One of the ways we do this is through experimentation. We typically have undergraduates at Oakland University participate in our analogy experiments in exchange for course credit. These undergraduates are taught how to use analogy to generate ideas. They are then provided with a target domain (solving the parking problem on campus) they are familiar with and very motivated to provide solutions for. We then manipulate various factors that affect analogical reasoning such as the source domain being used (e.g., parking at the mall) or the mapping between domains (e.g., map the similarities between domains). We then assess the solutions generated by the research participants to determine which conditions yield the most creative solutions.

One of the issues we have had to deal with in these analogy and creativity experiments is how to assess the “creativity” of the results.

As I have mentioned in another post, the definition of what should could as a creative solution to a problem is a matter of great debate. At SAC, we lean towards the viewpoint that a creative solution to a problem is one that is both novel and appropriate (i.e., it solves the problem).

Consequently, in our experiments we assess the novelty of each solution (how many people in the experiment generated that solution) and the practicality of the solution (generated by having a group of individuals rate the practicality of the solution on a scale from 1 – 10 where 10 = very practical). Our measure of the creativity of the solution is the average of that solution’s practicality and novelty scores. By this measure the most creative solutions are those that are both very novel (generated by few people) and very practical. We call this our “objective” measure of creativity.

There are some creativity researcher though that argue that a creative solution to a problem is one that is both novel and has value. Accordingly, we created a second measure of creativity. We have a group of research participants rate the creativity of each solution on a scale from 1 – 10 where 10 = very creative. This “subjective” measure of creativity is the average creativity rating for that idea.

Now one would think that our objective and subjective creativity ratings should be fairly well correlated. After all, people probably determine the value of a novel solution by assessing how actionable the idea is. However, our research suggests this is NOT the case.

There is actually a fairly weak, inverse relationship between our objective and subjective measures of creativity (r = -.174). What this means is that the objective measure of creativity rarely corresponds to the subjective measure and when it does it moves in the opposite direction.

For example, one solution to the parking problem on campus is to reduce the number of students at OU by flunking students who’s GPAs drop below a 2.0. This solution actually receives a fairly high objective creativity rating because only one person in the sample generated that solution (it is novel) and it was rated as a fairly practical solution to the problem. However, this solution received very low creativity ratings by those asked to rate the creativity of the solution.

Another example is the solution to the parking problem on campus that involves providing valet parking for students who are running late to class or who don’t want to bother with searching for a parking spot. This solution was rated high in creativity by OU students. However, its objective creativity rating was fairly low. This was because even though the rated practicality of the solution was high, the novelty of the solution was very low. Over 30% of the people generating solutions to the parking problem on campus who used “parking at the mall” as their source domain came up with valet parking as a potential solution to the parking problem on campus.

So what does this lack of correspondence between “objective” and “subjective” measures of creativity tell us?

It suggests that people’s assessment of the creativity of a solution involves more than an unbiased assessment of “practicality,” “appropriateness,” “novelty,” or “value.”

We know from talking with our research participants that many of them believe the ideas they generated will be used to inform future decisions regarding the parking problem on campus. Consequently, that belief may cause them to dislike solutions involving flunking students with 2.0 GPAs. This dislike causes them to give low creativity ratings to those solutions regardless of how practical, valuable, or novel those solutions might be.

It also provides further support for the proposition that individuals working with the same domain during analogical problem solving generate the same solutions to the problem. From the standpoint of minimizing conflict and competition during group ideation sessions, this is a selling point for the methodology. It also suggests that group consensus concerning the best solution to a problem does not translate into a perceived lack of creativity on the part of the general public concerning that solution. It doesn’t matter how many people in the ideation session generated that solution. If those assessing the creativity of the solution are unaware of the process by which the solution was generated, that process can’t affect the perceived creativity of the solution.

Because the analogy and its use for innovative thinking is presented so well, I am going to go all recursive on you and use the article as a showcase of the right ways of using analogy for innovation and for communicating about innovation.

