Ellen, don't get me wrong I am very happy that you challenge our work. If you have a moment I'd be happy to talk on Skype, because I think the conversation through the forum is not easy... It's not easy to put thoughts in words!
That said I realize we should schedule a time to meet on Skype for anybody on the Hub who wants to participate...
Like Ellen, I have to apologize for being late to the 'party' on this chunk.
Generating new ideas: I know he was some time ago, but I've always liked Hammer's principle of "challenge the assumptions" It's along the same lines as Philippe's reference to "challenge orthodoxies". Hammer's view is to set unrealistic goals, look at why you can't get there, and challenge those assumptions.
This comment speaks more to the linkages in the book. I take it as read you will be addressing the four key questions about weaknesses, capabilities, investments and likely targets for innovation in the SWOT analysis. If so, I see a strong link between this section and the SWOT. The analysis done in the SWOT will go a long way to understanding the epicenter of change. I would like to see that link be made explicit in the book. Perhaps one of the visual elements could capture this idea of linkages within the overall book.
Activity and process:
A little uneasy here. I like the idea of having the process and activity linked to the concepts, but I'm not sure about the flow. This may be just a personal preference, but I find the progression of the last three parts disconnected. Perhaps it would have a better flow if the order was:
In explaining things I prefer to go from the general to the specific, which would put the exercise as the last item to discuss. Also, the use of the title bars on the side, is this going to be a common reference through the book; i.e are there going to be other process-activity references? If not then why make it so 'formal'. You do a good job of avoiding orthodox titles elsewhere, but maybe that's a design challenge for Alan.