Yes, but iteration loop is faster only if folk is pre-prepared (it's not the first time they are thinking about the issues on the actual brainstorming b session).

Otherwise it's slower (bcs it takes everyone's time instead of just one person's).
You just spend minutes waiting for them to figure out why several suggestions are a non-starter for the most obvious reasons even to them.

For the 'iteration loop' to work properly you need a good starring point, a prototype of sorts (or several) for the group to workshop forward faster (conceptually speaking).

Not just timewise, but objective-wise too.
For most ppl such meetings are fairly taxing and time is limited so spending time on the meeting on something they could have easily figured out on their own hurts the success/quality rate.

But yes, each team/subject/industry/working environment is different, so my experience is just anecdotal data.

It could take a week for everyone so send in their 5 ideas

That's just them not willing to do it, a week of thinking would produce amazing results.

[–] mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah good points. I think the majority of most people's experience with team environments are some MBA or branch manager bossing around strangers, so that's why those sorts of meetings are so misused/overused.

I think face-to-face engagement does help with breaking people out of their bubbles and change priorities, but maybe that's just the way I socialize personally or ADHD or something. I'm not really gonna care much about somebody else's idea unless theres some personal engagement and goodwill. There's also a million other things that I have to do, so I might not send my reply until I've had a quiet moment to really think about it and get into a Google rabbit hole.

But yeah sometimes the team really doesn't give a fuck about the goal you're trying to set lol. Good leaders know that you shouldn't force engagement for that.