2. Abstraction and extraction
In a way this is just a form of splitting. To extract the critical part of a cliché unit is the same as splitting off everything else. In practice however the two processes are different. One may either recognize the essential part and remove it (extraction) or one may deal with the cliché unit, trimming off bit after bit until one comes to the essential part.
What is extracted may actually be part of the cliché unit. On the other hand it may be something less tangible, something that depends on looking at the cliché unit in a particular way. For instance one may abstract the concept of function. Though the concept is derived from the cliché unit it is not a physical part of it but a particular description. Nevertheless it might not have arisen without the cliché unit. Thus in the apple picking machine ‘picking’ is an abstracted function that arises directly from the cliché unit of the human hand.
3. Combining
Here one takes cliché units from several different sources and puts them together to give a new unit which does not occur anywhere. This process of combination may be by simple addition of function (caterpillar tracks, telescopic arm, hand to pick apples) or there may be some multiplication of function (e.g. for a redesign of the human body: noses on the legs so they would be nearer the ground and be more useful for tracking).
These different ways of handling cliché units cover the basic processes of selection and combining which are of coarse the basis of any information processing system. The processes are shown diagrammatically on the previous page.
Function
As distinct from objects function is the description of what is happening, what is going on. It is easy to think of particular objects or arrangements of objects as clichés but functions can be clichés as well.
In any design situation there is a hierarchy of ways of looking at the function. One could proceed from the most general description down to the most specific. For instance in the apple picking machine situation one could have a hierarchy which went something like this: getting apples to where yon want them, separating the apples and the tree, removing the apples from the tree, picking the apples. Normally one does not go through such a hierarchy but uses a specific description of function such as ‘picking the apples’. The more specific the description the more one is trapped by it. For instance the use of ‘picking’ would exclude the possibility of shaking the apples off the tree.
In order to escape the trap of a too specific idea of function one tries to go backwards up the hierarchy of function, from the specific to the more general. Thus one would say, ‘not picking apples but removing apples, not removing apples but separating apples from the tree’. Another way of escaping from the too specific idea of function is to change it around in a true lateral manner. Thus instead of ‘picking the apples from the tree’ one would think of ‘removing the tree from around the apples’.
When asked to design a cup that would not spill, a group of children showed a variety of functional approaches. The first approach was to design a cup that could not be knocked over. Three possible ways of doing this were suggested: long hands that descended from the ceiling to immobilize the cup; ‘sticky material’ on the table to attach the cup; a pyramid shaped cup. The second approach was to have a cup that would not spill even when it was knocked over. This was done either by having a special cover to the cup (the cover being flipped open by a catch when one wanted to drink) or by shaping the cup so that the liquid always stayed at the bottom no matter in what position the cap was (rather like unspillable inkwells).
The trouble with function is that once one has decided the particular function then one’s design ideas are very much fixed. So one wants to pay attention to generating alternative functions and not just ways of carrying out a particular function.
The abstraction of a function is a very useful way of getting ideas moving in the design process. If one is stuck with a particular way of doing something (a hand to pick apples) then one can not get much further. But if one abstracts the function from this particular situation then one can find other ways of carrying out that function. This process is shown in the diagram below. The design results obtained from the students can be compared by showing which designs are but different ways of carrying out the same function. On the other hand one can also show how a different concept of function leads to a completely different approach.
In dealing with function one wants to show two things:
1. How the abstraction of a function can lead to different ways of carrying out this function.
2. How one may need to change a particular idea of function in order to generate new approaches.
In practice one might say: ‘That is one way of carrying out this picking function — can you think of any others?’ But one might also say: ‘Those are different ways of carrying out this picking function but is that the only way of looking at it Suppose we leave aside the idea of picking and just think of removing the apples from the trees.’
Design objectives
In a design problem there is very rarely only a single objective. Usually there is a main objective and many subsidiary objectives which may not be apparent. For instance in the design of an apple picking machine the main objective may be to reach and pick the apples but in achieving this objective one may make it impossible to achieve the other objectives as well. Shaking the trees to remove the apples would satisfy the main objective but it would damage the apples. Having a huge machine to do the job might satisfy both the above objectives but might be so uneconomical that it would still be cheaper to do it by hand. Thus three objectives have become apparent: picking the apples, obtaining undamaged apples, a machine that is more economical to use than hand labour. There are other objectives. For instance the machine might have to work at a given speed or it might have to be of such a size that it could pass easily between the trees in a standard orchard. All these objectives might be specified in a description of a desired machine or else they might only become apparent when the design was being examined.
