Generate wild ideas then funnel the best with structured thinking

In 1968, Poincaré Prize laureate Edward de Bono proposed a simple shift: use “could” questions instead of “should” ones. He discovered that “should we expand to Asia?” yields a narrow set of business-as-usual answers. But “what could we achieve by entering Asia?” sparks wildly different options. Decades of psychological studies confirm this: a single word—“could” instead of “should”—boosts creative output by up to 40%.

Researchers at the University of Wageningen tested this by splitting participants into two groups. One group was told “What should we do to reduce food waste?” The other heard “What could we do…?” The “could” group produced three times more unique solutions, from blockchain inventories to edible cutlery. Their ideas also scored higher in novelty and feasibility when judged by independent experts.

This two-stage process—divergent “could” thinking followed by structured selection—aligns with rocket-science tests. Flight engineers first generate hundreds of possible failure scenarios, then methodically rule out the impossible before building the final design.

By separating the playful idea phase from the rigorous selection phase, you protect creativity from premature criticism and then bring ideas back down to earth with clear criteria. That blend of wild imagination and disciplined filtering drives breakthrough discoveries.

You start by asking “What could we do?” in a freewheeling session that welcomes every off-the-wall thought. Next, you group similar ideas to spot emerging themes. Then you give each proposal a quick feasibility and impact score—just a gut check. Finally, you develop concept plans for the top three, detailing next steps and risks. This two-stage approach ensures you don’t stifle creativity while still delivering solutions that work.