The New/Different Rule
A simple rule for developing breakthrough ideas
On May 14 I spoke at the University of Washington on the use of process within strategy and design projects. During this presentation, hosted by design faculty member Annabelle Gould, I articulated what I see as the major tension within process: repeatable versus unexpected. That is, a process should be the result of a proven methodology that can be applied over and over again—you don’t want to have to make it up as you go each time you start a new project. At the same time, you don’t want the same process to start churning out the same results. Generating the same results is great for homogenizing milk, but not in creative endeavors. For us, new ideas are entirely the point. So we want an expected approach to yield unexpected ideas. That’s the tension.
For creative professionals, a great process is a repeatable approach for putting yourself in position to connect with the unexpected. Note that I think it’s about putting yourself in position to connect with the unexpected, not that the process itself will spit out new ideas. That’s what your brain is for.
When it comes to using process to get to great ideas, I apply what I call the New/Different Rule. Creating new, unexpected ideas is the result of either:
1) Putting yourself in position to receive new information that helps you think about something in a different way.
Or . . .
2) Creating a different way of brainstorming so you come up with something new.
The first is usually about research. While the term research can sometimes sound a bit overstarched and monolithic, research can be a fantastic means of debunking assumptions. And that’s all about getting access to new information that will help you think about something in a different way. When we started working with the Seattle Symphony, one of the assumptions we were working with was that celebrity guest artists were important to have on the cover of sales materials because their celebrity images sold tickets. However, the research we did with subscribers and other ticket buyers revealed that the truth was citizens identified their patronage with the orchestra—not the guest artists. They were passionate and definitive about this. This new information fueled our creative explorations in a totally different direction.
The second is about architecting better brainstorms. During my talk at UW, I revealed a dirty industry secret: most brainstorms don’t work. I’ve been doing this for 10 years, and I’ve participated in plenty of brainstorms that didn’t generate anything more than some interesting tangents and maybe some toilet humor. Coming up with breakthrough ideas requires a more thoughtful approach to the brainstorms themselves. Putting “brainstorm” on the calendar and then hoping for the best isn’t enough. Last summer when we were concepting for Boeing’s communications at the 2007 Paris Air Show, we structured our brainstorm around a different question: what are the bad ideas? I know this sounds counterproductive, but it worked. Sure, we came up with some stinkers, but we also came up with some concepts that eventually inspired the idea. And we never would have arrived there without approaching the brainstorm in a different way.
So there you have it. The New/Different Rule. Put yourself in position to receive new information that helps you think about something in a different way. Or create a different way of brainstorming so you come up with something new. I’d love to hear how it works for you!
No recent comments.