Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134203206EDITORIALEDITORIALCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
EDITORIAL
203
Editorial
T
his fourth issue of 2004 is both a regular and a special one. Next to three articles from our general ‘pipeline’, all in the broad area of creativity and innovation management but very diverse from a content point of view, there is a much more focused part in the form of a special section. This section, containing four articles, is based on the 8th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation (8th ECCI) and reflects its theme: cross-cultural innovation. Additionally, at the end of this issue you will find two reviews of books from the same area as the theme of the conference, both extensively reviewed and discussed by founding editor Tudor Rickards. Before introducing the various contributions in this issue, the last of 2004, we feel we should give some credit to those members of the creativity and innovation management community who have been of great help to us and have added value since we took over this carefully positioned journal early in 2003. First of all we would like to thank all those who have contributed to the journal this year. New authors and authors that have already contributed in earlier issues: thank you for submitting your creative and innovative work to our journal. We have enjoyed your contributions and so we hope have our readers. Thanks also to all who contributed to the (double blind) review process we installed in 2003: members of the editorial board and others in the field who have checked and rechecked manuscripts for us are all acknowledged by name in the list of reviewers in this issue. Last but not least, our gratitude goes to the Blackwell team who have helped us each and every time this year to get issues out on time, and who have worked with us in updating and renewing the website and many more editorial and other chores: Kevin Wright, Lorna James, Daniel Keirs and Rod Cookson – we really value and enjoy the cooperation! In order to strengthen our community, as already announced in issue 3, we will organise the First Creativity and Innovation Management Community Workshop in Oxford on 23–24 March next year, supported by both Blackwell and EACI. Please find more information including a tentative programme at the end of this issue, and check our website for updates. Some interesting scholars and topics are already scheduled! © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
This issue starts with an article written by Tony Proctor, Kum Hua Tan and Kensuke Fuse which points out the differences between incremental and paradigm-shift approaches to creativity in management that exist between Japanese and Western schools of thought. A number of examples are used to illustrate how a systematic incremental process that places emphasis on continuous improvement is key to Japanese creativity in management. A framework that captures the cornerstones of Japanese creativity is outlined and discussed. The paper by David Hannah concerns the very sensitive and pertinent issue of legal ownership of ideas. Firms rely on their employees to generate new ideas that can be exploited. But who really owns these ideas? Which factors influence employees’ beliefs and assignment of ownership of ideas? What is the managerial impact in order to strengthen legal claims of employers? These and other questions are addressed in this article, empirically based on quantitative and qualitative data, gathered in two organizations. As a preview of the special issue on TRIZ next year (vol. 14, issue 1, March 2005), Martin Moehrle contributes to this issue with an article about profiling technological competencies of companies. TRIZ, or in other words, the theory of inventive problem solving, not only helps to generate inventions, it can also be applied for strategic management support. Profiles of inventive types of companies can be defined for the company itself and all competitors within a specific field of technology. In the article, this will be demonstrated using a complex case study. The special section, as mentioned before, is based on the 8th ECCI, which was held in September 2003 in Mainz, Germany. The theme of the conference was cross-cultural innovation. The conference was organized by the Gesellschaft für Kreativität, under the supervision of the European Association for Creativity and Innovation (EACI). The EACI and Creativity and Innovation Management share the same roots, which is the reason we publish special issues, or in this case a special section, based on contributions to the academic sessions of the EACI conferences. Through the conference, the EACI tries to
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
204
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
bridge the gap between academics and practitioners in the field of innovation and creativity. For the academic conference papers, a normal screening procedure of abstracts and full papers was organized. At the conference itself, all participants (both academics and practitioners) voted for their best paper. Those best papers were presented again on the last day of the conference and were also sent out for double blind review. The best four are published in this special section. In order of appearance: Ricarda Bouncken on ‘Cultural Diversity in Entrepreneurial Teams: Findings of New Ventures in Germany’; Stephan Sonnenburg on ‘Collectivity in Communication: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Product Creation’; Frido Smulders on ‘Co-operation in NPD: Coping with Different Learning Styles’; and last but not least, Heinz-Jürgen Boeddrich on ‘Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process’. These four papers give a good overview of the diversity of the contributions. The contribution by Bouncken is a good reflection of research relevant to the conference theme. It explores how founders in cross-national entrepreneurial teams perceive cultural diversity. It delivers insights into potential during early and later phases of a start-up from a culturally diverse entrepreneurial team. It is shown that a culturally diverse venture team provides the start-up with a variety of dissimilar skills, knowledge, and external contacts in the founders’ networks that can improve a venture’s generation and implementation of innovations. Beneath the support, a culturally diverse new venture team can suffer from dissimilar working attitudes and styles, misunderstanding, conflicts that are based upon different cultural education, socialization and behaviour. The explorative research applies six case studies in different stages of the venture process. The cases portray influences from cultural diversity on task distribution, and different approaches to creativity generation and utilization of an inter-cultural venture team. Moreover, the cases show that founders have divergent perceptions of the benefits of cultural diversity. Founders with a monochronic/ low-context/high-space cultural background even tend to neglect cultural diversity. The objective of Sonnenburg’s contribution is to present and discuss a new model characterizing collaborative product creation. This model shows that theoretical essence is needed for any creative collaboration to occur at all. As a result, the phenomenon of communication is crystallized as the driving force for collaborative creativity. The paper focuses on
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
creative collaboration in previous creativity research. It is shown that there is difference of understanding of collaborative creativity. Four dimensions of the new model are presented: type of communication, course of performance, working style and the relation between the nature of problems and the implication of solutions. In his contribution Smulders addresses the influence on interactions of the differences in learning styles between people working in new product development (NPD) and in production. The dominant learning style in NPD is conceptual, while the learning style of production is operational. Clashes occur when the learning style in use is opposite to the learning style required. For efficient interactions, participants must be able to switch from one style to another. Participants need to develop empathic insight in the character of the other process and the learning behaviour of the participants. The article by Boeddrich, as a practitioner’s insight, identifies requirements for organizing the fuzzy front end. The conditions for computer-aided idea management were derived from benchmarking the fuzzy front ends of several German and European companies. Boeddrich proposes differentiating between general and company-specific requirements for organizing the fuzzy front end. Structuring the fuzzy front end involves low financial investment, but highly sensitive and transparent leadership. Boeddrich develops considerations on further new requirements for successful idea management. Sensitive ideamanagement leadership involves helping employees to overcome initial obstacles and barriers to ideas. These considerations may help to improve the integration of creative thoughts into workplaces in which routines and linear-analytical thinking dominate. Boeddrich not only contributed one of the best papers of the 8th ECCI, which is now published as a practitioner’s insight in this issue, he was also very important in the whole process of getting the papers selected and reviewed for this special section, and we would like to acknowledge his co-operative role in that! We hope that reading these four conference papers encourages authors to submit and contribute to the 9th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation, which will be held in September 2005, in Lodz in Poland. The theme of the conference will be Transformation. See the Call for Papers at the end of this issue. Jan Buijs, Han van der Meer (both for EACI) and Olaf Fisscher
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
EDITORIAL
Ad Hoc Reviewers Throughout 2003 – July 2004 the following have reviewed for CAIM: Pier Abetti, Rensselaer Polytechnic, New York, USA Teresa Amabile, Harvard Business School, USA Michael Baker, University of Strathclyde, UK Wim Biemans, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Heinz Juergen Boeddrich, ABZ Innovation Power, Germany Jan Buijs, University of Delft and EACI, The Netherlands Jeff Butler, Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, UK Rosa Chun, Manchester Business School, UK Wim During, University of Twente, The Netherlands Jan van den Ende, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Holger Ernst, WHU-Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management, Germany Cameron Ford, University of Central Florida, USA Berislav Gaso, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland Jeff Gaspersz, Nyenrode University, The Netherlands Oliver Gassman, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland Jorge da Silva Gomes, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Portugal Aard Groen, University of Twente, The Netherlands Harri Haapasalo, University of Oulu, Finland Fred Huijgen, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands Marjan Hummel, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Rendel de Jong, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Egbert Kahle, University of Lueneburg, Germany Hamish Ratten, University of Queensland, Australia Scott Isaksen, Creative Problem Solving group, USA Inge Kerssens-Van Drongelen, University of Twente, The Netherlands Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Koos Krabbendam, University of Twente, The Netherlands Albertus Laan, University of Twente, The Netherlands Jan de Leede, University of Twente, The Netherlands
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
205
Diana Limburg, University of Twente, The Netherlands Jan Kees Looise, University of Twente, the Netherlands Bart van Looy, KULeuven and INCENTIM, Belgium Todd Lubart, University of Paris, France Remco van der Lugt, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Mathew Manimala, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India Gael McDonald, Unitec, New Zealand Han van der Meer, University of Twente and EACI, The Netherlands Joerg Mehlhorn, University of Applied Sciences in Mainz, Germany Ulrich Meyer, University of Lueneburg, Germany Rick Middel, University of Twente, The Netherlands Susan Moger, Manchester Business School, UK Martin Möhrle, University of Bremen, Germany Heidi Muijen, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Andrea Piccaluga, University of Lecce, Italy Gerard Puccio, State University College at Buffalo, New York, USA Tudor Rickards, Manchester Business School, UK Maarten van Riemsdijk, University of Twente, The Netherlands Bert Sadowski, University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands Frido Smulders, University of Delft, The Netherlands Michiel Schoemaker, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands Udo Staber, Stuttgart Institute of Management and Technology, Germany Peter van de Sijde, University of Twente, The Netherlands Joop Stam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Herman Steensma, University of Leiden, The Netherlands Janka Stoker, Berenschot and the University of Groningen, The Netherlands Pieter Terlouw, University of Twente, The Netherlands Julian Vincent, University of Bath, UK Rob Vinke, Nyenrode University, The Netherlands Klaasjan Visscher, University of Twente, The Netherlands Lothar Walter, University of Bremen, Germany Mathieu Weggeman, University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
206
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Sven Wenzke, Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus, Germany Celeste Wilderom, University of Twente, The Netherlands
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Ursula Weisenfeld, University of Lueneburg, Germany Max von Zedtwitz, Tsinghua University, China
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESTHE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN JAPANESE CREATIVITYCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
THE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN JAPANESE CREATIVITY
207
Cracking the Incremental Paradigm of Japanese Creativity Tony Proctor, Kim Hua Tan and Kensuke Fuse This paper points out the differences between incremental and paradigm shift approaches to creativity in management that exists between Japanese and Western schools of thought. A number of examples are used to illustrate how a systematic incremental process that places emphasis on continuous improvement is key to Japanese creativity in management. A framework that captures the cornerstones of Japanese creativity is outlined. The paper concludes by discussing the contribution of this research and outlines a plan for further work.
Introduction
C
reative problem solving not only helps people to work more effectively within existing paradigms but also helps to stretch paradigms and to find paradigm shifts. The last of these finding paradigm shifts may of crucial interest to the Japanese. While Western organisations achieve major breakthroughs in technology and methods their Japanese counterparts have not been as successful. One only has to recall that it was the Swiss who discovered the power of quartz to enable watches to be produced that were capable of superlative timekeeping. However, it was the Japanese who commercialised the discovery and then went on to apply and enhance the capabilities of the technologies. The Japanese are victims of a peculiar predicament. They experience difficulty in discovering paradigm shifts but are able to develop any new paradigms ad infinitum. This paper discusses the Japanese predicament and tries to identify answers to questions such as: • Why do the Japanese find discovering paradigm shifts difficult? • What evidence is there to support this assertion? Is there any evidence anywhere in the Japanese research literature of how or whether paradigm shifts have occurred in Japanese business and how they have occurred? • Would Western ideas about creative problem-solving assist them? Why or why not? Is there anything to be learned from the incremental approach to innovation that © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
would be of benefit to us in the West (and elsewhere in the world)? It would seem to be a reasonable argument that unless the Japanese either use the appropriate techniques or think in ways that correspond to the techniques themselves then it is unlikely that they will produce paradigm shifts. The paper is structured into three sections. First, the issues and elements of creativity thinking are explored. Then, a framework is developed to illustrate the cornerstones of Japanese creativity. Lastly, this paper discusses the implications of this research and outlines plan for further works.
What is Creative Thinking? Wertheimer (1959) suggested that creative thinking involved breaking down and restructuring our knowledge about something in order to gain new insights into its nature. Understanding our own cognitive model of reality may therefore be an important determinant of our ability to think creatively. Kelly (1955) and Rogers (1954) both supported this argument by maintaining that we can be creative by gaining an understanding of how we think about a subject. Creativity is something that occurs when we are able to organize our thoughts in such a way that readily leads to a different and even better understanding of the subject or situation that we are considering. Rickards (1985, p. 5) defines creativity as: ‘the personal discovery process, partially
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
208
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
unconscious, which leads to new and relevant insights’ Rickards (1988, p. 225) also advocates a view of creativity as a universal human process resulting in the escape from assumptions, and discovery of new and meaningful perspectives or as an ‘escape from mental stuckness’. In broad terms he believes creativity is to do with personal, internal restructuring. Creativity is very much concerned with how we imagine things in our minds. Although language is a medium of expressing our creative feelings our creativity is often gained through images and sensations which are difficult to express in words. As Koestler (1964), said: ‘True creativity often starts where language ends’. Weinman (1991) considered that creativity is the ability to go beyond the mundane and obvious and reject the traps of repetition and pre-set categories. Similarly, Gilliam (1993) defined creativity as a process of discovering what has not been considered – the act of making new connections. More simply, creativity can be thought of ‘as the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain’ (Amabile et al., 1996, p. 1155). These various definitions seem to agree that creativity involves an in-depth thought of a subject and an ability to come up with new and different viewpoints.
The Benefits of Creative Thinking Creative thinking benefits all areas and activities of management. It is required to dream up better ways of marketing goods, to devise new production methods, to find new ways to motivate people and so on. Creativity turns up in every business situation where there is a chance that things can be done in a more business-like, more profitable or in a more satisfying way. In management, problems arise as different or new situations present themselves and they often require novel solutions. Frequently, it is difficult to see solutions to problems by thinking in a conventional fashion. Logical thinking takes our existing knowledge and uses rules of inference to produce new knowledge. However, because logical thinking progresses in a series of steps, each one dependent on the last, this new knowledge is merely an extension of what we know already, rather than being truly new. It would seem, therefore, that logical thinking has only a limited role to play in helping managers to be creative. The need for creative problem-solving has arisen as a result of the inadequacies of logical thinking. It is a method of using imagination along with techniques that use analo-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
gies, associations and other mechanisms to help produce insights into problems. Change is an intrinsic necessity for a company that wishes to perform well in the long term. As Sir John Harvey Jones stated: ‘Unless a company is progressing all the time, it is in fact moving backwards. It is quite impossible to maintain the status quo’ (Rogers, 1996). Attempting to do things in the same way as they have always been done in the past can lead to difficulties in a business environment which is experiencing rapid cultural, economic or technological change. Change is an ever present phenomenon to which businesses of all kinds are forced to respond if they want to stand the best chance of survival and prosperity. The rapid growth of competition in business and industry is often quoted as a reason for wanting to understand more about the creative process (see for example Rickards, 1990; Van Gundy, 1988). Many firms are continually experiencing pressure to enhance old systems and products. Growth and survival can be related directly to an organisation’s ability to produce (or adopt) and implement new products or services, and processes (Van Gundy, 1988). One of the key aspects of any organisation’s success or failure is its ability to stay ahead of the competition in a rapidly changing environment. The modern business, with its emphasis on competition, building larger markets, strategic planning, team-working, etc., has created the need for new problem-solving and decision-making strategies.
Paradigm Shifts A paradigm is a set of rules and regulations that defines boundaries and helps us be successful within those boundaries, where success is measured by the problems solved using these rules and regulations. Paradigm shifts are different from continuous improvement. Examples include: going from donkey cart or horse-drawn carriage to car or travelling long distances by aeroplane instead of by bus or ocean liner. Paradigm shifts have made it possible to send complex, accurate messages over great distances: they have facilitated moving from primitive methods such as shouting, smoke, fire, drum, flag signals to highly sophisticated mechanisms such as telegraph, telephone, fax, live video by wire, optical fibre and communications satellite. Paradigm shifts require a change in perspective on the subject. Blinkered thinking associated with holding too rigorously to a paradigm can lead to missing opportunities and overlooking threats that may have a critical impact on a business. Two competitors
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
THE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN JAPANESE CREATIVITY
may see the same opportunity or threat in different ways and the one which is able to make the best response can gain a sustainable competitive advantage over its rival. The process of paradigm shift can be encouraged and effected early through the use of creative thinking. Creative thinking brings into place notions and ideas that would not normally be contemplated in the problem situation. Creative problem-solving methods make extensive use of techniques and approaches that help to find solutions to recalcitrant open-ended problems.
The Appropriateness of Techniques It has been argued (Manor, 2002) that established techniques of creative problem-solving are not always effective in leading to desired outcomes. Participants in brainstorming sessions tend towards group thinking, and postponement of judgement may not raise the creative quality of these ideas. In addition, random analogies may not help in coming up with original ideas. An examination of the thinking processes of particularly creative people demonstrates that they progress systematically and purposefully to the goals they have set themselves. These people examine an extremely small number of possible solutions and it seems that their ability to direct their thinking process in the right direction results from their ability to foresee and define the necessary qualities of a creative solution in advance (Manor, 2002). However, the power of creative problem-solving tools should not be dismissed lightly but their usefulness in providing new insights into problems does need to be understood. McFadzean (1998a, 1998b) maintains that creative problem-solving techniques can be divided into three categories, namely paradigm-preserving techniques, paradigmstretching techniques and paradigm-breaking techniques. All three of these approaches are used in the West and facilitate creative management thinking and innovation ranging from small modifications to existing designs and methods to far-reaching paradigm shifts. Paradigm-preserving techniques preserve the boundaries around the problem space. We can liken this to searching for a solution very close to the source of the problem. The problemsolver continues to search for solutions very close to or in the same problem space as any previous approaches to solving a particular problem. The boundaries around the area of search are relatively unchanged. Among the tried and trusted paradigm-preserving techniques are such methods as brainstorming,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
209
force-field analysis and brainwriting (McFadzean, 1998c). In the case of brainstorming, participants are encouraged to build on other people’s ideas and as a result ideas are developed but not significantly changed. In contrast, paradigm-stretching techniques can encourage more creative ideas. These include techniques such as metaphors, object stimulation and heuristic ideation technique (McFadzean, 1998c). Such approaches encourage participants to widen the limits of their perceived problem space. Paradigmstretching techniques use unrelated stimuli and forced association to encourage the production of novel ideas (McFadzean, 1998b). For example, heuristic ideation technique encourages participants to force-fit ideas together. Paradigm-breaking techniques can produce very novel and creative ideas. Here, the boundaries of the problem are ignored and search is not confined to the vicinity of any previous solution or approaches that have been adopted. Paradigm-breaking techniques include wishful thinking, rich pictures and imagining (McFadzean, 1998c). These methods use unrelated stimuli and forced association to encourage creativity. In addition, they also help participants to use all their senses and to express themselves using other modes of communication such as drawing, dreaming and role playing.
Paradigm-Breaking Techniques Paradigm-breaking techniques can help participants to develop fantasies that may help them to generate novel ideas. Here we will consider just one such approach, rich pictures.
Rich Pictures This is an approach that can help participants look at problems from a totally different perspective and it can change the patterns of thinking within the group. Rich pictures can be used as follows: • Develop a problem statement and write it on a flip chart. • Ask each individual to draw two pictures. The pictures may be metaphors for the situation, for example, vehicles or animals. The first drawing should be a picture of how the participant would like to see the situation in the future. The second picture should be a drawing of how the participant sees the present situation. • Ask each participant to first describe the picture of the present. Not only should he or she describe the picture but also the
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
210
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
properties of the objects drawn and why they were drawn that way. Next, the individual should describe the picture of the future, again including the properties and the relationships of the objects. • Ask the participants to generate new ideas based on the descriptions. The technique enables a group to see what each member’s perception of the problem is and what he or she would like in the future. Such a picture can very effectively show a vast amount of information, such as patterns, relationships and properties, and it can easily be shared with the other group members; all can see the problem in its entirety in a single glance. The following example illustrates the use of rich pictures. A GP medical practice wanted to improve the way in which appointments were arranged. Telephone lines were jammed for up to two hours every morning with people wanting to arrange appointments and queues of callers making appointments in person took up a lot of administrative time in creating appointments each day as well. A creative problem-solving facilitator was employed to help come up with ideas on how to alleviate the problem. She asked the GPs to draw up a picture of a city centre that depicted what they thought of the present situation within the GP practice. The facilitator then asked them to draw a picture of a city centre illustrating what they would see as the ideal practice. The first pictures showed a city centre, cluttered with vehicles and pedestrians causing traffic jams and angry and frustrated people. These pictures represented a GP practice that lacked efficient modern communication channels with its patients. The pictures depicting the ideal situation, however, showed a city centre with pedestrian zones and well laid-out broad roads and pavements, permitting rapid transit from one area to the next, either by foot or by using modern trams. In addition, it had subways, flyovers, an underground railway and even moving pavements in shopping malls and other heavily used areas. It was well served with road signs pointing the way to pedestrians and motorised travellers. The exercise took only a few minutes to complete and showed the GPs what they thought of the communication systems of the practice and how they would like it to change using modern technology. The drawings reflected the extent of the problem to everybody present very quickly and suggestions such as using state-of-the-art communication technology – such as appointments by email or SMS texting through an automated intelligent Natural Language Processing interface were put forward.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
In this way it was anticipated that people who had access to the new technology would opt to use it thereby reducing congestion and allowing those who did not have such access to use the older conventional methods with less hassle. Having looked at the nature of creativity and the contexts and appropriateness of creative problem-solving techniques as we have experienced them in the West let us now turn to look at the Japanese experience.
Japanese Creativity Due to Japan’s success in world trade and technical development, a lot of people view the Japanese as being very creative. However, do Japanese organizations with a high commitment to systematic processes produce more creative research or products than Western organizations that are more autonomous? Sarkis (1995) points out that American engineers produce more creative research in the basic sciences but tend to be less productive in the process areas. Japanese organizations, on the other hand, appear to be less productive in basic science research, but demonstrate high creativity in those areas related to process control. He further argues that group dynamics and the level of consensus in the decision processes appear to play an important role in this phenomenon. A number of creativity methods emerged in Japan in 1960s and 1970s, and were widely used in industries and in governmental offices. These techniques constituted part of the basis for the quality control (QC) movements in Japan. For example, ‘NM Method’ is a methodology developed by Masakazu Nakayama in the 1970s, and is well known because it is so called after the initials of his name. Nakayama emphasized his method as a training approach for activating the right-half of brain, and the NM Method consist of a fivestep process for generating ideas (Nakamura, 2003). • KW (Key Word): define the function or the main feature of the required technical system in a short clause including a verb. • QA (Question Analogy): Look for an event that meets with the Key Word among natural phenomena and non-made systems. • QB (Question Background): Clarify the principles/mechanisms working in the analogous phenomena/systems. • QC (Question Conception): Generate ideas on the basis of the principles/mechanisms. • ABD (Abduction): Combine ideas and brush-up into new concepts.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
THE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN JAPANESE CREATIVITY
In point of fact the NM approach has much in common with Synectics, where a word taken from the problem definition (or redefinition) is taken on an excursion into an imaginary world and treated in a similar way that outlined above for the NM method. Other important techniques include the ‘KJ Method’ by Jiro Kawakita, and ‘Equivalent Transformal Thinking’, by Kikuya Ichikawa. Basically, these techniques place emphasis on the understanding of deep verbal meanings of phenomena/observations or analogies and on the understanding of mechanisms. However, translating these methodologies and examples from Japanese is so delicate that they have been rarely published in English by the developers and their associates. Many researchers (for example Basadur, 1992; Herbig & Jacobs, 1996) have tried to shed light on Japanese creativity. Herbig and Jacobs (1996) argue that Japanese are better at adaptive creativity, i.e. refining ideas and technologies to create new products and markets, which is in contrast to the innovative style of the Westerners. However, Basadur (1992) points out that the Japanese place more emphasis on problem finding, i.e. continuously identifying new and useful problems to be solved, and less emphasis on solving and implementation. This review has provided useful insights into the differences between Japanese and Westerners creativity, but provides little information on the elements that are core to the Japanese creativity. Thus, what constitutes the basis of Japanese creativity? Through a literature review, further research and the personal experience of one of the authors, we have identified the cornerstone that constitutes Japanese creativity (see Figure 1). This cornerstone produces a snapshot of Japanese creativity in organizations. The key elements of the cornerstone are training, process, communication and teamwork, which together synergise the incremental approach to creativity/innovation.
Incrementalism The incremental approach to creativity has its roots in the Japanese cultural background.1 The Japanese do not believe in sudden change like Westerners. There are several kinds of proverbs to support this idea, namely: • Sit on the stone at least three years (to be matured) 1
In general, incremental paradigm is just an approach to creativity in the West and it is not rooted in the cultural background.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
211
Company-wide Commitment Focus on processes
Focus on training Incrementalise Focus on communication
Focus on teamwork – everybody committed
Figure 1. Cornerstones of Japanese Creativity
Figure 2. Protect, Break, and Leave • Wait for good things while you are sleeping • Thousands miles start from first one step This cultural background is also clearly rooted in the educational system. In the West, teachers do not suggest how to solve a problem directly to the children. There is a lot of freedom for children to think and innovate new approaches to solve their problems. However, in Japan, children imitate instead of being given freedom. They are taught to learn things well using three words (see Figure 2). The first word means protect or keep, the second word stands for break and the third word means leave or release. The point is that children can learn how to do things well from the experience of others. However, the disadvantage is that this process could block prevent creative insights. The core values central to this argument relate to incrementalism, which signals continuous improvement. One can easily appreciate the side effects of such thinking – it means that the Japanese are good at the second step of creativity. This is echoed by many researchers who suggest that the Japanese are not good at coming up with brand new ideas (symbolically moving from 0 to 1), but can develop an idea or concept once it exists (symbolically they can advance from 1 to 10, step by step). The Japanese always strive to improve things effectively, thereby producing small improvements little by little. Eventually the pile of small improvements becomes innovation as a consequence. One example of this incremental paradigm is the so-called Kaizen, or the Toyota Production System. It assisted Toyota for many years to produce cars in one-third of the time required by car manufacturers in the West. Other examples that benefited from Kaizen included Walkman, an invention of SONY. The root of Japanese creativity comes from the heartfelt
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
212
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
need to make others feel more comfortable. If we care about others, they argue, we will see what they need and what they require. Incrementalism advocates moving not so much towards a goal as away from trouble, trying this or that small manoeuvre without any grand plan or sense of ultimate purpose. It has two attractive strengths. First, it eliminates the need for complete, encyclopaedic information by focusing on limited areas, those nearest to hand, one at a time. Second, it avoids the danger of grand policy decisions by not making any. Its main weakness is that it is highly ‘conservative’ (Etzioni, 1989); it invariably chooses a direction close to the prevailing one. Grand new departures, radical changes in course, do not occur, however much they may be needed. Theoretically, incremental improvements are either tentative or remedial – small steps taken in the ‘right’ direction whenever the present course proves to be wrong. But before small-step improvements are suggested – in order to determine whether or not the present course is right – a broader guideline has to be established. Thus, this suggests that incremental progress needs the hallmark of grand, a priori interrelated values and cultures, to stay in direction. One such value that is embedded in Japanese organisation is teamwork.
Focus on Teamwork – Let Everybody Be Committed Japanese organizations favour a more intuitive approach to management. Employees have undefined roles and are expected to work as teams to meet group goals. Decision-making is a group process, with large numbers of people involved in each decision (Kopp, 2000). It is not just everybody in the organization that has to be involved, but suppliers as well. Managers have to show a strong commitment to creativity. The process has to involve all the activities in the company, not just those that are directly involved in the manufacturing. Jan Etzioni (1989), formerly President of SAS, tells a story about two stone-masons who make granite blocks square. When asked what they were doing one of them answered tiredly that he was making the granite blocks square, while the other one enthusiastically answered that he was building a cathedral. The second of these comments illustrates that employees should have the chance to feel commitment, professional pride and responsibility to be able to do a good job. In fact, this could be the consequence of the other elements, rather than a condition. Those who have been given a chance to do a good job and to feel profes-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
sional pride, and who are recognized when they have done a good job, will also be committed to their job (Bergman & Klefsjo, 1994). This leads to improved continuous improvement, incrementally. Herbig and Jacobs (1996) use a ‘ricegrowing’ metaphor to stress the important of teamwork in Japanese culture. In rice-growing cultures, villagers had to work together to survive together. The field must be prepared and flooded with water; the seeds are raised and transplanted to the paddy field; and the field must be continuously monitored, weeded and controlled to obtain the greatest yield.
Focus on Communication Communication is central to Kaizen. Japanese people are creative and have a unique approach. Their attitude is to get along by getting along. The key is to maintain a good relationship with all the members of the working group and not try to change its direction (Muller-Hansen, 1997). Authority comes with age and dedication. To improve down-top communication, employees are encouraged to fill in a ‘Suggestion for Improvement’ sheet once a month. Most of the suggestions are very small things, such as putting a name tag on computers or the use of different colours for each individual file, etc. This information is circulated to the relevant parties. The process ensures that good suggestions come without extra cost and effort, and never disturb the harmony in the organization. Statistics by the Japan Human Relations Association (JHRA, 1988) show that average new suggestions per person per year could be as high as 833 in Japanese companies (see Table 1). Working as a team, employees routinely make presentations to the rest of the organization during working hours. Managers act as masters of ceremony, giving praise, recognition and expert commentary when necessary. Suggestions which require higher-level consideration for awards or implementation enter a formal system of evaluation and feedback (Basadur, 1992).
Focus on Training Japanese workplaces introduced various tools to integrate working, learning and innovating activities. Training is highly emphasized in the organization to cultivate improvizational skills. QC (Quality Control) and TQC (Total Quality Control) circles are techniques taught to every employee. These circles take on the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
THE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN JAPANESE CREATIVITY
213
Table 1. Suggestions per Employee Company
Number of suggestions
Number of employees
Number of suggestions per employee
Matsushita Hitachi Mazda Toyota Nissan Nippon Denso Canon Fuji Electric Tohoku Oki JVC
6,446,938 3,618,014 3,025,853 2,648,710 1,393,745 1,393,745 1,076,356 1,022,340 734,044 728,529
81,000 57,051 23,929 55,578 48,849 33,192 13,788 10,226 881 15,000
79.6 63.4 126.5 47.6 38.5 41.6 78.1 99.6 833.2 48.6
Source: JHRA, 1988.
role of informal communities of learning and working. In these circles, the relationship between members is lateral, even if the formal relation is vertical. As a member of the informal circle, a person has the ability to ‘exchange a story’ with other members. This ability is crucial for the person to play a role in improvizational dramas and to adapt to new situation in the workplace. OJT (On the Job Training) and JR (Job Rotation) are basic tools of learning by doing. In the Japanese workplace, because people are working in the same area they can exchange information and ideas with members of different sections (such as the R&D section with the Production section). These interactions enable them to produce informal ‘communities-of-practice’. Two of the common informal learning methodologies are ‘Totei-sei’ (Apprenticeship) and ‘Terakoya’ (temple classes) (Nishiyama, 1994).
Focus on Processes Nearly every organized activity can be viewed as a process, whose aim it is to deliver products or services that satisfy customers. The process is supported by an organization consisting of people and their relations, resources and tools. A process transforms certain resources into results that should satisfy the customers by using as small amounts of resources as possible. For example, one very popular technique is ‘Lean Production’, which seeks to reduce ‘waste’ at every stage of the process. Important tools for the continuous drive for better process and product quality are taught
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
to every employee. Simple statistical methods such as ‘the 7 QC-tools’ are encouraged to apply in every process in every organization. The simple basic rule is surprisingly often applicable. In many cases, very simple steps can bring about dramatic effects in terms of improved quality and reduced total costs (Bergman & Klefjso, 1994).
Company-wide Commitment The key elements of the cornerstone – training, process, communication and teamwork – together synergise a company-wide incremental approach to creativity/innovation. The West believes that innovation is about putting together diverse data or information, but in Japan the employees’ commitment to the company and its mission is what is important (Glor, 1998). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) stress that, in Japan, the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge takes place primarily at the group level. Western knowledge is explicit – it can often be processed by a computer, whereas Japanese knowledge is more tacit – difficult to process or transmit by computer. Clearly, Japanese companies are good at creating organizational knowledge by developing teamwork through an effective process of training, and communication. They do this on a continual, incremental basis (Glor, 1998). In the literature, the term ‘Strategic Community Management’ can best describe company-wide commitment. This community commitment allows managers to acquire knowledge of the external environment, market structure and changes in customer needs, and will discover new information and know-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
214
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
how while accumulating and sharing these intellectual assets as competences within the community (Kodama, 2001).
Discussion and Further Research In terms of the argument put forward by McFadzean (1998a, 1998b, 1998c), paradigmpreserving techniques may be more in keeping with an incremental approach to problem solving since they tend to evoke insights that make use of existing knowledge, but which is not knowledge that is recalled readily. Paradigm-stretching techniques may well lead to unanticipated insights since knowledge is stretched ‘beyond its limits’. Such insights may well lead to substantial rather than just incremental insights into a problem, though they do not in themselves invoke paradigm breakthroughs. Paradigm-breaking techniques can lead to very substantial insights and ideas that go well beyond being incremental in nature. Looking at what is taking place in Japan at the present time it would seem that the creative insights that are obtained are very much incremental in nature. Paradigmstretching and paradigm-breaking techniques seem to be required in order to stimulate moves in the direction of paradigm breakthroughs, which are generally lacking. The foregoing illustrates the predicament in which Japanese firms find themselves. They are well organized to develop new ideas that result from paradigm shifts, but are not well equipped to generate those new paradigms in the first instance. Even the idea-generating methods used by the Japanese are not well equipped to produce paradigm shifts. However, the latter can lead to effective utilization of existing paradigms and even paradigm stretching. In order to achieve the necessary transformation one needs to look for new ways of inducing paradigm shift. The methods illustrated earlier in the paper – role playing and rich pictures – may produce the desired results if they are suitably adapted for use within the context of Japanese management, but, of course, there is no certainty that they will be effective tools in this regard. One needs to ascertain empirically whether this will in fact be the case. Certainly, there is a very positive attitude amongst Japanese managers and workers towards creativity and innovation. The evidence presented above outlines a commitment to innovation and creativity in the workplace. Faced with a positive attitude towards creativity and innovation, the task of discovering whether or how paradigm-shift creating techniques can be applied should be
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
positively greeted. This in turn should augur well for success. However, one must not lose sight of the gap that it exists in the thinking habits of Japanese and Western cultures. Some adaptation or modification of existing methods or even new methods altogether may need to be produced. Further research needs to address the identified issues raised above. First an in-depth exploration of how the Japanese managers solve open-ended problems is required. One then might try to adapt the paradigm-shifting tools mentioned earlier to the Japanese mode of problem solving. Empirical evidence is then required to show how and why new insights into problems are gained as a result of using such tools. It may even be possible to suggest day-to-day ways of management thinking that might be adapted to take advantage of the findings.
References Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–84. Basadur, M. (1992) Managing creativity: a Japanese model. Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 29– 41. Bergman, B. and Klefsjo, B. (1994) Quality – from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. Carlzon, J. (1987) Moments of Truth. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Etzioni, A. (1989) Humble Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 122–126. Gilliam, T.K. (1993) Managing the power of creativity. Bank Marketing, 25(12), 14–19. Glor, E. (1998) What do we know about enhancing creativity and innovation? A review of literature. The Innovation Journal. Peer Reviewed Articles, 3(1). Herbig, P. and Jacobs, L. (1996) Creative problem solving styles in the USA and Japan. International Marketing Review, 13(2), 63–71. Japan Human Relations Association (1988) The Power of Suggestion. Japanese Human Relations Association, Tokyo. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton, New York. Kodama, M. (2001) Innovation through Strategic Community Management: The Case of NTT DoCoMo and the Mobile Internet Revolution. Creativity and Innovation Management, 10(2), 75–87. Koestler, A. (1964) The Act of Creation. Hutchinson, London. Kopp, R. (2000) The Rice-paper Ceiling: Breaking through Japanese Corporate Culture. Stone Bridge Press, Berkeley. McFadzean, E.S. (1998a) Enhancing creative thinking within organisations. Management Decision, 36(5), 309–15.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
THE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN JAPANESE CREATIVITY
McFadzean, E.S. (1998b) The creativity continuum: towards a classification of creative problem solving techniques. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(3), 131–39. McFadzean, E.S. (1998c) The Creativity Tool Box: A Practical Guide for Facilitating Creative Problem Solving Sessions. TeamTalk Consulting, Milton Keynes. Muller-Hansen, H. (1997) Japanese Creativity. Stockholm School of Economics & EIJS, Stockholm. Manor, P. (2002) Introduction to ‘Development of Inventive Thinking’ According to the SIT (SIT – Structured Inventive Thinking). Available at: http://www.osakagu.ac.jp/php/nakagawa/ TRIZ/eTRIZ/epapers/e2002Papers/ eManor020721.htm Nakamura, Y. (2003) Combination of ARIZ92 and NM Method for the 5-th Level Problems. Proceedings of TRIZCON2003. Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies, Worcester, MA. Nishiyama, K. (1994) Japanese Creativity in Business and Management. Kyoto Conference on Japanese Studies, 2, 62–66. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamic of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. Rickards, T. (1985) Stimulating Innovation: A Systems Approach. Frances Pinter, London. Rickards, T. (1988) Creativity and innovation: a transatlantic perspective. Creativity and Innovation Yearbook. Manchester Business School, Manchester. Rickards, T. (1990) Creativity and Problem Solving at Work. Gower, Farnborough. Rogers, B. (1996) Creating Product Strategies. Thompson International, London. Rogers, C. (1954) Towards a theory of creativity. A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249–60 (reprinted In P.E. Vernon (ed.), Creativity. Penguin, 1975). Sarkis, J. (1995) Proceedings of the 1995 ASEM National Conference, American Society for Engineering Management, Arlington, Virginia. VanGundy, A.B. (1988) Techniques of Structured Problem-Solving, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
215
Weinman, C. (1991) It’s not art but marketing research can be creative. Marketing News, 25(8) (April 15), 9–24. Wertheimer, M. (1959) Productive Thinking. Harper & Row, New York.
Dr Tony Proctor (t.proctor@ chester.ac.uk) is Professor in Marketing at Chester Business School, University College Chester, England. Dr Kim Hua Tan (kim.tan@ nottingham.ac.uk) is a Lecturer in Operations Management at Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, England. Prior to this he was an Industrial Research Fellow at the Centre for Strategy and Performance, University of Cambridge. He has vast experience in developing research-based techniques for strategy making. He is the co-author of Winning Decisions: Translating Business Strategy into Action Plans, published by CMIL, University of Cambridge, 2003. Kensuke Fuse (kensuke_fuse@ ybb.ne.jp) works for the Corporate Environmental Affairs Group in Fujitsu Ltd. at Kanagawa, Japan 211-8588. Prior to this he had various experiences working for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Pharmacia & Upjohn, and Jebsen and Jessen. Educated at Yale University, Ken’s research interest is in industrial environmental management.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESWHO OWNS IDEAS?CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
216
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Who Owns Ideas? An Investigation of Employees’ Beliefs about the Legal Ownership of Ideas David R. Hannah When employees believe that they, and not their employers, have legal ownership of ideas, they may choose to keep their ideas from employers, thereby hindering their employers’ ability to produce new products and services. This research used a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods in order to investigate what factors influence employees’ beliefs about who legally owns ideas. The major findings were as follows. Employees’ beliefs about who owns ideas are influenced directly by employees’ beliefs about the strength of their own legal claim to ideas and the strength of the competing legal claim of their employers. Those two variables are in turn influenced by factors that are specific to each idea, including the degree of employer involvement in the origins of ideas and the nature of the ideas; and by general factors including employees’ beliefs about their job responsibilities and their familiarity with pertinent organizational procedures. Employers should try to strengthen their legal claims to ideas by ensuring they are involved when ideas are originally generated, by socializing employees to believe that their job responsibilities include assigning ownership of ideas to employers, and by ensuring that employees are familiar with relevant organizational procedures.
Introduction
W
hen computer programmer Evan Brown, an employee of the DSC Communications Company, came up with an idea for how to update old computer languages to new code, his company stood to make millions of dollars (Ramstad, 1997) – until Mr Brown declined to share his idea with his employer. In spite of being fired and sued by his now-former employer, he continues to refuse to do so (Pratt & Dosik, 1997). His reason why, according to his website (at http:// www.unixguru.com), is that he believes he has legal ownership of his idea, and should therefore be able to do whatever he wishes with it. This dispute illustrates how employees’ beliefs about the legal ownership of ideas can have an impact on their employers. In order to survive and thrive, many organizations need to develop new products or services that can provide new sources of income (Amabile, 1996; Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002). These firms rely on their employees to generate new ideas that can be exploited (Kratzer, Leenders
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
& van Engelen, 2004; Nonaka, 1994). But if employees who generate ideas believe that they own those ideas, and as a result decline to share them, their employers may find themselves unable to generate new products and services and therefore unable to compete effectively. Employers should therefore try to convince employees that any ideas they generate belong to their employers. But the question of how employers can do this lacks a clear answer in the academic literature on organizations. This research reported here begins to fill that gap by investigating what factors influence employees’ beliefs about the legal ownership of ideas.
Relevant Theoretical Literature Ideas and Legal Ownership According to the Dictionary.com website, an idea is defined as something that is formed or represented in the human mind as the product © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
of mental activity (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000). Employees can have ideas about many topics in organizations: marketing strategies, production improvements, or ways to embezzle money. This research, consistent with previous work in this domain (c.f. Amabile, 1988; Lapierre & Giroux, 2003; Zhou & George, 2001), focuses on those ideas that are new and potentially valuable to organizations. When individuals legally own something, they have a legal right to the possession and use of that ‘thing’, whether it is a car, a house or an idea. Most of us are aware of the implications of legal ownership, so our beliefs about legal ownership influence the way we act. At work, we know that when employer owns something we should not take it for our own use. If an employee believed that he legally owned the couch in the break room he might take it home with him. But while employees may be unlikely to claim legal ownership of their break room furniture, they may, as illustrated by the DSC v Brown case, believe they legally own some or all of the intellectual products of their work, including their own ideas. And if employees believe that ownership gives them the right to keep ideas from their employers, they stop their employers from producing new innovations. Such employers may find it difficult to continue to compete effectively.
Idea Ownership and the Creativity-innovation Process The process by which ideas are generated and (more or less successfully) turned into new products and services has been the subject of considerable empirical and theoretical investigation by academics. These investigations, however, have largely neglected to study the role of beliefs of legal ownership of ideas. The following section explains where legal ownership beliefs fit into the overall process, which here is called the creativity-innovation process. Research and theorizing in this area has tended to focus on one of two domains (Zhou & George, 2001). The first involves the generation of new and potentially useful ideas by employees, and is often explored under the label of creativity (c.f. Amabile, 1998; Haapasalo & Kess, 2001; Shin & Zhou, 2003) and sometimes of exploration (March, 1991). In the many articles that explore the factors that influence individual creativity, the work of Amabile is among the most cited. She theorized that individuals’ levels of motivation, task-relevant skills and creativity-relevant processes will influence how well they perform on a creative task (Amabile, 1996).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
217
Her ideas have been supported by empirical research (Taggar, 2002). Other researchers have identified a number of features of work environments that influence creative behaviour, including the degree to which the environment is positive and supportive of creativity (Lapierre & Giroux, 2003; Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), and the degree to which environments signal to employees that they are treated with respect and provided with autonomy and freedom (Lapierre & Giroux, 2003). Some scholars have turned their attention to creativity in groups, and have identified communication patterns among group members as having a key influence on overall group creativity (Kratzer, Leenders, and van Engelen, 2004; Taggar, 2002). The second domain of research and theorizing identified by Zhou and George (2001) concerns the exploitation of new ideas by organizations (March, 1991) and is often studied under the label of innovation. Once new ideas are generated, in order for them to provide economic benefits for firms the ideas must be converted to products and services and then effectively marketed and sold. Work by many academics in this area has examined what factors influence innovative outputs of organizations, as measured by variables such as numbers of newly developed products or services (e.g. Katila, 2002; Oltra & Flor, 2003). The variables that have been found to influence firms’ innovative outputs include firms’ knowledge management practices (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Katila, 2002), recruitment practices (Rao & Drazin, 2002), research and development capabilities (Oltra & Flor, 2003), and overall strategic approach to exploitation (Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2001). As even this abbreviated review shows, the domains of creativity (idea generation) and innovation (idea exploitation) have been subjected to considerable empirical and theoretical inquiry. But a crucial link between these two areas has received considerably less attention: the choice by employees about whether or not to share their new ideas with others in the organization (c.f. Crossan, Lane & White, 1999). Nonaka (1994) described idea-sharing in terms of a choice by employees about whether to share their personal, unwritten, tacit knowledge with others. Nonaka also identified two types of idea sharing: what he called socialization, involving the sharing of personal experiences with others who then incorporate the lessons from those experiences into their own personal tacit knowledge; and what he called externalization, involving the conversion of personal, tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, such as writing a manual
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
218
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Idea Generation by employees
Idea Sharing with other organization members ∑ Socialization ∑ Externalization
Idea Exploitation by employers
Figure 1. The Creativity-Innovation Process
based on one’s own knowledge. As noted earlier, employees’ beliefs about idea ownership are likely to influence their choice about whether or not to share ideas through socialization or externalization. Idea-sharing can therefore be conceptualized as linking idea generation and idea exploitation through either socialization or externalization. The complete process is shown in Figure 1.
Organizational Procedures and Legal Ownership of Ideas Figure 1 shows that in order to develop innovations, employers need to ensure that employees share ideas with others in the organization. And to encourage the sharing of ideas employees should convince employees that their employers own those ideas. In practice, many organizations use at least two types of organizational procedures to try to accomplish this goal (Unkovic, 1985). The first type of procedure is an assignment provision (AP), and the second is a trade-secret handling procedure (TSHP). Assignment provisions typically stipulate that any ideas employees come up with in the course of their employment legally belong to their employers (Dorr & Munch, 1995; Lee & Davidson, 1993). Employees are often required to sign documents containing APs as a condition of their employment. When employees have signed APs, this gives their employers a stronger legal claim to employees’ ideas (Merges et al., 1997). APs also tend to include incentives for employees who have signed them: they state that employees who do not share their ideas with their employers and instead try to profit from the ideas can be fired and/or sued. While APs may strengthen the actual legal claims of employers on their employees’ ideas, whether they influence employees’ beliefs or actions is another question. The effects of APs on employees are likely to depend on whether or not employees recognize the legal claims that employers have to employees’ ideas, and whether or not employees understand that they can be sanctioned for ignoring the requirements of the APs. Put another way, employees’ reactions to APs will be shaped by the degree to which employees understand
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
the content and requirements of the APs; that is, whether or not they are familiar with the APs. Beyer and Trice (1978) found that employees’ familiarity with corporate procedures influenced employees’ reactions to those procedures. This research followed their lead. It was expected that employees who were more familiar with APs would be more likely to believe that their employers own ideas. The second type of formal procedure whose effects were investigated here is trade-secret handling procedures (TSHP). While APs are used by organizations to apply directly to the issue of legal ownership of ideas, TSHPs are commonly used by organizations to accomplish a more general goal: the protection of trade secrets. TSHPs set out rules for what employees can and cannot do with their employers’ trade secrets. For example, they often set out rules that employees must follow before they take documents containing trade secrets out of specific areas of a physical facility. TSHPs, like APs, also present incentives for employees to obey the procedures because they usually stipulate that employers will punish employees who violate the requirements of the procedures. Trade secrets are one of four legally recognized forms of intellectual property.1 Any form of information that has value to an organization can be legally defined to be a trade secret as long as the organization protects the secrecy of that information and the value of the information is linked to its secrecy (Dorr & Munch, 1995). Many different forms of information can be trade secrets, including tangible information such as the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken or the formula for Coca-Cola Classic and intangible information such as ideas. TSHPs usually require employees to treat ideas as if they are trade secrets. According to social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), individuals’ actions can influence their beliefs. They argued that individuals want to believe their beliefs are consistent with their actions, and that if individuals are required to behave in certain ways, they may change their beliefs in order to match their actions. This implies that if employees are required to act as if their employers legally own employees’ ideas, they may align their beliefs to match their behaviours: they may believe that their employers own ideas. Thus, it was expected that employees who were more familiar with TSHPs would be more likely to believe that employers legally own ideas. 1
The other three are patents, copyrights and trademarks.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
APs and TSHPs therefore offer different approaches for organizations seeking to make employees believe that their employers have legal ownership of ideas. APs are designed to apply specifically and directly to shape employees’ beliefs about legal ownership of ideas, but TSHPs are designed to influence employees to act in a protective way towards ideas, and to thereby indirectly have a similar effect. The results of this study revealed whether both approaches are effective, or if one is better than the other. Since the concept of legal ownership of ideas has been subject to so little empirical and theoretical investigation, it seemed likely that there would be unanticipated variables that influence employees’ beliefs. Qualitative data were also gathered and analysed in an exploratory way in order to identify other factors that may have an influence.
Research Methods Setting and Sample Two organizations were selected as research sites. Both organizations were in the high technology sector, a sector where idea generation is crucial to the ongoing success and survival of organizations (Lapierre & Giroux, 2003). The first of the two organizations (hereafter called Phototech) is involved in the digital imaging industry. At the time of the study Phototech employed approximately 125 workers at a site in the southwestern United States. The second organization (hereafter called Intertech) is a diversified international high-tech organization employing over 70,000 employees worldwide. The research was conducted at a site in the southwestern United States that employed over 1,000 workers. Following a pre-test with five employees in each organization, 127 employees in the two organizations were selected in a stratified random sample (stratified by department in order to account for any differences across departments) and invited to participate in the study. One hundred and eleven of that group, 50 from Phototech and 61 from Intertech, did participate, a response rate of 87 per cent. These employees had the following personal characteristics: 90 of the subjects were male and 21 female, their average age was between 36 and 45, and most were highly educated: 54 had completed an undergraduate degree, 23 a Master’s, and 20 a PhD. Sixty of the 111 employees worked in a research and development function, 30 worked in sales, and the remaining 21 worked in one of several other
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
219
functions that included human resources, accounting and janitorial.
Data Collection Data were collected by means of survey interviews. This research methodology allows researchers to gather both quantitative and qualitative data by combining questionnaire and interview methodologies. In survey interviews, subjects fill out answers on a questionnaire and also respond to interview questions: in this research, the interview questions concerned two scenarios about idea ownership. Handwritten notes of employees’ responses to the scenarios were taken in order to gather qualitative data. Employees’ responses were not tape-recorded because subjects in the pretests expressed a strong preference to not be recorded. It was particularly important to be responsive to subjects’ wishes, because this research concerns what Lee and Renzetti (1990) called a sensitive topic: employees may not want to admit that they own ideas because they want to be seen as being concerned with the interests of their employers, or because they feared that their company would find out and punish them if they admitted that they believed they owned ideas. In order to try to ensure that subjects would respond honestly, they were asked to sign an agreement in which they promised to respond honestly in return for the researcher’s promise to keep all responses confidential. Research by Cannell, Miller, and Oskenberg (1981) found that subjects who had signed such an agreement were more honest in their reporting of sensitive information (in their studies, sensitive medical information) than subjects who had not signed such an agreement. Scenarios When respondents reached the page entitled ‘Who Owns Ideas?’ they read a written instruction that the researcher would now read them a scenario. Each scenario was then read one at a time to the subjects. Scenarios were often read twice to ensure that respondents understood them, and were repeated if the respondents requested. The subject matter used to develop the scenarios came from legal scenarios that were described by Merges et al. (1997, pp. 97–98) in a section of their legal text where they were illustrating situations where the legal ownership of ideas would reside with either an employee or an employer. In the first scenario set out by Merges et al., they stated that own-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
220
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
ership of the idea would legally reside with the company. The first scenario was as follows: You have been assigned to work on a project whose goal is to come up with innovative ideas to improve the manufacture, marketing or distribution of one of your company’s products or services. You come up with such an idea while at work. In the second scenario, legal ownership would reside with the employee. The second scenario was as follows: You have been assigned to work on a project whose goal is to come up with innovative ideas to improve the manufacture, marketing or distribution of one of your company’s products or services. While at home one night, you come up with an idea for a new product that could be very profitable.2 In this scenario, because the employee came up with the idea at home outside of paid working hours and the idea did not pertain to their job assignment the idea would legally belong to him or her.
Data Analysis Quantitative Analyses A four-item scale was used to measure employees’ levels of familiarity with trade secret handling procedures (alpha = 0.81). Subjects were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert-type scale how well they understood the substance and requirements of the four trade-secret handling procedures. Those four procedures were: (1) the conditions under which they could disclose proprietary information,3 (2) what types of information are considered proprietary information, (3) procedures for handling sensitive documents, and 2 As implied by the wording of the scenarios, employees were asked to think of themselves generating ideas on their own, rather than in groups. The results therefore may not apply to ideas generated by groups. 3 The words ‘proprietary information’ were used instead of ‘trade secrets’ in the questionnaires, because in pre-tests subjects appeared to be more determined to respond in a socially desirable fashion when the words ‘trade secrets’ were used, and subjects also (inaccurately) identified trade secrets with only a very narrow set of types of information. It was therefore decided to use the words proprietary information, which subjects thought of more generally and did not react as strongly to. However, a definition of proprietary information was provided, and that definition was derived from the legal definition of trade secrets.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
(4) handling of documents identified as confidential. Familiarity with assignment provisions was measured by a single item asking employees to rate on a five-point scale how well they knew the rules for ‘who owns ideas you come up with’. Employees’ responses to the question, ‘who owns the idea’ were coded into one of three categories: ‘the employer’, ‘it depends’, and ‘the employee’. For the first scenario, 104 employees reported the idea would belong to the employer, only 4 said it depends and 3 said the idea would belong to them. Given the substantial differences in the size of these response groups, it was not possible to reliably use quantitative methods to investigate if there were concurrent differences across groups on other variables of interest. For the second scenario, 13 employees reported the idea would belong to them, 77 said it would depend on other factors and 21 said the idea would belong to the employer. Since there were still substantial differences in the sizes of the different response groups, if the variances in the groups for the variables of interest were unequal this could increase the risk of incorrectly reporting a significant difference in the means when none exists. Levene’s homogeneity-of-variance test was used in order to check whether or not the group variances were equal. In this test a significant Levene statistic indicates that there is inequality of group variances. The Levene statistic was not significant for familiarity with TSHP, indicating equality of group variances. It was significant for familiarity with APs (Levene statistic = 4.33, p < 0.015). A number of transformations of this variable were attempted, with the goal being to try to bring about equal variances across the groups, but these transformations were not successful. Therefore, the results of the ANOVA for familiarity with APs should be interpreted with caution. When the results of the ANOVA suggested that there were overall differences between groups, Scheffe post-hoc tests were used to determine whether there were significant differences between individual pairs of groups. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 1. Qualitative Analyses Employees were also asked to explain why they made their decisions about who owns ideas. Their responses were analysed following analysis procedures outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990). First, open and axial coding procedures were used in order to assign labels to the data and sort the data into categories. For example, when several employees men-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
221
Table 1. Results of ANOVAs and Scheffe Tests for Employees’ Propensity to Identify Ideas as their Own1 Variables of interest2
Familiarity with trade-secret handling procedures Familiarity with Assignment Provisions
Groups High (n = 13)
Medium (n = 77)
Low (n = 21)
3.24a (1.03) 4.00 (1.23)
3.91b (0.84) 4.42 (1.01)
4.18b (0.54) 4.81 (0.68)
F
Sig
5.57
0.01
2.77
0.07
1
Entries in the body of the table are mean responses to the 5-point Likert-style scales. Entries in parentheses are standard deviations. 2 For each variable of interest, groups that differed on their mean response score for that variable at the 0.05 level of statistical significance are identified with different superscript letters.
tioned that they were paid to generate ideas, their statements were sorted into a category called ‘pay’. Tables of these categories were constructed and used in order to help organize and interpret the findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As more data was collected, it became clear that pay was one factor that influenced employees’ beliefs about their job responsibilities, and those beliefs influenced their beliefs about idea ownership. The statements under pay were then merged into the larger category of job responsibilities. Next, selective coding was used in order to make connections between the categories in order to develop a grounded theory. The goal was to reach theoretical saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) by including in the analysis all concepts that helped to understand and explain variations in any of the subjects’ decisions about the ownership of ideas. A variety of provisional theoretical models were constructed and refined until the one to be presented in this paper was reached. But first, the core of the results is presented.
Results This study was designed to achieve two objectives: 1. to investigate whether employees’ familiarity with APs and with TSHPs would influence their beliefs about the legal ownership of ideas; 2. to explore what additional variables have an influence. The results are therefore presented in two parts: the results of the quantitative analysis, which relate to the first objective, are presented first, followed by the results of the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
analyses of the qualitative data, which relate to the second objective.
Results of Analyses of Quantitative Data The results in Table 1 show that when employees were sorted into groups based on their propensity to claim that they personally would have legal ownership of ideas, there were statistically significant differences among those groups on their mean levels of familiarity with TSHP. Employees with a low or medium propensity to claim ownership were more familiar with TSHP (low propensity = 4.18, medium propensity = 3.91) than employees who had a high propensity to identify ideas as their own (high propensity = 3.24). For familiarity with assignment provisions, although there were no statistically significant differences between employee groups at the 0.05 level of statistical significance, there were differences at the 0.07 level: employees with a low propensity to claim ownership were more familiar with APs (low propensity = 4.81) than employees with a high propensity (high propensity = 4.00). But given the finding that variances were not equal across groups for familiarity with APs, the results for APs must be interpreted with caution. In summary, the analysis of the quantitative data suggested that employees who were more familiar with TSHPs were more likely to believe that their employers own their ideas; there was also weak evidence to suggest that the same was true for APs.
Results of Analyses of Qualitative Data The analyses of the qualitative data yielded four factors that influence employees’ beliefs about the ownership of ideas. They are: (1) the
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
222
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Table 2. Evidence of the Influence of the Degree of Employer Involvement in the Origins of Ideas on Employees’ Beliefs About Idea Ownership Aspect of Origins of Ideas
Evidence
Source of idea
‘It belongs to me: the genesis for the idea comes from my experiences and prior knowledge, some from Imagetech and some outside Imagetech.’ (Imagetech, 5) ‘I generate ideas because of information I’ve been exposed to. If the majority of the information that led up to this idea came from Imagetech, it would be Imagetech’s.’ (Imagetech, 54) ‘If the source is anything to do with Phototech, it’s theirs. If the product comes from any of the information, knowledge, or proprietary information of Phototech, it belongs to them.’ (Phototech, 5) ‘If you wouldn’t have come up with the idea without working for the company, it’s theirs.’ (Phototech, 6) ‘Anything we come up with on company time, company resources belongs to Imagetech.’ (Imagetech, 4) ‘As long as I didn’t use Imagetech’s resources, it would be my idea.’ (Imagetech, 32) ‘The idea belongs to the employer – it was created on time that the employer paid for, also provided the context, the materials, the knowledge.’ (Phototech, 12) ‘If it’s built from any product ideas or resources of Phototech, if the inspiration comes from Phototech, it’s theirs.’ (Phototech, 28)
Resources provided for idea
degree of employer involvement in the origins of ideas, (2) the nature of the ideas, (3) employees’ definitions of job responsibilities and (4) employees’ familiarity with formal procedures pertinent to ideas. The results are grouped into tables according to these categories.
Employer Involvement in Origins of Ideas Table 2 presents evidence that two aspects of employers’ involvement in the processes in which ideas originate influence employees’ beliefs about idea ownership. The first is the degree of employer involvement in the information, experiences or knowledge that led to the generation of the idea. The second concerns what costly resources were expended during the generation of the idea. A number of factors can influence individuals as they generate ideas. For example, an employee may come up with a new idea after she has read the results of previous experiments, consulted relevant academic journals and spoken to a colleague. These factors fall into one of two categories: those that are inside the organization and those that are outside of the organization. If employees believe that the factors that led to the development of an idea
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
came from inside the organization, those employees are more likely to believe the idea belongs to the organization; if the factors come from outside, employees believe that they own the idea. In many cases, both kinds of factors, internal and external, influence the idea generation process. If employees are to decide who owns an idea, they must weigh the influence of external factors against internal factors. In this study, there was some disagreement among employees as to how much of the source of the idea had to be internal in order for the idea to belong to the organization. Some employees stated that if any internal factors influenced the process the idea would belong to the company, while others said that a majority of the factors would have to come from the company. An organization has many different costly resources that individuals may expend when they are generating ideas, such as raw materials, costs of utilities or extra staff. When employees believe that they use their employers’ resources when they generate ideas, they are more likely to believe their employers own the resulting ideas. It was noteworthy that many employees felt that if they used any of their employers’ resources then their employers would own the ideas.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
223
Table 3. Evidence of the Influence of the Nature of Ideas on Employees’ Beliefs about Idea Ownership Evidence Proximity of ideas to company’s business
Proximity of ideas to own work assignment
‘If it is related to any Imagetech products, it would belong to Imagetech.’ (Imagetech, 8) ‘If it’s related to Imagetech products or services, I don’t even ask them, I just give them the idea.’ (Imagetech, 26) ‘If it was related to Phototech’s products or technology, it’s their idea. By related, I mean if they idea had anything to do with Phototech it would be their idea.’ (Phototech, 3) ‘If it was, in any way, related to Phototech, then it probably would belong to Phototech.’ (Phototech, 22) ‘If it’s related to something I’m doing at work it belongs to Imagetech. If it’s something I’m working on independently then I would own it.’ (Imagetech, 10) ‘If the idea relates to current products and business you’re working on, it’s Imagetech’s. If it’s not related to anything I’m working on, it’s mine.’ (Imagetech, 19) ‘In order for it to be your idea, it has to be separate from your job and from whatever profession you’re practising in the company.’ (Phototech, 10) ‘If it’s related to what I’m working on it belongs to the company.’ (Phototech, 40)
Nature of Ideas Ideas can take a variety of forms. Respondents in this study, when talking about whether or not they would own a particular idea, often framed their answers in terms of real and imaginary examples ranging from fishing-reel loaders to children’s toys. As shown in Table 3, two characteristics of ideas influenced employees’ beliefs about idea ownership: the proximity of the ideas to the tasks assigned to employees, and the proximity of ideas to the company’s business. Employers usually assign their employees to perform certain tasks. When employees come up with an idea that is related to their task assignment, they are likely to believe that the idea belongs to their employer. For example, if an employee in the sales and marketing department came up with an idea for a new kind of customer information database, because that idea is closely related to their work assignment, he or she is likely to believe their idea belongs to their employer. The proximity of ideas to the business of the employing organization also seemed to influence employees’ beliefs about idea ownership: the closer the idea to the business of the organization, the more likely employees are to believe the idea belongs to the organization.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
For many employees in this study, any degree of relatedness was sufficient. Employees’ Definitions of Job Responsibilities When employees believe their job responsibilities include generating ideas, they are more likely to perceive that their employers own their ideas. As shown in Table 4, two factors influenced how employees defined their responsibilities: their general beliefs about their employment relationships, and their more specific beliefs about their personal job responsibilities. Many employees in this research said they were paid to come up with ideas, and because that was what their employers paid them to do, those ideas belonged to employers. Perhaps they felt that idea generation was part of their psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1989) with their employers. They may have believed that because their employers were providing inducements such as pay and benefits, they were entitled to the contributions employees could provide, including any ideas they came up with. Given the nature of the organizations involved in this research, it was not surprising that many employees believed that part of
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
224
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Table 4. Evidence of the Influence of Employees’ Beliefs about Job Responsibilities on Employees’ Beliefs about Idea Ownership Determinants of employees’ beliefs about job responsibilities
Evidence
Idea generation as part of employment relationship
‘It belongs to Imagetech because that’s what Imagetech pays me to do.’ (Imagetech, 24) ‘Imagetech because they pay me to produce ideas like that. That’s my job.’ (Imagetech, 54) ‘Phototech because I was hired to do the job of thinking about the idea. They’re buying that idea from me with my salary.’ (Phototech, 1) ‘Phototech since I’m working and gainfully employed by them. They pay me to come up with that idea.’ (Phototech, 11) ‘It belongs to Imagetech because it was an assignment given to me as a task during work hours. I’m paid to do it, it’s part of job scope.’ (Imagetech, 12) ‘It belongs to Imagetech, because that’s what you’re hired to do – that’s your job. You can’t just leave, go down the street, and sell it to a competitor.’ (Imagetech, 13) ‘[The idea belongs to] Phototech because I was hired to do the job of thinking about the idea.’ (Phototech, 1) ‘Belongs to Phototech because I was given that task – that was my responsibility.’ (Phototech, 35)
Idea generation as part of specific job responsibilities
their personal job responsibilities was to generate ideas, and if they generated ideas employers would own them. What was somewhat surprising was how willing employees were to cede ownership of ideas to their employers, even if they came up with those ideas at home. Out of 111 subjects asked who would own ideas they came up with at home, only fourteen believed it would be their idea. Twenty-one said the idea would definitely belong to the company. One individual even said, ‘The Company owns you 24 hours a day’. Seventy-five employees stated it would depend on the proximity of the idea to their work and/or the business of the company. One employee was unsure. Clearly, many individuals believe their responsibilities to their employers extend beyond work hours into their time spent at home.
quantitative data for the argument that employees’ levels of familiarity with APs influence their beliefs about idea ownership. A small number of employees, although not certain that they had signed a legally binding agreement, said that the company would still legally own the idea just because that was the way employment relationships worked. As one Phototech employee said, ‘It’s so ingrained in peoples’ thinking that your ideas belong to the company’. Given that experienced employees are likely to maintain their work-related beliefs as they move from job to job (Beyer & Hannah, 2002), employees who are socialized early in their careers to believe that employers own ideas may maintain that belief for their entire careers.
Discussion Influence of Formal Procedures As shown in Table 5, many employees stated they had signed an agreement that meant that all their ideas belonged to the company, and therefore all their ideas belonged to their employers. These employees were referring to assignment provisions. The qualitative data reinforces the weak support provided in the
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
The next logical step in this inquiry is to integrate the findings from the quantitative and qualitative data to advance a more detailed explanation of how the four factors identified in this study may influence employees’ beliefs. This section also explores how some other factors not uncovered in this research may have an impact. The goal is to develop a more com-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
225
Table 5. Evidence of the Influence of Formal Procedures on Employees’ Beliefs about Idea Ownership Evidence ‘[The idea belongs to] Imagetech because you signed an agreement saying to assign all ideas to Imagetech unless you get a release from them.’ (Imagetech, 37) ‘I signed an agreement when I joined that all ideas are assigned to Imagetech.’ (Imagetech, 55) ‘[The idea belongs to] Phototech because I’ve signed something saying all my ideas belong to them.’ (Phototech, 34) ‘[The idea belongs to] Phototech because that’s what my employment agreement says – it also says something about any ideas in a related field for a certain time belong to Phototech.’ (Phototech, 48)
Degree of Employer Involvement in the Origins of Ideas Sources of ideas Resources used to generate ideas
Nature of Ideas Proximity between idea and: organization’s business employee’s work assignment personal/organizational identity
Beliefs about Personal Legal Claim to Ideas
Competing Influences Degree to Employees Believe Idea Generation is Part of Job Responsibilities Cultural/Occupational ideologies Past experience Socialization in current job
Employees’ Beliefs about Idea Ownership Employee Employer
Beliefs about Organizational Legal Claim to Ideas
Familiarity with Formal Procedures Pertaining to Idea Ownership Trade secret handling procedures Assignment provisions
Figure 2. Theoretical Model of Employees’ Beliefs about Idea Ownership
plete theory of the factors that influence employees’ beliefs about idea ownership.
Competing Mediators: Employee Ownership and Employer Ownership Each of the four factors can legitimate or strengthen a potential legal owner’s claim to an idea. For each idea there are two possible owners: the individual who generates the idea and the organization that employs the individual. The two types of ownership claims, employee and employer, can be conceptual-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
ized as competing factors. A strong employee claim to ownership will make employees believe they own the ideas; a strong employer claim will cause employees to believe employers own ideas. These two variables are conceptualized in Figure 2 as competing mediating variables in a model predicting employees’ beliefs about who owns ideas. The following section explores how each of the four factors factor exerts its influence on the two mediating variables. Each factor falls into one of two categories. The first category includes characteristics that are specific to
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
226
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
each idea generated. The second includes general factors in individuals or situations that apply to all ideas generated.
Specific Characteristics of Ideas When employers are heavily involved in the events that preceded an idea’s creation, they will be seen as having a stronger legal claim to the idea; in the absence of any involvement by an employer, employees will see their own claim as the stronger. Employers who wish to make their employees willing to cede legal ownership of ideas should ensure that they are seen to be involved as ideas are generated. One way many organizations do this is by requiring employees to document their experimentation in laboratory manuals provided by the company that have the company’s name on the cover. Another way that employers can be seen as being involved is by providing resources – such as funds, the time of other employees, or laboratory equipment – for employees to consume as they generate ideas. If employees consume these resources they should be more likely to recognize their company’s legal claim to any ideas generated. The nature of the idea, what the idea actually is, is also important. If an idea is related to something that has a strong association with an employing organization, then that idea is likely to be seen as owned by the organization. That association could be between an idea and an organization’s line of products and services, or between an idea and an organization’s identity: what employees believe to be distinctive, central and enduring about the organization (Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994). Alternatively, if individuals see an association between an idea and their own personal identity (what they believe to be idiosyncratic to their self-conceptions: Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Beyer & Hannah, 2002), they may feel a stronger personal claim to the idea. Large organizations that produce many different products and services will probably find it easier to convince employees that their ideas are, by virtue of their association with one or more products or services of the organization, legally owned by their employers. The Intertech organization produced hundreds of different products, and several Intertech employees commented that any idea they generated would probably have a connection to Intertech; for Phototech, a company with a much narrower line of products, employees were more likely to believe that only products directly related to Phototech’s business would be owned by Phototech.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
General Factors If employees believe that they are obligated to generate ideas for their employers, they are more likely to believe that their employers own ideas. Employees may be socialized by past experiences (Beyer & Hannah, 2002), or by occupational ideologies (Trice & Beyer, 1993) to think that employers always own ideas. Organizations should also ensure that as they socialize their new employees, they emphasize to them that any ideas they come up with belong to their employers. This can be accomplished by requiring employees to sign APs, and by using more informal mechanisms such as having mentors for new employees. Mentors could be encouraged to let new employees know that the norm in the organization is that the employer owns all ideas employees generate. When employees are familiar with APs and TSHPs within their place of employment, they are more likely to believe that their employers own their ideas. If no procedures exist, or they do exist but employees do not know about them, then employees will be more likely to believe they own their ideas. Thus, in addition to requiring employees to sign assignment provisions at the time of their employment, employers should arrange to remind employees about the implications of the APs and TSHPs. Employers could remind employees through e-mail, by sending written memos or by having annual meetings to re-educate employees about both types of procedures and their implications. It is unlikely that this study has uncovered all the factors that influence employees’ beliefs about legal ownership of ideas. The following section explores two other factors that one would expect to have an important influence: national culture and organizational incentives. This study was conducted in two organizations in the United States, a country with a legal system and culture that values the right of individuals to own physical and intellectual property (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Many other countries with a similarly capitalistic orientation, such as Germany, England and Canada, accept and endorse similar rights for individuals. In such nations it may not be unusual for individuals to conclude that they own their ideas. But for countries such as China or Russia that historically have come from a socialist or communist tradition, products or services generated by a worker may in the past have been treated as if they are ‘owned’ not by that individual, but by all the people of the country. In these nations many individuals may be conditioned to believe that they would not have legal ownership of their own ideas.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
A second relevant characteristic of the United States is the strong degree of individualism in US culture (Hofstede, 1993), meaning that individuals in the USA prefer to act as individuals rather than in groups. The cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism identified by Hosftede (1980) has been found by other scholars to impact employees’ behaviour in the creativity-innovation process (Eisenberg, 1999), and it seems likely it will impact employees’ tendencies to share their ideas and to claim legal ownership of them. For example, in countries that are highly individualistic, such as the USA, The Netherlands and France (Hofstede, 1993), one might expect individuals to believe they have the legal right to own their ideas and they would not share the ideas with others. Other countries, such as Indonesia, Hong Kong and China, are much more collectivist, meaning that individuals in those nations are more likely to prefer acting in groups. In more collectivist cultures, individuals may be more willing to share their ideas (and to cede legal ownership of ideas) to groups and to pursue those ideas with the group. The findings of this research are therefore more likely to generalize to countries that come from similar capitalist traditions as the United States and have similar cultural values, particularly along the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism. A second issue that merits some discussion is the question of whether the use of incentives by organizations might induce employees to share their ideas and assign legal ownership of them to employers. Some organizations do provide financial incentives by paying bonuses to employees who come up with new, potentially valuable ideas, but it is interesting to note that neither of the organizations in this study did this.4 These organizations may have made a wise choice, as extrinsic rewards can undermine employees’ intrinsic reasons for performing their work (Deci, 1975; Lepper, Greene & Nesbett, 1973) because they cause employees to believe that they are performing the work because of external reasons, not internal ones (Pfeffer, 1994; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999). Some scholars have argued 4 In fact, one of the stories told by Intertech employees was about the employee who had developed that company’s most famous product. Although that product had yielded millions of dollars in profits for the company over the years, the employee received only a plaque for his idea. Some younger employees felt that was unfair, but many employees felt that the generation of ideas was part of their job responsibilities and employees should therefore not receive extra rewards for new ideas.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
227
that this can happen if organizations try to use rewards to encourage creative performance (Amabile, 1983; Deci & Ryan, 1985), although others have argued the opposite (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Further research and theorizing is therefore needed before we can advise organizations about whether or not incentives are an effective way of encouraging employees to share their ideas and to cede legal ownership of their ideas to the companies that employ them.
Summary and Conclusions This research has taken a first step towards a greater understanding of a key variable in the innovation process: employees’ beliefs about the legal ownership of ideas. The major findings of this study are as follows: • Employees’ beliefs about who owns ideas are influenced by employees’ beliefs about the legal claim of employees to ideas, and the competing legal claim of employers. • These variables act as competing mediators in a model predicting employees’ beliefs about who owns ideas. • Each mediator is influenced by factors that are specific to each idea, which include the degree of employer involvement in the origins of ideas and the nature of the ideas; and by factors that are more general, including employees’ beliefs about their job responsibilities and their familiarity with pertinent organizational procedures. The findings of this research are more likely to generalize to countries that come from similar political traditions as the United States and have similar national cultures, particularly along the dimension of individualismcollectivism.
Limitations Like any research, that reported here has various limitations as well as strengths. One limitation is that the data was all collected through self-reports, which may not reflect employees’ actual willingness to cede ownership of ideas to employers. Ideally, research into these issues would include objective behavioural data on idea ownership, but neither of the organizations involved collected any such data. Furthermore, it is difficult to say what form such data may have taken: although it may be possible to obtain data on how many ideas employees produce, it seems likely that a researcher would need to control for a multitude of other hard-to-measure factors (such as
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
228
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
knowledge, relevant experience and ability) in order to isolate the effects of willingness to share ideas or to cede legal ownership. Future researchers may have better luck identifying objective outcome measures. A second limitation is the fact that data were gathered from employees in only two organizations in one industry. The results may therefore not be generalizable to other employees in other settings, especially, as discussed earlier, to employees in countries that are dissimilar from the USA. Since this was the first study in this domain of idea transfer, all of the relationships between variables that have been described here remain to be verified by additional empirical research. Readers are encouraged to interpret this study as a ‘first cut’ at this important phenomenon. A great deal more theorizing and research will be necessary before we can claim a complete understanding of the issues examined herein.
Implications for Future Research There are many issues uncovered by this research that could be the subject of future research and theorizing. One is the relationship between the competing mediating variables in the model: employees’ claims to legal ownership of ideas and employers’ claims of legal ownership. In many situations both employees and employers might have some legal claim to an idea. What was interesting in this study was how frequently subjects in this research believed that employers’ claims trumped employee’s claims. Many of the subjects involved in this research may have been socialized to give up legal ownership of their ideas to employers. Future research could investigate how this socialization occurs. Another issue of interest to future researchers concerns why employees may or may not choose to share ideas after they have made their decision about idea ownership. Employees who feel a strong sense of attachment to their employers may still choose to share their ideas with their employers even if they feel they own the ideas. The concept of idea-sharing also merits a great deal more empirical and theoretical attention, because if employees choose not to share ideas, then there can be no innovation. Some questions that could be addressed in future scholarship are: What other reasons, in addition to idea ownership, influence employees’ decisions about whether or not to share ideas? Do employees share all of their ideas, or do they tend to share only parts of their ideas? What individual difference variables (such as individuals’ attachment to their organizations)
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
might influence employees’ idea-sharing decisions? What contextual factors might have an influence?
Implications for Practice The findings provide some insights into how managers might convince their employees to cede legal ownership of ideas to employers. A number of ways that employers can do this have been discussed in the paper. First, employers should try to be visibly involved in the idea-generation processes of employees. Ways this can be done include encouraging employees to consume the employers’ resources as they come up with ideas, having employees document the organizational resources they are using and requiring employees to record new ideas in company science manuals. Employers should also socialize employees to believe that their obligations include the generation of ideas for their employers. In addition, employers should require all employees to sign assignment provisions, and employers should implement trade-secret handling procedures. Employers should also try to ensure that employees are familiar with the APs and TSHPs by periodically communicating to employees about the implications of both types of procedures. A question remains, however, about whether or not employers should use incentives in order to encourage their employees to cede legal ownership of ideas. Given the contradictory findings in that research, it is not clear whether the provision of incentives will make employees more likely to assign legal ownership of ideas to employers, or will in fact undermine employees’ creative performance. This question is one example of the many unexplored areas in the domain of idea-sharing and the legal ownership of ideas. This research has taken a first step towards filling a gap in our knowledge of this important area. A great deal more work is needed before we are able to offer managers a comprehensive plan of action of how to ensure that their employees will assign legal ownership of the ideas that they generate to their employers.
Acknowledgement I want to thank Larry Pinfield and Tom Lawrence for their helpful comments and the employees and managers at Phototech and Imagetech for their time. Funding for this research was provided by the IC2 Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
WHO OWNS IDEAS?
References Amabile, T.M. (1983) The social psychology of creativity. Springer Verlag, New York. Amabile, T.M. (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–67). JAI Press, Greenwich CT. Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.) (2004) Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1978) Implementing Change: Alcoholism Policies in Work Organizations. The Free Press, New York. Beyer, J.M. and Hannah, D.R. (2002) Building on the past: Enacting established personal identities in a new work setting. Organization Science, 13, 636– 52. Cannell, C.F., Miller, P.V. and Oksenberg, L. (1981) Research on interviewing techniques. In Leinhardt, S. (ed.), Sociological Methodology, JosseyBass, San Francisco, pp. 389–438. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52. Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999) An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–37. Deci, E.L. (1975) Extrinsic motivation. Plenum Press, New York. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press, New York. Dorr, R.C. and Munch, C.H. (1995) Protecting trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and trademarks. (2nd Edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York. Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994) Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–63. Eisenberg, J. (1999) How individualism-collectivism moderates the effects of rewards on creativity and innovation: a comparative review of practices in Japan and the U.S. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8, 251–61. Eisenberger, R. and Cameron, J. (1996) Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or Myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153–66. Haapasalo, H. and Kess, P. (2001) In search of organizational creativity: The role of knowledge management Creativity and Innovation Management, 10, 110–18. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (1993) Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81–94.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
229
Katila, R. (2002) New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal, 45, 995–1010. Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.T.A.J. and van Dengelen, J.M.L. (2004) Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 63–72. Lapierre, J. and Giroux, V-P. (2003) Creativity and Work Environment in a High-Tech Context. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 11–23. Lee, L.L. and Davidson, J.S. (1993) Managing intellectual property rights. Wiley Law Publications, New York. Lee, R. and Renzetti, C.M. (1990) The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics. American Behavioral Science, 33, 510–28. Lepper, M.R., Greene, D. and Nisbett, R.E. (1973) Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the ‘overjustification’ hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–37. Li, H. and Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001) Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1123–34. Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R. and Pratt, M.A. (2002) There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–67. March, J.G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science, 2, 71– 87. Merges, R.P., Menell, P.S., Lemley, M.A. and Jorde, T.M. (1997) Intellectual property in the new technological age. Aspen Publishers Inc, Aspen. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996) Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–34. Oltra, M.J. and Flor, M. (2003) The impact of technological opportunities and innovative capacities on firms’ output innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 137–45. Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive advantage through people. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Pratt, J.S. and Dosik, P. (1997) Whose Idea Is It? Company Sues Ex-Employee. National Law Journal, 20 October. Ramstad, E. (1997) DSC Won’t Pay a Penny for His Thoughts – Company Sues for Ownership of Employee’s Idea. Wall Street Journal, 14 July. Rao, H. and Drazin, R. (2002) Harnessing managerial knowledge to implement product-line extensions: How do mutual fund families allocate portfolio managers to old and new funds? Academy of Management Journal, 45, 609–19. Rousseau, D.M. (1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–39. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978) A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
230
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Task Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–53. Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–14. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage, Newbury Park, NJ. Taggar, S. (2002) Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–30. Tenbrunsel, A.E. and Messick, D.M. (1999) Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 684–707. Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1993) The Cultures of Work Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Unkovic, D. (1985) The Trade Secrets Handbook: Strategies and Techniques for Safeguarding Corporate Information. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–96.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
David R. Hannah is an Assistant Professor of Management and Organization Studies at Simon Fraser University. He received his PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include the protection and management of trade secrets and of ideas, psychological contracts, employee socialization and cultural relationships between sport and business. His work has been published in Organization Science and the Journal of Sport Management. Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5A 1S6; telephone: (604) 291-5545; e-mail
[email protected].
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESPROFILING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCIESCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
PROFILING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES
231
Profiling Technological Competencies of Companies: A Case Study Based on the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Martin G. Moehrle and Hagen Lessing The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (Russian acronym: TRIZ) provides several new ways for finding creative problem solutions. In addition to TRIZ as it is used for generating inventions, some of its instruments can be applied for strategic management support. In combination with patent databases, TRIZ can be used for profiling technological competencies of inventors and companies to support strategic decisions. This article demonstrates profiling of technological competencies, using a complex case study of a leading German company. In this case study a five-step process, developed by the main author, has been applied. After having analysed patents and patent applications of three major companies in the field of floorcleaning aids, three characteristic profiles have been identified. This led to important activities in the area of R&D of the company doing the analysis, as well as to decisions of strategic relevance.
Introduction
T
he analysis of competitors is a major issue of strategic management. The management of a company should be well-informed about the products, the strategies, the resources and the leading employees of competing firms in national and international markets, because, as Merrifield (2000) points out, in these times of the Internet competitive advantages are changing between nations and over time. This analysis of competitors can have quite offensive goals; for instance Carayannis and Alexander (2004) show how such competitor information can be used for forming pre-competitive R&D consortia. One important task of the analysis of competitors is to get insight into the technical problem solving competencies of a competing company, especially in industries where technological competition is the norm (Friar, 1995). For this purpose the analysis of patents may help, as patents are a publicly available important source for technology information (for alternatives to patents see Lange, 1994, pp. 141–43). Three approaches will be mentioned, as follows. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
• Ernst and Soll (2003) suggest patent portfolios, from which a company may get insight into the structure of competition. In this context Ernst (2003, p. 235) introduces some patenting indicators for competitor monitoring like patent activity of a firm in a specific technological field, co-operation intensity or international scope. • Teichert and Mittermayer (2002) show how to use text-mining tools for getting competitor information out of patents. • Moehrle and Geritz (2004) introduce computer-based semantic analysis of patent texts in combination with multidimensional scaling for patent mapping. From the patent maps, structures of technological competition can be identified easily. In the following paper, a new way of analysing patents and getting profiles of the technological problem solving competencies of companies will be presented. This way is based upon inventive principles as part of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (abbreviation derived from the Russian title: TRIZ). A process for such a TRIZ-based analysis will be defined, and a case study in a major German
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
232
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Table 1. Forty Inventive Principles 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Segmentation Extraction Local conditions Asymmetry Consolidation Universality Nesting Anti-weight Prior counteraction Prior action Cushion in advance Equipotentiality Inversion Spheroidality Dynamicity Partial or excessive action Shift to a new dimension Mechanical vibration Periodic action Continuity of useful action
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
Rushing through Convert harm into benefit Feedback Mediator Self-service Copying Disposable object Replacement of a mechanical system Pneumatic or hydraulic construction Flexible ‘shells’ or thin films Porous material Change the color Homogeneity Rejecting or regenerating parts Transforming the physical/chemical state Phase transition Thermal expansion Strengthen oxidation Inert environment Composite materials
Source: Ideation International, 1999, p. 83.
company will show the benefits of profiling technological competencies of companies.
Inventive Principles as Part of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Based on a comprehensive analysis of patents, the Russian researcher Altshuller developed TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (see Mann 2001, Phan 1995, Stratton & Mann 2003 for brief descriptions of TRIZ). One of his major insights was that a large number of superior inventions are based on a small number of inventive principles (Altshuller, 1984, 1996). In other words: the same principles have been applied in thousands and thousands of different inventions. Altshuller identified 40 inventive principles (see Table 1; for a discussion of these inventive principles and examples of their application see Moehrle & Pannenbaecker 1997). These inventive principles will be discussed in three aspects: (i) their structure, (ii) possibilities to cluster them, and (iii) their theoretical background.
Structure The inventive principles are differently abstract and some of them are divided into sub-principles. For example, one of the inven-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
tive principles is called ‘local conditions’, and it includes three sub-principles: • Transition from a homogenous structure of an object or outside environment/action to a heterogeneous structure. • Have different parts of an object carry out different functions. • Place each part of the object under conditions most favourable for its operation (Ideation International 1999, p. 85). One illustrative application of local conditions may be found looking at the keyboard of a computer. All keys seem to be identical, but the ‘j’ and ‘f’ keys have a raised mark. These bumps serve for those used to typewriters as an aid for identifying the right keys with their fingertips. Therefore a small transition from a homogenous to a heterogeneous structure has occurred. Another inventive principle is called ‘dynamicity’ and it also includes three sub-principles: • Make an object or its environment automatically adjust for optimal performance at each stage of operation. • Divide an object into elements that can change position relative to each other. • If an object is immovable, make it moveable or interchangeable (Ideation International 1999, p. 91).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
PROFILING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES
Dynamicity has been applied for instance at advanced car radios. The objective volume is controlled by the speed: if the car is driven faster, volume is risen automatically, so the driver will always hear the same subjective volume of the car radio.
Possibilities for Clustering the Inventive Principles It is not easy for a human to learn and remember 40 inventive principles. For easier application those principles should be clustered. There are two valuable, but still not finally convincing suggestions for clustering: • A first contribution to the handy application of inventive principles has been made by Zobel (1991, pp. 108–116). He has formulated 13 universal inventive principles and related the rest of the inventive principles – which are much less universally valid – to these universal inventive principles. The resulting hierarchy provides a very reasonable structure. • A second contribution has been made by Ruchti and Livotov (2001). They selected some 12 inventive principles and organized each of them together with the corresponding reverse principle. For instance, they selected the pair of combination (similar to inventive principle 6, see Table 1 above) and separation (similar to inventive principle 1, see Table 1 above) and suggested using both of them when searching for a solution.
Theoretical Background Altshuller found the inventive principles with very intensive inductive research. The inventive principles are thinking variations, resulting from former inventors’ intuition. The part of TRIZ that deals with the inventive principles is therefore empirical. This has three consequences. First, although at least the first 20 inventive principles sound very convincing, there is no theoretical reasoning why exactly those 40 principles have been found – was it just by accident? Second, there may be more inventive principles that have not been identified yet. Altshuller (1984) himself suggests expanding the list of inventive principles if new principles are found. Third, there is no scope for developing the inventive-principle list further by relying on the identified inventive principles. New inventive principles may only occur by advances in technical (or in the meantime also recognized) non-technical sciences.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
233
Besides these theoretical considerations, Altshuller and his followers suggested using the inventive principles and other TRIZ instruments for making inventions. The inventive principles have been successfully applied in industry (for illustrative examples see Terninko, Zusman and Zlotin, 1998, pp. 10–11, detailing cases from Rockwell Automotive and Ford).
A Process Design for Profiling Technological Competencies of Companies with Inventive Principles The inventive principles were originally identified by analysing patents. This is the key for profiling technological competencies of companies, which is founded on three ideas: • If it was possible for Altshuller to extract the principles out of the patents between 1946 and 1970, it should be possible to do this extraction today as well. • Each inventive principle represents a large group of inventions based on the same major idea. Therefore, the application of such a principle by a company shows a specific technical competence. • The set of principles used by a company gives a profile of its technical problem-solving competencies. The TRIZ-based competitor analysis can be implemented by a specific process (see Figure 1). This process has been developed by the main author and applied successfully not only in the presented case study, but also in other cases with the same company, as well as in the photovoltaic industry. It offers a unique alternative to other approaches of profiling technological competencies as mentioned in the introduction of this paper. With the aid of the inventive principles it is possible to get deeper inside, an X-ray view through technological competencies. The process for profiling technological competencies comprises five steps: 1. There should be a definition of the technological field of interest. As an alternative to the technological field, a group of competing companies may be defined for analysis. 2. The patents and patent applications related to the technological field and/or the selected companies have to be selected within a database. At the moment there seems to be no better alternative to patents available, although patents have some disadvantages as data sources: they are published with a notable time lag after
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
234
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Definition of Technological Field
STEP 1
Selection of Patents and Patent Applications
STEP 2
Evaluation of Patents and Patent Applications
STEP 3
Identification of Inventive Principles in Selected Cases
Presentation of Results and Strategic Implications
STEP 4
STEP 5
Figure 1. Five-Step Process for Profiling Technological Competencies of Companies
application and there are some industries where patenting is not used very often. 3. The patents and patent applications should be evaluated. Only patents and applications that represent a major invention are of interest. In some cases companies try to get patents for a large amount of minor inventions. It seems to be not very helpful to specify those as relevant for the technological competencies of that company. 4. In the evaluated patents, the inventive principles should be identified. This may take some time, because often the analyser has to go into detail to find the ‘real’ invention. Sometimes there will be even more than one invention within a patent or an application. 5. The results should be presented in graphics; a verbal classification then gives insight into the specific profile of technological problem-solving competencies. Strategic decisions such as changing the companyit’ss own profile of technical problem-solving competencies or spinning-in of other companies may be based on these results.
Case Study: Analysing the Field of Floor-cleaning Aids for the Home Market The profiling of technological competencies of companies was evaluated with a case study in a leading German company. This company mainly produces chemical products but also cleaning aids and wanted to get insights into both its own technological problem-solving competencies and those of its competitors. The case study comprises the five steps specified in the preceding chapter.
Step 1: Definition of the Technological Field The technological field to be investigated was defined as floor-cleaning aids (mops) for the home market. The company doing the analysis has been successfully in this business for many decades with different types of prod-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
ucts, ranging from microfibre wipes to complete cleaning systems. The products connected to this field are typical consumer products. They are characterized as low price, but not necessarily low tech. The technological field can be characterized as follows. In the home market, mainly flat floors, sometimes with some smaller unevenness, have to be cleaned. Types and degrees of dirt may vary in a broad range. For instance, dirt may be poorly water soluble, greasy or oily. The goal of cleaning is to get the floor clean and – as far as possible – dry. The floorcleaning aid should be easy to handle and (as characterized above) low-priced.
Step 2: Selection of Patents and Patent Applications The patents and patent applications of the defined technological field were identified in Derwent World Patent Index, which collects patent data from 40 leading countries in the world. Using ‘mop’ or ‘mops’ as keywords led to 1,300 patents and patent applications. Only the 300 most important patents and patent applications, identified through their belonging to the IPC Group A47L 13/00-62, were investigated further. Before going into detailed evaluation of those 300 patents and patent applications, two findings concerning the whole population will be discussed. • Over the years there has been growth in patents and patent applications in the field of floor cleaning aids. Starting with 4–9 applications in the years 1963 to 1970 the number of applications has risen to 133 in the years 1995 and 1996 (annual growth rate: 12%). There may be different reasons to explain this growth rate. In general, patents are more often used in competition nowadays. Also, the level of invention for granting a patent has been lowered by the patent offices. In particular the technological field of floor-cleaning aids has been broadened by new products like flat wiping and wringing systems.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
PROFILING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES
• There are very many inventors and applicants in the field of floor-cleaning systems. The major 19 applicants own 292 of the 1,300 patents and patent applications. The rest – more than 1,000 patents and patent applications – are owned by approximately 750 applicants. This may be explained both by the supplier structure, which is dominated by small and medium-sized companies, and by the high percentage of private inventors, who are inspired by the usage of those floor-cleaning systems in their own home.
Step 3: Evaluation of the Patents and Patent Applications The next selection criteria was the type of invention. Only such patents and patent applications in which major inventions have been published were considered. This selection was made on the base of expert knowledge of the company and led to 65 patents and patent applications. Within this step the experts analysed the patents and patent applications with the help of a five level structure, which Altshuller (1984, pp. 16–25) suggested for invention classification: • Level 1 – apparent or conventional solution; solution by methods well-known within specialty; • Level 2 – small invention inside paradigm; improvement of an existing system, usually with some compromise; • Level 3 – substantial invention inside technology; essential improvement of existing system; • Level 4 – invention outside technology; new generation of design using science not technology; • Level 5 – major discovery and new science. Altshuller classified the inventions of 40,000 patents according to the five levels (Terninko, Zusman & Zlotin, 1998, p. 13). Thirty-two per cent of the inventions belong to Level 1, 45 per cent to Level 2, 18 per cent to Level 3, 4 per cent to Level 4, and only 1 per cent to Level 5. Although the borders between the levels may appear to be a bit fuzzy, the classification proved to be easily applicable to the engineers of the case-study company.
235
invention overcomes, and the inventive principles used were identified and documented. Often there was more than one inventive principle used in an invention: in the 65 patents and patent applications, in total 104 inventive principles were applied. The identification of inventive principles will be demonstrated using one patent. In European Patent 0097336, published in August 1984, a domestic floor mop is described: A domestic floor mop comprises an absorbent band mounted on a bracket carried at the end of a handle. A rotary torsion head is engaged with the band and is rotatably mounted in the bracket. A fastener is fixed to each end of the band, and the fasteners are mounted on the bracket for movement between a washing position, in which said fasteners are spaced apart and said band is deployed in a plane, and a wringing position in which said fasteners are closer together such that said band is gathered towards said rotary head to permit twisting of the band upon rotation of said rotary head. The fasteners are each slidably mounted in a respective guide carried by said bracket and extending in a plane parallel to the deployment plane of said band. In the mentioned invention the main contradiction lies in the form of the band. On the one hand it should be deployed in a plane (for good washing results), on the other hand it should be close together (for good wringing results). The inventor, Roger Weiss, from Moulinex S.A. used inventive principle dynamicity (introduced above) to solve this contradiction. Sub-principle 1 of that inventive principle is: ‘Make an object or its environment automatically adjust for optimal performance at each stage of operation’, and that is exactly what has been applied in this invention. In this state of research the identification of inventive principles is the most time consuming part of the analysis, as it has to be done by human experts (see also discussion). In the case study, it took two hours to analyse each patent.
Step 5: Presentation of Results Step 4: Identification of the Inventive Principles in the Evaluated Patents Each of the 65 patents and patent applications was studied intensively. The core ideas of each patent or patent application were formulated. The fundamental contradictions, which an
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
The case study led to three types of results, which will be presented here: (i) general findings about the application of technical problem-solving knowledge, (ii) the profiles of the three leading companies and (iii) strategic implications for the company doing the research.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
236
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
20 (10)
(3) Local conditions
11 (4)
(15) Dynamicity
10 (4)
(7) Nesting
8 (4)
(14) Spheroldality
7 (3)
(4) Asymmetry
6 (1)
(24) Mediator
5 (0)
(2) Extraction (5) Consolidation
4 (1)
(17) Shift to new dim.
4 (4)
(6) Universality
3 (3)
(11) Cushion in adv.
3 (1)
(16) Part. or ex. act.
3 (1)
(23) Feedback
3 (1)
(25) Self-service
3 (1)
Selected field: Linkage for floor cleaning aids for the home market
2 (0)
(13) Inversion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Figure 2. Application of Inventive Principles in Selected Patents and Patent Applications (See Table 1 for the description of the inventive principles)
General Findings In general, in the field of floor-cleaning aids for the home market a broad spectrum of inventive principles has been used (see Figure 2). Most often, the inventive principles 3 (local conditions) and 15 (dynamicity) have been applied (see above for the description of these two principles), followed by principles 7 (nesting), 14 (spheroidality) and 4 (asymmetry). The inventive principles with low leading numbers seem to have been used the most: nearly half of the 104 identified inventive principles are located in the range between principles 1 and 7. That refers directly to the abovementioned theory by Zobel (1991), which states that some universal inventive principles exist.
optimizer’, company B is the ‘dimension enhancer’, and company C the ‘dynamizer’. This verbal classification derives from the cluster of inventive principles a company has used most often. The principles ‘local conditions’ and ‘dynamicity’ have already been introduced above. The inventive principle ‘dimension enhancement’ represents inventions where the inventor has extended geometrical dimensions, for instance from plain to curved in one or even two dimensions. There were also some overlaps in the technological competencies (see Figure 4). Principles 7 (nesting) and 14 (spheroidality) have been used by all three companies. Furthermore, there are some overlaps between two out of three companies. But all three of the companies have applied a significant number of inventive principles exclusively.
Profiles of Three Leading Companies Three companies, one doing the case study and the two competitors with the highest number of patents and patent applications, were investigated further. The analysis shows clear and unique profiles of the technical problem-solving competencies of the three companies (see Figure 3). Company A is the ‘local
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Strategic Implications The insight into the profiles of technological problem-solving competencies had important strategic implications. In a first workshop with the heads of R&D the reasons for these profiles and whether there should be a change in the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
PROFILING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES
237
(8)
(3) Local conditions (17) Shift to a new dim. (6) Universality (7) Nesting (5) Consolidation (9) Prior counteraction (11) Cushion in advance (12) Equipotentiality (14) Spheroidality (15) Dynamicity (23) Feedback (25) Self-service
(3) (2) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Local optimizer
1
2
3
(4) Asymmetry
(2)
(3) Local conditions
(2)
(14) Spheridality
4
5
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
(2)
(6) Universality
(1)
(7) Nesting
(1)
(17) Shift to a new dim.
(1)
(22) Conv. harm into ben.
(1)
Dimension enhancer
(1)
(31) Porous material 1
2
3
(15) Dynamicity
4
5
(3)
(4) Asymmetry
(1)
(7) Nesting
(1)
(14) Spheroidality
(1)
(16) Part. or excess action
(1)
(24) Mediator
(1)
(34) Reject. or reg. parts
(1)
Dynamizer
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 3. Application of Inventive Principles in Selected Patents and Patent Applications, Differentiated Among Three Companies (see Table 1 for the description of the inventive principles)
Dimension Enhancer
22, 31 3, 6, 17
4 7, 14
5, 9, 11, 12, 23,25
15
cies of companies changed the way of technological competition in this field of application. Meanwhile, in this company other fields of interest are under investigation with the presented method.
16, 24, 34
Discussion and Conclusions Local Optimizer
Dynamizer
Figure 4. Overlap Diagram of Inventive Principles in Selected Patents and Patent Applications, Differentiated among Three Companies (see Table 1 for the description of the inventive principles)
fundamental directions of inventions were discussed. The question of spinning-in of company C arose and led to a technological co-operation with this company. A very successful follow-up workshop was organized. There, R&D employees discussed the profiles and applied those inventive principles that were normally used more often by the competitors. Based on that, it was possible to attack competitors in their field of competencies. All in all: the profiling of technological competen-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Profiling technological competencies with the aid of TRIZ is a new instrument for innovation and strategic management. Based on a patent analysis followed by the identification of inventive principles applied, it gives deep insights into the technological problemsolving competencies of a company and its competitors. It even may change the way of competition and/or co-operation in a specific market. But there are still a lot of questions to answer which could form part of future research: • Can the described process be applied in every industry, where patenting is the common tool for defending the technological basis, or is it limited to some technological fields? First experiments show that it may be used in several engineering fields, but for instance is limited in chemical patents,
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
238
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
where inventions often are described by new combinations of substances. • How do the results of such an analysis change over time? In connection with this question the question arises, is the application of inventive principles more a particular feature of an individual (like a talented engineer) or more the feature of a group or department (like a specific engineering style)? • How should the results of the profiling be connected to the economic value of patents? Until now there has been only weak empirical evidence that inventions on an higher level are economically more valuable than inventions on a lower level (see the classification scheme in process step 2). This should be investigated further for receiving better selection criteria. • Are there any possibilities for enhancing the productivity of the analytical process? The experience value of two hours per patent limits the scope of possible applications. First tests have been made to use semantic patent analysis tools for this purpose, but it seems difficult to get the core of an invention by these tools. As conclusions, mentioned:
three
aspects
shall
be
1. Profiling technological competencies of companies based on TRIZ enhances the theory of competition analysis by providing a new instrument giving deep insights (but see also the limitations discussed above). 2. The case study indicates the practical benefits a company can get from the instrument. 3. The presented instrument of profiling technological competencies shows that TRIZ has not only technical aspects, but can also be used as a powerful tool in strategic management.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr Hans-Jürgen Wendelken, who was a very competent and interested partner for the industry case study.
