The Effective Think Tank – Part 1: Designing a Plan

When the going gets stuck, the stuck go fishing! In the world of planning, innovation, solution development, service adaptation, and perception management we may find ourselves stuck in a season where we simply do not know how to overcome a specific challenge or problem. In such instances our creative juices have likely plateaued; no matter how hard we attempt to resolve the conundrum we seem to be incapable of overcoming our apparent lack of inspiration—a very frustrating experience indeed. 

At times like these a good strategy is to build and lead a think tank. As the term denotes, a think tank means to come up with a collection of thoughts, ideas, and solutions and put all of them into a tank for further examination and discussion. The goal of the think tank is to collectively select one thought or solution to develop further, with possibly two others as second tier choices or as potentials to build at a later stage. All these thoughts and ideas are geared toward resolving a present problem or addressing an unmet need. However, before leading an effective think tank one needs to build the tank; for there can be no fishing without an environment for the fish to swim. The first question that naturally arises is why build a think tank? Why not go to the rivers and lakes where the fish are already swimming? Why build a tank at all?

The answer to this question is simple enough. Thought-fish swim in environments that are already suited for them. The problem is that we may be stuck in an environment where thoughts are not swimming. We can’t go to someone else’s lake to fish for thoughts that are needed for our unique circumstances. While that may work on some occasions, a person in the circumstance described previously has likely already tried this approach. Instead, we need to design an environment that permits the kind of thought-fish that is relevant; one that we can clearly see and easily evaluate to determine which fish out of many is the most appealing or suitable for our unique circumstances. 

The following scheme provides a helpful framework for building a think tank that can serve as a habitat for our thought-fish. It begins with a solid foundation.

• Foundation (the ‘what is’ question): The platform upon which the think tank is built must be firm and unchangeable, much like the difference between building on solid rock vs. building on sand. The foundation, in this case, is defined as the problem or unmet need that is causing the conundrum. Accordingly, this problem or unmet need must be clearly articulated and refined down to the point that all participants in the think tank clearly understand what the obstacle in question is. 
• Base (the ‘why is’ question): The base establishes the rational justification for the think tank. It is built on top of the foundation and supplies the qualitative/quantitative data pertaining to the problem or unmet need. The base provides market, business, or service-related data and supporting rationale, which may include past attempts that have failed or the reasons why no attempts have been made to resolve the dilemma. It answers the question why the foundational question is a problem or unmet need that requires the attention and focus of the yet to be selected think tank participants. 
• Walls (the ‘to what extent’ question): The glass walls determine the parameters of the think tank’s purpose. In other words, the glass walls set limits on what the think tank can and cannot do. The four sides answer the to what extent question in both the positive and negative senses. The four walls of the think tank include: what can or cannot be included; how much effort can or cannot be expended; what kind of resources can or cannot beutilized; and how much time can or cannot be allotted toward resolving the problem or unmet need. These glass walls essentially function as a means of inspecting and comparing the various kinds of thought-fish that will eventually populate the think tank. The transparency of the glass denotes the transparency of the delimited questions. Just as the thought-fish are subject to comparative examination through the glass, so too are the ‘to what extent’questions. Each think tank participant should be encouraged to challenge the validity of such questions and refine them based on new insights that more appropriately aligns with the base question. 
• Top (the ‘if-then’ question): The top of the thought tank offers open air access so that participants can put thought-fish into the tank as well as take thought-fish out of the tank for further examination. However, the open-air top offers more than physical interaction, it also establishes the goal and measures by which the thought-fish are weighted and ranked. The goal can be further delimited by several factors, including speed to market, low barriers to entry, low bureaucratic entrenchment, and channels with high consumer visibility, to name a few. The top addresses the if-then conditional question. For example: if X thought-fish idea adheres to the parameters defined by the preceding architecture of the think tank, then it should be inserted into the fish tank. Alternatively, the if-then question can be used to examine a particular thought-fish already in the tank, as in: if X thought-fish is selected and developed, then it might be possible to solve the problem at a faster pace.
• Water (the ‘which one’ question): The last element of the think tank is the water. Metaphorical water provides a good habitat for the thought-fish. Such an environment permits thought-fish to interact with each other in three-dimensional space and allows the think tank participants clear opportunity to compare all the thought-fish at the same time. The water asks the question which one (e.g. which thought-fish) offers the best solution to resolve the problem or unmet need. 

An effective think tank requires a carefully designed and architected environment as the necessary first step. Once this has been accomplished the participants can be selected and vetted. This next step will be covered in part 2.