University of Toronto Ideation in The Digital Age Discussion

Review of Managerial Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00400-5
REVIEW PAPER
Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative
model for electronic brainstorming
Yossi Maaravi1 ? Ben Heller1
Baruch Deutsch1
? Yael Shoham1 ? Shay Mohar1 ?
Received: 25 September 2019 / Accepted: 7 June 2020
? Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
Various brainstorming techniques have been proposed to facilitate and enhance creativity during idea generation (ideation) sessions. A review of previous studies on
brainstorming has been conducted, focusing on electronic brainstorming (EBS) as a
seemingly suitable and prevalent platform in the twenty-first century. Based on the
review, we propose an integrative model for EBS sessions, which includes guidelines and suggested improvements. Insights gained from this review can be used to
guide decision-makers and managers in organizations on how to conduct EBS sessions efficiently and effectively. Additionally, this review maps existing research on
EBS and outlines lacunas and gaps future research should investigate.
Keywords Brainstorming ? Electronic brainstorming ? Digital brainstorming ? EBS ?
Ideation ? Creativity
Mathematics Subject Classification 62P25 Applications of statistics to social
sciences
1 Introduction
?Two heads are better than one? is a common expression reflecting the folk-psychology belief that the more people deal with a problem, the better (Heywood and
Sharman 1546/1972). Alex F. Osborn, founder and CEO of the advertising company
BBDO, sought to implement this belief in practice when he proposed brainstorming as an efficient method of group idea generation (1953). Brainstorming quickly
became popular not only in advertising or other creative disciplines, but also in businesses (Garud et al. 2011). While Osborn himself based the principles and procedures of brainstorming on conventional and business wisdom and not on scientific
* Yossi Maaravi
[email protected]
1
The Adelson School of Entrepreneurship, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Y. Maaravi et al.
research, the success and widespread use of this technique made it an important
research topic in psychology, business and organizational behavior (e.g., Antoszkiewicz 1992). This body of research, detailed below, unveiled the psychological
dynamics of brainstorming as well as its advantages and limitations. Thus, nominal brainstorming (NBS) was devised as a way to overcome negative social influences during brainstorming sessions, and electronic brainstorming (EBS) sought to
improve the entire method. The latter is accentuated given specific digital technologies available today and the general patterns of organizational digitalization (e.g.
Kraus et al. 2019; Bouncken et al. 2019).
In the current review article, we focus on EBS as an essential brainstorming technique of our time. We summarize findings on traditional and nominal brainstorming,
followed by an in-depth look at electronic brainstorming and its perks and flaws. We
conclude by offering an integrative EBS model based on our review, that might aid
practitioners and scholars and provide both guidelines for effective EBS sessions as
well as possible directions for future research.
1.1 Innovation in organizations: a critical factor for performance
A modern organization?s success depends on innovation, which can become a catalyst for growth (Davila et al. 2006; Haley 2014). While there are multiple ways
of defining innovation, one core element of its definition typically focuses on the
concept of newness (Nonaka 2008). Damanpour (1991: p. 556) defined innovation
as ?the generation, development, and implementation of new ideas or behaviors.?
In a workplace context, the definition is somewhat broader. For example, according
to Crossan and Apaydin (2010) innovation is the ?production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres;
renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new
methods of production; and establishment of new management systems. It is both
a process and an outcome.? Indeed, while these definitions differ, both emphasize
novelty or newness.
Innovation stands as a crucial factor for organizational performance, as it is a key
component of business competitiveness, which contributes to its continuous progress and prosperity (Boukis 2016). The most successful organizations are those
which develop an organizational environment that consistently fuels creativity and
innovation throughout all levels of the hierarchy (Mart?nez-Rom?n and Romero
2017; Vicenzi 2000). However, successfully promoting and integrating innovation
is challenging, and many organizations?including best managed companies?often
fail to do so effectively (Tidd et al. 2005).