Altshuller, G.S. (1996) And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared. Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MA. Carayannis, E.G. and Alexander, J. (2004) Strategy, Structure, and Performance Issues of Precompetitive R&D Consortia: Insights and Lessons Learned From SEMATECH. In IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(2), 226–32. Ernst, H. (2003) Patent Information for Strategic Technology Management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233–42. Ernst, H. and Soll, J.H. (2003) An Integrated Portfolio Approach to Support Market-Oriented R&D Planning. International Journal of Technology Management, 26(5/6), 540–60. Friar, J.H. (1995) Competitive Advantage Through Product Performance. Innovation in a Competitive Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, 33–42. Ideation International (1999) Tools of Classical TRIZ. Ideation International, Southfield/MI. Lange, V. (1994) Technologische Konkurrenzanalyse. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden. Mann, D. (2001) TRIZ: The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Creativity and Innovation Management, 10(2), 123–5. Merrifield, B. (2000) Changing Nature of Competitive Advantage. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 41–5. Moehrle, M.G. and Geritz, A. (2004) Developing acquisition strategies based on patent maps. In Khalil, T. and Hosni, Y. (eds.), IAMOT 2004 – New Directions in Technology Management: Changing Collaboration between Government, Industry and University. IAMOT, Washington, DC, 1–9. Moehrle, M.G. and Pannenbaecker, T. (1997) Problem-Driven Inventing. Creativity and Innovation Management, 6(4), 234–48. Phan, D. (1995) TRIZ: Inventive Creativity Based on the Laws of Systems Development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4(4), 19–30. Ruchti, B. and Livotov, P. (2001) TRIZ-based Innovation Principles and a Process for Problem Solving in Business and Management. TRIZ-journal, 6(12), 1–9. Stratton, R. and Mann, D. (2003) Systematic Innovation and the Underlying Principles Behind TRIZ and TOC. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 139, 120–6. Teichert, T. and Mittermayer, M-A. (2002) Text Mining for Technology Monitoring. Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference IEMC-2002, Cambridge, 596–601. Terninko, J., Zusman, A. and Zlotin, B. (1998) Systematic Innovation – An Introduction to TRIZ. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton FL. Zobel, D. (1991) Erfinderpraxis. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin.
References Altshuller, G.S. (1984) Creativity as an Exact Science. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, New York.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
PROFILING TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES
239
Professor Dr Martin G. Moehrle (
[email protected]) is Director of the Institute for Project Management and Innovation, University of Bremen, Postfach 33 0440, D-28334 Bremen, Germany. He has worked on the TRIZ topic for many years and is leading several research projects on the bases of TRIZ, its application in early phases of the problem-solving process and the transfer to management problems. He also has experience of teaching TRIZ in a number of companies. From 2004, he is speaker of the German TIM committee, which consists of more than 100 academics working in the field of technology and innovation management (TIM). Among his recent publications is a book about technology roadmapping (published by Springer) and an encyclopaedia about technology management (published by Gabler). Dr Hagen Lessing studied engineering and management at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus. From 1999 to 2004 he worked as a research associate at the Fraunhofer Application Center for Logistics and Business Management. The topic of his PhD thesis was development of a production planning and controlling model for the parcel and express logistics. Since finishing his thesis in early 2004 he has been with The Boston Consulting Group working for clients in the industrial goods sector.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESCULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMSCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
240
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Cultural Diversity in Entrepreneurial Teams: Findings of New Ventures in Germany Ricarda B. Bouncken This paper explores how entrepreneurs from different national cultures deal with cultural diversity of their entrepreneurial teams. The explorative research looks at six case studies in different stages of the venture process. The paper delivers insights from early to later phases of start-ups. From the case-study research and theoretic considerations the paper develops different propositions. Core findings are: first, in cross-cultural teams monochronic/lowcontext/high-space entrepreneurs strongly structure tasks. Second, polychronic/high-context/ low-space founders tend to supply external contacts to the diverse team. Third, polychronic/ high-context/low-space founders have a propensity to stimulate communication procedures. Fourth, enhanced communication in cross-cultural teams seems to be related to creativity. At last, monochronic/low-context/high-space founders tend to deny positive effects from cultural diversity.
Introduction eneral consensus exists of new ventures having positive effects on economies and wealth (Park & Bae, 2004). New ventures particulary provide innovations to markets and nations (Aldrich, 1999; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990). As creativity is understood as a pre-condition for innovativeness of firms (Feist, 1998; Sethi, Smith, & Park, 2002; Sing & Huu Phuong, 1996), new ventures benefit from enhanced creativity. Creativity may stem from a sudden new idea to individuals or from merging different concepts. In particular, the tension of different views of interacting individuals exaggerates creativity. Hence, heterogeneous views to problems of entrepreneurs in new ventures may amplify their creativity, innovativeness and thereby success. This assumption is consistent with the literature that identified positive effects of entrepreneurial teams with heterogeneous skills on the success and growth of new ventures (Keeley & Knapp, 1994; Mellewigt & Späth, 2002). A heterogeneous team may supply the new venture with an enlarged portfolio of technical knowledge and information. Heterogeneity may be rooted in diverse ages, sexes, or educational
G
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
background (Dose, 1999). In addition, cultural diversity, by providing different educational, social-norm based, or behavioural backgrounds, can trigger the degree of heterogeneity of an entrepreneurial team. Nevertheless, diversity is fraught with risks of misunderstanding that may hamper the collaboration between individuals and the outcome of their operations. In the past few decades some extensive work has directed dimensions and criteria of cultural differences. In his popular empirical work Hofstede separated several dimensions of cultural effects: power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1984). Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars introduced the dimensions of universalism versus particularism, individualism versus communitarianism, specificity versus diffuseness, achieved versus ascribed status, inner versus outer direction and sequential versus synchronous time (HampdenTurner & Trompenaars, 2000). In addition, Hall and Reed Hall focus on velocity, context, space, and time (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). The subsequent literature on cultural diversity explored effects of cross-cultural collaboration in multinationals (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
1998; Gertsen & de Gruyter, 1998; Hopkins & Hopkins, 2002; Schmid, 1996; Yamin, 1998). Still, a gap remains concerning the contingencies and effects of cross-cultural teamwork, especially on creativity in entrepreneurial teams. This paper aims to explore how individuals in an entrepreneurial team deal with its cultural diversity. In this vein, the paper will investigate how entrepreneurs perceive the benefits and drawbacks of cultural diversity on the development of creativity while developing and implementing new solutions. The analysis bases on cultural dimensions provided by Hall and Reed Hall as their typology presents a detailed in-depth business context explored in different firms giving a thorough understanding of work behaviour. Furthermore, the framework of Hall and Reed Hall corresponds in major dimensions such as time-use with the findings of HampdenTurner and Trompenaars. This paper delivers propositions concerning interculturality in new venture teams. Hypotheses draw on theoretic considerations and explorative case-study work. Case studies focus on exploring effects from intercultural teams during different stages of the venture progress. The paper assumes stages of the venture process and the innovation management to have dissimilar requirements. In order to explore how cultural diversity influences creativity during the venture progress the study applies six case studies of culturally diverse founder teams in different stages of the entrepreneurial process. The key findings of this study are: 1. In cross-cultural teams monochronic/lowcontext/high-space entrepreneurs strongly tend towards structure tasks. 2. Polychronic/high-context/low-space founders supply external contacts to the diverse team. 3. Polychronic/high-context/low-space founders have a propensity to stimulate communication procedures. 4. Enhanced communication in cross-cultural teams seems to be related to creativity. 5. Monochronic/low-context/high-space founders tend to deny positive effects from cultural diversity. The paper is organized as follows. It starts with theoretic underpinnings, then it presents the method. The paper ends with a discussion of the results and conclusion. The paper contributes to the literature and to management practice as it discusses intercultural issues of entrepreneurship that have not been explored before, and which may guide management of new ventures.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
241
Theoretical Issues Definition of Entrepreneurship Prior studies highlight the positive effects of entrepreneurship on economic prosperity as it brings about new technical, organizational and/or procedural solutions (Cooper, Folta, & Woo, 1991). Entrepreneurship theory delivers answers how an organization comes to existence (Bygrave, 1989; Lee, Smith, Grimm, & Schomburg, 2000). The literature into entrepreneurial process has dealt with separating typical key stages that provide hints about typical actions and problems in the venture progress. Stages defined vary in definition and build on more or less linear dependencies. Olsen classifies four stages: (1) identification, (2) design, (3) selection, (4) implementation (Olson, 1986). Identification occurs when the entrepreneur realizes a market opportunity or becomes aware of a new technical solution that enables exploitation of the market. Evaluations and specifications of the opportunity’s market value occur in the design stage. Specification and re-adjustments induce finding different alternatives of products, services, technologies or business models. Hence, an entrepreneur requires choosing one or more alternatives. This choice is understood to happen in the selection stage. Entrepreneurs start to implement their business model afterwards. They engage in founding activities, which will commence in the implementation stage. The implementation stage discriminates entrepreneurs from actors who only identify or invent new ideas but do not engage in their implementation. New ventures should regularly achieve returns and growth in early or later growth stages, following the implementation stage. This paper regards stages, before a venture achieves returns, as pre-growth stages (identification, design and selection stage). Successful implementation should be followed by stages of early growth that cover first returns, cash flow, earnings and growing market share. The entrepreneurial process with its innovative outcomes is regarded risky and fraught with resource constraints (smallness, lacking resources) that are at their maximum during the first stages of the venture progress (Witt & Rosenkranz, 2002). Corporate entrepreneurship in which entrepreneurs found a new venture with the assistance of their former employer, an established company, faces lessserious resource constraints than independent entrepreneurship (Greve, 2003). Motivated by the identification of key elements in relation to cultural diversity this paper only analyses start-ups by independent entrepreneurs.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
242
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Low and McMillian explore personal traits such as risk taking, openness and goal orientation that may influence the success in starting up a new venture (Low & MacMillan, 1988). Some studies show considerable significance for higher performance of venture teams than single entrepreneurs (Keeley & Knapp, 1994; Mellewigt et al., 2002). The underlying logic is that a team can build upon diverse resources and competencies of the individuals (Garcia-Prieto, Bellard & Schneider, 2000; Harrison, Kenneth, Gavin & Florey, 2002; Kilduff, Angemar, & Mehra, 2000). A team can contribute diverse and heterogeneous knowledge, skills, competencies, money and contacts etc. that allow expanding the resources available to the new venture. Moreover, venture teams with links to international partners and markets are supposed to improve the internationalization performance of a smaller firm (Lamb & Liesch, 2002). Albeit that new ventures require heterogeneous resources, entrepreneurial teams generally consist of a small number of colleagues who act as social clique. The merging of different views and skills of the individuals in the entrepreneurial team can promote creativity, which serves as a pre-condition realizing a new means-end combination of a new venture.
Role of Creativity in Venturing The central element of creativity addresses the vision of a new opportunity and some broader or finer grained ideas for its realization (Ellsworth, 1985). In order to understand creativity, scholars analysed the process of creative problem-solving (Pershyn, 1992; Rickards, 1997). Preceded by models of different stages and principles of creativity, the lit-
erature developed tools promoting creativity of individuals or groups (Puccio, 1999). Several scholars stress the novelty of an entrepreneurial idea as a precondition for success of new ventures (Dosi, 1988; Gordon, 1956; Grandstrand, 1979; Rickards & Puccio, 1992; Rumelt, 1987; Schumpeter, 1942). Yet, Hausschildt emphasizes creativity as only half way to success as innovation includes finding a new means-ends relation and its implementation (Hausschildt, 1996). Thus, new ventures that are based upon innovative products, services and business models benefit from structures that enhance creative idea generation and its implementation. In relation to these separate tasks, the literature defines profiles of two types of persons: innovators and adaptors (Pershyn, 1992; Rickards & Puccio, 1992). Innovators are understood to explore, promote and implement higher degrees of novelty of innovations regarding products or processes (Hamer, 2001; Soh & Roberts, 2003). They focus on collecting diverse information and using imagination to generate their creative ideas (Puccio, 1999). Instead, adaptors dominantly engage in clarifying the problem and in developing solutions. Adaptors concentrate on improving the implementation of a new idea or on slightly refining the idea. If adaptors work just on innovations, the degree of novelty is supposed to be low. Creativity in ventures may address the identification or improvement of new technical solutions, business models, organizations’ principles or market needs that will lead to an innovation (Leonard, 1995; Moss Kanter, 1996). The identification of new market opportunities requires extensive market research or customer integration (Bar, 2000; Hart, Hultink, Tzokas & Commandeur, 2003). Instead, the
Technology New Market Invention Opportunity
Identification
Design
Selection
Evaluation & Specification
Different Alternatives
Implementation
Pre-growth
Early growth
Early-growth
Heterogeneous resource requirements
Entrepreneurial Team
Figure 1. Entrepreneurial Process
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
exploration of a new technology centres on experimenting, searching possibilities of technology transfer etc. driven by technically educated individuals. Thus, the identification of market needs requires different activities and skills from the development of new technology. Nevertheless, new technology will only succeed if it meets an existent need or is capable of generating a new market. Consequently, dissimilar entrepreneurial profiles improve both activities: generation and implementation of new ideas to successful innovations. Entrepreneurs with an innovator profile contribute to the generation of highly novel, predominantly technological, ideas. Instead, adaptors improve the implementation by elaborating the realization in the market by integration of alternatives to a consistent and market-oriented result. Corresponding to different tasks in the management of innovation, individuals in the entrepreneurial team might concentrate on achieving novel product or service-related ideas, others on evaluation, selection and (creative) implementation of new ideas. Moreover, a fusion of technical and market-related entrepreneurial foci improves the probability of a successful means-end relation. Furthermore, creativity is not only a matter of different profiles of individuals in entrepreneurial teams. Creativity, neither static nor limited to individuals’ thinking, depends on dynamic and group processes (Drucker, 1991; Gordon, 1956). As soon as an innovative idea is expressed to others in a team, it proliferates into multiple ideas because individuals’ diverse frames of reference filter and guide their perceptions (Van de Ven, 1988). Thus, entrepreneurs who work as a social clique (Aldrich, Rosen, & Woodward, 1987; Jenssen, 2001) can encourage creativity by utilizing their direct personal interactions between team members. Interaction involves dynamic procedures that are heavily influenced by context and interpersonal communication, thereby allowing enhanced creativity (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Jeffcutt & Pratt, 2002). Moreover, after teams develop numerous ideas they improve, refine and adjust their solutions. While articulating, sharpening and revising their idea they search for understanding. These processes have positive effects on exploration or exploitation of issues. Furthermore, teams have to choose one single or a few ideas for implementation. The choice may be accomplished with conflicts while diverse cognitions of heterogeneous team members shape diverse preferences. Diverse cognitions may lead to misunderstanding when ideas and reasons are not understood by other members in the team. Misunderstanding may also result from ideas
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
243
that seem not to match the other individuals’ rationales. In particular, minorities in the team operating on dissimilar mindsets can perceive their ideas to be valued as inferior if they find their ideas less considered or accepted. This might induce the risk of a demoralization of team members. Nevertheless, if an entrepreneurial team with similar skills, attitudes or education works close together it risks the problem of diminishing ability to develop further new ideas. This phenomenon is regarded as groupthink. Groupthink emerges within small groups in which people interact closely and often (Janis, 1972, 1982; Mullen, Salas & Driskell, 1994). Thereby the group looses the ability to acquire, to listen to and to integrate external information. Groupthink in an entrepreneurial team may diminish the creativity of idea generation and implementation. This will especially be the case if the team operates on the basis of low to moderate heterogeneity. Beneath creativity-enhancing effects of diverse knowledge, skills, etc. the knowledge of the groupthink phenomenon emphasizes the merger of dissimilar ideas for innovativeness of new ventures. Correspondingly, research on diversity in teams stresses the importance of heterogeneity on creativity (Dose, 1999; Fiol, 1994; Garcia-Prieto et al., 2000).
Internationalization and National Culture To date, the increasing growth of complex knowledge arenas outside a single firm offers entrepreneurs additional knowledge. Interestingly, even some countries without much basic research develop innovation by utilizing basic research in other countries (Hage & Hollingsworth, 2000). A huge body of research states benefits of cultural diversity on innovativeness after analysing different configurations of R&D in multinational firms in case of facility location and proximity to markets (Bartlett, Doz & Hedlund, 1990; Bartlett & Goshal, 1989; Gupta & Govindarajan, 1994; Hedlund & Rolander, 1990). The multifaceted character of national cultures1 directed some broad studies about dissimilarities and similarities of national cultures, which can direct the investigation of this paper into crosscultural new venture teams (Adler, 1991; Adler & Jelinek, 1986). Hofstede accomplished one of the most popular pieces of empirical work by identifying four dimensions (later broadened to five 1
This paper explores effects from the concept of national culture although similarities exist between nations and dissimilarities can be found within cultures (Jones & Davis, 2000).
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
244
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
dimensions) of culture: power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance (later also: long-term orientation or Confucian dynamism) (Hofstede, 1984). Some theoretical and empirical studies analysed Hofstede’s dimensions according to their influence on innovative activities. Jones and Davis (2000) identified only low impact of power distance as well of uncertainty avoidance on innovations. Within two studies Shane (1992, 1993) compares innovativeness of nations with their cultural profiles. In his empirical study of invention patents of countries compared with an index of the values of power distance and individualisation, Shane (1992) found individualistic and non-hierarchical societies to be more inventive than other societies. He later identified that rates of innovation are most closely associated with the cultural value of uncertainty acceptance. Moreover, he found that the lack of power distance and individualism are related to high rates of innovation (Shane, 1993). Both studies suggest that nations may differ in their rates of innovation because of the cultural values of their citizens (Shane, 1992, 1993). However, Shane indicates that the strength of the relationship between innovation and two cultural values – individualism and lack of power distance – were stronger in 1975 than in 1980 (Shane, 1993). He suggests that these values are becoming less important in spurring the innovation process. This finding supports the anecdotal evidence that many collectivist and hierarchical Asian nations are becoming more innovative (Shane, 1993). Thus, innovativeness and creativity rooted in culturality can be an object to change in time. Hofstede’s work also received some criticism. Critics concentrated on the data that based exclusively on the IBM corporation, the data being more than 30 years old, which is confronted by value changes, and the opposing feminist and masculine societies that may be problematic (Furnham, Kirkcaldy & Lynn, 1994; Sorge, 1983). Yet, this paper focuses on the work by Hall and Reed Hall, who provide in-depth analysis of differences of cultures due to work behaviour. Cultural differences can induce cognitive, educational, or value-related diversity and thereby stimulate creativity by competing attitudes, working profiles and cognitions etc. (Hopkins & Hopkins, 2002; Ripollés, Menguzaato, & Borra, 2001; Zahra, Hayton, Marcel, & O’Neill, 2001). Still, diversity, especially cultural diversity, influences the choice of the evoked set of new ideas due to different frames of references causing conflicts. Additionally, diverse cultural backgrounds further misunderstanding and misinterpretation of
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
words, gestures, mimics, articulated ideas and other behaviour that may induce conflicts.
Cultural Dimensions by Hall and Reed Hall On the basis of experiences and cases in crosscultural business, Hall and Reed Hall identify three primary dimensions of cultural diversity: context, space, and time (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). Context is bound up with the meaning and context of an event (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). High-context communication employs messages in which most of information is implicit in people. Due to revolving communication processes people learn in time how to interpret the other peoples’ words. Thereby very little information is embedded in the coded part of the message. Those highcontext cultures such as Japanese, Arabs and Mediterranean people rely on extensive information networks in close personal relationships with high context (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). Thereby they keep themselves informed about many details and do not require much coded information to be transported in communication (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). In contrast, low-context cultures communicate by explicitly verbalizing most information in their goal-oriented communication sequences (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). Lowcontext cultures such as Americans, Swiss, Germans and Scandinavians compartmentalize personal relationships and work. Communication addresses strongly work-related and goal-related issues in business (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). Consequently, low-context cultures have smaller understanding of the others’ backgrounds. Hence, embedded implicit meaning in speeches requires higher degrees of coded information and background information of the specific topic to understand each other (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). Thereby, communication between people from different contextual backgrounds might suffer from misunderstanding because communication either transports overly much or too little information. Space deals with visible physical boundaries of territoriality and personal space (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). Americans and northern European define their territory to a large extent and label objects as their properties. Additionally, they keep personal distance and rely strongly on auditory screening and silence. For example, order, distinctly defined rules and tasks and precisely defined schedules are dominant themes in Germany. Southern Europeans, Mediterranean people, Arabs and Africans, who enjoy intimate conversation and perceive space by all senses, are quite the reverse (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
245
Context = Meaning and context of an event Low Context:Strong coded meaning: goal orientated communication, weak relationships (e.g. North-American, English, German)
High Context: Few coded meaning: background knowledge, close history dependent relationships (e.g. Japanese, Arabs, Mediterranean)
Time use Polychronic Time Use: simultaneous operations, high involvement of people (e.g. Mediterranean, Arabs, South-American)
Monochronic Time Use: one thing at a time, precise schedules, slow pace, controlled linear tasks (e.g. German, Swiss, American)
Space High Space: silence, compartmentalisation, well defined territory, rules, and tasks (e.g. American, German, Swiss)
Low Space: Nearness, very few rules, tasks intertwined (e.g. Mediterranean, Arabs, South-American)
Figure 2. Overview of Major Cultural Dimensions
Monochronic time contains behaviour paying attention to and working only on one thing at a time (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). So northern Europeans and Americans treat time in a linear way and tend to structure procedures into scheduled segments. At the opposite end of the spectrum, polychronic cultures such as Mediterranean people and Arabs place emphasis on completing human transactions and work within simultaneous occurrences of many issues combined with a great involvement with people (Hall & Reed Hall, 1990). By reflecting on Hall and Reed Hall’s typology and the considerations on diversity in new venture teams, I conclude that crosscultural teams take advantage of, but also suffer from cultural diversity. First, crosscultural teams can utilize specific advantages, as team members provide diverse information, resources, and skills. As noted before, different frames of reference (e.g. polychronic versus monochronic behaviour) while communicating amplify new ideas (Hage, 2000; Kilduff, Angemar & Mehra, 2000). This mechanism is even more intensified in crosscultural teams than in single-culture settings. Cross-cultural teams could tend to be more open to various new ideas from their members. Dissimilar knowledge applied to problems might facilitate creative suggestions on idea-generation and its implementation. Besides, if entrepreneurs are working upon
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
intense and frequent communication, which is most likely in cross-cultural teams, these dynamic procedures could promote creativity and break-up circles of frustration. In this sense, cultural diversity tends to prevent a development of strongly internalized rules and norms within teams during early and later stages of the new venture process. Thereby the risk of groupthink diminishes. Furthermore, a cross-cultural new venture team might profit from secondary information and resources if they are still embedded in foreign networks. From team and communication network literature it is known that extensive and diverse networks ensure innovation teams to acquire scarce resources and develop an understanding of divergent, complex and fuzzy information: Greve found communication with other corporate units in the radio-broadcasting industry improved innovation (Greve, 1995). Scholars in the field of alliances found external links increased innovation and learning (Dussage, Garette, & Mitchell, 2000; Inkpen, 2000; Kumar & Nti, 1998). All these issues permit a quicker development of innovations. Still, culturally diverse teams are confronted with higher problems of misunderstanding and conflicts. As already discussed, cultural diversity can hamper the development of strong internalized rules and norms in close relationships within teams during early and
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
246
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
later stages of the new venture process. Nevertheless, reduced joint norms in teams have some drawbacks by reducing mutual understanding and fostering misunderstanding and conflicts (Lawrence, 1994; Lawrence & Lorch, 1967; Sing & Huu Phuong, 1996). Consequently, when entrepreneurs are familiar with risk of misunderstanding or have already experienced misapprehension in first discussions during idea-generation they might be less apt at founding or proceeding with a cross-cultural team. In time, cross-cultural teams will experience difficulties in knowledge exchange (e.g. monocronic versus polychronic) as they are confronted by differing practices of communication and use of time. Insufficient or too much information could be transported, not understood, or misinterpreted. Communication can induce disturbances and conflicts, which hinder the development (exploration) and utilization (exploitation) of new ideas. It has to be analysed if exploration and exploitation issues in new venture generation have different roles in different stages of entrepreneurial creativity. This paper will investigate how cultural diversity affects separate stages of the entrepreneurial process. It will also explore influences of creativity on ideageneration and implementation in new venture that can be technology-push innovations or market-pull.
Method of the Empirical Study Entrepreneurial teams offer a rich but complex field for investigation, laden with deep-level issues. This study of cultural effects of entrepreneurial teams in different stages of new ventures addresses historical, contextual and sometimes implicit effects of creativity, culture and relationships. Qualitative methodology is considered a methodology appropriate for the exploration, theory-building and understand-
ing of an embedded or complex phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989). For this study a qualitative methodology was purposeful as I explored in-depth, often and somehow unconscious internalized knowledge, perceptions and behaviour that precludes large-sample, standardized questionnaire-based quantitative research (Mayring, 1993). This research is exploratory, the author aiming to develop understanding and knowledge grounded in the experiences of entrepreneurs and the literature entrepreneurship and cultural studies. Moreover, this study aimed at theory-building in a field where there is only a small amount of research to be found. This study analysed six new ventures in different stages of the entrepreneurial process. New ventures were selected according to the following criteria: 1. independent entrepreneurship; 2. deliberate contacts of the persons of the team to each other; 3. ventures in different stages of the venture progress in order to get an overview about different stages; I identified new ventures by searching business-plan competitions, gathering information from chambers of commerce and researching clusters of new firms. Semi-structured interviews with 28 questions were carried out with founders and managers of new ventures in their offices in Germany. The personal interviews, which lasted between one and two hours, focused on different stages of the entrepreneurial process and their perceptions of creativity and cultural diversity. Questions also addressed personal networks of the entrepreneurs. The open questions were structured in four chapters: 1. General questions of the business idea and venture process. 2. Creativity and idea development. 3. Cultural backgrounds and intercultural interrelations in the new venture team.
Business Environment
Cultural Socialization / Education
Innovations
New Venture Team
Develops
Individual Traits
Bases upon
Radical
Incremental
Market pull
Technology push
Figure 3. Research Framework
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
4. Future issues and direction of intercultural management in the new venture. In total, nine interviews were carried out in the six new ventures between March and April 2003. Multiple cases were chosen to assist generalizations (Yin, 1984). All new ventures were interviewed once and asked about their actual stage of the venture and the history of the venture process. Secondary data, especially from press releases, was retrieved from the Internet and other archival sources to enrich the information (Yin, 1981). The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative techniques such as word order, meaning etc. of grounded theory guided data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Within-case analysis was used first. In addition to word analysis graphical representations of the structure of the team and issues of the new venture were developed. For cultural analysis, word counting and interpretation of word order and expression were the main items used, and were noted during the interviews. Moreover, to explore the history events were analysed and flow-charts set up according to the history of new ventures. After having developed images of the single cases cross-case analysis was applied. Cross-case analysis is understood to promote insights and generalization (Eisenhardt, 1989). Cross-case analysis is also based on a translation of qualitative issues of
247
the cases into quantitative data. Cross cases aim at finding similarities and dissimilarities of the cases. Different techniques were used for cross-case analysis although a focus was laid on matrices and tables. The dissimilarities found were interpreted in the context and the stage of the venture.
Discussion of the Data and Conclusions The case studies analysed new ventures with certain attributes in different stages of their entrepreneurial process in Germany. The new ventures explored concentrate on the development of technology. With the exclusion of Case IV, all entrepreneurs work in the field of IT. The Case IV venture operated in the music business, but concentrated on the supply of technical and electronic infrastructure for music production. The new ventures were situated in different stages of the venture process. All new ventures operated in Germany, but operated on the basis of founders from different cultural backgrounds. The entrepreneurial teams explored consist of two to four individuals. Interestingly, every single venture team defined responsibilities and tasks in order to benefit from the heterogeneous skills and knowledge of the individuals. This structuring of still-fluid tasks of new ventures could result
Identification
Design
Selection
Implementation
Early Growth
Late Growth
Case I
Case II
Case III
Case IV
Case V
Case VI
1. Funds
1. Funds
1. Funds
1. Contacts
1. Client Relations 1. Client Relations
2. Contacts
2. Contacts
2. Implementation
2. Operations
2. Improvements
3. Improvement
3. Improvement
3. External Contact 3. Improvements
Moderate MonoLCHS:*
Diversity as stimulating
MonoLCHS:
MonoLCHS:*
No cultural influences,standard business
PolyHCLS*:
MonoLCHS:*
Diversity as stimulating
Monochron/high Context/highspace:
Diverse behaviour
MonoLCHS= Monochron/low-context/high-space *= interviewee
MonoLCHS:*
Diversity as stimulating
PolyHCLS*:
MonoLCHS:*
No effects from diversity
PolyHCLS*:
2. Sales
PolyHCLS:*
Diversity as stimulating for implementation
PolyHCLS*:
Diversity as stimulating for implementation
Diversity as stimulating
PolyHCLS= Polychronic/high-context/low-space
Figure 4. Description of the Cases
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
248
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
from operating in a monochronic-low-space business environment. Contacts to other firms and persons as well as improvements of the innovations are major tasks of the new ventures throughout the whole venture progress. Still, case studies display different tasks to be unequally important in the progress of the venture (see Figure 4). In particular, financial resources became less important as the ventures proceeded. I was not able to find indicators that confirm new ventures focusing on either exploration or exploitation issues in the management of their innovation. Both issues seem to be tightly connected. Three explanations can be identified. First, in the early stages exploration cannot be cut off from a means-end relation. Second, instead of sourcing the idea, teams develop their new business idea and the underlying technology independently. Third, young firms are still small and lack extra financial resources, which otherwise could finance intense exploration without a connection to its exploitation of the market. Proposition 1: Cross-cultural new venture teams combine issues of exploration and exploitation in early stages of a new venture. Within and cross-case analysis indicate that new venture teams consciously and unconsciously define roles of innovators and adaptors influencing the formulation of tasks and responsibilities. Different degrees of cultural diversity of the teams contribute to sales, market-driven, and customer-driven innovations. By cross-case analysis I strived for finding generalizations of typical patterns and cultural backgrounds of innovators and adaptors. Monochronic/low-context/highspace founders were found principally to take responsibility of operations and structuring work. This outcome supports theoretical considerations as the specific strength of monochronic/low-context/high-space entrepreneurs lies in developing, structuring and controlling of schedules, tasks, and rules. Proposition 2: In cross-cultural teams monochronic/low-context/high-space entrepreneurs are positively related with taking responsibilities of operations and structuring work. Cross-case analysis found that entrepreneurs from polychronic/high-context/low-space cultures predominantly deliver contacts. Moreover, they are heavily engaged in communication. Contacts and communication procedures improve idea-generation and sales. This finding is coherent with the literature of polychronic/high-context/low-space cultures as it confirms that they intensively communicate with people about various top-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
ics, including private life. Even those founders who enjoy communication take pleasure in selling tasks. Moreover, the intense communication eases developing trustful relationships to customers. This simplifies the transfer of customers’ information, preferences and suggestions for new solutions. Proposition 3: Polychronic/high-context/low-space founders more strongly than monochromic founders deliver external contacts to the cultural diverse founder team. Proposition 4: Polychronic/high-context/low-space founders stimulate communication procedures in culturally diverse new founder teams. When polychronic/high-context/low-space founders promote intensified communication procedures with external parties and within the team they take over the responsibilities of gatekeepers, who source external information and transform this into internal information and integrate new information in internal procedures. Hausschildt stresses the positive impact of gatekeepers for innovativeness of firms (Hausschildt & Schewe, 1997). Via intensified communication polychronic/high-context/ low-space, founders enable the team’s creativity and increase the probability of developing new and improved solutions for the market. Proposition 5: Enhanced communication in crosscultural teams is positively related with creativity in culturally diverse new venture teams. Proposition 6: Polychronic/high-context/low-space founders by stimulating communication and acquisition of new and diverse external knowledge have a positive impact on increasing creativity in new founder teams. These propositions extend the findings on team communication. Hirst and Mann found a positive relationship between communication intensity on team performance (Hirst & Mann, 2004). A majority of the entrepreneurial teams build on social networks that deliver additional resources and judgements about external partner’s skills. Interestingly, only one entrepreneur (in Case III) evaluated external networks as important for radical innovations from research and development. Generally, the analysed entrepreneurs used external networks for supplying additional services, to identify customers or to improve the implementation of the technical solution. The origins of the novel technological ideas are situated in the team rather than in external networks. Nevertheless, contacts with customers enhance the chance of identifying new ideas of improvements of products. The most striking finding of this paper relates to the founders’ perceptions of cultural
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
diversity. Interestingly, some of the founders perceive influences from cultural diversity on creativity and on business while others do not. This serendipitous finding requires a deeper examination. The German partner in Case II states that a successful business co-operation between members of different cultures is based on the standard American scientific and business culture. From his point of view, cultural identity is only relevant in private life. Instead, his Nigerian partner stresses his specific abilities in communicating and building up a positive atmosphere in sales processes. He stresses his specific ability: ‘gift to sell with exotic charm’. He does not agree to a standard working style across cultures and is confident that communication brings up new ideas. The monochronic/low-context/high-space German who is socialized by dominantly transferring codified information in communication, by time particularization and by strong standard rule-based behaviour is not aware of the talent of the Nigerian that is based on his specific cultural norms and education. Although not consciously appreciated or planned marketing, sales and customerdriven implementations of the ventures products take advantage from the cultural profile of the Nigerian. Even though the Nigerian, who is more open to diverse behaviour by his cultural background, realized the potential of diversity, the team could more strongly benefit from the potential of their different cultural mentalities. An equivalent can be found with a team in the early-growth state. The monochronic/ low-context/high-space founder denies the existence of diversity and particularly of positive effects from cultural diversity. He states that the firm builds on an international management style, which is influenced by North-American business rules. Moreover, the founder perceives creativity as an issue of the know-how of the individual, but not of nationality. In contrast, the founders of the ChineseGerman (Case III), the Afghan-German (Case IV) and Iranian-German venture (Case VI), cope with the impact of culture diversity of their business success. The Chinese entrepreneur is understood to have a strong ability to deal with complex and multiplex task. The German partner perceives him as a ‘generator of ideas’. The Iranian, who is responsible for customer-relationship management, uses his cultural background in a planned way to acquire new ideas, new contacts and customers. One of the main abilities of the Iranian entrepreneur is to understand a ‘no’ as a ‘maybe’.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
249
Moreover, the Iranian’s high-context and strong polychronic/high-context/low-space cultural background enables him to manage time-intensive negotiations with other polychronic/high-context/low-space cultures and establish strong and long-term relationships to customers, which triggers market-driven innovations and improvements. It is curious why neglecting the specificity of cultural backgrounds by the monochronic/ low-context/high-space German (Case II) or Austrian (Case V) has not brought up conflicts through to misunderstanding or promoting a feeling of inferiority. This research assumed a cultural diverse new venture team in which some members neglect positive effects from diversity to function on the basis of highly separated task requiring less communication and interrelation. Then, less conflicting argumentation occurs about the content of the tasks between the members. This finding is in contrast to the literature on national entrepreneurial teams that act as a social clique. Proposition 7: Under the condition of monochronic/low-context/high-space, founders who deny positive effects from cultural diversity, the formulation of separate tasks is negatively related with conflicts. Nevertheless, it is not clear why the case studies indicate monochronic/low-context/highspace founders to perceive and evaluate diversity dissimilar to polychronic/high-context/ low-space people. Generally, differences could be a matter of the person’s individual history, technical education, specific business environment or experiences with other cultures. An apparent explanation deals with the dominance of people interviewed who belong to monochronic/low-context/high-space cultures and firms operating in Germany. Thereby, a dominant monochronic/low-context/highspace environment influences the entrepreneurial team. As mentioned before, every single founder who overlooks cultural diversity or ignores the effects of diversity on creativity belongs to monochromic culture. Thereby, these actors could be strongly educated and socialized through standards, rules and norms causing only little understanding for diversity and non-rule based behaviour. Moreover, it is possible that individuals with monochronic/low-context/high-space profiles perceive North-American management style as superior business behaviour. This they strive to implement. Consequently, they avoid and discredit non-standardized behaviour. Proposition 8: Monochronic founders who are more strongly socialized by the importance of standard
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
250
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
rules tend to deny positive effects of cultural diversity more strongly than polychronic/high-context/ low-space founders. Proposition 9: Monochronic/low-context/highspace founders in a monochronic/low-context/ high-space business environment tend to perceive rule-based and standardized North-American business with separated tasks and schedules style superior to more flexible behavioural patterns. Nevertheless, these propositions do not explain variances of intercultural benefits between monochronic/low-context/highspace founders operating in a monochronic/ low-context/high-space environment. Cases I, II (with exceptions because both founders are monochronic/low-context/high-space) and III indicate monochronic/low-context/highspace founders who realize the benefits from cultural diversity. The conclusion is that standardized behaviour is rooted in a professional culture within the IT structure. A growing significance of an IT focus might reduce the monochronic/low-context/high-space cultures’ realization of cultural diversity. This suggestion can be stressed when ignoring case II and case III. In case II both founders are monocronic/low context/high space oriented. In case III founders do not work in the IT industry. Thus these cases are somehow dissimilar. In contrast to the IT industry, new ventures with a focus on human interaction or in artistic fields have an improved understanding of cultural influences. This leads to the hypothesise that monochronic/low-context/high-space founders who work in the IT-industry tend to ignore benefits of cultural diversity. By analysing the history of the ventures, the monochronic/low-context/high-space founders in Case II and V who neglect effects from cultural diversity were found to be dominantly focal founders. Proposition 10: With a growing IT focus of the industry within which the ventures operate the dominance of monochronic/low-context/high-space business culture will be stronger. Proposition 11: Under the conditions of working in monochronic/low-context/high-space environments, the degree of rule-based behaviour of founders will influence positively the degree of dominance of monochronic/low-context/high-space in the business culture. Case studies indicate that the founders’ individual careers influence their business style and recognition of cultural diversity. Founders mainly coming from American firms with corresponding corporate cultures tend to ignore the effects of cultural diversity on working teams.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
A further explanation could be that these founder teams define culture as a specific element of social culture such as museums, theatres etc. and thereby separating social culture from business culture. This could be an unsystematic error in questioning.
