Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. 3, No.

1, 2008 1

An alternative theory of idea generation

R.M. Woodhead
Technology Management,
School of Technology,
Oxford Brookes University,
Oxford, UK
E-mail: roy.woodhead@eds.com

M.A. Berawi*
Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: maberawi@um.edu.my
*Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper seeks to stimulate further research into ‘practical’ idea
generation by challenging the current. It builds on many years of Action
Research (Argyris, 1999) in major technology projects which eventually led to
a doctoral study where formal logic was used to develop a framework to
improve invention. This paper draws on those findings that were proven
statistically with a ‘one-proportion test’ and a survey (Berawi, 2006). It argues
that the field of Innovation Management has become detached from the act of
invention (i.e. idea generation) because of an assumption brought by cognitive
theories of creativity that hold the location of ideas ‘exclusively’ within the
human brain. This ‘assumption’, grounded in cognitive theory, is believed to be
the reason for low levels of research, as it seems like a problem area already
solved. This position has caused a lack of research into idea generation, and is
challenged by way of an alternative view based on a relationship between
intentionality and causality, which is offered as a way to develop new
perspectives that open the field to further enquiry.

Keywords: idea generation; Innovation Management; function; purpose;

outcome; value; innovation.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Woodhead, R.M. and

Berawi, M.A. (2008) ‘An alternative theory of idea generation’, Int. J.
Management Practice, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1–19.

Biographical notes: Dr. R.M. Woodhead, Senior Lecturer of Value,

Technology and Innovation Management, received his PhD in Organisational
Decision Making from the University of Leeds and is currently exploring
innovation in the field of ‘IT service management’.

Dr. M.A Berawi received his PhD in Value Management looking at the
relationship between functionality and innovation. He currently researches
value management and innovation in the context of major civil engineering
projects.

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

1 Introduction

Central to Innovation Management is the ability to produce worthy ideas for R&D.
Surprisingly, ‘Idea Generation’ is an under-researched topic (Sowrey, 1990; Alam, 2003).
Whilst there are many idea-generating techniques, the way they are evaluated seems
serendipitous. We aim to address that situation by undermining the key constraint and
then offering an alternative theory to prove there are ways managers can influence better
idea generation, and appraise the quality of ideas.
We argue the paucity of research is a product of systemic commitment to cognitive
theories of creativity. In the main, idea generation techniques assume ideas begin
in the minds of people. Such techniques attempt to stimulate the brain’s conscious or
subconscious processing. We argue this aim excludes managers and forces them into a
trial-and-error process where they try out various idea generation techniques.
We will share findings that offer the field of Innovation Management a different lens
to view the relationship between ideas, invention and innovation. The paper distinguishes
different types of ideas and assembles them in a framework that links intentionality
(purpose and function) to causality (outcome and process).
The paper begins by explaining the research methods used before reviewing the
relationship between Innovation Management and idea generation techniques. A number
of well-known idea generation techniques are questioned. We will explain how their
founding assumption, based on cognitive theory, prevents an adequate appraisal of them.
Examples of ‘poor performance’ are seen as a weakness of individuals involved, rather
than the assumptions each technique uses. As such, under-performance of better idea
generation is unquestioned.

2 Research methodology

This paper combines the product of doctoral research with insights gained from Action
Research carried out through consulting episodes with major technological organisations,
predominantly from the oil industry. The basis for different types of ideas that will be
discussed were proven using predicate calculus logic and a survey using a statistical test
known as the one-proportion test (Berawi, 2006).
Many research methods into idea generation have been considered over the years, but
a few can overcome the main hurdle of access. Accessing idea generation in industrial
innovation settings is difficult. It has taken many years to build up levels of trust with
some major companies. Confidentiality agreements severely reduce the ability to share
experiences with other researchers but show how trust is an essential prerequisite for
research into this topic.
About seven years ago, we created artificially contrived experiments where members
of the public were invited into an oil major’s innovation workshops using a particular
innovation method called Value Engineering. Whilst they were fairly easy to set up,
members of the public lacked a sense of real consequence and commitment. They also
lacked basic engineering knowledge necessary for innovating a fairly simple chemical
plant planned for Korea. In addition, the oil major was reluctant to elaborate specific
information in a public forum.
The actual outcome did not meet our preconceived expectation and so we abandoned
this approach. This decision was made in an action research framework where we made
 An alternative theory of idea generation 3

our intentions explicit and then reviewed the ‘real’ outcome against what we had
expected.
Action Research involves judgement, and mistakes are inevitable. Often we were
blind to the assumptions we held and repeated. For example, at one time our ‘guiding
propositions’ revolved around group psychology and the role a facilitator and facilitation
skills play in idea generation techniques. We believed anyone skilled in facilitation
could help any team that needed to invent and innovate. However, ‘evidence’ in the form
of post-workshop feedback revealed many ideas that were later seen as tame or already
known. As paid facilitators receiving positive feedback in the sessions, this was a
difficult and confusing realisation. Our theories were lacking and this led to
the realisation that the facilitator’s lack of content knowledge encouraged superficial
enquiry. In an evolutionary process, another proposition was developed to deal with
the facilitator’s ‘content knowledge’ requiring substantial background reading and
unstructured interviews with managers from a particular industry before engaging in the
design of workshops and the selection of appropriate idea generation techniques. We
moved away from seeing ourselves as facilitators to innovation catalysts.
This reflective process within Action Research is based on the work of Argyris (1999,
pp.67–91):
What was the intention? For example, in the case of a chemical plant we were
trying to reduce capital expenditure and schedule, whilst at the same time
reduce downtime and increase throughput.
What was the theory of action? For example, we believed competency in
facilitation was sufficient for success.
What was the theory in action? What did we actually do?
What was the outcome? For example, we achieve the intention in part but this
was by taking the oil major’s managers off line from the public and in effect
running two workshops in parallel. We had to adapt because our theory of
action was inadequate.
What assumptions were at play? We naively thought members of the public
could bring new insights to technologically complex problems. We had heard
of people knowing little about a subject offering new ideas but had over
estimated their ability to do so. We also believed facilitation skills alone would
be key to success.
What did you learn? For example, we changed the way we selected participants
so that sufficient content knowledge was present, and revised the importance
we attached to facilitation skills.
Even though some of our earlier workshops could have produced better ideas, we were
popular and so started to work directly for companies. Using a similar action research
framework around each episode, we uncovered other assumptions that impact idea
generation such as managers needing to avoid upsetting bosses who had made investment
decisions (i.e. potentially embarrassing sunk costs), the role of peer opinion and
investment constraints. What we had still not fully grasped was that we were engaging in
systems; cognitive theories blinded us.
We doubt our insights today could have been achieved with the arm’s length
approaches to traditional research. Furthermore, academic papers and research projects
are often seen as irrelevant by people working in real projects. Action Research allowed
us to be relevant and at the same time to step back and untangle what was going on in
4 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

order to find better ways to invent and innovate. In one project we were involved in, an
oil industry Joint Venture spent over $300,000 running 16 workshops in London, Milan
and Den Haag over a four-month period. The manager who led this innovation process
was fully absorbed in making sure that the ideas generated were far more valuable than
the costs incurred. To such managers, any research agenda not focused on ‘their’ short-
term imperatives are of little importance.
Our current theory of action sees valuable ideas stemming from techniques that
deepen and widen the understanding of systemic causal processes. This is a view that
accommodates natural science and social science and is not evident in the literature
related to idea generation techniques, but is evident in other fields such as the philosophy
of science.
Enquiries grounded in Action Research allowed us to develop and test our
understanding. After an episode we would generate a theory that would feed into the
design of the next episode. Here, research feeds into learning which feeds back into
research and this led to an early recognition of weaknesses in the literature associated
with idea generation techniques.

3 Why little research into idea generation?

Our founding premise is deeper research into ‘idea generation’, which is necessary for
better innovation management. Managers need better ways to generate good ideas but the
research agenda in this area is wanting (Sowrey, 1990; Alam, 2003). Stepping back and
looking at the situation systemically, we offer a causal model that, we believe, explains
what is going on. In Figure 1, we should see recognition of anomalies between theory and
practice, producing a positive correlation effect on the ‘need to ask research questions’.
The reality is anomalies are present but the number of researchers moving into this area
seems to be falling; this is the opposite of what we would expect. What seems to be
happening is rather than asking more research questions we see a profusion of new idea
generation techniques – a behaviour suggesting the fundamental research questions have
been addressed.
The outer loop (see Figure 1) forms an explanation of causal effects that lead to
generative learning, as we would expect in an active research agenda. The more we find
out, the more questions we need to answer. The inner loop reveals a different story of a
converging research agenda and a lowering need to ask questions. We believe this is what
is going on in idea generation research. It seems the fundamental questions that lead to a
productive research agenda have already been answered; we disagree with this view.
If we are to move from the inner loop of today to the generative outer loop, then we
have to understand what is causing convergence and question whether that is adequate for
Innovation Management.
A common assumption in most idea generation techniques is a singular belief that
ideas come from within the heads of people. This places the role of cognition centrally as
a dominant source of good and bad ideas. If all researchers support cognitive theories of
creativity then why would they look to rival theories? We believe this is the cause of the
current lack of research into idea generation. The commitment to cognition suggests that
further research into idea generation should be explored within the fields of psychology
and the neurosciences. Such a programme excludes managers and the subject of
management. We want to challenge this.
 An alternative theory of idea generation 5

Figure 1 Systemic overview of research dynamics

We believe a cognitive theory is incomplete. Innovation managers, using techniques

founded on a commitment to cognition, are forced to think of ‘creative individuals’ and
‘individual ability’. As for the neurosciences, it remains unclear how knowing which
cognitive processes happen in one part of the brain rather than another helps managers
tasked with developing R&D ideas. Idea generation is thus a mystical process outside
the reach of managers. We disagree and believe there is a way to help managers
improve their ability to produce better ideas. However, this requires a weakening of
the commitment to cognitive theories.

