Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

“Susan Moger: She was beloved on earth” —Tudor Rickards, 2017

2017; Wiley; Volume: 26; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/caim.12249

1467-8691

Katharina Hölzle, Jennie Björk, Nuran Acur Bakir, Petronella C. de Weerd-Nederhof,

Technology Assessment and Management

With this last issue of 2017, we have the sad duty to inform you, our treasured readers, authors, and reviewers, about the death of one of the founders of Creativity and Innovation Management. Susan Moger (1954–2017) died on September 12, leaving her husband Tudor Rickards and her family and friends from around the world in deep sadness. Susan and Tudor founded the CIM journal 25 years ago, building their vision of creating an international journal bridging traditional and novel research on creativity and innovation management. As Tudor wrote in his Eulogy, Susan soon became a much-loved member of the international research community, and a familiar contributor to conferences around the world. Friendships were forged from Twente to Taiwan, from Buffalo to Brussels. Her extraordinary editing skills also began to reveal themselves in a range of books. Notable among these were collections of the annual conference reports from The European Association for Creativity and Innovation (EACI). She pursued her work with determination and encouragement, never looking for recognition, her contribution often only known to those who were the direct recipient of it. With her own modesty, her curiosity and her openness to everybody, from junior to senior researcher, from novice to expert, from young to old, she inspired anybody who met her and left deep traces on those who had the privilege to work with her. In recognition of her contribution, the CIM annual best paper award also bears her name, together with Tudor. Her legacy stays with us and we will do whatever we can to live up to her vision of creating an international network of scholars researching together in peace and in determination about creativity and innovation to gain new knowledge that is useful in research and practice alike. We hope that we speak for every one of you when we say that all of our thoughts and best wishes are with Tudor in these difficult times. Speaking of Susan's and Tudor's legacy lets us also reflect on the changing emphasis of creativity and innovation over the last 25 years. When they first started the journal, these themes were dominantly seen and reflected on a company domain. Having and using creativity was, despite the obvious necessity and importance, not very common. These days, there are scarcely any areas where creativity and innovation are not called for or discussed. Furthermore, the transdisciplinary use of many topics researched in one domain helps to solve problems in other domains, previously not thought possible. This issue reflects on this trend and assembles a diverse set of articles, all addressing either creativity or innovation but all in a rather individual and unique way, using interdisciplinary research approaches to apply knowledge from one domain to others. This issue also includes three articles from the International Product Development Management Conference (IPDMC) 2016. We would like to thank Nuran Acur Bakir and Petra de Weerd-Nederhof for their hard work on selecting and assembling these articles. We start with an article by Mattias Axelson, Joakim Netz, and Christian Sandström where they look at “Collective action problems in public sector innovation: A business model perspective”. As public sector innovation research has so far ignored the exploration and presentation of how a business model perspective might add explanatory power to this form of societal challenge, the authors use this perspective to shed light on the results of innovation attempts in the public sector. Their findings suggest that while governments have a well-developed knowledge domain for innovation, they have a weak ability to propagate its value for society. Drawing upon the business model literature concerning interdependence and distributed agency, the authors illustrate how a collective action problem related to innovation may arise in the public sector. Using a case study of the Swedish civil contingencies system, they show how a business model perspective provides explanations for why innovations often fail to materialize in the public sector. They conclude that not any single actor alone can address the challenges, but rather various actors and their relationships are needed to solve the collective problem. A similar road is followed by the second article, although it rather addresses the company perspective on virtual idea campaigns. In their article “The impact of individual motivations on idea submission and future motivation to participate in an organization's virtual idea campaign,” Erik Saether and Alf Saetre look at employees' motivation to participate in innovation contests. While the importance and benefits of these contests are now widely known, not much research is yet being done on the antecedents to employees' participation, including the effects of various forms of individual motivation on idea submission and motivation to participate in future campaigns. Building on a longitudinal dataset from a large European multinational chemical