Here is a brief excerpt from an article co-authored by Joseph V. Sinfield, Tim Gustafson and Brian Hindo for the MIT Sloan Management Review. To read the complete article, check out all the other resources, and obtain subscription information, please click here.

* * *

[Here are the first three steps of a seven-step process.]

Step 1: Define the problem and solution space.

Many people make an intuitive connection between creative ideas and unconstrained, blue-sky thinking. Yet many executives are not clear enough about what they would consider a good idea and what’s a nonstarter in light of the organization’s strategic priorities. Although thinking divergently is critical to idea generation, it’s important to delineate boundaries around both the problem (what exactly you’re proposing to solve) and the solution (what types of answers you seek and find acceptable).

Beyond the obvious benefit of ensuring that employees don’t waste time and resources pursuing ideas that are destined for the cutting room floor, having clearly defined boundaries can help expand, rather than constrict, the sense of what’s possible and the range of ideas generated. Additionally, constraining the problem and solution space forces idea generators to delve into an area. The result is typically a much broader range of ideas that are on target and have real potential to move forward toward impact.

The first step in the MDR-TB initiative was to define guidelines and boundaries. Working with our project partners, we made several decisions. For instance, we quickly decided to focus on the TB drug supply chain, on the assumption that this was where our ideation efforts were likely to have the greatest impact. Thus, we deemphasized other problematic areas, such as drug development, diagnosis or geopolitics.

At the same time, we discussed various elements of potential solutions. For example, we decided that solutions should result in patient impact within three years. This was a calculated risk: We knew that this constraint might tamp down “moon-shot thinking,” but we reasoned that quick, tangible wins were the more important goal.

Step 2: Break the problem down.

Even after our decision to focus on the MDR-TB supply chain, the problem was too complex to move directly into idea generation. Attempting to tackle everything at once was too daunting. Indeed, manufacturing the right quantities of quality-assured second-line drugs and distributing them efficiently and accurately to match the demand from thousands of individual clinics involves hundreds of individual transactions.

Therefore, we decided to create a map of all the components of the MDR-TB drug supply chain. Relying on a combination of research and interviews with experts, we identified several specific barriers preventing drugs from efficiently reaching patients in need. One barrier stemmed from the fact that current detection and tracking methods for cases were not effective, which led to potential mismatches between supply and demand. Another barrier was the high price of “quality-assured” drugs. In all, we identified 12 barriers.

Step 3: Make the problem personal.

As a third step, we studied each of the individual barriers and developed specific targets for solution development. But even though we were sometimes dealing with broad issues, we didn’t treat them as abstract challenges. Rather, we approached the problems with empathy, because we knew that each of them affected individuals. One of the best ways we know of to encourage empathy is, as Clayton Christensen has written, to define the “jobs to be done” for which you need to “hire” solutions. That requires getting in front of customers or stakeholders and observing them. In particular, we looked for jobs to be done that are important to stakeholders, where no adequate solutions have been found and where there is sure to be lots of demand. In our experience, the jobs tend to fall into three broad categories — functional, emotional and social — and in order to fully understand the problem you need to solve, you must consider all three.

Once the job is defined, the goal is to make it as real as possible to the people who will be generating ideas. For example, community health workers were frustrated that case tracking data were not adequately shared between international and local health authorities; hospital officials struggled to manage demand from volumes of patients they hadn’t anticipated. To bring these problems to life, we created posters depicting the problems and featuring quotes from the individuals involved. During day one, we divided the group into teams of four to six. They were asked to spend 90 minutes examining a specific problem and generating solutions.

* * *

Ideas can really come from anywhere — a chance encounter in the hallway, a thought during the drive home, a “eureka” moment in the bathtub. But managers can’t afford to rely on haphazard, hit-or-miss approaches. Unlike traditional brainstorming, the approach we have outlined weaves in a deep understanding of the marketplace, business model generation and emergent strategy. In that way, it increases the chances that the thinking it generates can lead to real business impact.

* * *

Here is a direct link to the complete article.

Joseph V. Sinfield is an associate professor of civil engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and a senior partner at Innosight, a global strategy and innovation consulting firm based in Lexington, Massachusetts. Tim Gustafson is a principal at Innosight, and Brian Hindo is a manager at the firm.