Ask each participant to build on his colleague’s ideas, improving them or using them as inspiration to generate another three ideas.
This makes me wonder-- does a pre-existing culture of collaboration need exist for this approach to work? What if this is done in a hostile/competitive culture-- how could ego come in to play?
Ask participants to focus on generating bad ideas only. They should consider everything that couldn’t work before you ask them “What can we do to make these ideas work better?”
This is such an interesting approach because it takes the pressure off of and takes the judgement out of generating a "good idea" and lets you think backward toward something that works
enerate 20 to 30 assumptions, true or false, that you may be making about it.
This is a really cool idea to brainstorm because it helps challenge the status quo and makes you really look into aspects of an organization that are taken for granted
team to question every facet of their business
This makes me curious-- how does somebody know if they've questioned every aspect of their business? What if there are some features that are overlooked?