“You know, if we listened to our sessions it might settle some of our arguments about process. We might even learn something!” said William Gordon to George Prince in the late 1950’s. (George M. Prince: Thoughts on Creativity, n.d.). It was this insight to audio record (and later video) the invention sessions they were having at the Arthur D. Little (ADL) consulting firm in Boston, Massachusetts that led to the development of Synectics; a term they coined of origin from the Greek syn, meaning joining and ectos, meaning external things. The practice brings different and apparently unrelated concepts together during an idea generation process and employs the use of personification, metaphor and analogy to encourage breakthrough thinking around creative challenges. While originally referring to structured trademarked process, the term has evolved to ”become a generic term for creative problem solving in groups” (Nolan, 2003, p. 25). In essence, a Synectics approach lies in disrupting one’s thinking and forcing new connections. The idea is to shake up ones thinking to the point that novel approaches to a situation might be found. This paper will explore the development, concepts and tools of Synectic thinking sessions but avoids delineating a particular structure to the process as the author has found there to be a lack of access and/or consistency in the literature around Synectics application. There are models with six steps, others with nine, there are educational models designed for classroom use. Strengths and shortcomings of the practice will be identified as they relate to contemporary problem solving in industry, education and personal use. Research that supports Synectics validity in the domain of CPS will be shared.
It was through the analysis of hundreds of hours of recorded process meetings that Gordon and Prince were able to examine both the visible and invisible dynamics of a group. They noted vocal intonation, observed body language and discovered conversation patterns. More importantly, they were able to identify particularly helpful and destructive behaviors in the group/s that supported or hindered innovative thinking. They noticed for instance, if a person was slighted in a session, ever so little in a passing comment, that it was common for them to seek revenge and to undermine the person who did them harm often unconsciously (Georgiou, 1994). These discoveries among others led them to recognize the importance of climate and its central role in successful innovative groupthink. Gordon and Prince’s interest in the underlying or unconscious psychological experiences that might interfere with the individual or group’s ability to think creatively led them to recognize the importance and influence of the unconscious in the creative process. |
They began to experiment with ways to engage the unconscious as well as ways to deliberately enter different psychological states in their process meetings through guided activities. During Prince and Gordon’s research they were surprised to learn that when the group was disorderly, confused and uncertain, it was the most effective in generating new lines of thought” (Weaver & Prince, 1990, p. 378). They sought to replicate this uncertainty and ambiguity deliberately. They experimented with conceptual devices that they called operational mechanisms to force new ideas and associations up for conscious consideration (Gordon, 1961). Excited and inspired by their findings, the two men left ADL with a couple of others from their team in 1960, forming a company called Synectics Inc., where they dedicated themselves to trademark the Synectics thinking process, to develop teaching and facilitation training, tools and materials for their newly articulated ideas, and continue research. The first publication on the subject entitled: “Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity” was published in December 1961 and was authored by Gordon. The two men parted ways shortly after the publication, each continuing to author and explore their own iterations of the process and tools, ultimately growing the collection of Synectics resources that continue to be explored to this day.
How the Process works
A Synectics group is made up of 3 participant types each with distinct roles:
1) A problem owner, the individual who is motivated to solve a problem and who is also the owner of the content and information around the problem.
2) A process group, a group of 5-8 people who come from varying backgrounds who ideally do not a have personal invested interest or knowledge of the problem.
3) A facilitator, the individual who is in charge of directing the group through the process, pacing the session, maintaining an ideal and supportive climate for creativity and ensuring that the process goes in a direction that is working for the problem owner.
The facilitator is the driver of the process and makes decisions around tool selection by being attuned to the needs of the problem owner. In Synectics, metaphor and analogy exercises are employed to aid the participants to identify with things or make meaning from the things that are foreign to them and to see things that they take for obvious in a new way or even to generate completely new possibilities and thinking. In Synectics lingo this is known as Making the Strange familiar and Making the Familiar Strange (Gordon, 1961). The participants are directed through an imaginative journey that can seem and feel uncertain, strange and deliberately removed from the problem being explored. These journeys are known as excursions and they employ different types of analogies, which I will outline below.
