Brainstorming works well with open-ended challenges that require creative thinking. It is particularly beneficial for diverse teams because varied perspectives often generate a richer array of ideas. It can also work well in situations where fastpaced innovation is needed. For this reason, it is often used to kickstart a creative process. The openness and non-judgmental approach required by brainstorming can, however, lead to failures in very hierarchical teams where participants fear criticism. Because it requires people to speak up, brainstorming can also favor more extroverted participants. This can lead to groupthink, in which the loudest voices dominate, and participants converge on a narrow range of views and ideas. Brainwriting: Quiet and Structured Ideation Where brainstorming relies on verbal contributions, brainwriting shifts the process to utilize writing to generate ideas. In a brainwriting session, participants respond individually to the problem statement by writing down their ideas. It is only when this step is complete that the group begins to share. This method is useful for helping more introverted participants to contribute equally and can mitigate the risk of groupthink. A widely used format for brainwriting is the 6-3-5 method. In this approach, six participants write three ideas in response to a given prompt. At the end of each five-minute round of writing, they pass their sheet of ideas to the next person. In subsequent rounds, each person reads the sheet they have received and then adds further written ideas to it. This can continue through several rounds of writing, with each building upon what came before. Ultimately, this generates a large pool of ideas in a relatively short period of time. The 6-3-5 method encourages teams to generate volume, while successive contributions help ideas to evolve. Brainwriting suits situations where participants may feel hesitant to speak up, such as with new teams or unequal power dynamics. It is also useful when divergent thinking is needed before options are narrowed down. It does, however, lose some of the speed and spontaneous energy of brainstorming. While this may suit some teams better, the danger to avoid for other teams is that they disengage, and it becomes a mechanical, checklist exercise. Cheatstorming: External Inspiration to Overcome Blocks Cheatstorming is a variation on brainstorming that uses external inputs rather than starting with a blank slate. Where brainstorming begins with a problem and relies on internal thinking to tackle it, cheatstorming deliberately seeds its approach with external inspiration. The input used might take the form of examples from competitors or other industries. Likewise, it might use relevant research articles, case studies or patents. Alternatively, it could draw on unrelated fields where analogous problems have been solved creatively. Like a conventional brainstorming session, cheatstorming begins with a clear problem statement. At that point, however, cheatstorming participants will spend time individually or in groups gathering external materials. This research is then presented to the whole team and used as a shared basis for idea generation. This kind of cheating approach suits teams that feel stuck with a problem, perhaps because they are too close to it. It can also work well with novel challenges where teams lack deep internal expertise. The danger in cheatstorms, though, is copycat thinking. Rather than innovating, teams will be limited by merely replicating external solutions. The research required in a cheatstorm also slows the process and makes it less suitable when a quick turnaround is required. Comparing the Techniques Each of these techniques supports ideation, but each method works in different ways. This makes them suitable for different teams and challenges. Traditional brainstorming has the lowest level of structure, which encourages free creativity, but its open nature can leave it prone to groupthink. Themore structured approach of brainwriting may lack some spontaneity, but it can allow for a more democratic and inclusive approach. Cheatstorming falls somewhere in the middle ground of structured and free-flowing. The incorporation of external inputs in the initial phase can stimulate and inform creative thinking, but it can lead to replication rather than innovation. Later phases in a cheatstorm session can adjust for this by taking a looser brainstorming approach or by maintaining structure with brainwriting. In practice, this combination of techniques is very common. Teams can, for instance, begin with brainwriting to generate and gather ideas before switching to a brainstorming approach to expand on the most promising of those initial ideas. A cheatstorming phase might be used to unlock further insights or to get the group past a creative block. Ultimately, effective ideation is less about following trends or rigid models and more about choosing the right tool for the job. Brainstorming, brainwriting and cheatstorming each have unique strengths. Understanding these strengths and the contexts in which each approach excels helps teams design productive ideation sessions tailored to their specific needs. Some teams thrive on the energy and immediacy of brainstorming. Others need the reflective space of brainwriting. For challenges requiring fresh external input, cheatstorming provides valuable perspective. The key is to match the technique to the team’s culture, the nature of the challenge and the time available.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ5NDA2