X-IDEA: The Structured Magic of Systematic Innovation

Abstract

X-IDEA is an innovation process method designed to help organisations to reliably produce meaningful deliverables in innovation projects. Grounded in traditional models of creative problem solving , I developed the X-IDEA methodology and refined it over time through my work on real-life innovation projects with organisations, local, international and supranational. I structure the paper into five parts. Part 1 explains why there was a need to develop a new innovation process method. The second part reviews the literature on structured models for creative problem solving , innovation and design thinking, and identifies shortcomings of other methods. After briefly discussing the chosen research approach for this paper in part 3, I explain X-IDEA in detail in the fourth part, thereby elaborating on how its methodological design cures identified delivery gaps of other models. The final part discusses how X-IDEA may provide inspirations for practitioners and posits future research directions.

Full text

X-IDEA: The Structured Magic of Systematic Innovation
Detlef Reis1
College of Management, Mahidol University,
69 Vipawadee Rangsit Rd., Din Daeng,
Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
E-mail: detlef.rei@mahidol.ac.th
Abstract: X-IDEA is an innovation process method designed to help organisations to reliably produce
meaningful deliverables in innovation projects. Grounded in traditional models of creative problem solv-
ing, I developed the X-IDEA methodology and refined it over time through my work on real-life innova-
tion projects with organisations, local, international and supranational.
I structure the paper into five parts. Part 1 explains why there was a need to develop a new innovation
process method. The second part reviews the literature on structured models for creative problem solv-
ing, innovation and design thinking, and identifies shortcomings of other methods. After briefly discuss-
ing the chosen research approach for this paper in part 3, I explain X-IDEA in detail in the fourth part,
thereby elaborating on how its methodological design cures identified delivery gaps of other models. The
final part discusses how X-IDEA may provide inspirations for practitioners and posits future research
directions.
Keywords: innovation method, structured thinking, creative process, innovation project, thinking tools,
creativity techniques, systematic innovation, ideation, creative thinking, innovation traps
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
1
1 Dr Detlef Reis is the Founder and Chief Ideator of Thinkergy Limited, the Innovation and Ideation Company in Asia
(http://www.thinkergy.com). He is also a University Lecturer in Business Creativity and Creative Leadership at the College of Management,
Mahidol University, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Hong Kong Baptist University. He has created four proprietary innovation
methods that are used by Thinkergy: The innovation process method X-IDEA; the innovation people profiling method TIPS; the innovation
culture transformation method CooL - Creativity UnLimited; and the creative leadership method Genius Journey. He can be contacted by e-
mail at: dr.d@thinkergy.com.
® Thinkergy, X-IDEA, TIPS, CooL-Creativity Unlimited, and Genius Journey are registered trademarks of Thinkergy.
© The X-IDEA Innovation Method and Toolbox is a registered copyright 2009-10.

1 Introduction: The need for a new innovation process method
In this paper, I introduce X-IDEA, a new innovation process method of the Asian innovation company Think-
ergy that I developed with the help of a support team over a period of nearly a decade of practical work on inno-
vation projects. X-IDEA stands as an acronym for the five main process stages of the method (Xploration, Idea-
tion, Development, Evaluation, and Action); it also symbolizes the method’s ambition to generate a reliable pro-
duction of eXtraordinary IDEAs in innovation projects.
The aim of this paper is to inform about this new development in the field of innovation process methods,
and to illustrate how X-IDEA facilitates innovation projects in a better (i.e., more results-oriented and energis-
ing) way. My motivation to create X-IDEA is grounded in a desire to cut through the natural messiness and
fuzziness of innovation projects with a highly structured approach, yet at the same time keep the fun, energy and
action-orientation that characterise great innovative teamwork (Schnetzler, 2005). I dared to propose a new in-
novation process method to cure a range of problems that I identified to a different extent in other innovation
process methods and structured creative thinking frameworks. One overriding question guided nearly a decade
of practical work in the innovation field: “How to reliably and yet energetically guide innovation teams going
through an innovation project towards meaningful, relevant and outstanding innovation outputs, regardless of
the innovation type (e.g., product innovation, process innovation, and so on) and the cross-cultural background
and composition of the group?” The last aspect highlights the fact that although I was brought up according to a
Western cultural mindset, I created X-IDEA while being located in Asia and mainly worked with Asian and
multi-cultural audiences.
