The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.02 - February (2008 vol.20)
pp: 261-275
ABSTRACT
Brainstorming has been a solution that helps organizations to generate creative ideas through teamwork and collaboration. However, by far, the role of information technology in brainstorming is merely like an assistant that passively supports the progression of brainstorming sessions instead of proactively engaging in the sessions. This research combines human's unique association thinking with the intelligent agent technique, devising an automated decision agent called Semantic Ideation Learning Agent (SILA) that can represent a session participant to actively participate in brainstorming. SILAs are grounded on the three association capabilities of human's thinking (similarity, contiguity, contrast). Moreover, a Collective Brainstorming Decision System (CBDS) is built to furnish an environment where SILAs can learn and share their knowledge with each other. We have successfully integrated CBDS into an intelligent care project (iCare) for the purpose of innovated e-service recommendation. The evaluation results are fairly promising.
INDEX TERMS
Intelligent agents, Semantics, Information Technology and Systems Applications
CITATION
Soe-Tsyr Yuan, Yen-Chuan Chen, "Semantic Ideation Learning for Agent-Based E-Brainstorming", IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering, vol.20, no. 2, pp. 261-275, February 2008, doi:10.1109/TKDE.2007.190687
REFERENCES
[1] J. Geoffrey Rawlinson, Creative Thinking and Brainstorming. Halsted Press, 1981.
[2] R.J. Talbot, “Taking Style on Board,” Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 177-184, 1997.
[3] G. Kay, “Effective Meetings through Electronic Brainstorming,” Management Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 15-26, 1995.
[4] R.B. Gallupe, L.M. Bastianutti, and W.H. Copper, “Unblocking Brainstorming,” J. Applied Psychology, vol. 76, no. 21, pp. 137-142, 1991.
[5] A.R. Dennis and B. Reinicke, “Beta vs. VHS and the Acceptance of Electronic Brainstorming Technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2004.
[6] M.J. Garfield, N.J. Taylor, A.R. Dennis, and J.W. Satzinger, “Modifying Paradigms: Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation,” Information Systems Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 322-333, 2001.
[7] A.R. Dennis and M.L. Williams, “Electronic Brainstorming: Theory, Research, and Future Directions,” Group Creativity, Oxford Univ. Press, 2003.
[8] A.R. Dennis, A. Pinsonneault, K.M. Hilmer, H. Barki, R.B. Gallupe, M. Huber, and F. Bellavance, “Patterns in Electronic Brainstorming: The Effects of Synergy and Social Loafing on Group Idea Generation,” Int'l J. e-Collaboration, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 38-57, 2005.
[9] W.-L. Chang and S.-T. Yuan, “iCare Home Portal: A Quest for Quality Aging e-Service Delivery,” Proc. First Workshop Ubiquitous and Pervasive Health Care (UbiCare '06), 2006.
[10] A.F. Osborn, “Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving,” Creative Education Foundation, third revised ed., 1993.
[11] 10-A.R. Dennis and J.S. Valachch, “Computer Brainstorms: More Heads Are Better than One,” J. Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 531-537, 1993.
[12] R.B. Gallupe, L. Bastianutti, and W.H. Cooper, “Unblocking Brainstorms,” J. Applied Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, 1991.
[13] R.B. Gallupe, A.R. Dennis, W.H. Valacich, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., and L. Bastianutti, “Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size,” Academy of Management J., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 350-369, 1992.
[14] J.S. Valacich, A.R. Dennis, and T. Connolly, “Group versus Individual Brainstorming: A New Ending to an Old Story,” Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, vol. 57, no. 3, pp.448-467, 1994.
[15] A. Prakash, H. Sop Shim, and J. Ho Lee, “Data Management Issues and Trade-Offs in CSCW Systems,” IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 213-227, Jan./Feb. 1999.
[16] J.W. Satzinger, M.J. Garfield, and M. Nagasundaram, “The Creative Process: The Effects of Group Memory on Individual Idea Generation,” J. Management Information Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 143-160, 1999.
[17] A.F. Osborn, Applied Imagination. Scribner, 1953.
[18] M. Diehl and W. Stroebe, “Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking Down the Blocking Effect,” J. Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 392-403, 1991.
[19] M. Aiken, M. Vanjani, and J. Paolillo, “A Comparison of Two Electronic Idea Generation Techniques,” Information and Management, vol. 30, pp. 91-99, 1996.
[20] R.O. Briggs and B.A. Reinig, “Bounded Ideation Theory: A New Model of the Relationship between Idea-Quantity and Idea-Quality During Ideation,” Proc. 40th Ann. Hawaii Int'l Conf. System Sciences (HICSS '07), 2007.
[21] C. Watkins, “Learning from Delayed Rewards,” PhD dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge, 1989.
[22] R.J. Pion, “E-Care: Made Possible by Technologic Convergence,” Proc. Symp. Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT '01), 2001.
19 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool