ANGEL'S ADVOCATE


CLASS
A
PHASE
Evaluation
APPLICATION FIELDS
General
ASSUMPTIONS
This technique has no requirements.
PROS
This simple technique promotes a method of evaluation for new ideas which would have been probably rejected “a priori”
CONS
Angel’s Advocate has to be supported by another evaluation technique; the use of Angel’s Advocate alone does not give a complete evaluation of ideas.
DESCRIPTION

The author subdivides the selection of new ideas into two steps:

  • Divergent step: here is where the Angel’s Advocate technique is used in order not to exclude the idea “a priori”.
  • Convergent step: then it is necessary to go on with the evaluation with some different criteria. The author suggests a score system method.
The author claims that new ideas selection and evaluation are very different because there are difficulties in understanding it completely, in depth and in its different dimensions, and this leads to the necessity of the above-mentioned division.

The Angel’s Advocate technique analyses the new idea considering it from a different view.

This technique consists of three steps:

1. idea reformulation, in order to verify its comprehension and to show respect to the proponent;

2. indication of positive relation through the formula “What I like of your idea is…”. Here is better to not give a hasty judgement like this: “I like your idea because…”;

3. ask questions about unclear aspects in order to understand better the idea and also to help the proponent describe it in depth.

 

Example:

«Let’s suppose a friend comes to me and submits his idea about free workshops on creativity for people looking for a job. This idea would be useful for Gimca notoriety and image. [Gimca is a group of 3 consultant firms that work in Europe and other continents; Jaoui is the president and some of their customers are important firms and public administations].
My first reaction would be to shrug my shoulders and tell him I have other fish to fry.
But I decide I am the Angel’s Advocate and start saying to my friend: “If I understand correctly, you are suggesting to give all the unemployed free courses on creativity”.
He replies: “I didn’t say ‘unemployed’, I just said ‘people looking for a job’. There is a subtle difference. On the other hand you are right to point it out: I wasn’t suggesting to offer free seminars all over France, but to do a few of them around Paris”.
Then I say: “OK. What I like about your idea is that:
• you believe in the good qualities of creativity;
• our techniques would be really useful, both for people looking for a job and for people in charge of finding jobs for the others;
• you call upon my own generosity.. without forgetting my economic responsibilities as a president of a company...
• our notoriety would be spread wide and far for sure”.

I go on with a series of questions:
• “Do you know someone who could organize such seminars?”
• “Have you got any idea about the programme, the methods, the place?”
• “How do you think we may advertise this initiative without seeming demagogical or disappointing?”
• “Which papers or organizations may support us?”
• “Did you think about other ways to help the unemployed?”
• “Any other idea about promoting creativity and public relations in Gimca?”

After each question, of course, I give my friend some time to answer and I listen carefully to what he says, avoiding usual “Yes, but...”.
At the end of the discussion, even if I decide not to support my friend’s proposal, he wouldn’t be discouraged from coming to me again and submit some other idea, while at the same time I would have gained something useful from this dialogue anyway.

When coming to important matters, leaving some’pregnancy’ time between divergent and convergent steps is recommended: familiarization with new ideas is definitely favourable to the objectivity of their evaluation». [Jaoui, 1991]

REFERENCES
  • Jaoui H., Créatifs au quotidien. Outils et méthodes, Paris, Editions «Hommes et Perspectives», 1991