This paper is the copyright material of Charles Garland, II. All Rights Reserved.

1. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Boston, MA, USA on 13-16 March
2016. The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
1
Cognitive Buoyancy®
: The Trigger to Innovative
Thinking
Charles Garland
225 East 66th Street, Apt 2A, New York, NY 10065, USA.
E-mail: cgarland@innovationoutlet.biz
Abstract: The practice of innovation, which includes both innovative thinking
and innovative behavior, is something each of us is capable of. Yet we do not
innovate as often as most of us would like, nor is our innovative behavior
always as effective as we desire. Our brains are naturally predisposed toward a
non-innovative mode of thinking. However, it’s possible to intervene in our
thinking process to trigger more innovative cognitive processes. This “higher-
order” thinking should be a vital resource not only for the individuals who want
to be more innovative, but also for those who lead innovation management.
The concept of cognitive buoyancy – or the propensity toward innovative
thinking – has been developed as a construct that can not only be enhanced, but
also measured, for individuals, teams, or entire organizations. This research-in-
progress seeks to illustrate and quantify how this can be achieved through the
use of novel tools, methods, and metrics.
Keywords: Innovation; Metacognition; Trigger; Daniel Kahneman; System 2
Thinking; Cognitive Buoyancy; Explorative Inquiry; Unconscious
Incompetence; Dual Process Theory; Professional Development.
1. The Problem Being Solved
There is a natural tendency for all human beings to spend the vast majority of their time
thinking in an automatic, rote, less-conscious, and “lower-order” level of cognition, or
what is commonly referred to as System 1 Thinking1. Deliberate innovation requires
System 2 Thinking, which is more consciously reflective, contemplative, expansive, and
analytical. If one of the primary objectives of innovation management is to effect more
innovation – and do so by inspiring and creating the conditions for more innovative
thinking to drive it – then the lack of System 2 thinking in typical individual and
organizational behavior is a problem that needs to be addressed in a systematic manner.
There are a lot of reasons why System 1 thinking is so dominant in human behavior.
One of these includes the fact that the human brain is, out of necessity, an organ that
seeks to preserve and constrain its use of energy. System 2 thinking requires a
tremendous amount more energy to sustain than does System 1, and therefore the brain
by default favors this “lower” mode of thinking2. An example of this is that in ancient
times, humans had to be prepared at a moment’s notice for “fight or flight” as a means of
self-preservation. Thus, an important component of the overall problem is that our brains
are naturally inclined to work against our general desire to think, and act, more
innovatively.

2. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Boston, MA, USA on 13-16 March
2016. The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
2
2. Our Current Understanding
There are many different views and opinions around what the term “innovation” means.
The definition that I use in this paper is one that I have evolved over the course of more
than 15 years of research, exploration, trial-and-error, peer discussion, and reflection; I
believe it is appropriate in that it is not specific to or biased toward any particular
domain, such as business, technology, product development, patents, or other limiting
dimensions; rather, it is appropriately generic, while still providing clarity and context
that is highly actionable. The definition I use for innovation is:
The process of creating new value, through the unique use of available resources.
I offer this merely as a definition for clarity in this paper; any reader could very likely
substitute his or her preferred definition with no significant change in overall relevance.
But in this definition, one of the keys to its effectiveness is the highlight upon resources –
which, themselves, are important to conceptualize clearly. Truly, anything can be a
resource in this regard, including the most intangible, such as ideas, experiences, or
memories. They also include tangible things that we often take for granted or pay little
attention to, such as commodities, substances that are “free,” or items that are in great
abundance. Resources can include people, the relationships we have with them, and the
subtle changes that occur to them as they evolve. Resources that may be used to create
new value can even include things that are often regarded as “bad” or undesirable.
One of the most crucial aspects of this perspective on innovation is the level of
consciousness – or attention – that each of us pays to the resources that we do have
available to us. We may have resources around us that we know about, but for any
number of reasons, we simply neglect to access them. The vast majority of the time, we
remain unconscious of the many resources that there are; we are instead highly focused
upon a very small subset of those resources at any given time or circumstance. This
narrow focus is often coincident with System 1 thinking, where we are not thinking
divergently; rather, we’re unconsciously content with what we currently have at hand, or
in mind. This is not necessarily a bad thing; rather, it is a natural, important, and valuable
aspect of how our minds work.
Cognitive science research has shown that we spend around 95% of our time in this
less-conscious System 1 thinking mode3. Thus, we only utilize our System 2 cognition
the remaining 5% of the time, yet it is something that is available to us essentially at any
time. This, then, becomes an extremely important “available resource” that the vast
majority of people tend to take for granted. While the times that we do access System 2
thinking may come randomly, or become stimulated by certain thoughts that arise in our
minds as we’re working or encountering a problem, in general they do not come either as
frequently, or as coincidentally with certain opportune scenarios, as we would like. The
good news, however, is that this more innovation-conducive thinking mode can be
triggered, and done so strategically.
One of the most widely researched areas of application for this process of triggering
System 2 thinking is in the field of medicine – in particular within the practice of
diagnostic reasoning. There are many factors that impact diagnostic quality, but one
category of particular interest is that of how cognitive biases can be among the root
causes of diagnostic error. In response to this phenomenon, cognitive scientists have
developed a countermeasure that stimulates a clinician’s consciousness about such bias,
reminding him/her in real time to carefully assess whether they are susceptible to one or
more biases, and to then deliberately navigate around them. This practice is often

