Computer supported brainstorming

Last updated

In computer supported brainstorming, team members contribute their ideas through electronic means either synchronously or asynchronously. The brainstorming software selected by the team mediates the individual interactions and helps to organize and shape the products of the brainstorming session. [1] Computer supported brainstorming can be implemented using a wide variety of electronic technologies.

Contents

Overview

In traditional group brainstorming all members of a team are present in the same physical location and their interaction is defined by a selected protocol. Proponents such as Gallupe et al. argue that electronic brainstorming eliminates many of the problems of standard brainstorming, including production blocking (i.e. group members must take turns to express their ideas) [2] and evaluation apprehension (i.e. fear of being judged by others). [3]

History

Brainstorming exists in many forms, but first began to be formalized in graphical representation known as "concept mapping" by Joseph D. Novak of Cornell University in the 1970s. Concept mapping involved collecting and organizing information in a hierarchical fashion. [4]

Seth Hollander, then a student at the Thayer School of Engineering of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, is said to be the first individual to formally propose the use of computers to assist with brainstorming and concept mapping. In his Master of Science thesis "Computer-Assisted Creativity and the Policy Process", Hollander suggested an "interactive computer program designed to enhance creative thinking". One year later, in 1985, The Idea Generator, the first software for computer supported brainstorming, became publicly available. [5]

In 1991 both GroupSystems at the University of Arizona [6] and the Software Aided Meeting Management (SAMM) system at the University of Minnesota took advantage of emerging computer networking technology installed in rooms dedicated to computer supported meetings. [7] When using these electronic meeting systems (EMS, as they came to be called), group members simultaneously and independently entered ideas into a computer terminal. The software collected (or "pooled") the ideas into a list, which could then be displayed on a central screen (anonymously if desired). Researchers found that the use of such computer supported systems helped groups categorize ideas, eliminate duplicates, and promote assessment and discussion of prioritized or controversial issues. [8]

Available technologies and applications

Numerous software platforms have been designed for computer supported brainstorming, each of which has advantages and disadvantages over traditional brainstorming depending on the specific circumstances. The features of these software titles are similar in that they:

Collaborative brainstorming software can be used in a number of ways. It could be used in place of the traditional note card method of outlining an essay, or to make a big concept more understandable, to visualize the scope of a marketing campaign, or to organize interview notes. [9]

Following are several examples of business use cited by Social Signal, a social media blog:

Future technology: virtual worlds and avatars

As technology has advanced, so have computer supported brainstorming systems. Now some web-based brainstorming systems allow contributors to post their comments anonymously through the use of avatars. This technique also allows users to log on over an extended time period, typically one or two weeks, to allow participants some "soak time" before posting their ideas and feedback. This technique has been used particularly in the field of new product development, but can be applied in any number of areas requiring collection and evaluation of ideas. [11]

Globalization and rapid technological advances have spurred multi-national companies to use virtual worlds and avatars to connect with each other and with consumers. Avatars and virtual worlds are a unique web-based combination of verbal, non-verbal and written communication without physical limitations such as space and geographic location. Virtual environments provide a context for collaboration that is "media-rich... allowing direct and real-time interaction between companies and users". [12] Research shows that team idea generation and individual cognition in virtual environments increases in creative visual work spaces. [13]

International companies such as IBM and Coca-Cola have used virtual worlds such as Second Life to collaborate with avatars for new product development. In May 2007, Coca-Cola sponsored a contest for residents of Second Life to design a virtual vending machine that would not dispense Coca-Cola but provide a refreshing and invigorating experience. Although Coca-Cola gave residents a prototype, participants were given complete creative freedom. In addition to business and market collaboration, over 200 universities use Second Life for educational conferences and collaborative work. [14] Avatars and the virtual world allow brainstorming that is visual, synchronous or asynchronous, anonymous and in different locations. [15]

Benefits

Group size

The advantage of computer supported brainstorming over traditional brainstorming has been shown to be greatest with larger groups. [16] Computer supported brainstorming was not beneficial for small groups, likely because the limited number of participants eliminated the evaluation apprehension and production blocking capabilities of the electronic system. [17] [18]

Anonymity

The major benefits of computer supported brainstorming software arises from the anonymity of participants, the archiving of data, elimination of wait time for turn taking and the ability to incorporate additional feedback tools to reduce social loafing.