4 The weakness of the current paradigm

To stimulate more research into idea generation, we have to explain the inadequacy of
the current perspectives. The literature portrays a history of reductionism and detachment
which we believe is a critical factor as to why research in this area is wanting. For
example, Cumming (1998) separates creativity and innovation:
“Most authors now agree that the process of idea generation is ‘creativity’. And
although creativity is an important precursor to innovation the two terms are
not synonymous.”
“Since the late 1960s the meaning of the term innovation has seemingly been
refined. The implication that a new concept had to be brought into use before
innovation could be said to have taken place became widely accepted.”
(Cumming, 1998, p.22)
6 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

That ‘most authors now agree’ suggests the convergent commitment shown in the inner
loop of Figure 1.
The detachment of ‘idea’ from ‘innovation’ is an important choice from a
management perspective. Cumming (1998) examines innovation as a process and cites
Marquis (1969) who defined innovation as ‘a unit of technological change’. So, idea
generation leads to technological change. Howells (2005) sees innovation as the process
by which ideas are brought to the market. Idea generation leads to technological change
that is valued in a market. This becomes more useful to managers, as we view idea
generation in terms of ‘how to do things’; how to improve the way things are achieved.
Ahmed (1998) states that:
“‘Innovation is holistic in nature’ and that it ‘covers the entire range of
activities necessary to provide value to customers and a satisfactory return to
the Business’.” (Ahmed, 1998, p.30)
Ahmed’s paper discusses how the outputs of idea generation are managed through
a life-cycle framework. Many authors describe idea generation within an overarching
innovation process (e.g. Schmidt-Tiedemann, 1982; Udwadia, 1990; Pavia, 1991; Twiss,
1992; Ragatz et al., 1997; Ahmed, 1998; Amabile, 1988; Cumming, 1998; Urabe, 1998;
Man, 2001; Tidd et al., 2001; Trott, 2002; Oetinger, 2004; Birdi, 2005; Muller et al.,
2005). It is seen in terms of:
• idea generation in the creativity stage
• innovation processes and
• the successful application of concepts in terms of output or product.
Viewing innovation as an overarching process may diminish the importance attached to
idea generation as a research topic. Perhaps the reason we have so many idea generation
techniques is because it is seen as a trial-and-error process (i.e. we do not really
understand the mechanisms by which ideas originate). However, to separate ‘how we get
ideas’ from ‘what we do with ideas once we have them’ is to sever developmental
stages that are inextricably joined. It also assumes a strict life-cycle model where ideas
are generated at a specific point in the overarching innovation management process;
organisation procedures often force this to be the case but ideas do emerge out of
sequence and often struggle to win support. We argue Innovation Management needs a
theory of idea generation that enquires into a way we can systematically increase the
capability to generate new ideas and develop them into real-world phenomena, into real
solutions.

5 Idea generation techniques

The origins of idea generation processes can be traced back many years. Wallas (1926)
argued that the stages of idea generation included:
1 preparation stage
2 incubation stage
3 inspiration stage
4 verification stage.
 An alternative theory of idea generation 7

These steps locate the source of idea generation within cognitive processes (Perkins,
1981). The dominance of the psychology lens feeds into theories of personality and
notions of a ‘creative individual’ (Vernon, 1975) or ‘creative champion’ (Getzels and
Jackson, 1962; Belbin, 1981). Goodman (1995) argued that ‘creativity’ was an inherent
characteristic of people, and he said:
“So the question is not so much how did it happen but rather one of how it is
used? It is not a chance happening, a piece of sheer serendipity, although it can
sometimes appear as such. It originates from natural expression unrepresented
by conventional rules or social norms. It is a manifestation that is usually
accompanied by sheer joy.” (Goodman, 1995, p.87)
That he says it is not a ‘chance happening’ implies there is a mechanism at work.
Goodman then goes on to talk of Sperry’s (1975) right brain and left brain, and in doing
so, firmly positions the source of ideas in cognition.
Divergent and convergent thinking are often discussed in relation to idea generation
and again it focuses on what happens inside our heads (Razoumnikova, 2000). Jensen
(1978) argued for five key categories of metaphor, Restoration, Journey, Unification,
Creational and Nature, and here we see a theory of conceptual associations, but it still
places cognition as the critical cause of ideas.
The use of innovation techniques to generate new ideas such as brainstorming,
mind-mapping, morphological analysis or lateral thinking (e.g. Allen, 1962; Parnes et al.,
1977; Rawlinson, 1981; De Bono, 1984; Proctor, 1995; Buzan and Buzan, 1995) cannot
estimate the quality of ideas they yield, since they assume ideas emerge out of cognitive
processes. There is no basis to assess the ‘worth’ of an idea with cognitive theories. They
have to be evaluated in terms of ‘fit’ with external measures such as investment appraisal,
legislation, technical feasibility, etc.
An additional approach built around a core cognitive theory seeks to create the ‘right’
context for people. Some techniques play around with contextual perspectives, thinking
that a change in the way we view a situation will unlock latent insights (Perry and
Shalley, 2003). If we examine these techniques in terms of ‘learning about something’
then we believe there is merit. However, learning is more than a singular focus on
cognitive processing, as it involves a relationship with a world outside our heads.
De Bono (1984) called for “Lateral Thinking” and again holds a theory of ideas as
springing from random connections and associations in the mind. Buzan and Buzan
(1995) echo this core theory and offer the technique of Mind-Mapping as a means to
arrange associated concepts drawn out of the mysterious black box of the human brain.
Most idea generation techniques are directed at some aspect of cognition as the cause
of new ideas. Psychologists have anchored the origin of idea generation within the mind
(Koestler, 1964; Sternberg, 1988; Garnham and Oakhill, 1994; Mukerjea, 1997), and
there is little investigation outside such a ‘paradigm’. Research into an objective theory of
idea generation seems unnecessary, as the core puzzle is already solved. However, we
believe otherwise.
The ‘cognitive’ view separates the act of idea generation from the act of managing
ideas in an innovation process. Can idea generation and idea management be separated in
the day-to-day working of organisation? We do not hold with this singular ‘mind-
location’ view, as our work sees ideas and innovation combining a theory of (1) what
goes on in the world and (2) knowledge as a measure of how well any individual is
equipped to understand and improve mechanisms such as ‘how to improve traffic flows’
or ‘how to defeat a new virus’ or ‘how to create healthy sweets children will like’.
8 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

