Brainstorming techniques that produce real ideas

Here’s something that drives me crazy. Every company I’ve ever seen does brainstorming the same way. Shove everyone into a room. Announce the problem. Wait for magic.

It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. And we’ve got decades of research proving it doesn’t work.

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published findings showing that brainstorming groups consistently produce fewer ideas than the same number of people working independently. The culprit? Something researchers call “production blocking” - you can’t think and listen at the same time. While you’re waiting for Karen from marketing to finish her point, your own idea evaporates.

There’s also evaluation apprehension. Fancy term for a simple truth: people censor themselves when the boss is in the room.

So what do you do instead?

You add structure. Which sounds counterintuitive - shouldn’t creativity be free and unstructured? Nope. People need a framework to push against. That’s where these techniques come in.

Solo brainstorming changes everything

Asking people to brainstorm as a group is like asking them to read a book while carrying on a conversation. The other people happen to be coworkers whose respect they desperately want. That’s a lot of cognitive load.

Solo brainstorming flips this. Give everyone time to think and record their own ideas first. Then open it up for group discussion, or take turns sharing standout ideas.

This isn’t my hot take - it’s backed by research from the Association for Psychological Science. Individuals generate more ideas, and more diverse ideas, when they start alone. The group becomes useful later, for building on and filtering what people brought.

At Tallyfy, we’ve seen this pattern play out in how teams structure their ideation workflows. The ones who build in solo thinking time before group reviews consistently report better outcomes. Nobody reads each other’s minds - so why pretend a room full of people will spontaneously converge on brilliance?

You can also try brainwriting, which research from Wiley found generates significantly more ideas, more original ideas, and a higher proportion of good-quality ideas compared to video-based group brainstorming. The rate of idea generation was 71% higher when teams used brainwriting compared to generating ideas as a group.

Done.

Figuring storming and fresh perspectives

After you’ve been staring at a problem day in and day out, your brain gets stuck in ruts. The closer you are to something, the harder it’ll be to see it differently.

Figuring storming is probably the most underrated technique out there.

Ask everyone to pretend they’re someone else - Oprah, a local politician, a six-year-old kid - and imagine how that person would see the problem. Sounds silly. Works shockingly well.

Why? Because it gives people permission to think differently without the vulnerability of it being “their” idea. If Oprah would say something bold, well, that’s Oprah talking - not timid Dave from accounting who never speaks up in meetings.

Have everyone share who they picked, how that person sees the situation, and what they’d do about it. Or ask people to choose someone they know well who thinks differently than they do. A parent. A favorite teacher. The friend who always plays devil’s advocate.

I think this technique works because it short-circuits evaluation apprehension. You’re not judging Dave’s ideas - you’re judging fictional Oprah’s ideas. Big difference psychologically.

Challenge every assumption you hold

When we make quick decisions, we lock in assumptions without examining them. The challenge everything technique forces a team to push back on those assumptions and see what breaks open.

Here’s how it works. Have the group list every assumption about the situation. A team designing a new skateboard might write down: “teenage boys, skate parks, four wheels, flat deck with curved ends.”

Now challenge each one.

Are teenage boys really the only audience? Does it have to have four wheels? Does it need a skate park? One software company used this technique when designing an onboarding process - they’d assumed every new account would follow the same path. Challenging that assumption led them to build modular processes with configurable steps that adapted to different needs.

Maybe your skateboard team dreams up a three-wheeled board for commuting on residential sidewalks. That’s not incremental improvement. That’s a new category.

In our experience with workflow automation, the processes that deliver the most value are the ones where someone stopped and asked “why do we do it this way?” before building anything. Tallyfy exists because we kept asking that question about how teams track work - and the answers we got back were usually “I don’t know, we’ve always done it like this.”

Quantity unlocks quality

Coming up with new ideas is hard. Coming up with good ideas is harder. The pressure to do both simultaneously creates brain gridlock.

The 101 ideas technique fixes this by making it absurd on purpose. Challenge everyone to generate 101 ideas in a set time period. You can’t possibly be precious about quality when you need 101 of anything.

Something interesting happens around idea 40 or 50. The obvious stuff is exhausted. Your brain starts making weird connections. Idea 73 might be garbage, but it sparks idea 74, which is genuinely brilliant.

