Affinity diagram is a popular brainstorming method for groups to visualize and organize their ideas together. These groups likely use sticky-note paper and whiteboard as their brainstorming tool. While there is simplicity in using paper, engineers develop technologies that make the process more efficient. However, despite the advantages of technologies, utilizing them in brainstorming was not widely adopted. We explore the earlier technologies proposed and their design flaws, and based on their studies, we propose a digital affinity-diagram system using the concept of concurrent engineering of distributed system and conducted an experiment to compare the productivity of group brainstorming between paper analog method and our proposed digital methods. We will report on which of the two methods is more productive and on whether the proposed system could increase the adoption of digital tools for group brainstorming.
BallendatTMarquardtNGreenbergS (2010) Proxemic interaction: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, Saarbrücken, 7–10 November, pp. 121–130. New York: ACM.
2.
BjornHMorrisMRBenkoH. (2010) Pictionaire: supporting collaborative design work by integrating physical and digital artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Savannah, GA, 6–10 February, pp. 421–424. New York: ACM.
3.
BondarenkoOJanssenR (2005) Documents at hand: learning from paper to improve digital technologies. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, 2–7 April, pp. 121–130. New York: ACM.
4.
ClayphanACollinsAAckadC. (2011) Firestorm: a brainstorming application for collaborative group work at tabletops. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, Kobe, Japan, 13–16 November, pp. 162–171. New York: ACM.
5.
DelbecqALVan deVen AHGustafsonDH (1975) Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
6.
DiehlMStroebeW (1991) Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61: 392–403.
7.
GallagherMHaresTSpencerJ. (1993) The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice?Family Practice10: 76–81.
8.
GallupeRBDennisARCooperWH. (1992) Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal35: 350–369.
GenestAMGutwinCTangA. (2013) KinectArms: a toolkit for capturing and displaying arm embodiments in distributed tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, TX, 23–27 February, pp. 157–166. New York: ACM.
12.
GeyerFPfeilUBudzinskiJ. (2011) AffinityTable—a hybrid surface for supporting affinity diagramming. In: PCamposNGrahamJJorge. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2011. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 477–484.
13.
GreenbergSFitchettC (2001) Phidgets: easy development of physical interfaces through physical widgets. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Orlando, FL, 11–14 November, pp. 209–218. New York: ACM.
14.
GumiennyRGerickeLQuasthoffM. (2011) Tele-Board: enabling efficient collaboration in digital design spaces. In: Proceedings of the 2011 15th international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD), Lausanne, 8–10 June, pp. 47–54. New York: IEEE.
15.
HallerMLeitnerJSeifriedT. (2010) The NiCE discussion room: integrating paper and digital media to support co-located group meetings. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April, pp. 609–618. New York: ACM.
16.
HarboeGDoksamGKellerL. (2013) Two thousand points of interaction: augmenting paper notes for a distributed user experience. In: MDLozanoJAGalludRTesoriero. (eds) Distributed User Interfaces: Usability and Collaboration. London: Springer, pp. 141–149.
17.
HilligesOTerrenghiLBoringS. (2007) Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition, Washington, DC, 13–15 June, pp. 137–146. New York: ACM.
18.
HoltzblattKBeyerH (1993) Making customer-centered design work for teams. Communications of the ACM36: 92–103.
19.
KawakitaJ (1991) The Original KJ Method. Tokyo, Japan: Kawakita Research Institute.
KlemmerSRNewmanMWFarrellR. (2001) The designers’ outpost: a tangible interface for collaborative web site. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Orlando, FL, 11–14 November, pp. 1–10. New York: ACM.
22.
MartinBHaningtonBHaningtonBM (2012) Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.
23.
MiuraMSugiharaTKunifujiS (2011) GKJ: group KJ method support system utilizing digital pens. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems94: 456–464.
24.
NijstadBAStroebeWLodewijkxHF (2003) Production blocking and idea generation: does blocking interfere with cognitive processes?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology39: 531–548.
25.
PauchetAColdefyFLefebvreL. (2007) Mutual awareness in collocated and distant collaborative tasks using shared interfaces. In: CBaranauskasPPalanqueJAbasca. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2007, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 59–73.
26.
PaulSAMorrisMR (2009) CoSense: enhancing sensemaking for collaborative web search. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April, pp. 1771–1780. New York: ACM.
27.
RädleRJetterH-CReitererH (2013) TwisterSearch: a distributed user interface for collaborative Web search. In: MDLozanoJAGalludRTesoriero. (eds) Distributed User Interfaces: Usability and Collaboration. London: Springer, pp. 53–67.
28.
RamakersRVanackenDLuytenK. (2012) Carpus: a non-intrusive user identification technique for interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Cambridge, MA, 7–10 October, pp. 35–44. New York: ACM.
29.
ScottSDCarpendaleMSTInkpenKM (2004) Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Chicago, IL, 6–10 November, pp. 294–303. New York: ACM.
30.
SellenAJHarperRH (2002) The Myth of the Paperless Office. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
TangANeustaedterCGreenbergS (2007) Videoarms: embodiments for mixed presence groupware. In: NBryan-KinnsABlandfordPCurzon. (eds) People and Computers XX—Engage. London: Springer, pp. 85–102.
32.
TangAPahudMInkpenK. (2010) Three’s company: understanding communication channels in three-way distributed collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Savannah, GA, 6–10 February, pp. 271–280. New York: ACM.
33.
TuddenhamPRobinsonP (2009) Territorial coordination and workspace awareness in remote tabletop collaboration. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April, pp. 2139–2148. New York: ACM.
WhittakerSHirschbergJ (2001) The character, value, and management of personal paper archives. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)8: 150–170.
36.
WidjajaWSawamuraM (2014) Bring your own device: ubiquitous approach to digital affinity diagram collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing: adjunct publication, Seattle, WA, 13–17 September, pp. 287–290. New York: ACM.
37.
WidjajaWYoshiiKTakahashiM (2014) Efficient group discussion with digital affinity diagram system (DADS). In: YLuo (ed.) Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering. Cham: Springer, pp. 203–213.
38.
WidjajaWYoshiiKHagaK. (2013) Discusys: multiple user real-time digital sticky-note affinity-diagram brainstorming system. Procedia Computer Science22: 113–122.
39.
WilliamsKDNidaSABacaLD. (1989) Social loafing and swimming: effects of identifiability on individual and relay performance of intercollegiate swimmers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology10: 73–81.
40.
XinYBiXRenX (2012) Natural use profiles for the pen: An empirical exploration of pressure, tilt, and azimuth. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Austin, TX, 5–10 May, pp. 801–804. New York: ACM.