Electronic archives

Another advantage of computer supported brainstorming software is that all ideas can be archived electronically in their original form, and then retrieved later for further thought and discussion. [15] The archiving of data for later review can also stimulate creativity as ideas are revisited and refined over time.

Revision

The ability to review and revise the ideas of others is also an advantage of the elimination of wait time in computer supported brainstorming software. Some software programs show all ideas as they are generated (via chat room or e-mail). The display of ideas may cognitively stimulate brainstorm participants, as their attention is kept on the flow of ideas being generated without the potential distraction of social cues such as facial expressions and verbal language. [19]

Increased focus

Early researchers into computer supported brainstorming expressed concern that the simultaneous contribution of multiple ideas would cause information overload and reduce productivity. Studies show that computer supported brainstorming can actually help increase focus, thus increasing effectiveness of virtual sessions over in-person brainstorming. [20]

Color coding

Color coding features of some computer supported brainstorming software can help mitigate the potential for information overload and differentiate between individual contributions. The use of color coding has been shown to reduce confusion arising from simultaneous contribution of ideas as well as increasing motivation for contribution, as the ideas of each individual team member can be easily identified. [21]

Increased idea production

Computer supported brainstorming techniques have been shown to produce more ideas and help individuals focus their attention on the ideas of others better than a brain writing technique (participants write individual written notes in silence and then subsequently communicate them with the group). [22] The production of more ideas has been linked to the fact that paying attention to others' ideas leads to non-redundancy, as brainstormer participants try to avoid replicating or repeating another participant's comment or idea.

In a study by Cooper, et al. authors found some evidence that more controversial ideas were produced by members of anonymous computer supported groups than by members of the other groups. The authors also found clear evidence that anonymous brainstorming groups produced more non-redundant ideas than did non-anonymous brainstorming groups. [23]

Reduction of social loafing

Some computer supported brainstorming software now includes a social comparison tracking component to help reduce social loafing. Social loafing is when people exert less effort working collectively compared to working individually. [24] Shepherd et al. found that including a social comparison tracker into brainstorming systems increased the output of a group using computer supported brainstorming by 23% as compared to a control group using computer supported brainstorming with no social comparison. [25]

Limitations

The perceived effectiveness of computer brainstorming software is mediated by the ease of use of the technology. In comparing the results of several studies, researchers found that when software was perceived to be difficult to use, students preferred to collaborate face-to-face using a whiteboard. When software was perceived as being easy to use, students preferred the online environment. [26]

Loss of productivity

Electronic brainstorming can cause a loss of productivity when group members become highly focused on their own work, or the work of others, instead of finding a productivity balance. The ideas listed on group members' screens can lead other members to spend too much time reading others' ideas instead of entering their own ideas. [27] This occurs most often during synchronous idea generation which can prevent an individual from paying attention to others' contributions when he or she is formulating his or her own ideas. [28] When members are trying to create original ideas, they can become overly focused on not duplicating ideas that they are unable to come up with their own. [29]

Greater cognitive load

Electronic brainstorming has the ability to help group members spur new ideas when exposed to the ideas generated by others. However, when compared with non-electronic brainstorming, electronic brainstorming actually forces group members to spend additional time and cognitive resources reading, understanding, and interpreting ideas instead of coming up with new ideas of their own, creating a greater cognitive load that can increase time needed for brainstorming. [30]

Need for leadership

Even when technology is in place to help facilitators guide electronic brainstorming, there is still a need for leadership. While the use of the does advance the effective use of groups, technology does not replace the need for group leadership. [31] However, when related to group size, electronic brainstorming is superior to traditional verbal brainstorming for large groups. [32]

See also

Related Research Articles

Multimedia is a form of communication that uses a combination of different content forms such as text, audio, images, animations, or video into a single interactive presentation, in contrast to traditional mass media, such as printed material or audio recordings, which features little to no interaction between users. Popular examples of multimedia include video podcasts, audio slideshows and animated videos. Multimedia also contains the principles and application of effective interactive communication such as the building blocks of software, hardware, and other technologies. The five main building blocks of multimedia are text, image, audio, video, and animation.

Collaborative software or groupware is application software designed to help people working on a common task to attain their goals. One of the earliest definitions of groupware is "intentional group processes plus software to support them."

A virtual community is a social network of individuals who connect through specific social media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue mutual interests or goals. Some of the most pervasive virtual communities are online communities operating under social networking services.

Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) is the study of how people utilize technology collaboratively, often towards a shared goal. CSCW addresses how computer systems can support collaborative activity and coordination. More specifically, the field of CSCW seeks to analyze and draw connections between currently understood human psychological and social behaviors and available collaborative tools, or groupware. Often the goal of CSCW is to help promote and utilize technology in a collaborative way, and help create new tools to succeed in that goal. These parallels allow CSCW research to inform future design patterns or assist in the development of entirely new tools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social network analysis</span> Analysis of social structures using network and graph theory

Social network analysis (SNA) is the process of investigating social structures through the use of networks and graph theory. It characterizes networked structures in terms of nodes and the ties, edges, or links that connect them. Examples of social structures commonly visualized through social network analysis include social media networks, meme spread, information circulation, friendship and acquaintance networks, peer learner networks, business networks, knowledge networks, difficult working relationships, collaboration graphs, kinship, disease transmission, and sexual relationships. These networks are often visualized through sociograms in which nodes are represented as points and ties are represented as lines. These visualizations provide a means of qualitatively assessing networks by varying the visual representation of their nodes and edges to reflect attributes of interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brainstorming</span> Group creativity technique

Brainstorming is a group creativity technique by which efforts are made to find a conclusion for a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by its members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collaboration tool</span> Tool that helps people to collaborate

A collaboration tool helps people to collaborate. The purpose of a collaboration tool is to support a group of two or more individuals to accomplish a common goal or objective. Collaboration tools can be either of a non-technological nature such as paper, flipcharts, post-it notes or whiteboards. They can also include software tools and applications such as collaborative software.

In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community who observes, but does not participate. The exact definition depends on context. Lurkers make up a large proportion of all users in online communities. Lurking allows users to learn the conventions of an online community before they participate, improving their socialization when they eventually "de-lurk". However, a lack of social contact while lurking sometimes causes loneliness or apathy among lurkers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Avatar (computing)</span> Graphical representation of the user or the users alter ego or character

In computing, an avatar is a graphical representation of a user or the user's character or persona. Avatars can be two-dimensional icons in Internet forums and other online communities, where they are also known as profile pictures, userpics, or formerly picons. Alternatively, an avatar can take the form of a three-dimensional model, as used in online worlds and video games, or an imaginary character with no graphical appearance, as in text-based games or worlds such as MUDs.

An electronic meeting system (EMS) is a type of computer software that facilitates creative problem solving and decision-making of groups within or across organizations. The term was coined by Alan R. Dennis et al. in 1988. The term is synonymous with group support systems (GSS) and essentially synonymous with group decision support systems (GDSS). Electronic meeting systems form a class of applications for computer supported cooperative work.

In social psychology, social loafing is the phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when working alone. It is seen as one of the main reasons groups are sometimes less productive than the combined performance of their members working as individuals. Research on social loafing began with rope pulling experiments by Max Ringelmann, who found that members of a group tended to exert less effort in pulling a rope than did individuals alone. In more recent research, studies involving modern technology, such as online and distributed groups, have also shown clear evidence of social loafing. Many of the causes of social loafing stem from individual members' feeling their individual effort will not matter to the group.

In artificial intelligence, an embodied agent, also sometimes referred to as an interface agent, is an intelligent agent that interacts with the environment through a physical body within that environment. Agents that are represented graphically with a body, for example a human or a cartoon animal, are also called embodied agents, although they have only virtual, not physical, embodiment. A branch of artificial intelligence focuses on empowering such agents to interact autonomously with human beings and the environment. Mobile robots are one example of physically embodied agents; Ananova and Microsoft Agent are examples of graphically embodied agents. Embodied conversational agents are embodied agents that are capable of engaging in conversation with one another and with humans employing the same verbal and nonverbal means that humans do.

Generally people in interactive, brainstorming groups produce fewer ideas and ones that are less creative than those same people would if they were working individually, in what is known as nominal groups. Production blocking, the tendency for one individual during a group discussion to block or inhibit other people from offering ideas, is a major reason.

Jay F. Nunamaker Jr. is Regents Professor and Soldwedel Professor at the University of Arizona. Regents Professor is the highest faculty rank bestowed at the university, an honor reserved for the top 3% of scholars.

Automated Decision Support, or ADS, systems are rule-based systems that are able to automatically provide solutions to repetitive management problems. ADSs are very closely related to business informatics and business analytics.

