Synectics

6.9.2 Synectics

Synectics, "the joining together of different and apparently irrelevant elements", originated with Gordon. It is based on the use of metaphors and analogies within a systematic framework to achieve creative results. It is central to synectics that we can attain better comprehension of a problem that is strange or unfamiliar to us by thinking of an analogy or metaphor that makes it more familiar and hence more amenable to a creative solution. On the other hand, there are problems with which we have difficulty because we are too familiar with them. We feel we are "too close" to them. We cannot see the forest for the trees. Under these circumstances, once again an appropriate metaphor or analogy provides us with necessary distance so that we can get a better view of the problem and move on to a creative solution.

In synectics, then, the problem as one is presented with it initially, has to be restated and looked at in various ways through the use of metaphors or analogies. During the course of this process, the individual goes on what synectics people call an "excursion" and as a result of such a trip creative solutions are attained. Just how different kinds of analogies and metaphors may be used, what the purpose and function of an excursion is and related matters are all part of synectics training.

Synectics began about 1944 when Gordon undertook an intensive study of individual and group processes in creativity. This was followed with systematic exploration of his ideas in 1948 with a group of artists in what Gordon refers to as the Rock Pool Experiment. Gordon later formed a subgroup within the consulting firm of Arthur D. Little & Co., and went on to set up synectics groups in several companies. He left Arthur D. Little in 1960, and together with G. M. Prince, whom he had met there in 1958, set up Synectics, Inc. in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to provide training facilities and training personnel for those interested in learning his technique to stimulate creativity. He then left Synectics, Inc. to start another organization, Synectics Education Systems (SES), which "is involved with all forms of problem‑solving and education based on the metaphorical approach". Synectics Education Systems works both with groups and individuals. It is not limited to groups “because such learning experience makes people group‑bound and unable to function alone".

Gordon's views of the creative process and how to stimulate it are set forth in his first book, Synectics (Gordon, 1961). This book contains the basic information on what Gordon called psychological states and the operational mechanisms, both of which will be discussed at greater length. Synectics also contains descriptions of how synectics has been used systematically in various situations, as well as Gordon's thoughts on how a synectics group might be set up within an industrial organization. Gordon's later book, The Metaphorical Way, is devoted to the central concept in his system‑the metaphor. He discusses its use in education, learning, the inventive process, and psychological processes. The Metaphorical Way also contains an interesting section on the variations in the use of the metaphor in synectics in which Gordon also brings synectics up to date from his point of view. Gordon's primary involvement, therefore, is with what he calls the operational mechanisms‑what we would regard as the mental procedures and techniques for unlocking the psychological processes involved in creativity.

Although Prince also makes use of metaphor in his work, his major interest is in how group processes can be used to stimulate more creative contributions.

A) Metaphors

Awareness of the importance of nonrational processes and the attempt to engage them through the purposeful use of metaphors probably reflects the uniqueness of the synectics approach. Many individuals have theorized about the roles of the preconscious and unconscious in the creative process, but no one has so systematically tried to engage these sources of creative possibilities as have the synectics people. However, rational and logical processes are also used in synectics. They too are valued, encouraged, and enhanced in a group atmosphere that is free, easy‑going, and accepting. Furthermore, regardless of the emphasis placed on nonrational factors, the whole synectics process occurs within a framework that has very practical goals.

There are many factors that shaped the processes used in synectics. Gordon's and Prince's reading, thinking, and theorizing, as well as their observations of the problem‑solving behaviour of the groups with which they worked were no doubt very important considerations. Gordon cites several instances from pure and applied sciences where he believes metaphorical thinking played a critical role. Commenting about his own thought processes, Einstein is said to have reported that he used visual and muscular "signs" and "images". The Wright brothers based their work on turning and stabilizing the airplane on observations of buzzards keeping their balance in flight. James Clerk Maxwell is said to have used balls and cylinders in working out his 'electromagnetic wave theory. Darwin's work was based on several earlier developments; one was Lyell's demonstration of the earth's age and his refutation of the notion of catastrophic extinction of animals. Lamarck described evolutionary continuity. What Darwin lacked for his theory was how animal adaptations occurred. Gordon reports that Darwin based his work on the efforts of husbandrymen who could selectively breed animals to make them more valuable. Thus, he developed the thesis that there was a naturally occurring selection process among wild animals similar to that used by husbandry men with domesticated animals.

Laplace is also mentioned by Gordon for his use of the self‑healing process of the body in the development of his theory that the status of the solar system is continually restored despite derangements that are radical and temporary.

Schrodinger talked about living organisms sucking in negative entropy when eating and breathing, for his critique of the second law of thermodynamics. Brunel developed the concept of the caisson on the basis of observations of the boring capacity of the toredo, a shipworm.

Bell used the function of the inner ear bones as one of the bases on which he built the telephone receiver; and Kektule, imagining a snake swallowing its tail, thought of carbon atoms in a ring rather than in a linear chain. Pasteur used the analogy of "safe attack" for his work on hydrophobia, and Cajal the analogy of “protoplasmic kiss" for his work on the manner in which nerves transmit impulses.

B) Theory and Techniques of Synectics

· Psychological States

Among the various factors that play important roles in the theory and technique underlying synectics are four "oscillating" psychological states involved in the creative process and one other state that is not so oscillating-the hedonic response. These states are induced by several operational mechanisms to be discussed later.

The four psychological states are:

(1) Involvement and Detachment ‑This state refers to the relationship between the individual and the problem on which he is working. Involvement refers to understanding and interacting with the elements of the problem. In involvement, there is a feeling for and resonance with the problem. However, the creative process also involves the capacity to detach from and become distant from the problem‑to view it objectively.

(2) Deferment ‑There is a danger in quick and immediate solutions to a problem: Experience has shown they are likely to be premature and superficial. Deferment refers to the capacity of both the individual and the group to defer these quick solutions until they have arrived at the best one.

(3) Speculation ‑The group and its individual members need to be able to let their minds run free so that they can come up with ideas, hypotheses, and solutions. Speculation refers to this type of thinking.

(4) Autonomy of Object ‑ As the creative process proceeds and a solution is approached, there is a feeling that the solution has an entity and demand quality of its own. The individual or group must be willing and free enough to allow this feeling to develop and to follow it.

(5) Hedonic Response ‑ Synectics involves, among other factors; play with “apparent irrelevancies". This play is used to generate energy for problem solving and to evoke new views of problems. One of these irrelevancies is an emotional factor called "hedonic response", which serves as an "irrelevance filter". The feeling involved in the hedonic response is very subtle. It is similar to the inspiration or intuition that is sensed prior to achieving the solution to a problem. It is the pleasurable sensation that accompanies the feeling of being fight about a hypothesis or a solution before it has been proven correct. There are both aesthetic and pleasurable elements in hedonic response. Gordon has been unable to develop an operational mechanism to bring it about. It is obviously of tremendous importance, and if an individual could learn how to recognize it, then he would probably not waste so much time and energy in the creative process; the individual would have that "feeling" ‑ aesthetic or otherwise ‑ that would "tell” him when to follow up a hypothesis and when to pursue a tentative idea to solution. Most techniques for stimulating creativity have one or more procedures for stimulating ideas and possibilities that may result in manifest creativity. None of them has much to say about how to go about selecting from what one has thought of. The fiedonic response may be a clue to what might be helpful in this regard. To learn more about it and enable us to make better use of this response, Gordon suggests that tape recordings of synectics sessions be reviewed and that special attention be paid to those points at which an individual achieved a breakthrough in the problem‑solving process. Such study may lead to knowledge of those cues that alert an individual to the fact that he is coming upon something quite significant. It is important that this point be recognized because, once a solution is articulated, it becomes autonomous and develops a life a "being" of its own.

C) Operational Mechanisms

The aforementioned psychological states are induced by operational mechanisms. There are four such mechanisms: (1) personal analogy; (2) direct analogy or example, (3) symbolic analogy or book title or essential paradox or compressed conflict; (4) fantasy analogy. When working on a problem what one actually utilizes are these operational mechanisms, and if they operate effectively, then the psychological states function very quietly and take care of themselves. The operational mechanisms do not make up the whole problem solving process, but they are a most important part of it.

One of the functions of the operational mechanisms is to make the familiar strange. In so doing, one of the important psychological functions that are accomplished is to increase the "distance" between the individual and the problem. This increased distance enables the individual to avoid becoming stuck with what he already knows about a problem and being limited to it. As we shall see, the degree of distance achieved between individual and problem varies as a function of the operational mechanisms used. The four operational mechanisms are:

a. Personal Analogy

The individual imagines himself to be the object with which he is working. He "becomes" the spring in the apparatus and feels its tension, or he "becomes" the pane of glass and allows himself to "feel like the molecules in it as they push and pull against each other. The rigid and controlled individual finds this hard to do, for it stirs too much anxiety and insecurity. To use this mechanism effectively involves the capacity to "lose" oneself.

As a result of his work with this mechanism, Gordon believes that the critical element in personal analogy is empathic identification and not mere role playing. Role playing as a means of arriving at personal analogy is rather useless when working on a problem with a sociological or psychological base‑a people problem. For this kind of problem, role playing, instead of making the familiar strange, makes the strange familiar because it does come up with enough strangeness.

Together with compressed conflict this operational mechanism is regarded as an auxiliary operational mechanism [direct analogy is the basic operational mechanism]. A personal analogy has more freedom and breadth than does a direct analogy, and the former yields more understanding than the latter.

Four degrees of involvement in personal analogy have been described. They are as follows:

(1) First‑person description of facts. This is very shallow and involves a mere statement or listing of facts. Thus, in the Synectics Teacher’s Manual the example is given of someone who is asked to imagine he is a fiddler crab and he says that he would have a hard outside and a soft inside, etc.

