Around the 1890’s, brain-storming was a medical term for “mental explosion.”
Brain-storming seems to be almost a contradiction in terms since the brain is associated with intelligence and thought while the word “storm” conjures up images of total chaos. And yet brain-storming came to mean a new and, usually. a very creative idea.
In 1953, advertising executive, Alex Osborn, described brainstorming in his book, “Applied Imagination” as having four key components:
Focusing on the quantity of ideas
Withholding criticism
Welcoming unusual ideas
Combining and improving ideas
According to experts, the challenge with brain-storming is that it doesn’t work very well. “Decades of research have consistently shown that brain-storming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and then later pool their ideas,” says Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University.
“Brain-storming is dead and alternative thinking is here,” he’s quoted as saying in the MGMA, Connection Magazine from Nov/Dec 2013.
Many caregivers and physicians shy away from techniques that could take them out of their comfort zone. With this in mind, the following three techniques are viable alternatives for generating fresh group ideas in the healthcare setting:
Kill a stupid rule
Use a different lens
Incorporate blockers
This article states that according to Lisa Bodell, the founder of Futurethink, an innovation and foresight firm in New York, to implement the “kill a stupid rule” tool, employees gathered into two or three person teams and then, “If you could kill or change all the rules that get in the way of better serving your customers or just doing your job, what would they be and how would you do it?” After 10 to 20 minutes of exchange, everyone is asked to write their favorite stupid rule on sticky note and then place their rules on a white board grid that has two axes: Y is ease of implementation and X is degree of impact. The group then picks a few easy-to-implement, high-impact rules to kill on the spot.
A medical group stumbled upon a slight variation of kill a stupid rule. It began when team distributed a short employee survey asking about experiences with the organization and recommendations for improvement. The survey was originally meant to serve as input for operational planning. What they got back was a list of “things they hate.” Rather than disregard the negative response as sour grapes they identified frustration patterns and selected a few quick wins for implementation. Implementing these quick wins has contributed to a culture that encourages staff to speak up and increases the perception that they have been heard.
A second approach to generating ideas is to view the problem through different lens. One approach is to use role-playing. Some say that role-play helps increase participation in individuals who have a fear of speaking up and challenging opinions.
A third approach to generating ideas expands on role-playing by incorporating a blocker, a voice of dissent, to help generate ideas and prevent “groupthink” -- a phenomenon that occurs when a group wishing to stay harmonious produces poor decision-making results.
Groupthink is often cited as playing a key role in the Challenger space shuttle explosion of 1986. Engineers knew about faulty parts months before takeoff but feared negative press, so they pushed ahead with the launch.
The Citrin Group, an Alabama-based investment advisory, uses the blocker to disagree with their top executive team on every key issue. This process results in deeper conversation and multiple perspectives instead of a room full of agreement, according to Josh Linkner in his book Disciplined Dreaming.
We have multiple challenges in our industry, and although brainstorming is commonly used it is not the silver bullet to problem- solving. We must consider viable alternatives to generate better solutions. By incorporating kill a stupid rule, viewing issues from a different lens and using blockers, we may be able to stimulate ideas that will better address our problems. Also, we must be cognizant of group settings to maximize participation and idea generation, according to the Connection Magazine article.
One last thing on a different subject: Affordable Health Care. Could someone please tell me where they are hiding the affordable part? As you know, most lab work that comes from a physician's office is required to be sent out to a reference lab per most all insurance companies. Recently I had some lab work ordered by my physician and of course, it had to be sent out to a reference lab. I had a new insurance company, but my previous insurance company was billed. I received a bill from the lab telling me I was not insured under the insurance plan submitted, so I was personally responsible. Now, I do not have a problem paying my bills, but this bill was $1,222.55. I called the billing office of this lab and gave them the correct information so they could re-bill with the correct insurance company. I received a new bill for $213.39. I was pleased but it made me think. Affordable? To whom? Why the insurance company, of course.
Bill Appling, FACMPE, ACHE, is founder and president of J William Appling, LLC. He is a national speaker, presenter and a published author. He serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis and is on the boards of Hope House and Life Blood. For more information contact Bill at j.william.appling@outlook.com.
Print
