Provocation Technique (Po)
Provocation Technique (Po): Make an absurd or impossible statement about your problem ("Po: cars have square wheels"). Then ask "how could this work?" and "what useful ideas does this suggest?" The impossibility is a ladder β use it to reach ideas you couldn't access from the reasonable starting point, then kick it away.
What Is the Provocation Technique?β
The Provocation Technique was developed by Edward de Bono, the originator of lateral thinking, and introduced in his 1970 book Lateral Thinking and later expanded in Po: Beyond Yes and No (1972). De Bono introduced the notation "Po" (from PrOvocation, or hypothetically from the Polynesian word po, meaning the fundamental creative void) as a signal that the statement following it is a deliberate provocation, not a logical assertion.
The key mechanism is the movement from provocation to idea. Conventional reasoning rejects absurd statements immediately β "cars with square wheels are impossible, therefore this thought is useless." De Bono argued this rejection is too fast: the absurd statement can serve as a temporary platform that generates genuinely useful insights before it is discarded.
The technique exploits the human mind's ability to make sense of things. When presented with a provocation ("Po: hospitals should charge patients to stay healthy"), the mind is forced to generate a scenario in which this could work. That scenario β an insurance model that pays for wellness outcomes rather than illness treatment β might contain a genuinely valuable idea. The provocation was the tool; the idea is the product; the provocation is then abandoned.
How It Worksβ
Step 1: State the problem
β "How might we reduce hospital readmissions?"
Step 2: Create a provocation (use "Po:" notation)
β Exaggeration: "Po: hospitals should be 1000 metres underground"
β Reversal: "Po: patients pay hospitals to stay healthy, not sick"
β Wishful thinking: "Po: patients always know they're about to get sick before they do"
β Distortion: "Po: hospitals treat the building, not the person"
β Random addition: "Po: hospitals give each patient a tree"
Step 3: Explore the provocation
β How could this work? What positive aspects could it have?
β What ideas does it suggest, even if the provocation itself is impossible?
β Don't evaluate the provocation β use it as a movement platform
Step 4: Extract useful ideas
β "Po: patients pay hospitals to stay healthy" β
"What if insurers paid for preventive health metrics?" β
"Value-based healthcare reimbursement models"
β The provocation is abandoned; the extracted idea is kept
Step 5: Evaluate extracted ideas normally
β Apply standard analysis to the ideas generated, not to the provocation
Types of Provocation:
- Reversal: Reverse the usual direction ("Po: customers serve companies")
- Exaggeration: Exaggerate a parameter ("Po: deliveries take 1 second")
- Distortion: Break normal relationships ("Po: teachers learn from students' grades")
- Wishful thinking: State what you'd wish were true ("Po: software writes itself")
Three Real-World Examplesβ
Healthcare: Value-Based Reimbursementβ
Problem: Hospital revenue depends on patient volume and procedures, creating perverse incentives to treat illness rather than prevent it.
Provocation: "Po: hospitals pay patients to stay healthy."
Movement: If hospitals paid patients to be healthy, they would invest in: preventive care programmes, remote monitoring to catch problems early, direct patient engagement between visits, and outcome guarantees. The provocation "hospitals pay patients" suggests the inverse reality: insurers paying hospitals for patient health outcomes rather than procedures. This is the core principle of value-based care reimbursement β a $100 billion+ policy shift in US and global healthcare.
Retail: Amazon Goβ
Problem: Checkout friction is the most complained-about aspect of grocery shopping.
Provocation: "Po: the checkout has no cashier and no checkout line."
Movement: If this were somehow possible, the store would need to know what you took without you telling it. How? Cameras, weight sensors, RFID, computer vision. The provocation "no checkout line" β initially absurd β led directly to the technological architecture of Amazon Go (2018): cameras and sensors that track items picked up, automatic billing when you exit. Amazon's engineers have confirmed they use directed, impossible-scenario thinking to generate technological concepts.
