Synectics is the product of a group of inventors from the Arthur D Little consulting company led by William J.J. Gordon and George Prince who tape-recorded their invention sessions and meetings during the 1950s to discover what aided creativity and what did not (Nolan, 2003). Prior to their meeting, Gordon had lectured psychology at Harvard University where he cultivated an interest in the effect of psychological states, such as detachment and deferment, on creativity, while Prince had been a creative
director at an advertising agency who became interested in stimulating creativity via repressed thoughts (Harriman, 2010).
Synectics is primarily used as a group method, where specific roles must be played. The problem owner or client is the person who brings the problem to the attention of the rest of the group and must furnish the group with enough details of the problem. The Leader guides the group through the Synectics process, ensuring the rules are adhered to, encouraging speculation, recording all ideas and managing time (Proctor, 2010). The other participants make up the rest of the group and must adhere to the Synectics guidelines and help the problem owner with his problem.
Although there are variations on the Synectics process, the following steps are the most commonly cited (Hicks, 2004; Proctor, 2010):
1. State the problem: Here the problem owner describes the problem as fully as possible as a single sentence;
2. Analysis: The problem owner is asked to describe the events that led to the recognition of the problem. Several questions can be posed to the problem owner, such as: Why is it important that the problem be solved and why is it your problem? What have you already considered or tried and what was the result? Do you have the power to implement a solution? If you could solve the problem by wishing, what would your ideal solution be?
3. Goal Orientation: The group is asked to generate several restatements of the problem as given. During this stage, evaluation is banned, and group members are encouraged to speculate much like in brainstorming and to use notepads for this purpose.
4. Selection: The problem owner considers the various restatements and chooses two or three that best describe the problem in an interesting sense (and not necessarily in a practical sense). These selected restatements will be used as springboards and may be combined into one. He/she is then asked to explain why he/she chose the specific springboard and how he/she intends moving forward with this idea. If no specific actions are possible, then an excursion is needed.
5. Excursion: There are four types of analogies identified within Synectics. Personal analogy uses our personal experiences or emotions to relate an individual with the problem. Direct analogy is a comparison between the problem object or situation and facts, technology or information form a different environment. Symbolic analogy is relating the problem to symbolic imagery. Fantasy analogy at its most fantastic involves using wish fulfilment, while at its least fantastic, simply requires ignoring restrictive rules. Excursions are techniques that activate analogical thinking by
getting distance from the problem, generating irrelevant material, and then relating the irrelevant material back to the problem. There are different types of excursion, but the most commonly used are example excursions and imaging excursions. The example excursion involves taking a keyword from the problem statement or springboards and looking for analogies. The imaging excursion involve a few rounds of word association from an initial evocative word, followed by the instruction for the group to construct a weird story based on the last word, in a round robin fashion, building on the last person’s contribution. The group is then asked to replay the story in their minds while thinking absurd solutions to the problem.
6. Itemized response: The leader then asks the problem owner to identify the most promising, yet still absurd ideas and paraphrase these ideas. The problem owner must then identify the practical and helpful aspects of each idea. Next, the problem owner is asked to identify his/her biggest concern about the same idea in a ‘how to’ or ‘I wish’ format. The group can make suggestions on how to overcome this concern. The itemized response process is repeated if concern is only partially overcome.
7. Possible solution: Once a solution is formed and the problem owner reports no further need for help, the possible solution is written up and rated on Newness, Feasibility and Appeal.
One of the limitations of Synectics is also one of its touted strengths. It is claimed that one of its advantages over brainstorming is the fact that a problem owner is identified at the start and that this person is also the solution owner responsible for implementing the final idea. However, as Hicks (2004) points out, if there are several problem owners for the same problem, then multiple Synectics sessions with multiple groups working on different parts of the problem must be run simultaneously. Combining the results of parallel Synectics sessions may prove problematic.
The major limitation of Synectics lies in the fact that the problem-solver must engage in complex mental transformations of the problem such as being able to see the paradox in a problem, as well as identifying appropriate analogies for the current problem. The use of Synectics also requires a level of method- specific expertise only gained by training. Furthermore, in group form Synectics must be led by an experienced consultant or facilitator.