The Innovative Brain Archive
|
The Trojan Horse Approach to Innovationby Paul Hoffman and Margaret J. King.Idea generation is the key to any problem-solving task, and essential for non-routine problems requiring creativity. When the usual skills and judgment that come from solving the customary problem are not equal to the task, thinking must venture into imagination and other subject domains to yield extraordinary solutions.
Impossible Ideas
Wild vs. PracticalPredictably, there are two difficulties with idea generation: ideas are either too conservative or too wild. Neither is useful to the problem-solving enterprise. Conservative ideas are stuck within the framework of the problem itself, doomed to repeat failure. At the other extreme, those responsible for the solution are commonly too fearful of being stretched too far by strange ideas. People are instinctively afraid of being stuck with untenable far-out concepts that don’t have ready acceptance. There is also thinking style. Typically, certain thinking types are better at idea generation, while others excel at making those ideas work. The ideal idea-generation process would do both, dealing with the vast sea of possible solutions by imposing a feasibility net that would capture those most likely to succeed in application. Generation vs. Implementation
There is a caveat: these ideas must be, in principle, doable. They cannot require heretofore undeveloped science, like time travel, or a perpetual-motion machine, for instance. But here is the twist: the first group’s task will actually be to “play a joke” on the second by developing truly outrageous ideas. The qualifier for these “outrageous” ideas acts as the mechanism making them workable for the next stage. Ideas generated are presented to the second group, the Implementers, with the report that they come from “a group of highly qualified experts” who have already found them to be feasible. A Thinking Ruse
Case Study — Paper PhysicsThe following is an illustrative example. In the early 1970s, Scott Paper Company was engaged in inventing and developing a new toilet tissue with vastly greater softness than previously possible. The normal development group charged with the task was, however, unable to improve the underlying softness-strength relationship, even when it tried every method known up to that time. A separate venture was therefore formed to solve this task, composed of both IGG and IIG groups. The Generator group, told that it could “play a joke” on the Implementer group, threw the door of invention wide open. A few brainstorming sessions, looking at possible materials, indicated to this group that thin latex sheets had the requisite flexibility or stretch. If added to tissue paper, they would greatly increase softness. Alas, these materials were insoluble, a property absolutely essential for flushability of toilet tissue. Hence the “joke.” Still, this group felt that even though developing a flushable latex seemed extremely difficult, it was not against the laws of nature. Thus the concept was presented to the Implementer group as deemed eminently feasible by experts. Interestingly, the group responsible for making it work included many researchers who had originally worked unsuccessfully on the project. A Process AnalysisLet’s analyze the above example. There were three separate keys to the success of the project. The first was the recognition by the Generator group that latex is a suitable material to complement tissue paper. This part required considerable inventiveness, as well as expertise, without which the “Trojan horse” approach would not, and cannot, work. It helped, however, that this group did not need to concern itself with implementation. The second included the “Trojan horse” itself, the presentation of the solution as deemed doable by experts. The third was the implementation of the solution. That too required invention and hard work. All three are essential steps to this approach. To recapitulate: merely presenting an unworkable idea as doable and expecting it to create a miraculous solution is an exercise in futility. Imagination is one thing; creativity is another. Possible Ideas
About the Authors:Paul Hoffman is a chemical engineer and technical consultant to the paper industry. He can be reached at: paul.hoffman1@worldnet.att.net or by telephone at 856/354-1933. Margaret J. King, Ph.D. is director of Cultural Studies & Analysis in Philadelphia, cultureking@compuserve.com or telephone 215/592-8544 |