EDITORIAL
1
Editorial
I
n this issue of Creativity and Innovation Management two special themes are included alongside regular contributions. First of all, a section with selected papers from the bi-annual European Conference on Creativity and Innovation (ECCI), brought together under the theme of ‘Transformation’ by EACI board members Jan Buijs and Han van der Meer. The second special theme is a mini special of two articles on the topic of ‘Spaces for Creativity’, following an initiative started in March 2005 at the first Creativity and Innovation Management Community meeting in Oxford.
Transformations In September 2005 the 9th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation was held in Lodz, Poland. In our December 2006 issue you could read about the first impressions of this conference. In Lodz, conference participants voted for the best paper presentations, and the authors of the 10 best papers of this list were invited to submit a manuscript to Creativity and Innovation Management. This manuscript had to be based on the conference paper, revised with the input of the discussions at the conference. The full set of papers presented at the conference can be found in the proceedings (Stasiak and Buijs, 2006). The main goal of the European Association for Creativity and Innovation (EACI, the originator of the series of ECCI) is to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners in the field of creativity and innovation. This means that at EACI conferences both academic papers and practical papers and workshops are delivered. The voting for the best papers is not restricted to the academic participants nor to the academic papers only. We are therefore very proud that one of the papers in this special section is from Nel Mostert, one of those practitioners. Her article is included as a practitioner’s insight at the end of this issue. Nel Mostert reports about creativity sessions, and discusses the wellknown notion that diversity is a good thing to have for success. Starting off the special section, Scott Isaksen reports on organizational leaders using the Situational Outlook Questionnaire as a tool to © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
assist them with transformational change. The second article is written by Marc Tassoul and Jan Buijs. In their contribution the authors give their ideas about adding an extra step in between the divergent and convergent stages of the creative process. They argue that clustering is a separate step with its own conventions, rules and results. In the next article Jorge Alves, Maria José Marques, Irina Saur and Pedro Marques report on an empirical study on product development, innovation and creativity in multidisciplinary and multisectoral settings. Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Remko van der Lugt and Pieter Jan Stappers continue this special section with their report on a model of communicating user experiences to design teams. They make a pledge for involving the receivers of the information in the act of communication in such a way that they will become co-owners or co-creators of the information. Finally, Mats Holmquist offers an insight into his experiences in a processoriented change strategy, especially in the need to and the problem of transferring the outcomes of such a project to the participating organizations. We hope this selection of papers will give you a glance at the developments in the field of creativity and innovation, as was reported in Poland nearly two years ago. And, of course, we hope that some of the readers are so intrigued that they want to contribute to ECCI 10, which will be held in Copenhagen in October 2007. A call for papers can be found in our December 2006 issue, and of course on the conference website: http://www.eccix.org.
Spaces for Creativity During the first Creativity and Innovation Management Community meeting in Oxford in March 2005, Remko van der Lugt, James Moultrie, Mikael Nilsson and Jeff Butler took the initiative for a ‘special’ on the topic of ‘spaces for creativity’. We, your CAIM editors, appreciated this initiative very much. It was also good to see that the same issue of creative spaces was the subject of a RADMA supported workshop in Vaasa during the Doctoral Summer School in Technology Management in August 2006. The initiative resulted in the two
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00423.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
2
articles in this issue of Creativity and Innovation Management. The first article in this section, under the title ‘Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation’ is written by James Moultrie, Mikael Nilsson, Marcel Dissel, Udo-Ernst Haner, Sebastiaan Janssen and Remko van der Lugt. The authors elaborate on the physical environment as far as it reflects the firm’s strategic intentions towards innovation. They propose a framework to aid practitioners and academics to better understand the design, role and goals of such spaces. In the second article, Remko van der Lugt, Sebastiaan Janssen, Sjoukje Kuperus and Ernst de Lange report on an in-depth case description of a creative facility that aims to stimulate inspiration, information and interaction, imagination, and innovation. The eighth article in this first issue of 2007 is a contribution by Todd Dewett and Scott David Williams entitled ‘Innovators and Imitators in Novelty-intensive Markets: a Research Agenda’. In this article the authors explore markets characterized by high demand for novelty and how they differ from typical markets. A very worthwhile read indeed, as was also remarked by one of the anonymous reviewers! Then, after the practitioner’s insight from Nel Mostert, you will find a book review
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
written by Marcus Keupp. He discusses the book Multinational Firms, Innovation and Productivity by Castellani and Zanfei. We hope you will enjoy reading this issue as much as we did when putting it together. We look forward to the second issue of 2007, in which you may find a number of contributions based on conference papers from the EIASM Product Development Management Conference which was held in Copenhagen 2005, brought together by John Christiansen and his team from Copenhagen Business School. We would also like to draw your attention to the announcement of the European Doctoral Summer School in Technology Management that will be organized under the auspices of EIASM, sponsored by RADMA, IGS and Creativity and Innovation Management to be held at the University of Twente, August 17–24, 2007 (see also http://www.eiasm.be). Jan Buijs and Han van der Meer Olaf Fisscher
References Stasiak, M. and Buijs, J. (eds) (2006) Transformations. Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz, 599pp (ISBN 83-7405-203-1).
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
3
The Climate for Transformation: Lessons for Leaders Scott G. Isaksen This article reports insights for organizational leaders based on a series of case studies describing the use of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire as a tool to assist them with their transformation efforts. Leaders often assert the need to change their organizational cultures. This article seeks to clarify and differentiate culture from climate, and then focus on what leaders can do to transform their climate by applying a deliberate assessment tool. As the case studies illustrate, making organizational transformation happen is best approached through a systemic or ecological approach. This approach includes considering the people involved, the methods deployed, the desired outcome of the change as well as the context within which the transformation occurs. The broadest concept within this framework is context, which includes both culture and climate, among other things. Since context is key to initiating and sustaining transformation, emphasis on the leader’s role in climate creation will be provided.
Introduction
T
he challenges of innovation and change are facing everyone who leads and manages all types of organizations. A recent report from the Economist Intelligence Unit (2005) asserted: Predictions are perilous, but one thing we know for sure: the pace of change in the next five years will be relentless. The companies that best understand the dynamics of this change and adapt fastest to the emerging business landscape will be the likeliest to prosper. (p. 1) We have argued that the most productive way to meet these challenges is by taking a systemic approach (Isaksen & Tidd, 2006). Previous efforts to manage transformation seemed to focus on only one of the main elements of the entire change system – and the dismal results have been well documented. Those who lead change often find that the actual change they are trying to implement is influenced by many other factors that make a difference. Taking a systemic approach to guiding change includes considering the people involved in the change, the method or approach you are taking and the situation surrounding the effort, as well as the desired outcomes. © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Change and transformation require communicating a clear image of the desired outcome and results. The nature of this outcome has a meaningful impact on the other three factors. Considering the identification and use of diverse talents and styles of the people involved in the change is another key to success. The methods and approach taken to operationalize the change can have an impact as well. Finally, the nature of the context can indicate the readiness, willingness and ability to implement the change effort. Each of these areas provides an entire and rich domain for inquiry and consideration. How much effort you choose to put into each one (or any) depends on how important the change is, and how much time, energy and resources you have. Any successful change effort will require some knowledge and use of all four of these areas (outcome, method, people and context). These areas form the basis of a systemic approach to change. The practical systemic approach to managing change is consistent with the emerging ecological or interactionist approach to creativity research (Harrington, 1990; Isaksen, Puccio & Treffinger, 1993). This approach is based on the idea that the best way to understand and develop creativity is by considering the interaction of people, process, product and place.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00415.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
4
The purpose of this article is to outline the importance of considering the context within the general system of change. Since context includes a number of key constructs, the next section will differentiate culture and climate as two key concepts within that larger domain. Leaders have a great deal of influence on the culture and climate, so we make the case for considering the implications of leadership behaviour. Three case studies will be presented that illustrate changes in the organizational climate and describe what was done, primarily from the perspective of leadership teams, to make these changes. The case study approach was chosen to explore how deliberate assessment of climate might assist leaders in transforming their organizations. The article will conclude with some general implications for leaders gleaned from these case studies and other related experiences. One of the broadest factors to consider is the context for creativity, innovation and transformation. The word context can be taken to mean something as broad as society or national culture as well as something very limited, like the working climate within a team. Our first task is to differentiate between two of the most widely used terms within the general area of context: culture and climate.
The Context for Transformation The context for transformation is the most broad and inclusive element within the change system. The construct of context allows us to interweave the various parts within the milieu or environment. When we think about the role of leaders in creating the context for change, we must be clear about what we mean. Many scholars have attempted to approach an improved understanding and assessment of the work environment, and have included many concepts and constructs within that broad heading (Amabile et al., 1996). Other scholars have studied the similarities and differences between organizational culture and climate to further advance our understanding of the creation and influence of social contexts in organizations (Denison, 1996). Culture can be described as collective programming of the mind or, as Hofstede (1997) has called it, ‘software of the mind’. This collective software of the mind distinguishes the members of one social group from another. Many writers see culture as something that is stable, deep, and reinforced by a history of decisions, use of power, and learned strategies for answering fundamental questions (Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004).
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Organizational cultures should describe the shared mental programming of those within the same organization, particularly if they share the same nationality. According to Schein (1992) there are three main sources that form any organizational culture. First, there are the beliefs, values and assumptions of the founder. Next, the learning experiences of members as the organization evolves and grows can also influence culture. Third, organizational cultures can change as a result of new beliefs, values and assumptions brought into the organization from new members and leaders. The most profound of these tends to be the founding leaders. They have strong theories about how things should be done and these get tested early in the organization’s life. If the organization makes it through the many early tests of the founder’s theory the beliefs and assumptions of that founder exert a profound influence on the culture of the organization. If circumstances change, and those assumptions are no longer viable, then the organization must change its culture or die. Organizational or corporate cultures can have a profound impact on their long-term economic impact. Kotter and Heskett (1992) found that those companies that intentionally and effectively managed their cultures consistently outperformed companies that did not. Companies were studied over a ten-year period, and those that managed their culture had a 682 percent increase in revenue compared to 166 percent for those that did not. Stock prices of the companies that managed their culture increased 901 percent compared to 74 percent for those that did not. Net income increased 756 percent versus only 1 percent for companies that left their culture to chance. The stakes appear to be very high when it comes to deliberate management of an organization’s context. Climate is defined as the recurring patterns of behaviour, attitudes and feelings that characterize life in the organization. At the individual level of analysis the concept is called psychological climate (Isaksen & Lauer, 1999; James & Sells, 1981). At this level, the concept of climate refers to the intrapersonal perception of the patterns of behaviour, attitudes and feelings as experienced by the individual. When aggregated, the concept is called work unit or organizational climate (Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Turnipseed, 1994). These are the objectively shared perceptions that characterize life within a defined work unit or in the larger organization. Climate is distinct from culture in that it is more observable at a surface level within the organization and more amenable to change and improvement efforts (McNabb & Sepic, 1995). Culture refers to the © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
deeper and more enduring values, norms and beliefs within the organization (Ekvall, 1996). The domain for our inquiry into the climate for creativity and change is the organization. As such, it is influenced by the culture and a variety of other factors (see the Model for Organizational Change in Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall & Britz, 2001). Together, these factors create the larger context, within which climate is one key intervening variable. The climate for creativity and change is that which promotes the generation, consideration and use of new products, services and ways of working. This kind of climate supports the development, assimilation and utilization of new and different approaches, practices and concepts. Organizational climate is an intervening variable that affects individual and organizational performance due to its modifying effect on organizational and psychological processes. The climate is influenced by many factors within the organization and, in turn, affects organizational and psychological processes. Organizational processes include group problem solving, decision making, communication and coordination. Psychological processes include learning, individual problem solving, creating, motivating and committing. These components exert a direct influence on the performance and outcomes in individuals, working groups and the organization. We believe that climate is more easily observed and influenced than culture. As Thomson (1998) has indicated: Changing the culture of an organization by tackling it head on as a single facet of organizational life if really, really tough. To go ‘deep’ into cultural change you have to be talking about beliefs and values, and these go to the very soul of the organization and its people. It is much easier to change the climate and language of the business. (p. 240)
Leader’s Role in Climate Creation Deliberate climate creation is the main responsibility of leadership within any organization. The reality is that all leaders within all organizations are already creating a climate, whether they do it deliberately or not (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Unless leaders are totally invisible to others, what they say and do is observed by others and is the greatest influence on the perceived patterns of behaviour that characterize life and the atmosphere within the organization. Of all the factors that influence climate, leadership behaviour is generally the most potent (Amabile et al., 2004; Ekvall & Ryham© 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
5
mar, 1998; Ekvall, 1997). Ekvall reported that leadership behaviour accounts for anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of the variance in many of his studies. Creating a workplace atmosphere that allows for creative behaviour is one of the greatest opportunities for those who choose to meet the innovation and transformation challenge. Davis (2000) studied 500 companies from seven countries in order to determine the capabilities that separate the top performers (those generating higher percentages of turnover from products and services developed within the previous five years) from the lower performers. The higher performers demonstrated a more inclusive and creative kind of leadership, took deliberate steps to manage their creative and idea management processes, and did not leave their climate or working atmosphere to chance. The study also clearly illustrated the value of taking a more systemic approach to change. Those with the highest percentage of turnover were doing more on all three capabilities. Davis (2000) also studied the idea management processes in a representative set of organizations in the sample. Those organizations earning more from new products and services were nurturing on average 115 ideas per day. The average organizations captured and managed 18 ideas per day. The lowest performing organizations only nurtured about one idea per day. Support for an idea-rich environment is also provided by research into the success curves for industrial innovation. One study found that it took 3,000 raw ideas to produce one substantially new and commercially successful new product (Stevens & Burley, 1997). Although their research applied to most industries, they indicated that for others, including drug companies, the number of raw ideas may actually be higher (6,000–8,000). Leaders create the working climate by using a variety of levers within the organization. For example, when leaders create and communicate mission and strategy they can influence the climate. Restructuring is one lever we have witnessed that is utilized very often to create change in the way people interact (perhaps an overused lever). By providing clear task requirements for projects and tasks, they can set the tone for the kind of change required. We have already reported that founding leaders and managers of organizations have a profound effect on the culture, and therefore the climate of their organizations. Research and practice indicates that new and emerging leaders can also influence the climate within their teams, divisions or entire organizations. When it comes to meeting the challenge of organizational change, the interaction of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
6
people with their situation is a key leadership issue (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002). When leaders want to focus clearly and deliberately on creating the climate that supports change, creativity and innovation, they can apply a deliberate measure of the climate. The following sections of this article will focus on some case studies in which a variety of organizations have applied the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ) in a deliberate change effort. These case studies are not offered as absolute proof of the effectiveness of the SOQ, but are shared to help you better understand what it will likely take to make meaningful and significant changes in your climate.
Method The following three case studies are drawn from three real organizational transformation efforts. The first case study provided the anchoring experience within which we observed the importance of leadership behaviour in implementing a change effort. For this case study we observed clear examples of how leaders dealt with the entire system of change as well as differences in their scores on the SOQ. The second and third case studies described not only the need for change and the actions taken to make the change happen; they also include the statistical tests of significance of difference in their climate scores. For all three case studies, the SOQ was used as the tool to examine and understand the climate surrounding the change effort. Each case includes a description of the organization or division as well as the actions undertaken and the results to date. The SOQ is based on 50 years of research and development (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2006). It is based on Ekvall’s early research and experience as an industrial psychologist (Ekvall, 1967, 1971; Ekvall, Arvonen & WaldenstromLindblad, 1983). The measure contains 53 questions that assess nine dimensions of the climate for creativity as well as three openended narrative questions. The dimensions have been shown to be stable over time (Ekvall, 1993) and internally consistent (Isaksen, Lauer & Ekvall, 1999). The nine dimensions have been defined, as have the numerous factors that can affect the scores on the measure (Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall & Britz, 2001). Studies have been conducted illustrating the validity of the SOQ as well as its ability to distinguish creative from non-creative teams (Isaksen & Lauer, 2001, 2002). The dimensions of the SOQ have been shown to distinguish organizations that have been more successful at innovation
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
and change (Ekvall, 1996). The dimensions of the SOQ include: • Challenge/Involvement. This dimension concerns the degree to which people are involved in daily operations, long-term goals and visions. High levels of challenge and involvement means that people are intrinsically motivated and committed to making contributions to the success of the organization. The climate has a dynamic, electric and inspiring quality. People find joy and meaning in their work, and therefore, they invest much energy. In the opposite situation, people are not engaged and feelings of alienation and indifference are present. The common sentiment and attitude is apathy and lack of interest in that work, and interaction is both dull and listless. • Freedom. The freedom dimension reflects the level of independence in behaviour exerted by the people in the organization. In a climate with much freedom, people are given autonomy to define much of their own work. People are able to exercise discretion in their day-to-day activities. People take the initiative to acquire and share information; they make plans and decisions about their work. In the opposite climate, people work within strict guidelines and roles. People carry out their work in prescribed ways with little room to redefine their tasks. • Trust/Openness. The trust and openness dimension refers to the degree of emotional safety in relationships. When there is a level of trust, individuals can be genuinely open and frank with one another. People can count on each other for personal support. People have a sincere respect for one another. Where trust is missing, people are suspicious of each other, and therefore they closely guard themselves and their ideas. In these situations people find it extremely difficult to openly communicate with each other. • Idea-time. Idea-time is the amount of time people can use (and do use) for elaborating new ideas. In the high idea-time situation, possibilities exist to discuss and test impulses and fresh suggestions that are not planned or included in the task assignment. There are opportunities to take the time to explore and develop new ideas. Flexible timelines permit people to explore new avenues and alternatives. In the reverse case, every minute is booked and specified. The time pressure makes thinking outside the instructions and planned routines impossible. © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
• Playfulness/Humour. The playfulness and humour dimension focuses on the degree to which spontaneity and ease are displayed within the workplace. A relaxed atmosphere where good-natured jokes and frequent laughter occur is indicative of this dimension. People can be seen having fun at work. The atmosphere is seen as easy-going and light-hearted. The opposite climate is characterized by gravity and seriousness. The atmosphere is stiff and gloomy. Jokes and laughter are regarded as improper and out of place. • Conflict. The conflict dimension is the only negative dimension within the SOQ. It refers to the presence of personal and emotional tensions in the organization. Groups and single individuals dislike and may even hate each other when the level of conflict is high. The climate can be characterized by ‘interpersonal warfare.’ Plots, traps, power and territory struggles are usual elements in the life of the organization. Personal differences yield gossip and slander. In the opposite case, people behave in a more mature manner; they have psychological insight and control of impulses. People accept and deal effectively with diversity. • Idea-support. The idea-support dimension assesses the way new ideas are treated. In the idea-supportive climate, ideas and suggestions are received in an attentive and professional way by bosses, peers and subordinates. People listen to each other and encourage initiatives. Possibilities for trying out new ideas are created. The atmosphere is constructive and positive when considering new ideas. When idea-support is low, the automatic ‘no’ is prevailing. Every suggestion is immediately refuted by a destructive counter-argument. When idea-support is low, fault-finding and obstacle raising are the usual styles of responding to ideas. • Debate. Debate refers to the occurrence of encounters and disagreements between viewpoints, ideas and differing experiences and knowledge. In the debating organization many voices are heard and people are keen to put forward their ideas for consideration and review. People can often be seen discussing opposing opinions and sharing a diversity of perspectives. Where debates are missing, people follow authoritarian patterns without questioning. Debate provides appropriate ‘idea’ tension as opposed to conflict that provides ‘personal’ tension. • Risk-taking. Risk-taking is defined as the tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity exposed in the workplace. In the high risk-taking case, bold new initiatives can be taken even when the outcomes are © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
7
unknown. People feel as though they can ‘take a gamble’ on some of their ideas. People will often ‘go out on a limb’ and be first to put an idea forward. In a riskavoiding climate there is a cautious, hesitant mentality. People try to be on the ‘safe side.’ They decide, ‘to sleep on the matter.’ They set up committees and they cover themselves in many ways before making a decision. These nine dimensions of the SOQ are assessed through the use of 53 questions within the measure. The nine dimensions are scored on a scale from 0 to 300. Three openended narrative questions allow for the consideration of other meaningful factors within the context. These narrative questions allow us to contextualize the results of the SOQ.
Results Case 1: A Symphony Orchestra A major world-class orchestra in the North East of the United States had been invited to prestigious festivals all over the world. It was housed in an impressive building in the downtown area of a major metropolitan area and had over 100 musicians and 75 staff, and an operating budget of nearly $30 million. The orchestra had been in existence for over 100 years and had an excellent reputation and a programme for classical music, as well as Broadway, jazz and popular music. We started working with the organization to help them develop a strategic architecture in 1997. In the process of this strategic planning effort, the leadership team identified a number of opportunities and threats facing the organization. One of the major threats was their overreliance on the endowment to fund their operation. The leadership team identified 11 strategic growth opportunities and initiated a number of assessment efforts to determine their position in the market and their relevance to the community. Over the next year, the leadership team decided to involve their board and address a number of key strategic growth projects. As a part of their effort to engage the entire organization in their change efforts, the SOQ was administered in January 1999. The following month, the results of the SOQ were shared with the entire staff and they participated in a workshop to identify improvements that would help the orchestra in the short, medium and long term. Follow-up workshops were held with the senior management team and each department. We assembled crossfunctional teams to address the dimensions of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
8
Table 1. A Symphony Orchestra Dimension
Challenge Freedom Trust Idea-time Playfulness Conflict Idea-support Debate Risk-taking
Innovative Company Averages (N = 10 companies)
First Time Averages (N = 63)
Second Time Averages (N = 75)
Stagnated Company Averages (N = 5 companies)
238 210 178 148 230 78 183 158 195
217 149 154 109 172 134 149 166 104
221 152 165 108 180 90 151 177 112
163 153 128 97 140 140 108 105 53
Freedom, Idea-time, Conflict, Debate and Risk-taking. Each team identified actions that needed to be taken to improve the results on one dimension and presented to the senior management team. A number of the actions were implemented over the next year. A leadership development workshop was held and included the senior management as well as department heads. Workshops on delegation and empowering people were held. The dress code was changed to allow for less formal attire during nonperformance days. Staff meetings were restructured to allow for more participation and to encourage follow-up on many of the actions and projects. Emphasis was placed on more deliberate communication of the strategy and progress on the strategic goals. One team addressed the issue of staff shortages and more effective use of volunteers to ease the pressure of a very heavy workload. Another cross-functional team was charged with the task of ‘unclogging the information arteries’ by exchanging information across departments. The senior management team also chose to address the need to become less reliant on the endowment. They created a research and development function to explore numerous alternatives. They took a bold suggestion to the board to allow the symphony to extend beyond its education and non-profit mission and create some for-profit centres. For example, a retail store was created adjacent to the performance hall. Another project was created to review human resource practices and make improvements in staffing, pensions and personal and vacation time. All of these efforts were linked with the overall strategy of the orchestra and addressed during special and regular meetings of the
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
senior leadership and departments. The follow-up assessment of the SOQ, 21 months later, showed some improvement on most of the targeted dimensions (see Table 1). During the presentation of the data on the second administration of the SOQ with the senior management team they noticed a major decrease in Conflict. They also noticed some improvement in Trust/Openness and Risktaking. People were putting more thoughts and suggestions forward and the working relationships between managers and employees were improving. The quantitative scores were supplemented, once again, with narrative feedback from 75 people who took the assessment. As a result of examining the quantitative and qualitative findings, they reported that people within the organization seemed much more receptive to the changes and the new strategic direction. The management team changed their perception of the employees to reflect much greater respect for their talents and motivations. Communication was improving within and across departments. They were also able to see an improvement in the overreliance on their endowment. The senior management team also identified necessary additional steps to be taken to continue to improve the organization’s readiness, willingness and ability to implement the changes. They recognized that Idea-time had not improved. The feedback from the SOQ detailed the reasons for the lack of improvement being an ever-increasing workload and demands from the projects and community. At the time of writing, progress continues. But between the two administrations of the SOQ, they had increased the revenue and decreased dependency on the endowment to a large © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
degree and other new services and sources of revenue streams were under consideration.
Case 2: A Medical Technology Company A Finnish-based global health-care organization had 55,000 employees and $50 billion in revenue. The division we worked with was located in the mid-west and employed 700 people. The mission was to develop, manufacture and market products for anesthesia and critical care. During January 1999, the senior management team of the mid-west division conducted an SOQ assessment. They had been doing well on quality and operational excellence initiatives in manufacturing and had improved their sales and marketing results, but were still concerned that there were many other areas on which they could improve. They approached the SOQ assessment as a means to find out what was working well and what needed to be improved. We held a workshop with the senior team to present the results and engage them to determine what they needed to do to improve their business. We met with the CEO prior to the workshop to highlight the overall results and share the department comparisons. She was not surprised by the results, but was very interested to see that some of the departments had different results. During the workshop, the team targeted Challenge/Involvement, Freedom, Idea-time, and Idea-support as critical dimensions to improve to enable them to meet their strategic objectives. The organization was facing increasing competition in their markets and significant advances in technology. Although major progress had been made in the manufacturing area, they needed to improve their product development and marketing efforts by broadening involvement internally, crossfunctionally and externally by obtaining deep consumer insight. The main strategy they settled upon was to ‘jump start’ their innovation in new product development for life support. Key personnel in new product development and marketing were provided training in Creative Problem Solving (CPS), and follow-up projects were launched to apply the learning to existing and new projects. One project was a major investment in re-engineering their main product line. Clinicians were challenged with the current design of the equipment. The initial decision was to redesign the placement of critical control valves used during surgery. The project leader decided to apply CPS on the challenge and used a number of the tools to clarify the problem with the end users. The © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
9
sessions were videotaped and small-group sessions were held involving project team members from research and development as well as marketing. The result was a redefinition of the challenge: the re-engineering effort was shelved, thus saving the millions of dollars that this would have cost, in favour of the development of a new tactile tool to help the clinicians’ problem of having their hands full. During this process, the employees were involved in the working sessions and were able to observe progress due to a deliberate effort to display and communicate the results. Since the professionals in the research and development lab were also directly involved in obtaining and interpreting the consumer insight data, they understood the needs of the end users and displayed an unusually high degree of energy and commitment to the project. There were other spin-offs as well. For example, other employees were trained in the tools and techniques and CPS. Many of the employees started taking other initiatives to transform their use of space into community sharing events and resources. On one visit to the facility we observed a resource exchange for employees with children in which they could purchase new learning games or exchange their used ones with each other. We also observed a much greater amount of crossfunctional and informal working across departments. Some human resource personnel were replaced and new forms of reward and recognition were developed. Not only was there more consumer insight research going on, but there were also more and closer partnerships created with clinicians and end users of the products. Another SOQ assessment was administered about 18 months later and the results are shown in Table 2. During this time, the CEO tracked revenue growth and profitability of the division and reported double-digit growth. We had observed that there were differences in the means on the dimensions chosen by the leadership team of the symphony orchestra, so for this case, we decided to see if the changes in the climate results were significant and if the SOQ assessment scores were internally consistent. A one-way analysis of variance was computed for the means on each dimension, as well as Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency. These data are reported in Table 2. Even though the leadership team targeted only four dimensions, there were improvements in other climate factors. Challenge/ Involvement, Freedom, Idea-time and Ideasupport did show significant improvements, as did Playfulness/Humor, Debate and
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
10
Table 2. A Medical Technology Company Dimension
Challenge Freedom Trust Idea-time Playfulness Conflict Idea-support Debate Risk-taking
First Time Averages (N = 525)
Second Time Averages (N = 491)
Univariate F
Significance Level
Cronbach’s Alpha
166 138 133 109 155 147 121 162 108
180 147 138 126 166 137 141 170 119
15.58 6.21 1.89 21.05 7.45 4.08 25.78 5.32 10.63
0.001 0.05 n.s. 0.001 0.01 0.05 0.001 0.05 0.001
0.88 0.84 0.74 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.78
Risk-taking. There was also a significant decrease in Conflict. Despite these significant changes over time, the SOQ dimensions demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency. This case, coupled with earlier cases and applications of the SOQ assessment approach provided an increasing degree of confidence that the measure could be very useful for informing and guiding change efforts.
Case 3: An Electrical Engineering Division This organization was a division of a large, global electrical power and product supply company headquartered in France. The division was located in the South East of the United States and had 92 employees. Its focus was to help clients automate their processes, particularly within the automotive, pharmaceutical, microelectronics and food and beverage industries. For example, this division would make the robots that put cars together in the automotive industry or provide public filtration systems. When this division was merged with the parent company in 2002, it was losing about $8 million a year. A new general manager was brought in to turn the division around and make it profitable quickly. The general manager attended a senior management development programme and learned about the SOQ. He decided that this measure and approach might be helpful to him and his team when doing a short-term turnaround. In August 2002, the first general climate assessment was conducted with all the employees of the division. The management team worked to integrate the results of the SOQ with their current understanding of what was needed to make the turnaround work. The team reviewed the results and identified that
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
they were strongest on the Debate dimension but were very close to the stagnated norms when it came to Challenge/Involvement, Playfulness/Humor and Conflict. They indicated that the quantitative and qualitative assessment results were consistent with their own impressions that the division could be characterized as conflict-driven, uncommitted to producing results, and that people were generally despondent. The leadership decided, after some debate, that they should target Challenge/ Involvement, Trust/Openness, Playfulness/ Humor and Conflict in order to help them implement the needed turnaround. They set a very specific target of obtaining a score of 195– 205 on Challenge/Involvement. This dimension also fit the strategic emphasis on a global initiative on employee commitment. We were a little uncertain about their ability to deliberately affect the Trust/Openness dimension due to the lack of a significant improvement with the previous cases. It was clear to them that they needed to soften the climate and drive a warmer, more embracing, communicative and exuberant climate. They developed and then implemented a plan for short-term climate change. They committed to increase communication by holding monthly all-employee meetings, sharing quarterly reviews on performance and using cross-functional strategy review sessions. They implemented mandatory ‘skip level’ meetings to allow more direct interaction between senior managers and all levels of employees. The general manager held 15minute meetings with all employees at least once a year. All employee suggestions and recommendations were invited and feedback and recognition was required to be immediate. A new monthly recognition and rewards © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
11
Table 3. An Electrical Engineering Division Dimension
Challenge Freedom Trust Idea-time Playfulness Conflict Idea-support Debate Risk-taking
First Time Averages (N = 75)
Second Time Averages (N = 77)
Univariate F
Significance Level
Cronbach’s Alpha
171 156 138 112 132 137 135 165 125
204 160 163 124 154 94 158 184 134
12.50 0.16 8.32 1.13 5.89 14.85 5.51 4.26 0.91
0.001 0.695 0.004 0.290 0.016 0.000 0.020 0.041 0.341
0.87 0.84 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.86 0.78
programme was launched across the division for both managers and employees that was based on peer nomination. At a time when making the division profitable was the highest priority, the management team re-established training and development and encouraged employees to engage in both personal and business-related skills development. They also provided mandatory safety training for all employees. Another category of initiatives included providing a clear and compelling mission, strategy and values for the division. The management team formed employee review teams to challenge and craft the statements in the hope of encouraging more ownership and involvement in the overall strategic direction of the business. In general, they focused on relaxing the climate. They used the suggestions provided by the narrative parts of the survey to identify actions that needed to be taken. They modified rules regarding the dress code, adapted more flexible working hours, and allowed plants and flowers in the workplace. They scheduled parties and social events, and fostered open debate and feedback without repercussions. Managers who could not follow the new behavioural norms were coached and some were removed from their positions. It was critical to encourage everyone to understand how their specific role and responsibilities fit into the overall flow of the business so they did extensive work on detailing the definition of roles and process ownership. Their stated aim was to create an unstoppable ‘bubble of excellence’ in North America and to challenge the ‘tyranny of the average’. In September 2003, the leadership team wanted feedback on how they were doing in © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
their efforts to change the climate, so they requested a second administration of the SOQ. The results of this second assessment, along with the comparison to the first, are included in Table 3. Again, we computed one-way analyses of variance on the means of the dimensions as well as Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal consistency. The four dimensions they targeted (Challenge/Involvement, Trust/Openness, Playfulness/Humor and Conflict) improved significantly. In addition, two additional dimensions (Idea-support and Debate) showed significant improvement, even though they were not specifically targeted. The Conflict dimension showed the largest change in the more positive direction (t = 3.85, 150df, p < 0001). We also noticed a significant improvement on the Trust/Openness dimension. This could have been the result of the level of intensity with which management drove the climate change. Once again, despite the significant changes in most of the SOQ dimensions, we found acceptable levels of internal consistency within the measure. The division showed a $7 million turnaround in 18 months and has now begun to deliver profit much closer to projections. In 2003, the division won a worldwide innovation award. They are building specific innovation metrics into their balanced scorecard and continue to identify areas of improvement, despite a promotion of the general manager to a national position.
Implications for Leaders Each of the organizations identified above were very different. Despite the different
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
12
purposes, industries and sizes, there were some common themes that may help leaders take deliberate efforts to improve their own climate. These themes were derived from looking across all three case studies. Leaders and managers accepted their key role. In each case, those charged with the strategic responsibility and day-to-day work owned up to their role in climate creation. They faced both the good and bad news that came with the assessment and then focused on what needed to be done to make improvements. Those who owned up to change, and took their sponsorship and clientship responsibilities seriously were able to accomplish their desired outcomes, involve people and make progress on their deliberate methods. Having access to climate data helped them celebrate what was working and remove the barriers within the context to create an atmosphere conducive to the release of creativity. They did not try to discount the data or measure (or the people presenting them). Instead, they faced the reality of the climate data with a positive attitude. Leaders focused on interpretation and integration. The leaders and managers sought to understand both the numbers and narrative results and then carefully considered which dimensions and actions could help them move the organization forward. Climate creation was not a goal or objective all on its own. The results from the SOQ assessment served to provide leadership teams with important insights to help them look at the current organizational context in light of the direction they needed to go, the quality of the working relationships among people, and how well their current methods or approaches were working. Based on these insights, the leadership teams were able to engage others (usually on a cross-functional level) to make the necessary changes and improvements. Leaders targeted key dimensions. In each case the leadership and management teams selected dimensions of climate that were critical to their own unique purposes and markets. The SOQ provides quantitative data on nine dimensions and narrative comments and themes in response to what is helping or hindering creativity and what specific actions need to be taken to improve the situation. This amount of information could overwhelm an already overburdened management team. The teams in these cases certainly paid attention to all the data, but they were able to take advantage of the understanding of the business needs and integrate these with the critical insights about the climate. As a result, they focused their efforts on a selected number
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
of high priority dimensions and actions that helped them achieve results and improve the climate. Leaders demonstrated follow through. Each of these cases demonstrated the value of taking actions over time. Rather than using the SOQ as a report card or a short executive intellectual exercise, the management teams understood that it was all about changing behaviour. This often required the leaders to transform their own behaviour first, but this nearly always cascaded through the organization. Rather than thinking that climate creation was a single event, they knew that this kind of work was a process or journey – and they stayed the course. In each of the cases, leaders maintained the focus on their climate improvement efforts even when their teams were busy with other important day-to-day tasks and issues. Maintaining this focus sent clear messages to other members of the management team, and throughout each of the organizations. Leaders used external resources. Although the ultimate value of any climate assessment must be internally relevant to the organization, each of these organizations saw value in using an external assessment that was normative; and having the results presented and interpreted by an objective outsider. Each of the senior leaders and members of the management teams realized the benefit of using a well-developed assessment tool and qualified individuals who knew how to use the measure to help obtain results. Having access to clear benchmarks and, often, results from other organizations in similar industries, helped the management teams and employees understand the importance and value of the climate creation efforts. Our experience has shown that it is helpful to work with a qualified user of the SOQ. One very large organization with which we work conducted an SOQ assessment within one of its divisions. When the results were shared the key leaders wanted to focus on only those dimensions on which they scored below the more productive norm. What they missed was the most significant (and meaningful) difference: that they were scoring well above an appropriate score for Debate. The heart of their need for improvement turned out to be the productive avoidance created by too many diverse opinions and no clear strategic direction. This was confounded by the fact that most people in the division really enjoyed a good debate. It certainly was more fun than doing any productive work! Having a qualified user apply the results of the SOQ to help a management team understand, and then act on, their results provide a © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
more objective perspective and, in each of these cases, was a factor in their success.
Limitations There are numerous limitations to using a case study approach to derive suggestions for leaders of organizations. Although we have used the SOQ with numerous other organizations, we only provide three cases in this article. Other applications of the SOQ support the insights gleaned from these case studies, but they are offered here as preliminary results and should be the subject of further research. Further, only two of these case studies were analysed quantitatively for significance levels and internal consistency. The insights gleaned from these examples may not be generalizable to other organizations. As with other forms of case study, we were guided by our central question regarding how deliberate climate assessment may help leaders transform their organizations, but we did not have direct control over all of the events and activities within the organizations we examined. Factors other than those we observed could have had influence over the changes in the climate within these organizations. If anything, this limitation argues for taking a systemic approach. Although we attempted to mitigate observer bias by employing teams of professionals and checking our observations with others within the organizations, the results and suggestions must be considered exploratory and preliminary. There is much more research that needs to be accomplished in order to provide more definitive answers to our central question.
