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.

It does not assume any knowledge of psychology on the part of the reader.

The author takes a cognitive approach to creativity but also discusses other approaches to the study of creativity.

I agree with a lot the author has to say but also disagree with some of his beliefs and assumptions. I am hoping this disagreement will result in some good discussion fodder in the class.

One of the first topics addressed in his book is the definition of creativity.

The standard definition of creativity is that the product/process/idea needs to be both novel AND useful/appropriate. There is some debate of what it means for something to be novel. However, most concede that for something to be novel it has to be novel for either the individual generating the idea (“mundane” or “psychological” creativity) or it has to be novel with respect to all human history (“historical” creativity).

There is more debate about the second component; that the novel idea be useful or appropriate to the domain in which the creativity is occurring.

What this means is that a creative poem must be a poem. It must satisfy poetic constraints of meter, rhythm and metaphor.

A creative product must satisfy a need.

Those taking a problem solving approach to creativity might say that a creative solution to a problem must be both novel and solve the problem. “Solving the problem” is what determines whether a novel solution is useful or appropriate.

Weisberg, in defining creativity, only focuses on one definition. He focuses on Csikszentmihalyi‘s definition that a creative product is both novel and has value.

How is value determined? By the gatekeepers of the discipline. A scientific theory or finding has value when it is published in a peer reviewed journal. A piece of music has value when it is performed publicly and people pay to hear the music. A painting has value when it is sold or displayed in a gallery.

At least this is Weisberg’s presentation of Csikszentmihalyi’s definition.

Weisberg has a problem with this view and I agree with him. Many novel works that were considered valuable at inception do not endure the test of time. Does that mean they were creative but became less creative with time? Other novel works were considered valueless at inception but became highly valued over time. Does this mean they also became more creative over time?

I doubt it and so does Weisberg. Though value is an important component of creativity, it shouldn’t define creativity. Perhaps value is what distinguishes creativity from innovation.

As much as I have problems with this definition of creativity, I have even more difficulty with Weisberg’s definition of creativity. He says that novelty alone makes something creative as long as that novelty was intentional (it can’t have occurred by accident). It doesn’t have to solve a problem, or be appropriate to the domain or be useful. It just has to be intentionally novel.

This suggests that failed attempts to solve a problem are just as creative as the novel solution to a problem. A grocery list could be a creative poem as long as someone says it is a poem.

Where Csikszentmihalyi’s definition might be too dependent on context, Weisberg’s definition is too inclusive. I feel that, at the very least, a creative product needs to be both novel and a member of the domain in question (it has to be a poem, a theory of evolution, a painting…).

Having said that, Weisberg brings up some good points in defense of his definition. He points out that Watson and Crick generated several incorrect solutions to the problem of the structure of DNA. For example, for a while they considered a triple-helix model of DNA. Weisberg’s definition states that this incorrect solution is just as creative as the correct solution (the double helix). He argues that the same creative cognitive processes produced the double helix solution as produced the triple helix solution. The fact that one solution was correct and the other incorrect does not alter the fact that the act of generating the solutions was a creative act.

I had to concede that point (even though I didn’t want to).

So how do I reconcile this point with the intuition that Weisberg’s definition is too inclusive?

Perhaps Weisberg intends to define creativity in terms of the processes that result in the creative product. The creative processes that generate incorrect solutions and failed attempts are the same creative processes that generate successes. Hence, if a novel idea is the result of a creative process then it must be creative.

However, the cognitive approach to creativity assumes that creativity results from normal cognitive processes operating on normal knowledge structures. Sometimes the result of the processes is something ordinary. At other times, the result is novel and creative.

Weisberg subscribes to the cognitive approach. Consequently, he must not be making the claim I think he is – that it is the use of special creative cognitive processes that determine whether or not the novel product is creative.

Frankly, I’m not sure how he would reconcile this issue.

I would reconcile this issue by suggesting that part of the creative process is rejecting unfit solutions or alternatives and persisting in working towards the “appropriate” or “useful” solution to a problem. Consequently, a novel but incorrect solution is not creative. Creativity is achieved by continued work towards a goal until the product is both novel and appropriate or useful.

The degree of creativity of the product is related to the degree to which the creator tweaks the creation until it satisfies both criteria of creativity: novelty and usefulness.