Some designers try to keep all the objectives in mind all the time. They would only move forward very slowly and they would immediately reject an idea that failed to satisfy one of the objectives. Other designers would move quickly ahead in an attempt to satisfy the main objective. Having found some sort of solution they would then look around and see how well the other objectives were satisfied. This second method is probably more generative, but it does depend on a thorough assessment at the end otherwise the effect may be disastrous if one important objective is overlooked. It is better to have this assessment at the end rather than at each stage for an assessment at each stage would prevent the consideration of ideas which were inadequate in themselves, but served as stepping stones to much better ideas.
Design and lateral thinking
This section is not meant to be a treatise on design but an indication that the design process involves much lateral thinking and provides an excellent setting in which to practise lateral thinking. In the design process one is always trying to restructure concepts; one observes cliché units and tries to get rid of them; one is continually having to generate fresh approaches.
Many of the examples used in this section were obtained from the design efforts of children aged seven to ten years old. Such children are relatively unsophisticated and the design process is a caricature of the design process which would be used by older people. The advantages of such examples are that the design process and its faults are made much more clear. The faults arise from the way the mind handles information and not from any peculiarity of youth. In a less obvious form the same faults occur at all age levels.
The first purpose of the design setting is to get students to generate alternatives. The second purpose is to get them to look beyond the adequate in order to produce something better. The third purpose is to free them from domination by cliché patterns. These three purposes paraphrase the purpose of lateral thinking.
Practice
/> The students are set a specific design task. Each student tackles the same task. Every design is a drawing. Brief notes may appear on the drawing to indicate how something works. In addition there may be a fuller explanation but this fuller explanation should only refer to what is already in the drawing — it is not to be a substitute for the drawing. Half an hour is enough time to allow for each design project since one is not so interested in the excellence of the design but in the process itself.
When the design task is set some of the students may ask for additional information. For instance if the task was to design a vehicle to go over rough ground then someone could well ask how rough the ground was to be. Though such questions are perfectly legitimate and in a real design situation one would specify the objective very closely, it is better to specify nothing. This means that each student is allowed to assume his own specifications. This gives a much wider variety of response. In discussing the results one can comment on the way the designs fulfil other objectives as well as the main one but one must not condemn a design for not fulfilling a condition which was never given.
The collected results may be discussed there and then or they may be examined and discussed at a subsequent session. Wherever possible it might be an advantage to display the results in some way before discussing them.
As suggested before, the discussion is centred on comparisons of the different ways of doing things and the picking out of cliché units. It is best to avoid making comparisons as to which is the best design for fear of restricting imagination. If one does want to pick out a design as being very good one can do so by commenting on something specific for instance the originality or economy of it rather than giving a blanket approval such as ‘good’. Otherwise one uses such comments as Interesting’, ‘unusual’, ‘very different’ etc Above all one wants to refrain from condemning any particular design. Such condemnation can only be restrictive. If one wants to encourage some particular feature one can do so by praising it where it is present rather than condemning its absence. For this reason it is best not to allow students to pass open judgement on the design efforts of others (i.e. not to call for such judgements in the class situation).
Suggestions for design projects have been given in the course of this section. In general the design project may ask for a design to do something that is not done at the moment (e.g. a machine to cut hair), or to do something in a better way (e.g. redesign a comb). The projects may be simple or more complicated. On the whole simple mechanical designs are more useful than abstract ideas. Students may be asked to redesign any everyday object whatsoever, for instance: telephone receiver, pencil, bicycle, stove, shoes, desks. Further suggestions are given in the previous section on design.
Will it work?
One does not want to restrict designs to the sane, workable ones by carefully analysing each one and rejecting those which would not work. Nevertheless one does want the students to aim for a workable design and not produce a fantasy for the sake of fantasy. The level of mechanical knowledge which one could expect of the students obviously varies with their age but in any case one is not testing this. It is sufficient if every now and again the teacher picks out a design which would obviously not work and gets the class as a whole to accept that it would not work but can still lead to useful ideas. The judgement is not as to whether the design is workable but as to whether the designer was genuinely trying to make a workable design (even if everyone else can see that it would not work). If there is any doubt it is better to say nothing and simply ignore the design.
Summary
The emphasis in education has always been on logical sequential thinking which is by tradition the only proper use of information. Creativity is vaguely encouraged as some mysterious talent. This book has been about lateral thinking. Lateral thinking is not a substitute for the traditional logical thinking but a necessary complement. Logical thinking is quite incomplete without lateral thinking.
