SCAMPER

Quick facts

Mechanism: Generates a structured set of variations on an existing idea, product, or process by running it through seven transformation prompts (substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other use, eliminate, reverse), then shortlists the most promising, producing an expansion sheet.

Produces: scamper-expansion-sheet

Evidence: P · Domain: Divergent Ideation

Use when you have a seed idea and need to break past the obvious options; not for blank-page ideation.

People and models fixate on the first few obvious variations of an idea. SCAMPER counters that by running an existing idea, product, or process through seven transformation prompts, each forcing a different kind of change: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify (magnify or minify), Put to other use, Eliminate, Reverse. It is a later-stage method: it transforms a seed that already exists, it is not a blank-page generator. The output is an expansion sheet that ends in a shortlist of the most promising variations, not an undifferentiated pile of ideas.

When to Use

• A seed idea, product, feature, or process already exists and needs to be pushed past the obvious.
• Late-stage ideation, or loosening a stuck or merely incremental option set.
• After the problem is framed and before converging on a choice.

When NOT to Use

• Blank page. With no seed to transform, there is nothing to operate on; reframe first or use a different generator.
• When the problem needs reframing, not more options (use problem restatement).
• When you need to converge and decide (use a decision skill); this diverges.
• If the result would be volume without selection. The shortlist step is mandatory.

Instructions

When asked to run SCAMPER, follow these steps:

1. State the seed. Name the existing idea, product, or process being transformed, in one sentence.
2. Run the seven lenses. For each, apply the prompt and generate one to three concrete variations:
   • Substitute a component, material, rule, or person.
   • Combine it with another idea, feature, or step.
   • Adapt a solution from a different domain.
   • Modify an attribute (magnify or minify it).
   • Put to other use (a different user, job, or context).
   • Eliminate a part, step, or assumption.
   • Reverse the order, roles, or direction.
3. Skip what does not apply. If a lens yields nothing real, say so rather than padding.
4. Shortlist. Select the three to five most promising variations to carry forward, and say why.
5. Emit the expansion sheet per references/TEMPLATE.md.

Output Format

Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md. The deliverable is the per-lens expansion plus the shortlist, not prose.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• There was a real seed idea to transform (this is not blank-page ideation).
• Each applied lens produced a concrete variation, not a vague gesture.
• Lenses that do not apply are skipped with a note, not padded.
• A shortlist of three to five variations is selected, with reasons.
• The output is the expansion sheet artifact, not prose.

Evidence

Tier P. SCAMPER is a practitioner ideation mnemonic (Eberle 1971, built on Osborn’s idea-spurring checklists). Structured prompts can help break functional fixedness and broaden an option set, but there is no strong evidence SCAMPER specifically produces better or more original ideas than other generators, and increasing idea quantity is not the same as quality. Evidence is transferred from human contexts, not AI-validated. Methods with stronger generation evidence (Brainwriting / NGT) are separate skills. Full grading: evidence/dossier.md.

Examples

See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed expansion sheet.

Deep dive: worked example

A full worked run (the shared Northwind scenario)

SCAMPER Expansion Sheet - Worked Example

A completed run of think-scamper, on the shared Northwind scenario. This is the quality bar a generated sheet should meet.

Northwind is a B2B SaaS. After problem restatement reframed the goal to “generate qualified pipeline with the least irreversible commitment,” SCAMPER expands the seed idea “offer a free tier” into a broader set of growth options.

---

Seed

• What is being transformed: “Offer a self-serve free tier” as the approach to hitting the Q3 growth target.

Expansion

Lens	Prompt	Variations generated
Substitute	swap a component or rule	Replace “free forever” with a time-limited extended trial; or free only for one high-value use case
Combine	merge with another step	Pair a gated free tier with guided onboarding; or bundle free access with a partner’s distribution
Adapt	borrow from another domain	Adopt a “reverse trial” (full features for 14 days, then auto-downgrade to a limited free plan)
Modify	magnify or minify	Magnify free value for ICP-fit accounts only (gated free); minify or block it for clearly non-ICP signups
Put to other use	different user or job	Use “free” as a sales-assist tool for existing pipeline (free pilots for active deals), not a top-of-funnel magnet
Eliminate	remove a part or assumption	Eliminate the free tier entirely; instead remove friction in the existing paid trial (fix the funnel that may be the real problem)
Reverse	invert roles or motion	Reverse the motion: outbound-led with a free pilot offered to qualified prospects, rather than open self-serve free

Shortlist (carry forward)

1. Gated reverse-trial (Adapt + Modify): full features, auto-downgrade, ICP-gated. Captures most of the free-tier upside while limiting non-ICP cost. Test conversion in a pilot.
2. Fix the paid-trial funnel (Eliminate): the cheapest, most reversible option; directly addresses the possibility that low conversion, not missing packaging, is the real constraint.
3. Outbound + free pilot (Reverse): qualified-only, low cannibalization risk; fits the “least irreversible commitment” frame.

