Ideation: 13 techniques and how to run a useful session

What is ideation in design thinking?

Ideation is the idea-generation part of a creative process, not a synonym for having one brilliant thought. In Stanford d.school’s Design Thinking Bootleg, Ideate is one of five modes alongside Empathize, Define, Prototype and Test. The resource explicitly allows you to start in different places; these are not five gates that every project passes through once in a fixed order.

A design-thinking session might move from a defined need to several possible approaches, then to a rough prototype. Testing may reveal that the original question needs changing, sending you back to research or another round of ideas. Outside product design, the same distinction is useful for a story, exhibition, workshop or visual campaign: generating possibilities is different from committing to an execution.

Begin with a short design brief stating the audience, problem, constraints and intended output. “Help first-time visitors know what to bring” invites different approaches. “Design a checklist app” has already selected a format and may skip the problem you need to understand.

Divergent vs convergent thinking: separate the jobs

Divergent thinking opens the field: you generate different possibilities, examine alternatives and avoid settling immediately on the first workable answer. Convergent thinking narrows it: you compare options against a question, constraints and evidence. Psychologist J. P. Guilford’s 1950 presidential address to the American Psychological Association, published as “Creativity”, helped make creative thinking a research subject, and his later work tied divergent production to creative potential. In an ideation session, mark the switch between these jobs so a tentative thought is not rejected before it can develop.

The d.school’s method cards distinguish going wide during generation from narrowing during evaluation. Nielsen Norman Group also describes a diverge-and-converge workshop pattern in which people work independently first, then bring their contributions together. That collaboration pattern is one way to structure a session, not a requirement that every divergent activity be silent.

Postpone ordinary feasibility criticism during a generating round, but do not suspend safety, respect or ethical boundaries. “We cannot manufacture this next week” can become a later evaluation note. An idea requiring harm, deception or misuse of private information is not something you need to encourage to prove that the session is open-minded.

• During generation: ask “What else could meet the need?” and capture alternatives without ranking them.
• During clarification: ask “How would this work?” without quietly turning clarification into a sales pitch.
• During evaluation: ask “Which options fit the goal, what assumptions do they rely on, and what can we test?”

Brainstorming techniques 1–4: talk, write, sketch and map

Spoken brainstorming is associated with Alex Osborn; the Creative Education Foundation identifies him with its development. Treat brainstorming as one ideation technique, not the whole process. The following are practical ways to run these methods; adapt the timings to the task and participants rather than treating speed as a measure of creativity.

1. Spoken brainstorming

Display one question. Give the group a short generating round, such as ten minutes, and capture one idea per card as people contribute. Invite additions and combinations without evaluating them yet. If the conversation becomes one person’s monologue, pause for an individual writing round rather than asking everyone to compete for airtime.

2. Brainwriting

Ask each person to write ideas silently before sharing them. Exchange the cards or sheets and add a variation or extension to someone else’s idea. Keep the original and the addition distinguishable. Alone, write a first batch, step away briefly, then return to add alternatives instead of immediately choosing your favorite.

3. Crazy 8s

A sketching exercise from Google’s Design Sprint methods: divide a page into eight panels and sketch eight approaches in eight minutes. Use simple boxes, arrows and short labels; these are ideas, not finished illustrations. Aim for different approaches, not eight cosmetic versions of the first. If the timed format is unsuitable, slow it down and keep the useful principle of producing several alternatives.

4. Mind mapping

Put the challenge in the center. Branch into relevant aspects such as arrival, preparation and follow-up, then add possible approaches under each. Review a neglected branch to generate another option. A mind map expands a central topic; add separate relationship explanations when you need more than a parent-and-subtopic structure.

The Interaction Design Foundation’s brainwriting guide describes silent writing followed by sharing and building on ideas. Figma’s Crazy 8s instructions verify the eight-sketch, eight-minute format, while NN/g’s mapping guide distinguishes a mind map’s central-topic tree from a network of labeled relationships.

