Developing CSCW Tools for Idea Finding–Empirical Results and

Developing CSCW tools for Idea Finding - Empirical Results and Implications for Design. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2002), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, ACM Press, November 16–20, 2002. pp. 106-115.

Developing CSCW Tools for Idea Finding – Empirical Results and Implications for Design Thorsten Prante, Carsten Magerkurth, Norbert Streitz Fraunhofer Gesellschaft für angewandte Forschung e.V. IPSI – Integrated Publication and Information Systems Institute AMBIENTE – Workspaces of the Future Dolivostr. 15, Darmstadt, Germany +49(0)6151-869-{924, 917, 919} {prante, magerkur, streitz}@ipsi.fraunhofer.de http://ipsi.fhg.de/ambiente ABSTRACT

In this paper, we first describe a formative empirical study to inform the design of CSCW tools to support idea finding in co-located groups. Groups of students worked on creative problems with mapping and whiteboard tools in different work modes. Concluding from the results of the study, requirements are derived. A suite of tools that are informed by these requirements is presented along with typical scenarios of their usage. The suite consists of three software components covering a Mind-Mapping system (BeachMap), a novel interaction technique for successive bottom-up structuring of ideas (MagNets), and a PDA tool for asynchronous idea generation “on the road” (PalmBeach). Keywords

Idea finding, computer-supported cooperative work, co-located groups, creativity, mind-mapping, production blocking, formative evaluation, large displays, humancomputer interaction, personal digital assistants, tool-suite INTRODUCTION

Creative group work has been among the most popular buzzwords in innovative organizations since the 1970s. However, the effectiveness of traditional creative group work has not yet been shown in a single scientific study [11]. A host of human factors such as evaluation apprehension or production blocking due to the small bandwidth of human communication channels prevent the full realization of a group’s creative performance [4]. To overcome the limitations of traditional creative group work, computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) benefits from the use of information technology. For instance, by anonymizing the individual input of participants in an idea finding session, the conforming effect of evaluation apprehension can be prevented [4]. Or, Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. CSCW’02, November 16–20, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

by entering text simultaneously, i.e., in parallel instead of uttering oral statements sequentially, production blocking can be reduced [9]. Little is known, however, in how far a group’s creative performance is influenced by the way the group builds up and interacts with its set or space of generated ideas. This shared idea space might be represented by individual lists of ideas, or by one complex mapping structure, or even without any way of perceiving it as a structure at all [9]. Also, software tools might differ in their realization of perceiving, producing, and editing ideas. As a formative evaluation in the process of developing a tool-suite for groups that supports idea generating and structuring we recently investigated the effects that already existing, commonly used tools had on group performance and the organization of the group’s shared space of ideas [12]. We will first present this formative study and afterwards discuss the requirements for the development of computersupported idea-finding tools drawn from the study. Finally, we will present our own suite of tools and how they meet these requirements. METHOD

The sample of the study consisted of 45 student subjects (42 male, 3 female, mean age: 28) recruited from the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. The subjects were randomly assigned to groups of three that had to generate ideas to solve as a group three creative tasks of equal difficulty taken from [14]. The tasks were contest problems such as dealing with acid rain or improving airline safety. For each task, one of three software tools was used to enter and structure the ideas. So each of the groups worked on each task and used each tool. The order of the tools and tasks was balanced. The work duration for each task was 15 minutes. When working on a task, each subject generated ideas on his personal computer connected to the computers of the other two group members, so that a shared representation of the idea space, i.e. all the ideas the group members had contributed, could be realized.

The subjects were located together with an instructor in one room. They were instructed not to talk to each other, but to use the communication facilities the software tools provided. Since a main contribution of computer-supported idea-finding tools is to provide a “second channel for communication” complementing normal conversation that occurs in meetings [21], we prevented situations in which one of the group members served as a scribe for the oral commands of the other two1 thus eliminating the effects of the oral channel. Software Tools

The three tools used in the study included a Mind-Mapping system, and two collaborative whiteboard editors. The user interface of each tool conformed to the MS Windows style guides and demanded an equal amount of similar interactions to add, alter, and delete ideas. 1. Mind-Mapping system

The Mind-Mapping system (Mind-Manager 4.0 from MindVision) [16] enforces a hierarchical structuring of the idea space with the Mind-Map notation, i.e. ideas are graphically connected via branches (see figure 1). MindMaps are popular among many creative teams, probably because the enforced spatial structure in the external representation facilitates building an internal representation of the group’s shared space of ideas.

Figure 2. Whiteboard editor structures.

We chose to compare Mind-Maps with a whiteboard tool that has little constraints in the way groups organize their idea space, because we hoped to draw conclusions about performance and typical structures that would emerge when groups are free to structure their ideas. 3. Collaborative whiteboard editor “Netmeeting Whiteboard”

The Netmeeting Whiteboard 3.2 from Microsoft [15] is similar to the SMART Notebook software in that it offers identical interaction objects for editing and altering ideas as well as a largely similar screen layout. A person familiar with the interface of either whiteboard editor can immediately use the other. However, two of the tools differ from the third in the way group collaboration is implemented. The Mind-Mapping tool and the SMART Notebook use a turn-taking work mode via application sharing, where only one subject at a time can alter the idea space while each subject can perceive the changes immediately. This closely represents a traditional face-to-face meeting situation, where only one person can speak at the same time, but each person can perceive the (oral) information simultaneously.

Figure 1. Mind-Mapping structure. 2. Collaborative whiteboard editor “SMART-Notebook”

The Notebook Software 2.2 from SMART Technologies [26] was used to enter ideas using the whiteboard metaphor. The editor can both be used to make simple lists of sequentially entered ideas or to structure the idea space in a more sophisticated way by moving single ideas on the display, e.g. to form clusters or even hierarchical structures (see figure 2).

1

This problem was faced in a pilot study, when subjects used to traditional meeting situations fell back to their routine behavior.

On the contrary, the Netmeeting whiteboard editor allows for a truly synchronous work mode, where the idea space can be altered and perceived simultaneously by each group member. No process constraints were given regarding the use of either the whiteboard editors or the Mind-Mapping2 tool. The enforced hierarchy of the Mind-Mapping tool naturally suggested organizing the ideas in a hierarchical, tree-like way.

2

We thus refer only to the structural notation of MindMapping, not to a creativity technique.

Measures Independent Variables

The software tools used in this study differed in the underlying factors of 1.) constraints in structuring, i.e. Mind-Maps versus a free whiteboard, and 2.) the work mode, i.e. synchronous work with both simultaneous reception and production of ideas and turn-taking with simultaneous reception and alternating production. A condition with a synchronous work mode using a MindMapping tool had to be left out, because no such collaborative system had existed at the time of the study. The contingency matrix (table 1) shows the underlying factors.

relating the group’s ideas. Instead, subjects either worked on private areas of the whiteboard where they simply put their own ideas one below the other or ideas were entered at seemingly random positions on the whiteboard (see figure 4a). Contrary, the Mind-Mapping tool enforced a hierarchy of ideas including headings as meta information that was exploited well by the majority of subjects.

Table 1: Independent variables.

Structure \ Work Mode

Synchronous

Turn-taking

Mind-Mapping

N/A

Tool 1

Whiteboard

Tool 3

Tool 2

Dependent Variables

Group satisfaction, quality and number of ideas were measured along with a qualitative analysis of the construction of the idea space over time. Additionally, differential psychological measures were taken that are not relevant in the context of this paper. RESULTS

In accordance with other findings in the body of literature regarding traditional face-to-face meetings [3], the mean quantitative output of the groups was hampered by a turntaking work mode, no matter if the Mind-Mapping tool (tool 1) or the SMART Notebook (tool 2) was used (MANOVA F(2, 68)=4.815; p