OrganizationsConsultants / Advisors
enen
nlnlfrfr
logo o2c2

From intuition to systematic innovation

Facilitation
Innovation was long considered a mysterious process – a flash of genius for a few. This romantic notion has given way to a more pragmatic approach. Today, we know that successful innovations come from systematic processes that structure creativity. This transformation from intuitive to methodical innovation determines which companies thrive in a world of constant change.
Contact us
Make an appointment

Introduction

How do I find innovative people for my organization? And how can I become more innovative myself?” These are questions senior executives ask daily, and rightly so. They intuitively understand that the ability to innovate is the “secret sauce” of business success in an economy where change has become the only constant. Unfortunately, most of us know relatively little about what makes one person more creative than another, which explains why we are in awe of visionary entrepreneurs such as Apple’s Steve Jobs, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar and P&G’s A.G. Lafley. How do these people keep coming up with groundbreaking new ideas that transform markets?

This blog article discusses the evolution of innovation from a mysterious, intuitive process to a systematic, evidence-based approach. It describes why traditional brainstorming sessions often fail due to the “seven deadly sins” such as lack of preparation, premature evaluation and unskilled process supervision. The article offers concrete solutions via modern creativity methodology and CPS 6.1 principles to organize effective innovation sessions that produce measurable results.

The science behind creativity

Recent scientific research offers fascinating insights into the nature of creativity. Studies of identical twins separated at birth, conducted by researchers such as Nancy Segal of California State University, show that about one-third of our ability to think creatively comes from heredity. But the positive news is that two-thirds of innovation skill can be learned – first by understanding a particular skill, then practicing, experimenting and eventually gaining confidence in one’s ability to create (Plucker et al., 2004).

These findings are supported by neuroplasticity research by scientists such as Dr. John Kounios of Drexel University, who show that creative abilities can actually be developed through targeted training and practice. Their neuroimaging studies show that creative insights arise from specific brain configurations that can be trained and strengthened.

Creativity in the Digital Age

While creativity has always been a valued skill in the workplace, it has become even more critical in the digital age. According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report (2023), creativity is in the top five most desired skills for the future. Automation and artificial intelligence are making process-based tasks less and less dependent on human effort, while even hard skills such as cloud computing or knowledge of specific programming languages have a limited shelf life in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

LinkedIn Learning’s Global Talent Trends report found that creativity is the world’s most in-demand soft skill, followed directly by persuasion and collaboration. McKinsey’s research on the future of work shows that 40% of workers will need to develop substantially new skills over the next 10 years, with creative problem-solving at the center.

All of this points to one clear conclusion: employers should not only value creativity in the workplace, but actively encourage it and offer employees concrete inspiration and systematic guidance in developing out-of-the-box thinking.

The gap between scientific understanding and practical implementation

This scientific recognition of creativity as a developable skill and strategic necessity should inspire organizations to adopt systematic and thoughtful approaches to innovation.

Unfortunately, a significant gap often arises between the theoretical understanding of what creativity requires and its practical implementation within organizations. Many executives, driven by the urgency to get results quickly and faced with increasing competitive pressures, reach for familiar and seemingly simple solutions.

They hastily organize creativity sessions, convene teams for brainstorming meetings, or implement innovation initiatives without creating the fundamental conditions that scientific research has identified as essential.

This reactive approach, while understandable from an operational perspective, often leads to disappointing results and paradoxically reinforces skeptical attitudes toward creativity efforts within organizations. It is this problematic reality that characterizes many organizations, despite their good intentions and recognition of the importance of innovation.

The reality of poorly executed brainstorming sessions

As Arthur VanGundy, emeritus professor at the University of Oklahoma and authority on creative techniques, states: “When the same people facing the same problems every day come together and discuss these problems using the same language and procedures, the outcome is always predictable. Uniformity breeds more uniformity. Looking at the world with old eyes only helps produce old ideas ” (VanGundy, 2005).

When I am invited within organizations to spark creativity awareness and innovative behavior, very quickly the word “brainstorming” or “meeting with yellow bills” falls. The response “Been there, done that” is often justified – indeed, many people have had bad experiences with creativity sessions that led to few concrete results.

The seven deadly sins of brainstorming

Research by Paul Paulus of the University of Texas and other creativity specialists identifies why people hate brainstorming so much:

  • Lack of preparation: you can’t just call a meeting and ask people to brainstorm without any preparation. Steven Johnson’s research in “Where Good Ideas Come From” shows that the best ideas come from a slow hunch – a slow incubation of thoughts that takes time to mature.
  • Lack of focus: continuing with an ill-defined topic frustrates participants and wastes energy. Clayton Christensen’s research on disruptive innovation emphasizes the importance of a clearly articulated challenge.
  • Premature evaluation: Immediately evaluating every idea put forward blocks natural creative flow. Neuroscientist Dr. Arne Dietrich shows that critical thinking and creative thinking activate different brain networks that can interfere with each other.
  • Domination by extroverts: letting a few participants dominate the discussion causes valuable perspectives from introverts to be lost. Susan Cain’s research in “Quiet” demonstrates how traditional brainstorming sessions systematically suppress the contributions of introverted talent.
  • Structurelessness: creativity without structure produces a shapeless mess. The paradox is that creativity actually flourishes within intelligent constraints, as demonstrated by research by Patricia Stokes.
  • Psychological insecurity: fear of being wrong or being thought stupid kills creativity in the bud. Amy Edmondson’s groundbreaking work on psychological safety shows that teams innovate only when members feel safe to take risks.
  • Unskilled process facilitation: brainstorming sessions are often poorly conducted by process facilitators without adequate training in creative process methodology.

