In previous articles we have already established that creativity is a process, and that certain levels of preparation, critical thinking and analysis are necessary for successful creative production.
Even so, in the ICPP or 7-Step model for Integrated Creative Planning & Production I describe here, analysis (or review) is virtually permanent; present in some form or another at every step of the way.
It starts with the client briefing in step 1, but kicks in at full creative force once data gathering has been completed and the “Intelligence” generation process begins (step 2.3).
From there on to the very end of the process, critical thinking and analysis are necessary – for example – to determine which strategic proposal is likely to be the most successful, which idea or ideas have the most potential, which arguments are the most appropriate to “Sell” and/or “Bullet-prove” the creative product, or which media are the most effective to reach specific target audiences.
Analysis is ongoing even when the creative production cycle has ended in step 7, because after publication, the media- and research departments keep tracking and analyzing the consumer- and marketing data generated by any given campaign.
These data and their respective analysis are not only used to measure the impact and effectiveness of the effort, but also as input for the next campaign cycle, for example to fine-tune or modify strategy.
In advertising the strategic-creative process is a permanent, virtuous cycle, with every next campaign building on the knowledge generated by previous ones, combined with the profundization of the team's knowledge of the brand, product(s) customers and markets.
Contrarily, in many organizations – even large ones – this permanent feed-back and analysis cycle appears to be rather less habitual, in spite of the sometimes astounding pace of change which can be observed in virtually any marketplace, today.
At least amongst the clients that I have had the opportunity to work with, Corporate Strategy or even Marketing Strategy revisions are fairly infrequent, rarely take place on a regular schedule and even less frequently involve the complete team - which ought to include representatives from the organization's ecosystem.
This is particularly curious because modern strategic thinking theory clearly establishes that the future – especially the short-term future – is increasingly nebulous and that Strategy ought not to be static, but rather a permanent succession of small, adaptive adjustments, be that because of moving competition, shifting markets or changing customer needs.
The following are analysis tools that can be used for a wide number of purposes: prospective, scenario planning, strategy generation, problem definition, product improvement, etc., etc..
Analysis Tools.
• AIDA.
Analysis of Interactive Decision Areas. A matrixing method, which allows to eliminate conflicting solutions in interrelated problem solving, where the solution for one problem may negatively affect an interacting or related problem.
• Alternative Scenarios.
Method used in prospective research for possible futures. Alternative scenarios may be created by taking the same problem or strategy, but analyzing them from different environmental perspectives or influencing forces.
• CATWOE.
Customer, Actors, Transformation Process, World View, Owner (of the problem), Environment. Checklist for problem or goal definition in systems. It analyses the system that contains the problem/objective for possible solutions, rather than focusing on the given problem or objective itself.
• Comparison tables.
Matrix which allows to compare and weigh a series of alternatives in relation to their multiple properties, such as used in product comparisons, for example. Similarly, it can be used to weigh and rank ideas, strategy proposals, pros & cons, etc..
• Decision Seminar.
Conceptual framework for prospective analysis and/or decision making. Consists of 5 intellectual tasks, 7 information categories, 8 key values for analysis and a 7-step decision process. Depends heavily on the participation of experts in the given study area.
• DELPHI.
Method for expert analysis of complex problems. It makes use of multiple questionnaires and – in some cases – large groups of participants (up to 100), which makes it expensive and difficult to administer in comparison with similar methods (“Decision Seminar”, “Think Tank”, “Brainstorming”).
Even so, the method has proved its usefulness, especially when analyzing extremely complex problems where resources are not a relevant limiting factor.
• Dimensional Analysis.
Checklist akin to the “Journalistic Six”, useful for initial problem exploration or the evaluation of alternatives, particularly in the case of those of social-, rather than technical nature.
It consists of 5 dimensions: Substantive (What), Spacial (Where), Temporal (When), Quantitative (How Much) and Qualitative (How Serious).
• Do Nothing.
By asking “What would happen if we do nothing” the solver(s) may be able to – alternatively – determine that the problem does not need solving, analyze the benefits of solving it and/or generate alternative problems, scenarios, solutions.
• Fish-bone Diagram.
Ishikawa (1985). Helpful technique, similar to “Force-field analysis”, for identifying and structuring possible problem causes or “root problems”.
It creates a graphical representation in which the spine represents advancing time and the fish-bones the relationships between the different forces or factors that are related to the problem.
• Force-Field Analysis.
Describes the conflicting forces in a given situation. By identifying the so-called “Driving Forces” and “Restraining Forces”, the solver(s) may be able to correctly analyze and weigh the factors that are likely to influence the problem solution, after which various ideas to either strengthen the drivers or weaken the restrainers may be generated.
• Gap Analysis.
Methodical investigation tool, which studies and analyzes a given business area, industry or market for “gaps” or “openings” – such as uncovered customer needs – which may create opportunities for innovation, product development, etc.
• Idea Box.
Structured problem solving analysis tool which uses a matrix of problem related parameters and their variations to cross examine or recombine different possible solutions.
• Problem Inventory Analysis - PIA.
A technique to develop a generic problem into multiple sub problems, by asking (users) about how it expresses itself in specific ways.
For example: this store is performing poorly. Why? Wrong location, wrong assortment, too much competition, looks expensive, poor product presentation, bad customer service, ill-behaved staff, etc.
• Reframing Values.
A technique to allow reframing a given problem by defining it in various bipolar or contradicting concepts, expressions, and then reversing each one on itself; negative, positive and v.v..
• Sequential Attributes Matrix.
Checklist matrix for problems that consist of sequentially connected, interdependent elements, which generally present themselves in intricate systems.
Attribute listings of generic modifications (such as Osborn’s checklist) often treat parts of a system or process as independent of each other, when in reality changes in one part – according to General System Theory, almost without exception – affect the entire system.
• SODA.
Strategic Options Development and Analysis is a methodology for group research which contributes to the clarification of the various viewpoints related to a specific problem or problem area.
Part of the method is the use of “Causal Mapping”, which is helpful to visualize the perception of the situation by the research subjects.
• Strategic Assumption Testing (SAT).
A method which uses the opinions and assumptions of outsiders to ensure that problem definition or strategy outlines are consistent and free of ambivalence.
A 2 x 2 matrix is used to map the statements in terms of Potential (high/low) vs. Likelihood of occurrence (likely/unlikely).
• Strategic Choice Approach (SCA).
A technique used for analyzing and solving complex problems and their sub-problems based on 5 basic principles:
- Shaping (identifying problem areas),
- Designing, (possible solutions, their potential and disadvantages),
- Comparing (evaluation of ideas),
- Choosing (the best possible ideas),
- Compiling (action plan).
According to research, SCA is recognized by an increasing number of decision makers as particularly useful when working under (time) pressure.
• SWOT Analysis.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Treats. Probably the most widely used strategic analysis tool, today. While very useful to map the current status quo of an organization, in my opinion it has one mayor weakness, which is that it tends to trap the analyst into “Inside the Box Thinking”.
This limits its potential for opportunity recognition, even though this has more to do with the creative capability of the analyst(s) than with the methodology itself. “Reframing Values” is one example of various methods that may be helpful for the analyst/solver to think “Outside the Box” when creating a SWOT analysis.
• Technology Monitoring.
A method similar to “Gap Analysis” that systematically logs the technological advances in a particular discipline or field, and is aimed at recognizing convergence or breaking points that allow for dramatic technological innovation.
• Think Tank.
Group of experts, dedicated at developing know-how in a particular knowledge field.
• Tug of War.
Very similar to “Force Field Analysis”. Consists of: Problem definition, White scenario, Black scenario, Help/Hinder and Analysis of modifiable helpful and opposing forces.
• Using Experts.
Not a method in itself, but rather a description of situations where the use of experts may be helpful. Methods are DELPHI, Decision Seminar, SODA and Think Tank, amongst others.
• Value Engineering.
A systematic approach for optimizing a product or service’s value-for-money in terms of its functions. Analyses the following: Basic Function, Secondary Function, Supporting Functions, Cost-Effectiveness of each function, cost effective Function Improvement.
