Master Thesis Serendipity in Innovation Management

(1)

Master Thesis

Serendipity in Innovation Management

A systematic literature review

By Joren Kruit

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc. Business Administration, Strategic Innovation Management

(2)

2

Abstract

(3)

3

1. Introduction

If one asks a friend or colleague about ‗accidental‘ discoveries in science, most of them are able to name a few. The finding of penicillin by Alexander Fleming, the search of super glue resulting in the invention of post-its by 3M, and the discovery of vulcanized rubber by Charles Goodyear are all famous examples of serendipitous innovations. However, the term ‗serendipity‘ itself is less known for describing these discoveries. While maybe unfamiliar for layman, serendipity is increasingly receiving attention from media (Kennedy, 2016) and scholars (Shimizu, Nirei, & Maruyama, 2012; de Rond, 2014; Kennedy, 2016). Articles on serendipity appear in newspapers and journals; even

smartphone an application (PubSavvy Swipe) focused on stimulating serendipity is being published. The importance and relevance of serendipity led Kennedy (2016) to call for an entirely new field of studies:

―One survey of patent holders (the PatVal study of European inventors, published in 2005) found that an incredible 50 percent of patents resulted from what could be described as a serendipitous process. Thousands of survey respondents reported that their idea evolved when they were working on an unrelated project — and often when they weren‘t even trying to invent anything.‖

―That‘s why we need to develop a new, interdisciplinary field — call it serendipity studies — that can help us create taxonomy of discoveries in the chemistry lab, the newsroom, the forest, the classroom, the particle accelerator and the hospital.‖

While in many important innovations serendipity played a critical role (Merton & Barber, 2004; Van Andel, 1994), the true meaning and functioning of serendipity is fairly unknown. De Rond (2014) concludes that the paucity in innovation research on serendipity is the result of the incorrect use of serendipity as synonymous with chance or luck. This view is supported by several scholars (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2015; 2009), who claim that serendipitous innovations are the result of deliberate and focused efforts to discover.

(5)

5 Management journals‖ (see appendix 1). Of the total 37 unique journals in these lists, just a few of them published articles about serendipity. Only 11 articles explicitly discuss serendipity.1

These quick searches show that while serendipity is not a research field on its own some research focused on serendipity does exist. There are articles in the innovation management literature that discuss serendipity, but it is far from being an established subject. No general accepted definition and framework is presented in the found literature. This raises the question whether serendipity is just an underdeveloped concept or that it is an already studied phenomenon but presented with different terminology.

The use of different definitions and classifications of serendipity, the increasing use and relevance of serendipity in innovation management and related fields, and the lack of a clear understanding of serendipity and its role in innovation management show the need for an integrative study on serendipity. Without a proper understanding of serendipity, it will be merely luck when the term is used correctly in studies and merely luck when it has a contribution to innovation. Therefore this literature review aims to identify, review and organize literature on serendipity and innovation, and to propose future research directions in areas where the literature is underdeveloped or absent. The next section will describe the methodology, followed by the results in which the definition of serendipity will be explored, related literature fields will be shown, and specific literature on serendipity and innovation will be presented. In the conclusion an overview will be given on the parts of serendipity that are well developed and on the parts that are underdeveloped or absent. Finally, the managerial implications and recommendations for future research will be presented.

2. Methodology

As De Rond (2014) stated, the deficiency in innovation research on serendipity is caused by incorrect use of the term serendipity. To be able to propose a general acceptable definition in future studies, all existing views on the true meaning of serendipity need to be taken into account. The aim of this paper is to consolidate recent academic research on serendipity, to reveal resemblance and contradiction, and thereby to show future directions of research in the field of innovation management.

To show future directions of research, an integrative and qualitative literature review of the concept ‗serendipity‘ was conducted. This review is structured according to the methodological design of Cooper (1998) and the subsequent refinements by Whittemore and Knafl (2005). The next section will explain the design of the methodology by elaborately explain each step of this study. Firstly, the problem will be identified. Secondly, the search methods and terms will be determined. Subsequently,

1

(6)

6 the method of data evaluation and data analysis will be described. Lastly, the characteristics of the final sample will be presented.

2.1 Problem identification

Theoretical and empirical work in the past decade related to the concept of serendipity suggested that serendipity is an important factor in the discovery of new and mostly radical innovations. However, it is still unclear how serendipity should be defined and classified and in which specific parts of innovation management serendipity can be an explaining factor. Therefore, the leading question of this research will be as follows: ‗What is known about serendipity in innovation management and what needs to be further studied?‘. The purpose of this study is to provide integration of current literature on serendipity and to reveal gaps which will be translated in implications and suggestions for future research.

2.2 Literature search

To obtain a semi-exhaustive collection of relevant articles, at least two to three search strategies should be used (Jadad, Moher, & Klassen, 1998; Conn, Valentine, Cooper, & Rantz, 2003). The first strategy is a comprehensive electronic search of academic databases. Table 1 presents the search terms that have been used to search multi-disciplinary journal databases for relevant articles in academic databases. As the initial search in the introduction showed, limited research on serendipity is available. Therefore, wildcard and Boolean operators have been used for both directed and exhaustive search. Also, the search will only include peer reviewed English papers.

To ensure a semi-exhaustive search, two other search methods have been executed. Google Scholar has been used to supplement the EBSCO search by including a partly different journal database. Because of the limited search parameters Google Scholars offers, a search in only the titles of articles is utilized. This choice has been made based on the fact that a search on serendipity and innovation without the limiter ‗search in titles only‘ yielded 30.600 results. Because no wildcard and Boolean operators can be used with this tool, a different search tactic has been applied. Table 2 shows the search terms that have been used with Google Scholar.

(7)

7 evaluation method) are marked as core articles. The ancestry searching method is applied to these core articles, to be able to find most effectively the remaining relevant articles in the literature.

Table 1 – Search terms for collecting relevant literature with EBSCO host

Search terms Limitation(s) Goal

Serendip* AND Innov* Search in Title

and Abstract

Find all articles with any form of the term serendipity (e.g.

serendipitous, serendipity, serendipities, etc.)

Luck* OR Accident* OR Chance OR Random* OR Unexpected OR Happy OR Error* OR Unplanned AND Discover* OR Finding* OR Accident* OR Innovation OR Invention

Search in Title and Abstract

Find articles that not explicitly mention serendipity but that describe a similar phenomenon

Table 2 – Search terms for collecting relevant literature with Google Scholar

Search terms Limitation(s) Goal

Serendipity AND Innovation OR Innovative OR Discovery OR Finding OR Invention

Search in Title Find all articles with serendipity innovations

Serendipitous AND Innovation OR Innovative OR Discovery OR Finding OR Invention

Search in Title Find all articles with serendipitous innovations

Innovation AND Luck OR Accident OR Accidental OR Random OR Unexpected OR Happy OR Error OR Unplanned

Search in Title Find all articles on accidental innovations whereby serendipity is not explicitly mentioned but describes a similar phenomenon

2.3 Data evaluation, selection, analysis, and final sample

(8)

8 coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance, and rhetoric. The resulting score indicates what the quality of each paper is and how relevant the paper is for this research.

Since no agreement exist on the including or excluding of low-quality articles, this decision has been made after the evaluation of the data (Randolph, 2009). According to Randolph, when there are small differences in terms of quality, articles can be grouped together. The relevance of the articles has been determined by reading the abstracts. When the relevancy turned out to be uncertain, the rest of the article has been scanned to see if it contained relevant sections. Only articles specifically discussing serendipity or phenomena closely related to serendipity (e.g. unexpected encounters, chance discoveries) have been included. The articles that are primarily focused on serendipity and innovation have been marked as core articles.

To analyze the data a broken down version of the method of Ogawa and Malen (1991) by Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) was used. The first steps of this method are described in the previous paragraphs. To analyze the data a narrative summary database with coding schemes was developed. With this summary database, essential constructs have been identified and possible relationships between the constructs have been derived. Consequently, contrary findings and rival interpretations were uncovered. Also the paper type and literature field have been identified to develop a clear overview of the available literature on serendipity.

The first searches with the EBSCO host yielded a total of 235 articles of which 49 articles appeared to be relevant based on the title and abstract. The three searches in the Google Scholar database yielded respectively 151, 215, and 161 results. Of these 527 articles, only 32 articles appeared to be relevant after reading the titles and abstract. When comparing to the previous search, 26 articles of these relevant articles appeared to be unique. The third search method used is ancestry searching. The ancestry search method on the core articles resulted in 56 articles, of which 54 articles appeared to be unique. Table 3 presents the selection process and how the final sample of 129 articles has been reached.