Software: Asynchronous Communication Toolsβ
Problem: Real-time meetings are inefficient; most communication doesn't require synchronous response.
Provocation: "Po: employees never need to be available at the same time."
Movement: If this were possible, what would work look like? Written documentation that stands alone without Q&A. Self-explanatory video messages. Decisions made by documented reasoning accessible at any time. The provocation generated the design principles behind Basecamp, Loom, and async-first remote work cultures β a significant workplace innovation partially inspired by provocative thinking about synchronous communication norms.
When to Use Itβ
β Use Provocation Technique when:
- Existing solutions are all variations within the same framework
- Industry conventions feel arbitrary and worth challenging
- Direct brainstorming is producing obvious or incremental ideas
- You want to challenge assumptions about how something "must" work
β Less useful when:
- Hard physical or regulatory constraints make most provocations impractical to move from
- Very early in problem definition when the problem space isn't clear
- With groups that strongly resist non-logical methods
| Pairs well with | Why |
|---|---|
| Lateral Thinking | Provocation Technique is a core lateral thinking tool |
| Reverse Brainstorming | Reverse Brainstorming is a form of systematic reversal provocation |
| Concept Fan | Concept Fan and Provocation Technique both escape problem frames from different angles |
| First Principles | First principles removes assumptions; Po challenges them with absurdity |
Common Misuses and Limitationsβ
Evaluating the provocation instead of using it. "That's impossible" is the wrong response to a Po statement. The correct response is "how could this work?" and "what does this suggest?" The provocation is a movement tool, not a proposal.
Stopping at mild provocations. The technique is most powerful with genuinely absurd provocations. Mild provocations ("Po: customer service is slightly faster") generate mild ideas. "Po: the customer never needs to contact customer service" generates more interesting movement.
Not extracting actionable ideas. The goal is to move through the provocation to practical ideas. Staying in provocation space (generating more impossible statements) doesn't produce useful output. Each provocation should be worked until it yields at least one extractable idea.
Related Modelsβ
| Model | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Lateral Thinking | Provocation is de Bono's core lateral thinking tool |
| Reverse Brainstorming | Reverse Brainstorming systematically applies reversal provocation |
| Forced Connections | Both introduce impossible elements; Forced Connections is random, Provocation is deliberate |
Frequently Asked Questionsβ
How do I know if a provocation is "good enough"?
A provocation is good enough if it makes you uncomfortable and if you can't immediately see how it could work. If a provocation is too mild, it will generate only obvious ideas. If it's so absurd it generates no movement at all, it's too far. The productive zone: provocations that seem impossible but generate interesting thoughts when you push on them. "Po: software has no bugs" and "Po: customers write the product manual" are good provocations. "Po: products are slightly better" is not provocative enough.
How does Po differ from brainstorming's "no evaluation" rule?
Brainstorming's "no evaluation" rule aims to create a safe space for ideas that might be rejected. Po is more aggressive: it deliberately introduces ideas that are logically impossible as a movement tool. Brainstorming suspends criticism of plausible ideas; Po uses implausibility as an instrument. The mechanism is different: brainstorming hopes that good ideas emerge in a permissive environment; Po forces the mind to generate new conceptual paths by giving it an impossible starting point.
Can Po be used in formal business settings?
Yes, but framing matters. Introducing "Po: our customers pay us to go away" in a board meeting without context will confuse or alarm. Frame it explicitly: "I want to use an idea-generation technique where we start from an absurd premise to generate creative options. The absurd statement is just a tool β we're looking for the ideas it suggests." With proper framing, most professional groups engage productively. The technique is particularly effective in product strategy, R&D, and marketing sessions where genuine novelty is valued.
Further Readingβ
- de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step β the foundational text
- de Bono, E. (1972). Po: Beyond Yes and No β extended treatment of the provocation technique
- de Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity β the full toolkit including Po for professional settings
Apply with AIβ
π Generate provocations for your problem with MindMax β
This page is part of the MindMax Mental Models Knowledge Base.