Process and Creativity: Have you found your balance?

Finding the optimal balance between creativity and process is perhaps the biggest challenge in everything we do.

I often find myself asking these fundamental questions: How do we know what extent of process is necessary? When should we break-free from the process, and start being creative? And, does process kill creativity?

As unscientific as this may be, I think that the relationship between creativity and process probably looks like a classic bell curve:

Process boosts creativity. In the absence of any process, creativity suffers. One could argue that processes provide the fuel for new ways of thinking to emerge. I also think that process makes creativity 'focused' (i.e. productive creativity).

But I think too much process acts as a deterrent to new ideas. The human mind has the tendency to switch-off and be influenced by the inertia of process. It is at this stage that we stop challenging the status quo and see new thinking die.

Ideally, the objective is to enhance creativity in everything we do. You want to be able to take a step back at all times and really question where you sit on the curve. You don't want to be hanging lose and shooting in the dark, nor do you want to be constrained by shackles of process.

If you learn how to find this optimal balance, I would be keen to hear from you.

Innovation or lack thereof?

I recently read an interesting point of view on the Research.Opinionated.Insightful blog of the Research Magazine. The author makes an interesting point: it's not innovation that the marketing research industry lacks, it's implementation.

Every now and then, you will hear the marketing research industry being criticised for not being bold enough or for lacking innovation. While this is probably true in some cases, I actually hold an alternative point of view. Yes, traditional data collection techniques will become obsolete soon, and some agencies still function as if they are still in the dark ages. But, I think that relative to other consulting professions, the MR industry has embraced innovation and change.

Yes, there is still a lack of widespread diffusion of innovation within the industry. However, a new wave of innovation is emerging in the research consulting industry. New digital research techniques, neuroscience and the 'groundswell' (the power and influence of social media) are changing the face of the research consulting profession. While some pockets of the industry have been quick to embrace change and adopt these advances in how they address client problems, I have no doubt the others will follow suit sooner rather than later.

Moreover, innovation doesn't always have to relate to technology; it could also relate to thought-leadership. Some great thinking exists within the marketing research industry. An example of this is the Brand Value Creator  (BVC) methodology by Synovate, a research technique that links brand outcomes to market share outcomes. Even though I work for this company, I can safely say that this methodology is truly thought-leading. And there are several other such examples in the industry.

However, if you still think the MR industry is too conservative, I think the part of the blame rests with the clients. Too often, clients do not want to challenge the status quo in how they approach problems, and this obviously affects how agencies approach research programs.

Finally, take a step back and think about this: How much has the management consulting industry changed over the years?  I'm not sure if there has been any radical change in how they work or approach problems. Most of the classic strategic concepts and theories developed by the management consulting industry are decades old and are now probably outdated. When I was in University, I kept hearing about the BCG Matrix (by the Boston Consulting Group) and the McKinsey Grid, but I often wonder, hasn't the management consulting industry come up with any new groundbreaking tools since then?