Kindergarten Creativity: How to break out of the box!

A group of concerned executives of a large firm gathered together to address a pressing issue that could literally destroy their company. They needed to collaborate.

"How many of you are, artists?" asked the facilitator

2 of the 30 put up their hands.

"If I had asked that same question to a group of Kindergarten kids, all of them would have raised their hands." responded the facilitator.

Over time, we incorrectly "grow out of" being artists and transform ourselves into professionals. As if these two things need to be separate. This chips away at our ability to be creative.

We learn from experience, how to get things done, and we validate it every time we apply a proven process to resolve a problem. We become experts in our fields of choice. The more success we have, the more confident we are in our capabilities and skills.

As creatures of habit, we apply mental shortcuts without even knowing it. We identify common patterns and resolve problems as we always have. We see what we want to see, and dismiss those things that don't fit into our paradigm. This is usually a good thing, since most of the problems we'll face are variations of problems we already solved so we are thinking efficiently without having to "re-invent the wheel" every time.

A challenge occurs though when we're suddenly faced with a problem that our mental shortcuts can't resolve. The rules, and logic we've built over time will not allow us to resolve the problem. We are unable to be "creative."

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Einstein

It's in these situations that we most need to gain new perspectives, some of them radically different then our own.

But how does one "change their thinking"?

One of the most effective ways is to concede that it will be extremely difficult for you to truly change your thinking. You are a product of your experiences. So instead of struggling, reach out to others who have different experiences and perspectives. Collaborate!

The Gold Corp story that Tapscott references, illustrates this. Through mass collaboration, radical ideas and concepts ultimately saved Gold Corp from bankruptcy. These solutions did not come from their expert geologists but from groups of people who may never have spent a day in the mining industry but were experts in all-together different disciplines with completely different ways of thinking.

It doesn't have to be mass collaboration either. In several situations, mass collaboration is completely in-appropriate. Collaboration in any size can produce creative breakthroughs. The challenge in any type of collaboration is how to ensure people are capable of understanding the perspectives of others, especially when they run counter to ones own paradigm.

A technique that's been used for several years is graphic facilitation. The use of images and graphics, often allows us overcome the limitations of language as we each try to articulate our concepts. You might be surprised by what happens when 2 people are arguing over a point and you ask them to draw their point. They often gain a completely different level of understanding and retention. Sometimes they realize they were actually arguing the same point.

As the 2.0 world grows, so does the opportunity to achieve creative breakthroughs as long as we're willing to accept that there are "multiple versions of the truth".

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Einstein again...

Thanks to Lisa, Disa and Caroline for the inspiration for this post.

American Idol: The day the music died?

Today I saw the Queen musical "We Will Rock You" which takes place 300 years in the future. In this future, all original music is banned, and replaced with only music programmed by GlobalSoft, "Where our business is the complete appropriation of your imagination...". It even starts with a timeline that goes through some of the greatest rock milestones sprinkled with corporate manufactured examples such as Milli Vanilli, and "boy bands". At one point in the musical, one of the "bohemians" explains how they were able to track back the exact day that music died, and it was when something called... "American Idol". I am sure my friends are thinking... "Please don't say that this musical has anything to do with web 2.0?"... Well, this does..

I know I've commented on the business model of American Idol which I believe is brilliant (right up there with the way banks charge you for borrowing your money, which they lend to others, and heck let's charge them too). But what about the creativity? What about the art? Does this new collaboration mean art could succumb to corporate desires for quick profits? Unfortunately, to an extent it already has. BUT, it also provides opportunity for more artists to leverage new channels. If this is true, then we should already be starting to see indie musicians (not attached to a record label) gaining popularity, and momentum. Do we?

Crowdsourced music and art can create mass consumption products digestible by many but has no longevity or notable impact on the future of the art. It's creating the simple wine that will sold to many but the exceptional wine which requires the trained palette to appreciate could be pushed aside forever. From Mozart to Hendrix there are several examples in all genres of edgy artists pushing the limits of music who's radical art would require time to enter mainstream acceptance. If we made "America vote" as a pre-requisite for access to music would we have truly listened to the pioneers of hip-hop? As Don McLean questioned in American Pie, "Do you recall what was revealed the day the music died?"



On the other hand, I also read an article recently in the National Post about the band Arcade Fire. The article discussed how the band leveraged social forums to gather mainstream acceptance. This indie band may be an example of finally overcoming the "expert" tyranny of record labels and allowing the artists a better chance for their art to be heard before it's completely re-packaged for mass adoption. Another indie act that appears to be gaining mainstream acceptance (and is one of my favourite new bands) is Silversun Pickups pictured here.





Closer to home, a friend of mine (Dan Gagnon) a local musician has leveraged MySpace as a personal space and a digital home for his music. Only in this web 2.0 space could an individual create a global channel so quickly. He's received some very positive feedback from other more established (famous) artists. Of course simply opening up the music alone doesn't result in mass opportunity for the art to be heard. Can the long-tail be applied to his music as a pre-cursor to mainstream appeal?



