6/11/2004
Five Steps for more Effective Implementation of
Brainstorming in Value Engineering Studies
Muhammad A. Al-Ghamdi, PhD, CVS, CCC
Saudi Aramco
P.O. Box 10015, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia
Muhammad holds a PhD in Construction Management and Engineering from Reading
University. He is a Certified Value Specialist (CVS) by SAVE International and Certified
Cost Consultant by AACE International. He works as a Value Engineer for Saudi
ARAMCO Project Support and Controls Department.
ABSTRACT
The Value Engineering (VE) literature presented two contradicting opinions regarding
the usefulness of Brainstorming in VE Studies. In one hand, some VE books presented
Brainstorming as the ideal creativity technique to be used in VE studies. On the other
hand, some VE researchers and professionals are recommending other techniques, which
they believe are more useful than Brainstorming. This contradiction might lead some
Value Engineers to question the effectiveness of Brainstorming. However, all creativity
techniques have advantages and disadvantages. This contradiction should encourage
Value Engineers to enhance the usefulness of Brainstorming.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the necessary steps for more effective
implementation of Brainstorming in VE studies. This was met by identifying several
recommendations that were collected by reviewing the blocks of creativity, limitations of
Brainstorming, advantages of utilizing other creativity techniques. The paper
incorporated and presented these recommendations in a five-step procedure that will help
in enhancing the effectiveness of implementing Brainstorming in VE studies.
INTRODUCTION
Brainstorming was first introduced by Dr. Alex Osborn in 1953. He defined his technique
as:
“An organized way to allow the mind to produce ideas without getting
bogged down in trying to judge the value of those ideas at the same time”
(Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993, pp. 85).
Brainstorming is the most common creativity technique used in VE studies. The Saudi
ARAMCO Engineering Encyclopedia defines VE as:
1
6/11/2004
“A function oriented multidisciplinary team approach for optimizing
project execution and eliminating unnecessary costs without sacrificing
total project performance, quality, and reliability.” (p. 1)1.
In a typical VE study (Figure 1), Brainstorming is implemented during the creativity
phase of the VE session stage. At this phase, the aim is to generate ideas that will fulfill
the required function(s) and quality for less cost, increase function(s) and quality for the
same costs; or, more preferably, increase function(s) and quality for less cost (VEU,
2000). Several VE books, such as Fowler (1990) and Dell’Isola (1997), presented
Brainstorming as the ideal creativity technique to be used in VE studies. However, some
VE researchers and professionals are questioning the usefulness of Brainstorming.
Brightman (1980) stated that:
“Some researchers have concluded that brainstorming is nothing more
than ‘mental popcorn’ and that it does more harm than good” (pp. 91)
Other VE professionals shared the same views. Yamaguchi (1995) stated that
Brainstorming is not always successful in generating “implementable” ideas.
Furthermore, Hannan (2000) criticized value engineers for implementing Brainstorming
only because of preference reasons. He presented his concerns of their ignorance of other
creativity techniques, which are, in some cases, more useful than Brainstorming. These
opposite opinions might confuse some Value Engineers over the effectiveness of
implementing Brainstorming in VE studies.
The objective of this paper is to identify the recommendations necessary for more
effective implementation of Brainstorming in VE studies. This was achieved by
investigating the blocks of creativity, the limitations of Brainstorming, and the
advantages that other creativity techniques have over Brainstorming. The paper will
summarize the findings in a five-step procedure, which will assist value engineers in
having better control over the influence of creativity blocks and Brainstorming
limitations, and benefit from the positive features of other creativity techniques.
BLOCKS OF CREATIVITY
Problems are usually solved analytically or creatively. In the analytical approach, the
efforts are directed towards controlling the cause(s) of a problem. Whereas using the
creative approach, the attention is directed towards eliminating the recurrence of the
problem (Parker, 1994). Dell’Isola (1997) defined creativity as:
“A behavior that uncovers a relationship when none previously existed; a
relationship between people, objects, symbols, or any combination of
ideas” (pp.91)
There are several factors that contribute to the creative ability of individuals. Some
people might think that creative individuals are more knowledgeable, experienced and
1
The details of the sources are presented in the list of references.
2
6/11/2004
intelligent than others (Brown, 1992; Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993). Brown (1992) stated
that these characteristics will surely enhance creativity; however, they are not essential.