Further Remarks Management of cultural diversity in new ventures requires recognizing that cultural diverse entrepreneurial teams are nested in multiple levels of their cultural dimensions. New ventures should understand their diversity as a potential to be managed. A strategy to utilize cross-cultural diversity is to define separated responsibilities and promote tolerance of dissimilar attitudes, cognitions and behaviour. Although problems from diverse cultural backgrounds were not displayed in the short versions of the case studies here, communication played a dominant role on the cultural diverse teams performance. By improved communication, firms can enhance a generation of new ideas to radical and incremental solutions. Establishing patterns of communication to affect the ability to deal with poor understanding and uncertainty of the others’ behaviour might be a strategy for monochronic/low-context/high-space cultures. However, polychronic/high-context/ low-space cultures might dislike stable patterns and rules that they tend not to obey fully anyway. Monochronic/low-context/ high-space cultures to cope with the dissimilar rule recognition require knowledge and tolerance. As cultural diversity was found to be a trigger of creativity it is necessary to formulate further strategies that promote creativity in young firms. A general strategy to promote creativity in established firms concerns improving the identification of highly innovators for idea generation respectively adaptors for implementation. Creativity can be improved by identifying highly innovative persons on the one hand and adaptors on the other. Hereby tasks can be planned according to specific individual skills. This is also an advisable strategy for new ventures. Overall the outcomes of this paper contribute to the understanding of cultural diversity in new venture teams. Nevertheless, the empirical findings of the paper are confronted by the limits of case-study research, which centres on the limitations of generalizations. Only entrepreneurs who operate in Germany were interviewed. Moreover, not all entrepreneurs were interviewed in all cases. This limits an understanding of the whole team and the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
team procedures from different perspectives. In the case studies the origins of the innovative ideas have been identified as far as possible, but new ideas develop in social interactions and do not always have a time- and space-specific origination point, so it was not possible to identify the originator of new ideas in every instance. Nevertheless, this paper allows deeper insights in the process and problems of cultural diverse entrepreneurial teams. As the literature is still incomplete on this topic further theoretical and empirical studies are needed. Apart from the hypotheses tested in this study, further studies are recommended to investigate the effects of time pressure (e.g. pressure traps and pressure empowerment) that are often accomplished with new ventures’ creativity in different stages of the entrepreneurial process. Additional research could also investigate wheter entrepreneurial teams consist of people who specialize on tasks of social communication, information selection, information structuring and technical knowledge. The contribution of this paper to theory is in giving insights into the black box of cultural aspects of new ventures. The contribution to management practice resides on examining major influences from diverse cultural backgrounds on the new venture process, which allows improving intercultural management in new ventures. Entrepreneurs who intend to start up a new business need to get information about the pros and cons of intercultural partners.
References Adler, N. (1991) International Dimensions of Organisational Behavior. 2nd edn. PWS-Kent Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. Adler, N.J. and Jelinek, M. (1986) Is ‘Organization Culture’ Culture Bound? Human Resource Management, 25(1), 73–90. Aldrich, H.E., Rosen, B. and Woodward, W. (1987) The Impact of Social Networks on Business Foundings and Profit: A Longitudinal Study, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 154–68. Aldrich, H.E. (1999) Organizations Evolving. Sage, London. Bar, F. (2000) Tapping User-Driven Innovation: A New Rationale for Universal Service. The Information Society, 16, 99–108. Bartlett, C.A. and Goshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Bartlett, C.A., Doz, Y. and Hedlund, G. (eds) (1990) Managing the Global Firm. Routledge, New York. Bygrave, W.D. (1989) The Entrepreneurship Paradigm: II. Chaos and Catastrophes Among Quantum Jumps. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14, 7–30.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
251
Chen, C.C., Chen, X.-P. and Meindl, J.R. (1998) How can Cooperation be Fostered? The Cultural Effects of Individualism-Collectivsm. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304. Cooper, A.C., Folta, T. and Woo, C.Y. (1991) Does Networking Pay off? A Panel Study of Entrepreneurs in the Research Triangle, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 276–90. Dose, J.J. 1999) The Diversity of Diversity. Human Resource Management Review, 9(1), 83–108. Dosi, G. (1988) The Nature of the Innovative Process. In Dosi, G., Freeman, D., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter, London. Drucker, P. (1991) The Discipline of Innovation. In Henry, D.W. (ed.) Managing Innovation. Sage, London. Dussage, P., Garette, B. and Mitchell, W. (2000) Learning From Competing Partners: Outcomes and Durations of Scale and Link Alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 99–126. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–50. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1990) Organizational growth. Linking founding team, strategy, environment and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 67–82. Ellsworth, R.R. (1985) Entrepreneurship in Big Business: The Impossible Dream? In Kao, J.J. and Stevenson, H.H. (eds.), Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA. Elsbach, K.D. and Kramer, R.M. (2003) Assessing Creativity in Hollywood Pitch Meetings: Evidence for a Dual-Process Model of Creativity Judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 283–301. Feist, G.J. (1998) A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. Fiol, M.C. (1994) Consensus, Diversity, and Learning in Organizations. Organization Science, 5(3), 403–20. Furnham, A., Kirkcaldy, B.D. and Lynn, R. (1994) National Attitudes of Competitiveness, Money, and Work among young People – First, Second, and Third World Differences. Human Relations, 47(1), 119–32. Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E. and Schneider, S. (2000) A Dynamic Model of Diversity, Emotions, and Conflict in Teams. Geneva: University of Geneva. Gertsen, C. (ed) (1998) Cultural dimensions of international mergers and acquisitions. de Gruyter, Berlin. Gordon, W.J.J. (1956) Operational Approach to Creativity. Harvard Business Review (November– December), 41–51. Grandstrand, O. (1979) Technology Management and Markets. An Investigation of R&D and Innovation in Industrial Organizations. Unpublished Diss., Svenka Kulturkompaniet, Göteburg. Greve, H.R. (1995) Jumping Ship: The Diffusion of Strategy Abandonment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 444–73.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
252
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Greve, H.R. (2003) A Behavioral Theory of R&D Expenditures and Innovations: Evidence from Shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 685–702. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. 1994. Organizing for Knowledge Flows within MNC. International Business Review, 3(4), 443–57. Hage, J. and Hollingsworth, R. (2000) A strategy for the analysis of idea innovation networks and institutions. Organization Studies, 21(5), 971–1005. Hall, E.T. and Reed Hall, M. (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences. Intercultural Press Inc, Yarmouth. Hamer, E. (2001) Der Unternehmer als Innovator. In Meyer, J.-A. (ed.), Innovationsmanagement in kleinen und mittleren Unternehme. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München pp. 35–38. Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (2000) Building Cross-Cultural Competence. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Harrison, D., Kenneth, A.P., Gavin, H.J. and Florey, A.T. (2002) Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–45. Hart, S., Hultink, E.J., Tzokas, N. and Commandeur, H. (2003) Industrial Companies Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 22–36. Hausschildt, J. (1996) Innovation, Creativity, and Information Behavior. Creativity and Innovation Management, 5(3), 169–78. Hausschildt, J. and Schewe, G. (1997) Gatekeeper und Promotoren: Schlüsselpersonen in Innovationsprozessen in statischer und dynamischer Perspektive. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 57(4), 506– 15. Hedlund, G. and Rolander, D. (1990) Action in Heterarchies: New Approaches to Managing the MNC. In Bartlett, C., Doz, Y. and Hedlund, G. (eds.) Managing the Global Firm. Routledge, London pp. 15–46. Hirst, G. and Mann, L. (2004) A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance. R&D Management, 34(2), 147–60. Hofstede, G. (1984) Cultural Consequences – International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, London. Hopkins, W.E. and Hopkins, S.A. (2002) Effects of Cultural Recomposition on Group Interaction Processes. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 541–53. Inkpen, A.C. (2000) A Note on the Dynamics of Learning Alliances: Competition, Cooperation, and Relative Scope. Strategic Management Journal, 21(7), 775–79. Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink. HoughtonMifflin, Boston. Janis, I.L. (1982) Groupthink. Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston. Jeffcutt, P. and Pratt, A.C. (2002) Editorial Managing Creativity in Cultural Industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(4), 225–33. Jenssen, J.-I. (2001) Social Networks, Resources and Entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(June), 103– 9. Jones, G.K. and Davis, H.J. (2000) National Culture and Innovation: Implications for Locating Global R&D Operations. Management International Review, 40(1), 11–39. Keeley, R.H. and Knapp, R.W. (1994) Founding Conditions and Business Performance: ‘High Performers’ vs. Small vs. Venture Capital Start-ups. In College, B. (ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Boston, Mass. Kilduff, M., Angemar, R. and Mehra, A. (2000) Top Management Team Diversity and Firm Performance: Examining the Role of Cognitions. Organization Science, 11, 11–34. Kumar, R. and Nti, K.O. (1998) Differential Learning and Interaction in Alliance Dynamics: A Process and Outcome Dicrepancy Model. Organization Science, 9(3), 336–67. Lamb, P.W. and Liesch, P.W. (2002) The Internationalization Process of the Smaller Firms: Reframing the Relationships between Market Commitments, Knowledge and Involvement. mir Management International Review, 42(1), 7– 26. Lawrence, P. and Lorch, J. (1967) Organizations and Environment. Harvard Business School, Boston. Lawrence, P. (1994) In Another Country or the Relativization of Management Learning. Management Learning, 25(4), 543–61. 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(1), 23–30. Leonard, D. (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge. Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988) Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–61. Mayring, P. (1993) Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung (2n edn). Belte, Weinheim. Mellewigt, T. and Späth, J.F. (2002) Entrepreneurial Teams – A survey of German and US Empirical Studies. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (5), 107– 25. Moss Kanter, R. (1996) When a Thousand Flowers Bloom. Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations. In Myers, P.S. (ed.), Knowledge Management and Organizational Design. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 93–131. Mullen, B., Salas, A.T. and Driskell, J.E. (1994) Group Cohesiveness and Quality of Decision Making: An Integration of Tests of the Groupthink Hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204. Olson, P.D. (1986) Entrepreneurs: Opportunistic Decision Makers. Journal of Small Business Management (July), 29–35. Park, S. and Bae, Z.-T. (2004) New venture strategies in a developing country: Identifying a typology and examination growth patterns through case studies. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 81– 105. Pershyn, G.S. (1992) An Investigation into the Graphic Depictions of Natural Creativity Problem Solving
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
Process. Buffalo: Unpublished Master’s Thesis, State University College at Buffalo. Puccio, G.J. (1999) Creative Problem Solving Preferences: Their Identification and Implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(3), 171– 78. Rickards, T. and Puccio, G.J. (1992) Problem Finding, Idea Finding, and Implementation: an Exploratory Model for Investigating SmallGroup-Problem Solving. In Barrar, P. and Cooper, C.L. (eds.), Managing Organisations in 1992: Strategic Response. Routledge, London pp. 247– 63. Rickards, T. (1997) Creativity Problem Solving at Work. Gower Publishing Company, Hampshire. Ripollés, M., Menguzaato, M. and Borra, M. (2001) The Internationalization of New Ventures. The Spanish Case. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3 (August), 103– 9. Rumelt, P.R. (1987) Theory, Strategy , and Entrepreneurship. In Teece, D.J. (ed.), The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. Schmid, S. (1996) Multikulturalität in der internationalen Unternehmung: Konzepte – Reflexionen – Implikationen. Gabler, Wiesbaden. Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper, New York. Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (2002) How to Kill a Team’s Creativity. Harvard Business Review, 80(8 Special Issue: The Innovative Enterprise), 16–17. Shane, S.A. (1992) Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 29–46. Shane, S.A. (1993) Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 59–73. Sing, L.C. and Huu Phuong, T. (1996) Managing Diverse Groups for Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 5(2), 93–98.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
253
Soh, P.-H. and Roberts, E.B. (2003) Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective. Research Policy, 32, 1569–88. Sorge, A. (1983) Book-Review – Culture’s Consequences Geert Hofstede. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 625–29. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, London. Van de Ven, A.H. (1988) Central problems in the management of innovation. In Tushmann, M.L. and Moore, W.L. (eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovations. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA. pp. 103–12. Witt, P. and Rosenkranz, S. (2002) Netzwerkbildung und Gründungserfolg. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 72(5), 85–106. Yamin, M. (1998) An analysis of subsidiary innovation and ‘reverse’ transfer in multinationals. Manchester: Centre of Research on Innovation and Competition, CRIC. Yin, R. (1981) The case study crisis, some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58–65. Yin, R. (1984) Case study research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Zahra, S., Hayton, J., Marcel, J. and O’Neill, H. (2001) Fostering Entrepreneurship During International Expansion. Managing Key Challenges. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 19(4), 359–69.
Ricarda Bouncken (
[email protected]) is a Professor of Planning and Innovation Management at the Brandenburg Institute of Technology, Germany. She works mainly on the field of alliances, processes of innovation and cross-cultural issues of strategy. Recent research draws special attention to innovation alliances.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESCOLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATIONCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
254
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Creativity in Communication: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Product Creation Stephan Sonnenburg Most creative acts occur in a collaborative context. Recent research contributions see the relevance of collaborative creativity but they lack a theoretical basis. What exactly is understood by collaborative creativity and above all, how it is examined, appears not to be the focus of well-founded analyses. The key objective of this paper is to present a new model characterizing collaborative product creation. This model describes theoretical essence needed for any creative collaboration. As a result, the phenomenon of communication is crystallized as the driving force for collaborative creativity. The article is divided into three sections. First, the paper focuses on creative collaboration in previous creativity research. It is shown that a different understanding of collaborative creativity exists. Second, four dimensions of the new model are presented: type of communication, course of performance, working style and the relation between the nature of problems and the implication of solutions. Lastly, the relevance of the observations for future research and creativity management is discussed briefly.
Collaboration in Creativity Research ollaboration has not been the focus of creativity research for decades. This is amazing as the source of creative achievements is no longer only individuals, but more and more combinations of people. Especially in business settings, where the development of products expects too much of an individual, creative collaborations characterize success. One may think of the complexity of planes, computers, or pharmaceutics, which needs collaborative involvement. Bennis and Biederman put the relevance of collaboration in a nutshell: ‘The Lone Ranger, the incarnation of the individual problem solver, is dead’ (1997, p. 199). A more intensive theoretical examination of collaborative creativity started in the 1980s. However, until now collaborative creativity has remained a marginal subject in research. In a recent publication Sternberg, Kaufman and Pretz (2002) give an overview of the main creativity approaches, but their analysis does not contain collaborative approaches. It may be due to the fact that the term collaboration is not used in a unique academic way. The obvious thing to do would be to group the various
C
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
approaches. For the purpose of this article, two levels are suggested: creative collaboration in product creation and creative collaboration in product implementation and acceptance. In the wider sense of collaboration, most researchers highlight creativity in the phases of product implementation and domain acceptance. It is still assumed that the creative product is created by individual performance, ‘even if other individuals may have provided clues and stimulation’ (Ekvall, 1997, p. 195). After the product has been implemented in the relevant social context, experts decide together (by majority or in agreement) on the creativity of the product. In that sense, collaborative creativity could be described as a social (Montuori & Purser, 1999), contextual (Amabile, 1996) or ecological (Harrington, 1990) phenomenon. The collaborative or social aspect of creativity is stressed above all by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) with his systems approach. In his opinion, creativity emerges from the interplay between individual, field and domain. Hence, Csikszentmihalyi’s theoretical assertions shift the classical research question ‘What is creativity?’ to an important new research question ‘Where is creativity?’ (1990, p. 200). As this © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
article concentrates on product development, collaborative creativity in the wider sense will be ignored. In the narrower sense of collaboration, some theoreticians examine creativity in the process of product creation. Owing to their synergetic potential of knowledge and their diversity human beings can often find better solutions for complex situations in collaboration than by working on their own (see Bennis & Biederman, 1997; Kelley & Littman, 2001; Schrage, 1995). Early academic research makes collaborative creativity a subject of discussion. However, they do not develop models or even a theory but only focus on single aspects like brainstorming (Osborn, 1963), group dynamic factors in educational settings (Torrance, 1972) or group training procedures (Stein, 1975). Since the 1990s, collaborative creativity approaches have been developed with a more complex design. In this connection researchers analyse creativity in teams (Kelley & Littman, 2001; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2000/01; Puccio, 1999; Rickards & Moger, 1999), in groups (Leonard & Swap, 1999; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003; Rubenson & Runco, 1995; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993), in partnerships (JohnSteiner, 2000), in couples (Chadwick & de Courtivron, 1996), in improvisational genres of performance (Sawyer, 2003), in virtual teams (Nemiro, 2002) or in laboratory collaborations (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001). Generally speaking, the investigated social entities are not defined in an adequate way (e.g. what are the common interests and differences between groups, teams and dyads?). According to Moran and John-Steiner (2003) the various social entities have an effect on quantity and quality of collaborative creativity. Therefore it is difficult to gain common rules about collaborative creativity if only a single kind of social entity is analysed. To date, most publications with regard to collaborative creativity concentrate on empirical analysis of techniques, especially brainstorming. Montuori and Purser criticize the research focus ‘on brainstorming . . . an artificial procedure, rather than on natural everyday interaction, as if brainstorming sessions where the only time people grudgingly get together to generate ideas’ (1999, p. 17). Recent brainstorming research ignores most of the time the initial meaning of brainstorming as an aid that ‘can shake a group out of its fixed patterns’ (Stein, 1975, p. 12). Brainstorming is merely useful to generate raw ideas, which may serve as an input in solution finding. Fundamentally, research on creative collaboration concentrates the phenomenon of creativity to the individual, either as an ability or
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
255
a cognitive mental process. These works still make the individual ideas the focal point of collaboration, leading in consequence to an additive understanding of collaborative creativity (see Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Kratzer, Leenders & Van Engelen, 2004; Leonard & Swap, 1999; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003; Rubenson & Runco, 1995; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). Following Nemiro one could speak about ‘individual creativity functioning within the context of a group’ (2002, p. 80). Current research mostly ignores that human beings generate ideas in collaboration. Sawyer (2003) refers to the collaborative level, but only concerning improvisational theatre and jazz performances. The additive understanding of collaborative creativity may be explained by the fact that psychological studies do not consider the social level in an adequate way. It is worth noting that the uniqueness and the emergence of collaborative creativity crystallize at first at this level. Collaborative creativity becomes an entity unto itself. A mere psychological analysis takes us to the limits of academic knowledge about collaborative creativity. A new sociological approach is developed in the following section.
Development of a Theoretical Framework To create a general framework for collaborative product creation, one could ask whether different social entities such as dyads, groups or teams have something in common with regard to creativity. The hypothesis is that the phenomenon of communication is the essential common interest of each creative collaboration, even more creative collaboration could not emerge without communication. As the process of communication is specific concerning creativity, a new term is introduced. I call this term a creaplex, which is derived from Latin ‘creare in complexu’ (to create in collaboration). The creaplex is defined as a specific kind of a communication system from which collaborative creativity emerges. It is characterized by project orientation and purpose, as it starts with a problem and, if successful, results in a novel and appropriate product such as a theory, a work of art or goods and services. What is the research benefit of this new understanding? The word creaplex is not introduced arbitrarily. Comparing the model with previous creativity approaches more attention is paid to activity than to the different social entities. The creaplex model does not primarily focus on the creativity of groups such as the Beatles or partnerships such as
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
256
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso. It focuses on the creativity in a specific collaborative situation such as the Beatles in songwriting (see Lydon, 2003; Turner, 2000) or Picasso’s and Braque’s creation of a shared vision of painting (see Rubin, 1989). So collaborative creativity is not viewed as a constant factor but as a dynamic and moment-to-moment phenomenon in a unique project. Before going into detail, it has to be said that the creaplex model is abstract and general. This is because the model should cover all kinds of collaboration in different situations of product creation. Theoretical assertions are supported by carefully considered observations of case study literature from science, art and economics, expanded by insights from creativity research. The references are like ‘amuse-gueules’, which stress essential aspects. They are necessary as a starting point for further research. With regard to the creaplex model, five questions are especially important for analysis: 1. What is communication? 2. Which types of communication are relevant for creaplexes? 3. How could an ideal creaplex performance be described? 4. Which working style characterizes a creaplex? 5. What distinguishes the relation between the nature of problems and the implication of solutions?
Communication as Self-production Communication has long been recognized as crucial to the success of collaborations, especially of small groups and teams (e.g. Harris & Sherblom, 2001; Mabry & Barnes, 1980; Tubbs, 1988). It has to be stressed that no common understanding of what communication is has gained acceptance to this day. According to the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, the systems theory is used to explain communication in creative collaborations. He develops a theory of autopoietic (self-reproductive) and self-referential systems (Luhmann, 1992, 1995), and consequently radicalizes traditional environmental and structural-oriented approaches (traditional systems understanding is also used by creativity researchers such as Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Montuori & Purser, 1999; Tan, 1998). This completely different systems perspective is illustrated with regard to communication, which is the core aspect for collaborative creativity. Luhmann’s understanding of communication differs from the common use of the term as transmission of information from one individual to the
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
next (Davies, 1996; Tubbs, 1988; in creativity research e.g. Kratzer, Leenders & Van Engelen, 2004; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003). He describes communication as an emergent phenomenon which follows the synthesis of three actions: (1) alter (usually sender) selects an information, (2) alter selects an utterance for this information, and (3) ago (usually receiver) understands the difference between information and utterance (Luhmann, 1995, 2002). Understanding is the most important action because it enables a connecting act of communication that leads to a communication process. In particular, communicative understanding does not stand for mental understanding of ego or alter. It means a structural understanding within the network of communication. ‘Such a network can become its own theme, can inform itself about its own communication, can doubt information, refuse acceptance, give norms to reliable or non-reliable information etc. – as long as this occurs in the operative form of communication’ (Luhmann, 1992, p. 73). Therefore the process of communication does not coincide with the mental processes of the participatory human beings. Mental processes are always black boxes for communication. It is, for instance, problematic to speak about a ‘collective mind’ (Weick & Roberts, 1993). Whatever the single participant thinks of, it is irrelevant for the structural maintenance of the communication process. Only thoughts uttered are crucial for the structural maintenance and the content of the collaboration. The process of communication co-ordinates and harmonizes the single contributions, which are adapted to the task of the creaplex. The contingent and unpredictable variety of single contributions and their communicative processing speed up new idea associations in the ongoing communication process. This is necessary to find a creative solution in collaboration. The content of a communication process can be regarded as the emergent property of a creaplex, which is not reducible to the thoughts of the collaborators. The clear differentiation between communication and thought may find no sympathy in psychological creativity research but in my opinion it is fundamental for an unequivocal analysis of creativity in collaborations.
Types of Communication Collaborative creativity can only emerge, if all participants actively take part in the process of communication. Therefore a small encounter is a necessary requirement (Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001; Sawyer, 2003). Compulsory
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
257
passivity is increased by the number of participants, even if the active role is organized impartially and with equal rights. Three types of communication are relevant for a small encounter situation in a creaplex: face-to-face interaction, tool-mediated interaction and tool-mediated communication. Face-to-face interaction is determined by the presence of the participants in the communication process. The essential criterion of presence is dependent on mutual perceptions of the participants (Luhmann, 1995). As the collaborators are at the same place at the same time, mutual perceptions can be made by all senses. This characterizes communication. Face-to-face interactions generally proceed in verbal communication, sometimes in musical or physical communication (John-Steiner, 2000; Sawyer, 2003). Tool-mediated interaction imposes constraints on presence. As the participants are not at the same place any longer, specific senses are focused by means of a medium. For instance, telephoning, mutual perceptions occur by hearing, or videoconferencing, mutual perceptions occur by seeing and hearing. In this type of communication the opportunity of verbal communication is expanded by written communication (e.g. chat communication). To gain synchronous communication, tool-mediated interactions are dependent on the technology of the used medium. Technical failures automatically result in an interaction abortion. The main characteristic of tool-mediated communication is absence of the participants so that the utterance of information and communicative understanding temporally disintegrate. One can speak about asynchronous communication, which mostly uses a writing medium, e.g. e-mail, fax or letter. The process of communication can last for a few minutes or weeks. In summary, Figure 1 gives an overview of the characteristic features of the three types of communication.
Concerning the efficiency of creaplexes, strength and weakness can be illustrated by the time feature. Synchronous communication, especially in face-to-face constellations, enables the highest degree of togetherness. The collaborators can jointly develop idea associations in the course of interactions and co-ordinate the content without delay. Asynchronous communication is much more timeconsuming, particularly in dealing with misunderstanding. For example, e-mails are sent to and fro, if collaborators do not entirely understand the content of contributions. The advantage of asynchronous communication is that the single participants have more time to reflect and elaborate the communicative content in private study.
Course of Performance in Creaplexes The performance in a creaplex starts with a problem and at best ends with a solution. The creativity process occurs between both poles and it can last for a few hours like a jam session or theatre performance, or some years like the Manhattan Project (see Bennis & Biederman, 1997) or Scotchgard discovery at 3M (see Robinson & Stern, 1998). The duration depends on the complexity of the problem and solution. Before the most important aspects of the creaplex performance are introduced, two facts have to be mentioned regarding the transfer of process models to reality. First, ‘a physical model of the process would look more like a plate of spaghetti’ (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 9), and second, there is not just one generic and standardized creativity process (Lubart, 2000/01; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). Each single process is individual and determined by the situation. However, a simplistic and clear structure provides starting points to enhance collaborative creativity in real settings.
face-to-face interaction
tool-mediated interaction
tool-mediated communication
status
total presence
restricted presence
absence
time
synchronous
synchronous
asynchronous
place
same place
different place
different place
form
mainly verbal
verbal and written
mainly written
medium
no medium
e.g. phone, videoconference, chat
e.g. mail, e-mail, fax
Figure 1. Types of Communication and their Characteristic Features
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
258
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
problem finding
problem acceptance
preparation
incubation
illumination
verification
modification
solution
co-occurrence, interrelations, feedback-loops
Figure 2. Ideal Stages of a Creaplex Performance
The creative process is one important field of creativity research. To visualize and handle this process in theory and practice, stage models have been successful (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Treffinger, 1995; the basic model: Wallas, 1926). Although researchers focus on creative processes as a mental phenomenon (for an overview see Lubart, 2000/01), it makes sense for an orientation to transfer the stage approach to collaborative processes. However, these stages are primarily viewed through a sociological perspective in the following. How can the creativity process in a creaplex be described? A basic framework is illustrated in Figure 2. The different stages proceed in a communication process oscillating between present phases (face-to-face and tool-mediated interaction) and absent phases (tool-mediated communication). In most cases, each stage is part of both present and absent phases. In reality, the course of performance is not an assemblyline process but rather distinguished by cooccurrence, interrelations and feedback loops. It has to be said that performance is not closed but coupled with external stages. The important post-stages are implementation (with possible revision) and social acceptance of the product in the relevant domain. This postprocess is often described as the innovation process (e.g. Leonard & Swap, 1999; West & Rickards, 1999). In the following, the main stages as shown in Figure 2 are described in a more detailed way. Every creativity process starts with problem finding. Problems can be predetermined by others (e.g. the management of an organization) or they arise within the creaplex. In the problem acceptance stage it is important for the performance that the collaborators develop ‘shared mental models’ (Mumford, Feldman, Hein & Nagao, 2001), which is knowledge, possessed by all participants, about the problem and about performance expectations. Shared mental models make mutual understanding and harmonizing during the performance easier so that talking at cross-purpose is decreased. After the identification with the problem, relevant information is gathered in the preparation stage and raw ideas are created.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Brainstorming is a good tool to generate raw ideas. With focus on quantity of ideas individual brainstorming in absent phases is suggested (for the advantage of individual brainstorming see Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001). Afterwards the individually generated ideas are contributed to the communication process. With focus on quality of ideas (see Mumford, Feldman, Hein & Nagao, 2001) verbal brainstorming in face-to-face interaction or electronic brainstorming in tool-mediated interaction is recommended. Conducting a meta-analysis of prior brainstorming research Dennis and Williams (2003) come to the conclusion that electronic brainstorming is preferred when the number of collaborators increases (>4). As the creaplex participants often reach their cognitive limits in preparation, a ‘point of creative frustration’ (Sapp, 1992, p. 21) or a ‘saturation point’ (Luhmann, 1995, p. 156) may come into being. The advantage of collaboration is that frustration can be got over early and, as a consequence, the collaborative creative potential is exhausted again. The incubation stage is predominant in absence (in private study). As the participants are closely coupled with the process of communication in present phases, they do not have enough time for sufficient reflexion and relaxation, which can additionally enhance creativity (Ekvall, 1997). Ideas are elaborated alternately between preparation and incubation until the best solution is found. This occurrence mostly takes place in a stage, which may be called collaborative illumination. The participants get into a collaborative flow (Sawyer, 2003) that can be illustrated by a quotation from John Lennon concerning his songwriting with Paul McCartney: ‘I turned to him and said, “That’s it! Do that again!” In those days, we really used to absolutely write like that – both playing into each other’s noses’ (Turner, 2000, p. 58). At that moment the creaplex collaborators unanimously realize that an outstanding solution has been found. But not every insight is further elaborated. In the verification stage the solution is assessed with reference to novelty and appropriateness.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
At last it is rejected or accepted. In most performances modification is needed until the final product or solution is developed. The course of performance is illustrated in an ideal way like an ‘unexhausting walk’ to the creative solution. The creative process is more complex and liable to break down in practice. Theoreticians, for instance, observed characteristics in empirical studies, which could inhibit the creative performance such as social loafing, production blocking and evaluation apprehension (for an overview see Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001). To keep the performance alive and to refresh the communication process, several strategies are possible, e.g. to use learning aid and creativity techniques (for an overview see Nickerson, 1999; Stein, 1975), to seek advice of external consultants (e.g. a motivation coach or a domain expert), and, if necessary, to recruit new participants or exchange present ones.
Working Style in Creaplexes The productivity of a creaplex is decisively dependent on the working style. It manages the way in which the participants’ contributions come into the communication process. The connections between the collaborators or the social entities, from which creaplexes emerge, regulate the working style such as friendships (e.g. the Beatles, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso), couples (e.g. Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre, Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg), families (e.g. Orville and Wilbur Wright, the Curies, the Kennedys), movements (e.g. Impressionism, Futurism, Bauhaus), or organizations (e.g. 3M, Xerox, IDEO). In selfinitiated creaplexes only the collaborators handle the working style, which is mostly oriented to the usual communication behaviour of their social entity. However, in extrinsically initiated creaplexes the working style is managed by external conditions like organizational culture or hierarchies so that the participants behave in their ‘membership roles’ (Luhmann, 1995, p. 196). A creative working style is distinguished by an open communication (Bennis & Biederman, 1997; Kylén & Shani, 2002). It means that contributions to the process of communication must not be excluded beforehand by bureaucratic rules or controlling supervision. In open and free communication each collaborator has the same chance to contribute to the course of performance, and the same right that his contributions are taken seriously. This working style prevents typical creativity inhibitors like
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
259
passivity (Davies, 1996) or evaluation apprehension (Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001). In contrast, open communication supports mutual trust (Chadwick & de Courtivron, 1996; Moran & John-Steiner, 2003) or risk-taking and experimentation (Kylén & Shani, 2002) increasing the quantity and quality of contributions. In practical settings, open communication is characterized by communication networks, which are ‘the maps of communication between participants’ (Mabry & Barnes, 1980, p. 16). They significantly influence the working style between the collaborators and the effective flow of communication (who talks to whom?). Concerning creaplexes, communication networks are either formed in social entities like organizations and are included in creaplexes, or grow within the creativity process. The more human beings participate in a creaplex, the more different network patterns are (for an overview of typical structures see Bavelas, 1950; Mabry & Barnes, 1980; Steiner, 1972). The primary source of differentiation is the degree of centrality. One can observe (more or less) equal and decentralized patterns such as in jazz performances, or centralized patterns such as Steve Jobs in the Macintosh project or John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the leaders of the Beatles. Fixed patterns, which cannot be dissolved during the creative performance, are a threat to open communication. It is recommended to vary communication patterns during the course of performance (e.g. decentralized patterns in face-to-face interaction and centralized ones in tool-mediated communication) to enhance the creative potential of the creaplex in an optimal way.
Problem Nature and Solution Implication Communication is the operating mode in a creaplex whereas the combination of problem and solution is responsible for the content of the creaplex. If the collaborators, for example, lose interest in the problem or are not able to create a product, the creaplex will stop existing. The key objective of a creaplex is to optimize the task and to find the best possible solution for the problem. Therefore idea quality is more important than idea quantity. The nature of problems and the implication of solutions are primarily responsible for freedom of action or autonomy in the creativity process. Generally speaking, a minimum of autonomy is necessary so that creativity can emerge. In Figure 3 a matrix is derived from the two dimensions of problem nature and solution implication. It illustrates the degree of autonomy in creaplexes. On the vertical
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
260
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
incremental
radical
presented
low autonomy
middle autonomy
discovered
problem nature
solution implication solu
middle autonomy
high autonomy
Figure 3. Degree of Autonomy in Creaplexes axis, the problem dimension ranges from presented/well-defined to discovered/illdefined. The horizontal axis shows the kind of solution and ranges from incremental/adaptive to radical/boundary crossing. It has to be said that the two dimensions represent continua. Problem-solution-relations can be located anywhere within the bounded matrix fields and can be changed during the creative performance. For instance, product creation may go into a foreseeable direction and it finally results in an unexpected solution such as the accidental discovery of Scotchgard at 3M. Initially a new synthetic fluorochemical rubber for use in jet aircraft was to be developed (see Robinson & Stern, 1998). Various relations of problem nature and solution implication lead to specific consequences. Problem-solution-relations with low and high autonomy in a creaplex are described in the following. Presented problems and incremental solutions are found particularly in organizations. The developing creaplex is characterized by the selection of human beings concerning their membership roles. The constellation of the members is made by a third party (e.g. top management). Therefore it is possible that participants meet in the creaplex context for the first time. During product creation collaborators act within the limits of a well-defined problem and an expected solution. The low degree of autonomy in this problem-solution-relation is due to limiting structures of the organization. According to Ford (1995) business solutions have to produce value relative to an organization’s mission and markets. For instance, a car manufacturer expects a car but not a plane as
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
an innovation, or a new BMW has to be recognized as a BMW by the customers. The relation of discovered problem and radical solution is widespread in creaplexes where the collaborators are friends or partners (e.g. Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso or Marie and Pierre Curie). Sometimes this kind of relation is relevant for organizations such as in informal or unplanned creaplexes (for the relevance of self-initiated and unofficial activity in organizations see Leonard & Swap, 1999; Robinson & Stern, 1998). The creaplexes are projects jointly chosen and distinguished by high autonomy in problem-product-relation. Collaborators are not reduced to their membership roles what influences intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996) to cross the boundary of the domain in question. It is a big challenge for collaboration to reach a level of creativity that enables a radical solution. For that, the participants have to invest time to gain relevant knowledge and experience, as well as mutual trust and complementarity. This is difficult to achieve in a creaplex, where collaborators are randomly chosen and the time span is limited in advance.
Concluding Remarks Collaborative creativity requires an adequate analysis of the phenomenon of communication, the driving force behind creative collaborations. The creaplex, a model to study collaborative creativity, has been introduced. It is assumed that this model is broad enough to cover each kind of creative collaboration in product creation. There are four essential dimensions of the model: type of communication, course of performance, working style and the relation between the nature of problems and the implication of solutions. All dimensions were described one after the other because of the linearity of language. In practical settings, they are mutually dependent and they cause together the output of a creaplex. Additionally, situation-specific variables, such as the diversity of collaborators (Milliken, Bartel & Kurtzberg, 2003), leadership (Rickards & Moger, 1999), conflict (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2000/01), frequency of communication (Kratzer, Leenders & Van Engelen, 2004) and environmental factors (Nijstad & Paulus, 2003), to name a few, affect the four dimensions. They could be considered by future creaplex research. A model is always a (useful) representation of reality. The creaplex model with its four dimensions may be a basis for further research. Each creaplex is unique so that generalizing predictions in form of a toolbox can-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
not describe the complexity and emergence of collaborative creativity. This understanding has a direct effect on the preferred methods to observe creative collaborations in a more differentiated way. Schrage puts it in a nutshell: ‘Real life remains the best laboratory to observe the influence of collaborative work’ (1995, p. 37). For retrospective analysis, case study methods, e.g. the evolving systems approach (Gruber, 1989), could help to analyse historical creative collaborations from the point of view of the creaplex model. For prospective analysis, field studies, like interviews or participant observations, could be used for applied settings to accompany and describe creaplexes. With the help of comparative analysis, common interests and differences are established, which lead to an improvement of understanding of collaborative creativity. The creaplex model may be useful in the future not only for research purposes but also for practice, particularly business settings. Creativity management has to handle two fundamental responsibilities in organizations. First, it should promote creativity in a general way through open culture, flexible behaviour patterns (Ford, 1995) and democratic infrastructure. These facilitators should be in place before collaborators start work on problems. Second, creativity management should support product creation in specific collaborative situations. For that, the creaplex model could be used as a practical scheme. The four dimensions presented serve as management guidelines during initiation and realization of a creative collaboration. They might lead to a call for action to optimize creativity, for instance to change the type of communication, to use another working style, or to enable more autonomy in the course of performance. The practical key objective of the creaplex model and its dimensions is to help collaborations to find creative solutions.
References Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder. Bavelas, A. (1950) Communication patterns in taskorientated groups. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22(6), 725–30. Bennis, W. and Biederman, P.W. (1997) Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. Perseus Books, Cambridge. Chadwick, W. and de Courtivron, I. (1996) Significant Others: Creativity and Intimate Partnership. Thames & Hudson, London. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) The domain of creativity. In Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theories of Creativity. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 190–212.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
261
Davies, M.F. (1996) Social interaction. In Hare, A.P., Blumberg, H.H., Davies, M.F. and Kent, M.V. (eds.), Small Groups: An Introduction. Praeger Publishers, Westport, pp. 115–34. Dennis, A.R. and Williams, M.L. (2003) Electronic brainstorming: Theory, research, and future directions. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 160–78. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1991) Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403. Ekvall, G. (1997) Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 6(4), 195–205. Ford, C.M. (1995) Striking inspirational sparks and fanning creative flames: A multi-domain model of creative action taking. In Ford, C.M. and Gioia, D.A. (eds.), Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 330–54. Gruber, H.E. (1989) The evolving systems approach to creative work. In Wallace, D.B. and Gruber, H.E. (eds.), Creative People at Work: Twelve Cognitive Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–24. Harrington, D.M. (1990) The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective. In Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theories of Creativity. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 143–69. Harris, T.E. and Sherblom, J.C. (2001) Small Group and Team Communication. Allyn & Bacon, Boston. 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. Doubleday, New York. Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.Th.A.J. and Van Engelen, J.M.L. (2004) Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 63–71. Kurtzberg, T.R. and Amabile, T.M. (2000/01) From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3/4), 285–94. Kylén, S.F. and Shani, A.B. (Rami) (2002) Triggering creativity in teams: An exploratory investigation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 17–30. Leonard, D.A. and Swap, W.C. (1999) When Sparks Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Lubart, T.I. (2000/01) Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3/4), 295–308. Luhmann, N. (1992) The concept of society. Thesis Eleven, 31, 67–80. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Luhmann, N. (2002) What is communication? In Rasch, W. (eds.), Niklas Luhmann: Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 155–68. Lydon, M. (2003) Flashbacks: Eyewitness Accounts of the Rock Revolution, 1964–1974. Routledge, New York.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
262
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Mabry, E.A. and Barnes, R.E. (1980) The Dynamics of Small Group Communication. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Milliken, F.J., Bartel, C.A. and Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003) Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 32–62. Montuori, A. and Purser, R.E. (1999) Social creativity: Introduction. In Montuori, A. and Purser, R.E. (eds.), Social Creativity Volume 1. Hampton Press, Cresskill, pp. 1–45. Moran, S. and John-Steiner, V. (2003) Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In Sawyer, R.K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R.J., Feldman, D.H., Nakamura, J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (eds.), Creativity and Development. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 61–90. Mumford, M.D., Feldman, J.M., Hein, M.B. and Nagao, D.J. (2001) Tradeoffs between ideas and structure: Individual versus group performance in creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 1–23. Nemiro, J.E. (2002) The creative process in virtual teams. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 69–83. Nickerson, R.S. (1999) Enhancing creativity. In Sternberg, R.J. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 392–430. Nijstad, B.A. and Paulus, P.B. (2003) Group creativity: Common themes and future directions. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 326–39. Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied Imagination. Scribner’s, New York. Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S. and Dzindolet, M.T. (2001) Creativity in groups and teams. In Turner, M.E. (eds.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 319– 38. Puccio, G.J. (1999) Teams. In Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S.R. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity: Volume 2 I-Z, Indexes. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 639–49. Rickards, T. and Moger, S. (1999) Handbook for Creative Team Leaders. Gower Publishing Limited, Aldershot. Robinson, A.G. and Stern, S. (1998) Corporate Creativity: How Innovation and Improvement Actually Happen. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. Rubenson, D.L. and Runco, M.A. (1995) The psychoeconomic view of creative work in groups and organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4(4), 232–41. Rubin, W. (1989) Picasso and Braque: Pioneering Cubism. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Sapp, D.D. (1992) The point of creative frustration and the creative process: A new look at an old model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(1), 21– 28.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Sawyer, R.K. (2003) Group Creativity: Music, Theater, Collaboration. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah. Schrage, M. (1995) No More Teams!: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration. Currency Doubleday, New York. Sternberg, R.J., Kaufman, J.C. and Pretz, J.E. (2002) The Creativity Conundrum: A Propulsion Model of Kinds of Creative Contributions. Psychology Press, New York. Stein, M.I. (1975) Stimulating Creativity: Volume 2 Group Procedures. Academic Press, New York. Steiner, I.D. (1972) Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press, New York. Tan, G. (1998) Managing creativity in organizations: A total system approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 23–31. Tardif, T.Z. and Sternberg, R.J. (1988) What do we know about creativity? In Sternberg, R.J. (eds.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 429–40. Torrance, E.P. (1972) Group dynamics and creative functioning. In Taylor, C.W. (eds.), Climate for Creativity: Report of the Seventh National Research Conference on Creativity. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 75–96. Treffinger, D. (1995) Creative problem solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 301–12. Tubbs, S.L. (1988) A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. Random House, New York. Turner, S. (2000) A Hard Day’s Write: The Stories behind Every Beatles Song. Carlton Books, London. Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought. Harcourt, Brace & Company, New York. Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993) Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–81. West, M.A. and Rickards, T. (1999) Innovation. In Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S.R. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity: Volume 2 I-Z, Indexes. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 45–55. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Stephan Sonnenburg (e-mail: s.sonnenburg @creaplex.net) is a doctoral candidate at the Institute for the Theory and Practice of Communication at the Berlin University of the Arts. He has three-years job experience as a consultant and strategic planner in advertising. His research interests include social systems theory, organization development and change, and creativity theory.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESCO-OPERATION IN NPDCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
CO-OPERATION IN NPD
263
Co-operation in NPD: Coping with Different Learning Styles Frido E. Smulders This paper describes part of the results of a research project that focuses on the interface between new product development (NPD) and production. The following question is addressed: ‘What is the influence of the inherent differences in learning styles within NPD and within Production on the interactions between the respective participants?’ The dominant learning style in NPD-processes is conceptual. Within production processes an operational learning style is dominant. Clashes occur when the learning style in-use is opposite to the learning style required. For efficient interactions participants must be able to switch from one style to another depending on the issue at hand. Making the different learning styles explicit and learn people to change form one style to another might help. However, interactions between NPD and production frequently have the character of an intervention from one process to another. For interventions to be successful, the interventionist needs to have enough empathic insight in the character of the other process and in the learning behaviour of its participants. Providing internships on both sides together with adequate in-house training programmes might support the development of empathic abilities like mutual understanding and respect.
Introduction ompanies nowadays are forced to react quickly to external changes by adapting their products and their operations to those changes. These adaptations result in a continuous stream of process and product innovation projects beside the day-to-day operation processes. The interface between new product development (NPD) and operations therefore becomes a vital link. The NPD process in this paper will be referred to as the process that leads to the creation of product and process descriptions, whereas production transforms these descriptions into physical products. In order to be efficient and effective in their innovative efforts companies need to have a clear process and organization of all the interactions between NPD and production. This is not always the case. Boer and During (2001) have found in their extensive research that companies have the tendency to overlook the organizational adaptations of the object of innovation, i.e. adaptations on the production side of the interface. Overlooking necessary adaptations at first
C
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
during the development process and making these adaptations at a later point in time (during production) is related to e.g. the ‘operational’ learning as described by Kim (1993) and seems different from the ‘conceptual’ learning (Kim, 1993) that takes place during the actual product development. This paper will go deeper into the differences between the two learning environments with associated learning styles and possible effects of these differences on the interactions that take place between the participants on each side of the interface, NPD and production. Learning in relation to NPD has been addressed in numerous research projects. In the beginning the focus was on describing the nature of R&D, NPD and innovation processes as being learning processes (e.g. Buijs, 1984; Carlsson, Keane & Bruce Martin, 1976; Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Carlson et al. (1976) and Buijs (1984, 2003) both used the Kolb experiential learning model (Kolb, 1976) to describe the different stages a company goes through during R&D and the process of new business development respectively. This increased the understanding of these processes. Takeuchi
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
264
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
and Nonaka (1986) introduced the term ‘multi-learning’ to indicate the various manifestations of learning that is associated with NPD processes. They identified two dimensions of learning: across multiple levels (individual, group, corporate) and across multiple functions. Their focus was on learning regarding the creation and transfer of knowledge among individuals, disciplines and functions that are involved in the NPD process. More recent research focuses on methods for increasing and speeding up the (team) learning processes concerning contents on technological, market and cross-team levels (e.g. Adams, Day & Dougherty, 1998; Hughes & Chafin, 1996; Lynn, 1998), and to learning across the borders of the organization (e.g. Holmqvist, 2003; Meyers & Athaide, 1991). In parallel to that other researchers focused on improving (team) learning from past NPD experiences (e.g. Gieskes, 2001; Lynn, Skov & Abel, 1999; Maidique & Zirger, 1985; Meyers & Wilemon, 1989; Verganti, 1997; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). It is surprising that no literature was found that focuses on the differences in learning styles between people that have to co-operate during the NPD process, but come from different functional departments, like NPD and production. From David Kolb (1984) we learned that people who work in different departments, have different learning styles and we know that within a multi-functional NPD team these functions have to co-operate. That brings us to the question that we will address in this paper: What is the influence of the inherent differences in learning styles within new product development (NPD) and within production on the interactions between the respective participants? In exploring this question we will map the NPD process over the successive stages of the experiential learning model of David Kolb (1976, 1984) on a level of detail that is between the level of Carlsson, Keane and Bruce Martin (1976) and Buijs (1984, 2003) and add to that the differences in learning attitudes among the participants of the NPD process. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, we will discuss the differences between the processes on each side of the NPD-production interface using theoretical models from literature. Then we will describe the learning model of Kolb and the associated learning styles. This is followed by focusing on the (learning) processes that take place during the development of the product. From the inherent differences we will describe the learning processes that take place on each side of the interface, NPD and production. A study that has been done in two companies will pro-
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
vide the empirical data that will help us in identifying the different styles of learning for the different parties involved and the clashes that occur because of them. We will discuss the findings of our case studies in the light of the earlier mentioned theoretical template. Lastly, we will elaborate on this discussion and describe some preliminary management implications and the focus of our future research.
NPD and Production: Two Different Cultures In this section we will illustrate the different cultures between NPD and production by discussing relevant literature that describes differences between processes and between participants. March and Simon (1958) identified two types of work: programmed work and nonprogrammed work. They labelled programmed work, for which both the means and the ends are well defined, ‘standardized production’. The non-programmed work, for which means and ends are not well defined, was labelled ‘innovation work’ (March & Simon, 1958) and resembles the NPD process. The goal of the NPD process is defining the means and ends of the production process. Perrow (1967) is one of the earlier authors that developed a framework for the comparative analysis of organizations in which he conceptualizes complex organizations in terms of their technologies, or the work done on raw materials. Perrow categorizes between routine and non-routine technologies by making use of the following criteria: the incidence of exceptional cases and the incidence of analysable problems. A technology is non-routine when there is a (relatively) large number of exceptions and search is not logical and analytical. Routine corresponds with few exceptions and analysable search procedures. This results in solutions that are mostly easy to implement and cause little or no disturbance within the routine processes. In this perspective, the technology of the NPD processes is more likely to be non-routine and the technology of the production will be routine. Van der Goot and Malotaux (in In ’t Veld, 1978) used a metaphoric distinction to illustrate the differences between what they call the ‘steady state’ and the innovation processes. They make a distinction between ‘piling’ processes and ‘growth’ processes. Piling processes refer to those processes whose nature, duration and sequence are predefined and therefore resemble production, the ‘steady state’ within the organization. Growth pro-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CO-OPERATION IN NPD
cesses, on the other hand, have an iterative character throughout. Choices among alternatives have to be made at every step. Every choice brings about a new set of alternatives commanding a new choice. All these choices result in growth towards the final output of the innovation process, the NPD process. Sometimes, revisiting earlier steps is necessary, i.e. iteration, something undesirable in production but unavoidable, desirable even, in innovation. Thompson (1967) models the technology of processes in terms of the interdependence between actions. The three types of interdependence he describes are more or less illustrative of the differences between the processes within production and within NPD. In production processes one would find pooled interdependent, i.e. parallel, activities, which are (nearly) independent and do not need to be synchronized. Another dominant type in production environments is sequential interdependence, which means that a worker’s progress depends on the output of another worker, not vice versa. In contrast, NPD activities are generally more reciprocally interdependent. Changes to one element of the new product will influence other elements and vice versa. Therefore the work performed on a common development project must continuously be synchronized in order to deliver a balanced design. With regard to the participants within the two processes, we found Kirton’s distinction between ‘adapters’ and ‘innovators’ useful (Kirton, 1976). Adapters tend to solve problems within the given boundary. In our case that fits the attitude within production, i.e. trouble shooting or problem solving within the existing framework of production. Adapters will look for solutions within the framework in ways that are tried and safe. Innovators on the other hand, query the situation and its assumptions. These are necessary qualities for the NPD environment, where developing something new and ‘questioning the old’ is the name of the game. The literature about these differences focuses on the differences, and pays little attention to interaction, between the two sides of the dichotomy. Although we believe that the two processes and the attitudes of the participants may to a certain extent be incompatible by themselves, in practice they are inseparable and have to interact. Our hypothesis is that interactions between participants that originate from these two different cultures may result in all kind of clashes. The focus in this paper is on clashes that result from attitudes related to the learning processes on each side of the interface.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
265
Learning Cycles and Learning Styles In this section we will describe the process of learning, individual differences in learning styles and the relation between learning and the product development process. Learning as an explicit process is since ages linked to educational institutions like monasteries, schools and universities. Learning in those institutions is seen as an individual process of acquiring knowledge and/or skill. Knowledge in this context refers to the development of cognitive abilities and skills refer to the development of behaviour. These two, changes in cognition and changes in behaviour, are according to Inkpen and Crossan (1995) on the individual level ‘tightly intertwined’. In this paper we will use the experiential learning model of David Kolb (1976, 1984). This model integrates the cognitive and behavioural changes and consists of four stages (see Figure 1). The four stages represent four different kinds of abilities that the learner needs for effective learning. He must be able to involve himself in new and concrete experiences (CEs), then he must be able to make reflective observations (ROs) on these experiences and to integrate his observations into abstract concepts (ACs) that are formed of logically sound theories that actively must be used or experimented (active experimentation (AE) with to create new experiences. The process from concrete experience via reflective observation towards an abstract concept, the right side of the cycle, is the process of changing the cognition regarding a certain object and or situation. This is passive and dominated by reflection. The left side of the cycle, from having an abstract concept and performing an active experiment in order to create a new concrete experience, is the active
Concrete Experience
Concrete
do-er
Diverger
Active Experimentation
Converger
Reflective Observation
Thinker Abstract Conceptualization
Abstract Active
Passive
Figure 1. The Experiential Learning Model of David Kolb (1984)
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
266
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
and behavioural side of the learning cycle. The integration of these two sub-processes is what Inkpen and Crossan (1995) call integrated learning, the occurrence of cognitive and behavioural changes. Although the ideal learning style consist of high skills on all four abilities, Kolb (1976) points out that nobody can be gifted with this ideal style. According to Kolb most people develop learning styles that emphasize some of the four mentioned learning abilities over others. These individual learning styles are the result of the individual’s hereditary equipment, life experiences and the demands of the (working) environment. In this light it is not surprising that different learning styles correspond to different occupations (Kolb, 1976). According to Kolb (1976) there are four dominant learning styles, each with two dominant learning abilities (Figure 1). The diverger’s dominant learning abilities are CE and RO. He is good at imagination and viewing concrete situations from many perspectives. The next dominant style is the thinker (named by Kolb assimilator), RO-AC, who is good at creating theoretical models but is less concerned with the practical use of such a theoretical model. The converger’s (AC-AE) strength is applying practical ideas and will focus within his specialized (and narrow) domain on specific problems. His learning strengths are opposite of the learning styles of the diverger. The last dominant learning style is the doer (Kolb: accommodator). The doer has an opposite learning style to the thinker (assimilator). His strength is doing things and carrying out plans and experiments. If the plans do not fit the facts, he discards the plans and goes on. His opposite learning style, the thinker, would in such a case re-examine the facts.
Product Innovation Process = Learning Process The primary output of a product development process is knowledge about the new product in terms of drawings, specifications and procedures for manufacturing. In order to increase knowledge on individual level as well as on company level, learning has to occur (Carlsson, Keane & Bruce Martin, 1976). The total innovation process where companies develop and introduce a new line of business can also be seen as a learning process (Buijs, 1984). The four abilities that are named by Kolb are a prerequisite for effective learning, meaning that if a company goes through a learning process like the product innovation process, all four abilities must be somehow in place to get
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
the best results (Carlsson, Keane & Bruce Martin, 1976). Buijs (1984, 2003) has mapped the new business development process, the process from strategy to market, over the four stages of the Kolb model. According to Buijs (1984, 2003) the stage of reflective Observation resembles the strategic process at the start of the innovation process. The formulation of the design brief resembles the abstract conceptualisation and the active experimentation resembles the actual product development. Product launch and use will provide the company with concrete experience regarding the new product, i.e. experiences that can be reflected on during a next strategic process. In this way product innovation processes of companies consist of successive learning cycles. Carlsson, Keane and Bruce Martin (1976) mapped the respective activities of the R&D process at a more detailed level over the model of Kolb. In doing so they mapped a comparable process on a much lower level of aggregation than Buijs. They describe the R&D process as successive learning circles on task level, e.g. ‘generation of nine alternatives’ (CE-RO) followed by ‘establishment of criteria for selection’ (RO-AC) and ‘evaluation of nine alternatives’ (AC-AE). In this paper we will map the product innovation process over the Kolb stages on a level the lies in between that of Carlsson, Keane and Bruce Martin, and Buijs. The starting point will be the moment that the design brief has been formulated. The design brief more or less gives the green light for the start of the development process. Although the development process is never a linear process in reality, we will adopt in this paper, for purposes of clarity, a linear process that successively consists of concept development, product development, production preparation, production ramp up and delivery to clients. We mapped the successive development phases by placing them in between the former mentioned abilities of the Kolb model (see Figure 2). We have placed the phase of concept development in the position of the diverger. The diverger is a specialist in generating new perspectives by reflecting on former experiences. These new perspectives are necessary for the concept phase, i.e. creativity to get new and innovative conceptual ideas regarding the new product. In the phase of product development, after the concept has been frozen, detailed engineering must be done. The product must be specified down to the last detail. Apart from some prototypes this is all done on a non-material level and it ends with the bill of materials (BOM) regarding the new product. The bill of materials is an abstract representation of the real product. In doing the engineer-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CO-OPERATION IN NPD
267
Design Brief (CE)
Production ramp-up
Production ramp-up
Concept development
Production preparation
Product development
Concept Development RO
AE
Production Preparation
Product Development
AC
Figure 2. Successive Phases of the Product Innovation Process Mapped over Stages (Kolb)
ing and creating the BOM this phase of product development forms the transition from reflective observation (RO) to abstract conceptualization (AC). After that, within the constraints of the design of the new product, the production process needs to be developed and prepared. Tools must be made and later 0series must be run. This is in fact the first ‘proof of the pudding’ regarding the development work and therefore fits the converger’s stage, from abstract product descriptions to active experimentation, like the 0-series. By now, the ‘doers’ from production are really ready to take over and ramp-up the new production line and bring the production of the real products in to the desired volume. Figure 2 also shows that the outcome of the first two phases, concept development and product development, represent the cognitive changes of the learning cycle. The outcomes of the last two phases represent the behavioural changes, i.e. the changes in behaviour that are necessary to produce the newly developed product. These two outcomes together form the ‘integrated learning’ as described by Inkpen and Crossan (1995). Note, that the cognitive changes regarding the new product are taking place within another group of people, i.e. the NPD people, as the behavioural changes, which take place among the people from production. This is an important issue regarding the learning on both sides of the interface between NPD and production. In fact, the product as developed by the NPD people contains (mostly implicitly) the behavioural changes that are necessary for the production people in order to produce and assemble it. In this way the product innovation process can also be seen as an organizational learning process, since the learning and
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Figure 3. The Successive Emphases in Learning within the Product Innovation Process
insights of one organizational group have to be transferred to another organizational group (Kim, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This collective learning is necessary for the organization to increase the capacity to take effective action (Kim, 1993). In this case it is to be more effective in the market with the new product. For efficient transfer of these cognitive changes, or maybe as seen from production side, for an efficient acquisition of that new knowledge it is necessary to have the right (some sort of shared) understanding of that knowledge. Apart from the above-mentioned distinction between the learning in the first two and in the last two phases, i.e. cognitive learning and behavioural learning, there is also learning in each of the four phases. In each phase there will be knowledge developed and therefore part of the work done in these phases can be regarded as learning processes. However, as we have indicated above, the emphasis regarding the learning in each phase will be different. Figure 3 shows four Kolb cycles. Each of these cycles emphasises the learning process of the successive product innovation phases relative to each other and seen from the perspective of an outside observer. Each phase has its own balance of cognitive learning and behavioural learning. However, it is important to note that the perception of this balance may be different from different perspectives. For instance, the sketching that takes place during concept development might be experienced from the perspective of the sketcher himself as an active and concrete
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
268
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
experiment (AE-CE), thus a doing type of learning in the upper-left quadrant of the Kolb learning cycle (Figures 1 & 2). However, people from production may regard these sketches as illusions that are neither concrete nor a very active way of making progress. They will perceive sketching as a reflective and abstract process that is placed in the lower right-hand quadrant of the cycle (RO-AC). Therefore the people from production might perceive the people from concept development as passive and abstract ‘thinkers’. This is quite the opposite of the active and experimenting (learning) style as perceived by the concept people themselves (‘doers’). These personal biases are very important with regard to the interactions between participants who have their daily work in another environment.
Interactions between Different Learning Environments According to Simon (1996) the complexity of the behaviour of people reflects largely the complexity of the environment the people are in. According to Kolb (1976) the individual learning style is, among other things like hereditary equipment and life experiences, depending on the demands of the working environment. This implies that the dominant learning styles of participants in a process resembles the learning style that is requested by the type of work in that process. From the differences as described in the first paragraph we can derive the possible differences in learning styles. We will concentrate on the differences between participants from production and from NPD. Let us consider the learning that might take place in the day-to-day situation of the production process. When production lines are ‘run-in’ and run at their normal volume of products, then there is probably no or little learning going on. The only learning that might take place is the continuous increase in ability of the production people in manufacturing or assembling the products and thus resulting in productivity improvement. This will be a mostly sub-conscious learning process and is what Kim (1993) calls operational learning. This operational learning covers the acquisition of skills (or know-how) as opposed to conceptual learning that covers the acquisition of know-why. Kim (1993) defines operational learning as ‘learning at the procedural level, where one learns the steps in order to complete a particular task’. Apart from this increase in ability there is a related type of learning that must be applied if a problem shows up at the production line and the speed
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
of production must be lowered. In most cases these problems are familiar to the production people and can be resolved with known and easy-to-implement solutions (Perrow, 1967). This also represents operational learning, since no learning on the conceptual level is necessary in order to solve the problem. From this we may conclude that the predominant learning style within day-to-day operations in the production area is an operational type of learning that oscillates between concrete experience (CE) and active experimentation (AE) (Kolb, 1984), i.e. the upper left-hand quadrant in the Kolb learning cycle. On the other side of the interface, the NPD process is focused on creating all necessary knowledge of the new product. The quest for new and innovative ideas during this NPD process exacts a focus on reflection, i.e. the right side of the Kolb learning cycle. This is also a mainly sub-conscious learning process and resembles what Kim (1993) calls conceptual learning. Thus working in an environment that shows the operational learning style and an associated problem-solving attitude of using known solutions for problems that show up will make that people from that environment confronted with a question show this same kind of problem solving. Going back to Kolb, we can see that the doer, as the predominant (sub-conscious) learning style of the people from production will be, will not reflect much on questions or problematic situations that is posed to him/her. So, if people from NPD ask the people from production questions about the new concept, they are likely to answer that question using their daily problem-solving mode – meaning that they will use their daily experience with familiar problems and known solutions to answer the questions. There are questions for which such an approach is perfect. However, there might be also questions where the amount of reflection applied by the production people is not sufficient enough to provide the NPD people with the appropriate answers. Of course there will be answers, but these answers could not be the answers sought for by NPD. In the reversed situation, if production asks NPD to help them with a manufacturing problem, the NPD people will use their daily approach for solving that. They will reflect on the situation and come up with new solutions that must be implemented. In doing so, they might reflect more than necessary in the eyes of the production people and this way might take too much time. The actual situation at hand may require switching of attitudes, i.e. from a conceptdominated learning attitude to an operational learning attitude. Switching between these
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CO-OPERATION IN NPD
two different attitudes might be not that easy, and even harder if people believe that they have the right attitude already.
Empirical Studies In the empirical studies we gathered data in two different companies. One company produces high-end consumer electronics (e.g. TV, audio, etc.) and the other one produces highend lighting products (e.g. for discos, festivals, etc.). The products of the two companies were comparable in terms of product size, product technology, production methods and final assembly. In each company we interviewed eight people; four from production and four from NPD. The people were chosen around two recent product innovation projects for each company. The interviews were open, halfstructured and tape-recorded. From the tapes we made full transcripts, which were analysed. In the data we looked for occasions and phrases that could illustrate what we have described earlier in this paper. Having only four NPD projects under study seems small basis for drawing generalized conclusions. However, the unit of analysis is not the project but the behaviour of individuals within the NPD process. This way one could say that we analysed 16 cases. In addition, this research project was conducted using the method of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The aim of grounded theory is to ‘arrive at conceptually based explanations for the processes operating within the substantive problem area’ (Locke, 2001, p. 41) by studying patterns of behaviour that are observed in the data. Within grounded theory the number of cases is not relevant as long as the patterns of behaviour observed in the data are not incidental. For generalization of the new theory it needs to be tested in other substantive areas. This is beyond the scope of the research project presented here. As we described earlier, operational learning is the dominant learning within the production environment. This learning ability fits most of the learning that has to take place within that environment. However, what we have heard from respondents is that it is pretty hard for them to shift to a more conceptual type of learning. This is necessary for example, if they are asked to give feedback on a concept. They have to concentrate mentally on this new concept (drawings) in order to understand the product and all its parts. They have to translate what they see on a drawing into production possibilities. This is an abstract and conceptual process that is dominated by reflection and concentrated on the right-hand side of Kolb’s learning cycle. A respondent
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
269
from NPD formulated these kinds of problems as follows: it is difficult [for production people] to get out of their normal and every day life and go in to something that is totally new and then give feedback. They have actually to investigate . . . [and ask them selves] ‘OK, how will this be in production?’ that will take them more time than just looking and saying But the problem is actually that if they are too involved in the production . . . and we [NPD] show the concept . . . they try to solve the production problems . . . they actually try to do the final product . . . rather than small loops at the time . . . so they put too much time into something that might not be the final thing This clearly indicates that their everyday attitude is different from what is being asked for here. And it could be a waste of time, because NPD is asking for feedback on something that is not finished yet. Changes are likely to occur and then they have to do it again. These reflective and conceptual iterations are normal and accepted within the NPD environment, where conceptual learning is dominant. The amount of energy that NPD has to invest in order to get this task done sometimes makes NPD not consult production at all. This of course can cause all kind of problematic situations later in the process. Or NPD gets remarks like: now we have to do [make] this more difficult Production objects to these changes and sometimes has the impression that NPD is ‘doing it on purpose’. But, production does not have the attitude to reflect on these changes, postpone their judgement and create an overall picture. NPD in this particular case was forced to do it because of quality problems with a supplier and they were very much aware that they were causing difficulties in production. However, the fact that production thinks that NPD is doing such things on purpose is build on former experiences, i.e. interactions in past projects. This kind of prejudice could very well be caused by the frequently occurring situation of designs being too complex in the eyes of people from production. At some point in time the people from development must stop diverging and change their learning attitude towards a converging style. If they do not, their results will be too late and maybe too complex. In the data we found several incidents that were linked to this. During the development of one of the products, one of the software designers had an idea for some additional testing.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
270
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
why don’t we do this, it is so obvious, we have all the tools in our hands, it is just a little bit of software and then we can have all this testing done automatically These new developments later caused major problems in the factory. An interviewee from production said about this problematic situation: we had a lot of trouble . . . a lot of trouble making this machine work. So the yield was bad for a long, long, long time, because of the machine and the technology . . . . . . and also communication between the product software and the test equipment software was very very difficult . . . because everything was made so complex. All the tests were made automatic, and the adjustments was made automatic, so it was a very, very, very . . . you know . . . This clearly illustrates that it is also difficult for NPD people to converge and thus shift to another learning style. At the same time they want people from production to adopt their learning style. This fact is illustrated by undesired interventions from production to NPD. In these frequently occurring instances production called for help with factory problems. This was often disturbing the work of NPD. One respondent from NPD formulated this as follows: we would like people [from production] to think a little more before contacting the R&D What is said here is that NPD would like the people from production to first reflect on the situation at hand and develop a new (abstract) concept to solve it them selves. This is the right-hand side of the Kolb learning cycle, which is not dominant within production environment. It will be hard to get production to develop such strategies, because as Kolb says ‘. . . that psychological types or styles are not fixed traits but stable states’ (1984, p. 63), meaning that it is possible to change people’s attitude, but then you need ‘consistent patterns of transaction between the individual and his or her environment’ (Kolb, 1984, p. 63). The question is, how are we going to create these consistent patterns of transactions beside the existing patterns that keep calling for operational learning? And the operational learning is a very necessary way of working in the production environment that we do not want to lose. And how can we make it clear to the people from NPD that they have to shift during the development process to a more operational learning style?
