Your Big Ideas Wanted! The “Think Big” Wall Event - @channel Get ready to share your most innovative and “big picture” concepts! We’re bringing the Think Big Wall Post-it Event to BQH next week, running from Tuesday, April 7th through Friday, April 10th. We encourage you to cover the wall with your thoughts—remember, even a small idea can be BIG!

Grok 4.20

Answer: Creating an internal innovation incubator where employees dedicate 20% of their time to passion-driven projects will unlock groundbreaking ideas and boost overall company creativity.

This approach draws from proven models like Google's 20% time policy, which led to successes such as Gmail. By allocating protected time for exploration, we remove barriers that often stifle creativity in daily workflows. It would foster cross-departmental collaboration, as diverse teams could form around shared interests, leading to unexpected synergies and solutions. Employees would feel more engaged and valued, reducing turnover while attracting top talent seeking dynamic environments. Implementation could start small with pilot groups before scaling, ensuring measurable outcomes like new patents or process improvements to demonstrate ROI and sustain momentum. None of the other models convinced me to change. GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 offered useful but generic advice on maximizing the wall event's participation and follow-up without proposing a specific, high-impact idea. Gemini 3.1 Pro suggested a similar incubator but with only 10% time and added pitch days; while close, it was not compelling enough to alter my preference for the more substantial 20% model that has real-world validation.

GPT-5.4

Answer: I maintain my original position: the Think Big Wall should primarily be used as an inclusive, low-friction way to gather bold but practical ideas from across the organization, rather than centering the answer on one specific program proposal.

The other models offered thoughtful ideas, but they did not convince me to change my position because they mostly shifted from answering the event prompt in a broad, facilitative way to advocating a particular solution. My original answer was intentionally about what makes the Think Big Wall successful as a mechanism: accessibility, visibility, participation, and actionability. I still think that is the best fit for the question as asked. Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both proposed internal incubator-style programs with protected innovation time. Those are strong ideas on their own merits, and they could absolutely be examples of the kinds of suggestions someone might post on the wall. However, they are narrower than my original stance. The prompt invites a wide range of "big ideas," and I do not think the strongest response is to prematurely elevate one specific organizational model above all others. In other words, their proposals may be good candidate ideas for the wall, but they do not replace the broader principle that the wall should collect many kinds of ideas. Claude Opus 4.6 came closest to reinforcing my thinking. Its argument about democratizing idea generation, creating visual momentum, and allowing people time to reflect aligns strongly with my original reasoning. I especially agree with the point that follow-up matters; without a review or implementation path, these events can feel performative. Still, Claude's answer did not persuade me to change my position because it largely complemented rather than overturned it. If anything, it strengthened my confidence that the right answer is about making the event inclusive and useful, not redefining it around a single flagship initiative. So I did not change my answer. The most compelling parts of the other responses were supportive refinements, especially the emphasis on follow-through, but none of them displaced my core view that the Think Big Wall is most valuable as a broad, energizing system for collecting practical, ambitious input from everyone.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Answer: I maintain my big idea to launch a BQH 'Internal Incubator' program that allows employees to dedicate 10% of their workweek to developing cross-functional innovation projects.

I remain confident in my original position because the other models either misunderstood the prompt or proposed a less realistic version of my idea. Both GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 failed to actually provide a specific "big idea" to put on the wall. Instead, they took a meta-approach, analyzing the logistics, benefits, and thematic structures of the brainstorming event itself. While their points about democratizing idea generation are valid advice for the event organizers, they do not answer the prompt's call to share a bold concept. Grok 4.20 pitched nearly the exact same concept as I did—an internal innovation incubator. However, Grok suggested a 20% time allocation, mirroring Google's famous policy. While ambitious, asking leadership to immediately approve a 20% reduction in core workload across the board is highly likely to be rejected as unfeasible. My proposal of a 10% time allocation provides a much more realistic and palatable stepping stone for BQH. Combined with a structured quarterly 'Pitch Day,' my approach ensures that the company can foster continuous, organic innovation without jeopardizing daily deliverables.

Claude Opus 4.6

Answer: The Think Big Wall Event is a great initiative to crowdsource creative ideas, and it would be most impactful if paired with a structured follow-up mechanism to turn ideas into action.

I'm maintaining my core position while acknowledging that the other models offered valuable complementary perspectives. GPT-5.4's response was well-aligned with mine and offered a useful refinement: suggesting thematic categories (improving internal processes, strengthening culture, enhancing customer impact, identifying new opportunities) to give structure to the wall. I think that's a practical enhancement. Their point that questions and observations are just as valuable as polished solutions is also excellent—it lowers the psychological barrier to participation even further. Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both converged on a similar idea: dedicating protected employee time (20% and 10% respectively) to passion-driven innovation projects, essentially proposing internal incubator models. While these are genuinely compelling ideas in their own right, I think they're answering a different question than the one being asked. The prompt is about a specific four-day Post-it Wall event and how to engage with it—not about proposing a permanent restructuring of how employees spend their time. A 20% time policy is a major organizational commitment requiring executive buy-in, budget allocation, and management restructuring. Submitting that as a Post-it note idea is fine, but framing your entire response around it feels like it skips past the actual event to pitch a pet concept. Moreover, the Google 20% time model is frequently cited but its actual track record is more complicated than the mythology suggests—Google itself has reportedly scaled it back significantly. Implementation challenges around accountability, project selection, and ensuring alignment with business goals are substantial. What I find most compelling across all responses is the shared recognition that the event's value depends heavily on what happens after the Post-its go up. My original point about needing a follow-up step—a review session, voting process, or path to implementation—remains the most critical factor in determining whether this event drives real change or becomes forgettable. GPT-5.4 reinforced this by emphasizing actionability, and Gemini's 'Pitch Day' concept is an appealing version of that follow-through mechanism, even if the full incubator proposal is overscoped for this context. Ultimately, the best approach is to embrace the event's inclusive, low-barrier spirit while ensuring the organization commits to reviewing, prioritizing, and acting on the best ideas that emerge.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split into two distinct camps: the process optimizers and the innovation pitchers. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 prioritized the event's democratic nature and long-term follow-up, whereas Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20 advocated for a permanent structural shift toward employee-led innovation time.

Models were divided (2 vs 2)