business reassessment

All self-organising systems bed down into states of 'satisfactory' equilibrium. This means that the arrangement of elements is satisfactory and not a 'problem'. Because so much of our thinking education and strategy, especially in the US, is directed at 'problem solving' we do not spend time thinking about things which are not problems. So we do not think about things which are quite satisfactory. Yet, very often, the greatest yields from creativity come from thinking about things which are perfectly satisfactory, and even excellent.

If a field is full of potential then almost any approach will work. So we settle for an approach that works. The full potential of the field is never touched. For years I have been using the overhead projector in a way which few people use. I draw as I talk. At many conferences full of Powerpoint presentations, the audiences often comment that the live drawing holds attention much better. Recently, I have developed an even simpler way of using the overhead projector. I could have used this simpler way twenty years ago - but never directed attention to finding a simpler way!

NOT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Creativity is usually associated with the development of new products and services because the need for innovation in these areas is so obvious. New products cause old customers to buy again and may attract a new segment of customers. This aspect of creativity is much used and reasonably well understood - even if many of the creative approaches are primitive and crude (such as brainstorming).

Yet there is as much need for change, improvement and creativity in other areas. There is need for creativity in recruitment and in training. There is need for creativity in management and human resource management. There is need for creativity in the supply chain (not the getting together of some US car makers to create a joint on-line purchasing system). There is need for creativity in production, purchasing and pricing options (not changes in selling cars, away from the usual dealerships). The need for creativity in financial affairs has always been recognised.

It seems that I am suggesting that everything and anything can be rethought (which is what I am saying). But there simply would not be time to rethink every little thing that we do. Since such a total rethink seems impossible then it might be better to think only about problems, in the usual manner. I have come across this attitude very often: 'It is not practical to rethink everything, therefore we should not rethink anything'. Such an attitude may seem absurd but it does exist. The solution is simple. While you should habitually seek to rethink everything, you do not have to do it all at once. You can do one thing at a time. You can focus on one area or one aspect.

'Challenge' is one of the basic approaches of lateral thinking. Challenge acknowledges that the way we do something is good, excellent and maybe the only way. But that does not stop us attempting to rethink that process in a creatively. Challenge is the opposite of just thinking about things which are at fault. Challenge is the opposite of problem-solving.

Last year I talked to the senior management of a major coal company (not in the UK). The day after the seminar, the senior engineer told me that as a result of the seminar they had thought of a new way of cutting coal, the first new way in 80 years. They tried it out and it worked - giving a greatly improved yield.

In 1971 at a workshop for Shell Oil I suggested that oil wells should be drilled laterally along the oil bearing stratum rather than just vertically. Today, almost all oil wells are drilled this way because the yield is between three and six times as great. I am not claiming that the change arose from my suggestion - I have no way of proving that. Nevertheless my suggestion was an historical fact.

CHAOS AND MORE WORK
Often people do not want to rethink things because they fear they may be successful. They fear they may come up with new ideas and suggested changes. All this would mean more work. Persuading others to try the new approach. Testing the new approach. Examining the benefits. The work involved in changing something that has been done in the same way for years, etc., etc., etc. This is all true.

If changes which are ultimately well worthwhile still cause so much extra work, then what about the changes that do not prove worthwhile? All the effort is for nothing. It is hardly surprising that people do not want to 'risk' rethinking anything. Then there is the fear of chaos. If everyone is busy rethinking everything around them, then surely there will be chaos? How can you depend on someone else doing what they are supposed to do if that other person is busy trying out something new? This fear is another manifestation of that 'all or nothing' concern mentioned earlier. If everyone is rethinking everything then there would be chaos: so rethink nothing and avoid the chaos.

There may be many broad directions for 'rethinking': Do we need to do this at all? Do we still need to do this? (historical). Is there another way we could do this? Does newer technology suggest another way? Could this be done more simply? Or cheaply? (time, money, resources etc.) Could this be done less wastefully? Could this aspect be outsourced?

There are many other possible 'directions' for thinking. It is probably best to start with a very broad direction. There is not much point in making a minor improvement if the whole thing no longer needs doing. This is a problem with the quality approach, if creativity is not used.

The search for 'simplicity' is a powerful motivating direction. If you achieve simplicity you very often achieve a lot of other things at the same time (less cost, easier maintenance, less skill required, etc.) That is why I wrote the book Simplicity (Penguin). If you seek to make something simpler, you have to do a lot of thinking about it. Simplicity also provides a measurable output: is it simpler or not? Simpler does not always mean cheaper for the moment, but in the long run simpler usually means cheaper.

PERSONAL MOTIVATION
There is he personal motivation in which everyone expends some creative thinking energy in trying to rethink things, one at a time. There is a great need to focus on benefits. A new idea only has one value as a new idea. This is the value that should be looked at. Otherwise the new idea must suggest or promise some real benefits. Change for the sake of change may have some symbolic value - but little else. If you can show that a change is not difficult to bring about and yet offers benefits, then that idea is more likely to be used.

At the same time there may be an overall framework within which people are asked, systematically, to consider different processes one at a time. This can be done with a 'Creative Hit List' of what needs to be thought about. There can also be Task Forces or FAT CATS (Fixed Assigned Task, Creative Action Teams).

The intention to be creative is valuable. So is the allocation of time to the effort to be creative. Learning the specific skills of lateral thinking makes that effort even more powerful. Astonishingly, though, there are still people who believe that creativity is a mystical talent, rather than a thinking skill.