Examinations in school

The purpose of examinations in school is to test existing knowledge. Behind this simple objective lie many other objectives. Because exams exist and have to be passed, students are motivated to work harder than if there were no exams. There is an objective end-point. Exams provide a simple assessment of knowledge. They may not really test ability because some able students are just not good at exams.

Suppose there were a simple ‘test’ for organisations that would determine how those organisations rated on the ‘idea scale’. Organisations could apply that test to themselves. Investors could apply that test to the organisation. The stock market evaluation of an organisation could be influenced by the rating on that test.

How would such a test be administered? Would there need to be an investigating team that would go to the organisation and examine it thoroughly, using some framework for evaluation?

More simply, it could be done the other way around. A special body could say to an organisation: ‘Prove to us that you do have powerful new ideas. It is up to you to convince us’. A rating would then be given on this basis.

It may be thought that ideas are risky. It may be thought that investors would avoid companies with too many ideas. Research in the US shows the contrary. Organisations that are known to have ideas get marked up - not down. Of course, there are many difficulties in assessing ideas. There are small incremental ideas where the risk is low, but over time the ideas add up to a big change. There are high risk and high reward ideas.

Do you measure the new ideas that are being used? Do you measure the new ideas that are in development? Do you measure new ideas at the ‘concept’ stage before they have been developed or even evaluated?

What is to be measured? Is it the number of ideas or the value of the ideas? Is it the number of actual ideas or the ability to have ideas? It might even be the willingness to act on new ideas and to invest in them. There are organisations that are good at having ideas, but very reluctant actually to use any of these.

How many organisations believe that they have sufficient ideas? In my experience several organisations believe that they have too many ideas, but this usually means two things. The first is a lot of not very good ideas. The second is a reluctance to develop or use ideas.

How many organisations realise that they need ‘additional ideas’? This does not mean that they are short of ideas. It means that the existing ideas have arisen within the context, idiom and history of that organisation. As a result they are of a certain type. There may be a need for additional ideas from outside. That is why I have set up an ‘Outsourcing Creativity’ system to provide organisations with additional ideas that have not arisen from within their own cultures.

Executives are promoted on the basis of ‘continuity’. This means that they continue to run things as they should run. It means effectiveness and efficiency and an ability to solve problems as they arise.

Executives are blamed for mistakes that they make. Executives are blamed for failures when a new venture does not succeed. Executives are never blamed for the ideas they do not have. They are never blamed for the opportunities they do not see.

Having new ideas is a risk. Not having new ideas is no risk at all. It is not difficult to see which way behaviour will go. All this could be changed if there was an ‘expectation’ that executives should be having new ideas. If there were to be a sort of new idea ‘quota’, then every executive would be expected to show how he or she met that quota.

DEALING WITH NEW IDEAS

There is a long way between having a new idea and putting it into action. The first step is to note that there is a new idea. The new idea is recorded. The person who had this new idea gets some recognition on this account. When General Electric asked its creative people what they most wanted from their creativity, the surprising answer was ‘recognition’. This means that someone has noted that you have contributed a new idea.

The next step is to develop the idea and take it further so that it becomes a fully-fledged idea. Examination and evaluation of benefits and possible benefits then follows. The next step is feasibility. Can it be done? Can it be done within our existing mechanisms, or is there a need for new mechanisms?

Why should benefits come before feasibility? Because if perceived benefits are large, then much more effort will be made to find a feasible way of implementing the idea.

Then there are the negatives. These include costs, barriers, acceptance, etc., etc. The idea can be modified to overcome some of the negative considerations.

Finally the idea finds its place among the strategic priorities. In some cases there may be a need for a pilot study or further research. If this effort shows even stronger values than had been supposed, then the idea becomes more attractive and moves to the forefront of strategic priorities. What is important is that new ideas are not treated as some exceptional aberration. There needs to be a production process in place to produce and deal with new ideas as a routine matter.

THE HIDDEN VALUE OF NEW IDEAS

If a new idea is not chosen for action, we assume that the idea is lost and rejected. This should not be the case. An idea that is not used right now can enter a reserve file. Under different circumstances that idea can be brought forward again and used. In a different competitive climate the idea may have a higher value.

Even if the idea is never used, the thinking that has gone into developing that idea is not wasted. In the thinking involved there may be new concepts and new values which come to exist in their own right. Such new concepts and values can influence all further thinking on that subject, even when the idea itself is not used.

Creative thinking is never a waste of time. The activities of the mind during creative thinking enrich the mind in its experience of that subject. New possibilities are brought forward. New perceptions are visited.

SELF-IMAGE

Most organisations like to think of themselves as creative. Their advertising agencies tell them to advertise the organisation as creative. Creativity is seen as comparative. Are we as creative as this other organisation? On that basis, if no organisation is really creative, then all organisations are free to consider themselves creative.

If there were to be a simple test for the creativity of organisations, this would be of help to both investors and those working within the organisation. I shall see what can be done about developing such a test. (Source: Edward de Bono)