6.9 Group
Techniques for Increasing Creativity
6.9.1
Brainstorming
The best known and probably most widely used procedure to
stimulate creativity is brainstorming. It was originated
in 1938 by Alex F. Osborn in response to his
dissatisfaction with the‑usual‑business conference.
Osborn, as did so many other business executives, came
to regard the usual business conference as a waste of time
because, although the business meeting would be called to
deal with one or more important problems, it usually did not
yield anything of value. Therefore, Osborn developed
brainstorming as a means of achieving "organized ideation”
in group meetings held in his advertising company. These
group meetings began to be called brainstorming sessions
because" 'brainstorming' means using the brain to
storm a problem.”
A) Theory
For Osborn "the creative problem‑solving process" consists
of:
(1)
Fact finding, (2) Idea‑finding, and (3) Solution
‑finding.
Fact finding
consists of two parts: problem definition and preparation.
The former involves selecting and highlighting the problem
while the latter involves assembling information related to
the problem.
Idea finding
involves producing ideas through idea generation and through
the combination of and extrapolation from existing and
available ideas.
The third phase of the creative problem‑solving process,
solution finding, involves
evaluating ideas and adopting one of them for further
development and eventual use.
Osborn recommended brainstorming
for the second, "idea finding," phase of the creative
problem‑solving process. Brainstorming as we said is a
method for coming up with ideas without regard to their
evaluation. This does not mean that evaluation is
disregarded forever but rather that it is only deferred.
Osborn carefully separated evaluation from idea generation
for fear that evaluation, if it came too early, might
adversely affect the number and quality of ideas produced in
attempting to solve a problem.
This orientation in the brainstorming procedure, as Osborn
himself points out, has a long history. A technique very
similar to brainstorming has been used by Hindu religious
teachers for more than 400 years while working with
religious groups. The Indian name for this method is
Prai‑Barshana. Prai means 'outside you' and Barshana
means 'question'. In such a session there is no discussion,
or criticism. Evaluation of ideas takes place at later
meetings of the same group.
It is apparent then that Osborn believed that an individual
could deliberately set out to come up with ideas that
would provide creative solutions to problems; and what held
for an individual also held for groups of individuals. He
therefore recommended brainstorming to help overcome the
restrictive and rigidifying effects of evaluation that
occurred in most business conferences. On the group level,
therefore, Osborn saw a brainstorming session as "nothing
more than a creative conference for the sole purpose of
producing a checklist of ideas; ideas which can serve as
leads to problem‑solution ideas which can subsequently
be evaluated and further processed."
Efforts devoted
to deliberately coming up with ideas for creative solutions
could be facilitated by following two major principles and
four major rules.
The two major principles are:
deferment of judgment and quantity breeds quality.
The four major rules are: (1) Criticism is ruled out;
(2) freewheeling is welcomed; (3) quantity is wanted; and
(4) combination and improvement are sought.
B) The Two Principles
·
Deferment of Judgment
Thinking,
according to Osborn, involves both a "judicial mind" and
a "creative mind". The former "analyzes, compares and
chooses" (i.e., evaluates), whereas the latter "visualizes,
foresees and generates ideas." The judicial mind "puts the
brakes" on the creative mind - and these brakes need to be
removed so that ideas can be generated. To remove these
brakes, the first principle of brainstorming ‑ deferment
of judgment‑has to be observed. The individual
verbalizes or writes down his ideas without concern for
their value, feasibility, or significance (all of which are,
however, considered later). Yet he does not engage literally
in free associations, for this might result in fruitless
ideas: "instead of literally deferring judgment, we are, in
reality, using 'limited‑criteria' thinking‑these 'limited'
criteria being dependent on the way we state the problem."
For example,
In
using the principle of deferred judgment, we don't say,
"List ideas that come to your mind by free association.
Instead, we say, "List ideas with respect to such‑and‑such a
problem.” When we list uses for a broom, for example, we are
setting the criteria of "uses" and "broom" in our minds as
we allow our automatic associative processes to go to work.
In other words, we are saying, I will entertain any idea
that comes to my mind with respect to using a broom in some
way…." Hence I am judging (and ruling out) automatically any
thought or idea that comes to my mind that is not pertinent
to "uses of a broom" [Parries, 1967a, pp. 68‑69].
Expressed differently, the problem as stated "sets" the
individual, and his thought processes do not run on at
random, but operate within the more limited framework of
what Parnes calls primary criteria, for example, "uses"
and "broom" in the sample just presented. What, then, is
deferred? According to Parnes, secondary criteria are
deferred. These secondary criteria include such evaluative
thoughts as: Will it be too expensive; will it take too long
to do; will it require too many people to do it?
·
Quantity Breeds Quality
The second principle of brainstorming
is that quantity breeds quality. The rationale for this
dictum originates in associationistic psychology, which
assumes that our thoughts or associations are structured
hierarchically. The most dominant thoughts in this
hierarchy are those which are most habitual, common, or
usual, and are therefore likely to be, from other points of
view, the "safest" and most acceptable to others. It is
necessary to "get through" these conventional ideas if we
are to arrive at original ones. After the dominant ideas
have been reviewed and rejected, additional effort has to be
expended in order to generate fresh associations. Implicit
in this view is that somewhere in the repertoire of an
individual's associations there are some that are original
or others that, if combined properly, can yield creative
results.
C) The Four Rules
The
two basic principles just described deferment of judgment
and quantity breeds' quality, give rise to four essential
rules for a brainstorming session.
1.
Criticism Is Ruled Out:
All criticism and evaluation are put off until some
future date. This key rule is the means of implementing
the principle of deferred judgment. It is so critical that
when brainstorming is conducted in a group, some chairmen or
leaders ring a bell whenever any member of the group
criticizes another's ideas or is self‑critical or apologetic
for that which he has himself suggested.
2.
Freewheeling
Is Welcomed: Participants are to feel free to offer
any idea; as a matter of fact, the wilder the idea the
better, for "it is easier to tame down [an ideal than to
think [it] up." The intent of this rule is to help the
individual feel more relaxed and less inhibited than he
might in ordinary circumstances by encouraging him to and
implicitly rewarding him for using his imagination. It
relieves him of responsibility for evaluation.
3.
Quantity
Is Wanted: This rule is a restatement of the second
principle of brainstorming, that the more ideas suggested
the greater the probability that an original one will come
up.
4.
Combination and Improvement
are Sought: The intent of this rule is to motivate
participants to build on others' ideas by showing how
already offered ideas might be improved or combined in
various ways with other ideas. This rule not only encourages
the development of additional ideas, but also offsets any
feeling of embarrassment individuals might experience at not
having been the first to think of an idea.
To
summarize,
these two principles and four rules constitute
brainstorming fundamental orientation to the generation of
ideas irrespective of whether this orientation is practiced
by an individual or by a group of individuals; to achieve a
creative solution the idea‑generation stage is separated
from and is followed by idea‑evaluation. There are no
specific guidelines on how to evaluate a list of ideas
developed through brainstorming, probably because Osborn,
brainstorming originator, assumed that people are more
practised in idea evaluation than idea generation.
Nevertheless, should an obstacle be encountered in the
process of idea evaluation and should more ideas be needed,
the brainstorming process following the two principles and
four rules can be reinstituted.
D) Setting up for a group brainstorming session
Brainstorming with a group of individuals is a bit more
complicated than with a single individual not because of
complications in the process but because of the number of
persons involved. A review of the literature highlights
several important pointers regarding group composition,
problem selection, etc. some points of which may also be of
value to individuals using brainstorming.
E) Group Composition
Brainstorming, as we have said, involves a deliberate
attempt to make effective use of what is known about the
creative process. This holds true not only for the
development of creative solutions to problems but also for
the selection of people involved in the process. To
randomly select individuals to participate in a
brainstorming session and to expect them to come up with
creative ideas is rather unrealistic. This is not to say
that all possible participants do not have the potential for
creativity, rather it is to highlight the point that
maximization of the probability that brainstorming will
prove valuable requires thoughtful selection of participants
and leaders. We now turn to some of the more critical issues
involved.
F)
Participants
Participants should have knowledge and/or experience with
the field in which the problem is based. If there are
participants who have no previous experience with
brainstorming then they should attend an orientation session
at which they learn what to expect. This meeting could
include a discussion of the fundamentals of thinking and
forming ideas as well as the basic principles of
brainstorming. Use can also be made of slides, movies, etc.
It is helpful for the group to include a few
"self‑starters" to get the ball rolling. If they
dominate or monopolize the group it may be necessary to tell
them to hold back. As Bristol put it, "In choosing your
panel member, it is wise to choose at least one or two
people of known creative ability. You may find it wise, also
to choose a few panel members who are not too close to your
problem, because their ideas may reflect a more refreshing
approach to your problem".
Executives who "have been over‑trained in the usual kind
of non‑creative conference" are undesirable as
participants. All members of a brainstorming group should
hold the same administrative rank within the organization so
as not to feel inhibited in their superiors' presence.
Brainstorming groups
can be established throughout an organization. Guests from
other parts of the organization could be invited to any core
group so that more and more people gain experience in
solving problems creatively.
The
optimal size of an idea‑finding brainstorming group is
twelve persons. The critical point is not so much the size
of the group as that it should be an even number of persons.
For idea evaluation or decision making, according to Osborn,
one might want an odd number of participants. In the
idea‑finding group, in addition to the leader, associate
leader, and recording secretary (who is not really a
participating member of the group) the group can consist of
five regular or core members and five positions that can be
filled by nonregular members or visitors.
Obviously,
both men and women can constitute a brainstorming group. And
a group so composed can frequently add more rivalry,
excitement, and zest to the group process.
G)
Leader
The group leader's personality,
his knowledge and experience with the problem, and his
knowledge and experience in brainstorming are all critical
considerations in his selection. "You will want to choose
him with great care, because your chairman can mean the
success or failure of your brainstorming session. You want
to choose a keen‑witted, friendly person who is able to be
both a 'driver' and a 'relaxers', that is, someone who can
keep the session atmosphere friendly and informal”.
The leader has to fulfil several very critical functions.
He has to process the statement of the problem so that it is
stated in a workable manner. He has to select participants
who will be able to follow brainstorming's two principles
and four rules. He has to prepare new participants. He has
to provide a warm-up session for the group and prepare the
total group prior to the brainstorming session. And, he has
to conduct the session in terms of brainstorming principles
and in such a manner as to enable the group to manifest its
full potentiality.
H)
Associate Leader
The associate leader should have the same characteristics
as the leader. He helps the leader as necessary and
should also be able to take over the leader's function
should it become necessary to do so.
I)
Recording Secretary
A secretary who is a non participating member of the group
records participants' ideas and suggestions. These may be
recorded in a telegrammatic fashion but with enough data so
that their general sense is not lost. If the topic
discussed is very technical then a secretary with technical
knowledge has to be selected. On some occasions two
secretaries have been used to keep up with the rapidity of
the flow of ideas. On such occasions the secretaries take
turns in recording every other suggested idea. Tape
recorders may also be used but they need not replace the
secretaries.
It is a good idea to number ideas as they are recorded.
The leader then has a ready tabulation of the number of
ideas produced which he can use to tell a group how well it
has done and to spur it on to even greater production.
When ideas are recorded, they are not noted with the name
of the suggestor. The need for group congeniality far
outweighs the good of granting individual credit.
J)
The Problem
If brainstorming is to be effective it is necessary to state
the problem properly. Brainstorming is not for all problems.
According to Osborn it is indicated for problems that
require idea finding rather than judgment. The problem to be
selected is one that lends itself to many alternative
possible solutions. Brainstorming cannot be of much help
with a problem such as "when should we introduce
such‑and‑such a new course”; But, it can be used to produce
ideas for tests that would help in arriving at such a
decision.
A problem should be specific rather than general.
An example given by Osborn is that a general question may be
that of introduction of a new synthetic fibre. To be more
specific, it should be altered to ask what ideas would help
to introduce the new fibre to weavers and mills or to
introduce the new fibre to dress houses and cutters, etc.
If a problem is a complex one,
it should be broken down into component subproblems
and each should be worked on separately. A brainstorming
session may even be devoted to breaking down a problem into
its subunits. And, then, a separate brainstorming session
can be devoted to each unit.
K)
The Process
Prior
to the brainstorming session, the leader prepares about a
1‑page memorandum in which the time and place of the
brainstorming session is given as well as a very simple
statement of the problem. The memorandum also includes
the background of the problem and examples of the kinds of
ideas that are desired. If necessary, illustrations and
other exhibits should accompany the memorandum.
This memorandum is circulated to the participants
at least 2 days before the brainstorming session
so that they can become acquainted with the problem and
allows their ideas to incubate.
