Guys, this is published only as a guideline as to how to tackle assignments in this area. Hope you'll stop by taking an idea and won't plagiarize. After-all it's your studies that'll be affected by how much effort you put in.
Abstract
Brainstorming is a group decision making tool designed as a supplement to individual ideation. It’s another method to evaluate & develop options. Research was undertaken over the years regarding the effectiveness of brainstorming in creative problem solving against individualistic approaches. This report examines claims made by different literature sources with reference to brainstorming and attempts to compare the effectiveness of decision making when conducted as a group using brainstorming against individuals working separately who then compile their results.
Literature Review
Brainstorming as a highly productive approach
Brainstorming as an effective approach to creative problem solving was popularized by Alex F. Osborn (1953), through his book Applied Imagination. Brainstorming was identified by Osborn to be an easy to use, enjoyable and effective activity with favourable effects of decision making. He identified four basic rules for brainstorming;
1) Acceptance and avoiding criticisms
2) Welcoming unusual ideas and out-of-the-box thinking
3) Quantity
4) Combining and improving ideas
Osborn laid down basic guidelines which would improve the productivity of the discussions further;
- Selection of a group of individuals and not a random formation of people with experience in the particular area to be brainstormed
- Appointing a facilitator/leader who has experience in the area for conducting a discussion: Parnes (1985)
- Orientation to task and providing time for preparation & training before the discussion
According to Treffinger (1994), the ‘reality level’ of brainstorming also serves as an important criteria for the outcomes of the sessions. He states that the productivity of brainstorming will be higher and decisions more relevant, if used by real groups working on tasks which they see as important to them.
Brainstorming as a less productive approach
Taylor, Berry & Block (1958) from University of Yale opposed Osborn’s idea. They conducted a study and discovered that individuals working alone were more productive in developing ideas than groups using brainstorming. Their study compared the productivity of randomly assigned teams brainstorming ideas on three tasks against randomly assigned individuals whose ideas were pooled after working individually on three tasks. Tudor Rickards (1999), in the Encyclopaedia of creativity claim that nominal groups rarely failed to match interactive brainstorming groups in quantity of ideas and have always exceeded them in quality of ideas produced.
Supporting this claims are authors such as Mullen, Johnson & Salas (1991), who argue that brainstorming becomes less efficient than individuals working separately due to problems such as production blocking (One person inhibiting others inputs during the discussion) and social loafing (Making less effort as a member of a group when compared to working individually).
Experiment Methodology
The above claims were tested under a practical setting on 15th March 2010. The survey included dividing the class into 6 random groups consisting of 6 individuals each. Each group were given a common topic to discuss under different conditions for discussions and the number of ideas generated by each group under the specific condition was analysed.
Topic: List factors that help or hinder small group decision making
The conditions applied to each group were;
Group A & B (Group no controls): The functioning of these groups were not limited by any restrictions. All members of the group were allowed to come up with their own inputs in order to collectively generate ideas.
Group C (Nominal group): The members of this group were asked to work in isolation and write down their ideas. Later they came together and compiled their findings.
Group E (Information building group): The group was allocated the task of building upon each other’s ideas. First one member of the team would introduce an idea to the team. Then the next team member enriches the idea further by adding his own point of view to it. The idea would pass through all members of the team until the idea has been built up to become a more valued argument.
Group D & F (Equal contribution group): The members of these groups were first provided with 3 red cards and 2 yellow cards. Each card represented an opportunity to present his/her ideas. Once a team member presents an idea he/she would put one red card on the table and would continue to do so until all the red cards are on the table. A member who has depleted the red cards allocated would have to remain until all members have used their own red cards. Afterwards the yellow cards were allowed to be used.
All members were allowed 20 minutes to conduct their discussions. Upon the completion the number of ideas arrived upon was calculated and recorded on a pre-prepared graph for analysis.
Results
The below table illustrates the results recorded at the end of the discussions.
|
| Hinder | Help | Total |
| Group A (No controls) |
12
|
14 |
26 |
| Group B (No controls) |
7
|
21 |
28 |
| Group C (Nominal) |
9
|
12 |
21 |
| Group D (Equal contribution 1) |
6
|
7 |
13 |
| Group E (Information building) |
5
|
6 |
11 |
| Group F (Equal contribution 2) |
10
|
8 |
18 |
Table 1: Results of discussion
If the above results are averaged to arrive at four groups, each with a different research method, the number of ideas can be illustrated by the table and chart below;
| Group function | Number of ideas |
| No controls | 27 |
| Nominal | 21 |
| Information building | 11 |
| Equal contribution | 16(15.5) |
Table 2: Summarized results of discussion
Discussion and Analysis
In analysing the results it becomes apparent that the no control group has surpassed all other groups in the number of ideas generated. It was followed by the nominal group, and then by equal contribution groups while the information building group displayed a lowly result of 11 ideas. The factors contributing to the results can be identified as follows;
1) The no restrictions approach has allowed members of both no control groups to come up with more ideas than other groups. Although showing characteristics of social loafing, evaluation apprehension and production blocking, the volume of inputs by active members have contributed to large number of ideas being presented in the time allocated.