3. 3
referred to as a forcing function, in that it is meant to compel an individual to transition
from System 1 thinking up to System 2 thinking, in order to successfully circumvent an
otherwise problematic cognitive bias4.
3. Research Goals
The concept of Cognitive Buoyancy® (CB) was conceived in response to the very issues
described above5. CB is defined as “an individual’s propensity to access higher-order
(System 2) thinking.” It is a strategic resource that is still in development, but has
already been formulated to some degree of structure and depth so that research could
begin, and the elements of the research process could be adequately communicated to
those stakeholders whose participation is needed for its research to progress.
The CB construct is designed to include a strategic set of components that will
facilitate the further research and development of new resources that can be demonstrated
with an appropriate degree of efficacy. The design is consistent with elements of the
forcing function mentioned previously. The basic components of this construct include a
model, a method, and a metric:
1. A model of logic, called Cubie™, which is a cube-shaped (i.e. 6-sided) physical
representation of six distinct dimensions: Contextual (“Meaning”), Temporal
(“Time”), Logistical (“Space”), Individual (“Person”), Motivational
(“Purpose”), and Procedural (“Method”). See Figure 1.
2. A method of applying the Cubie model, called Explorative Inquiry™ (EI). EI
involves the practice of asking questions – e.g. of oneself or to a colleague – that
are meant to probe for deeper insight, utilizing the respondent’s System 2
reflective thinking process. In this way, each unique face of Cubie is referred to
as a Dimension of Inquiry™.
3. A metric of the degree to which an individual’s System 2 thinking can be
successfully triggered, called a Cognitive Buoyancy Score. This metric will be
revealed through the administration of an instrument called the Cognitive
Buoyancy Assessment (CBA), which consists of a 36-question, Likert-scored,
self-report survey, designed within the discipline of Polarity Management6.
Figure 1. The Cubie™ model, showing all six Dimensions of Inquiry™
The goal of this research effort is to generate efficacy data to indicate the potential value
of utilizing Cognitive Buoyancy resources on a large scale, as a means of increasing the
practice of innovation within and across organizations. In pursuing these goals, several
hypotheses have emerged:

4. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Boston, MA, USA on 13-16 March
2016. The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
4
Hypothesis 1: Cognitive Buoyancy can be measured accurately by way of the
Cognitive Buoyancy Assessment, in terms of a relative Cognitive Buoyancy Score.
Hypothesis 2: Cognitive Buoyancy can be increased through workshop training in the
use of Cubie, Explorative Inquiry, and other related assets.
Hypothesis 3: Cognitive Buoyancy can be sustained and/or increased through
ongoing interventions following workshop training, such as individual coaching,
project team facilitation, management policy enactments, and team member-to-
member communication.
Hypothesis 4: Cognitive Buoyancy can be sustained through repeated practice and
feedback, by way of the physiological process of neuroplasticity.
Hypothesis 5: Cognitive Buoyancy scores correlate with more conventional measures
of innovation management, such as quantity and quality of ideas generated, cycle
time of product development, revenues, culture assessments, and other such metrics.
4. Research Design
A workshop has been created for the purpose of introducing the Cognitive Buoyancy
concept, as well as giving students the opportunity to learn and practice using the CB
solution set (model, method, metric). The agenda for the workshop has been made
available in both ½ and full-day class duration formats. The agenda consists generally of
the following elements:
 Introduction to the Cognitive Buoyancy concept
 Demonstration of the effects of cognitive bias and System 1 thinking
 Description of the design and application of Cubie
 Description of the design and application of Explorative Inquiry
 Description of the design of the Cognitive Buoyancy Assessment
 Group exercises in practicing the use of Cubie and EI
 Description of real-life examples of how/where Cubie and EI are applied
 Q&A/feedback
Prior to the workshop being delivered to a pilot site (participating organization), the CB
assessment is administered to all workshop participants, which results in an initial CB
score for each student. The CBA is administered a second time, immediately after
(within one week of) the workshop, resulting in a second CB score. These “before” and
“after” scores can be compared to indicate whether or not the workshop experience has
had a positive (near-term) impact upon student CB.
One optional phase of pilot testing might include a process of evaluating whether or
not CB scores can be sustained and/or increased through ongoing, post-workshop
interactions with participants in their actual work environments. These may include
facilitation of problem-solving and/or brainstorming sessions with teams engaged in
innovation activities. In these sessions, a trained CB facilitator would provide additional
instruction and feedback on team members’ appropriate application of the models and
methods used in the workshop. As desired, individual participants may be further
engaged in one-on-one coaching sessions with the facilitator (coach) to reinforce proper