When the participants report at the time selected for the
brainstorming session,
the leader starts off new participants with a warm-up
session using some very simple problem (improving men's
pants is one suggested by Osborn) unrelated to the problem
they will finally work on.
The
leader presents the problem and answers questions. The
four brainstorming rules are stated: "(1) Criticism
is ruled out. (2) 'Free‑wheeling' is welcomed. (3) Quantity
is wanted. (4) Combination and improvement are sought". Then
he calls for ideas and suggestions from the group.
Just as soon as a hand goes up the leader asks the person to
state his idea. If too many hands go up, each person in turn
is given a chance to state one idea. No one is allowed to
read his ideas from a list if he brought such to the
meeting. The lists can be given to the leader before the
meeting and their contents should be given at the meeting.
As people verbalize their ideas,
one idea may stimulate a related idea. These are called
"hitch‑hikes", and they are given priority of statement in
the brainstorming process. It is important that a
participant have some way of signifying (e.g., snapping his
fingers) that he has a hitch‑hike so he can be given
priority by the leader. A participant might well make a note
of his ideas so that he doesn't forget them.
When the group seems as if it is running dry,
the leader might encourage the participants to come up with
more ideas by telling them how well they have already done
or by urging them to come up with "about 10 more ideas,"
etc. He can suggest his own ideas during these slow periods
or come up with idea.
We could have something that you placed over a cup and as
you pressed it, it opened out to release some sugar and at
the same time spun to stir the sugar in.
... If there is so much fun stirring in sugar then perhaps
we ought to have some sort of inert sugar which people who
don't like sugar could use in order to enjoy stirring in.
A once off spoon made of sugar.
A device which contains sugar and which is moved up and down
in the cup. But if you don't want sugar you keep a gate
closed.
. . . I would like to take up the idea of electricity but
not using a battery or anything like but using the static
electricity present in the body.
... This idea of a screw. One could do it on the autogiro
principle. As the screw went up and down the fluid would
make it revolve.
... Like a spinning top.
... A vibrating table that would agitate everything on
it‑whether you had sugar or not.
... What about a sugar impregnated stick?
At the end of the brainstorming session participants are
asked to keep the problem in mind for the next day allowing
them further opportunity for incubation. They are later
contacted by the leader who notes their new ideas if they
have come up with any. A list of all ideas is then compiled
and after the leader ascertains that ideas are stated
succinctly and clearly, and properly classified if
necessary, is presented to the evaluation group.
L)
Evaluation Group
In brainstorming, idea generation is separated from idea
evaluation. Therefore after the ideas are compiled they
are presented to an evaluation group consisting of five
persons. There is an odd number in an evaluation group to
avoid ties in arriving at decisions. A brainstorming group,
it will be recalled, consisted of an even number but such a
group was not involved in decision‑making or evaluation
activities.
Osborn tells us that an evaluation group can be constituted
in various ways.
It can consist of all of the members of the previous
(idea‑generation) panel, some members and some non-members
of the idea‑generation panel, or it might be made up of a
completely different group of people.
Whenever this group is constructed it should be composed of
individuals who will have direct future responsibility for
the problem. As an aid in deciding the relative merits of
the various ideas, the evaluation group may use a checklist
of criteria. They might ask themselves whether the idea is
simple, timely, costly, spurring questions as: What other
uses can one make of such‑and‑such? How can such‑and‑such be
changed in terms of colour, sound, and motion? etc.
As ideas are suggested they are noted by the secretary.
Experience has shown that 30 minutes is an optimal period
for a brainstorming session. However, some practitioners
suggest 15 minutes or less and some as much as 45 minutes.
M)
Brainstorming in Action
The following is an excerpt of an idea‑generating
brainstorming session quoted from De Bono's book,
Lateral thinking: Creativity Step by Step. It was to
redesign a teaspoon.
…
A rubber spoon
… I feel that the secondary function of a spoon which is
that of transferring sugar from the basin to the cup has
largely disappeared and that a teaspoon in the shape of an
egg whisk would be much more efficient.
... (Put down egg‑whisk.)
... And make it electrically driven.
... Incorporate a musical box for the aesthetic function.
... Have something like a pipette tube which you dip in the
sugar with your finger over the top and transfer sugar in
that way. Then the sugar would be provided with a dispersing
agent so that you would entirely lose the pleasure of
stirring.
