C ∗ L ∗ I ∗ C
The process of innovation follows a four-stage pattern. Facts are collected by the conscious mind; facts related to the problem. They are then sorted out by the subconscious in a state of incubation (that is, you are not aware of what’s going on). Then comes illumination—the idea itself. And last of the four stages is judgement.
For easy recall, let’s use a simple mnemonic—CLIC.
C is for Collecting the Facts
All the celebrated originators we have mentioned were masters of their particular sciences or art forms. They were not amateurs but neither were they academic wizards. They had comprehensive knowledge of their subjects but this knowledge was not disciplined in the way that orthodox experts discipline their facts. Remember that the brain remembers—everything. Your conscious brain may seem to forget, your subconscious never does. Therefore, it can use all the facts stored in the memory—including symbols that your conscious brain may no longer recognise. So the first stage is simply to amass facts. Understand them as far as you can—this helps to consolidate the reference centres. But it is not so important for the innovator to be able to use these facts logically as it is for the academic, so don’t study as you would for an examination. Just absorb. Be curious. Be fascinated.
In a sense, the innovator knows both more and less than his colleagues. He is less specialised and not so restricted to the particular body of knowledge. His interests are easily aroused by other subjects. He will dabble in many other fields of enquiry—not profoundly, because he hasn’t time to absorb everything—but with simple, childlike curiosity. He will also be sceptical and questioning, which makes him a bad examination candidate because instead of marshalling his thoughts in order to make his reply he will start questioning the assumptions in the question itself. To him, scientific laws and social rules are not so much guides as gauntlets. He has no fear of uttering the absurd. That’s why he collects facts lightly and treats them lightly.
Collecting the facts is 99 per cent of the process.
L is for Letting it Simmer
You must agree by now that logic cannot reach into innovation and, in one sense, can actually forestall it. So such mental rumination that you do with your facts should not be aimed at resolution so much as ordering and reordering them in different ways. Invert facts, reverse them, add some, subtract some, question their validity, play with them. But don’t try to force them into a new shape because that new shape does not have a symbol in your memory store. You will be wasting your time. The value of playing ducks and drakes with facts does not lie in the possibility of accidental relationship in the conscious mind, but in quite deliberately contrived formulations that the subconscious can use to communicate with you. The solutions are already there before you ‘think’ of them.
Letting it simmer means incubating; letting the subconscious figure out a way of informing you. It is best left to its own devices. Your next conscious stage is therefore to forget the problem. This may seem difficult, even dangerous, when a deadline is involved but the alternative—consciously wrestling with it—doesn’t make sense.
It is this vital stage that is missing in a committee system and is why no committee ever did or ever will produce a new idea.
It is in this letting-it-simmer stage that the ‘malaise’ phenomenon occurs. Koestler dwells on it. So do Morris Stein and Shirley Heinze in ‘Creativity and the Individual’, and Dr. Gerhart Wiebe and many others.
This is often mentioned in individual case histories, especially in the arts. One experiences a mental depression, a state of unease that is not simply a manifestation of frustration but something deeper. It is as though the back of the mind is in ferment and the condition is seeping through your consciousness. It almost certainly means that something profitable is happening back there and you should be alert.
Somehow you have to have a moment of unawareness that you are aware of, so it can get out. Go to a driving range and try to correct your slice. You may discover the antigravity formula.
I is for Inspiration
The first two stages are in your hands. This one is not.
You’ve collected the facts and you’ve let them simmer. The new idea is already there and this is the moment when it reveals itself. Not as a ready made, pristine new image because the symbols don’t exist for it yet. Only the conscious mind can form the new stimuli to make the new image. So the form it will take will be fanciful, inasmuch as the approximating symbols chosen by the illogical subconscious are selected according to its own set of rules, not yours, so to speak. The vagueness of our symbolic communication system now becomes a serious handicap as does the very limited discriminatory power of our conscious brain. Fanciful images may cross your mind. But, if you’re lucky, a heightened perception of outside stimuli might occur. This is much easier to understand.
Doodles, sketches, notes, models related to the problem are obvious possible triggers, but falling apples and bouncing kettle lids have been seen to serve.
This is clearly the most difficult stage to control. But you can help yourself in several ways. First, simply by being aware that the process can happen. Next, by never dismissing foolish fancies without looking them over for hidden meanings. Thirdly, by suspending rational judgement entirely. This is very difficult. All your instincts run against it. But you know you can do it and it happens in the privacy of your own head, so why worry? Remember, you cannot innovate and adjudicate at the same time. It is impossible. This is where problem solving usually falls down. Lastly, eschew (what a horrible word) all negative thinking, cynicism and such like selfish defence mechanisms. Innovators are ingenuous as well as ingenious.
C is for Critical Analysis
At last we come back to common sense. But only at last. Now, when you have one or two ideas committed to memory or paper—better still, a whole list of them—you can apply savage, cold judgement to see if they are any good.
On the face of it this seems easy. We are all wise when it comes to judging others’ ideas.
But handing down judgements is a power-sodden affair. True objectivity is as rare as true eccentricity and requires just as much selfless detachment. The man who is outstanding at this is unlikely to be outstanding as an originator. He is too sane. However, let’s round off this stage by pointing out that it is possible—even probable—that most of the ideas won’t stand up to critical analysis. If this happens, go back and review the facts, briefly, then let-it-simmer all over again.
C — Collect the Facts
L — Let it Simmer
I — Inspiration
C — Critical Analysis
About team work. It is clearly unlikely that any one man or woman will be a brilliant innovator and adjudicator. The mental postures and habits required are so different.
If it had been left for Henry Ford to perfect the internal combustion engine and Louis Benz to market it, we’d be waiting yet for the motor car.
There is a case for ‘creative teams’ comprising both explorers and merchant venturers. This is possibly what many companies think they have already, but designation is not enough. Each must have an understanding of how the other’s mind works—a generous, open minded understanding.