Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if you might be demonstrating the principle in your response? I think the main point is that there may be advantages to explicitly giving room to both divergent and convergent thinking to exist in separate phases (this could be done in one cycle -- there's nothing that says any of the cute unworkable ideas would ever leave the meeting room or shopfloor or prototype. Reality/logic/laws of nature are the final…
Fair enough. I'd definitely agree there needs to be a disciplined balance, too much conservatism is just as bad as too little. But in defense of Engineers in general, it's quite possible that in their experience they've seen many situations where negatives ignored grew out of control. An example I experienced a couple of weeks ago: Someone let code that "just works" slide through a code review back in 2017. That code…
But that superpower, which is so instrumental for execution, seems to me to be simultaneously deleterious to creative enterprises. It is at best an incomplete superpower.
I would also say that the reverse is true. Artsy creative types who are gifted at divergent thinking, but not convergent, are typically weak at execution so their products never gain traction or do not actually work.
Creative endeavors are by nature "sloppy". Hence the need to withhold judgment and let an idea play out via a divergent phase, and then bring it back through the convergent phase.
It would seem to me that both rationals and creatives have blind spots, hence the usefulness of a 2-phase process.