2) The nominal group also showed a high output as individual members were given time to write down their ideas in private. As they were asked to work alone, no production blocking or social loafing was present in this group thereby affecting their performance. No comments can be made about the quality of ideas produced by this group as the research only focused on the quantitative aspect.
3) The low number of ideas generated by idea development stage would have been due to the difficulty in developing others ideas. Since members were asked to add value to their team member’s ideas, it can be accepted that it takes time to understand the viewpoint and then develop it further. With limitations to the time allocated, the number of ideas that they could manage to put forward was reduced.
4) The disciplined approach to idea generation has resulted in low number of ideas being presented by this group. Since one member was allowed to present ideas at a time and all members being required to present their ideas until the red cards are finished, a more participative discussion was present. But it was evident that the volume of ideas this group could have generated was limited as active members were required to wait for other members to finish their red cards before progressing to the next stage.
When comparing the outcome of the research undertaken, it has to be declared first of all that the research undertaken only presents results relating to the quantitative aspects of the ideas generated and not on the qualitative front. It can be also argued that Treffinger’s claims also cannot be evaluated here as the groups were more focused on the number of ideas rather than developing solutions to problems they see as important to them.
The result in case of no controls group approves the claims of Osborn as the Brainstorming groups have developed more ideas than the nominal groups. It has to be noted that the guidelines set by Osborn has been ignored in conducting the session as the groups were formed in random, group members were not allowed any time to prepare for the discussion nor any training was given to them and no formal leader was appointed to any of the groups. But the outcome still agreed with Osborn’s claim.
Findings of Taylor, Berry & Block were deemed irrelevant according to this research as the nominal group was not able to match the productivity of no control group on the quantitative front. But Tudor Rickard’s claim, that nominal groups surpass interactive groups on the qualitative front cannot be verified here.
Considering the claims of Mullen, Johnson & Salas, it is found that the issue of social loafing was avoided in the equal contribution group and information building group as they demanded the participation of all members. But the problem existed in the no-control group where some members failed to contribute more to the discussion due to weak communication skills and lack of knowledge into the area. No-control groups were also marred by production blocking as few members dominated the discussions and inhibited the contribution of others.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The research undertaken confirmed Osborn’s claims that brainstorming in small groups lead to more information to be generated to support decision making than individuals working alone. But it can be recommended to follow guidelines set by Osborn in order to improve the productivity of discussions.
It has to be also noted that the research undertaken cannot support testing whether the ideas generated are relevant or of necessary quality to support decision making since it was only focussed on quantitative aspects. In order to be of value, the research must have evaluated the qualitative aspects as well.
Brainstorming is deemed to be affected by problems such as social loafing and production blocking as it was witnessed in this research. But approaches such as equal contribution and information building coupled with reasonable preparation can be used to alleviate them.
Taking into consideration the research undertaken, it can be concluded that brainstorming is more effective than individualistic approaches in generating information to support decision making in group situations when considered in a quantitative aspect. But the effectiveness of brainstorming against individual idea generation when considered in terms of both qualitative and quantitative aspects remains to be debated.
Bibliography
- Milton, G.A. (1965), Enthusiasm vs. effectiveness in group and individual problem solving, Psychological Reports, 16, pp 1197-1201
- Mullen, B., Johnson, C. & Salas, E. (1991), Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration, Basic & Applied Psychology, 12, pp 3-23
- Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W. Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, pp 531-548
- Osborn, A.F. (1953), Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
- Osborn, A.F. (1963), Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Revised Edition). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
- Parnes, S.J. (1985), A facilitating style of leadership, New York: Bearly Limited
- Rickards, T., Aldridge, S. & Gaston, K. (1988), Factors affecting brainstorming: Towards the development of diagnostic tools for assessment of creative performance, Research & Development management, 18 (4), pp 309-320
- Rickards, T., M Runco & S Pritzker, Eds (1999), Brainstorming, Encyclopedia of Creativity Vol 1, San Diego: Academic Press, pp 219-228
- Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C. & Block, C.H. (1958), Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?, Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, pp 22-47
- Treffinger, D.J. (1994), Productive thinking: Towards authentic instruction and assessment, The journal of secondary gifted education, 30, pp 30-37
No comments:
Post a Comment