Asimov Asks "How People Get New Ideas"

In other words, he invented brain-storming. Most good things are invented b y several different people, quite independently, at much the same time, so his may not have been the invention that got recorded in the literature. I certainly hadn't heard the word in 1959, and didn't hear it for another dec ade or so, so he may have invented it a bit too early (which also happens).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

He's got the key elements of brainstorming about right, but he didn't mention the critical role of whiteboards (or blackboards, in his day. I recently spent a day with the co-founder of a biggish laser company, and he has a blackboard, with colored chalk, in his office. He must be a billionaire, and all he wants to do is play with optics. He appreciates brainstorming. Got to ride in his Tesla, too.)

There ought to be, maybe is, a position called "professional brainstormer." That would be a consultant that meets with a company's engineering and marketing people to invent or refine things.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   laser drivers and controllers 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Thanks much. I find it interesting that he mentions that being creative in public is not a good thing: "First and foremost, there must be ease, relaxation, and a general sense of permissiveness. The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome. The individuals

That suggests being creative on Usenet is a waste of effort because even the best ideas draw immediate criticism from the usual suspects. I don't use Asimov's methods of brainstorming very often. I prefer to reverse engineer the existing technology, which is what Asimov originally rejected: "One way of investigating the problem is to consider the great ideas of the past and see just how they were generated. Unfortunately, the method of generation is never clear even to the generators themselves." I ask myself, what problem were they trying to solve and what options did they have available? If the list of options has expanded with the introduction of new technology and devices, the problem can be resurrected and a newer better device created. While this method will never produce the brilliant insights and radical innovations of the great inventors, it works quite well for dealing with the more mundane design tasks.

Asimov is certainly correct about simultaneous inventions. My version is to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on some "great" idea, only to find that it has been in production for several years by some obscure company which I would have discovered had I done some more research instead of diving directly into solving the problem. I just hate it when that happens.

I'm skeptical of Asimov's description of a "think tank" (bull session, focus group, etc). I've been dragged into such meetings in the past and found them to be a waste of time. Most of the time is wasted on organizational nonsense and ruined by various personalities attempting to attain dominance over the creative process. Considering the combined salaries of those involved in such a meeting, it's a rather expensive way to innovate.

Asimov also fails to mention the importance of good timing. I was the idea person on a project, working mostly on the systems diagram and how the system was partitioned. I had exactly two weeks during which I could offer my usual wild idea, weird designs, and make radical changes. After two weeks, the overall design would be frozen and everyone would concentrate on making it work. Unfortunately, my output of new ideas doesn't have an on-off switch. New ideas just kept coming, disrupting the finely tuned schedule. Even when I had an obviously good, useful, and cost effective idea, it was rejected out of hand because it would wreck the all important schedule. Never mind the detrimental effects of criticism, it's the schedule that kills creative thinking.

Argh... phone call.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[snip]

As one who can never quit "improving" an idea, my wife constantly chides me with this...

"...intense passion for his art, Michelangelo endures. "When will you make an end?" Julius cries. 'When I have done,' the artist insists." ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Which is only a problem if you (a) care, and (b) don't have them killfiled. It's sometimes more difficult with colleagues at work, especially groups containing people from different silos with competing budgets.

Depends on the group. Two to five really smart friends, a white board, and 45 minutes in front of it having your ideas demolished is about the most fun you can have standing up. Lots of good stuff comes out of that, too.

Well, you do have to have a design freeze at some point, or you'll never ship anything. Just have a background task going for stuff for Version 2.0.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC 
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

160 North State Road #203 
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 

hobbs at electrooptical dot net 
http://electrooptical.net

Asimov makes the key point that one critical doofus can poison a brainstorming session. Brainstorming necessarily involves being wrong a lot, and a lot of people are sufficiently sensitive to being declared wrong that they'll hold back goofy ideas if they think they will be criticized. Goofy ideas are the gateway to good ideas.

It's hard to brainstorm on Usenet, because the critical-doofus level is extreme.

I know engineers, and entire companies, that just make minor tweaks to reference designs and demo board circuits. That works, but tends to generate low-margin products.

We have one customer who *will* field an unreliable design because management froze the design/verification phase, and they can't change it now without repeating a months-long verification procedure. The change would be to invert one logic level inside an FPGA.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

I'd change it to "Multidisciplinary Brainstorming Consultants" and charge more. Mikek

--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 
http://www.avast.com

Grin, well (paper) table napkins work as well as white boards. (I just need something to scribble on...) George H.

Let me just add, that the way I learn things here, is to just say things that I barely understand, and then get corrected. (It's like falling down in skiing.) You've got to push your own edge to find out where your edge is. I also have no shame, and am happy to play the fool. I've always been around people who were much smarter than me.

George H.

It helps if the participants in a brain-storming session know what they are talking about, and have some idea what it takes to get an invented thing t hrough it's teething troubles, or what's actually involved in "refining" an idea - the false starts, the blind alleys, the days when you have to say t hat all that effort and expenditure was based on a misconception and needs to be dumped ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I think that only matters for people who are easily intimidated and, thusly, afraid to voice their ideas. The same sorts would have to be cajoled into "volunteering" something in *any* setting.

If you are comfortable with each others' skillsets, then this problem doesn't exist.

Likewise, it doesn't follow you into "development". Mistakes are

*genuine*, not "careless". [I designed a processor many years ago. My buddy was charged with writing the code for it. I got the processor prototyped and augmented with memory, etc. Went to load my buddy's code -- and NOTHING worked! Each of us were infinitely confident in the OTHER's abilities so we each thought *we* had screwed up. Turned out, the address fields in all of the opcodes that I had created were "word" addresses while he had assumed they were *byte* addresses (common for COTS microprocessors of that era): "*BYTE* ADDRESSES? WTF??? There's no way to *access* a byte! Didn't you notice all of your addresses had '0' in the LSb???? (jokingly)" He turned a reasonable shade of red and came back a minute later with a new image to load. It made the success *so* much more enjoyable for each of us ("Whew, that was a simple fix!")]

I prefer to think "what did they *miss*" or "get wrong". Then, from there, try to understand *why* (especially if I think they are "capable of better"). Looking at a solution's limitations can often reveal aspects of the problem that you hadn't considered, initially. And, focus you on determining whether or not those limitations still need to be in place.

You learned something *and* practiced your creative skills. What's wrong with that? (Do you avoid reading books/watching movies for which you already know the outcome?)

The biggest "sin", IMO, is failing to move outside your own "box" and, thus, perpetually seeing the world as you *want* it to be and not as it *could* be.

Change always upsets the balance of power in relationships. As such, many are strongly resistant to it ("Why do you want to do that?" is more a question of "Why can't you do it the way that I am comfortable with? That isn't threatening to me and my idea of the status quo?")

[I've had knock down arguments with "old timers" who want to cling to an old solution that they are comfortable regurgitating in each new release of a product -- despite the fact that sales keep falling and their competitors have all embraced newer technology. The solution is to just move them aside and let fresher ideas take hold (before the firm goes belly up).]

Virtually every "new" product design that I've been involved with has had its roots in long lunches, after hours meetings, etc. Where *small* groups of people (who are comfortable enough with each other that "socializing" is a matter of course) can push each other to their creative limits. "Skunk works" and "off the books" experiments where you can feed each others' excitement and imagination over where this is headed.

I've referred to this as "tossing a bat" (like you would do as kids to try to decide who bats first -- hand over hand to see who gets the topmost "hold"); that same sort of eagerness to see who's going to come out on top. Yet, you're each just eager to get down to playing

*ball*! (i.e., the project)

I've always been around people who were willing to indicate when they didn't understand something that was being said. Were willing to *learn* -- and teach.

Bringing someone "up to speed" often results in *them* seeing something BEYOND what you were trying to explain to them: "Well, if *that's* the case, then why can't we just ...." "Gack! yes!"

I was working on a subcontract job for big blue many years ago. The "customer rep" (the guy who was responsible for the design we were building) and I spent many hours trying to troubleshoot the design.

At one point, comms between the processor we were building and the minicomputer that was tasked with exercising it weren't working. It was a real kludge interface (the CPU we were building was VLIW while the minicomputer was, at best, a 32b machine back then -- maybe even 16!).

And, the CPU was all ECL (10K, MECL III, etc.). So, getting from A to B required a fair bit of synchronization, level shifting, etc.

And, a fair number of one-shots (ick).

I suspected one of the one-shots was timing out too quickly for the iso-optilator in that signal path). He "did the math" and convinced himself that all was OK. And, went off to explore other possibilities.

Instead, I grabbed whatever large (easy to hold in my hand) cap I could find and held it across the timing cap for the one-shot in question.

"Hey! It's working! What did you do??" "I shunted the existing cap with *this*..." "Well that's *way* too big! ..." "Yeah, I know. But obviously whatever is in there now isn't big enough!"

OK, now he's got a problem that he has to sort out (why wasn't the specified value appropriate?) *but* we can now move forward. And, never any bad feelings for the "clever teenager"...

Brett Cahill manages it.

--
umop apisdn

Thing about brainstorming is that it does requires some quantitative expertise in the subject at hand. Having lots of wild ideas isn't enough.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   laser drivers and controllers 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

re talking about, and have some idea what it takes to get an invented thing through it's teething troubles, or what's actually involved in "refining" an idea - the false starts, the blind alleys, the days when you have to say that all that effort and expenditure was based on a misconception and need s to be dumped ...

I encountered someone I suppose that title would apply to when a student. A s is too often the case with such professionals he was a hindrance rather t han a help. People involved need to know their subject well, as Bill said, but also knowing the other participants is quite a plus.

A good engineer already knows how to brainstorm. What solution is one going to achieve by adding a professional thinker that doesnt know the subject t o such engineers? And what solution is one going to achieve by adding a pro fessional thinker to a mix of engineers that can't brainstorm?

NT

I sympathize. There is NO ON/OFF switch. However, in defense, it *is* impossible to hit a 'moving target'. Fix the target, finish it. AND, one of the key attributes of a 'successful' person is QUICK to decide [not guess, decide] and SLOW to change, once the decision is made. As proof of that concept, as an Engineer, I am SLOW to decide, because new information and new ideas just keep flowing in. And QUICK to change, after all there is so much justification that the new ideas are better... It is so difficult to turn that priority around!

I somewhat care and use a kill file for only the most obnoxious trolls. Despite being on Usenet since almost the beginning, I still react badly when proven wrong. My solution is to temporarily disappear from Usenet for a few days, do something else, and then jump back in with restored optimism.

Within the context of Asimov's brainstorming sessions, I've never attended a meeting that accomplished or created anything useful. That's probably because I don't do group-think well. I also consider team-work somewhat of an oxymoron. However, I've certainly attended meetings that destroyed some useful ideas, trashed half done work that could have been improved with some tweaks, and generally ruined someone's day. I turned it into a profitable sideline during the dot com era (late 1990's), when I was doing sanity checks on highly speculative business plans. Destroying an idea is so much easier than creating a way to make it work.

Asimov is correct in saying that the composition of the brainstorming session has to be right in order to work. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to be on equal levels in order to understand the topic. I also don't think it's really necessary for the participants to respect each other. What's important is that they do not constitute a threat to each other. Competition for funding, promotional advancement, pecking order, or office romance can ruin brainstorming. Of course, everyone can agree to put aside their differences for the duration, which I've found somewhat works about half the time.

Like any good idea, brainstorming can be overdone. At one company, we were required to attend engineering meetings 2 or 3 times per week. They were suppose to last 30 minutes, but usually dragged on for an hour. Often, they turned into brainstorming sessions, where one engineer would admit that he has a problem, and everyone would jump on him with mostly useless "solutions". The result is invariably that nobody admits that they're stuck or willingly asks for help. I found various excuses not to attend such sessions.

Agreed. I tend to do that in slow motion. Friends and associates take pot shots at some of my ideas. I retreat to my cave and consider their criticism, and return a few days later with a modified idea. This is necessary because only my best ideas attract criticism. If everyone vaguely denounces my idea as useless, worthless, or non-compliant, I know that I have a winner. If I receive compliments and praise, I know that something is seriously wrong. One does not "run it up the flag pole to see who salutes". Instead, they "run it up the flag pole to see who shoots at it".

Chuckle. Most people assume that engineers are addicted to engineering and will do so until marketing rips the product from their death grip. (I've had my prototypes stolen, cleaned up, and shipped by marketing when my back was turned). However, the reality is that marketing continues to add features and make changes, usually for the benefit of a potential customer, while expecting engineering to maintain the original schedule.

Incidentally, I worked for a company that had the various US phone companies as the principle customers. At the time, there were about

3,000 such companies, each wanting the product designed to their exacting specifications. In effect, there were 3,000 variations of the product. When engineering indicated it would take several years just to document all these variations, management finally woke up and did something right. 80% of the volume was expected from one large customer. So, they made exactly one version of the product to the large customers specifications, and told the remaining companies that if they wanted it, they will need to modify their specifications. There was some grumbling, but it worked.

I did that with disastrous results. I did not approve of the mechanical design of a radio that I was working on, and decided to combine several spare time projects into one. I wanted to learn the Applicon 3D CAD system (circa 1980), design a better packaged version of the radio, and see if I could do it with a minimum number of purley mechanical parts. In other words, no brackets, spacers, shims, covers, or hardware that didn't also have an electronic function. Version 2.0 was born.

I was well under way with the design, when a corporate vice-president saw what I was doing and asked for details. Somehow, I forgot to mention that this was a spare time (unauthorized) project. Eventually, the real product arrived, which even the customer agreed was too heavy, bulky, difficult to build, expensive, etc. The VP thought the company was going to ship my much smaller version 2.0 design. I mostly survived the misunderstanding. The product didn't.

Moral: Working on version 2.0 is ok. Just keep it hidden.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

I like whiteboards much better although the pens are probably less environmentally friendly. Real chalk boards are noisy.

Whiteboards are sorely missing in online conferencing. I use GoToMeeting a lot and the sketching is really hokey.

There actually is. Many times people use me in this role. "We have an XYZ gizmo and we aren't really happy with this, that and the other thing, so we'd like to brainstorm about new radically different methods". Those are the most fun assignments.

--
Regards, Joerg 

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Too many are emotionally unable to do it. Some groups are hopeless.

The pro should of course know a lot about the technical subject at hand, or a lot about electronics. But the right person can really facilite brainstorming and idea creation. I've done it a number of times, in my company and outside. If I don't fully understand the application or the physics or the optics or whatever, I ask people to explain it to me. That alone can lead to ideas.

One of my functions, in those situations, is to be ignorant; that lets the locals feel a little proud of themselves, and breaks the ice. The boys can get togther and explain stuff to me... and to themselves.

It's surprising, as Phil has noted, how many instrument designers leave 30 dB or so of s/n out in the rain, because they don't understand the optics or the electronics. If you *tell* them that 30 dB is possible, they may be inspired to work together to find it.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com