• Define What Works
• Explore How to Make it Work Better
• Take Action
• Analyze Results for New Knowledge

These four points represent a sequential loop that can be repeated into infinity, thereby expanding a known circle of what works with that which makes it work better. Each step builds upon the one before; step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4, then back to step 1, and so on.

If we are brainstorming (step 2 - exploring) but have not defined what works (step 1) then we are really only doing a creative shoot-out, which can be a lot of fun, but is completely inefficient all the way around.

During my ad agency tenure, it was common for prospective clients to invite us to "pitch" their account along with other agencies. Most clients were fishing for answers, hoping that one agency would hit upon the magic formula. This behavior confirmed a management professor's statement that, "most people will do anything to avoid thinking by forming committees, trying to buy canned solutions, hiring experts, etc."

Spec work is another term for creative shoot-outs, where artists/agencies are asked to demonstrate how they would solve a client's problem/opportunity. If the client picks them, they get paid to go to town and implement.

A very experienced print buyer, mentor and friend, once shared a powerful story that illustrates the weakness of spec work and the strength of starting with definitions.

Her biotech company was looking to hire an agency to produce its annual report. As was the custom, several ad agencies were called in, briefed on the assignment, and asked to report back within a week with mockups (examples of creative direction for the project). One company in particular really knocked themselves out and spent an incredible amount of time and energy. My friend confessed, "I really felt bad for them."

There was another gentleman who came in with nothing. He turned to the president of the firm and said, "You are going to tell me what you want your annual report to say and I'm going to write it on the back of this business card. If we can't fit the message on the card, then it shows you have not thought through your needs and I won't be able to help you."

This man, sans mockups, was the one who won the business. Not because he was arrogant, but because he knew that without succinctly defining what works, creativity for the sake of creativity was fluff.

In addition to defined goals and messages driving the creative process, this man also knew the importance of active client involvement. It is too easy for a prospect to say no and dismiss a shoot-out effort only because an element used, like a color or a typeface, didn't work. Elements can be easily modified to make something work, if client and agency are mutually committed to each other's involvement with the project.

Also popular at the time were capability presentations, which also highlight the need for definitions. These forums were used by prospective clients to assess an agency's portfolio. I would remind prospects that they could never accurately judge portfolios since two variables were not apparent: timing and budgets. Works done with unlimited time and money are not the same animals as those produced within short time frames and limited resources. So part of defining what works also includes timing and budgetary factors.

In the height of my analog marketing experience, my firm was producing over one hundred jobs each month, with many having numerous sub-components. Thus the need to be efficient. When prospective calls came in, I would ask, "What are your goals and budget/timing parameters?" There were no right or wrong answers, but they became the cornerstones to defining "what works."

Defining what works requires objectivity. This is where teams can really benefit by hiring objective counselors who can sit in the hub of a spinning Creative Compass and hold up mirrors so everybody can see objectively. These same third parties can also foster a level of cross pollination that allow a team to percolate to another level.

For instance, there was a time when I was brought into an integrated team, a division of a large tax and duty-free chain, assembled to create a new version of their Web site with integrated promotions (e.g., billboards, point-of-purchase, radio). They had just been bought out by a global company and this parent company wanted to redo the site to reflect their new direction. The division and the project were nebulous, with many team members being recent hires.

On the table were requirements from the corporate parent company, one of which dealt with the company logo being present on the home page. There was great discussion about the proper size and placement, yet after the meeting, one of the newer strategic planners pulled me to the side and said, "You know Chuck, our research has shown that our customers don't care about our name or our logos. They only care about our locations, so why are we wasting so much valuable real estate on logos?" It was a very sound point, and I wished it had been shared in our meeting but then realized that this newcomer's boss had also been present in the meeting, and it was he who had most strongly argued for the large logo on the site.

In this case, as an objective counselor/facilitator, when I prepared the digital communication strategy manual (a working document that captures guiding principles for digital teams), I included this gentleman's reference to research under "Critical Messages On Deck." With this deliverable, the team was able to process the critical messages weighted by priority as determined by our planning meeting, but they were also able to reflect on some outstanding issues that were related, yet unresolved. In the end, my colleague's points were incorporated into the plan and the logo was reduced.

This concept of objectively helping clients was first shared with me via a Madison Avenue mentor who equated clients to giants, and objective counselors to dwarfs. "Now why would a giant have need for a dwarf?" he asked me while standing on his balcony overlooking a twinkling Los Angeles skyline with robust Chilean red wine in hand. "Because if the giant befriends the dwarf and allows him to sit on the giant's shoulders, then the dwarf can help that giant see just a little bit further when standing in a room full of giants." Objectivity during the definition phase helps us see a little bit clearer. Often, it is this little bit that makes the big difference. Consider Olympic competitions, where nanoseconds, not hours, determine the winners.

With regards to scientifically measuring a circle of what works, there is an abundance of information about quantification of management analysis, especially in the fields of accounting and quality improvement. I will not duplicate this information here but I have included some favorite techniques in the following chapter.

I also won't elaborate on step 3, Taking Action (implementation) as there is much information available on the art and science of project management. However, I highly recommend reading Lt. General William G. Pagonis' book, Moving Mountains - Lessons in Leadership and Logistics from the Gulf War. It offers some great case studies about implementation practices from the Vietnam War in the 1960's, versus the improvements experienced during the Gulf War.

As for step 4, Analyze Results for New Knowledge, I will say this: Failure is only a result. Do not allow your team to get hung up on "stinking thinking," to quote Zig Ziggler, when actions kick back results that didn't happen as expected. This is mostly an attitudinal issue. Two examples to consider:

First, there is the story about an automotive industry vice president who made a mistake and cost his company over a million dollars. He gets the call to see the CEO and figures, "This is it. I'm doomed," and packs up his desk before the appointment. He walks in and immediately says, "I know you're going to fire me so..." and the CEO stops him and replies, "Now what are you talking about? I just spent a million dollars educating you and I'm looking forward to a good return on investment, so let's get busy..."

The second example comes from a golf pro, who turned me on to the book, Golf in the Kingdom, by Michael Murphy. I can't say enough positive things about this brilliant book, which really is about the fine art of letting go when trying too hard. Anyhow, this pro was telling me about the importance of attitude after result. The example he used was that when playing tournament golf, summer rules. Which means you play the ball as it ends up. Apparently, it is not uncommon to find golf pros who freak after hitting a tee shot straight down the middle of the fairway, 280 yards out, only to discover the ball ended up in a divot (scarred ground from a previous golfer's club removing a chunk of ground while hitting the ball). Divots are quite normal, but it is common courtesy (to fellow golfers and Mother Nature) to repair them by finding the flying clump and placing it back where it came from. So my golf friend was saying how many pros he knows get totally "wigged out" about the unfairness of the experience. Here they hit this gorgeous tee shot only to be penalized by some irresponsible toad, and then work themselves into a dither dwelling on the anger of it all.

My friend likes to approach the divot shot from another angle. Instead of getting angry, he thinks, "Hmmm. Haven't hit a ball from a divot in a while. Wonder how creative I can be with this shot?" and goes to town.

Here's what I'd suggest for all four steps in the Creative Compass:

• Be specific - what works should be as tightly defined as possible; it should be observable and measurable
• Identify measurements - identify units of measure and create a sensor (how the system is to be measured)
• Agree on criteria for evaluating alternatives - total costs; cultural impacts; cost/benefit relationships; implementation time tables; risks; health/safety environments; etc.

• The clarification of knowledge, e.g., "What do we know to be working?"
• The exploration of how else to improve, e.g., brainstorming
• The commitment to taking action, e.g., implementation of ideas
• And finally, the analysis of the results from said actions, e.g., "What did we learn?"