... Going back to the egg whisk 1 think one ought to have a
sort of screw thing, rather like an electrical swizzle
stick. The axle would be hollow...
... (Can I interrupt here? You are beginning to tell us how
you would make it and that are not the function of this
session.)
... No, I am just describing what it looks like.
... (Could you describe it more simply?)
... A rotating spoon?
... No it's got a screw. You know a propeller type screw.
... You push it up and down?
... No it's electric; you just press the button on the top.
… It seems to
me this is too complicated. Now you have an ordinary sugar
tongs and each individual would have his own sugar tongs and
would pick up a couple of lumps of sugar. The tongs have two
ends and you could create turbulence just as easily as with
a spoon.
... Doesn't this restrict you to lump sugar?
…
Yes, small lumps. But you can still get the quantity of
sugar you want.
... (What shall we put down there?)
... Tongs.
... What about something like those ashtrays which spin as
you press them?
…
Feasible, etc.
Those ideas that are selected are reported back to the idea
generation group so members of that group can still maintain
a sense of participation in arriving at a creative solution
to the problem.
It will also very likely be necessary to persuade others in
the organization to accept an idea or a tentative working
model of an idea. This may require knowledge and experience
in marshalling arguments and being persuasive. Finally
appropriate techniques need to be used in introducing the
final work to the audience at large.
At each step in the total process there may be the need for
additional new ideas.
Under such circumstances, a brainstorming session and the
process, as described previously, can be begun again.
N)
Errors and Pitfalls to Be Avoided
There are
certain mistakes that should be avoided, if the effects of
brainstorming are to be maximized. Bristol suggests the
following:
-
Failing to get support for your brainstorming program
of at least one of your superiors.
-
Boasting prematurely about brainstorming
and getting your colleagues to expect too much.
-
Failing to indoctrinate
your panel adequately.
-
Submitting the unscreened
list of ideas to people unfamiliar with how
brainstorming works. It is best to keep the unscreened
list confidential.
-
Failing to see that
the next steps are taken.
Osborn also
suggests as two reasons why brainstorming may not work: the
failure to follow instructions (by the group leader as
well as the participants) and exaggerated expectations.
What can be expected is that some sessions may produce final
answers, provided the problem has been stated simply enough;
some sessions may produce planks for plans; some sessions
may produce checklists that are guides to stimulate further
thinking; some sessions may produce approaches to subsequent
solutions.
O)
Its Uses
To avoid unrealizable expectations it is necessary to recall
Osborn's assessment of brainstorming as "only one of the
phases of idea‑finding which, in turn, is only one of the
phases of the creative problem‑solving process”.
He adds:
"Let's bear in mind that group brainstorming is meant to be
used - not as a substitute ‑ but as a supplement, and
especially in these three ways:
1.
As a supplement to
individual ideation:
Individual effort is an indispensable factor in creative
problem solving. Brainstorming sessions should never be
considered as a substitute for such effort. Group
brainstorming serves solely as a supplemental source ‑ a
means of generating a maximum number of potentially usable
ideas in a minimum of time.
2.
As a supplement to
conventional conferences:
The usual
conference is necessarily judicial, both in spirit and in
function, and therefore relatively unproductive of ideas.
This does not mean that brainstorming sessions should
supplant conventional conferences. It merely means that
conventional conferences can be profitably supplemented by
an occasional brainstorming session ‑ if and when creative
thinking is the primary purpose.
3.
As a supplement to creative
training:
In over 1,000 courses in creative thinking, group
brainstorming has been used as one of the teaching methods.
This type of self‑demonstration does much to induce a more
creative attitude and to develop fluency of ideas. By the
same token, participation in brainstorming sessions can help
improve the average person's creative ability, not only in
group effort, but also in individual effort.
By way of
emphasizing the nature of the relative contributions of both
individual and group brainstorming, it should be noted that
Osborn said, "Despite the many virtues of group
brainstorming, individual ideation is usually more usable
and can be just as productive. In fact, the ideal
methodology for idea finding is a triple attack: (1)
Individual ideation. (2) Group brainstorming. (3) Individual
ideation”.
This
then is a summary of the theory and assumptions underlying
brainstorming, the factors to be considered in setting up a
brainstorming session, and the factors to keep in mind to
maximize the benefits to be reaped from its proper use.
Needless to say, many more details may be obtained from
reading Osborn's and Parnes' basic works.
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. |