Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

The 3 Keys to Motivation

"Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us", the newest book by Dan Pink, is a winner! It explains how intrinsic motivators beat extrinsic motivators, like rewards and punishments, for the more difficult cognitive tasks and jobs that are the core of what the new world of work and business are about.

What are the 3 most important intrinsic motivators?

Autonomy is our need for independent action and control over tasks, time, place, and team. One example is ROWE, the results-only work environment.

Mastery is our need to show we are "masters" of something that matters to us. The example he uses is comparing Encarta to Wikipedia (open source movement and community sharing).

Purpose is our need to matter in the larger scheme of things. Achieving your highest fulfillment does not have to be incompatible with making a living.



Via: www.careerhubblog.com

Monday, 14 December 2009

How to Come up with Good Ideas for Startups - the Scribd Story and the Trip Method

How to Come up with Good Ideas for Startups - the Scribd Story and the Trip Method

Monday, 27 July 2009

Immersi in una bolla creativa

Ci sono posti in cui all'improvviso si accende una scintilla di energia collettiva. Non ingabbiatela e tenete alla larga avvocati e benefattori. È un'atmosfera da salvaguardare, scrive Kevin Kelly.

Lo scenio è come il genio, solo che si trova all'interno di un'intera scena culturale e non nei cromosomi di una singola persona. La parola è stata coniata da Brian Eno per descrivere l'energia creativa che si scatena in alcuni luoghi e indica "l'intelligenza e l'intuizione di un intero gruppo".

Immersi in questo clima produttivo diamo il meglio di noi perché siamo ispirati dall'ambiente e dalle persone che ci circondano, che sono sulla nostra stessa lunghezza d'onda. Lo scenio, però, si verifica solo se sono presenti alcune condizioni.

Apprezzamento reciproco: le mosse rischiose vengono incoraggiate dal gruppo, l'intelligenza è apprezzata e una forma di amichevole competizione spinge all'azione anche i più timidi. È una specie di "logica del branco" in positivo.

Scambio veloce di strumenti e tecniche: appena qualcuno scopre qualcosa di nuovo la condivide subito con il gruppo. Le idee circolano rapidamente attraverso un linguaggio comune.

Gli effetti del successo: quando ottiene un risultato sorprendente, l'intero gruppo si gode il trionfo. E questo trasmette forza per i successi a venire.

Rispetto per l'originalità: il mondo esterno non è troppo duro con le trasgressioni del gruppo. I tipi più ribelli o quelli fuori dalle righe sono protetti da questa specie di zona cuscinetto.



Imparare dagli scalatori
Lo scenio può emergere ovunque: nei corridoi di un'azienda, in un quartiere o in un'intera regione. La storia è piena di esempi. Nella letteratura moderna ci sono stati la Tavola rotonda dell'Algonquin e il gruppo di Bloomsbury.

Nell'arte c'è stata la Parigi degli anni venti, i loft di Soho a New York e, più di recente, il festival del Burning Man. E per la scienza, l'edificio 20 all'Mit e la Silicon Valley.

Tutto questo mi è tornato in mente guardando il documentario Vertical frontier sugli scalatori del Parco nazionale di Yosemite, in California.

Negli anni trenta alcuni scalatori decisero di scalare le pareti verticali dello Yosemite. Occuparono un campo permanente sulla parete nord, il Camp 4, dove spesso campeggiavano illegalmente per l'intera estate. Il gruppo era formato da giovani squattrinati appassionati di alpinismo, con molto tempo a disposizione, incuranti delle leggi e spinti da una grande voglia di scalare in modo nuovo.



Camp 4 diventò una scuola, un club e una casa estiva per molti scalatori. Diede vita a una nuova etica, a equipaggiamenti incredibilmente innovativi e inventò la maggior parte delle più moderne tecniche di arrampicata.

All'apparenza i luoghi dello scenio non hanno nulla di particolare: l'edificio 20 dell'Mit era semidiroccato, Soho era un ammasso di spazi industriali e Camp 4 è un campeggio polveroso. Ma ci si arriva solo a piedi, caricandosi tutto sulle spalle, e questo tiene alla larga gli scalatori della domenica. In più non ci sono macchine e il clima è molto intimo.

La tranquillità del posto è stata minacciata più volte e gli scalatori di tutto il mondo si sono battuti perché il posto fosse messo sotto tutela. Alla fine il campo è rimasto una specie di incubatrice per gli entusiasti dell'arrampicata.

Anche se ogni azienda o università vorrebbe ricrearlo, questo clima speciale non si può costruire a tavolino. Devono esserci i pionieri giusti, un luogo aperto ma non troppo e molte scintille di entusiasmo.

La cosa più importante è non distruggere l'atmosfera: quando il gruppo comincia a funzionare non va formalizzato. Quando vedete le prime scintille, sventolate il fuoco perché si attizzi ma non spostate lo scenio in un altro posto. Tenete alla larga avvocati, architetti e benefattori. Lasciate che il vostro scenio rimanga scomodo, strambo, marginale: in cantina, in periferia, sul retro, lassù a Camp 4. E, quando nasce, onoratelo e salvaguardatelo.

Thursday, 30 April 2009

Innovation as a Learning Process


Innovation as a Learning Process from Roger H. Shealy on Vimeo.

Sunday, 26 April 2009

Building a Creative Economy

Phase I. To grow a creative economy and culture, establish a service to link creatives with companies needing creative talent, whether as employees or vendors. This is the ‘big head’.

Phase II. Develop a website to capture the Long Tail, that is, the 95% of the creatives that don’t have connections to the companies and organizations that can hire them, but have more than enough to talent. Where growth occurs is when companies that don’t realize they need creative talent meet up with creative talent that doesn’t realize their talent is needed.

Phase III. This placemaking-oriented phase will be to use the creative community to grow a much larger progressive community of future customers to crowdsource (apply the Wikipedia approach to) the building of meaningful places, like green outdoor cafe districts, shared workplaces and attainably-priced condos.

However, to legitimize the second phase, you need to prove the first phase is financially sustainable. Thus, ensure that someone links the economic producers - defined here as large companies/organizations and smaller creative businesses - in order to match them up with creative talent, whether to fulfill job positions or complete creative projects (ie websites, events, social media campaign) to attract new customer bases.


Via: cooltownstudios.com

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Do schools kill creativity?







Or via Vimeo

Friday, 30 January 2009

How Social Networks Network Best

The humble bee has much to teach us about the flow of information in our own organizations. Bees, like human beings, are social animals, and evolution has provided them with elegant approaches to group decision making.

One of the most important group decisions made by a bee colony is where to locate the hive. Bees use a kind of “idea market” to guide their discovery: The colony sends out a small number of scouts to survey the environment. Returning scouts that have found promising sites signal their discoveries with a vigorous dance, thus recruiting more scouts to the better sites. The cycle of exploration and signaling continues until so many scouts are signaling in favor of the best site that a tipping point is reached.

The bees’ decision making highlights both information discovery and information integration, two processes that are crucial to every organization but that have different requirements. A centralized structure works well for discovery, because the individual’s role is to find information and report it back. In contrast, a richly connected network works best for integration and decision making, because it allows the individual to hear everyone else’s opinion about the expected return from each of the alternatives. The bees’ process suggests that organizations that alternate as needed between the centralized structure and the richly connected network can shape information fl ow to optimize both discovery and integration.

Recent studies at MIT reveal that this sort of oscillation may be characteristic of creative teams. One intriguing study tracked employees in the marketing division of a German bank by having them wear small sensors called sociometers for one month. Sociometers record data about face-to-face interactions such as participants’ identities and the location and duration of the interaction. Analysis of the data showed that teams charged with creating new marketing campaigns oscillated between the centralized communication associated with discovery and densely interconnected conversations that were mostly with other team members. In contrast, the members of implementation groups showed little oscillation, speaking almost exclusively to other team members.

