Process Structuring in Electronic Brainstorming

Dennis, Alan R.; Valacich, Joseph S.; Connolly, Terry; Wynne, Bayard E.

doi:10.1287/isre.7.2.268

Cited by 139 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…GSS benefits could increase with group size [30], with task difficulty [29], and with support from an facilitator [3]. Further exploration showed that performance could be further enhanced by, for example, decomposing complex problems [24], by invoking social comparison (e.g., "Groups who produce fewer ideas than this standard are below average. "), and by using humor to raise the salience of a social comparison (e.g.…”

Section: [Figure 4 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Last Research Mile: Achieving Both Rigor and Relevance in Information Systems Research

Nunamaker

Briggs

Derrick

et al. 2015

Journal of Management Information Systems

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From our desk chairs it may be tempting to work up an idea, build a quick prototype, test it in a lab, and say, "Our work here is done; the rest is merely details." More scholarly knowledge awaits discovery, however, by researchers who shepherd an information systems (IS) solution through the last research mile, that is, through successful transition to the workplace. Going the last research mile means using scientific knowledge and methods to address important unsolved classes of problems for real people with real stakes in the outcomes. The last research mile proceeds in three stages: proof-of-concept research to demonstrate the functional feasibility of a solution; proof-of-value research to investigate whether a solution can create value across a variety of conditions; and proof-of-use research to address complex issues of operational feasibility. The last research mile ends only when practitioners routinely use a solution in the field. We argue that going the last research mile negates the assumption that one must trade off rigor and relevance, showing it to be it a false dilemma. Systems researchers who take their solutions through the last research mile may ultimately have the greatest impact on science and society. We demonstrate the last research mile with cases from our own work and the work of others spanning more than forty years. As a professor of information systems at San Diego State University, Robert O. Briggs researches the cognitive foundations of collaboration and uses his findings to design new collaborative work practices and technologies. He is cofounder of the collaboration engineering field and co-inventor of the ThinkLets design pattern language for collaborative work processes. He has made exploratory, theoretical, experimental, and technological contributions to the areas of team productivity, technology-supported learning, ideation, creativity, consensus, satisfaction, willingness to change, and technology transition. He has designed collaboration systems and collaborative workspaces for industry, academia, government, and the military. He co-chairs the Collaboration Systems and Technology track for the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. He lectures worldwide on collaboration theory and practice, and on the logic of scientific inquiry. He has published more than two hundred scholarly works collaboration systems and technology, addressing issues team productivity, technology-supported learning, creativity, satisfaction, and technology transition. He earned his doctorate Management Information Systems at the University of Arizona in 1994. Air Force officer. He has extensive experience working with the Department of Defense. As a contractor and academic, he has been awarded contracts and grants totaling $39.85 Million over the last 12 years (principle investigator awards total $16.89 Million). Doug has published 41 peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings. Douglas C Derrick Gerhard SchwabeGerhard Schwabe is a full professor of at the Universit...

show abstract

Section: [Figure 4 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Last Research Mile: Achieving Both Rigor and Relevance in Information Systems Research

Nunamaker

Briggs

Derrick

et al. 2015

Journal of Management Information Systems

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the current finding that idea quality in the nominal condition was significantly better (across all three quality ratings, including originality, feasibility, and effectiveness), while quantity was not significantly impacted by experimental condition, has interesting implications. As discussed by Dugosh et al (2000), high quality ideas have been commonly thought to positively correlate with idea quantity (see, e.g., Dennis, Valacich, Connolly, & Wynne, 1996;Diehl & Stroebe, 1987;Mullen et al, 1991); however, empirical support for this premise is mixed (Chidambaram & Tung, 2005, Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001, and doesn't hold within the current experimental context. Our finding underscores the need to evaluate both quality and quantity in order to determine the extent to which experimental findings extend to applied settings where quality may be paramount.…”

Section: Applied Industrial Factorsmentioning

confidence: 90%

LDRD final report for improving human effectiveness for extreme-scale problem solving : assessing the effectiveness of electronic brainstorming in an industrial setting.

Dornburg¹,

Stevens²,

Davidson³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment was conducted comparing the effectiveness of individual versus group electronic brainstorming in order to address difficult, real world challenges. While industrial reliance on electronic communications has become ubiquitous, empirical and theoretical understanding of the bounds of its effectiveness have been limited. Previous research using short-term, laboratory experiments have engaged small groups of students in answering questions irrelevant to an industrial setting. The present experiment extends current findings beyond the laboratory to larger groups of real-world employees addressing organization-relevant challenges over the course of four days. Employees and contractors at a national security laboratory participated, either in a group setting or individually, in an electronic brainstorm to pose solutions to a "wickedly" difficult problem. The data demonstrate that (for this design) individuals perform at least as well as groups in producing quantity of electronic ideas, regardless of brainstorming duration. However, when judged with respect to quality along three dimensions (originality, feasibility, and effectiveness), the individuals significantly (p<0.05) out-performed the group working together. When idea quality is used as the benchmark of success, these data indicate that work-relevant challenges are better solved by aggregating electronic individual responses, rather than electronically convening a group. This research suggests that industrial reliance upon electronic problem solving groups should be tempered, and large nominal groups might be the more appropriate vehicle for solving wicked corporate issues. 4 CONTENTS

show abstract

“…Our second measure, satisfaction, evaluates the level of satisfaction of the participants with the tool. It contains 7 unweighted items from Dennis et al (2006) and Santos et al (2015) and is rated on a 5-point Likert-scale [10,33]. The third measure involves the perceived effectiveness of the process and contains four unweighted items, rated on a 5-point Likert-scale.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%