Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 440

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System

Nunamaker, Jay F., Applegate, Lynda M., Konsynski, Benn R.·1987·Journal of Management Information Systems

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.1987.11517775

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Nunamaker, J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R.
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
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

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.