Design Thinking for the LGPS: stage three - ideation (imagine the possibilities)

I must begin by saying I’m not a fan of jargon.

In particular, the unfortunate name of the next stage in the Design Thinking process - from me at least - tends to generate more eye-rolling than understanding.

Nonetheless, let’s suspend judgement, get past the name, and consider one of the most misunderstood stages of Design Thinking: 'Ideation' or (preferably to me) simply  'generating ideas'.

This is where we’re allowed to crack open the crayons and get creative! Exciting stuff!

Armed with a handful of useful 'How might we…?' questions from the prior Define stage, the aim is simple: open up the field of play.

We’re deliberately asking here, 'What could we reasonably do next?' rather than 'What have we done before?'. What we’re aiming to do is to create a wide array of options, and  use our imagination to think what might be possible. Here, creativity, often seen as an expensive distraction or a luxury, is an important skill.

Of course, we work in the real world. In the LGPS - and across the public sector more broadly - time, budget and policy constraints are ever-present. Those constraints matter but they can also nudge us into a bad habit: leaping to the most feasible answer first, then retrofitting our reasoning around it.

This constrained mindset can seem efficient as it can result in a seemingly obvious quick solution. However, that approach seldom results in long-term success. The creative process is often seen as unstructured and so it follows that, this is where 'Ideation' gets an unfair reputation as being inefficient and vague.

Structured creativity

Generating ideas isn’t just blue-sky thinking for the sake of it; it’s not about simply taking an 'outside-the-box' approach or a contrarian view, but is a disciplined way to expand the solution space before we start making the choices that narrow it.

Here, we can use a structured approach to creativity such as the SCAMPER framework (developed in the 1950s and 60s by Alex Osborn and Bob Eberle). This is less a methodology, and more of a helpful set of prompts you can use to generate ideas.

 

Of course, divergent thinking leads to a potential infinite solution space, and can expand ad infinitum in the absence of useful constraints. Bringing two or three sharp ‘How Might We’ (HMW) questions into a strictly time boxed meeting to gather a mix of perspectives can let ideas develop rapidly and widen the range of potential solutions, without taking a disproportionate amount of time.

What does this look like in practice?

Let’s say our HMW question is: 'How might we help members quickly understand their pension options when they change jobs?'

Using SCAMPER prompts and a time-boxed format, the group could generate ideas like:

• A scheme administrator who knows where members typically get stuck.
• A communications lead who knows what language can (or might not) work well.
• A member representative who can speak confidently on their behalf.

Using SCAMPER prompts and a time-boxed format, the group could generate ideas like:

• Substitute: Replace dense policy documents with a short, animated explainer video tailored to job changers.
• Combine: Merge 'leaving employment' and 'joining a new Scheme' forms into a single intuitive switching form. It’s worth noting that this might well prove highly impractical due to the level of industry-wide collaboration required but the point of this stage is to generate ideas – and not rule anything out yet.
• Adapt: Borrow from the user experience (UX) of travel booking sites by creating a step-by-step wizard that guides members through their options.
• Modify: Reframe pension language using metaphors like “membership of a long-term club”. Instead of “saving” with a single employer, members are “qualifying” for future benefits across their entire career, more like earning loyalty points.
• Put to another use: Use exit interviews as a trigger to send personalised pension guidance.
• Eliminate: Remove redundant steps in the transfer process that confuse or delay the process.
• Rearrange: Present pension choices based on life scenarios (e.g. 'I’m going freelance' or 'I’m joining a new employer') rather than simply considering a member's status as Active, Deferred or Pensioner.

None of these ideas require lots of budget, but they do require a willingness to rethink the default. The goal isn’t to pick a winner immediately, it’s to surface a credible spread of possibilities that can be tested and refined.

In a sector where solutions are often handed down fully formed, this approach can both feel refreshingly empowering and result in better outcomes as it asks those closest to the challenge to create something better. This is not necessarily limited to an iterative improvement on an existing process. It may be something (or some things!) new that might more directly address the challenge in hand.

In my next blog, we’ll consider how to bring the best of those ideas into focus through Prototyping (happily - a much less jargony-sounding word) i.e. testing early and cheaply, before we invest lots of time and money in rolling out full solutions… because the best way to know if something will work… is to try it out.

Related content

Design Thinking for the LGPS: stage two - define the problem

Design Thinking for the LGPS: Practical tools for better outcomes

Design Thinking for the LGPS: stage one - start with empathy