Table 3 - Description of sample selection process

Description of step Number of articles

Searches in EBSCO host and Google Scholar 762

(9)

9 Table 4 and Table 5 present the characteristics of the collected papers. The majority of the papers are theoretical and empirical (theory building) papers. Only a small part of the papers actually test theory. Furthermore, the papers have been analyzed to determine in which research field or fields they have been conducted. Almost half of the papers do specifically study serendipity, often in combination with other research field such as scientific discovery, information search, innovation management, or digitalization.

Table 4 - Breakdown of articles by paper type

Type Number Percentage

Theoretical 55 43%

Empirical – theory building 56 43%

Empirical – theory testing 18 14%

Table 5 - Breakdown of articles by research field

Research field Percentage

Serendipity 44% Scientific discovery 19% Information search 15% Innovation management 11% Digitalization 11% Knowledge management 8% Creativity 6% Entrepreneurship 4%

3. Results

(10)

10 creative problem solving or on serendipity in information science. The last group of papers explores serendipity in innovation management. Because of this division in the sample, the results will be presented accordingly. In section A serendipity will be defined, in section B serendipity in literature fields related to innovation will be reviewed, and in section C serendipity in the innovation literature will be explored and presented.

A. Defining serendipity

The first step and basis of this literature review is understanding the concept of serendipity. Without a proper understanding of serendipity, determining variables associated with serendipity and developing a more macro view of serendipity will not be possible. In the next paragraphs the development of serendipity will be described, various definitions will be reviewed, classifications will be examined, and models and frameworks of serendipity will be analyzed.

3.1 Development of serendipity in the academic world

To develop a comprehensive understanding of serendipity, it is useful to look at the development of serendipity throughout the last decennia‘s. As many scholars point out in the introduction of their articles, the name ‗serendipity‘ was first coined by Horace Waldpole in the 18th century (Merton & Barber, 2004; Silver, 2015). Waldpole (1978) used this word in a letter to a friend to describe a previous unnamed way of discovery.

I once read a silly fairy tale, called the three Princes of Serendip: as their Highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of: for instance, one of them discovered that a mule blind of the right eye had travelled the same road lately, because the grass was eaten only on the left side, where it was worse than on the right—now do you understand Serendipity?

(11)

11 The word started to be used around 1949 after a publication in the New York Times (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999). Since then, the word found its way into the academic world. The usage of the word ‗serendipity‘ started and experienced a steady growth since 1960 (Google Books, 2016). This growth can be explained by the publication of articles in a prominent medical journal and in popular literature (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999). In 1940 Cannon described the serendipity phenomenon in ‗the role of chance in discover‘, and in 1945 he devoted a chapter to serendipity (Cannon, 1940; Cannon, 1961). In 1946 Merton revealed his concept of serendipity as a new theory in the social sciences (Campa, 2008). In 1949 serendipity made its debut in popular literature with several entries in the New York Times (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999). The term acquired further acceptance after the publication of two articles in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1957 (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999). Because of the appearance of serendipity in fields such as psychotherapy, biomedical sciences, and creativity sciences, and because of different interpretations of the term, different definitions and classifications started to arise.

3.2 Definitions of serendipity

Nowadays, serendipity is often used in the academic world without indication of what kind of definition is used. At this point, serendipity is regularly used as a synonym of change or luck. However, if you analyze the origin of the term carefully, you notice that the term serendipity is more than luck only. More recently, definitions for serendipity are being developed and classifications start to arise. With these definitions and classifications, serendipity as concept can be used more structurally.

Some would argue that even the term serendipity is serendipitous. The initial effort of Walpole was erroneously copied. For example, some dictionaries state that Walpole wrote the fairy tale on which the term was based. Additionally, the first attempts to develop a definition omitted parts of Walpole‘s description of serendipity (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999). In 1932, Langmuir defined serendipity as the art of profiting from unexpected occurrences. This definition differs from Walpole‘s one, since it does not state if the act that led to the unexpected discovery was deliberate or not. This is also the case with Merton‘s definition of what he calls ‗serendipity patterns‘. The concept of serendipity patterns ―refers to the fairly common experience of observing an unanticipated, anomalous and strategic datum which becomes the occasion for developing a new theory or for extending an existing theory‖ (Merton, 1948).