A second study demonstrated not only that creative teams had especially nimble social-communication networks, but also that the amount of oscillation correlated with how productive the creative group judged itself to be. In this study almost 40% of the variation in creative productivity could be attributed to an oscillating pattern of communication strategies for discovery and integration.

Delving deeper into the communication networks of several organizations illuminated the links between productivity and information fl ow even more. A recent MIT study found that in one organization the employees with the most extensive personal digital networks were 7% more productive than their colleagues – so Wikis and Web 2.0 tools may indeed improve productivity. In the same organization, however, the employees with the most cohesive face-to-face networks were 30% more productive. Electronic tools may well be suited to information discovery, but face-to-face communication, an oft-neglected part of the management process, best supports


Via: Hbr

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

Six Thinking Hats (de Bono Hats)


The de Bono Hats system (also known as "Six Hats" or "Six Thinking Hats") is a thinking tool for group discussions. The tool, combined with the idea of parallel thinking which is associated with it, provides a means for groups to think together more effectively, and a means to plan thinking processes in a detailed and cohesive way. The method is attributed to Dr.Edward de Bono and is the subject of his book, Six Thinking Hats.

The method is finding widespread use in the UK innovation sector, is offered by numerous facilitation companies and has been trialled within the UK civil service.[1]

Michael Hewitt-Gleeson claims that the method was initially developed during a brainstorming session he had with Edward de Bono and Eric Bienstock in 1983.[citation needed]

Contents

 [hide]

[edit]Underlying principles

The premise of the method is that the human brain thinks in a number of distinct ways which can be identified, deliberately accessed and hence planned for use in a structured way allowing one to develop strategies for thinking about particular issues. Dr de Bono identifies five distinct states in which the brain can be "sensitised". In each of these states the brain will identify and bring into conscious thought certain aspects of issues being considered (e.g. gut instinct, pessimistic judgement, neutral facts).

Perhaps the most compelling example presented is the idea of sensitivity to "mismatch" stimuli as a particularly strong tendency. This is presented as being a valuable survival instinct - because in the natural world the thing that is out of the ordinary may well be dangerous. This is identified as the root of negative judgement and critical thinking.

Six distinct states are identified

  • Neutrality (white) - considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
  • Feeling (Red) - instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
  • Negative judgement (Black) - logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers, seeking mismatch
  • Positive Judgement (Yellow) - logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
  • Creative thinking (Green) - statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
  • Process control (Blue) - thinking about thinking

In order to make it easier to clearly identify and work with these states the use of coloured hats as metaphors for them is used; each state is symbolised by the act of putting on a coloredhat, either actually or imaginatively. The use of these metaphors also allows more complete and elaborate definition of the states thus getting past the preconceptions inherent in using peoples current language.

Furthermore Dr de Bono asserts that these states are associated with distinct chemical states of the brain - although no details or evidence of this are presented.

[edit]Parallel thinking

In ordinary, unstructured thinking this process is unfocussed; the thinker leaps from critical thinking to neutrality to optimism and so on without structure or strategy. As individuals we are used to this and develop our own habits unconsciously. Sometimes these are effective, other times not. What is certain is that when thinking in a group these individual strategies will not tend to converge. as a result discussion will not tend to converge. and due to the power of the ego and the identified predilection to black hat thinking in the majority of western culture, this can lead to very destructive meetings. Even with good courtesy and clear shared objectives in any collaborative thinking activity there is a natural tendency for "spaghetti thinking" where one person is thinking about the benefits while another considers the facts and so on. The hats allow this to be avoided so that everyone together considers the problems, or the benefits, or the facts, reducing distractions and supporting cross pollination of thought. this is achieved because everyone will put on e.g. the white hat together, then they will all put on the next hat together. in this way all present think in the same way at the same time. The only exception being the facilitator who will tend to keep the blue hat on all the time to make sure things progress effectively. The blue hat tends to be the outward-looking, leader/trail blazing hat that attracts the leaders of all groups.