He explained that many inventions were mainly achieved by engineers who had
“inventive intuition”.
On the other hand, there are several blocks that might hinder the creative ability of
individuals. Brown (1992), Kirk & Spreckelmeyer (1993) and Parker (1994) identified
the following five blocks:
Perceptual Blocks: This is due to the failure of individuals in employing their senses in
handling a problem. For example, some individuals fail to distinguish
between causes and effects.
Emotional Blocks: This is due to individuals’ fear of being judged or ridiculed by
supervisors and peers.
Habitual Blocks:
This is due to a tendency of individuals to keep on using the same
approach when tackling a problem. This is usually to avoid risks and
might be associated with job security.
Professional Blocks: This is due to individuals’ avoidance of suggesting or adopting
ideas, which are not related to their profession.
Cultural Blocks:
This is due to pressure imposed on individuals by people around them
who intend to question and judge the impact of new approaches.
People are usually hesitant to accept new ideas.
LIMITATIONS OF BRAINSTORMING
Brainstorming is a group creativity technique. A Brainstorming session, usually, includes
four to six people meeting to suggest solutions for a specific problem (Fowler, 1990, Kirk
& Spreckelmeyer, 1993 and Dell’Isola, 1997). Normally, the team leader starts the
session by introducing the problem. Then, he opens the door for ideas generation. Fowler
(1990), Kirk & Spreckelmeyer (1993), Parker (1994) and Dell’Isola (1997) agreed that in
order for Brainstorming to be effective, the leader has to explain to the team members the
following four rules:
1. “No criticism”; no adverse comments on the generated ideas are allowed.
2. “Free wheel”; seek new ideas regardless of how wild they might look.
3. “Go for quantity”; the priority is given to quantity over quality of ideas.
4. “Combine and improve”; build on the ideas suggested by others in either improving or
combining their ideas.
A typical Brainstorming session ranges from 10 to 60 minutes per function. Longer
sessions will lead to fatigue and lost of interest among the team members. During the
session, the leader should assign someone to record the ideas on a flip chart as they come.
Numerous ideas are usually generated. However, only five to ten percent of these ideas
are practical, and can be developed into solid proposals (Fowler, 1990).
3
6/11/2004
Brainstorming is an effective tool to generate hundreds of ideas in a short time (Fowler,
1990). Another advantage of Brainstorming is that the diversity of the group and the
teamwork allows each team member to build on the ideas generated by other team
members (Fallon, 1986). On the other hand, the VE literature identified the following
three limitations:
1. When the rate of idea generation slows down, it is difficult to judge whether the team
has thought of all possible ideas and reached its plateau, or more ideas are still to come
(Fowler, 1990).
2. It subjects team members to criticism and judgment. Some team members, who are
involved in a Brainstorming session with their supervisors, might feel reluctant to
suggest ideas. They fear that their supervisors will judge them based on the quality of
the proposed idea (Brown, 1992; Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993; Dell’Isola, 1997).
Moreover, creative individuals have different approach to problems. They tend to
explore options, which might look impractical by others. This unique vision is,
unfortunately, associated with fear of being ridiculed by team members (Dell’Isola,
1997). Brown (1992) explained that it is difficult to eliminate criticism of ideas in
Brainstorming.
3. Brainstorming overlooks the potential of individuals’ creativity. Previous researches
support the hypothesis that team members are more creative when thinking alone than
in groups (Brightman, 1980; Fallon, 1986; Brown, 1992; Kirk & Spreckelmeyer,
1993).
ADVANTAGES OF OTHER CREATIVITY TECHNIQUES
In addition to Brainstorming, the VE literature presented Delphi, Gordon, Checklisting,
and Morphological Analysis as the main creativity techniques utilized in VE studies.
These techniques and their advantages are summarized below.
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE
In the early 1950s, a Rand Corporation research group established the Delphi technique
as a mean to employ high-caliber individuals in identifying options, calculating estimates
and speculating on options’ consequences. This technique is useful for investigating
design alternatives, determining their advantages and disadvantages, and linking the
different parts of complex facilities (Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993). The cycle of Delphi’s
technique is composed of the following four stages:
1. Each portion of the project is assigned to a group of three to five members who are
specialized in that area of the project. Each group has the responsibility of studying
and debating its particular area of the design, as well as setting up a Delphi worksheet.