(12)

12 discussed in paragraph 3.3), which describes ―accidental discoveries of ways to achieve an end sought for, in contrast to the meaning of true serendipity, which describes accidental discoveries of things not sought for‖ (Roberts, 1989; Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1995). As you can see, distinctions are already made if the accidental discovery is caused by an intentional search or not. A more recent definition is by Denrell, Fang and Winter (2003), who defined serendipity as ―effort and luck joined by alertness and flexibility‖.

Today, many scholars acknowledge (e.g. Fine & Deegan, 1996; Cunha et al., 2010; Díaz de Chumaceiro, 1997) that the term serendipity is often used with an incomplete and thus wrong definition. The part that differentiates serendipity from sheer luck is often omitted (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999; Rosenman, 1988). Two distinct elements are proposed by different scholars to explain this difference. Whilst seldom named together, sagacity (Díaz de Chumaceiro, 1997) and a persistent and effortful search (Cunha et al., 2010) are the critical elements of serendipity. Sagacity is the ability to see the unexpected connection (Gest, 1997; 2009). These elements are closely related to frequently quoted ‗where observation is concerned, chance favors only the prepared mind‘ of Pasteur (in Cunha et al., 2010, P 325). It implies that this ability to see an unexpected connection depends on the preparation of the mind. This preparation is the persistent and effortful search before the discovery.

While the study on serendipity did not yield a widely accepted definition yet and even contradicting definitions exist, the literature indicates that certain elements are an essential part of serendipity. The combination of effort and sagacity appears to be the key element in this debate. A degree of luck is also at play with serendipity, but this luck is result of the prior effortful search and openness of mind. The definition of Denrell et al. (2003) seems to grab the essence of serendipity: ‗effort and luck joined by alertness and flexibility‘. As can be derived from these different definitions, there are different kinds of serendipity. While the definition of Denrell et al. provides a general understanding of the concept, the next section will deepen our understanding of serendipity by exploring the different classifications of serendipity.

3.3 Classifications of serendipity

(13)

13 withstand temperature changes by accidently leaving rubber mixed with sulfur on a hot stove (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1995). In the last case, 3M was developing superglue. The developed glue did not dry, after which they decided to use the substance for another product: Post-Its (André, Teevan, & Dumais, 2009).

A similar classification was developed by Kantorovich and Ne'eman (1989). Three types of serendipity are possible: (a) to explore but not for anything specifically and find B, (b) to search for A, and as a by-product find B, and (c) to search for A and instead find B (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1999). For a finding to be serendipitous there must be an ongoing search for A (Kantorovich & Ne'eman, 1989). This classification has some similarity to the one of Thagard and Croft, but does not include pseudo-serendipitous findings. In terms of definitions and classifications some consensus exists; however no clear definition and classification has been generally accepted in the different fields of study.

De Rond (2014) also conducted a study on varieties of serendipity. Based on anecdotal evidence, he came to four types of serendipity: (a) serendipity by way of random variation, (b) Serendipity as the unintended consequence of design, (c) pseudo-serendipity by way of random variation, and (d) pseudo-serendipity as the unintended consequence of design. The first refers to finding B while searching for A. The second variety refers to the search for A and finding B together with A. The third and fourth variety Rond (2014) calls pseudo-serendipity, because it involves the discovery of something searched for. Pseudo-serendipity by way of random variation is searching for A and finding A in an unexpected manner. The last variety is not searching for A, but stumble upon it. When looking at the typologies and classifications, also some universal elements can be extracted. It appears that distinction must be made between finding something not searched for and finding something searched for. Several authors noticed this difference (de Rond, 2014; Roberts, 1989; Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1995; Rothenberg, 1988) and some of these authors (Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1995; Roberts, 1989; de Rond, 2014) started to indicate this difference with the naming of (true) serendipity and ‗pseudo-serendipity‘. The typology of de Rond (2014) captures all the nuances of the discussion of the different kinds of serendipity and should therefore be used as leading model in future studies. Table 6 presents all the different classifications combined with the authors proposing these classifications.

Table 6 - Classifications of serendipity

Classification Name Authors

(14)

14 Searching for A and finding B as

byproduct of A

‗True‘ serendipity Kantorovich and Ne'eman, 1989; de Rond, 2014

Searching for A and finding A in an unexpected manner

Pseudo-serendipity Roberts, 1989; Thagard and Croft, 1999; de Rond, 2014; Diaz de Chumaceiro, 1995

Not searching for anything specific and finding A

Pseudo-serendipity de Rond, 2014; Kantorovich and Ne'eman, 1989

3.4 Models and frameworks of serendipity

Because of the deliberate nature of serendipity, some scholars start to see serendipity as a capability (de Rond, 2014; Denrell et al., 2003) rather than an event (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2015). When seen as a capability, serendipity can be researched, the structure can be analyzed, and it even can be utilized by scholars and managers. So, if serendipity is a capability, what is known in the literature about serendipity as a capability?

