Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity

Abstract

Electronic brainstorming (EBS) has been proposed as a superior approach to both nominal brainstorming (working alone) and face-to-face brainstorming (verbal). However, existing empirical evidence regarding EBS's superiority over nominal brainstorming is weak. Through a comprehensive examination of the process gains and process losses inherent to different brainstorming approaches, this paper explains past results. The paper also suggests that the process gain versus process loss advantages of EBS technologies may not be large enough to enable EBS groups to outperform nominal groups. In an effort to find alternate ways of using EBS more productively, three conditions thought to increase EBS's process gains and decrease its process losses (thus improving its productivity) are identified. A laboratory experiment designed to compare the productivity of ad hoc and established groups using four brainstorming technologies (nominal, EBS-anonymous, EBS-nonanonymous, verbal), generating ideas on socially sensitive and less sensitive topics, in the presence and absence of contextual cues, is then described. The results of the experiment showed that overall, groups using nominal brainstorming significantly outperformed groups using the other three brainstorming approaches. Further, even under conditions thought to be favorable to EBS, nominal brainstorming groups were at least as productive as EBS groups. The paper explains these results by suggesting that the process gains of EBS may not be as large as expected and that the presence of four additional process losses inherent to EBS technologies impair its productivity. It is also argued that the prevailing popularity of group brainstorming (verbal or electronic) in organizations may be explained by the perceived productivity of those approaches. These perceptions, which are at odds with reality, create the illusion of productivity. A similar misperception may also cause an illusion of EBS productivity in the research community, especially when perceptual measures of group performance are used.

Post-adoption behavior of users of Internet Service Providers

“…Few other statistical methods are designed to do this. This method has been used in a number of IT studies (Gattiker and Kelley 1999;Kraut et al 1999;Pinsonneault et al 1999) To estimate the combined effects of the results reported below, a logistic regression model is developed in which discontinuance is a function of needs, purpose, past behavior and demographics. A powerful and parsimonious predictive model is fitted to the data.…”

Revival of the case method: a way to retain student-centred learning in a post-PBL era

“…Brainstorming to raise ideas on learning goals, as practised in the PBL tutorial, may require knowledge more substantial than can be instantly and spontaneously produced by the students knowledge. As remarked by Eva in a critical comment on the value of teamwork (Eva 2002), brainstorming by a group has been shown to be less effective as a way of creating ideas than individual brainstorming (Pinsonneault et al 1999). From a study based on interviews of clinical teachers, the authors concluded that self-direction as a method of learning was 'inapplicable to basic professional education in the clinical environment' (Dornan et al 2005b).…”

Convergence on Self-Generated vs. Crowdsourced Ideas in Crisis Response: Comparing Social Exchange Processes and Satisfaction with Process

“…First, when teams generate ideas online together, they already have a certain level of orientation concerning the kind of generated ideas, as these were visible to everyone throughout the brainstorming process. Visibility of ideas is a characteristic of an idea generation technique that is widely adopted in small internal teams [e.g., 5], but also in crowds [e.g., 43], as generated ideas may function as stimuli to think creatively [44]. Moreover, team members are likely to feel a certain degree of ownership with an idea.…”