Brainstorming, defined

A simple way to define these is to select one of the priority elements you have identified and brainstorm all of the tasks required to address it, as shown in Figure 5-3. 

After the problem is specifically defined, then you can have the client brainstorm a variety of solutions for the problem. You may have to suggest a couple of ideas in the beginning to get the client used to the style of brainstorming. Tell the client, All alternatives should be considered, so throw everything that occurs... 

I think we need to define the word collaboration. It is not a catchall. Do we mean an informal chat Do we mean three people brainstorming around a particular model or representation I am especially looking forward to seeing how different groups and different organizations develop a more refined and sophisticated definition of the word collaboration. ... 

Develop a corrective action plan Identify all possible solutions. Using brainstorming, correlation analysis, polling, and consensus techniques, prioritize the list of solutions. Perform a barrier analysis, defining driving forces that will help the improvement process to succeed as well as restraining forces that may hold the team back. 

A single analyst can perform an event tree analysis, but normally a team of 2 to 4 people is preferred. The team approach promotes "brainstorming tliat results in a well defined event tree structure. Tlie team sliould include at least one member witli knowledge of event tree analysis, witli tlie remaining members lia dng e.xperience in tlie operations of tlie systems and knowledge of the chemical processes tliat are to be of interest in tlie analysis. 

To begin a brainstorming session, define for students the topics about which they will share ideas. Tell students the following rules ... 

Mechanics Define the issue, brainstorm the causes, and organize the causes into categories. Display the categories on a diagram. 

Sections 13.2 and 13.4 discussed the SWIFT method for hazard derivation and the need for brainstorming. These techniques are often carried out in a workshop environment involving key stakeholders and domain experts. The act of employing this methodical evaluation of the system is important evidence which raises confidence in the safety case and provides non-specific but nevertheless important risk mitigation and diligence. This is particularly the case where structured documentation is made available to support the workshop and a clear set of inputs and outputs are defined. 

Define the purpose of the brainstorming session and the ground rules. Examples of ground rules no criticism of ideas as th are being presented, one person tails at one time and for an agreed upon period. 

The concept stage has four steps (1) define the problem, (2) brainstorm, (3) research and generate ideas, and (4) identify criteria and specify constraints. 

At MicroCube, we developed and use a process where broad business aspects are analyzed in a disciplined way. To briefly summarize the process, we start by identifying a clinical need, and analyze the overall market status. We then identify as many business opportunities as possible, with the associated restrictions, constraints, and limitations. When completed, we brainstorm to define different ways to take advantage of the opportunities within the known constraints or, in other words, we define several missions. We then compare the risks and opportunities associated with the missions, select the one with the most attractive risk/opportu-nity ratio, and select a mission. Then, strategies are put in place to achieve the mission, and projects to implement the strategy. 

A military unit was chosen for the research of the risks of occupational exposure to NIEMR. The Checkhst Analysis method to identify NIEMR sources and traditional brainstorming to define qualitatively priorities of risks were applied. The stay of employees in the NIEMF of radar side lobes was analyzed as a critical risk which was subjected to detailed examination. 

Based on the assessment of the risk identification at each landfill the critical risks were defined and the comparison of landfills risk was implemented. The comparison of quality and safety for all sorts of the run landfUls was based on the evaluation of landfiU checkhst and brainstorming of the team. The criteria (landfiU lining, leachate, degassing, safety and monitoring) necessary for the appropriate comparison were chosen in accordance with the requirements for each landfiU based on its classification. For each question of the checklist the median has been calculated. The median is compared with the fixed value of the criteria sub-area landfiU. The risk of particular sub-area of the landfill showed which landfill equipment is the most risky one and at the same time it set the level or risk. 

Casey Hooke, advanced practice nurse and creator of the Safety Action Team (SAT) concept, defines SATs as department- or unit-based interdisciplinary work groups that provide a "think tank" for staff to identify safety concerns, process them, and brainstorm new ways to address them (Hooke, 2002). Group membership varies according to individual needs, but SATs strive to include members who represent the continuum of care for the patients they serve. SATs include registered nurses, physicians, pharmacists, respiratory care practitioners, child-life specialists, unit service coordinators, and members of the management team. The group is chaired by a staff leader, or sometimes by two staff leaders who share the responsibility. 

Data-based approaches can only handle defined measurable information and are only adequate for well-structured problems. They use analytical techniques which are frequently used in tactical decisions. On the other hand, experience-based approaches apply hybrid techniques that combine both quantitative and qualitative criteria. They generally employ expert systems, neural networks, and case-based reasoning to define the problem and determine the criteria in the supplier selection decision. The experience-based approaches use brainstorming, cognitive mapping as well as interpretative structural modeling. 

When the problem or risk issue is well understood an appropriate tool for risk analysis has to be chosen. For the hazards identified during the brainstorm the associated risks has to be estimated. This may be a qualitative description eventually using semi-quantitative descriptors, as high , medium or low or it may be a quantitative analysis with scores according to a pre-defined scale. The estimation of risks in Sect. 21.3 occurred following a qualitative method. It enabled the prioritisation of two risks within a rather simple process and no comparison to a fixed value was felt to be necessary. 

To confirm the risk is ALARP, one needs to demonstrate that all credible risk reduction methods are impracticable. For this, prior brainstorming sessions with experienced persons is essential, so that all risk reduction methods could be identified and defined. 

Now for each component/module as applicable to define Failure Modes — What can go wrong here And corresponding to each possible failure (brainstorming) and faults assigned to each and every function to find out the effect asking what will happen then ... 

First, for each defined sub-system of the project potential risks are identified and analyzed. Normally, qualitative techniques are applied such as expert surveys or brainstorming in order to determine factual risks. For risks regarding dates, stochastic methods such as the PERT method are applied. Economical risks can be evaluated in the context of the profitability analysis. 

Almost every element or component of a game s story (assuming it has one) offers an opportunity to evoke emotion. But to understand how to use story elements to brainstorm emotional game experiences, we first need to define what a "story element" is. 

---