7-brainstorming-methods-ranked-by-usefulness
7 Brainstorming Methods Ranked by Usefulness (When to Use Each)
You've been using the same brainstorming technique for everything. That's why it's not working.
Your team gathers for a brainstorming session. Someone says "Let's just throw out ideas." Twenty minutes later, you have a whiteboard full of mediocre suggestions, awkward silence, and the feeling that you wasted everyone's time. Again.
The problem isn't brainstorming itself. It's that different problems need different brainstorming methods—and most people only know one or two techniques.
Classic freeform brainstorming? Great for some situations, terrible for others. SCAMPER? Fantastic when you need structured modification, useless when you need breakthrough ideas. Random combinations? Perfect for forcing creativity, frustrating if you need refined solutions.
The method matters. Context matters more.
Here are 7 proven brainstorming methods, ranked by how useful they are in real-world scenarios, with clear guidance on when to use each.
How These Methods Are Ranked
I'm ranking these by practical usefulness—which combines:
- How often the method actually produces good ideas (not just lots of ideas)
- How easy it is to facilitate (complexity kills momentum)
- How well it works with real teams (not just theory)
- Versatility across different types of problems
This isn't "best to worst"—it's "most broadly useful to most situationally specific."
Rank #1: Silent Brainstorming (Brainwriting)
How it works: Everyone writes ideas silently on paper or sticky notes for 5-10 minutes. No talking. Then share and discuss.
Why it ranks #1:
- Solves the biggest brainstorming problem: Loud voices don't dominate
- Introverts contribute equally: No performance pressure
- More ideas, faster: Everyone generates simultaneously vs. taking turns
- Reduces groupthink: People commit to ideas before hearing others
- Dead simple to facilitate: "Write ideas for 10 minutes. Go."
When to use it:
- Mixed personality groups (introverts + extroverts)
- Unequal power dynamics (junior + senior people)
- When you need volume (lots of ideas fast)
- When groupthink is a risk
- Remote teams (works great in shared docs)
How to run it:
- Frame the challenge (2 min): "How might we increase customer retention?"
- Silent generation (5-10 min): Everyone writes ideas individually
- Share round-robin (10-15 min): Each person shares one idea at a time
- Cluster and discuss (10 min): Group similar ideas, explore promising ones
Variations:
- 6-3-5 Method: 6 people, 3 ideas each, 5 minutes (18 ideas in 5 min)
- Sticky note storm: Write one idea per sticky, then arrange on wall
- Digital brainwriting: Use Miro, Mural, or Google Jamboard
Common mistakes:
- Making the writing time too short (give people 10 full minutes)
- Judging ideas during the share phase (just collect, don't critique yet)
- Skipping the clustering step (ideas need organization)
Usefulness Score: 9/10 Works for almost any brainstorming need. Should be your default method.
Rank #2: Random Combination Method (Forced Connections)
How it works: Combine two (or more) unrelated concepts and force yourself to find connections. The constraint sparks creativity.
Why it ranks #2:
- Breaks mental ruts: Forces you out of obvious ideas
- Generates novelty: Combinations you'd never think of naturally
- Fun and energizing: Feels like play, not work
- Produces "weird good" ideas: The kind competitors won't think of
When to use it:
- Stuck in obvious ideas
- Need breakthrough innovation (not incremental improvement)
- Product/service ideation
- Content creation
- Marketing campaigns
How to run it:
- Create two lists of unrelated items (industries, technologies, user types, whatever)
- Pick random combinations: Industry A + User Type B, Technology X + Problem Y
- Force the connection: "What if we combined these? What would that look like?"
- Extract the insight: Even if the literal idea is bad, what's interesting about it?
Example (startup ideas):
- List A: Industries (Healthcare, Education, Agriculture, Entertainment)
- List B: Technologies (AI, Blockchain, AR, IoT)
- Random combo: Agriculture + AR = App that shows farmers plant health via AR overlays
- Another: Education + Blockchain = Verified credential system that can't be faked
Tools:
- Innovation Catalyst deck (industries + trends + users)
- Business Model Mixer (revenue models + markets + value props)
- DIY: Write concepts on cards, shuffle, draw two
Common mistakes:
- Dismissing "weird" combinations too fast (sit with them)
- Taking combinations too literally (extract the principle)
- Not generating enough combinations (do 20+, then evaluate)
Usefulness Score: 8.5/10 Extremely effective for innovation. Slightly less versatile than brainwriting (doesn't work for every problem type).
Rank #3: How Might We? Questions (Problem Reframing)
How it works: Turn problems/challenges into "How might we..." questions, then brainstorm answers.
Why it ranks #3:
- Reframes from problem to possibility: Changes mental mode from stuck to generative
- Opens multiple solution pathways: One problem becomes many questions
- Assumes solvability: "How might we" implies it's possible
- Works for stuck teams: Great when you're spinning on a problem
When to use it:
- Stuck on a problem
- Need to explore problem from multiple angles
- Divergent thinking phase (before converging on solutions)
- Design thinking projects
How to run it:
- Start with a problem/challenge: "Customers aren't renewing subscriptions"
- Reframe as HMW questions (generate 10-20):
- How might we make the product more valuable month-over-month?