Personal analogies: A personal analogy involves connecting and identifying with the object or concept through one’s feelings and senses. The group might be asked to imagine and then describe what it might be like to be something and how it would feel act and behave in different situations. It includes anthropomorphic identification, describing the feelings of an object or idea and finally describing the emotions one would feel when using the subject/object/concept.
Direct analogies: Making a comparison between the subject and something similar to it or related to it. It includes comparison of facts, information and technology. The idea is to find a relationship between the subject being considered and something else with the idea that insight that come up can be used to help understand the subject differently.
Symbolic Analogy: the use of objective and personal imagery to liken the subject to. This is not done from a personal perspective. Images are conjured up and compared to the concept being explored.
Fantasy Analogy: This analogy employs wishful imagining. The group is exploring ideas that can extend into fantasy and impossibility. Magic, invisibility, underwater breathing, and other impossible options can be explored and imagined as though happening.
In addition to analogies, play is also a part of the Synectics practice. Word association can be used to think around aspects, attributes, and characteristics or even to replace the problem itself. “Play with words and phrases and their meanings and play with logical systems and patterns-as ways of making the familiar strange –are tributary to the use of the operational mechanisms of Synectics” (Gordon, 1961, p. 121). Sessions can be completed in a little as 45 minutes. Judgment is suspended during the process. The only person in the group to use convergent thinking is the problem owner. All contributions, by all members are valued and recognized as possible connective threads to the problem, no matter how trivial or seemingly bizarre they appear. It is through the exploration of how bizarre and unrelated ideas can be connected or made to connect that encourages innovative discoveries and insights. The forced search for similarities between seemingly different things called “force fit” is employed to stretch an understanding, expand possibility and prevent early closure. “The Synectics process is particularly useful for problem identification and idea development” (Proctor, 1999, p. 157). Synectics has developed a following and there are many practitioners working with the tools. Vincent Nolan makes a distinction between practitioners. He calls a facilitator that is officially certified by Synectics World, a company directly affiliated with the former Synectics Inc., a big S practitioner. He refers to facilitators who are not trained in trademarked Synectics, but who employ the process or parts of the process in creative problem solving sessions as little s practitioners (Nolan, 2003). Whether using a trademarked model or an adapted practice, Synectics is grounded in the belief that “The relentless drive of every human being to make connections is at the heart of the creative process” (Weaver & Prince, 1990, p. 379).
How the Process works
A Synectics group is made up of 3 participant types each with distinct roles:
1) A problem owner, the individual who is motivated to solve a problem and who is also the owner of the content and information around the problem.
2) A process group, a group of 5-8 people who come from varying backgrounds who ideally do not a have personal invested interest or knowledge of the problem.
3) A facilitator, the individual who is in charge of directing the group through the process, pacing the session, maintaining an ideal and supportive climate for creativity and ensuring that the process goes in a direction that is working for the problem owner.
The facilitator is the driver of the process and makes decisions around tool selection by being attuned to the needs of the problem owner. In Synectics, metaphor and analogy exercises are employed to aid the participants to identify with things or make meaning from the things that are foreign to them and to see things that they take for obvious in a new way or even to generate completely new possibilities and thinking. In Synectics lingo this is known as Making the Strange familiar and Making the Familiar Strange (Gordon, 1961). The participants are directed through an imaginative journey that can seem and feel uncertain, strange and deliberately removed from the problem being explored. These journeys are known as excursions and they employ different types of analogies, which I will outline below.
Personal analogies: A personal analogy involves connecting and identifying with the object or concept through one’s feelings and senses. The group might be asked to imagine and then describe what it might be like to be something and how it would feel act and behave in different situations. It includes anthropomorphic identification, describing the feelings of an object or idea and finally describing the emotions one would feel when using the subject/object/concept.
