Convergence and Selection Techniques

Convergence and Selection Techniques

The partner process to ideation and divergence is convergence and selection. After having generated a large number of ideas, few try to implement them all. It is a good idea to pick the best ones and consider the implications of implementation. While it might be possible to look at the list of ideas from a single brainstorming session and pick the one or two you like the best, I suggest that it’s bad practice and recommend are more robust set of techniques to make choices, especially when the stakes are high. Over the following pages I will explain and define convergence generally, give a broadly-applicable model for making choices following ideation, and outline a handful (or more) of different techniques.

Convergence Defined

Convergence means coming together in the most general sense, yet quite a range of definitions exist with more specific disciplinary applications in computing theory, economics, literature, mathematics, and popular culture. Most online definitions and dictionaries are useless here as “the act of converging” is the most popular definition (who lets them get away with that anyway?). We do better with the word converge which means to gradually change so as to become similar or develop something in common. While that helps a little, it’s not fully there.

What about selection – definitions yield “the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable” – more on target. Adding the terms evaluative (making informed decisions and preparing for action) and critical thinking (making clear, reasoned judgements to reach a conclusion) to the mix now gives a good footing. When I compare my research on divergence versus convergence, it seems we humans, at least in our organizations over the last 100 years, have a tendency toward analyzing and judging more so than creating and wandering in thought.

Well, I do like the graphic that shows a coming together, a narrowing options, and the number of possibilities that are in play being reduced from the many to the few that are the best choices. To focus on four stages in the design process for the purposes of strategy crafting, the convergence stage becomes more obvious in this context.

Convergent, or selective, thinking has several characteristics and all of the methods have the outcome of decreasing the number of options being considered. During selection processes, individuals seek to select only the best ideas, they test dreams against reality, and apply judgement. Convergence and selection techniques uses criteria and filters and is more practical than the dreamily divergent stage. Let’s look at a bit of the history of convergence and selection techniques and then what’s happened more recently.

Of tests and filters. Given the pervasiveness of convergent thinking and the broad distribution across many fields and applications, a fair history would encompass a book in itself. There are innumerable methods and techniques for evaluation, but fewer for selection, the narrowing down from the many to the few. Without a full discourse, I have identified the key characteristics of the process – basically it boils down to sequential tests and filters guided by useful criteria.

An understanding of the concept of a criterion is useful at this point. Criteria (plural) or criterion, is basically a standard on which a decision is based. Definitions like “something that is used as a reason for making a judgment or decision” and “a standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based” are common. In terms of the design process, criteria help us articulate our assumptions about the process, draw boundaries around possible results, and give an objective approach to eliminating choices that are not satisfactory. So, criteria are standards by which some decision can be made. For example, a simple criterion may be the height requirement on the roller coaster, “if you’re not as high as this (48 inches) you can’t ride”. Tests and criteria pair well and can combine easily to make filters. Another example here is the SAT, “if your score is above 1300, welcome to our university” and “if not, perhaps start at the local community college”. Here a general test of aptitude and prior learning is used as a filter for potential students based on research of who has succeeded in the past. The combination of tests, filters, and criteria forms a core foundation for the convergence process.

The result of applying criteria and narrowing down your choices or options establishes a filter. Most broadly, a filter is as something that has the effect of holding back elements or modifying the appearance of something. Other definitions like “move slowly or in small quantities or numbers through something or in a specified direction” and “a device that prevents some kinds of light, sound, electronic noises, etc., from passing through” are found online. Criteria and filters are often applied and executed using a test, or a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use. This definition fits our convergence stage of the design process well.

Making a choice can be a simple matter. When presented with the perhaps 200 or so cups of yogurt in the grocery store, I seem to be able to navigate the convergence process without too much thinking or delay. I have three criteria: taste, flavor, and price. I know that certain brands meet my taste expectations and others do not. I like some flavors better than others and I make a final decision on price. A really good sale on my second favorite brand may sway me to buy it. This example is a simple, single-filter approach with three criteria. I have a certain number of options and I narrow down my choices to a final selection in a single process.