(2) First‑person description of emotions. This level represents "the lowest order of identification". The content of this analogy, although better than the previous form is too general to yield any very valuable insight about that which the analogy was developed. For example, when asked to imagine himself as a fiddler crab, a person responded that he was busily involved in getting food for himself and had to watch out that he did not become food for a bigger fish. Such an analogy yields no added insight into the fiddler crab since all animals are confronted with the problem of eating or being eaten.

(3) Empathic identification with a living thing. This is regarded as "true" personal analogy. It represents both kinestlietic and emotional involvement with die object. Again, while imagining to be a fiddler crab, a person might say that his big claw is rather burdensome and useless. When he waves it nobody is frightened and it is quite heavy to carry around.

(4) Empathic identification with a nonliving object. This is the most sophisticated kind of empathy. Relatively speaking, it may be easy to attribute human emotions to living objects as in level (3) but it is much more difficult to do so with nonliving objects. For example, when asked to imagine that he was the mud in which the fiddler crab lives, a person said that he felt that no one cared about him. The crabs do not thank him and he would like to make them do so.

Prince describes only three levels of involvement in personal analogy‑the first two are the same as the first two just described, and the third combines the third and fourth just described. Prince feels that the use of personal analogy can help a group become more cohesive. After members of a group have produced good personal analogies, Prince feels they can work together more effectively.

b. Direct Analogy or Example

Here facts, knowledge, or technology from one field are used in another (e.g., a shipworm runneling into wood serves as an analogy to solve problems in underwater construction). Biology, Gordon believes, is one of the most fruitful areas for direct analogies in solving technical problems. Knowing how certain goals and activities are accomplished in biological organisms serves as a good basis for developing ideas in technology and other areas. Emphasis on biology does not preclude interest in other areas. Whatever other information an individual has at his disposal may be helpful to him in direct analogy.

Experience has shown Gordon that organic direct analogies used for inorganic problems, or inorganic direct analogies used for organic problems, are more effective than organic for organic or inorganic for inorganic.

Gordon makes an intriguing statement about the relationship between "constructive strain" that is introduced "by the distance on the analogy" and the "level of inventive elegance". He says that analogies with small psychological distance from the problem can be effective for problems being worked on for the first time; but for problems that have been worked on a great deal, analogies that reflect great psychological distance‑those that are rather remote from the individual's experience‑are required.

Prince says that the more strange the example (his term for the direct analogy), the greater the logical distance between subject and example. And the less the seeming relevance to the example, the greater is the chance that it will be meaningful and helpful in the problem‑solving process. He points out that two examples of closure are door and mental block. The latter is more likely to enable an individual to look at a problem in a new way than is the former because it is logically more distant from the subject and it is less immediately relevant.

Direct analogy is the basic mechanism by which an individual tries to see problems in new contexts. A direct analogy is clear and straight forward. It produces immediate results and "its process can be reproduced”.

c. Symbolic Analogy, also Called Book Title, Essential Paradox, and Compressed Conflict

This form of analogy uses objective and impersonal images to describe the problem. An individual effectively uses symbolic analogy in terms of poetic response; he summons up an image which, though technologically inaccurate, is aesthetically satisfying. It is a compressed description of the function or elements of the problem as he views it (e.g., one synectics group used the Indian rope trick as a basis for developing a new jacking mechanism).

Although direct analogy is the basic operational technique, compressed conflict and personal analogy are used together with it to increase the conceptual distance between the individual and the problem. In a compressed conflict there is direct analogy with built‑in "conceptual strain"; there is both a modifier and a noun; the noun reflects the direct analogy and the modifier produces strain or conflict, e.g., 'structured freedom' "or" 'wax cloud’.

Prince, in whose system book title bears many similarities to symbolic analogy and compressed conflict, says that in a book title there is "both an essence of and a paradox involved in a particular set of feelings". The function of book title is to generalize about some specific matter and to use the generalization to suggest a direct analogy. According to Prince, the technique helps people who stay close to the problem to get away from it.

Prince cites a group working on a problem involving a ratchet and, when asked to develop something paradoxical, contradictory, or opposed to one of the ratchet's characteristics dependability, the group came up with dependable intermittency, directed permissiveness, and permissive one‑wayness.

d. Fantasy Analogy

This is based on Freud's idea that creative work represents wish fulfilment. The individual states a problem in terms of how he wishes the world would be. For example, the synectics group that was working on a vapour proof closure for space suits asked the question, "How do we in our wildest fantasies desire the closure to operate?" This form of analogy is said to be very effective if used early in the process of making the familiar strange. Gordon regards it as an excellent bridge between problem stating and problem solving because it also tends to evoke the use of the other mechanisms.

In the early days of synectics, it had become apparent that fantasy analogy was getting mixed up with the other mechanisms. It seemed to be part of the other mechanisms. Between 1961 and 1965 it was not used because it did not seem necessary. Fantasy analogies were usually offered by group members while they were using the other analogies. Synectics sessions in which fantasy analogy is used become productive very quickly but can also become dry very quickly. It is a very efficient operational mechanism but also a very limited one according to Gordon's experience.

Synectics thus tries, in the course of problem solving situations, to make the familiar strange and to make the strange familiar through the use of the different types of analogies just described. These analogies enable the individual to look at problems in new ways, and thereby hopefully gain new insight into the problems.

Also by means of the operational mechanisms, synectics attempts to make conscious what goes on in the unconscious. It is also through the use of the operational mechanisms that the psychological states of involvement, detachment, deferment, speculation, and commonplaceness are induced. These states create the psychological climate necessary for creative activity. It is assumed that all people have experienced and utilized these analogies. Hence, when group members are asked to use them in synectics sessions, they do not feel they are being manipulated. They claim that their natural creative potential is increased rather than decreased.

It is apparent from the descriptions of the operational mechanisms that they are simple. However, it does take a great deal of energy to apply and use them. Synectics, therefore, does not make creative work easier but "rather is a technique by which people can work harder". At the end of a synectics session, participants may emerge quite fatigued, because they move into areas that appear irrelevant and expend a good deal of mental energy developing their analogies and trying to determine how well those analogies help to solve the problem. Although sometimes exhausting, the synecties session is often profitable and mentally fulfilling.

The material presented on psychological states and operational mechanisms contains much of the required theory for understanding the basics of synectics. For these basics to be of use in creative problem solving more is required than what has been said thus far. Before considering the characteristics of the probIem‑solving process or how a synectics session is conducted, let us look at the characteristics of its constituent members‑the leader, the participants, and the client‑expert.

D) The Participants in a Synectics Meeting

In addition to their experience in coming up with new ideas and the time they have spent analyzing the creative process in groups, synecties workers have also had much experience in the conduct of group meetings and have learned 'how to utilize group dynamics so as to facilitate the creative process.

The "typical" (i.e., nonsynectics) meeting, Prince points out, reflects confusion in purpose or confusion in organization. While the function of meetings is generally described as solving problems, people participating in them usually find their creativity and speculations discouraged. An antagonistic attitude toward ideas is evident, and group leaders use their power unwisely. Group leaders usually feel more important than group members and hence there is not much open and free communication in the group.

Prince sees a meeting as consisting of offering information, asking for information, and accepting or rejecting information. He believes that in the traditional meeting, each person sees the situation as capable of being won or lost. For Prince, group participants manifest combinations of such opposing characteristics as sensitivity and aggression. Sensitivity dictates that the individual takes advantage of opportunities and manifests his creativity. However, when responding in terms of aggression the individual displays poor conduct. Thus, such an individual may put forth a creative idea in an aggressive way. This may elicit aggressive criticism and the individual must spend a good deal of time defending his ideas and/or repairing his image. Therefore, the sensitive‑aggressive individual appears to be constantly on the defensive. Prince tries to counteract such negative aspects of behaviour in groups. He believes that the information involved in a negative situation can be conveyed to an individual without evaluation or rejection, and that everyone in a group does have a contribution to make and no one needs to lose or to feel he is losing something.

Prince has developed a variety of methods, some of which he admits are "mechanistic", to help keep a group at a high level of effectiveness. One of those developed to cope with negative features in a group is called the spectrum policy.

At a meeting there is a spectrum of ideas or suggestions. All of the ideas may be good or parts of the ideas offered are good and acceptable and other parts are unacceptable. Prince believes that people tend to emphasize the unacceptable characteristics. In doing so, however, they impede the development of solutions. In the early stages of problem solving, no member of the group can tell whether or not an idea or any part of it may indeed prove quite valuable at some time during the problem-solving process. Consequently, it is unwise to concentrate on the bad characteristics. Group members should build on what is worthwhile, and try to overcome the faults in an idea. One of the problems that people have in applying the spectrum policy is that they simply do not listen to each other. Prince solves this problem by suggesting that if someone cannot find something good in what another has said, he should keep the other person talking until he can apply the spectrum policy‑comment on what he does not like but also comment on what is good in the idea.

Another technique that Prince uses effectively involves videotaping the group's sessions. The tapes are played back to the group so that the participants can observe and discuss their own, each other's, and the total group's interaction.

The other important factor that Prince emphasizes is a clear perception of the roles that all persons ‑ the leader, the participants and the client‑expert ‑ play in the group sessions. In a traditional meeting, these roles can be commingled, but in synectics they are separated and clarified to avoid confusion. The role prescriptions will be spelled out on the following pages, but as a general overview in a single, concise statement, it can be said that for Prince (1970a) the leader is servant of the group, the group is servant of the problem, and the client‑expert is the problem's representative. The client‑expert's opinions are honoured solely with respect to the problem and not with regard to the conduct of the group or its behaviour. Let us now turn to what Prince has to say about each of the roles.