Accepting the cognitive theory has led to a proliferation of idea-generating

techniques, and the notion of ‘fads’ is the evidence of their inadequacy. The innovation
manager’s role is now one of selecting techniques in a ‘blind’ cafeteria-type process;
cognitive theory disconnects invention, innovation and management and promotes a
‘trial-and-error’ attitude amongst managers. Furthermore, if a particular idea generation
technique is used and it fails to deliver ‘great ideas’, the cognitive theories point to
individual ability, and/or the need to try yet another technique. What it does not do is
demand deep reflection (Schön, 1983) on the assumptions that may have caused poor
idea generation. If we have an answer, why do we need to ask a question? And so, we
search for the next fad.
Given the importance attached to innovation and a company’s prosperity (Man, 2001;
Oetinger, 2004; Muller et al., 2005), we see idea generation as a central concern of
Innovation Management. We have to search deeper than technique. Research should be
looking for ways to help managers improve the means to achieve great ideas.

6 Changing perspective

The case for something more than ‘cognitive theory’ is evident. The history of
technology provides examples of simultaneous invention by unconnected actors (e.g.
Swann and Edison’s invention of the light bulb). This suggests that common sets of
circumstances exist in different locations, and as such cannot reside in the heads of
individuals. There is an external systemic mechanism at play and this realisation allows
the possibility of a management system.
We believe our potential to generate new possibilities has been reduced by the view
that ideas originate within an individual. We would not expect ten-year-old children to be
capable of designing a nuclear power station. Here, then, is a clue to what makes for
better idea generation. It is something to do with the way external systems work, our
knowledge of their workings and an ability to conceive of alternative ways to make
things happen. For us, the mind is where an idea is codified into language but its origin is
found within a relationship between mind and world. Cognitive theory needs to be
extended to accommodate this relationship.
The intent of new ideas is directed towards a notion of progress. Intentional action is
purposive action, and purposes can originate either inside or outside of an agent’s will
(Searle, 1995). Intentional facts may become social facts by collective intentionality such
as society’s agreement on a particular price for a barrel of oil. What we need to take into
account is that the agent’s intention exists within boundaries and constraints given by
causal mechanisms from nature and/or socially constructed systems such as the economy.
The mind does not exist independently of nature’s mechanisms. The background of
everyday life is a systemic interaction between functioning and the outcome of such
functioning. Attempts to theorise this background in the act of model-building by a team
enables better understanding and better team-knowledge. Ideas come from recognition of
causal mechanisms (Bunge, 1997) from which informed understanding follows. Ideas
begin outside our heads.
To change the way we view idea generation requires a more precise schema. If we
cannot distinguish between types of ideas then our ability to articulate new perspectives
is limited. For example, given the phenomenon of global warming, many people would
offer the idea of ‘save the environment’ but such an ‘idea as outcome’ tells us little about
 An alternative theory of idea generation 9

how to actually achieve it. We have to distinguish between types of ideas in order to
improve the way we manage idea generation.
Polanyi (1958) stated:
“It has been authoritatively stated that the moments of greatest creative
advancement in science frequently coincide with the introduction of new
notions by means of a definition.” (Polanyi, 1958, p.189)
We argue the word idea (I) in usage can mean purpose (P), outcome (O), process (Ps) or
function (F). For the sake of clear communication, it should only take one of the
meanings at any one time.
I = P v O v Ps v F
This distinction aids an ability to manage idea generation. Let us show how this word has
different meanings with different consequences for innovation managers. Alexander
Fleming understood the bacteriological mechanisms he observed and this led him to
discover ‘penicillium’ which killed staphylococcus. He had an ‘idea as outcome’ in
mind but could not move beyond this stage. It was a further ten-year period before
this could be manufactured as ‘penicillin’, and the work of Howard Walter Florey and
Ernst Boris Chain involved many other types of ideas (e.g. ideas as purposes related
to mass production, ideas as processes related to the means of production and ideas
as functions related to the way the processes were arranged in order to make the
penicillin).
Distinguishing idea types leads to deeper and wider understanding and enables old
solutions to be swapped for new ones. Clearer meaning drawn from deeper understanding
also allows us to anticipate outcomes not already in existence. In our action research, we
distinguished types of ideas in order to unlock idea generation. In one episode with R&D
managers, engineers and scientists put forward the idea of accessing some technically
difficult to access oil and gas reservoirs (idea as outcome to achieve idea as purpose). We
had to coach them towards defining the means to achieve an outcome (idea as process
that performs idea as function). Our theory views ideas in terms of humans rearranging
phenomena in response to some kind of systemic theory of value. New ideas are only
adopted if they add more value than old ones.

