||This article has an unclear citation style. (February 2013)|
Brainstorming is a group or individual creativity technique by which efforts are made to find a conclusion for a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by its member(s). The term was popularized by Alex Faickney Osborn in the 1953 book Applied Imagination. Osborn claimed that brainstorming was more effective than individuals working alone in generating ideas, although more recent research has questioned this conclusion. Today, the term is used as a catch all for all group ideation sessions.
- 1 Origin
- 2 Osborn's method
- 3 Variations
- 4 Incentives and brainstorming
- 5 Criticism
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 External links
Advertising executive Alex F. Osborn began developing methods for creative problem solving in 1939. He was frustrated by employees’ inability to develop creative ideas individually for ad campaigns. In response, he began hosting group-thinking sessions and discovered a significant improvement in the quality and quantity of ideas produced by employees. Osborn outlined the method in his 1948 book 'Your Creative Power' on chapter 33, “How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas.”
Osborn claimed that two principles contribute to "ideative efficacy," these being :
- Defer judgment,
- Reach for quantity.
Following these two principles were his four general rules of brainstorming, established with intention to :
- reduce social inhibitions among group members,
- stimulate idea generation
- increase overall creativity of the group.
- Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
- Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
- Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking may provide better solutions.
- Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas may be combined to form a single better good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.
Osborn notes that brainstorming should address a specific question; he held that sessions addressing multiple questions were inefficient.
Further, the problem must require the generation of ideas rather than judgment; he uses examples such as generating possible names for a product as proper brainstorming material, whereas analytical judgments such as whether or not to marry do not have any need for brainstorming.
Osborn envisioned groups of around 12 participants, including both experts and novices. Participants are encouraged to provide wild and unexpected answers. Ideas receive no criticism or discussion. The group simply provides ideas that might lead to a solution and apply no analytical judgement as to the feasibility. The judgements are reserved for a later date.
Nominal group technique
Participants are asked to write their ideas anonymously. Then the facilitator collects the ideas and the group votes on each idea. The vote can be as simple as a show of hands in favor of a given idea. This process is called distillation.
After distillation, the top ranked ideas may be sent back to the group or to subgroups for further brainstorming. For example, one group may work on the color required in a product. Another group may work on the size, and so forth. Each group will come back to the whole group for ranking the listed ideas. Sometimes ideas that were previously dropped may be brought forward again once the group has re-evaluated the ideas.
It is important that the facilitator be trained in this process before attempting to facilitate this technique. The group should be primed and encouraged to embrace the process. Like all team efforts, it may take a few practice sessions to train the team in the method before tackling the important ideas.
Group passing technique
Each person in a circular group writes down one idea, and then passes the piece of paper to the next person, who adds some thoughts. This continues until everybody gets his or her original piece of paper back. By this time, it is likely that the group will have extensively elaborated on each idea.
The group may also create an "idea book" and post a distribution list or routing slip to the front of the book. On the first page is a description of the problem. The first person to receive the book lists his or her ideas and then routes the book to the next person on the distribution list. The second person can log new ideas or add to the ideas of the previous person. This continues until the distribution list is exhausted. A follow-up "read out" meeting is then held to discuss the ideas logged in the book. This technique takes longer, but it allows individuals time to think deeply about the problem.
Team idea mapping method
This method of brainstorming works by the method of association. It may improve collaboration and increase the quantity of ideas, and is designed so that all attendees participate and no ideas are rejected.
The process begins with a well-defined topic. Each participant brainstorms individually, then all the ideas are merged onto one large idea map. During this consolidation phase, participants may discover a common understanding of the issues as they share the meanings behind their ideas. During this sharing, new ideas may arise by the association, and they are added to the map as well. Once all the ideas are captured, the group can prioritize and/or take action.
This is a computerized version of the manual brainstorming technique typically supported by an electronic meeting system (EMS) but simpler forms can also be done via email and may be browser based, or use peer-to-peer software.
With an electronic meeting system, participants share a list of ideas over a network. Ideas are entered independently. Contributions become immediately visible to all and are typically anonymized to encourage openness and reduce personal prejudice. Modern EMS also support asynchronous brainstorming sessions over extended periods of time as well as typical follow-up activities in the creative problem solving process such as categorization of ideas, elimination of duplicates, assessment and discussion of prioritized or controversial ideas.
Proponents such as Gallupe et al. argue that electronic brainstorming eliminates many of the problems of standard brainstorming, including production blocking (i.e. group members must take turns to express their ideas) and evaluation apprehension (i.e. fear of being judged by others). This positive effect increases with larger groups A perceived advantage of this format is that all ideas can be archived electronically in their original form, and then retrieved later for further thought and discussion. Electronic brainstorming also enables much larger groups to brainstorm on a topic than would normally be productive in a traditional brainstorming session.