- How might we remind customers of value they're getting?
- How might we reduce friction in the renewal process?
- How might we identify at-risk customers earlier?
- How might we make canceling feel like a mistake?
- Pick the most interesting HMW
- Brainstorm solutions to that specific question
Why it works: The question format shifts your brain from "this is impossible" to "how could we make this possible?"
Variations:
- "What if..." questions (more speculative)
- "In what ways might we..." (emphasizes multiple paths)
Common mistakes:
- Making HMWs too broad ("How might we be better?")
- Making HMWs too narrow ("How might we change button color?")
- Skipping straight to solutions without exploring multiple HMWs
Usefulness Score: 8/10 Excellent for reframing. Not a complete brainstorming method on its own (need to combine with another method to generate solutions).
Rank #4: Classic Group Brainstorm (With Good Rules)
How it works: The original—people shout out ideas, someone captures them, no judgment during generation.
Why it ranks #4:
- Everyone knows how: No learning curve
- Can be energizing: Good for building team energy
- Fast idea sharing: When it works, it flows
- Builds on others' ideas: Sparks associations
But also why it's only #4:
- Dominant voices win: Extroverts contribute 80% of ideas
- Groupthink is common: People converge on safe ideas
- Production blocking: Only one person talks at a time
- Often produces mediocre results: Without good facilitation
When to use it:
- High-energy, collaborative teams
- When building on each other is valuable
- Time-constrained (15-20 min max)
- Generating ideas that need verbal exploration
How to run it WELL:
- Set clear rules:
- No criticism during generation
- Quantity over quality
- Wild ideas welcome
- Build on others' ideas
- Time-box it (15-20 min max)
- Appoint a scribe (not the facilitator)
- Use a talking token (only person with the object speaks—prevents interruptions)
- Go around the circle first (everyone contributes once before freeform)
Variations:
- Popcorn style (call on next person)
- Round-robin (structured taking turns)
- "Yes, and..." rule (must build on previous idea)
Common mistakes:
- Going too long (energy drops after 20 min)
- Letting one person dominate
- Critiquing ideas during generation
- Not capturing ideas fast enough
Usefulness Score: 6.5/10 Can work well, but high failure rate without skilled facilitation. Many better alternatives exist.
Rank #5: SCAMPER (Structured Modification)
How it works: Use a checklist to systematically modify an existing idea/product.
SCAMPER stands for:
- Substitute (components, materials, people)
- Combine (with other products, services, ideas)
- Adapt (adjust for different context, user, environment)
- Modify/Magnify/Minify (change size, shape, attributes)
- Put to other uses (new contexts, audiences)
- Eliminate (remove features, steps, parts)
- Reverse/Rearrange (flip the process, change sequence)
Why it ranks #5:
- Structured and systematic: Won't miss obvious modifications
- Good for improving existing things: Not for blank-slate innovation
- Accessible: Easy to learn and apply
- Produces incremental innovations: Less good for breakthroughs
When to use it:
- Improving existing products/services
- Iterating on an idea
- When you have something to start from (not starting from scratch)
- Teaching innovation to beginners
How to run it:
- Pick the thing to improve (product, service, process)
- Go through each SCAMPER prompt:
- Substitute: What if we replaced X with Y?
- Combine: What if we merged this with...?
- Adapt: How could we adjust this for...?
- Modify: What if it was bigger/smaller/different shape?
- Put to other uses: Who else could use this?
- Eliminate: What if we removed...?
- Reverse: What if we did this backwards?
- Generate ideas for each prompt
- Evaluate which modifications are worth pursuing
Example (improving a coffee mug):
- Substitute: Ceramic → Double-walled steel (keeps coffee hot longer)
- Combine: Mug + coaster → Built-in coaster base
- Adapt: Add measurement marks (for baking use)
- Modify: Make it collapsible for travel
- Put to other uses: Plant pot when not drinking
- Eliminate: Remove handle (minimalist design)
- Reverse: Open from bottom for easier cleaning
Common mistakes:
- Forcing every letter (skip ones that don't apply)
- Not going deep enough on each prompt
- Using for blank-slate problems (it needs something to modify)
Usefulness Score: 7/10 Very useful for specific use case (improving existing things). Less versatile than top-ranked methods.
Rank #6: Reverse Brainstorming (What Would Make This Worse?)
How it works: Instead of "How do we solve this?", ask "How could we make this problem way worse?" Then reverse those ideas.
Why it ranks #6:
- Surprisingly fun: People love coming up with terrible ideas
- Uncovers hidden problems: Bad ideas reveal unstated assumptions
- Breaks tension: Humor and negativity can be energizing
- Reveals what NOT to do: Sometimes that's more valuable
But:
- Requires a reversal step: Ideas need translation to be useful
- Can be too negative: Not all teams enjoy this
- Less direct: Takes longer to get to good ideas
When to use it:
- Team is stuck in "everything we try fails" mode
- Need to identify hidden failure points
- Defensive innovation (what could competitors do to hurt us?)
