THERE COMES A time when the constructive indulgence towards a new idea must end. The idea must leave the nest and make its own way in the world. The new idea must compete with other possible ideas and must prove its own worth.
A preliminary evaluation can be part of the creative process because it can help the shaping of the idea into a better idea. This is part of the “treatment” of ideas. But when the treatment process is concluded the idea has to face proper evaluation.
The evaluation procedure is not part of creative thinking. It is part of the assessment, judgement, and decision capacity of an individual or an organization. This judgement capacity must be applied to all sorts of matters and ideas from any source. The assessment of creative ideas should never be different from the assessment of other ideas. That is why I always maintain that there are no “disasters” attributable to creative thinking. When disasters do occur, they are attributable to the poor assessment of creative possibilities. It is for precisely this reason that the judgement/decision system that is operating in the organization should be used in the final assessment of ideas produced by creativity.
The only exception to the above procedure is when an organization deliberately decides to allocate a fixed proportion of its resources to creative ideas that have both high potential and high risk. Creative ideas that seek to enter this category will clearly be assessed differently from other matters. The criteria for assessing a research project may not be the same as the criteria for assessing a change in the production schedule.
The notes on evaluation given here should be read in the light of what I have written so far in this section.
Compared to the few seconds it might take to start a new idea, the evaluation process takes a long time. This is as it should be, because it is the evaluation process that carries the risk.
I want to start with the “end categories” or the boxes into which the evaluated ideas could be placed at the end of the evaluation process. This will give a good indication of the nature of the evaluation. There is nothing special about these categories and there are many ways of doing the same thing.
These are ideas which are judged to have value and to be directly usable. This does not mean that the idea will be immediately used. An organization may have more directly usable ideas than it has resources.
The idea is judged to be valuable and workable but does not “fit” the needs or present status of the organization. This relates to the “best home” type of evaluation that will be considered later. The reasons why it does not fit should be given.
The idea is seen to be workable and to have value. There is the sense that in the future the idea could be revived and used. The idea, however, does not fit the needs or priorities of the moment. This is not at all the same as the previous category, which holds ideas that do not fit at all, now or ever. Putting an idea on the back burner means that it remains there to be considered from time to time.
There are serious defects and insufficiencies in the idea. Nevertheless, there are no fundamental impossibilities and the idea does show potential. It is suggested that further work be done on the idea. This further work may be both logical and creative. A task force may even be assigned to do this further work on the idea.
In this category go ideas that have great power but that, for a variety of reasons, cannot be used. Such reasons may include regulations, environmental concerns, very high risk factors, cannibalizing existing products, and so on. There is a twin recognition that the idea is powerful but also that it cannot be used. Ideas in this category are put on file and looked at occasionally. Circumstances may change and the idea may become usable. Useful concepts may be taken from the idea and put into a more usable form.
These ideas are not “powerful” but they are “interesting” because they open up many possibilities. Interesting ideas suggest a change in the business and new perceptions. The effect of such interesting ideas on perception may be even more valuable than the actual use of the idea. These interesting ideas should be given attention and should be kept around to be looked at from time to time. Such ideas have a stimulating and creative value even if they can never be used.
The idea is workable and it does fit the organization. But the value of the idea and the suggested benefits are just too weak. There is no reason or motivation to use such ideas. It may be that the value of the idea is being underestimated, in which case it is the responsibility of the proposers of the idea to demonstrate a higher degree of value. Some ideas attract attention and interest because they have a high novelty value. But when such ideas are subjected to fuller evaluation it can be seen that “novelty” is about the only value. While this may be sufficient in the world of advertising, it is not usually sufficient elsewhere.
There are many ideas that are seen to be unworkable. This means there are fundamental impossibilities. It is not a matter of working harder on these ideas. They deserve to be rejected. They may surface later in a different form, but at the moment they deserve to be rejected. Creative indulgence should not seek to keep such ideas alive.
It may be seen that there are many categories between “directly usable” and “unworkable”. Ideas put into these other categories can still play an important part in the thinking of an organization. But only ideas in the “directly usable” category go forward to the priority decision of implementation. Ideas in the directly usable category might still need to be subjected to testing or piloting, both in order to check out the idea and (more importantly) to build up a basis of support for putting the idea into action. The test results can be much more motivating than an idea on its own.
The major considerations that might be used in evaluating an idea are listed here. Each of them covers a very broad area and can be elaborated in much greater detail.