7 Idea types and idea generation

Central to a richer understanding is that essential functions (Baird, 2002) need to be

performed in order to achieve selected outcomes. Functions are not the same as
processes. Functions exist in a conceptual sense (Price, 2001; Woodhead et al., 2004b),
whereas processes are recognisable phenomena in the real-world. A function is
performed by a process. For example, a car engine’s function of ‘Transmit Torque’ is
performed by the processes of a particular engine type. By differentiating between
different idea types, we can consider alternative types of engine such as a petrol engine, a
diesel engine or a hybrid engine, all of which perform the same function of ‘Transmit
Torque’. The source of ‘new’ ideas can result in two ways. Firstly, a search for additional
functions that differentiates products and services, and secondly, an improvement of the
processes currently used to perform a desired function or removal of unwanted by-
products such as car pollution.
10 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

Processes are a naturally occurring, or designed, sequence of operations or events,

possibly taking up time, space, expertise or other resource, which produces an outcome
(Whitehead, 1929; Sperry, 1975; Pannenberg, 1984; Rescher, 1991). A process exists in
the observable ‘real-world’ and may be identified by the changes it creates in the
properties of one or more artefacts or systems under its influence (Nevins and Whitney,
1989; Gatchel and Tanik, 2001). Whitehead (1929) looks into the nature of all things as
an ongoing process. Whitehead describes actual entities as the atomic units (or essential
constituents) of reality. From atom to organism, the physical world unfolds a synthetic
reality containing processes within processes. From organism to organisation, modern
society has attempted to replicate nature and create a social order, in which the firms and
institutions vie for survival of the fittest (e.g. Woodhead et al., 2004a).
Processes that have no essential contribution (i.e. do not perform a function such as
the human appendix) can be removed because they have no value. Value results from the
efficient and effective working of a system that also exists within other nested systems.
The television set functions in the home and is supported by the functioning of the power
plant and TV stations. The interconnected relations between ‘Function’, ‘Process’ and
‘Outcome’ are designed to achieve intended ‘Purpose’. The value of a process can be
measured in terms of how well it performs essential functions and achieves the desired
purpose.
Every function provides an essential contribution to a system, or ipso facto, it is
not a function (Berawi, 2006). All processes should have at least one function that
justifies their inclusion. The proper function of an artefact is what it ‘does’ in order to
achieve purposes and goals (Wright, 1973; Cummins, 1975; Nelson, 1976; Bigelow and
Pargetter, 1987; Plantinga, 1988; Millikan, 1989; Neander, 1991; Griffiths, 1993; Elder,
1998; Preston, 1998, Schwartz, 1999). So the proper function of a car is ‘Transport
People’ and that is why cars are primarily needed. The technological system in which an
artefact exists determines its proper function (Kroes, 2001; Vermaas and Houkes, 2003).
However, the ‘purpose’ is determined by the user and so the role of customer needs to be
considered within an idea-generating schema.
Customers buy things in order to access functions, for what ‘things’ do or cause.
Ideas as functions can be broken down further. There are ‘use functions’ that perform
mechanical roles and there are ‘aesthetic functions’ that increase desirability (Miles,
1961). Therefore, the study and articulation of function is central to idea generation for
commercial products and services (Vermaas and Houkes, 2003). Identifying functions
enables a search for alternative ways (i.e. processes) to perform those functions (Mahner
and Bunge, 2001). The ‘idea as function’ also enables us to consider adding a new
function to an existing product or service (Berawi and Woodhead, 2005) in order to add
more value for customers.
A television is a series of processes that perform functions such as displaying moving
pictures with sound. This partially explains the existence and causal history of the
invention and improvement of television. Naming the functions in a television allows us
to innovate further and produce hand-held mobile televisions, video-enabled mobile
phones, etc. The transformation of function-directed causal relations into manufacturing
makes it possible to bridge the gap between physical structure and intentional function in
a technological design. Understanding this relationship is the source of ideas. However,
this process is often left implicit within the minds of designers and engineers and is why
an advantage is afforded to those that make it explicit and testable (Woodhead and
 An alternative theory of idea generation 11

Downs, 2001; Woodhead and McCuish, 2002; Berawi, 2004). This is why we need to
look for more than cognitive theories of idea generation.

8 Emphasising function

Most idea generation techniques fail to recognise functional theories. Miles (1961) argues
that the first step in product engineering is to identify the functions at play. In doing so,
the relationship between mind and world is developed as insight and understanding. But
how can managers achieve this?

Figure 2 Relationship between functions, processes, outcomes and purpose

We need a reliable method of modelling functions in relation to purpose, outcome and

process. Such a model would make hypothesised thinking explicit and enable deeper
understanding to stimulate innovation (Kaufman and Woodhead, 2006). The act of
building such models facilitates a union of scientific knowledge and practical knowledge
in an objective and auditable way through the act of articulating information and building
shared knowledge. The approach to idea generation can become closer to inductive logic,
as used in science, but we have to relax the constraining effect cognitive theories have.
All these types of ideas have to happen in a synthesised way. What an artefact brings
about in a system needs to serve the purposes and goals of the system in order to be
called a ‘function’. To lose sight of this synthesis may lead to ideas that seek to optimise
at the detailed level which may undermine value at the purpose level, for example, ideas
related to myopic cost-cutting. The challenge for various idea generation techniques
is to link intentionality, made explicit within a model, to the causal way reality works
(Woodhead et al., 2004a). This schema is shown in Figure 2. If one of the links is broken,
such as a process that does not yield an outcome that links to the overall purpose, there
12 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

will be no value derived from that system. The emergence of ideas resides within
contemplation of this set of relationships but its origin is external to the mind.

Figure 3 Functional thinking enables innovation

9 Function and innovation

Identifying essentiality in relation to functions, processes, purposes and outcomes enables

us to articulate solutions within a framework that checks adequacy; the potential solution
must be an idea that satisfies the schema of Figure 2. The ability to consider alternative
ways or processes that could perform the same essential work with added benefit
stimulates enquiry and further exploration of the origin of ideas, as shown in Figure 3.
Whilst all types of cars perform common functions, some are ‘low frill–low cost’
whereas others with extended functionality are ‘luxury models–high cost’. The schema of
 An alternative theory of idea generation 13

Figure 2 can be extended to become Figure 3. This is achieved by considering functions

and processes as networks designed to produce outcomes and purposes customers will
prefer to alternative offerings in the market.
We can now offer a theory which is larger than cognitive theories promoted by
psychologists. Our theory is:
“A good idea is the product of a complete functional understanding, optimal
selection of processes, and alignment between purpose and outcome.”
We can show this logically as

I g = Fc & Po & Apo

where Ig = good idea, Fc = complete functional understanding, Po = optimal selection
and design of processes and Apo = alignment between purpose and outcome.
The challenge is to make this a useful theorem for innovation managers, and we offer
a Bayesian approach as starting point for more focused research.

Pr(I g ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /I g )

Pr(I g /Fc , Po , Apo )=
Pr(I g ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /I g )+Pr(~I g ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /~I g )
The above adaptation of Bayes Theorem offers a means to assess the probability of an
idea being a good one. It is not the end-product of a research agenda but offered as a
starting point, for in trying to assess the probabilities, we will find numerous research
questions arising.

10 Practical example

Given we do not really know what makes a good idea at this stage of the research project,
let us build a hypothetical case where we can demonstrate how the above model could be
used to improve organisational learning. Our aim here is to show that our alternative view
of the source of good ideas opens the way to the management of idea generation. Its
value is achieved by making our theories visible, explicit, testable and subsequently open
to improvement. That is, it empowers the management of innovation by making explicit
those causal theories that make us believe such and such is a good idea. We will assume
there is little market-data that we could use to form frequency-type probabilities. If there
were market data, then our model would become even more reliable and even more
useful. However, in the early stages of new product development such data is often
missing. We will use subjective probabilities to reflect the degree of belief we hold. A
manager is faced with a choice of developing a new product which he is assured is a good
idea. The manager begins by assigning a probability to his initial belief that it is a good
idea. Let us say he assigns a 90% likelihood because the engineering manager has backed
the idea and he has been right in the past. There is no need to wonder whether the number
assigned (i.e. 90%) is precise, as it will be shown shortly that the trend which emerges is
what is important.
Pr(Ig) = 0.9 and conversely the probability of it not being a good idea is Pr(~Ig) = 0.1
so that the combined probabilities sum to one.
14 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

He calls the trusted engineering manager and asks how the product works and how
customers will use it. The engineering manager presents a functional model and explains
the design team have fully thought things through. However, there is a small chance
customers will use the product in ways they have not considered. The manager asks for a
summary of why he should believe the functional understanding is both adequate and
complete. This ‘explicit theory’ can be used to revisit the decision-making process and
spot ‘thinking’ errors they might be making today; organisational learning is enabled. At
this stage the manager thinks there is good chance the engineering manager has it right
and cautiously assigns a value of 70% to this belief.

Pr(Fc /I g ) = 0.7 and conversely Pr(Fc /~I g ) = 0.3.

In light of this learning the manager can now recalculate his belief that it is a good idea.

Pr(I g ) Pr(Fc /I g )
Pr(I g /Fc )=
Pr(I g ) Pr(Fc /I g )+Pr(~I g ) Pr(Fc /~I g )

0.9× 0.7
Pr(I g /Fc )= =0.955
(0.9× 0.7)+(0.1× 0.3)
So, following this investigation he has increased his belief by around 5% that it really is a
good idea. What is more, the reasons why he has increased his belief have been made
explicit and if it later turns out this is wrong then there is a means to revisit and repair the
thinking processes that misled.
The manager now looks at the specific processes proposed to design, develop and
deliver the new concept from raw materials through to invoicing and payment.
Discussions with the various managers reveal that some aspects are uncertain. For
example, a key supplier has let them down with late deliveries and poor-quality levels
and a distributor they would need to use is proving slow to pay invoices. Again, all the
theories of action are made explicit so that later they can be revisited. Given what he has
found out, he believes this part of the idea is only about 40% reliable.

Pr(Po /Fc , I g )=0.4

He can now revisit his previous beliefs and up date them.

Pr(I g /Fc ) Pr(Po /Fc , I g )

Pr(I g /Fc , Po )=
Pr(I g /Fc ) Pr(Po /Fc , I g )+Pr(~I g /Fc ) Pr(Po /Fc , ~I g )

0.955× 0.4
Pr(I g /Fc , Po )= =0.93
(0.955× 0.4)× (0.045× 0.6)
Even though there is room for process improvements, he still believes this is a good idea.
The view of the engineering manager is still holding a strong influence on his beliefs and
that is clearly understood in a way that can be revisited after ‘real’ data from the market
place has been collected.
Finally, he discusses things with the marketing managers and the sales managers.
They seem very sceptical and suggest the idea is poor. They argue customers do not want
 An alternative theory of idea generation 15

such a product and they are difficult to sell. The manager gets them to make their reasons
explicit so they too can later be tested. Given this conversation, he assigns a low
probability to their view of the alignment between purpose and outcome.