2. Each member of a single group is given a copy of the worksheet and asked to list
alternatives that will provide the functions of the studied area’s components. He also
has to estimate the cost of each alternative and write down the percentage of cost
reduction for each component.
4
6/11/2004
3. Individuals of each group will meet again to share their ideas and assess the saving
opportunities. By the end of the discussion, the group summarizes the approved ideas
and their average cost reduction.
4. All different groups of the study will hold a conference in which each group present its
findings. The purpose of this meeting is to share the results among the study groups.
This allows each group to build on the ideas generated by the other groups.
At least one additional cycle is needed before the VE team leader ends the creativity
phase (Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993 and Dell’Isola, 1997). Kirk & Spreckelmeyer (1993)
stated that Delphi has two advantages over brainstorming. Firstly, individuals record their
ideas on a paper and deliver them anonymously. This encourages the participants to
overcome the “Emotional Block”, which is frequently present in Brainstorming. The
second advantage is that the use of Delphi reduces the chances of personality’s bias over
group decisions. On the other hand, Dell’Isola (1997) stated that this technique is more
effective for short studies (one to three days) and for team members with no VE
experience, or high-rank employees who have no time to learn the details of VE.
THE GORDON TECHNIQUE
The Gordon Technique, also known as Synectics, is similar to Brainstorming in many
aspects, except that only the team leader(s) knows the exact nature of the problem under
investigation. William Gordon, a former Harvard engineering professor and the developer
of Synectics, used four types of analogies to investigate the problem without revealing it
to VE team members (Parker, 1994). Kirk & Spreckelmeyer (1993) summarized the steps
of Synectics as follows:
1. “Discussing a general Concept”; none of the team members know exactly what is the
problem.
2. “Personal analogy”; team members visualize themselves as part of the discussed
concept and provide suggestions for value improvement.
3. “Direct analogy”; compare parallel ideas generated in the previous sub-session.
4. “Symbolic analogy”; use images to represent and record sensed experiences in the
memory.
5. “Fantasy analogy”; allow unlimited room for the imagination to develop ideas.
6. “Free talk”; after exploring various areas related to the problem, the team leader opens
the door for a free debate.
7. “Problem introduced”; the team leader presents the problem that needs to be studied.
8. “Direct Problem analysis”; repeat steps 1 to 5, in order to investigate the true problem.
9. “Gestation period”; allow time for the subconscious to absorb the problem, discussed
issues, and suggestions.
10. “Recommendations”; present the VE team suggested alternatives.
Parker (1994) presented three advantages of using Synectics. Firstly, since the VE team
starts with no clear definition of the problem, Synectics limits the chances of reaching a
5
6/11/2004
solution too soon. This encourages team members to keep on generating more ideas.
Secondly, team members have unlimited areas for discussion. This won’t be the case if
the exact problem was known. Finally, team members are encouraged to throw ideas
without fearing criticism or embarrassment, especially, when their managers attend the
study. On the other hand, he warned that Synectics could be extremely frustrating for
some VE team members. He added that the success of the study might be at risk if the
team leader did not select a subject that is relevant to the studied problem.
THE CHECKLISTING TECHNIQUE
Checklisting is the process of reviewing a list of ideas collected from previous
experiences; to trigger the thinking of team members for solutions to the problem under
study (Parker, 1997). Checklists range from general to very specialized lists. General
checklists are useful for, almost, any VE study. It contains suggestions to rearrange,
substitute and combine existing ideas, in order to develop new ideas. However,
specialized checklists are only useful for specific problems. For example, checklists
dedicated to energy conservation are limited to areas of energy consumption such as
HVAC, Lighting and vertical transportation (Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993).
Checklisting is a useful tool for generating ideas in Value engineering studies. Dell’Isola
(1997) experienced that up to 20% of the ideas generated in a study are obtained from
previous studies. Parker (1997), also, recognized the benefits of exploiting previous
experiences. However, he highlighted that VE team members might limit themselves
with the listed ideas without much consideration to other possible alternatives.
THE MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
The Morphological analysis is a handy technique for ideas generation. It works by
defining the parameters of the studied problem, and listing all the possible solutions
generated by combining the different forms of these variables. For example, a VE team
studying the installation of a new water desalination unit might propose units of different
types and sizes. They might consider either Multi Effect Distillation (MED) units or Sea
Water Flash Evaporator (SWFE) units, and production capacity of 250 gallons per minute
(gpm), 350 gpm or 525 gpm. In this example, the team has six options to evaluate. Kirk
& Spreckelmeyer (1993) explained that Morphological analysis is a clear and simple
technique that is useful for generating ideas. However, it becomes impractical when
utilized for problems having more than three variables (Parker, 1994).
FIVE STEPS TO ENHANCING THE USEFULNESS OF BRAINSTROMING
Brainstorming is considered the most popular creativity technique worldwide. In Japan,
for example, the results of a survey showed that 92% of the top Japanese companies
utilize Brainstorming. The percentages of companies using Checklisting, Synectics and
Morphological Analysis were 32%, 16% and 12% respectively (Yamaguchi, 1995).
However, as explained above, there are several limitations impacting the usefulness of
Brainstorming in VE studies.
6
6/11/2004
The VE literature, already, provided some recommendations for successful
implementation of Brainstorming. However, these recommendations presented by some
VE books, such as Fowler (1990) and, Kirk & Spreckelmeyer (1993), are scattered. This
paper incorporated these recommendations in addition to ideas borrowed from other
creativity techniques in a five-step procedure. It is presented in Figure 2 and explained
below.
Step 1 – Preparation
The preparation for Brainstorming is linked to the various activities performed during the
pre-VE session stage and the information and function analysis phases of the VE session.
When selecting the VE team members and defining the team composition at the pre-VE
session stage, the VE team leader has to take two issues into consideration. Firstly, he
should avoid selecting team members whom are directly linked in the organization
hierarchy, i.e. employee and his supervisor. This is to eliminate the fear of judgment
associated with team members working alongside their superiors. In other words,
eliminate the influence of “Emotional Blocks”. Secondly, the team leader should select
team members based on their experience and knowledge of various areas related to the
studied project. However, it might not be beneficial to select only the individuals whom
are part of that project. Because, this might lead to the existence of “Habitual Blocks”
and the resentment of some team members to generating “out of the box” ideas during the
Brainstorming session. The team composition should be balanced with members whom
are not associated with it, i.e. “free thinkers”.
In addition, the preparation for Brainstorming continues through the information and
functional analysis phases of VE studies. During the information phase, the team leader
has to ensure that the each team member understands the process of VE and the various
issues related to the studied project. In the functional analysis phase, the team leader has
to guide the team to develop the Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram,
which will assist the team to visualize all basic and secondary functions of the project.
The team understanding of the studied project and the functions that the project has to
provide will assist the team to generate “implementable” ideas.
Step 2 – A Warm-Up Team Brainstorming
At the beginning of the creativity phase, the team leader should consider a 15 minutes
warm-up Brainstorming session on an object, which is not related to the studied project.
The team will start by introducing the four rules of brainstorming and emphasize their
impact on the quantity and quality of the generated ideas. Then, the team leader has to
introduce the basic function of an object and asks the team to suggest alternatives that
will fulfill its basic function. This session will help the team leader to assess the team’s
performance in Brainstorming. More importantly, it will reflect the team’s adherence of
the four rules of Brainstorming. Then, the team leader has a chance to re-emphasize some
of the issues necessary for a successful Brainstorming session.
Step 3 - Team Brainstorming
In the team Brainstorming session, the team leader has to introduce the functions of the
project’s components with potential value improvement. For each function, the team
leader should allow 20 minutes for the team to suggest alternatives (more time should be
7
6/11/2004
allowed if the flow of ideas is continuous). All ideas should be recorded once they are
generated on a flip chart, which has to be visible to all team members.
During this session, the team leader should consider going through general or/and
specialized checklists, as appropriate, to enhance ideas generation. When he feels that
some of the team members are losing interest due to fatigue or any other reasons, he may
call for a 5 minutes break or consider presenting a creativity game to reenergize the
interest of team members and refresh their minds.