1.2 Idea generation in business innovation
One necessary component of organizational innovation is the free flow of ideas
as new and creative ideas are usually a crucial phase in innovation (for a review,
see pages 88?90 in Sawyer 2011). However, scholars have long shown that producing innovative ideas can be challenging for multiple reasons: lack of time and
13
Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative?
organizational attention (Ocasio 1997; Stalk and Hout 1990), the ever-existing
exploration?exploitation tension (March 1991; Gupta et al. 2006), not-inventedhere (NIH) syndrome (Katz and Allen 1982), fear of change and failure (Argyris
1993), risk avoidance (Mueller and Thomas 2001), unsupportive incentive systems
(Clark and Wilson 1961), and many more. Besides, even after ideas are produced
and deemed suitable, they are not always adopted and assimilated (Fichman 2000).
Nevertheless, as creative ideas are often the starting point for innovative projects
(Zairi 1999), idea generation techniques are commonly used by many organizations
(Garud et al. 2011).
A typical process by which new ideas are elicited and discussed is often called
ideation?identifying multiple alternative solutions for a task, problem, or concern
being pursued (Reinig and Briggs 2008). Such processes are based on the divergent?convergent continuum of creativity (Sawyer 2011) according to which there is
a correlation between quantity and quality of ideas.
Accordingly, organizations have developed various methods and tools for idea
generation and idea exchange in groups. One example is ?storyboarding? (Denison
1995), introduced by Mike Vance in the 1960s. The storyboarding strategy requires
8?12 participants and a coordinator, who arranges the ideas that come up in the
group into logical order on a large board facing them. Throughout the process, participants can see the complete picture on the board and try to make the whole solution greater than the sum of its parts (VanGundy 1988). Another well-known idea
generation technique is ?mind mapping?; it starts with placing an initial concept (or
problem, need, etc.) in the middle of a page or board followed by a map of associated concepts, creating a conceptual ?associative network? (Higgins 1996). The
mind map should be organized so that the most pressing ideas are closest to the initial concept and each subsequent idea is further away. After drawing the mind map
a team can discuss the whole scheme or choose a specific ?branch? to focus on. In
addition to the two methods mentioned above, numerous additional ideation techniques such as random stimulus, concept fan, and provocation appear in the creativity and ideation literature (White et al. 2012; Smith 1998; de Bono 1995).
1.3 Ideation through brainstorming: TBS and NBS
One of the main idea generation techniques at the group level derives from the brainstorming paradigm (Osborn 1953). Alex F. Osborn, founder and CEO of advertising
giant BBDO suggested brainstorming in the 1940s to improve his employees? creativity. Osborn defined a set of protocols, focusing on an increase in the quantity and
quality of ideas generated (Reinig and Briggs 2008), as he argued that the number
of good ideas generated correlates with the number of total ideas generated (1953).
Brainstorming sessions are done in teams and usually include two stages that correspond to the divergent?convergent continuum: 1. Free-wheeling?generating and
presenting as many ideas as possible without criticism or self-censorship (divergent
thinking); 2. Discussion?discussing the ideas to eliminate some, develop others by
building on peer ideas, and derive inspiration for new ones, finally reaching the most
appropriate and acceptable creative solution (convergent thinking).
13
Y. Maaravi et al.
Since brainstorming is done in teams, we cite the definition of a work team that
the current article adopts: Work teams ?(a) are composed of two or more individuals, (b) who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, (c) share one
or more common goals, (d) interact socially, (e) exhibit task interdependencies
(i.e., workflow, goals, outcomes), (f) maintain and manage boundaries, and (g)
are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the
team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity? (Kozlowski
and Bell 2003). This definition and all its elements are coherent and in line with
brainstorming teams, although these teams can, and often are, temporary or adhoc (e.g. Chae et al. 2015). Additionally, we acknowledge that many scholars
distinguish between work teams and work groups (e.g. Katzenbach and Smith
1993), but following the above rather minimalistic definition and the approach of
its authors (Kozlowski and Bell 2003), we do not make this distinction here, but
rather use the terms interchangeably.