[edit]Strategies and Programs

Having identified the six states that can be accessed, distinct programs can be created, these are sequences of hats which encompass and structure the thinking process toward a distinct goal. A number of these are included in the materials provided to support the franchised training of the six hats method, however it is often necessary to adapt them to suit an individual purpose. Also, programs are often "emergent" which is to say that you might plan the first few hats then the facilitator will see what seems to be the right way to go. Sequences always begin and end with a blue hat; the group agrees together how they will think, then they do the thinking, then they evaluate the outcomes of that thinking and what they should do next. Sequences (and indeed hats) may be used by individuals working alone or in groups.

[edit]Example programs

Initial Ideas - Blue, White, Green, Blue

Choosing between alternatives - Blue, White,(Green), Yellow, Black, Red, Blue

identifying solutions - Blue, White, Black, Green, Blue

Quick Feedback - Blue, Black, Green, Blue

Strategic Planning - Blue, Yellow, Black, White, Blue, Green, Blue

Process Improvement - Blue, White, White (Other peoples views), Yellow, Black, Green, Red, Blue

Solving Problems - Blue, White, Green, Red, Yellow, Black, Green, Blue

Performance Review - Blue, Red, White, Yellow, Black, Green Red, Blue

[edit]Types of hat

Included below is a brief description of each of the hats and the thinking processes that they represent. Their use is illustrated through the analysis of a simple classroom issue - "Students are talking while their teacher is talking".[2]

[edit]White hat – Facts & Information

Participants make statements of fact, including identifying information that is absent and presenting the views of people who are not present in a factual manner. In many thinking sessions this occurs immediately after an initial blue hat, and it often an extended action with participants presenting details about their organisation and the background to the purpose of the thinkng session. The key information that represents the inputs to the session are presented and discussed. Key absences of information (ie information needs) can also be identified at this point.

Examples in the given context are:

  • Students are talking while the teacher is talking
  • There is noise and therefore other students are distracted and can’t hear the teacher
  • Students don’t know what to do once instructions are given
  • Many students become distracted and off task resulting in the failure to complete work
  • Students are not understanding the focused lecture due to lack of concentration

[edit]Red hat – Feelings & Emotions

Participants state their feelings, exercising their gut instincts. In many cases this is a method for harvesting ideas - it is not a question of recording statements, but rather getting everyone to identify their top two or three choices from a list of ideas or items identified under another hat. This is done to help reducing lists of many options into a few to focus on by allowing each participant to vote for the ones they prefer. It is applied more quickly than the other hats to ensure it is a gut reaction feeling that is recorded. This method can use post-it notes to allow a quick system of voting, and creates a clear visual cue that creates rapid if incomplete agreement around an issue.

The alternative method is to state ones gut reaction or feelings on an issue under discussion - this is more common when using the hats to review personal progress or deal with issues where there is high emotional content that is relevant to discussion.

Examples from the above example are:

  • The teacher feels offended
  • Students become frustrated because they can’t hear directions
  • Those talking enjoy joking around and being heard.
  • It represents emotional thinking of a person.

[edit]Black hat – Critical Judgement

Participants identify barriers, hazards, risks and other negative connotations. This is critical thinking, looking for problems and mismatches. This hat is usually natural for people to use, the issues with it are that people will tend to use it when it is not requested and when it is not appropriate, thus stopping the flow of others. Preventing inappropriate use of the black hat is a common obstacle and vital step to effective group thinking. Another difficulty faced is that some people will naturally start to look for the solutions to raised problems - they start practicing green on black thinking before it is requested.

Statements from the cited example:

  • Time is wasted
  • Learning is compromised
  • Those speaking feel that black hat listeners do not respect them and do not wish to hear what they are saying
  • Flow of discussion is less clear

[edit]Yellow hat – Positive Judgement

Participants identify benefits associated with an idea or issue. This is the opposite of black hat thinking and looks for the reasons in favour of something. This is still a matter of judgement - it is an analytical process, not just blind optimism. One is looking to create justified statements in favour.

  • Everyone is able to say what is on their minds.
  • It can be fun.
  • Not only the ‘smart kids’ get to speak.
  • One doesn’t have to wait to share their ideas and therefore risk forgetting information.

[edit]Green hat – Alternatives and creativity

This is the hat of thinking new thoughts. It is based around the idea of provocation and thinking for the sake of identifying new possibilities. Things are said for the sake of seeing what they might mean, rather than to form a judgement. This is often carried out on black hat statements in order to identify how to get past the barriers or failings identified there (green on black thinking). Because green hat thinking covers the full spectrum of creativity, it can take many forms.

Statements from the example above are:

  • Teacher will be more aware about the amount of time they spend talking
  • Teacher will try to incorporate interaction from a variety of different students rather than just the ‘smart kids’
  • Students will resist the urge to say whatever is on their mind. They will think about what they have to say and whether it is relevant to the topic
  • Students will take into account whether their comment will interfere with other people's learning
  • Students will think of new ways to communicate rather than talking in class, for example, talk on MSN Messenger
  • Students will be able to develop ideas as a result of being creative in class

[edit]Blue hat – The Big Picture

This is the hat under which all participants discuss the thinking process. The facilitator will generally wear it throughout and each member of the team will put it on from time to time to think about directing their work together. This hat should be used at the start and end of each thinking session, to set objectives, to define the route to take to get to them, to evaluate where the group has got to, and where the thinking process is going. Having a facilitator maintain this role throughout helps ensure that the group remains focused on task and improves their chances of achieving their objectives.

Statements from the example cited above are:

  • Teacher learns that they need to monitor the amount of time that they spend talking within the classroom
  • Teacher needs to involve all students within discussions
  • Teacher needs to recognize that some students need thinking time before responding. Allowing these students time to compute solutions promotes wider participation and increased learning
  • Students realize that their talking makes the speaker feel unappreciated and disrespected
  • Students realize that their comments are jeopardizing the learning of other individuals
  • Students realize that talking out of time demonstrates a lack of self-discipline and that not all comments require sharing

[edit]Application Method

Whilst the ideas of the hats themselves provides significant benefits, there is more to the six hats method as applied within de Bono thinking systems and as trained under his franchise. in particular the pace at which the hats are used is highly relevant.

Typically in use a project will begin with an extended white hat action, as everyone gets "on the same page" creating a shared vision of the issue being addressed. Thereafter each hat is used for a few minutes at a time only, except the red hat which is limited to a very short 30 seconds or so to ensure that it is an instinctive gut reaction, rather than a form of judgement. This pace is believed to have a positive impact on the thinking process, in accordance with Malcolm Gladwell's theories on "blink" thinking.

This ensures that groups think together in a focussed manner, staying on task, it also ensures that they focus their efforts on the most important elements of any issue being discussed. However, it also has the potential to create conflict if not well facilitated, since people can feel "railroaded". To avoid this it is important to notice when there is any significant difference of opinion on the thinking process or the area in which it should focus

[edit]Summary

Using a variety of approaches within thinking and problem solving allows the issue to be addressed from a variety of angles, thus servicing the needs of all individuals concerned. The thinking hats are useful for learners as they illustrate the need for individuals to address problems from a variety of different angles. They also aid learners as they allow the individual to recognize any deficiencies in the way that they approach problem solving, thus allowing them to rectify such issues.

de Bono believed that the key to a successful use of the Six Think Hats methodology was the deliberate focusing of the discussion on a particular approach as needed during the meeting or collaboration session. For instance, a meeting may be called to review a particular problem and to develop a solution for the problem. The Six Thinking Hats method could then be used in a sequence to first of all explore the problem, then develop a set of solutions, and to finally choose a solution through critical examination of the solution set.

So the meeting may start with everyone assuming the Blue hat to discuss how the meeting will be conducted and to develop the goals and objectives. The discussion may then move toRed hat thinking in order to collect opinions and reactions to the problem. This phase may also be used to develop constraints for the actual solution such as who will be affected by the problem and/or solutions. Next the discussion may move to the (Yellow then) Green hat in order to generate ideas and possible solutions. Next the discussion may move between Whitehat thinking as part of developing information and Black hat thinking to develop criticisms of the solution set.

Because everyone is focused on a particular approach at any one time, the group tends to be more collaborative than if one person is reacting emotionally (Red hat) while another person is trying to be objective (White hat) and still another person is being critical of the points which emerge from the discussion (Black hat).


Via: wiki


Pensiero Laterale

Con il termine pensiero laterale, coniato dallo psicologo maltese Edward De Bono, si intende una modalità di risoluzione di problemi logici che prevede un approccio indiretto ovvero l'osservazione del problema da diverse angolazioni, contrapposta alla tradizionale modalità che prevede concentrazione su una soluzione diretta al problema.

Mentre una soluzione diretta prevede il ricorso alla logica sequenziale, risolvendo il problema partendo dalle considerazioni che sembrano più ovvie, il pensiero laterale se ne discosta (da cui il termine laterale) e cerca punti di vista alternativi prima di cercare la soluzione.


Pensiero laterale e strumenti

Il principio che sta alla base di questa modalità è simile a quanto proposto col pensiero divergente: per ciascun problema è sempre possibile individuare diverse soluzioni, alcune delle quali emergono solo

  • prescindendo da quello che inizialmente appare l’unico percorso possibile
  • cercando elementi, idee, intuizioni, spunti fuori dal dominio di conoscenza e dalla rigida catena logica.

E’ importante quindi disporre di modalità e strumenti che facilitino questi processi di pensiero, per generare creativamente ipotesi da abbinare e combinare con le conoscenze già possedute, fino al raggiungimento dell’obiettivo prefissato. E' il caso delle mappe creative, che consentono al contempo di fermare le idee e di registrarle, predisponendole per essere poi rielaborate. Tra queste si collocano anche le mappe mentali di Tony Buzan oppure le solution map, che possono essere utilizzate per facilitare lo svolgimento di sessioni creative basate su tecniche come i sei cappelli per pensare.


Esempio di applicazione

Problema

In una stanza chiusa è contenuta una lampadina, in un'altra stanza da dove la prima stanza non è direttamente visibile ci sono tre interruttori. Solo uno di questi accende la lampadina.

Potendo azionare i tre interruttori a proprio piacimento e potendo andare nella stanza chiusa solo una volta per verificare lo stato della lampadina, come si può fare per risalire all'interruttore giusto per accenderla? Le condizioni iniziali sono: 1. Lampadina spenta 2. Tutti gli interruttori in posizione off

Soluzione

Si mettono due interruttori (che chiameremo 1 e 2) su ON, si attende qualche minuto e se ne spegne uno (diciamo il numero 1). Si va quindi a controllare la lampadina. Se la lampadina è accesa l'interruttore giusto è il numero 2.

Se la lampadina è spenta ma calda l'interruttore giusto è l'1. Se la lampadina è spenta e fredda l'interruttore giusto è il numero 3.

Il problema è conosciuto, e proposto molte volte su internet e su riviste. Giorgio Dendi, creatore di giochi, lo propone con 4 lampadine, e stessa situazione. Soluzione: Premo A e B; dopo 10 minuti premo A e C ed entro. La lampadina è spenta e calda -> A; accesa e calda -> B; accesa e fredda -> C; spenta e fredda -> D.

Considerazioni

L'approccio diretto al problema si rivela impossibile: da un punto di vista puramente logico, una lampadina può essere solamente accesa o spenta, quindi essere in uno di due stati possibili.

L'unico modo per risolverlo è utilizzare una condizione "fisica" (il fatto che una lampadina accesa si scaldi) che permetta di aggiungere un terzo stato distinguibile dai primi due.


Via: wiki

Related Posts with Thumbnails