IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i6d10.1007_s10726-012-9309-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creative Problem Solving in GSS Groups: Do Creative Styles Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Deepa K. Ray

    (S. P. Jain Institute of Management and Research)

  • Nicholas C. Romano

    (School of Information Management, Faculty of Commerce and Administration)

Abstract

Creative groups drive innovation and organizational change and collaborative systems can be used to pool creative team members across the globe. How individual creative preference impacts the group’s creative performance across different creative problem solving phases in a GSS environment is not well understood. The objective of this exploratory study was to understand if there are differences in group performance when groups with varying member creative styles interact solely via GSS. We conducted a quasi-experimental study that compared the performance of groups with two alternate member styles interacting only via group support systems during a creative problem solving process. Ideator and Evaluator groups were compared on their divergent and convergent phase performance. Significant differences were found between the Ideator groups and Evaluator groups on idea fluency, idea flexibility, idea novelty, idea elaboration and solution cost-effectiveness. No significant differences were found between the performance of the two groups on solution feasibility and novelty. Results indicate that member creative styles play an important role in determining the performance of technology-supported groups. These results aid researchers and practitioners by improving their understanding of the performance of creative teams interacting solely via collaborative support systems for creative problem solving tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Deepa K. Ray & Nicholas C. Romano, 2013. "Creative Problem Solving in GSS Groups: Do Creative Styles Matter?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1129-1157, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9309-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9309-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-012-9309-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-012-9309-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich & Traci A. Carte & Monica J. Garfield & Barbara J. Haley & Jay E. Aronson, 1997. "Research Report: The Effectiveness of Multiple Dialogues in Electronic Brainstorming," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 203-211, June.
    2. David S. Kerr & Uday S. Murthy, 2004. "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 381-399, July.
    3. Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich, 1999. "Research Note. Electronic Brainstorming: Illusions and Patterns of Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 375-377, December.
    4. Smith, Antoinette L. & Murthy, Uday S. & Engle, Terry J., 2012. "Why computer-mediated communication improves the effectiveness of fraud brainstorming," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 334-356.
    5. Monica J. Garfield & Nolan J. Taylor & Alan R. Dennis & John W. Satzinger, 2001. "Research Report: Modifying Paradigms—Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 322-333, September.
    6. Terry Connolly & Leonard M. Jessup & Joseph S. Valacich, 1990. "Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 689-703, June.
    7. William B. Martz & Morgan M. Shepherd, 2004. "Group Consensus: The Impact of Multiple Dialogues," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 315-325, July.
    8. Wai Fong Boh & Yuqing Ren & Sara Kiesler & Robert Bussjaeger, 2007. "Expertise and Collaboration in the Geographically Dispersed Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 595-612, August.
    9. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon & Christian Wagner, 1994. "Stimulating Ideas Through Creative Software," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(11), pages 1514-1532, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruce A. Reinig & Robert O. Briggs, 2013. "Putting Quality First in Ideation Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 943-973, September.
    2. Kerr, David S. & Murthy, Uday S., 2009. "Beyond brainstorming: The effectiveness of computer-mediated communication for convergence and negotiation tasks," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 245-262.
    3. Wei Zhang & Qingpu Zhang, 2014. "Multi-stage evaluation and selection in the formation process of complex creative solution," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2375-2404, September.
    4. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    5. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.
    6. Chen, Fang & Zhang, Limin & Latimer, Joseph, 2014. "How much has my co-worker contributed? The impact of anonymity and feedback on social loafing in asynchronous virtual collaboration," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 652-659.
    7. William G. Heninger & Alan R. Dennis & Kelly McNamara Hilmer, 2006. "Research Note: Individual Cognition and Dual-Task Interference in Group Support Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 415-424, December.
    8. Valerie L. Bartelt & Alan R. Dennis & Lingyao Yuan & Jordan B. Barlow, 2013. "Individual Priming in Virtual Team Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 873-896, September.
    9. Bruce A. Reinig & Robert O. Briggs, 2008. "On The Relationship Between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 403-420, September.
    10. Monica J. Garfield & Nolan J. Taylor & Alan R. Dennis & John W. Satzinger, 2001. "Research Report: Modifying Paradigms—Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 322-333, September.
    11. Isabella Seeber & Ronald Maier & Barbara Weber, 2013. "Macrocognition in Collaboration: Analyzing Processes of Team Knowledge Building with CoPrA," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 915-942, September.
    12. I Millet & J L Gogan, 2006. "A dialectical framework for problem structuring and information technology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(4), pages 434-442, April.
    13. Wei Zhang & Yongli Li & Wenyao Zhang & Shengli Dai, 2019. "Social network evolution in creative process of CNPD teams: a case study of Chinese companies," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 143-181, January.
    14. Yossi Maaravi & Ben Heller & Yael Shoham & Shay Mohar & Baruch Deutsch, 2021. "Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative model for electronic brainstorming," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1431-1464, August.
    15. Tatiana Gavrilova & Artem Alsufyev & Anna-Sophia Yanson, 2014. "Modern Notation of Business Models: A Visual Trend," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 56-70.
      • Tatiana Gavrilova & Artem Alsufyev & Anna-sophia Yanson, 2014. "Modern Notation of business models: а visual Trend," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 8(2 (eng)), pages 56-70.
    16. David S. Kerr & Uday S. Murthy, 2004. "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 381-399, July.
    17. Jovana Kovacevic & Sophie Hooge & Albert David, 2015. "Analyzing The Micro-Processes Of Collaborative Concept Generation At Ideation Stages: The Case Of Innovation-Oriented Web Community Discussions," Post-Print hal-01138847, HAL.
    18. de Vet, A.J., 2007. "The effects of thinking in silence on creativity and innovation," Other publications TiSEM 75a9cbd3-19ab-4f82-ad2f-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Pawel Weichbroth, 2016. "Facing the Brainstorming Theory. A Case of Requirements Elicitation," GUT FME Working Paper Series A 42, Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology.
    20. Beck, Susanne & Brasseur, Tiare-Maria & Poetz, Marion & Sauermann, Henry, 2022. "Crowdsourcing research questions in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9309-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.