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Discussion Product innovation processes are individual as well as organizational learning processes. We have seen in this paper that the emphasis on the type of learning that has to take place in each phase of product innovation is changing from reflective and abstract in the conceptual phase, to active and concrete in the ramp-up phase. For an efficient and effective innovation process this requires different learning attitudes from the people involved in the respective phases. The main idea behind multifunctional teams is to create a platform for exchanging knowledge with each function involved in the product innovation process. Team members that have their daily work in an environment that is dominated by routine and efficiency, e.g. production, will show an operational learning style that supports the equilibrium within that routine environment. If those team members get involved in the conceptual stage they have to adopt a more conceptual learning style for effective exchange of information. They will need more reflective and abstract thinking than their daily work requires in order to give appropriate feedback on the conceptual product designs. The question is, how easy is it for people to shift from one learning style to another? According to Kolb (1984) it is possible to shift to another learning style if there is a consistent pattern of interactions between an individual and the environment. The creation of such a consistent pattern will take time and calls for support from those people that already are accustomed to that learning style. This is a complicated adoption process, because apart from getting acquainted with the opposite learning style, participation in two different environments calls for a continuous oscillation between the operational and conceptual learning style. The fact that learning in NPD as well as in production is more or less an autonomous and subconscious process is not making this any easier. It could well be that the participants in the NPD-process that come from production think that they have the right attitude, but in fact they do not. Their theory-in-use is different from their espoused theory (Argyris & Schön, 1974). People hold mental models in their heads that guide their actions. If these mental models are wrong regarding the situation at hand, their actions might at least be less effective. Making these mental models and learning attitudes explicit and conscious during interactions between NPD and production is one thing that might help. Teaching people to switch from one style to another in relation to the environment they are in would be another
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CO-OPERATION IN NPD
thing. However, interacting participants must not underestimate this process, because this is a process of change! And as we all know, there are easier things than changing the behaviour and attitudes of people. In a recent publication (Smulders, de Caluwé & Van Nieuwenhuizen, 2003), in which we reported some earlier findings of this study, we described the relevance of the theory on interventions and change in relation to the interactions between NPD and production. We discussed the fact that the product innovation process is punctuated with micro-interventions of one process to another process, and that these interventions purposely disrupt the status quo on the side of the receiver with the intention of changing it to another state. We also found that these interventions and intended changes fit the theories on change management quite well. These findings make it possible to apply those theories on interventions and change during the process of product innovation (Smulders, de Caluwé & Van Nieuwenhuizen, 2003). This calls for additional skills and knowledge on the side of the interventionist as well on the side of the receiver, whether it is someone from NPD or production. Besides those skills and knowledge, we then called for empathy on both sides of the interface. From this paper we know that some of these interventions are actually aimed at changing the learning style of the receiver. The problem for the interventionist is that these learning styles are mostly unconscious and that by addressing explicitly learning styles he/she will make things more complicated. However, the main difference between the two learning styles, conceptual and operational learning, is a shift on the horizontal axis of the Kolb model (see Figure 1), i.e. a shift in the amount of reflection. Knowing this the interventionist could circumvent the ‘theoretical learning stuff’ by addressing the behaviour sought for. In other words, the interventionist could, for example, ask explicitly for more reflection by asking the receiver to postpone his/her judgement and consider more alternatives. But then the interventionist must know or feel that in that particular case, additional reflection is needed on the other side of the interface. In order to be able to create such awareness on the side of the interventionist, he/she must have developed his/her empathic sensitivity.
Empathic Abilities and Future Research Empathy is ‘the ability to identify oneself mentally with a person or thing and so understand its feeling or meaning’ (Oxford Dictionary,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
271
1979). In our case it is necessary to develop this empathic ability on the process level and on the level of the participants on both sides of the interface, NPD and production. It is about understanding the process and respecting the process-bounded behaviour of the participants. Regarding the process level, one could consider some sort of job rotation or internship. The objective of such an internship is then to create awareness of the processes on each side of the interface and not re-training the individual participants. Regarding the people from production, they should learn and experience what reflection, creative thinking, postponement of judgement and so on mean. In fact, they should go through the learning cycles at the level that Carlsson et al. (1976) described; experience what it is like to work with a vague goal or with a visionary image of the future product, or what it is like when production intervenes in the NPD process. Alternatively, the NPD people should do the same and experience what it is like to have production targets like 200 units a day, understand what kind of problems occur in production and the way these problems are solved as opposed to what they are used to do, feel what it is like when NPD intervenes with small changes or even with engineering change orders, just be there, perform some small tasks and at the same time get some education about the essences of the process that is been visited. But as we said, knowing the respective processes is not enough. They should also learn the basics on interventions and change, for example by using the five perspectives on change and interventions from De Caluwé and Vermaak (2003). For creating empathy on participant level, it is necessary to make the process-bounded individual characteristics explicit. These characteristics could easily be linked to the process characteristics during the educational programme. Discussing theories like the Kolb experiential learning model and the Kirton Adaptor-Innovator theory will support this empathic process. Last but not least, it is important to ‘know thyselves’, to know what your own attitudes are in relation to others. Applying the Kolb test and Kirton test to participants from both sides could achieve this in some respects, for example, by making it clear that there are differences in personality and attitude, and that these differences are necessary for effective and efficient processes on each side of the interface. At the same time these personal insights create some awareness of the individual ‘theory-in-use’ and the mental models that are guiding the process. This way, internships and training programmes will support the development of empathic
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
272
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
abilities like mutual understanding and respect. However, this research project is not finished yet. So far we have seen that interactions could be considered as interventions from one process to another and that the difference in learning styles is one of the factors that is relevant during interactions. Our future research will first be focused on identifying additional factors and trying to integrate them into one substantive theory. This way we hope to provide more ‘flesh and blood’ to the word ‘empathy’ in the case of interactions between NPD and production. Second, we will focus on testing this substantive theory in other related and/or analogue interfaces in order to generalize to a more formal theory. All these interfaces must have one process that develops the input of the next process in common. Related interfaces could be then NPDPurchasing and NPD-Logistics, but also NPDSuppliers. Interfaces like university-industry and architect-constructor could be seen as examples of analogue interfaces.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Harry Boer and Paul H.K. Hansen from Aalborg University Denmark for their support.
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. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Boer, H. and During W.E. (2001) Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organizational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1–3), 83–107. Buijs, J.A. (1984) Innovatie en interventie. Kluwer, Deventer. Buijs, J.A. (2003) Modelling product innovation processes, from linear logic to circular chaos. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), 76–93. Carlsson, B., Keane, P. and Bruce Martin, J.B. (1976) R&D organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 17(3), 1–15. De Caluwé, L. and Vermaak, H. (2003) Learning to change: A guide for organizational change agents. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Gieskes, J. (2001) Learning in product innovation processes. Dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Holmqvist, M. (2003) Intra- and interorganizational learning processes: an empirical comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19, 443–66. Hughes, G.D. and Chafin, D.C. (1996) Turning new product development into a continuous learning process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 89–104. Inkpen, A.C. and Crossan, M.M. (1995) Believing is seeing: Joint ventures and organization learning. Journal of Management Studies, 32(5), 595– 618. Kim, D.H. (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 37–50. Kirton, M.J. (1976) Adaptors and Innovators: a description and measure. Applied Journal of Psychology, 61, 622–9. Kolb, D.A. (1976) Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18(3). Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Locke, K. (2001) Grounded theory in research management. Sage Publications, London. Lynn, G.S. (1998) New product team learning: Developing and profiting from knowledge capital. California Management Review, 40(4), 74–93. Lynn, G.S., Skov, R.B. and Abel, K.D. (1999) Practices that support team learning and their impact on speed to market and new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 439– 54. Maidique, M.A. and Zirger, B.J. (1985) The new product learning cycle. Research Policy, 14, 299– 313. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York. Meyers, P.W. and Athaide, G.A. (1991) Strategic mutual learning between producing and buying firms during product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 155–69. Meyers, P.W. and Wilemon, D. (1989) Learning in new technology development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6, 79–88. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledgecreating company; How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Perrow, C. (1967) A framework for comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208. Simon, H.A. (1996) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Smulders, F.E., De Caluwé, L. and Van Nieuwenhuizen, O. (2003) The last stage of product development: Interventions in existing processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), 109–20. Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (1986) The new product development game. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 137–46. Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in action. New York, McGraw-Hill. Tushman, M.J. and Nadler, D.L. (1986) Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74–93. Veld, J. in ’t (1978) Analyse van organisatieproblemen. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
CO-OPERATION IN NPD
Verganti, R. (1997) Leveraging on systemic learning to manage the early phases of product innovation projects. R&D Management, 27(4), 377–90. Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992) Revolutionizing product development. The Free Press, New York.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
273
Frido E. Smulders (f.e.h.m.smulders@io. tudelft.nl) is Assistant Professor, Management of Innovation, at the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. His research focus is on the interface between new product development and production. He lectures on strategic, organizational and economic issues related to corporate new product development.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134ARTICLESIDEAS IN THE WORKPLACECREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
274
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process Heinz-Juergen Boeddrich This article pinpoints requirements for organizing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. The author derived the conditions for computer-aided idea management from benchmarking the fuzzy front ends of several German and European companies and proposes differentiating between general and company-specific requirements for organizing the fuzzy front end. It is suggested that structuring the fuzzy front end involves low financial investment but highly sensitive and transparent leadership. Using specific properties of ideas in the workplace as springboards, considerations on further new requirements for successful idea management are developed. Placing a particular emphasis on the interface between the idea owner and the idea-adoption system, an ‘idea types’ model is developed, which defines four different extreme types of employees and their inclinations to solve problems. An extended set of requirements for managing ideas in the workplace as a useful instrument in creation and implementation of idea-pipelines in companies and in checking software programmes for idea management or the early stages of new product development programmes is presented.
Introduction
A
ll innovations originate from ideas, which are the results of the creative or rational thinking processes of employees, customers, suppliers or universities, generated individually or in group sessions. Companies that have a large number of ideas can be expected to enjoy a more successful future. A large number of ideas also means better utilization of problem-solving knowledge. It leads to better utilization of human capital and key competencies, and improves the climate in the company. In the first stage of the innovation process, successful innovative enterprises try to generate a sustainable flow of ideas before starting innovation projects. In accordance with empirical research on the success factors for innovations (Cooper, 1992; Ernst, 2001; Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994), the very early stages of the innovation process (fuzzy front end, concept development phase, preliminary phase before starting innovation projects etc.) have to be
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
structured systematically. The first phase of the innovation process is organized in a balance between creative scopes and wellstructured – in some cases computer-aided – idea pipelines (Geschka & Schwarz-Geschka, 2000). According to decision-making theory, developing initial embryonic ideas into practicable project proposals reduces uncertainty. Managers cannot decide how to allocate R&D budgets based on vague ideas. Further considerations and information are necessary in order to improve the quality of such decisions. High quality in terms of the initial decision for innovation projects has a positive influence on the quality of the innovation process in companies and increases the probability that successful products will result from this process. Based on the results of empirical studies and the logical argument on the reduction of uncertainty in the fuzzy front end, enterprises should invest in intellectual resources concerning the first part of the innovation process (Figure 1). © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
IDEAS IN THE WORKPLACE
275
- Process: Innovation 1. Ideas
Fuzzy Front End
Generation, Collection, Adoption, Clustering, Screening, Selection, Improvement Sustainable flow of Ideas
Use of intellectual resources
2. Decisions on Innovation Projects 3. Innovation Projects
Multi Project Management Consumption of tangible resources
4. Results
New Products, New Technologies, New Processes, New ways of collaboration in human resources
Figure 1. Main Stages of the Innovation Process as the Key Process
Enterprises focus much more on the second part of the innovation process, in which tangible resources are consumed (Figure 1) and a large number of different management instruments are available. At present you may sometimes observe a very controversial discussion of the preliminary steps to be carried out before starting innovation projects. You may even hear someone argue that the ‘fuzzy front end’ has to remain fuzzy because this guarantees a creative impact on the innovation process. Furthermore, some heads of R&D departments or innovation management argue that the generation of ideas and creative innovations cannot be managed. In their minds, creativity and ideas will emerge only in an absolutely free and somewhat chaotic environment without systematic structures, processes etc. This, rather extreme, position is referred to as the ‘fantasy route to innovation’. At the other end of the scale, there are those who believe that innovation could be generated by computers and data stores. They want to collect all relevant information, experience and knowledge in order to transfer it into hardware and software. For them, the easiest way of generating innovations quickly is to push a few buttons on the computer. This is referred to as the ‘technocratic route to innovation’. Both ways are imperfect and doomed to failure. On the one hand, idea-generation without any focus is useless for companies. On the other hand, machines are not able to duplicate certain creative functions of the human brain.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
However, a successful way of managing the fuzzy front end entails a combination of both. Success can be achieved by taking the middle way. The following sections describe simple procedures and requirements for a successful idea pipeline derived from a benchmark of idea management systems in several German and European enterprises. The fuzzy front end of the haircare company Wella AG in Darmstadt, Germany, will be presented as a best practice case.
A Sustainable Flow of Ideas Innovations are successful on the market, if: • the ideas are linked with companies’ strategic goals at a very early stage of the innovation process; • the ideas will give rise to superior products with obvious benefits for customers and users; • the concept identification phase (idea management = phase before the project decision) is structured and conducted systematically. Empirical studies have shown that companies do not pay enough attention to the success factor specified above. The steps to be taken before starting R&D projects remain vague and indistinct: the collection and flow of ideas are not regulated, decision criteria are not specified and authorisations are unclear. One speaks of ‘fuzzy front ends’ in the innovation process (Boeddrich, 2002).
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
276
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
A lack of methodical, systematic and structured procedures at the beginning of the innovation process has a substantial detrimental effect on the innovation management of an enterprise: • The strategic adjustment of innovations is not possible or is effected too late. • An early selection is omitted. Ideas offering no prospects continue to be discussed for much too long. Physical and emotional resources are wasted. • Valuable time is lost. • There is a lack of transparency with regard to the innovation supply. • It is not possible to optimize the innovation process. No learning processes take place with regard to improving procedures.
Phases of the Innovation Process
2
Concept Finding
3
Development of Innovation Elements
Fuzzy Front End
Market Launch
Innovation Projects
Figure 2. Phases of the Innovation Process
Requirements for Organizing the Flow of Ideas In order for an idea-management system to be structured, it is necessary to distinguish between general organizational requirements and company-specific requirements (Boeddrich, 2002).
The General Requirements
4
Achievement of Readiness for Marketing
The fact that the concept identification phase can be structured, without restraining creativity and discouraging people from taking the initiative, demonstrates experience in successful inventive enterprises. On the one hand, the phase from the central idea collection to the decision regarding the R&D project should be structured in such a way that ideas can be identified openly using a wide variety of idea sources. On the other hand, the evaluation and further development of ideas should be based on fixed rules – set by the top management (Geschka & Schwarz-Geschka, 2000).
• Existence of strategic guidelines for innovations. • Installation of a broad idea-collection point. • Systematic idea clustering. • Cross-functionality of the decision-making gatekeepers in the idea management process. • Predefined and transparent criteria for selecting and implementing ideas.
A proposal for structuring fuzzy front end Strategic guidelines for innovations
Development of innovationguidelines by topmanagement and innovationmanager
Idea generation and adoption
Strategic analysis of ideas by idea- or innovationmanager
Idea screening execution and further conceptual development
Cross-functional teams reach decisions on ideas based on estimation
Portfolio of innovationprojects
Preliminary Projects
D E C I S I O N Verification of the estimations
(product-, technical-, financial-, and market -attractiveness)
Idea-Management, Concept-finding-Phase, Predevelopment-Phase
Multi-projectmanagement Allocation of R&D-budget
Project Management
Figure 3. Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
IDEAS IN THE WORKPLACE
277
• Funnel function for the selection process or implementation of stage gates. • System simplicity – making it easy to manage.
The Company-Specific Requirements • Definition of company-specific idea categories. • Commitment to company-specific evaluation methods and selection criteria – especially with regard to K. O. criteria for approved projects. • Commitment to the owner of the ideamanagement process. • Commitment to certain individuals or organizational units that promote innovation within the company. • Definition of creative scopes for the company. • Influence of the top management on the fuzzy front end. • Number of stages and gates in the tailormade idea management. • Investigation of stakeholders in the structured fuzzy front end and establishment of their participation. These requirements have been confirmed by several studies (Cooper, 1996; Ernst, 2001; Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994) and best practice analyses in German and European enterprises from various branches of industry. If both kinds of requirement are taken into sufficient consideration for a company, it seems to be a good idea to incorporate customized idea management into the company’s organization or an IT platform. As best prac-
tice analyses have shown, ignorance of these requirements indicates a lack of trust in a new idea-management system. Michael Hammer also supports this opinion: ‘Business innovation is not a potion that can be bought in a store – it must be brewed at home’ (Hammer, 2001).
Successful Idea Management in Practice One enterprise, which successfully develops innovative products using a computer-aided idea management system, is the haircare company Wella AG, in Darmstadt. With the support of the Geschka & Partner management consultancy, the company has created a computer-assisted idea management system which structures the entire innovation process – from the interface for collecting initial vague ideas to the project decision. This IT-based database revolves around a system of rules for the innovation process, in particular for the concept identification phase. The rules are very flexible and are arranged in an open manner. The idea author can therefore specify which team is to examine the product of his thoughts. Various colleagues can input helpful comments on the ideas. The author also determines when his idea is to be released for further processing in the system. The idea and project database at Wella AG has been operated since 1997. One in three ideas are transferred into an R&D project. At present approximately 500 employees from the R&D and marketing departments use the system on the basis of Lotus Notes.
Situation at Wella in the early 1990s High innovation pressure Project management in R&D implemented, low EDP support Requirements: Installation of a permanent and obligatory workflow from generating an idea to launching a new product/brand on the market Verification and evaluation of existing elements for an ongoing innovation process Unternehmensberatung
Implementation of the developed idea pipeline on the IT platform
Geschka & Partner
Organizational design of an innovation process using the specialised knowledge of GPU
Figure 4. Organizational Change in the Innovation Process at Wella
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
278
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Advantages of the idea database used by Wella’s staff include: • Employees have become more motivated to develop new ideas. • Idea management has become more transparent. • All ideas are evaluated within four weeks. • No ideas are lost. • Fights for the penetration of ideas are replaced by the automatic idea workflow. • Conflicts regarding patents are eliminated. Wella AG has been using an improved version, the so-called WIP (Wella Ideas and Projects), since 2000. This supports the thesis that ideamanagement systems can only be optimized (in the sense of continuous learning) if initial systematic procedures and structures exist. Since the organizational change in the innovation process, Wella’s share price has risen continuously. Several potential buyers had expressed an interest and had been discussing a friendly take-over over the last few years. On 18 March 2003, a press release presented Procter & Gamble as the winner of a takeover bid.
Properties of Ideas in the Workplace as Springboards to Find New Elements for Organizing the Fuzzy Front End Based on a discussion of the properties of ideas in the workplace, new guidelines for structuring the ‘fuzzy front end’ of the innovation process will be postulated in the following pages. Some of the properties may seem to be trivial, but discussing trivial matters can sometimes lead to new insights. Although other characteristics seem provocative, provocation is a valuable instrument for developing novel approaches.
Ideas in the Workplace are Worthless Without Realization If ideas remain in the brains of employees there will be no effective use of the key competencies. This leads to a waste of human capital. In certain situations, appropriate solutions will be found only by employees who are directly involved in the problem. In many cases, the co-worker in the frontline is the only one who has the knowledge to solve a certain problem (Getz & Robinson, 2003). Often managers are not aware of these aspects. Most of them believe that the ideas of subordinates are not helpful for solving the problems that they come up against in their work
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
as supervisors. Sometimes they also forget that realizing ideas is a great way of motivating employees and keeping them in best of health (Zur Linden, 1996, 1997). The first step in realizing ideas entails bringing them out of people’s brains and putting them to the test in the organizational environment. Blockades, obstacles and barriers are bound to turn up along the way. Many ideamanagement leaders try to promote ideageneration through general financial rewards or even threats. Studies have found that such measures are not very successful (Getz & Robinson, 2003). Only exclusive individual rewards for good ideas that are implemented will show employees that they are a valuable part of the company.
Ideas in the Workplace Become More Valuable the More They are Used Most resources in a company depreciate with use. Quite the opposite effect arises with ideas. An idea becomes more valuable every time it is taken into consideration (put back into a person’s brain). In most companies, there is no process for putting ideas back into people’s brains. This leads to a reduction in the added value gained from creative problem solutions. Most R&D departments function this way. Commonly, it works only for rational logical idea development or in the context of implementing and assessing ideas. The full potential of creative ideas in the workplace will be tapped only in companies with a creative idea loop. This is a place where highly creative employees are allowed to play with fuzzy and weird ideas.
Ideas in the Workplace are Fuzzy Elements of Problem-Solving Knowledge Ideas are very early, only fuzzy, solutions to problems. They are rough drafts that need to be developed into feasible versions. They have to be brought to a stage in which success and risks can be calculated. Refining ideas from rough drafts into assessable project proposals is an intellectual process. Most managers believe that creative techniques should deliver direct solutions to companies’ problems. They do not consider the existence of a certain ambivalence in the use of creative techniques. If a company searches for innovations and pioneering ideas, it needs a highly abstract creativity technique. The abstraction leads to fuzzy results (rough draft ideas). On the one hand, these techniques give rise to the opportunity to ‘conquer new horizons’. On the other hand, the products of these techniques are far
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
IDEAS IN THE WORKPLACE
from being implemented. Radical and abstract creative techniques lead to risky and longlasting development projects. In the rational world of business, only outstanding managers will seize these opportunities for a unique selling proposition. If a company is under high innovation pressure – for example the need to react to changes with regard to markets, environments, competitors’ products etc. – it needs techniques that generate feasible results as quickly as possible. This discussion shows that ideas have to be categorized and that idea managers must know which creative techniques fit in with the various categories of ideas and problems.
Ideas in the Workplace are Mass-Produced Articles In all companies there are a lot of ideas for improvements in various fields. If managers say: ‘we have no ideas’, that means these companies have no functional system to adopt ideas and they have no leaders who are able to perceive ideas from employees. A creative climate does not exist in such a company. On the other hand, obviously, not all ideas can be realized. Procedures for screening and execution are necessary. The large number of ideas has to be reduced by transparent and well-known criteria. Fair competition, with well-known criteria, must be established. A useful tool for managing these mass-produced articles in a competitive way is modern IT with databases. However, the computer-aided idea process will not be able to encourage innovation.
279
Ideas in the Workplace are the Intellectual Products of Employees To employees, ideas are highly valuable products of their thoughts about companies’ problems. So managers should to pay full attention to these ideas. Ignorance about ideas discourages people from solving problems. They lose interest in companies’ goals. Leadership will become easier if there is an intelligent, reliable interface between employees’ ideas and the company’s idea pipeline. Managers will not be disturbed in their operational work by very creative subordinates. Creative problem-solvers will not be frustrated, because they know where to deliver their ideas. This broad collection point for ideas is referred to as an ‘intelligent link between brains and the idea pipeline’. Such an interface triggers fruitful communication of employee ideas. This communication never starts by asking for hard success factors (quantitative measures) such as market shares, ROI, NPV, etc. It starts with easy questions about soft success factors (qualitative evaluation) and about the added value of the idea. The intended function is to get people thinking about the consequences of the ideas and how workplaces will be changed. Employees have to look at their ideas from different perspectives. The idea owners become more sensitive to their ideas and their effects on the organizational environment. They identify barriers for the ideas and become more aware of the efforts to overcome them. Sometimes they withdraw their problem solutions after a period of self-evaluation. In other cases, they seek help and encouragement. Motivating
Figure 5. Example of an Intelligent Link between Employees’ Brains and the Idea Pipeline
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
280
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
employees to behave in this way enhances the input quality of an idea pipeline and benefits a company’s innovation process tremendously.
Ideas Do Not Emerge in the Workplace In general, most ideas do not occur in the workplace. They emerge when people’s brains experience alpha-wave situations. Typical alpha-wave situations are daydreaming, jogging, taking a shower, conducting small talk with friends etc. We know from empirical research that, in such situations, the idea for solving a problem emerges from the subconscious. It occurs if an isolated problem is confronted with an item not related to the problem or the company. This procedure demonstrates the need for an intelligent ideaadoption interface to bring ideas back into the workplace. This interface should be independent of the time schedule of the idea manager or supervisors. The idea owner should have the chance to hand over his idea and to trigger discussion about it if he has decided to publish. If he has to wait, further barriers, doubts and frustrations could arise.
between a certain creative impulse and a certain hesitation to put their ideas to the test in the real environment. The extent of the creative impulse depends on how extroverted people are and how inclined they are to solve problems creatively. The degree of hesitation is influenced by how introverted people are and how inclined they are to solve problems in a rational (linear-analytical) way. A typological model of human idea types can therefore be defined. With regard to extroverted and introverted personality and individual preferences for means of solving problems (in a rational or creative way), a distinction can be made between four archetypes (Kolb 1984; Smith & Kolb, 1986), as described by Myers/Briggs or C.G. Jung (Bents & Blank, 1992; Jung, 1960).
The Emotional Perceiver He strives to make the world a better place and places a huge emphasis on traditional values. He is a very good listener and perceives emotions in the workplace. He prefers creative problem-solving in his daily work but hesitates to publish his own ideas.
The Reserved Scientist
Human Idea Types Model for Sensitive Leadership in Idea Management The first obstacles to ideas emerge unconsciously in idea owners themselves. Before people produce embryonic problem solutions there will be an inner struggle (Maslow, 2000)
He likes achieving highly sophisticated results in his work and always wants his work to be appreciated. He requests leadership and is excellent at concentrating on the topics in question. He prefers linear-analytical problem-solving. He is afraid of publishing his own ideas because he hates being criticized.
Idea Types Introversion
Scientist
Perceiver
E = m x c2 8
8
Inclination for linear-analytical problem-solving
Inclination for creative problem-solving
8
8
Communicator
Entrepreneur Extroversion
http://www.boeddrich.de
[email protected]
Figure 6. Typological Model of Human Idea Types
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
IDEAS IN THE WORKPLACE
281
The Open Communicator
between four different scenarios (a to d). The scenarios are related to the four different quadrants (perceiver, scientist, communicator, entrepreneur) of the model. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. The people doing the test indicate the scenarios that seem to be most appropriate to them. The marks are transferred to an evaluation sheet (Table 1). Afterwards the personal results are carried over to the diagonals of the model and an individual profile with a certain shape is created (Figure 7). A person with seven or eight points at one diagonal is very rare in the real world, as is someone with two points on all four diagonals. In general, the profile shows us how a person treats his ideas and how he goes about problem solving. In connection with the archetypes and the peaks of the shape we can gain information as to what kind of encouragement employees need in order to enter their ideas into an idea-adoption system. In the example we have a person who tends to be a perceiver, meaning that he needs to be empowered to put his ideas to the test in the environment. Furthermore, he needs encouragement to present ideas to a decision-making team. He may also need assistance in setting the objectives for idea development and may require some advice from scientific-oriented colleagues. At present the intention of the model and the non-validated test is to get the person doing the test to reflect on his own profile. For this purpose see Figure 8 (Appendix 2) in which the questions are related to the quadrants of the archetype. Furthermore, the profiles could provide an indication of deficiencies in innovative working groups.
He likes to be a star and focuses on bright and brilliant presentations. He likes ad-hoc organization and has excellent improvisation skills. He is great at convincing others. He enjoys creative problem-solving. He starts communicating his ideas anywhere at any time
The Dominant Entrepreneur He integrates top contributions to achieve company goals and always focuses on accepted objectives. He is sometimes a dominant ruler and great at delegating work. He prefers linear-analytic problem-solving but accepts creative problem-solving if the other method seems to be exhausted. In the reality of the workplace, no employees completely fit in with these extreme types. Every employee has a certain individual proportion of all four types. The proportions express the inner struggle between creative impulses and the hesitation to bring ideas out of the brain into the organizational environment of the workplace. For the purpose of identifying the individual profiles, the questionnaire (Appendix A) and the following system has been developed. At present the model is used for casting, team building and allocation of roles in innovation projects. Because of the non-validated character of the model, the following test is not a useful tool for recruiting team members for innovation projects directly. Further considerations are necessary. The simple test contains eight different situations typical of offices and workplaces: Within each situation you have to choose
Table 1. Evaluation Sheet of the Idea Type Questionnaire: Example Type
Entrepreneur
Scientist
d a d a a d d d 2
b c a d d a a a 1
perceiver
Communicator
Situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
a b c c c c c b 4
c d b b b b b c 1
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
282
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Idea Types Introversion
Scientist
Perceiver
E = m x c≤ 8
8
Inclination for Creative Problem-Solving
Inclination for linear-analytical Problem-Solving
8
8
Communicator of an Individual Idea Type Profile
Entrepreneur
Extroversion
Figure 7. Example of an Individual Idea Type Profile The intention is not to test all employees in a company and, for instance, figure out how innovative the company’s staff is. The model demonstrates the complexity of idea adoption and the diversity of employee needs with regard to idea management. A successful idea pipeline works only with sensitive leadership that is aware of the complexity and individual behaviour involved in idea transformation. Successful idea management leadership involves motivating people to share problem-solving knowledge and ideas.
Final Results The following requirements for successful idea pipelines are clearly well-known from former discussion and best practice (Boeddrich, 2002). A distinction is made between general organizational requirements and company-specific requirements. The general requirements of such an idea management system are: • existence of strategic guidelines for innovations; • installation of a broad idea-collection point; • systematic idea clustering; • cross-functionality of the decision-making gatekeepers in the idea management process; • predefined and transparent criteria for selecting and implementing ideas; • funnel function for the selection process or implementation of stage gates;
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
• system simplicity – make it easy to manage. The company-specific requirements for a successful idea management are: • definition of company-specific idea categories; • commitment to company-specific evaluation methods and selection criteria – especially with regard to K. O. criteria for approved projects; • commitment to the owner of the ideamanagement process; • commitment to certain individuals or organizational units that promote innovation within the company; • definition of creative scopes for the company; • influence of the top management on the fuzzy front end; • number of stages and gates in the tailormade idea management; • investigation of stakeholders in the structured fuzzy front end and establishment of their participation. Discussing the properties of ideas in the workplace has led to further requirements for structuring the fuzzy front end. New findings from the discussion of the idea properties are: • exclusive individual rewards for implemented ideas; • creation of a scope for putting ideas back into people’s brains – creative idea loop; • managers have to know which creative technique suits a stated problem and need
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
IDEAS IN THE WORKPLACE
to develop their creative problem-solving skills; • installation of an intelligent interface between employees’ brains and an idea-collection system; • enhancement of sensitive idea management leadership in accordance with complexity and diverse approaches towards handling ideas. With the general and company specific requirements plus the new findings a set of practical conditions for creating and implementing idea pipelines in companies has been created. On the one hand the set guarantees a systematic handling of ideas in the workplace – organizing the fuzzy front end in generating a sustainable flow of ideas. On the other hand there is enough scope for company specific flexibility, which is necessary to confront companies’ specific knowledge with new problem solutions (ideas). Furthermore the systems takes into consideration that the generation, collection, evaluation and execution of ideas is a process in which creative and linear-analytical steps have to alternate several times before best solutions occur. The best example is the new finding ‘creative idea-loop’. This loop is a very powerful tool to transfer initial fuzzy problemsolving knowledge (weird ideas) into promising innovation projects. In consultancy programmes on ‘creation and implementation of idea-pipelines’ the set has been very useful to identify strengths and deficiencies in existing idea management systems. The set of conditions is a very fine instrument to get the tailor-made idea management of a company and to complete it. Generally, the set of requirements has been used as final check for new created idea management systems before implementation into the organization and/or an IT-platform. Good results have also been achieved in checking the practicability of software programs for idea management and the early stages of new product development programmes.