- Risk identification
How to run it:
- Frame the reverse question:
- Instead of: "How do we increase customer satisfaction?"
- Ask: "How could we make customers hate us even more?"
- Brainstorm terrible ideas:
- Make the product harder to use
- Hide customer service contact info
- Increase prices without adding value
- Ignore feedback completely
- Reverse them to find solutions:
- Make the product harder to use → Simplify UX
- Hide customer service → Make support easily accessible
- Increase prices without value → Communicate value better
- Prioritize the insights
Common mistakes:
- Skipping the reversal step (terrible ideas alone aren't useful)
- Going too dark (keep it playful, not mean)
- Not capturing insights from the "bad ideas" discussion
Usefulness Score: 6/10 Fun and occasionally brilliant, but indirect. Use when other methods feel stale.
Rank #7: Six Thinking Hats (Perspective Switching)
How it works: Everyone adopts different thinking modes (symbolized by colored "hats") to explore a problem from multiple angles.
The Six Hats:
- White Hat: Facts and data (what do we know?)
- Red Hat: Emotions and intuition (how do we feel?)
- Black Hat: Risks and problems (what could go wrong?)
- Yellow Hat: Benefits and optimism (what's good about this?)
- Green Hat: Creativity and alternatives (what else could we try?)
- Blue Hat: Process and organization (how should we think about this?)
Why it ranks #7:
- Forces perspective diversity: Considers angles you'd normally skip
- Reduces conflict: "That's just my Black Hat thinking, not personal"
- Comprehensive exploration: Won't miss major perspectives
But:
- Time-intensive: Properly using all 6 hats takes 60+ minutes
- Requires facilitation skill: Easy to lose track or rush
- Can feel artificial: Some teams find the hat metaphor silly
- Not for quick brainstorms: Too structured for fast ideation
When to use it:
- Complex, high-stakes decisions
- Teams with persistent conflict
- Need comprehensive exploration of an idea
- Formal strategy sessions
How to run it:
- Present the problem/idea
- Work through each hat (5-10 min per hat):
- White: What facts do we have?
- Red: What's our gut feeling?
- Yellow: What's promising about this?
- Black: What are the risks?
- Green: What alternatives exist?
- Blue: How should we proceed?
- Synthesize insights
- Make decision based on comprehensive view
Common mistakes:
- Spending too long on one hat
- Letting people skip uncomfortable hats (Black Hat often gets rushed)
- Using for simple problems (overkill)
Usefulness Score: 5.5/10 Powerful for complex decisions. Too heavy for most brainstorming sessions. Use sparingly.
Decision Tree: Which Method for Your Situation?
Start here:
Need lots of ideas fast? → Silent Brainstorming (Brainwriting)
Stuck in obvious/safe ideas? → Random Combination Method
Have a specific problem to solve? → How Might We? Questions + Brainwriting
Improving something that already exists? → SCAMPER
Team is stuck/negative? → Reverse Brainstorming
High-stakes, complex decision? → Six Thinking Hats
Just need quick ideas from a collaborative team? → Classic Group Brainstorm (with good rules)
Combining Methods for Better Results
The best brainstorming sessions often combine methods:
Example Session (60 minutes):
- HMW Questions (10 min): Reframe the problem
- Silent Brainstorming (15 min): Generate solutions individually
- Random Combinations (15 min): Add wild ideas to the mix
- Group Discussion (15 min): Build on promising ideas
- Black Hat thinking (5 min): Identify risks with top ideas
Why this works:
- Different methods access different types of thinking
- Variety keeps energy high
- Covers both divergent and convergent thinking
- Produces quantity AND quality
Common Facilitation Mistakes (Across All Methods)
- Judging ideas too early: Kills momentum
- Going too long: Energy drops after 30-40 min
- Not capturing ideas fast enough: People repeat themselves
- Skipping the clustering/organizing phase: You end with chaos
- No clear next step: Brainstorming without action is just talking
Tools and Decks for Brainstorming
Physical/Digital Tools:
- Sticky notes + wall space (classic, effective)
- Miro / Mural (digital whiteboards)
- Google Jamboard (free, simple)
- Notion / Airtable (organizing ideas afterward)
Card Decks (for Random Combinations):
- Innovation Catalyst (industries + trends + users)
- Business Model Mixer (business idea combinations)
- Workshop Activities (includes brainstorming prompts)
Why cards work:
- Physical randomness is more engaging than digital
- Removes facilitator bias (the deck decides)
- Creates game-like feel
The Bottom Line
Use Silent Brainstorming as your default. It works for 80% of situations and solves the biggest brainstorming problems (dominant voices, groupthink, introvert exclusion).
Use Random Combinations when stuck. When everyone's generating the same obvious ideas, force novelty through random connections.
Use the other methods situationally. SCAMPER for improvements, Reverse for unsticking, Six Hats for complex decisions, Classic Group for high-energy quick sessions.
Don't use the same method for everything. That's how brainstorming gets boring and ineffective.
The next time you need to generate ideas, don't default to "let's brainstorm" without a method. Pick the right tool for the job. Your ideas (and your team) will thank you.