Comparing the Ideation Quality of Humans with Generative Artificial Intelligence

被引：23

作者：

Joosten J. ^{[1
]}

Bilgram V. ^{[2
]}

Hahn A. ^{[2
]}

Totzek D. ^{[3
]}

机构：

[1] Nuremberg Institute of Technology, BeLab-Behavioral Studies and User Experience Laboratory, Nuremberg

[2] Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg

[3] University of Passau, Passau

来源：

IEEE Engineering Management Review | 2024年 / 52卷 / 02期

关键词：

AI-augmented innovation; artificial intelligence (AI); chatGPT; creativity; generative AI; idea generation; innovation; large language models (LLMs);

D O I：

10.1109/EMR.2024.3353338

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Traditionally, ideating new product innovations is primarily the responsibility of marketers, engineers, and designers. However, a rapidly growing interest lies in leveraging generative artificial intelligence (AI) to brainstorm new product and service ideas. This study conducts a comparative analysis of ideas generated by human professionals and an AI system. The results of a blind expert evaluation show that AI-generated ideas score significantly higher in novelty and customer benefit, while their feasibility scores are similar to those of human ideas. Overall, AI-generated ideas comprise the majority of the top-performing ideas, while human-generated ideas scored lower than expected. The executive's emotional and cognitive reactions were measured during the evaluation to check for potential biases and showed no differences between the idea groups. These findings suggest that, under certain circumstances, companies can benefit from integrating generative AI into their traditional idea-generation processes. © 1973-2011 IEEE.

引用

页码：153 / 164

页数：11

共 50 条

[1]

Bouschery S.G., Blazevic V., Piller F.T., Augmenting human innovation teams with artificial intelligence:Exploring transformer-based language models, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 40, 2, pp. 139-153, (2023)

[2]

Bilgram V., Laarmann F., Accelerating innovation with generative AI:AIaugmented digital prototyping and innovationmethods, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 51, 2, pp. 18-25, (2023)

[3]

Barron F., The disposition toward originality, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 3, pp. 478-485, (1955)

[4]

Runco M.A., Jaeger G.J., The standard definition of creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 24, 1, pp. 92-96, (2012)

[5]

Stein M.I., Creativity and culture, The Journal of Psychology, 36, 2, pp. 311-322, (1953)

[6]

Amabile T.M., Motivating creativity in organizations:On doing what you love and loving what you do, CaliforniaManagement Review, 40, 1, pp. 39-58, (1997)

[7]

Amabile T.M., Amodel of creativity and innovation in organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 2, pp. 123-167, (1988)

[8]

Beckman S.L., Barry M., Innovation as a learning process:Embedding design thinking, CaliforniaManagement Review, 50, 1, pp. 25-56, (2007)

[9]

Amabile T.M., Pratt M.G., The dynamic componentialmodel of creativity and innovation in organizations:Making progress, making meaning, Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, pp. 157-183, (2016)

[10]

Ritala P., Baiyere A., Kraus S., Hughes M., Digital strategy implementation: The role of individual entrepreneurial orientation and relational capital, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, (2021)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →