Research Note. Electronic Brainstorming: Illusions and Patterns of Productivity
Research Note. Electronic Brainstorming: Illusions and Patterns of Productivity
复制标题
研究笔记。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1999
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
J. Valacich
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Dennis;J. Valacich
在《信息系统研究》杂志最近的一篇文章中，Pinsonneault等人（1999）对电子头脑风暴（EBS）小组中有助于提高和降低生产力的理论因素进行了全面且令人信服的总结，与传统的口头头脑风暴小组和名义上的小组头脑风暴进行了对比。他们假设所有的理论因素都同样重要，并且保持不变，因此将这些因素加在一起得出结论，从理论的角度来看，EBS和nomi- nal组之间的想法生成性能应该没有差异。他们还对以前比较EBS和nomi- nal组的实证研究进行了同样彻底的总结。最终小组头脑风暴，他们从自己的研究中添加额外的经验数据。他们的分析表明，在实证研究中没有明确的模式，因为名义组比EBS组表现得更好，就像EBS组比名义组表现得更好一样。[1]然后他们得出结论，小组参与者和“许多研究人员可能也有这样的错觉，即EBS上级所有其他头脑风暴方法，而事实上这并没有得到实证证据的支持”（Pinsonneault et al. 1999，pp. 127-128）。他们最后建议，需要更多的研究来了解EBS组可能优于名义组的条件。我们同意，EBS是不是上级所有其他的头脑风暴方法-名义组头脑风暴，特别是-在所有条件下。因此，本研究报告的目的是通过澄清经验证据和理论因素来扩展Pinsonneault et al.（1999），以更好地理解何时预期EBS组比名义组表现更差，何时预期EBS组比名义组表现更好。我们同意Pinsonneault et al.（1999）大多数理论因素可能是恒定的，将它们相加是适当的。然而，我们不同意所有因素都是恒定的，因此可以相加。我们曾在其他地方讨论过，EBS和名义小组头脑风暴之间最重要的区别之一是EBS参与者从阅读其他参与者的想法中获得的协同作用或认知刺激，并且这种协同作用不是恒定的
In a recent article in Information Systems Research,Pinsonneault et al. (1999) present a thorough and compelling summary of theoretical factors that act to enhance and impair productivity in electronic brain- storming (EBS) groups as contrasted with traditional verbal brainstorming groups and nominal group brainstorming. They assume that all theoretical factors are equally important and remain constant, and there- fore add the factors together to conclude that, from a theoretical standpoint, there should be no difference in idea generation performance between EBS and nomi- nal groups.They also present an equally thorough summary of previous empirical research comparing EBS and nom- inal group brainstorming to which they add additional empirical data from their own study. Their analysis suggests that there have been no clear patterns in the empirical research because nominal groups outper- form EBS groups as often as EBS groups outperform nominal groups.1 They then conclude that group par- ticipants and "many researchers may also be under theillusion that EBS is superior to all other brainstorming approaches, when in fact this is not supported by em- pirical evidence" (Pinsonneault et al. 1999, pp. 127- 128). They end by suggesting that more research is needed to understand the conditions under which EBS groups may outperform nominal groups.We agree that EBS is not superior to all other brain- storming approaches--nominal group brainstorming in particular--under all conditions. Thus the goal of this research note is to extend Pinsonneault et al. (1999) by helping to clarify the empirical evidence and theo- retical factors to better understand when EBS groups may be expected to perform more poorly than nominal groups and when EBS groups may be expected to per- form better than nominal groups.We agree with Pinsonneault et al. (1999) that most theoretical factors are likely constant and that sum- ming them is appropriate. However, we disagree that all factors are constant and can therefore be summed. We have argued elsewhere that one of the most im- portant differences between EBS and nominal group brainstorming is the synergy or cognitive stimulation that EBS participants receive from reading the ideas of other participants, and that this synergy is not constant