g2x675c

Open Thinking

Innovation often begins with the analysis of its sources which is generally context oriented. Innovations that are effective start in a small and simple way. Prediction of innovation fate would be incorrect as it may end up in a big business or be a modest achievement. Innovation is work rather than genius â “ it requires knowledge, focus and ingenuity. It is diligence, persistence and commitment that add to ones talent, knowledge and ingenuity, which in turn brings about innovation. We need to continuously ask ourselves â “ What are the adjacent possibilities within an industry that allow for the creation of something new? We dare to ask â ˜What if?â ™ kind of questions and challenge our own works. We need to freely start playing with our creative imaginations - no matter it relates to what.
In my previous article, I had introduced you the fact that Innovation is not all about invention, or creativity. It is all about how carefully we craft our imagination into meaningful realization through small differentiators. Here we will look into deeper aspect of how we can actually do it. We will have small examples, simpler ones to help you differentiate your work and come out creatively.
Imagination is a direct outcome of our mind breaking the boundary of where we are and looking beyond. We will call this thinking phenomenon as â ˜Open Mindâ ™. For example, to excel in our professional work, we need to come out of our desk as workstation and consider anything and everything as a source of imagination and convert our thinking to ideas, further relating it back to the desk work. Our Open Mind helps us go anywhere, look into anything and then generate idea relating it back to where it started its journey.
Open Mind

Here is a small story puzzle to understand the difference between an open and a closed mind. This is a story from Indian history about Akbar (king) and Birbal (wisest minister of Akbar). Akbar always used to put Birbal under impossible conditions and Birbal always proved to come out of it. Once Akbar, with his stick, drew a line on the ground and asked his minister to make the line shorter with the condition that the line is not erased or modified in any way. While every minister failed to fulfill the condition, Birbal came forward with another stick and drew a longer line very next to the one drawn by Akbar. He very humbly proved that the line drawn by the king was now shorter. A so seeming impossible to solve question, many times have simple answers. Why couldnâ ™t this simple solution be thought by many minds? Was it because they didnâ ™t know the theory of relativity in a broader context? Or was it because they were not intelligent? In fact, the reason is none of the above. The reason they could not think of what Birbal did, was simply because they were bounded by the vision of the line and the conditions of the problem. It was simply because their solution mind existed in the closed thinking of an impossible act. Contrary to this, Birbal expanded his vision to the extra space available around the line and realized that the line was not long enough to cover the whole space around and any line which attempts to do it can prove to be longer. Birbal thinking was not pervaded by the context of the problem to make the line shorter. He opened up his mind to look not only into the synonym but also the antonym of the â ˜Problem Wordâ ™. He went ahead to think about the something that is â ˜longerâ ™ and not â ˜shorterâ ™. An open mind is one that allows you to go cross the boundaries and realize that what seemed to be once impossible is simply possible. An open mind brings you out of the traditional thinking and allows you to navigate the universe of possibilities that was never explored before by you.

I will give another simple example of how people do exist with closed minds, often pervaded by what they are made to understand and what they are made to realize by the â ˜Problem Wordâ ™. This example is a simple mathematical question for you to solve first before you step ahead towards the solution: In a chess tournament of 32 players, how many games would be played to decide the winner? Before reading further, please find the answer yourself.

I am sure most of you would calculate the following way.

First round: 16 games to decide 16 winners out of 32 (16 out)
Second round: 8 games to decide 8 winners out of 16 (8 out)
Third round: 4 games to decide 4 winners out of 8 (4 out)
Fourth round: 2 games to decide 2 winners out of 4 (2 out)
Fifth round: 1 game to decide final winner (1 out).
Total: (16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1) = 31 games.

Answer is correct and the approach too. Now, what if I change my numbers from 32 to 512! Would you go the same way you did above? Some change in your thinking appears to take place here: If I repeat the problem with different numbers, you immediately start thinking of another methodology of calculation, not till the time problem seemed to be simple with figure like 32. You simply tend to look in for a different approach to solve the problem as the number goes on increasing and the process seems to be repeating, probably you start groping for some generic formula. What had stopped you to think the new way, even when the number was small? Let us look at another way of solving the above problem first.

Here is another calculation: If from 32 players, 1 has to be the winner, 31 have to loose the game and hence, there has to be 31 games.

