The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System
Abstract
:This paper reports on the results of research on the use of a group decision support system (gdss) for idea generation and analysis within a planning and decision laboratory environment. Our experience to date in the use of the idea generation models suggests that the technology does significantly influence the planning process. The automated version of the brainstorming model appears to neutralize many of the group effects that have been responsible for poor performance of group brainstorming in the past. Anonymity is maintained and group members appear to express their true feelings without fear of social disapproval. In addition, the automated idea generation models appear to neutralize the effects of an authority hierarchy in the group. The models allow parallel processing of ideas and prevent one group member from dominating the group discussion. All ideas are automatically recorded in the computer and are stored within the knowledge base for use throughout the planning process.Several factors that inhibit the idea generation process have also been identified. These include the limits imposed on the “world view” of the problem as a result of the size of the computer screen, the unfamiliarity of the keyboard interface as a creative tool for executives, and the limitations of the network for processing multiple, simultaneous file transfers.Data indicate that the benefits of the Electronic Brainstorming process definitely outweigh the problems in the view of the planners. They report high levels of satisfaction with the outcome of planning sessions using the models and the process used to achieve those outcomes. They rated the computer as an important tool for idea generation, and those planners who had used a manual brainstorming model in the past rated the computer brainstorming process as “much better” than manual brainstorming.The study reported in this paper was descriptive in nature and designed to generate hypotheses that will form the basis for future research. The small sample sizes upon which the structured observation and questionnaire data are based represent a limitation of the interpretation of the data. Randomized experiments are currently underway to test hypotheses generated during this experiment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.693 · Cited by 495
An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems
Weill, P., & Olson, M. H. (1989) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1989.11517849 · Cited by 351
Double-level languages and co-operative working
Robinson, M. (1991) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/bf01891356 · Cited by 132
Metadata
- Authors
- Nunamaker, J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1987-03
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 5-19
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1480197836
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07421222.1987.11517775
- The paper
- Nunamaker, J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1987). Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1987.11517775
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.