E) Leader's Role and Principles of Leadership

It is important that the leader structure his role according to the following principles:

1. “Never Go into Competition with Your Team”: This is a very difficult principle for leaders to accept, since everyone feels he has ideas to offer. However, it is important that this principle be accepted, since leaders are likely to favour their own suggestions. If this were to happen participants would become discouraged and not participate fully in the meeting.

There are times when the leader can contribute his ideas in a synectics group‑when early possible solutions are sought (suggestions) and during a stage called force fit. Even on these occasions the leader offers his only when no others are offered. Should someone else have an idea, it has precedence over the leaders. The leader supports members' ideas and if possible he should build or add to a member's idea to strengthen it.

2. “Be a 200 Percent Listener to Your Team Members”: The leader's job is to understand participants' points of view. He should be sure he understands a participant's point of view, and to achieve this goal he might well try to paraphrase what he hears. He should not evaluate what he hears. In this manner, the leader fosters an atmosphere in which everyone's idea is worthy of consideration. In his books Prince presents a list of phrases to be used by leaders for "intervening without manipulation" and to generate nondefensiveness.

3. "Do Not Permit Anyone to Be Put on the Defensive": The leader operates with the belief that there is value in whatever a participant offers, and his job is to find that value. The leader never asks for justification of a metaphor; he accepts opposing points of view, and if a member starts by looking for negatives he asks him to tell what he likes about what he heard (spectrum policy); when an idea looks like it may falter he tries to keep it alive by generalizing from it; he sees to it that ideas are never completely condemned, they are only put aside; he sees to it that no participant is pinned down, pressured, or put on the defensive.

Laughter should be looked into because it may be stirred by an elegant idea that is just beginning to emerge and no one may be consciously aware that this is so.

4. “Weep the Energy Level High”: The leader's intensity, interest, and alertness can spread through the group. It is therefore of help for him to move around and underscore points by using body movements. He should select areas of interest to himself, and keep the meeting moving quickly; he should be humorous or encourage humour in others; he should ask challenging questions; and use the element of surprise.

5. "Use Every Member of Your Team": All group participants are to be used and encouraged to respond. Quiet and/or shy persons may need to be brought out or handled quite tactfully. Prince suggests that verbose members be thanked rather quickly after a response; their eyes should be avoided when the leader asks for a response; and the leader should hold his hand up and look at someone else to stop the compulsive talker.

If none of these techniques works, a frank talk or the suggestion that the compulsive talker listen to the tape of the session may be worthwhile.

6. “Do Not Manipulate Your Team”: The purpose of the group is to come up with new solutions. A group is generally manipulated if the leader already has a solution in mind and his goal is to get the group to accept it. The leader's authority and responsibility is to aim the members' minds in a specific direction". He keeps them informed as to where they are in the synectics process, but he does not push for a specific solution.

7. "Keep Your Eye on the Expert”: The final goal of a meeting is to provide the expert with as many potential solutions or "viewpoints" as possible. It is therefore very important that the leader keep his eyes on the expert. When the expert seems to be interested in something, the leader keeps going at it and works with the group to come up with more viewpoints, and if the expert gets very involved with a possible solution the leader should even encourage him to take over. When an expert responds to something, the leader should be careful to note that the spectrum policy is followed. Positive statements, what the expert likes about something, should be included with negative ones.

8. "Keep in Mind that You Are Not Permanent”: Assuming that traditional leaders can enjoy too much the exercise of power and authority, and also assuming that everyone wants to be a leader, Prince suggests that the leadership role be rotated. Thus, everyone can be motivated to participate more fully. If one can be both participant and leader he can learn the relative advantages and disadvantages of either role.

In summary, then while Prince regards the leader in the traditional meeting as "self‑serving and manipulative", he sees the leader in the synectics meeting as serving others. The leader must use his power and capacity to control a group very carefully, for he becomes a model for the group members for the time when they will become leaders, as well as affecting their behavior directly when he is leader. The leader watches, records, and stays with a plan as the group moves freely and imaginatively along. He emphasizes imagination and flexibility and tests all kinds of ideas for their usefulness. He maintains a constructive viewpoint constantly by keeping open communication lines between participants, he does not allow fear of being wrong to be a deterrent to participation, and he tries to see to it that experts' objections are also used constructively.

The leader gives priority to avoiding damage to anyone's image; to directing aggression against the problem and not the people; and to showing that through effective participation no one loses and everybody wins.

F) The Participant's Role

The participant's role is to give all of himself to the problem. In so doing, he will manifest his uniqueness and individuality, and thus every participant in a group ends up looking at a problem in his own way. The participant uses his own sensitivity to offer ideas and speculations about the problem at hand. He need not concern himself with whether or not a suggestion or idea is helpful. In this sense, synectics also removes evaluation as one of the participants' responsibilities. The participant should try to overcome his habitual tendency to spot weaknesses in ideas and try to expose them. It is better if he seeks ways to overcome the weaknesses he spots. In the process of being a participant the individual also learns about leadership patterns by observing his leader, and he can profit from this as well as from his own reactions to these patterns since he too will have to assume the leadership role at some point.