Besides the definitions and classifications, recently frameworks and models are being developed. For example, the study of McDonald (2010) examines the structure of serendipitous encounters in informal job matching and identifies important and less important factors that influence those serendipitous encounters. Makri and Blandford (2012a; 2012b) have conducted two studies on serendipity and established a framework on serendipity. Agarwal (2015) integrated several frameworks and extended the frameworks of Makri and Blandford by mapping the relevant continuums of serendipity.

(15)

15 the new combination of information; e.g. the mold with the right properties that was blown through the window of the lab and contaminated the petri dish.

Serendipity can thus be a capability useful in information search or information science. The process model of Makri and Blandford (2012a) and the process model of McCay-Peet and Toms (2015a) are developed to dismantle this process of serendipity. With these models, anecdotal evidence on which serendipity literature is heavily reliant (Campanario, 1996) can be analyzed and provide new insights. McCay-Peet and Toms (2015a) proposed a model of the process of a serendipitous experience. It consists of four elements; a trigger, the connection, a follow-up, and a valuable outcome. The trigger can be a ‗verbal, textual, or visual cue that initiates or sparks an individual‘s experience of serendipity‘ (McCay‐Peet & Toms, 2015a). Then an unexpected connection is made between a need and a solution. In the follow-up phase actions are executed to optimize the serendipitous finding. This iterative process will finally result in a valuable outcome (McCay‐Peet & Toms, 2015a).

The model of Makri and Blandford (2012a) combines several other models under which the process model of McCay-Peet and Toms. It is similar to the model of McCay-Peet and Toms with the unexpected connection and following iterative process that optimize the serendipitous finding. The main addition and a distinct feature of the model is that the true value of the project and the level of serendipity associated with the project are only clear in retrospect.

These models show that serendipity is a combination of personal and environmental factors. The connection or unexpected combination is the interplay between external stimuli with an individual‘s knowledge and experience. To have serendipity as a capability, the company needs to have employees with the right knowledge and experience in combination with an environment which provides the right stimuli or triggers. If one considers serendipity as a capability, a lot of consequential assumptions can be made. It means that because of interpersonal differences, some people will be able to experience serendipity more often than others. Also, because of the unconscious and ambiguous nature of serendipity, it can play an essential role in sustained competitive advantage. In the next paragraphs literature from field related to innovation such as the study of creative problem solving will be reviewed. In these chapters the importance of personal attributes and the individual‘s environment for serendipity will be highlighted.

B. Serendipity and innovation

(16)

16 requires creative problem solving. For the technology push approach, the company needs to have a new technology which they can introduce to the market. This new technology can be developed through basic research, or in other words through science. The literature fields of information search, creative problem solving, and science will be explored in the next sections.

3.5 Serendipity and information sciences

As shortly introduced in the previous paragraph, for innovation to happen there needs to be an information search. Exposure to a greater diversity of knowledge is associated with a greater performance in creativity and innovation (Taylor & Greve, 2006; De Dreu & West, 2001; Parnes, 1972). Just as with creativity and innovation, a broader frame of knowledge can increase the chance of serendipitous encounters (Darbellay, Moody, Sedooka, & Steffen, 2014). Several research fields include the study of diversity of knowledge, such as information sciences (Martin & Quan‐Haase, 2013) and interdisciplinary research (Darbellay et al., 2014). This puts the role of information search and diversity with serendipity to the question, a topic that will be explored in this and next sections. Last decades, the way we search for information has changed drastically. Society has used the library as main source of information for hundreds of years, but now the computer and the internet have taken over. This change in information seeking behavior is likely to have an impact on the way we innovate, since information gathering is an important part of innovation. Also, the contribution serendipity makes to innovation changes with it. Some scholars already studied the possible effects of the digitalization of information on serendipity (Martin & Quan‐Haase, 2013; Jiang, Liu, & Chi, 2015; McCay-Peet, Toms, & Kelloway, 2015b). These studies reveal that the context or environment apparently contain factors that are related to serendipity.

