Group Problem-Solving Techniques

Overview of Group Problem-Solving Techniques

• Focus of the lecture: practical methods for generating and evaluating ideas in groups.
• Central theme: shifting from unstructured to more structured, evidence-based approaches to maximize creativity while minimizing common “process losses.”
• Historical anchor: Brainstorming emerged in the 1950\text{s} within an advertising agency, inspiring later refinements (Nominal Group Technique, Delphi, GDSS).
• Practical stakes: Better recruitment plans, product ideas, or any task requiring multiple perspectives.

Classic Brainstorming

• Purpose: Rapidly produce many creative ideas by “storming” a problem collectively.
• Philosophical premise: Quantity breeds quality—more ideas increase the odds of a breakthrough.
• Core 7 Rules (to be displayed, posted, or read aloud before the session):
  1. \textbf{Defer Judgment} – no evaluating, praising, or critiquing during idea generation.
  2. \textbf{Build on Others’ Ideas} – treat each contribution as a stepping-stone.
  3. \textbf{Encourage Wild Ideas} – novelty over feasibility; judgment is postponed.
  4. \textbf{Strive for Quantity} – more ideas > fewer “perfect” ideas.
  5. \textbf{Be Visual} – document on flip charts, whiteboards, sticky notes, etc.
  6. \textbf{Stay on Topic} – rigorously police tangents (e.g., recruiting ≠ general marketing).
  7. \textbf{One Conversation at a Time} – no interruptions; speaker finishes before the next starts.
• Typical tools: flip charts, markers, whiteboards, Post-its.

Illustrative Example

• Recruitment brainstorming: One participant proposes redesigning the career-fair booth → others extend to networking events, interview formats, selection criteria, etc.

Empirical Limitations of Brainstorming

• Mixed research findings: No strong evidence that classic brainstorming outperforms alternatives.
• Three key “process losses”:
  1. \textbf{Social Loafing} – members withhold effort (e.g., new or junior employees presume ideas are inferior).
  2. \textbf{Evaluation Apprehension} – fear of implicit judgment despite explicit “no-judgment” rule.
  3. \textbf{Production Blocking} – because only one person speaks, others may forget or suppress ideas while waiting.
• Result: Possible reduction in idea diversity, novelty, and member participation.

Structured Brainstorming Alternatives

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

• Goal: Retain creativity while curbing social loafing, evaluation anxiety, and anchoring.
• Step-by-step procedure:
  1. Clarify the problem to the entire group.
  2. Individuals silently list ideas (no discussion).
  3. Round-robin reporting: Each member shares one idea at a time; facilitator records on a public medium.
  4. Discussion phase: ≈ 30-second “soapbox” slots per idea for clarification/advocacy.
  5. Anonymous voting & weighting: e.g., top choice =3 points, second =2, third =1; totals tallied for ranking.
• Classroom paper-clip exercise outcome:
  • Brainstorming groups often “anchor” (e.g., jewelry, hanging functions).
  • NGT groups produce more unique, higher-quality, less-anchored ideas.
• Practical implications: Excellent for face-to-face sessions seeking balanced input and quick prioritization.

Delphi Technique

• Designed for geographically dispersed (or time-zone-separated) experts.
• Anonymity + iteration via technology (email, online surveys, shared docs).
• Process cycle:
  1. Define the focal problem.
  2. Send survey/email requesting ideas.
  3. Aggregate ideas anonymously; circulate summary feedback.
  4. Participants review, refine, reprioritize, and resubmit.
  5. Repeat until convergence or predefined rounds complete.
• Key benefits:
  • Reduces conformity pressure.
  • Allows asynchronous participation.
  • Captures global expertise without travel costs.
• Ethical angle: Equalizes power by masking status/hierarchy cues.

Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)

• Umbrella term for computer-aided decision methods.
• Two primary modes:
  1. \textbf{Chauffeur-Driven} – members answer predefined questions via electronic keypads/dials; facilitator controls flow.
  2. \textbf{Group-Driven} – participants type ideas/comments directly; system displays aggregated data on a shared screen in real time.
• Features:
  • Full anonymity possible (you may sit side-by-side yet not know whose idea is whose).
  • Automatic recording/archiving of input, discussion, and votes.
  • Built-in analytic tools: instant ranking, clustering, sentiment scoring.
• Practical payoff: Faster idea capture, richer data sets, audit trail for accountability.

Comparative Insights & Integration

• All techniques aim at maximizing idea diversity while minimizing classic group pitfalls.
• Choice criteria for managers/facilitators:
  • Group size & composition (heterogeneous vs homogeneous).
  • Geographical dispersion & time-zone differences.
  • Available technology/budget.
  • Sensitivity of topic (need for anonymity).
• Ethical/Philosophical considerations:
  • Anonymity fosters equity but may reduce accountability.
  • Structured methods democratize participation, curbing dominance by high-status members.
• Real-world linkage: Recruitment strategy workshops, new-product ideation sessions, policy brainstorming, crisis-management planning.

Quick Reference Formulae & Numbers (for memory hooks)

• 7 rules of brainstorming.
• \approx 30 seconds per idea during NGT discussion.
• Voting weights example: 3+2+1 point scale.
• Historical anchor: 1950\text{s} origin of brainstorming.

Key Takeaways

• Classic brainstorming is popular but empirically contested.
• NGT, Delphi, and GDSS provide structured, evidence-backed improvements.
• Facilitator skill, clarity of problem definition, and alignment with group context determine success more than the label of the technique itself.