It is a community for those of us who feel bound by the conventions of so-called “best practices.” Although best practices have their proper place, sometimes adhering to them prohibits the kind of creative thinking that can lead to breakthroughs in technique and approach that produce competitive advantage and ultimately advance the profession.

Beyond Practices does not have a claim to ownership of any of the ideas presented, discussed, and developed here. Ideas are open source. The actual implementation of ideas in a real-world setting is what ultimately generates economic value. How you choose to apply and execute a given idea within your business model is up to you.

This place is all about ideas and creativity. And Rule #1 in creativity is that rules are made to be broken. So there are no rules here. Instead, please follow these guidelines for participation:

1. There are no dumb ideas. Don’t be shy. An idea that may at first seem sheer lunacy may provide someone else an unexpected insight that leads to a breakthrough in another idea.

2. Feel free to be impractical. Don’t feel the need to self-censor because you can’t see the practical use or path to implementation now. Get it out there, and let it develop.

3. Quantity matters. The more ideas are presented, the greater chance of discovering those that truly have potential.

4. Quality doesn’t. If even the barest fragment of an idea comes to you, get it out there. Someone else might pick up on it. The quality of an idea won’t become apparent until it is developed. You have nothing to lose by presenting your idea.

5. Abusive behavior will not be tolerated. First offense gets you a warning, second offense gets you banned. Even if someone presents what you feel to be the stupidest idea in human history, that doesn’t give you the right to call someone stupid (or worse). If an idea doesn’t have merit in your estimation, point out the shortcomings in a respectful manner and (hopefully) suggest alternatives. See Guideline #1.

This post is a recording of my thought process as I work on the bio. It’s definitely a thinking-out-loud post, so please excuse the lack of polish. If you know me personally or have read through my blog archives, you know that I have a broad range of interests, talents, and job descriptions. Distilling all that I think, do, and desire into seven words will be quite a challenge – I can tend toward wordiness in my writing. I mean, Twitter is work for me, expressing a complete thought in under 140 characters. But it’s good practice for this exercise. So here goes.

First Draft:

I harness the innate creativity within teams.

Not bad; it captures that fact that I work in and lead groups (web project teams, musical groups)  that have a creative component. Not sure that “harness” is the right word, however. Smacks too much of “tied down” – think sled dogs in the traces, or horse racing. I prefer to think that I do not tie down my team. “Innate creativity” is good, however, since I believe that everybody has creative potential within them; sometimes it just needs to be encouraged to come out.

Second Draft:

I facilitate creativity in teams.

That’s only five words. Do the rules say whether or not that’s OK? More than seven of course is forbidden – that’s the whole point of it being a “7 Word Bio.” But fewer than seven. Hmmm….. Is there a bonus for bringing in in under budget?

Checked the Accidental Creative site. No mention there whether or not fewer than seven words is permitted. So I’ll go with a strict interpretation, and assume that it must be exactly seven words.

Third Draft:

I help people realize their creative potential.

Well, that’s ambitious. Not sure it’s accurate, either. At least not yet. While full-time creativity consulting is something I can see myself evolving towards, I have a ways to go before I can credibly claim that that’s what I do. Were I to attempt to claim that mantle today, I’d be no better than the hordes of  self-proclaimed “social media experts” that keep promoting their businesses spamming me on Twitter.

Fourth Draft:

I explore the connections across many domains.

This is close. Design, music, art, project management – the things I spend my time doing in my professional and private life – all have so many shared characteristics. Concepts of rhythm and structure, for example, that I learn as a musician have visual counterparts in graphic design. I’m a firm believer that innovative thinking springs from the intersections of disparate domains, which this draft describes nicely as well. And as a project manager, I draw upon my broad domain experiences to enhance my understanding of the detailed challenges that my team faces, so even that is addressed.

I’m going to go with this one for now. I’m sure it’ll evolve over time as I grow, but “close enough” is “good enough” for this exercise.

I was recently updating my profile on Twellow, and wanted to add “Creativity” as a category so that I could follow what was being said on Twitter about that topic. Since I am interested in creativity as a primary subject, I naturally searched for that topic to add to my profile.  Unfortunately, “creativity” was not one of the available options. However, Twellow provides a link where you can contact them to recommend a new category, so I sent them an email requesting that it be added.

A couple days later, I received a response from Twellow. They had added “Creativity” as a sub-category of “Arts.” Which wasn’t quite what I was expecting. My thinking when requesting the new category was that creativity could be a broad catch-all topic – there were plenty of categories already on Twellow for individual creative fields and pursuits (art, music, design, etc.), but there was no home for the process of creativity itself.

If it had been up to me, I would have placed it at or near the top level in the taxonomy. In my opinion, creativity is not just a thing that artists do – it’s for anyone, in any field, who seeks to extend their options by applying a deliberate process of lateral thinking, idea generation, and so forth. I understand that Twellow probably has guidelines for how they classify categories, and that creativity may not have rated a top level under their system. Ultimately, what this illustrates is that a topic that is of the utmost importance to how one person organizes their worldwiew might be nothing more than a niche to another.

Where would you place Creativity if you were developing a classification system similar to Twellow’s?

Image: More Spatter and Splatter, by love not fear on Flickr.

