ClappingTree’s Web 2.0

To enhance group brainstorming, Brown and Paulus (2002) have identified three ways:

• Combine group and solitary brainstorming. Use group brainstorming followed by solo brainstorming rather than the reverse order or either alone.
• Have group members interact by reading and writing. Brown and Paulus describe this process of passing notes and adding ideas, which has everyone active at once, as “brainwriting“.
• Incorporate electronic brainstorming. Let individuals produce and read ideas on networked computers.

Isaksen (1998) noted that a very effective way to overcome potential group problems is to utilize a facilitator during such sessions, as Osborn (1967) had stipulated, and which many studies on brainstorming had not adhered to. A trained facilitator can observe the interaction patterns, energy, and evenness of participation and use appropriate idea-stimulating techniques to support the general guidelines.

Electronic brainstorming can be facilitated and monitored on an online forum or a Wiki. A Wiki is preferred because it enables easy creation and editing of Web content (including links to other Wiki pages and Web sites). It supports co-construction of knowledge as well as related and rated discussions. It also keeps logs of changes which provide useful information on the flow (or absence) of online interactions.

However, Wiki-based projects so far have yielded quite mixed results. Some have succeeded while others failed. For example, Wikipedia is one of the most popular reference sites on the Internet today, receiving around 50 million hits per day, according to Web monitoring service Alexa Internet. This free encyclopedia is written collaboratively by over 200,000 volunteers worldwide. Its English version alone has over 500,000 articles – more than the Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta combined!

Davies (2004), on the other hand, reported a significant lack of input on a Wiki used for brainstorming among students and lecturers of a course at the University of York, despite repeated attempts to promote use. Feedback after the experiment revealed that the users saw no value in the Wiki exercise: that they “won’t benefit from inputting”.

In retrospect, the panel of experts involved in the study posited a number of hypotheses on the success or failure of Wiki-based collaborations in general. The hypotheses (underlined below) correspond mostly positively to key findings (in plain text below) in the study by Venkatesh, et al (2003) as follows:

• Performance Expectancy: Perceived usefulness has stronger effect on men and younger workers. Perceived effectiveness is crucial. The Wiki need to have personal value and shared purpose to its users.
• Effort Expectancy: Perceived ease of use has stronger effect on women, older workers and those with limited experience. Different ways of using the Wiki may cause problems by making Wiki seem more complex, confusing and overwhelming to new users.
• Social Influence: Subjective norm and observational learning has stronger effect for women, older workers, under conditions of mandatory use and those with limited experience. The Wiki need to be facilitated in a distributed way, preferably by nominated “shareholders”.
• Facilitating Conditions: Training and support have stronger effect for older workers with increasing experience. Specific training in appropriate Wiki use is beneficial for new users, particularly regarding the social aspects of Wiki use.

The goal of this research study is therefore to find out whether polytechnic students can be motivated into active brainstorming in the Wiki environment, through the determinants and moderators predicted by UTAUT.