Dr. Edward De Bono

systems led him to derive an understanding which he then applied to the neural networks of the brain (see The Mechanism of Mind 1969 - Penguin books).

His instruction in thinking has been sought by many organisations: IBM, Prudential, GM, BT (UK), NTT (Japan), Nokia (Finland), Mondadori (Italy), Total (France), Siemens (Germany), Bosch (Germany), Ericsson (Sweden) and many others. His methods are now mandatory on the school curriculum in many countries and widely used in others. He has written 67 books with translations into 37 languages and has been invited to lecture in 57 countries. The appeal of Dr. de Bono's work is its simplicity and practicality. It can be used by four year olds and by senior executives; by Down syndrome youngsters and Nobel laureates.

Dr. de Bono is currently the chairman of the Council of Young Enterprise Europe which has a membership of 1,500,000 youngsters across Europe, Israel and Russia who set up mini-businesses while at school. Dr. de Bono has established the World Academy of New Thinking� (WANT) which is an association of those who believe in the need for new thinking and the importance of new thinking. 'New Thinking' means new perceptions, fresh alternatives, a change of emphasis and the generation and design of new concepts and ideas. The role of this Academy is specifically concerned with new thinking in conflict resolution, problem solving, economic development, education, health and most areas effecting daily life.

Creativity (in terms of new ideas and new perceptions) is not a mystical gift but a learnable skill. The formal and deliberate processes of lateral thinking are all based on a consideration of the behaviour of information in a self-organising system, such as the nerve networks of the human brain - for which we should be most grateful. They also form asymmetric patterns: the route from A to B is not the same as the route from B to A.

The formal techniques of lateral thinking include: provocation and movement; challenge; concept fans and concept triangles; random entry, etc. They are so powerful that in one afternoon on company (under the guidance of Carol Ferguson in South Africa) generated 21,000 ideas using just one technique. In Singapore, Peter and Linda Low ran a workshop from which came eight patents.

Lateral Thinking: A way of thinking that seeks a solution to an intractable problem through unorthodox methods or elements that would normally be ignored by logical thinking.

Dr. Edward de Bono divides thinking into two methods. He calls one �vertical thinking,� which uses the processes of logic�the traditional, historical method. He calls the other �lateral thinking,� which involves disrupting an apparent thinking sequence and arriving at the solution from another angle.

Developing breakthrough ideas does not have to be the result of luck or a shotgun effort. Dr. de Bono�s proven Lateral Thinking methods provide a deliberate, systematic process that will result in innovative thinking. Creative thinking is not a talent; it�s a skill that can be learned. It empowers people by adding strength to their natural abilities, which improves creativity and innovation, which leads to increased productivity and profit. Today, better quality and better service are essential, but they are not enough. Creativity and innovation are the only engines that will drive lasting, global success.

This framework is now very widely used around the world. It is used by top executives at some of the world's largest corporations (Siemens, Bosch, British Telecom, Prudential, ABB, 3M, Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia etc.) and by four year-olds in school (Clayfield College, Brisbane, and the Low's School in Singapore). Simon Batchelor, on an aid mission to Cambodia, found himself teaching the framework to Khmer Villagers to get them involved in Water-drilling projects.

It is an alternative to traditional argument and is far more constructive. At any moment all thinkers involved are thinking in the same 'direction.' The direction is indicated by one or other of the six coloured hats. For example, the White Hat requires an attention to information: what do we have; what do we need; what is missing. The Green Hat demands a focus on 'creative effort.' When the Green Hat is in use everyone makes a creative effort: new ideas, alternatives, modifications of an idea, possibilities, provocations, etc.

Experience has shown that Six Hat thinking is much more powerful and constructive than argument or discussion. It is also very much faster. Meeting times are reduced to one quarter or even one tenth.

The Six Hats method gets rid of egos, which are such a problem in traditional thinking. It is no longer a matter of defending an idea or attacking an idea. If you want to show off you do so be performing very well under each hat.

The Six Hat method is based on a consideration of how the brain chemicals differ when we are being cautious and when we are being positive. This chemical pre-sensitization is a key part of brain function. You cannot sensitize in all directions at once - so there is an absolute need to separate out the modes of thinking.