company, the authors show that idea submission and future motivation to participate are predicted by different forms of motivation and other forms of autonomous motivation (i.e., identified prosocial motivation) positively influence the desire to participate in future virtual idea campaigns. The connection of personal differences and motivational factors on individual behavior in creative or innovative tasks is also the topic of the next article. In “The effect of work ethic on employees' individual innovation behavior” by Tobias Mussner, Andreas Strobl, Viktoria Veider, and Kurt Matzler, the authors show that work ethics shape a person's inclination to engage in innovative action. Especially being self-reliant and time-efficient positively influences employees' innovation behavior, while an attitude toward hard work and leisure has a negative impact. Moreover, self-reliance, leisure orientation, and centrality of work are positively moderated by fair salary, a specific form of relational reward that previously has been identified as an antecedent of motivation. The topic of individual innovative behavior is also the focus of the fourth article in this issue, written by Julia Naranjo-Valencia, Daniel Jiménez-Jiménez, and Raquel Sanz-Valle. The authors show in their article “Organizational culture and radical innovation: Does innovative behavior mediate this relationship?” that while both organizational culture as well as individual innovative behavior have a strong influence on the resulting radical product innovation, both factors also strongly influence each other, and individual behavior mediates the influence of organizational culture on radical innovation. This is, however, not true for all organizational cultures but only the adhocracy type. The influence of organizational culture and structure on product development success is also focus of the fifth article in this issue. In “Organizational interfaces for knowledge integration in product development collaborations”, Mattias Axelson and Anders Richtnér look at how knowledge integration works best in product development collaborations. Researching two NPD collaborations over several years, one being successful while the other one failed, the authors find that there are four overarching groups of enabling conditions: (1) managerial interface, (2) work tasks interface, (3) physical location interface, and (4) process interface. Last but not least, we also want to shed light on creativity in this last issue of 2017. Dagny Valgeirsdottir and Balder Onarheim take in their article “Studying creativity training programs: A methodological analysis” the task to map all quantitative research studies investigating creativity training programs in the years following the seminal review by Scott et al. in 2004. As the authors had quite some difficulties due to little consistency in the research designs and reporting of results, the paper aims at proposing a methodological standard for how creativity training should be studied and reported. The authors end with suggesting that we need a lot more comparable studies conducting pre/post-tests, using attention-placebo control groups of a sufficient sample size while employing one or more well-known measures of creativity. These studies should employ a counterbalanced within-subject design where one or more conditions are compared with a sufficient control condition. So we have a lot to do in the year(s) ahead! The first paper from the IPDMC 2016 special section is written by Daniel Trabucchi, Elene Pellizoni, Tommaso Buganza, and Roberto Verganti about how incumbent firms develop new strategies to respond to technology-push innovation in relation to technology and a hedonic dimension offering an innovation meaning. Based on three case studies from the music industry, their study finds that incumbents still use push strategies in terms of boundary management decisions as well as incumbent configuration (manage the organization and employees' roles). They also find that incumbents use capabilities to develop reactive strategies for changing situations, both reconsidering their existing solution through new meaning as well as suggesting new solutions. The second paper is written by Matti Kaulio, Kent Thorén, and René Rohrbeck, and deals with technology-oriented business model innovation for disruptions in the market and industry. They build on an extensive 24-year longitudinal case study of the Swedish-Finish Telecom operator TeliaSonera, and use theoretical perspectives of organizational ambidexterity to address the challenges the company has faced. Their results indicate that the company used double ambidexterity to overcome three major disruptions by developing and trying novel business models as well as technological innovations. The final paper is written by Evy Sakellariou, Kalipso Karantinou, and Keith Goffin about the importance of stories and metaphors at the fuzzy front-end (FFE) of new product development. They use the knowledge management literature (especially the SECI framework) and a collaborative workshop design to understand the discussions between managers and customers. Their results indicate that (1) new knowledge is created during the workshops, and (2) stories and metaphors are important mechanisms for creativity as well as discussions between groups (group members).