Bounded Ideation Theory: A New Model of the Relationship Between Ideaquantity and Idea-quality during Ideation

This paper presents bounded ideation theory (BIT) to explain the relationship between the number-of-ideas and the number-of-good-ideas contributed during ideation. BIT posits that certain cognitive and physical boundaries cause the ideation function to be an inflected curve that transitions from a positive-but-increasing slope to a positive-but-decreasing slope. We then present implications of the theory for process design

[1]  A. Baddeley.  Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Revised Edition , 1990 .

[2]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[3]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[4]  Milam W. Aiken,et al.  A comparison of two electronic idea generation techniques , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[5]  A. Pinsonneault,et al.  Small Group Brainstorming and Idea Quality , 2001 .

[6]  Monica J. Garfield,et al.  Research Report: The Effectiveness of Multiple Dialogues in Electronic Brainstorming , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Implications for problem‐solving groups of empirical research on ‘brainstorming’: A critical review of the literature , 1978 .

[8]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[9]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Task and time decomposition in electronic brainstorming , 1996, Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[10]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Word length and the structure of short-term memory , 1975 .

[11]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

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

[13]  Simon S. K. Lam,et al.  The Effects of Group Decision Support Systems and Task Structures on Group Communication and Decision Quality , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[15]  J. Richardson,et al.  Articulatory rehearsal and phonological storage in working memory , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[16]  Samuel B. Bacharach,et al.  Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation , 1989 .

[17]  MichaelMichalko.  Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-Thinking Techniques , 2006 .

[18]  Bolanle A. Olaniran,et al.  Group Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication Media , 1994 .

[19]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[20]  J. D. Couger,et al.  Creativity improvement intervention in a system development work unit , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[21]  L. Barsalou.  Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists , 1992 .

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

[23]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Structuring Time and Task in Electronic Brainstorming , 1999, MIS Q..

[24]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes , 1974 .

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

[26]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Henk Sol,et al.  Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1997, HICSS 2015.

[28]  Paul V. Martorana,et al.  What Do Groups Learn from Their Worldliest Members? Direct and Indirect Influence in Dynamic Teams , 2000 .