This is the first and the most important consideration. If the idea offers no benefits, then it is not worth considering further. What is the relationship between “value” and “benefits”? Sometimes the two are used interchangeably and there is no great problem in that. Essentially the “value” resides in the idea and the “benefits” are enjoyed by those affected by the idea. Beauty may reside in a statue but the benefits of the beauty may be enjoyed by tourists, photographers, artists, and others who are affected by this beauty.
What are the benefits? How large are the benefits likely to be? How are the benefits derived? On what do the benefits depend? How durable are the benefits? These are all questions that need to be asked. For example, benefits that depend on current exchange rates may be large but may not last very long. Benefits of low-cost production in a certain country may or may not last. Benefits of a new financial concept may only last until competitors duplicate the concept.
Who would get the benefits? This is a key question. Would the benefits go directly to the producer in terms of lower costs and better profits? Would the benefits go to the buyer in terms of lower price, better quality, or extra functions? There are times when the benefits reach both buyer and producer. For example, a better design may have more appeal to the buyer and the increased sales would benefit the producer. What about the middlemen or the channels through which the product or service has to pass? The concentrated detergent packs reduce handling costs in supermarkets by 45 per cent and so are popular with retailers. Does the new idea make life easier or more difficult for retailers? Does the new idea make life easier or more difficult for agents and brokers? New items which require frequent maintenance or are difficult to demonstrate provide no benefit to retailers. Benefits to the environment may be real but are also good publicity.
The full range and extent of benefits need to be spelled out clearly with the logical and information reasons given for why these benefits are expected.
It may be argued that feasibility should come first. If an idea is not workable, then why bother about benefits? The reason benefits should come first is that if the benefits are perceived to be considerable then much more effort will be made to find a way of making the idea work.
Occasionally, ideas are not workable because they contravene some basic principle (like perpetual motion machines). There is no point in going further with these.
Sometimes ideas are not feasible because they contravene some regulations or are frankly illegal. Efforts can be made to keep the concept and to change the idea so that it is legal and does fit the regulations. Sometimes it may even be worth lobbying to get the regulations changed.
Ideas that are not feasible because they might upset certain people or cause environmental damage can be further worked upon to see if these dangers can be avoided.
Sometimes ideas are not feasible because there is no standard way of carrying them out or no available technology. There are many examples of very successful ideas where the first reaction was “This cannot be a good idea”. It was only the insistence of the entrepreneur that eventually found a way in which it could be done. Many ideas may be rejected at this point because a feasible way of doing them does not exist. But if the benefits are strong enough then determined efforts can be made to find a way of carrying out the idea. When Ron Barbaro suggested the idea of “living benefits” for the life insurance industry he was met by a chorus of comments explaining why it could not be done.
The question is to see how much effort is going to be put into an idea to make it feasible.
If the idea seems feasible, that makes things a lot easier.
Do we have the resources to make the idea work? Do we want to allocate the resources to this idea?
What is the cost in money? What is the cost in time? What is the cost in labour hours and at what level? What is the cost in friction and disruptions of ongoing activities? What is the cost in hassle and complications? Who is going to have to work on the idea? Who is going to be responsible for the idea?
What about the diversion of resources and effort from other activities and projects?
It would be nice if it were possible to put into action all ideas that were valuable and workable, but there is always a matter of limited resources.
If the resources are simply not available, then the decision is easy. But if the resources are available then the decision is one of priorities and comparisons.
Clearly, a realistic assessment of the resources needed is very important. The resources needed to implement a new idea are almost always grossly underestimated.
Does the idea “fit” the organization?
“Fit” is a complex but very important issue. Does the idea “fit” the type of organization? One idea may be suitable for a newcomer trying to get into the market. Another idea might only be suitable for a large organization with enough market muscle to make the idea work.
Does the idea fit the policy, strategy, and objectives of the corporation? Does the idea fit the public image and expectations? Does the idea fit the stock analysts’ hopes?
On an internal level, does the idea fit with the personality and ambitions of the chief executive and also those who have to decide on the idea? Does the idea fit with the motivations of those who are going to be immediately responsible for putting the idea into action? What is in it for me?
The difficulty with “fit” is that only traditional ideas will be seen to “fit” the usual behaviour of the organization. By definition, any new idea will not “fit”.
At the same time, it is very difficult to get a new idea to work if it does not fit the style and motivation of the organization. A very valuable and workable idea may fail because of this lack of “fit”.
As with “feasibility” this may be an area for further effort. If the idea does not seem to fit, can it be made to fit? How much effort are we willing to put into making it fit?
The “best home” scrutiny is a way of assessing the most suitable home for an idea. It is not so much examining the idea itself but seeing where such an idea would fit. The ideal home for the idea is imagined and then this ideal is compared to the existing organization. What would be the best home for this idea? Can we provide this sort of home?
The perceived benefits of the idea will need to drive any effort to make the idea fit.
Although all “essential factors” can be challenged, this does not mean that they do not have a validity. When evaluating ideas and alternatives there is a need to be conscious of the “essential factors”. These factors decide whether an idea is usable or not. If the essential factor is not present then the idea must be thrown out – or an effort made to include the essential factor.
There are two basic types of essential factors: vital and fatal.
These factors are necessary for the “life” of the idea, which is why they are called “vital” factors. Without such vital factors the idea will not work. Such factors may include profitability, compliance with regulations, acceptance by unions, defined market, channel of distribution, allocation of resources, and so on. Some of these vital factors are inherent in the idea but others arise from the way the idea is treated. Adequate capitalization is a vital factor in the success of any new business. Adequate resource allocation is a vital factor in the success of any new idea.
Just as vital factors are necessary for the life of a new idea, so “fatal” factors lead to the death of the idea. If the idea contains these fatal factors then the idea cannot work. Today environmental damage is a fatal factor in many countries. Too high a price is another fatal factor. High legal costs and complications may be another fatal factor. Infringement of intellectual rights might also be a fatal factor. Association with a failing corporation may sometimes be a fatal factor. Perceived cruelty to animals or exploitation of minorities are further fatal factors.
As with feasibility and fit, the effort that might be made to get rid of fatal factors (not just hide them) or to bring in vital factors will always be driven by the perceived value of the idea. Unless this is very high, ideas will be rejected on the basis of vital factors and fatal factors – and this is as it should be.
Flexibility is being seen as an increasingly important characteristic of a new idea. Future conditions are uncertain. Future behaviour of competitors is uncertain. Values are changing all the time. Future costs are uncertain.
In the face of such uncertainty, it is difficult to predict that a certain idea will work. Nevertheless, there is a need for new ideas. It is not possible to sit back and to avoid all risk by doing nothing at all. The answer is flexibility.
Can the idea be modified to adjust to changing conditions? Is the idea sufficiently flexible? If competitors respond in one way, can the idea be changed to meet the response? If there is a need to change price, can this be done?
Rigid ideas are not good choices. It is an important part of the design process to build flexibility into ideas.
If this idea does work, can it breed a whole number of additional ideas to take advantage of the momentum? Can we have “son of Lassie” and “grandson of Lassie”? Can we turn a success into a whole range of models? If we take the risk and it comes off, how do we maximize that success?
If, for various reasons, the idea fails, what is the fallback position? Can we minimize the losses? Can we gain anything from the attempt (perhaps learning something about the market)? Will failure of the new idea damage our existing products, image, or distributor relations?
The usual fallback position is to find a scapegoat or someone to blame for the failure. Often this is set up in advance.
Although no one sets out with the expectation that an idea will fail, it is prudent to design a fallback position.
It should be part of the design process of any new idea to give some thought to the testability of that idea. Can this idea be tested in a pilot plant? Can this idea be tested in a consumer test market? Can this idea be tested by sampling? Can this idea be tested by consumer survey? Can the acceptance of this idea be tested in advance by “flying a kite” or by a press “leakage”?
Can this idea be tested by allowing someone else to try it first? Can this idea be tested through focus groups or in-store testing? As I have already indicated, there are several values to testing:
There may be a need for considerable creativity in designing practical and persuasive test procedures.
Underlying all judgements, decisions, and evaluations, there is the risk factor. The purpose of design and the purpose of assessment is to reduce the risk.
There is the risk that the idea may fail. There is the risk that the idea may prove much more expensive than hoped.
There is the risk that the idea may cause damage (image, product liability, distributor relations, customer relations, and so on).
There is the risk that the idea may divert attention and resources from other matters.
There is the risk that an unforeseeable change in circumstances may wreck the idea.
There is the risk that a failure of technology will lead to failure of the idea.
There is the risk that the idea may trigger very effective competitive responses which more than negate the value of the idea.
