Beta Versus VHS and the Acceptance of Electronic Brainstorming Technology

This paper argues that much of the past research on electronic brainstorming has been somewhat myopic. Much as Sony focused on the quality of the picture on its Beta format, we as IS researchers have focused on the number of ideas generated as the dominant measure of electronic brainstorming effectiveness. When VHS killed Beta, Sony discovered that image quality was a secondary consideration for most VCR users. Despite the compelling research on its performance benefits, electronic brainstorming has not yet displaced-or even joined-verbal brainstorming as a widely used idea generation technique. This paper presents arguments that users may not be primarily concerned with the number of ideas generated when planning a brainstorming session, but rather may equally desire group well being and member support. We present theoretical arguments and empirical evidence suggesting that electronic brainstorming is not as effective as verbal brainstorming at providing group well being and member support. We believe that these arguments may also apply to other group and individual research areas and may also call for a reevaluation of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Finally, we suggest further research that may help electronic brainstorming avoid the fate of the Beta format.

[1]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[2]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[3]  Geoffry S. Howard Computer Anxiety Considerations for Design of Introductory Computer Courses. , 1987 .

[4]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Research Note. Electronic Brainstorming: Illusions and Patterns of Productivity , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Denis Collins,et al.  The Ethical Superiority and Inevitability of Participatory Management as an Organizational System , 1997 .

[7]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[8]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[9]  J. McGrath Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[10]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[11]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Research Note. The Illusion of Electronic Brainstorming Productivity: Theoretical and Empirical Issues , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[12]  Richard D. Johnson,et al.  A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor becomes the model , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Mark S. Silver,et al.  Descriptive Analysis for Computer-Based Decision Support: Special Focus Article , 1988, Oper. Res..

[14]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[15]  M. Álvarez Modern Technology and Technological Determinism: The Empire Strikes Again , 1999 .

[16]  Craig K. Tyran,et al.  The Application of Electronic Meeting Technology to Support Strategic Management , 1992, MIS Q..

[17]  R. Rice,et al.  Book Reviews : Managing Organizational Innovation: The Evolution from Word Processing to Office Information Systems , 1987 .

[18]  K. Eisenhardt Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[19]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using Computing in Quality Team Meetings: Initial Observations from the IRS-Minnesota Project , 1991, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Betty Vandenbosch,et al.  Information Overload in a Groupware Environment: Now You See It, Now You Don't , 1998, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[22]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[23]  Monica J. Garfield,et al.  The Adoption and Use of GSS in Project Teams: Toward More Participative Processes and Outcomes , 2003, MIS Q..

[24]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Identification of Comment Authorship in Anonymous Group Support Systems , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Fran Ackermann,et al.  Issues in computer and non-computer supported GDSSs , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[26]  M. Diehl,et al.  Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups , 1994 .

[27]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Technology Transition Model Derived from Field Investigation of GSS Use Aboard the U.S.S. CORONADO , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[28]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions , 1999 .

[29]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[30]  W. Orlikowski Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[31]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Social influence processes in group brainstorming. , 1993 .

[32]  Craig K. Tyran,et al.  Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Colin Eden,et al.  “Horses for courses”: A stakeholder approach to the evaluation of GDSSs , 1996 .

[34]  John A. Wagner,et al.  Participation's Effects On Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration Of Research Evidence , 1994 .

[35]  Hazel Hall,et al.  Borrowed theory: Applying exchange theories in information science research , 2003 .

[36]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[37]  James Fleck,et al.  Technology, the Technology Complex and the Paradox of Technological Determinism , 2001, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[38]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Information, but You Can't Make It Think , 1996, MIS Q..

[39]  Henrik Lewe,et al.  Computer support and facilitated structure in meetings-an empirical comparison of their impact , 1996, Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[40]  Susan J. Winter,et al.  The Role of IT in the Transformation of Work: A Comparison of Post-Industrial, Industrial, and Proto-Industrial Organization , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  R. Brent Gallupe,et al.  Blocking electronic brainstorms. , 1994 .

[42]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[43]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[44]  Jeremiah J. O'Connell,et al.  Managing organizational innovation , 1968 .

[45]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing , 2002, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[46]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems via Meta-Analysis , 2001, MIS Q..

[47]  C. Gersick,et al.  Habitual routines in task-performing groups. , 1990, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[48]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm , 1996 .

[49]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Methodology-Driven Use of Automated Support in Business Process Re-Engineering , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[50]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[52]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[53]  Sue R. Faerman,et al.  The Appeal and Difficulties of Participative Systems , 1995 .

[54]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment , 1988, MIS Q..

[55]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[56]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information technology for negotiating groups: generating options for mutual gain , 1991 .

[57]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Technology Use and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations* , 1999 .

[58]  Colin Eden,et al.  Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making , 2001 .

[59]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .