This weekend I read a fascinating article by Columbia professor Dr. Robert Jervis in the Boston Globe.  He wrote about the way our brains make connections, how these connections inform our decisions, and how this process could have contributed to the incorrect decisions the CIA has made when drawing conclusions about terrorist threats.  He made two points that were of particular interest to me.

The first point is his assertion that humans are very good at recognizing patterns and making connections that are relevant to our world view.  In the work I've been doing, I would call this a linear connection.  The second point is that once humans reach a conclusion, they are not very good at questioning their initial assumptions.  They tend to disregard or manipulate data that could call their conclusions into question. (I'm sure we've all had frustrating experiences with this human trait.)

After reading the article, I was struck by the similarities between the problems the CIA is experienceing, and th eproblems many companies have when trying to innovate.  And as is often the case with companies it became clear that, while I'm sure the CIA has plenty of good problem solvers among their ranks, I would bet they are lacking people with good problem-posing skills.  Successful innovators are very good at questioning assumptions, making non-linear, synesthesia-like connections, and posing new problems.  These people are more open to finding the path that reconciles the data they have, rather than paying attention only to the data that reconciles the path they have chosen.  Sound familiar?

All of this then made me question one of my own assumptions.  I believe that people who can make relevant (as opposed to random) connections between seemingly disparate ideas have a heightened ability to make cognitive connections.  I have imagined this very physically, as a brain with more physical connections being made. But is it really this way?  Maybe these people lack the ability to make the well worn connections that others make, resulting in the need to make new connections more often.  Or maybe it's not physical at all.  Is it due to a difference in the way we perceive information, or a tendency to suspend judgment until all data is reconciled?

I don't have an answer as to why this happens, but as I work to build models to objectively select people with good problem posing abilities I'm realizing that the need to identify and nurture their skills is broader than I had anticipated.

It's no secret that I believe that the ability to translate market needs into viable offerings that meet those needs is the key to successful innovation.  It's also no secret that I believe that this ability does not reside in any one discipline, educational background, or company process.  Last year I wrote three posts, each about an element of translation that I felt was important for an organization to embrace the capability. The three elements were Awareness, Capability, and Evaluation.

I still believe that these three elements are necessary for an organization to embrace translation, and I have been focusing on what it would take to actually recognize and build it.  In the post about having the capability to translate, I ask the question about whether or not the organization has the right people to perform this task.  This past year, I have been trying to put my finger on what exactly it is that a person who is good at translating is actually doing?  What skills do they posses?  Is it learned?  If so, then how do you teach someone, and by extension an organization, to make accurate connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, disciplines, process phases, or stakeholder needs?  Is it innate?  If so, then how do you teach an organization to recognize these skills, accept the differences, and embrace the outcomes?

Where I have landed is that everyone can learn better techniques and processes such as deriving motivations from contextual research, or evaluating intangible attributes.  However, even with the best techniques and processes, some people are able to make these connections, and others are not.  Once that pink elephant in the room was called out, the rest became more clear.  It gave me a different perspective on process, and has allowed me to continue to hone my best practices in identifying these people because these skills don't fit on current HR checklists.

Some people may not like this conclusion, but it's really no different than recognizing that people possess different physical abilities that make them better than others at physical tasks, so why wouldn't different mental abilities exist as well?  An exploration into the field of perceptual psychology has shed some light on this subject for me as well, especially when we look at recent research into synesthesia. 

Synesthesia is a perceptual experience, where some type of sensory crossover takes place.  For example, a person with synesthesia may hear sounds when they see certain colors, or they may experience a smell when they come in contact with certain textures.  Historically, synesthesia has been confined to describing specific sensory crossovers that are not experienced by the general population.  Recent research by experts in synesthetic perception, has broadened the understanding of what goes on in our brains as we perceive the world around us.  He has found that cross-sensory mapping is happening all the time, to the point that we take it for granted.  For example, dancing is a kinetic response to sound stimulus; a cross-sensory mapping ability that goes unquestioned by the general public.  They suggest that we only notice when people perceive sensory crossovers that are not commonly experienced by the average person.  It sticks out when someone sees a color and hears a sound, but we don’t find it odd that a person may hear a sound, and move their body in a way that mimics the rhythm of the sound.

The newest thinking actually goes so far as to define synesthesia as a consciously elevated form of the perception that everyone already has.  Just as people have varying degrees of physical abilities, it makes sense that varying degrees of perceptual abilities exist as well.  It therefore also makes sense that some people are naturally better at perceiving one type of input, such as consumer motivation, and mapping it to a seemingly disconnected output, such as an offering toward which the consumer will respond positively.  To put it bluntly, some people are better at making the connections necessary to create successful, market relevant innovation, and this skill is independent of which discipline they choose to study.

So what does this mean for translation ability?  Is it a form of synesthesia?  A form of creativity?  Much more work needs to be done before we will know for sure.  What is important is that we are beginning to develop models that support the idea that getting the right people in place to focus on innovation is an important first step.  We can then develop systems and processes to support them, rather than take the place of the human element.