innovation

In France there has been growing concern with innovation. France may be falling behind other countries in this regard. Many suggestions have been made. There is a need for a closer link between university research and the commercial world. There is a need to remove various barriers and to change the regulatory environment. There is a need for venture capital structures and tax incentives, etc., etc.

Within any organisation there is much that can be done to encourage creativity. Having an idea is one thing, and putting it into action is another. There may be a need for a 'Creativity Centre' to act as a focus point. There may be a need for someone who becomes the 'Process Champion' for innovation. There are a lot of structural things that can be done. Creativity must be an expectation - otherwise it is a risk. It is one or the other. Structural changes emphasise the expectation of creativity as part of everyone's job. Structural changes encourage creativity and channel it into action.

The famous French philosopher Descartes said: 'Cogito ergo sum'. This means: 'I think, therefore I am'. I believe we need to do better than that. Sitting thinking and understanding and analysing are not enough. There is a need for action. So my quote goes as follows: 'Ago ergo erigo'. This means: 'I act, therefore I construct'. The design of the action pathway is just as much part of the design of an idea as the delivery of value. It is not much use, in a specific situation, to design an idea that cannot be put into action.

All these structural and infrastructural things are important. There is even, as I have noted before, a need in language for a new word which means: 'Fully justified venture which did not succeed for reasons which could not have been predicted and which were beyond control'. Without such a word any failed venture is seen as a failure, a mistake, bad planning, etc. If ventures are only judged by the ultimate result then 'justified ventures' are always excluded. The effect is that people are unwilling to take the risk of trying out new ideas because they do not want a record of failures to be set against them.

THE THINKING NEEDED
Water is necessary for soup. Without water there is no soup. Competence, efficiency and structure are all three necessary for the survival and success of any organisation. Having the right infrastructure in place is necessary for successful innovation. But more and more water does not create soup. Without flavour there is no soup. It is the same with innovation. There is a need to have the right infrastructure in place. But without ideas there is no innovation. Structural changes are tangible and can be put into place through a decision, so they get more attention than the thinking needed for innovation. Yet the thinking is essential.

Our traditional habit of thinking goes something like this: information followed by analysis; followed by judgment (to identify standard situation); followed by action. It has to be said that for most purposes this is excellent thinking that is both effective and efficient. If the external situation changes sufficiently, then actions will change. The difficulty is changing actions when the situation has not changed. That is where deliberate creative thinking is needed and is most difficult.

When you have dealt with a particular set of circumstances in an adequate way, how do you change your thinking to deal with the same circumstances in a better way? The brain is specifically designed to be non-creative. The purpose of the brain is to make stable patterns for dealing with a stable world. If we had to work things out in detail each time and had to consider all possible alternatives, life would be impossibly slow. So the brain makes standard patterns. All we have to do is to recognise the standard situation and apply the standard response.

If you designed a Grand Prix racing car you would not be surprised if it was unsuitable for shopping. In exactly the same way the speed of response of the brain depends on using standard patterns. If there is a need to explore new routes and new avenues, the brain is not designed for this. The simple answer is to use your racing car for GP circuits, but switch to your shopping car for shopping. We need to be able, in our minds, to switch from analytical/judgmental thinking to lateral/creative thinking at will.

Because creative ideas do happen by chance, by accident and by confluence, we assume that this is the only way they can happen. Because some people seem more motivated than others to try for new ideas, we assume that new ideas can only come from 'creative people'. Because early judgment kills any creative idea, we assume that the suspension of judgment, as in brainstorming, will be enough to generate new ideas.

All the above considerations blind us to the realisation that creative thinking is a mental skill that anyone can acquire - if they so desire. The formal tools of lateral thinking can be learned, practised and used in a deliberate manner. As with any skill, not everyone will be equally proficient, but everyone can acquire a useful level of skill. Where do such tools come from? They come, not from empirical observation, but from consideration of the brain as a self-organising information system. Such systems make asymmetric patterns. The tools of lateral thinking are formal ways of cutting across such patterns to open up new ideas.

Because in asymmetric systems every valuable new idea will seem perfectly logical in hindsight, we have believed (for thousands of years) that logic is enough. That is because we have never considered the behaviour of self-organising information systems that always make asymmetric patterns. There is no mystique about it.

In most of the above cases, exposure to some of the formal tools of lateral thinking can change attitudes. For example, engineers are the most resistant at first. Engineers have been taught that you move from certainty to certainty and never take risks: competence is what matters. When engineers have seen 'the logic' of lateral thinking, their attitude completely changes and they become very good at it.

DIFFERENT
There are aspects of lateral thinking that are totally different from traditional thinking. For example, there is the function of 'provocation'. In any self-organising system there is a mathematical need for provocation. Without provocation the system gets stuck in a 'local equilibrium'. With provocation there is a logical reason for saying something you know to be incorrect (e.g.: 'PO cars should have square wheels'). Then there is the new and different mental operation of 'movement'. Movement is very different from judgment and not part of our traditional thinking. At the same time it is a fundamental operation in all creativity.

Quite simply, it is very difficult to be creative with our normal thinking habits and methods. For instance, 'truth at every step' is a big barrier. Ultimate truth and practicality are essential. So also is the ability to deliver value with the new idea. But the way to that ultimate truth does not require truth at every step. It is not a matter of adjusting our usual thinking behaviour, for that would weaken the effectiveness of that behaviour. It is a matter of being able to switch into another mode - being able to switch into the lateral thinking mode in order to generate new ideas.

Just as a visitor might switch into French when he or she arrives in Paris, so every thinker ought to be able to switch into the creative mode. This goes beyond the 'suspended judgment' of brainstorming.