The "build it and they will come" philosophy is often false and adoption usually requires active promotion. Of course promotion can also be done through several web 2.0 means as well. The 2.0 world provides coverage over the 4 P's (Price, Promotion, Place/Distribution,Product) providing freedom for the independent artist.


It will be interesting to see the clash between big corporate music and legions of independent artists both of which are leveraging the unique opportunities offered by Web 2.0.


Time will tell...

"I've been waiting for this moment all my life... But it's not quite right"
- Lazy Eye by Silversun Pickups.

Talk to me like a 3 year old...

Sorry for the delay in posts as I've been with the family in Jamaica... However, lots of ideas for new blogs.

One thing that struck me as I was the "water train" for my daughters and some other kids was how great it was to have "free thought". To not be tainted by everything else you've "learned" or have been taught. We talk about this all the time when it comes to creativity and we try to artificially reproduce this state.

Spend some time with some 3 year olds having conversations and you can't help but smile at how their logic works. Try it. Ask them why something is the way that it is. You'll likely get either a colourful answer unless they've already been "corrected" about why things are the way they are.

There is absolutely great value in hearing truly "out-of-the-box" thinking. For them, the box of "adulthood", rules, schema's and logic has yet to have been formed. It's not just cute. It's insightful.

Anyways, just a quick post to say I am back and will write some more soon.

Innovation: The Difference between Communication & Collaboration

I sometimes refer to collaboration as communication 2.0. Just because we can connect two or more people together and share information does not mean we are collaborating. The difference between communication and collaboration is when new concepts emerge through that exchange in knowledge & creativity.

This is not to say the individual is void of their own creativity or ability to think "out of the box" but they are limited to their own insight and understanding. Only through the introduction of new information can they go beyond that.

The opportunities are astounding. We've all heard the "1+1=3" saying but if we wanted to think about it mathematically, it is indeed true. In fact it's even greater than that. If we take every concept person A has and matched that with every concept person B has we could create some very interesting formulas. To keep it simple, assume the number of ideas (x) is the same for all the people (n) collaborating and that we will only look at pairing of ideas. The resulting formula would be: = "x^n+n(x)^(n-1)+(n-1)x^(n-2)+…"

This would mean that 1+1=3.5, and 1+1+1= 14.5... Now consider mass collaboration where n=1,000,000... Yikes! An analogy would be to consider every individual idea as one of the chemical elements (of which there are only 92 natural ones) and every physical thing on this entire planet is made up of only these 92 elements or combinations of them.

So what are the implications? Well here are 5 and there are several others.

1) Just one more person adds tremendous opportunity.

2) The more diverse the individuals the more ideas in the funnel.

3) Effective convergent thinking is extremely crucial.

4) The "pipe" to connect people really is a "dumb pipe."

5) Brainstorming can be enhanced by techniques that merge concepts.

I want to thank Dan & Kathleen for the seeds to this blog even though they were separate conversations across time & space. It's an example of the integration of concepts. Dan & I had an interesting discussion about what really is "thinking out of the box" and Kathleen & I had an interesting discussion on the chemical elements.

The Balance Between Efficiency & Creativity

When does efficiency impede innovation? Or does it? Hasn't "kaizen" (continuous improvement) been a key component in creating the dominance of Japanese manufacturing? Isn't every improvement that drives efficiency an "innovation"? Efficiency means delivering more output, faster and/or at a lower cost. Seems pretty good...

Picasso once said, "Computers are useless... All they can do is give you an answers". Interesting, since answers are usually quite useful. My interpretation is that important piece of the equation is in the question. More importantly asking those creative questions lead us to creative breakthroughs.

When we drive efficiency, we automate more. We drive out the need for human intervention. For those cases where we can't eliminate the human aspect, we try to control it. We measure it. We time it. We provide a very detailed script and try to control as much of the process as possible. We program them.

The impact of this is that we treat our people as computers. This robs them of their ability to be creative. Even worse is when we ask them to go and be creative, but please do it while we penalize you for not meeting a performance objective.

Let's do an analogy... Imagine you are a pizza delivery person. But when you get an order, you are given the exact specific directions even timed to the minute. As you're driving let's say you have a countdown alarm timer and for every minute you are late, you lose $1.

Chances are, you're not going to be looking around for new better ways to drive to the destination. You are never asked for your opinion. Even if you see a flaw in the directions do you offer it up? Even glaringly obvious opportunities are missed as the focus is on the script.

Chances are that if something unexpected comes up your ability to respond is diminished. Problem solving isn't in the job description.

Chances are that if the cook asks you to do him a big favour and pick up some ingredients on your trip back, you are less likely to help him. We reinforce silos and boundaries. You are not rewarded for helping others. Even if the most valuable thing you could do was stop what you're doing to help another piece of the organization. You get penalized for this. This is a collaboration killer.

Is efficiency bad? Of course not. Just don't let it be the only focus if you really want to be innovative.