82 J PROD INNOV MANAG ABSTRACTS 1994;11:76-88

The Idea Makers, Thomas Kiely, Technology Review (January 1993), pp. 32-40

Imagine yourself as a kilowatt traveling through an electrical system? Role-play Santa Claus evaluating your products for use in his workshop? Have a party at which the attendees get prizes for achieving an almost impossible goal and tell others how they did it?

Stimulating the creativity of employees is consid- ered a worthwhile activity, and various individuals and firms have invented a warehouse of methods to do it. Upper managements often have their doubts, since the evidence for such training is anecdotal. And most experts agree that creating an environment and a process that will convert invention into innovation is more critical than getting good ideas.

But, as they work on the acceptance and implemen- tation of ideas, many still support creativity training. This article tells some of the methods and examples.

Creativity stimulating methods are of three types- fluency techniques, excursion sessions, and shake-up exercises. Fluency techniques are those that enhance the creative act itself. They include the grandparent of all techniques, brainstorming. Excursion sessions move the thinker to extend the mind, either along known paths or completely unrelated lines (also called pattern breakers). Shake-up exercises loosen up groups and make them more receptive to unusual ideas.

Fluency methods are the simplest and most widely used. Brainstorming was the first, and widely tried, but it usually fails because groups cannot meet the condition of no criticism. Brainwriting is a variation, and the latest twist on that is the new software for group sessions. An idea, written out on a screen without identification, provokes a much less inhibiting reaction. Electronic Data Systems Inc. keeps two such automated brainwriting facilities in use.

Mind-mapping and storyboarding are two other fluency techniques; both involve writing out diagrams of systems or processes and having persons at the meeting write on large sheets their additions and changes. Xerox PARC people use white walls in common areas, and Bell Atlantic people use large swaths of brown wrapping paper on which the processes are altered.

The second category, an excursion session, sends ideators out onto mental limbs. Forced relationships is such a method, and a problem or product is compared to photographs, paintings, or other objects. A group of Polaroid managers were given a painting selected at random and asked how they thought the ideas of the

painting might help them deal with a problem of departmental harmony. The painting was of crows in a tree beside a fish-populated pool of water. One class member commented that the fish were perhaps trying to talk to the crows, but the crows could not understand them. Perhaps the two departments’ people simply could not understand each other. . . .

Dreams are another excursion method, though dreams are simply studied, not created. A DuPont engineer dreamed of a child’s toy-a slinky. Upon awakening, he looked for significance and realized that it related to a problem he had been having with vacuum hoses that kept collapsing. Insertion of a slinky-like spring solved the problem.

Some excursions are totally unrelated to the product or problem being worked on. These pattern breakers are metaphorical, and produce sudden thoughts en- tirely unexpectedly. One such exercise exposed partic- ipants to a series of photographs. One showed a Federal Express package. A technical member of the class thought that the FedEx packaging program might help speed up R&D projects, and an approach was then worked out.

Role-playing breaks patterns of thinking, and one such session produced the Santa Claus experience. Another session asked participants to invent a western town, another to suspend the laws of nature, another to design a product line for Napoleon. Kodak maintains a humor room, stocked with toy robots and Monty Python videos.

Value-Added Winners, John Kay, International Management (April 1993), pp. 44-45

This short article is the result of an analysis of European firms who have been notably successful. The author begins with a suggestion that most people would put Royal Dutch/Shell in the top ten because it has the largest sales. Siemens would be there because it is the largest employer. Philips because of its record of innovation. Airbus because it broke Boeing’s domination of the aircraft market.

But, these would all be wrong. Profits and long-term well being instead correlate with a factor not often noticed-the ability of the firm to produce value added. Philips has failed to exploit its technical skills, and Airbus exists only through the patronage of taxpayers.

The top three firms in Europe are probably Glaxo (pharmaceuticals such as Zantac), Benetton (retail clothing), and Reuters (financial information). It might