Neurotypica

Gather innovation examples and analyse what makes them strong or weak. Look for underlying principles rather than surface features, and mine the “bad” for hidden potential.

What

Curate a small gallery of contrasting examples (famous wins and infamous flops). Use them to articulate criteria and guardrails for your own ideas.

When to use

Before ideation or during refinement, when the team needs shared taste, sharper constraints, or a reality check on what tends to work.

Preparation

• Ask everyone in advance to bring one strong and one weak example that relates to your challenge.
• Prepare a space with two columns: Fame and Shame.

How

1. Post all examples under Fame or Shame.
2. Discuss each side for ~10 minutes: what makes Fame strong; what promise might be hidden in Shame. Keep asking “what else?” to dig past first impressions.
3. Capture 5–7 criteria from the discussion (dos/don’ts) to guide upcoming concepts.

Why it works

Comparing extremes exposes signal from noise and aligns judgement across the team (see heuristic: Bias vs Noise). Looking at examples in context prevents brittle, decontextualised rules and highlights when a pattern works versus when it fails (see heuristic: Top‑Down and Bottom‑Up).

Outcomes

• A concise set of criteria and cautions to apply to future ideas.