Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity

Alain Pinsonneault, Henri Barki, R. Brent Gallupe and Norberto Hoppen
Additional contact information
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

Information Systems Research, 1999, vol. 10, issue 2, 110-133

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.

Keywords: Group Processes; Brainstorming; Electronic Meeting Systems; Group Decision Making; Laboratory Study (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1999
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (22)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.110 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:orisre:v:10:y:1999:i:2:p:110-133

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Information Systems Research from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().