The first step in any analogy is pointing out to the audience the relevant correspondences between the concepts:

“Baseball teams have to assemble the best talent possible, just like companies have to bet on the best innovation opportunities. A baseball team chooses between acquiring talent on the free agent market or drafting and building talent. A company chooses between acquisitions or organic growth.“

A good analogy focuses on deep structural correspondences between concepts:

“Acquisitions are expensive, but perceived to be lower risk, because the talent (or idea) has proven itself demonstrably in the marketplace (for baseball, that means success on a major-league diamond). Organic growth is typically cheaper, but perceived to be risky because many times highly touted initiatives or prospects don’t pan out.“

What this means is that the author isn’t just drawing correspondences between the elements of the two concepts (e.g., “acquiring talent on the free agent market” = “acquisitions”). He is explaining how elements and the relationships between them in one concept correspond to elements and the relationships between them in the other concept.

These correspondences then lead to certain inferences. Inferences, that are important to the point the author is making about innovation:

“Just as a baseball team doesn’t have complete information about what a player’s true level of ability is on draft day, you don’t know the real potential of any one innovation project…. Good teams collect as much data as possible. They have sophisticated models to project how rough performance can project to the major league level.“

Leads to the inference that for companies:

“With a well-organized scouting team, you should gather multiple data points in preparation to “draft” innovation opportunities.”

By pointing out the correspondences between rich concepts such as the ones being used in the Baseball Analogy article, the audience is then able to make their own inferences using their own detailed knowledge of the concepts in the analogy:

“Of course, the market for companies is more liquid than the market for baseball players. We bet you if you ran the data the absolute best return on investment would be acquiring a hitter who has proven himself at a critical midpoint….Ask yourself: What is the equivalent inflection point in our market?“

It is by working out the inferences resulting from correspondences such as these that innovation is made possible. However, these inferences are not possible unless your audience possesses detailed knowledge of the concepts used in the analogy. I, for one, know next to nothing about the Major League Baseball draft. Consequently, I can follow the analogy made by the author and the points being made but would be absolutely unable to determine an “equivalent inflection point” at which I would be most likely to receive the “absolute best return on investment.”

Using analogy for communicating about innovation or for innovation itself requires knowledge of BOTH the concepts used in the analogy. This knowledge can be provided by the person making the analogy or through personal experience, but acquired it must be for innovation to happen.

The first of these commercials was the 1984 “Big Brother” commercial. It is considered to be a groundbreaking commercial by many in the advertising industry.

Beautiful! The analogy? That PC clones created a clone-like hive mentality with Big Brother IBM setting the standards for a monotonous and bleak computer experience. Ground-breaking, liberated, unique Macs would save us from this and bring color back into our world.Subsequent Mac vs PC commercials over the intervening years continued this theme using a range of analogies to communicate the superiority of the MAC over the PC. For example, the analogy of the PC Intel Pentium II chip to a snail:

And this one comparing the PC 2000 bug to 2001: Space Odessey’s HAL:

What I haven’t liked are the current slew of MAC vs PC commercials, mainly because the analogy doesn’t hold up for me. Now don’t take me wrong. I like both Macs and PCs. I’ve used both over the years and think they are equally useful, each in their own way. The reason the analogy in the new set of commercials doesn’t work for me is that the idea being communicated by the commercials through a variety of analogies (the bloated PC commercial, the PC that can’t speak to the Japanese “camera” commercial, etc) is that Macs are “fun” and PCs are for work. My experiences with both is that it is just the opposite. Most MAC users I know are in the arts or advertising and they appear to spend all their time slaving at their computers. If they want to play, there are precious few games they can play with. The “fun stuff” pushed by Mac just appears to be tools for artistic professionals to do their jobs. Kind of sad.This is actually relevant to the use of analogy for communication. By using an analogy to tap into user’s existing knowledge, you tap into ALL of that knowledge. This is actually one of the problems with using analogy to communicate and why it is so important to choose the correct analogy to describe an innovation or to make a point. All the conceptual baggage comes packaged in an analogy – the good with the bad. By activating that knowledge in the audience, you run the risk of them making some unwanted inferences (should any exist). In my case, the knowledge of how Mac users actually use Macs runs counter to the message implied in the commercials and just rubs me the wrong way.

This is not a good way to win friends and influence people.

The clip below illustrates one of the current Mac vs PC ads for those unfamiliar with the commercials just discussed: