People often seem to think that “thinking outside of the box” is all about being creative.

It’s not.

It’s really about defining the problem and it’s constraints.  In problem solving, as in mathematics, a constraint is a condition that must be observed for a solution to be considered valid.  If your approach does not violate the constraints, then no matter how outlandish it may be, it is still valid.

For an example, let’s take a look at the quintessential “thinking outside the box” problem.

Assume that you with a sheet of paper with nine dots printed on it like so:

o            o            o

o            o            o

o            o            o

(If it would help, feel free to print out this blog)

Once you are ready, place your pen on one of the corner dots, and without lifting your pen, connect all nine dots with four or fewer lines.

.

.

.

If you’re waiting for the right answer, then you have a long wait ahead of you.  The traditional answer is to draw an arrow that goes beyond the box formed by the nine dots (hence the phrase “think outside the box”),  but ask this question in a middle school classroom and you’ll get all sorts of innovative solutions, from cutting the paper up ahead of time and arraying the dots into a simpler pattern to having a friend twist the paper every which way as you draw a single straight line.

So long as no new constraints are added into the problem, all three of these solutions are correct, as are any others that get you from point a to points b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i with four or fewer lines.

How can I keep outlandish solutions from being inefficient?

There is no way to guarantee that an outlandish solution will be efficient.

However, the question itself is irrelevant.

Lateral thinking (the process you use when you do think outside the box) does not focus on finding the “best” of anything.  The goal of lateral thinking is to find a solution where none existed before.

Once you have such a solution (and there is probably more than one), then you can worry about refining it to make the process more efficient.

But that’s impossible!

Most people who lecture about lateral thinking seem to tell you to table words like “can’t” and “won’t.”  And they are correct to a point.

It is counterproductive to raise objectives while you are in the midst of a brainstorming session.

However, words like can’t and won’t are some of the most important when looking for lateral solutions to real world problems so long as you remember that “impossibility” is the beginning of a discussion, not the end.

If a solution is truly impossible, find out why is it impossible.  That’s how you discover hidden constraints - and make sure you take them into account during the next round of brainstorming.

(Incidentally, if you can see why a solution would fail in the real world while you are still in the brainstorming phase, you can always say something like, “good, now how can we get it to work if…”)

Why a Bowl and not a Box?

The box of the metaphor refers to false constraints that are assumed when presented with a specific problem.  A bowl is an environment, and it represents the assumptions we each make based on our own experiences as individuals.

One of the things I like about the team meetings at Marissa Berger Interactive is that we challenge both in-the-box and in-the-bowl thinking.  By working together we don’t let ourselves get locked into specific lines of thought either about specific projects or about our ability to contribute as individuals.  Instead, we help each other find new solutions, develop new skills, and explore new perspectives, providing us all with the ability to grow as individuals and as a team while addressing the ever more complex needs of our clients.