Why is it important to successfully facilitate globally diverse innovation teams through an innovation
project with the help of a structured innovation method? For one, in the past 25 years, the phenomenon of
globalisation has led to an intensification and integration of global business activities (Ridderstråle & Nord-
ström, 2000). For two, ca. fifteen years ago, a consensus emerged in the literature (see for example, Jensen,
1999 and Murakami, 2000) that humanity has evolved to a new stage of economic development. While different
authors use different labels to describe this new age, such as “the age of creation intensification” (Murakami,
2000), “the creativity economy” (Nussbaum, 2005), “the dream society” (Jensen, 1996 and 1999) or “the era of
ideanomics” (Greenspan, as quoted by Graham & Bachman, 2004), there is a wide consensus in the literature
that for individuals, companies and even economies, the ability to innovate will be a key determinant to success-
fully compete, survive and prosper in times of “the innovation economy” (Canton, 2010). Thereby, structured
innovation process methods (and related thinking tools) provide a quick and easy entry point for individuals and
companies who want to get more innovative (Bragg & Bragg, 2005). This is because these methods neither re-
quire a more time- and resources-intensive mindset change on the individual level (Ray & Myers, 1986); Cam-
eron, 1992); Reis, 2015, upcoming) nor a cultural change on the organisational level (Martins & Martins, 2002;
von Stamm, 2003 and 2003).
X-IDEA addresses a number of short-comings of other innovation process methods used to give structure to
an innovation team going through an innovation project. These identified delivery gaps relate to the systematic
integration of tools, roles, inputs and outputs, process traps and cognitive biases into an overall process flow.
This paper investigates five research-guiding questions, most of which the current author also considered
while creating and evolving the new innovation process method X-IDEA: (1) What are innovation process
methods? Why do they add value? (2) What commonalities do most innovation process methods typically
share? (3) What are differences of various innovation process methods? (4) What are typical shortcomings —
and perceptual blind spots— that many of the existing innovation process methods share in one way or another?
(5) How does X-IDEA cure the identified delivery gaps with a new, integrated innovation process method?
The first four research-guiding questions are addressed in the subsequently following review of the pertinent
literature on innovation process methods. The fifth and final question is tackled in the main findings chapter of
this paper (part 4), where I introduce the new design features of X-IDEA and explain to what extend those ad-
dress and resolve each of the identified delivery gaps of existing other methods. Finally, I discuss the relevance
of the findings to other innovation practitioners and suggest directions for further research studies related to the
methodological features of this new innovation process method.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
2

2 Innovation process methods and related thinking tools: A literature review
Defining the term innovation process method
This paper focuses on innovation process methods, thus taking a process view on creativity, innovation and de-
sign. Process is one of the 4 dimensions of creativity in Rhodes’ (1961) 4 P model of creativity (aside from peo-
ple, product and press (i.e., the environment)). I define an innovation process method as a systematic thinking
framework containing a sequence of largely cognitive activities that is used to guide individuals and —more
often— groups working on an innovation project towards producing meaningful, novel and unique solutions or
innovation deliverables. While I use the term innovation process method in this paper to emphasise the usage of
such systematic frameworks in innovation, the literature also discusses such models in the context of “creative
problem solving” (Parnes, 1967) or “design thinking” (Brown, 2008), among others.
What all of these thinking frameworks have in common is that they provide a —typically sequential— flow
of activities organised in process stages or steps. Moreover, there are one or more directional changes between
first divergent thinking and then convergent thinking going on while applying the sequence of stages or steps
(Bragg & Bragg, 2005). There is a general consensus in the literature that the application of a structured frame-
work in creative problem solving, innovation and design leads to better results and a more effective use of time
and other resources (people, budgets) as compared to following an unstructured approach to resolve a specific
focus challenge (Osborn, 1963 [1953]; Parnes, 1967; Bragg & Bragg; 2005).
An overview of existing Innovation process methods
Grounded in the observations of the scientists Poincaré and von Helmholtz, Gallas (1927) introduced a clas-
sical creative process model with four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Used to
describe breakthrough thinking by individuals, this model is based on a subconscious form of creative cognition
that takes place during the incubation stage and culminates in a Eureka of sudden illumination. In contrast, this
paper focuses on innovation process methods that can be used both by individuals and teams, and largely in-
volve conscious forms of creative cognition.
The literature on problem solving, creativity, innovation and design offers various process models of struc-
tured creative thinking. While they all emphasise the need of following a systematic thinking process with
stages to pass through, the number of stages deemed to be needed varies noticeably. For example, the classic
Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Model developed by Osborn (1963 [1953]) and Parnes (1967) suggest thinkers
to follow a six-stage process of objective finding, fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding,
and acceptance finding. Other authors advocate a four-stage approach (for example, see von Oech, 1986; Clegg
& Birch, 2002; Bragg & Bragg, 2005). The professional experience of the current author, gained in real-life in-
novation projects with his innovation company Thinkergy, suggests a five-stage approach that has proven to
successfully guide innovation teams to produce meaningful innovation outputs. Other successful innovation
companies, such as the industrial design company IDEO and the Swiss IdeaFactory BrainStore AG, also have
developed their own proprietary systematic creative processes (Kelley & Littman, 2002, 2005; Moggridge 2007;
Schnetzler, 2005).
Table 1 Process Flow of selected Innovation Process Methods
CPS Model
Idea Development
Process
IDEO Method
Idea Development
Framework
X-IDEA
Osborn & Parnes
Bragg & Bragg
IDEO
Birch & Clegg
Thinkergy
6 Stages:
1.Objective finding
2.Fact Finding
3.Problem finding
4.Idea finding
5.Solution finding
4 Stages:
1.Seeking and shaping
opportunities
2.Generating new ideas
3.Evaluating & selecting
ideas
4.Planning for imple-
mentation
3 Stages:
1.Inspiration
2.Ideation
3.Implementation
4 Stages:
1.Understand the prob-
lem
2.Generate ideas.
3.Select and refine ideas
4.Sell and implement the
idea.
5 Stages:
1.Xploration
2.Ideation
3.Development
4.Evaluation
5.Action
Source: Own table based on: Osborn (1963 [1953]) and Parnes (1963); Bragg & Bragg (2005); Birch &
Clegg (2002); Brown (2008); and Schnetzler (2005).
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
3

Shortcomings of existing innovation process methods
Working on more than a hundred innovation projects in nearly a decade has allowed the author to gain insights
in common short-comings of many of the existing process methods for innovation and creative problem-
solving:
•Surprisingly many process methods suggest the use of only one main creative stage (e.g., the stage Idea
finding in the CSP Model; the stage “Generating new ideas” in the frameworks suggested by Bragg &
Bragg (2005) and Birch & Clegg (2002), among others). This is problematic as during idea generation ef-
forts, most participants tend to immediately judge ideas on their practicality and thus suggest only “nor-
mal”, “safe” and “realistic” ideas. This violates one of Osborn’s (1963 [1953]) ground rules of idea genera-
tion, which mandates creative thinkers to shoot for wild, crazy ideas.
•Many innovation project methods also tend to neglect a systematic focus on inputs-throughputs-outputs as
an innovation case is taken through the various process stages. As innovation projects tend to be messy and
fuzzy, facilitators and participants easily lose track of what input factors they need to start a particular step
or activity, what interim outputs are involved in the process, and what final outputs in what quantity and
quality are desired before moving on to the next process step.
•Related to the previous point, many innovation process methods also do not systematically track and meas-
ure inputs, throughputs and outputs at different stages of the process flow. Failing to measure IPO relation-
ships in a systematic way is a wasted opportunity to better understand input-output relationships and to en-
hance the quality of outputs and the effectiveness of the system over time (Deming, 1964 [1943], who noted
in this context: “You can expect what you inspect.”).
•The literature contains a good array of sources on effective thinking tools (e.g., De Bono, 1992; Michalko;
1991 and 2001); Clegg & Birch; 2002; VanGundy; 2005; Hudson, 2007). However, few of the process
methods described earlier systematically integrate thinking tools into the given framework (notable excep-
tions here are Bragg & Bragg, (2005) or Kumar (2013)). Unfortunately, having to manoeuvre a rich collec-
tion of thinking tools without understanding when exactly a tool has to be used in the sequence of process
stages to accomplish what kind of objective and output, and what happens next, tends to overwhelm the
inexperienced facilitator and most participants of an innovation project.
•A number of popular innovation process methods (such as Osterwalder et.al., 2010; Kim & Mauborgne,
2005; Johnston & Bate, 2003)) cater only for one (or a limited number) of innovation types. This niche
focus tends to prevent those methods to lean towards other innovation types within the wide range of mod-
ern innovation types (as described by Keeley (2013)).
•Almost all innovation process methods have been developed —and tend to work seamlessly well— in
Western cultures. This means, however, that these methods tend to neglect the existence of cross-cultural
barriers towards certain procedural mechanisms in these framework. For example, a common theme in
Asian cultures is the risk of losing face (Kainzbauer, 2013). Hence, even when the process instruction dur-
ing idea generation asks Asian participants to suggest wild ideas, they rarely do so in order not to “lose
face” (in two studies investigating reasons for the inferiority of Brainstorming as idea generation method,
Diehl & Stroebe (1987 and 1991) identified this fear of being secretly judged and disapproved of by others
under the label “evaluation apprehension”).