Brainstorming sessions are usually performed as follows: Sessions take
approximately 40 min on average and include between five and ten participants,
selected according to the issue at hand (Isaksen 1998; Wilson 2013). The person
leading the session, the facilitator, should take at least one formal course in creative problem-solving. She should be able to ask stimulating questions, develop a
working plan that will lead to idea generation, provide warm-up practice and orientation for the participants, present and reinforce the guidelines, and manage the
planning and scheduling of any follow-up sessions (Isaksen 1998; Wilson 2013).
Furthermore, the facilitator should record the ideas brought up during the session
or select a participant to do so.
Brainstorming has four main guidelines: a. Withholding criticism of ideas; b.
Encouraging participants to express any and all ideas, including ?wild? ones; c.
Generating as many ideas as possible; and d. Merging and integrating ideas as the
session transpires (Paulus et al. 2011). Abiding by these guidelines is purported
to enhance creativity, and consequently, idea generation (Osborn 1953). Osborn
himself did not base the technique and the above instructions on empirical evidence, yet brainstorming has quickly become a popular idea generation technique
used in a variety of organizational settings (Antoszkiewicz 1992). This has since
sparked an ongoing attempt to test brainstorming?s assumptions and suggested
advantages and possible limitations (e.g., Paulus et al. 2011; Reinig and Briggs
2008).
Brainstorming is usually conducted in three main ways: traditional brainstorming (TBS), nominal brainstorming (NBS), and electronic brainstorming (EBS).
TBS was the first form of this ideation method, where participants sit together
and take part in an active conversation by verbally sharing and exchanging their
ideas in turn (Al-Samarraie and Hurmuzan 2018). The NBS method was invented
after testing the influence of the social interaction between group members in the
TBS method. Results showed a reduction in the number of ideas generated in a
group setting, compared to members who generated their ideas alone without any
interaction or communication with others (Jablin et al. 1977). This is known as
?the productivity gap? (Paulus et al. 1995), and is explained by a combination of
factors discussed below. In NBS sessions, on the other hand, during the first stage
13
Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative?
(i.e., free-wheeling), group members generate their ideas individually without
interaction with each other, thus ?bridging? the productivity gap (Henningsen and
Henningsen 2013). EBS, which is at the core of the current article, is discussed at
length in the following sections.
1.4 EBS: an idea generation technique for the digital age
Brainstorming activities have gone online through the use of various tools, such as
e-mail, chat, instant messengers, social media platforms, video conferencing, and
brainstorming-specific software. Using such digital tools while following the brainstorming process is known as electronic brainstorming (EBS. E.g., Al-Samarraie
and Hurmuzan 2018). The use of brainstorming through computers, when all group
members are connected at the same time, is defined as ?synchronous brainstorming? (Binder and Binder 2007). It has been reported that EBS can not only lead to
the creation of innovative ideas, but it may change existing business paradigms as
well (Culnan et al. 2010; Garfield et al. 2001). In EBS sessions, members type ideas
individually into their electronic device to be shared with other members using their
devices. EBS, therefore, shares NBS?s advantage of overcoming the ?productivity
gap?, yet isn?t limited by the requirement for physical proximity.
The initial research on EBS proposed that teams using it could create more ideas
than if they were to use TBS (Gallupe et al. 1992), and as many or more ideas than
if they were to use NBS (Dennis and Valacich 1993). The goal of EBS, as is the
general goal of brainstorming, is to generate a list of ideas, applying the same aforementioned guidelines proposed by Osborn (1957): focusing on quantity, withholding criticism, welcoming unusual ideas, and combining and improving ideas.