References Bents, R. and Blank, R. (1992) Der M.B.T.I. (MyersBriggs-Typen-Indikator). Claudius, München. Boeddrich, H.-J. (2002) Erfolgsfaktor Ideenmanagement, in Jahrbuch Wirtschaftswissenschaften FH Mainz 2002. University of Applied Sciences Mainz, Mainz. Cooper, R.G. (1992) The New Prod System: The Industry Experience. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(2), 113–127. Ernst, H. (2001) Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte: Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse des Innovationserfolgspanel
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
283
(IeP), Vortrag im Diskussionkreis ForschungsEntwicklungs- und Innovationsmanagement vom 30.10. 2001. Available at: http://www.innovationserfolgspanel.de Geschka, H. and Schwarz-Geschka, M. (2000) Ideenmanagement und dessen Unterstützung durch eine Ideen- und Projektdatenbank. In Dold, E. and Gentsch, P. (eds) Innovationsmanagement – Handbuch für mittelständische Betriebe. Neuwied/Kriftel, Luchterhand, Neuwied. Getz, I. and Robinson, A.G. (2003) Vos idées changent!. Editions d’organisation, Paris. Hammer, M. (2001) The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade. Crown Business, New York. Herrmann, N. (1991) Kreativität und Kompetenz – Das einmalige Gehirn. Paidia, Fulda. Herrmann, N. (1997) Das Ganzhirn-Konzept für Führungskräfte. Überreuther, Vienna. Jung, C.G. (1960) Gesamtwerk Band 6 – Psychologische Typen. Rascher, Zurich. Kleinschmidt, E.J., Geschka, H., Cooper, R.G. (1996) Erfolgsfaktor Markt – Kundenorientierte Produktinnovation. Springer, Berlin. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood, Cliffs, NJ. Maslow, A.H. (2000) The Maslow Business Reader, ed. Deborah C., Stephans. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Montoya-Weis, M. and Calantone, R.J. (1994) Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 397–417. McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1987) Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. Probst, G., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (1999) Wissen Managen. Gabler, Wiesbaden. Smith, D.M. and Kolb, D.A. (1986) The User’s Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory: A Manual for Teachers and Trainers. McBer & Company, Boston, MA. Sutton, R.I. (2001) Weird Ideas That Work. The Free Press, New York. Zur Linden, V. (1996) Kreativität als bedeutsamer Faktor für Gesundheit: Plädoyer für einen neuen Denkansatz, Teil 1 In: Signal, Leben mit dem Krebs, Heft 4 1996, Hauck Verlag, Heidelberg S. 13–19. Zur Linden, V. (1996) Kreativität als bedeutsamer Faktor für Gesundheit: Plädoyer für einen neuen Denkansatz, Teil 2 In: Signal, Leben mit dem Krebs, Heft 4. Hauck Verlag, Heidelberg, S. 22–24.
Appendix 1 Questionnaire on Behaviour in Daily Workplace Situations 1. a) b)
Time consciousness I am often unpunctual. It disturbs me if others get annoyed about it. I am always punctual because I think people are greatly impressed by punctuality.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
284
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
c) d) 2. a) b) c) d) 3. a) b) c)
d) 4. a) b) c) d) 5. a) b) c) d) 6. a) b) c) d) 7. a) b)
Volume 13
Number 4
I am very often unpunctual and don’t care if that bothers others. I always try to be on time and hate being late. Finding the way to an address for an appointment I often ask for the way and prefer verbal descriptions. I use road maps as an initial guide and look for the way without help. I prefer exact verbal directions and try to find the way without any help until I find the destination address. I consult road maps and ask for directions if I cannot find the way on my own. Lecture situation I can listen to lectures well. I find it embarrassing if I have a coughing fit. Lectures without pictures and pictorial language are boring; if I need to sneeze, I just do. I could listen to speeches with pictorial language for hours; I would suppress loud sneezing or coughing during the lecture. I prefer lectures with tidy facts; if I need to cough, I do so without hesitation Organization General regulations give security, particularly if clear goals are set. I like improvisation because it indicates a certain measure of creativity. Improvisation is necessary but people should not improvise too often. If I have clear goals, I can achieve top results. Intuition Decisions must contribute to objectives. Emotional decisions are a part of everyday life and they are something natural. Emotional decisions should be made only if rational methods have been exhausted. I prefer rational decisions; emotional decisions are not transparent. Vacation My vacation destinations depend on costs and performance. I plan my vacations spontaneously and at short notice. I make vacation plans at short notice based on recommendations from colleagues. I plan my vacation on a long-term basis. I leave my address in the office. Filing My papers are always filed alphabetically or chronologically and are always available. I often look for papers in piles. I don’t feel ashamed if others notice.
December 2004
c)
I often arrange things according to colours and I believe this is unusual. d) My papers are always arranged and I grumble at my secretary if I am unable to find something 8. Telephone a) I take notes while talking on the phone so that I can justify actions if need be. b) I often scribble on a bit of paper while talking on the phone and keep such ‘works of art’ in my desk. c) I often draw while talking on the phone. After the call I throw the drawings straight into the waste-paper basket. d) I think that taking notes while talking on the phone makes it easier to reconstruct the details of a call.
Appendix 2 The questions have been determined by considering how the archetypes would behave in certain situations with respect to their traits (introversion, extroversion) and their inclination to solve problems creatively or using a linear-analytical approach. Most of the questions have an extrovert/introvert part and a creative/linear-analytical part. Take, for example, question 3d: ‘I prefer lectures with tidy facts’ (= linear-analytical thinking); ‘if I need to cough, I do so without hesitation’ (= extroverted behaviour). Those who choose this answer will be given one point in the entrepreneur section of their individual profile.
Linear-Analytical Problem-Solving Versus Creative Problem-Solving in the Workplace Companies prefer to work on tasks using linear-analytical thinking. This entails solving problems step by step in a succession of small partial solutions. One step follows the other logically in the direction of a given objective. The strict focus on the objective generates a kind of channel of thought in which the small partial solutions are found. The delimitations of the channel are the conditions with which the goal is to be achieved. One of the greatest advantages of the linear-analytical procedure is that it is easy to control because the development of the overall solution can be proven at every stage. It is also the best way of justifying how work has been carried out. Building up such channels makes it easy to find patterns for standardized solutions. On the one hand, this makes daily routine work much more efficient. On the other hand, you find the desire for creative problem-solving skills
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
IDEAS IN THE WORKPLACE
285
Introversion 1a) I am often unpunctual. It disturbs me if others get annoyed about it. 2b) I use road maps as an initial guide and look for the way without help.
Perceiver
3c ) I could listen to speeches with pictorial language for hours; I would suppress loud sneezing or coughing during the lecture. 4c) Improvisation is necessary but people should not improvise too often. 5c) Emotional decisions should be made only if rational methods have been exhausted. 6c) I make vacation plans at short notice based on recommendations from colleagues.
Inclination for creative Problem-Solving
2c) I prefer exact verbal directions and try to find the way without any help until I find the destination address. 3a) I can listen to lectures well. I find it embarrassing if I have a coughing fit. 4d)
5d) I prefer rational decisions; emotional decisions are not transparent. 6a) My vacation destinations depend on costs and performances. 7a) My papers are always filed alphabetically or chronologically and are always available.
8b) I often scribble on a bit of paper while talking on the phone and keep such “works of art” in my desk.
8a) ) I take notes while talking on the phone so that I can justify actions if need be.
1c) I am very often unpunctual and don’t care if that bothers others.
1d)
I always try to be on time and hate being late.
2a)
I often ask for the way and prefer verbal descriptions.
3b) Lectures without pictures and pictorial language are boring; if I need to sneeze, I just do. 4b)
I like improvisation because it indicates a certain measure of creativity. 5b) Emotional decisions are a part of everyday life and they are something natural. 6b) I plan my vacations spontaneously and at short notice. 7b) I often look for papers in piles. I feel not ashamed if others know it.
E = m x c2
If I have clear goals; I can achieve top results.
7c) I often arrange according to colours and I believe this is unusual.
2d) I consult road maps and ask for directions if I cannot find the way on my own.
Communicator
1b) I am always punctual because I think people are greatly impressed by punctuality.
Scientist
Inclination for linear-analytical Problem-Solving
3d) I prefer lectures with tidy facts; if I need to cough, I do so without hesitation. 4a) General regulations give security, particularly if clear goals are set. 5a)
Decisions must contribute to objectives.
6d) I plan my vacation on a long-term basis. I leave my address in the office. 7d) My papers are always arranged and I grumble at my secretary if I am unable to find something 8d) I think that taking notes while talking on the phone makes it easier to reconstruct the details of a call.
Entrepreneur
8c) I often draw while talking on the phone. After the call I throw the drawings straight into the waste-paper basket.
Extroversion
Figure 8. Explanation of How Questions are Related to the Archetypes
in the workplace: Creative problem-solving enhances the problem-solving knowledge of the company beyond linear-analytical thinking. The company then becomes more flexible because it has a higher quantity of alternatives
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
for responding to changes in the environment. Creative leadership most likely also improves the quality of alternatives. Another important function of creative problem-solving is overcoming hurdles and dead ends.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-16902004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.December 2004134BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
286
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Book Reviews Nancy J. Adler (2002), International Dimensions Of Organizational Behavior, 4th edn. South Western, Thompson Learning, Cincinnati, Ohio. ISBN 0 324 05786 5, 391 pp, General index.
Your new and former editors searched widely for appropriate texts to review for a special issue on cross-cultural issues in innovation theory and practice. One candidate, International Dimensions Of Organizational Behavior, would not appear an obvious one. It is already a well-known text, having begun life some years ago. It does not touch directly on the overall preoccupations of creativity and innovation studies. Yet, as the author points out in the preface, the book offers insights into understanding of a range of related organizational issues such as problem solving, organizational development and change, leadership, perception and communications, and motivation, all from a cross-cultural perspective. New materials added make the book competitive with other recent publications for those involved in teaching and researching such topics. Even that would make the book interesting, but hardly a prime choice for our special issue, if it were not for additional considerations. Most significantly, considerable portions of the book may be directly relevant, as studies of innovation and creativity become more aware of the importance of multicultural teams. In this review, I will concentrate on those features, taking as a reference point personal experiences with cross-cultural project teams facing innovation challenges. The book is well known and favoured as a text within studies of cross-cultural management. Professor Adler faces the issues of cross-cultural issues from her base at McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Her everyday life thus confronts several urgent cross-cultural themes emerging from the francophone and anglophone components within Quebec, and the Canadian/US components within her wider North American experiences, as well as the experiences of North Americans worldwide. The dominant culture within Quebec is francophone, in the sense that Quebec finds its most fundamental cultural identity from its French language and culture, thus differentiating itself from the rest of primarilyanglophone Canada. One husband and wife team of journalists from Montreal described
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
their location there as ‘a hyphen between the English and French worlds’.1 In International Dimensions Of Organizational Behavior, the author makes a virtue out of a day-to-day reality for Canadians. She takes as her prime reference point the dominant culture of the United States, arguing that in this way she is able to build the bridge more easily from the source of much of the most globally influential research, most of which is written from an American perspective. This immediately introduces one aspect of multiculturalism: at one level, it may be appropriate to treat the United States as having a dominant culture. The United States does have a dominant culture, although not a homogeneous culture: the whole modern history of the USA is itself a narrative of multi-culturalism. Yet the assumption of dominance works particularly well and serves as a reminder of how a particularly powerful subculture may speak for the more diverse whole. The business studies sub-culture in, and far beyond the United States, appears to many as remorselessly homogeneous. By echoing this cultural stereotype, Adler illustrates one of the most important aspects of multi-culturalism, namely the impact of a dominant culture. She also offers what has become a statement of faith of multi-culturalism: ‘No country’s [cultural] system or perspective is any better or worse – any more or less effective – than any other country’s; rather, each is distinct and therefore must not be understood as a replica of any other nation’.2 I am in agreement with the ethical imperative, which had emerged in part through the arrogance of early anthropologists visiting cultures that were supposedly more ‘primitive’. It also recognises the dangers of parochialism. However, I am also interested in the possibility that cultures are based on assumptions and beliefs that are open to chal1 Nadeau, J-B & Barlow, J. (2004) Sixty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong. Robson Books, London p. xiii). 2 Adler, N., (2002, vii).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
BOOK REVIEWS
lenge rather than acceptance. In this sense I am inclined to add ‘No country’s system or perspective is so rigid that critical inspection may not open up possibilities for self-reflection and change’. And what better way to support such processes than seeking to work with people from other cultures?
Globalization and Multi-Culturalism One of the tenets of contemporary management is that globalization is important and proceeding apace. Information technology through the Internet, easier international travel and job ‘migration’ contribute to the process. The consequence is that an understanding of cross-cultural interactions has become a vital component for organisational competitiveness. ‘Managers must develop a global mindset’.3 Cultural values inform attitudes and behaviours. Globalization sensitizes us to diversity. Adler introduces anthropologists’ Kluckhohn and Strodbecks’ six ‘basic dimensions’ defining how cultures vary. These are views of the individual; relationships to the outside world, and to other people; activity (how and what we control in and out of work); and privacy (or otherwise) of space. Adler introduces evidence that helps challenge one organizational assumption. The assumption is that organization culture minimizes cross-cultural differences. (Even culture guru Geert Hofstede appeared to be suggesting this, in his book on organisational culture).4 Yet empirical research seems to suggest something different. Adler concludes that it is a myth that organizations should attempt to operate so as to minimize cultural differences. The author also helps us challenge another myth – that stereotyping has to be a primitive and incorrect means of making sense of our (global) reality. Her interesting point is that stereotyping is a deeply engrained process. It may serve as a platform for adapting behaviour towards improved communication and leadership. The key lies in a willingness to treat stereotypes as providing general insights open to modification for each individual situation you encounter. I see this as a vital element of creative leadership (and perhaps of emotional intelligence) processes. The benefits arise where ‘flexible’ stereotyping helps us overcome common tendencies to relate others to our own cultural frames of reference (parochialism).
287
Diversity, Creativity and Innovation Good news, bad news. Diversity can lead to ‘enhanced creativity, flexibility and problemsolving skills especially on complex problems’.5 Diversity in innovation teams offers similar advantages. That is the good news. The bad news involves difficulties in shared communication, and agreeing on specific actions. These difficulties occur where people are required to have shared beliefs and actions (shared values; similar actions). Diversity contributes to ambiguities, confusion and lack of convergence. Yet, even these difficulties can be positive: such ‘weaknesses’ reduce the dangers of group-think, for example. Nevertheless, there are actual perceived frustrations working with multi-cultural teams that cannot and should not be denied. Adler analyses a range of ways in which teams (and organizations) deal with these issues. The most obvious is cultural dominance, which forces every team member to accept the ‘correct way of doing things’. For example, in business schools, MBAs are increasingly taught in English. This may bring long-term benefits for non-English speakers, but in project teams, the working language (including that of the final report) is English. This tends to diminish the contributions of team members not fluent in spoken and written English. Adler suggests alternative strategies to dominance, involving accommodation, avoidance, compromise and synergy. These approaches seek to deal with different cultures, even if the members within the dominant culture still have a head start in the team dynamics and its leadership. In this context, accommodation seems pretty much one way; that is to say, for example, the non-AngloSaxon team members accommodate to AngloSaxon norms of meeting protocol (expressing conflict directly; ignoring or minimizing personal and emotional issues and so on). Avoidance is arguably a form of dominance in which the concessions are implicit.6 (‘It’s only for a short project, and that’s the only way to survive’). [Avoidance can be a long or short term strategy] Compromise involves mutual concessions in the interests of task accomplishment (or more rarely, team cohesion). Synergy is the approach most likely to secure cultural creativity, and project innovation. Adler takes care to remind us that the approach is only one 5
Adler (ibid. 110). As Professor Adler pointed out, (personal communication, 2004) avoidance can be a short-term or long-term strategy. My own sensitization to it in our MBA projects revealed its appeal as a short-term expediency. 6
3
Adler, N. (2002, 15). Hofstede, G., (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, London: McGraw Hill.
4
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
288
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
among others, and that all five approaches will be found in highly effective global contexts. It serves, however, as strategy which many leaders would accept, in which new solutions emerge through ‘new solutions to problems that leverage cultural differences . . . while respecting each culture’s uniqueness’. For multi-cultural teams, the potential productivity is greater, but the actual productivity losses may more than compensate. This gives us the simple model of excellence in multi-cultural teams: potential (and sometimes actual) superior performance; sometimes actual poorer performance than more homogeneous teams.7
Leadership in Culturally Diverse Teams We have already mentioned the evidence against the assumption that cultural differences can be ‘structured away’ in organizational projects. This implies that leadership requires sensitivity to cultural differences. Whereas the leader’s role in motivating and achieving effective decisions remains, the nature of the motivational and decision-making processes varies widely. ‘Offers’ of more democratic decision-making may be vital, or may be counter-productive for innovation teams. In our MBA teams, we found the differences compounded where the leader has not been appointed by the organization, and where the team of MBAs was made up essentially of peers. The potential for distributed leadership is there, but the resolution is often painful. The remedy arises from sensitive operation within each leadership experience, seeking feedback (direct or indirect) on such matters from colleagues in the team. ‘If multicultural teams fail to balance creativity and cohesion, they become awkwardly inefficient structures’.8 Another interesting finding emerging, is the tendency for such teams to parcel up any project into apparently self-contained task bundles, each the responsibility of one team member. For example, a team may find components roughly matching individual experiences, either cultural or professional. This is a strategy through which the psychological and task benefits of differentiation outweigh subsequent problems of integration of the individual efforts. In a 7 Adler cites an important practical confirmation from 800 MBA teams on field trials at the University of California. Kovach, C., (1976) ‘Some notes for observing group process in small task-oriented groups’, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Business, University of California. The study deserves more wide-ranging follow-up trials. 8 Adler (2002, p. 156).
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
short project, this mostly results in last-minute efforts of integration, with one person struggling to get to grips with the largely unconnected bits. It seems close to the compromise strategy included in Adler’s taxonomy.
Global Leadership and Emotional Intelligence Drawing on Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence,9 Adler reports that ‘emotional intelligence, not cognitive abilities, explains 90% of the difference between average and star performers . . . Asian, European, and US companies with strong emotional intelligence outperform the yearly earnings goals of their competitors by up to 20%’.10 The concept of emotional intelligence remains one attracting debate and controversy. Goleman’s version suggests a cluster of competences relating to the way in which a leader (or anyone else) is aware of and is able to moderate the effect he or she has on others. This involves self-awareness, empathy and related social skills. The descriptions of the elements in Goleman’s popular treatment are clearly associated with creativity and leadership. For example, the competency of selfregulation involves a control of disruptive impulses and moods, and a propensity to suspend judgement – to reflect before acting. Related evidence comes from leadership and creativity researcher Howard Gardner.11 He suggests that people identified as exceptional leaders internationally were unusually adept at, and committed to reflecting on the future in terms of their knowledge and experience. They were skilled at focussing on, and applying their strengths, (‘leveraging’). They were also good at framing (a concept that can be found in the theories of forming strategic leadership).12 Taken together, the skills characterize someone who learns from mistakes, and benefits from the process in future strategic plans and actions.
Conclusions Adler’s book is the best summary I know of a coherent and lucid approach to explaining the workings of cross-cultural teams. (I have not mentioned a range of wider topics also cov9 Goleman, D. (1998) ‘What makes a leader’ HBR Nov–Dec 92–102. 10 Adler, Ibid: 171. 11 Garnder, H., (1995) Leading minds. 12 Hodgkinson, G.P. & Sparrow, P.R. (2002) The competent organization: A psychological analysis of the strategic management process. Open University Press, Buckingham.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
BOOK REVIEWS
ered, such as global negotiations, expatriation processes and gender issues). The book combines theories and empirical evidence, with practical suggestions, and plenty of food for thought for team leaders and members. She avoids the trap of offering a ‘one right answer’ approach (which would probably risk tricky and paradoxical issues). The use of ‘The American Way’ as a benchmark makes the book particularly valuable for North American
289
audiences, although I have found the book easy to ‘translate’ for other international contexts. Above all, the absence of direct references to creativity and innovation should not deter regular readers of CAIM. Almost every page has relevance if we make the effort to seek the connections to our more specific interests. Tudor Rickards
Michael J. Kirton (2003), Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change. Routledge, Hove, Sussex. ISBN 0 415 29850 4 (hb), 0 415 29851 2 (pb), 391 pp.
Michael Kirton has completed an updating of his decades of research into what has become known as Adaption-Innovation theory. Adaption-Innovation in the context of diversity and change makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the theory, and as such will be carefully scrutinized by specialist researchers. The theory is described as a model of problem solving and creativity which aims to increase collaboration and reduce conflict within groups. The implications of the theory will continue to be felt in a range of practical domains, including our interpretations of the constructs of creativity, innovation and problem solving. Intimately associated with the theory is the measuring instrument the Kirton AdaptionInnovation inventory (KAI), widely applied for developmental training and diagnostic purposes within organizations. There has been some debate concerning the dimensionality of KAI, but battles seem to be relatively subdued on this front. The core of the theory was covered in an earlier book1 whose latest edition is now approximately a decade old. This book indicates the multiple refinements and advances to the theory that have occurred in the intervening years (the instrument has remained in its original format). Without a few qualifications in preamble, what follows may appear to be unjustifiably critical. I am an admirer of the contribution that Kirton has made to debate on the nature of creativity. I believe his contribution of AI theory, and its practical applications, to have accorded him a rightful place among the major figures of British organizational psychology over the last few decades. I believe this book is a fitting and valuable contribution to the field. Even when I believe him to be wrong, Kirton
offers me more profound insights than most of the work of less controversial scholars whom I believe to be indisputably right. My critique is an indication of the respect I have for the author and for his central ideas, although it inevitably focuses more on aspects which I have the greatest cause for concern.
1
2
Kirton, M.J. (1994) Adaptors & innovators: styles of creativity and innovation (2nd edn). Routledge, London.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
Background to Adaption-Innovation theory Kirton’s ideas came to international attention after the publication of a seminal paper on his theory.2 In it he outlined a major insight to understanding of creativity, namely that the process may be productively modelled as having two orthogonal dimensions, one of competence, or level, and one of style. This challenged the conventional treatment of creativity, which largely ignored the stylistic dimension. His instrument was designed to identify what became known as the adaptorinnovation continuum of cognitive style. Over-simplifying quite a lot, someone of adaptive style prefers to make progress incrementally, and within guidelines; someone of innovative style is more rule-breaking and radical by inclination and actions. This model helped throw light on several intractable issues in contemporary thinking about creativity. For example, it introduced the idea of different kinds of creative process, and suggested that one kind (the innovative form) had been privileged as creative and the other (the adaptive form) regarded as non-creative. Kirton helped us see how everyone could be creative in different ways. The theory further developed concepts of the consequences of interactions of people of Kirton, M.J. (1976) Adaptors and innovators: a description and a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–29.
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
290
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
different styles. Such encounters, in the workplace as outside it, lead to conflict, and only infrequently to conflict resolution. The overall context or environment may be more, or less, disposed to a given cognitive style. The greater the mismatch, the greater the need for coping behaviours. This person-environment treatment predicts causes of environmental stress, and personal decisions for staying or quitting that environment.
A Diversity of Views A characteristic feature of Kirton’s treatment of implications of his theory is a tendency to demonstrate its superiority by virtue of favourable comparisons with earlier theories. For example, he has tended to describe the field of creativity as muddled and in need of complete revision. ‘The term creativity has had a plethora of varying definition attached to it, and this lack of precision has played a significant part in the inconsistent findings generated by much of the research relating to it . . . creativity, problem-solving, and decision-making even if not synonymous terms, can be linked together because each is involved in the generation and resolution of novelty . . . in every case where there is creativity, there is also problem-solving and decision-making’.3 The achievement of precision runs through this book as a fundamental criterion of scientific progress towards reliable knowledge. There are actually considerable assumptions behind what appears to be a tightly argued logical argument here. ‘The plethora of definition’ indicates usage in the medical sense of over-fullness. There is little dispute that there are at least as many definitions of creativity, as there are definitions of other abstract concepts such as trust, leadership and indeed problem solving. Many other researchers identify the problems of multiple definitions. An example came to hand as I was preparing this review: ‘The meaning of failure, decline or crisis is problematic . . . Academics have defined each of the terms in different ways . . . and there is little consensus about what each term means’.4 To make progress, we need to develop a view on of how these differences in definition arise. Kirton has tended to dismiss them, in the case of creativity and innovation, as muddled thinking. To be sure, there are instances of muddled thinking in creativity research. How3
Kirton, M.J. (2003) Ibid: 135–6. Mellahi, K., Jackson, P. & Sparks, L. (2002) A study into the failure of Marks and Spencer. British Journal of Management, 13(1), 15–29. 4
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
ever, the muddiness of specific authors is itself muddied unless we consider possible sources of the ‘deep muddy’. For creativity, MacKinnon articulated the widely held view that creativity is a multifaceted phenomenon.5 Another complication arises where researchers have drawn on different theoretical traditions. This leads to issues of multiple paradigms, and diversity. We thus have two ways of approaching ‘muddiness’ of definition. The first would address contextual differences, the second deep epistemological beliefs impacting on the nature of reality. Kirton links creativity, problem solving and decision-making, concepts he considers hopelessly muddled. It is unclear how he is able to reach a convincing conclusion about their interrelationships by this approach. I happen to agree that it is plausible to link the concepts (through the terms as in common and formal use). I am less convinced that there is a logically established link, by virtue of their involvement in the generation and resolution of novelty. A dialogue on this quickly runs foul of definitional rocks (‘it depends what you mean by . . .’). Kirton relies on this logic to locate creativity as ‘a sub-set of problem-solving’6 (Kirton, 2003, 152). He had earlier argued that ‘we can . . . just rely on the term problemsolving; this should help us obtain clearer hypotheses to test and, possibly, clearer answers to our questions’ (Kirton: 2003, 4). This is a serious challenge to prevailing concepts of creativity and problem solving. Has it been established that we can treat creativity as a sub-set of problem solving so as to arrive at clearer hypotheses? I remain unconvinced. Furthermore, I would not invoke precision of measurement as the main criterion of a theory’s credibility. Kirton appears to do so, in several passages scattered through the book.
Precision and Diversity Precision in scientific investigation is not an unmixed blessing. Teachers of research method like to relate the story of the academic and the crashed balloonist. ‘Where am I?’ asks the balloonist, still somewhat dazed. ‘You are suspended six foot from the ground’ the academic replies. ‘The academic has achieved high precision and yet communicated nothing of value’ the teacher adds. This is not a trivial point. Precision tends to be a function of a measure (methodology) not of theory. To link theory with practice, we have to seek ‘operational 5 MacKinnon, D.W. (1978) In search of human effectiveness: identifying and developing creativity. Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, NY. 6 Kirton, M.J. (2003) Ibid: 130.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
BOOK REVIEWS
definitions’, a process which may be such a tight ‘fit’ that the theory/method link yields only tautological hypotheses. (‘Hot objects make my new thermometer rise more than cold objects, by more precise increments’). In this book, Kirton outlines his theoretical grounds for connecting problem-solving with A-I cognitive style. ‘Adaption-innovation cognitive (problem-solving) style lies within the discipline of psychology, more specifically as an element within cognitive effect, which is itself within the field of cognitive function’ (Kirton, 2003, p. 6). He sets aside various other factors as irrelevant. We have seen the manner in which creativity is set aside. He also sets aside instinct as having any bearing on problem-solving, on the grounds that instinct ‘is part of the problem’, acknowledges this to be controversial, but continues ‘This position can be reached by defining all the strategies tightly and by eliminating loose terminology’. (Note again the primacy placed on precision over diversity and over ‘looseness’ of terminology.) I am not adequately versed in the technical arguments to reach a firm conclusion as to whether instinct is absent from the repertoire of characteristics of homo sapiens, yet is present in some of the defining behaviours (nestbuilding, for example) of other sentient creatures. (I suspect that, as so often, there are semantic issues around, to complicate the debate.) However, I am able to recognize the convenience for KAI theory if an excess (‘a plethora?’) of factors influencing human behaviours may be set aside by denying their existence. If we include instinct, we have to develop models of more complexity, in which the polarity and primacy of two oppositional cognitive styles is less evident. I will return to the issue of precision, but first wish to make a detour to consider the issue of diversity. The very title of the book was attractive to me, and to the editors of the special issue of Creativity and Innovation Management. Our background understanding of diversity was (perhaps tacitly) closer to the views covered in Professor Adler’s work. We had in mind the various components feeding into behaviours of work groups, particularly those including variations in culture, gender, educational and professional experiences. Adaption-Innovation theory offers us a different angle. In an interesting chapter on diversity, Kirton develops a range of conceptual ideas and practical recipes. In the main, these seem remarkably consistent with views found elsewhere, for example in Adler’s treatment of diversity. His emphasis derives from his consistent intellectual position that behaviours are primarily mediated through cognitive style. The main diversity variable is that of cognitive
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
291
diversity. ‘The management of diversity is (mostly) set in the context of group problem solving . . . among the key inbuilt diversities, which are useful, but need management, are A-I differences in cognitive style’.7 Here he departs from Adler, who would give more far more emphasis to non-cognitive components.8
Complexity and Precision The strengths of this rich and deeply argued book derive from the empirical studies applying Adaption-Innovation theory, and the author’s efforts at interpreting the results and applying them to a wide range of real-world issues. Some readers will find pleasure in a style that seeks precision, while dealing with complexity. At times a sense of irony also breaks out to further lighten the reading. I will have no hesitation directing research students towards this book. I will also suggest they reach a conclusion for themselves regarding its construction, paying particular attention to the reasoning through which several contemporary theories are challenged. They will find themselves accepting the argument that creativity and innovation are very muddled concepts. (I have some sympathy with the view myself.) They may be less than convinced that creativity and innovation, and non-cognitive elements of behaviour are so muddled, that we are better off with a treatment offering greater precision in definition, and in measurement. If so, they then have to admit into their models notions of greater complexity. Cognitive style, for example, may have to be treated as a component, perhaps an important component, of diversity management, in which case they may decide that no one has yet demonstrated cognitive style to be the most significant component in modelling diversity in work groups and beyond. My own view is closer to those workers who consider the modern work environment to have unique sources of complexity and turbulence.9 As such, we have an option of living with more ambiguities. Theorizing becomes more temporary and admits the possibility of emergence of new concepts, and the recasting of old ones. Tudor Rickards
[email protected] 7
Kirton, (2003, Ibid: 226). Adler, N.J. (2002) International dimensions of organizational behavior, (4th edn) South Western, Thompson Learning, Cincinnati, Ohio. 9 Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1999), Positive Turbulence: Developing climates for creativity, innovation and renewal, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. 8
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
292
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Index to Volume 13 (e.g. 2/97 = number 2, page 97)
ARTICLES BJÖRKMAN, Hans. Design Dialogue Groups as a Source of Innovation: Factors behind Group Creativity 2/97 BOEDDRICH, Heinz-Juergen. Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process 4/274 BONNARDEL, Nathalie and MARMÈCHE, Evelyne. Evocation Processes by Novice and Expert Designers: Towards Stimulating Analogical Thinking 3/176 BOUNCKEN, Ricarda B. Cultural Diversity in Entrepreneurial Teams: Findings of New Ventures in Germany 4/240 GASSMANN, Oliver and GASO Berislav. Insourcing Creativity with Listening Posts in Decentralized Firms
1/3
GEORGSDOTTIR, Asta S. and GETZ, Isaac. How Flexibility Facilitates Innovation and Ways to Manage it in Organizations 3/166 GIESKES, José and VAN DER HEIJDEN, Beatrice. Measuring and Enabling Learning Behaviour in Product Innovation Processes 2/109 HANNAH, David R. Who Owns Ideas? An Investigation of Employees’ Beliefs about the Legal Ownership of Ideas 4/216 KAUFMANN, Geir. Two Kinds of Creativity – But Which Ones?
3/154
KOHTAMÄKI, Marko, KEKÄLE, Tauno and VIITALA, Riitta. Trust and Innovation: from Spin-Off Idea to Stock Exchange 2/75 KRATZER, Jan, LEENDERS, Roger Th. A. J. and VAN ENGELEN, Jo M.L. Stimulating the Potential: Creative Performance and Communication in Innovation Teams 1/63 KRISTENSEN, Tore. The Physical Context of Creativity 2/89 KWAS´NIEWSKA, Joanna and NE¸CKA, Edward. Perception of the Climate for Creativity in the Workplace: the Role of the Level in the Organization and Gender 3/187 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
LAM, Ping-Kit and CHIN, Kwai-Sang. Project Factors Influencing Conflict Intensity and Handling Styles in Collaborative NPD 1/52 MCADAM, Rodney and KEOGH, William. Transitioning Towards Creativity and Innovation Measurement in SMEs 2/126 MOEHRLE, Martin G. and LESSIN, Hagen. Profiling Technological Competencies of Companies: A Case Study Based on the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving 4/231 PROCTOR, Tony, TAN, Kim Hua and FUSE, Kensuke. Cracking the Incremental Paradigm of Japanese Creativity 4/207 SMULDERS, Frido E. Co-operation in NPD: Coping with Different Learning Styles 4/263 SONNENBURG, Stephan. Creativity in Communication: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Product Creation 4/254 SOOSAY, Claudine A. and HYLAND, Paul W. Driving Innovation in Logistics: Case Studies in Distribution Centres 1/41 STABER, Udo. Networking Beyond Organizational Boundaries: The Case of Project Organizations 1/30 STERNBERG, Robert J., KAUFMAN, James C. and PRETZ, Jean E. A Propulsion Model of Creative Leadership 3/145 ZAKARIA, Norhayati, AMELINCKX, Andrea and WILEMON, David. Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams 1/15 BOOK REVIEWS BUTLER, Jeff. Open Innovation – The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology by Henry Chesbrough 3/197 FAEMS, Dries. The International Handbook on Innovation by Larisa V. Shavinina 2/140 RICKARDS, Tudor J. International Dimensions Of Organizational Behavior by Nancy J. Adler 4/286 RICKARDS, Tudor J. Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change by Michael J. Kirton 4/289
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2004