Media naturalness theory is also known as the psychobiological model. The theory was developed by Ned Kock and attempts to apply Darwinian evolutionary principles to suggest which types of computer-mediated communication will best fit innate human communication capabilities. Media naturalness theory argues that natural selection has resulted in face-to-face communication becoming the most effective way for two people to exchange information.

Cognitive inertia is the tendency for a particular orientation in how an individual thinks about an issue, belief, or strategy to resist change. In clinical and neuroscientific literature, it is often defined as a lack of motivation to generate distinct cognitive processes needed to attend to a problem or issue. The physics term inertia is to emphasize the rigidity and resistance to change in the method of cognitive processing that has been in use for a significant amount of time. Commonly confused with belief perseverance, cognitive inertia is the perseverance of how one interprets information, not the perseverance of the belief itself.

The Proteus effect describes a phenomenon in which the behavior of an individual, within virtual worlds, is changed by the characteristics of their avatar. This change is due to the individual's knowledge about the behaviors that other users who are part of that virtual environment typically associate with those characteristics. Like the adjective protean, the concept's name is an allusion to the shape changing abilities of the Greek god Proteus. The Proteus effect was first introduced by researchers Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson at Stanford University in June 2007. It is considered an area of research concerned with the examination of the behavioral effects of changing a user's embodied avatar.

Gamification is the strategic attempt to enhance systems, services, organizations, and activities by creating similar experiences to those experienced when playing games in order to motivate and engage users. This is generally accomplished through the application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts.

Technoself studies, commonly referred to as TSS, is an emerging, interdisciplinarity domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society focusing on the changing nature of relationships between the human and technology. As new and constantly changing experiences of human identity emerge due to constant technological change, technoself studies seeks to map and analyze these mutually influential developments with a focus on identity, rather than technical developments. Therefore, the self is a key concept of TSS. The term "technoself", advanced by Luppicini (2013), broadly denotes evolving human identity as a result of the adoption of new technology, while avoiding ideological or philosophical biases inherent in other related terms including cyborg, posthuman, transhuman, techno-human, beman, digital identity, avatar, and homotechnicus though Luppicini acknowledges that these categories "capture important aspects of human identity". Technoself is further elaborated and explored in Luppicini's "Handbook of Research on Technoself: Identity in a Technological Environment".

