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.
Collaborative technologies such as group support systems (GSS) are often developed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of teams; however, the satisfaction users have with the processes and outcomes of the teamwork itself often determines the ultimate adoption and sustained use of collaborative technologies. Much of the research on teamwork has focused on meetings in particular and, consequently, satisfaction with the process and outcomes of meetings, referred to collectively as meeting satisfaction. Research on meeting satisfaction in GSS-supported groups has been equivocal, indicating the need for advancement in our theoretical understanding of the construct. To that end, this paper presents a causal model of meeting satisfaction derived from goal setting theory. The model is tested with an empirical study consisting of 15 GSS groups and 11 face-to-face (FTF) groups engaged in the 'lost at sea' task. The results of analysis using structural equation modeling indicate support for the model's integrity across both GSS and FTF groups. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed, including how the model can be used to improve future research on the use of collaborative technology to support teamwork.
A number of theoretical models have been presented in group support systems (GSS) literature, which suggest that various GSS structures such as anonymity and simultaneity, influence group interaction, which in turn influences group productivity and meeting outcomes. Examples of such theories include the adaptive structuration theory and the balance of forces model and they could generally be described as dynamic or procedural in nature. Much of the empirical research that tests such theories, however, is deterministic in that it often compares final outcomes between various levels of technological support without measuring and testing (1) the influence that the technological structures have on group interaction and group dynamics, and (2) the corresponding influence that group interaction has on meeting outcomes. This paper reports a study that examines the validity of such dynamic theories by examining the relationships between GSS structures, group dynamics, and meeting outcomes over time. Four process constructs (production blocking, free riding, sucker effect, and evaluation apprehension) and three meeting outcome constructs (group cohesion, affective reward, and self-reported learning) were initially selected for the study. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze longitudinal survey data gathered from an experiment conducted with naturally occurring groups. The model tested was found to be valid and GSS was found to be effective in reducing process losses. However, the findings also revealed that process losses vary in the degree to which they influence meeting outcomes and certain meeting outcomes, such as affective reward, were found to be heavily influenced by other meeting outcomes, such as group cohesion and self-reported learning. Theoretical implications of the study and methodology are discussed.
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.