Conclusions Leaders and their behaviour are a major force in creating the context for change and creativity. The purpose of this article has been to outline a number of other factors that can make a difference as well as share some specific strategies that can be employed to improve the situation. Rather than focus on only one strategy, it may be helpful to have a number at your disposal (Kotter, 1999). The key is to examine the situation. This examination can be done from a cultural perspective and from the point of view of values such as those surrounding the use of power, dealing with uncertainty, the tension between individuals and community, and masculinefeminine issues (Offerman & Hellman, 1997). Deliberate situational examination can also be done through the lens of climate, particularly © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
13
when the assessment incorporates multiple methods (closed-ended quantitative questions and open-ended narrative questions). From this examination of the culture and climate, a better decision regarding the use of any particular strategy can be made (Coyne & Subramanian, 1996). The value in using a deliberate assessment approach is that leaders can increase the likelihood that they will consider more factors while guiding significant change. Knowing more about the situation will help leaders decide how quickly they need to take action, the necessary level of preplanning, and the degree of involvement from others. The experiences outlined above indicate that the SOQ helps leaders and managers understand the readiness, willingness and ability to transform their organizations. The SOQ has shown that it measures nine key dimensions of a climate that supports creativity and change. In addition, the narrative section picks up other relevant factors and points out unique ingredients within the situation that can really make a difference (Sobieck, 1996). As a result, the SOQ offers an excellent starting point to help leaders understand the situational outlook surrounding the change effort they wish to implement. The SOQ has also been applied to help develop leaders. A number of organizations have incorporated the SOQ as an assessment in their leadership development programmes. The participants in these programmes take the SOQ as a self-assessment and then invite those who are good observers of their leadership behaviour to take the assessment as well, prior to the programme. During the programme the participants are provided with their quantitative and qualitative results so they can compare them with those of their observers. They can also compare their results with the norms from innovative versus stagnated organizations and best- and worst-case teams. The exercise usually provides those who are developing their leadership talents with powerful insights and implications for further skill development and behaviour change. Our intention is to continue to conduct research using the SOQ, in conjunction with other measures and in real-life contexts. This article presents an early attempt to better understand how such an assessment may help those who lead and manage transformation efforts.
Acknowledgements This article is based on a paper presented at the 9th European Conference on Creativity and
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
14
Innovation hosted by the Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz, Poland during September 2005. The author would like to thank the participants in this session. Special thanks go to Ken Lauer who assisted with the statistical analysis. Thanks also to K. Brian Dorval and the group of reflective practitioners who assisted with the observations during each of the cases.
References Adler, N.J. (1991) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (2nd edn). Boston, MA: PWSKENT Publishing. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996) ‘Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–84. Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004) ‘Leader Behaviors and the Work Environment for Creativity: Perceived Leader Support’. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32. Coyne, K.P. and Subramanian, S. (1996) ‘Bringing Discipline to Strategy’. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 3–12. Davis, T. (2000) Innovation and Growth: A Global Perspective. London: PricewaterhouseCoopers. Denison, D.R. (1996) ‘What is the Difference Between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars’. Academy of Management Review, 21, 619–54. Economist Intelligence Unit (2005) Business 2010: Embracing the Challenge of Change – A Report of the Economist Intelligence Unit Sponsored by SAP. London: The Economist. Ekvall, G. (1967) Industrial Suggestion Schemes: Studies Concerning their Psychological Background. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Personnel Administration. Ekvall, G. (1971) Creativity at the Place of Work: A Study of Suggestors and Suggestion Systems in the Swedish Mechanical Industry. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Personnel Administration. Ekvall, G. (1993) ‘Creativity in Project Work: A Longitudinal Study of a Product Development Project’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2, 17–26. Ekvall, G. (1996) ‘Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation’. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (1), 105–23. Ekvall, G. (1997) ‘Organizational Conditions and Levels of Creativity’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 6 (4), 195–205. Ekvall, G. and Ryhammar, L. (1998) ‘Leadership Style, Social Climate and Organizational Outcomes: A Study of a Swedish University College’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7, 126–30. Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J. and Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I. (1983) Creative Organizational Climate: Construction and Validation of a Measuring Instrument.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
(Report 2). Stockholm, Sweden: FArådet – The Swedish Council for Management and Work Life Issues. Harrington, D.M. (1990) ‘The ecology of creativity: A psychological perspective’. In Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theories of Creativity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 143–69. Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and Organizations – Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGrawHill. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Isaksen, S.G. and Ekvall, G. (2006) Assessing your Context for Change: A Technical Manual for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire – Enhancing Performance of Organizations, Leaders and Teams. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Problem Solving Group. Isaksen, S.G. and Lauer, K.J. (1999) ‘The Relationship Between Cognitive Style and Individual Psychological Climate: Reflections on a Previous Study’. Studia Psychologica, 41, 177–91. Isaksen, S.G. and Lauer, K.J. (2001) ‘Convergent Validity of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire: Discriminating Levels of Perceived Support for Creativity’. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 31–40. Isaksen, S.G. and Lauer, K.J. (2002) ‘The Climate for Creativity and Change in Teams’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, 74–86. Isaksen, S.G. and Tidd, J. (2006) Meeting the Innovation Challenge: Leadership for Transformation and Growth. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Isaksen, S.G., Puccio, G.J. and Treffinger, D.J. (1993) ‘An Ecological Approach to Creativity Research: Profiling for Creative Problem Solving’. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23 (3), 149–70. Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J. and Ekvall, G. (1999) ‘Situational Outlook Questionnaire: A Measure of the Climate for Creativity and Change’. Psychological Reports, 85, 665–74. Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Ekvall, G. and Britz, A. (2001) ‘Perceptions of the Best and Worst Climates for Creativity: Preliminary Validation Evidence for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire’. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171–84. Kotter, J.P. (1999) John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p. 43. Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992) Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press. James, L.R. and Sells, S.B. (1981) ‘Psychological Climate: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Research’. In Magnusson, D. (ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An International Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 275–95. Joyce, W.F. and Slocum, D. (1984) ‘Collective Climate: Agreement as a Basis for Defining Aggregate Climates in Organizations’. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 721–42. McNabb, D.E. and Sepic, F.T. (1995) ‘Culture, Climate and Total Quality Management: Measuring Readiness for Change’. Public Productivity and Management Review, 18, 369–85. Offerman, L.R. and Hellmann, P.S. (1997) ‘Culture’s Consequences for Leadership Behavior: National © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
THE CLIMATE FOR TRANSFORMATION
Values in Action’. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 342–51. Schein, E.H. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd edn). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004) ‘What Leaders Need to Know: A Review of Social and Contextual Factors that can Foster or Hinder Creativity’. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53. Sobieck, M.A. (1996) Examination of Cross-site Narrative Responses on the CIQ and SOQ. Unpublished master’s thesis, State University College at Buffalo, New York. Sternberg, R.J. and Vroom, V. (2002) ‘The Person Versus the Situation in Leadership’. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 301–23. Stevens, G.A. and Burley, J. (1997) ‘3,000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success’. Research Technology Management, 40, 16–27. Thomson, K. (1998). Emotional Capital: Maximising the Intangible Assets at the Heart of Brand and Business Success. Oxford, UK: Capstone. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (2004) Managing People across Cultures. West Sussex, England: Capstone.
© 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
15
Turnipseed, D. (1994) ‘The Relationship Between the Social Environment of Organizations and the Climate for Innovation and Creativity’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 3, 184–95.
Dr Scott Isaksen (
[email protected]) is President of the Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. and Senior Fellow of its Creativity Research Unit (CRU). The main research thrust of this unit is examining a systemic or ecological approach to understanding creativity and innovation. Aside from applying a systemic approach to Creative Problem Solving, CPS version 6.1(tm), the CRU also uses the SOQ and VIEW: An Assessment of Problem Solving Style, to better understand what works for whom, under what circumstances.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
16
Clustering: An Essential Step from Diverging to Converging Marc Tassoul and Jan Buijs Within the context of new product development processes and the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process, the authors have come to the view that clustering is to be seen as a separate step in the process of diverging and converging. Clustering is generally presented as part of the converging stages, and as such categorized as a selection technique, which in the authors’ view does not do justice to this activity. It is about expanding knowledge, about connecting ideas, and connecting ideas to problem statements, functionalities, and values and consequences. It is about building a shared understanding, in other words about ‘making sense’, an essential creative activity in the development of concepts and, although different from a more freewheeling divergent phase, can be as creative and maybe even more so. Four kinds of clusterings are distinguished: object clustering, morphological clustering, functional clustering and gestalt clustering. Object clustering is mainly aimed at categorizing ideas into an overviewable set of groups of ideas. No special connections are being made, other then looking for similarities. Morphological clustering is used to split up a problem into subproblems after which the ideas generated are considered as subsolutions which can then be combined into concepts. Functional clustering is interesting when different approaches can be chosen to answer some question. It permits a more strategic choice to be made. Gestalt clustering is a more synthesis like approach, often with a more metaphoric and artistic stance. Collage is a good example of such clustering. General guidelines for clustering are: use a bottom-up process of emergence; postpone early rationalisations and verbalisations; start grouping ideas on the basis of feeling and intuition; and use metaphoric names to identify clusters.
Introduction
T
he writing of this paper originated from a discussion between the authors and a group of innovation consultants in the summer of 2004 on whether clustering is to be seen as a converging technique or as a separate step in the creative diamond approach as found in the ‘Creative Problem Solving’ (CPS) model as originally introduced by Osborn in his book Applied Imagination (Osborn, 1993). CPS has two basic characteristics. First, the original CPS process is comprised of multiple steps [. . .] namely the need to define problems, generate ideas, and then transform these ideas into solutions, and construct action plans. Second, all CPS models show a balance between divergent (e.g. generating a diverse set of alternatives) and convergent thinking (e.g. screening,
Volume 16
Number 1
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00413.x
2007
selecting and evaluating alternatives) in every step of the process. (Puccio, Firestien, Coyle & Masucci, 2006, p. 20). For a number of years now at the Delft Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering (IDE), we have been using a diamond model which includes a clearly defined clustering step as a transition between the divergent idea generation phase and the converging evaluation and selection phase (Figure 1). This can be found in our lectures and publications, but we never actually stopped to think that this might be an issue to take up and reflect upon; it seemed so obvious: clean up and inventorize the thoughts and ideas which have been generated so far before selecting and moving on to the next stage of development. Clustering is generally presented as part of the converging stages, and as such categorized as a selection technique, which in our view © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CLUSTERING, AN ESSENTIAL STEP FROM DIVERGING TO CONVERGING
17
Figure 1. From a Two-stage Diamond (Original CPS Model) to a Three-stage Diamond (IDE-Delft Model)
does not do justice to this activity. It is really about expanding knowledge, about connecting ideas, and connecting ideas to problem statements (how does it solve our problem?), functionalities (why and how is it of interest?), and values and consequences. It is about making connections and building a shared understanding, in other words about ‘making sense’ of a seemingly random collection of independent ideas or suggestions. Making such connections is an essential creative activity in the development of concepts and solutions and, although different, can be as creative and maybe even more so than the preceding diverging phase. By presenting the creative diamond in such a way (Figure 1), some specific activities can be demonstrated explicitly, and some pitfalls which are often encountered during creative sessions may be avoided or dealt with, e.g. the Creadox (COCD, 1993–1997): the more innovative ideas are eliminated, simply because at that stage they appear to be too unrealistic and unfeasible. Another pitfall of the traditional two-stage diamond is that it is sometimes seen as a quick fix to solve whatever kind of problem: that by shouting ideas and then making a quick selection, with dots for example, one could obtain highly qualitative and innovative ideas for complex issues. Presenting the creative diamond in this new fashion emphasizes some essential activities but also led us to revise the original CPS process, in the form of our ‘Three Diamond Process’ which we will call the ‘CPS revisited’ model.
First Thoughts on Clustering We looked up the term ‘cluster’ or ‘clustering’ in various literature databases, but to our surprise, little or no reference is made to it. Searching the SUNY Creativity literature database: no reference! Taking the Encyclopedia of Creativity (Runco and Pritzker, 1999), and the Source Book for Creative Problem Solving (Parnes, © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
1992) again no reference in the index lists. Are we looking for the wrong keywords? Perhaps. In the Dutch van Dale dictionary (Kruyskamp, 1961), for the verb ‘to cluster’ it says: ‘to bring together groups of items on the basis of shared characteristics or attributes’. For ‘cluster’ we find ‘a whole consisting of connected parts’. Looking for similar processes, we come to ‘Crawford’s Slip Method’, a precursor of brainwriting for larger groups working with small notepads (e.g. A6 format), writing down one note per page. In 5 to 10 minutes, a great number of ideas can thus be collected and then clustered and selected (Dettmer, 2003). This approach is very similar to what we are using for brainwriting and brainsketching. Another technique which shows similarities with our subject of clustering is that of the ‘affinity diagram’ or KJ method as developed by Jiro Kawakita (1982). This was originally developed as a research method to be able to draw conclusions from a myriad of facts from both objective and subjective sources by identifying relationships between items observed. In terms of generating overviews of complex issues, there are techniques like Mindmapping (Buzan, 1993) and ‘Rich Picture’ (Checkland, 1981) which may use clustering as an implicit step in the production of their respective overviews. As such, these approaches can very well be combined with our subject of clustering as elaborated in this paper. Clustering is everywhere. Take a shopping centre for example: you’ll find different shops for different products: audio, clothing, food, we may even step into a ‘shop’ to get a haircut, or yet another ‘shop’ to get a mortgage for a new home. Our whole world is categorized in such ways. In fact our language is an exponent of this collecting and distinguishing. Collecting experiences, objects and signals and developing sounds to refer to later similar experiences or connotations: names and words. In a manner of speaking, animals use categories as well, e.g. frogs seem to discern moving objects according to:
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
18
Figure 2. Astrology: Leo 1. if it’s smaller, you eat it, 2. if it’s bigger, it’ll eat you if you don’t jump away quickly enough, 3. if it’s the same size, you may try to mate with it. Life and the species depend on it! Another example: when looking at a starry sky at night, our ancestors observed constellations of stars that they grouped together and gave names to, e.g. ‘Leo’ (Figure 2). This led to a host of meanings and explanations concerning the influence of heavenly bodies on us humans and our world. Similarly natural phenomena such as seasons, lightning and droughts have been projected in stories and fables, on the one hand used to pass along one’s culture to the following generations by embedding metaphors illustrating ethics and customs, and on the other hand providing some interpretation of these inexplicable phenomena.
Creative Processes Knowledge and expertise are essential for making ideas come to be; so, doing one’s homework, analysing what’s already there and using one’s experience is part of the equation. Choosing a proven solution for a problem is often a reliable path to follow. But in this instance we are not talking about problem solving in general, we want to explore more specifically clustering in relation to creative processes, in other words during the development of new ideas. So the reason to emphasize the more creative or generative side of this equation is to highlight the idea of creation: you yourself imagine and set a vocabulary and a grammar for a design. In turn, this demands courage and daring, and respect for novelty.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
So, although expertise (i.e. using existing knowledge) is essential, it should now be at the service of a creative process.1 Creativity and design are about bringing order, and generating new, and possibly simple and attractive solutions. Of course, before creating such new order, one will have to dissolve existing ideas, assumptions, beliefs and habits. To that end, there are divergent phases in which the absurd is welcomed and judgement is postponed; in short, phases to unfreeze beliefs and assumptions to open up to new inspirations and insights about what one might call ‘Idea or Solution Space’ (Figure 3). Such explorations will often be done in a playful, even child-like mode, not hampered by expertise, using curiosity, following hunches, exploring alternatives and experimenting with rules. After having done this for some length of time, seemingly at random, but very probably also guided by naive emotions and intuitive hunches, there comes a moment when we need to bring order into the resulting collection of terms, items, thoughts and sketches, all pieces of a jigsaw puzzle for which we have no picture on a box to show us what the end result should look like. This is when clustering comes into play. So, which items can be connected together?, can we discern structures that help us get a grip on a solution space?, e.g. making connections, or in other words: making sense. There are many ways to explain creative process and prescribe processes for useful creative work. One of these is the CPS approach (Figure 4) which concentrates on generating 1
Not in the sense of knowing a hundred reasons why something is impossible or unrealistic, but expertise in a way of being able to develop some seemingly impossible idea into a realizable concept. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CLUSTERING, AN ESSENTIAL STEP FROM DIVERGING TO CONVERGING
19
1: known ideas, 2: a hypothetical space with all the ideas that might at some point be generated; X: identifying and breaking assumptions; 3: newly generated ideas.
Figure 3. Idea or Solution Space
-briefing
problem
-analysis -statement
generation
manageable problem statement to guide our creative process, e.g. in the form of ‘One Single Concrete Target’ (Osborn, 1993), that does not mean an issue is simplistic or ‘easy’ to tackle. This paper is an attempt to work around some of the pitfalls we regularly encounter when using a brainstorming/CPS approach. Having revised the CPS creative diamond by including such a clustering step, we have come to review the whole CPS process and developed an adapted version which we have called ‘The CPS Revisited’ model (Figure 5).
ideas selection
Elaborating the ‘CPS Revisited’ Model First Diamond: Problem Statement concept
development
acceptance & implementation
Figure 4. The Three Diamonds Condensed CPS Model (Buijs, 1984) ideas by looking at generation and selection as distinct steps. Idea generation takes place almost at random, with no a priori structure other than a problem statement guiding and stimulating this idea generation. The risk of such an approach is to look at problems and ideas as one-on-one phenomena, often oversimplifying issues to symptomatic approaches. Most issues are not such simple questions. Although we may need to formulate some © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
One of the techniques used in this phase is the generation of ‘how to . . . ?’ questions (H2’s).2 This may be done at random and/or guided, e.g. by pointing out different stakeholders and generating H2’s from their respective perspectives. After generating some 20 to 60 of these problem formulations, one tries to bring order into this collection through clustering. Some of these statements can probably be combined because of similarity and overlap and other statements might be connected through causal relationships. By building up such a puzzle, one may be able to construct a more systemic view and understanding of the issue at hand and even discover some levers which, when handled properly, could make the whole system or situation ‘move’ in a desired direction. It is this 2
Alternative formulations: ‘How could we . . . ?’ and ‘In what ways might I . . . ?’.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
20
Figure 5. CPS Revisited Model kind of understanding and overview that we try to pursue during this clustering step in the first problem statement diamond. In the following step, we might decide which of these problem statements may be suitable for acting upon, and then select and formulate a problem statement in the form of: ‘One Single Concrete Target’.
Second Diamond Idea Generation By generating ideas, associating on each other’s ideas, by postponing judgement and by encouraging the weird and strange, we try to generate a wide field of options to respond to the problem statement formulated earlier. Two hundred ideas are not unusual in this phase. This divergent phase can be enriched
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
by using different techniques expanding and stretching the ‘solution space’ further and further. After having done this for a while, at some point it will be necessary to bring order to this seemingly random and unstructured collection of items and terms (Figure 6). This is a good point to move on to a clustering phase. A useful step to start this off is to read aloud each of the ideas and ask participants for clarification, so everyone has a similar view of what has been generated so far. We may also put aside some of the craziest associations we have had which, although useful as stepping-stones towards new ideas, have now fulfilled their function. Clustering So, which items can be connected together? Can we discern structures that help us get a © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CLUSTERING, AN ESSENTIAL STEP FROM DIVERGING TO CONVERGING
Clusters
Ideas
Figure 6. Two Levels to Look at Solutions: Ideas and Clusters hold on a solution space, making connections or looking for similarities? When clustering, we do not yet know the categories, at least that’s the idea. Just like in idea generation, clustering is about postponing judgement. It ought to be run as a bottom-up process, creating structures and rules along the way. It starts with trying to connect individual ideas to one another: one idea might go together with some other idea, and if so, maybe a third idea fits with the first two. Some fourth idea might be seen as different or unconnected, starting a new cluster and looking up ideas that might combine into a second grouping. And so forth. It is essential at this stage not to rationalize one’s choices too quickly, even to do so without verbalizing these choices, just trying to use one’s intuition and feeling about which ideas could be grouped. This can be done individually, but we often let people do this in groups. In that sense the process is also influenced by group dynamics. Who takes the lead? Sometimes two subgroups work separately at first and then discover they have to combine two different sets of clusters. Some participants will choose to stand back at first to come forward later on. Others may jump into action from the first instant. All in all, this is a complicated social process, where it’s difficult to define which part is based on content considerations and which part is based in group dynamics. As such it becomes a social construction – a group of people developing and defining how things are to be looked at – no surprises here! Selection One might say that selection is really about discerning quality: What makes for better or lesser solutions? The divergent phase was about generating and obtaining a multitude of options and the clustering phase about bringing order to this diversity and in parallel grow © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
21
a better understanding of the issue being worked on. This third stage (in the creative diamond) is about recognizing quality and making choices on what to choose to move on to the third diamond of concept development. There are many techniques to proceed through this phase, ranging from asking people to mark the ideas of their choice, to using general criteria like innovative, interesting and challenging to setting up elaborate criteria matrices to support a well-founded decision-making process (Tassoul, 1993). There is one aspect in relation to clustering that it is important to mention here. Having generated clusters, we now have a more general perspective on our issue. So instead of selecting separate ideas, we can now make a more strategic kind of choice: along which principles or other general guidelines do we choose to proceed? And once such choices are agreed upon, we can have a closer look again at the idea level.
Third Diamond: Concept Development This third diamond is different from the earlier two in the sense that this is about design and development. Although aspects may still be developed using the diamond model (e.g. detailing colour, textures, materials, production principles and market introduction), it is most often not about generating options at random, it is much more a design job and as such it is the work of expert designers, to a large part using expertise to make things work. As Vanosmael and De Bruyn (1990) coined it: it is about ‘Form Creativity’ rather than ‘Vision Creativity’, in other words, how to make something work in a tangible world, and thus in materializing an idea. The spirals used to depict this different stance (Figure 5) are meant to indicate processes such as the Experiential Learning Cycle from Kolb (1984), or the design cycle from Zeissel (1984) with (1) Imagining, (2) Presenting and (3) Testing. This approach is based on a cyclic process of reflecting, conceptualizing and elaborating, iteratively developing an idea into a comprehensive materialized design (Figure 7). In this third step of concept development, a distinction is made between three main subjects to develop: 1. the concept itself, 2. acceptance finding, in other words the idea or concept in a social, political and business context, 3. implementation planning: the activities necessary to implement the idea in the real world.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
22
Figure 7. Various Creative Activities in New Product Development Sessions
Delving Deeper into Clustering We will now explore clustering in more detail, i.e. our view on the difference between clustering and categorizing, the use of metaphors to name clusters, and the generation of a representative idea per cluster. Then, we will
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
propose four different kinds of clustering one can discern.
Clustering versus Categorizing When generating clusters, it is important to let go of preset categories, as from an Ikea © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CLUSTERING, AN ESSENTIAL STEP FROM DIVERGING TO CONVERGING
catalogue, or other set categorization. The clustering should be arrived at while connecting ideas into groupings as a ‘bottom-up’ process. In that sense we make a distinction between categorizing and clustering. Categorizing is about fitting ideas into set categories, whereas clustering is to be seen as a bottom-up process by which clusters or categories are to be generated. When using categories, one might say we use a predefined structure for a solution space, and the chances are that we will obtain more of the same kind of ideas. So what is the use of launching a creative endeavour if we are from the outset blocking any possibility of new outcomes. Generally, the structure of our outcomes ought to emerge from the process, but of course this all depends on the particular issue we are working on. The process itself is what is of value here. It is about the group discussing and sharing thoughts and arguments that make for valuable sense making. Now connections are being made, and consequences of particular ideas or clusters are being looked at, in short a wider understanding is built of the issue being worked on.
Reduction and Metaphoric Names Although clustering can be a process of synthesis or integration, it is also a process of reduction: from the richness of, say, 200 different and ‘isolated’ ideas, to a limited number of clusters. Theoretically, this is quite a determining step as we are considering objects in some undefined multi-dimensional space, and we are now reducing such considerations to a single set of clusters. We risk losing much of the richness within these clusters, together with all the possible solutions and variations generated so far. What is helpful at this stage is to use metaphoric names, e.g. a Disney cluster (ideas emphasizing fantasy and imagination), a Volvo cluster (ideas emphasizing safety and common sense) and a Jules Verne’s cluster (ideas emphasizing innovativeness and a far-reaching nature). Using such metaphoric names allows one to reduce a cluster to a single identifiable unit without losing too much richness in these collections of ideas, and often, even add to it as such metaphoric naming will by itself add richness and inspiration for further development of ideas into concepts. As such, generating metaphoric names becomes a creative and synthesizing act in itself.
Representatives To conclude such a clustering activity, one can choose to select or develop one representative © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
23
idea per cluster. Which of the ideas within a cluster really represents that cluster at best, or develop and combine a new idea from the ideas in that cluster to demonstrate the specific aspects of that cluster which differentiates it from other clusters. In parallel with developing a representative, it now becomes relevant to describe such a cluster in words. What is specific to that cluster?, what distinguishes it from other clusters? and how does it ‘respond’ to the starting question or problem statement? So, although during the process, people will have started to verbalize some of their choices, now a concluding description is provided on what it is, what it does, and how it is significant to the issue at hand. A good conclusion would be to invite participants to do a verbal presentation of these resulting clusters. We will now explore in more detail some types of clusterings, namely object, morphological, functional and gestalt clusters. Object Clustering In the case of ‘object’ clustering (e.g. rectangular solutions versus round solutions, or green solutions versus yellow solutions), no relationships are really available at this point, and the selection step may be more implicit or naïve: why rectangular, or why green? So, a question which ought to jump out immediately is: ‘Why and how could form or colour be relevant in our design?’ Most of the time, an object clustering will have to be followed by an inquiring step: why and how are such choices relevant to our task? One may find that colour is relevant in a communicative sense (e.g. danger versus safety) and that form is relevant in terms of feasibility and produceability (e.g. produced on a lathe or a mill). In any case, such relationships should be made explicit before moving on to a selection step, else this really will be a wild guess, or one may choose to redo the clustering step but now in a more meaningful manner. An interesting use for such object clustering is to uncover gaps in our idea generation. At a cluster level, one may find that some areas have not been covered yet, and thereby add to our collection of ideas. In that sense, it can be used as a reflective stage to identify some of our assumptions and help to fine tune our idea generation. Morphological Clustering If one envisages a move on to a morphological analysis, the objective of clustering will be to develop a set of parameters into which one may divide a (technical) system into a
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
24
Figure 8. Morphological Analysis to Generate Ideas for Children’s Carts (Source: van de Brule, 2007)
combination of subsystems. For each of these parameters (clusters), one may choose ideas that can then be combined into an overall solution for our original problem. In other words: the overall issue is divided into subquestions for which we have generated subsolutions. These are then combined into overall concepts. Figure 8 presents an example.
Functional Clustering A clustering can also take the form of distinguishing different approaches to deal with our originally stated problem. Thus each cluster represents an approach to our problem, and we might now talk of a functional clustering. Eventually our choice will be about which of these approaches or clusters ought to be selected. So, at this point, and to prepare a good selection, one may select a limited number of approaches (e.g. two or three) and develop these into more comprehensive concepts by combining ideas within each of these clusters. Such a functional clustering leads one to look at a solution space at another abstraction level (see also Figure 6). It is really about the general lines one may discern to tackle the issue we are working on. Looking at our
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
clusters, one may even discover and generate new clusters for which no ideas have yet been generated. Gestalt Clustering Earlier on, examples of such gestalt clusterings were described using astrology as an example. Gestalt clustering is a kind of oxymoron. Clustering is about putting separate objects together, almost as a mechanical activity. Gestalt is about synthesis: generating common denominators to use as a starting point for a design. As such, gestalt clustering might be the ‘melting together’ of ideas into an encompassing integrated concept where the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts. The earlier suggestion to use metaphoric names to discern different clusters is a step in this direction. Making collages to depict some cluster is another useful technique, which by itself is of course also a clustering, but now with a more artistic and aesthetic stance.
Discussion and Conclusion Clustering is neither part of divergence nor convergence. It is a step in its own right which © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CLUSTERING, AN ESSENTIAL STEP FROM DIVERGING TO CONVERGING
25
Figure 9. Collage as a Gestalt Cluster
Figure 10. The Creative Diamond with Basic Rules for Clustering is directed at adding quality to the collection of ideas by making connections, by exploring and building an understanding of a solution space, and by enriching ideas towards further steps of development, in other words, clustering is about building a shared understanding and about making sense. In part the processes described here are simply instrumental to the issue at hand, in other words, they depend on what is needed at a certain point in a process. But some aspects that have been mentioned can lead to many new questions. One such question is the influence of group dynamics on the process of clustering. Personality types, for example, as proposed by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs Myers et al., 1998, 2003) probably have an influence both on group dynamics and on the clustering itself. Power relations within a group certainly have an influence, and are even greater when the process is run independently from some facilitator. But one can reason in two directions here. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
On the one hand, one would like to have some kind of pure or even sterile process, that would automatically lead to some useful and interesting result. But no such thing can ever happen in the real world; values, intuition and expertise always play a role in such a process of emergence, as can be seen from the clustering process. It would be like trying to determine some kind of truth, while we are in the middle of a creative process. So on the other hand, one might say that any structure developed in this instance may or may not be useful, and it is through a process of trial and error that useful and interesting outcomes may appear. Some guidelines, however, may be added to the rules mentioned earlier (see Figure 10). The most important one is probably that personal needs of respect and acknowledgement are well covered, as should be the case in any process of collaborative creation. A further recommendation is to use a process facilitator, a person who may intervene, e.g. by inviting more introverted people to participate more
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
26
actively, and to propose reflection stages at regular intervals. The objective of this paper is to reflect on some of our experiences and share some perspectives on the operational aspects of clustering as it is done during CPS sessions. In that sense we hope to have presented some useful ideas and insights on the subject.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Wim Muller, colleague at the IDE faculty, for igniting this line of thought (Muller, 2001); Suzanne van Mastricht, second year IDE student, for allowing the use of some of her design ideas; Will McWhinney from Enthusion (Venice, CA, USA) for his support and conversations; Helga Hohn and David Bloch for proofreading; and the anonymous reviewers for their stimulating comments.
References Briggs Myers, I., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L. and Hammer, A.L. (1998, 2003) MBTI Manual, A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd edn), CPP, Palo Alto, California. van de Brule, D. (2007) Portfolio 2nd Year Design Exercise, IDE, TU Delft (unpublished work). Buijs, J.A. (1984) Innovatie en Interventie, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology. Buijs, J.A. and Valkenburg, R. (2005) Integrale Produktontwikkeling, 3rd edn. Lemma Publishers, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Buzan, T. (1993) The Mind Map Book, Dutton, New York. Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. COCD (1993–1997) Syllabus Deskundigheid, ed. M. de Bruyn, M. Tassoul et al., Antwerp, Belgium. Dettmer, W.H. (2003) Brainpower Networking Using the Crawford Slip Method, Trafford Publishing. Kawakita, J. (1982) The Original KJ method. KJ Method Headquarters, Kawakita Research Institute, Tokyo. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey. Kruyskamp, C. (1961) van Dale, Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, achtste geheel opnieuw bewerkte en zeer vermeerderde druk, Martinus Nijhoff, ‘s-Gravenhage, The Netherlands.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Muller, W. (2001) Order and Meaning in Design, Lemma Publishers, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Osborn, A.F. (1993) Applied Imagination, Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving (3rd revised edn, 1st edn 1953). Creative Education Foundation Press, Buffalo. Parnes, S.J. (ed.) (1992) Source Book for Creative Problem Solving, A Fifty Year Digest of Proven Innovation Processes, Creative Education Foundation Press, Buffalo. Puccio, G.J., Firestien, R.L., Coyle, C. and Masucci, C. (2006) A Review of the Effectiveness of CPS Training: A Focus on Workplace Issues, Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 19–33. Runco, M.A. and S.R. Pritzker (eds) (1999) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, San Diego. Tassoul, M. (1993) Learnings from Selection, or How to Develop Intuition into Shared Insight, in Discovering Creativity, ed. Stanley S. Gryskiewicz, Proceedings of the Impact Creativity and Innovation Conference, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, USA. Tassoul, M. (2006) Creative Facilitation, VSSD, Delft, The Netherlands. Vanosmael, P. and De Bruyn, R. (1990) Handboek voor Creatief Denken, DNB/Uitgeverij Pelckmans, Kapellen, Belgium. Zeissel, J. (1984) Inquiry by Design, Tools for Environment – Behaviour Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marc Tassoul (
[email protected]) was a student in one of the first courses in Creative Facilitation at the Delft University of Technology (1989) and has stayed ‘around’ the subject of creativity ever since. He set up his own creativity consultancy Innovision and worked part-time at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering as a design teacher. For a number of years, he has run the course on Creative Problem Solving, now called Creative Facilitation together with Jan Buijs. He is also the author of the course book for this course: Creative Facilitation (VSSD, The Netherlands, 2006). Jan Buijs (
[email protected]) sharpened his ideas on Creativity and Innovation with a doctoral thesis while managing a large-scale innovation programme with the Innovation Consulting Group at TNO. Since 1976, Jan has been professionally active in the field of creativity and innovation, first as a consultant at TNO, and since 1986 as a full professor in Product Innovation and Creativity at the Delft University of Technology.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION THROUGH MUTLIDISCIPLINARY AND MULTISECTORAL COOPERATION
27
Creativity and Innovation through Multidisciplinary and Multisectoral Cooperation Jorge Alves, Maria José Marques, Irina Saur and Pedro Marques This paper explores the relation between creativity, innovation and new product development in multidisciplinary and multisectoral settings. We claim that the development of innovative products benefits from the generation of a high number of creative ideas. Moreover, we argue that the idea generation process can be particularly fruitful within collaborative multidisciplinary environments, where firms and Science and Technology institutions coexist and cooperate. Our approach draws on existing literature to investigate the creativity and idea generation process within the frame of multisectoral and multidisciplinary cooperation initiatives, involving firms and Science and Technology related institutions. We then call upon our own empirical work to identify conditions favourable to those processes and some issues that affect the fulfilment of the creative potential that exists in multidisciplinary groups.
Introduction
T
oday’s organizations need a constant flow of ideas while competing through added value factors like emergent technologies or fast new product development (Kao, 1997). Competing in the twenty-first-century economy will require constant adaptation to shifting market demands. Failing to fulfil the varied requirements of potential customers may lead to their loss to more agile competitors. The most successful organizations will create environments that promote systematic creativity and innovation (Vicenzi, 2000). This paper argues that multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperative environments for innovation, where firms and science and technology institutions coexist and collaborate, can promote the efficiency of the triad ‘innovationcreativity-new product development’ and contribute to firms’ competitiveness. We start by emphasizing the interdependency between creativity, innovation and new product development. We then identify and discuss the main factors that influence this triad in business organizations. We next justify the benefits of multidisciplinary and multisectoral networks for innovation in the pursuit of creativity, innovation and product development. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
The paper ends with the authors’ experience with one of those networks. We summarize our involvement in order to enunciate management aspects of the creative process that we believe may be relevant to practitioners and academics in similar contexts.
Relationships Between Creativity, Innovation and New Products Development Creativity and Innovation Creativity has been conceptualized as: (a) the individual personality traits that facilitate the generation of new ideas, (b) the process of generating new ideas, (c) outcomes of creative processes, and (d) environments conducive to new ideas and behaviour (Rhodes, 1961; Im, 1999). These perspectives led to multiple definitions of creativity. For Martins and Terblanche (2003), it is the capacity to generate new and valuable ideas for products, services, processes and procedures; for Sternberg (1999), the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original) and appropriate (i.e., useful); for Amabile (1996), the set of qualities of products or responses that are judged to be creative by
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00417.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
28
appropriate observers. Creativity is a complex and diffuse construct, difficult to define consensually (Sternberg, 1999; Isaksen et al., 2001). Innovation is associated with purposeful change (Drucker, 1985); an attitude reflecting the capacity to imagine what does not exist or a process with different stages extending from an idea to its implementation. Schumpeter viewed innovation as ‘creative destruction’ for growth (Abernathy & Clark, 1985). Hargadon (2003) and Im (1999) contend that innovation is the recombination of existing ideas. For Tidd, Bessant and Pavitt (2001), it is the core organizational process for renewing and optimizing the generation and delivery of outputs. Abernathy and Clark (1985) claim that innovation is concerned with the initial market introduction of a new product or process that either disrupts or entrenches existing competencies. Therefore, creativity is identified with ideas generation, while innovation implies ideas transformation into new products or services. In this sense, innovation is the implementation of creativity results. Thus creativity is part of the innovation process.
