The first solution that comes to mind has a disproportionate advantage over every solution that comes after it. It arrives early, when energy is high and the pressure to resolve the problem is fresh. It benefits from the anchoring effect, pulling evaluation toward it before alternatives have had a fair hearing. And it gets the benefit of the doubt that familiarity provides: the more a solution is considered, the more natural it begins to feel, until it is almost impossible to imagine having gone any other way. Most people settle on their first workable idea and then spend their remaining energy defending it rather than looking for something better.
This is not how the best problem solvers operate. Across fields, the people who consistently produce excellent solutions share a habit of deliberately expanding the solution space before narrowing it. They treat the first good idea as the beginning of the search rather than the end of it, and they have practical methods for generating alternatives that most people never develop because nobody teaches them and the pressure to decide quickly actively discourages them.
Contents
Why the First Solution Is Rarely the Best One
The brain’s approach to generating solutions is not a comprehensive search. It is a satisficing search, as Herbert Simon’s work established, terminating as soon as something workable is found. The first solution that clears the threshold of “this could work” triggers a stopping signal. Continuing to search after that point requires deliberate effort to override a cognitive process that has already registered the problem as solved.
What the satisficing search misses is the distribution of solution quality. In most non-trivial problems, the landscape of possible solutions is not flat. Some solutions are considerably better than others: more elegant, more robust, cheaper, faster, or more likely to address the root cause rather than the symptom. The first workable solution found is likely somewhere in the middle of that distribution, not at the top of it. Settling there is not a failure of intelligence. It is a failure to keep searching long enough to discover what the fuller range of options actually contains.
The Fixation Problem
Cognitive fixation is what happens when initial exposure to a solution, or to the framing of a problem, makes it harder to generate genuinely different alternatives. It is a close cousin of functional fixedness, covered earlier in this series, and it operates through a similar mechanism: the first approach taken becomes a reference point that subsequent thinking orbits rather than escapes. Research on design and engineering problem solving consistently shows that early exposure to an example solution significantly narrows the range of solutions generated afterward, even when participants are explicitly instructed to produce something different. The first idea casts a long shadow.
Techniques That Expand the Solution Space
The most important structural move is separating generation from evaluation completely and enforcing that separation with some rigor. When people generate and evaluate simultaneously, two things happen. The internal critic kills ideas before they have developed enough to reveal their potential, and the first idea that survives evaluation anchors everything that follows. Running a generation phase where judgment is explicitly suspended, for a defined period of time, produces a larger and more varied pool of raw material that evaluation can then work with seriously.
Classic brainstorming, when run properly, operates on this principle. The problem is that most brainstorming sessions are run poorly: too short, too small a group, with implicit social pressure to produce ideas that sound credible rather than numerous. The quantity imperative is the key discipline. Setting a target number of solutions, say ten or fifteen before any evaluation begins, forces the mind past the obvious territory and into the less-explored regions where more original options tend to live. The first five ideas are almost always the most familiar. It is ideas six through fifteen that tend to be genuinely interesting.
Changing the Constraints to Change the Answers
One of the most reliable techniques for generating genuinely different solutions is to change the constraints of the problem and ask what you would do under the new conditions. What would the solution look like with a tenth of the current budget? What if it had to be implemented in a week rather than six months? What if the audience were completely different? What if the current approach were not available at all?
Each hypothetical constraint change forces the mind out of the groove worn by the original framing and into territory it would not naturally enter. Artificial limitations often surface solutions invisible from the unconstrained perspective. Changing constraints is not about making the problem harder. It is about making the solution space harder to navigate in familiar ways, which forces the creative search into less-visited territory.
The Role of Incubation in Solution Generation
Sustained conscious effort at solution generation has diminishing returns. After a period of intensive generation, the well begins to run dry and additional effort tends to produce variations on existing ideas rather than genuinely different ones. This is the natural stopping point that most people accept as the limit of their creative capacity. It is actually the ideal moment to stop and let incubation take over.
Stepping away from the problem frequently produces solutions that sustained conscious effort would not have reached. The creative insight that arrives during a walk, a shower, or the liminal space between waking and sleeping is not luck. It is the product of a generative process that continues outside of focused attention once the problem has been adequately loaded. Returning to the generation task after a period of incubation, even a short one, consistently adds solutions to the pool that the initial session did not contain.
Evaluating Broadly Before Narrowing
Once a genuine range of solutions has been generated, the evaluation phase deserves its own discipline. The instinct is to quickly identify the most promising one or two options and develop those. The more productive approach is to briefly assess every option before eliminating any, because the option that initially looks weakest sometimes contains a single element that, grafted onto a stronger option, produces something better than either would have been alone. Hybrid solutions, combinations of elements from multiple options, are often superior to any individual option in the original pool, but they are only visible to someone who took the whole pool seriously before narrowing.
The goal throughout this process is not to delay commitment indefinitely. It is to ensure that when you do commit, you are choosing from a genuinely expanded range rather than ratifying the accident of what came to mind first. The difference between the first workable solution and the best available solution is often considerable. The effort to find out what that difference is tends to be considerably smaller than people expect and considerably more worthwhile than they give it credit for.