When exposed to others’ ideas, attention is focused by the group member on these ideas and this attention has been proposed to cognitively stimulate the brainstormer Therefore, the individual members of the brainstorming group perform better during the session because people see everyone else’s ideas on the computer screen (via chat room or e-mail), explaining the positive effects of EBS. Additionally, during an EBS session, participants have control over their activity and can attend to the ideas of others while also creating their own, continually exposing participants to a flow of ideas. EBS techniques have been shown to produce more ideas and help individuals focus their attention on the ideas of others better than a brainwriting technique (participants write individual written notes in silence and then subsequently communicate them with the group) The production of more ideas has been linked to the fact that paying attention to others’ ideas leads to non-redundancy, as one will try to avoid to replicate or repeat another participant’s comment or idea.
The fact that individuals are not physically visible has also been shown to be an important component to the superiority of EBS over other methods, such as brainwriting. Due to the fact that participants are not typically in a room with the group, social cues such as facial expression and verbal language are not available, and therefore, attention is paid to the task at hand and the ideas rather than the people involved.
Some web-based brainstorming techniques allow contributors to post their comments anonymously through the use of avatars. This technique also allows users to log on over an extended time period, typically one or two weeks, to allow participants some "soak time" before posting their ideas and feedback. This technique has been used particularly in the field of new product development, but can be applied in any number of areas requiring collection and evaluation of ideas.
Some limitations of EBS include the fact that it can flood people with too many ideas at one time that they have to attend to, and people may also compare their performance to others by analyzing how many ideas each individual produces (social matching).
Directed brainstorming is a variation of electronic brainstorming (described above). It can be done manually or with computers. Directed brainstorming works when the solution space (that is, the set of criteria for evaluating a good idea) is known prior to the session. If known, those criteria can be used to constrain the Ideation process intentionally.
In directed brainstorming, each participant is given one sheet of paper (or electronic form) and told the brainstorming question. They are asked to produce one response and stop, then all of the papers (or forms) are randomly swapped among the participants. The participants are asked to look at the idea they received and to create a new idea that improves on that idea based on the initial criteria. The forms are then swapped again and respondents are asked to improve upon the ideas, and the process is repeated for three or more rounds.
In the laboratory, directed brainstorming has been found to almost triple the productivity of groups over electronic brainstorming.
A guided brainstorming session is time set aside to brainstorm either individually or as a collective group about a particular subject under the constraints of perspective and time. This type of brainstorming removes all cause for conflict and constrains conversations while stimulating critical and creative thinking in an engaging, balanced environment.
Participants are asked to adopt different mindsets for pre-defined period of time while contributing their ideas to a central mind map drawn by a pre-appointed scribe. Having examined a multi-perspective point of view, participants seemingly see the simple solutions that collectively create greater growth. Action is assigned individually.
Following a guided brainstorming session participants emerge with ideas ranked for further brainstorming, research and questions remaining unanswered and a prioritized, assigned, actionable list that leaves everyone with a clear understanding of what needs to happen next and the ability to visualize the combined future focus and greater goals of the group.
"Individual brainstorming" is the use of brainstorming in solitary. It typically includes such techniques as free writing, free speaking, word association, and drawing a mind map, which is a visual note taking technique in which people diagram their thoughts. Individual brainstorming is a useful method in creative writing and has been shown to be superior to traditional group brainstorming.
Research has shown individual brainstorming to be more effective in idea-generation than group brainstorming.
This process involves brainstorming the questions, rather than trying to come up with immediate answers and short term solutions. Theoretically, this technique should not inhibit participation as there is no need to provide solutions. The answers to the questions form the framework for constructing future action plans. Once the list of questions is set, it may be necessary to prioritize them to reach to the best solution in an orderly way.
"Questorming" is another term for this mode of inquiry.
Incentives and brainstorming
Some research indicates that incentives can augment creative processes. Participants were divided into three conditions. In Condition I, a flat fee was paid to all participants. In the Condition II, participants were awarded points for every unique idea of their own, and subjects were paid for the points that they earned. In Condition III, subjects were paid based on the impact that their idea had on the group; this was measured by counting the number of group ideas derived from the specific subject's ideas. Condition III outperformed Condition II, and Condition II outperformed Condition I at a statistically significant level for most measures. The results demonstrated that participants were willing to work far longer to achieve unique results in the expectation of compensation.
Some research claims to refute Osborn's claim that group brainstorming could generate more ideas than individuals working alone. Research from Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe demonstrated that groups brainstorming together produce fewer ideas than individuals working separately. Their conclusions were based on a review of 22 other studies, 18 of which corroborated their findings.
