Of course, there is the risk that everyone thinks McDonalds is a swell idea, and then no one will ever do anything nicer for lunch ever again. Not to stretch the analogy too far, but I have had this happen both literally and figuratively.
I use a technique like this when I am stuck trying to write code and can't figure out how to do it efficiently. I ask myself "what is the worst possible way to implement this function?" and start writing that. Sure enough, that gets my mind going almost immediately and I start thinking of the improvements needed to turn it into good code.
There's never really anything new in IT. Looking at past revolutions of the eternal IT wheel the next article will be about Fred Brook's "second system effect" where a simple 1st choice like McDonalds for lunch inevitably leads to a ridiculously overengineered second solution in reaction, like a $300/plate steakhouse or perhaps a strange ethnic restaurant for lunch 90 miles away.<p>This article is basically a rehash of Fred Brooks "pilot system" concept where regardless of if they admit it or not, the first system design will be a throwaway which the team uses to gel their ideas around. Often the second system ends up like the above paragraph.<p>As far as I know Brooks was the first turn of this eternal IT wheel, and he wrote this in the mid 70s about his experiences in the 60s. I'm still young enough that I suspect most of what Brooks invented in the 70s will be rediscovered many more times before I retire. As far as I know Brooks was not rehashing someone previous to him, I'd be interested to learn if anyone has older references.<p>Its still a reasonably well written article, even if there's nothing new in it. Brooks's original writing is also pretty good, if you want to see the future of software development, what will be claimed to be "invented" over and over in future decades, you could do worse than "the mythical man month". The re-release is better than the original but not immensely so, so don't freak if your local library only has the first edition.
I don't see this as a creative concern.<p>Does anyone really think this group of coworkers, which almost surely eats something, somewhere eat day needs "inspiration" that they are truly bereft of ideas when this happens?<p>I don't.<p>They aren't out of ideas, they're avoiding blame - the inevitable bitching, disagreement or silent resentment that comes with making a choice.<p>It's the same blame culture that screws up any number of workplaces only worse as there may be nothing so pressing and universally felt as something like the human need for sustenance.<p>Projects are put off for days, weeks or years and they aren't universally felt when they remain undone. Individuals can't necessarily act to satiate themselves either, that could make them "cowboys".<p>In the original analogy, silence is complacency, the stream of ideas is a reactive response and the question should really be about how to eliminate the blame culture and replace it with something proactive and productive.
> people are inspired to come up with good ideas to ward off bad ones.<p>Interesting theory, but I think something else is happening here.<p>If you have a bunch of people trying to solve a problem, the game is implicitly defined as "propose the best solution." After the first proposal, the game changes to "improve on the best solution so far."<p>This is something to keep in mind during interviews [1] for people on both sides of the table. If a candidate is silent for too long, propose a bad idea and ask them to improve on it. That gets them talking out loud, and you get more info to go on. If you're a candidate, you can start with a bad (yet probably obvious) solution and explain why it's bad. In the process of talking it through, you'll likely think of a better solution.<p>[1] The algorithm/coding one-big-question-over-45-minutes style of interviews commonly conducted by large software companies.
Related hack:<p>When you can't make progress and choose between two comparable options, Dan Ariely (behavioral economist) recommends you flip a coin. As you flip it, the impact of a potential decision might prompt you to realize the outcome you truly want.<p>However, there is a caveat: "The coin trick is indeed only useful for cases where the two options are of the same type (two cameras, two movies, etc). In your example, one option is more tempting in the short term (chocolate cake) while the other is better in the long term (fruit). In such cases we should not trust our gut feelings to drive us to the best decisions."<p><a href="http://danariely.com/2013/01/05/ask-ariely-on-stretching-time-coining-decisions-and-gifts-of-effort-not-money/" rel="nofollow">http://danariely.com/2013/01/05/ask-ariely-on-stretching-tim...</a>
A related trick to avoid procrastination: I have often found myself procrastinating when needing to send an important, but non-urgent, email. Procrastination is often a result of fear. I realized that the procrastination came from a fear that I would phrase the email wrong, or get the tone wrong, and blow my chance at getting a favorable response. To avoid procrastination, I find it helpful to tell myself, "ok, I will just compose the email right now, that is all, and I can send it whenever I want tomorrow, the next day, no hurry." Of course, after composing the email, I almost always get over the fear and just end up sending it.
My take on this is that it is effective because it reduces peoples fear of suggesting an idea.<p>We all feel something for our own genuine suggestions, a sort of ownership, and so fear the possibility of rejection as it would be a rejection of something personal to us, our preference.<p>When someone suggests a universally and whole heartily rejected idea we can take a degree of security from that that our idea will not be as universally disliked; "Well it's not as bad as McDonald's"<p>It's also possible that it just gets the "flow" going, which again is more to do with removing peoples fears i.e. "well, he suggested an idea and it wasn't so bad for him so I may as well suggest one as well"
I get the theory behind recommending the worse idea so that people recommend something that isn't nearly as bad but what is so bad about McDonald's? Here in Australia there aren't many fast food establishments opened at 3am besides McDonald's and when you're driving to work or had a night out on the town which is worse: dodgy kebab, slightly warm 3 day old curry or McDonald's?<p>I tend to use a similar tactic when we're brainstorming internal project ideas especially. I'll come up with something really stupid to break the ice and then others feel better knowing their ideas probably aren't nearly as bad.