References

  1. ↑ Gallupe, R. B.; Cooper, W. H.; Grise, M.-L.; Bastianutti, L. M. (1994). "Blocking electronic brainstorms". Journal of Applied Psychology. 79 (2): 77–86. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.77.
  2. ↑ Gallupe, R. B.; Cooper, W. H.; Grise, M.-L.; Bastianutti, L. M. (1994). "Blocking electronic brainstorms". Journal of Applied Psychology. 79 (2): 77–86. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.77.
  3. ↑ Frunham, A (2000). "The brainstorming myth". Business Strategy Review. 11 (4): 21–28. doi:10.1111/1467-8616.00154.
  4. ↑ Novak, N. M., Mladenow, A., & Strauss, C. (2013). Avatar-based Innovation Processes- Are Virtual Worlds a breeding ground for Innovations. Proceedings of International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, p. 174.
  5. ↑ Trost, R. L. A. (1994). "Computer-assisted brainstorming and an application through the Global Think Tank". International Creativity Networn Newsletter. 5 (1): 2–3.
  6. ↑ Nunamaker, J. F. (1999). "The case for virtual teaming systems". IT Professional. 1 (5): 52–57. doi:10.1109/6294.793684.
  7. ↑ DeSanctis, G.; Poole, M. S.; Zigurs, I. (2008). "The Minnesota GDSS research project: Group support systems, group processes, and outcomes". Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 9 (10): 551–608. doi:10.17705/1jais.00177. S2CID   51855411.
  8. ↑ DeSanctis, G.; Poole, M. S.; Zigurs, I. (2008). "The Minnesota GDSS research project: Group support systems, group processes, and outcomes". Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 9 (10): 551–608. doi:10.17705/1jais.00177. S2CID   51855411.
  9. ↑ Woods, D. (2009, June 9). The Power Of Mind Mapping. Forbes.
  10. ↑ Samuel, A. (2008, July 24). Online collaboration for your right brain, part 2: MindMeister at Social Signal [Blog post]. Retrieved from Social Signal website: http://www.socialsignal.com/blog/alexandra-samuel/mindmeister
  11. ↑ Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  12. ↑ Novak, N. M., Mladenow, A., & Strauss, C. (2013). Avatar-based Innovation Processes- Are Virtual Worlds a breeding ground for Innovations. Proceedings of International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, p. 174.
  13. ↑ Bhagwatwar, A., Massey, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2013). Creative Virtual Environments: Effect of Supraliminal Priming on Team Brainstorming. System Sciences, pp. 215-224.
  14. ↑ Jarmon, L.; Traphagan, T.; Mayrath, M.; Trivedi, A. (2009). "Virtual world teaching, experience learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life". Computers & Education. 53 (1): 169–182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.010.
  15. ↑ Novak, N. M., Mladenow, A., & Strauss, C. (2013). Avatar-based Innovation Processes- Are Virtual Worlds a breeding ground for Innovations. Proceedings of International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, p. 174.
  16. ↑ Frunham, A (2000). "The brainstorming myth". Business Strategy Review. 11 (4): 21–28. doi:10.1111/1467-8616.00154.
  17. ↑ Gallupe, R. B.; Dennis, A. R.; Cooper, W. H.; Valacich, J. S.; Bastianutti, L. M.; Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). "Electronic brainstorming and group size". Academy of Management Journal. 35 (2): 350–369. doi:10.2307/256377. JSTOR   256377.
  18. ↑ Weatherall and Nunamaker (1996) Introduction to Electronic Meetings. EMSL: Chandlers Ford, UK, 24.
  19. ↑ Michinov, N (2012). "Is electronic brainstorming the best way to improve creative performance in groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea generation techniques". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 42: E222–E243. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01024.x.
  20. ↑ Smith, A. L.; Murthy, U. S.; Engle, T. J. (2012). "Why computer-mediated communication improves the effectiveness of fraud brainstorming". International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. 13 (4): 334–356. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2012.03.002.
  21. ↑ Shih, P. C., Nguyen, D. H., Hirano, S. H., Redmiles, D. F., & Hayes, G. R. (2009). GroupMind: supporting idea generation through a collaborative brainstorming tool. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 139-148.
  22. ↑ Michinov, N (2012). "Is electronic brainstorming the best way to improve creative performance in groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea generation techniques". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 42: E222–E243. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01024.x.
  23. ↑ Cooper, W. H.; Gallupe, R. B.; Pollard, S.; Cadsbury, J. (1998). "Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming". Small Group Research. 29 (2): 147–178. doi:10.1177/1046496498292001. S2CID   145419416.
  24. ↑ Karau, Steven J.; Williams, Kipling D. (1993). "Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65 (4): 681–706. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681. S2CID   12694148.
  25. ↑ Shepherd, M. M.; Briggs, R. O.; Reining, B. A.; Yen, J. (1995). "Social loafing in electronic brainstorming: Invoking social comparison through technology and facilitation techniques to improve group productivity". Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Vol. 4. pp. 523–532. doi:10.1109/HICSS.1995.375697. ISBN   0-8186-6945-4. S2CID   19300329.
  26. ↑ Shih, P. C., Nguyen, D. H., Hirano, S. H., Redmiles, D. F., & Hayes, G. R. (2009). GroupMind: supporting idea generation through a collaborative brainstorming tool. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 139-148.
  27. ↑ Pinsonneault, A.; Barki, H.; Gallupe, R. B.; Hoppen, N. (1999). "Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity". Information Systems Research. 10 (2): 110–133. doi:10.1287/isre.10.2.110. JSTOR   23011448.
  28. ↑ Straus, S. G. (1996). "Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups". Small Group Res. 27 (1): 115–142. doi:10.1177/1046496496271006. S2CID   145729473.
  29. ↑ Pinsonneault, A.; Barki, H.; Gallupe, R. B.; Hoppen, N. (1999). "Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity". Information Systems Research. 10 (2): 110–133. doi:10.1287/isre.10.2.110. JSTOR   23011448.
  30. ↑ Pinsonneault, A.; Barki, H.; Gallupe, R. B.; Hoppen, N. (1999). "Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity". Information Systems Research. 10 (2): 110–133. doi:10.1287/isre.10.2.110. JSTOR   23011448.
  31. ↑ Nunamaker, J. F.; Briggs, R. O.; Mittleman, D. D.; Vogel, D.R.; Balthazard, P. A. (1997). "Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings". Journal of Management Information Systems. 13 (1): 63–207.
  32. ↑ Aiken, M., Krosp, J., Shirani, A., & Martin, J. (1994). Electronic brainstorming in small and large groups. Information & Management, 141-149.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.