IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v10y1999i2p110-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity

Author

Listed:
  • Alain Pinsonneault

    (McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1G5)

  • Henri Barki

    (École des Hautes Études Commerciales, IT Department, 3000 Chemin de la Côte Ste-Catherine, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3T 2A7)

  • R. Brent Gallupe

    (School of Business, Queens' University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6)

  • Norberto Hoppen

    (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Au João Pessoa, 52-Sala 11, Porto Alegre, Brazil)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alain Pinsonneault & Henri Barki & R. Brent Gallupe & Norberto Hoppen, 1999. "Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 110-133, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:10:y:1999:i:2:p:110-133
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.10.2.110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.110
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.10.2.110?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terry Connolly & Leonard M. Jessup & Joseph S. Valacich, 1990. "Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 689-703, June.
    2. Pinsonneault, Alain & Kraemer, Kenneth L., 1990. "The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: An assessment of the empirical research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-161, May.
    3. Joey F. George & George K. Easton & J. F. Nunamaker & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1990. "A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 394-415, December.
    4. Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laku Chidambaram & Lai Lai Tung, 2005. "Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 149-168, June.
    2. D Shaw & F Ackermann & C Eden, 2003. "Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(9), pages 936-948, September.
    3. William B. Martz & Morgan M. Shepherd, 2004. "Group Consensus: The Impact of Multiple Dialogues," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 315-325, July.
    4. Nabity-Grover, Teagen & Cheung, Christy M.K. & Bennett Thatcher, Jason, 2023. "How COVID-19 stole Christmas: How the pandemic shifted the calculus around social media Self-Disclosures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    5. Russell Haines & Jill Hough & Lan Cao & Douglas Haines, 2014. "Anonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication: More Contrarian Ideas with Less Influence," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 765-786, July.
    6. Ann-Frances Cameron & Jane Webster, 2013. "Multicommunicating: Juggling Multiple Conversations in the Workplace," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 352-371, June.
    7. L White, 2006. "Evaluating problem-structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 842-855, July.
    8. repec:gdk:wpaper:42 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Antonio Ferreira & Pedro Antunes & Valeria Herskovic, 2011. "Improving Group Attention: An Experiment with Synchronous Brainstorming," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 643-666, September.
    10. B Casu & D Shaw & E Thanassoulis, 2005. "Using a group support system to aid input–output identification in DEA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(12), pages 1363-1372, December.
    11. Bruce A. Reinig & Robert O. Briggs, 2008. "On The Relationship Between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 403-420, September.
    12. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    13. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy & Katharina Buhtz & Andreas König, 2018. "Social influence in technology adoption: taking stock and moving forward," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 37-76, February.
    14. David S. Kerr & Uday S. Murthy, 2004. "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 381-399, July.
    15. Christian Hildebrand & Gerald Häubl & Andreas Herrmann & Jan R. Landwehr, 2013. "When Social Media Can Be Bad for You: Community Feedback Stifles Consumer Creativity and Reduces Satisfaction with Self-Designed Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 14-29, March.
    16. D Shaw, 2003. "Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 692-705, July.
    17. William G. Heninger & Alan R. Dennis & Kelly McNamara Hilmer, 2006. "Research Note: Individual Cognition and Dual-Task Interference in Group Support Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 415-424, December.
    18. Balagué, Christine & de Valck, Kristine, 2013. "Using Blogs to Solicit Consumer Feedback: The Role of Directive Questioning Versus No Questioning," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 62-73.
    19. Kerr, David S. & Murthy, Uday S., 2009. "Beyond brainstorming: The effectiveness of computer-mediated communication for convergence and negotiation tasks," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 245-262.
    20. Brian Whitworth & Brent Gallupe & Robert McQueen, 2000. "A Cognitive Three-Process Model of Computer-Mediated Group Interaction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 431-456, September.
    21. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2001. "Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-140, March.
    22. Florian Teschner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "Crowd Labor Markets as Platform for Group Decision and Negotiation Research: A Comparison to Laboratory Experiments," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 197-214, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    2. Mi, Hwang, 1998. "Did Task Type Matter in the Use of Decision Room GSS? A Critical Review and a Meta-analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Daily, Bonnie F. & Teich, Jeffrey E., 2001. "Perceptions of contribution in multi-cultural groups in non-GDSS and GDSS environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 70-83, October.
    4. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    5. Jacqueline Ng Lane & Bruce Ankenman & Seyed Iravani, 2018. "Insight into Gender Differences in Higher Education: Evidence from Peer Reviews in an Introductory STEM Course," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 442-456, December.
    6. Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei & Richard T. Watson & Danial L. Clapper & Ephraim R. McLean, 1998. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1263-1278, September.
    7. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2001. "Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-140, March.
    8. Wm. David Salisbury & Michael Parent & Wynne W. Chin, 2008. "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: The Differential Effect of GSS Restrictiveness on Process Satisfaction and Group Cohesion," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 303-320, July.
    9. J. H. Jung & Christoph Schneider & Joseph Valacich, 2010. "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 724-742, April.
    10. Bhappu, Anita D. & Griffith, Terri L. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1997. "Media Effects and Communication Bias in Diverse Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 199-205, June.
    11. J. Teich & H. Wallenius & J. Wallenius, 1998. "World Wide Web Technology in Support of Negotiation and Communication," Working Papers ir98018, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    12. Meng Ma & Ritu Agarwal, 2007. "Through a Glass Darkly: Information Technology Design, Identity Verification, and Knowledge Contribution in Online Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 42-67, March.
    13. Choon-Ling Sia & Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei, 2002. "Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 70-90, March.
    14. Baltes, Boris B. & Dickson, Marcus W. & Sherman, Michael P. & Bauer, Cara C. & LaGanke, Jacqueline S., 2002. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 156-179, January.
    15. Jill T. Walston & Robert W. Lissitz, 2000. "Computer-Mediated Focus Groups," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(5), pages 457-483, October.
    16. Karacapilidis, Nikos I. & Pappis, Costas P., 1997. "A framework for group decision support systems: Combining AI tools and OR techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 373-388, December.
    17. Sanjiv D. Vaidya & Priya Seetharaman, 2011. "Explaining Sophistication in Collaborative Technology Use: A Context—Technology Fit Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 185-213, March.
    18. Russell Haines & Jill Hough & Lan Cao & Douglas Haines, 2014. "Anonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication: More Contrarian Ideas with Less Influence," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 765-786, July.
    19. Stephanie Watts Sussman & Lee Sproull, 1999. "Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 150-166, June.
    20. Leslie Monplaisir, 2002. "Enhancing CSCW with Advanced Decision Making Tools for an Agile Manufacturing System Design Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 45-63, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:10:y:1999:i:2:p:110-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.