How to brainstorm effectively?

A few weeks ago, I took part in a brainstorming session (or talkoot in Suomi) on resting-state networks. The gathering was of academics from Finland at various levels of seniority.

Now, I am just back from a brainstorming session organized by Nokia Research. The group consisted of predominantly NRC engineers, designers, and a few outsiders. Since my lips are sealed by the IPR police, I am not at liberty to tell you what it was about. However, I was paying attention to the creative-argumentative process of each and every participant.

Obviously, the sessions were very different in character, participants, participation, format of discussion, and goals. However, let me attempt to take away some universals, and propose some recommendations on how to brainstorm effectively. Obviously, my impressions are fresh, superficial and open to critique.

How to brainstorm effectively

1. Agree in the first 5 minutes on:
a) What you are talking about
b) What you expect the discussion to lead to

2. Spend the next 5-10 minutes on defining the keywords. Usually, in an "interdisciplinary" (the bunny ears have a deep meaning) setting, for each participant, each keyword has a different set of association-keywords (keywords that are triggered by said keyword). If possible, go around the room once and ask people to suggest a few association-keywords. Organize them into a venn diagram if necessary, with each set representing a single participant or their background. If appropriate, brainstorm a tagline (in the advertising, or elevator-pitch sense: the key idea in 5 words or less) consisting of these keywords. Mutliple taglines representing multiple views of the idea enrich the ensuing discussion.

3. Be aware of
a) bounded rationality (there is not enough time and capacity to examine ALL the facts and derive opinions from first principles)
b) bounded comprehension (you may have to repeat yourself in different words, a different style, or pause to explain keywords)
c) bounded empathy (do not expect each participant to agree with a personal opinion dear to you, such as: come on, let's face it, X is bullshit, right?)

4. As an orchestrator, maintain a sense of balance between
a) obviously contradictory viewpoints due to prior biases of participants (an effective strategy to deal with this is what I'd like to call continuum mapping [1]).
b) the need to not idea-kill (let all flowers bloom) and the need to be precise (about definitions, goals of the session etc.).
c) creativity (btw, it strikes me that this can be applied to XYZ) vs. focus (is this strictly relevant?).

5. Accept beforehand, and expect that your stand on an issue may be contradicted, modified, fleshed out etc.

6. At the end of the session (or even through the session), go back and revise keywords, definitions, venn diagrams and taglines. These can finally be wrapped up cutely, as a take home message.

Any other points?

[1] Continuum mapping (own coinage, open for revision) is a technique that may be used by an arbitrator during a debate, or conflict resolution when parties or people explicitly, and diametrically disagree. The arbitrator simply maps each (polemic) viewpoint at two ends of a continuum, and opens the house for examples/suggestions/parameters/viewpoints that fit somewhere in between the continuum, thus defusing the tension. Continuum mapping may be used to visualize various trade-offs and cost-benefit charts.