This document proposes a system to improve group brainstorming using technology. Traditional group brainstorming is often less effective than individuals working alone due to production blocking and evaluation apprehension. The system aims to address these issues using electronic brainstorming systems, crowdsourcing, and facilitation. It describes roles for idea generation, synthesis, and facilitation. The evaluation plan is to test the system through pilot studies, surveys, and focus groups to assess its creativity support based on user feedback.

1. Peter Kremer, Joel Chan, Steven Dang, Steven
Dow
Motivation
In designing solutions to tackle complex problems, the first
step is often to generate creative ideas. Group brainstorming
promises the ability to produce many more creative ideas
than individuals working alone (nominal groups).
However, despite the popularity of group brainstorming,
recent research has shown that it often fails to make good on
this promise (Zanna et al., 2010). This can be traced to a
variety of causes, chief among them being:
• Production Blocking: ideas are lost as brainstorm
participants cannot all speak simultaneously.
• Evaluation Apprehension: participants may withhold ideas
they fear will be judged poorly by others.
How can we use technology to realize brainstorming’s
promise?
Prior Approaches
• Electronic Brainstorming (EB) Systems: Used effectively,
EB systems can help close the gap between nominal and
group brainstorming, thanks to mitigating the problems
listed above.
• Crowdsourcing: Another popular approach is utilizing
crowds to generate and assess large numbers of creative
ideas. However, this can lead to large numbers of
redundant, impractical, and uninteresting ideas.
• Need for Facilitation: Both approaches perform much
better in the presence of a skilled facilitator that can
strategically constrain and direct ideation (Isaksen &
Gaulin, 2005, Briggs et al, 2003).
Ideation Role Synthesis Role
Facilitation Role
Future Development
• Improve dynamic filtering and expand it to all interfaces.
• Iterate on synthesis interface to support more kinds of
interactions and information gathering.
• Explore different actions and modes of communication both
between and within roles.
• Develop more visualizations for the dashboard interface.
References
Isaksen, S. G., & Gaulin, J. P. (2005). A reexamination of brainstorming research: Implications for research and practice. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49(4), 315-329.
Briggs, R. O., De Vreede, G. -J., & Nunamaker Jr, J. (2003). Collaboration engineering with thinklets to pursue sustained success with
group support systems. J. Of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 31-64.
Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups:
The evolution of a question. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 157- 203). San Diego, CA.
Cherry, E. and Latulipe, C. (2014). Quantifying the Creativity Support of Digital Tools through the Creativity Support Index. ACM
Transactions on Computer Human Interaction 21, 4, Article 21 (June 2014), 25 pages.
Enter Ideas
Notifications from
facilitator
Brainstorming
Prompt
Call for help from facilitator
when running dry
The System
Organize clusters
spatially
Drag ideas to a cluster to add
them or create a new cluster
Ideas also appear in synthesis
interface as they are submitted
Star “game changing”
ideas
Ideas appear here as
they are submitted
Time series graph of idea
submissions updating live
Choice of several scaffolded
actions or “levers”
Live updated
visualizations of synthesis
role output
Dynamic filters
Example Lever
Evaluation Plan
• Run pilot tests with groups from Pittsburgh’s research,
business, and tech communities.
• Administer survey structured around the Creativity
Support Index (Cherry & Latulipe, 2014 TOCHI)
• Run and film focus group discussing users’ impressions,
recommendations, and concerns.
• Perform qualitative assessment and open coding
Ideas are simultaneously sent to the
dashboard interface
Clearly defined and easily
executable action to feedback to
ideators