G) Client‑Expert's Role

The third role in a group is that of the expert. He is the individual with the most factual understanding of the problem. He is generally the client's representative and within the client's organization is the person who is responsible for solving the problem. Consequently, in most traditional meetings the expert is likely to be put on the defensive. Having the responsibility for solving a problem, he may not relish the idea of having someone else solve it. For effective participation in a synectics group he must strive to overcome this attitude. He must become both participant and expert. By freely speculating about ideas during the course of a meeting he sets an example for the participants to follow. In his responses to participants' ideas and suggestions he follows the spectrum policy in which he tries to strengthen the positive in their ideas and point out weaknesses. In this fashion he encourages the group to build on that which is positive. In so doing, his intent is not to be polite but rather to be thorough. His is a difficult role since he supports ideas, but he must also be realistic and voice realistic concern as he moves along.

The expert tries to demonstrate to the group that he is there to find workable ideas. He is not to build himself up at others' expense. He points out acceptable directions. He shows the group he is willing to listen to their ideas. He builds on their suggestions when possible, and he helps the group understand as much as necessary about the problem. He counts on the group, since he is the one who will most likely make use of potential solutions.

The leader checks the goals that the group is working toward with the expert. The leader also checks with the expert to make sure that possible solutions and viewpoints are clearly understood.

A synectics group is never larger than seven individuals; it is better to have six than seven and ideal to have only five. The group includes the leader, the client‑expert and the participants. If the group is run within a company, Lee of Remington Arms, who has used synectics in his company, recommends that some of the group represent the department directly involved in the problem and the remainder come from different departments. One should try to ensure a "good mix" and bring together different personalities. Leek suggests that the men's boss should not be the group leader, and if possible he should be kept out of the group.

The group's meeting place is important. It needs to be quiet and have no distractions. It is therefore important to protect the group from interruptions by secretaries, telephones, etc. Leek held his meetings close to nature, in a fishing club in the woods and a stable of an old mansion owned by his company. He has also held meetings in a local theatre club, a motel room, and home basement.

As indicated previously, meetings should be taped, and the tapes should be available to the group members for review of their processes and behaviour. A synectics session requires the expenditure of a fair amount of energy; it is recommended, therefore, that no session go longer than an hour without a break.

H) Synectics Problem-Solving Process

We have covered the psychological states, the operational mechanisms, the various individuals who make up a synectics group, and the roles they play. These constitute almost all the basic ingredients for a synectics problem‑solving session and almost all the critical jargon and terminology. There are still several other terms, such as problem as given, purge, suggestion, force fitting, and viewpoint. All of these and several others will be noted in their proper places, defined, and discussed as we present the synectics problem‑solving process. Again, Gordon's and Prince's approaches will be combined, and where differences exist they will be pointed out.

The synectics problem‑solving process consists of three major segments. The first is devoted to defining, elaborating, analyzing, and understanding the problem. The second is devoted to applying the different operational mechanisms, the metaphors and analogies, to the problem. When this is completed the group tries to force a fit between what they have arrived at as a result of applying the operational mechanisms and the problem on which the group was working. Hopefully, the result of the force fit is such that it either is a solution to the problem, a suggestion that, can lead to a solution, or an idea that results in a better understanding or better approach to the problem. Under the last circumstance, the whole process is now begun again bearing in mind the new view of the problem. The process may be repeated as many times as necessary until a solution is found.

Because a synectics session can become quite free flowing, discipline and structure have been introduced by the synectics people by way of a flow chart. The place of the group in terms of the flow chart may be written on a blackboard or on a flip‑chart placed on an easel by the leader so that the members of the group will know where in the process they are. The material that follows will be presented in the form of a flow chart.

1. Problem as Given (PAG)

For both Gordon and Prince, the character of this step is denoted in its title. The problem may be posed by an outside source or by an individual in the group.

Prince adds an interesting emphasis. He suggests that the word "problem" may connote, for some individuals, obstacles or difficulties which might serve to block an individual in his efforts. Prince recommends substituting for the word problem the word opportunity, which can serve as a positive signal for solving the problem.

2. Short Analysis of the PAG

Essentially these first two steps constitute attempts at analyzing and defining the problem. The first step is a statement of the problem as presented by the client. Another technique has also been used by Gordon. In this procedure the problem or goal is actually hidden from the group and in its place the group is asked to discuss a matter central to the goal. For example, in one problem the group was to come up with a new can opener. It was not told, however, that the goal was a can opener. Actually, problem‑solving activity began with a discussion of what "opening" meant to the group.

Whatever approach is used for the group's activity, the first two steps in the process are to "make the strange familiar", as Gordon puts it. The group tries to understand the problem and to make still unrevealed elements in the problem better known. One of the dangers of this phase of the problem‑solving task is to become too engrossed in details.

Prince puts greater emphasis on the client‑expert and at this point in the process calls on him to present an analysis of the problem in sufficient detail that everyone has a good understanding of it. Of course, no one need have as complete an understanding as the expert.

An example of what transpires thus far in the process comes from Prince's book in which the problem as given, is to "Devise an ice tray that releases ice without effort". The expert starts by explaining the problem in sufficient detail that the group has a common understanding. Since the expert is also a participant, he does not need to reveal all the minute details of the problem. These can all come out later during the session. For example, in the ice tray problem, the expert's contribution consisted of the following statement: "The ice tray must be superior to anything on the market and must not cost any more than those already available".

3. Purge; Immediate Suggestions

During the time that the group is clarifying the problem it is likely that individuals will think of suggestions or solutions. Such solutions are not likely to be valuable; they should however, be verbalized. By doing so, individuals and the group can rid themselves of superficial ideas and are forced to turn to more innovative possibilities. Solutions at this point of the process serve another function. It will be recalled that the expert also participates in the problem‑solving process. Therefore, early solutions can be criticized by the expert, resulting in further clarification of the problem as a by‑product.

4. Problem as Understood (PAU); Goals as Understood (GAU)

Some element or aspect of the problem as given is selected for work and solution. This element is called the problem as understood. It is stated as clearly as possible, and members of the group focus on it.

Prince suggests that, at this step, each participant be called upon to come up with his personal way of seeing the problem and his dream or wishful solution. These are written down by the leader. Prince feels that engaging in such personal ways of looking at the problem at this point is important for the following reasons: (1) Each participant can make the problem his own. He can preserve his own individuality and need not be forced into a shared consensus. (2) Giving each person an opportunity to state the problem as he sees it takes advantage of the diversity in the group. (3) Allowing oneself to engage in wishful thinking at this point enables the participant to broaden his perspective and not restrict himself to limiting conditions. (4) By analyzing the goals as understood, the goals can be broken down into parts of problems that can be dealt with separately, thereby eliminating the need to cope with a large, unmanageable problem.

Continuing with the ice tray problem, the following two goals as understood were arrived at: "1. how can we make an ice tray disappear after ice is made? 2. How can we teach an ice tray to release instantly on signal"? (The last goal is not as wishful or as far‑fetched as it may appear, for if an ice tray is suspended it will make icicles which when they reach a certain size can be used to signal the release.)

After checking with the expert, the leader selects one of the goals as understood to work on. He then asks the group to put the problem out of its mind and to concentrate on what he asks. Essentially, he now starts to take the group on a mental excursion.

5. Excursion

At this point, a rather extended stage of the problem‑solving process follows, which for Prince, is like taking an "artificial vacation" or "a holiday from the problem". He makes a point of asking the participants to put the problem out of their minds. He is aware that if they are capable of doing so, they will put it out of their conscious minds while continuing to work on it in their preconscious minds.

It is during this stage of the process that the different operational mechanisms ‑ the different kinds of analogies ‑ are used. Essentially, it is during the excursion that the group tries to "make the familiar strange". The leader questions the members and tries to evoke responses to his requests for different kinds of analogies.

Prince adds further elaboration of this step. He suggests that after analogies are produced that the leader selects one of them for further examination. The example is selected on the basis of these criteria: (1) The leader finds it interesting. (2) The example seems strange and irrelevant to the problem. (3) He thinks the group has some information about the example or analogy.

The example is examined to produce "factual and associatory material" which enables the participants to view the problem in a new way. The facts produced during an examination are differentiated by Prince as "simple descriptive facts" and "super facts", which are more speculative and "more associatory". These are more interesting and useful than descriptive facts.

Prince points out that a good deal of self‑discipline is involved in the examination since the participant must not think back to the problem unless he is asked to do so by the leader. Thus, each step in the excursion closes the door on the previous step. In so doing, Prince believes that the probability of diversity in thinking is increased.

Thus, both Gordon and Prince conclude the excursion in essentially the same way. In Gordon's terms the direct analogy is analyzed for further understanding, and for Prince the example is examined.

I) Setting up a Synectics Group within an Organization

It is possible to establish a synectics group within any company, and Gordon and Leek have done so. In his book, Gordon presents several specific ideas on the selection, training, and reintegration of a group chosen for synectics training and whose goal would be product improvement and product development within a company. These suggestions are probably not very workable in most situations. They are presented here only to stimulate further thinking about various possibilities on the part of individuals who might want such a group within their own organization. The purpose of "stimulation only" needs to be emphasized, since several groups that have been established in various companies have not survived. The reasons for this fact are neither all clear nor all available. It may well be, for example, that being involved in synectics is not a full‑time job. But whatever the reasons, what follows might be of help to those who want to start such groups.

