Citation

Dornburg CC, Stevens SM, Hendrickson SML, Davidson GS. Hum. Factors 2009; 51(4): 519-527.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0018720809343587

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Objective: An experiment was conducted to compare the effectiveness of individual versus group electronic brainstorming to address difficult, real-world challenges. Background: Although industrial reliance on electronic communications has become ubiquitous, empirical and theoretical understanding of the bounds of its effectiveness have been limited. Previous research using short-term laboratory experiments have engaged small groups of students in answering questions irrelevant to an industrial setting. The present experiment extends current findings beyond the laboratory to larger groups of real-world employees addressing organization-relevant challenges during the course of 4 days. Methods: Employees and contractors at a national laboratory participated, either in a group setting or individually, in an electronic brainstorm to pose solutions to a real-world problem. Results: The data demonstrate that (for this design) individuals perform at least as well as groups in producing quantity of electronic ideas, regardless of brainstorming duration. However, when judged with respect to quality along three dimensions (originality, feasibility, and effectiveness), the individuals significantly (p < .05) outperformed the group. Conclusion: When quality is used to benchmark success, these data indicate that work-relevant challenges are better solved by aggregating electronic individual responses rather than by electronically convening a group. Application: This research suggests that industrial reliance on electronic problem-solving groups should be tempered, and large nominal groups may be more appropriate corporate problem-solving vehicles.