SCAMPER technique: seven prompts for better workplace ideas

When a team is asked to innovate, the instruction is often simply to "think outside the box". That sounds encouraging, but it gives people little help with the actual work. SCAMPER provides specific questions you can ask about an existing product, service or process.

The technique is useful when you need alternatives rather than a final decision. It encourages you to change parts of what already exists: replace something, join things together, borrow an approach, alter the scale, find another use, remove a step or change the order.

This guide explains each prompt through a fictional workplace example and shows how to move from ideas to a small, responsible experiment.

What does SCAMPER stand for?

You may see slightly different wording, especially for M and R. The purpose is to offer useful prompts, not to enforce one exact phrase in every workshop.

Robert F. Eberle arranged the SCAMPER acronym from idea-spurring questions associated with Alex F. Osborn. Eberle's 1972 article, Developing Imagination Through Scamper, acknowledges Osborn's checklist. It is more accurate to recognise that relationship than to attribute the acronym itself to Osborn.

When is SCAMPER useful at work?

SCAMPER works well when you have something concrete to examine. A meeting, a customer enquiry process, an induction programme or a handover checklist gives the team an object to change.

It is less helpful when the problem is still vague. "Make our business better" is too broad. "Reduce the repeated questions new starters ask in their first week without making induction less supportive" provides a clearer challenge.

Before generating changes, investigate the issue. A fishbone diagram can help explore possible causes. Otherwise, a creative workshop may produce appealing ideas that do not address the actual difficulty.

The method is not a feasibility test. An idea can be imaginative but unaffordable, inaccessible or unsafe. SCAMPER widens your options; later evaluation decides what is suitable to test.

Start with a specific challenge

Our fictional example is a small organisation whose induction process is spread across several emails. New starters ask the same questions, while managers repeat explanations and struggle to tell what has been covered.

The challenge is: "How could we make the first week clearer for new starters while retaining personal support?"

The boundaries are equally important. Mandatory checks must remain. Confidential information must stay appropriately restricted. People without easy digital access need an alternative. No idea should assume that a new starter can absorb everything before their first working day.

Write these boundaries where everyone can see them. They guide the exercise without forcing the group to reject every unfinished idea immediately.

Substitute: replace one element

Ask what could replace a material, channel, step, role or tool. In the induction example, could a short, maintained welcome page replace several inconsistent emails? Could a named buddy replace a generic instruction to "ask anyone"?

Substitution should solve a problem rather than merely introduce something new. Replacing a live explanation with a video may improve consistency but remove the chance to ask questions. A better idea might be a brief video followed by a conversation.

Useful prompts include: Could a different format make this easier to understand? Could the task be done by someone with better access to the information? What could replace a temporary workaround?

Capture the likely benefit and what might be lost. This makes the later evaluation more honest.

Combine: join related elements

Ask which tasks, resources or interactions could work better together. Could the new starter's checklist and the manager's checklist share a single source of truth? Could a tour include introductions to the people who handle common questions?

Combining is not always simplifying. Putting every form into one long document may create a larger burden. The useful question is whether the combination removes repetition or creates a clearer relationship.

For our fictional team, one idea is a first-week plan that links each activity to a named contact. Another is a short daily check-in that combines a progress review with space for questions.

Look for duplicated information rather than assuming that more integration is automatically better. Different access permissions may require some records to remain separate.

Adapt: borrow a principle from elsewhere

Adaptation asks what another team, sector or process does that could be adjusted for your circumstances. A hospitality team might use a simple arrival checklist. A project team might assign clear owners to each handover task.

The induction team could borrow the idea of a visible journey: before arrival, day one, first week and first month. They would then adapt it for part-time workers, shift patterns and different roles.

Do not copy blindly. A process that works in a large office may depend on resources a small business does not have. A checklist from another organisation may omit requirements that matter to yours.

Ask what underlying principle is useful, which assumptions differ and what would need to change. Adapt the logic, not just the appearance.