Even so, in the ICPP or 7-Step model for Integrated Creative Planning & Production I describe here, analysis (or review) is virtually permanent; present in some form or another at every step of the way.
It starts with the client briefing in step 1, but kicks in at full creative force once data gathering has been completed and the “Intelligence” generation process begins (step 2.3).
From there on to the very end of the process, critical thinking and analysis are necessary – for example – to determine which strategic proposal is likely to be the most successful, which idea or ideas have the most potential, which arguments are the most appropriate to “Sell” and/or “Bullet-prove” the creative product, or which media are the most effective to reach specific target audiences.
Analysis is ongoing even when the creative production cycle has ended in step 7, because after publication, the media- and research departments keep tracking and analyzing the consumer- and marketing data generated by any given campaign.
These data and their respective analysis are not only used to measure the impact and effectiveness of the effort, but also as input for the next campaign cycle, for example to fine-tune or modify strategy.
In advertising the strategic-creative process is a permanent, virtuous cycle, with every next campaign building on the knowledge generated by previous ones, combined with the profundization of the team's knowledge of the brand, product(s) customers and markets.
Contrarily, in many organizations – even large ones – this permanent feed-back and analysis cycle appears to be rather less habitual, in spite of the sometimes astounding pace of change which can be observed in virtually any marketplace, today.
At least amongst the clients that I have had the opportunity to work with, Corporate Strategy or even Marketing Strategy revisions are fairly infrequent, rarely take place on a regular schedule and even less frequently involve the complete team - which ought to include representatives from the organization's ecosystem.
This is particularly curious because modern strategic thinking theory clearly establishes that the future – especially the short-term future – is increasingly nebulous and that Strategy ought not to be static, but rather a permanent succession of small, adaptive adjustments, be that because of moving competition, shifting markets or changing customer needs.
The following are analysis tools that can be used for a wide number of purposes: prospective, scenario planning, strategy generation, problem definition, product improvement, etc., etc..
Analysis Tools.
• AIDA.
Analysis of Interactive Decision Areas. A matrixing method, which allows to eliminate conflicting solutions in interrelated problem solving, where the solution for one problem may negatively affect an interacting or related problem.
• Alternative Scenarios.
Method used in prospective research for possible futures. Alternative scenarios may be created by taking the same problem or strategy, but analyzing them from different environmental perspectives or influencing forces.
• CATWOE.
Customer, Actors, Transformation Process, World View, Owner (of the problem), Environment. Checklist for problem or goal definition in systems. It analyses the system that contains the problem/objective for possible solutions, rather than focusing on the given problem or objective itself.
• Comparison tables.
Matrix which allows to compare and weigh a series of alternatives in relation to their multiple properties, such as used in product comparisons, for example. Similarly, it can be used to weigh and rank ideas, strategy proposals, pros & cons, etc..
• Decision Seminar.
Conceptual framework for prospective analysis and/or decision making. Consists of 5 intellectual tasks, 7 information categories, 8 key values for analysis and a 7-step decision process. Depends heavily on the participation of experts in the given study area.
• DELPHI.
Method for expert analysis of complex problems. It makes use of multiple questionnaires and – in some cases – large groups of participants (up to 100), which makes it expensive and difficult to administer in comparison with similar methods (“Decision Seminar”, “Think Tank”, “Brainstorming”).
Even so, the method has proved its usefulness, especially when analyzing extremely complex problems where resources are not a relevant limiting factor.
• Dimensional Analysis.
Checklist akin to the “Journalistic Six”, useful for initial problem exploration or the evaluation of alternatives, particularly in the case of those of social-, rather than technical nature.
It consists of 5 dimensions: Substantive (What), Spacial (Where), Temporal (When), Quantitative (How Much) and Qualitative (How Serious).
• Do Nothing.
By asking “What would happen if we do nothing” the solver(s) may be able to – alternatively – determine that the problem does not need solving, analyze the benefits of solving it and/or generate alternative problems, scenarios, solutions.
• Fish-bone Diagram.
Ishikawa (1985). Helpful technique, similar to “Force-field analysis”, for identifying and structuring possible problem causes or “root problems”.
It creates a graphical representation in which the spine represents advancing time and the fish-bones the relationships between the different forces or factors that are related to the problem.
• Force-Field Analysis.
Describes the conflicting forces in a given situation. By identifying the so-called “Driving Forces” and “Restraining Forces”, the solver(s) may be able to correctly analyze and weigh the factors that are likely to influence the problem solution, after which various ideas to either strengthen the drivers or weaken the restrainers may be generated.
• Gap Analysis.
Methodical investigation tool, which studies and analyzes a given business area, industry or market for “gaps” or “openings” – such as uncovered customer needs – which may create opportunities for innovation, product development, etc.
• Idea Box.
Structured problem solving analysis tool which uses a matrix of problem related parameters and their variations to cross examine or recombine different possible solutions.
• Problem Inventory Analysis - PIA.
A technique to develop a generic problem into multiple sub problems, by asking (users) about how it expresses itself in specific ways.
For example: this store is performing poorly. Why? Wrong location, wrong assortment, too much competition, looks expensive, poor product presentation, bad customer service, ill-behaved staff, etc.
• Reframing Values.
A technique to allow reframing a given problem by defining it in various bipolar or contradicting concepts, expressions, and then reversing each one on itself; negative, positive and v.v..
• Sequential Attributes Matrix.
Checklist matrix for problems that consist of sequentially connected, interdependent elements, which generally present themselves in intricate systems.
Attribute listings of generic modifications (such as Osborn’s checklist) often treat parts of a system or process as independent of each other, when in reality changes in one part – according to General System Theory, almost without exception – affect the entire system.
• SODA.
Strategic Options Development and Analysis is a methodology for group research which contributes to the clarification of the various viewpoints related to a specific problem or problem area.
Part of the method is the use of “Causal Mapping”, which is helpful to visualize the perception of the situation by the research subjects.
• Strategic Assumption Testing (SAT).
A method which uses the opinions and assumptions of outsiders to ensure that problem definition or strategy outlines are consistent and free of ambivalence.
A 2 x 2 matrix is used to map the statements in terms of Potential (high/low) vs. Likelihood of occurrence (likely/unlikely).
• Strategic Choice Approach (SCA).
A technique used for analyzing and solving complex problems and their sub-problems based on 5 basic principles:
- Shaping (identifying problem areas),
- Designing, (possible solutions, their potential and disadvantages),
- Comparing (evaluation of ideas),
- Choosing (the best possible ideas),
- Compiling (action plan).
According to research, SCA is recognized by an increasing number of decision makers as particularly useful when working under (time) pressure.
• SWOT Analysis.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Treats. Probably the most widely used strategic analysis tool, today. While very useful to map the current status quo of an organization, in my opinion it has one mayor weakness, which is that it tends to trap the analyst into “Inside the Box Thinking”.
This limits its potential for opportunity recognition, even though this has more to do with the creative capability of the analyst(s) than with the methodology itself. “Reframing Values” is one example of various methods that may be helpful for the analyst/solver to think “Outside the Box” when creating a SWOT analysis.
• Technology Monitoring.
A method similar to “Gap Analysis” that systematically logs the technological advances in a particular discipline or field, and is aimed at recognizing convergence or breaking points that allow for dramatic technological innovation.
• Think Tank.
Group of experts, dedicated at developing know-how in a particular knowledge field.
• Tug of War.
Very similar to “Force Field Analysis”. Consists of: Problem definition, White scenario, Black scenario, Help/Hinder and Analysis of modifiable helpful and opposing forces.
• Using Experts.
Not a method in itself, but rather a description of situations where the use of experts may be helpful. Methods are DELPHI, Decision Seminar, SODA and Think Tank, amongst others.
• Value Engineering.
A systematic approach for optimizing a product or service’s value-for-money in terms of its functions. Analyses the following: Basic Function, Secondary Function, Supporting Functions, Cost-Effectiveness of each function, cost effective Function Improvement.
No comments:
Post a Comment