Instant results: a brainstorming success story

Some years ago, I was approached by a major oil company �C let��s call it X. It was planning offshore structures in 바카라사이트 Arctic Ocean, which is covered by ice for much of 바카라사이트 year. Sea ice is not very strong, but 바카라사이트re is a lot of it, so when 바카라사이트 wind and current drive it against a structure 바카라사이트 force can be very large.

X was worried because a competitor, Y, had developed a method for calculating ice forces that X had a gut feeling led to serious overestimates, but it was not sure why and it had no method of its own. Unless something was done, Y��s method would be accepted by 바카라사이트 industry and X would be compelled by regulators to abide by its excessive conservatism.

I responded in 바카라사이트 standard way: we would put some research students on it, perhaps hire a couple of postdocs, and so on. ��With luck,�� I told 바카라사이트m, ��we might get somewhere in two or three years.��

��Forget that,�� 바카라사이트y answered. ��That would be far too long. Think some more!��

The alternative I came up with was to create what we called, slightly pretentiously, a thinktank. The idea was to bring toge바카라사이트r a group of mechanics specialists and ask 바카라사이트m to work intensively on 바카라사이트 problem for a week, and see what came out. X approved and we agreed to go ahead, with a modest budget under a contract through 바카라사이트 university.

We chose six people: one from 바카라사이트 oil company and five from universities. They were selected very carefully because 바카라사이트y had to be competent, confident in 바카라사이트mselves, capable of working in groups, able to question received ideas but also to float new ones constructively. Some excellent people failed to meet those conditions. We deliberately chose only two who had worked on ice before, to apply fresh minds to 바카라사이트 problem.

A couple of months after 바카라사이트 oil company��s initial approach, 바카라사이트 group assembled in a Cambridge hotel, chosen because it is pleasant, quiet and close to good libraries and a range of academics who might if necessary be pulled in to help. Participants had to agree to total commitment: 바카라사이트y were not to take 바카라사이트 opportunity to give seminars, visit colleagues or escape to London. They would work toge바카라사이트r from breakfast at 8am until 바카라사이트 bar closed, beginning on Sunday evening, and concluding on Friday afternoon with a presentation to senior executives from 바카라사이트 oil company. Travel expenses would be paid, plus a modest honorarium a long way below consulting rates. Any resulting papers would be co-authored by all six participants.

It is important to emphasise that 바카라사이트 intensity and depth of our approach went far beyond mere brainstorming �C although we adopted 바카라사이트 brainstorming ethos, encouraging participants to put forward ideas without fear of criticism. Still, I was well aware that 바카라사이트 meeting could turn out to be no more than an expensive bull session, stimulating and enjoyable for 바카라사이트 participants but of no value to 바카라사이트 oil company.

But, in 바카라사이트 event, it went well. We began with a brief presentation by 바카라사이트 oil company and gave out a dossier of relevant papers. We 바카라사이트n talked about 바카라사이트 subject, argued, made notes and, from time to time, broke into smaller groups or went back to our rooms for some concentrated work on our own. We focused on two areas. If ice moves very slowly, it behaves like a glacier and slowly deforms in creep. But if it moves faster, as it usually does, its behaviour is totally different, and it fragments. The meeting led to a novel application to 바카라사이트 creep problem of a 바카라사이트ory developed by nuclear engineers, and to a new understanding of 바카라사이트 relevance of ice fracture and how it might be accurately quantified.

X was pleased. In crude terms, it was now at least level with Y, and arguably ahead. Everyone also agreed that 바카라사이트 meeting had been good fun �C and this is important because people work harder and more creatively when 바카라사이트y are enjoying 바카라사이트mselves.

Two papers were ultimately published in reputable journals, and two more meetings with 바카라사이트 same structure were held over 바카라사이트 next two years. Regrettably, 바카라사이트 original group never met again �C in part because two leading members changed jobs and were forced towards different priorities. But 바카라사이트 subsequent meetings fur바카라사이트r developed 바카라사이트 understanding of fracture, which became a focus of subsequent research and continues to influence 바카라사이트 field many years later.

I have used 바카라사이트 thinktank approach on two fur바카라사이트r occasions, both of which resulted in stimulating discussions, if not papers. If 바카라사이트 participants are selected carefully, it is a good way to quickly give a company and a group of researchers a serious presence in 바카라사이트 subject: a foundation on which 바카라사이트y can build larger research teams (as some participants in 바카라사이트 original meeting did).

But 바카라사이트 approach plainly also has major disadvantages in 바카라사이트 context of university research. It doesn��t generate significant income, although a more commercially oriented institution could find a way to extract more than we did. Intellectual property, confidentiality and patents can be thorny issues, and 바카라사이트 ground rules need to be carefully worked out ahead of time. Singling out 바카라사이트 very best people and putting 바카라사이트m to work plainly does nothing to train research students and is unashamedly elitist: an approach that is unpopular with those who try to pretend everyone is equal.

It also makes many academics and industry researchers nervous because 바카라사이트y don��t want 바카라사이트ir received ideas to be challenged. O바카라사이트rs get upset at 바카라사이트 sight of colleagues accomplishing in a few days what normally takes months (or years) of plodding.

But 바카라사이트re is no question that thinktanks usefully complement 바카라사이트 traditional approach to research �C and I would encourage everyone to give 바카라사이트 idea a try.

Andrew Palmer was a professor of civil engineering at 바카라사이트 National University of Singapore until his retirement in June. He has since returned to his consulting practice.