4. It�s a control mechanism used to maximize and organize a person�s thoughts (help make decisions and solve problems).

Dr. de Bono�s Six Thinking Hats will provides employees with skills and tools that they can apply immediately! It is a simple, effective system that helps them become more productive. You and your team members can learn how to separate thinking into six distinct categories. Each category is identified with its own colored metaphorical "thinking hat.� By mentally wearing and switching �hats,� you can easily focus or redirect thoughts, the conversation, or the meeting. The difference between brilliant and mediocre teams lies not so much in their collective mental equipment, but in how well they use it and how well they work together.

	The White Hat The White Hat calls for information known or needed.		The Red Hat The Red Hat signifies feelings, hunches, and intuition.
	The Black Hat The Black hat is judgment�the devil�s advocate or why something may not work.		The Yellow Hat The Yellow hat symbolizes brightness and optimism.
	The Green Hat The Green hat focuses on creativity: the possibilities, alternatives, and new ideas.		The Blue Hat The Blue Hat is used to manage the thinking process.

Misconceptions about Creativity

There are so many misconceptions about creativity that I want to list some of them here:

Misconception 1: 'Creativity is all to do with art'
It is unfortunate that the word 'creativity' has been pre-empted by art. Education systems believe that they are teaching creativity when they are really teaching expression and art. Creativity is to do with changing perceptions, concepts, ways of doing things etc. All these are quite separate from art. Many people who are highly creative have no artistic talent at all. Art has its own validity and value and a type of creativity is indeed used - but creativity is much broader and may contain no element of art at all. Nor does art prepare the mind in any way for 'idea creativity.'

Misconception 2: 'Creativity and thinking are all to do with "problem-solving" '
This is a very dangerous misconception very prevalent in the USA where all thinking is said to be problem-solving. Most of the major benefits of creativity come not from problem solving at all but from re-thinking and changing what was excellent, adequate and certainly not a problem. When I suggested in 1971 that oil wells should be drilled horizontally at a certain level, traditional oil wells were not a problem. The newer method is between three and six times more productive.

Misconception 3: 'Creativity is a mysterious talent that only some people have'

Again this is dangerous because it means that we can do nothing about creativity except select creative people. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we believe it, then we do nothing. If we do nothing, then creativity can only come from people with some natural talent! It is true that some people are more motivated than others to challenge and innovate and spend more time trying to be creative. It is true that some people have developed some habits of mind which are more creative. Nevertheless, creative thinking is a skill that anyone can learn. It is a skill that can be learned, practiced and developed. The formal tools of lateral thinking can be used by anyone at all. As with any skill, some people are going to be better than others - not necessarily those who are 'naturally' creative. Indeed, the conformists may actually become better at playing the 'game' of creativity once they learn the rules.

Misconception 4: 'That feeling free, uninhibited, suspending judgement etc. are a sufficient approach to creativity'
Brainstorming does have some value but it is very weak. The formal and deliberate processes of lateral thinking which are based on the way the brain works as a self-organising information system, are much more powerful and can be used deliberately.

Misconception 5: 'That creativity is only a group process'
This is not true at all. Individuals can be highly creative on their own and are often slowed down by having to work in a group. The formal techniques of lateral thinking can all be used by an individual on his or her own. If you can provide your own stimulation (as with a provocation or a random entry) you do not depend on others for stimulation. Groups do indeed have value in terms of building on ideas and getting a team to'buy in' to an idea.

Unfortunately the brain can only see what it is prepared to see. So you will not see the 'idea' in the data unless you have first formed the idea as a speculation. This suggests that 'data mining' will only reveal a fraction of the value in the data.

Misconception 7: 'That creativity is a sort of cosmetic, peripheral luxury '

This is a traditional view. Today creativity is seen as central to business and elsewhere. Structure financing, method of operating, processes etc. etc. all require creativity. Routines need to be challenged. New technical possibilities need to be explored. Efficiency is not enough. You can starve very efficiently - but you are still starving.

Misconception 8: 'That creativity is just messing around and hoping ideas will happen '

This is a well-meaning but limited view. If you put people in a different context you may free up their thinking. But this is not enough to create important new ideas. There is a need for a much more productive and deliberate process.

Misconception 9: 'That creativity is enough to produce ideas'
Creativity may be enough to produce ideas. But you will never know if they are good ideas unless you also develop a high degree of 'value sensitivity.' This is every bit as important as creativity. I have sat in on many meetings where very good ideas were generated but the people present were unable to see the value of the ideas.

Misconception 10: 'That organisations can produce all the new ideas they need in-house'

This is extremely unlikely since many ideas may depend on being freed from the usual thinking (and values) within an organisation. Also there is no reason to suppose that organisations can employ the most creative people. Such people may not want to work for large organisations. Outsourcing creativity will become as routine as outsourcing advertising.

Edward de Bono's work helped shatter the theory that creativity is a talent possessed only by a gifted few who can see beyond current paradigms. His seminal work in The Mechanism of the Mind and later in Lateral Thinking established the theory that creativity is a skill that can be developed and enhanced through structured training and teaching. The editors of QMHC invited Dr. de Bono to share his thoughts on the relationship between creativity and quality. In this essay he presents his views on possible limitations of traditional quality improvement thinking and demonstrates the importance that creativity plays in enhancing quality improvement efforts.

Conformists are good at playing the game. At school they quickly learn how to pass tests, how to please the teacher, and how to copy when necessary. Later in life they are also good at assessing the game that is in play and then good at playing that game.

So we have tended to leave creativity to the rebels. These are the people who cannot play the game, do not want to play the game, and even want to be different for the sake of being different.

We have been satisfied with that image of creativity. We have supposed that creativity is a combination of 'rebellious' motivation and inborn talent.

Suppose that image of creativity is not only wrong but dangerous. Suppose that it is dangerous because it prevents us from advancing the serious use of creativity. We can, I believe, move away from this old fashioned view of creativity. We can move away from the notion that creativity is just messing around with brainstorming and hoping new ideas will happen.

Consider an ordinary person who is bound up tightly with a rope. Obviously that person is not able to play the violin. If the tied-up person cannot play the violin then surely cutting the rope and freeing that person makes the person a violinist? This is an absurd leap of logic. Freeing the person may be a necessary step toward violin playing but does not, by itself, provide violin playing skills. Why then do we apply this absurd logic to creativity?

We have observed that inhibited people are not creative. We then suppose that "liberating" people will suddenly make them creative. It does not follow at all. Yet almost the entire effort toward encouraging creative thinking has been concerned with freeing people up and liberating them from their inhibitions. It is supposed to be enough to be crazy. No wonder creativity is not taken seriously and is not as effective as it might be.

Today, for the first time in history, we can understand the 'game' or creativity. This means that the conformists can now learn to play this game. Because conformists are better at learning and playing games, there is now a strong possibility that conformists will actually become more creative than the rebels - if the conformists have the motivation.

How are the conformists going to get the creative motivation which is so natural to the rebels? There are two approaches.

1. Conformists can be shown the "logic" of creativity. We now know that there is an absolute mathematical need for creativity in any self-organizing information system such as human perception. I have found that mathematicians, highly technical people, and accountants, for example, suddenly see the logical basis of creativity. One time I was teaching lateral thinking methods to a group of Nobel prize-winning physicists. At first they were skeptical, but once they could see the logic behind the techniques, they tried them out and were surprised to find they worked.
2. Exhorting people to be creative has only a very limited effect on motivation and even that limited effect wears off pretty quickly. It is far better to teach some lateral thinking techniques. Once people find that they can use such techniques systematically and that they produce results, then motivation follows. If you find that you can be creative, then you want to be.

My research work in medicine covered many of the complicated interactive systems in the human body: respiration, circulation, kidneys, endocrine glands, and so on. I was forced to develop concepts to deal with self-organizing information systems.

In 1969, I wrote the Mechanism of Mind, in which I described how nerve networks allowed information to organize itself into sequences or routine patterns. At that time, those ideas were unusual. Today they are mainstream thinking. In fact, the leading physicist in the world (Murray Gell Mann) read that book and observed that I was writing about these things 10 years before mathematicians stated looking at chaos and nonlinear, unstable systems.

With just 11 items of clothing to put on in the morning, there are 39,916,800 ways of getting dressed - though not all these are feasible. If the brain was not so excellent at forming the routine patterns of perception and action, life would be impossible. It is the excellence of the brain as a self-organizing information system that allows experience to organize itself into routine patterns. This is the basis of perception. In fact, the brain is even better than that because it can center patterns, which computers find very hard to do.

In such systems, there is no access to the side branches from the main track, but there is access to the main track, but there is access to the main track from the side tracks. This basic asymmetry of patterns gives rise to both humor and creativity. That is why humor is the most significant behavior of the human brain because it indicates the existence of a self-organizing system.

With creativity we somehow jump across to the side track from the main track. That is why all valued creative ideas are always logical in hindsight. Unfortunately, we have believed that because creative ideas are logical in hindsight, then logic should be enough in foresight. This is totally untrue in a patterning system but quite true in a passive system. It is this recent "universe" switch from passive information systems to self-organizing systems that has allowed us to understand the nature of creativity.

