Re: Anonymity in Meetings LO2563

JOHN N. WARFIELD (jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu)
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 07:07:39 -0400 (EDT)

Replying to LO2554 --

Mark mentions the value of electronic brainstorming, but notes that in
practice results aren't always that great in an overview sense.

I agree with the sense of skepticism, and disagree with the merits of
electronic brainstorming. I think the latter is a manifestation of
hardware love and people disdain.

We have shown unequivocally that, at least for complex issues, all forms
of idea generation, if taken alone, are largely worthless in terms of
resolving complex issues, because they do not involve taking the group
through the essential, difficult, prolonged process of reasoning about
interactions.

Most importantly the Spreadthink data show that individuals in groups have
widely different perspectives on what is important, and no amount of
brainstorming, or other generation technique is going to change that.

Remarkably no one ever seems to question the fact that complexity always
involves extensive relationships--interactions, etc.--among system
components, and just as remarkably they seem to overlook the necessity of
detailed and systematic dialog about those relationships.

>From that perspective, all forms of electronic brainstorming and their
variants are dangerous because they implicitly suggest progress when what
may be going on is leaving matters in worse shape than they were before.
Quite a few of those who keep marketing the idea generating systems have
been personally made aware of the possibility of enhancing their systems
with the necessary learning processes. Their usual response is to look
interested and approving, and go on doing tings in the same old way, in
spite of all the evidence.

A few years ago, I offered to debate the entire faculty of a certain
well-known academic institution, concerning these matters. My written
challenge never got a response, and so the communication closed.

--
JOHN N. WARFIELD
Jwarfiel@gmu.edu