腦力激盪作為創意發想的代表性方法，常作為設計思考課程與工作坊中發想階段的主要工具。腦力激盪法的目的在於透過題出大量想法，並從中獲取與整合出創意的解決方案。然而諸多研究指出實際執行腦力激盪時，存在團隊提出之構想數量不足的情況。本研究以「設計思考實作課程中的腦力激盪」為對象，聚焦在「構想數量不足」這一問題上，並提出「跨團隊協作式腦力激盪 (Cross-Team Brainstorming) 」。
　　「跨團隊協作式腦力激盪」的概念是：讓多個團隊之間互相對彼此的主題進行發想以增加「構想總數」，為發展解決方案帶來更多選項與可能性。此方法包含「發想」與「分類」兩個階段。發想階段將具有快速、視覺化、有效保存單一構想等優勢的Crazy-eights作為基礎並進行三輪次、不同主題的發想，以獲得來自其他團隊的「外部構想」。分類階段則是由兩輪的分類組成。第一輪只對各團隊替「自己的主題」所產出的「內部構想」進行分類，待第二輪則加入「外部構想」調整分類，以觀察「外部構想」帶來之變化。作為跨團隊腦力激盪之兩大要素，本研究主要從四個評價指標 (數量、質量、新穎性與變異性) 探討「內部與外部構想之差異」與「多輪次發想帶來的練習效果」，並檢視跨團隊腦力激盪之整體表現。
　　總結來說，跨團隊腦力激盪確實的帶來更多的構想數量。儘管外部構想之整體表現略低於內部構想，然而在實際層面也確實幫助到並為團隊選用。另一方面，多輪次的發想形式帶來更多的練習機會。而練習的成果對於內部構想與外部構想反映在不同評價指標上，然而其共通點在於能夠減少低分的構想。透過兩大要素的分析，本研究也發現在跨團隊腦力激盪的發想階段中，以內部構想之發想作為最後一輪次為最佳。

Brainstorming, being one of the most notable creative idea generating method, was commonly used in solution ideating stages of the design thinking process. While brainstorming emphasized searching creative solution through great number of ideas, studies had revealed that the approach did not bring the quantity of ideas as it claimed. Therefore, the study aimed to propose the Cross-Team Brainstorming approach.
The Cross-Team Brainstorming was a brainstorming version in the form of multiple participating teams conducting multiple rounds of idea generating in pursuit of greater idea quantity. The approach was composed of an ideation phase and a categorization phase. The ideation phase was based on the Crazy-eights technique, by ideating not only each team’s design topic but other teams’ topics as well, each team would eventually receive inside ideas (ideas from inside the team) and outside ideas (idea from outside the team). The categorization phase was based on the KJ method, as ideas being classified into categories in preparation for further design thinking process such as idea evaluation and selection.
For this study, the goal was to propose, test, and initial evaluate the performance of Cross-Team Brainstorming. The study discussed on the two main feature of the approach, which were “the inside and outside ideas” and “the influence of practicing through multi-round idea generating”. As a result, the study discovered that (1) though seemed to be inferior to inside ideas, the outside ideas had made contribution to each team’s final design; (2) practicing could bring improvement on inside ideas but not so much on outside ideas, and that in general it would be better to generate inside ideas in the last round of the ideation phase.

Aiken, M., Vanjani, M., & Paolillo, J. (1996). A comparison of two electronic idea generation techniques. Information & Management, 30(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(95)00048-8
Arnold, J. E. (1956). Creativity In Engineering. SAE Transactions, 64, 17–23.
Bouchard Jr., T. J. (1969). Personality, problem-solving procedure, and performance in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(1, Pt.2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026747
Bouchard Jr., T. J., & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1, Pt.1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028621
Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 208–212.
Dennis, A. R., & Williams, M. L. (2003). Electronic Brainstorming: Theory, Research, and Future Directions. In Group Creativity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.003.0008
DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549–1581.
Gallupe, R., Dennis, A., Cooper, W., Valacich, J., Bastianutti, L., & Nunamaker, J. (1992). Electronic Brainstorming and Group-Size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/256377
Godwin, W. F., & Restle, F. (1974). The road to agreement: Subgroup pressures in small group consensus processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037025
Litchfield, R. C. (2009). Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea quantity? Motivation and Emotion, 33(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9109-x
Mongeau, P. A., & Morr, M. C. (1999). Reconsidering brainstorming. Group Facilitation, 1, 14.
Nijstad, B., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. (2006). The illusion of group productivity: A reduction of failures explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.295
Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., & Arditti, L. E. (2011). Effects of Quantity and Quality Instructions on Brainstorming. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01083.x
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888
Paulus, P., Dzindolet, M., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. (1993). Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming—The Illusion of Group Productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89.
Rowatt, W. C., Nesselroade jr, K. P., BEGGAN, J. K., & ALLISON, S. T. (1997). Perceptions of brainstorming in groups: The quality over quantity hypothesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(2), 131–150.
Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2000). Evaluation of Idea Generation Methods for Conceptual Design: Effectiveness Metrics and Design of Experiments. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122(4), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1315592
Siau, K. (1995). Group Creativity and Technology. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1995.tb00749.x
Sozo, V., & Ogliari, A. (2019). Stimulating design team creativity based on emotional values: A study on idea generation in the early stages of new product development processes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 70, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.01.003
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The Illusion of Group Effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185015
Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 23–47.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought London UK. Butler and Tanner, Ltd.
Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12(4), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(88)90002-5