For those of you who are unaware, BarCamp is a “technology and media un-conference.” Unlike typical conferences, where attendees pay upwards of $1000 to experience a highly choreographed package of industry leader presentations, workshops, and networking, BarCamp follows more of a grass-roots, DIY model. Instead of following a pre-selected agenda and lineup of speakers, BarCampers themselves vote on who presents what at the start of the day. If you have a topic that you want to talk about, you get a chance to give your pitch before the entire group. If enough people want to hear what you have to offer, you get a spot on the schedule (hopefully not up against the “How to Make Money Online” session), and voila! you’re now a featured speaker.

Being a first-time Bar Camper, I didn’t have anything prepared to present, so I mostly observed, learned, chipped in my two cents here and there, and met a few people who I had only previously “known” through Twitter. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend the afternoon portion of the day, so I missed out on quite a bit of the fun. I’ll make up for that next time – I’ll make it a point to have a babysitter lined up well in advance. But from what I did experience, I’ve come away with a few impressions:

• BarCamp is like herding cats. Kudos to the organizers for putting it together and keeping it on track. Although it seemed a bit chaotic at times, a semblance of order eventually emerged. If you come into such an event expecting to follow a smoothly run program where everything runs on schedule with flash and pizzazz, you will be disappointed. But if you’re in tune with the whole improvisational, DIY, can-do ethic, you will find rewards.
• BarCamp is about participants, not spectators. There’s a blurry line between audience and performer. More than one spontaneous discussion arose among Campers who weren’t currently attending one of the “official” sessions.
• BarCamp can be a great vehicle for creativity and innovation. Given the open nature of topics for discussion, the fact that a broad cross-section of fields and disciplines are represented provides fertile ground for new ideas.
• BarCamp should frighten proponents of staid methods and technologies. This is the kind of place where people who know what they’re doing can compare notes, generate ideas, and figure out ways to get around the roadblocks thrown up by institutional over-investment in past glories.
• BarCamp is cool.

Were you there too? Been to a different BarCamp? Only wish you had?

Trevor Leahy, a teen-age goalie from the Boston area, is definitely no cement-head. He has come up with an innovative design enhancement to his padding that mimics the pattern of a hockey net. The theory goes that opposing shooters, with only a split-second to make the decision about where to place their shot, will mistake the camouflaged pads for open net and thus fire a harmless shot right into the blockers. Brilliant!

This innovation is a prime example of intersectional creativity, where concepts native to one subject are applied to another, yielding unexpected and often innovative results.. The fact that it occurs at the intersection of two of my favorite subjects (graphic design and hockey) only makes it better for me. The original Boston Globe article explains that Leahy, a graphic design student, was inspired by concepts of animal mimicry and camouflage that he studied in his design class and applied the principle to his hockey gear.

The Globe article doesn’t state, however, whether the new design yields fewer rebounds. Leahy has college plans, though. Maybe he’ll find the answer to that somewhere in PoliSci 101.

* * * * *

Have you ever found inspiration within a subject or field totally unrelated to the one you normally work in? If so, do you actively seek such intersections, or do they “just happen”?  Comments are welcome, so please share!

Image: Tiger im Tor, by Dustpuppy on Flickr.

Comfort Zones = Creative Traps
As a Generalist, I draw upon my divergent interests to provide insight into my own work and attempt to come up with unique solutions. But, like anyone else, I find it easy to fall into comfortable patterns where I’m simply approaching a problem in a rather conventional way instead of challenging assumptions and seeking new perspectives. It’s the path of least resistance, especially when faced with deadline pressure, and can become a habit without even realizing it .

When I’m faced with a problem requiring some creative solution, one of the methods I’ve used to try to break free of that comfort zone is pick some random field and try to identify similarities and convergences between the random field and the field within which I’m working the problem. The theory is that by digging deeply and asking plenty of questions,  the process can shed unexpected perspectives on the problem and hopefully lead to some unique and creative result.

The Medici Effect
Recently, I did some Googling to research perspectives regarding this approach to creative problem solving, and discovered The Medici Effect, by Frans Johansson. It’s main theme is exactly the process I described above: the creative possibilities located at the intersections of seemingly unrelated fields. I bought the book, and heartily recommend it to anyone interested in creativity techniques.

One of Johansson’s claims runs counter to standard opinion regarding the mechanisms of idea generation. According to research, ideas generated by individuals working on their own tend to be better and more numerous than those generated by those working within a group. He goes on to describe a number of factors that account for this, primarily focusing on deficiencies in standard brainstorming methodologies that can lead to ideas being either being lost in the process or not sufficiently developed in the group setting. Remedies include better facilitation techniques, participant pre-work, and anonymous concept building.

Taking it Online
The above remedies can all be achieved through the use of online social media tools. I plan to explore those theories in an online social network that I’m in the process of setting up that will allow practitioners within the knowledge management fields to generate ideas using the random fields intersection strategy. I’ll announce it’s launch on this blog. Members in this group will share the starting point of having similar professional expertise. But I think it would be a fascinating experiment to set up an online network that would connect people expressly _not_ in the same field – instead of starting from the point where interests coincide, start from the _opposite_ end and work to find the common ground. So many online communities assume the starting point of birds of a feather flocking together, whether professionally, geographically, demographically, and so forth. I think there is great possibility in a group whose theme is “Meet people who are nothing like you. The only thing you need to have in common is a desire to learn and to create.”

Image: Contraption Awaits, by Damian Cugely on Flickr.