Along with the general guidelines of EBS sessions, it is important to note that different disciplines (business, education, etc.) have different requirements, criteria and
approaches to EBS standards and preferences (Baruah and Paulus 2016). In EBS
sessions, ideas are stored in the electronic system after their formation, so participants don?t need to attend to them reactively and immediately (Paulus and Nijstad
2003). Because EBS involves encountering the ideas of others on a screen, participants can conceptualize ideas at their own pace and pause their individual ideageneration process when they want feedback from other participants? ideas (Michinov et al. 2015). EBS also allows members to participate in multiple conversation
streams, if and when they choose to (Paulus and Nijstad 2003). In several studies of
EBS, participants? creative performance was measured both by the quantity of ideas
generated and by their quality (i.e., the average originality of ideas). These studies
showed that both quality and quantity of ideas were higher in EBS than in TBS or
NBS (e.g., Barki and Pinsonneault 2001; Reinig et al. 2007).
1.5 Using EBS to overcome the limitations of TBS
EBS potentially overcomes several challenges that may arise through the other
brainstorming techniques, such as TBS and NBS. For instance, in controlled studies
13
Y. Maaravi et al.
researchers identified that TBS sessions inhibited the number of ideas generated compared to NBS and EBS sessions (Paulus et al. 2013). This effect may be due to three
main issues: (1) evaluation apprehension [i.e., fear of being judged by others (Michinov
2012)]; (2) free riding [i.e., when participants don?t work as hard as possible, as they
rely on the efforts of others (Diehl and Stroebe 1987)]; and (3) production blocking
(Ziegler et al. 2000). The latter, which arises mainly because participants must wait
before expressing their ideas and solutions until it is their turn to speak, is considered
the strongest reason for productivity-loss in group brainstorming (Gallupe et al. 1991).
Production blocking harms idea generation in two ways: (a) participants use cognitive resources to keep their thoughts in mind until their turn in the session, which interrupts working on new thoughts; and (b) when every participant has her turn to speak,
deep analysis of previous ideas cannot occur. The shorter the discussion of a cluster of
ideas becomes, the fewer ideas are generated (Nijstad et al. 2003). As noted above, several factors indicate that the nominal and electronic methods can surpass the traditional
method in terms of the quantity of ideas produced. Furthermore, a number of studies
have attempted to compare the nominal and electronic techniques and determine which
is more effective (Barki and Pinsonneault 2001). Indeed, EBS offers the opportunity to
outperform NBS in generating better ideas and in greater quantity, since EBS participants can work simultaneously and anonymously. However, the two methods differ in
many ways (e.g., media richness; Nunamaker et al. 1991; Henningsen and Henningsen
2013), rendering the identification of the crucial factors causing these differences a difficult endeavor (Dennis and Valacich 1994; Valacich et al. 1994).
1.6 The current article: suggesting an integrative EBS model
In the current article we have reviewed previous studies on brainstorming techniques
and specifically on EBS. While focusing on EBS, we have considered all aspects of
EBS use, advantages and challenges that will form the basis of an integrative EBS
model. We focus on EBS for three main reasons: (1) The advantages of EBS over
TBS discussed above; (2) The fact that in the twenty-first century many organizations
are spread across different cities, states or even countries and thus are often obliged
to perform distant collaboration (Jarvenpaa and Ives 1994); And, (3) The current era
has been long considered ?the digital age? (e.g. Rosenberg and Foshay 2002) in which
information is gradually processed and stored using digital devices, and consequently
employees are accustomed to manipulating and communicating information digitally
(Bouncken et al. 2019; Johannessen et al. 2001; Kraus et al. 2019).
This article aims to contribute to the existing literature for the benefit of both scholars and managers by: (1) providing a better understanding of the brainstorming technique through a review of its different conceptions; (2) examining EBS by highlighting
its advantages and challenges; (3) presenting an integrative EBS model based on the
above; (4) outlining lacunas and gaps in EBS that future research should investigate.
13
Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative?
2 Review methodology
Our literature review methodology echoes Kraus et al.?s systematic literature
review guidelines (2020). As opposed to non-transparent, biased, and subjective
traditional literature reviews, systematic literature reviews are both methodologically transparent and reproducible, with defined search criteria and high levels
of objectivity. The most important steps when performing a systematic literature
review are: (1) formulating research questions; (2) developing a review protocol;
(3) identifying the studies (inclusion/exclusion criteria); and (4) extracting and
synthesizing the data based on topics, not authors (Kraus et al. 2020).
Research questions
This review attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What are the
advantages and disadvantages or limitations of EBS compared to TBS and NBS?
(2) What guidelines can we extract from the literature in order to create a practitioner-oriented integrative EBS model? (3) Based on 1 and 2, what are the lacunas and gaps in EBS that future research should investigate?
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
1. Relevance of journal: In order to be included in the review, articles must have
been published in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal relevant to our subject matter.
Brainstorming techniques are used in many different contexts, yet some are more
relevant than others. A preliminary search for brainstorming articles on Google
Scholar revealed a large number of articles published in medical, linguistic, literary, pharmaceutical and marine science journals. These journals were excluded
from our search criteria, whereas journals on creativity, innovation, management,
technology, education, teamwork, business and psychology were more relevant
and were thus included.
2. Subject: As this review focuses on EBS, we included articles that had displayed
a direct connection to this subject, whether in the title, keywords or abstract.
Articles relevant only to TBS or NBS were generally excluded, unless they were
recognized as significant works of great importance to the field. Book reviews,
magazine articles, and publications that had no apparent relationship to the topic
at hand were also excluded.
3. Time: A preliminary search of electronic brainstorming literature revealed that
the earliest mention of the term in an article?s title, keywords or abstract, was in
1991. This finding, which sets a natural time limit to the analysis, makes obvious sense as the technologies that made EBS possible are relatively recent. We
therefore included articles published between 1991 and 2019, with the obvious
caveat regarding works of great importance to the general brainstorming field
(TBS, NBS and more general creativity, ideation or innovation literature).
4. Empirical: With regard to our goal of providing an integrative and practical EBS
model, we favored articles of a more empirical nature, whose findings we could
use to formulate suggestions for efficient EBS sessions. Articles characterized by
clear and proper research methodologies with large enough samples, and robust
and statistically significant results were included in our review. We also stressed
13
Y. Maaravi et al.
the importance of including studies from a variety of cultures, in order that our
final model would be of importance to the global community.
Search strategy
The electronic search strategy incorporated the keyword ?brainstorming? and
five other concepts, all related to EBS, using the Proquest and EBSCOHost databases. The five concepts used alongside ?brainstorming? were ?electronic?, ?digital?, ?online?, ?software?, and ?EBS?. Appropriate synonyms, misspellings and
truncations were included. With these terms, we searched the databases on the
following categories: title, keywords and abstract. As per our inclusion/exclusion
criteria, we limited our search to articles released between 1991 and 2019. The
keywords search resulted in 271 hits for the Proquest database and in 203 hits for
the EBSCOHost database, for a total of 474 hits (as can be seen in Fig. 1). Eliminating duplicates (articles which appeared in multiple keyword searches) further
reduced the set to 306, and excluding irrelevant journals brought the set down
to 203. The penultimate step was to exclude articles based on the apparent irrelevance of their title to the subject matter, which brought our search to 105.
Fig. 1 Literature review electronic search iterations
13
Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative?
Finally, full copies of these 105 papers were read and closely examined in order
to determine whether they met all of the above inclusion criteria, bringing our set to
its final hit count of 67. A classification of the journals used for this review can be
found in Table 1.