Donâ ™t you agree this was simple! But you didnâ ™t go this way of thinking â “ Why? It was because you always tend to exist in your closed mind pervaded by the synonym of the â ˜Problem Wordâ ™. Problem word in my previous problem was â ˜Shorterâ ™ and in this problem â ˜Winnerâ ™. While you found ministers lost in the boundaries of making the line shorter, you solved the above problem in the boundaries of finding the â ˜winnersâ ™. While Birbal opened up to go into the antonym, I did the same.

My emphasis here is not to prove that open mind is one that looks into the antonym and the synonym always, but to make you understand that our thinking should not be pervaded always by the â ˜Problem Wordâ ™, particularly when we find it complex or impossible to solve. As another example, that is different than the â ˜Problem Wordâ ™ antonym and synonym, I will quote a joke. The famous Banta Singh is repeatedly walking to and fro on a zebra crossing. On being asked, he says I dont understand why this Piano is not working. It becomes laughter. But how many of us realize that creating laughter is an innovative outcome. And how many of us even go beyond to actually see such laughter occurring really in life. I believe if I was to act like Banta Singh, I would end up in building the worlds largest piano, which would require a band group to foot-play orchestrating the instrument. It can result in an amazing show, which could hopefully find a place in bestseller world record books.

The world is not only the â ˜Problem Wordâ ™ and Innovation is neither bounded by its concepts. Innovation is a state of your mind which instigates a movement towards the mind space where thoughts of achieving the impossible exists. For example, we all know that we cannot see the start in daylight â “ and our reasoning is closed by the scientific conclusions of relative theory of optics. Canâ ™t I think of even a simple question than the binding theory of optic: What if we would not have known about the relative light theory? How would we have described the situation that we cannot see stars in day light?

If science has tried to eliminate ignorance to a greater extent, it has also impacted the openness of mind of average people negatively. The philosophy of thinking is now very much bounded by scientific theories for those who feel to be literates. We now assume that humans have grown intelligent with advancement of technology. The truth is exactly opposite. There are still a handful of people who prove to be intelligent and others have grown dumber than before. For example, hundred years back, people used to do all mathematical calculation on their finger tips. Now, we have calculators which sometimes donâ ™t allow us to do even simple additions by our own. Who is more intelligent â “ the one who can do calculations on finger tips or the one who knows to operate the calculator? So, if science has told that there was a Stone Age, we believe it and bind our thinking from going even back to understand creation. What has stopped us to say, that there was never a stage called â ˜Stone Ageâ ™? Who has stopped us to challenge the perfection of Gravitational theory? We must accept that even science is not perfect and it is continuously undergoing improvement. By saying this I really donâ ™t mean that we should not accept what is laid down in our plate scientifically to eat in proper manner. What I intend is that we should not close our understanding by simply digesting whatever we ate. We need to challenge certain eateries that are controversial or based on assumptions rather than facts. Not all scientific conclusions are based on mathematical formulations. And we should not bind ourselves with those beliefs completely. But we can do this only when we realize that we have the ability to think in those directions with equal confidence, with open mind. And that is what an Innovator does. He simply does not accept one and only one thing as the last thing. He simply cannot digest anything that is told to him as perfect. He looks out for options that take him to excel what he knows. Innovation is all about taking you ahead of where you were on your own.

Get yourself to open thinking

It is very important that we start believing that we have immense power hidden inside us. Our capabilities are unlimited and unparalleled. Nature has created us a different person from all aspects. Our outlook is unique, our physiologies are distinct, our energies are different â “ we are different and we must realize this fast. When it comes to explorations, law of relativity doesnâ ™t apply always. And when it comes to exploring the inner â “ self, it seldom applies under materialistic conditions. So, trying to exist under the cloud of impressions is not fruitful. This cloud is composed of so many assumptions which are not true with respect the realities of life. This cloud of false impressions is created by the theory of relativity which makes you exist with respect to others. These impressions are surfaced through our five senses and imprinted by the platform of perceptions. Our perceptions are also not free from biased emotions and understandings. We need to break through all these, but in right direction and with supportive pillars. In other words, we require building the basic pillars of existence that support our physiologies. That which is perfect is not relative. Hence, if complete and true satisfaction has to be achieved, one has to look into himself and discover the very self. Though each one of us is created unique, but this uniqueness is relative. Each of these unique existences can achieve the same common satisfaction.