Talk:Ideation (creative process)

message: Can somebody please define ideational disturbance for me?
Which professions actually use this phrase, or has it fallen into disuse lately?
When, exactly, was this term first used?
Is it a neologism, presumably coined in the 1980s or 1990s?
Though new in use since the 80s/90s, it's orign is actually surprisingly old: It dates back to 1610.
Here's a discussion about it on a German dictionary website, partly in English: discussion aboute "ideate" on leo.org
Concerning the profession and use: As far as I know it's primarily used amongst innovation managers and creativity professionals in the sense of: generating ideas/ coming up with ideas.
--Matchtime (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideational disturbance 

message: Is this topic even notable enough for it's own article? --Ronz 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.236.104 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No, agreed. This is no more than marketing pixie-dust lloking for validation with this entry… pseudo branding of what is essentially "problem-solving" has no place in wikipedia. This neologism belongs in urbandictionary.com at best. --Davidb soca (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I also lean towards no.  I'm not convinced that this is a separate topic from Creativity broadly, and various stages such as Innovation, Design, etc.  Currently the lead says "Ideation comprises all stages of a thought cycle, from innovation, to development, to actualization.".  Heck, that makes it an amorphous topic about 'thinking' generally, requiring very different types of thinking to encompass that.  To me, it feels like this article is currently mostly about one approach/methodology to encouraging innovation in an organisation, but with little bits of other similar methodologies added to pretend it is a real viable Wikipedia topic.  Maybe there is an article here about a 'business process', rather than a creative process. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

text: No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of a dictionary-like definition; an irrelevant section on types of innovation has no express connection to the topic; and criticism of the word as meaningless jargon.Mrgilbe1 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable? 

message: "There exist category of specialised consulting companies working inside a field of creativity or concept development. These companies use various ideation techniques."
It's unsourced, promotional in nature, and doesn't fit with the current content. --Ronz 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: IDEATION - an absolutely awful American English  description for a creative thought process. WHY?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.231.162 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ideation 

message: On page 13 of the EEA technicl report Global governance-the rise of non-state actors, there is a section on Ideational change.213.7.161.118 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideational change 

message: What do you think? -- 92.226.0.237 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't a long list of "methods of innovation" be in [[innovation]] instead of here?