Indeed, it’s the collaborative aspects of Design Thinking that often is ‘shunned’ by practiced designers. It is based on the fundamental principle that there are all sorts of insights that can be synthesized from the different perspectives of individuals — not just because people think differently, but for a very sound reason: people have different expertises and experiences. We have to rely on each other to all serve as the ‘eyes and ears’ of a collective perspective on things that are happening that will either impact or be impacted by any solution that might be put forth.

It is this collaborative working through possibilities, by using ‘inspiration’ pieces (thinking like interior decorators) that to me is a focused way of accomplishing more than brainstorming. But there are also specific cases where (as you note) brainstorming is relevant. As I found myself badmouthing brainstorming again today, this showed up in my inbox bit.ly/NeFjem.

Another critical factor, in addition to the significance of just ‘working through’ ideas collaboratively for the purpose of ‘shared meaning’ (which cannot be underestimated in its value), is the reality that most of the ‘innovation’ that goes on daily in a company is just the normal work that gets done (not the stuff for which meetings are called over). And the value of the artifacts that might get created (documents, spreadsheets, etc.), is often less than the decisions and actions that were taken to get to the results. That’s where preserving the highlights of such ‘conversations’ is invaluable. Assuming that someone can reconstruct same from emails is silly.

I continue to be dismayed that many popular content management, knowledge management and file management systems do not include the contextual ‘commentary’ that is so relevant to business artifacts.