In addition, searching for the keyword ?brainstorming? (after 1991) produced
1073 hits on ProQuest, 1307 on EBSCOHost, and 123,000 results on Google
Scholar. As we strived to find articles pertaining primarily to EBS, these results
were primarily used as a supplementary database, providing us with specific articles
that were used depending on their impact (citations) and their potential for broadening the discussion (mainly around TBS and NBS). Additional existing reviews relevant to the broader subject area were consulted in order to provide a context for the
studies identified for the current review.
3 Results
This section aims to draw valid conclusions on EBS based on the literature review
and in relation to the proposed schemes (EBS advantages and challenges).
3.1 EBS advantages
The following are the key opportunities and advantages of EBS in a business context
(also summarized in Table 2 below):
1. Efficient use of time With the development of interactive computer systems and
electronic media, sharing ideas digitally has become a common approach within
and across organizations (Dzindolet et al. 2012). Systematic studies of EBS have
long found that this approach facilitates collaborative ideation (Gallupe et al. 1991,
1992) and constitutes an ideal way to support idea generation and integration (Javadi
2012). In EBS sessions, participants do not need to wait for their own turn to speak
out; hence EBS allows them to generate ideas separately and share them at the exact
same time, while working all together. This minimizes the effect of production
blocking, since group members work simultaneously on their own computer screens
and are not blocked from contributing ideas (Ziegler et al. 2000). Likewise, EBS
participants do not become impatient while waiting to be heard and usually consider
the process as fair and collaborative, which enables them to function as a team and
not as individuals (Gallupe et al. 1994).???
2. Decreased psychological and social impediments on ideation When using a
computer for brainstorming, participants can type their ideas anonymously, devoid
of negative social affect, such as shyness, fear or humiliation, allowing them to contribute more unusual and unorthodox ideas (Al-Samarraie and Hurmuzan 2018).
Indeed, EBS not only provides a way of working individually, but can also operate
anonymously, collecting all the participants? ideas in the same place without identifying them. This, in turn, may lead to the generation of more original ideas as compared to situations where the participants are identified, possibly due to evaluation
apprehension, that is, the fear of being judged by others (Connolly et al. 1990). For
13
Y. Maaravi et al.
Table 1 Categorization of journals used for review
Journal title
# of articles
Research field
Small Group Research
9
Groups
Journal of Management Information Systems
3
Information Systems
MIS quarterly
3
Information Systems
Journal of Applied Psychology
3
Psychology
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
3
Psychology
Computers in Human Behavior
2
Human Computer Interaction
Information Systems Research
2
Information Systems
Motivation and Emotion
2
Psychology
The Journal of Creative Behavior
2
Creativity
Information and Management
1
Information Systems
Thinking Skills and Creativity
1
Creativity
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
1
Marketing
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
1
Psychology
Current Directions in Psychological Science
1
Psychology
Management Science
1
Management
System Sciences
1
Information Systems
Technology and Engineering Teacher
1
Education
Journal of Management Information Systems
1
Information Systems
International Journal of e-Collaboration
1
Communication
Journal of Management
1
Management
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
1
Psychology
Academy of Management Journal
1
Management
The Journal of Problem Solving
1
Psychology
Southern Communication Journal
1
Communication
Journal of Management Development
1
Management
Applied Cognitive Psychology
1
Psychology
Creativity Research Journal
1
Creativity
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
1
Psychology
Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines
1
Psychology
Personality and Social Psychology Review
1
Psychology
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
1
Psychology
Communications of the ACM
1
Computer Science
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality
1
Psychology
Information & Management
1
Management
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
1
Psychology
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1
Psychology
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
1
Psychology
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
1
Groups
Group Decision and Negotiation
1
Groups
British Journal of Psychology
1
Psychology
Research Policy
1
Innovation
European Journal of Information Systems
1
Information Systems
13
Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative?
Table 1 (continued)
Journal title
# of articles
Research field
British Journal of Social Psychology
1
Psychology
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
1
Information Systems
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
1
Groups
Handbook of Group Creativity
1
Groups
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sc