Step 4 – Solo Brainstorming
In solo Brainstorming, the team leader hands every team member a sheet of paper for
each of the analyzed function(s). Then, he allows the team members 5 to 10 minutes, per
function, to generate ideas individually. The benefits of this activity are to limit the
influence of “Emotional Blocks”, provide some room for individual creativity, and assess
whether the team has reached its plateau of ideas or not. By the end of this session, the
team leader collects all papers and lists the generated ideas, according to their functions,
on the same flipcharts used to post the ideas generated in the team Brainstorming session.
Then, the team leader may start the evaluation phase.
Step 5 – Post Initial-Screening Team Brainstorming
The team members will be drained by the end of the creativity phase. However, it is
beneficial to conduct a 20 minutes post-initial screening team Brainstorming session.
Because the period of initial screening will provide the subconscious of the team
members some time (Gestation Period) to absorb the analyzed functions and the
suggested alternatives. This might trigger additional creative ideas. The post-initial
screening Brainstorming session has the benefit of collecting these afterthoughts. Then, a
final screening of all ideas can take place.
SUMMARY
Brainstorming is the most popular creativity technique utilized for ideas generation.
However, some VE professionals questioned the usefulness of Brainstorming in VE
studies. They are developing and recommending other creativity techniques that they
believe are more useful than Brainstorming.
This paper investigated and discussed the blocks of creativity and limitations of
Brainstorming. In addition, it investigated and discussed Delphi, Gordon, Checklisting
and Morphological Analysis techniques and the advantages that these techniques have
over Brainstorming. The paper incorporated the outcomes of the discussion and the
literature review into a five-step procedure that will assist value engineers in enhancing
the effectiveness of Brainstorming in VE studies.
Finally, the author hopes that this paper showed that Brainstorming is not merely a single
event that takes place in the creativity phase of VE studies. That is only the tip of the
iceberg. VE professionals should give enough attention to the various activities
conducted during the pre-VE session stage and the information and functional analysis
phases of the VE session and have an impact on the effectiveness of Brainstorming. The
8
6/11/2004
author believes that the question should not be how effective is Brainstorming in
generating creative ideas. It should be how effective are VE professionals in utilizing
Brainstorming.
REFERENCES
Brightman, Harvey J. (1980) Problem Solving: A Logical and Creative Approach,
College of Business Administration, Georgia State University.
Brown, James (1992) Value Engineering: A Blueprint, Industrial Press Inc., New York.
Dell’Isola, Alphonse (1997) Value Engineering: Practical Applications for Design,
Construction, Maintenance, & Operations, R. S. Means Company, Inc.
Fallon, Carlos (1986) Value Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fowler, Theodore C. (1990) Value Analysis in Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
Hannan, Donald (2000) ‘Value Methodology, Creative Problem Solving Strategies and
TRIZ’, SAVE International Conference Proceedings, Society of American Value
Engineers.
Kirk, Stephen J. and Spreckelmeyer, Kent F. (1993) Enhancing Value in Design
Decisions.
Parker, Donald E. (1994) Management Application of Value Engineering for Business
and Government, The Lawrence D. Miles Value Foundation, Washington, D. C.
Saudi ARAMCO Engineering Encyclopedia, Project Support and Controls, Application
of Value Engineering Concepts and Constructability Techniques,
http://10.9.1.87/encyclo/default.html.
VEU (2000) Value Engineering Guide: An Information Guide to Assist Project Teams in
Conducting Value Engineering Studies, Value Engineering Unit, Saudi
ARAMCO.
Yamaguchi, Yoshitami (1995) ‘The 3 Minute Think & Show-Off Method for Idea
Generation’, SAVE Proceeding, Society of American Value Engineers.
9
6/11/2004
Figure 1 - VE Study Job Plan
Pre VE Session Stage
VE Session Stage
Information Phase
Function Analysis Phase
Creativity Phase
Evaluation Phase
Development Phase
Post VE Session Stage
Presentation Phase
10
6/11/2004
Figure 2 – Five Steps of Brainstorming
VE Session Stage
Pre VE Session Stage
1. Preparation
Information Phase
1. Preparation
Function Analysis Phase
1. Preparation
Creativity Phase
2. A Warm-Up Team
Brainstorming
3. Team Brainstorming
4. Solo Brainstorming
Evaluation Phase
5. Post Initial
Screening Team
Brainstorming
Development Phase
Post VE Session Stage
Presentation Phase
11