Criteria ... or Not?

One of the theories fundamental to innovation is that idea generation should be separated from idea evaluation.  But is it true?

In practice I’ve found that clearly identifying the evaluation criteria at the beginning of an innovation process is critical and results in far better ideas.  Of course, getting leaders to articulate their criteria up-front is like pulling wisdom teeth.  They say they want "out-of-the-box ' ideas at least until it comes judgment time and then they pull out a raft of hidden criteria ... "Oh, we couldn’t possibly accept an idea that doesn’t fit one of the current business units."  "Well, we couldn’t possibly invest more than $X in an untested concept."  I think it’s a set-up to tell people not to worry about criteria and have them do a ton of work that doesn’t have a chance of being accepted.

What I’ve started doing is working very hard to identify the criteria up-front and present it as part of the challenge statement.  Then we talk about not being constrained by the criteria and knowing that we may change, add or delete them along the way.  We also make sure we distinguish critical criteria from the merely important or nice to have.  At the end of a session, we can put up the criteria and begin to look at ideas in relationship to them and no one feels misled or abused.  By then, we’ve talked and referred back to the criteria so much that people do a pretty good job of self-evaluation rather than just tossing an idea into the ring and not having a clue how it might be received.

Knowing and working with the critical constraints seems to help people think far more strategically and creatively as they thread their way through the maze that leads to concepts that create new value for customers and for the organization.  Life and the market impose criteria on us, why should we act as if anything goes? 

The trick is to hold the constraints in one hand and freedom in the other and let something new develop in the middle.

That’s my view ... what’s yours? 

Comments

[Greg Krauska]

Like the constraints themselves, evaluating options involves tradeoffs.

If the client is willing to invest the time, exploring a wider range of options can create new ways of looking at the problem and the solution. Coming back to criteria afterward can sometimes drive new ways of looking at the process of choosing solutions. "Who says we have to use our own manufacturing capabilities to build this?"

At the same time, setting the criteria up-front can be a useful way of challenging conventional thinking. "We can't do it because . . ." often presumes some rule, belief or narrow point of view. Retooling the assumptions up-front by challenging conventional wisdom or "the rules" can set the stage to generate a far greater range of possibilities.

Favoring speed and simplicity, I think you are right - come up with the criteria first, then the options. Key: be careful about the assumptions made by the criteria. Ahh - that's where the genius and inspiration lie, yes?

[Chief Innovation Officer]

Hi Joyce

Great question!

I agree that it makes sense to have the criteria identified up front - and I think there's plenty of evidence that constraints drive more creative ideas and solutions than no constraints.

I think the critical point here is to be very aggressive in challenging the constraints. How many of the proposed constraints are real constraints as opposed to embedded assumptions and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo.

And as you suggest constraints may morph as the process develops. For example there may be a constraint on the level of investment available for funding ideas - but if the idea has great potential requiring greater investment would the business not look to see if it could source additional investment funds.

As always innovation is a paradox - requiring constraint on the one hand while breaking constraints with the other!

[Jonathan]

I absolutely agree with the two seemingly contradictory premises: you must separate idea generation and evaluation in order to maximize the quantity and quality of ideas...the research on that is quite clear.

And I agree that it really helps to have the criteria established up front. For many years I struggled with the dilemna that Joyce points out...does the criteria limit the divergent thinking? But after trying it lots of different ways, our results validate Joyce's approach. Not only does it provide the benefits that Joyce outlines, but it also guards against a team selecting criteria just to allow a favored concept to make it through the evaluation screen.

Showing up once again, the beauty of the "and" rather than the tyranny of the "or!"