The purpose of the brain is to make stable patterns for dealing with a stable world. The purpose of thinking is to abolish thinking by setting up routines for dealing with different situations. The purpose of the human organism is to survive in the surrounding world. For this purpose 'adequacy' is as good as 'excellent'. If you are imprisoned in a room and there is one escape route, do you take it, or do you look around for a better one?
We are very used to being blocked because there is some obstacle or something in the way. This obstacle may be a person who needs persuading. It may be a planning regulation, etc. We may also be blocked because there is a 'gap' or a problem which has to be solved before we can move forward. It may be that we need a certain material before we can complete the design. It may be that we need certain information which we do not yet have.
We may be blocked because there is active opposition to what we are trying to do. A developer may be blocked by opposition from local residents. We find it much harder to realise that we may be blocked precisely because there is nothing in the way. The openness, attractiveness and availability of one path effectively blocks all other paths.
PROBLEM-SOLVING
We are obsessed with problem-solving. This is hardly surprising. A problem is like a headache. You certainly know it is there and you would much rather be without it. A problem is like a stone in your shoe. You are reminded of the stone with every step you take.
A problem is a 'deviation' from what should be. We have a clear idea of what should be, and so the deviation is obvious. If a clock fails to keep accurate time, that is a problem, because the purpose of a clock is to keep accurate time. If an examination system fails to examine students accurately and fairly, that is a problem. If a car uses too much fuel, that is a problem, if fuel efficiency is a desired characteristic.
There are at least two advantages of problems from a 'thinking' point of view. The first advantage is that of 'focus'. We know what the problem is. It is true that we may need to make an effort to define and redefine the problem, but we will know where we are looking. The second advantage is that we know the 'value' that will be obtained by solving the problem. We know the value of being without a headache. We know the value of removing the stone from our shoe.
THE CHALLENGE PROCESS
There are many things we do which are 'adequate'. They may seem much more than adequate and may even seem excellent. Because such procedures are 'good' they block any further thinking on the matter. 'If it is not broken, don't fix it'. Unlike the case with problems, there is not defined focus. We could challenge anything and everything. That is simply not practical. In any case, how do we persuade others to think about matters which are not problems? Might that not be a waste of time?
The main difficulty is to demonstrate 'value' when we start to think about something that is not a problem. With a problem, the value of solving the problem is explicit and direct. When we set out to challenge something that is not a problem, how do we know that we are going to achieve a superior value? We do not know, and there is no way of knowing. For all these reasons the case for not challenging matters which seem adequate is very strong.
In 1971 I did a workshop for Shell Oil in London. I challenged the way oil wells were drilled in a vertical manner. I suggested that at a certain level the well might proceed horizontally. Today, almost every oil well is drilled with 'directional drilling' because the yield of oil is three to six times as great as from traditional oil wells. I have no way of proving that the change was initiated by my idea. That does not matter. What matters is that the challenge was very successful.
I once challenged the circular shape of the rim of a wine glass. Glasses had been this shape perhaps for five thousand years. The result of the challenge was a kite-shaped rim. If you were thirsty, you drank form the wide end. If you just wanted to sip and taste your wine (perhaps because you were driving), you would use the narrow end. This is not problem-solving but 'adding value'.
Challenge needs motivation. You have to want to challenge something that is not a problem. You have to believe that such a challenge will produce additonal values. You also have to have some faith in your creative abilities. Too many people would say 'why bother?' Then there is 'focus'. What are you going to challenge? Because it is possible to challenge everything, you have to choose. Because, a challenge, like a problem, is not self-focusing, you have to choose, for which there are some guidelines:
• You may want to challenge something that is so traditional and so 'taken for granted' that it is probably a long time since anyone has thought about it. Excellence often protects a procedure from challenge.
• You may want to challenge something because the perceived benefits from a better idea are large: 'If only we could find a better way of doing this...'
• You may want to challenge something because it is perceived to be barely adequate. There is the suspicion that there might be a very much better way of doing things. Here the possible values are somewhat visible.
• You may want to challenge something because a change in circumstance means that the old way may no longer be the best. There might be a change in technology that might have an impact. There might be a change in procedures elsewhere. There might be a change in market conditions.
Once you have decided on focus, then you need to apply your creative abilities. Here the deliberate and formal tools of lateral thinking have a place. There are two aspects of challenge. You can simply find an alternative way of doing something. You might, for example, extract the concept and then look around for a better way to deliver that concept. Or you can make an alteration in the existing idea and then explore that alteration for value. You might also use the alteration as a 'provocation' and then use 'movement' to see where you went from that provocation.
At all times you would need to have your 'value sensitivity' at hand. When an alteration is made and when an idea comes up, you need to scan that idea for possible value. Without 'value sensitivity' you would not recognise a good idea even if you, yourself, had generated that idea.
You may challenge an existing way of doing things. You may come up with a 'better' way of doing things. But what is the cost of change? If it is high, then the new idea must have strong demonstrable value. Many barely adequate ideas continue simply because the cost of changing them is too high. This means that the creative effort must be directed in two ways. The first way is to demonstrate high value for the new idea. The second way is to suggest methods of changing from old idea to new that are feasible and not too expensive or disruptive.
RESULTS
It is my opinion that the greatest results from creativity are going to come, not from problem-solving or even from invention, but from challenging the way we do things. Consultants are brought in to put things right. Perhaps we should bring in creative consultants to make things 'even' better.
read all 70 gurus with one feed read all Read all media