At the end, have everyone circle the three or four worth sharing. Write the best ones on post-it notes for the wall. Or work as a group to hit 101 together - the energy of collective absurdity is surprisingly productive.

The Medici Effect takes a different angle on this same problem. Named after the Renaissance patrons who brought together artists, scientists, and philosophers, it’s about looking outside your industry for inspiration.

If you’re trying to be the leading video game company for teenagers, have you studied how teen shoe brands build loyalty? They might be doing something you can steal and adapt. We draw inspiration from consumer apps - not enterprise software - because that’s where the real UX innovation happens.

Mind mapping reveals hidden gaps

Mendeleev didn’t just catalog known elements. He mapped them out and noticed the gaps. Those gaps predicted elements that hadn’t been discovered yet.

Mind mapping works the same way. Lay out everything you know about a problem. The patterns that emerge will show you what’s missing.

Say you’re designing a handbag for busy working moms. Map out their lifestyle, schedule, commute, dress code, what they carry. The connections between those nodes will point you toward design decisions you wouldn’t have reached by just sitting and thinking.

You can do this on a whiteboard or use tools like MindMeister or Coggle. Put the central idea in the middle, branch to major components, then connect details to each branch.

The value isn’t the map itself. It’s what you notice while making it.

Building on ideas across multiple rounds

The trigger method accepts a truth that most brainstorming ignores: one session probably won’t produce a breakthrough.

Instead, you run multiple rounds. After each round, gather ideas, vote on the best ones, and use those as starting points for the next round. Each iteration refines and builds.

This is where having a structured workflow makes a real difference. In discussions we’ve had with teams using Tallyfy, we’ve heard over and over that the problem isn’t generating ideas - it’s capturing them, organizing them, and making sure someone follows through. Ideas without follow-through are just noise.

Example Procedure

Product Ideation & Innovation Pipeline Workflow

1Submit the idea

2Initial screening

3Research and validate

4Build business case

5Decision and next steps

+15 more steps

View template

Round robin brainstorming works similarly but in a single session. Everyone solo brainstorms first, then passes their list to the person on their left. That person adds to it. Keep passing until everyone has seen every list.

The stepladder technique is specifically designed to fight groupthink. Start with just two people discussing the prompt. Then bring in one more person who shares their ideas before hearing what the pair discussed. Keep adding people one by one. By the end, everyone has contributed without facing the whole group’s momentum at once.

Research on groupthink from Yale shows how easily groups fall into intellectual conformity. The stepladder disrupts that pattern deliberately.

Virtual brainstorming and the process gap

Not every team sits in the same building. Or even the same timezone. That’s just reality now.

Virtual brainstorming can be as simple as a shared Google Doc, or you can use dedicated tools like IdeaBoardz. Give everyone a deadline to add ideas, or schedule a live session where people contribute simultaneously.

But here’s where I get frustrated with how most teams handle this. They’ll generate 50 great ideas in a brainstorming session - virtual or in-person - and then… nothing. The ideas sit in a document nobody opens again. No owner. No deadline. No process to evaluate and act on them. You can throw every AI brainstorming tool in the world at your team, and research from CHI 2024 shows AI can genuinely augment ideation. But if there’s no process for what happens after the ideas are generated, you’ve just automated the easy part while ignoring the hard part. This is exactly why we built Tallyfy the way we did. The brainstorming itself is maybe 10% of innovation. The other 90% is the structured follow-through: who evaluates, who decides, who implements, and how you track whether the idea worked. That’s a workflow problem, not an inspiration problem.

I’ve watched teams burn through brainstorming sessions month after month, generating hundreds of ideas that disappear into shared drives. The problem was never creativity. It was the absence of a process to do anything with what they created. In our experience, fixing the follow-through process is worth ten times more than tweaking the brainstorming technique itself.

For more on virtual brainstorming tools, check out our article on 13+ free brainstorming tools for innovation. And if your team struggles with decision making after brainstorming, that’s a separate but related problem worth solving.

---

The best brainstorming technique is the one that matches your team’s actual dysfunction. If dominant personalities run your meetings, try stepladder or brainwriting. If your team is stuck in groupthink, try figuring storming. If ideas die after the session, that’s not a brainstorming problem - that’s a process problem. Fix the process. Then watch what happens.