This list of possible risks can be expanded almost infinitely, because everything to do with the future is uncertain. Risks can be handled in a number of ways:
When all sensible things have been done to reduce or contain risk, there is the final decision as to how much risk an organization is willing to take. If the cost of introducing a new product is reduced then there is less risk in such an introduction.
In the end, organizations need to make “venture” or “entrepreneurial” decisions. How much of the available resources are going to be allocated to new ventures where the potential reward is high but there is also a risk factor?
To refuse all such ventures and to stick to continuity and riskless activities is itself a high risk. Doing nothing is not the avoidance of all risk but the acceptance of a high risk through inertia.
Sometimes it is possible to catch up with a “me-too” product once someone else has developed the new market. But sometimes it is too late and the market is lost to a competitor.
In the course of the examination of ideas, decisions will often just emerge. It becomes increasingly obvious that an idea does not offer sufficient benefits to take it further. It becomes obvious that there are many difficulties in the implementation of an idea. It becomes obvious that fatal factors cannot be excluded from an idea. Consensus opinions can gradually emerge; this is how the Japanese make decisions.
Discussions around the ideas will need Six Hat Thinking in order to bring to bear the different modes of thinking.
If the evaluation process does not make its own decisions, then more conscious decisions have to be made. Such decisions can be made in a number of ways.
The different evaluation factors (but not the essential factors) can be given a weighting and each idea given points against each factor. In the end, the favoured ideas should emerge as the leading contenders.
The difficulty with any points system is that they tend to produce bland and not very exciting ideas because these bland ideas score steadily in each area.
Direct comparisons can be made between the contending ideas or available alternatives. The points of similarity and difference can be noted, and the differing performances can be compared against the evaluation criteria. The advantage of direct comparison is that it allows consideration of factors other than those on any evaluation checklist. It is also easier to assess ideas as a “whole”.
Usually comparison works best on a “rejection” basis. You focus on the risks and defects and this provides a reason for rejecting some of the contenders. Focusing on the good points makes it very difficult to reject any idea because there is a reluctance to put aside an idea with potential.
You take each idea in turn and imagine that you have decided to choose (or use) that idea. You are now explaining to an audience why you chose that idea. You put together the logical reasons for the choice. Quite often an idea that seems very strong turns out to be weak when you try to put together the reasons for choosing that idea. It turns out that the appeal of the idea is more emotional than rational and more based on hope than on supportable expectations.
This is a useful exercise because it often helps to pull out the ideas which should be selected on grounds that can be explained. There is, however, the danger of rejecting more unusual ideas where the potential is high but the grounds for support are not strong.
Though we do not like to admit it, in the end, all decisions are emotional. Information and logic only put us in a better position to exert our emotions. So we can seek out the emotional basis for our decision. We can look to see in the case of each alternative the basic emotion which would be driving that particular choice. If we were to choose that alternative, what would be the underlying emotion?
The three most relevant emotions are:
The fear of risk and blame is the basis for rejecting ideas or feeling unenthusiastic about them. Sometimes fear can be a driving force. The fear of getting left behind, the fear of losing market share, or the fear of being attacked by a competitor can lead to positive action.
Although “greed” seems a derogatory word, in this context it covers the willingness to grow, to get bigger, to make things happen, to increase market share and price of the stock. It is a positive driving force.
Laziness drives many decisions. There is a disinclination to do anything different. There is a preference for the “quiet life” in which not much is happening. Any new project demands attention, extra work uncertainty, and even “thinking”. All of these are best avoided. So reasons are found for turning down ideas when the basic reason is “laziness”.
Why do I like that idea? Why do I not like that idea? How much do fear, greed, and laziness contribute in each case?
Under what circumstances would I choose this idea? Under what circumstances would I want to proceed with this idea?
Like the other frameworks, this “circumstance” framework can make choices easier. Perhaps the ideal circumstances can be provided. Perhaps the ideal circumstances could never be provided.
There is sometimes a belief that a marvellous idea will be so good and so powerful that everyone will be dragged along with it. This is almost never the case. It is always necessary to “make an idea work”. There has to be someone or a group that decides that the idea is worth doing and is then determined to overcome obstacles and frictions to make the idea work. It is idealistic to search for an idea that will work without this work of effort. For the same reason, an idea that is not obviously a great idea can be made to work if someone sees the potential and determines to make that idea work.
Diamonds are not very beautiful in the raw state. It is the skill of the diamond cutter that reveals the beauty of the diamond. So the value of ideas is only revealed by those who set out to make the ideas work.