Group, sub-group and nominal group idea generation in an electronic meeting environment

How should a group organize itself to generate ideas? Should all group members work together as one group, should they form several smaller sub-groups that work independently, or should members work separately as individuals? Previous research outside of electronic meeting environments presents a clear and unambiguous answer: members should work individually. Any benefits from group interaction (i.e. process gains) for idea generation are outweighed by the negative effects of group interaction (i.e. process losses). The authors re-examine this question in an electronic meeting environment through a re-analysis of two prior experiments. In contrast to findings from previous non-computer-mediated idea generation research, groups generated more ideas (with higher quality) than did the same number of participants working as individuals or in several smaller sub-groups.<<ETX>>

[1]  J. Hackman,et al.  Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups , 1974 .

[2]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Using Two Different Electronic Meeting System Tools for the Same Task: An Experimental Comparison , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Henry Mintzberg.  The Nature of Managerial Work , 1974, Operational Research Quarterly (1970-1977).

[4]  William K. Graham,et al.  Tasks and Task Consequences as Factors in Individual and Group brainstorming , 1975 .

[5]  M. Gordon,et al.  The “Science of the Sophomore” Revisited: from Conjecture to Empiricism , 1986 .

[6]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. , 1974 .

[7]  George P. Huber,et al.  A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence , 1990 .

[8]  A. C. Lewis,et al.  The effectiveness of group brainstorming in engineering problem solving , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[9]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[10]  George P. Huber,et al.  The Decision-Making Paradigm of Organizational Design , 1986 .

[11]  E. Weldon,et al.  Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort , 1988 .

[12]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[13]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Experience at IBM with group support systems: A field study , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

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

[15]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Roger K. Mosvick,et al.  We'Ve Got to Start Meeting Like This!: A Guide to Successful Business Meeting Management , 1986 .

[17]  Suzanne Lane,et al.  Use of Generalizability Theory for Estimating the Dependability of a Scoring System for Sample Essays , 1989 .

[18]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of de-individuation in a group , 1952 .

[19]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. , 1952, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[20]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[21]  Robert Albanese,et al.  Rational Behavior in Groups: The Free-Riding Tendency , 1985 .

[22]  A. Hare,et al.  Handbook of small group research , 1962 .

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

[24]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  A comparison of individual, subgroup, and total group methods of problem solving. , 1974 .

[25]  A. Hare,et al.  Group Size , 1981 .

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

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

[28]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Computer-Aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support: Special Focus Article , 1988, Oper. Res..

[29]  Edward F. Fern.  The use of Focus Groups for Idea Generation: The Effects of Group Size, Acquaintanceship, and Moderator on Response Quantity and Quality , 1982 .

[30]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

[31]  D. Hegedus,et al.  Task Effectiveness and Interaction Process of a Modified Nominal Group Technique in Solving an Evaluation Problem , 1986 .

[32]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

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

[34]  Mark S. Silver,et al.  Decision Support Systems: Directed and Nondirected Change , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  Carolyn M. Callahan,et al.  Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality as a Function of Group Size , 1974 .

[36]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group size and proximity effects on computer-mediated idea generation: a laboratory investigation , 1989 .

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

[38]  E. Diener.  Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. , 1979 .

[39]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[40]  J. Hackman,et al.  Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions , 1970 .

[41]  P. Yetton,et al.  The relationships among group size, member ability, social decision schemes, and performance , 1983 .

[42]  Donald W. Taylor,et al.  DOES GROUP PARTICIPATION WHEN USING BRAINSTORMING FACILITATE OR INHIBIT CREATIVE THINKING , 1958 .

[43]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  Brainstorming procedure, group size, and sex as determinants of the problem-solving effectiveness of groups and individuals. , 1974 .

[44]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[45]  A. Delbecq,et al.  Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness , 1971 .

[46]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups: an experimental study , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume III: Decision Support and Knowledge Based Systems Track.

[47]  R. Mason.  Challenging strategic planning assumptions , 1981 .

[48]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning , 1975 .