An individual’s ability to generate novel solutions that fall outside of the day-to-day activities is a function of the width of their knowledge, how many different experiences they have had. Multiple instances of the same experience breeds efficiency, a diverse mix of experiences breeds creativity.

​

It’s the same with teams. If you build a team of individuals with similar knowledge, you will find efficiencies such as easier communication and shared assumptions; the team will become highly efficient at resolving specific problems.

​

If you find yourself needing to use an idea generation session though, you have already stepped outside of the day-to-day work and are looking for creative solutions. The team’s ability to generate novel ideas is, like the individual’s, a result of the width of their experiences. At a team level this is represented by the diversity of the participants.

​

The more diverse the group is, the more you lose the efficiencies that come with having a team of similar individuals, such as ease of communication or shared assumptions. These efficiencies can be managed through the idea generation process, as described in our previous article.

​

Here we will talk though the considerations for the people that you will involve in your sessions: what diversity means in the context of idea generation, what the different roles are and how many participants you should have.

​

Diversity

There is a clear link between diversity and innovative ideas. In this context, we are focussed on diversity of background and thought. This can be influenced, but not necessarily indicated, by measures of diversity such as race or gender. For example, if you have two product managers with the same qualification and background, but happen to be of different genders, you are likely to still get the same ideas twice rather than truly diverse thinking.

​

In idea generation and problem solving, diversity is determined by considerations such as the individual’s experience and the business function that the individual represents. This extends to inclusion of suppliers and customers, or the involvement of independent groups such as universities or consultants.

​

There is a balance though.

 

High numbers of participants with no related knowledge may generate novel ideas, but the relevance of these ideas and your ability to implement them may limit their usefulness. You may also find that having to slow down to explain concepts to participants who are new to the problem risks stalling progress and losing momentum.

​

You should think in terms of distance from the core problem.

• Primary function – this is the team that owns the problem

• Immediate relationship – these are representatives from functions that are immediately upstream and downstream of the primary function. A marketing problem might be described as a link between the customer and the development teams, so these should both be represented. You may also have other peer teams that can be involved such as marketing teams from different business units.

• Linked relationship – these are extensions beyond the immediate relationships. In our marketing case, it may be the manufacturing teams or the coders of software. You could also include suppliers at this level

• Distant relationship – these are from supporting functions such as finance or logistics, where the employees have a good awareness of the product and context for the problem but no direct involvement.

• Independent – You may choose to bring in individuals with no clear link to the problem, perhaps randomly selected employees or even members of the public. This has two key benefits; you may get novel ideas from people that are not limited by current thinking. There is also a significant benefit in having the team break down a problem such that they can describe it to someone from outside of the business: this is an effective way to ensure that the core of the problem is understood. Outside groups such as universities or consultants could be included, either to explore the problem or to guide the execution of the idea generation processes.

 

There is no magic formula for the number of participants to include from each group, but you should be aware of them and make your choices based on the complexity of the problem you are trying to solve balanced against the time and resource you have available.

​

A further level of diversity to consider is the mix of levels of seniority and experience. An intern or graduate could bring a new perspective or an individual with legacy knowledge could bring tacit knowledge that isn’t widely known. It is critical to ensure that any sense of hierarchy from the wider business is not brought into the session – all participants in the idea generation session should be considered of equal status to aid communication and participation.

​

There are strong secondary benefits for having a diverse mix of participants. Beyond just trying to solve a problem, these sessions are fantastic team building exercises. You can build strong bonds across your business by having a team made up of different backgrounds, experiences, and levels of seniority interacting as one team.

​

These sessions are also effective learning and development forums. If you allow communication and questions without judgement, everyone gains knowledge that they wouldn’t necessarily be exposed to in their day-to-day work; not only in the solution being explored, but in understanding other teams and their processes and constraints.

​

Inclusivity

As with any diverse group, inclusivity is key. The experience you have brought into the room is only useful if it can be expressed. You need to be aware that different members of the team will have different barriers to understanding and participation.

​

You should obviously avoid jargon and abbreviations and ensure that definitions are available.

Each team will arrive with their own assumptions and paradigms. Any assumptions must be explained: what is assumed and why do you believe it is appropriate. The same for any underlying processes or theories.

​

These must be open to being questioned from any member of the team. The facilitator should ensure that all concepts discussed are broken down into commonly understood blocks and ensure that everyone in the room understands the response. This will not only improve effectiveness of the sessions but explaining a concept or assumption in clear terms is an effective way for participants to check their own thinking.

Participation can be particularly daunting. Individuals who come into the group from different backgrounds may be reluctant to offer suggestions when in the same room as experts. You should ensure that they know that you are looking for all ideas and that you are looking for all assumptions to be questioned and explained when not clear.

​

There will be barriers to participation that individuals bring in from their personal backgrounds. If they face barriers before coming into the room, these will be more pronounced if they are unfamiliar with the group, particularly with experts or senior leaders of the business. This is often a challenge for under-represented groups with considerations such as race, gender, or age.

​

It is important to constantly monitor for participation and understanding across the group. You should ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and are responded to. The experts in the room may feel that the answers are obvious or are dismissive of points raised that seem, to them, to be irrelevant; all points should still be responded to in a way that treats the questioner as an equal member of the team.

Key indicators for participation are the number of questions each participant asks, how engaged they are in the conversations, and how many ideas they put forward. You must be clear though, this is not a measure of performance of the individual, this is to measure the performance of the session. Are individuals getting an equal opportunity to participate - are they hesitant, or is the session being taken over by others.

​

A further advantage of these sessions, if managed well, is that the team will become champions and advocates for the ideas. They will not only represent the solutions into their teams, but they will be able to describe how effective the company is at responding to the challenges that its facing and will be able to describe the constraints that the business and the other teams are facing.

​

How many people should be involved

There are many studies about ideal group size and mix of participants. These are mostly inconclusive or in disagreement with each other which confirms what we intuitively know: there is no single answer that applies to all situations and each session will be considered case by case.

​

There are obvious constraints around budget, sizes of rooms, and the availability of resources. If your group is large enough to require smaller break-out sessions, can you ensure that each sub-group has representatives of each type of participant. For example, are there enough experts to have one in each group. If not, will you need extra time to discuss ideas as the team comes back together.

​

The key consideration here is time. This is both the time that you have available to run the process and reach a conclusion and the time it takes to perform actions within the sessions effectively.

The more people you have and the wider the mix of experiences, the longer it will take to describe the problem, break into smaller discussion groups, and come back together to explain and discuss ideas. This risks a loss of momentum and effective progress.

​

Think through the schedule and be realistic about the time allocated. For example, more than six people around a whiteboard can restrict participation, so a team of 24 would result in four break out groups. When the groups come back together, you might expect five minutes per group for them to present their ideas so schedule 20 minutes of discussion after each break out.

​

More participants and a wider mix of backgrounds will lead to a larger selection of ideas to record and process. Do you have enough time to discuss them; remember, you must not be rushed into dismissing anyone’s ideas without an explanation of the underlying assumptions or concepts.

​

What are the roles

We have explored how the participants contribute to the sessions in general terms, but there are some specific roles that should be considered to increase the effectiveness of idea generation sessions.

​

The Critic

Idea sessions can be affected by Group Think, when everyone follows an idea that is not appropriate for the problem being addressed simply because it seems like it is the group consensus. This can be avoided by allocating an individual to manage critical review and constantly checks that the ideas are still focussed on the problem being discussed, affected stakeholders are being represented, and the ideas are appropriate.

This role can be assigned to a single participant across the session. Alternatively, you could rotate this role around the group, or schedule it as a group activity. Clearly there is a balance between managing reasonable critical review of progress without impeding idea generation and undermining optimism.

​

The Facilitator

Idea generation sessions are significantly more effective with a trained facilitator. This is someone that leads the delivery of the process and the tools but will also supervise the team interactions and manage any administration to ensure that there are minimal interruptions to team progress.

​

The facilitator will need a balance of three sets of skills: an understanding of the issue being explored, knowledge of the tools and processes of idea generation, and the ability to lead and manage a group of diverse participants.

​

You can either start with someone who has knowledge of the problem and train them in idea generation, or have specialists trained in idea processes, whether internal employees or external consultants, who can be given an overview of the technical context. This is a choice that is specific to the size of the business, the complexity of the problem, and the time and budget constraints of finding the solution.

​

The idea generation session will sit at a different level of priority for everyone involved. It is likely that their everyday work will be continuing in the background, and they will feel the need to balance that with their presence in the session. The facilitator should have the soft skills needed to manage, often without direct authority, the participation of everyone involved.

​

The main tasks facing the facilitator are:

• Explanation – what does the process look like, what are the steps and expected outcomes, what does the schedule look like.

• Consistency – ensure that everyone is included, ensure that all points that are raised are treated fairly with the elimination of preconceptions Ensure that if an idea is rejected, that the reasons are clearly explained – this is important for the person that raised the idea, but also for other participants whose willingness to submit ideas will be influenced.

• Participation - There will be participants with strong views, or domineering personalities that will need to be managed, but there will also be individuals that either do not feel that they can contribute or are distracted or disengaged who will need to be brought into the conversation.

• Direction - The group dynamic will follow the dominant behaviours. If participants see that others are only paying partial attention, checking emails and taking phone calls, they are likely to follow the example. This is more likely if it is the senior members of the team; the session will lose credibility and value to the other team members. Idea generation sessions are typically temporary teams, working on short term outcomes. These require particularly close management to ensure that they do not drift, disperse, or become distracted.

• Time management – ensure that each stage has an appropriate amount of time allocated, and that each stage is managed within its time allocation without feeling rushed.

• Adaptability – sometimes a task will over-run, but it is progressing the idea generation. If this is the case, the best course of action is to continue, but you should consider how the time will be recovered either through reducing the time allocated for subsequent tasks or by extending the overall session. If the number of points raised in a session has fallen away before the end of a session, you should consider finishing it early and moving on to the next activity. Any empty time will either be filled with participants’ attention drifting or with them generating increasingly inapplicable ideas.

• Balance - The challenge for the facilitator is one of balance: allow enough freedom to generate ideas but enough control that the group stays focussed. Allow enough time to ponder the problem but not enough that the team drifts. Break paradigms and create novel solutions but generate ideas that are practical. There is no easy answer to finding that balance, except to maintain a sense of direction; constantly remind yourself of what is needed and by when it is required.

​

The Sponsor

Every problem or opportunity being explored will have a person or approval board that is the key stakeholder. This is where the output ideas of the sessions will be agreed for further development. The sponsor should be involved at each stage of the process, to set expectations and to review and approve the progress made.

​

You should ensure that the sponsor and the team are aligned on the purpose of the sessions. This includes having a collective understanding of the of the problem being addressed, what the nature and format of the solutions should be, and how much further development will be needed before implementation.

​

The sponsor should also understand the process, what progress should be expected at each stage, and the roles of each of the team members. This includes an agreement on the involvement of the sponsor; they may choose to be involved directly in the sessions. If not, how will the team have access to them in case of any questions.

​

Summary

You may have a sense that these instructions are all a bit vague and give an “it depends” answer to each point. This is because the most appropriate action for each consideration is that it really does depend.

The most effective approach for each type of problem or opportunity will be influenced by the availability of resources, the time available and the complexity of the problem.

​

The key here is to be aware of the process. If you know what success looks like and how to spot the warning signs that the process is drifting off course, you can be consciously flexible. You can change your approach mid-stream, but only with a review of what this means for the deliverables and the schedule. You must also consider what this says about the decision-making process so far; don’t just consider where you are, think about how you got there.