Perhaps the most commonly used approach is a single test and single filter. For example, a collection of well developed ideas are put forth to evaluation and the results measured and ranked. Often, it’s the best performing model that wins, get a few tweaks to improve glaring weaknesses, then readied for implementation. While there may be situations where this works just fine, my experience suggests we need at least two or three rounds of filtering (and often idea combining) to adequately make the necessary refinements. There are several disciplines where this was put into practice ahead of others. Sometimes the single filter approach does not even have criteria developed ahead of time, you just take the best of the bunch. More sophisticated selection processes (like the SAT example above) use pre-defined criteria.

For more important decisions, I may take two or three passes, like purchasing a car or a home. There will likely be a larger number of criteria and they will likely be applied in more than one stage. Perhaps some online research based on my needs, test driving the best options, talking with others about their experiences over time with the car, and finally the lovely negotiations with the sales team at the dealership.

We see early evidence of the test-filter approach arising out of engineering, especially chemical engineering, in the 1940s in the form of the new product development cycle, or phase-gate methodology. The phase were scoping, definition, development, testing, and launch and each had a corresponding gate. The alternating approach from phase to gate was sometimes expanded to seven or eight or reduced to three of four depending on the needs of the situation. Generally rigor increased as the product got closer to launch.

Interestingly, when I began my study of these kinds of processes, I found them also referred to as stage-gate. The interesting point is that in my recent research, the stage-gate name has been trademarked and the process made much more specific. Some innovation and product development experts still use stage-gate name but I imagine this will slowly fall from favor since the name is now “owned”. In any case the seven stages and gates can be loosely found as: idea generation – screening – development and testing – feasibility and analysis – market testing – implementation – commercialization.

What’s happened lately? To be fair, the history of the human (and other) species is probably an organic example of prototyping, unknowingly at first, then more intentionally. From the development of the first hand tools, to the evolution of shelter, to the refinement of my much adored Grenache wines or Bechamel sauce, the iterative nature of “what works” through prototyping is a fundamental as evolution itself. What has gotten better are the specific techniques, perspectives, and training that goes along with it.

The last 20 years have seen a real growth of design and innovation techniques and with it a refinement of the convergence and selection processes. I will present again the six design models and highlight the areas of each model that apply convergence.

General Model	Ambrose/Harris	IDEO	Ogilvie	Plattner	Brodnick
define the problem	define	discovery	what is?	understand	collaborative design & direction setting
	research	interpretation		observe	discovery, research, & assessment
explore, create, refine			what if?	point of view
	ideate			ideate	divergent thinking, & ideation
		ideation
					convergent thinking, filtering, & selecting
			what wows?
	prototype	experimentation		prototype	prototyping & piloting
implement preferred solution	select
	implement	evolution	what works?	test	implementation, tracking, & adjusting course
	learn

Across these models, the lines between convergence and prototyping blurs. Definition and ideation clearly following the preparation and discovery stages, but convergence, prototyping, and implementation is more fuzzy. Some, notably IDEO’s model move from ideation to experimentation and evolution with a less clear convergence process. Other’s like Ambrose & Harris and Plattner have a clear testing and learning stage at the end, much like IDEO’s evolution. My guess is that the models have been shaped by the experiences and industries in which they were developed.

In some instances, the refinement process could be in the hands of an artist; think about the shaping of glass and the convergence on the final form of the piece from the many options that emerged from the heating and blowing process. Or internally as the designer creates and recreates the new font or logo. While the designs may be tested more publically later, the first filters are those of the trained artist. In more open design, opinion and preference shape early choices, like in IDEO’s empathy forward approach or Ogilvie’s “wow” factor. Other models use prototyping as the primary convergence method. I like to suggest we have all of these possibilities as tools in our toolbox and we can pick and choose what’s best for our application. In strategy and organization change projects, I’ve found that blending intuition with opinion and art with metrics is helpful if not required. For the big change projects, we need to pass through financial and resource feasibility in any case.

Allow me to continue with offering a simple convergence model and follow up with a handful of techniques you can consider and try. In the next section of the article, I will focus purely on convergence and selection and offer a generalized process that could actually be used in conjunction with any of the models – five clear steps with the option of repeating until the desired outcome appears.