From Ideas to Products Innovative organizations exploit various sources of ideas for new products and stimulate employees’ imagination in order to fill the pipeline that nourishes new products. Multidisciplinary and multisectoral environments (discussed later in this paper) supplement this intra-organizational capacity and play an important role in ideas generation and new product conceptualization. The overall innovation process can be divided into three stages: (a) fuzzy front end, (b) new product development and (c) commercialization. The fuzzy front end comprises activities (often chaotic, unpredictable and unstructured) that come before structured development processes (Koen, 2004). This initial idea creation phase is inexpensive compared to later stages of the product development process, thus it makes sense to maximize its output: ‘the greater the number of ideas at the start of the new product development process, the greater the probability of successful products’ (Flynn et al., 2003). Selected ideas flow through the ‘funnel’ of innovation. During this process, they become constrained and aligned by different organizational factors such as goals, models of change, resources: the further an idea progresses, the more developed and precise it becomes. The most suitable ideas are approved for imple-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
mentation, while others are reworked, rejected or merged to re-enter the process (Cagan & Vogel, 2001). It is important to highlight that ideas become ‘suitable’ according to criteria that often escape rational analysis, being rooted in intuitive evaluations, internal and external politic considerations and opportunistic preoccupations. Once a concept emerges from the fuzzy front end and evolves towards a business plan (which includes product specification, financial analysis and project management), it becomes subjected to stricter development methodologies (Cooper, 2001; Kahn, 2004). We have indicated in this section that the creative capabilities of organizations are essential to their ability to innovate and survive in today’s competitive environment and that creativity, innovation and new product development are intimately correlated. In the next section we look into the determinants of creativity and innovation within organizations.
Factors that Influence the Creative Process We now focus on exogenous and endogenous factors that influence creativity, innovation and new product development in organizations. Exogenous factors are related mainly to the intensity and density of relationships that organizations establish with their surrounding environments. The external environment for innovation within which organizations operate includes the institutional support basis and relevant sets of values and norms (Freire, 2000; Cooke, 2004; Galanakis et al., 2000). The external environment for innovation provides the critical mass required for knowledge spillovers and synergies that favour creativity, innovation processes and new product development. Generally, organizations have little capacity to actively influence the evolution of external factors (Freire, 2000; Alves, 1998). Endogenous factors are related to the internal characteristics and organizational culture of firms and, thus, are more easily controlled. They should be the focus of firms’ strategic and operational management in pursuing innovation objectives. We have identified in the literature six main internal factors that impact on firm’s competitiveness through creativity, innovation and new product development: 1. Organization strategy and resource availability. The explicit incorporation of innovation in the goals and objectives of an © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION THROUGH MUTLIDISCIPLINARY AND MULTISECTORAL COOPERATION
organization is the first step to create attitudes amenable to creativity and to continuous development of new products. Martins and Terblanche (2003) state that creativity and innovation result from shared visions and missions, centred on future scenarios. Innovation-oriented organizational strategies influence the occurrence of long-term innovation perspectives (encouraging risk-taking and new idea generation) and of short-term project plans devoted to innovation initiatives and creative problem solving. The availability of resources like time, money and people allocated to new ideas and innovative projects contribute to the effective application of the strategy (Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Rodriguez, 2002). 2. New technologies. Firms able to develop new technologies can gain competitive advantages through innovative product developments. This requires research and development (R&D) capacity and willingness to invest in high-risk ventures, two attributes in short supply amongst firms (Alves, 1998). Alternatively, firms can integrate joint projects with other firms and science and technology institutions. The appropriation of the technology is proportional to the involvement of the firm in the development process. Through cooperation firms can access otherwise unavailable resources and competences, gain long-term innovation perspectives, get support in creative problem solving and idea generation activities and share costs and risks inherent to innovation (OECD, 2001; Alves, 1998; Nieminen & Kaukonen, 2001). This is one of the reasons why multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation environments are important, as explained later in this paper. 3. R&D intensity. Research intensity follows the determination of an organization to spend resources on idea generation and product development and increases with its propensity to cooperate with universities and other organizations. It requires wellfunctioning communication channels (as access to knowledge is crucial for these processes) and active stimulation of innovative organizational cultures (Galanakis et al., 2000). However, as previously implied, firms rarely benefit from organizational structures agile enough to face these challenges. 4. Organization culture and communication. Organizations’ cultural elements like routine behaviours, shared values and beliefs, influence the level and frequency of creative occurrences and impact on the free © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
29
flow of ideas that favour innovation (Galanakis et al., 2000). Cultural aspects affect workers’ knowledge and satisfaction, and their capacity to communicate and adapt to changes. Openness and dynamic contact between individuals, teams and departments facilitates the acceptance of new perspectives and is a particularly relevant trait in organizational cultures able to stimulate creativity and innovation (Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Mumford et al., 2002). 5. Organization structure. The literature on innovation covers thoroughly the organizational attributes that influence creativity, innovation and new product development (Galanakis et al., 2000; Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Flexibility (e.g., job rotation programmes) and freedom (manifested in autonomy, empowerment and decision making) in organizations are highly regarded values and practices (Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Galanakis et al., 2000; Mumford et al., 2002). Working teams and interacting groups impact on the ability of organizations to stimulate creativity, innovation and new product development (Fong, 2003). They provide conditions for a dynamic mixture of ideas and ways of work and make available complementary competencies and disciplines that favour creativity and innovation. 6. Employee motivation and involvement. The quantity and quality of human resources allocated to innovation initiatives is crucial to the success of creative ideas. Employees’ incentives for idea generation help to focus efforts on product development projects and innovation objectives. This is influenced by how risk taking is managed; ideas evaluated; mistakes handled; change dealt with; communication supported; ideas’ identification conducted; reward systems established, etc. (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). These factors suggest the relevance of mature strategic and operational management abilities to induce structural attitudinal changes that reinforce creativity and innovation. Our relationship with business organizations, including those that support the empirical work analysed in this paper, reveals that those mature capacities are in short supply. We argue that multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation environments can help firms overcome their strategic and organizational shortcomings in the pursuit of innovation objectives. The next section briefly explores the characteristics of those environments.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
30
Multidisciplinary and Multisectoral Cooperation Environments for Innovation By multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation environments we mean settings, formal or informal, that bring together organizations from different entrepreneurial sectors and science and technology institutions, around common goals (Alves et al., 2004a). The linked organizations combine multidisciplinary competencies and localized complementary productive activities, integrating the diverse knowledge sets and skills needed to create and bring to the market complex technologies and products. They benefit from the physical proximity of their members, facilitating the exchange of knowledge rooted in individuals (Rycroft & Kash, 2004; OECD, 2001). The characteristics of such cooperation environments for innovation can be synthesized into three dimensions: diversity (of actors and competencies), coherence (respecting the integration of complementary activities) and interactivity (strong cooperation relationships). These characteristics maximize the benefits of cooperation and guarantee that learning effects and levels of inventiveness are enhanced, due to higher cultural, technical and knowledge differences between the actors involved. When successful, these multidisciplinary and multisectoral environments play important roles for firms and organizations. They offer opportunities for leaders to respond actively to various challenges such as knowledge creation and competency development; the promotion of linkages between relevant actors; the creation and strengthening of common innovation support structures; the alteration of organizations’ cultures and behaviours towards continuous innovation and to higher levels of interconnectedness and the mobilization of resources to execute more complex research and new product development projects (Marques et al., 2005). Such collaborative arrangements for innovation stimulate the fluency of knowledge processes and the creation of idiosyncratic competences relevant for research and joint product developments. As innovations in one sector can spill over to other sectors (Dietzenbacher, 2000), the chances of efficient knowledge utilization for innovation increases (Seufert et al., 1999; Szeto, 2000). The associated creativity is also higher and more radical ideas may occur (Malerba, 2002). Specialized support is quickly identified and made available, problem solving is fast and the effi-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
ciency of the development processes is high (Alves et al., 2004a; Fong, 2003). Additionally, multisectoral cooperation processes provide better conditions to elude the communication constraints typical of single-sector competitive environments (Szeto, 2000; Shapiro, 2002). The involvement of scientific and technological institutions brings to these collaborative environments updated theoretical knowledge and imaginative perceptions and multidisciplinary human resources that allow vigorous competency crossing. Knowledge processes become intense and knowledge creation frequent (Lofsten and Lindelof, 2005; Seufert et al., 1999; Freel, 2000). In these circumstances, the quality, variety and availability of knowledge open recombination opportunities that lead to original products and processes. The increasing complexity of new product development requires intricate and multidisciplinary solutions that benefit from interdisciplinary research practices. Such R&D activities are put into practice by interdisciplinary teams, which are facilitated by multidisciplinary cooperative environments (European Commission, 2000; Hargadon, 2003; Romm, 1998; Rinia et al., 2001; Ivanitskaya et al., 2002; Nissani, 1997). We argue that multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperative environments reinforce creative competencies and allow for rich combinations of otherwise disconnected pools of ideas. They have been found to contribute to better exploitation of limited research capacities (Roper & Brookes, 1999; OECD, 1999) and to the development of valuable and more radical ideas and solutions adjusted to the increasing complexity of problems. Therefore, they are more effective in the pursuit of creativity, innovation and product development than monodisciplinary and monosectoral environments (Hargadon, 2003).
Creating and Exploiting New Ideas: Empirical Aspects In the previous sections of this paper we have discussed creativity, innovation and new product development processes and we argued that multidisciplinary and multisectoral environments provide interesting frameworks to enhance fuzzy front end productivity and to generate opportunities for idiosyncratic innovation. We next analyse findings from a research project based on a multidisciplinary and multisectoral innovation network in the habitat © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION THROUGH MUTLIDISCIPLINARY AND MULTISECTORAL COOPERATION
meta-sector.1 The basis for our work is a single case study for which data were collected between 2003 and 2005. The case deals with a multidisciplinary/multisectoral network for innovation involving 11 firms and 10 departments from one university, put together to conceive a futuristic house. We were particularly interested in the relationships between creativity, innovation and new product development in this multidisciplinary and multisectoral context, and in the conditions that maximize the benefits to the firms involved in the network. This case is still ongoing; results, while instructive, are as yet preliminary. We used exploratory research methods, and we employed essentially qualitative approaches, e.g. participant observation, interviews, record analysis, to collect data. We applied triangulation methods to ensure internal validity (Yin, 1994). Note that the network excludes direct competition (no two companies belong to the same industrial sector), and that good conduct (including confidentiality reassurances) and intellectual property codes have been agreed upon. So, trust and confidence allowed for open and frank discussions among participants and between participants and the research team. For further details on this case, please refer to Alves et al. (2004a, 2004b) and Saur et al. (2005). Our research indicates that this network is enhancing creative processes. The combination of distinct mindsets, working styles and interests is providing fertile grounds for creativity along the path of development of new products. As described by Saur et al. (2005), the network set up a specific structure in charge of applied research and development. Creativity, new product development and innovation are central to this learning structure. The strength of the overall approach followed by the network we studied was expressed by the fact that in less than two years it was able to identify and bring to advanced stages of development six complex, radically innovative, highly multidisciplinary products. In the next sub-sections we briefly look into the following three phases of the innovation process: (a) new idea generation, (b) idea classification/selection, and (c) new (product) concept generation and development. We do not focus on idea generation and selection per se, as the techniques used are well established; we rather evaluate those techniques in the light of our multidisciplinary and multisectoral 1
By ‘habitat meta-sector’ we mean the totality of industrial sectors involved in the project, construction and fitting of houses.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
31
environment. We also suggest some implications for the management of innovative processes.
Generation of New Ideas The challenge was to generate new ideas for futuristic concepts/products for dwellings. Idea generation sessions, conducted in the university and firms, used a combination of brainstorming (Osborn, 1957; Brown et al., 1998; Paulus et al., 2002) and brainwriting (VanGundy, 1983; Rosenau, 1996). In the university, from almost 80 interested individuals, five heterogeneous groups of 12 to 15 persons were put together. Participants were carefully selected, ensuring high heterogeneity in terms of hierarchical levels and functions/disciplinary areas involved. Five creativity sessions were held and around 700 ideas were collected. Similar exercises were conducted in the firms. Behaviour was similar to the academic brainstorming/brainwriting sessions in terms of creativity flow, yet the number of ideas was smaller and they tended to be less innovative. This may be due to lower group heterogeneity, lack of multidisciplinary/multisectoral participants and a more pragmatic, marketorientated focus. We ended with more than 300 ideas. Besides the sheer number, the most remarkable features of the 1000-plus ideas list were their diversity and quality (radicality and feasibility). We believe this was a direct result of the diversity of the multidisciplinary and multisectoral network. It is important to note that close follow-ups of creativity sessions were essential to improve the creative process. Participants’ opinions were important. Given their heterogeneity, general rules were difficult to come by. In our case, ‘I wish next sessions were different [. . .], rhythm was low, [. . .] we got too abstract ideas [. . .], we need to change something’ were common phrases. Also, the importance of using various creativity techniques, some compensating for disadvantages of others, seemed greater in the multidisciplinary and multisectoral context than in more homogeneous ones.
Idea Classification/Selection After the idea generation exercise, the objective was to exploit the 1000-plus ideas portfolio. Ideas were arranged according to criteria like function performed, organization that could use them, innovativeness, feasibility, thus creating thematic sub-portfolios and ensuring multidisciplinary/multisectoral cross-fertilization. They were then selected and incorporated into lists tailored to each
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
32
organization. Those lists were sent to firms, to be used for the identification of new products. We explored two convergence techniques to conduct selection processes in those firms: Evaluation Matrix (Rosenau, 1996) and Stoplight Voting (Chauvel, 2004). Firms were asked to participate in convergence sessions to decide what products to develop. However, in spite of apparent faith in the quality and rationality of those convergence techniques, participants adopted intuitive decision processes, making spontaneous choices based on their own strategic perspectives. Convergence tools seemed to be too systematic for the job at hand. Participants (top managers and production and marketing heads) were familiar and comfortable with unstructured decision approaches. It was clear that firms were able to deal with the diversity generated in the multidisciplinary and multisectoral context without elaborate decision processes. However, we believe it was crucial to pre-select and prearrange ideas to ensure multidisciplinary and multisectoral cross-fertilization. Besides, sound back-stage pre-selection comforted decision makers with the conviction that preselected ideas resulted from rigorous, ‘scientific’, approaches.
Conception, Generation and Development of New Products The first objective of this phase was the integration into encompassing products of ideas that survived the selection phase. This required conceptual proximity amongst those ideas, which was facilitated by the previous arrangement of ideas according to specific criteria. For example, ideas related to ‘kitchen, cooking’ could provide a basis for a ‘kitchen of the future product’. A kitchen concept would be prepared and proposed to interested network members, taking advantage of the complementarities of their skills and competences. The concept would then be reconfigured according to their organizational strategies. More focused creativity sessions would deal with the main characteristics of the ‘kitchen of the future’.2 For example, new ideas/solutions for how to move a kitchen inside a house would be generated. These sessions followed the organized brainstorming/brainwriting model or, more often, took place in informal 2
They were organized by the new product development team, which develops new products with multisectoral characteristics, surpassing individual interests and skills of network members (Saur et al., 2005).
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
ambience where spontaneous comments and suggestions moulded the shape of the product. One such creativity session led to 170 ideas, 37 of which survived preliminary evaluations. Product development was then initiated, using a modified stage-gate approach (Cooper, 2001), and episodically, the TRIZ problem solving methodology (Terninko et al., 1998). The network was invaluable in this phase. The variety of problems to be solved, and of technologies, skills, knowledge, know-how, equipments to be called upon, fell outside the scope of a single firm or department. The multidisciplinary and multisectoral environment provided the diverse mindsets, attitudes, materials and utensils that the development of complex, multisectoral products required. It is relevant to highlight that the integration of ideas from prior, abstract creativity sessions, into multidisciplinary products allowed for designs that exceeded single organization’s capacities, through cross-fertilization processes made possible by the multidisciplinary and multisectoral network. Besides, to a greater degree than in homogeneous environments, the new product development process could accommodate new suggestions and changes in any of its phases.
Conclusions This paper has looked at the path leading from idea generation to product development. It reports on work in progress, and so some conclusions are still preliminary. Our empirical research shows that multidisciplinary and multisectoral networks can play important roles in members’ competitiveness, provided they exhibit diversity, coherence and complementarity. We have noticed excellent results in terms of quantity, quality and diversity of ideas in the early idea generation phase. In the ideas’ selection phase, we perceived the need to let rational methods coexist with intuitive decision processes. And in the product development phase, we noticed that the diverse mindsets, attitudes and skills in the network contribute greatly to its flexible problem solving capacities. In general, we have realized that the multidisciplinary and multisectoral network is helping firms overcome managerial shortcomings that inhibit the control over endogenous factors that influence creativity, innovation and new product development. We thus contend that multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation networks provide a good framework for creativity and innovation. They are particularly relevant when firms decide to build competitiveness upon products that cross © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION THROUGH MUTLIDISCIPLINARY AND MULTISECTORAL COOPERATION
traditional sectors’ boundaries. However, they also raise management challenges, both at network level and within each participating organization. To face those challenges, firms will have to accept human and financial overheads that will be justified only if the returns are convincing. We believe that when dealing with creativity, innovation and new product development there are no clear-cut solutions or ideal approaches. The effective process requires continuous re-tuning to get the balance right. This means to add or remove structure, to advance or retreat in the ‘funnel’ of innovation, to eliminate and recuperate ideas. Organizations need to be creative and innovative in the management of creativity and innovation.
References Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B. (1985) ‘Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction’, Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22. Alves, J. (1998) ‘A Investigação Tecnológica e a Participação das Empresas no Esforço de Investigação [Technology Development and the Role of Firms in the R&D Effort]’, Jornadas A.I. Portuense, Porto, Portugal (in Portuguese). Alves, J., Marques, M.J., Saur, I. (2004a) ‘Role of Networking in Innovation Promotion and Cluster Modernization: “House of the Future” Case’, Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, 6, 27–41. Alves, J., Saur, I. and Marques, M.J. (2004b) ‘Envisioning the House of the Future: a Multisectorial and Interdisciplinary Approach to Innovation’, Proceedings E-Core Conference, Vol. 1, ECCREDI, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T.S. and Paulus, P.B. (1998) ‘Modeling Cognitive Interactions During Group Brainstorming’, Small Group Research, 29, 495–526. Cagan, J. and Vogel, C.M. (2001) Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval, Financial Times Prentice Hall. Chauvel, A. (2004) Méthodes et outils pour résoudre un problème, Editions Dunod, Paris. Cooke, P. (2004) ‘The Role of Research in Regional Innovation Systems: New Models Meeting Knowledge Economy Demands’, Int. J. Technology Management, 28(3/4/5/6), 507–33. Cooper, R. (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Basic Books, New York. Dietzenbacher, E. (2000) ‘Spillovers of Innovation Effects’, Journal of Policy Modeling, 22(1), 27–42. Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation and Entreprenneurship, HarperCollins, New York. European Commission (2000) Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-based Economy, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
33
Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O’Sullivan, D. and Cormican, K. (2003) ‘Idea Management for Organisational Innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 417–42. Fong, P. (2003) ‘Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Project Teams: an Empirical Study of the Processes and their Dynamic Interrelationships’, International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 479–86. Freel, M. (2000) ‘External Linkages and Product Innovation in Small Manufacturing Firms’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12, 245– 66. Freire, A. (2000) Inovação: novos produtos, serviços e negócios para Portugal [Inovation: New Products, Services and Business for Portugal], Verbo, Lisbon (in Portuguese). Galanakis, K., Passey, S. and Yazdani, B. (2000) ‘A Management Tool for Innovation using Systems Thinking Approach’, Management of Innovation and Technology, ICMIT, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 378–83. Hargadon, A. (2003) How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate, Harvard Business School Press. Im, S. (1999) The Model of Effect of Creativity on New Product Success, PhD Dissertation, KenanFlagler Business School, University of North Carolina T. Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Ekvall, G. and Britz, A. (2001) ‘Perceptions of the Best and Worst Climates for Creativity: Preliminary Validation Evidence for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire’. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171–84. Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G. and Primeau, R. (2002) ‘Interdisciplinary Learning: Process and Outcomes’, Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95–111. Kahn, K.B. (ed.) (2004) The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Kao, J. (1997) Jamming: The Art and Discipline of Corporate Creativity, HarperCollins Publishers, New York. Koen, P.A. (2004) ‘The Fuzzy Front End for Incremental, Platform, and Breakthrough Products’. In Kahn, K.B. (ed.), The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 81–91. Lofsten, H. and Lindelof, P. (2005) ‘R&D Networks and Product Innovation Patterns – Academic and Non-academic New Technology-based Firms on Science Parks’, Technovation, 25(9), 1025–37. Malerba, F. (2002) ‘Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production’, Research Policy, 31(2), 247–64. Marques, M.J., Alves, J. and Saur, I. (2005) ‘University-Industry Networks for Innovation’, Regional Growth Agendas Conference, Aalborg, Denmark. Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003) ‘Building Organisational Culture that Stimulates Creativity and Innovation’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74. Mumford, M., Scott, G., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J. (2002) ‘Leading Creative People: Orchestrating Expertise and Relationships’, The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–50.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
34
Nieminen, M. and Kaukonen, E. (2001) Universities and R&D Networking in a Knowledge-based Economy, SITRA Reports Series 11, Helsinki. Nissani, M. (1997) ‘Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinarity: The Case for Interdisciplinarity Knowledge and Research’, The Social Science Journal, 34(2), 201–16. OECD (1999) University Research in Transition, OECD Publications Service, Paris. OECD (2001) Innovative Networks: Co-operation in National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris. Osborn, A.F. (1957) Applied Imagination, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Paulus, P.B., Dugosh, K.L., Dzindolet, M.T., Putman, V.L. and Coskun, H. (2002) ‘Social and Cognitive Influences in Group Brainstorming: Predicting Gains and Losses’, in Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (eds), European Eeview of Social Psychology, Vol. 12, John Wiley, London, pp. 200–325. Rhodes, M. (1961) ‘An Analysis of Creativity’, Phi Delta Kappa, 42, 305–10. Rinia, E., van Leeuven, T., Bruins, E., van Vuren, H. and van Raan, A. (2001) ‘Citation Delay in Interdisciplinary Knowledge Exchange’, Scientometrics, 51(1), 293–309. Rodriguez, S. (2002) What is Really Driving Performance? The Impact of Enabling Creativity and Innovation Within the Organization, New York University, Stern School of Business. Romm, N. (1998) ‘Interdisciplinary Practice as Reflexivity’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 63–77. Roper, A. and Brookes, M. (1999) ‘Theory and Reality of Interdisciplinary Research’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(4), 174–79. Rosenau, M.D. (1996) The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, pp. 171–72. Rycroft, R. and Kash, D. (2004) ‘Self-organizing Innovation Networks: Implications for Globalization’, Technovation, 24, 187–97. Saur, I., Alves, J. and Marques, M.J. (2005) ‘R&D in Multidisciplinary and Cross-organizational Environments: Multisectoral Networks for Innovation’, The R&D Management Conference – Organising R&D activities: A Balancing Act, Pisa, Italy. Seufert, A., Krogh, G. and Back, A. (1999) ‘Towards Knowledge Networking’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 180–90. Shapiro, C. (2002) STI Working Papers 2002/11: Competition Policy and Innovation, OECD. Sternberg, R.J. (1999) Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Szeto, E. (2000) ‘Innovation capacity’, The TQM Magazine, 12(2), 149–57. Terninko, J., Zussman, A. and Zlotin, B. (1998) Systematic Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. VanGundy, A.B. (1983) ‘Brainwriting for New Product Ideas: An Alternative to Brainstorming’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(2), 67.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Vicenzi, R. (2000) ‘Creating Conditions for Creativity and Innovation in Organizations’, IEEE, 276– 82. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills and London.
Jorge C. Alves (
[email protected]) is Full Professor of Innovation Studies at the Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering of the University of Aveiro, Portugal. His present academic and scientific interests lie at the intersection of organizational innovation, creativity, technology, competitivity, product development and information and communication technologies. Maria José Marques (haneman@ dao.ua.pt) is a PhD candidate in Industrial Management at the University of Aveiro, Portugal. Her research is focused on innovative and competitive performance of firms and regions. She is MSc in Innovation and Policy Development and BSc in Urban and Regional Planning. Since 1997, she has been working as a research assistant at the University of Aveiro. She has been involved in several European and national projects in the fields of regional development policies, industrial clusters, information society, innovation networks, innovation management and new product development. Irina Saur-Amaral (
[email protected]) is a Doctoral Researcher in Industrial Management at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, working on internationalization of industrial R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. She teaches Knowledge Management at the University of Aveiro. Her current research interests are management of R&D/ innovation in pharmaceuticals, knowledge management in global settings, firm internationalization, and Chinese socio-political affairs. She has various scientific publications in proceedings, scientific journals and book chapters on innovation/R&D, diversity management, innovation networks and knowledge management. Pedro Terras Marques (ptmarques@ netcabo.pt) recently finished his MSc in Innovation and Knowledge at the University of Aveiro, Portugal. He has a BSc degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering. His interests are focused on creativity, especially on the effectiveness of creative methodologies to stimulate organizational creativity. He has worked in EDP (Electricidade de Portugal) since 1995.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
SHARING USER EXPERIENCES IN THE PRODUCT INNOVATION PROCESS
35
Sharing User Experiences in the Product Innovation Process: Participatory Design Needs Participatory Communication Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Remko van der Lugt and Pieter Jan Stappers This paper presents a model of communicating user experiences to design teams. The model comprises three qualities of communication: enhancing empathy, providing inspiration and supporting engagement. A new participatory communication tool is developed and explored in two empirical studies. The first study investigates the use of the tool during idea generation by design teams. The second study compares four different communication tools to study the qualities of empathy and inspiration. Our findings indicate the value of making the receivers of the information participative in the act of communicating. In this way designers become co-creators and co-owners of the information, resulting in higher degrees of acceptance and use. The participatory nature of the proposed tool spurs deeper understanding and more intensive use of insights from user studies in the creative process.
Introduction: Rich User Experiences
M
ore and more companies have recognized the need to learn from users in order to develop innovative user-centred products (e.g., Kristensson et al., 2002). Participatory design methods help designers to empathize with the prospective users of the product, and to understand the functional, personal and social contexts in which the product functions (Forlizzi & Ford, 2000). Especially during the creative phases of the design process, e.g. idea generation, having access to information about user experiences is of great value for designers. Many techniques are available for eliciting user experiences (for an overview, see Aldersey-Williams et al., 1999). Here we focus on the results from context-mapping studies (Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2005). Contextmapping techniques strongly rely on selfexpression of explicit and implicit knowledge people have about their experiences. These techniques produce data and insights that address functional, personal and social aspects of the experience. For instance, a statement like ‘I do not shave on Saturday. That day I do not go © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
to work’ conveys a number of different aspects about how the speaker experiences shaving in the morning: it is a routine task; he does not enjoy it; and his motivation is social rather than individual. In a context-mapping study elicited user experience data needs to be digested and fed into the design process. The latter is the main issue in this paper: how to communicate the rich results of context-mapping studies to design teams? A wide spectrum of communication tools is available in practice. At one end of the spectrum, analysis reports tend to provide generalizing, abstracted conclusions in which a lot of the richness of the data is lost. Moreover, research results are often formulated for a research audience, not for a design audience (Adams et al., 1998; Bruseberg & McDonaghPhilip, 2002; Bueno & Rameckers, 2003). Current practice relies heavily on such formal reports (Lillis, 2002). At the other end of the spectrum, the ‘raw’ data, such as transcripts of participatory sessions or interviews can be too bulky for designers. Not all designers are skilful researchers, nor do they have time to analyse the data from scratch (van Veggel, 2005; Bruseberg & McDonagh-Philip, 2002).
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00414.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
36
Figure 1. Model of Communication of User Experiences The challenge is to develop a communication form that encompasses the best elements of the two extremes: rich ‘raw user data’ and manageable interpretations. The aim is to find ways of presenting both information and inspiration, to give freedom of interpretation and provide direction, to stimulate ideation and argumentation in the design team. In this paper we describe a model of communicating user experiences to design teams. This model is used as a reference to compare existing communication tools, and to develop and investigate a new communication tool, the ‘personal card set’. Two empirical studies are reported in which design teams use the tool during idea generation. In the first study, the variety of ways in which design teams use the tool is observed. In the second study, the effect of the communication tools that vary in openness and interactivity on the quality and quantity of idea generation by design teams is compared. The paper concludes by discussing how further elements from the model can be used in research and design of communication tools for user experiences.
Communicating User Experiences: A Model The model of communication tools consists of three layers, as shown in Figure 1. The top
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
layer comprises qualities that determine user experience communication (empathy, inspiration and engagement); the second layer holds interaction factors that affect these qualities; and the third layer contains design means that operationalize these interaction factors.
Top Layer: Overall Goals To provide designers with a deeper understanding of user experiences during the creative process, we propose three key qualities of communication: (1) enhancing empathy, (2) providing inspiration and (3) supporting engagement. The first quality, ‘enhancing empathy’, refers to the designers’ need to empathize with the users to understand their experiences on an emotional level (Black, 1998). When user experiences resonate with personal experiences a deeper understanding of the user experiences is obtained (Buchenau & Fulton Suri, 2000). Enabling designers to make personal connections will lead to a deeper understanding. The second quality, ‘providing inspiration’, refers to designers feeling sparked and encouraged to find new design directions, create ideas and develop concepts. Designers’ imagination needs to be stimulated by gaining insight in, and developing, different perspectives. The third quality, ‘supporting engagement’, relates to the level of commitment designers © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
SHARING USER EXPERIENCES IN THE PRODUCT INNOVATION PROCESS
give, the curiosity and the motivation they develop to study – and keep on relating to – the user experiences throughout the design process. In the present paper we focus primarily on the qualities of inspiration and empathy. Even though in the first study some inferences regarding engagement are made based on a short design exercise, we realize that the quality of engagement is better studied in a longer time span in-company study.
Middle Layer: Interaction Factors The middle layer describes the relation between the communication tool and its data, and the design team using the tool. Openness: Showing the Raw Data Open-ended presentations invite designers to participate in structuring the information. Presenting raw data, e.g., by quoting anecdotes told by users, augments the sense of authenticity (McQuaid et al., 2003). Personification: Retaining the Personal Identity of Sources The stories of the individual users are felt most convincingly when presented in their own words, with all their shades of nuance in expression, and when they are attributed to the same, recognizable person (Adler, 2005). Interactivity: the Form Invites Organizing and Exploring The act of organizing and structuring the data promotes designers to form a deeper understanding of the users’ situations and create a perspective for designing. A tool should support organizing the data with one’s hands and being able to exchange parts of the data physically with each other (Stappers, 2006). As discussion is an important means of interpreting data and generating concepts, the data is accessible and intelligible for all members of a multi-disciplinary design team, and it is easy to share and refer back to. Interpretation: Suggestive Leads for Interpretation on Abstraction Levels The composed organization of the data suggests and invites directions of inquiry, rather than imposing rigid final interpretations. Presenting raw data, augmented by leads facilitates designers in interpreting, drawing conclusions and finding directions for the design. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
37
Ownership: Designers as Co-creators of the Data By receiving means for co-creation designers can get a sense of ownership over the data. Unfinished elements and space for adding own insights, conclusions and design perspectives engage designers with the data.
Bottom Layer: Operational Means The bottom layer contains aesthetic choices, structuring devices and graphic elements that can be manipulated to affect this interaction. The aesthetics of form and content of a tool are significant means to invite designers to explore it. A tool needs to be ready-to-use, require little or no instruction, and fit the creative practice of designers. A balance is required between text and image, answer and question, overview and detail, directions of interpretation and raw source data, patterns and anecdotes.
Current Tools Here, some of the most used current communication tools are identified and related to the proposed model of communication of user experiences. The written report is most commonly used for communicating findings from user studies (Lillis, 2002). It usually contains a description of how the information was generated and analysed and it presents the most important conclusions. The form of reports, in which black and white text dominates, does not easily match the designers’ visual and associative thinking processes, and is not judged as ‘inspiring’ by designers. However, a written report does provide a broad range of information on the user study. Ethnographers have explored graphic summaries as a way of communicating: diagrams that organize and summarize the data. One example is the ‘grounded innovation map’ proposed by Diggens and Tolmie (2003). The map contains various levels of information. The highest level contains the principal categories identified by the designers. Levels underneath move through relationships between and within these categories. The lowest level contains labels representing anecdotes extracted from personal stories. Although the attempt to organize the data and present the multi-layered character of the data is a step forward, the tool does not enhance empathy with the users. For that, the jargon and the symbols remain too abstract. Nevertheless, diagrams help structure further discussions of the dimensions underlying the data by
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
38
stimulating visual interactions, such as pointing, laying out, and adding interpretations. Videos can convey dynamic qualities of user experiences. Highlight videos allow the design team to observe user situations or product use. However, highlight videos foster a passive role of the receiver of the communication (Brun-Cottan & Wall, 1995; Buchenau & Fulton Suri, 2000). The current communication tools presented above do not satisfy all three qualities of user experience communication. Formal reports do not appear to provide inspiration, ethnographic maps tend to obscure the view of the actual user, and highlight videos lack the interactive nature. New communication tools that have surfaced in the domain of human-centred design attend to some degree the proposed qualities of empathy, inspiration and engagement. Examples are personas (envisaged fictional users, see Grudin & Pruitt, 2002; Pruitt & Adlin, 2006), narrative forms such as scenarios (Go & Carroll, 2004) and scripts (Henze & Kahmann, 2003). Raijmakers et al. (2006) developed a video-based tool named ‘design documentaries’, with the specific goal of inspiring designers.
The Personal Card Set The personal card set, shown in Figure 2, is a communication tool designed to simultaneously support inspiration, empathy and engagement. The interaction factors were used as design criteria. The cards consist of elements ranging from raw transcripts, associations and tentative interpretations of the researcher, results from the analysis, and free-form elements inviting participation of the reader. Each card has the same graphic design, consisting of two sides of A4 paper, folded double into A5 size. Each card represents information from an individual user and is marked with a visual identity of that user (photo and name). Each card is laminated and the set comes in a box together with a set of non-permanent markers and a sponge. The cards invite designers to interactively structure and analyse them: they can create overview, re-arrange, select and compare the cards. The design of the cards invites designers to add their interpretations and react on the leads suggested by the researcher. Each card has plenty of white space for annotations of ideas/insights/conclusions, which can be made with the non-permanent markers, and can be wiped off with the sponge. This way, designers are stimulated to become active partners in the communication:
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
they visually personalize the information and they are stimulated to add their own insights.
Study 1: Using the Personal Card Set The principal objective of the first study was to explore how designers use the tool and to evaluate to what extent the cards supported the intended qualities of enhancing empathy, providing inspiration and supporting engagement.
Procedure The personal card set was evaluated in concept generation sessions with professional designers and with Masters-level students in Industrial Design Engineering. Four sessions were held, each with a team of two designers. At the start of the session, the designers were given the assignment to create one or more innovative concepts for a shaving product, focusing on the experience of shaving. They then received the personal card set, with the explanation that each card contains the contributions of one user from a context-mapping study. This study had been carried out with eight participants, all men, and focused on their experience of shaving (for a more elaborate description, see Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2005). No directions were given regarding how the personal card set should be used, except that the design teams were asked to start by exploring the cards for about ten minutes. In the two-hour assignment the designers developed concepts for a shaving product (Figure 3 shows one example). To examine if and how the designers used material from the personal card set to support the argumentation of their concepts, the teams presented their results to someone acting out the role of a product manager. Afterwards, the designers were interviewed about their experiences with the card set. From observing the designers during the sessions and interviewing them afterwards, their use of the tool, and their attitudes and opinions were explored, as well as the functioning of the personal card set’s elements. Our main observations are discussed below, structured by the interaction factors. In the discussion, the proposed qualities are addressed.
Observations Openness Fragments of the raw data were read intensely. The designers mentioned appreciating the © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
SHARING USER EXPERIENCES IN THE PRODUCT INNOVATION PROCESS
39
Figure 2. The Personal Card Set. Top: the box of cards (left: closed, right, open); bottom: the cards and their elements ‘real data from everyday life’, and most designers appreciated having insight in the entire transcript. Some designers felt the need to see more photos of the users; ‘I really want to see more of this guy, what does his bathroom look like?’ When presenting their concepts to the product manager, the designers often referred to quotes on the cards. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Interactivity All teams made intensive use of the cards and used the cards throughout the design activity; the cards were used for formulating their starting points for the design. While sketching ideas, they frequently revisited the cards for new inspiration.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
40
Figure 3. One of the concepts generated by the designers in the evaluation: A razor held inside the hand, establishing continuous contact between the skin of fingers and face Various designers used the cards to physically organize the information in different ways (see Figure 4). Some designers looked for similarities across the set of cards, while others concentrated on a few complete stories. Interpretation Designers have different preferences and attitudes towards the suggestive leads and the entire transcript. The diagrams were carefully studied; ‘Very clearly, I used them as reference points’ and ‘With these diagrams I can immediately start to work’. Some designers wanted to see more explicit structure in the cards; ‘I would have liked more organized parts in the text. Now we had to search so much.’ In contrast, others avoided the structured elements, such as the colour-coded words; ‘I tried not to pay attention to the colour coded words. I prefer to decide for myself how to filter the information’. Some used the diagrams to create an overview or to decide which users they wanted to study more in-depth, while others tried to offset one card against another. For finding design directions, some designers accepted the users’ opinions as absolute truth and included it directly in their designs. For example, one team designed a long-lasting titanium razor mentioned on one of the cards. Other designers set up their own minitheories. One team created a graphic of the ‘fun value’ during the shaving process based on grouping the cards in two sets: (1) experiences of fun during shaving and (2) experiences without fun during shaving (see Figure 5). The team drew a supportive diagram on a separate piece of paper. Personification The personification of each card contributed to anchoring the data and to sharing the information between the designers and the product manager. They mentioned their names and
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
sometimes even discussed and analysed personalities of the users. They used the names on the cards to refer to particular anecdotes or persons; ‘Yeah, Leon and Daniel really take their time for it’. They read out loud from the cards to each other, linking the contents to their own personal shaving experiences; ‘I am just like Ernesto, I shave exactly like him’. One design team, consisting of two female designers, used the different experiences to create an overview; ‘I am a girl, and I need those stories to understand the contexts of shaving’. They designed with two specific users in mind; ‘The concept is specially developed for Gaston and Sasja. I have the feeling I met Gaston, I really know intimate things about him. He seems a little bit like my neighbour. I can completely imagine how he shaves’. Ownership The designers did not make the cards their own. Designers rarely added their own insights on the cards and rarely wrote annotations on the cards themselves, but wrote and drew on separate pieces of paper. In the interview afterwards, they said they felt no need to add to the cards.
