Athletics in electronic brainstorming: asynchronous electronic brainstorming in very large groups

When very large groups have to brainstorm in smaller subgroups, meeting organizers have a choice between two options: (1) Let every subgroup start from scratch, or (2) Let every next subgroup build on the results from the previous subgroup. We refer to these options as the Decathlon and Relay modes of brainstorming respectively. During a case study we investigated which brainstorming mode would be move productive and result in higher levels of participant satisfaction. Consistent with the hypotheses, Relay groups appeared to be more productive than Decathlon groups, in particular in terms of elaborations to previous contributions. Relay groups were also found to be more satisfied. This study also introduced the elaboration coefficient, an indicator to quantify the amount of task relevant discussion in brainstorming groups. The results of this study hint at a number of meeting design guidelines for very large brainstorming groups.

[1]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[2]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  Measuring satisfaction in GSS meetings , 1997, ICIS '97.

[3]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  The cognitive network model of creativity: a new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Terence Connolly,et al.  On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming , 1993 .

[5]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Whither the Pen-Based Interface? , 1993, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Bringing automated support to large groups: The Burr-Brown experience , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[7]  L. R. Anderson,et al.  Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[9]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System , 1987, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

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

[12]  A. Osborn.  Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking , 1953 .

[13]  W DicksonGary,et al.  Problem solving for effective systems analysis , 1983 .

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

[15]  N. Triplett,et al.  The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition , 1898 .

[16]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  A conceptual framework of anonymity in Group Support Systems , 1992 .

[17]  Lawrence J. Sanna,et al.  Self-efficacy theory : implications for social facilitation and social loafing , 1992 .

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

[19]  S. Harkins,et al.  The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing , 1985 .

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

[21]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Computer augmented teamwork - a guided tour , 1992 .

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

[23]  Gary W. Dickson,et al.  Problem solving for effective systems analysis: an experimental exploration , 1983, CACM.

[24]  R. Gallupe,et al.  Unblocking brainstorms. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

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