Modify: change the shape, scale or emphasis

Modification can mean shortening, expanding, simplifying or changing the emphasis. Which part is too large, too small, too detailed or not clear enough?

In the fictional induction, a two-hour information session might become several shorter conversations spread across the week. A dense policy summary might become a concise introduction with links to the full current policies.

The aim is not simply to reduce content. Some information needs careful explanation and a chance to check understanding. Ask what people need now and what they can revisit later.

Try changing one variable at a time. If you alter timing, format, content and ownership together, it becomes harder to understand which change helped or created a new problem.

Put to another use: reuse an existing resource

Ask whether a resource can serve a useful additional purpose. Could anonymised questions from previous starters inform a frequently asked questions page? Could a room already used for team briefings host a quieter induction check-in?

Reusing resources can be economical, but access and consent still matter. A recording made for one purpose should not automatically be reused for another. Employee information should not become training material merely because it is available.

The fictional team decides to turn recurring, non-sensitive questions into a maintained guide. They remove identifying details and assign an owner to keep the answers current.

Always ask whether reuse remains appropriate, accurate and accessible. Old content can create more confusion than no content if nobody owns its maintenance.

Eliminate: remove unnecessary work

Elimination asks what could disappear without undermining the purpose. Could repeated requests for the same information be removed? Could an outdated attachment be retired? Could an approval step be reduced where it has no clear function?

Do not confuse administrative inconvenience with lack of value. A safety check, safeguarding step or required verification may feel repetitive but remain essential. Consult the relevant owner before changing it.

The induction team discovers that new starters receive two versions of the same welcome information. Removing one and maintaining the other is a sensible candidate for testing.

A helpful prompt is: "If we stopped doing this, what would fail, who would notice and what evidence supports that view?" If nobody knows, investigate before deleting the step.

Rearrange or reverse: change the sequence

Ask whether steps happen in the right order. Could common questions be collected before a session rather than after it? Could a practical demonstration come before a detailed explanation?

In the fictional example, the manager currently explains every system on day one. Rearranging could mean introducing only the systems needed that day, then adding others as tasks become relevant.

Reversal can also challenge a role assumption. Instead of the manager reading through a checklist, could the new starter explain what they understand and ask where the gaps are? That should support learning, not become an intimidating test.

Some sequences are mandatory for good reasons. Checks that must happen before access or work begins cannot simply be moved later because the workshop produced an interesting idea.

Turn ideas into a shortlist

After the seven prompts, group similar suggestions and clarify vague ones. "Better induction" is not a testable idea. "One maintained first-week plan with named contacts" is.

Screen the ideas against the original boundaries. Then compare the remaining options using a decision matrix, or explore risks and benefits with Six Thinking Hats.

Choose a small test with an owner, a defined audience and review measures. In our example, the team pilots the first-week plan with the next two starters. They collect feedback about clarity, repeated questions and manager administration time. These are suggested measures, not promised outcomes.

Keep a way to stop or revise the pilot if it creates a problem. Innovation does not require committing to an unproven organisation-wide change.

Common mistakes and reflection questions

The most common mistake is judging ideas before anyone has finished generating them. Capture a concern, then return to the prompt. Evaluation has its own stage.

Another mistake is assuming the seven letters must produce seven winning ideas. Some prompts will be more useful than others. One well-founded improvement can be enough.

Invite people who do the work, not only those who manage it. Quiet written contributions can reveal friction that a group conversation misses.

After the pilot, ask which prompt challenged an assumption, what you removed or preserved and what the test taught you. Return to the ten problem-solving techniques when the next challenge needs a different tool.

Sources and further reading

• Eberle: Developing Imagination Through Scamper, 1972
• ERIC: record of Eberle's article and its relationship to Osborn's checklist

SCAMPER is a structured invitation to generate possibilities. Evidence, judgement and responsible testing still decide which possibilities deserve action.