Lateral thinking makes quite a different use of information from logical (vertical) thinking. For instance the need to be right at every step is absolutely essential to logical thinking but quite unnecessary in lateral thinking. It may sometimes be necessary to be wrong in order to dislocate a pattern sufficiently for it to reform in a new way. With logical thinking one makes immediate judgements, with lateral thinking one may delay judgements in order to allow information to interact and generate new ideas.
The twin aspects of lateral thinking are first the provocative use of information and second the challenge to accepted concepts. Underlying both these aspects is the main purpose of lateral thinking which provides a means to restructure patterns. This restructuring of patterns is necessary to make better use of information that is already available. It is an insight restructuring.
The mind is a pattern making system. The mind creates patterns out of the environment and then recognizes and uses such patterns. This is the basis of its effectiveness. Because the sequence of arrival of information determines how it is to be arranged into a pattern such patterns are always less than the best possible arrangement of information. In order to bring such patterns up to date and so make better use of the contained information one needs a mechanism for insight restructuring. This can never be provided by logical thinking which works to relate accepted concepts not to restructure them. Lateral thinking is demanded by the behaviour of this type of information processing system in order to bring about insight restructuring. The provocative function of lateral thinking and the challenging function are both directed towards this end. In both cases information is used in a manner that goes beyond reason for lateral thinking works outside of reason. Yet the need for lateral thinking is based quite logically on the deficiencies of a self-maximizing memory system which is the type of system that makes the mind capable of humour.
Lateral thinking works at an earlier stage than vertical thinking. Lateral thinking is used to restructure the perceptual pattern which is the way a situation is looked at. Vertical thinking then accepts that perceptual pattern and develops it. Lateral thinking is generative, vertical thinking is selective. Effectiveness is the aim of both.
In ordinary traditional thinking we have developed no methods for going beyond the adequate. As soon as something is satisfactory our thinking must stop. And yet there may be many better arrangements of information beyond the merely, adequate. Once one has reached an adequate answer then it is difficult to proceed by logical thinking because the rejection mechanism which is the basis of logical thinking can no longer function well. With lateral thinking one can easily proceed beyond the adequate by insight restructuring.
Lateral thinking is especially useful in problem solving and in the generation of new ideas. But it is not confined to these situations for it is an essential part of all thinking. Without a method for changing concepts and bringing them up to date one is liable to be trapped by concepts which are more harmful than useful. Moreover rigid concept patterns can actually create a great number of problems. Such problems are particularly fierce, since they cannot be altered by available evidence but only by insight restructuring.
The need to change ideas is becoming more and more obvious as technology speeds up the rate of communication and progress. We have never developed very satisfactory methods for changing ideas but have always relied on conflict Lateral thinking is directed towards bringing about changes in ideas through insight restructuring.
Lateral thinking is directly concerned with insight and with creativity. But whereas both these processes are usually only recognized after they have happened lateral thinking is a deliberate way of using information in order to bring them about. In practice lateral thinking and vertical thinking are so complementary that they are mixed together. Nevertheless it is best to treat them as distinct in order to understand the basic nature of lateral thinking and acquire skill in its use. This also prevents confusion because the principles governing the use of information in lateral thinking are quite different from the ones used in
vertical thinking.
It is difficult to acquire any sort of skill in lateral thinking simply by reading about it In order to develop such skill one must practise and go on practising and that is why there has been such emphasis in this book on practice sessions. Nor are exhortation and goodwill enough. There are specific techniques for the application of lateral thinking. The purpose of such techniques is twofold. They can be used for their own sake but more importantly they can be used to develop the lateral habit of mind.
In order to use lateral dunking effectively one needs a practical language tool. Such a tool is necessary to allow one to use information in the special way required by lateral thinking and also to indicate to others what is being done. This tool is PO. PO is an insight tool. PO is the laxative of language. It acts to relax the rigidity of the tight patterns so easily formed by mind, and to provoke new patterns.
Lateral thinking is not concerned with generating doubt for the sake of doubt or chaos for the sake of chaos. Lateral thinking acknowledges the extreme usefulness of order and of pattern. But it emphasizes the need for changing these to bring them up to date and make them even more useful. Lateral thinking particularly emphasizes the dangers of rigid patterns which the mind is so apt to construct because of the way it handles information.
* A full account of how die mind handles information is given in the book, The Mechanism of Mind, published in Great Britain by Jonathan Cape (London, 1969), and by Pelican Books (Harmondsworth, 1971) and in the United States by Simon & Schuster (New York, 1969) It is obviously not possible to cover this matter in detail here for the purpose of this book is different It is only possible to hint at the type of system involved. Wherever an asterisk occurs in the text (eg. elsewhere*) those readers who require more detailed information are referred to the other book.
Lateral Thinking Page 22
