The potential benefits of collaboration technologies are typically realized only in groups led by collaboration experts. This raises the facilitator-in-the-box challenge: Can collaboration expertise be packaged with collaboration technology in a form that nonexperts can reuse with no training on either tools or techniques? We address that challenge with process support applications (PSAs). We describe a collaboration support system (CSS) that combines a computer-assisted collaboration engineering platform for creating PSAs with a process support system runtime platform for executing PSAs. We show that the CSS meets its design goals: (1) to reduce development cycles for collaboration systems, (2) to allow nonprogrammers to design and develop PSAs, and (3) to package enough expertise in the tools that nonexperts could execute a well-designed collaborative work process without training.
Research shows that under certain conditions, groups using collaboration technologies such as group support systems (GSS) can gain substantial improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of their work processes. GSS, however, have been slow to develop self-sustaining communities of users in the workplace. Organizations that use collaboration technology may require two kinds of support: process support and technology support. Both types of support involve (1) design tasks (e.g., designing a work process and designing the technology to support the process), (2) application tasks (to apply the process and to use the technology), and (3) management tasks (to monitor and control the process and to oversee the maintenance of the technology). This paper explores how these tasks and associated roles can be anchored in organizations, and the relationship of task allocation patterns to the sustained use of collaboration technology in organizations.
The article presents information on bounded ideation theory (BIT), which is said to be a means of optimizing brainstorming sessions. BIT challenges the rubric that the percentage of good ideas will remain constant as the number of ideas generated rises. It is argued that limitations in solution space, goal congruence, attention span and knowledge typically result in the number of good ideas tapering off on an inflected curve. Six strategies are suggested for improving ideation sessions, which focus on promoting quality at the expense of quantity.
Ideation is a key step in organizational problem solving, so researchers have developed a variety of technological interventions for improving ideation quality, which we define as the degree to which an ideation activity produces ideas that are helpful in attaining a goal. In this paper, we examine the four measures typically used to evaluate ideation quality, including idea-count, sum-of-quality, average-quality, and good-idea-count, and discuss their validity and potential biases. An experimental study comparing three levels of social comparison was used to illustrate the differences in the ideation quality measures and revealed that research conclusions were dependent on the measure used. Based on our analysis of the measures and experimental results, we recommend that only good-idea-count be used as a measure to evaluate ideation treatments and call into question research that has based its findings on the other measures. Finally, we discuss implications for research and other potential approaches to evaluating ideation quality.
Organizations must be creative continuously to survive and thrive in today's highly competitive, rapidly changing environment. A century of creativity research has produced several descriptive models of creativity, and hundreds of prescriptions for interventions that demonstrably improve creativity. This paper presents the cognitive network model (CNM) as a causal model of the cognitive mechanisms that give rise to creative solutions in the human mind. The model may explain why creativity prescriptions work as they do. The model may also provide a basis for deriving new techniques to further enhance creativity. The paper tests the model in an experiment where 61 four-person groups used either free-brainstorming or one of three variations on directed-brainstorming to generate solutions for one of two unstructured tasks. In both tasks, people using directed-brainstorming produced more solutions with high creativity ratings, produced solutions with higher average creativity ratings, and produced higher concentrations of creative solutions than did people using free-brainstorming. Significant differences in creativity were also found among the three variations on directed-brainstorming. The findings were consistent with the CNM.
Field research and laboratory experiments suggest that, under certain circumstances, people using group support systems (GSS) can be significantly more productive than people who do not use them. Yet, despite their demonstrated potential, GSS have been slow to diffuse across organizations. Drawing on the Technology Transition Model, the paper argues that the high conceptual load of GSS (i.e., understanding of the intended effect of GSS functionality) encourages organizations to employ expert facilitators to wield the technology on behalf of others. Economic and political factors mitigate against facilitators remaining long term in GSS facilities that focus on supporting nonroutine, ad hoc projects. This especially hampers scaling GSS technology to support distributed collaboration. An alternative and sustainable way for organizations to derive value from GSS lies in an approach called 'collaboration engineering': the development of repeatable collaborative processes that are conducted by practitioners themselves. To enable the development of such processes, this paper proposes the thinkLet concept, a codified packet of facilitation skill that can be applied by practitioners to achieve predictable, repeatable patterns of collaboration, such as divergence or convergence. A thinkLet specifies the facilitator's choices and actions in terms of the GSS tool used, the configuration of this tool, and scripted prompts to accomplish a pattern of collaboration in a group. Using thinkLets as building blocks, facilitators can develop and transfer repeatable collaborative processes to practitioners. Given the limited availability of expert facilitators, collaboration engineering with thinkLets may become a sine qua non for organizations to effectively support virtual work teams.
There are several thousand group support systems (GSS) installations worldwide, and, while that number is growing, GSS has not yet achieved critical mass. One reason may be that it can take one to three years for an organization to complete a transition to GSS. Studying GSS transition in the field could yield insights that would allow for faster, lower-risk transitions elsewhere. This article presents a thirty-two-month qualitative field investigation of an effort to introduce GSS into the daily work of the staff of the U.S. Navy's Commander, Third Fleet. Using the principles of action research, the project began with interventions based on the precepts of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The goal of the interventions was to engender sufficient acceptance for GSS to create a self-sustaining, growing community of GSS users. Throughout the study, building on a base of experience developed in other private- and public-sector transition projects, we revised and extended TAM based on insights that emerged in the field. The resulting model, the Technology Transition Model (TTM), frames acceptance as a multiplicative function of the magnitude and frequency of the perceived net value of a proposed change, moderated by the perceived net value associated with the transition period itself. TTF frames net value as having a number of dimensions, including cognitive, economic, political, social, affective, and physical. It posits that cognitive net value derives from at least three sources: changes in access, technical, and conceptual attention loads. GSS transition proceeded at different speeds in different segments of the Third Fleet; the intelligence and battle staffs became self-sustaining within weeks, while others are still not self-sustaining. TTM appears to explain the differences that emerged in the Navy community. The articles presents TAM, then argues the propositions of TTM. It then presents background information about Third Fleet, and describes critical incidents in the transition effort that give rise to the model. It summarizes the lessons learned in the field by comparing the differing transition trajectories among Fleet staff segments in light of the model.
Research has shown that group support systems (GSS) can be used to substantially improve learning at all levels of formal education. However, some instructors are reluctant to adopt GSS because they are concerned that learners will engage in flaming, or verbal attacks intended to offend either persons or organizations and often characterized by profanity, obscenity, and insults. This paper posits that flaming is caused by hostility engendered by a perception that vested interests have been or are about to be violated. It further posits that the relationship between hostility and flaming is moderated by personal values and risk of reprisal. A longitudinal experiment is presented that provides empirical support for the model. The paper then reports five field cases highlighting various strategies used by instructors for reducing or eliminating flaming.