Methods for Generating Alternatives
In short Good decisions need good options to choose from. This page describes what helps and blocks group creativity, two ways to organize idea generation, and a catalog of methods beyond classic brainstorming, so you can pick the one that fits your problem and group.
Based on: F. P. Tarasenko, Applied Systems Analysis (in Russian), ch. 5, section 5.10 (stage 10), which surveys methods by F. Zwicky, W. Gordon, C. W. Churchman, R. L. Ackoff, E. de Bono and others.
On this page
Key ideas#
What helps and what blocks creativity#
Tarasenko lists positive factors:
- Other people. A colleague’s idea sends your thinking somewhere you would not have gone alone, so groups out-produce individuals.
- Group size of about 6–12. Smaller groups lose stimulus; larger ones add little, because a creative burst of 30–45 minutes allows only so many exchanges.
- Diversity of knowledge, age and experience.
Three blockers need neutralizing:
- Responsibility for an idea: remove it through anonymity, or by not making people implement their own proposals.
- Criticism: block it with procedure rules.
- Self-imposed limits: Ackoff’s nine-dots puzzle (join a 3×3 grid of dots with four straight lines) is solvable only once you see that nothing forbids going outside the square.
Two ways to organize generation#
- Separate generation from evaluation when you want volume: brainstorming, Delphi, morphological analysis. Tarasenko compares it to firing at an area when you do not know exactly where the target is.
- Allow criticism during the process when you want one to three high-quality options: TKJ, synectics, search conference, the dialectical approach, idealized design, TRIZ, devil’s advocate.
Methods at a glance#
| Method | How it works | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| Brainstorming variants | Warm up on an unrelated problem; alternate 3–5 minutes of silence with 3–5 minutes of sharing; repeat the session after 2–3 days; or run it in reverse to find flaws in an existing option | Refreshing tired sessions |
| Brainwriting 6-3-5 | Six people write three ideas each, then pass the sheet on to build on; five passes | Quiet groups, many ideas fast |
| Brainwriting pool | Sheets go into a common pile; each person draws someone else’s and adds to it | Mixing perspectives |
| Delphi | Ideas are anonymized by a coordinator and circulated, usually for 3–4 rounds; criticism is allowed because it cannot be personal | Experts who should not influence each other |
| Morphological analysis (Zwicky) | List required properties and the possible values of each; combinations form the option space | Exploring a whole design space |
| TKJ (Kobayashi, Kawakita) | Write facts on cards, group related ones, name each group, repeat until one problem statement remains; then do the same with solution ideas | Converging on a shared definition |
| Synectics (Gordon) | State the core of the problem as an evocative question, find a metaphor from a distant field, adapt it back | One strong, original option |
| Search conference (Emery) | Move from broad social trends to forces shaping the organization, then constraints, adaptation strategies and first steps | Strategy work; a relative of SWOT |
| Dialectical approach (Churchman, Mason) | Two teams build deliberately conflicting plans with explicit assumptions, debate them, and the decision maker synthesizes | Exposing hidden assumptions |
| Idealized design (Ackoff) | Design the system you would want if the current one vanished overnight | Breaking out of current constraints |
| Random Entry (de Bono) | Pick random words and link each to the problem | Getting unstuck |
| Six Thinking Hats (de Bono) | The whole group looks at one aspect at a time: facts, benefits, risks, new options, feelings, process | Structured, low-conflict discussion |
Tarasenko’s synectics example: two people sharing a room, one wanting loud music and the other silence. The question “how can you have loud silence?” leads to the metaphor of a bullet that hits one body and not another, and from there to headphones.
For idealized design, Ackoff’s interactive planning runs six activities in parallel: formulating the mess, planning ends, planning means, planning resources, designing implementation, and designing control. A design is usually prepared in two versions, one that leaves the environment as it is and one that does not.
How to apply it#
- Decide whether you need many options or a few strong ones.
- Check group size and diversity; invite missing perspectives.
- Remove blockers: anonymity, a no-criticism rule, and an explicit question about what you are assuming is forbidden.
- Pick a method from the table and timebox it.
- Keep generation and evaluation separate unless the method says otherwise.
- Hand the options to evaluation against agreed criteria.
Example#
The Workshop needs options for customer communication and parts ordering. A morphological table lists booking channel (phone, web form, app, messenger), status updates (text message, email, app notification, none) and parts ordering (manual, minimum-stock reorder, supplier portal): 4 × 4 × 3 gives 48 combinations, which the analyst filters down to six realistic ones. A 6-3-5 round with front-desk staff adds ideas nobody had listed, such as a photo of the problem part sent with the repair quote. A short Six Hats session then reviews the shortlist one aspect at a time.
Pitfalls#
- Evaluating ideas as they appear → separate the two phases.
- Inviting only people like you → build in diversity.
- Treating habits as constraints → ask what nobody actually forbade.
- Stopping at the first good option → generate several before choosing.
Sources and further reading#
- F. P. Tarasenko. Applied Systems Analysis (in Russian). KnoRus, 2010, ch. 5, section 5.10.
- R. L. Ackoff. Redesigning the Future. Wiley, 1974 — idealized design.
- Methods named in the text are credited by Tarasenko to F. Zwicky (morphological analysis), Kobayashi and Kawakita (TKJ), W. Gordon (synectics), F. Emery (search conference), C. W. Churchman and R. Mason (dialectical approach) and E. de Bono (Random Entry, Six Thinking Hats).