•Last but not least, most innovation process methods do not systematically consider and prevent common
cognitive biases (Kahneman, 2012) and process traps (e.g., Osborn, 1963 [1953]) that innovation teams are
likely to become hostage of as they journey through the stages of a process method. This oversight leads to
the disregard or misinterpretation of project relevant evidence (Bazerman, 2012)) and the production of
suboptimal outputs at different process stages and for the project overall.
While different existing innovation process methods address some of the aforementioned shortcomings, and the
method and the toolset of the innovation company IDEO (Kelley and Littman (2002 and 2005); Brown (2008
and 2009) closes many of the identified delivery gaps, the last two points raised (i.e., intercultural issues as well
as cognitive biases and process traps) seem to be perceptual blind spots that none of the existing innovation
process methods have systematically addressed so far. Against this background, the author resolved that there
was a space to design an innovation method that resolves all identified issues with an new elegant and integrated
process framework.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
4

3 Research design
This paper follows a descriptive research design against the background that it reports of a new methodological
development in the field of innovation process methods. This research approach is deemed appropriate as the
paper largely investigates what- and how-related research questions of different innovation process methods,
thereby also following a diagnostic approach (Zigmund (2003), Ticehurst & Veal (2000)).
Supported by a team of colleagues from the Asian innovation company Thinkergy, the author has created,
tested and systematically refined X-IDEA while working on over 150 innovation projects with multicultural
audiences largely in the Asia-Pacific region. Thereby, X-IDEA evolved in phases over a 10-year time horizon by
(a) first adopting a well-established process method based on the CPS model, (b) noticing that the model doesn’t
deliver the desired results due to the identified gaps cited before, (c) experimenting with alternative process
steps, (d) realising that a second creative stage ((i.e., the Development-stage) is needed to produce both novel,
unique and meaningful idea concepts, (e) linking tools to the identified workable flow of stages and steps, and
finally (f) integrating the X-IDEA inputs, outputs, roles and traps to the method. Insofar following the notion of
rapid prototyping (Kelley, 2002; Lidwell et. al, 2010).
4 Findings: The process stages and features of X-IDEA
This section introduces the overall process flow of X-IDEA in greater detail, and explains the special methodo-
logical features that have been synthesised into an elegant integrated design to cure the identified shortcomings
and blind spots of other methods (as discussed before in the literature review chapter).
The five main process stages of X-IDEA
X-IDEA comprises of a five-step process model that can help organisations to systematically move through an
innovation project to produce meaningful innovation deliverables. The five process stages of the X-IDEA Inno-
vation Method are Xploration, Ideation, Development, Evaluation, and Action. These five stages provide a solid
backbone that facilitators follow to guide all the thinking and work activities in an innovation project. Thereby,
each of the five main process stages of X-IDEA follows a different objective, requires different styles of think-
ing, and focuses on producing a different, yet specific target output. The five main process stages are introduced
as follows:
•X-Xploration: In stage X-Xploration, an innovation team invests time to better understand the innovation
case, to find out what’s really going on in the related background situation. The participants express and
explore the case and then extract important novel insights as well as a final definition of the challenge.
Not moving straight to ideation is important because practical experiences from more than 150 innovation
projects suggest that after a thorough Xploration of the case, the initial perception of the innovation chal-
lenge changes in most cases. In this stage, participants working on an innovation project uncover knowl-
edge gaps and perceptional blind spots, thereby gaining novel insights into the case, which then allows the
teams to determine their real innovation challenge. This ensures that later on, a project team works on and
generates ideas for their real issue, thus avoiding wasting time, effort and money.
•I-Ideation: The second stage I-Ideation is the first of two exclusively creative stages and strongly focuses
on idea quantity. Here, an innovation team generates a large number of raw ideas (depending on the time at
hand, between 400-1,000++) using a selection of both classic creativity techniques and proprietary ideation-
tools of Thinkergy. In line with De Bono (1970)’s concept of Lateral Thinking, the participants laterally
ideate, imagine and incubate ideas here.
Each team is given an ambitious yet realistic idea quota of three or even four digits in line with Osborn’s
(1963 [1953]) advice that “quantity breeds quality”: The probability to have a number of original, intriguing
ideas increases the more ideas we have.
•Stage D-Development is the second exclusively creative stage. The objective of this stage is to turn idea
quantity into quality. Thereby, the teams are first asked to discover intriguing raw ideas and then design and
develop those into meaningful idea concepts, thereby mostly using Thinkergy’s proprietary design tools.
The second creative stage cures a major shortcoming of many other innovation process method as discussed
before by asking the participants to first aim for quantity (during Ideation) and only then focus on for qual-
ity (in the Development-stage). Thereby, the aim is to find and use only the most intriguing ideas to design
and develop those into a defined target number of realistic, meaningful idea concepts that add value to both
customers and the firm doing the innovation project, as well as to other parties that have a stake in the inno-
vation challenge.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
5

•E—Evaluation: In the fourth stage E—Evaluation, the teams evaluate and enhance their idea concepts to
ultimately elect those vital few top idea concepts that they feel confident to pitch for real-life activation.
After the creative frenzy of ideation and the more cultured creative development-stage, the Evaluation-stage
puts a strong emphasis on reality; it helps to ensure that time, money and efforts are concentrated on those
few idea concepts that promise to both stand a chance to succeed in the market and can be activated. Hence,
the activities in the Evaluation-stage help separating the wheat from the chaff and settle on those few idea
concepts that have the highest idea potential and implementation feasibility.
•A-Action: In the final Stage A-Action, the teams learn to take action and to persist to overcome the resis-
tance and inertia that often prevents organisations from turning a top idea into a tangible innovation deliv-
erable. Thereby, the participants assess the situation at regular intervals during an idea activation, arrange
for the next steps and then activate the planned actions.
I like to re-express a popular definition of the term innovation by 3M (as quoted in Kelley (2002)), a firm
with a decade-long track record as an innovation leader, as the following equation: “Innovation = Meaning-
ful ideas (or Creativity) + Action.” This definition highlights the importance of this final stage of X-IDEA:
An innovation team needs to take action to transform the idea into a tangible innovation deliverable.
Special methodological design features of X-IDEA
X-IDEA has integrated special design features that uniquely differ for each stage of the process are uniquely
different and are used by facilitators to guide the work of an innovation project team. These features are inputs,
steps and activities, traps, tools, and outputs. In the following, I introduce each of these factors, thereby explain-
ing the nature of each feature and why it is useful for producing better, more focused innovation outputs:
•X-IDEA Roles: To overcome cross-cultural barriers towards ideation and innovation, X-IDEA adopted and
evolved the concept of special mindsets or mental roles for creative thinking that Koestler (1989 [1964])
and von Oech (1986) proposed. For example, the role in the Ideation-stage is that of a child. Japanese or
Chinese participants now do not risk losing face by suggesting bold, wild ideas anymore because it is not
them stating a nonsensical idea, but their persona in the role of the Child (which tends to be less intimidat-
ing than the creative role of the Artist as proposed by Koestler and von Oech). Each of the five specific
mindsets of X-IDEA (Xplorer, Child, Alchemist, Judge, and Champion) perfectly fits to the required style
of thinking of each stage. Moreover, the roles add an element of fun and energy to an innovation project, as
facilitators invite participants to act out each role while working in a particular stage.
•X-IDEA Inputs: The GIGO-principle (“Garbage in, garbage out”, see Lidwell et. al, 2010) in the field of
information and communication technology applies for innovation projects, too. The input-feature of the X-
IDEA method helps facilitators to ensure that all required inputs are ready at hand (in an acceptable quality)
before a team enters one of the five X-IDEA Stages or starts the work on a particular X-IDEA Tool.
•X-IDEA Steps and Activities: In each stage of X-IDEA, the innovation teams take three steps and pursue
three specific activities, each of which represents a particular cognitive activity that takes place while using
certain thinking tools. Thereby, each activity asks the participants either to engage in divergent thinking or
convergent thinking and to think in a broad or narrow way. For example, you Discover-Design-Develop in
Stage D–Development. Last but not least, the steps and activities provide the fine coordinates that inform
facilitators when and where exactly in an innovation project journey they can apply a particular X-IDEA
thinking tool.
•X-IDEA Tools: X-IDEA is linked to a toolbox comprises a range of currently 150 analytical thinking tools
and creativity tools. Each year, 10 new thinking tools are added to respond to new trends and evolving
needs in the market.
•X-IDEA Traps: This feature helps participants to beware of cognitive biases and common process traps that
wait for innovation teams at different stages as they journey through the X-IDEA method. By creating
awareness of the existence of this thinking and process traps, this feature systematically resolves another
identified shortcoming of most innovation methods.
