 |
Send This Project |
 |
Leave a Comment |
 |
Appreciate It! |
 |
Share This |
a blog about strategy, design, and ideas
Statistics
Created: 09/29/07
Last Edited: 09/29/07
Views: 758
Appreciations: 14
Comments: 1
Constraint paves way for creativity.
So many brands and businesses don’t want to be boxed in - think outside the box. They have loose strategies and positioning so that they can have more freedom. And in a way, be all things to all people, and clients.
Ironically, the opposite is true. If your company’s position is open to interpretation, your clients and customers define who you are and what you’re about - you’re at their mercy. We all are in a way - a brand isn’t what you say it is, its what “they” say it is. But, if you don’t have a clear position or plan your team won’t be able to communicate what exactly you provide and do. And they’ll certainly have a difficult time being creative with it.
A solid creative brief or tight brand positioning statement is constraint - constraint is liberating. Because even though you may be “boxed in” with a position statement. You’re free to move around anywhere inside that box.
Constraint paves way for creative thinking.
Think about the movie Castaway. Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) is stranded on an island fending for his survival. He has only natural resources and a few Fed-Ex packages from the crash. One by one he opens the packages, an ice skate, a ball, several video cassettes. The viewer is thinking, “What is that going to be used for - that guy is screwed.” The ice skate blade carves, and chips, and becomes a knife. The ball becomes his best friend. the tape is the binding material for his raft. In normal circumstances you would not think of these items as tools. or friends.
Chuck Noland’s constraint paves way for innovation and creative thinking. This simple principle can provide inspiration and innovation for your brand as well.
original entry
original entry
Is There Value in Group Brainstorming?
Marc Andreessen recently posted an excerpt from Frans Johansson’s book The Medici Effect. The quote uses research to conclude that individual brainstorms outperform group brainstorms. The response is usually - I knew it, brainstorming in groups is a waste of time.
Interaction Associates responds by saying group brainstorming does have value, AND the Medici Effect quote was taken out of context. Just a few lines later Johansson says “So, should we all stop brainstorming? I don’t think so. Done right, brainstorming is a highly effective way to actively generate intersectional ideas.”
A summary of group brainstorming issues:
- the group has agendas, egos, personality conflicts
- the problem statement is not well defined
- a poor idea facilitator
- the group hasn’t done their homework (individual brainstorms beforehand)
So how do you get the most out of a group brainstorm?
(1) Start with a quick informal meeting or email outlining the background and introducing a concise problem statement. (2) Individually solicit (inspire) people to do their research and individual brainstorms beforehand. (3) Then schedule a group brainstorm session to shape and mold the best ideas. (4) Finally, apply the filter (the original problem statement) to the ideas to narrow the field.
Now, will the people responsible for the implementation support the idea?
Interaction Associates says there is “Return on Involvement” in group brainstorming:
“Brainstorming’s highest value is not in producing the greatest number of ideas, but in (1) generating creative and innovate ideas, and (2) creating ownership for implementing those ideas. Brainstorming catalyzes synergy and ownership: that’s the pay-off.”
I believe the second statement is right on. Who is really inspired to work, and execute, and see an idea through to the finish… when it isn’t “their” idea. You need a group of inspired, involved, individuals to implement great ideas.
Because a great idea poorly executed is a poor idea.
Because a great idea poorly executed is a poor idea.
|
Send This Project |
|
Appreciate It! |
Other Projects From
Comments