J) Selection of Participants

Eight criteria for selecting participants for an in‑house synectics group are suggested by Gordon.

(1) Representation‑the group, consisting of five to seven members, should be representative of the company's total operation.

(2) Energy Level‑a group member should have a high energy level.

(3) Age‑members should be over 25 and under 40 to maximize the probability of selecting flexible individuals and individuals with experience. These age limits also allow for more homogeneity in salary levels and status.

(4) Administrative Potential‑individuals with administrative potential have the ability to generalize, and furthermore, since these individuals are likely to rise in the organization, starting with them increases the probability that synectics techniques will later be introduced at higher levels of management.

(5) Entrepreneurship ‑ the group must be able to accept the responsibility for the success and failure of its operation regardless of management's sanction. The group should feel apart from the company since if it is too close to it, it may feel and/or actually be controlled by the company.

(6) Job Background ‑ diversity in experience allows for a broad base of knowledge of the company.

(7) Education ‑ the selectee should have a history of having shifted major fields of interest. Broad interests will help increase his "metaphoric potential."

(8) The "Almost" Individual ‑ experience has shown that there are individuals who have characteristics of productive people but whose own work remains mediocre. These persons may have their abilities "liberated" by a synectics program.

Each potential participant then goes through further selection in meetings with the "Synectors", members of Gordon's staff, to determine if he possesses the following characteristics: metaphoric capacity, attitude of assistance,. kinesthetic coordination, enjoyment of risks and what kinds of risks, emotional maturity, capacity to generalize, commitment, nonstatus orientation, and "complementary aspect". Of course, each person in the group cannot be expected to have all desirable characteristics to an equal degree. Deficiencies in one person should therefore be compensated for by characteristics of the others, and the last characteristic mentioned, complementary aspect, refers to whether a person's characteristics complement those of others in the group and whether theirs complement his.

The group, as finally composed, thus represents a wide variety of skills, knowledge, and interests. One of the most important criteria in selecting group members is their "emotional constitution" ‑ the way in which they go about solving problems. For example, is the individual amused at himself when he is wrong, does he use his energy effectively or does he become passive at crucial moments? The synectics group should be composed of individuals with a variety of emotional constitutions. Thus, if there were a choice between two individuals of similar intellectual background and emotional orientation, only one should be chosen; but two individuals with the same intellectual backgrounds and different emotional orientations might both be included. Emotional and experiential diversity helps the group tolerate different approaches to a problem with depth.

Since no group of five to seven people can have all the technical competence to determine the technical feasibility of a solution, experts can be called in as needed. The expert either plays the role of encyclopaedia or devil's advocate. He is a resource person who provides technical advice or isolates weakness in a concept or solution.

The leader of the group, the person who will become the group's administrative head when the group is reintegrated into the company, is to be selected on the basis of observations made of the group during the course of his training. He needs:

(1) Extreme optimism ‑ reflected in believing that anything is possible;

(2) Total grasp ‑ involving experience in life and in industry that would enable him to integrate and interpret what comes up in the group;

(3) Synectics grasp ‑ a deep understanding of synectics; and

(4) Psychical distance ‑ a capacity to maintain proper control over his personal involvement with others so that sessions can be steered constructively.

K) Course of Training

The selected group, Gordon suggests, should have a place in the company that is separate from others so that high morale can be built. It undergoes training for 1 week a month for 12 months. Training begins with having the members read books that are selected to help them increase their metaphoric potential. These are books in the life sciences, because they yield the best metaphors, and "books of trauma" ‑ for example, those which describe polar expeditions, exploration in general, and disasters at sea. The books serve to increase bonds between group members and to alert them to many basic life situations for which creative ideas and inventions are necessary. There are discussions with the group as to how their industry fits into the National and Global economy and how they fit into their company's value system.

With this as groundwork, the group selects one of the problems presented to it by the company for solution ‑ trainers help it apply synectic mechanisms either by demonstrating the mechanisms or by replaying tape recordings of the sessions to correct the errors that the group may have made and to alert them to appropriate uses.

Throughout the year the group is in training, each of the individual members tries to develop an understanding of the work activities of the other members. In this manner, the group becomes better integrated. The group is also made to feel it must move faster than similar groups in existing traditional large corporations.

There are certain reactions that need to be guarded against during the early experiences of the group. One is the feeling of guilt. Although the group works hard and long, its members may nevertheless be vulnerable to guilt feelings. Members may find the work not onerous but enjoyable. Selectees also suppose that they are expected to conform to certain roles; it takes them time to learn that they are expected to behave as they wish. Finally, during the early days of training, selectees are cynical until there is some successful experience.

Gradually, the trainers become less and less important to the success of the group, until finally the group works independently of them. Independent sessions, however, are tape recorded for later evaluation by the trainers. Since the group works on company problems, management is in a position to pace and during the training program, rate the quality and quantity of the group's accomplishments.