•X-IDEA Outputs: The output-feature ensures that at the end of an innovation project, a team has produced
meaningful innovation results. This is done by specifying —and tracking and measuring!— the target out-
puts that an innovation team needs to produce in each process stage, as well as by checking on the quality
of the outputs at each step of the way.
A selection of these different methodological elements of X-IDEA for each stage is summarised in Table 2.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
6

Table 2 Methodological design features of X-IDEA
Stage
Feature
X
Xploration
I
Ideation
D
Development
E
Evaluation
A
Action
Roles
Xplorer
Child
Alchemist
Judge
Champion
Inputs
Challenge
Evidence
Final Challenge
Raw Ideas
Initial Ideas
Idea concepts
Evaluation Criteria
Top Idea Concepts
Steps & Activities
1.Xpress
2.Xplore
3.Xtract
Ideate-Imagine-
Incubate (1. Start.
2.Play. 3. End)
1.Discover
2.Design
3.Develop
1.Evaluate
2.Enhance
3.Elect
1.Assess
2.Align
3.Activate
Tools
50+ X Tools (like
Walk A Mile, As-
sumptions Check,
Customer Portraits)
45+ X Tools (such
as Brainstorming,
What If, Metaphors,
and others)
20+ D Tools (such
as Idea Designer,
Pass the Buck, Get
Real, and others)
15+ E Tools (such
as Balance Sheet,
Rapid Prototyping,
Idea Maps, etc.)
20+ A Tools (such
as Idea Pitch, 5W2H
Action Plan, Project
Plan, and others)
Traps
Cognitive biases
such as overconfi-
dence bias, confir-
mation bias, among
others
Process traps (non-
compliance to
ground rules of
ideation)
Process traps (non-
compliance to
ground rules of idea
development)
Group-related biases
such as the Abilene
paradox or Group-
think, among others
Cognitive biases
such as hindsight
and non-rational
escalation of com-
mitment, etc.
Outputs
Final Challenge
Insights
Initial Ideas
Evaluation Criteria
Raw ideas
Idea Concepts
Top Concepts
Prototypes
Tangible innovation
deliverable
Source: Own table based on: Thinkergy X-IDEA Method Description (as of 08.2014).
Being an innovation process method, X-IDEA follows the IPO-logic (i.e., input-process (or transformation)-
output) of a system as described by general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968). Thereby, it is important to note
that input-process-output factors occur on three different levels: (a) The project level where project-related in-
puts (e.g., resources allocation of time, people, and budget to a particular innovation project; number of project
challenges; innovation types involved, among others) are utilised with X-IDEA to produce desired target outputs
(e.g., a strategic road map with a portfolio of 50 strategic action ideas to be activated in the next 5 years). (b)
The stage level, where critical stage inputs (such as a Final Challenge at the beginning of Ideation) are proc-
essed with the help of process activities (e.g., Ideate-Imagine-Incubate for raw ideas) and thinking tools (e.g.,
the ideation tool Morphological Matrix) while avoiding the process traps (non-compliance to the ground rules of
Ideation) to produce the desired target outputs (many, many raw ideas in Ideation). (c) The tool level, where
certain inputs need to be ready before applying a particular thinking tool in order to yield a specific target out-
put.
This structured, multi-level IPO approach of X-IDEA addresses another identified delivery gap of many
other innovation process methods, and also allows for all activities within X-IDEA to be systematically meas-
ured and tracked at all stages of the process (a feature called X-IDEA Stats). Continuous measurement and
analysis of the IPO data from all X-IDEA innovation projects enables Thinkergy to optimise IPO-relationships
in the process over time. For example, X-IDEA Stats allows a facilitator to set a realistic yet ambitious idea
quota for the ideation stage that fits to the number of heads in an Ideation team and the time at hand for ideation
(I Stage Inputs), and later to check on the actual raw idea scores both overall and each ideation tool (I Outputs)
to better understand what process factors (e.g., tool selection, team size, interaction style) positively or nega-
tively impacted the results.
Last but not least, the X-IDEA innovation method is designed to be universally applicable to all modern
innovation types and all areas of innovation in organisations (Keeley (2012). The model delivers superb results
both for innovation projects of a more strategic nature (such as Strategy Innovation and Business Model Innova-
tion), for more operative innovation projects (Process Innovation), for areas that focus on generating meaningful
new value propositions (such as Product Innovation, Service Innovation, Solution Design, Customer Experience
Design), and for innovation types that aim to leverage these new value propositions through value multiplication
(e.g., Channel Innovation) or value magnification (such as Brand Design, Campaign Design or Promotion De-
sign) (Reis (2006), Keeley (2013)).