This reminds me of a very similar idea from Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert): <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106164123424314.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329320457610...</a><p>Quote: <i>I spent some time working in the television industry, and I learned a technique that writers use. It's called "the bad version." When you feel that a plot solution exists, but you can't yet imagine it, you describe instead a bad version that has no purpose other than stimulating the other writers to imagine a better version.</i>
I've had two different experiences like this. The first is a co-worker that did a different tactic. When someone would ask him if he wanted to get lunch and no idea of where to go, he would ask "rice or noodle?" This somehow always lead us going to a place that had neither of those things.<p>From what I've seen, the inverse of this seems to also imply where a group will end up going for lunch. I've had co-workers say Costco or Taco Bell "isn't lunch". Because of those negative statements, that is exactly where the group ends up going.
I am much more likely to be frustrated by really having a hankering for some McDonald's and everyone else being the sort of people who haven't had fast food in 10 years, if ever in their entire life (pretty much my entire team). I try to appreciate both the finer and coarser things in life.
The theory is correct, and I applaud the author for willing to be that guy, because if you do this too often you become the person who always has the worst idea.
Perhaps throwing out a bad idea like McDonalds just lowers the bar so that the others don't have to worry about being looked down upon for having a bad suggestion. No-one wants to be the guy who says "I really like X" while everyone else thinks "X? How low-status."
It certainly is easier to edit than create. You need at least one "creator" on a team with the initiative to get things going when they're stuck. After that, good "editors" can make for pretty effective team players also.<p>ps. This article hurt my feelings as an MCD stockholder. :)
If you are working by yourself, this trick only works sometimes. If you have extreme apathy against your subject matter or absolutely no idea on what you should do, then putting down a bad idea would just result in a bad idea written down, and there is nothing that follows. I only experience partial success with this technique (in cases, where I have some idea on what I am doing, but I am just debating internally about minor details).
The problem I have with this starts as soon as the author insists that the second step is "always" easier than the first, and implicates that first step as somehow being a time sink.<p>As soon add you say "always" you are almost certainly wrong, and you have most likely missed something important, or at least relevant. This article dismisses a huge breadth of ideas and processes simply because sometimes it is effective to skip them.
Nice article. One factor that seems to overlook is the cost of an early decision that becomes impossible to change as the project matures as I descibe here: <a href="http://www.codingismycraft.com/2013/05/01/be-extra-cautious-of-early-decisions-in-your-development-cycle/" rel="nofollow">http://www.codingismycraft.com/2013/05/01/be-extra-cautious-...</a>
Sort of like the interrogation technique demonstrated by the new "Sherlock": instead of asking questions that your opposite doesn't want to answer, make (false) assertions that they will want to disprove.<p>Seemed very plausible to me.
Surely everything after is considered a good idea, because the it was bad; even if suggestions were repeated prior and post suggesting mc donalds, that suggestion is suddenly considered a better idea...
I've worked on too many projects where I've received a spec and concluded that only a room full of people arguing without reaching agreement could have produced something so bad.
I like the article for it's "get started rather than waiting for the perfect solution". However the McDonald's example makes the author sound like he's advocating proposing bad ideas. It's probably best if you don't present ideas that are intentionally awful (like his McDonald's recommendation). You'd just be sabotaging your reputation (you're now "that guy with all the bad ideas").<p>Get to work and don't be afraid to propose ideas you have.
Here's the problem. If your team takes the time to really try and come up with something that everyone agreed they wanted to eat, then you all end up with a high quality lunch. If you just start with the worst idea and iterate from there you run the risk of getting something that has bugs in it which you don't even realize were there until much later when it's already too late.
I always thought starting a discussion with a deliberately bad plan works because people always excel at criticizing existing ideas, but coming up with something new is harder. Creative discussion naturally emerges when there is something that can be improved upon.
I like to think of brainstorming as a conveyer belt full of bad and good ideas. If you stop at the bad ones you don't let the good ones through either. You can't help what's on the belt, you just have to let it run.<p>Don't stop the conveyor belt.
Fantastic article. Love the Ann Lamott reference; read her book "Bird by Bird," from which the quote came; it really is great. Reading more into this article than "start with something and go from there" is reading too much.
I throw out ridiculous ideas all the time, but the thing is, a lot of the time they are only slightly exaggerated. A lot of times a truly bad idea has some good idea hidden just beneath the surface.
I've done this online for a long time. I.e you start a forum thread but dont get any replies. Make a 2nd account replying a silly answer that is wrong - experts suddenly appear.