Back to the roots: Osborn’s validated principles

Alex F. Osborn, advertising man and the “O” in BBDO, developed brainstorming in the 1940s with four basic rules that are still scientifically validated by modern creativity research:

  • Focus on quantity: the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution. This principle is supported by Linus Pauling’s observation,“The best way to get a good idea is to get a lot of ideas.”
  • Defer judgment: by suspending criticism until after the generation phase, participants feel free to explore unusual options. Modern neuroscience confirms that divergent thinking (exploration) and convergent thinking (evaluation) are different cognitive processes that are best applied sequentially.
  • Encourage wild ideas: seemingly unrealistic options stimulate creative thinking and can lead to breakthroughs. Teresa Amabile’s research shows that humor and playfulness significantly increase creative output.
  • Combine and improve: good ideas can be combined to create better ideas. This principle reflects the combinatorial nature of creativity, as described by Arthur Koestler in “The Act of Creation.”
Make an appointment

A modern, science-based approach

These four rules are an excellent start, but idea generation is only a small part of the innovation process. Modern creativity experts such as Scott Isaksen, Don Treffinger and Brian Dorval have expanded Osborn’s work into the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) 6.1 framework, which at o2c2 is central to our process guidance.

Ten principles for effective creativity sessions

  • Pre-incubation: thinking starts even before you have a session. Creativity arises from a mix of individual and group processes. Give people at least a week before your thinking session to think about the challenge. This principle is supported by research on the incubation effect by Smith & Dodds (1999).
  • Professional process guidance: organize your thinking session with a skilled facilitator trained in creative process methodology and systematically follow the rules of Osborn and his successors.
  • Question-oriented mindset: encourage a mindset of asking questions and challenging assumptions. Ask questions such as “What if…?” “What else…?” and “In what ways can we…?” This technique, known as question-brainstorming, generates 7x more innovative ideas√´n according to research by Hal Gregersen.
  • “Yes, and…” principle: build on others’ ideas√´n with a “yes, and…” mentality rather than “yes, but…” This improvisational principle, borrowed from theater, promotes psychological safety and collective creativity.
  • Context research: systematically gather background information on customers, market and competition. Design thinking methodology emphasizes the importance of empathy and deep understanding of user needs.
  • Cognitive diversity: deliberately choose people with different backgrounds and thinking styles. Scott Page’s research in “The Difference” shows that diverse teams consistently outperform homogeneous expert teams on complex problems.
  • Clearly defined challenge: formulate a specific opportunity statement (“Wouldn’t it be nice if…”) or problem statement. Clayton Christensen’s Jobs-to-be-Done framework provides powerful methodology for clearly articulating innovation challenges.
  • Opportunity framing: focus not only on problems, but on desired outcomes. David Cooperrider, founder of Appreciative Inquiry, states, “The seeds of change are planted in the very first questions we ask.”
  • Methodological variation: use different thinking tools – not just traditional brainstorming. Techniques such as Visually Identifying Relationships, brainwriting, SCAMPER, and other CPS tools appeal to different VIEW thinking styles and maximize collective creativity.
  • Structured convergence: use systematic selection criteria based on customer value, feasibility, desirability and market timing. This is the time for constructive criticism and strategic evaluation of options generated.

The ROI of professional creativity coaching

Organizations who invest in systematic creativity coaching see measurable results. Research from PwC’s 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey shows that CEOs who view their organizations as highly innovative report 16% more revenue growth than their less innovative peers.

At o2c2, we have integrated these principles into our CPS methodology and consistently see how teams transform from frustrated brainstormers to effective innovation generators. Our certified process facilitators combine scientific rigor with practical applicability, exactly as Alex Osborn originally intended.

From theory to practice: professional support

Are you interested in organizing creative thinking sessions that are executed correctly? Don’t hesitate to contact us for an informal discussion. Our experience shows that the investment in professional process guidance pays for itself many times over through better ideas, faster implementation and higher team engagement.

Want to have these skills yourself? We are internationally certified to train CPS 6.1 process facilitators. This intensive four-day training, based on the latest developments in creativity science, requires active participation and results in practically applicable competencies that you can put to use immediately.

If this fascinates you and you want to learn more about how to become a pro at facilitating creative problem solving (CPS) then click here