---

Note: the value is that Eliminate and Reverse produced the two options that best fit the reframed goal, both cheaper and more reversible than the original “build a free tier.” Carry the shortlist into a decision skill, then test the chosen option with What Would Have to Be True and stress-test the plan with premortem.

Grounding: the full evidence dossier

What the research does and does not show, with graded sources

Evidence Dossier: SCAMPER

Single source of truth for the scamper skill. The SKILL.md, sidecar, and evals derive from this. If a claim is not here, it does not belong in the skill.

Skill	thinking-framework-skills.scamper (installable name think-scamper)
Family	divergent-ideation
Evidence tier	P (practitioner ideation heuristic)
Confidence	Moderate that structured prompts break fixedness; low that SCAMPER specifically outperforms other generators
Status	draft (authored 2026-05-31 from the discovery corpus)

1. The mechanism (what actually does the work)

People and models fixate on the first few obvious variations of an idea (functional fixedness). SCAMPER counters this by running an existing idea, product, or process through seven transformation prompts, each forcing a different kind of change:

• Substitute - swap a component, material, rule, or person.
• Combine - merge with another idea, feature, or step.
• Adapt - borrow a solution from a different domain.
• Modify - magnify, minify, or change an attribute.
• Put to other use - apply it to a different user, job, or context.
• Eliminate - remove a part, step, or assumption.
• Reverse - invert order, roles, or direction.

The work is done by systematically forcing variation along axes a free-association brainstorm would skip, then selecting the promising few. It is a later-stage method: it transforms a seed that already exists; it is not a blank-page generator.

2. Lineage

• Alex Osborn’s “idea-spurring questions” checklists (mid-20th-century creativity work) were arranged into the SCAMPER mnemonic by Bob Eberle (1971, SCAMPER: Games for Imagination Development). Design and innovation guides (Delft design method guide; IMD) document it as a standard later-stage ideation method.

No trademark on the technique; “SCAMPER” is a widely used generic mnemonic. Named descriptively as the skill; lineage cited.

3. What the evidence shows, and what it does NOT show

Supported (modestly): structured ideation prompts can help break functional fixedness and broaden an option set relative to unaided free association. This is consistent with the broader creativity-technique literature.

NOT shown: there is no strong controlled evidence that SCAMPER specifically produces better or more original ideas than other structured generators, or that idea quantity (which it reliably increases) translates to idea quality. Methods with stronger evidence for generation exist (Brainwriting 6-3-5 / Nominal Group Technique reliably beat verbal group brainstorming - those are separate skills, graded S). SCAMPER’s honest grade is practitioner.

4. Transferred-evidence flag

Evidence is from human ideation contexts, not AI-augmented use. Transferred, not AI-validated. The AI value is specific: a model generates fluent but narrow variations by default; the seven prompts force breadth along defined axes, and the expansion sheet is a structured artifact that ends in a selected shortlist rather than a wall of ideas.

5. When it works / when it fails

Works best when: a seed idea, product, feature, or process already exists and needs to be pushed past the obvious; late-stage ideation; loosening a stuck or incremental option set.

Fails or misleads when (poor-fit / anti-patterns):

• Blank page - with no seed to transform, SCAMPER has nothing to operate on (reframe first, or use a different generator).
• The problem actually needs reframing, not more options (use problem restatement).
• Volume without selection - generating dozens of variants and stopping is the central failure mode; the skill must shortlist.
• Mechanical seven-lens application when only two or three lenses are relevant, padding the output.
• When you need to converge and decide (use a decision skill); SCAMPER diverges.

6. Output artifact

A SCAMPER expansion sheet: for each of the seven lenses, the prompt and one to three concrete variations it produced (skip lenses that genuinely do not apply, and say so), followed by a shortlist of the three to five most promising variations to carry forward.

7. Sources

1. Eberle, B. (1971). SCAMPER: Games for Imagination Development - the mnemonic, built on Osborn’s idea-spurring checklists.
2. Delft design guide; IMD innovation guide - SCAMPER as a standard later-stage ideation method.
3. (Contrast) Diehl & Stroebe and the brainwriting/NGT literature - the methods with stronger generation evidence, noted here so SCAMPER’s tier is not overstated.

Verification status: the Eberle/Osborn lineage is well-attested. The “structured prompts help break fixedness” claim is directional from the creativity literature; do not attach a quantified effect to SCAMPER specifically in any public-facing text.