Talk:Brainstorming/Archives/2013

Confusion between Process for Generating Ideas and Group Interaction

There seems to be a basic confusion in this article Brainstorming can be taken merely as a process to generate ideas, individually or in groups. The way that the groups interact is a separate feature, which can compare interacting groups, nominal group techniques or the Delphi method.

There seem to be some confusion here on the one hand there is an extremely rigid process being explained (which is a much more narrow definition than need be) and on the other hand critiques are targeted at the group interaction level. A wholesale rewrite on the broad topic of brainstorming would improve this article tremendously. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughtshowering

I added a little about this phrase. Thought it was highly appropriate to the article and also of interest. Ivesfreak 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

---

It is appropriate and I don't understand why people keep removing all mention of the PC controversy from this article. However, I think the BBC dropping it is an urban myth (quickly exploded by Google searching the BBC site for the term). An older edit by User:Quercusrobur included an reference to an article in the British newspaper The Telegraph. I'd like that paragraph/link restored along with a link to the Epilepsy Action Epilepsy Facts, Figures and Terminology page. A survey by Epilepsy Action in their journal Epilepsy Today (Issue 73, October 2005) showed that people who have epilepsy do not associate the word "Brainstorming" with epilepsy and do not find it offensive. The suggestion therefore is that the concern over this word has been invented. --Colin 19:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I have now removed the BBC story and replaced it with two that can be verified by links to the newspaper articles.--Colin 16:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I removed the link to the disambig page from the top of the page, as all the other links in the page are proper nouns "Brainstorm". Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Forgot to sign - Bjmurph 09:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtshowering... delete?

I say we delete the thought shower segment or drastically improve it. Up until now, it didn't even mention that it was offensive BECAUSE of the epilepsy connection until the end of the segment. Fix it or get rid of it, it's nearly unreadable. --64.251.53.130 14:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Brainstorming doesn't work

Sorry, but it doesn't. Years of research have demonstrated that the usual method of brainstorming is no more effective than other group discussion methods, and actually less effective than individuals generating ideas on their own. I put a criticism section with scholarly references and a note in the introduction section about this.

Now the question is what to do with this article? I think much of the content regarding how to do brainstorming could be trimmed down, considering that it doesn't work. Sorry! The section on newer variations on brainstorming could be developed further, since that's where there is still some hope of progress. Time will tell.

It's really a shame that brainstorming continues to be so popular among so many well intentioned people, or maybe not so well intentioned. Some of the advocates of this stuff are spending more time giving workshops and making money than reading negative research reports. There's still room for a variety of group techniques to make group discussions more fun and interesting, but if you really want to generate good ideas, it might be better to have people work on their ideas separately and then bring them in for group discussion afterwards. This is what the research suggests is most effective. Jcbutler 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment hasn't led to much discussion or editing on the article, so today I made some extensive changes, streamlining the article, and removing some of the more extravagant claims of brainstorming. I also added a section on electronic brainstorming, which appears to be more effective than face-to-face brainstorming because it doesn't lead to production blocking. The article could still use some polishing and fine-tuning, and perhaps a conclusion section that sums up the research and clearly states what brainstorming can and cannot do. --Jcbutler 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorming can work but it depends on who´s brain you are storming. For example, you are alone in the jungle with 5 chimpanzees, 2 males, 2 females, 1 alpha female. Will you decide to storm the brain of one of the male chimps, the sole human, a female chimp, or the alpha female? If you storm the alpha females brain you will have to fight off at least 5 chimps, 4 of them will take exception to the storming of the alpha´s brain, she leads by example, you don´t.

Moral: You storm the brain of that one that is more capable of handling the storming of it´s brain, the sole human.

Wikipedia is a brain-storming session on a worldwide conglomerate basis. Concensus reaching is NOT a fine thing, no leader to take the final and ultimate decision. Lobying as concensus reaching is the capitalists version of communism and the final decision will still have to pass by the alpha-male or female stage to obtain approvement. The House of Representatives and the Senate are defacto brainstorming sessions, no brains, no sessions, no storms. It is not in the storming it´s in what you must do afterwards, lot´s of thinkers do not one doer make.

