What's So Special about Synectics?

As part of the collection of material for a collective book to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Synectics in 2010, I posed the question "What's so special about Synectics?" on the Synectics World Community site on Linkedin. I promised to submit my own 'Best Current Thinking' on the topic; it turned out to be too long for the space available, so I'm publishing it here with a link from the site

What’s so Special about Synectics?

It seems to me that Synectics has four characteristics which together make it special. Not all the characteristics are unique to Synectics, but in combination they are uniquely powerful. They are

The Research and Development base
The clear definition of Roles, particularly that of ‘Client’ or Problem Owner
The use of Excursions as idea-getting and climate-building techniques
Constructive Evaluation, using Paraphrase and ‘Itemised Response

The Research and Development Base

In the late 1950s, the members of Arthur D. Little Company’s Invention Design Group, led by W.H.H> Gordon and George Prince, began to tape record their meetings to see if they could identify the reasons for the variations in their performance as inventors. (An alternative version of the history was that they wanted the recordings to settle arguments about how an invention had happened – whose idea was it originally?)

As they listened to the tapes, they realised a great deal had happened out of their awareness – “I don’t remember you saying that”. They also began to notice correlations between certain types of behaviour and success (or lack of it). For example, they observed that any perceived slight or criticism triggered an (apparently unjustified) attack on the critic, which could escalate into a feud between the two parties. Usually the slight was unintended and both participants would be surprised by the strength of the interaction

As they began to identify positive and negative processes, they invented ways to maximise the positives and limit the negatives. They tried these out in subsequent sessions and analysed the outcomes. In essence they were following the spirit of the Scientific Method – hypothesis, experiment and analysis of the data – except that live experiences took the place of controlled experiments. Their use of tape-recording (audio initially, video when it became available) as a scientific instrument, provided an objective record of the experience which could be examined repeatedly. As with any new scientific instrument which provides hitherto unobtainable data, it opened up a new field of knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, this use of video-recording as a process research instrument is unique to Synectics in the field of business

The Definition of Roles and Responsibilities in the Meeting

A key distinction in Synectics is between the Content and the Process of Meetings. Content is the subject matter, the ‘What’ of the meeting; it will change from meeting to meeting. Process refers to ‘How’ the meeting is conducted, activities such as information exchange, generation of ideas, expression of judgements and opinions, which are common to all meetings. The key to successful meetings is to apply the most appropriate processes, to achieve the content objectives of the meeting

In meetings of 5 people or more, the management of process and content are both full time jobs if they are to be carried out efficiently. In Synectics, a Facilitator (or Process Leader) manages the process and takes no part in the content. Decisions on content are made by the Problem Owner (or Client, named after Carl Rogers’ client-centred therapy). The Problem Owner is ideally the person who will implement the solutions invented in the session. There may be several persons in the meeting who share ownership of the problem, but their interest is best dealt with one at a time

Members of the meeting who are not Facilitator or (currently) Problem Owner are designated Resources; they are responsible for contributing ideas, information or opinions as specified by the Facilitator, to achieve the objectives of the Problem Owner

The clear definition of roles creates a situation in which each member of the meeting knows what they are trying to achieve and what sort of contribution is required from them at each point of time. Everone is on the same wavelength

Excursions and Metaphorical Process

Metaphorical Process is at the heart of invention and therefore of Synectics; it is a way of “making the familiar strange, and the strange familiar” as W.H.H. Gordon described it. Arthur Koestler (The Act Of Creation) had described the essence of creativity as bisociation, the connecting of two hitherto unrelated concepts. Synectics provides a range of practical techniques, known as Excursions, to achieve this objective

An excursion is a short holiday from the problem. It consists of setting the problem aside, generating apparently irrelevant material in one of a variety of ways and then making connections between this material and the problem, in the form of ‘absurd solutions’ – ideas triggered by the excursion material, which are solutions in that they might help with the problem if they were feasible, absurd because they are not in any way feasible. Some of these absurd solutions may evolve into practical new solutions, with the help of the Idea Development process described later

A key characteristic of a successful excursion is that participants become so absorbed in it that they forget about the problem, thus providing a practical alternative to traditional remedies like ‘sleeping on it’ or taking a walk. They work for the same reason: when the problem is forgotten, the internal censors that rule out impractical or irrelevant ideas go off duty and the sub-conscious mind is free to make connections at the absurd level that the censors would not permit

Another characteristic of excursions is humour; Koestler says that bisociation is the source of humour as well as creativity. Excursions usually generate laughter in the group, which raises energy levels and has a bonding effect – people seem to remember unusual experiences they have shared. George Prince says “I use excursions as much as I can and as early as I dare. I don’t mind whether they lead to new solutions or not; they are worthwhile because the group always works better after an excursion than before. It has lowered barriers between people and in people’s minds”

Constructive Feedback using Paraphrase and Itemised Response

If suspending judgement (the brainstorming principle) is the key to generating new ideas, constructive feedback is the key to developing new ideas into action. (A common complaint about brainstorming is “we generated a lot of ideas, but nothing happened afterwards”). In the Synectics invention model, the output of the initial brainstorming is viewed as ‘Springboards’, i.e. starting points for further development rather than finished solutions in their own right. The Problem Owner selects Springboards they consider to be new and appealing, without regard to their feasibility

Starting with most appealing, the Problem Owner states why they have selected that Springboard, what is attractive about it and how it needs to be developed to move it towards a feasible solution “what I need is a way to….”. Participants offer action ideas (what you do is…) to meet that development need. From a shortlist, the Problem Owner selects the one (or combination) they find most attractive. They check their understanding of the idea with the idea-giver (‘understand before evaluating’, a principle most people would subscribe to, but few practise!). It proves to be an important step; frequently (as often as not) the paraphrase does not completely satisfy the idea-giver and the misunderstanding needs to be sorted out.

When agreement has been reached, the Problem Owner evaluates the idea in terms of all the possible benefits and aspects they like (giving the idea the benefit of the doubt); having specified all the positives, the Problem Owner goes on to specify the main deficiency as a need for improvement: “what I need now is a way to… overcome the deficiency/shortcoming”.
This process continues in an iterative way until the Problem Owner decides they have an idea which they can take forward and are able to specify the Next Steps they will take with it. This is the Idea Development process, which ensures that the generation of new ideas results in action

The mechanisms of Constructive Evaluation ensure that an emotionally safe climate continues to be maintained throughout the session. Giving responsibility to the Problem Owner for the evaluation ensures that they are emotionally committed to the solution they have arrived at; it overcomes the NIH (Not Invented Here syndrome) -ideas are often rejected if the decision-maker has not been involved in their development)

This method of evaluation is also beneficial in many other areas beyond invention, in any situation where feedback is intended to promote improvement and development, for example appraisals, performance assessment, teaching, coaching etc. It is not suitable for decision-making, which is essentially binary, go/no go, though when decisions are difficult it can be helpful to switch into the invention mode, if there is time available


In conclusion, I am conscious that each Synectics enthusiast takes from the body of knowledge whatever is most useful to them; the take-out will vary from one person to another. i would love to hear comments from anyone who has a different view from mine, or indeed shares my views