Lateral thinking is a term coined by Edward de Bono, for the solution of problems through an indirect and creative approach. Lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately obvious and about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic.
The term first appeared in the title of de Bono's book New Think: The Use of Lateral Thinking, published in 1967.
Lateral thinking is based on the logic of asymmetric systems. Lateral thinking training is available and the skills can be learned, practised and developed.
With lateral thinking problems can be solved and questions can be answered, as lateral thinkers are able use their creative skills to change perceptions and come up with new concepts and ideas.
Thinking Managers’ Edward de Bono is the pioneer of lateral thinking. One of the world’s foremost management thinkers, De Bono shares his knowledge on managing lateral thinking in the articles below.
It is not often that you can be sure about the future. If you explode a bomb you can be sure there will be some destruction. This is because we are following the routine of the past. A doctor who treats a streptococcal infection with penicillin can be reasonably sure that it will effect a cure. Again, this is repeating a routine that has worked in the past.
But if you are doing something new, something creative, or something different, you cannot be sure about what will happen. You can reasonably hope that putting together ingredients with known actions will produce a certain effect. This is what a cook would do when creating a new dish.
If a City Council decreed that people could only use their cars one day a week, could they fully predict what would happen? Traffic in the city might be reduced. Policing the system might be difficult, expensive, or even impossible. Citizens might be so upset that they voted out the Council at the next election. There might be vigorous protests. Businesses might start to move out of the city. Retailers might be very upset, etc. There would be a multitude of effects - both direct and indirect.
In addition to the difficulty of forecasting the effects, there is the even bigger difficulty of forecasting the extent or strength of the effect. How strong would protests be? Would people remember this at the next election? How many businesses would move out of the city? How long would it take people to get used to the idea?
In London there is a ‘congestion charge’ for driving into the centre of the city. This is currently £8. If this charge is low, then people accept it, take it for granted and still drive into the city centre. If the charge is raised and is perceived to be too high, then there are protests and a negative effect at election time. How do you estimate the right level of charge to reduce traffic and yet not upset car drivers too much?
Consider an alternative idea. Suppose everyone who lived within a certain radius of London were to be given a free permit to drive into the city centre. But to drive in you would need to display four permits. So four friends or neighbours could agree to share a car. Or, you could rent or buy permits from other people. This would mean that some people were now being paid for leaving their cars at home, and taking public transport into the city. The overall effect would be a definite reduction to one quarter of existing car traffic into the city. There would not be the uncertainty of the congestion charge level(though the city would not make money if the permits were free).
In China there is said to be a deficit of 100 million women. This is the result of the ‘one child’ policy. Baby girls are not much valued because they are not so helpful in the fields or in your business. Girls get married and then look after the ageing parents of their husbands. So who is going to look after you when you get old? So, somehow, the girl babies disappear. The result is a deficit of 100 million women - and even wife kidnapping.
Now it may well be that this outcome was actually foreseen right from the beginning. The deficit of 100 million women would cause a significant decline in the population. Was the deficit deliberately planned, or an unforeseen consequence of the one child policy? Risk means that things do not turn out quite as planned. Consider an alternative idea for China’s large population.
Each family is allowed to have one boy and must then have more children. This is the ‘one boy’ policy. The result is equal boys and girls. At the moment of conception there is an equal chance of the embryo being a boy or a girl. Since no one is being killed, this equal chance continues. On average each family has two children. This is less than is required for population replacement, which needs about 2.3 children. So there is a declining population of equal boys and girls and everyone gets the chance to have a boy. No babies are ‘lost’ or killed.
Author - Edward de Bono
creative risk
The term first appeared in the title of de Bono's book New Think: The Use of Lateral Thinking, published in 1967.
Lateral thinking is based on the logic of asymmetric systems. Lateral thinking training is available and the skills can be learned, practised and developed.
With lateral thinking problems can be solved and questions can be answered, as lateral thinkers are able use their creative skills to change perceptions and come up with new concepts and ideas.
Thinking Managers’ Edward de Bono is the pioneer of lateral thinking. One of the world’s foremost management thinkers, De Bono shares his knowledge on managing lateral thinking in the articles below.
It is not often that you can be sure about the future. If you explode a bomb you can be sure there will be some destruction. This is because we are following the routine of the past. A doctor who treats a streptococcal infection with penicillin can be reasonably sure that it will effect a cure. Again, this is repeating a routine that has worked in the past.
But if you are doing something new, something creative, or something different, you cannot be sure about what will happen. You can reasonably hope that putting together ingredients with known actions will produce a certain effect. This is what a cook would do when creating a new dish.
If a City Council decreed that people could only use their cars one day a week, could they fully predict what would happen? Traffic in the city might be reduced. Policing the system might be difficult, expensive, or even impossible. Citizens might be so upset that they voted out the Council at the next election. There might be vigorous protests. Businesses might start to move out of the city. Retailers might be very upset, etc. There would be a multitude of effects - both direct and indirect.
In addition to the difficulty of forecasting the effects, there is the even bigger difficulty of forecasting the extent or strength of the effect. How strong would protests be? Would people remember this at the next election? How many businesses would move out of the city? How long would it take people to get used to the idea?
In London there is a ‘congestion charge’ for driving into the centre of the city. This is currently £8. If this charge is low, then people accept it, take it for granted and still drive into the city centre. If the charge is raised and is perceived to be too high, then there are protests and a negative effect at election time. How do you estimate the right level of charge to reduce traffic and yet not upset car drivers too much?
Consider an alternative idea. Suppose everyone who lived within a certain radius of London were to be given a free permit to drive into the city centre. But to drive in you would need to display four permits. So four friends or neighbours could agree to share a car. Or, you could rent or buy permits from other people. This would mean that some people were now being paid for leaving their cars at home, and taking public transport into the city. The overall effect would be a definite reduction to one quarter of existing car traffic into the city. There would not be the uncertainty of the congestion charge level(though the city would not make money if the permits were free).
In China there is said to be a deficit of 100 million women. This is the result of the ‘one child’ policy. Baby girls are not much valued because they are not so helpful in the fields or in your business. Girls get married and then look after the ageing parents of their husbands. So who is going to look after you when you get old? So, somehow, the girl babies disappear. The result is a deficit of 100 million women - and even wife kidnapping.
Now it may well be that this outcome was actually foreseen right from the beginning. The deficit of 100 million women would cause a significant decline in the population. Was the deficit deliberately planned, or an unforeseen consequence of the one child policy? Risk means that things do not turn out quite as planned. Consider an alternative idea for China’s large population.
Each family is allowed to have one boy and must then have more children. This is the ‘one boy’ policy. The result is equal boys and girls. At the moment of conception there is an equal chance of the embryo being a boy or a girl. Since no one is being killed, this equal chance continues. On average each family has two children. This is less than is required for population replacement, which needs about 2.3 children. So there is a declining population of equal boys and girls and everyone gets the chance to have a boy. No babies are ‘lost’ or killed.
Author - Edward de Bono
creative risk