keep reading »

At just about every KI-facilitated event, there comes a moment when we have to talk about terminology. This is especially important with multi-disciplinary groups. Every type of science has a robust language of its own, rife with acronyms and jargon that make for efficient communication amongst peers within the field but can be confusing, misleading or off-putting to people from other disciplines.

Very often, we create a wall of definitions and invite people to think of all the terms that might be pertinent to the topic of the workshop. Then we ask people to define these words and phrases. The conversation that ensues sometimes turns into a debate, from which emerges a clearer understanding of the term, or else multiple definitions. For instance, at a workshop on synthetic biology, the physicists and mathematicians started using the term vector – a quantity having direction as well as magnitude – which confused the biologists, who were thinking epidemiological terms in which case a vector is a living carrier that transmits and infectious agent. I think the computer scientists had their own definition, too.

Keep reading »

Throughout our formal and informal education, from preschool to postdoc, we’re taught how to read, how to write, how to speak. But we don’t get any instruction about how to listen. Even though it’s how we take in information and get clues about what’s happening around us, even though listening is essential to problem solving and to collaborating with others, it’s rare that listening skills are part of a curriculum. We don’t learn how to listen.

As a result, we may think we’re listening to someone who’s talking to us, when what we’re really doing is thinking about how to talk back. There’s a constant background chatter: Do I agree or not? Have I ever encountered this before? How is this relevant? We instantly filter information and map it against our own experience and opinions. Keep reading »

KI tries to stay in touch with the scientists and academics who’ve come through our events, to track the progress of their projects, monitor the impact of the Sandpit (a.k.a. Ideas Lab) and how it accelerates scientific innovation and also just to hear from participants, with some time to reflect, about their experience at our workshops. Here’s another Sandpit tale, following up on two projects that we’ve had the privilege of midwifing in the last few years.
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 »

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 »

A century ago British psychologist Edward Titchener described the “warm glow of familiarity,” the idea that people develop a preference for things that are familiar to them. There’s been a fair amount of research on the Exposure Effect, how repetition increases the likelihood of affinity.

But then there’s always the old adage: familiarity breeds contempt.

Which is it? Does familiarity make you like something, or not? Keep reading »