(Fractalhints (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Brainstorming can be effective

Brainstorming can be a solo activity, or group based it is just the action of generating a lot of ideas around a central point fast.

It is a natural start point to any project. The reason grouping is used is primarily for inclusion. I agree with Jcbutler if the group consists mainly of solo players who clam up with others, then brainstorming face to face can be counter productive. So, his idea of using email is valid in such instances, though of course there are other ways.

The point is any idea is further extended by making a list of related points, whether that be in written prose or just in a series of bullet points.

A problem does occur if people think that was is brainstormed is the final list of ideas for inclusion - that of course would be wrong - but it does act as a great way to get a list of a lot of ideas to work from or even to ignore.

If you go shopping you often make a list, now that list could be held in the mind or written down, but you go through a period of time just making a list of things you want to buy, it is an effective way to get the shopping done, and it is an effective way to get projects started. I suppose you could just wander around the shop, or wander around projects, but at some point someone has done some initial thinking.

I think people perhaps are making brainstorming out to be more than it is, brainstorming is just listing ideas on a topic. I personally find it invaluable on solo and group projects, it is just initial thoughts on a matter. Brainstorming is not mind mapping and I think this is where the confusion is coming in. Mind mapping works for those who are more inclined to remember things through visual cues, and to be fair pre-generated graphics don't help that much, it is more the act of actually of drawing the icon yourself that creates the association --PoisedSolutions 23:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorming is not just listing ideas on a topic, and it cannot be done solo, at least not as originally advertised! It is a very specific technique with a set of very specific rules to follow. The point is to develop a group synergy in which people stimulate and build off the ideas of others. Other than that, I think I actually agree with your point. The type of "brainstorming" you do by yourself can be effective, more effective than real brainstorming. But the traditional method of brainstorming developed by Osborn is a demonstrable failure. All the variations flying around now are attempts to fix it, but they only work to the extent that they throw out the original ideas behind the method. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation and commitment to a solution

This is reverted because it is not "redundant information". It is the end stage of the method, as discussed by Osborn and others. It is not discussed above. Previous editors just left out an important part of the complete method. Bracton (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is some new information here. But why the new section? Why not integrate this material into already existing sections, such as "Outline of the method"? The bit on queststorming probably should go with the other variations. --Jcbutler (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rearrangement. I considered doing it that way myself, but thought to put the Evaluation after the Variations because it is the final stage for all of them, But this arrangement works okay. Bracton (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Creative Engineering courses at MIT

The way I first became acquainted with brainstorming was by reading about its use in a series of courses taught at MIT in the early 1950s titled "Creative Engineering". The instructor presented his students with an alien planet with different intelligent lifeforms and geophysical conditions. The students were tasked with inventing a complete technology adapted to them. Everything from chairs to vehicles. The results were remarkable, and might be worth introducing into this article, or perhaps in the Creativity article. So far, however, I haven't found as much on those courses as I would like to be able to cite it and perhaps make a section out of it, such as examples of some of the bizarre but plausible inventions the students came up with, after brainstorming many alternatives. I understand the technique was later carried to the Lockheed Skunkworks project that produced the SR-71. Does anyone have some good material on that? Bracton (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to elaborate too much on this article without clear evidence that a certain technique or variety of brainstorming is actually effective. There is a large empirical literature in psychology showing that brainstorming typically fails as a method of increasing creative productivity. If anything needs to be expanded, it is coverage of this rather disappointing fact. My own direct experience is limited to a handful of attempts to pit brainstorming groups against equal numbers of solitary individuals during a class activity in Group Dynamics. Sadly, the brainstorming groups do worse than the controls every time. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of that literature as well as literature that supports the effectiveness (although a long time ago and I don't remember the cites), and was struck that the contrary studies didn't seem to be talking about the same method or about comparable efforts to implement it. I have used it myself and found it highly effective, for a certain class of problems. Those for which solutions are impeded by people coming into the situation with a lot of conventional, preconceived ideas about how to solve them, who needed to break out of a cultural rut. One such class of problems involve military planning, where there is a tendency to "fight the last war", and not take advantage of new technologies or perhaps cultural elements of the adversary. Another are certain kinds of engineering or research problems where the participants are used to thinking of expensive solutions and are confronted with the need to find more economical ones. Of course it is incumbent on me, or someone else, to come up with cites to such supporting literature. But in the meantime other editors should not presume the matter has been settled. I know the method is still being used in various management situations to good effect, so it still has its champions. We can also question the evaluation protocols, because "creativity" is not something on which there is ready agreement on how to measure, and it is rarely feasible to do a controlled study of multiple problem-solving efforts, some using the method and some not, measuring the cost and effectiveness of the complete effort, not just the 'creativity" of it. Bracton (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the ref to the encyclopedia of ceativity and its brainstorming article. Might be worth adding the work on brainstorming by Ideon which is now a well-known business case. The company involves design clients to brainstorming which seems to have v positive impact. Should 'deep diving' get a mention, as it seems also v popular at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.225.82 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A question from Paris from somebody who has meet Alex Osborn