Pr(Apo /Po , Fc , I g )=0.2

Before this conversation he assigned a belief of:

Pr(Ig /Fc , Po )=0.93

He now updates his belief in the idea.

Pr(I g /Fc , Po ) Pr(Apo /Po , Fc , I g )

Pr(I g /Fc , Po , Apo )=
Pr(I g /Fc , Po ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /I g )+Pr(~I g /Fc , Po ) Pr(Apo /Po , Fc , ~I g )
0.93× 0.2
Pr(I g /Fc , Po , Apo )= =0.25
(0.93× 0.2)+(0.07× 0.8)
Note that this formula is logically equivalent to our theory above:

Pr(I g ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /I g )

Pr(I g /Fc , Po , Apo )=
Pr(I g ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /I g )+Pr(~I g ) Pr(Fc , Po , Apo /~I g )
We have simply arrived at it by way of collecting subjective evidence (i.e. informed
opinion) and using that to test and refine our beliefs in an incremental learning process.
At this stage the manager no longer believes this is a good idea and has a list
of reasons why people thought as they did. He can present his thinking back to the
departments and start a learning process and could even set up an experiment to engage
the whole team in learning how to make better ideas. For example, why does the
engineering manager believe this to be a good idea when the managers looking after
processes and the marketing and sales manager held less favourable views. The point is,
by bringing idea generation out of the cognitive focus, managers are empowered to start
improving their creative potential.

11 Conclusion

Our aim was to stimulate new research into idea generation and we offered a theory to
weaken the grip of the dominant cognitive theory. In doing so, we hope to open the door
to further research.
Given ideas are the seeds of innovation, lack of research into idea generation should
be a concern for Innovation Management. We believe the current situation exists because
the dominant premise is related to cognition and a view that ideas begin in the minds of
people. As such, few research questions have been created that look outside cognitive
explanations. Furthermore, there has been a profusion of idea-generating techniques
founded on different ways to improve cognition but none has achieved outright
supremacy. We have challenged the dominance of psychological theories and argue for a
widening of scope to include technological theories and a keener understanding of the
relationship between cognition and the way external systems work.
16 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

The distinction of the word ‘idea’ into one of the four mutually exclusive categories
aids the management of idea generation:
• ideas as purposes
• ideas as outcomes
• ideas as processes
• ideas as functions.
Idea generation techniques that do not adequately explore the relationship between mind
and world make key assumptions about prior knowledge and the ability of teams to
generate new ideas. We believe this has to be questioned.
The word ‘idea’ is used ambiguously and the need for research is inhibited due to a
lack of appreciation of a deeper and richer understanding of a relationship between
purpose and outcome, as well as between function and process. We have offered a
schema as one way to form systematic approaches to idea generation, as we believe this
is a desire of managers of innovation. We have offered a line of enquiry, based on an
alternative theory, that is not restricted to psychological theories that currently underpin
idea-generating techniques. We hope other researchers will follow this call and begin
more research in reliable ways to generate better ideas that are practical and useful for
managers.
This paper has offered an alternative theory as to where ideas originate, and hopes to
stimulate further research into the act of idea generation and the exploration of why some
idea generation techniques are better than others. It has also offered one way to manage
such a process using Bayesian logic.

References
Ahmed, P.K. (1998) ‘Culture and climate for innovation’, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.30–43.
Alam, I. (2003) ‘Commercial innovations from consulting engineering firms: an empirical
exploration of a novel source of new ideas’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.
20, No. 4, pp.300–313.
Allen, M. (1962) Morphological Creativity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Amabile, T. (1988) ‘A model of creativity and innovation in organizations’, in Staw, B. and
Cummings, L. (Eds.): Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
Vol. 10, pp.123–167.
Argyris, C. (1999) On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Baird, D. (2002) ‘Thing knowledge – function and truth’, Techné: Journal of the Society for
Philosophy and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 2.
Belbin, M. (1981) Management Teams: Why they Succeed or Fail, Heinemann, Oxford.
Berawi, M.A. (2004) ‘Quality revolution: leading the innovation and competitive advantages’,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.425–438.
Berawi, M.A. (2006) Distinguishing Concept Types in Function Models During the Act of
Innovation, PhD Thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Berawi, M.A. and Woodhead, R.M. (2005) ‘Application of knowledge management in production
management’, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp.249–257.
Bigelow, J. and Pargetter, R. (1987) ‘Functions’, Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 84, pp.181–196.
 An alternative theory of idea generation 17