Discussion Clearly, one cannot draw definitive conclusions from a small-scale study such as this. Nevertheless, the results provide some indication of the potential of the card set as a participative communication tool. Here the tool is reviewed through the three main qualities of communicating user experiences: does it convey empathy with the user, does it inspire designers to create product ideas, and does it support engagement with the user experiences? Regarding empathy, the designers clearly identified with the users. The designers often referred to the names of the users, suggesting that they were designing with real people in mind. They often quoted the transcript, written in the users’ personal idiom. Several designers mentioned that, even in the short time-span of the experiment, they had the feeling that they really got to know the users as if they had met them personally. This suggests that they related to the users’ experiences as real events rather than abstractions. Designers have different ways of getting inspired, and the tool allowed for these differences. The cards were used intensely by the designers during conceptual design activity. All participating designers judged it inspiring and useful. The cards triggered them to find © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
SHARING USER EXPERIENCES IN THE PRODUCT INNOVATION PROCESS
41
Figure 4. Designers organized the cards in many different ways. Clockwise from the top left: reading together, comparing diagrams, cross-referencing themes in transcripts, systematic spread-out comparison, detailed comparison of diagrams, and free categorizing of the cards
Figure 5. Diagram produced by a design team, depicting the ‘fun value’ before, during and after shaving. It shows a low value of ‘fun’ during the act of shaving itself structures in the information. Some designers wanted freedom to find original design directions, while others were eager to build on suggested interpretations. The designers were highly engaged; they used the cards many times during the sessions and discussed the information on the cards extensively. The designers mentioned that by using the tool they developed a deep understanding of what shaving experiences are, what aspects influence the experiences and what kind of feelings the users have. So, even in this short time-span, they were engaged with the data. Surprisingly, the designers rarely wrote on the cards, even though this was clearly suggested by means of the coating, sponge and markers. One explanation might be that the © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
cards still had too much of a ‘finished’ appearance. They did not make the card set their own by, for instance, leaving visual marks. In that sense, the personal card set did not support ownership to establish engagement.
Study 2: The Influence of Openness and Interactivity on Inspiration and Empathy The aim of this study was to gain insight into how the interaction factors of openness and interactivity influence the qualities of designers’ inspiration and empathy. In addition to the personal card set, three other tools were created from the experience of shaving data. The tools varied on openness and interactivity:
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
42
a report, a poster and statement cards were provided (see Figure 6). The statement cards and personal card set were highly interactive: they allowed the design team to organize and re-organize the data. The report and poster were fixed; design teams could not organize the data physically. The poster and the personal card set were open-ended: they showed primarily raw data without interpretations. In contrast, the statement cards showed interpretations, paraphrases of the data, added with the responding part of the transcript in small font. The report showed the interpretations of the researcher, with the raw data appearing in an appendix. As much as possible, the same aesthetics were applied in all four tools.
Procedure The study involved two-hour design sessions, in which each design team of two female
design students was given one of the tools with the assignment to create innovative concepts for shaving. For each condition, two sessions were held resulting in eight sessions (a to h, see Figure 7). Just female students were recruited for this study as they would not be able to draw from their own facial shaving experience. As an indication of inspiration the number of ideas were counted (drawn ideas and verbalized ideas). As an indication of empathy the number of times the designers referred to the actual users (e.g., ‘he’, ‘Leon’, ‘this man’) were counted. In addition to counting these rough indicators for inspiration and empathy, the sessions were observed, the designers filled out a questionnaire, and they were interviewed about how they experienced the tool for triangulation purposes.
Results Number of Ideas and References
Figure 6. The Four Tools Vary on Openness and Interactivity
Figure 7 shows that the personal card set scores highest on both inspiration (number of ideas) and empathy (number of references). The open tools (personal card set and poster) score high on the number of ideas, suggesting that more openness has a positive effect on inspiration. The open tools score slightly higher on empathy as well. One team (g), which had used the poster, scored quite high on number of ideas. They said: ‘We would have had fewer ideas if we had more freedom. The poster helped us to get started and find directions for ideas.’ Furthermore, the concepts created with the open tools appeared to be more innovative, while the concepts created with the closed tools (report and statement cards) appeared more similar to
Figure 7. The number of ideas and references that were counted in the sessions. Circled letters (a–h) are identifiers for the teams; the lines connect the averages for each of the four conditions
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
SHARING USER EXPERIENCES IN THE PRODUCT INNOVATION PROCESS
existing shaving products. Design team (d), which used the personal card set developed an exceptionally large amount of ideas. Intensity of Use From observations we noticed that the organizing tools were used much more intensively during the sessions, compared to the fixed tools (poster and report). The fixed tools were used only in the first fifteen minutes of the sessions, and then left aside. One design team (e) revisited the report in the last few minutes to check whether their concepts matched the main findings of the report. Design team (f) mentioned that they had used their own creative techniques to get inspired. In contrast, the organizing tools (personal card set and statement cards) were used intensively throughout all four sessions. Referring to Users Four design teams (a, b, f, h) had not noticed that the data was based on the shaving experience of only four men. Three of these four teams had used a closed tool (statement cards and report). Design team (a), which had used the statement cards, did not make any reference to the users at all. Both teams working with the personal card set referred extensively to the users.
Discussion This study explored variations of openness and interactivity in communication tools and how it affects inspiration and empathy. Even though this study was explorative in nature, clear differences could be discerned. One striking finding is that interactive tools were used much more intensively throughout the process. The other striking finding is that the personal card set seemed to elicit much more empathy with the users than the other three tools did. Only in the personal card set were the four users explicitly presented as four individual people. Design teams using the other tools did not always notice that the data originated from four men. This implies that the personification of the data might have a stronger influence on empathy than openness has.
Conclusion The personal card set functions as a demonstration of how the proposed interaction factors could be realized in participatory communication tools. It is not a final format and certainly not meant to replace the formal © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
43
report. Rather, we used it as a research instrument to help us understand how to communicate user experiences to design teams. In the personal card set we used only a small part of the spectrum of diagrams, schemes and graphs available. This is an initial step to study the desired qualities of participatory communication tools. Of course, there are many more ways to design a tool with these interaction factors. However, the idea of using cards as a means to represent user research findings has been adapted by more designers and researchers in practice (Pruitt & Adlin, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Postma & Stappers, 2006). In this study we explored only parts of the communication model. The quality of supporting engagement, which was not included in the second study, will be addressed by means of a longer time-span in-company study. In our further research we will also address the other interaction factors. Here, only two of the proposed five interaction factors, openness and interactivity, were studied in depth. The three factors interpretation, personification and ownership need further research. The balance of raw data and suggestive leads to interpretation is subtle and each design team seems to have its own preference for level of interpretation. Further research will explore various means to explore this balance. Regarding personification, we will also explore various means (photos, detail, spoken language, handwriting, etc.). The interaction factor of ownership deserves special attention. We thought that by making annotations on the cards the designers would leave visual marks that would help them to feel ownership over the interpretations in the card set. However, after use by the designers, the personal card set was visually still ‘owned’ by the researcher. The personal card set did not support enough co-creation and coownership of the information, as we think it should. In current research we are exploring design means for inviting designers to become ‘owners’ of the data, e.g., in the form of ‘action posters’. Another aspect for further research is how the communication tool is embedded in a communication approach within a design process. In the two studies we described, design teams performed a short assignment using the tool. In real-world application, the tool is likely to be a part of a larger communication approach, e.g., in the form of a workshop. Then, part of the communication is a workshop in which the data is presented, explained and discussed. Such a workshop and the communication tool introduced in the workshop are inherently related. Further research will focus on combinations of workshops and tools to promote
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
44
participatory communication. In addition, such studies will allow us to study engagement over a longer time-span.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the designers of Flex Development and the Industrial Design Engineering students for their participation in the design sessions, and students D. Derksen, A. Kauffman, S. Oudshoorn and W. Prins for conducting the experimental part of the second study.
References Adams, M.E., Day, G.S. and Dougherty, D. (1998) ‘Enhancing New Product Performance: An Organizational Learning Perspective’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 403–22. Adler, P.J. (2005) ‘Dealing with Interviews when Creating Personas: A Practical Approach’, Proceedings of Student Interaction Design Research Conference, Sønderborg, Denmark, pp. 84–88. Aldersey-Williams, H., Bound, J. and Coleman, R. (1999) Methods Lab: User Research for Design. Helen Hamlyn Research Centre, RCA, London, UK. Black, A. (1998) ‘Empathic design – user focused strategies for innovation’, Proceedings of New Product Development. IBC conferences. Brun-Cottan, F. and Wall, P. (1995) ‘Using Video to Represent the User’, Communications of the ACM, 38, 61–71. Bruseberg, A. and McDonagh-Philip, D. (2002) ‘Focus Groups to Support the Industrial/Product Designer: A Review Based on Current Literature and Designers’ Feedback’, Applied Ergonomics, 33, 27–38. Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J. (2000) ‘Experience Prototyping’, Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 424–33. Bueno, M. and Rameckers, L. (2003) ‘Understanding People in New Ways: Personas in Context: Forging a Stronger Link Between Research and its Application in Design’, Proceedings in ESOMAR Research Conference, Venice, Italy, pp. 1–15. Diggens, T. and Tolmie, P. (2003) ‘The “Adequate” Design of Ethnographic Outputs for Practice: Some Explorations of the Characteristics of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Design Resources’, Proceedings of First International Conference on Appliance Design, Bristol, UK, pp. 81–82. Forlizzi, J. and Ford, S. (2000) ‘Building Blocks of Experience: An Early Framework for Interaction Designers’, Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems Conference, New York, USA, pp. 419–23. Go, K. and Carroll, J.M. (2004) ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant: Views of Scenario-based System Design’, Interactions, 11, 44–53. Grudin, J. and Pruitt, J. (2002) ‘Personas, Participatory Design and Product Development: An Infrastructure for Engagement’, Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference, Palo Alto, USA, pp. 144–61. Henze, L. and Kahmann, R. (2003) ‘Communicating Product Experience’. In McDonagh, D., Gyi, D., Hekkert, P. and van Erp, J. (eds.), Design and Emotion. Taylor & Francis, London, UK, pp. 109– 13. Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P.R. and Matthing, J. (2002) ‘Users as a Hidden Resource for Creativity: Findings from an Experimental Study on User Involvement’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, 55–61. Lillis, G. (2002) Delivering Results in Qualitative Market Research. Sage Publications, London, UK. McQuaid, H. L., Goel, A. and McManus, M. (2003) ‘When You Can’t Talk to Customers: Using Storyboards and Narratives to Elicit Empathy for Users’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 120–25. Postma, C. and Stappers, P.J. (2006) ‘A Vision on Social Interactions as the Basis for Design’, Codesign, 2, 139–55. Pruitt, J. and Adlin, T. (2006) The Persona Lifecycle; Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco, USA. Raijmakers, B., Gaver, W. and Bishay, J. (2006) ‘Design Documentaries: Inspiring Design Research through Documentary Film’, Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 229–38. Rodriguez, J., Diehl, J.C., Christiaans, H. (2006) ‘Gaining Insight into Unfamiliar Contexts: a Design Toolbox as Input for Using Role-play Techniques’, Interacting with Computers, 18, 956– 76. Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J, van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E.B.N. (2005) ‘Contextmapping: Experiences from Practice’, Codesign, 1, 119–49. Stappers, P.J. (2006) ‘Creative Connections: User, Designer, Context and Tools’, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 10, 95–100. van Veggel, R.J.F.M. (2005) ‘Where the Two Sides of Ethnography Collide’, Design Issues, 21, 3–16.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
SHARING USER EXPERIENCES IN THE PRODUCT INNOVATION PROCESS
45
Froukje Sleeswijk Visser (www.studiolab. io.tudelft.nl/sleeswijkvisser) holds a masters degree in Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft, The Netherlands. In 2003 she started a PhD project at Studiolab about the communication of user experiences in the design process. Besides her PhD project, Froukje works (freelance) as a communication designer. Remko van der Lugt, Ph.D. (www. studiolab.io.tudelft.nl/vanderlugt) is assistant professor in Design Conceptualization and Communication at the School of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. His research focuses on methods and tools for stimulating creativity in multidisciplinary design teams. Pieter Jan Stappers (www.studiolab. io.tudelft.nl/stappers) is professor of design techniques at the School of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. His current activities encompass coordinating Delft’s new Masters programme in Design for Interaction, being informal director of ID-StudioLab, and heading the research subprogramme on tools and techniques for the conceptual phase of design. Key elements in his work are ‘research through design’, ‘experiential prototypes’ and contextmapping, details of which can be found on his webpage.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
46
Managing Project Transformation in a Complex Context Mats Holmquist Complex projects are often undertaken in uncertain situations in which project participants who adopt a rational-oriented strategy tend to face difficulties in adapting and adjusting to changes that occur during the project. In this context a process-oriented strategy, although difficult to manage, can be a better way to handle project transformation. Collective learning then becomes crucial. This article describes some lessons learned when a project manager and team applied a process-oriented strategy in a complex project. Data has been collected through interactive research and evaluation with different methods including surveys, observations and interviews. The analysis shows that it is possible to organize for learning and to manage transformation in a complex context. Important factors for success are a process-oriented strategy, a creative climate, formative evaluation and systematic reflections. A major issue that is discussed in the article is the transfer of outcomes from the project to the participating organizations.
Introduction
T
raditional projects are based on planning, structure and a rational way of looking at work and results. The idea is that if projects are planned and conducted in a specific way, the intended results will be achieved. Empirical research shows that this is often not the case (Hall, 1980; Hirschman 1967). In fact, very well planned projects sometimes lead to failure while more loosely planned projects meet with greater success. There is also a negative relation between complexity and rationality. In a more complex context the rational project plan tends to present difficulties where adaptation and adjustment to changes that occur during the project activity are concerned. The given circumstances at the start of the project tend to change as work proceeds. Certain details may be either unknown or impossible to clarify in the beginning. Some data that is crucial for the success of the project will be acquired along the way. This data cannot be made explicit in advance. To meet this uncertain situation a different, more process-oriented type of project strategy is now frequently applied. It is a strategy that allows projects to remain open for transformations and it enables incorporation of the input that is produced through the action that takes place during the project. In this strategy,
Volume 16
Number 1
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00416.x
2007
learning in the project becomes important. This article will explore some of the experiences in a complex project and try to answer crucial questions such as whether it is possible to organize a project for learning. How does learning take place? Can a project leader with a team manage transformation in a complex project?
Project Strategies Project strategies can be divided roughly into two categories: rational-oriented and processoriented. Rational-oriented projects have a clear starting point and a focused goal. It is easy to identify road goals and assess them along the way to see if the project is following the plan or has to be adjusted. These projects are easy to manage by the book. They are more suitable in less complex contexts. But organizational action is particularly complicated when many people belonging to different organizations, or parts of the organization, are involved (Brunsson, 1985). Then, rational thinking can be an obstacle to action and can make it more difficult to adapt to environmental transformation. Rational choice and design are not a strong way to transform organizations (Brunsson & Olsen, 1993). To manage a complex dynamic system in a planned form is © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
MANAGING PROJECT TRANSFORMATION IN A COMPLEX CONTEXT
only possible in the short term (Stacey, 1992). The Opera House in Sydney is just one example of difficulties in planning a complex project. Building it took several more years than planned and it came in 15 times over budget due to unforeseen circumstances during the project process. Process-oriented projects have a starting phase rather than a defined starting point, and a more open goal picture. They are difficult to manage because setting clearly defined goals and knowing how best to proceed is problematic. Starting transformation from commitment rather than from rationalistic decision processes is difficult because consistencies make it possible to choose among several alternatives (Brunsson, 1985). Process-oriented strategies are more suitable in a dynamic and complex context where it is impossible to define precisely the different parts of the system (Stacey, 1992). Johanessen, Olsen and Olaisen (1997) argue that process organizing can be a way to create sustainable advantages in a complex undertaking. Dynamic systems demand that stability and rational thinking be abandoned in favour of creative instability based on different opinions and dialogue, e.g., problem discussions from different perspectives in a diverse project team.
Learning Types All transformation has to do with learning. Learning is a reflection of what is considered suitable and legitimate rather than a result of rational calculations and choices (Levitt & March, 1988). When we talk about transformation of project processes it is a question of collective learning (Dixon, 1999; Kilgore, 1999) that regards the group as a learning system that creates knowledge. In complex projects with a lot of people and organizations involved, where the goal is quite wide and open, the collective learning in the process is important. It has to do with managing transformation and learning that is interwoven with everyday activities in the project as well as with managing diversity, facilitating competence and development (Mabey & Iles, 1994). If you want to benefit from your practical experiences you have to actively process and transform them (Kolb, 1984). This marks the significance of reflection for learning. Reflective thinking involves analysing why your actions do not lead to expected consequences and then forming new plans for action and trying out new steps. What Kolb means is that learning is a continuous process of transformation and development. To manage and © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
47
transform an open complex project you have to reflect on the process and the outcomes along the way. Engaging in this reflection in a systematic way can be a strategy for productive learning and continuous improvements in work (Boud, Cressey & Docherty, 2006). Projects, especially process-oriented ones, can be regarded as communities of practice (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). They are organic and designed for evolution. Their dynamic nature is the key to their evolution. Community design in projects is more about collective learning than traditional organizational design. Communities of practice reflect on and redesign elements of themselves throughout their existence. The primary role of design is to catalyse transformation. Managing this transformation requires the members of the community to embrace the view of organizational learning as an activity of communication between interdependent people (Stacey, 2003). The interaction in a project around tensions caused by uncertainty is what creates openings towards collective learning (Elkjaer, 2005). Enhancing learning can then be done through stimulating and organizing for joint critical reflection. Within the collective transformation in beliefs, values and practices which are implied by the concept of learning lies a distinction between adaptation and innovation (Ellström, 2001). This suggests that the changes either occur within a given framework or imply a break that goes beyond the given and represents something creative. Adaptive learning corresponds to routinized actions performed without much conscious attention and control. This type of learning, although both sufficient and necessary in many situations, has its role primarily in the formation of competencies for handling routine problems that are frequently recurring. In the creative type the learner not only evaluates outcomes or chooses methods, but also defines the task and the conditions at hand – diagnosing the situation. The focus of the learner is not on doing things right but doing the right thing. Creative learning occurs when groups of individuals begin to reflect upon and transform established routines, structures and practices. A focus in complex projects is the creative learning that gives possibilities to process transformation as a way to develop and improve the project. This type of learning is similar to what Piaget (in Illeris, 1999) calls accommodative learning, Argyris and Schön (1978) double loop learning, March (1991) explorative learning, Senge (1990) generative learning and Engeström (1987) expansive learning.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
48
Creative Climate Creative learning can be stimulated by a creative climate in the project. Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt (1997) describe creative climate as positive approaches to creative ideas, supported by a relevant reward system. It is a winner culture where shared values, opinions and agreed norms result in creative behaviours and it is characterized by systematic transformation of organizational structure and communication roads. De Salvo (1999) also supports this view and writes that a creative climate is characterized by shared information, open communication and a focus on human and professional development. It is a climate of strong common values, in which all ideas will be respected, treated and used for action and in which the leaders together with their personnel take time to stimulate creativity. According to Schadur, Kienzle and Rodwell (1999), a creative and supporting climate is positively related to the experience of participation in decision making, teamwork and communication.
The Project In this article we will describe and discuss transformation in a complex and unique health project. The project, which was carried out between 2003 and 2005, was entitled Lust H, which stands for quality of life through development, cooperation and economic growth in a region on the west coast of Sweden. The owner and initiator of the project was the Halland Region Development Council. Around this time (2000), Sweden was experiencing high public spending in the social insurance system because of a high rate of absenteeism due to illness. Local health projects were under way in many organizations but very little was done to share knowledge and use different experiences as a resource for improvement and development. The purpose of the Lust H project was to bring this hidden local knowledge up to a regional level and transfer it via special arenas. The vision was improved health and fewer people absent from work due to illness. Project aims were cooperation, communication, comprehension and development. The supposition was that managing the process towards the aims of the project was the key to success. The project was a joint venture and the funding bodies represented the public sector. The private sector contributed some key participants’ working hours. The project team consisted of a communicator, a project leader and an administrator. These three persons
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
were responsible for the operational management of the project. A researcher from Halmstad University College was also contracted for evaluation, follow-up and documentation of the process. Lust H organized 12 big meetings that brought together people who worked with health aspects in working life and leisure time. The project functioned as an arena in which participators could meet, be inspired and exchange experiences. The meetings were organized around different themes such as Nature and Health, Economy and Health, Leadership and Health, Culture and Health, Values and Health, etc. To participate, people were merely required to come to a meeting or register through the project team. The total number of participants was nearly 600 and represented a broad cross section of people from different occupations in the region. Most of the participants attended only one, two or perhaps three meetings. The process could be viewed on different levels. On the project management level, three people in the project team collaborated with one evaluator from the university. On the participator level, 50–80 people met each time at the different meetings to learn. There were different needs articulated in the project that functioned as an input to the process. The team transformed these needs into activities that were offered to the participants at the meetings. During and after such meetings the evaluator collected data that added new input to the process. The project team transformed all information and managed the complex project to take the next step in the development process. The evaluation results from the meetings showed that the participants were very satisfied with the outcomes. They were inspired and acquired knowledge, ideas and contacts that they wanted to use at work. On a 10-point scale they gave the meeting places an average rating of around 8 points. In the follow-up evaluations the participants were still satisfied with the project effects on a personal level, but not on the organizational level. They thought more should have happened and noted problems with time, interest and priorities.
Methods In the project the evaluator worked with formative evaluation and interactive research methods. Project evaluations can be divided into two categories – summarized and formative. Summarized is the traditional evaluation that takes place after the project has ended and aims to control, sum up and judge the result. © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
MANAGING PROJECT TRANSFORMATION IN A COMPLEX CONTEXT
Formative evaluation is carried out during the running of the project and aims to support learning, transformation and development in the project (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In interactive knowledge building (Maxwell, 1996), researcher and practitioner are coming from two different contexts, meeting in a third where a dialogue takes place. This third system constitutes a social room where the relation between theory and practice is handled and where collective learning is taking place. These methods were applied in several ways in the project: • Activities at the meetings were evaluated through questionnaires given to the participants directly at the end of each meeting. • Effects of meetings were evaluated through questionnaires given to the participants 3–9 months after the conclusion of each session. • Observations were done at the meetings. • Documentation of this data collection constituted a basis for regular and systematic reflections with the evaluator and the project team. • Results from all of the above created a deeper understanding of the project process and a basis for the team to manage the project. • Interviews were done at the end of the project to follow up some interesting phenomena that had emerged during the collective learning process.
Example The two examples in this article are based on data from questionnaire surveys, interviews, observations and reflections.
Transformation Example 1: Exchange of Experiences The project team arranged the first meetingplace activity so that a lot of time was available after the organized programme for exchange of experiences among the participants. However, almost all the participants left the meeting after the final workshop, without taking the opportunity to continue discussions with each other. From the inquiries that day, an interesting signal was given: participants considered the meeting and time for exchange of experiences too short. Even though there was the possibility of and need for discussions, the participants did not take the opportunity. Through reflection, the project team learned the direction in which they wanted to transform the project process: towards ‘structured © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
49
time for exchange of experiences’. But they did not have a clear idea of what that actually was, or how it could be done. The team discussed how they could design the next forum to create more direct value for the participants. They decided to have the structured time for exchange of experiences in the middle of the day, between other activities, to make it impossible for the participants not to choose it. They also decided to improve the structure through different methods for discussion, managed by the project team. After the next session, new results from the evaluation still showed a demand for sharing more experiences and the transformation process continued. How could they create more structured time for exchange of experiences? For the next session the team decided to have: • organized discussions with the other people around the table • lunchtime walks with a given issue to talk about • fewer participants (50 instead of 80). The collective learning process occurred after each meeting-place activity and generated a continuous improvement. But even though the team made all these changes, they still received signals that there was room for improvement in the exchange of experiences. This was made clear by an extensive webbased inquiry, where 60 per cent of the respondents (135) expressed that they shared their own experiences with other participants only to a small extent. The team engaged in further creative reflection that led to more organizational changes in the activities: • The team forced the participants to sit next to people they didn’t know. • They urged the participants to present themselves to each other at the tables before starting anything else. • They gave an ‘introductory speech’ about exchanging experiences in particular. This ongoing transformation of the design of the meeting-place events improved the exchange of experiences, thanks to the evaluation results. It worked as a form of quality assurance of the project. Transformation Example 2: Need for Networking? As a result of numerous team reflections about different outcomes from the evaluation process, the team asked the financiers of the project questions about the needs of their organizations. Two important aspects triggered these questions.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
50
1. The project team never had an expressed plan or request from the financiers concerning the project’s operational content. The task of managing the project had from the beginning been an open process. 2. They could notice a distinction in the inquiry results between the satisfactory levels of the meetings (very high) and the expressed effects in the participants’ own organizations (rather low). They asked the financiers if they could identify specific needs that might be satisfied through activities organized by the project. They got feedback in the form of wishes for certain themes. One of these themes was networking between people from public organizations. With the help of the financing organizations the team invited 30 selected people to a launch of a network. Eleven people came. The team’s only specific expressed guideline was to ‘organize a network’ and they were confident in managing the process on the spot. In the middle of the discussions they realized that the wish for a network was not the main issue for the participants and decided not to continue with the aim of creating a network. At the end of this luanch the participants evaluated the day. The project team reflected on the results and tried to understand the process. They came to several conclusions. The network idea was an expressed need from the financiers, but the people involved in the activity seemed not to want a network. Quite a few felt lonely in their organization and were the only person working exclusively with health promotion tasks. They expressed a need for support, inspiration, discussion, acknowledgement and help in handling complexity in a difficult context. A reflection seminar together with the project evaluator raised questions like: What does the leadership look like in their organizations? Do the health promoters have tasks with unclear aims? What kind of strategy do the financing organizations have for using the value, contacts, ideas, inspiration, etc., that the
Participants
Needs
Activity
participants were ‘bringing home’ from an activity organized by the project? The conclusion was that there was, in fact, a need for networking, but the people that needed this were not conscious of it. The situation in their organization prevented them from seeing this. If this was correct, then the expressed needs could not be satisfied by the project, unless some transformation first took place in their organization. Follow-up interviews with some participants supported this finding. Many of them expressed a problem with the knowledge transformation. Effects of the learning outcomes from the project activities tended to diminish or cease when the participants returned to their organizations. A result of this transformation process was that the team did not start a network. Instead, they organized an open activity to stimulate networking in general. Another result was that the problem with transformation from the project arena to the organizations was highlighted, an issue which became the focus of a follow-up study that took place after the project ended.
Conclusions and Discussion This article shows that it is possible to organize learning and to manage project transformation in a complex project. The way this was done, and the way learning actually took place, can be illustrated by ‘the transformation snake’ shown in Figure 1. Important for organizing learning was the continuous evaluation and the systematic reflection that functioned as a design to catalyse transformation (Boud et al., 2006; Kolb, 1984; Wenger et al., 2002). The output from the activity at each meeting was captured by the evaluation. The evaluator and the project team met to reflect and learn from the results in relation to the aims of the project (Elkjaer, 2005). The interaction created an understanding of what happened, what did not happened, how and why. This creation of joint knowledge
Output
Evaluation
Yes
Evaluator + Team
Reflection Collective learning Creative thinking
Team
Idea
Plan
Changed activity
Redesign New plan
Figure 1. The Transformation Snake
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
© 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
MANAGING PROJECT TRANSFORMATION IN A COMPLEX CONTEXT
constituted a basis for the team to think creatively and redesign the next activity (Ellström, 2001). Through this learning process they could formulate a new plan that better met the needs of the participants and the aims of the project. The effect was a change in activity at the next event that resulted in new output that is captured by a second evaluation that constitutes a basis for a second reflection phase. The second reflection phase resulted in changes at the third activity, and so on. The collective learning in the transformation process continued throughout the project process as a way of improving the project results (Dixon, 1999; Mabey & Iles, 1994). In this way the team could manage the project step by step. The creative climate of the project team, and of the team in the presence of the evaluator, was also an important factor for creative learning to come about. The people’s skills, backgrounds and personalities were different, but their values, vision and strategies were similar. Through several interactions at meetings and reflection seminars they exchanged and developed their points of view. Together, they constituted a learning system (Maxwell, 1996), where the differences were used in dynamic cooperation and a creative climate to stimulate change and development. A process-oriented project strategy and a creative climate together with a focus on organizing for creative learning, presented possibilities for managing transformation in a complex project. One explanation for the problem of transformation from the project to the organizations (see example 2) may be that those who are responsible in the organizations did not participate in the meeting-place activity. The project and the meetings can be regarded as a temporary community of practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The learning process has affected the real health enthusiasts who have actually been at the activities, but not the responsible managers in the organizations. When the participants returned to their organizations to transfer the knowledge, inspiration and ideas that they got in the project, they met people who were not legitimate participators and because of this did not have the motivation and learning that was needed for action. How this problem can be solved and if there are other explanations are questions for further research.
Learning Points Suggestions for managers, facilitators and practitioners, but also for governmental or © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
51
other large organizations working with learning in complex projects: • Choose a process-oriented strategy when the context is complex. • Put together a diverse project team with a project manager who can create a creative climate and dynamic cooperation. • Organize for collective learning by using formative evaluation and systematic reflection. • Create a strategy to transfer the knowledge outcomes from the project into the participating organization’s daily work.
References Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory-in-Action Perspective. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA. Boud, D., Cressey, P. and Docherty, P. (2006) Productive Reflection at Work. Routledge, London. Brunsson, N. (1985) The Irrational Organization. Wiley, Chichester. Brunsson, N. and Olsen J.P. (1993) The Reforming Organization. Routledge, London. De Salvo, T. (1999) ‘Unleash the Creativity in Your Organization’. HR Magazine, 44, 154–64. Dixon, N. (1999) The Organizational Learning Cycle. How We Can Learn Collectively. Gower, Vermont. Elkjaer, B. (2005) ‘From Digital Administration to Organizational Learning’. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8), 533–44. Ellström, P.-E. (2001) ‘Integrating Learning and Work: Problems and Prospects’. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–35. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding. An Activity Theoretical Approach to Development Research. Orienta Konsultit, Helsinki. Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, London. Hall, P. (1980) Great Planning Disasters. Weidenfield & Nicolson, London. Hirschman, A. (1967) Development Projects Observed. The Brookings Institute, Washington. Illeris, K. (1999) Laering-aktuel laeringsteori i spaenningsfeltet mellen Piaget, Freud och Marx. Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Roskilde. Johanessen, J.-O., Olsen, B. and Olaisen, J. (1997) ‘Organizing for Innovation’, Long Range Planning, 30(1), 96–109. Kilgore, D. (1999) ‘Understanding Learning in Social Movements: a Theory of Collective Learning’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(3), 199–202. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988) ‘Organizational Learning’. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319– 40.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
52
Mabey, C. and Iles, P. (1994) Managing Learning. Routledge, London. March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning’. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. Maxwell, J. (1996) Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Schadur, M., Kienzle, R. and Rodwell, J. (1999) ‘The Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Employee Perceptions of Involvement’. Group & Organization Management, 24(4), 479–503. Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/ Currency, New York. Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos. Kogan Page, London. Stacey, R. (2003) ‘Learning as an Activity of Interdependent People’. The Learning Organization, 10(6), 325–31. Tidd, J., Bessant J. and Pavitt, K. (1997) Managing Innovation. Wiley, New York.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W.M. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Mats Holmquist (
[email protected]. se) is working as an adjunct lecturer in Work Life Science at Halmstad University College. His master’s degree is in Sociology with specialization in Work Life Science. He is also registered as a PhD student at the Department of Human Work Sciences at Luleå University of Technology and belongs to the Center of Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning (CIEL) at Halmstad University College. Mats often works with interactive research methods and is currently writing a thesis on managing learning in development processes.
© 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
53
Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation James Moultrie, Mikael Nilsson, Marcel Dissel, Udo-Ernst Haner, Sebastiaan Janssen and Remko Van der Lugt Firms are paying increasing attention to the physical environments in which creative and innovative activities take place. These environments reflect the firm’s strategic intentions towards innovation and provide a physical embodiment of their desired modes of working. To date, this new phenomenon has received little academic attention. Based on both literature and also the authors’ combined experiences through observing firms in Europe, this paper proposes a simple framework to aid practitioners and academics to better understand the design, role and goals of such spaces.
Introduction
T
here is significant evidence of the importance of innovation to a firm’s ongoing commercial success. The need to maintain current market position and gain new markets places innovation as a fundamental strategic issue in most companies (Christensen, 1997). Innovation demands intertwined processes of ideation, creation, design and delivery, supported by an appropriate managerial infrastructure to balance risks against rewards. New challenges in implementing these processes rapidly, often across organizational boundaries have resulted from continual developments in global economies, technology, and information and communication systems. This paper takes the perspective that the spaces in which creative and innovative activities take place are an important part of the innovation process in an organization. Designing effective workspaces to create desirable spatial interactions is becoming the focus of organizational efforts in many firms. It is also © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
apparent that companies are paying close attention to the design of the physical environments in which innovative activities takes place. For example, design consultancy IDEO make strong claims about the way in which their environment and infrastructure enhances their creativity and innovation performance (Kelley & Littman, 2001); their whole workspace not only reinforces their corporate values, but supports innovative activity through the provision of appropriate resources, visualization and model making facilities and the ability to reconfigure for new projects. Some of the larger consumer goods companies have created spaces for encouraging consumer input (Bitner, 1992) into new concept development (e.g. Kodak, British Telecom and Nokia). In addition, many companies are beginning to consider how the work infrastructure supports effective group work and communication, for both distributed design teams and also the day-to-day activities of product development teams (e.g. Cisco). Other companies have developed dedicated spaces to support group creativity and encourage creativity as a key component of innovation
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00419.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
54
(e.g. Royal Mail, Dutch Tax Office). Finally, several organizations have created dedicated environments for demonstrating and evaluating new products (e.g. Philips, British Telecom). Despite the emergence of such spaces, there is little empirical evidence of their benefits or of the wider implications of the design of the workspace on innovation. Furthermore, there is little that takes this notion further to identify the characteristics of effective environments. It appears that firms are creating spaces based on instinct and personal judgement, rather than genuine insights based on firm evidence. Research investigating the role or implications of the physical environment in supporting creativity and innovation is sparse and somewhat fragmented. Early explorations include a consideration of the spatial structuring of workplaces by Tom Allen (1966). More recently, Bitner (1992) investigated the impact of surroundings on employees. Duffy (1997) analysed how office design supports new ways of working, with technology enabling a blurring of the boundaries between home and the office. These studies are typical of work looking more widely at how the workplace influences work performance and do not focus explicitly on innovation. The way in which office spaces are changing has been reported in several recent books, mainly illustrating developments in style, configuration and technology (e.g. Zelinsky, 2004). Myerson and Ross (2005) have reviewed how the design of the workplace is changing in response to organizational, social and technological change, providing detailed case(s) studies. In an earlier book, Turner and Myerson (1998) explored the relative benefits of different classes of work environment. There is growing interest in the interaction between spatial location and interaction. This work has in part been fuelled by the reverse impact of new technology, that rather than unfettering the firm has made co-location increasingly important (Malmberg & Maskell, 2002). More recently, there have been attempts to understand the connection between the design of workspaces and creativity in innovation. Lewis and Moultrie (2005) focused specifically on ‘innovation laboratories’, whilst Wycoff and Snead (1999) focused on the development of creativity rooms as an input to innovation. Finally, Kristensen (2004) considered the wider implications of how workspace design influences innovation. There is therefore a gap in current work in understanding how the environment impacts innovation performance and how this performance matches the underlying strategic intentions of the organization. In addition,
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
there is a need for greater clarity on the characteristics/components of such spaces and how they actually support innovation. This paper therefore aims to provide a framework, to be used as a basis for classifying and comparing the design of different innovation environments. The framework synthesizes insights from literature, practitioner perspectives and earlier exploratory cases. Specifically, the outline framework emerged as a result of ongoing interaction among a group of researchers who presented on this topic at the ‘Creativity and Innovation Management’ workshop in Oxford 2005 (van der Lugt et al., 2005; Haner, 2005; Nilsson, 2005; Lewis & Moultrie, 2005). This paper has developed from the authors’ combined experiences of creative environments throughout the EU (including the UK, Scandinavia, Germany and the Benelux countries) and the US. Some of these experiences have been published earlier, including at the workshop mentioned above, or are in different stages of development. Also in this special issue is the paper by van der Lugt et al. (2007), which introduces the ‘Future Center’ of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration. The facility is inspired by the design of a ‘shipyard, created to physically anchor the processes of creativity and innovation within the organization’. Insight has also been gained from cases at Daimler/Maybach and Hewlett Packard, carried out by Haner and Stohr (unpublished data), which investigated the spatial and technical infrastructure as an enabler of creativity, callaboration and cooperation. Where appropriate, brief examples from both of these papers have been included to help to explain or underpin the concepts. In addition to providing an academic foundation for this phenomenon, the framework may also provide practitioners with a structured way of considering how their work environments support innovation and how they can assess the impact of potential changes. The framework outlines components and classifications that can be used to analyse the enhancement of physical spaces in the service of innovation. Following a brief literature review addressing the topic from a number of different perspectives, the outline framework will be described. The paper will end with a discussion of implications for theory and practice, followed by some brief conclusions.
Development of a Framework As an emerging phenomenon, with little previous research, this paper aims to present an © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
Input
55
Transform-ation
Output
Strategic & operational context
Figure 1. Transformation Woodman et al., 1993)
Model
(based
on
outline framework, for use by both practitioners and academics in understanding how the physical environment can be considered in the wider context of creativity and innovation. As a conceptual foundation, we use a simple transformation model, representing the progression from inputs through to outputs (e.g. Woodman et al., 1993). This model enables the consideration of both how the companies’ strategic intent may be translated into specific innovation environments and how these spaces are subsequently used to deliver new products and services (see Figure 1). Using this transformation model as a template, it is possible to describe two related transformation processes. The first is the process by which an innovation environment is created in order to satisfy strategic goals. The second is the process by which the space is then used and the degree to which strategic goals are met (see Figure 2). Thus, literature is presented in two sections. Firstly, extant literature is presented to explore the design and creation of dedicated environments to support innovation, taking a strategic perspective, to understand why a firm should consider the physical environment as a vital contributor towards strategic goals. Secondly, the usage of the innovation environment is explored, to better understand how the physical space can connect to processes of creativity, design and innovation.
Strategic Intent and Process of Creation Pavitt (1991) noted that the majority of past empirical research on innovation has identified key characteristics of the large innovating firm to be primarily firm-specific competences that are built around knowledge and skills that are organizationally distinct. Dougherty and Hardy’s work (1996) suggested that successful product innovation was usually driven by the personal experiences of lower-level managers operating within estab © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
lished networks and leveraging personal connections. This raises the issue of how the creative performance of individual employees may be promoted, and how this may be influenced by the culture of the workplace. Issues that have been explored include the workplace layout, hierarchy and leadership mostly from a psychological perspective (Amabile, 1999; John-Steiner, 2000). However, as Van de Ven et al. (1999) point out, the underlying theoretical principles of creativity in individuals have received scant attention within the innovation literature, especially from an organizational (Woodman et al., 1993) and social psychological perspective (Hargadon, 2002). Olson et al. (1998) view design as inherently strategic through its inherent user and market orientation. They define design strategy as ‘the effective allocation and coordination of design resources and activities to accomplish a firm’s objectives of creating its appropriate public and internal identities, product offerings and its environments’. However, the importance of design as a strategic resource has frequently been neglected (Kotler & Rath, 1984) and has largely been overlooked in the body of research (Olson et al., 1998). Elements of a design strategy typically focus on ‘conveying an appropriate image to the world’ (Olson et al., 1998, p. 55), including all aspects of the organization’s visual identity. Thus, a firm’s design strategy should encompass the design of communications (including identity), products (and services) and operating environments. Olson et al. (1998) also noted that ‘environmental design carries the potential of having a direct impact on worker morale and productivity’ and should encompass architectures, interiors and landscaping of both customer facing and working areas. Such approaches are evident in the consistency of the design of Apple’s retail outlets with the design of their products, services and packaging. The external environment has played a central role in major strategic models, such as the five environmental forces of Porter (1979). Understanding and reacting to competitive activity is seen as key to creating a competitive advantage. In this context, the ‘environment’ is typically the external world, as opposed to the internal location of company activities. As a reaction to these market/externally oriented strategies, a perspective emerged that is largely based on a Schumpeterian view, where innovation and creative responses are considered to be most important. Notably the resource-based view emerged based on the work of Penrose (1959) and takes an internal perspective on strategy, describing the type of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
56
Strategic intent
Process of creation
Physical space
Process of use
Realised intent
Evaluation
Strategic & operational context
Figure 2. Outline Framework – Process of Creation and Process of Use
resources a firm should have to create to maintain a competitive advantage. Barney (1991) commented that a firm’s resources need to be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and nonsubstitutable in order to create a sustainable competitive advantage. Innovation theorists have embraced these concepts to develop theories that aim to understand how organizations can create the necessary (combination) of resources to sustain competitive advantage. Examples of these concepts are the framework of dynamic capabilities (Teece & Pisano, 1994; Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Zollo & Winter, 2002), combinative capabilities (Kogut & Zander, 1996), absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and complementary assets (Tripsas, 1997). In the context of the workspace, these perspectives result in different perspectives on how the local environment might contribute to innovation: • From a design perspective, there are implications for how the design of different working and customer facing environments fits within the firm’s wider design strategy. • From an innovation perspective, it is evident that firms can adopt a range of innovation strategies and that the workspace might contribute towards the productivity and effectiveness of both co-located and distributed teams. • From a strategic perspective, there are implications for how the design of the environment enables the development of unique capabilities, enables reconfiguration of capabilities to changing demands, and supports synergies between complementary assets. This raises the question of whether or not the physical environment can be a strategic resource in its own right and as such can contribute towards these routines. Innovation spaces can be understood as catalysers for an organization’s ability to rapidly reconfigure resources
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
within a flexible workspace and infrastructure. Yet concepts such as capabilities and resources are still relatively abstract and it is thus a challenge to propose concrete measurable routines that have this effect. Thus, literature suggests that an organization should have a clearly articulated innovation strategy. If the physical environment can potentially support the delivery of the innovation strategy, then it is fair to assume that there should be explicit motivations behind the design of the innovation environment. The outline framework must therefore reflect this link, connecting the actual physical characteristics of the environment with the desired strategic goals of the organization. Finally, the framework should also reflect the importance of assessing the degree to which these goals have been met. For example, in the Royal Mail in the UK (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005), the organization invested in the development of an ‘innovation laboratory’ to kick-start innovative behaviour in the organization, to explore the implications of new technology and to reinforce the perceived strategic value of innovation. The facility was created in stages, following an initial pilot facility and with inspiration from entertainment environments. In use, groups from across the business are typically facilitated through structured brainstorming sessions, using a combination of IT-based and visuallyled resources. In application, the facility clearly demonstrated its effectiveness in operation, although there was little formal evaluation of the degree to which the original strategic intentions had been met. Thus typical motivations for considering the innovation environment as a part of the overall innovation or business strategy are outlined in Table 1. In the authors’ experiences, it is evident that firms rarely have explicit strategic goals underpinning the creation of dedicated and general working environments. Instead, © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
57
Table 1. Strategic Intent of Innovation Environments Strategic intent Strategic goals Symbolic goals Innovation efficiency Innovation effectiveness Teamwork
Customer input
Capabilities
To support the firm’s basis of competition To symbolically reinforce the firm’s innovation strategy or corporate values To reduce innovation costs, improve staff productivity, improve speed or lower facility costs To improve the quality of innovation outputs, increase the quality and quantity of new ideas and improve the chances of new products succeeding To enhance teamwork in innovation, encouraging better communication (physical or virtual), encourage formal and informal social interaction and motivate staff To enable customer input at any (or a specific) stage of the innovation process (from idea through to evaluation concepts and product demonstration to support sales) Development of specific capabilities for enabling and renewal of dynamic capabilities
there is commonly a single champion who is a compelling sales person and believes passionately in the concept. The existence of an underpinning strategic intent can prevent both dedicated facilities and everyday working environments becoming vacuous spaces with a superficial purpose. If the spatial design of innovation environments can provide a strategic resource, then it is also desirable that the strategic intent is made explicit. This enables the firm to measure and establish the degree to which this intent has been realized. Realized intent may be measured through a range of qualitative (e.g. staff perceptions) and quantitative (e.g. number of ideas) means. In addition to the explicitly articulated motivations underlying the design of innovation inducing work environments, there may also be implicit motivations; such as a response to a fundamental change in orientation of the firm. The underlying ‘innovation intent’ provides the stimulus for designing a specific innovation environment. However, this only provides a starting point for the process of design. It is also necessary to consider how this environment links to the wider innovation process. Is it intended, for example, that the environment addresses all innovation activities or is it targeted at a specific aspect? For example, at Philips Research, their ‘HomeLab’ provides a temporary residence for research staff to explore the implications of new technologies in a replica consumer context. This provides insight into the early stages of innovation as well as enabling consumer feedback on later stage concepts. It provides a laboratory for © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
both ideation as well as evaluation, by observing real people interacting with new products. In this example, the potential users of the environment are research staff, designers and also consumers. The lab aims to support innovation by bringing technology and the market closer. Philips claims that this environment is essential in speeding up the time to market for technological innovation, by bridging the span of the whole innovation process. The above example is of a dedicated environment within a single company. However, other facilities exist where participants from a range of organizations are brought together to address a specific issue. Thus, a key element of both creating and using an innovation environment is understanding the needs and type of people who will use the space, including the degree to which independent facilitation is required. It is also evident that, in practice, any work environment/space will evolve to accommodate other uses from the original intentions, as well as come to manifest the work undertaken there. These factors are summarized in Table 2.
Process of Use and Realized Intent In the experience of the authors, firms have considered their environments to support or enable innovation, creativity or design. These factors will now be described, and are summarized in Table 3.
Usage: Creativity Creativity is often viewed as essential to support innovation and the development of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
58
Table 2. Factors in the Process of Creation Process of creation Intended links with the innovation process
Intended creative activities Potential users and facilitators
Available resources and constraints Intended events
The stage of the innovation process in which the environment is intended to be used, including research (e.g. technology, markets and users), design (e.g. ideation, modelling, evaluation), implementation (e.g. detailed engineering, launch) and exploitation (e.g. selling, promoting, demonstrating). The degree to which the environment is explicitly or implicitly coupled to the firm’s innovation process – are outputs from the space fed into the innovation process and is the space modified to reflect changes in the innovation process? The intended role of the space in supporting creative processes: search, synthesis, creation, modelling and evaluation The intended users of the space: from occasional multi-functional teams through to dedicated environments for co-located project teams. The degree to which activities within the space are intended to be facilitated by specialists in either content (e.g. electronics) or processes (e.g. creativity) The intended availability of physical (e.g. rooms), financial, human and technical resources The type of ‘events’ intended in the space, from one-off meetings through to ongoing project work
Table 3. Factors in the Process of Use Process of use Supporting innovation
The stage of the innovation process in which the environment is actually used, including research (e.g. technology, markets and users), design (e.g. ideation, modelling, evaluation), implementation (e.g. detailed engineering, launch) and exploitation (e.g. selling, promoting, demonstrating). Actual links with the firm’s innovation process. The actual way in which the environment supports design activities and connects with the design process. The actual role of the space in supporting creative processes: search, synthesis, creation, modelling and evaluation The actual role of the space in enabling physical and virtual teamwork
Supporting design Supporting creativity Enabling teamwork Actual users The actual users of the space: from occasional multi-functional teams and facilitators through to dedicated environments for co-located project teams. The degree to which activities within the space are facilitated by specialists in either content (e.g. electronics) or processes (e.g. creativity) Actual events The actual type of events held, from short one-off workshops, through to ongoing daily activities
new technologies. To exploit this source of advantage, companies are increasingly seeking to enhance the creativity of their product development teams (Feurer et al., 1996; Cagan & Vogel, 2002). Indeed, Bennis and Biederman (1997) described this ability as critical to sur-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
vival. Creativity as a field of enquiry takes a range of perspectives, from creativity and the individual (Kirton, 1989), the creative process (Baxter, 1995) and the organizational climate (Amabile, 1999). In the context of this paper, it is the ‘organizational climate’ that is most © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
relevant as it plays an important role in people’s willingness to express their creativity (Damanpour, 1991). Key dimensions on which climate can be evaluated were developed by Ekvall (1997) and further evaluated by Isaken et al. (1999) and others. These dimensions include: challenge, freedom, dynamism/liveliness, trust/openness, idea time, playfulness/ humour, conflicts, idea support, debate, and risk-taking. Similarly, Amabile et al. (1996) derived six categories of environment: challenge/pressures, freedom, resources, work-group encouragement, organisational encouragement and supervisory encouragement. However, in these studies the environment in question is the cultural and managerial context within the firm. There is little consideration of the implications of the physical space on creativity. More recently, it has been recognized that attributes of the physical ‘locality’ can also act as catalysts for creativity; the local resource of visual materials and stimuli, intensive social and cultural activity and the established reputation of the location as a source of inspiration (Drake, 2003). Thus, the design of the environment can physically reinforce Ekvall’s (1997) dimensions of dynamism, playfulness and debate (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005). However, despite much anecdotal evidence that the physical environment may positively influence creativity, there has been little empirical exploration of this phenomenon. Thus, to support creative activities, the physical environment must reflect and enable an organizational climate which supports creativity in addition to providing a physical reinforcement of desirable creative behaviours. In an organizational setting, creativity can be defined as ‘an ongoing process of problem finding, problem solving, and solution implementation activity’ (Basadur & Robinson, 1993). Problem finding (as opposed to simply problem solving) is particularly important in the new product development (NPD) domain (Smilansky & Halberstadt, 1986; Kirton, 1989). Problem finding includes identifying new product or service opportunities by anticipating new customer needs. However, the identification of new opportunities alone is insufficient. These opportunities must be translated into saleable artefacts and problem finding must be closely coupled with problem solving as an integrated process. For Newell et al. (1962) the relationship between problem solving and creativity is that of set and subset: ‘Creative activity appears . . . simply to be a special class of problem solving activity characterised by novelty, unconventionality, persistence and difficulty of problem formulation’. Creativity can be seen as essentially ‘part of the same cognitive function as problem solving’ © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
59
(Kirton, 2003). Several innovation environments have been created with the explicit motivation of supporting effective creative processes, through the provision of spaces designed around different stages of the creative process. Such facilities might include spaces dedicated to exploration, with different environments to enable reflection or evaluation.
Usage: Product and Service Design Baxter (1995) described creativity as ‘at the heart of design, at all stages throughout the design process’. Weiss (2002) notes that ‘designers are well positioned to help companies unlock their capacity for innovation because they naturally take an inductive approach to the problem solving process, and employ powerful visualisation techniques to communicate the results’. Many prescriptive models of the design process take this problem-oriented approach, with early emphasis on analytical activity to clearly establish the nature of the real problem, the constraints and the target specification. In contrast, descriptive models emphasize the generation of an early solution, which is subsequently evaluated and refined (Cross, 1998). In a study of several creative designers, Roy and Potter (1993) noted that many inventors adapt the latter strategy, with the generation of an initial idea based on the inventor’s accumulated repertoire of knowledge and experience. Dorst and Cross (2001), however, noted that the creative element of design can be described as a co-evolution of problem/ solution spaces. Thus, the physical environment can potentially support both the design process, supporting problem finding, solving, and design implementation through provision of suitable tools and resources. This is especially evident in design firms, such as IDEO, where the spaces support visualization, exploration and inspiration through access to materials and artefacts. In other consultancies, the environment enables concept evaluation through focus groups and user testing in spaces which enable reliable data collection.
Usage: Innovation A firm’s innovation strategy reflects the various choices that a firm must make about its competitive orientation. Gilbert (1994) suggested that companies can either reactively respond to external activities or proactively deliver radical and inventive new products which drive an external response. Other authors have identified the degree to which the firm is customer focused, technologically focused or responsive to competition (Gati-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
60
gnon & Xuereb, 1997; Lynn & Akgun, 1998). Lynn and Akgun (1998) also noted that the choice of innovation strategy focus is contingent upon the degree of technological and market uncertainty. Writers on technological innovation suggest that a key focus of the innovation strategy is the degree to which a company delivers radical, discontinuous or breakthrough innovations to the market (Christensen, 1997). The design of the physical environment should thus ideally reflect and enable the delivery of the firm’s innovation strategy. The innovation process provides an organizational mechanism that aims to place these creative activities within a managerial structure (Otto & Wood, 2001). This managerial structure aims to balance the creative needs of the design team against the needs for certainty and control of the business. Thus, the environment should also consciously connect with the firm’s innovation process. However, in the authors’ experiences, many dedicated environments generate results which are disconnected from the wider innovation process. As a result, the performance and viability of the spaces is difficult to establish.
Usage: Teamwork It is evident from experience of several spaces, that a common implicit goal and occasional explicit intention is the desire for the physical environment to enhance teamwork. This may be for dedicated project teams through to occasional/informal groups. There is a wellestablished body of work on proximity of team members in innovation (e.g. Allen, 1966) and on the role of the environment on group effectiveness (Sundstrom & Altman, 1989). More recently, there is work exploring the role of new technologies in enabling virtual teamwork (Malone, 2004; Nunamaker et al., 1988; Gallupe et al., 1992).
Physical Embodiment of Intent It is perhaps simplest to describe innovation environments in terms of the characteristics of the physical space. However, to do this without considering the usage, creation and intentions of the space provides little insight into the role and effectiveness of the different physical elements. For example, if the goal is to improve team communication, then physical elements such as flexible workspaces and informal social areas may be appropriate. In contrast, if the intent is to generate and capture radical ideas, then the facility may emphasize group dislocation, playfulness and provide physical or visual sources of inspiration.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
The primary physical distinction between various environments is the physical context; the degree to which the facility is independent from the normal working environment, the degree of flexibility and the actual location. Next, it is evident that the actual design of different spaces may vary, with a range of design values, different degrees of flexibility and also different perspectives on design evolution. Modelling and visualization of ideas and concepts is a core component of innovation, design and creative processes (Kelley & Littman, 2001; Baxter, 1995). The provision of resources, facilities and tools to enable these activities is often a core element of innovation environments. Thus, different spaces contain varying levels of physical resources, from the IT infrastructure for communication through to the provision of support for modelling and visualization. Similarly, to enable effective decision making, spaces may enable access to relevant data, information and process-specific content. It is also possible to distinguish between the different physical characteristics of alternative innovation environments. The design of the space varies greatly, with a range of design values, different degrees of flexibility and also different perspectives on design evolution. Different spaces contain varying levels of physical resources, from the IT infrastructure through to the provision of support for modelling and visualization. Each of these components is realized within genuine constraints on resources, space and skills. Furthermore, it is likely that the physical space will evolve in response to changes in priorities, finances and perceived benefits. These factors are summarized in Table 4.
Realised Intent In the authors’ experience, firms that have consciously created dedicated innovation environments are typically weak in establishing the contribution that these spaces make to innovation performance. In part, this is due to weaknesses in describing clear strategic or operational intentions underpinning these environments. This lack of explicit goals makes any assessment of performance difficult. Instead, judgement is often anecdotal, with positive testimonials and compelling stories. For dedicated workshop spaces, participants may complete feedback forms. However, these forms only provide instantaneous feedback on the session itself and do not enable judgement on the achievement of wider strategic goals. Recognizing this weakness, it is essential that any discussion of innovation © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
61
Table 4. Physical Embodiment of Intent Physical embodiment Geographic location Scale Real/Virtual Flexibility
Design values and imagery IT resources Data and information Modelling and visualization resources
Constraints Evolution
The physical location of the environment and its relationship with the firm. This might include standard office space, through to third-party external facilities. The physical scale of the environment, from multi-room office spaces, through to single-room dedicated environments (e.g. idea room) The degree to which the space is designed around virtual teamwork and communication The degree of flexibility embodied in the environment to enable alternative configurations and uses. The degree of flexibility/reconfigurability of resources in the workspace. Specific design values targeted at encouraging specific behaviours (e.g. futuristic, playful, minimalist, etc). The use of imagery to reinforce actions (e.g. triangular room for creative divergence) The role of IT to enable group work, activities and processes. IT resources may enable both physical and virtual group work. The availability of local data/information to support innovation, creativity or design processes/activities. These might range from simple libraries, through to advanced information systems and databases. Availability of equipment, facilities and tools to support/enable modelling and visualization activities as a core component of creative and design processes. Visualization tools might range from simple flipchart, through to large scale IT enabled visualization. Modelling tools might range from rapid prototyping through to simple cardboard. Practical constraints on the design of the environment (e.g. building/room availability, finances, skills, etc.) The evolution of the environment in response to emergent group needs and changes to business strategies. The degree to which evolution is planned to meet future goals.
environments includes consideration of measures (quantitative and qualitative) which might indicate the degree to which these goals have been met.
Discussion and Further Research The authors collectively have experienced many examples of creative environments, from novel offices for dedicated teams, through to innovation hot-houses and ideageneration rooms. By their very nature, these spaces are often fun, exciting and engaging. For this reason, previous work investigating innovation/creative environments often focuses on the characteristics of the space itself. This paper has sought to frame such considerations in the wider context of the firm, to link the environment to the firm’s strategic goals. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
By taking this perspective, it becomes possible to make judgements on the way in which the environment actually contributes to the achievement of these goals. Based on a simple transformation model, the processes of creation and use of innovation environments has been described. A summary of this discussion is presented below in the form of a conceptual framework (Figure 3). Fundamentally, this framework recognizes that the environment itself can form part of the firms’ innovation strategy and can influence performance in innovation. Thus, the environment should be a conscious (rather than ad hoc) aspect of any innovation strategy. In addition, if a firm is to invest resources in the creation of a dedicated innovation environment, then it is essential that the strategic intentions underpinning this space are explicit. This framework has implications for both theory and practice:
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
62
Strategic goals Symbolic goals Efficiency Effectiveness Teamwork Customer input Cultural change Capabilities
Strategic intent
Intended link with innovation process Intended creative activities Potential users & facilitators Available resources & constraints Intended events
Geographic location Scale Real vs virtual Flexibility Design values & imagery IT resources Data & information Modelling & visualisation resources Constraints Evolution
Process of creation
Physical space
Evaluation
Supporting innovation Supporting design Supporting creativity Enabling teamwork Actual users & facilitators Actual events
Process of use
Achievement of strategic intent Qualitative & quantitative evidence
Realised intent
Evaluation
Strategic & operational context
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework
• From a research perspective, the framework provides a theoretical foundation by which alternative environments might be analysed and evaluated. This is an important contribution as while there is anecdotal evidence of the value of innovative spaces, there is little rigour underpinning this work. Specifically, by linking the strategic and realized intent, the framework provides the basis of a protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of different types of environment. In addition, where previous work has focused on a narrow subset of workspaces (e.g. idea rooms), this framework aims to encompass all spaces in which creative activities might take place. • For industrialists, the framework provides a structure by which the creation, application and evaluation of innovative spaces might be considered in a systematic manner. In both cases, there are implications for further work. The framework can be used as the basis of wider research investigating the design of innovation environments in a range of firms in different sectors. Specifically, it would be of use to understand whether environments that have been consciously designed result in better innovation performance than those that have evolved in an ad-hoc manner. In addition, it would be useful to determine the
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
specific characteristics of those environments that have the greatest impact on innovation performance. It is evident from the authors’ experiences that there are many derivative workspaces, copying elements of environments experienced in other firms. However, due to different strategic and operational contexts, such derivative spaces may not translate so easily from one firm to another. Such derivative spaces may potentially have a negative rather than a positive impact on innovative performance. Thus, from a practitioner perspective, the framework can be further developed to provide specific guidance (supported by case examples) on the creation of innovative environments appropriate to the firm’s unique context. This could also form the basis of further action-oriented research. By following such a process, it is hoped that firms may minimize the creation of inappropriate spaces due to the desire to follow the latest managerial fads. Arguably, the greatest opportunity for such spaces is as a mechanism for bringing functional/technical specialists together with customers and users of their products or services. By encompassing all types of innovative environments, it is perhaps necessary to distinguish between those facilities which genuinely relate to a firm’s innovation capability © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
and those which are essentially training or conference facilities. It may also be necessary to expand the scope of the model to encompass environments that impact on innovation but are not traditionally considered as related to innovation. Such spaces might include social spaces, the boardroom and other meeting rooms.
Acknowledgements Work on this paper started at the Interactive Institute, Sense Studio. Financial support from EU Objective 1 Södra Skogslän region and studio partners is gratefully acknowledged.
References Allen, T. (1966) Managing the Flow of Scientific and Technological Information, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Amabile, T.M. (1999) How to Kill Creativity, Breakthrough Thinking, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, pp. 1–59. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996) ‘Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity’, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–84. Barney, J.B. (1991) ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Management, 17 (March), 99–120. Basadur, M. and Robinson, S. (1993) ‘The New Creative Thinking Skills Needed for Total Quality Management to Become Fact, not just Philosophy’, American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 121–38. Baxter, M. (1995) Product Design: A Practical Guide to Systematic Methods of New Product Development, Chapman & Hall, London. Bennis, W. and Biederman, P.W. (1997) Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, Addison Wesley Longman, USA. Bitner, M.J. (1992) ‘Servicescapes: the Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees’, Journal of Marketing, 56, April, 57–71. Cagan, J. and Vogel, C.M. (2002) Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) ‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52. Cross, N. (1998) Engineering Design Methods – Strategies for Product Design, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Damanpour, F. (1991) ‘Organisational Innovation: A Meta Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators’, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–90. Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001) ‘Creativity in the Design Process: Co-evolution of Problemsolution’, Design Studies, 22(5), 425–37. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
63
Dougherty, D. and Hardy, C. (1996) ‘Sustained Product Innovation in Large Mature Organisations: Overcoming Innovation-to-Organisation Problems’, Academy of Management Journal, 5, 1120–53. Drake, G. (2003) ‘This Place Gives me Space: Place and Creativity in the Creative Industries’, Geoforum, 34, 511–24. Duffy, F. (1997) The New Office: With 20 International Case Histories, Conran Octopus, London. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000) ‘Dynamic Capabilities: What are They?’ Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–21. Ekvall, G. (1997) ‘Organisational Conditions and Levels of Creativity’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 6(4), 195–205. Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K. and Wargin, J. (1996) ‘Developing Creative Teams for Operational Excellence’, International Journal of Operations and Productions Management, 16(1), 5–18. Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1992) ‘Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size’, Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–69. Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997) ‘Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance’, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90. Gilbert, J.T. (1994) ‘Choosing an Innovation Strategy: Theory and Practice’, Business Horizons, Nov–Dec, 99. Haner, U.E. (2005) ‘Space for Creativity and Innovation: Two Cases’, 1st Creativity and Innovation Management Community Workshop, March, Oxford. Haner, U.E. and Stohr, C. (2007) ‘The “Garage” as Hybrid Workplace Infrastructure for Entrepreneurs: an Explorative Investigation’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), this issue. Hargadon, A.B. (2002) ‘Brokering Knowledge: Linking Learning and Innovation’, Research in Organisational Behaviour, 24, 41–85. Isaken, S.G., Lauer, K.J. and Ekvall, G. (1999) Situational Outlook Questionnaire: A Measure of the Climate for Creativity and Change, Psychological Reports, No. 85. John-Steiner, V. (2000) Creative Collaboration, Oxford University Press, New York. Kelley, T. and Littman, J. (2001) The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO America’s Leading Design Firm, Currency Doubleday, New York. Kirton, M.J. (1989) Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving. Routledge, London. Kirton, M.J. (2003) Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, Routledge, London. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996) ‘What Firms Do? Coordination Identity and Learning’, Organisation Science, 7(5), 502–18. Kotler, P. and Rath, A. (1984) ‘Design: a Powerful but Neglected Strategic Tool’, Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 16. Kristensen, T. (2004) ‘The Physical Context of Creativity’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2), 89–96.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
64
Lewis, M. and Moultrie, J. (2005) ‘The Organisational Innovation Laboratory’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73. Lynn, G.S. and Akgun, A.E. (1998) ‘Innovation Strategies under Uncertainty: a Contingency Approach for New Product Development’, Engineering Management Journal, 10(3), 11–17. Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2002) ‘The Elusive Concept of Localisation Economies: Towards a Knowledge-based Theory of Spatial Clustering’, Environment and Planning, 34, 429–49. Malone, T.W. (2004) The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business will Shape your Organisation your Management Style and your Life, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Myerson, J. and Ross, P. (2005) The 21st Century Office, Laurence King Publishing, UK. Newell, A., Shaw, J.C. and Simon, H.A. (1962) ‘The Processes of Creative Thinking’. In Gruber, H.E., Tyrell, G. and Wertheimer, M. (eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, Atherton Press, New York. Nilsson, M. (2005) ‘An Exploration of the Connection Between Creativity, Innovation, Design of Workspace and the Impact of Technology’, 1st Creativity and Innovation Management Community Workshop, March, Oxford. Nunamaker, J.F., Applegate, L.M. and Konsynski, B.R. (1988) ‘Computer-aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support’, Journal of Operations Research, 36, 826–48. Olson, E.M., Cooper, R. and Slater, S.F. (1998) ‘Design Strategy and Competitive Advantage’, Business Horizons, 41, March/April. Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001) Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Pavitt, K. (1991) ‘Key Characteristics of the Large Innovating Firm’, British Journal of Management, 2(1), 41–50. Penrose, E.T. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Porter, M. (1979) ‘How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy’, Harvard Business Review, March/April. Roy, R. and Potter, S. (1993) ‘The Commercial Impacts of Investment in Design’, Design Studies, 14(2), April, 171–93. Smilansky, J. and Halberstadt, N. (1986) ‘Inventors Versus Problem Solvers: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 183–201. Sundstrom, E. and Altman, I. (1989) ‘Physical Environments and Work-Group Effectiveness’, Research in Organisational Behaviour, 11, 175–209. Teece, D.J. and Pisano, G. (1994) ‘The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–56. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–33. Tripsas, M. (1997) ‘Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry’, Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special, 18, 119–142. Turner, G. and Myerson, J. (1998) New Workplace New Culture: Office Design as a Catalyst for Change, Gower Publishing, London.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D., Garud, R. and Venkatraman, S. (1999) The Innovation Journey. Oxford University Press, New York. van der Lugt, R., Janssen, S. and Stappers, P.J. (2005) ‘Enhancing Involvement: Explorations with Use of Place and Time in Creative Group Processes’, 1st Creativity and Innovation Management Community Workshop, March, Oxford. van der Lugt, R., Janssen, S., Kuperus, S. and de Lange, E. (2007) ‘Future Center the Shipyard: Learning from Planning, Developing, Using, and Refining a Creative Facility’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), this issue. Weiss, L. (2002) ‘Developing Tangible Strategies’, DMI Review, Design Management Institute, 13(1), 33–38. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993) ‘Toward a Theory of Organisational Creativity’, Academy of Management Review, 18, 293– 321. Wycoff, J. and Snead, L. (1999) ‘Stimulating Innovation with Creativity Rooms’, The Journal for Quality & Participation, 22(2), March/April, 55–57. Zelinsky, M. (2004) The Inspired Workplace: Design for Creativity and Production, Rockport Publishers Inc, USA. Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002) ‘Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities’, Organisation Science, 13, 339–51.
James Moultrie (
[email protected]) is a University Lecturer in Innovation and Design Management. His research interests seek to improve the utilisation of design skills and increase design/innovation capability at project, firm and national levels. Specific interests include design management, design strategy and the role of the physical environment on enhancing innovation. James is an experienced project manager, engineer and industrial designer. In 2000, he was awarded a ‘Scientific and Technical Academy Award’ and an Emmy for work on a range of lenses for professional 35mm cinematography. Mikael Nilsson (
[email protected]) is a program manager at the Knowledge Foundation, a Stockholm-based foundation tasked to enhance Sweden’s competitiveness. His focus is on strategic change where innovation, creativity and social change are key components. He is instrumental in the design and management of programs within the foundation’s focus areas. Sebastiaan Janssen, M.Sc. is designer at Avalon Enterprises AB, Stockholm Sweden. As a product designer he has special interest in the use creative problem solving techniques. Between 2000 and 2005 he was involved in the development and realisation of several creative working environments and its processes. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATION SPACES
65
Remko van der Lugt, Ph.D. is assistant professor in Design Conceptualization and Communication at the School of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. His research focuses on methods and tools for stimulating creativity in multidisciplinary design teams, such as contextmapping and new media tools for the creative design studio. Marcel Dissel is a senior research associate at the Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge University. He holds an MSc in business administration from the Rotterdam School of Management, and a PhD in technology and innovation management from the aerospace faculty of the University Bw Munich. Besides his work for IfM, Marcel is a partner of PRO4S and Partner consultancy and supports the business development of a number of technologybased firms. Udo-Ernst Haner is lecturing Innovation and Technology Management at the University Of Stuttgart, Germany, and the International Management Academy, Linz, Austria. He received a Masters Degree in Industrial Engineering from the University Of Karlsruhe, Germany and an MBA from the University Of Massachusetts, USA. He is working as a researcher at the Institute for Human Factors and Technology Management of the University Of Stuttgart, Germany, and at the Collaborating Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering. His research focus is on the spatio-technical support of innovation processes as well as on innovation quality.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
66
Future Center ‘The Shipyard’: Learning from Planning, Developing, Using and Refining a Creative Facility Remko van der Lugt, Sebastiaan Janssen, Sjoukje Kuperus and Ernst de Lange This article provides an in-depth case description of a specific type of dedicated creative facility, Future Center ‘The Shipyard’ of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration. The Shipyard is situated in a monumental building, in which a variety of rooms are set up to support a variety of creative and strategic thinking processes. The Future Center aims to stimulate inspiration, information and interaction, imagination, and innovation. This article describes the knowledge gained from the processes of developing, using and refining Future Center the Shipyard.
Introduction (first visit, January 2004) The heavy front door is closed. It is a majestic wooden door that befits the nineteenth-century building (see Figure 1). Standing in front of the building I realize that this building has a substantial history. Next to the door I notice a name plate in the style of the Dutch Tax Administration, reminding me of the tax forms that I fill out a little bit too late each year. Or even worse, it reminds me of the letter that I expect each year, to claim an even larger portion of my income. I am fearful of this, even though I have never received such a letter. It is January 2004, and I have been invited to visit the Tax Administration’s Future Center ‘The Shipyard’, but I cannot help getting the shivers while standing in front of the door. This is the Lion’s Den I am about to enter . . . I push the door, and after a couple of tries the door gives way. I enter a hallway with marble walls and floors. A modern glass wind barrier and a formally dressed porter behind a steel table reinforce my notion that I am entering a large governmental organization. Upon receiving a nametag I am ushered to the main foyer. A group of people has formed in the lobby, members of KreaNet – the Dutch-speaking creativity network – who, like me, are interested in this so-called Future Center. All of a sudden a tall, slender man in business attire void of tie walks up to me. He gives me a very warm
Volume 16
Number 1
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00418.x
2007
welcome, and in his eyes you can notice his excitement and eagerness to show and share this place with us. He introduces himself as one of the initiators of the Future Center. As I look up I notice quite a few more people who, like my companion, cannot wait to show us their accomplishment: developing a location to harbour creative and strategic thinking processes within a very large and rigid organization, in a mere summer vacation and with some spare change. In addition to the core staff team of Future Center The Shipyard, there are people from a creativity consultancy and a designer who specializes in workplace innovation. The enthusiasm of these people rubs off on me, and I soon start to feel comfortable in this strange place . . . The Shipyard is the Future Center of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration (which we will refer to as ‘Tax Administration’ in this article), a governmental organization – part of the Dutch Ministry of Finance – with over 30,000 employees spread over 13 regions across the country. The organization levies taxes on seven million people each year. The Future Center, a facility dedicated to support creative and strategic thinking processes, aims to provide a creative space for Tax Administration employees to think freely about future improvements and innovations, on both personal and organizational levels. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
Figure 1. Future Center ‘The Shipyard’
One may be surprised to find an organization like the Tax Administration investing in a Future Center. However, in recent years najor changes have taken place within this organization, for example from 2005 every tax declaration can be processed online. The increasingly stronger international orientation of the working environment and the need for structural process changes internally are expected to prompt dramatic transformations in the Tax Administration in the coming years. In that light it is not so strange that the Tax Administration is investing in enhancing its capacity to innovate. In recent years, we have observed an increasing interest in creative spaces within organizations, resulting in many different kinds of creativity and innovation stimulating environments currently being installed in companies. In the Netherlands alone we could easily point out more than 15 dedicated spaces for creativity and innovation, and the number is increasing rapidly. Two international examples that are often referred to are IDEO, the American design consultancy that deliberately organizes its studios to maximize the company’s potential for innovation (Kelley & Littman, 2001), and the former Skandia Future Center in Sweden (Tidhult, 1998; Edvinsson, 2002), a facility within a large financial organization, dedicated to facilitating © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
67
strategic thinking processes away from the primary working process. An international network of Future Centers has formed, which met in 2005 and 2006 to exchange insights. A general conclusion of these ‘Future Center Summits’ was that Future Centers tend to promote their visions and their physical spaces, and that as yet there is little scientific grounding to support these opinions regarding the means and effects of Future Centers. The objective of this study is to take a first step towards developing a more substantial understanding of Future Centers by providing a rich description of the knowledge gained from the processes of developing, using and refining one concrete case example. In addition to reporting observations, we felt it important to also communicate our subjective experiences, which we have attempted to do by means of a recollection of the experiences of entering and being guided through the Future Center, as well as the experience of revisiting the facility (these are printed in italics throughout the article). In this article, we first summarize existing research on creative spaces and Future Centers. Then we briefly describe a theoretical framework through which we organize the case study. Then we describe the Shipyard case organized by the framework structure. We discuss the knowledge gained about Future Centers and we conclude by providing directions for further research.
Future Centers as Innovation Spaces Edvinsson (1997) first coined the term ‘Future Center’. He positioned Future Centers as a means to solidify a company’s intellectual capital. According to him: ‘The challenge is to convert human capital – what employees know – into structural capital – something that remains within the company when they go home at night’ (Edvinsson, 2002, p. 8). The role of the Future Center in this vision is to provide a physical instantiation of the organization’s efforts to foster intellectual capital. The term Future Center creates expectancies about the types of activities taking place in such a facility. Future Centers aim to harbour processes that make the company better prepared for the future, including personal development, strategic thinking, etc. A preliminary definition is provided by Kune (2002, p. 9): ‘A Future Center is a facility where conditions are created to support people with (re)thinking, acting, learning and creating. Space is a central aspect of a Future Center: it offers physical,
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
68
virtual and mental space. Thinking and acting are combined to strive for the desired results’. Future Centers are not necessarily futuristic environments, even though some have a bias towards providing elements that reflect a future vision, such as the ‘time machine’ entrance at the Royal Mail Future Center in London (see Lewis & Moultrie, 2005). Future Centers are part of the larger category of ‘innovation spaces’ (Moultrie et al., 2007), facilities within organizations that are dedicated to support creativity and innovation. Notwithstanding the recent organizational interest in innovation spaces, the academic interest regarding the ways in which physical spaces can influence creativity and innovation is lagging. Little is known about the influence of the physical environment on creativity (Hemlin et al., 2004). When referring to the creative environment at all, researchers typically relate to organizational (Ekvall, 1987; Isaksen et al., 2001) and socio-psychological (e.g., Amabile, 1998; Collins & Amabile, 1999) aspects. Lapierre and Giroux (2003) attempted to take a more holistic approach. In a quantitative survey study they identified and developed six dimensions of a creative work environment: work atmosphere, vertical collaboration, autonomy/freedom, respect, alignment, and lateral collaboration. Within the dimension work atmosphere, ambience is the only item that refers to the influence of physical workspace. Only recently have some articles surfaced that specifically address the influence of the physical workspace on group creativity (e.g. Kristensen, 2004; Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Haner, 2005). These papers try to get a grip on the phenomenon by developing tentative frameworks and theories. Lewis and Moultrie (2005) investigated three cases, based on which they proposed a framework of innovation laboratories dealing with structure and infrastructure on the one hand, and benefits and drawbacks on the other hand. Case descriptions focus on the current state of innovation laboratories and their use. Other authors have attempted to match the physical creative space with stages in the creative process. Kristensen (2004) builds on Wallas’s (1926) commonly known four stages of the creative process, and attempts to match these with identified functions of a creative space: value creation, scaffolding, imagination, and materialization. He then provides a brief case example of an innovation team in a large pharmaceutical company which develops a working environment to encompass their creative needs. Haner (2005) uses the more basic distinction between divergent and convergent problem-solving activity taking place in cre-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
ative work environments, and the orientation of these environments towards individual or group work. He explains these two dimensions by describing two cases. The first case covers an innovative concept for a working environment at a research institution. This facility is used as a shared workspace, but also has a strong marketing function (showing customers the possibilities of future workspaces). Haner’s second case example is a facility that is built to support creative learning processes within a large financial institution. This is a creative group facility with spaces dedicated to different activities: ‘The environment itself consista of five different spatial elements: a process arena, an exploration space, a creativity garden, a consensus court and a production studio’ (p. 295). We are aware of just one experimental study regarding the influence of the physical environment on creativity. McCoy and Evans (2002) identified five environmental characteristics that predict greater perceived creativity: (a) complexity of visual detail, (b) view of natural environment, (c) use of natural materials, (d) with fewer cool colors used, and (e) less use of manufactured or composite surface materials. They then studied the creative performance of participants while in locations that scored high or low on these characteristics. In the environment that scored high on perceived creativity characteristics, the creative performance of the participants was significantly higher.
A Transitional Framework of Innovation Spaces We participated in an effort to develop a theoretical framework for structuring research on innovation spaces (Moultrie et al., 2007). Unlike other research initiatives that tend to solely address the final state of the innovation space (e.g. Wycoff & Snead, 1999), this ‘transitional framework of innovation spaces’ (see Figure 2) gives specific attention to the developmental cycle of innovation spaces. In this study this is especially relevant as we aim to make explicit the learning processes that have taken place in planning, constructing, using and adjusting a Future Center in practice. Here we will provide a brief summary (see the article by Moultrie et al. for a more detailed description). The transitional framework covers the ways in which an organization’s desire to develop an innovation space leads to a process in which the strategic intent is concretized by means of a physical space. The physical space then enters a process of use with its own dynamics that may more or less © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
69
Figure 2. Transitional Framework of Innovation Spaces (from Moultrie et al., 2007)
correspond to the strategic intent. The achievements – such as changes in the innovative behaviour of the company and its employees – are the part of the intent that is realized. There may also be accomplishments that were not part of the strategic intent, or there may be parts of the strategic intent that were not attended to by the physical space and its process of use. Matching the realized intent with the physical space and the strategic intent produces new knowledge on the functioning of the innovative space itself and its functioning within the organizational context. This may lead to alterations in the physical space, and/or changes in the strategic intent.
Method The analysis of the Future Center’s development process is based on interviews with primary team members who made the Future Center come into being, as well as personal visits to the Future Center. In the personal visits, we focused on the organization’s intent and how this translated into the different rooms. We also discussed the ways in which the rooms and their use have changed over time, and what future changes were envisioned to further strengthen the Future Center. Members of the Future Center core © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
team reviewed the initial versions of this paper and actively participated in refining the article. We analysed extensive project documentation, starting with a transcript from a management meeting in which the development of the Future Center pilot was approved. Documents included were presentations, project planning spreadsheets, minutes of team meetings and minutes of management meetings, design documents, such as drawings and design brief, etc. For the view of the participants, we analysed feedback that was collected over an 18-month period (from October 2003 to May 2005), varying from letters, e-mail messages and feedback forms.
Case Study: The Shipyard This case description is organized along the elements of the transitional framework described above.
Strategic Intent In 2001 the Tax Administration had a programme focused on employee satisfaction. To motivate employees by making better use of their ideas for improvement, a system of idea management was developed. The idea
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
70
management team developed a wish to create ‘an inspiring place’ to bring people together and actively search for and develop new ideas, using methods like creative problem solving and scenario planning. At this time the idea management team ran into the concept of Future Centers. The desire to physically anchor the processes of creativity and innovation within the organization gradually evolved into the intention to erect a Future Center. A project team was formed of five people from different parts of the organization who felt intrinsically motivated to push the Future Center forward. After visiting a series of comparable creative facilities, the project team developed a vision document with which they convinced the higher management to commit to a pilot project. The Dutch Tax and Customs Administration aims for a Future Center as a beloved place, a place you really like to visit. It should be a center for inspiration, to get out of the day-to-day worries, to find knowledge or to share it. A meeting place for the entire organization. The facility will become the physical anchor of the organization and its identity . . . The facility and its environment has to radiate respect and attention, peace and safety. A place where opinions are sharpened, where ideas are born and breed into maturity. (Kuperus et al., 2003) In this vision document, the following four purposes of the proposed Future Center were identified: • Inspiration: Arousing people to learn from each other and broaden their horizons by providing a meeting space for people who share an interest in creativity and innovation. • Information and interaction: Functioning as an information hub, stimulating exchange of knowledge within the organization, as well as exchanging information with outside parties. • Imagination: Providing views of the future environment, and of the various parts of the Tax Administration, thus stretching employees’ flexibility and insight about what happens – or might happen – in the organization. • Innovation: Stimulating new ideas by means of process facilitation and providing purposeful new methods to solve issues. The Shipyard was intended to enable people to implement change, including the employees on the workfloor. The Future Center aimed to be easily accessible for all employees who
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
really wanted to search for ideas for improvement, either coming to do their own thing or to be facilitated by Shipyard staff members.
Process of Creation By a reorganization of the Tax Administration Region South an imposing building – listed as a national monument in the centre of Breda – became available. In July 2003 the decision was made to develop a Future Center in this location, and to use it for a pilot period of four months. At this point a consulting firm in workspace innovation was asked to help the project team to develop the facility. The pilot intended to give related user groups the opportunity to experience the value of the Future Center, with the final ambition to make the necessary investment to realize the entire concept. The design process was subdivided into three steps: (1) contriving a metaphor for the total concept; (2) composing and designing a set of rooms with different functionalities; and (3) force-fitting the metaphor and the rooms with the building. The chosen metaphor was a shipyard, a place where ships are repaired, restored and prepared for their next journey. A shipyard is a location from which voyages around the world are started, onward to new destinations. Like a shipyard, the Future Center intends to prepare the employees for future challenges. To get the right mindset the historical Dutch Batavia Shipyard was contacted and an agreement led to the use of elements and accessories from the United East Indies Company ship ‘The Batavia’ in the Future Center (see Figure 3). Regarding the rooms and their functions, the design brief in the pilot phase only permitted six to seven rooms. After many discussions and brainstorming sessions (see Figure 4 for floor plans used in various stages of the development process), a set of rooms was composed that together could supply a wide variety of users and uses: individual users, training groups, (project) teams, theme meetings, external visitors or foreign delegations. The aim was to provide spaces to fit a variety of processes, rather than prescribing a methodological or pedagogical format. The composition of these spaces was lead by the four purposes of the Future Center as described in the vision document. The force-fit with the building was a sensitive process. Among the challenges were a very limited budget and, in particular, the limited time available (less than three months). Figure 5 shows a concept sketch used to explore how the hallway might be connected to the metaphor. The functions were fit in the © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
71
Figure 3. Left: Impression of the metaphor of a seventeenth-century shipyard. Right: Entrance hall of Future Center ‘The Shipyard’ decorated with old Dutch shipyard elements
Figure 4. Development of the Lay-out in Different Stages of Development. Left: Initial idea sketches. Middle: Filling out the purposes and intentions of the room in a participatory concept generation meeting. Right: The final floor plan
building in a way that every room had its own atmosphere. This resulted in a diversity in materials and possibilities present in the Shipyard. Most choices for furniture were strongly influenced by what was available for a reasonable price. A lot of creative, inexpensive solutions were found, such as borrowing and using elements and accessories from the United East Indies Company ship ‘The Batavia’ mentioned earlier. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Physical Space: A Guided Tour This section describes the experience of being guided through the Shipyard for the first time, at the onset of its operational existence. (first visit continued, January 2004) . . . as we are seated on the large staircase to the third floor, the landing on the second floor has become a small auditorium in which we receive a small presentation on the vision and development
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
72
Figure 5. Concept Sketch of the Entrance Hallway
Figure 6. Ballroom process of the Shipyard. Afterwards, we embark on a guided tour of the facility, starting at the Ballroom. The Ballroom (Figure 6) is a majestic monumental room with a wooden floor, antique wallpaper, woodwork and a painted ceiling. Our tour guide proudly announces that in the distant past, former Queen Wilhelmina attended a dance in this room. It is furnished with two long massive tables with classic chairs. Two coaches are situated at the far end of the room. Opposite the ballroom is the Study (Figure 7), a small monumental room with a rectangular wooden table and white carpet. One cabinet carries a small collection of books, both inspirational and informative in nature. Next to the Study is a computer room; still undeveloped, presently just containing desks and computer terminals. But the staff promises that this room has priority to be transformed into a true Internet Cafe. We walk past the Garden Room, the place for having lunch. The Garden Room is organized in long tables,
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Figure 7. Study intended to make lunch a time for interaction between different groups. We enter the ‘creative heart’ of the Future Center: the XLeration room. Here, idea generation is supported through visual stimulation by means of large backscreen projections of video collages and inspirational images. The space has been designed for easy and flexible use. The furniture on wheels can be easily re-arranged into different set-ups, ranging from one single table to four breakout tables. Leaving the XLeration room, we walk by a meeting room with a large whiteboard wall. Then we transcend into the Silence Room (Figure 8). One of the most valued and used rooms in the Future Center, the Silence Room is a white room with a large picture of treetops on the ceiling. In the room, people can sit on large beanbags. Finally we return to the entrance hall, where I am handed an evaluation form titled, in line with the metaphor, ‘message in a bottle’. The contrasts within this Center, between the old building and the modern equipment, the © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
73
that room at that particular moment. Usually, no more than one to three groups (in total less than 40 people) are present within the facility at any one time. The dominant groups of users are: participants of theme-meetings, corporate identity meetings, creative thinking and empowerment training groups, team sessions about dealing with opportunities and threats for the next year, and groups searching for new solutions to a specific question. In the beginning most groups just used the building and sometimes brought their own facilitator. Recently clients increasingly ask the team for advice and/or process facilitation. There is a rise in awareness within the Tax Administration regarding the role the Shipyard can play in the topic of creative thinking. A pool of internal facilitators was formed: employees of the Tax Administration who part-time (next to their regular job) facilitate processes for the Future Center.
Realized Intent Figure 8. Silence Room
historical metaphor and the future orientation, the Tax Administration and creativity, leave me puzzled but also strangely inspired . . .
Process of Use The Shipyard is meant for stimulating innovation and mental flexibility. It is financed out of a central innovation budget, which means that it does not need to be self-sufficient. Visitors pay only a small amount to cover lunch and drinks. Instead of paying for the room, they are expected to contribute to organizational learning by sharing their experiences and results, and to be open to interaction in other ways. Because the Future Center does not need to be self-sufficient, the staff can be critical as to which kinds of meetings and processes are accepted into the facility. There must be a focus on the ‘new’: new ways of thinking, new opinions, new solutions to existing problems. The staff believes that learning is a process of interaction between people, of learning by doing. Participants get as much freedom as possible to choose their own processes and locations, rather than prescribing one pedagogical or problem-solving approach. To optimally and playfully use the different rooms, the facility cannot be fully booked. It would be undesirable to have to wait for a certain room to become available, when the process requires © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Below we review whether the purposes of the Shipyard as they were identified in the vision document – inspiration, information and interaction, innovation, and imagination – have been realized, primarily based on the visitor feedback.
Inspiration ’The environment is very pleasurable, different, inviting to share with others your experiences and your own “drives”. Also meeting other people who are touched by the same issues within such a large bureaucracy like the tax administration’. Many user comments refer to the anchoring function of the Future Center. Participants see the Shipyard as a place for recharging and recovery. The Shipyard, and what it stands for, is developing its own identity within the organization: ‘You hear people say: We need to do something with creativity, so let’s go to the Shipyard’. One participant mentions that a project team holds monthly strategic meetings that they refer to as ‘Shipyard meetings’, even when these meetings do not take place at the Shipyard. Participants mention that they appreciate the efforts and investments taken by the Tax Administration to develop the Future Center, and therefore have a higher opinion of the Tax Administration as an employer. The Shipyard itself is regarded as a symbol of ‘dreams that have come true’, and as such empowers people to act.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
74
Information and Interaction
Evaluation: Closing the Learning Loops
‘My experience is that you grow here. People give to each other . . .’ Feedback provides good support that participants appreciate the Shipyard as a meeting place. In general they refer to the time spent as valuable. The environment is seen as safe and ‘away’ from the regular, thus enabling people to connect. However, the remarks on this topic were primarily made by participants involved in personal development programmes, individual trajectories with a plenary opening, which also makes it easier to connect: all the participants that are present at the Shipyard during such programmes are there with the same agenda. There is little evidence of meeting new people across programmes or projects and little mentioning of interacting to learn from each other.
As the Future Center has gone through a strong experiential learning cycle in its operational period, it is worthwhile to reflect on how the staff has experienced the rooms, and how the staff has concretized their insights by making changes to the Future Center. The staff’s orientation towards learning was valued thus by Leif Edvinsson: ‘. . . I enjoyed tremendously seeing and experiencing your prototyping work of Future Center . . . You are also a very creative team in continuously refining, remodelling and implementing upcoming ideas . . .’ (e-mail correspondence to the Future Center, January 2005). In line with the framework, we evaluate both the use of the physical space and the changes that this has lead to, and the strategic intent and how this has shifted due to the experiences of using the Shipyard as a facility for harbouring creative and innovative processes.
Imagination Few users mention the future orientation. Rather, the focus of the user comments appears to be on creativity, inspiration and personal development. Only a few groups used the Future Center for exploring long-term perspectives for their situation/work. Even the very enthusiastic and positive feedback from a specific future thinking meeting does not mention how the Shipyard contributes to the group’s understanding of the future. Instead, their feedback focuses on the pleasant and enabling atmosphere. Some feedback documents contain remarks about how working with future scenarios provided insight, but it is not clear to what extent such remarks can be attributed to the Future Center.
Evaluation and Transitions of the Physical Space and its Use Many parts of the Shipyard have been modified in the usage period, to better accommodate the user processes taking place in the facility. A communication specialist with a background in stage design was hired as a member of the core team. Her task was to communicate the Shipyard’s vision; to inspire by continuously making changes in the physical space, amongst other things. Here we address some of the most striking modifications made. One of the new rooms created was a Welcome Space (see Figure 9) with a barheight table, a coffee machine, and a LCD display of a fire. One wall was painted with both magnetic and blackboard paint, which
Innovation (and Process Facilitation) ‘The support is pleasurable. We felt undirected. In such an undirected atmosphere it is easier to say things to each other, there is a mentality of acceptation.’ Many participants characterized the Future Center as inspiring. However, by regarding the user evaluations in terms of the concrete results that came from time spent at the Futurecenter – new ideas, new solutions or new knowledge – we get very mixed results. Both positive and negative result-oriented remarks are found. However, many participants mention that the Center spurred different attitudes and new approaches to problems: ‘. . . The rooms inspire free-thinking beyond boundaries’.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Figure 9. The Welcome Space © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
75
Figure 10. Internet Cafe. Left: Original set-up. Right: New set-up
Figure 11. XLeration room. Left: Original set-up. Right: New set-up
provides a natural platform for anyone to leave notes and items of interest, such as newspaper clippings and proverbs. The Welcome Space is meant to make visitors feel at home, to compensate for the formal marble-floored entrance hallway, which did not provide the warm welcome that was intended by the staff. A true Internet cafe has been created, with computers on a baroque desk, comfortable relaxing chairs and a coach around the fireplace (see Figure 10). The XLeration room, recently re-named ‘The Brain’, has been designed for easy and flexible use (see Figure 11). However, in using the room, the staff did not experience it as flexible. Rather, they felt restricted in using the space. The limited size of the room made it difficult to move around. And because the chairs were too comfortable, participants were not stimulated to take active roles. Recently, more dynamic and flexible furniture was added which © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
provides for more active participation in the meetings. The general feeling is that the potential of the XLeration room is still not exploited effectively. One principal reason is that, even though the interface has been designed for inexperienced users, few facilitators feel they have the technical skills to use the multi-media potential of this room. Due to compatibility problems it is difficult to enter new images into the system, and the Tax Administration’s computer support staff is not used to working with the XLeration room’s software. The use of projected images is clearly promising, but any high-tech application needs to be extremely user-friendly and foolproof. Lunch was meant as a time for interaction between different groups of participants. For this purpose, the Garden Room was set up in long rows of tables. Recently the room has been refurnished in order to allow participants to escape the office and enhance the sense of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
76
Figure 12. Garden Room
being away. An Astroturf floor was laid, and picnic tables, bird nests, and a stereo that plays the sound of birds was added. Usually, natural, honest, materials are used. However, in this case an artificial-looking environment was created, intentionally ‘over the top’ (see Figure 12). Stimulating interaction between groups at the lunch table has not yet worked out very well. Groups tend to stick together and do not mix with other groups. In the near future, the staff wants to explore other ways to stimulate informal interaction.
Evaluation of the strategic intent Of the four purposes of the strategic intent, Inspiration and Innovation were most strongly emphasized in the initial design of the Shipyard. The imagination element was not clearly present in the initial design but in the operational period four scenario spaces have been added (see Figure 13). The scenario rooms are meant for strategic thinking sessions: long-term orientation on possible changes in the relevant surrounding of the Tax Administration. The rooms are intended to make one feel like part of these alternative societies. The scenario rooms are mostly used as breakout spaces and for small group sessions. There is little experience in using the rooms for actual scenario processes. However, participants experience time and time again that the set-up of the different rooms strongly affects the group behaviour. For instance, users of the ‘Rules and Regulations’ scenario room tend to come up with all sorts of strongly structured solutions to their problem, whereas the ‘Community’ scenario room evokes more free ways of thinking.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Even though the staff puts high priority on the ‘Information and Interaction’ purpose, they are still struggling to incorporate it in the Shipyard. Right from the first discussions about the Future Center, the staff has been considering a space for knowledge sharing. A student project to explore the possibilities for such a room – also referred to as ‘treasure chamber’, in line with the nautical metaphor – is under way. On the one hand, such a treasure chamber can heighten the chances of serendipitous encounters (Erdelez, 1997) by providing glimpses of recent projects that have taken place at the Shipyard. On the other hand, the treasure chamber is intended to provide knowledge about the various parts of the organization. One of the key challenges here is how to stimulate people outside the Future Center staff to make contributions, and take ownership over the content. Increasingly, Future Center staff have attempted to stimulate interaction with the outside world. Largely due to the corporate culture, the organization has a strong internal orientation. Even within the organization, there is apprehension to collaborate between organizational units. The staff has initiated theme meetings with speakers from outside the organization, and increasingly, the staff tries to include external experts in creative meetings. There have been attempts to include various external stakeholders in meetings on external communication policy. Even though these stakeholders were quite enthusiastic about this initiative and volunteered to provide a more durable sounding board, the internal participants did not follow up on the initiative. Interaction with the outside world remains high on the Shipyard’s priority list. Recently, the Shipyard has merged with the Tax Administration’s ‘Academy’, a group organizing events to support personal development of the employees. With its roots in idea management, the Shipyard has a bottom-up approach, intending to enable people on the workfloor to implement change, whereas the Academy focuses on providing inspirational events especially for managers. A challenge for the coming years will be to bring together these two different attitudes toward employee development. Finally, the Future Center staff are spending an increasing amount of their time as internal consultants, giving advice on the interior design of creativity stimulating environments, which implies that the organization has come to recognize the Shipyard as a knowledge base of the design of innovation spaces, in addition to their intended function as a knowledge centre on creative and innovative processes. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
77
Figure 13. Two of the Scenario Rooms. Left: Rules and Regulations, a classroom with chairs mounted on the floor in rows. Right: Community, a hippie-like scenario space with several oriental accessories
Discussion Developing a Future Center cannot (only) be done behind the drawing board. Because strong theoretical fundamentals are lacking, the initial design of an innovation space contains many assumptions. This makes it especially important to engage in a cycle of continuously trying out new interventions, and reflecting on their effects. Not only does such active experimentation fine-tune the design of an innovation space, it also helps building the knowledge base on the ways in which a physical environment can support innovation. The framework used in this study (Moultrie et al., 2007), provides a linear model in which use of the facility follows the creation. However, at least in the case of the Shipyard, the development of the facility has been closely intertwined with its use. Even though the framework provides learning loops, the co-evolution of the innovation space and the growing understanding of the underlying principles may deserve stronger emphasis. In order to provide the sense of surprise and out-of-the-ordinary, a Future Center will need to be updated constantly. Even though without change, the facility can still be ‘fun’ or ‘comfortable’, there is also the danger of it becoming ‘dull’ and ‘stale’. For instance, the Royal Mail Innovation Laboratory (see Lewis & Moultrie, 2005) in London requires people to go through a mock elevator-type entrance which is supposed to provide the feeling of time-travel. This transition takes about five minutes. Even though this staged entrance may provide for a wonderfully surprising experience the first few times of entering the facility, after more visits the entrance will almost certainly be regarded as an obstacle. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
The experience will become irritating rather than mood-setting. Especially in the scenario rooms this danger is clearly present: without tuning and updating, the scenario rooms will become finalized artefacts, rather than vessels for exploring the future. According to some of the principal scenario scholars, the making of the scenarios provides much more knowledge than the finalized scenarios can contain (e.g. Chermack and van der Merwe, 2003; Van der Heijden, 1997). One way of dealing with this is to allow participants to personalize the scenario rooms, by adding or removing items. This way, the scenarios could continuously evolve and stay alive.
Conclusion With this article we have attempted to give an in-depth view of an organization’s experiences with a Future Center: its coming into being, its functioning within the organization, and the ways in which it was modified according to the knowledge gained through experiential learning. As this is a purely qualitative case description, we would like to conclude by proposing interesting directions for further research, rather than presenting final conclusions. A closer study of the development process of Future Centers would be useful in surfacing the relationships between the intended functions of Future Centers and the design solutions made. The current case study is largely based on a retrospective analysis of materials. An action research approach, in which the researcher takes active part in the design team, could provide more in-depth knowledge on the developmental processes of Future Centers.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
78
Issues for further research are the influence of surprise and the need to get participants out of their comfort zone in order to make participants susceptible to change (e.g. Nadler & Luckner, 1991), which appears to be in conflict with the Future Center’s aims to make people feel at home. A final issue relates to the fact that a Future Center is positioned as a place that fortifies an organization’s intellectual capital by providing an anchor point for creative and innovative processes. However, it can also be used as a façade; by setting up a Future Center, an organization can present itself as an organization that really cares about its people, their creativity and structural innovation. A Future Center can empower people to engage in creative activities, by taking them away from the daily working processes. At the same time, such a Future Center could function as a sort of ‘insane asylum’; if the company does not care so much about creativity and innovation, it can be a safe place for putting creative people, far enough removed from the daily working processes so they cannot cause any harm. Clearly, this is not what the propagators of Future Centers have in mind. The Tax Administration appears to be committed to maintaining the Shipyard as a means for empowering participants to induce change. In any case, investigating potential additional organizational (mis-)applications and side effects of Future Centers would be useful in order to get further grip on the world of innovation spaces.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Marco de Bock and all other members of The Shipyard team for their input and inspiration.
References Amabile, T.M., (1998). ‘How To Kill Creativity’. Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 76–87. Chermack, T.J. and van der Merwe, L. (2003) ‘The Role of Constructivist Learning in Scenario Planning’. Futures, 35, 445–60. Collins, M.A. and Amabile, T.M. (1999). ‘Motivation and Creativity’, in Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 297–312. Edvinsson, L. (1997) ‘Developing Intellectual Capital at Skandia’, Long Range Planning, 30(3), 266–373. Edvinsson, L. (2002) Corporate Longitude. Financial Times Prentice Hall, London.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Ekvall, G. (1987) ‘The Climate Metaphor in Organizational Psychology’. In Badd, B.M. and Drenth, P.J.D. (eds.), Advances in Organizational Psychology: An International Review. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 177–90. Erdelez, S. (1997) ‘Information Encountering: a Conceptual Framework for Accidental Information Discovery’. In Vakkari, P. (ed.), Information Seeking in Context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts. Taylor Graham, London, pp. 412–21. Haner, U. (2005) ‘Spaces for Creativity and Innovation in Two Established Organizations’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), pp. 289–98. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C.M. and Martin, B.R. (eds.) (2004) Creative Knowledge Environments: The Influences on Creativity in Research and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltam, UK. Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Ekvall, G. and Britz, A. (2001) ‘Perceptions of the Best and Worst Climates for Creativity: Preliminary Validation Evidence for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire’. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 171–84. Kelley, T. and Littman, J. (2001) The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. Doubleday Publishing, New York. Kristensen, T. (2004) ‘The Physical Context of Creativity’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2), 89–96. Kune, H. (2002) Future Centers, een verkenning naar de mogelijkheden voor de overhead (Future centers, an exploration into the possibilities for the government). Xpin, The Hague. Kuperus, S. and de Lange, E. (2003) Pilot Future Center, een visie. Belastingdienst, Utrecht. Lapierre, J. and Giroux, V.P. (2003) ‘Creativity and Work Environment in a High Tech Context’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(1), 11–23. Lewis, M. and Moultrie, J. (2005) ‘The Organizational Innovation Laboratory’. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83. McCoy, J. and Evans, G.W. (2002) ‘The Potential Role of the Physical Environment in Fostering Creativity’, Creativity Research Journal, 14(3/4), 409–26. Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.-E., Janssen, S. and Van der Lugt, R. (2007) ‘Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation.’ Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), this issue. Nadler, R.S. and Luckner, J.L. (1991) Processing the Adventure Experience. Kendall & Hunt, Dubuque, IA. Tidhult, I. (1998) Memories from the Future, About Shaping Skandia’s First Future Center. Skandia, Stockholm. Van der Heijden, K. (1997) Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Wiley, New York. Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought. Harcourt Brace, New York. Wycoff, J. and Snead, L. (1999) ‘Stimulating Innovation with Collaboration Rooms’. The Journal for Quality & Participation, March/April, 55–57.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
FUTURE CENTER ‘THE SHIPYARD’
79
Remko van der Lugt, Ph.D. (r.vanderlugt@ tudelft.nl) is assistant professor in Design Conceptualization and Communication at the School of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. His research focuses on methods and tools for stimulating creativity in multidisciplinary design teams, such as contextmapping and new media tools for the creative design studio. Sebastiaan Janssen, M.Sc. (seb.janssen@ gmail.com) is designer at Avalon Enterprises AB, Stockholm Sweden. As a product designer he has special interest in the use creative problem solving techniques. Between 2000 and 2005 he was involved in the development and realisation of several creative working environments and its processes. Sjoukje Kuperus, M.A., and Ernst de Lange, are concept developers and facilitators at the Future Center of the Dutch Taxand Customs Administration. Their work focusses on stimulating employees in exploring new ways of thinking and initiating awareness of relevant trends.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
80
Innovators and Imitators in Novelty-intensive Markets: A Research Agenda Todd Dewett and Scott David Williams The phenomenon of demand for novelty is defined and explored as a unique and underexamined aspect of certain markets. Demand for novelty is the portion of demand not explained by practical utility or marketing effects – it is the demand for the new and unique. We explore markets characterized by high demand for novelty and how they differ from typical markets. Primarily, this involves the central role of novelty in the product or service value proposition as well as rapid growth rates and product or service obsolescence. Within this context, we consider the dynamics of innovating and imitating and suggest several ways that first mover competition is unique in markets with high demand for novelty. From the perspective of the knowledge-based theory of the firm, we consider the implications of organizational learning and knowledge and decision making as they relate to new product development routines, improvisation, and top management team decision making. We conclude by considering several avenues for future empirical research.
Introduction
T
he comparative advantages of pioneering and following have been studied in a variety of contexts including the introduction of new brands (e.g., Neidrich & Swain, 2003) and brand extensions (e.g., Sullivan, 1992), expansion into new international markets (e.g., Cui & Lui, 2005), acquisitions (e.g., Carow, Heron & Saxton, 2004), and more than anywhere else, introducing new products and product categories (e.g., Golder & Tellis, 1993; Srinivasan, Lilien & Rangaswamy, 2004). Research in this area spans numerous industries, firm characteristics, and firm behaviours, especially the timing of moves (e.g., Lee, Smith, Grimm & Schomburg, 2000; Robinson, Fornell & Sullivan, 1992). Excellent reviews have been provided by Lieberman and Montgomery (1998) and Kalyanaram, Robinson & Urban (1995). However, the extant research has not provided many widely generalizable findings. This is at least partially explained by the fact that pioneering is an outcome of the strategic decision-making process, and empirical research demonstrates that the strategy process should be studied on an industry-by-
Volume 16
Number 1
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00421.x
2007
industry, context-specific basis (Frederickson, 1984; Huff, 1982; Judge & Miller, 1991; Vanderwerf & Mahon, 1997). Nonetheless, prior work does demonstrate several noteworthy findings. Most prevalent is the finding that pioneering creates a long-term market share advantage. In fact, in the marketing literature this has been referred to as an empirical generalization (Kalyanaram et al., 1995), though it is generally agreed that advantages diminish over time (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998). Interestingly, additional research suggests that pioneering may be so difficult or ambiguous an activity as to be disadvantageous, which is supported by research demonstrating the ‘latemover advantage’ (e.g. Schnaars, 1994; Berndt, Bui, Reiley & Urban, 1995; Zhang & Markman, 1998). In short, while much has been learned, it is clear more research is needed (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998). One clear challenge has been the definition of pioneering. Much of the early research suffered from a survivor bias (Mitchell, 1991; VanderWerf & Mahon, 1997). By broadening the analysis to include pioneers that did not survive long enough to be followed, Glazer (1985) found that pioneers’ fates were much less favourable than previously suggested. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATORS AND IMITATORS IN NOVELTY-INTENSIVE MARKETS
Golder and Tellis (1993) contend that, whether followed by a competitor or not, a market pioneer is the first to enter a new market. Schmalensee (1982) defines market pioneer as one that creates a distinctively new product category. This conceptual definition is consistent with operational definitions that consider pioneers those who bring products to market that are sufficiently innovative to be the impetus for the creation of new Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes (Lee et al., 2000). Different conceptualizations abound, suggesting that it is not completely clear where pioneering ends and following begins. As a result, we choose to refer interchangeably to organizations making moves into new product categories or product markets as innovators, pioneers, or first movers and those who make subsequent moves as imitators or followers. Though new product category introductions dominate this line of research, our survey of the literature suggests that perhaps the most common and potentially dramatic first-mover advantages have been relatively neglected. Specifically, there is reason to believe that firstmover advantages are particularly acute in markets characterized by intense demand for novelty. Though markets have been conceptualized as varying in munificence (e.g. Park & Mezias, 2005), dynamism (e.g. Dess & Beard, 1984), and many other dimensions, little attention has been paid to demand for novelty – a unique and important market characteristic. We define demand for novelty as the extent to which products and services are purchased not only due to the practical utility of the product or service characteristics (real or perceived due to marketing activities), but also due to the attractiveness of the novelty of the offering itself. Examples of markets with high demand for novelty include markets for music CDs, television programmes, games, toys, books, fashion and motion pictures. While scant research has addressed ‘hit-driven industries’ (e.g. Eisenmann & Bower, 2000), markets for fashion (e.g. Djelic & Ainamo, 1999), and the sale of entertainment-oriented goods (Sun & Chung Wing, 2005), a systematic treatment of how these markets differ from other markets has not been undertaken nor has pioneering been examined in this context. Understanding these types of markets is increasingly important given the proportion of the global economy they represent (e.g., $9 billion annual US box office receipts in the movie industry; Hernandez, 2006). We are interested primarily in the following research questions. What is demand for novelty? How are markets with high demand for novelty systematically different from other markets? How are the dynamics of first moves © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
81
and following different in markets dominated by a high demand for novelty? What key firm resources and capabilities need to be examined in this context? In general, we suspect that for firms with the proper resources and capabilities, the benefits from innovating may be quite high in markets with intense demand for novelty. In addition, we suspect that profitable fast following, and imitation in general, is more difficult in markets with high demand for novelty than is typically assumed elsewhere. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we define novelty and demand for novelty. Next, we describe key ways that markets with intense demand for novelty differ from typical markets. This is followed by an examination of pioneering and following in the context of high demand for novelty. Finally, we propose several firm resources and capabilities likely related to competitive success in these markets, which can provide a foundation for future empirical research. Throughout, we make several assertions that run counter to common thinking in the first mover and product innovation literatures.
Novelty and Demand for Novelty Novelty has been studied in a variety of contexts across several disciplines. In the creativity literature novelty is a core part of the process of creativity whereby individuals (e.g. Amabile, 1996) and groups (e.g., McGlynn, McGurk, Sprague Effland, Johll & Harding, 2004) endeavour to generate new ideas and options in pursuit of eventual solutions. As part of an outcome, novelty has been even more widely examined as a vital aspect of ideas, processes or products (e.g., Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). In fact, novelty as a desired part of outcomes is the primary focus of research streams on R&D, advertising, new product development and innovation in general. As an attribute of products and services, novelty typically refers to uniqueness or originality – to this we add newness as a characteristic of novelty. Prescott and Visscher (1977) note that in markets where products are differentiated, offerings may differ along many dimensions, and factors such as economies of scale limit the extent of product variety. Consequently, competing firms can identify gaps in the product characteristic space, and locate their product offering in a gap. The most novel products create new product categories, new genres (Labio, 1998). However, uniqueness is a necessary but insufficient requirement for novelty; novel products are also new. They
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
82
may occupy unique market space for an extended period of time, but novelty erodes as extended presence in the market breeds familiarity. Significant research tacitly acknowledges the importance of novelty as a special form of demand. For example, building on Porter’s work (1980, 1985) product differentiation (offering novel variations) has long been viewed as a key competitive strategy. In the marketing literature, vast research on product life cycles recognizes segments of consumers prone to early adoption who are often the targets for initial marketing efforts (Mahajan & Muller, 1998; Rogers, 1996). However, in both areas of research the focus is not on the demand for novelty per se, but rather on how novel products create benefits for firms and how certain consumers may be predisposed towards novel offerings. In neither case is there recognition of the fact that markets may systematically vary in terms of the demand for novelty. We view demand for novelty as the portion of demand for a product or service that is contingent on its perceived newness and distance from other products in product characteristic space. Aside from ‘novelty’ products, goods and services are not typically demanded solely for novelty. Novelty is coupled with other valued attributes that satisfy multiple wants and needs (Becker, 1999; Fishburn, 1984). Thus novel products are typically demanded for their functional characteristics as well as novelty – unique lamps must still illuminate a room, original cell phones must still send and receive calls. Nevertheless, demand for novelty is particularly intense in so-called ‘hitdriven’ industries; fine arts, games, movies, music, television, theme parks, toys, etc. (Eisenmann & Bower, 2000; Marr, 2005; Menger 1999). Novelty may be a more important attribute in consumer product markets, but it likely accounts for a portion of the demand for products offered to business and governmental organizations as well. For instance, authors, trainers and consultants often capitalize on new or trendy management philosophies and interventions (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999; Carson, Lanier, Carson & Guidry, 2000). Demand for novelty originates with consumers’ desire to be distinctive, boost status, and satiate the need for ‘new’ things. For instance, gifts that are novel and surprising engender arousal in the form of delight (Durgee & Sego, 2001; Oliver, Rust & Varki, 1997; Rust & Oliver, 2000; Wilson, Centerbar, Kermer & Gilbert, 2005). Arousal is the result of the contrast between the perceiver’s frame of reference and the stimulus. However, with
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
repeated exposure to the stimulus (e.g., playing a song repeatedly; Bianchi, 1998), the once-novel stimulus becomes familiar and loses its ability to create arousal. In addition, fashion theory posits that conspicuously consuming novel products allows people to differentiate themselves, gain status, or boost the ego (O’Cass & McEwen, 2004). As adoption of a once-novel product diffuses in society, that item loses its ability to support personal differentiation thereby losing its appeal. We view markets with characteristically strong demand for novelty as systematically different from typical product markets in two key ways. First, novelty figures prominently in the value proposition as noted above. Second, markets with strong demand for novelty are characterized by fast growth rates and quick product obsolescence. For example, Golder and Tellis (2004) examined ‘leisure products’, defined as those more likely to be seen and discussed. Thus their conceptualization is very similar to our discussion of products found in markets with high demand for novelty in that they carry status implications. Their results indicated that leisure products (as opposed to ‘time saving products’ such as typical consumer durables) have higher growth rates and shorter growth stages. This finding can be explained by the fast erosion of novelty associated with the possession of a particular good given its increased diffusion. This conceptually differentiates novelty-intense markets from technology-based ‘high velocity’ markets (e.g. Henderson & Stern, 2004). Research on high velocity markets focuses on technological discontinuities that often render prior learning and skills obsolete (e.g. the personal computer market; Eisenhardt, 1989), sometimes leading firms to intentionally obsolete their own products (Magretta, 1998). In novelty-intensive markets, firms should experience additional ambiguity beyond technological uncertainty, limiting their ability to time intentional obsolescence. With these unique characteristics in mind, we now turn to the competitive dynamics and tactics one would expect in these markets relative to innovating and imitating.
Innovating and Imitating in Markets with Intense Demand for Novelty In their review of first mover research, Lieberman and Montgomery (1998) suggested there are three primary ways that pioneers might gain an advantage. The first involves the idea that being a pioneer allows a firm to establish itself in the customer’s perceptual space. This brings to mind issues of building product or © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATORS AND IMITATORS IN NOVELTY-INTENSIVE MARKETS
brand loyalty. Second, being first may lead customers to develop switching costs as a byproduct of gaining experience with the pioneer’s offering. Thus, for example, a user of one hightech product (e.g. personal digital assistants and related products) would be reluctant to adopt a new competing product that would require them to face a new learning curve. Third, network externalities might establish the pioneer’s product as a standard, such that as increasing numbers of customers adopt the product, the utility of use for each new adopter increases. A classic example is the mobile phone, which gains in practical utility as the number of other people with mobile phones increases. Below, we suggest that these opportunities for advantage do not neatly apply to markets characterized by high demand for novelty. First, consider potential market share advantages. Among the few fairly settled issues in the first-mover literature is the first mover’s market share advantage (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998). A wide array of research indicates that pioneers who introduce new products tend to have a market share lead over later entrants of between one and two decades (e.g., Boulding & Christen, 2003; Golder & Tellis, 1993; Huff & Robinson, 1994; Kennedy, 2002). Similarly, in research examining consumer packaged goods, pioneers have been found to have an advantage in both trial and repeat purchases (Kalyanaram & Urban, 1992). Yet in novelty-intensive markets there are unique dynamics. Given rapid growth rates and shorter growth stages (Golder & Tellis, 2004), there is reason to suspect that innovators in these markets will experience a market share advantage in two distinct ways which differ from what often occurs in typical product markets. First, innovators will experience a higher market share advantage than would typically be expected, as a result of rapid growth rates. However, given rapid obsolescence, the period of market share advantage will not last a decade or more as has been found in prior research. In essence, rapid obsolescence suggests that opportunities to generate repeat purchases over time are limited. Thus we propose: Proposition 1: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, innovators gain an average market share advantage over imitators greater than would be expected in typical markets, while the average duration of this advantage is smaller than would be expected. From the imitator perspective, novelty as a core part of the value proposition requires par© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
83
ticular attention to rapid obsolescence. We expect that the long-run opportunities for later entrants to catch and surpass first movers’ market share will not match those identified from prior research. For example, Golder and Tellis’ (1993) broad-based research found that early market leaders tended to enter markets 13 years after pioneers, suggesting that a longterm strategy of waiting for a market and technology to mature before entering could lead to superior long-term performance. However, research provided by Kennedy (2002) suggests that this finding may not generalize to noveltyintensive markets. He found that leaders in television programming categories not only maintained superior market share compared to followers, but their programmes also survived longer. This suggests that the penalty for waiting can be quite strong. Consider the market for motion pictures as an example. The demand for any given genre often waxes and wanes significantly as the demand for novelty shifts. If a studio is not the pioneer of a new or resurgent genre, success might be found by producing an offering within the first year or two following identification of the opportunity. However, if a studio waited until year three or four, they are likely to find a declining genre, if any opportunity at all. Formally, we predict: Proposition 2: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, the likelihood of success for imitators will continue to decrease as a function of the duration of time between their market entrance and the pioneer’s market entrance. Now consider the case of switching costs. When a first mover assumes a favourable position in a market, later entrants are forced to consider less attractive segments (e.g. Carpenter & Nakamoto, 1989; Lane, 1980; Prescott & Visscher, 1977). Consumers then face ambiguity as to the quality and suitability of later entrants’ offerings. The effort required to find and learn about new products combined with ambiguity surrounding these issues are referred to as switching costs and often act as a barrier to entry for imitators (e.g. Schmalensee, 1982). Here is the major point of departure for markets with intense demand for novelty – switching costs are typically less relevant to consumers and are generally quite low in absolute size. First, regardless of the magnitude of switching costs, these issues generally do not represent areas of concern for consumers. Recall that consumers in novelty-intensive markets commonly seek distinction, status and the pleasure of ‘newness’ (O’Cass & McEwen, 2004). In effect, given the fundamental role of
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
84
novelty in the value proposition, switching costs become nearly irrelevant. For example, if one becomes aware of a new type or style of clothing, becoming educated about this product is not difficult or necessarily costly, other than a small expenditure of time. The costs associated with actually switching to this new type of clothing are secondary as compared with the consumer’s need to obtain the product in order to affirm status and satiate the need for something ‘new’. The same can be said of music, toys, books or similar products. The risk associated with switching are simply of secondary concern. Thus, in stark opposition to typical markets, to the extent that competitors are aware of a low consumer emphasis on switching costs, the likelihood of following should increase. More specifically: Proposition 3: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, switching costs (irrespective of size) are less significant in the consumer’s decision making calculus, increasing the likelihood of imitation. Aside from the lower importance attached to switching costs in these markets, in absolute value they are smaller than typically expected. As opposed to most product markets, the cost of switching from one crime novelist to another, one musical group’s CD to another, or one television network to another, is quite small. In contrast to the switching costs associated with more expensive and complex purchases such as cars or consumer durables, the costs are negligible. Switching from one brand of blue jeans to another or switching from one brand of trainers to another is generally not an expensive proposition. As a result, the risk is low, consumers should be readily willing to switch, and the advantages of pioneering diminished. Thus, we suggest: Proposition 4: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, average switching costs are significantly lower as compared to typical markets, increasing the likelihood of imitation. Finally, consider product externalities – a topic widely studied in economics, marketing and management. Externalities refer to a quality of certain goods and services that allows them to become more valuable to a user as the number of users increases (e.g. Mahler & Rogers, 1999; Economides, 1991). Thus, for example, peer-to-peer computer networks increase in utility as new users join the networks, assuming adequate network capabilities (Asvanund, Clay, Krishnan & Smith, 2004). However, in sharp contrast to most markets, when demand for novelty is intense, extensive adoption creates negative network externali-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
ties – a disincentive to purchase. This derives from the need for exclusivity and status. As something novel becomes more and more adopted, it is by definition less and less novel. This dynamic is present in many markets, though here the point at which externalities turn from positive to negative occurs much more rapidly. This logically coincides with the beginning of obsolescence following rapid growth periods in markets with intense demand for novelty. In terms of imitation, this reality implies a clear challenge for later entrants and should generally decrease the likelihood of following. Thus, we propose: Proposition 5: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, on average, externalities become negative faster than in typical markets, decreasing the likelihood of imitation. In summary, the competitive dynamics and performance outcomes of pioneers and followers in novelty-ntensive markets are distinctive. Thus far we have differentiated novelty and demand for novelty, described characteristic ways that markets with high demand for novelty differ from typical product markets, and discussed how innovating and imitating might differ in these markets. In the remainder of the paper we consider several firm resources and capabilities that may provide a foundation for an empirical examination of innovating and imitating in these markets.
Organizational Knowledge and Competition in Novelty-intensive Environments The variables considered below include several already present in the first-mover literature as well as several not yet examined. However, in all cases we will suggest that in markets with high demand for novelty these variables will function uniquely. We focus on factors likely to increase the success of innovating and pioneering by addressing forms of organizational learning, knowledge and decision making. Each of these topics is central to the knowledge-based theory of the firm (KBV). According to the KBV, know-how, skills and practical knowledge are integrated within firms to form capabilities with a level of efficiency not possible through market mechanisms (Grant, 1996). Moreover, knowledge is the principal productive resource of the firm, and more likely to be a source of a sustainable competitive advantage than a market position. Specifically, we view knowledge acquisition, © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATORS AND IMITATORS IN NOVELTY-INTENSIVE MARKETS
integration and decision making in new product development; the knowledge and routines required by, and new memory generated from, improvisational new product development; and, the effects of experience on the top management team’s effectiveness as especially important. Each is addressed in turn below.
New Product Development Capabilities As Grant (1996) noted, much of the research into the management issues concerning integration of knowledge has been in the context of new product development because it involves particularly wide-ranging integration (Nonaka, 1990; Clark & Fujimoto, 1991; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Given the rapid obsolescence of products in novelty-intensive markets, new product development is particularly important. Many scholars have discussed the ‘fuzzy front end’ of new product development (Gerwin, 2004; Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). The front end of product development in novelty-intensive industries is no less fuzzy; in fact, we argue that it is significantly more difficult to manage in markets with high demand for novelty. The process of identifying and screening potential new product ideas is clearly not a simple meritocracy through which the most novel and high quality product ideas are approved for development. Gatekeepers’ judgements are influenced by a variety of business concerns and perceptual biases (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003). Nevertheless, a preference for novelty is a consistent concern. Several examples of this process in markets with intense demand for novelty have been documented. In the case of trade book publishing, the first screening of creative products is performed by the authors’ agents (Caves, 2000). In this industry segment, publishers perform the function of deciding whether a manuscript meets the minimum quality standard in order to interest a publisher and they attempt to identify the sorts of manuscripts sought by various publishers. As another example, US broadcast network television companies largely select and license prime-time television programmes from programme ideas presented by entertainment studios (Caves, 2005; Kennedy, 2002). In this primary gatekeeping function, the network considers not only quality but also fit with the network’s mix of programmes. Similar dynamics occur in the music industry (Caves, 2000; Vogel, 2004) and the movie industry (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003). For the gatekeepers in these noveltyintensive markets to approve proposed prod© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
85
ucts that optimally exploit market demand in their respective industries, they must have the capability to evaluate how well the proposed products match the positions in product characteristic space that are not occupied by incumbent product offerings and that are also positions that will be met with demand once a pioneer enters. That is, the gatekeepers need to base their decisions less on knowledge of where product characteristic space demand is, and more on where it will be. Offering products in product characteristic space where there is a history of demand is an imitative, ‘trendy’ approach, which can generate sales in novelty-intensive markets, but not sales levels equal to that of pioneering products (Kennedy, 2002). The gatekeepers must have strong opportunity recognition capabilities – ‘the ability to identify a good idea and transform it into a business concept that adds value and generates revenues’ (Lumpkin & Lichtenstein, 2005, p. 457). Opportunity recognition capabilities are developed through a commitment to learning, structural processes that enhance learning, a willingness to suspend assumptions, and by rapidly applying new learning to organizational processes. Accordingly, we propose the following: Proposition 6: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, gatekeepers’ opportunity recognition capabilities are positively associated with the successful execution of an innovator strategy. Beyond opportunity recognition, prior research reveals several other key success factors for new product development. Brown and Eisenhardt’s (1995) comprehensive review of new product development yielded several generalizable principles for effective new product development. They can be summarized by stating that internal and external communication are vital to the success of new product development teams. This is because the more effective the communication the more information that is available to support design, planning and team coordination. The authors note that these findings are ‘among the most empirically robust’ (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995, pp. 368–9). Similar findings have been offered by several scholars (e.g. Ancona & Caldwell, 1990, 1992). Team tenure in particular influences these communication patterns. For example, Katz (1982) found that moderately tenured teams tended to have the highest performance because new teams often lack effective patterns of information sharing and highly tenured teams often become too inwardly focused. Other factors promoting the success of product development teams identified by Brown and Eisenhardt (1995) include the
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
86
project leader’s power and vision. Projects were more likely to lead to success if managers who possessed high formal authority and occupied high-level positions in the organizational hierarchy led them. A central challenge of new product development is aligning organizational capabilities with structure so that new product development is led by someone with the requisite scope of knowledge integration and formal authority. The leader’s ability to integrate the various facets of the project into a coherent, holistic view and effectively convey it to others was also a key to successful new product development. Of course, it should also be noted that new product development is influenced by levels of management above the project manager where senior managers may serve as ‘champions’ who guide the process (Gomes, de Weerd-Nederhof, Pearson & Fisscher, 2001). Given the centrality of new product development activities to competition in ‘hitdriven’, novelty-intensive markets, we expect the issues noted above to be particularly important. However, we wish to note one major point of departure from the established literature – the value of knowledge acquired from customers. As mentioned above in the discussion of gatekeeper capabilities, new product development teams need to be effective at anticipating customers’ interest in the products proposed and under development. Being well acquainted with tastes and competitive offerings is essential, and this knowledge is developed through effective communication with external parties. However, unlike the development of products with practical utility as their primary value, products with utilities premised on their novelty cannot be enhanced with customers’ direct input on product design. Von Hippel’s (1986) seminal work on the use of lead users for obtaining new product ideas has been influential in many areas, in the new product development literature in particular (e.g. Enkel, Perez-Freije & Gassmann, 2005). Segmenting the market to identify the customer group that has the greatest need for innovative products and soliciting them for new product ideas can be very useful, because lead users experience needs today that mainstream customers will experience in the future. Von Hipple drew upon research in industries such as computer innovations, chemical additives and scientific equipment. These are high technology fields – fields that reward innovation – but not novelty for novelty’s sake. Product innovations in these fields are valued for their superior practical utility. Asking customers to participate in the design of products in novelty-intensive
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
markets can actually be counterproductive. Recall that novelty’s value proposition is often attributable to the surprise that novel products can engender in the user as the products deviate from the user’s frame of reference. If the firm’s goal is to produce products that will surprise and thereby delight their customers, asking the customers how to surprise them is of little value. Voss and Voss (2000) report data consistent with the organizational performance consequences of this conundrum. They found that organizations in the professional theatre industry experienced negative results from using customer input to design their programming. Theatres committed to integrating customer preferences into their programming demonstrated lower subscriber ticket sales, total income and net cash flow. Accordingly, we propose the following: Proposition 7: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, incorporating customer input into product design decisions is negatively associated with the success of innovator strategies.
Improvisational New Product Development In addition to the previously discussed generalizable principles for new product development success, the level of structured planning interacts with the pace of environmental change to influence outcomes (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1985). In fast-paced environments such as those we are considering, the level of uncertainty can make extensive formal planning counterproductive, highlighting the importance of maintaining flexibility to support spontaneity through improvisation. Moorman and Miner (1998a,b) outlined the relationships among organizational knowledge and improvisational capabilities. Improvisation is the simultaneous organization and execution of activities. Not only do dynamic environments make improvisational capabilities necessary, the production of novel products often requires novel actions. The strength of the firm’s declarative knowledge has a crucial impact on the degree to which improvisation produces novel actions. Declarative knowledge refers to memory of facts and principles. Access to a broad base of declarative knowledge helps sustain a first-mover strategy in fast-moving product markets. In hightechnology industries, organizations need stable access to cutting-edge science, whether through their own research or through links with sources of basic science (Powell, 1998). Similar relationships apply to noveltyintensive markets that may be low-tech but need creative ideas – for example, manuscripts © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATORS AND IMITATORS IN NOVELTY-INTENSIVE MARKETS
vying for a publishers’ attention. However, higher levels of declarative knowledge will slow down the search for relevant information and thereby slow improvisation, ceteris paribus. To offset this potential drawback, firms need to balance extensive declarative knowledge with high levels of procedural knowledge (Gronhaug & Haukedal, 1995). This knowledge of ‘how things are done’ serves to accelerate action and improves the coherence of actions. Organizations with occasional need for improvisation do not always have the metalearning capabilities to increase organizational memory from their improvisational experiences. Miner, Bassoff and Moorman (2001), in their study of new product development at a company producing advanced technology products for laboratories and another company producing food products for consumers, found that improvisation led to learning that was collateral rather than intended. Although these firms were competing in environments where innovation and product differentiation were rewarded, the primary function of the new product development activities was to generate products and processes, implement necessary changes, and then return to routine production. New product development was intermittent rather than frequent. Therefore the findings might have limited generalizability to firms competing in novelty-intensive markets. In businesses such as those studied by Miner and colleagues (2001), failure to capture learning experiences and embed them in memory will have little effect on overall corporate profitability. However, in novelty-intensive markets, where products quickly become obsolete and must be replaced by new offerings, failure to develop such meta-learning capabilities would be costly. For these reasons, we propose the following: Proposition 8: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, the success of innovator strategies will be positively associated with the ability to generate and use organizational memory in the service of continuous improvisational new product development.
Top Management Teams Top management teams (TMTs) of firms competing in markets with high demand for novelty face unique challenges given the role of novelty in the value proposition and the associated rapid growth rates and quick obsolescence of product categories. The organizational creativity literature frequently acknowledges the need to judge novel ideas for their suitability. Amabile’s (1988) model of © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
87
organizational creativity and innovation discusses the need for ‘domain-relevant skills’. Individuals or groups generate novel ideas pertaining to products, process or both. As we have discussed, the ideas can originate from within the organization or external parties, such as lead users (Lilien, Morrison, Searls, Sonnack & von Hippel, 2002). The ideas must be evaluated for their suitability. Effective evaluation of novel ideas requires possession and correct application of knowledge bearing on any relevant aesthetic and technical criteria. Interestingly, research suggests that the ability of TMTs to serve as effective idea judges may change systematically over time. While it is true that successful leaders draw from highly specific knowledge when facing innovative challenges (Gronhaug & Haukedal, 1995), several research streams show that strategic decision makers can ‘overlearn’ markets, technologies, etc., and become ‘stale in the saddle’ (Miller, 1991). There appears to be an inverted U-shaped relationship between CEO tenure and effectiveness. New CEOs experiment, learn and establish themselves before reaching peak effectiveness, but often settle into paradigms that fail to evolve with their environments (Hambrick & Fukutomi, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Miller, 1991, 1993). For example, Wu, Levitas and Priem’s (2005) research in the pharmaceutical industry indicates that the greater the technology dynamism, the earlier a CEO’s average tenure exceeds the optimal level for firm performance. Similarly, in the motion picture industry, Miller and Shamsie (2001) found the inverted U-shaped relationship between CEO tenure and the organization’s financial performance. These findings may be explained by understanding the difference between algorithmic and heuristic problems. Firms pioneering unique product characteristic space in noveltyintensive markets engage in more heuristic problem solving than imitators and, therefore, face greater uncertainty. Heuristic problems are complex and ill defined (Amabile, 1996). The more pioneering a firm attempts, the more uncertainty it faces. Thus, the decline in firms’ performance associated with their CEO’s tenure will occur earlier for innovators than for imitators. In contrast, imitators face problems that are more algorithmic than heuristic. Recalling a known solution from memory and applying it can solve algorithmic problems. Imitators reduce their uncertainty by taking cues from the pioneers. Thus, imitators will benefit from their accumulated knowledge of the market without the negative consequences and, consequently, the decline in their performance associated with their CEO’s tenure will
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
88
occur later for them as compared to innovators. Formally: Proposition 9: In markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, strategy moderates the relationship between CEO tenure and organizational financial performance such that the inverted U-shaped relationship between tenure and performance achieves its peak earlier for innovators than for imitators.
Discussion and Directions for Future Research In summary, we contend that markets with intense demand for novelty warrant additional study pertaining to the competitive dynamics and the capabilities required for competing effectively. We defined demand for novelty as the portion of demand attributable to novelty for novelty’s sake (not due to differentiation that provides practical utility nor due to marketing effects). Moreover, the competitive consequences of innovating and imitating in novelty-intensive markets deviate in important ways from those generally observed in prior research on market pioneering. Specifically, first-mover advantages are more pronounced when novelty is highly demanded, but those advantages are not due to buyer switching costs, nor are they due to network externalities – indeed, network externalities are more likely to be negative than positive as adoption diffuses in the market. Additionally, imitators will not have the opportunity to wait a decade or more to enter the product characteristic space and catch and surpass first movers as has been identified in prior research. We then addressed, from the perspective of the knowledge-based theory of the firm, several unique strategic management challenges associated with competing in noveltyintensive markets. For instance, with the rapid obsolescence of products, firms competing in these environments perform continual rather than intermittent new product development. The new product development routines must be less formal and more improvisational, with any resultant learning integrated into developing new capabilities. In addition, gatekeepers’ opportunity recognition capabilities are essential to providing an adequate stream of ‘hit’ new products. Somewhat paradoxically, learning from lead users may be counterproductive. Finally, in novelty-intensive environments, the relationship between CEO tenure and firm performance will reach an apex earlier for innovator firms than imitators.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
We see implications of this work for both researchers and practitioners. For scholars, we believe this work represents an opportunity to begin investigating an important, yet neglected phenomenon. Though markets of the type we describe have long existed, there is little research describing how they function. In response, it may be wise for researchers to employ grounded theory approaches. Through observation and the identification of emergent insights, a more detailed and defensible theory base than has been presented here may develop over time. For practitioners, we see more immediate implications. For firms operating in markets defined by intense demand for novelty, our work should encourage more pioneering behaviour. However, to be successful, leaders of new product development efforts must build better improvisational new product development skills. The speed of these markets demands this approach. For firms operating in multiple markets – some of which are more ‘typical’ and some of which are more driven by demand for novelty – in the noveltyintensive markets they will be wise to generate a pipeline of new products that is larger than they would create in other markets due to the boom/bust nature of product categories. Potential implications aside, our work nonetheless has several limitations worth noting. First, since we have attempted to identify and describe a new market characteristic, we found it necessary to draw on a wide range of literature to support our arguments. In doing so, we made certain assumptions about the generalizability of findings from one area of inquiry to another. In addition, the dichotomy we draw between novelty-intensive markets and ‘typical’ markets is admittedly false. There is no market purely defined by demand for novelty just as there is no purely ‘typical’ market. The dichotomy simply served as a useful convention for theory building. It is also worth noting that our work is largely premised on North American scholarly research. As such, future research will benefit from considering a more international perspective. Finally, though we cite a few empirical studies of products in markets characterized by intense demand for novelty, we have offered no primary data upon which to justify our assertions. Thus, following this exploratory effort, much additional research is warranted. A significant need for future research on novelty-intensive markets will be to refine the definition and operational approach to the phenomenon. In particular, it will be necessary to distinguish these markets from dynamic (e.g. Dess & Beard, 1984; Wu, Levitas & Priem, 2005), high velocity (e.g. Bourgeois © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATORS AND IMITATORS IN NOVELTY-INTENSIVE MARKETS
& Eisenhardt, 1988, Eisenhardt, 1989) and hypercompetitive markets (e.g. D’Aveni, 1994, 1995). We speculate that research may well discover two different types of demand for novelty, ‘delight me’ and ‘distinguish me’. Kennedy (2002) found that trendy, imitative offerings were not as successful as novel offerings in television programming. Original, unexpected programmes can delight viewers. Demand for novelty in apparel, architecture, cars and furniture, on the other hand, might serve to distinguish more than delight. Novel products that distinguish their buyers might require a stronger connection to fashion trends – and thereby be somewhat less original – than products that seek to delight their buyers by being surprising. Future research should examine how the strategies and behaviours of firms successfully competing to satisfy the ‘distinguish me’ type of demand for novelty differs from the approaches used to successfully satisfy the ‘delight me’ type of demand. Future research is likely to find that one of the most unique features of markets with intense demand for novelty is their cyclicality – products come and go as imitation ensues and novelty wears off over time. Once the product characteristic space has been vacated, there is the opportunity for a competitor to once again ‘pioneer’ that unique space. (A new term may need to be coined to acknowledge that the pioneer is entering territory that was previously pioneered.) An example in the US music industry of this type of pioneering is the successful revival of the 1950s rockabilly sound reintroduced to top forty radio programming during the 1980s by the band Stray Cats (Borzillo, 1995). In contrast, technological innovations that have been rendered passé due to technological progress do not cycle back into popularity. Electric typewriters and handcranked car engines will never again achieve broad appeal. Where cyclicality of demand in product characteristic space is identified, future research is also needed to determine which firm capabilities are required in order to identify and exploit those cycles. We have discussed several capabilities and resources that can provide a sustainable competitive advantage to firms competing in novelty-intensive industries. However, some may not measure up to the primary criteria for sustainable competitive advantage, i.e., valuable, rare, immobile and inimitable (Barney, 1986; Peteraf, 1992). For example, some of the knowledge and judgement capabilities reside with key personnel – gatekeepers – and these resources are mobile across firms within an industry. For instance, Caves (2000) notes that publishers have considerable mobility within © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
89
their industry. Similarly the common experiences of fashion designers that help them develop a shared understanding of emerging fashion trends (Gronow, 1997) fails to make their understanding of emerging styles rare relative to the other firms in their strategic group. Future research is needed to examine the distinctive competencies and unique resource configurations of firms competing in novelty intensive markets. We acknowledge that we have only begun to explore the dynamics of innovating and imitating in novelty-intensive markets. We hope that our work will spur additional research capable of improving both our theoretical and empirical understanding of this unique type of market.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge assistance from Chuck Gulas, Pola Gupta and Rosemary Ramsey.
References Abrahamson, E. and Fairchild, G. (1999) ‘Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Learning Processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 708–40. Amabile, T.M. (1988) ‘A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167. Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1990) ‘Beyond Boundary Spanning: Managing External Dependence in Product Development Teams’, J. of High Technology Management Research, 1, 119–35. Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992) ‘Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance’, Organization Science, 3, 321–41. Asvanund, A., Clay, K., Krishnan, R. and Smith M.D. (2004) ‘An Empirical Analysis of Network Externalities in Peer-to-peer Music-sharing Networks’, Information Systems Research, 15, 155–74. Barney, J.B. (1986) ‘Organizational Culture: Can it be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?’ Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–65. Becker, G.S. (1999) Accounting for Tastes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Berndt, E.R., Bui, L., Reiley, D.R. and Urban, G.L. (1995) ‘Information, Marketing, and Pricing in the U.S. Antiulcer Drug Market’, American Economic Review, 85, 100–5. Bianchi, M. (1998) The Active Consumer: Novelty and Surprise in Consumer Choice. Routledge, London. Borzillo, C. (1995) ‘Lounge, Big-band Era Bops Back on Indies and Majors’, Billboard, 107, 1–2. Boulding, W. and Christen, M. (2003) ‘Sustainable Pioneering Advantage? Profit Implications of Market Entry Order’, Marketing Science, 22, 371– 92.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
90
Bourgeois, L.J. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1988) ‘Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry’, Management Science, 34, 816–35. Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995) ‘Product Development: Past Research, Present Findings, and Future Directions’, Academy of Management Review, 20, 343–78. Carow, K., Heron, R. and Saxton, T. (2004) ‘Do Early Birds get the Returns? An Empirical Investigation of Early-mover Advantages in Acquisitions’, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 563–85. Carpenter, G.S. and Nakamoto, K. (1989) ‘Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage’, Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 285–98. Carson, P.P., Lanier, P.A., Carson, K.D. and Guidry, B.N. (2000) ‘Clearing a Path through the Management Fashion Jungle: Some Preliminary Trailblazing’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1143–58. Caves, R.E. (2000) Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Caves, R.E. (2005) Switching Channels: Organization and Change in TV Broadcasting. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991) Product Development Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Cui, G. and Lui, H. (2005) ‘Order of Entry and Performance of Multinational Corporations in an Emerging Market: a Contingent Resource Perspective’, Journal of International Marketing, 13, 28–56. D’Aveni, R.A. (1994) Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. The Free Press, New York. D’Aveni, R.A. (1995) ‘Coping with Hypercompetition: Utilizing the New 7S’s Framework’, Academy of Management Executive, 9, 45–57. Dess, G.G. and Beard, D.W. (1984) ‘Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73. Djelic, M. and Ainamo, A. (1999) ‘The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms in the Fashion Industry: a Historical and Comparative Study of France, Italy, and the United States’, Organization Science, 10, 622–37. Durgee, J.F. and Sego, T. (2001) ‘Gift-giving as a Metaphor for Understanding New Products that Delight’, Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 64–69. Economides, N. (1991) ‘Compatibility and the Creation of Shared Networks’. In Guerin-Calvert, M.E. and Wildman, S.S. (eds), Electronic Services Networks: A Business and Public Policy Challenge. Praeger Publishing Inc., New York. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-velocity Environments’, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–76. Eisenmann, T.R. and Bower, J.L. (2000) ‘The Entrepreneurial M-form: Strategic Integration in Global Media Firms’, Organization Science, 11, 348–55. Elsbach, K.D. and Kramer, R.M. (2003) ‘Assessing Creativity in Hollywood Pitch Meetings: Evidence for a Dual-process Model of Creativity’, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Enkel, E., Perez-Freije, J. and Gassmann, O. (2005) ‘Minimizing Market Risks through Customer Integration in New Product Development: Learning from Bad Practice’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 425–37. Fishburn, P.C. (1984) ‘Multiattribute Nonlinear Utility Theory’, Management Science, 30, 1301– 10. Frederickson, J.W. (1984) ‘The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Process: Extension, Observations, and Future Directions’, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 445–66. Gerwin, D. (2004) ‘Coordinating New Product Development in Strategic Alliances’, Academy of Management Review, 29, 241–57. Glazer, A. (1985) ‘The Advantages of Being First’, American Economic Review, 75, 473–80. Golder, P.N. and Tellis, G.J. (1993) ‘Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend’, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 158– 70. Golder, P.N. and Tellis, G.J. (2004) ‘Going, Going, Gone: Cascades, Diffusion, and Turning Points of the Product Life Cycle’, Marketing Science, 23, 207–18. Gomes, J., de Weerd-Nederhof, P., Pearson, A. and Fisscher, O. (2001) ‘Senior Management Support in the New Product Development Process’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 10, 234–42. Grant, R.M. (1996) ‘Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration’, Organization Science, 7, 375–87. Gronhaug, K. and Haukedal, W. (1995) ‘Experts and Novices in Innovative, Unstructured Tasks: the Case of Strategy Formation’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 4, 4–13. Gronow, J. (1997) The Sociology of Taste. Routledge, London. Hambrick, D.C. and Fukutomi, G.D.S. (1991) ‘The Seasons of a CEO’s Tenure’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 719–42. Henderson, A.D. and Stern, I. (2004) ‘Selectionbased Learning: the Coevolution of Internal and External Selection in High-velocity Environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 39–75. Hernandez, G. (2006) ‘Box Office Bust: Revenue Falls Short’, The Daily News of Los Angeles, January 4, p. B1. Huff, A. (1982) ‘Industry Influences on Strategy Reformulations’, Strategic Management Journal, 3, 119–31. Huff, L.C. and Robinson, W.T. (1994) ‘The Impact of Lead Time and Years of Competitive Rivalry on Pioneer Market Share Advantages’, Management Science, 40, 1370–77. Judge, W.Q. and Miller, A. (1991) ‘Antecedents and Outcomes of Decision Speed in Different Environmental Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 449–63. Kalyanaram, G. and Urban, G.L. (1992) ‘Dynamic Effects of the Order of Entry on Market Share, Trial Penetration, and Repeat Purchases for Frequently Purchased Consumer Goods’, Marketing Science, 11, 235–50. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
INNOVATORS AND IMITATORS IN NOVELTY-INTENSIVE MARKETS
Kalyanaram, G., Robinson, W.T. and Urban, G.L. (1995) ‘Order of Market Entry: Established Empirical Generalizations, Emerging Empirical Generalizations, and Future Research’, Marketing Science, 14, G212–21. Katz, R. (1982) ‘The Effects of Group Longevity on Product Communication and Performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104. Kennedy, R.E. (2002) ‘Strategy Fads and Competitive Convergence: an Empirical Test for Herd Behavior in Prime-time Television Programming’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 50, 57–84. Kessler, E.H. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1996) ‘Innovation Speed: a Conceptual Model of Context, Antecedents, and Outcomes’, Academy of Management Review, 21, 1143–91. Labio, C. (1998) ‘What’s in Fashion Vent: Behn, La Fayette, and the Market for Novels and Novelty’, Journal of Medieval & Early Modern Studies, 28, 119–39. Lane, W.J. (1980) ‘Product Differentiation in a Market with Endogenous Sequential Entry’, Bell Journal of Economics, 11, 237–60. Lee, H., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M. and Schomburg, A. (2000) ‘Timing, Order and Durability of New Product Advantages with Imitation’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 23–30. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) ‘Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: a Paradox in Managing New Product Development’, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–25. Lieberman, M.B. and Montgomery, D.B. (1998) ‘First-mover (Dis)advantages: Retrospective and Link with the Tesource-based View’, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1111–25. Lilien, G.L., Morrison, P.D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M. and von Hippel, E. (2002) ‘Performance Assessment of the Lead User Idea-generation Process for New Product Development’, Management Science, 48, 1042–59. Lumpkin, G.T. and Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005) ‘The Role of Organizational Learning in the Opportunity-recognition Process’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29, 451–72. Magretta, J. (1998) ‘The Power of Virtual Integration: an Interview with Dell Computer’s Michael Dell’, Harvard Business Review, 76, 72–84. Mahajan, V. and Muller, E. (1998) ‘When is it Worthwhile Targeting the Majority instead of the Innovators in New Product Launch?’ Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 488–95. Mahler, A. and Rogers, E.M. (1999) ‘The Diffusion of Interactive Communication Innovations and the Critical Mass: the Adoption of Telecommunications Services by German Banks’, Telecommunications Policy, 23, 719–40. Marr, M. (2005) ‘Better Mousetrap: in Shakeup Disney Rethinks how it Reaches Audiences’, Wall Street Journal, October 1, p. A1. McGlynn, R.P., McGurk, D., Sprague Effland, V., Johll, N.L. and Harding, D.J. (2004) ‘Brainstorming and Task Performance in Groups Constrained by Evidence’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 75–87. Menger, P.M. (1999) ‘Artistic Labor Markets and Careers’, Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 541–74. © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
91
Miller, D. (1991) ‘Stale in the Saddle: CEO Tenure and the Match between Organization and Environment’, Management Science, 37, 34–52. Miller, D. (1993) ‘The Architecture of Simplicity’, Academy of Management Review, 18, 116–38. Miller, D. and Shamsie, J. (2001) ‘Learning Across the Life Cycle: Experimentation and Performance among the Hollywood Studio Heads’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 725–45. Miner, A.S., Bassoff, P. and Moorman, C. (2001) ‘Organizational Improvisation and Learning: a Field Study’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304–37. Mitchell, W. (1991) ‘Dual Clocks: Entry Order Influences on Industry Incumbent and Newcomer Market Share and Survival when Specialized Assets Retain their Value’, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 85–100. Moorman, C. and Miner, A.S. (1998a) ‘Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory’, Academy of Management Review, 23, 698–723. Moorman, C. and Miner, A.S. (1998b) ‘The Convergence of Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development’, Journal of Marketing, 62, 1–20. Neidrich, W.R. and Swain, S.D. (2003) ‘The Influence of Pioneer Status and Experience Order on Consumer Brand Preference: a Mediated-effects Model’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 468–80. Nonaka, I. (1990) ‘Redundant, Overlapping Organization: a Japanese Approach to Managing the Innovation Process’, California Management Review, 32, 27–38. O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004) ‘Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption’, Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4, 25–39. Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997) ‘Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight’, Journal of Retailing, 73, 311–36. Park, N. and Mezias, J.M. (2005) ‘Before and after the Technology Sector Crash: the Effect of Environmental Munificence on Stock Market Response to Alliances of e-Commerce Firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 987–1007. Peteraf, M.A. (1992) ‘Patterns of Rivalry and Intraindustry Structure’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 14, 519–28. Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Companies. Free Press, New York. Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York. Powell, W.W. (1998) ‘Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries’, California Management Review, 40, 228–40. Prescott, E.C. and Visscher, M. (1977) ‘Sequential Location among Firms with Foresight’, Bell Journal of Economics, 8, 378–93. Robinson, W.T., Fornell, C. and Sullivan, M. (1992) ‘Are Market Pioneers Intrinsically Stronger than Later Entrants?’ Strategic Management Journal, 13, 609–24.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
92
Rogers, E.M. (1996) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York. Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (2000) ‘Should we Delight the Customer?’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 86–94. Schmalensee, R. (1982) ‘Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands’, American Economic Review, 72, 349–65. Schnaars, S. (1994) Managing Imitation Strategies. Free Press, New York. Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004) ‘The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where should we go from here?’ Journal of Management, 30, 933– 58. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G.L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2004) ‘First In, First Out? The Effects of Network Externalities on Pioneer Survival’, Journal of Marketing, 68, 41–58. Sullivan, M.W. (1992) ‘Brand Extensions: When to use them’, Management Science, 38, 793–806. Sun, H. and Chung Wing, W. (2005) ‘Critical Success Factors for New Product Development in the Hong Kong Toy Industry’, Technovation, 25, 293–303. VanderWerf, P.A. and Mahon, J.F. (1997) ‘Metaanalysis of the Impact of Research Methods on Findings of First-mover Advantage’, Management Science, 43, 1510–19. Vogel, H.L. (2004) Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. von Hippel, E. (1986) ‘Lead Users: a Source of Novel Product Concepts’, Management Science, 32, 791– 805. Voss, G.B. and Voss, Z.G. (2000) ‘Strategic Orientation and Firm Performance in an Artistic Environment’, Journal of Marketing, 64, 67–83. Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development. Free Press, New York. Wilson, T.D., Centerbar, D.B., Kermer, D.A. and Gilbert, D.T. (2005) ‘The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People do not Anticipate’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 5–21. Wu, S., Levitas, E. and Priem, R.L. (2005) ‘CEO Tenure and Company Invention under Differing Levels of Technological Dynamism’, Academy of Management Journal, 48, 859–73. Zhang, S. and Markman, A.B. (1998) ‘Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage: the Role of Alignable and Nonalignable Differences’, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 413–26.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Todd Dewett, Ph.D., (todd.dewett@wright. edu) is a tenured Associate Professor of Management in the Raj Soin College of Business at Wright State University. He earned a bachelor’s degree in business from the University of Memphis, an MBA from the University of Tennessee, and a Ph.D. in Management from Texas A&M University where he was awarded both teaching and research awards as well as a Post Doctoral Research Fellowship. At Wright State University he is primarily focused on delivering courses in the MBA program and has been honored with the Outstanding Graduate Faculty Teaching Award as well as the Presidential Award for Faculty Excellence: Early Career Achievement Award. His research on employee creativity, innovation, and change in organizations has been published in journals such as Journal of Management, Journal of Creative Behavior, Journal of Managerial Psychology, and Creativity Research Journal. Before entering academics, Todd was a management consultant with Andersen Consulting as well as Ernst & Young focusing on process reengineering and change management. He continues to consult with a variety of organizations. Scott D. Williams, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Management in the Raj Soin College of Business at Wright State University. In 2002, he received the “Award for Teaching Excellence” from the Southwestern Ohio Council for Higher Education, and the “40 Under 40 Award” from Dayton Business Journal. Williams is Senior Strategy Consultant for Mound Advanced Technology Center and Strategy and Business Development Consultant for the National Composite Center. He has served as the vice president of Leadership Development for the Western Ohio Chapter of the American Society for Training and Development. Williams has conducted research on competitive dynamics, business ethics, management development, creativity training, outdoor experiential training, and training evaluation. His research appears in journals such as Competitiveness Review, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Journal of Management Development, Personnel Review, Creativity and Innovation Management, Human Resource Management Review, and Industrial and Commercial Training. He earned his bachelor’s and MBA degrees from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, where he was named the “Outstanding MBA Student” in 1993. He earned his doctorate in management from Texas A&M University.
© 2007 The Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
DIVERSITY OF THE MIND AS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL CREATIVITY
93
Diversity of the Mind as the Key to Successful Creativity at Unilever Nel M. Mostert In contrast to the general belief that we need a diversity of people attending the creativity session in order to generate ideas, this article states that it is more important that the participants of the creativity session have a ‘diversity of the mind’ meaning they have the ability to think creatively. In the R&D environment of Unilever we have encountered many ways in which the diversity of participants and the environment of a creativity session have an impact on the results. Based on four years of experience, this article describes how diversity impacts creativity from a practitioner point of view.
Introduction
T
he question that this article addresses is: ‘Is diversity the Philosopher’s Stone for creativity. Will it lead to the Golden Idea?’. The answer is: ‘No’. This article shows that having a ‘diversity of people’ in your team is not the key guarantee to successful creativity; ‘diversity of the mind’ is even more important. The article first defines creativity and diversity from a practitioner point of view. Then creativity is discussed in the context of emotions leading to the conclusion that a too diverse group of participants hinders individual creativity and therefore the flow of a creativity session. The reason is that very creative ideas only emerge in an environment where there is complete trust and safety, even after a creativity session, when all ideas have to lead to that one solution. We show diversity barriers that need to be managed before, during and after a creativity session. The article ends with the conclusion that there is one type of diversity that is most necessary to obtain creative ideas, namely ‘diversity of the mind’. This paper is based on the experiences of the author with facilitating teams in more than 125 creativity sessions and her research on creativity sessions over the past four years in Unilever (Mostert, 2004). Unilever is a fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) company in both the Foods and Home & Personal Care markets. Unilever’s mission is ‘To add vitality to life. Unilever meets everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
help people feel good, look good and get more out of life’. 223,000 people work at Unilever spread over 100 countries. Unilever’s 400 brands include Knorr, Hellman’s, Bertolli, Lipton, Magnum, Dextro, Slim.fast, Omo and Dove.
What is Creativity? Before discussing what we mean by diversity, we describe creativity. To describe creativity we first need to make clear what the difference is between creativity and innovation. Creativity is a soft process that starts from when the problem is brought up, including the moment when the idea to solve the problem has been born and ends with the sharing of the idea with others. It is a soft, imaginative process. As soon as an idea is made public, then the hard innovation process starts, where organizations start up a team, prepare a budget and project description, etc. The four phases of creativity are: 1. getting into contact with the problem, 2. incubation time to think about a solution, 3. the ‘aha’ moment when you think of an idea and 4. action to share the idea with others. In a working environment, the company cannot allow employees to take all the time in the world to go through all four phases at their own pace. In particular, the second phase, the incubation time, can be quite considerable. Think of a ‘writer’s block’ when trying to think
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00422.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
94
of a subject for a next novel; sometimes it can take years to come up with that great idea. That is the reason why creativity sessions are organized: to decrease the incubation time. A creativity session can have the following steps: • Start with a problem definition including an explanation of the background of the problem by the problem owner. • Next the participants generate ideas using creativity techniques that stimulate the creativity of the participants (varying from normal brainstorming to using any other creativity technique that suits the purpose). • Then a selection of the ideas takes place. • The chosen ideas are discussed further. • Finally, action plans are agreed for all ideas that seem worthwhile pursuing. However, every session is custom-made according to the wishes of the client and the content of the problem. No two creativity sessions are the same.
What is Diversity? Diversity in creativity reflects the different backgrounds of the participants in Unilever creativity sessions. The diversity can be manifest in many ways, for example: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
age gender introvert/extravert language nationality cultural differences work level science function expertise (R&D/Marketing/Supply Chain) level of expertise being part of a large or small team years with the company years in the current job country where the office is located internal employees/external persons/ consumers.
It is not just the participants that can vary, but also the locations: • The country where the session is organized. • The service provided, such as the availability of flipcharts, pens, stimulus material (magazines, etc.), post-its, drinks, coffee, music, good light lunches/dinners and last but not least enough room to move around. • Does the meeting take place in an internal meeting room at the company or an external venue?
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
• Is the meeting room located in a creative surrounding (castle) or a dull surrounding (portacabin, or room with no windows)? Having facilitated a lot of different teams in a lot of different locations, it is clear that they all have their own energy, communications and emotion. Here are a few examples. • The first example concerned a creativity session on detergent powders for scientists with various backgrounds, such as microbiologist, flavour technologist, nutritionist, spray expert, etc. They came together to solve the problem of a cluttering powder. Instead of running the agenda and process of a creativity session, the only thing the facilitator had to do was guide the very vivid conversation. There was a free flow of ideas and in-depth scientific discussions because they had a high appreciation of each other’s expertise and the atmosphere was open and trusting. The end result was many possible solutions and new contacts between different scientists. Some of them agreed to have these types of sessions more frequently with the aim of learning from each other’s expertise. • Another creativity session with scientists in the field of foods went differently. The atmosphere was dull, concentrated, no laughing, very serious and it just felt like participants were not enjoying themselves that much, or at least they did not show such emotions. Nevertheless, they were working hard and putting ideas on paper. At the end of the session the participants were asked ‘Did you enjoy the session?’ They said that it was the greatest session they had ever had, they were very happy with the high level of intellectual, creative and professional ideas and the project leader dashed off to the Patents Office to get some ideas filed right away. • Working with marketers and brand managers/developers is a totally different story. Most of the time the participants are young, vibrant, positive people with lots of energy. However, they are quickly bored with the task at hand as they want to move ahead with the next step in the process. It is hard to keep them under control, and it is just as hard to put the brakes on. High speed, high spirit and lots of ideas and enthusiasm to work on the ideas. In contrast to scientists, marketers have a shortterm, high-speed vision and that is definitely reflected in working with them. • Another team consisted of process and mechanical engineers. Where other teams are tired after 90 minutes of generating ideas, they kept on persistently for more © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
DIVERSITY OF THE MIND AS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL CREATIVITY
than two hours! Every creativity technique that was offered to them, made them think of a new method/process or tool they could use to create a new idea. The team was very loud and laughed a lot. The diversity of ideas was enormous; the one session gave enough material for one year of further research. The minds of engineers are truly creative in the sense that they seem to find a solution for everything. This is logical in a way, because if you are constructing a factory or a new machine, there is no way that something turns out to be ‘not possible’. There is a mechanical solution to every problem. Typing out all the ideas was very difficult because this team produced a lot of drawings, which had to be scanned. It is the challenge for the facilitator to set the scene in such a way that within all the variety, participants feel free to generate and express ideas, while taking the diversity into consideration and even trying to exploit it! However, the more sessions we facilitated, the more we became aware that we might be looking at diversity from the wrong point of view. We concluded that the above overview of diversity needed reconsideration because creativity might be in need of a different kind of diversity. For that we need to take a deeper look at personal creativity.
Personal Creativity If asked who considers himself a creative person in a group of 20, maybe two or three people dare to raise their hands. Creativity seems to be something to be proud of if you feel and dare to admit that you ‘are creative’ or if you are considered to be creative by others. That is very strange because it is commonly known that everybody is creative in his/her own way. If you feel you are not creative and you want to be, then you can train yourself. Creativity is a trick of the mind, which everybody can learn to do. Byttebier, CEO of the Belgian COCD (Centre for Creative Thinking), says: ‘Everybody can think creatively; you can learn how to do it and you can develop yourself’ (Byttebier, 2002) and Brown, CEO of the English ?What If! Consultancy (2006) says: ‘You are a creating machine’ and gives lessons on how to be creative: ‘Brain Basics’. When you show people how easy it is to trigger more ideas, they learn to their surprise that they can come up with more ideas than they would ever have thought. Mostert and Frijling (2001) witnessed that at the end of a creativity awareness training session, many participants stated that they were relieved to © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
95
find out that ‘I am creative too!’. Sometimes people feel creativity is almost like a religion, they feel liberated in the mind and free to face the world in a different mindset because they now realize that many business and private problems can be solved using their newly learned skill. The glorious facial expression of a person who just thought of a great new idea tells it all. It feels so much better to think of an idea yourself than to expand on other people’s ideas! The energy and adrenaline that flows through your body at the ‘aha’ moment feels so good, it makes you laugh and you feel surprised at your own contribution. We believe that people can be creative on their own. You do not need to be in a large group that is sharing ideas. Also Nijstad (2000) found that being alone can trigger as many ideas as working in pairs or in a team, even higher quality ones. It often happens that participants enter the creativity session with a number of ideas already thought of before the session, provided the participants are given and have taken the time to go through the phases of creativity in advance. Einstein understood this too. After his daily work at a Swiss Patent Agency, he spent long nights thinking about his theories, on his own, far away from the world of science. He preferred to work on his own. We have implemented the ‘five minutes of silence’ in our creativity sessions. After the problem owner has explained the problem, the participants are given five minutes of silence to write down their first ideas. Often we see that participants write down between four and seven ideas. In a group of 12 participants, the first score of 48–84 ideas are harvested in just five minutes. No research has been done yet to investigate if the ‘winning ideas’ are among the ideas generated in these first five minutes.
Creativity in Teams: the Limits We might even reconsider whether we need an organized creativity session where many people sit together to generate ideas at all. There are two main reasons for these doubts. The first reason is that on your own, you can have what we could call your own ‘thought train’ rolling. Your thought train has to reach the end station to get the best idea. If another person’s thought train crosses your railway, either a collision takes place, or the two trains join to become one new train and drive together. The latter is good, the former not, because if a collision takes place, the end station is not reached, meaning that a potentially perfect idea has crashed. If you are with a large group of people and everybody is
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
96
shouting ideas, then a lot of collisions happen and a lot of ideas are crashed. Rietzschel (2005) comes to a similar conclusion: ‘Nominal groups generated more ideas, and more highquality ideas, than interactive groups’. This is why the facilitator should take great care in a creativity session to prevent too many collisions. There are ways to do this as shown in Box 1.
Box 1. Ways to Prevent Collisions • One solution is to let the team work individually and/or in pairs when generating ideas. Never do idea generation with the entire team shouting out ideas! • Of course you must have process tricks that enable all participants to share the ideas with all participants, but doing it in such a way that the thought trains join, instead of crashing. These techniques are: gallery, brain-write, working in pairs and offering the pairs creativity techniques that suit the pair. If the pair is not generating ideas because they do not ‘connect’ (which sometimes happens), the facilitator can help them, but the pairs must stay the same. The reason is that the two people need to build confidence and trust in each other so that at a certain point they feel comfortable with each other and start to dare to share the most crazy and wild ideas.
A second reason is that participants can be too different to be able to work together. • We have introvert and extravert participants. In order to prevent the extraverts from taking over the session, it is better to make small teams, allowing the introverts a safe room to share their ideas. Participants appreciate it when they are all able to be creative, active participants and still build interactively on other people’s ideas. • Working with different cultures on the one hand gives a large variety of different paradigms, but on the other hand cultural diversity might decrease the level of creativity in an idea-generating team. Of course there is the richness of the different paradigms, but there is also the difficulty of finding a common ground in the diverse worlds of all participants and the beliefs they have. Some cultures do not allow employees to have better ideas than their superiors. True cre-
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
ativity can only happen when there is real respect and connection between two or more people.
Creativity in Teams: the Flow You might have noticed that in the last sections the words ‘confidence, feeling comfortable, trust, share, safe, common ground, respect and connection’ appear. These emotions are important in connection to creativity for two reasons. The first is that creativity is all about taking risks. You only dare to take risks if you know that you can trust that the people you are working with will support you and back you up. The second reason is that creativity is all about trust. Creativity requires full openness towards each other to accept each other’s ideas. If there is openness and trust between the participants of the session, the most daring, new and creative ideas can be expressed and the group will produce a flow of these ideas. When facilitating an idea generation session, a good facilitator knows if the team is in the right flow. That is, when ideas emerge that are related to sex. Why? What does creativity have to do with sex? If people are sharing ‘sexy’ ideas, then they share emotions and risk. A colleague of mine said ‘Why is it that creativity feels like sex and the idea is like a new born baby?’ Maybe the two are not that far apart because most creativity techniques have the objective of creating new connections between already existing things, and the Dutch Van Dale dictionary even gives the translation for sex as ‘multiplication/the ability to propagate’. Some examples: • During a session on new food formats, there was an idea that we could invent a tool with which melted ice cream could be turned into a spray. This would allow the consumer to spray the melted ice cream in the mouth, or (as a participant added) on the body. Another participant joked: ‘When I come home with my melted ice cream, I spray it on my body and I will shout to my wife “Honey, I’m home!!!” ’. • Another idea from that session was the ‘ice cream condom’, resulting in a new ‘roll-off’ packaging suggestion. • Or during a session on ‘How to make environmentally safe detergents’ one participant suggested that all people should walk naked so we would not need detergents at all. Another participant springboarded with the question: ‘How do animals keep their fur clean?’ and . . . what could we learn from that? © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
DIVERSITY OF THE MIND AS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL CREATIVITY
97
Table 1. Effectiveness in Problem Solving in Creativity Sessions Run in 2000–2003
Total number of sessions (%)
Yes, the problem is solved
Not yet, the problem is not yet solved
No, the problem is not solved
Total number of sessions
41 (53%)
16 (20%)
21 (27%)
78 (100%)
Research on Creative Teams at Unilever To find out if inviting a mixture of people to a creativity session offers a high chance that ideas are really implemented after the session, we have evaluated 100 creativity sessions by means of a questionnaire. We received 78 completed questionnaires that contained enough information on which to base further analysis. For the remaining 22, it was either no longer possible to contact the problem owners or they did not respond to all the questions in the questionnaire. Most sessions took place at Unilever R&D Vlaardingen (UR&DV), and some took place at other Unilever offices. Typical examples of problem areas defined for Creativity Sessions organized by Unilever innovation teams are (numbers reflect percentage of 100 investigated sessions facilitated in 2000-2003): • Area: To solve technical problems (42%) • How to improve dispensing of X • Think of new applications for ingredient Y • Area: To start up a project (21%) • How to determine alternatives for A • Think of ingredients with a C benefit and products to apply it to • Area: To generate ideas for new products/ projects (17%) • Think of a next generation P • What would a new format of product M look like? • Area: To tackle consumer-related issues (14%) • How to identify signals that communicate benefit H • What would a campaign to raise awareness of product S look like? • Area: Culture and communication (6%) • How to have more fun at work In the R&D environment of Unilever, the creativity sessions typically result in (proposals for) new projects, products, patents and other opportunities. Another benefit of organizing a creativity session is that it results in a more creative attitude of team members. © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
One to two years after the session took place, we asked the relevant project leaders ‘Did the creativity session solve the problem?’ The results are shown in Table 1. This shows that out of 78 sessions, 41 (53 per cent) had already produced a solution to a problem. The outcome of 16 sessions (20 per cent) is still work in progress and may lead to solutions later on. With a possible success score of 53 + 20 = 73 per cent, we can state that creativity sessions offer project teams a very high chance of finding a solution to their problem. A total of 21 (27 per cent) of the sessions encountered barriers, resulting in no work being done on those problems. We discuss the reasons for this later. We also constructed an overview of how the teams were composed (see Table 2). This answers the question ‘Is there a relation between the team composition and solving the problem using the ideas generated in the creativity session, after two years or less?’ Looking at this table from a diversity point of view, it could be concluded that the success (success judged as ‘The problem is solved’) of a session is unexpectedly not dependent on the diversity of the composition of the group. Composition 1 (only URDV project team members) gives the highest rate of immediate success: 70 per cent, whereas compositions 2, 3 and 4 score an immediate success rate after two years of 47–50 per cent. This means that the less diverse the group, the higher chance of success. This could be for a number of reasons. • Team members know each other well and accept each other ideas more readily. • Project team members are goal oriented and have the urge to reach the goal, more so than a group that consists of people that are not part of the project team. • Project team members tend to choose those ideas that they can implement rather than the more creative ideas. Byttebier (2002) calls this the ‘creadox’, meaning that ‘people, when confronted with a very large amount of new ideas, tend to play it safe and to choose those ideas that fit within those thinking patterns that can be realized’.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
98
Table 2. Effectiveness in Problem Solving by Composition of Groups in Creativity Sessions Run in 2000–2003 Composition of participants in the session
Yes, the problem is solved
Not yet, the problem is not yet solved
No, the problem is not solved
Total number of sessions
1. Only URDV project team members 2. URDV project team members and other URDV members 3. URDV project team members, other URDV members and other Unilever members 4. Other Unilever members 5. Other Unilever members and consumers/externals
14 (70%)
1 (5%)
5 (25%)
20 (100%)
14 (50%)
8 (29%)
6 (21%)
28 (100%)
5 (50%)
3 (30%)
2 (20%)
10 (100%)
7 (47%) 1 (20%)
3 (20%) 1 (20%)
5 (33%) 3 (60%)
15 (100%) 5 (100%)
URDV = Unilever Research and Development at Vlaardingen
Barker (1996) emphasizes this: ‘Reality that does not fit in our paradigm will have difficulty passing our filters’. It also seems to be more difficult to get ideas quickly implemented if they are invented in a team that (also) had other URDV and or Unilever members. This is shown with all compositions because they have 20 per cent or more of the session’s ideas still in progress whereas in composition 1 only 5 per cent of the sessions have ideas still in progress. The reason could be that if the team works with only their own team members, there are no problems with the ‘not invented here syndrome’ meaning that ideas are accepted more easily and turned into actions quickly. We can conclude that inviting ‘outsiders’ to the session has a benefit that is not directly related to the success of the session itself. This is very surprising because the entire objective of inviting a diversity of people to the session is the expected higher success of the session. We have to conclude that inviting a diversity of people to the session is not a guarantee that your problem will be solved. Other factors are responsible for that, which we elaborate on later. Having said this, it needs to be stressed that having a diversity of people does have other advantages. Our experience shows that participants appreciate a mixture of types of expertise for reasons of getting to know each other and to meet people who look at the problem from a different angle. New contacts are made during creativity sessions, broadening the network. Often the people agree to meet again after the session because they want to learn
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
more about each other’s expertise and to benefit from sharing knowledge.
Results on Need for Diversity With 20 per cent of the sessions still having work in progress, Table 2 also shows that a creativity session does not give the team the Philosopher’s Stone for the Golden Idea. Although the research shows that 90 per cent of the problem owners stated that ‘useful ideas came out of the session’, the output of the session in most cases does not include the one Big Idea that is the solution to all the problems or immediately leads the team into a brilliant new innovation. Instead, the session gives different directions or routes in which possible solutions might be found. A creativity session sometimes causes more problems than there were before the session. The reason is that the team has to work on the output of the session, investigating all ideas that are worthwhile pursuing to solve the problem. Only after a couple of months or longer the team might have found a solution and in hindsight they see that the solution is a combination of ideas that have resulted from the earlier creativity session. This means that a creativity session leads the minds of the project team members in directions that might offer a solution to the problem. With work in progress, even more barriers need to be taken into account. On the way from idea to innovation, Table 2 shows that 27 per cent of the sessions have not resulted in a solution to the problem. The research shows that these teams have encountered six types of barriers after the creativity © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
DIVERSITY OF THE MIND AS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL CREATIVITY
session that prevented the ideas from being pursued. These are, in rank order (percentages reflect the number of remarks/reasons noted down from the 21 failed creativity sessions): • lack of ownership (32%), • no budget available to work on the ideas (14%) • quality of the ideas is too high/overdone (NASA technology) for the project (12%) • the project changed scope, thus the ideas became useless (17%) • the technical composition of team was not equipped to deal with the ideas (19%) • a lack of time to work on the ideas (6%). This list of barriers is of high value. Mostert and Bruins Slot (2004) report that the barriers are now used to manage the expectations of project leaders who organize a creativity session and to warn them that successful teams are those teams that do not encounter these barriers, or that are able to use their motivation and passion for the idea to overcome or anticipate the barriers, and turn them into enablers. Another specific barrier when working with the Background Scientist is the fact that an ambitious scientist has two main goals in life: 1. To be the first author of the article, 2. To be the first name on the Patent. These two goals might be the reason that true creative scientific innovations are not shared at an early stage because scientists want to keep the idea to themselves until it is sufficiently protected by Intellectual Property Rights (patents) and he/she is recognized as the idea generator and owner. Summarizing the outcomes of our findings so far, we can conclude the following: • Creativity is a skill you can learn. • Prior to a creativity session the barriers that might prevent the ideas from being implemented need to be identified. • You don’t need a large group of people to generate creative ideas, working alone or in pairs is sufficient; as long as you know how to do it. • Creating ideas together with people only works if you know and trust them. • Having a diversity of people in the creativity session is no guarantee of quick success.
99
and to push ideas to implementation. Diversity of the mind opens up the opportunity to run into ideas ‘by coincidence’. How do you meet with ‘coincidence’? The answer is: ‘By making sure you are there at the right time in the right place with the right question’. If you have a seemingly non-solvable problem, you can find answers and solutions everywhere. These can be with people you meet, places you visit, books you read, seminars you follow, a television programme you are watching, attending a dull meeting, a picture you look at, a dog you see running, a child you see playing. Creativity takes place in your own mind. Your mind is responsible for making the ‘click’, the ‘vital link’ or ‘linking pin’ between problem and solution, in other words: get out of your comfort zone, breaking out of the limits of your paradigms. Organizing a creativity session with a lot of different people is just one way to try to find the ‘coincidence’. Taking a walk, having a coffee, some minutes of ‘window shopping’ can do the same trick. As long as you allow your own brain the opportunity, time and space to think. Another small but very valuable experiment shows how this works. We ask the participants to stand in line according to the time of day when they are most creative. Surprisingly, on average half of the people stand in the morning zone (waking up, at the toilet, taking a shower, travelling to work), half of the people stand in the evening zone (exercising, falling asleep, driving home). Only a very few participants claim to be creative during the day and when asked in more detail it showed that only one or two of them claim to be creative at the office during working hours (during meetings, talking with colleagues). Almost all participants get their best creative ideas outside working hours. This little exercise clearly shows that the office just does not allow your brain the time to think, to step back from the problem. You have to let your mind flow (almost like in hypnosis), concentrate and listen to what is happening around you, while inside you your mind is making new connections between already existing things. There is only one way to do that: you have to do that yourself! You have to find your own time and place during the day where you are most creative. To become more creative, you have to build diversity into your own mind. You have to have diversity of the mind.
Diversity of the Mind Having a diversity of people attending a creativity session is not the key to success. The key to success in solving problems in a creative way lies in each individual. The diversity of the individual mind enables people to be creative © 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
Conclusion This article describes the many ways in which the participants and the environment of a creativity session have an impact on the results. It
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
100
is commonly believed that ‘diversity of the people’ stimulates creativity. However, from a practitioner’s point of view ‘diversity of the mind’ of the participants is the real key to creativity. If the management of a company wants to achieve a truly creative culture, the starting point is to invest in time. Time is needed to raise the awareness of employees of what creativity actually is, how they can learn to be creative and how they can use creativity to their benefit both in business and in private life. The management of an organization needs to create a culture where there is space to ‘think things over’ in order to get diversity of the mind.
References Barker, J.A. (1996) Paradigms, Scriptum Books, Schiedam. Brown, C. (2006) How to Have Kick-ass Ideas, HarperElement, London, pp. 38, 56. Byttebier, I. (2002) Creativiteit Hoe? Zo! Lannoo, Tielt, pp. 23, 167. Mostert, N.M. (2004) What did 83 Creativity Sessions deliver? Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands. Mostert, N.M. and Bruins Slot, H.J. (2004) ‘Creativity, the Knowledge Connector’, Knowledge Management Chronicles, Travelogue 2. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, pp. 255–69.
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
Mostert, N.M. and Frijling, L. (2001) ‘Creativity in Organisations can be Measured and Acquired’, Chemical Innovation, 31 (11), 50–53. Nijstad, B.A. (2000) ‘How the Groups Affects the Mind: Effects of Communicating in Idea Generating Groups’, InterUniversity Centre for Social Science Theory and Methodology, University of Utrecht, pp. 151–2. Rietzschel, E. (2005) ‘From Quantity to Quality; Cognitive, Motivational and Social Aspects of Creative Idea Generation and Selection’, University of Utrecht, p. 35.
Nel Mostert (
[email protected]) is an innovation process facilitator for the Facilitation Unit at Unilever Research Vlaardingen, The Netherlands. Her work is linked to culture changes, people behaviour and facilitating teams and individuals during organizational transformation phases. She provides support for Unilever innovation project teams world-wide with the aim of accelerating the innovation process. This support consists of facilitation and training, offering processes, tools and techniques in the fields of creativity, strategy development, project planning, project management, project risk assessment and team building.
© 2007 Unilever R&D Vlaardingen, The Netherlands Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
BOOK REVIEW
101
Book Review Castellani, D. and Zanfei, A. (2006), Multinational Firms, Innovation and Productivity. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 249pp., Hardback: ISBN 978 1 84542 198 4, £59.95. Back in 1965, there was a war-torn, isolated, agrarian Asian country that had almost no industry. Today, this country is not only industrialized, but its industry has also become one of the world’s most innovative with its economy being in charge of a good part of the world’s production of electronics. By a combination of attracting foreign multinational firms, a wise economic policy, and technological spillovers to domestic firms, this country – South Korea – has managed to achieve an unprecedented economic growth. China, by its doctrine of ‘market access for technology transfer’, has systematically aimed for technological spillovers from foreign multinational to domestic firms, a policy that has led to the immense growth rate of its economy. It is such stories that, for scholars in the fields of international economics, international business and innovation management, have provided fascinating backgrounds to study the activities of multinational firms in the context of international R&D, industry heterogeneity and economic policy. Davide Castellani and Antonello Zanfei, two well-known Italian economists, have brought forth an excellent new book that is based in this tradition while at the same time it opens the path to further developments in these fields. The book is organized in three parts of two chapters each, which, while logically and theoretically interconnected, can be read independently. Part I (Chapters 1 and 2) lays down the theoretical building blocks, explains the dataset that is used throughout the book, and features the concept of the ‘double network structure’ – that is, the ‘double’ embeddedness of the MNC’s international subsidiaries in both the host country environment and in the intrafirm network. While this concept itself is not new per se – to my knowledge, it was first featured in Zanfei (2000) – it provides a good foundation and general framework for the areas that are to be studied. All in all, Part I can be thought of as a large literature review that covers most – but not all – of the literature on the internationalization of innovatory activities. Part II (Chapters 3 and 4) is concerned with inter-industry and intra-industry heterogeneity (i.e., the economic view of why firms differ © 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
between industries and within a particular industry). Whereas the discussion in Part I was limited to innovative activities, the authors now also explore interactions between productivity and innovation by analysing the relationship between international involvement and heterogeneity. Given the main finding of Part II that multinational firms are more productive and innovative than exporters and purely national firms, Part III (Chapters 5 and 6) can be thought of as its logical sequel. The authors here ask whether for a host country to increase the share of MNCs in the economy would provide a positive direct effect on the rate of innovation and productivity growth. This is an important question, because besides the success stories of South Korea and China, economic history also provides many examples of (predominantly African) economies that, despite employing an economic policy that attracted MNCs, were unable to generate opportunities for positive spillovers to domestic firms. Therefore, the authors investigate whether promoting foreign investment is really more effective than favouring the expansion of domestic owned multinationals. Central to this analysis is the concept of spillovers, i.e. ‘unintended’ learnings that domestic firms can make by observing, imitating, and even improving the foreign firms’ technologies. The main finding of this part is that positive spillovers are associated with the activity of foreign affiliates investing more intensively in R&D, and with those that have been established in the country for a longer period of time. Having read the book from cover to cover, I think this book will serve as a starting-point for many interesting studies, both because of its findings and because of its empirical and theoretical rigour. I base this judgement on the following reflections. First, the authors have constructed a dataset that incorporates information from several databases, a method which allows them not only to analyse a greater number of research questions due to the richness of data thus generated, but, more importantly, it allows the study of phenomena in connection that
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00420.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
102
hitherto had been studied in isolation only. Thus, the authors are able to examine a complex relationship of interaction patterns of the multinational, the industry and the host country environment. They do so by welldesigned and well-documented econometric models the results of which are robust. Yet this empirical rigour never digresses into technical econometric language. The discussions and theoretical implications exhibit a sharp logic of argumentation and are written clearly and concisely. Main findings are additionally summarized at the end of each chapter. This makes access to the results easy for scholars with different areas of specialization and for managers and policy makers who may be more directly interested in the specific results and outcomes. Second, the book is full of interesting and thought-provoking findings that to me portray something of a ‘bridge’ between the ways economists on the one hand and management scholars on the other hand have analysed the international innovatory activities of firms. Such findings include, but are not limited to sentences like ‘not every foreign firm is a good source of externality and not every domestic firm is equally well equipped to benefit’ (Chapter 5 – as indeed the economic development of China has demonstrated drastically). Another important conclusion is that ‘an increasing number of units belonging to the MNF are involved in the creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovation. However, this does not imply that all units are equally involved in this process: knowledge tends to accumulate in some units more than in others. The distribution of competitive advantages tends to be uneven within organisations in general, and within multinationals in particular’ (Chapter 4). Such findings open a path towards management research in the fields of intrafirm knowledge transfer, as well as to the literature on headquarter-subsidiary interaction and to the classic IB question of how location bound subsidiary advantages can be turned into non-location bound firm advantages. Management scholars active in these fields will certainly benefit from these findings. However, the book also has some minor limitations that (at least to me as a management scholar) could be amended in future editions. First, the data coverage is essentially European, the dataset relies predominantly on the Italian economy, with some additional
Volume 16
Number 1
2007
coverage from other Western European economies. The authors themselves address this potential limitation (p. 195). However, the way they have constructed their database and the different sources they have used could in my view be generalized also to other economies – at least European ones, as far as the CIS survey is involved. Therefore, an enlargement of the analysis to an EU level would be the next logical step. Second, Chapters 1 and 2 could make a stronger connection to what management scholars have found with respect to the internationalization of R&D. Personally, I missed the recognition of some significant recent findings on international R&D (e.g., Penner-Hahn and Shaver, 2005). While the management perspective on international innovation may not have been the first priority of the book, to recognize these contributions would certainly top off some discussions. All in all, the book lays an excellent and empirically well-grounded foundation that opens the way for what we need most in research on the international innovatory activities and R&D configurations of MNCs: intrafirm data and the study of intrafirm processes, configurations and specific interactions with the host country environment. The book to me is an important step in moving innovation research forward in this direction. Although its primary target group is economists, management scholars and industry practitioners will particularly benefit from Parts I and II, whereas policy makers will benefit most from Part III. I am sure that this book will serve as a thoughtprovoking starting-point for many future studies on firms’ international innovatory activities and therefore recommend it without any reservation.
References Penner-Hahn, J. and Shaver, J.M. (2005) ‘Does International Research and Development Increase Patent Output? An Analysis of Japanese Pharmaceutical Firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 121–40. Zanfei, A. (2000) ‘Transnational Firms and the Changing Organisation of Innovative Activities’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 515–42.
Marcus M. Keupp Institute of Technology Management University of St Gallen
© 2007 The Author Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing
