-By Robert
Our work as researchers and scientists is defined by two types of thinking: analytical/convergent and creative/divergent. On one hand, we need to produce through logical, linear processing, for example when we analyze data or deal with administrative stuff. To get through these tasks quickly and with as high quality as needed, we require efficient systems. We’ve talked about those systems on other occasions.
Today, we’re focusing on the other part of thinking—the creative/divergent part that is fun and that ultimately makes the difference between solid and brilliant research. That’s when science is more art than labor; the kind of work where we don’t know the outcome at the beginning of the process. This could be developing a new idea for a project, looking at your data and figuring out how they fit together, or even finding new ways to solve challenging problems.
Here lies a paradox that initially confuses many: Most people think that they need wide open schedules to do creative thinking or that any idea should be allowed like in brainstorming. But setting boundaries, limits, and rules for creative work can actually increase output and improve results.
A key experience that brought this point home for me was a training session on “Design Thinking”. There I learned that artists, fashion and car designers, filmmakers, and think tank participants are not the free-spirited individuals floating in complete freedom as they are often portrayed. No, these “creatives” are intensely working people—usually with deadlines set by clients and clear specifications for the product. The methods of design thinking are precisely made for this. You follow a strict process to achieve a result. This process is highly individualized, but applied without deviations.
Start with understanding the problem and your constraints
Initiating the creative process begins with a clear understanding of the problem at hand and identifying the constraints that bound the solution space. This stage is critical because it sets the foundation for targeted creative efforts. By precisely defining the problem, you not only narrow down the potential solutions but also enhance the relevance and applicability of your creative endeavors. Acknowledging constraints—such as technological limitations, budgetary considerations, or time constraints—helps in focusing efforts on feasible and impactful solutions. This disciplined approach aligns with Goethe’s notion that the quality of the solution is contingent upon the clarity of the question posed.
Preventing Wasting Time
You can prevent wasting time by engaging in structured creative processes with a clear definition of the problem. This ensures your time and resources are directed towards ideas with the highest potential for execution and impact.
Note that this is different from brainstorming. These two processes are different aspects of creative work. Brainstorming is open-ended and you want to remove any concern about constraints to put all ideas on the table. Another approach though is the one we described here where you explore ideas and potential solutions with your constraints in mind.
For example, Stefanie often has her team help searching the literature during grant writing. But rather than reading in an open-ended way (which has its role, just not when time is a limiting resource), the team focuses their perusal of the literature around very concrete, limited-scope questions (aka problems).
This method effectively broadens the horizon of possibilities within the defined constraints, ensuring that the creative process is both productive and grounded in reality.
Driving Towards Execution
The ultimate goal of the creative process is to produce tangible outcomes that address real-world challenges. Linking creative efforts to specific, measurable objectives ensures that your team’s theoretical ideas are translated into practical solutions.
I find that setting specific rules and constraints significantly boosts my creativity. For instance, time-boxing is a technique that works wonders for me because it enhances my focus and makes me push harder to find a solution. Because Time is limited I do not worry about working my brain too hard for too long (this is a deterrent that many people encounter when they write). After I sufficiently defined a problem, I set a timer for 10 minutes, within which I must find a solution. This self-imposed deadline dramatically increases my focus and often leads to success. I typically start by considering a functional solution, even if it’s not perfect, akin to the “Minimum Viable Product (MVP)” concept from product management. Then, I assess whether it’s worth investing more effort to refine my initial idea. Often, I find the MVP is surprisingly adequate, making the pursuit of a better solution unnecessary.
Contrary to the common belief that creativity thrives in boundless freedom, the imposition of constraints is a powerful catalyst for innovation. Structured boundaries, reminiscent of those found in the arts and innovation sectors, challenge you to think beyond conventional solutions and encourage creativity within set parameters. This concept is supported by evidence from the Institute for Arts Integration and STEAM and insights from the Harvard Business Review, highlighting the symbiotic relationship between creativity and constraints. Properly applied constraints not only prevent complacency but also encourage a deeper exploration of potential solutions, thereby enriching the creative process and enhancing the quality of outcomes.
In summary, design thinking—a structured process that includes understanding problems, setting boundaries, and driving towards execution—can significantly elevate the creativity and productivity of your research and innovation. By embracing constraints and focusing on actionable problems, you unlock new avenues of discovery and innovation, ultimately contributing to the advancement of your fields with practical, impactful solutions.
– Robert