|
COPYRIGHT 2004 University of Minnesota, MIS Research Center
Abstract
This paper argues that much of the past research on electronic brainstorming has been somewhat myopic. Much as Sony focused on the quality of the picture on its Beta format, we as IS researchers have focused on the number of ideas generated as the dominant measure of electronic brainstorming effectiveness. When VHS killed Beta, Sony discovered that image quality was a secondary consideration for most VCR users. Despite the compelling research on its performance benefits, electronic brainstorming has not yet displaced--or even joined--verbal brainstorming as a widely used idea generation technique. This paper presents arguments that users may not be primarily concerned with the number of ideas generated when planning a brainstorming session, but rather may equally desire group well being and member support. We present theoretical arguments and empirical evidence suggesting that electronic brainstorming is not as effective as verbal brainstorming at providing group well being and member support. We believe that these arguments may also apply to other group and individual research areas and may also call for a reevaluation of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Finally, we suggest further research that may help electronic brainstorming avoid the fate of the Beta format.
Keywords: Electronic brainstorming, group support systems, technology acceptance model (TAM), technology adoption, brainstorming, idea generation, nominal group technique
**********
Introduction
In the early 1980s, the world was engaged in a heated debate over which video tape format was superior: Beta or VHS. The two formats had been developed by competing manufacturers and were in a dead heat in market share throughout much of the 1980s. This continued until one manufacturer made a breakthrough that enabled VHS to record more time on less tape. Despite the sharp decline in image quality that resulted, people still flocked to the VHS format so that they, too, could record 6 hours on a tape while Beta was stuck at 3 hours per tape. Although Beta did, eventually, develop a way to allow users to record 6 hours on one tape, it was too late. By that time, too much of the market share had swung to the VHS format, allowing it to achieve critical mass and the Beta format was no longer viable in the marketplace.
This shift happened despite the fact that the image quality of the Beta format was clearly superior to that of VHS, especially when compared to the quality of a 6-hour VHS recording. So why did Beta, the superior technology in terms of image quality, lose to VHS? Beta failed because Sony (Beta's creator) thought that users were more concerned with image quality than they were with the number of hours that could be recorded on a single tape. Because of this assumption, Sony focused its research efforts on keeping the image quality high, rather than on extending record time. They also felt that people would be willing to pay more for this quality, so the price of the Beta VCRs and tapes were set slightly higher than those of their VHS competitors. By the time they realized their mistake, it was too late for them to recover.
We believe that we are at a crossroads in the study of electronic brainstorming: we have a reasonably large body of research that shows clear benefits from use (see Dennis et al. 2001), and yet adoption by practitioners has been minimal. As researchers, we have focused primarily on "image quality": the number of ideas generated. But is the number of ideas the primary concern of the individuals in a brainstorming session? Perhaps other outcomes are equally, if not more, important. While the other outcomes in the Beta vs. VHS debate were clear-cut (you didn't have to buy as many tapes), the other outcomes for brainstorming are perhaps less clear.
In this paper, we attempt to address this seeming paradox (that people prefer inferior brainstorming techniques) by proposing a conceptual framework that redefines what "usefulness" means for electronic brainstorming (and collaborative technologies in general). We use this framework to reexamine the usefulness of different forms of brainstorming and deduce why users may view verbal brainstorming as being superior to electronic brainstorming. We then present the results of a survey testing our opinions and draw implications for future research and practice.
While our focus is on the adoption of electronic brainstorming, in many ways the adoption of electronic brainstorming may be seen as a microcosm of the much larger issues surrounding the adoption of technology in general. We believe that the conclusions we reach about electronic brainstorming have implications for the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis et al. 1989; Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) and therefore present suggestions for extensions of this model. In so doing, we hope to spark new theoretical and empirical research in electronic brainstorming and collaboration in general, as well as theoretical and empirical research on technology adoption and TAM.
Brainstorming: History and Present Research
The concept of brainstorming was introduced by Osborn in 1957 in his book Applied Imagination as a way to increase the creativity of organizations. The original concept was to get everyone involved into one room and have them throw out ideas with only four rules: don't criticize, quantity is wanted, combine and improve suggested ideas, and say all ideas that come to mind, no matter how wild. Since then, hundreds of studies have been performed and many new techniques have been developed, including computer-based electronic brainstorming. Three of these brainstorming techniques have come to dominate the research literature: verbal brainstorming, nominal group brainstorming, and electronic brainstorming.
Verbal Brainstorming
Using the original technique suggested by Osborn, the participants in the brainstorming session are gathered into a single room to generate ideas verbally. The expectation is that the synergy from hearing the ideas of others will trigger new ideas and will lead to more and better-quality ideas. However, studies of verbal brainstorming have found that as well as the potential for synergy, verbal brainstorming also brings potential process losses that act to reduce performance. While studies in group interaction, and brainstorming in particular, have noticed many process losses (for a summary, see Nunamaker et al. 1991), the most commonly discussed are production blocking, only one idea can be suggested at a time (Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Gallupe et al. 1994; Nunamaker et al. 1991); evaluation apprehension, individuals are concerned about how others perceive their ideas (Connolly et al. 1990; Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Nunamaker et al. 1991); and social loafing, the tendency to let others do the work in groups (Gallupe et al. 1991; Paulus and Dzindolet 1993).
Nominal Group Brainstorming
With nominal group brainstorming, individuals generate ideas separately, without input from others, by writing them on paper or typing them into a computer. At the end of the session, the pieces of paper or computer files are merged together to produce the set of ideas from the group. Nominal brainstorming can be done with all members of the group working together in the same room (colocated) or working separately in different rooms (distributed). Participants cannot build on one another's ideas because they never see them, so participants do not experience the potential synergy that comes from the ideas of others. On the other hand, participants do not experience production blocking because they need not wait to take turns before contributing their ideas. Effects on evaluation apprehension and social loafing depend on how the session is structured; if the ideas are submitted anonymously, then evaluation apprehension would be decreased, but social loafing would increase. Conversely, if the ideas are not submitted anonymously, social loafing is reduced, but evaluation apprehension is increased.
Electronic Brainstorming
With electronic brainstorming, participants interact using computers. Rather than speaking their ideas or writing them on paper, participants type their ideas into special computer software that collects the ideas and shares them with other members of the group. While other forms of collaboration tools are available (see Ackerman and Eden 2001), this multiuser approach is common for electronic brainstorming. In many ways, this approach combines the best of both verbal brainstorming and nominal group brainstorming (Gallupe et al. 1992). Like verbal brainstorming, participants may experience synergy by building on the ideas of others to create new ideas. However, like nominal group brainstorming, all participants can contribute ideas at the same time, effectively eliminating production blocking. The ideas can be contributed anonymously or not, depending on the system. (2) If the system is configured to use anonymity, then this technique reduces evaluation apprehension, but may increase social loafing. If ideas are not anonymous, then social loafing is reduced, but evaluation apprehension is increased.
These effects are, however, dependent upon the structure of the group, the specific electronic brainstorming tools provided, and how the group chooses to use them (Gallupe et al. 1991). Social technologies such as electronic brainstorming are inherently malleable (Majchrzak et al. 2000; Orlikowski, 2000); users can adopt and use them in ways not intended by their designers (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Electronic brainstorming does not directly change the way in which users interact, but rather offers a set of potential social structures from which users can choose (Dennis and...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