As a direct result of this understanding, we can design deliberate and formal lateral thinking tools such as random entry and provocation. These formal tools can be learned, practiced, and used systematically. They can be used by individuals on their own. There is no need for a brainstorming tool.

We deliberate use of such systematic tools is very different from just messing around and hoping thins happen. For example, there are the formal methods of "movement', which is an active mental operation and not just a suspension of judgment.

While we have sought to improve quality in most places, the one area we have neglected has been our thinking. We may have sought to do better what we are already doing, but we have not sought better ways of doing things.

In the first part of this article, I sought to show what happens when we apply quality to creativity itself. We get a very different and much more powerful process. But we can also apply quality to other aspects of thinking.

For example, the traditional Western method of argument is time consuming, wasteful, inefficient, and subject to political abuse. We can replace this adversarial method with parallel thinking in which all those present think cooperatively. The directions for the parallel effort are set by the Six Thinking Hats. The white hat indicates a focus on information. The red hat legitimized an expression of felling and intuition.

The black hat is for caution. The yellow hat asks for benefits and values. The green hat is for creative effort. The blue hat is for control of the thinking process itself.

The Six Hat method is now being widely used by many major corporations such as DuPont, Prudential, and IBM. One IBM lab found that the method reduced thinking time by 75 percent. The method allows all the "intellectual horsepower" of those attending a meeting to be used productively. It also prevents politics. The green hat provides a specific place for creativity, and the black hat ensures that criticism is only used in its proper place.

Our basic thinking habits were set 2,500 years ago by the Greek gang of three (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle). It is a system based on analysis, judgment, and argument. It is a system that is lacking in creative, constructive and design energy.

There is a reason why this article may appear to have been written backwards. Why have I written about creativity first and about the need for creativity in quality programs second? The reason is that unless the reader has a clear understanding of what I mean by creativity (serious creativity), there is no point in setting the place of creativity in quality programs.

This is a basic habit of Western thinking. If you can only get rid of faults everything else will be fine. There are two obvious dangers:

2. Getting rid of the faults in a poorly designed system does not result in a better-designed system.

Nevertheless, the early successes of quality programs often arise from the removal of faults, inefficiencies, wastage, and problems. This part is intellectually easy, even if implementation is not quite so easy.

When this easy part has been done, TQM programs often run out of steam. Even within this problem-solving phase, there may be a need for serious creativity to help solve some of the problems.

If we are too successful in improving the current way of doing things, then we can get locked into that current way - just as we have become locked into our traditional thinking habits.

The goal of quality programs should not be just to improve present methods but also to seek alternative methods of reaching the agreed objectives.

Creativity is needed to generate the alternatives. Often there is a need for new concepts. When the alternatives have been generated, then they can be measured against each other and against the current method.

Success in improving the quality of the existing method may lock us into continuing that particular operation when a creative challenge would have shown that the whole operation did not need doing at all.

Creativity can be helpful in getting us to think freely about what we are trying to do. Creativity opens up possibilities. Creativity provokes our thinking about objectives.

Particularly in the health field, values and expectations are complex and change every day. For example, a severely ill patient may prefer the surveillance of a general ward because fear is uppermost. A convalescing patient may prefer the comfort of privacy. One patient may value charm but another prefer brusque efficiency. Some people like the freedom of choice. Others do not want to be burdened by having to make decisions. Some value full information, others do not want to be confused by information.

Changes in expectations can dramatically lower costs. How can we get such changes in expectations?

It is easy to focus on problems and defects. It is difficult to focus on things that are going well. It is even more difficult to focus on things we do not even notice.

This is an excerpt from an article"Creativity & Quality" written by Dr.Edward De Bono.

If we are too successful in improving the current way of doing things, then we can get locked into that current way - just as we have become locked into our traditional thinking habits.

The goal of quality programs should not be just to improve present methods but also to seek alternative methods of reaching the agreed objectives.

Creativity can be helpful in getting us to think freely about what we are trying to do. Creativity opens up possibilities. Creativity provokes our thinking about objectives.

It is easy to focus on problems and defects. It is difficult to focus on things that are going well. It is even more difficult to focus on things we do not even notice.

GENESIS EVENTS INDIA is authorised by IDEAS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS,OMAN to promote and conduct Dr.Edward De Bono's Certified Creativity Workshops - Open as well as Inhouse customised Programs in India.