The integrative methodological design logic of the X-IDEA Innovation Method is summarised in Figure 1.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
7

Figure 1 The integrative design logic of the X-IDEA innovation method by Thinkergy
5 Discussion
Conclusion: X-IDEA: An elegant framework with integrative design features to cure identified delivery gaps
X-IDEA is a new development in the domain of structured thinking processes for innovation, creative prob-
lem solving and design thinking. This method has evolved over time, thereby using practical experiences gained
from running more than 150 innovation projects across different innovation types and with participants from
various cultural and multi-cultural environments to improve on a number of identified flaws and blind spots of
other innovation process methods through an integrative design. X-IDEA has been purposefully designed to
close the identified delivery gaps of other innovation process. It does this with the help of an elegant system
architecture that has been purposefully designed into the method:
1. X-IDEA is an integrative method that unifies special design features (i.e., conducive mindsets; inputs
and outputs; thinking tools; and cognitive biases and process traps) into a sequential framework of 5
process stages and three subordinated steps within each stage.
2. The method adheres to the input-process-output (IPO) logic of systems theory and computer science on
three different levels: the project-level (meta level), a stage-level (big picture level) and a tool-level
(small picture).
3. Because it follows a structured IPO logic, X-IDEA allows for systematic measurement and tracking of
inputs, throughputs and —in particular— outputs on project, stage and tool-level, and to improve over
time both the method and its application through a corresponding feedback loop after each project.
4. X-IDEA systematically integrates a thinking toolbox with currently 150 creativity techniques and seri-
ous thinking tools into the method. Thereby, every tool has been assigned a logical default position
(i.e., stage and step within the stage) within the overall process flow where it is typically used. Provid-
ing such a usage coordinate for each tool ensures that an innovation facilitator applies a particular tool
at the right point of time while going through the process.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
8
INNOVATION
PROJECT
INPUTS
• Budget
•Time
• People
• Focus Challenge(s)
• Innovation Type(s)
INNOVATION
PROJECT
OUTPUTS
• Tangible innovation
deliverables (e.g.,
meaningful new
products or services,
new solutions, im-
pactful promotional
campaigns, novel
strategic actions, etc.)
• Learnings (e.g., more
innovation-competent
facilitators & partici-
pants)
IN-
PUTS STEPS TOOLS TRAPS OUT-
PUTS
ROLES
X-IDEA FEATURES (WITHIN EACH STAGE)
5 STAGES:
X - XPLORATION
I - IDEATION
D - DEVELOPMENT
E - EVALUATION
A - ACTION
X-IDEA INNOVATION PROCESS METHOD
STATS: MEASURE AND TRACK IPO ON ALL LEVELS

5. X-IDEA is created to cater to —and produce meaningful results for— all modern innovation types.
Moreover, thanks to the inclusion of a very comprehensive —and annually growing— toolbox, X-
IDEA allows the facilitator of an innovation project to pick an appropriate, results-producing mix of
thinking tools that suits the specific nature of each innovation type.
Recommendations for future research
In future research projects, the X-IDEA method offers the possibility to better understand input- and output-
related factors in an innovation project in general and in each process stage. Investigating optimal inputs- and
outputs-relationships with the help of a quantitative research project would allow organisations to pursue inno-
vation projects in more time- and resources-effective ways.
Observations from real-life innovation projects with X-IDEA suggest that people with different personality
types tend to enjoy more —and make more substantial contributions at—certain process stages. Future research
studies may investigate the influence of personality types at different stages, which might allow organisations to
produce better results by involving different personality types at different project stages.
References
BAZERMAN, M. H. & MOORE, D. A. (2012) Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, New York, Wiley.
BERTALANFFY, VON, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.
BRAGG, A. & BRAGG, M. (2005) Developing New Business Ideas, Harlow, Prentice Hall.
BROWN, T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84-92.
BROWN, T. (2009) Change by Design, New York, HarperCollins.
CAMERON, J. (1992) The Artist's Way. A spiritual path to higher creativity, New York, Penguin Putnam.
CANTON, J. (2007) The Extreme Future. The Top Trends That Will Reshape the World in the Next 20 Years,
New York, Plume - Penguin Group.
CLEGG, B. & BIRCH, P. (2002) Crash Course in Creativity, London, Kogan Page.
