Current research argues that the most prominent models of group development (the linear stage model and the punctuated equilibrium model) are simply different lenses for studying the same phenomenon. We argue that the two models are distinct (groups do not simultaneously follow both models) and that the key to understanding their use lies in routines. We studied six newly formed groups whose members came from the same organization that worked on similar projects over a seven-week period. Three groups worked nonmediated and three groups used a collaboration technology that was new to them. The three nonmediated groups followed the punctuated equilibrium model and the three collaboration technology groups followed the stage model. We argue that groups that enact the shared routines common in their organizations will experience a different group development path than those groups whose shared routines are disrupted and which must adapt to a new technology. When group members enact shared routines (which they may share due to having a common organizational culture), they can quickly begin work, and group development follows the punctuated equilibrium model. When groups cannot enact shared routines, they must first negotiate how they will work before work can begin, so group development follows the stage model. Thus, the introduction of new collaboration technology (or any new technology or work process) influences how group development occurs.
This paper reports the results of a field study of six medical project teams that worked together in meetings over a seven-week period to develop plans to improve customer service within a hospital. Half the teams used a group support system (GSS), while the other half used traditional processes that were the habitual norms for this organization. In the teams using traditional project team processes, the leaders defined the teams' project goal directed discussions, recorded and controlled the teams' notes, assigned tasks to team members, and prepared and presented the teams' report. In the GSS teams, the leaders faced leadership challenges or abdicated, regular members participated to a greater extent, the project goal emerged from team discussion, and the teams' notes were open and widely distributed. In short, processes in the GSS teams were more participatory and democratic. At first, teams found the GSS-based meeting processes very uncomfortable and returned to traditional verbal discussion-based processes. Once they returned to these traditional processes, however, they found them uncomfortable and moved back to include more electronic communication-based processes. Participants' attitudes (satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and cohesiveness) were initially lower in GSS teams, but gradually increased, until they equaled those of the traditional teams. There were significant differences in overall project outcomes: traditional teams developed conservative projects that met the unstated project agenda perceived by the team leaders. In contrast, GSS teams developed projects more closely aligned to the interests of team members.
In today's networked economy, ideas that challenge existing business models and paradigms are becoming more important. This study investigated how individual differences, groupware-based creativity techniques, and ideas from others influenced the type of ideas that individuals generated. While individual differences were important (in that some individuals were inherently more likely to generate ideas that followed the existing problem paradigm while others were more likely to generate paradigm-modifying ideas that attempted to change the problem paradigm), the exposure to paradigm-modifying ideas from others and the use of intuitive groupware-based creativity techniques rather than analytical groupware-based creativity techniques were found to increase the number of paradigm-modifying ideas produced.
To compete in today's rapidly paced business environment, many companies are increasingly relying on their employees to generate creative solutions to business problems. Specifically, through the use of idea-generation techniques, business owners hope to promote creative idea generation by their employees. Several leading corporations (and, concomitantly, researchers) have become interested in the use of group support systems (GSS) to enhance idea generation. A key component of the GSS-based idea-generation process is group memory, a repository of ideas created by users of GSS. Group memory provides stimuli, in the form of ideas, to the individuals using the software. This study seeks to better understand the manner in which the contents of the group memory influence the type of ideas generated by individuals in the group. The authors report the results of a laboratory experiment that investigated whether the stimuli contained within a GSS group memory (i.e., ideas) systematically influenced the extent of paradigm shift represented in the ideas generated by individuals. A GSS simulator designed for this study was used to allow for the manipulation of the stimuli in the group memory. The results suggest that individuals tend to generate ideas that match the paradigm-relatedness of ideas provided to them as stimulation.
Members of brainstorming groups often pursue the same set of ideas rather than considering a wide and diverse range of ideas, which may reduce the number of ideas they produce. One way to reduce this cognitive inertia may be to encourage groups to engage in several simultaneous discussions or dialogues. This experiment, which studied groups brainstorming electronically, found that groups generated more ideas, more high-quality ideas, and more novel ideas when using multiple dialogues than when using single dialogues.