Sources of brainstorming inadequacy
Diehl and Stroebe identified three processes that derailed brainstorming efforts. These processes were free writing, evaluation apprehension, and blocking. Other processes, such as the social matching effect and the illusion of group productivity, can also undermine brainstorming efforts.
Free writing: Individuals may feel that their ideas are less valuable when combined with the ideas of the group at large. Indeed, Diehl and Stroebe demonstrated that even when individuals worked alone, they produced fewer ideas if told that their output would be judged in a group with others than if told that their output would be judged individually. However, experimentation revealed free writing as only a marginal contributor to productivity loss, and type of session (i.e., real vs. nominal group) contributed much more.
Evaluation apprehension: Evaluation apprehension was determined to occur only in instances of personal evaluation. If the assumption of collective assessment were in place, real-time judgment of ideas, ostensibly an induction of evaluation apprehension, failed to induce significant variance.
Blocking: Blocking describes the reality that only one person may gainfully voice his or her ideas in a group at any given time. Diehl and Stroebe examined the question of whether this effect could reduce idea-generation, as ideas suppressed long enough to listen to another group-member's ideas might be forgotten. Their research confirmed this hypothesis.
Social matching effect: The social matching effect is the tendency for individuals in a group to match the level of productivity by others in the group. When one (or a few) group members feel that they are contributing more to the brainstorming process than others, they express a tendency to reduce their contributions to the group's lower standards, as overcontribution is more effortful than undercontribution.
Illusion of group productivity: Members of groups often overestimate their productivity, a tendency known as the illusion of group productivity. As groups rarely have objective standards to determine how well they are performing, individual members can only guess at the group's effectiveness. Members of groups working on collective tasks are likely to feel that their group is more productive than most. Further, individual members overestimate their own contributions to the group. In one research study, members who were asked to generate ideas in a brainstorming session were asked to estimate how many ideas they personally provided. Group members claimed to present 36% of the ideas on average, when they actually only contributed about 25% of the ideas.
Diehl and Stroebe's sources of brainstorming inadequacy suggest that the act of listening to others might stifle creativity. On the other hand, the variations on brainstorming that produce the "social matching effect" would necessarily violate Osborn's principle of "focus on quantity" while those that produce "the free rider problem" and "evaluation apprehension" would necessarily violate "defer judgment." As such, Diehl and Stroebe's critiques, while valuable for identifying problem areas for potential have limited relevance to Brainstorming as popularized by Osborn, which required specific conditions at odds with Diehl and Strobe's test procedures.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Brainstorming.|
- 6-3-5 Brainwriting
- Affinity diagram
- Beginner's mind
- Group concept mapping
- Eureka effect
- Free writing
- Lateral thinking
- Mass collaboration
- Mind map
- Nominal group technique
- Speed thinking
- Thinking outside the box
- What? Where? When?
- Michael Diehl; Wolfgang Stroebe (1991). "Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking Down the Blocking Effect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (3): 392–403.
- Lehrer, Jonah. "GROUPTHINK". NewYorker. Retrieved October 2013.
- Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Revised Edition). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
- "What is Mind Mapping? (and How to Get Started Immediately)". Litemind.com. 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2012-11-24.
- Michinov, N. (2012). Is Electronic Brainstorming the Best Way to Improve Creative Performance in Groups? An Overlooked Comparison of Two Idea-Generation Techniques. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E222 – E243.
- Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M. and Nunamaker, J. F. (1992), "Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 350-369.
- Santanen, E., Briggs, R. O., & de Vreede, G-J. (2004). Causal Relationships in Creative Problem Solving: Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems. 20(4), 167-198.
- Furnham, A., & Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality differences and group versus individual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 73-80.
- Ludy, Perry J. Profit Building: Cutting Costs Without Cutting People. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, Inc, 2000. Print.
- Questorming: An Outline of the Method, Jon Roland, 1985
- Toubia, Olivier. "Idea Generation, Creativity, and Incentives". Marketing Science. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
- Michael Diehl; Wolfgang Stroebe (1987). "Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 497–509.
- Brown, V; Paulus, P. B (1996). "A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming". Small Group Research 27: 91–114.
- Stroebe, W.; Diehl, M. & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). "The illusion of group effectivity". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18 (5): 643–650.
- Paulus, P. B.; Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G.,Camacho, L. M. (1993). "Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (4): 575–586.
- Paulus, P. B.; Brown, V. R. (2003). "Enhancing Ideational Creativity in Groups". In Paulus, P. B.; Nijstad, B. A. Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 110–36. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.003.0006. ISBN 9780195147308.
- Osborn, 1563, p.146