The value of an idea is largely subjective until it is tested. i.e. the ideas alone are not of tangible value unless an additional factor is introduced.
Prototyping and associated testing methodologies should also be considered when presenting 'ideas' as the world is full of success and failure stories that contradict clients preconceptions of what constitutes a 'good idea'
Yeah, without testing, the value of some kinds of ideas is more subjective (or speculative) than others. We can never be completely sure of the outcome of an idea or plan until it's put into action, but we also can't be completely unsure of the relative values of different options if we're going to pick one to go ahead with. Or even to select candidates for testing – when there's a time and resource cost for testing or prototyping.
All in all, it's another kind of trade-off, involving confidence. On a spectrum from individual gut feels to expert voting/consensus to testing to prototyping to limited rollouts... both costs and confidence grow. If the stakes are low (say, ideas for Wednesday morning's Facebook post), the value of confidence isn't high enough to justify, say, focus-group testing your FB post idea. If the stakes are high (say, a new product feature that would require significant changes to production plants), then you'd rather spend time and money finding out that it's a bad idea.
Another trade-off I've been talking about with the whimsical Craig Page is... how sure are you that you wouldn't have an even better idea if you just kept thinking for a bit longer? When do you stop?
The value of an idea is largely subjective until it is tested. i.e. the ideas alone are not of tangible value unless an additional factor is introduced.
Prototyping and associated testing methodologies should also be considered when presenting 'ideas' as the world is full of success and failure stories that contradict clients preconceptions of what constitutes a 'good idea'
Yeah, without testing, the value of some kinds of ideas is more subjective (or speculative) than others. We can never be completely sure of the outcome of an idea or plan until it's put into action, but we also can't be completely unsure of the relative values of different options if we're going to pick one to go ahead with. Or even to select candidates for testing – when there's a time and resource cost for testing or prototyping.
All in all, it's another kind of trade-off, involving confidence. On a spectrum from individual gut feels to expert voting/consensus to testing to prototyping to limited rollouts... both costs and confidence grow. If the stakes are low (say, ideas for Wednesday morning's Facebook post), the value of confidence isn't high enough to justify, say, focus-group testing your FB post idea. If the stakes are high (say, a new product feature that would require significant changes to production plants), then you'd rather spend time and money finding out that it's a bad idea.
Another trade-off I've been talking about with the whimsical Craig Page is... how sure are you that you wouldn't have an even better idea if you just kept thinking for a bit longer? When do you stop?