Where do insights come from?
By Kate DowlerWhat is an “insight”, and where do insights come from? We explore Gary Klein’s Triple Path model to insight, and how to apply it in the world of creativity and innovation.
Over the years, I’ve been involved in a number of debates about the definition of ‘insight’. What exactly is an ‘insight’ and what makes an insight different from other findings or pieces of data? It’s a common discussion point on research forums, and the answer depends, in part, on what the purpose of the insight-gathering activity is, and what you’re hoping to do with it.
Since moving into the creative, design industry about 10 years ago, my opinion on the role of insight has evolved. In the work we do, there are two key roles for insight: firstly, to understand the user, context or challenge, and secondly to inspire creativity. Ultimately, we’re looking to uncover something interesting that can inspire a relevant, creative response. So, ‘creative insight’ is probably the best way of describing it.
One of the best books on this subject is Gary Klein’s: Seeing What Others Don’t, which describes some of the different pathways to achieve better insight. Refreshingly, his research is naturalistic in its approach, based on 120 real world examples of people, both past and present, who have achieved insight, which he describes as “An unexpected shift to a better story”. I like this definition of insight, as it describes a fundamental change in the way we see the world, which can ultimately lead to a better outcome.
The heart of the book is based around three different strategies to achieve insight: Connection, Contradiction and Creative Desperation, which, together form Klein’s “Triple Path” model to achieving insight. Insights can come from any one of these paths, or a combination of them.
Adapted from Seeing what others don’t by Gary Klein
Each of these paths are interesting to consider from a creative perspective - how do they relate to some of the techniques and approaches we use to gain creative insight?
Connection
The Connection path is one of the most widely used within creativity and innovation. It is triggered by a new observation, or piece of information which helps us see our challenge, or story, in a different light. This observation or trigger often comes from a seemingly unrelated situation or place.
An example….
Klein describes the example of Martin Chalfie, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2008 along with Osamu Shimomura and Roger Tsien for the discovery and development of green fluorescent protein, GFP. The connection insight came about in 1989 when Chalfie attended a lunchtime seminar at Columbia University. At the time, Chalfie was studying the nervous system of a species of translucent worms, who had to be killed and dissected in order to study their neurons - the standard procedure at the time. The lunchtime seminar covered a range of topics unrelated to Chalfie’s work, but in the middle of the talk, the speaker described the phenomenon of bioluminescence in jellyfish, specifically green fluorescent protein (GFP), which emits green light when exposed to UV light. Suddenly, Chalfie understood that if he inserted GFP into his worms, he could effectively use GFP as a biological flashlight, tracking the cells into which it was placed. Today, GFP is used widely as a marker protein to study developmental processes and to detect bacteria, viruses in pollution inside organisms.
Within creativity and innovation, connection plays an important role to generate new insight and ideas. This can take many forms, from observing interesting, extreme users to looking for examples of parallel worlds or industries where others have solved similar, but unrelated problems. Even exploring seemingly unrelated sets of stimulus and materials can help trigger new connections and ideas, particularly where you’re looking for more radical thinking. Most importantly, this path requires an open and inquiring mindset.
Contradiction
The Contradiction path is an interesting one. It’s triggered when we spot an inconsistency which suggests something might be wrong, or missing, in our current understanding. Often, it’s easy to sweep these inconsistencies away as anomalies that don’t fit with the overall picture, or accepted paradigm of understanding. However, sometimes, these inconsistencies can lead to breakthroughs in our understanding.
An example:
In the book, Klein describes an example of a police officer who noticed someone flicking the ash of their cigarette on the floor of a new car. Whilst this particular behaviour wasn’t remarkable, it seemed odd, and made him re-evaluate the situation. He quickly realized that the car must be stolen, because the owner wouldn’t flick ash onto their brand new car. This contradiction insight allowed the police officer to make a successful arrest.
The contradiction path requires more of a critical mindset, as well as the ability to challenge current thinking. There are a number of ways this path manifests itself within the creative process. Within exploratory insight work, we’re always careful not to generalise too quickly from what we observe and hear from consumers. In fact, it’s the anomalies we’re often most interested in, those examples of people who are behaving differently from the norm, who have different attitudes. These individuals can often deepen our understanding of a subject and trigger new ideas.
Critical thinking exercises are another way we deliberately use the contradiction path to gain insight into a challenge. Simulated contradiction exercises start by breaking the “rules” of an existing category. They help to illuminate the constraints we work within, and explore what happens when you challenge them, and the new ideas that emerge as a result. New entrants to a market often break the rules that existing players conform to, changing the category or market in ways that hadn’t previously been imagined. Budget airlines did this when they challenged the ways in which the major airlines did business, bypassing travel agents, using e-tickets, flying to smaller regional airports and doing away with allocated seating.
Creative Desperation
Working under pressure in difficult situations can sometimes lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of a challenge. The creative desperation path is triggered when we have to escape an impasse, to resolve something under pressure. This path is very active and deliberate in nature, requiring a very focussed mindset.
An example:
Klein describes the terrifying example of the Mann Gulch fire of 1949 as an example of the Creative Desperation path. A group of firefighters in the Helena National Forest in Montana, US were trying to outrun a huge forest fire that was spreading quickly. Most of the group died in the incident, but the leader, Wagner Dodge managed to survive due to an idea that came to him out of desperation as the fire was almost upon him. He decided to create another fire in front of himself to pre-burn a patch of dry grass and then use it as an “island” as the forest fire approached him - literally fighting fire with fire.
Sometimes in the creative journey, it can help to instil a sense of urgency, of time pressure to get the job done. Intense and well-structured bursts of creativity during workshop sessions can help to generate new routes forward. In addition to the time pressure, it’s important for the team to really own the challenge, to take responsibility for it. They have to feel that sense of creative desperation for this to really work! So, if you’re facilitating a session, step aside at times and give sub-teams ownership for specific tasks.
Working with constraints is another example of this path in action. Most of the projects we work on have a number of constraints - this could be anything from technical feasibility to needing to fit with a particular brand or business strategy. Whilst constraints can limit creative options, they also help to provide focus, enabling a deeper exploration of a smaller space whilst also leading to ideas that are more likely to be implementable in the short-term.
Three Paths, Three Mindsets
The most fundamental take-out from Klein’s Triple Path model to insight, is that there are different routes to gain creative insight. When structuring your approach to innovation, it’s important to consider the parameters you’re working within: Are you looking to inspire new thinking? Do you need to get to results fast? Are you looking for incremental or breakthrough innovation? These questions can help you work out which of the three approaches, or combination of approaches, is most suitable for the task at hand.
It’s also important to remember that the three paths require very different mindsets: Connection (open, inquiring), Contradiction (critical), Creative Desperation (highly focussed). As a facilitator, it’s crucial to make sure that the set-up of the session (stimulus, exercises, team briefing) has all the right ingredients to create the desired mindset and enable the discovery of creative insight.
So, what’s your take on the Triple Path model to insight? Does it make you think differently about the different routes to gain insight? In the insight-led innovation field, the Connection path is well known and utilised, but is it time to accept more contradictions and engineer more moments of creative desperation? I’d love to hear your thoughts.