Influencing for Impact

Whole-Brain Thinking

Design Thinking:

Arts-based Dialogue

"Structuring the Fuzz"
The Design of Ideation for
New Product Ideas

By Arthur VanGundy PhD
(Continued from page 1)

Think Within and Between Boxes (but NOT Outside)

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
—George Bernard Shaw

The real difficulty in creative thinking and innovation is NOT learning how to "Think Outside the Box." By nature, we all think within boxes. In fact, we would be lost without our boxes. That's how it should be since our boxes provide the frames of reference we need to understand and deal with our perceptual worlds.
If we think "outside the box," then we probably aren't thinking very well. Without a box, we have no "anchors" to use in gauging and understanding reality. Moreover, without a perceptual box, we are more likely to solve the wrong problem correctly. Perceptual boxes define boundaries and help target our problem solving actions.

I can illustrate this point with the pie exercise. You are to cut a pie into eight pieces using three cuts. I later modified the instructions to "three or fewer cuts." (That addition to the statement provides more options, so I will use it here.)
I found this exercise in a book which told the reader to turn to page 266 for the "correct solution." Most people fail the first time they try to solve this problem. They draw three straight lines in a number of ways, none of which results in eight pieces.
This is thinking within "a" box—not just a general thinking box, but the one used specifically for this problem. To solve this problem, you can use "box-in-box" thinking or "box-to-box" thinking or both.

Box-in-Box (BiB) Thinking.

First, you can ask questions regarding the three straight lines. For instance: Do the lines have to be cut from the top down? Do the lines really have to be straight?
If the answers to these questions are no, then they might lead to potential solutions. The "correct" solution in the book was to cut the pie into fourths and then draw a circle in the center of the pie—three cuts and eight pieces (thus invalidating the faulty assumptions of straight lines).

Or, you could cut the pie into fourths and then slice it horizontally. Or, you could cut the pie in half, stack the halves, cut these in half, and then stack and cut them again (2 x 2 x 2 = 8). Solutions like these all are within the same box, i.e., solutions involving cutting the pie using straight lines. I call this Box-in-Box (BiB) thinking, since each solution falls within the same box—the "straight-line thinking" box.


Box-to-Box (BtB) Thinking.

A second way to approach this problem is to momentarily step out of the "straight-line box" (Box #1) and shift your perspective to other possible boxes.

I call this, Box-to-Box (BtB) thinking—the act of moving from one frame of reference (box) to another in an entirely different category (much like the difference between line extensions and new business categories).

This movement is accomplished the same way as with BiB thinking: Asking questions. However, shifting outside of one box and ending up in another typically requires questions that test more basic assumptions. For instance: "Why does the pie need to be cut with a knife?" "Why must it be cut with a single-bladed knife?" "What is a cut?

These questions represent a focus on cutting and thus create another box—"outside" the previous box, but now a new perceptual frame. Once the shift is made to this new box (Box #2), BiB thinking resumes. Some solutions with this new box include designing a multi-bladed knife with a handle perpendicular to seven blades—one stamp and eight pieces result. Or, different patterns can be made—without lifting up a single knife blade—which result in eight pieces.

Thus, instead of concentrating on how to think outside the box, more important issues are: 1) awareness of what box you are in, 2) how to navigate within it effectively by asking questions, and 3) knowing when and how to move to another box altogether.

Thinking takes place within perceptual frames so we might as well accept that. We think "within" these boxes in the sense that we are constrained by a set of implicit and explicit assumptions. At any given time, we are in a box when we perceive a problem to exist. When we move from one box to another, the new box then provides a different perspective.

We don't need to move continuously to other boxes if we are happy with our current one. For instance, if our current competitive advantage is satisfactory, no change is needed. However, such advantage can be short-lived, especially in rapidly changing markets characterized by sustained innovation. When change is needed (often defined in terms of "breakthrough" thinking), moving to another box assumes considerable importance. Here's another example using the classic "Castle" problem:

A castle has been under siege for several months and is down to its last two sacks of grain. The castle's defenders consume one sack of grain per day. To solve it, acknowledge the current box (Box #1).

For example, you might say, "How might we make the grain last longer?" They also might seek other perspectives within this box—such as, "How might we decide to share the remaining grain fairly?" Both definitions are within the same box involving how to use the existing grain. Thus, the reformulated problems represent BiB thinking.

A second choice is temporarily to move the problem perspective to a new box involving "Box-to-Box" (BtB) thinking. That is, reframe the problem and create an entirely different perspective: Instead of defining the problem in terms of food rationing, consider the ultimate objective. To do this, they might ask, "Why do we want the grain to last?"

One answer would be "To defeat the enemy." The problem then becomes: "How might we defeat the enemy?" (Box #2). Another answer to the why question might be: "To demoralize the enemy?" The problem then is: "How might we demoralize the enemy?" Answers to this question might create the perception that they have unlimited food.

In this case, the castle's defenders decide to demoralize the enemy by tossing one of the remaining sacks over the wall. This demonstrates an attitude of confidence and self-sufficiency—e.g., "We have food to waste!" Of course, such a decision involves some risk. However, there isn't much to lose since the situation would be resolved in one day less than had they chosen to keep the sack. On the other hand, if the enemy "buys" this solution, the problem may be solved.

Here's another example from my friend Chris Barlow. Suppose you have lost the keys to your car. In your first box (Box #1), you define the problem as, "How might I find my keys?" or "How might I replace my lost keys?" This box focuses on the keys—just as the focus in line extensions is on extending a brand instead of creating a new one.

You ask some questions and define the situation in terms of starting the car. Thus, "How might I start the car without my original key?" or "How might I start my car without any key?" represent Box #2 thinking. That is because the focus now is on starting the car and not finding the keys.

Finally, a third and potentially more productive box (Box #3) would be: "How might I find transportation to my house?" In each case, you work within a specific box until you decide to move to another, potentially more productive one.

The boxes in which we place ourselves become our reality. We choose to be there and that is all we know at the time. However, we also can choose to transform our perceptions and create new boxes. As I noted before, it sometimes is OK to stay within a current box, but maybe not for very long. It's a lot easier to maintain and nourish brand equity with line extensions when you are in your comfort zone.

The danger is that your competition may move to other boxes while you remain behind. Moving to a new box entails serious risks in terms of reduced short-term margins and shareholder value to name only two. It's a delicate balancing game that requires honest assessments of market demand and volatility against risk tolerance, stakeholder pressures, corporate strategy, and other variables.
-

Continued on page 3.

Pages 1|2|3|4|5|6

Copyright 2000, Arthur B. VanGundy. All rights reserved

Need help brainstorming?
We provide expert facilitation.
Click here for details.

Copyright 2006-07 Linda Naiman & Assoc. Inc.
All rights reserved. www.creativityatwork.com