The random word technique works precisely because it is random. If the stimulus word had to be chosen it would be chosen according to some framwork. That framework would reflect the current thinking on the subject. So the stimulus effect would be lost.
At first it seems highly logical that a truly random word would help to generate ideas. If the word is truly random then any word would help with any subject. This would seem total nonsense. It is, however, perfectly logical within the world of patterning systems like the human brain.
HARVESTING
In the harvesting stage of a creative session one of the items on the check-list is 'flavour'.
In a creative session it would be very unusual for the ideas generated to be totally unrelated to each other. It would be very unusual for the ideas to be random with relation to each other. What usually happens is that there is a background framework which may never be made conscious. The ideas that are generated in the session are all related to this implicit background framework. So the ideas may all have the same 'flavour'.
For example, in considering approaches to 'traffic congestion' in cities all the approaches suggested may have the 'flavour' of discouraging motorists from driving in the city. The ideas may take different forms, but the background flavour is the same.
In an idea session on juvenile crime the flavour may be that of 'deterrence'. The ideas may be valuable and may also be creative, but they are still all the same flavour. There may be a lot of creativity involved in being different within a given framework, just as there are many different varieties of roses. But in the end they are all roses.
The benefit of picking out the 'flavour' is that an effort can then be made - at the same session or at a subsequent session - to change the flavour. So the next creative session on traffic congestion might seek to find ways of making it easier for motorists to use their own cars in the city. This may be very much harder to do, but the new framework is valid. For juvenile crime the new flavour might be to make crime 'unfashionable' amongst youngsters.
A flavour might at times become similar to the broad 'direction' in a concept fan. It can, however, be even wider. The flavour might be that of 'rules and regulations'. A different flavour might favour some sort of self-organising system where the regulations were minimal and traffic was allowed to sort itself out.
COMMUNICATION
The general flavour of advances in communication is that communication should be faster and more open. It should be easier and easier to send messages. If some communication is essential, then communication is good. If communication is good, then more communication must be better. But is it?
The flavour is that of 'access and ease'.
The receiver is then left with the task of sorting out the mass of communications received. The easier it is to communicate, the more likely that the unimportant messages will grow much faster than the important ones. This could be stated as a theorem: 'Any increase in the ease of communication will dilute and swamp the more important messages'.
The reasons behind this theorem are simple. There is a natural limit on really important things to communicate. But there is no limit at all on unimportant things. At a touch of a button unimportant messages can be sent instantly to lots of receivers. Furthermore, an effort will always have been made to communicate really important messages, so ease of communication will disproportionately benefit the unimportant.
Suppose we changed the flavour of communication from 'ease' to 'value' ? What would happen then? What sort of ideas could we generate with this new 'flavour'?
Many people are overwhelmed by the volume of their e-mail. The really important messages are lost in the clutter of less important messages. The receiver is supposed to look through all messages to pick out the important ones. This is a burden put on the receiver by the various senders. This 'filter task' could be delegated to someone else. But why should the receiver have to pay for the filter?
Another approach would be to charge people for sending messages. If people had to pay highly for sending an 'important' message then they would think twice about paying to send unimportant messages. This could be done with priority addresses and a high communication fee. Or, there could be an expensive 'letter drop'. It would cost a lot to leave a message on that site. The receiver would then scan this special site for important messages.
Restaurants charge for food and ambience. This has always been the 'flavour' of their offering. If you occupy an expensive site you may need to cover the overheads by charging a lot. Changing the flavour you could start thinking about charging a lower price to many more people. How could this be done? By charging people by time as well as food. The food would be relatively cheap but diners would be charged so much per half-hour. There would now be higher turnover.
Like all awareness exercises, becoming conscious of the 'flavour' of existing thinking is not at all easy. Sometimes the flavour is much more apparent to outsiders than to those within the business. You cannot be challenged or change something unless you are aware of what is being challenged. So an effort to define the flavour or an industry or operation is well worthwhile. There may be different suggestions as to what the flavour might be. This does not matter, because each of them can be challenged. There may be several hidden flavours in the thinking about a situation. All of them are valid.
Flavours may often be hidden 'shapers' of ides. Any suggested new idea is immediately shaped to fit the existing flavour. It is said that Ericsson at first rejected the suggestion of mobile phones because the coporation did not handle consumer products. Today the mobile phone sector is a very profitable part of the business.
Flavours and shapers severely limit the generation or acceptance of new ideas. They are most dangerous when they are hidden. How do you separate a flavour from a very broad concept? You do not even need to try. It does not matter what you call it provided you are aware of it and challenge it. The term 'flavour' is useful because it can colour other concepts just as garlic can be used to flavour many dishes. The flavour may affect other concepts and is not itself a concept. Garlic is a flavour and not a food.
DON'T KNOW...
The most difficult things to deal with are the things we don't know that we don't know. Something which becomes obvious once it is noticed, remains invisible until it is noticed. The effort to find the existing flavours is not always easy - but it is important if there is to be an effort to challenge them.