Ideation techniques 5–8: change the question

5. SCAMPER

Choose an existing concept and ask what you could Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate or Reverse. Write a concrete alternative for each useful prompt. For an invitation, “eliminate” might suggest removing jargon; “combine” might suggest putting directions and preparation information in one clear arrival guide.

6. Reverse brainstorming

Reverse the problem: instead of asking how to make arrival clear, ask how you would make arrival confusing. List imagined failure conditions, then reverse them into constructive possibilities. “Hide which door to use” becomes “make the entrance identifiable before arrival.” Keep the bad scenario hypothetical rather than carrying it out.

7. Worst possible idea

Invent an obviously unhelpful approach to the challenge, identify what makes it bad, and salvage a useful opposite or component. A fictional welcome guide sent only after the event exposes a timing problem; its constructive counterpart could be a brief preparation message beforehand. Use playful failures, not humiliating examples involving real people.

8. How-might-we questions

Turn a grounded need into several open questions. “How might we help visitors prepare without reading a long document?” leaves room for different formats. Reject prompts so broad that almost anything answers them, or so narrow that they already specify the solution. Choose one question for the next generating round.

Bob Eberle developed the SCAMPER mnemonic from Osborn’s idea prompts. The ERIC record of Eberle’s 1972 article documents that relationship, and IMD’s SCAMPER guide explains the prompts. There is no need to make a precise invention-year claim to use the exercise. “Reverse” is also often expressed as rearranging the order or perspective.

For the other formats, Mindtools describes reversal, the Interaction Design Foundation’s worst-idea worksheet develops bad ideas into useful alternatives, and the d.school method cards provide how-might-we prompts. These are prompts for exploration, not evidence that an imagined solution will succeed.

Techniques 9–13: borrow structures and vary the conditions

These last five exercises are practical adaptations for broadening an option set. Several can work with a small inspiration collection and a few blank cards. They do not require a large workshop or a polished drawing style.

9. Analogies

Identify a function in the challenge, such as helping someone find an entrance. Look at a different setting that handles that function, then name the mechanism worth exploring. A trail marker’s staged directions might suggest an arrival sequence. Borrow the structure, not the visual identity, and check whether the different context makes the analogy inappropriate.

10. Inspiration boards

Collect a small set of licensed, public-domain or personally created references. Add the source and a note identifying the useful quality: sequence, material, framing or tone. Generate a concept from that quality rather than copying the reference. Compare contrasting references so the board does not quietly become a vote for one existing design.

11. Deliberate constraints

Run a fresh round with one changed condition: no screen, one sheet of paper, a reusable object or no additional equipment. Write the condition on the resulting cards. Then remove the temporary constraint and see which idea remains useful. Do not confuse an exercise constraint with a real budget, safety rule or audience need.

12. Combination pairs

Pick two different idea cards and write what a combined approach would do. Keep the parts only if they work together: an illustrated preparation card plus a clear arrival sequence may form a useful guide. Produce another pairing before choosing, and label combinations as new ideas so their origins remain visible.

13. Mini storyboards

Sketch three moments: before the need, the action and the result. For each moment, write what the person knows and what remains uncertain. Try a second version with a different approach. Use the storyboard to expose missing steps, not to invent a success story that substitutes for testing.

The d.school cards include analogous inspiration and deliberate constraints. For a board’s visual direction rather than idea generation, read what a mood board is; for explaining the chosen look through concrete decisions, use art direction. The exercises here are ways to explore, not proof that any borrowed association is right for your audience.

How to brainstorm alone without choosing too early

Choose two techniques that behave differently: brainwriting and a mini storyboard, for example. Write the question and known constraints at the top of the page. Set a comfortable boundary for the session so you spend time generating rather than continually changing tools or collecting more references.

1. Start with what you know: the need, evidence and important unknowns. Keep assumptions labeled.
2. Generate an initial batch without ranking it. Give every card enough explanation to understand later.
3. Change the prompt or format. Try a reversal, a constraint or a sketch round to avoid repeating the same approach.
4. Take a brief break, then clarify the options. Split an overloaded card and combine only ideas that genuinely fit together.
5. Choose a few ideas for comparison and write a reason for each. Keep one different approach instead of retaining only near-duplicates.
6. Define a next experiment: a rough mockup, a sample scene, a materials trial or a question to investigate.

In a fictional workshop-invitation project, you might finish with an illustrated preparation card, a short arrival guide and a physical welcome marker. None is a proven improvement merely because you imagined it. The next task is to compare how each addresses the need and what evidence or trial would help you decide.

Running a group ideation session

Share the question and relevant source material before the session when possible. State whether the outcome is a set of alternatives, a shortlist or a decision, and who has responsibility for that decision. Provide both written and spoken ways to contribute. Make it possible to read the cards without everyone crowding a wall.

Here is a suggested 45-minute agenda, not a validated formula. Adjust it if reading, writing or discussion requires more time. The facilitator’s job is to maintain the separation between generation and evaluation, capture ideas faithfully and make disagreements examinable.

1. First 5 minutes: review the problem, sources, boundaries and output. Resolve questions about the prompt.
2. Next 8 minutes: write ideas individually, without inspecting everyone else’s first contribution.
3. Next 10 minutes: share and clarify. Build on another idea without erasing the original.
4. Next 7 minutes: run a second technique, such as a constraint or an analogy, to broaden the options.
5. Next 10 minutes: group related ideas and evaluate against the agreed criteria.
6. Final 5 minutes: name the shortlisted concepts, their assumptions and the next check for each.

For remote or asynchronous work, the same sequence can use individual written submissions followed by a discussion. Do not assume anonymity unless your actual process provides it. If one person is dominating, return to a writing round or invite a contribution from each participant before opening debate.

Evaluate ideas with grouping, votes and impact–effort

First use an affinity diagram to group meaningfully related options and reveal duplicates. Name the groups after sorting. Keep alternative mechanisms visible: two cards both saying “guide” may mean a printed preparation sheet and an in-person welcome, which are different proposals.

Dot voting

State what a vote means, such as “worth prototyping against our goal,” and give everyone the same vote allowance. Vote before discussing the result if you want separate initial judgments. Treat totals as the group’s preferences, not proof of audience demand or feasibility.

Impact–effort comparison

Define impact in terms of the stated goal and effort in terms of the work needed for a specific next version. Place ideas roughly from low to high on each dimension. Mark estimates as assumptions and record important dependencies rather than presenting the diagram as a numerical forecast.

A reasoned shortlist

Keep a small range of ideas, including a distinct alternative when practical. For each, write the need it addresses, the evidence behind the need, its largest unknown and the smallest useful test.

The d.school selection cards include voting and deliberately retaining a range of ideas. You can use votes to decide what deserves attention, then apply feasibility and evidence checks separately. If a popular idea depends on a condition you have not verified, it should not leap from the workshop directly into a claim that the problem is solved.

For a creative direction, compare more than personal taste: does the option answer the brief, work in the intended format and respect the actual constraints? Keep the rationale with the selected idea. “We liked it” may describe a vote, but it is an incomplete explanation of a design decision.

Keep ideas and their sources visible after the session

Use visual thinking to make a small working layout: the question, source material, alternatives, shortlist and open assumptions. Add a source ID to an idea when it responds to a particular observation. An inspiration image needs a creator or origin and a note explaining the quality you are borrowing; a quotation needs its exact source location.

Canvas Perch can keep images, notes, links and files side by side on an infinite canvas, with connections between cards and selected cards grouped inside a frame. You can keep a note beside a connection explaining how a reference informed an idea. This arrangement keeps your reasoning visible rather than evaluating ideas for you.

When an idea becomes a reusable explanation rather than a project option, a Zettelkasten offers a way to connect it to longer-term notes. Keep project status separate from the idea itself: selected, rejected, untested and supported by evidence mean different things. Preserve why an option was set aside so it does not return later as a supposedly new answer to the same unresolved issue.

A session is finished when you know what to do next, not when every space is filled. Save the shortlist, the reasoning and the next experiment. If no option survives the review, identify whether the prompt was too narrow, the source material was insufficient or a constraint was misunderstood, then address that specific gap before repeating the exercise.