Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea

In a wide variety of settings, organizations generate a number of possible solutions to a problem---ideas---and then select a few for further development. We examine the effectiveness of two group structures for such tasks---the team structure, in which the group works together in time and space, and the hybrid structure, in which individuals first work independently and then work together. We define the performance of a group as the quality of the best ideas identified. Prior research has defined performance as the average quality of ideas or the number of ideas generated, ignoring what most organizations seek, a few great ideas. We build a theory that relates organizational phenomena to four different variables that govern the quality of the best ideas identified: (1) the average quality of ideas generated, (2) the number of ideas generated, (3) the variance in the quality of ideas generated, and (4) the ability of the group to discern the quality of the ideas. We test this theory with an experiment. We find that groups organized in the hybrid structure are able to generate more ideas, to generate better ideas, and to better discern the quality of the ideas they generate. Moreover, we find that the frequently recommended brainstorming technique of building on others' ideas is counterproductive; teams exhibiting such buildup neither create more ideas, nor are the ideas that build on previous ideas better.

[1]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Central problems in the management of innovation , 1986 .

[2]  C. Gibson.  From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: cycles of collective cognition in work groups , 2001 .

[3]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. , 1981 .

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

[5]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[6]  Ely Dahan,et al.  An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing , 2001 .

[7]  M. Lorenzen.  Creativity in context : Content, cost, chance and collection in the organization of the film industry , 2009 .

[8]  Sharon Bailin.  CREATIVITY IN CONTEXT , 2002 .

[9]  Laura J. Kornish.  The Wharton School CHARACTERIZING OPPORTUNITY SPACES IN INNOVATION : EVIDENCE FROM LARGE SAMPLES OF IDEAS IN FIVE DOMAINS , 2009 .

[10]  R. Bray,et al.  The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review , 1976 .

[11]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[12]  Richard Jackson Harris,et al.  Effects of anticipated evaluation on individual brainstorming performance. , 1980 .

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

[14]  Stephen P. Robbins,et al.  Organizational Behavior -14/E. , 2012 .

[15]  Marc D. Street.  Groupthink , 1997 .

[16]  H. Greve,et al.  Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge Combination and Experience in Innovative Teams , 2006 .

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

[18]  E. Torrance,et al.  Influence of Dyadic Interaction on Creative Functioning , 1970, Psychological reports.

[19]  E B Gurman,et al.  Creativity as a Function of Orientation and Group Participation , 1968, Psychological reports.

[20]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  Adjusting Stated Intention Measures to Predict Trial Purchase of New Products: A Comparison of Models and Methods , 1989 .

[21]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Collaborative Prototyping and the Pricing of Custom - Designed Products , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Lone Inventors as Source of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality? , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Jacob Goldenberg,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: The Idea Itself and the Circumstances of Its Emergence as Predictors of New Product Success , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[24]  J. Bartunek.  Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order , 1984 .

[25]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  Adjusting Stated Intention Measures to Predict Trial Purchase of New Products: A Comparison of Models and Methods , 1989 .

[26]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[27]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[28]  Svenja C. Sommer,et al.  The Effects of Problem Structure and Team Diversity on Brainstorming Effectiveness , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[30]  Eric P. Smith,et al.  An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values , 2002, Technometrics.

[31]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities , 2009 .

[32]  R. Wageman.  Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[33]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

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

[35]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data , 2001 .