"Brainstorming" has been with us for quite a while now, to the sound of cheers and simultaneous jabs of ridicule. Often characterized by silly exercises and "absolutely no criticism" decrees in an effort to get us out of figurative boxes, I can understand why some of the more pragmatic types amongst us look at it all as a bunch of superfluous goofiness. It doesn't help that formal studies have supported the hypothesis that a solitary person is capable of coming up with more solutions to a complex problem than a brainstorming group in the same amount of time.
Which leads me to ask - why do we brainstorm?
There are several reasons I remain committed to the group brainstorming process, at least in the format that we execute it at Brooks Stevens Inc. The practice keeps the focus upon group collaboration - which is healthy for the project well beyond the session itself. That doesn't mean we are hamstrung by democratic buy-in on every decision; rather, it ensures that we buy-in to the concept that there are multiple inputs which can be relevant and need to be listened to. That, and the cross-pollination that you get through this process will be sorely missed in other solitary approaches.
Quantity of ideas is part of the mechanics of the session, but it is not the prize outcome. A structured session can look a lot like a compressed concept phase or as a way to get a LOT of great ideas – but it is much more valuable and valid as an intense “immersion bootcamp” to get an extended project team heading in the same general direction with the same general goals. Coming out of a complex discovery research phase, this is often the best way to internalize the findings for the group so they can proceed into concept development most effectively.
Years ago I tried to be an island. I valued my design input by how much I could do alone - in quantity, quality, and breadth. But I was so much older then - I'm younger than that now...
image credit: 惟①刻¾
Exactly. Why do we brainstorm? Another answer lies in the multi-disciplinary approach. No one has ALL the puzzle pieces. If we all are given one piece of a puzzle, we had better have a structured method for bringing those pieces together. I feel what we need to work on is a way to get more solo work integrated into the process. Homework. Solo idea generation. And more of a focus on quantity.
ReplyDeleteOne factor to consider is the nature of the problem at hand. Complex problems seem to benefit the most from an individual focus, with the time to comprehend tradeoffs and interdependencies - while "whitespace" problems seems to prosper with the egging on of complimentary collaborators. It's not a black and white contrast, but there does appear to be a consistent bias.
ReplyDeleteOne thing's for sure - a boilerplate helps with efficiency and consistency, but evolution and adaptation of the process is essential in the long view...