5. 5
use of tools and methods, as well as to discuss plans for independent application of these
same resources into additional contexts – both inside and outside the work environment.
The post-workshop phase may also include coordination of revised management
policy and communications that would complement the interactions of the facilitator.
These interventions may include, for example, the expectations that:
 Individual employees utilize the Cubie model at specific times and/or in
response to or preparation for specific activities (e.g. in brainstorming sessions,
when making any decision, as part of regular team meetings, before submitting a
report, etc.).
 Team members take responsibility to initiate Explorative Inquiry questioning of
fellow team members in situations similar to the above. Managers reinforce
these behaviors, remaining conscious of current cultural or social pressures
individuals may have against confronting, questioning, or contradicting the
thought processes or decisions of others (especially superiors).
 Department heads distribute physical Cubie models and Explorative Inquiry data
collection sheets to all employees and maintain inventories of same in all
classrooms, meeting rooms, and other appropriate organizational facilities.
 Innovation managers become proficient in teaching and coaching CB resources,
as well as gathering process and outcomes data for future replication in new
areas of the organization.
Additional phases may include the administration of a third CB assessment, perhaps 6 –
12 months following both workshop and post-workshop interventions, to indicate
whether CB scores can be sustained or increased over time and with different levels and
types of intervention. Beyond these metric comparisons, it may be desirable to select a
number of actual organizational outcome metrics (KPIs) that can be measured after the 6
– 12 month period and compared to the same metrics gathered prior to commencement of
the pilot program. This would provide some indication of the correlation between
(increased) CB scores and (improved) actual business results.
5. Interim Research Findings
While only recently designed, the CB workshop has been delivered only twice in actual
pilot organizations in recent months (September through December 2015). Furthermore,
the CB assessment has been administered in only the initial (pre-workshop) portion of
score generation, so there are not yet any before/after efficacy comparisons available. In
the presentation of the concept, the delivery of the workshop, and the administration of
the assessment thus far, however, I have been able to gather the following valuable
feedback and observations:
1. The concept has been met with a great deal of enthusiasm and interest by
executive leaders at a wide range of organizational types. These include
healthcare (diagnostic error quality, radiology, and nursing), education (clinical
treatment programs, business schools), psychology, software development,
financial services, customer/technical support functions, sales, professional
services, and government agencies. Several of these individuals have expressed
an explicit desire to become engaged in one or more future pilot studies.

6. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Boston, MA, USA on 13-16 March
2016. The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
6
2. The workshops have been well-received with very positive feedback provided
around the quality and clarity of the materials presented. Within these
workshops, the real time demonstration of the impact of System 1 thinking and
cognitive biases has been 100% effective, in terms of showing individuals how
they can miss significant details and retain blind spots in their thinking,
decision-making, analyses, and strategic plans.
3. The CB assessments have been clear and well-understood. Participant
completion rates of the assessments being distributed has been above 90%.
4. The CB construct and Cubie logical model have been reviewed by an
independent team of researchers and are being incorporated into a
recommendation to a US government aeronautics agency as one possible
intervention to impact future performance of its key category of stakeholders.
6. Potential Contributions to the IM Community and Beyond
The research that is currently underway is expected to provide a significant amount of
value to the Innovation Management (IM) community. By effectively answering the
research questions (via above mentioned hypotheses) being posed, IM will learn of the
degree, if any, of effectiveness that CB and its respective resources may have upon the
organizations, employees, and other stakeholders they represent. If shown to have
significant impact, these IM leaders would then have a powerful, inexpensive, easily-
implemented, and rapid results-producing intervention for increasing the innovation
capacity of individual employees, specific functional departments, and their entire
organizations.
Through participation in a pilot research study alone, any IM can generate clear,
tangible data to indicate the return on investment of resources (time, money, focus, etc.)
of implementing a broader CB program at scale. Perhaps more importantly, improved
business results that are generated through the pilot study itself can then be replicated
throughout different parts of the organization, thus magnifying the tangible benefit
markedly.
Future use of the CB resources by organizational leaders of all types will result in a
wide range of possible benefits. To the extent that increasing an individual’s CB can be
aligned with new cognitive and behavioural habits, this may form the seed of attitudinal
and behavioral change that begins to evolve the culture of an organization. For example,
the wide and routine use of Explorative Inquiry could be seen as “the new norm” of
permissibly confronting others with questions that explore for comprehensive reasoning
and strategy. Doing so is likely to expose potential blind spots in one’s plans that might
not otherwise have been discovered until it was too late (e.g. a failure in execution).
Knowing that you are subject to constant scrutiny of this sort begins to compel you to be
as optimally prepared in the future as possible by asking yourself these questions pro-
actively, and not waiting for someone else to challenge you with them publicly and
expose a missed consideration. Thus, thinking and behavior begin to change in this
direction, and new cultural norms can begin to form and sustain.

7. 7
7. Areas for Feedback & Development
The researcher is interested in receiving feedback in response to the following questions,
issues, or concepts:
1. Do you understand and agree with the concepts inherent in the System 1 and
System 2 Thinking (Dual Process Theory) constructs, as elaborated by Daniel
Kahneman and others? If not, in which aspects of this are you not comfortable,
clear, or confident?
2. Do you believe that deliberate/strategic innovation (innovative thinking, at the
very least) is not possible without accessing one’s System 2 thinking?
3. Do you feel that the CB assessment, as described, will provide a credible
measure of an individual’s cognitive buoyancy (propensity), albeit a relative and
not an absolute measure.
4. Do you believe there are, or are you aware of, any alternative assessment
instruments that might adequately measure what I am referring to as “cognitive
buoyancy”? Even if another assessment may not specifically measure CB in the
same way, do you believe there would be value in doing further research around
the correlations between CB and any other assessment?
5. Assuming CB can be proven (or strongly supported via research data), what
scenarios do you see as being most in need of its application, for example:
a. Development of business plans, models, and strategies
b. Design and development of new products and services
c. Problem-solving and/or conflict resolution at an organizational level
d. Psychological treatment and/or behavior modification
e. Healthcare behavioral compliance management
f. Medical error reduction (quality improvement)
g. Innovation and creativity training
h. Sales and marketing management/research
i. Customer or technical support (call center) management
j. Emergency response/management
k. Risk management
l. Employee recruiting or engagement
m. Organizational culture development
n. Other applications (please specify)
6. Do you know of any specific organizations and/or leaders therein who might be
interested in considering participation in one of the pilot study projects?
7. Is there anything about the CB construct that is either significantly unclear or
that you do not agree with? If so, please elaborate and, if possible, cite evidence
or current research.

8. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Boston, MA, USA on 13-16 March
2016. The publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
8
References and Notes
Notation References:
1. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. (Doubleday Books, 2011).
2. Schwartz, Jeffrey M.D., and Sharon Begley. The Mind and the Brain:
Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force (Regan Books, 2002)
3. Lakoff G, and Johnson M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. (Basic Books, 1999).
4. Croskerry P. Cognitive Forcing Strategies in Clinical Decision Making. Annals
of Emergency Medicine. 2003; 41: 110-120.
5. http://www.cognitivebuoyancy.com (2015).
6. Johnson, B. Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable
Problems. (HRD Press, 2014).
7. Bazerman, MH. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 5th Edition. (Wiley
& Sons, 2002).
Other References:
8. Daniel Pesut, PhD, Director of the Densford International Center for Nursing
Leadership at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing.
9. Nadja Reilly, PhD, Associate Director of the Freedman Center for Child and
Family Development at William James College (formerly Massachusetts School
of Professional Psychology).
10. Michael Bruno, MD, Vice Chairman of Radiology Quality at Hershey Medical
Center/Penn State University.
11. Margaretta Noonan, Head of Talent at AVENTION, Inc. (formerly OneSource,
Inc.).
12. Stan Kachnowski, Chairman of HITLAB (Healthcare Innovation & Technology
Laboratory) at Columbia University Medical Center.
13. Alan Iny, Senior Specialist for Creativity and Scenario Planning at Boston
Consulting Group, and co-author of the book, Thinking in New Boxes.
14. Robert Kelly, Associate Professor at University of Calgary, and author,
Educating for Creativity.
15. Bena Kallick, PhD, co-author, Learning and Leading with Habits of Mind.
16. Richard Corder, Assistant VP at CRICO (captive medical malpractice insurer
for all of Harvard Medicine)