Birdi, K.S. (2005) ‘No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training’, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.102–111.
Bunge, M. (1997) ‘Mechanism and explanation’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp.410–465.
Buzan, T. and Buzan, B. (1995) The Mind Map Book, BBC Books, London.
Cumming, B.S. (1998) ‘Innovation overview and future challenges’, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.21–29.
Cummins, R. (1975) ‘Functional explanation’, Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 72, pp.741–764.
De Bono, E. (1984) Lateral Thinking for Management, Penguin, London.
Elder, C.L. (1998) ‘What versus how in naturally selected representations’, Mind, Vol. 107,
pp.349–363.
Garnham, A. and Oakhill, J. (1994) Thinking and Reasoning, Blackwell, Oxford.
Gatchel, S.G. and Tanik, M.M. (2001) ‘Process science and philosophy for want of synthetic
thought and a unifying philosophy’, Society for Design and Process Science, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp.1–21.
Getzels, J.P. and Jackson, P.W. (1962) Creativity and Intelligence, Wiley, New York.
Goodman, M. (1995) Creative Management, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Griffiths, P.E. (1993) ‘Functional analysis and proper function’, British Journal for the Philosophy
of Science, Vol. 44, pp.409–422.
Howells, J. (2005) The Management of Innovation and Technology, Sage, London.
Jensen, J.V. (1978) ‘A heuristic for the analysis of the nature and extent of a problem’, Journal of
Creative Behaviour, Vol. 12, pp.168–180.
Kaufman, J.J. and Woodhead, R.M. (2006) Stimulating Innovation in Products and Services,
Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Kroes, P. (2001) ‘Technical functions as dispositions: a critical assessment’, Techné, Vol. 5, No. 3,
Spring, pp.1–16.
Koestler, A. (1964) The Act of Creation, Arkana, London.
Mahner, M. and Bunge, M. (2001) ‘Function and functionalism: a synthetic perspective’,
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, pp.75–94.
Man, J. (2001) ‘Creating innovation’, Work Study, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp.229–234.
Marquis, D.G. (1969) ‘The anatomy of successful innovations’, Innovation, November.
Miles, L.D. (1961) Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Millikan, R.G. (1989) ‘In defense of proper functions’, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 56,
pp.288–302.
Mukerjea, D. (1997) Brain Dancing, Oxford University Press, Singapore.
Muller, A., Välikangas, L. and Merlyn, P. (2005) ‘Metrics for innovation: guidelines for developing
a customized suite of innovation metrics’, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.37–45.
Neander, K. (1991) ‘The teleological notion of function’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
Vol. 69, pp.454–468.
Nelson, R.J. (1976) ‘Mechanism, functionalism, and the identity theory’, The Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. 73, pp.365–385.
Nevins, J.L. and Whitney, D.E. (1989) Concurrent Design of Product and Processes, McGraw
Hill, New York.
Oetinger, B. (2004) ‘From idea to innovation: making creativity real’, Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.35–41.
Pannenberg, W. (1984) ‘Atom, duration, form: difficulties with process philosophy’, Process
Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.21–30.
Parnes, S., Noller, R. and Biondi, A. (1977) Guide to Creative Action, Scribners, New York.
18 R.M. Woodhead and M.A. Berawi

Pavia, T.M. (1991) ‘The early stage of new product development in entrepreneurial high-tech
firms’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.18–31.
Perkins, D.N. (1981) The Mind’s Best Work, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Perry, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003) ‘The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social
network perspective’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.89–106.
Plantinga, A. (1988) ‘Positive epistemic status and proper function’, Philosophical Perspectives,
Vol. 2, pp.1–50.
Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Preston, B. (1998) ‘Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function’, Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. 95, pp.215–254.
Price, C. (2001) Function in Mind: A Theory of Intentional Content, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Proctor, T. (1995) The Essence of Management Creativity, Prentice Hall, New York.
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B. and Scannell, T.V. (1997) ‘Success factors for integrating suppliers
into new product development’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.109–202.
Rawlinson, J.G. (1981) Creative Thinking and Brainstorming, Wiley, New York.
Razoumnikova, O.M. (2000) ‘Functional organization of different brain areas during convergent
and divergent thinking: an EEG investigation’, Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 10, No. 1,
pp.11–18.
Rescher, N. (1991) Baffling Phenomena: and Other Studies in the Philosophy of Knowledge and
Valuation, Rowman and Littlefield, Savage, MD.
Schmidt-Tiedemann, K.J. (1982) ‘A new model of the innovation process’, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.18–22.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York.
Schwartz, P. (1999) ‘Proper function and recent selection’, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 66,
pp.210–222.
Searle, J.R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality, Penguin, New York.
Sperry, H.W. (1975) ‘Mental phenomena as causal determinants in brain functions’, Process
Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.247–256.
Sowrey, T. (1990) ‘Idea generation: identifying the most useful techniques’, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.20–29.
Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.) (1988), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tidd, J. Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market
and Organisational Change, 2nd ed., Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Trott, P.(2002) Innovation Management and New Product Development, 2nd ed., Pearson
Education Ltd., Harlow.
Twiss, B. (1992) Managing Technological Innovation, 4th ed., Pitman, London.
Udwadia, F.E. (1990) ‘Creativity and innovation in organisations’, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.65–80.
Urabe, K. (1998) Innovation and Management, Walter de Gruyter, New York.
Vermaas, P.E. and Houkes, W. (2003) ‘Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: a challenge to
etiological accounts of functions’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,
Vol. 54, pp.261–289.
Vernon, P.E. (Ed.) (1975) Creativity, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought, Harcourt Brace, New York.
Whitehead, A.N. (1929) Process and Reality, Macmillan, New York.
 An alternative theory of idea generation 19

Woodhead, R., Ball, F. and Li, X. (2004a) ‘Silk flowers are just as artificial as plastic ones: value
engineering in the university context’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 29,
No. 3, pp.333–341.
Woodhead, R.M. and Downs, C.G. (2001) Value Management: Improving Capabilities, Thomas
Telford Ltd., London.
Woodhead, R.M., Kaufman, J.J. and Berawi, M.A. (2004b) ‘Is “drink beer” a function?, Value
world’, Journal of the Society of Value Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.11–15.
Woodhead, R.M. and McCuish, J. (2002) Achieving Result: How to Create Value, Thomas Telford
Ltd., London.
Wright, L. (1973) ‘Functions’, Philosophical Review, Vol. 82, pp.139–168.