Direct analogies: Making a comparison between the subject and something similar to it or related to it. It includes comparison of facts, information and technology. The idea is to find a relationship between the subject being considered and something else with the idea that insight that come up can be used to help understand the subject differently.
Symbolic Analogy: the use of objective and personal imagery to liken the subject to. This is not done from a personal perspective. Images are conjured up and compared to the concept being explored.
Fantasy Analogy: This analogy employs wishful imagining. The group is exploring ideas that can extend into fantasy and impossibility. Magic, invisibility, underwater breathing, and other impossible options can be explored and imagined as though happening.
In addition to analogies, play is also a part of the Synectics practice. Word association can be used to think around aspects, attributes, and characteristics or even to replace the problem itself. “Play with words and phrases and their meanings and play with logical systems and patterns-as ways of making the familiar strange –are tributary to the use of the operational mechanisms of Synectics” (Gordon, 1961, p. 121). Sessions can be completed in a little as 45 minutes. Judgment is suspended during the process. The only person in the group to use convergent thinking is the problem owner. All contributions, by all members are valued and recognized as possible connective threads to the problem, no matter how trivial or seemingly bizarre they appear. It is through the exploration of how bizarre and unrelated ideas can be connected or made to connect that encourages innovative discoveries and insights. The forced search for similarities between seemingly different things called “force fit” is employed to stretch an understanding, expand possibility and prevent early closure. “The Synectics process is particularly useful for problem identification and idea development” (Proctor, 1999, p. 157). Synectics has developed a following and there are many practitioners working with the tools. Vincent Nolan makes a distinction between practitioners. He calls a facilitator that is officially certified by Synectics World, a company directly affiliated with the former Synectics Inc., a big S practitioner. He refers to facilitators who are not trained in trademarked Synectics, but who employ the process or parts of the process in creative problem solving sessions as little s practitioners (Nolan, 2003). Whether using a trademarked model or an adapted practice, Synectics is grounded in the belief that “The relentless drive of every human being to make connections is at the heart of the creative process” (Weaver & Prince, 1990, p. 379).
Applied Synectics has resulted in the technology that enabled the human genome project to move forward and led to an airline inventing business class seat/beds (Ceserani, 2012). The US Department of National Defense, Harvard University, The Rockefeller foundation and MIT all had an invested interest in the ideas and contributed financial support to the R&D of this practice. A comparison study between standard brainstorming and Synectics idea generation showed that Synectics procedure increases the productivity of brainstorming (Bouchard, p. 418). In addition to measured success there are additional benefits to this approach. Synectics emphasizes developmental thinking. It promotes collaboration in a safe climate. It does not require the resource group to have domain knowledge related to the problem. It can be adapted to many situations and applications. It can be executed in a short time frame. It has a flexible structure that can be used in pieces or as a whole process. It has been successfully employed with a wide range of age groups.
Limitations of Synectics are that it requires a safe climate. Its success is somewhat dependent on the skill of the facilitator. It can be difficult to access authentic resource material as some of it is trademarked and some of it is general. Vocabulary and some understanding of the psychology of problem solving are necessary to understand why metaphor and analogy works and the process demand effort and are quite complicated. Despite the limitations, Synectics continues to be used by industry and education to support innovation and creativity in the boardrooms and classrooms. It is a relevant approach to Ideation and is grounded in many years of research and development.
Limitations of Synectics are that it requires a safe climate. Its success is somewhat dependent on the skill of the facilitator. It can be difficult to access authentic resource material as some of it is trademarked and some of it is general. Vocabulary and some understanding of the psychology of problem solving are necessary to understand why metaphor and analogy works and the process demand effort and are quite complicated. Despite the limitations, Synectics continues to be used by industry and education to support innovation and creativity in the boardrooms and classrooms. It is a relevant approach to Ideation and is grounded in many years of research and development.