DE BONO, E. (1992) Serious Creativity, London, Harper Collins.
DEMING, W. E (1964 [1943]). Statistical Adjustment of Data. Dover.
DIEHL, M. & STROEBE, W. (1987) Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Towards the Solution of a
Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
DIEHL, M. & STROEBE, W. (1991) Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking down the Block-
ing Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.
GRAHAM, D. & BACHMAN, T. T. (2004) Ideation. The Birth and Death of Ideas, Hoboken, New Jersey, John
Wiley & Sons.
HUDSON, K. (2007) The Idea Generator. Tools for business growth, Crown Nest, Allen & Unwin.
JENSEN, R. (1996) The Dream Society. The Futurist, 9-13.
JENSEN, R. (1999) The Dream Society: How the Coming Shift from Information to Imagination Will Trans-
form Your Business, New York, McGraw-Hill.
JOHNSTON, R. & BATE, D. (2003) The Power of Strategy Innovation, New York, Amacom.
KAINZBAUER, A. (2013) Manager-Subordinate Trust Relationships in Thailand. IN CARDONA, P. & MOR-
LEY, M. J. (Eds.) Manager-Subordinate Trust – A Global Perspective. New York, Routledge Taylor &
Francis.
KELLEY, T. & LITTMAN, J. (2002) The Art of Innovation, London, Harper Collins Business.
KELLEY, T. & LITTMAN, J. (2005) The Ten Faces of Innovation, New York, Random House.
KEELEY, L. (2013) Ten Types of Innovation. The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs, New York, Wiley.
KIM, W. C. & MAUBORGNE, R. (2005) Blue Ocean Strategy: From Theory to Practice. California Manage-
ment Review, 47, 105-121.
KOESTLER, A. (1989 [1964]) The Act of Creation, London, Penguin.
KUMAR, V. (2013) 101 Design Methods. A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization,
Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.
LIDWELL, W., HOLDEN, K. & BUTLER, J. (2010) Universal principles of design, Beverly, Massachusetts,
Rockport Publishers.
MARTINS, E. & MARTINS, N. (2002) An Organisational Culture Model to Promote Creativity and Innovation.
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28, 58-65.
MICHALKO, M. (1991) Thinkertoys, Berkley, CA, Ten Speed Press.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
9

MICHALKO, M. (2001) Cracking Creativity, Berkley, CA, Ten Speed Press.
MOGGRIDGE, B. (2007) Designing Interactions, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
MURAKAMI, T. (2000) Encouraging the Emergent Evolution of New Industries. Nomura Research Institute.
NUSSBAUM, B. (2005) Get Creative! How to Build Innovative Companies. Business Week.
OSBORN, A. F. (1953) Applied Imagination, New York, Scribner's.
OSTERWALDER, A., PIGNEUR, Y., SMITH, A. & ET.AL. (2010) Business Model Generation, Self published.
PARNES, S. J. (1967) Creative Behavior Guidebook, New York, Charles Scribner.
RAY, M. & MYERS, R. (1986) Creativity in Business, New York, Broadway Books.
REIS, D. (2006) Business Education in the Age of Value Creation. The Asia Forum on Business Education. Ha-
noi, Vietnam.
REIS, D. (2015, forthcoming) Genius Journey. Developing Authentic Creative Leaders for the Innovation Econ-
omy, unpublished.
RHODES, J. M. (1961) An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-311.
RIDDERSTRÅLE, J. & NORDSTRÖM, K. (2000) Funky Business, Harlow, Prentice Hall FT.
SCHNETZLER, N. (2004) Die Ideenmaschine, Weinheim, Wiley.
TICEHURST, G. W. & VEAL, A. J. (2000) Business Research Methods. A managerial approach, Frenchs For-
est, Pearson Education.
VANGUNDY, A. B. (2005) 101 Activities for Teaching Creativity and Problem Solving, San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
VON OECH, R. (1986) A Kick in the Seat of the Pants, New York, HarperCollins Publishers.
VON OECH, R. (1998) A Whack on the Side of the Head, New York, Warner Books.
VON STAMM, B. (2003) Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, Chichester, West Sussex, John Wiley &
Sons.
VON STAMM, B. (2003) The Innovation Wave. Meeting the Corporate Challenge, Chichester, West Sussex,
John Wiley & Sons.
WALLAS, G. (1926) The Art of Thought, New York, Wiley.
ZIGMUND, W. G. (2003) Business Research Methods, Mason, Ohio, South Western - Thomson Learning.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum 2014, Singapore on 7-10 December 2014.
The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
10