Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On The Relationship Between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A great deal of research has been conducted to develop methods and techniques to improve group ideation. Most of this research focuses on techniques for increasing the quantity of ideas generated during ideation; less attention has been given to the quality of the ideas produced. This focus stems from the widely held quantity–quality conjecture, that, all else being equal, more ideas give rise to more good ideas. In this paper, we argue that cognitive inertia and scarcity of solution space may affect the relationship between idea-quantity and idea-quality as ideation proceeds, resulting in a condition of diminishing returns for additional ideas. Results of a laboratory study using fourteen groups supported the diminishing returns hypothesis. Recommendations for future ideation research are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken M, Vanjani M, Paolillo J (1996) A comparison of two electronic idea generation techniques. Inf Manage 30: 91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley AD (1990) Human memory: theory and practice. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki H, Pinsonneault A (2001) Small group brainstorming and idea quality: is electronic brainstorming the most affective approach?. Small Group Res 32(2): 158–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO, Reinig BA, Shepherd MM, Yen J, Nunamaker JF Jr (1997) Quality as a function of quantity in electronic brainstorming. In: Proceedings of the thirtieth annual Hawaiian conference on system sciences. Los Alamitos, IEEE, pp 94–103 (2001)

  • Cohen D, Whitmyre JW, Funk WH (1960) Effect of group cohesiveness and training upon creative thinking. J Appl Psychol 44(5): 319–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ (1960)

  • Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82: 407–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T, Jessup LM, Valacich JS (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manage Sci 36(6): 97–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WH, Gallupe RB, Pollard S, Cadsby J (1998) Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming. Small Group Res 29(2): 147–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1993) Computer brainstorms: more heads are better than one. J Appl Psychol 78(4): 531–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Nunamaker JF Jr (1990) An experimental investigation of the effects of group size in an electronic meeting environment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 20: 1049–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Carte TA, Garfield MJ, Haley BJ, Aronson JE (1997) Research report: The effectiveness of multiple dialogues in electronic brainstorming. Inf Syst Res 8(2): 203–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Aronson JE, Heninger WG, Walker ED (1999) Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Q 23(1): 95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1910) How we think. D.C. Heath, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Social Psychol 53: 497–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl M, Stroebe W (1991) Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: tracking down the blocking effect. J~Pers Soc Psychol 61: 392–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR (1999) An assessment of group support systems experimental research: methodology and results. J Manage Inf Syst 15(3): 7–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe RB, Bastianutti LM, Cooper WH (1991) Unblocking brainstorms. J Appl Psychol 76(1): 137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe RB, Dennis AR, Cooper WH, Valacich JS, Bastianutti LM, Nunamaker JF (1992) Electronic brainstorming and group size. Acad Manage J 35: 350–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gryskiewicz SS (1988) Trial by fire in an industrial setting: a practical evaluation of three creative problem-solving techniques. In: Grohhaug K, Kaufmann G(eds) Innovation: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective.. Norwegian University Press, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurman EB (1968) Creativity as a function of orientation and group participation. Psychol Rep 22: 471–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari O, Graham WK (1975) Tasks and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. J Social Psychol 95: 61–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup LM, Connolly T, Galegher J (1990) The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Q 14(3): 313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine DM, Stephan D, Krehbiel T, Berenson ML (2002) Statistics for Managers using microsoft Excel, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen DB, Finger JR Jr (1978) Comparison of a written feedback procedure, group brainstorming, and individual brainstorming. J Appl Psychol 63: 120–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maginn BK, Harris RJ (1980) Effects of anticipated evaluation on individual brainstorming performance. J Appl Psychol 65(2): 219–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malt BC, Smith EE (1982) The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Mem Cogn 10: 69–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Mennecke BE, Wheeler BC (1993) Tasks matter: Modeling group task processes in experimental CSCW research. In: (eds) In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual hawaiian conference on system sciences. IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 71–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63: 81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear models, 3rd edn. Irwin, Homewood

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn AF (1963) Applied imagination, 3rd edn. Scribner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic O, Krickl O (1994) Traditionally-moderated versus computer supported brainstorming: a comparative study. Inform Manage 27:233–243 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault A, Barki H, Gallupe RB, Hoppen N (1999) The illusion of electronic brainstorming productivity: theoretical and empirical issues. Inf Syst Res 10(4): 378–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokras S (1989) Systematic problem-solving and decision-making: rational methods for problem-solving and decision-making. Crisp Publications, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter GS, Portugal SM (1969) Group and individual effects in problem solving. J Appl Psychol 53(4): 338–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury WD, Chin WW, Gopal A, Newsted PR (2002) Better theory through measurement: developing a scale to capture consensus on appropriation. Inform Syst Res 13(1):91–103 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Santanen EL, Briggs RO, Vreede GJ (2004) Causal relationships in creative problem solving: comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. J Manage Inf Syst 20(4): 167–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd MM, Briggs RO, Reinig BA, Yen J, Nunamaker JF (1996) Social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: beyond anonymity. J Manage Inf Syst 12(3): 155–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1977) The new science of management decision. Prentice-Hall, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith EE (1995) Concepts and Categorization. In: Smith EE, Osherson DN(eds) Thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G (1992) Pooling of unshared information during group discussions. In: Worchel S, Wood W, Simpson JA (eds) Group process and productivity, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA (1995)

  • Street WR (1974) Brainstorming by individuals, coacting and interacting groups. J Appl Psych 59(4): 433–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valacich JS, Dennis AR, Connolly T (1994) Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 57: 448–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler BC, Mennecke BE (1992) Modeling group task processes using a hidden profile task: the School of Business Policy Task. Indiana University working paper 513

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information & Decision Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA

    Bruce A. Reinig

  2. Institute for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, USA

    Robert O. Briggs

  3. Department of Systems Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Robert O. Briggs

Authors
  1. Bruce A. Reinig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert O. Briggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce A. Reinig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reinig, B.A., Briggs, R.O. On The Relationship Between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation. Group Decis Negot 17, 403–420 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9105-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9105-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation