Improving Group Productivity with Group Support Systems and ...

218

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Improving Group Productivity with Group Support Systems and Creative Problem Solving Techniques Elspeth McFadzean Organisations today utilise teams to undertake problem solving and opportunity finding tasks. There have been a number of variables that have been posited by theorists that can influence group productivity. Two of these ± namely group technology and creative problem solving (CPS) techniques ± are explored in this paper. Studies have found that group support systems tend to improve group productivity because they can reduce evaluation apprehension, production blocking and free riding. These systems, however, tend to utilise Electronic Brainstorming in modes that fail to deliver some advantages of other CPS techniques. The paper suggests how developers of group support systems could incorporate new creative problem solving modules into their software.

1. Introduction

M

eetings are important and a very common part of company life. According to Briggs and Vreede (1997), meetings are difficult and expensive but necessary to undertake. They are frequently dominated by one or two individuals, or pointless arguments can occur which often lead to stalemate, or the meeting finishes without a solution or a way forward (Nunamaker et al, 1991; Nelson and McFadzean, in press). In order to be productive, meetings need to be well structured, have explicit objectives and an agenda, and the participants need to be focused on the task at hand (McFadzean and Nelson, in press). According to many management theorists, several of these problems can be solved by using a group support system (Dennis and Valacich, 1993; Dennis, George, Jessup, Nunamaker, and Vogel, 1988; Tyran, Dennis, Vogel, and Nunamaker, 1992; Gallupe et al, 1992; Nunamaker et al, 1991). Group support systems, however, tend to rely on Electronic Brainstorming (or Brainwriting) in order to encourage idea generation but McFadzean (1996), Nagasundaram (1995) and Proctor (1997) have all suggested that creativity can be enhanced by using unrelated stimuli such as pictures, fantasies and drawings. Although there are numerous different types of creativity software these tend to be

Enhancing creativity

Volume 6

Number 4

December 1997

stand alone systems and therefore do not reflect the advantages of a group support system. This article suggests that some synergy could be obtained if a group support system included a module consisting of a variety of different types of creative problem solving techniques. Creative problem solving (CPS) methods and techniques are now being used widely in organisations in order to produce novel and innovative practices, procedures, products and services (Nadler and Hibino, 1994; Baden-Fuller and Pitt, 1996; Hammer and Champy, 1996). CPS techniques have been found to be useful in building corporate vision (Forsth and Nordvik, 1995), aiding decision making (VanGundy, 1988), mapping information and restructuring thoughts (Proctor, 1995), developing novel ideas (McFadzean, 1996) and changing perceptions (De Bono, 1992). This paper will explore the areas of group technology and creative problem solving and suggests that a number of creative problem solving techniques could be incorporated into a group support system. The next section will describe the advantages offered to teams when they use a group support system. Section 3 then discusses the use of creative problem solving and outlines some research that has been undertaken in this area. In addition, it describes how a # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

IMPROVING GROUP PRODUCTIVITY

number of creative problem solving techniques can be incorporated into a group support system. Finally, a summary of the paper is presented in Section 4.

2. Using a group support system to improve group productivity A group support system (GSS) can be defined as `àn information technology-based environment that supports group meetings, which may be dispersed geographically and temporally. The IT environment includes, but is not limited to, distributed facilities, computer hardware and software, audio and video technology, procedures, methodologies, facilitation and application group data'' (Dennis, George, Jessup, Nunamaker and Vogel, 1988, p. 593). There has been a large amount of empirical studies undertaken on the use of group support systems. Many of these studies have compared these systems with conventional face-to-face groups. Some theorists, such as Dennis, Heminger, Nunamaker and Vogel (1990), Gallupe DeSanctis and Dickson (1988) and Gallupe, Bastianutti and Cooper (1991) have found that group support systems are more effective than manual methods. Moreover, theorists have also found that GSS-supported groups are more efficient than their manual counterparts (see, for example, Lewis and Keleman, 1990; Dennis, Heminger, Nunamaker and Vogel, 1990; Martz, Vogel and Nunamaker, 1992; Tyran, Dennis, Vogel and Nunamaker, 1992). In addition, studies have been undertaken on group satisfaction. Gallupe et al (1992) and Lewis and Keleman (1990) found that GSS-supported groups were more satisfied with the process than manual groups. Lewis and Keleman (1990) also found that electronic groups were more satisfied with their output than their manual counterparts. Teams using group support systems tend to be more effective at idea generation than manual groups because the technology reduces or negates what is termed as process losses (Dennis and Valacich, 1993). These include factors such as free riding, production blocking and evaluation apprehension (Nunamaker et al, 1991). According to Albanese and Van Fleet (1985, p. 244), a free rider is `à member of a group who obtains benefits from group membership but does not bear a proportional share of the costs of providing the benefits''. In other words, an individual within the group fails to make an effort to help achieve the task. This situation may exist for a number of reasons. The individual may believe that the

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997

219

rest of the group is capable of undertaking the task without his or her help, or the group member is unable to communicate because he or she is competing with other members for the opportunity to speak, or he or she is shy and lacks communicating skills (Harkins and Petty, 1982; Van de Ven and Delbecq, 1971; Johnson and Johnson, 1987). Production blocking occurs in an interacting group because only one member can communicate at any one time (Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). There are a number of consequences that occur as a result of production blocking (Dennis and Valacich, 1993). First, group members will be constantly listening to his or her fellow members' contributions and cannot therefore easily think about new ideas for fear of missing other peoples' views. Second, members who are unable to speak when their ideas occur may forget or suppress them because later on they feel they are less relevant or original. Finally, members may use their time to remember their ideas rather than thinking up new ones. Evaluation apprehension occurs when members withhold suggestions because they are frightened of negative criticism (Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). In an effort to reduce evaluation apprehension many idea generation techniques suspend evaluation until after the idea development phase has been concluded (Osborn, 1957). Interactive groups can also create other problems. In some instances, for example, social pressure within groups can lead to conformity where group members tend to favour acceptance rather than express their disagreement ( Janis, 1982). This may lead to an inaccurate, incomplete and misleading picture of the problem since individuals may have been reluctant to contribute to the discussion (Watson, 1993). This type of behaviour is more likely to occur when there is a strong and powerful leader heading the group (Janis, 1982). Group members may feel that they need to obey the group leader because of his or her higher organisational position (Finkelstein, 1992) or because he or she has strong personal characteristics such as vision and intelligence (Biggart and Hamilton, 1987) or, as Driskell and Salas (1991) found, group members tend to acquiesce to their leader when they are under stress. One particular type of group support system ± GroupSystems ± has been measured and discussed by countless theorists (see, for example, Nunamaker et al, 1991; Dennis and Valacich, 1993; Briggs and Vreede, 1997; Gallupe et al, 1992; Tyran, Dennis, Vogel, and Nunamaker, 1992; Dennis, Heminger,

Volume 6 Number 4

December 1997

220


Nunamaker and Vogel, 1990). The present version of this software, GroupSystems for Windows, has a number of different tools. These are summarised in Table 1. According to Briggs and Nunamaker (1996) and Briggs and Vreede (1997), group support systems like GroupSystems have enhanced team productivity by improving communication, deliberation, information access and goal congruence. This has occurred in a number of ways. First, group support systems have improved communication because of parallel and anonymous processing. The participants are able to ``talk'' and ``listen'' all at once thus negating production blocking. They are also able to pick and choose when to read comments and ideas and when to type in their own ideas. In other words, they can select what captures their attention themselves instead of being forced to conform to the rest of the group, which occurs in an interactive session. Moreover, evaluation apprehension is reduced because participants are able to communicate contentious issues without fear of retribution. Participation by team members also tends to be more equal in electronic groups than manual groups (George, Easton, Nunamaker and Northcraft, 1990; Lewis and Keleman, 1990). This may be due to the reduction in production blocking

Parallel and anonymous processing

and evaluation apprehension or it may be that free riding is just less attractive in an electronic environment. Whatever the reason, participation equality ± and anonymity ± helps the team gather information, ideas and perceptions from each group member. This helps to reduce groupthink and conformity ( Janis, 1982). Second, Group support systems have improved deliberation by having tools available (e.g. electronic brainstorming, voting and categorising) that help the group to structure their thinking process. In addition, these tools aid both divergent and convergent thinking. Anonymity and parallel communication encourages a rapid free flow of ideas but the system also aids synthesis, categorisation and evaluation of ideas. Third, a group support system aids information access by acting as a group memory. Thus, everything that is typed in during the meeting is stored and can be accessed either during the meeting or can be used as a reference after the meeting by both the participants and others who wish the information. GSSs have also been proved useful when large groups are utilising them. Experiments in the past have found that larger groups gain more benefit from a group support system than smaller groups (Dennis

Table 1. The tools incorporated in GroupSystems for Windows

Volume 6

Number 4

Tool

Description

Alternative Analyzer

A tool that compares alternative sets of data against predetermined criteria in order to help the decision making process.

Briefcase

A collection of personal tools, which includes a Calculator, a Notepad, a Clipboard and Quick Vote.

Categorizer

This tool allows the participants to generate, merge and categorise ideas easily.

Electronic Brainstorming

This allows participants to generate ideas rapidly.

Group Outliner

A tool that allows participants to develop a structure or tree to help them explore issues more fully or to develop action plans.

Survey

This tool is essentially a questionnaire developed by the facilitator and/or problem champion and distributed electronically to the participants for completion.

Topic Commenter

A tool which permits idea generation. The ideas can be assigned separate files or topics. Each topic can then be discussed or evaluated by the participants.

Vote

This tool allows participants to vote on issues, measure consensus, evaluate ideas and make choices

December 1997



and Valacich, 1993; Gallupe et al, 1992). Using larger groups not only ensures that all the people who have essential information are present but that they are also productive, being able to share their information, discuss issues and evaluate ideas. Finally, a group support system helps participants to align their own personal goals. According to Briggs and Vreede (1997, p. 113), ``The team can only be productive to the degree that the goals of the team are congruent with the goals of the individuals on the team''. A GSS allows anonymous input thus allowing participants to express contentious and perhaps politically sensitive issues. Once brought out into the open they can be discussed by the group as a whole, thus allowing the meeting process to move forward. Another method of enhancing goal congruence is to encourage the group members to form the same vision. This can be undertaken by utilising creative problem solving techniques. Additionally, these techniques can also help teams to produce more novel and innovative solutions (VanGundy, 1988; McFadzean, 1996).

3. Discussion Group support systems are useful tools to enhance group productivity. They use Brainwriting, a form of Brainstorming, as a basis for idea generation. Here, there is a free flow of ideas generated by the group members. They are able to use other ideas to spark off new thoughts. This is known as ``piggybacking'' and is a useful way to develop new ideas that would not have previously been thought of before. There are, however, many other different types of creative problem solving techniques (see, for example, VanGundy, 1988; 1992; Couger, 1995; De Bono, 1992; Von Oech, 1983). VanGundy (1988) categorises these tools into groups taken from the problem solving process. There are a variety of techniques for: . . . .

redefining and analysing problems; generating ideas; evaluating and selecting ideas; and implementing ideas.

The techniques range from the simple to the obscure and include Progressive Abstraction, Creative Visualisation, Modifier-Noun Associations, Battelle-Bildmappen-Brainwriting, Method 6-3-5, Wildest Idea, Goalstorming, Consensus Mapping and many, many more.


221

McFadzean (1996) explored the use of two creative problem solving techniques, namely Brainwriting and Object Stimulation. The first technique ± which is similar to that used in many group support systems ± allowed group members to write down their ideas, one per piece of paper. The ideas were then put into a pool in the middle of the table whereupon other members could look at these ideas and piggyback off them, thus producing new ideas. The second technique, that of Object Stimulation, required participants to choose a firm that they felt offered a quality service. They then described why this firm was successful for them and thus produced new ideas that could be linked back to the problem. The results of this experiment showed that the technique of Object Stimulation produced more ideas in general, and more creative ideas in particular. Object Stimulation encourages the group to look outside the problem space, to look at the world from a different perspective. When each group member achieves this then there are also numerous different perspectives of the world. The ideas generated by changing the perspective can then be linked back to the problem and more ideas can be generated. By stretching the problem space (by looking elsewhere) and exploring more desired situations, rather than the problem itself, more creative ideas can be developed. For example, a group of managers in an automobile company used both Brainwriting and Object Stimulation to explore and solve a problem with their sales staff. They were perceived by customers to be pushy and tended to pressurise them. The solutions developed from the Brainwriting session included better training on sales methods, reducing or stopping sales commission or employing polite or more understanding sales people. Although these solutions are perfectly acceptable, they are ideas that are usually produced when the problem space has not been stretched or broken. When the managers were encouraged to stretch the problem space (by using Object Stimulation) they produced ideas that included attracting customers by creating a more entertaining environment such as a ``theme park'' or a shopping centre beside the car showrooms and encouraging customers to build their own car on a computer terminal. The desired state, in this context, was to create an environment in which their potential customers felt comfortable although the problem that was stated was that of poor salesmen. According to Proctor (1997, p. 95), picture stimuli is a more effective method for

Volume 6 Number 4

December 1997

222


producing creative ideas than verbal stimuli. He claims that: Arguably, language is a block to creative problem solving. There is some evidence to show that people when thinking creatively are more likely to be using imagery than words. In a recent study of some 50 or so individuals making use of free association to come up with ideas for the use of aluminium foil, many of the respondents reported the use of visual imagery in their accounts of what led them to think of the ideas.

Using unrelated stimuli

Volume 6

Number 4

There are a number of different techniques that can be utilised to help participants think visually. These include Rich Pictures and Picture Stimulation. Picture Stimulation is similar to Object Stimulation but instead of using an object or a company to stimulate creative thought, group members can use pictures. The picture can be described and the description can then be linked back to the problem. Rich pictures demands a little more effort and imagination because it requires the participants to draw a picture. Normally, this involves drawing a picture of the ``perfect'' future thus encouraging the group member to undertake some visioning. Each individual may also be required to draw a picture of the present situation so that they may be able to see the gap between what is occurring now and what they would like to see in the future. Ideas and an action plan are then developed in order to take steps towards the aspired vision. Creative ideas therefore are more likely to occur if participants view the situation from a different perspective. They may, for instance, look at a desired state instead of analysing the problem in detail by using techniques such as Rich Pictures, or they may use unrelated stimuli so that they can bring in new elements or make new connections not previously thought of before. In other words, creative problem solving is about questioning assumptions, making new and novel associations and exploring the issues in order to find an innovative solution. There is a need, therefore, to develop a method of helping groups to use unrelated stimuli to link new ideas together or to bring in new elements to the situation. This, at present, is not achieved in a group support system. There are creativity software packages that do encourage novel and radical thinking. These include Force Fit (Proctor, 1997), Idea Generator (Durand and VanHuss, 1992), Decision Explorer/COPE (Eden, 1988; 1990), Idea Fisher and so on. Except for Decision Explorer all of these pieces of software are stand-alone and therefore do not

December 1997

offer the advantages of a networked group support system. Decision Explorer, itself, is not considered to be a computer-supported creativity tool although it does help its users to organise and arrange information and can be used effectively to view a problem in its entirety. The developers of group support systems need to produce a creative problem solving module that allows its users to get the benefits of both a group support system ± anonymity, parallel communication, group memory and structure ± and a creativity-enhancing tool ± the use of unrelated stimuli and the ability to make new relationships between elements and to bring in new elements themselves. A new module, for example, could use Object Stimulation where the participants could choose a company, an industry or an object to describe (see Figure 1). The descriptions could be submitted to an `èlectronic whiteboard'' similar to the Categorizer tool in GroupSystems (see Figure 2). Here, the whole group would be able to see the ideas and start to link them back to the problem or could comment on them or categorise them. The module could also incorporate both Picture Stimulation (see Figure 3), which would be used in a similar fashion to that of Object Stimulation, and the usual Electronic Brainstorming tool. The Picture Stimulation tool would have a variety of different images including clip art, photographs, paintings and cartoons. Together with the Object Stimulation tool the users would have an extensive choice of unrelated stimuli to choose from. This should ensure that participants would develop a wide variety of novel, interesting and creative ideas. Each group member would be able to choose his or her own pictures or objects thus producing a more comprehensive list of thoughts and inspirations. All the ideas would be anonymous thus outrageous or far-flung thoughts would not be attributed to any one member and these ideas would not be evaluated until later on in the process where they can be discussed more fully and perhaps developed into a notable innovative solution. Moreover, the system would act as a group memory and, of course, parallel communication would also occur thus making the whole process more efficient.

4. Summary This paper has examined group productivity and the use of group support systems and creative problem solving to enhance inno-



223

Figure 1. Computer screen showing object stimulation

Figure 2. Computer screen showing brainstorming, commenting and categorising tool # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997

Volume 6 Number 4

December 1997

224


Figure 3. Computer screen showing picture stimulation vative team output. The idea developed by Briggs and Nunamaker (1996) and Briggs and Vreede (1997) regarding communication, deliberation, information access and goal congruence was used to analyse the group productivity problem. Group support systems are useful because they reduce or negate group process losses such as free riding, production blocking and evaluation apprehension. They do not, however, tend to encourage users to stretch or break the problem boundaries. There are many creative problem solving techniques, however, that do encourage participants to view the problem from different perspectives. These include techniques such as Object Stimulation, Rich Pictures and Picture Stimulation. There is creativity-enhancing software on the market today but these tend to be standalone and therefore do not have the advantages of a networked group support system. This paper has suggested, therefore, that some synergy will be gained by developing a creative problem solving module for a group support system. The advantages of a GSS ± anonymity, parallel communication, group memory and structure ± can be brought together with the strengths of creativity-enhancing software, that is, the use of unrelated stimuli, both verbal and pictorial.

Volume 6

Number 4

December 1997

This should provide users with enough stimuli to produce some really novel results.

References Albanese, R. and Van Fleet, D. D. (1985), Rational Behaviour in Groups: The Free-Riding Tendency, Academy of Management Review, 10, 244±255. Baden-Fuller, C. and Pitt, M. (1996), Strategic Innovation, Routledge, London. Biggart, N. W. and Hamilton, G. G. (1987), An Institutional Theory of Leadership, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 23, 429±441. Briggs, R. O. and Nunamaker, J. F. (1996), Team Theory of Group Productivity and its Application to Development and Testing of Group Support Systems, CMI Working Paper Series WPS-96-1, University of Arizona. Briggs, R. O. and Vreede, G. J. de (1997), Meetings of the Future: Enhancing Group Collaboration with Group Support Systems, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 6, no. 2, 106±116. Couger, J. D. (1995), Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd & Fraser Publishing Co., Danvers, Massachusetts. De Bono, E. (1992), Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas, Harper Collins, London. Dennis, A. R., George, J. F., Jessup, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F. and Vogel, D. R. (1988), Information



Technology to Support Electronic Meetings, MIS Quarterly, 12, 591±624. Dennis, A. R., Heminger, A. R., Nunamaker, J. F. and Vogel, D. R. (1990), Bringing Automated Support to Large Groups: The Burr-Brown Experience, Information and Management, 18, 111±121. Dennis, A. R. and Valacich, J. S. (1993), Computer Brainstorms: More Heads are Better than One, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531±537. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987), Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497±509. Driskell, J. E. and Salas, E. (1991), Group Decision Making Under Stress, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 473±478. Durand, D. E. and VanHuss, S. H. (1992), Creativity Software and DSS, Information and Management, 23, 1±6. Eden, C. (1988), Cognitive Mapping, European Journal of Operational Research, 36, 1±13. Eden, C. (1990), Strategic Thinking With Computers, Long Range Planning, 23, 35±43. Finkelstein, S. (1992), Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement and Validation, Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505±538. Forsth, L-R. and Nordvik, B. (1995), Building a Vision ± A Practical Guide, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 4, no. 4, 251±257. Gallupe, R. B., DeSanctis, G. and Dickson, G. W. (1988), Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation, MIS Quarterly, 12, 277±296. Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M. and Cooper, W. H. (1991), Unblocking Brainstorms, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 137±142. 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, 35, 350±369. George, J. F., Easton, G. K., Nunamaker, J. F. and Northcraft, G. B. (1990), A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support, Information Systems Research, 1, 394±415. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1996), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. Harkins, S. G. and Petty, R. E. (1982), Effects of Task Difficulty and Task Uniqueness on Social Loafing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214±1229. Janis, I. L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos, Second Edition, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston. Johnson, D. and Johnson, F. (1987), Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Lewis, L. F. and Keleman, K. S. (1990), Experiences With GDSS Development: Lab and Field Studies, Journal of Information Science, 16, 195±205.


225

Martz, W. B., Vogel, D. R. and Nunamaker, J. F. (1992), Electronic Meeting Systems: Results from the Field, Decision Support Systems, 8, 141±158. McFadzean, E. S. (1996), New Ways of Thinking: An Evaluation of K-Groupware and Creative Problem Solving, Doctoral Dissertation, Henley Management College/Brunel University, Henley-onThames, Oxon. McFadzean, E. S. and Nelson, T. (In press), Facilitating Problem Solving Groups: A Conceptual Model, Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Nadler, G. and Hibino, S. (1994), Breakthrough Thinking: The Seven Principles of Creative Problem Solving, Second Edition, Prima Publishing, Rocklin, California. Nagasundaram, M. (1995), The Structuring of Creative Processes with Group Support Systems, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E. S. (In press), Facilitating Problem Solving Groups: Facilitator Competences, Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R. and George, J. F. (1991), Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work, Communications of the ACM, 34, 40±61. Osborn, A. F. (1957), Applied Imagination, Revised Edition, Scribner, New York. Proctor, T. (1995), Computer Produced MindMaps, Rich Pictures and Charts as Aids to Creativity, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 4, no. 4, 242±250. Proctor, T. (1997), New Developments in Computer Assisted Creative Problem Solving, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 6, no. 2, 94±98. Tyran, C. K., Dennis, A. R., Vogel, D. R. and Nunamaker, J. F. (1992), The Application of Electronic Meeting Technology to Support Strategic Management, MIS Quarterly, 16, 313±334. Van de Ven, A. and Delbecq, A. L. (1971), Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, 14, 203±212. VanGundy, A. B. (1988), Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, Second Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. VanGundy, A. B. (1992), Idea Power: Techniques and Resources to Unleash the Creativity in Your Organisation, AMACOM, New York. Von Oech, R. (1983), A Whack on the Side of the Head, Thorsons, London. Watson, R. T. (1993), Yin and Yang, Social Forces, and Meeting Design, Unpublished Paper, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Elspeth McFazdean is a member of the Faculty in Information Management, Henley Management College, Henley-OnThames.

Volume 6 Number 4

December 1997