Hello, JCButler. My name is Swiners, Jean-Louis Swiners, French from Paris, Ph. D. Felicitations for your great work of supervision of « Brainstorming ». Wow ! I have meet Osborn in New York with Halsmann in 1959. At this time, Halsmann already said brainstorming was funny but uneffective to get an idea for a LIFE cover.

So, my question : brainstorming is coming from brain, of course, and from to storm, to attack. Why don't you insist on this etymology which give meaning to the expression ? I meet a american consultant in Paris. He explains me that brainstorm means brainraining and that he was the rainmaker (for me the chaman). Thanks for your attention. My direct e-mail is : jlswiners@wanadoo.fr

Go on Google and search for < Swiners brainstorming >--Jean-Louis Swiners (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rigorously creative or lazy and popular?

I think there are two entirely different practices known as "brainstorming". The original brainstorming was carefully designed to release novel and creative solutions to tricky problems; but this is hard work and therefore unpopular. What people prefer to do instead is write safe solutions onto a flip chart; this form of so-called brainstorming is basically an exercise in group think. The question for Wikipedia is - do we insist on the original meaning of the term "brainstorming" or do we acknowledge that the term has been popularly diluted to near-meaninglessness, so that any groupwork involving a flipchart tends to be called "brainstorming"? --RichardVeryard (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn´t that term equivalent to corporate team think training. Brainstorming vs team formation.(Fractalhints (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Brainstorming versus evaluation

In section 2.5 (session conduct), two selection steps are mentioned: 8. Ideas are categorized. 10. Duplicate ideas and obviously infeasible solutions are removed.

are these formal steps in the brainstorm itself, or is that part of the evaluation afterwards? These 'rational' steps do not really comply with the whole spirit of brainstorming, even though in many cases groups do indeed do the first part of the evaluation right after the brainstorm.1983 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Multi-group teamwork

In the recent San Jose Mine Rescue they had three groups working to a solution, "Plans A,B,C". What were the planning techniques used there? Were individual experts the key, flip charting "For & Against" risks/benefits of the options? Or, do they use brainstorming methods as described? People might have something to add about corporate-style workshoping of hypothetical senarios/product development. Suggestion boxes etc. The story about Swan/Edison's work on light bulb development may be of interest. See GE's imaginationcubed.com shareable web whiteboard tool ,apparently free to use(subject to conditions?). Signed220.101.66.30 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Design by committee

The phrase "Design by committee" could be put under the See Also list, however, because it is often used in a pejorative sense perhaps that phrase could be mentioned somewhere else. Signed220.101.66.30 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Other items for 'See Also',  perhapsProfessor Branestawm

and ChindoguJohnsonL623 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of brain storming

According to Gary A. Davis, in "Creativity is Forever", Osborn himself warned people about group brainstorming, and more specifically that it should not be used to replace, but supplement, individual, creative and intuitive thinking. Uve bianche (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be bold and write a sentence about this in the criticism section! You know how to do the reference? If not, please read WP:referencing for beginners. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Article merge, Idea networking

Hi folks, since you are fairly close to this subject, would someone mind reviewing this article and weighing in on whether you think it should be merged into this article or not. Thanks--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)