So how do you balance creativity and process? I get this question a lot. Apparently I haven't been able to make my point in 140 characters.

For the fun of it, let's say that when you combine process and creativity, you develop a third entity altogether. No, I know, but we're pretending, OK? We’ll call this pretend entity "bliggity bloop". Now the question is no longer about balancing between creativity and process, it's about using the right amount of "bliggity bloop" within some other set of constraints, such as time, cost, and experience. How much "bliggity bloop" should we use?

I find some of the concepts from the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) useful here, as it defines five levels of problem solving; each requiring a different amount of creativity, and different processes (for some good reviews of TRIZ, check out “TRIZ – Theory of Inventive Problem Solving” by Kevin Roebuck). I've used this structure, and many of my clients have successfully used this for over six years to maintain a balance of "bliggity bloop".

LEVEL 1 - Routine design problems solved by methods that are well-known within the specialty. Usually no invention needed.

LEVEL 2 - Minor improvements to an existing system using methods known within the industry.

LEVEL 3 - Fundamental improvement to an existing system using methods known outside the industry.

LEVEL 4 - A new generation of a system that entails a new principle for performing the system's primary functions. Solutions are found more often in science than in technology.

LEVEL 5 - A rare scientific discovery or pioneering invention of an essentially new system. These types of solutions are always outside of the existing product charter, and not part of the normal product management process. In other words, this is not "bliggity bloop", no matter how much you put on, the LEVEL 5 requires "bloggity bloop". "Bliggity bloop" doesn't impact LEVEL 5.

I examine the market issues and estimate potential opportunities. Then depending on the opportunity size, I determine how much "bliggity bloop" is justified. My supply of "bliggity bloop" is limited, so I must conserve. It now becomes the traditional portfolio management problem. I then define three sub-portfolios for all my opportunities: maintenance and utility, enhancement and improvement, and transformational.

LEVEL 1 and small LEVEL 2s only justify a small amount of "bliggity bloop", so I place them in the "Maintenance & Utility" Portfolio. Large LEVEL 2s and Small LEVEL 3s justify more "bliggity bloop", and so are placed in the enhancement and improvement portfolio. The large LEVEL 3 and all LEVEL 4s are placed in the transformational portfolio. The diagram illustrates this partitioning. Most product management teams over invest in Level 1 opportunities, and wonder why they don't have more innovative products.

I've included in the illustration typical mixes of the three portfolios, but the actual mix is determined by your organization's level of risk tolerance, faith in your team, and product strategy. In truth, a lot more goes into determining this mix; and must consider both internal and external forces.

My point for this blog posting is that the question of balancing creativity and process is poorly formed. The real question is the mix between sub-portfolios. We defined "bliggity bloop" as creativity and process. These two components of "bliggity bloop" support each other, they are not opposed to each other. Depending on your portfolio mix and opportunity estimation you will determine what amount of creativity and process is justified. It's not a one or the other type of decision, but how much of both.