Digitalization changes the work environment in several ways. Interaction between people more often occurs digital. Also the search for information is being digitalized. Martin and Quan-Haase (2013) did a study with scholars who started to transfer from searching the library to using Google Books. One of the beliefs among history scholars is that using digital tools instead of browsing through physical books would negatively affect their information-seeking behavior by eliminating serendipitous encounters (Martin & Quan‐Haase, 2013). This indicates that the change in how we encounter information changes might change the way we experience serendipity and come to innovations. Section C (‗serendipity applied in innovation management‘) will further elaborate on digitalization and other environmental factors.

3.6 Serendipity and creative problem solving

(17)

17 other way around. The essence of the study of Hippel and von Krogh (2015) is that with serendipity, a solution can exist before the need is determined. So, instead of the traditional process of problem solvingwhich is first identifying the need, formulating the problem, and then providing a solution for this problemthe whole process can be turned around. By finding a solution first, previously unknown needs can be identified.

De Rond (2014) came to a similar conclusion based on the observations of the varieties of serendipity. All serendipitous innovations were made by individuals who could ‗see bridges where others saw holes‘ (de Rond, 2014). These bridges are the ‗matching pairs‘ as described by Hippel and von Krogh (2015), which is according to de Rond ‗the creative recombination of events based on the appearance of a meaningful rather than causal link‘. The ability to see solutions without an identified need and formulated problem is thus an important element in serendipity. The individual characteristics which will influence this ability will be further explored in section C.

3.7 Serendipity and science

The relevance of serendipity to science is mentioned in several literature streams. Many examples of famous serendipitous discoveries (e.g. penicillin, DNA, Viagra, X-rays) are the result of scientific research. This raises the question of how it is possible to make such discoveries when science dictates strictly controlled and pre-established research protocols (Darbellay et al., 2014). The research of Darbellay et al. (2014) focuses on serendipity and interdisciplinary research. With interdisciplinary research more radical innovations are possible because of the availability of more diverse information. This is tightly coupled with serendipity, which might also benefit from more diverse information pools (Sun, Sharples, & Makri, 2011).

The raised question concerning the possibility of serendipity in a controlled and linear process, as science dictates, raises doubt among scientists (Campanario, 1996). Some scientists even expressed concern on the fact that today's patterns of science funding are reducing the opportunities for making serendipitous discovery (Campanario, 1996). According to Kuhn and Hawkins (1963), for a researcher to enjoy the benefits of serendipity, the researcher ‗must be willing to defy the disciplinary expectations that normally guide the (re)production of standard scientific practice‘. As Merton and Barber (2004) states, it often pays to have untidiness in experiments if the researcher is aware of this untidiness. One can conclude that too much rigidity in research can be stifling (de Rond, 2014) and thus be a possible inhibitor of unexpected research directions.

(18)

18 ‘retrospect falsification‘ because of certain beliefs, traditions or dogmas. This retrospective falsification has been acknowledged in several studies as a limiting factor in scientific discovery (Barber & Fox, 1958; Meyers, 2007; Campanario, 1996). There is also a case in which the researcher itself does not support its finding because it is a result of an incident instead of a scientific method (de Rond, 2014). These environmental circumstances that can facilitate or hamper serendipity will be further explored in section C.

C. Serendipity applied in innovation management

Serendipity does not only play a role in innovation as a source for innovation, it also contributes on the firm level and even industry level. It can be an explaining factor in theories such as entrepreneurship and opportunity recognition. So how is serendipity studied and used in the literature of innovation management? The specific literature on serendipity and innovation will be presented together with the identification of the remaining aspects of innovation on which literature is absent.

3.8 Serendipity and environmental factors

A lot of environmental factors can influence innovation. The organizational environment can provide sources for innovation (e.g. customer insights) (Majchrzak, 2004; Dew, 2009) and individual‘s environment such as social environment and organizational culture can influence innovativeness (Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2016). Environments do not only influence innovativeness, but also serendipity (Gryszkiewicz & Friederici, 2014; Inkinen, 2012) which in turn influences innovativeness again (Inkinen, 2012). Several authors studied environmental factors and serendipity and confirmed that certain environmental factors can influence or even facilitate serendipity (McDonald, 2010; McCay‐Peet & Toms, 2015a; Rosenman, 1988). Some studies make a differentiation in types of environment. For example, Sun et al. (2011) found that serendipity happens when an individual interacts with certain social environments and certain physical environments. This division in environments is a recurring theme as can been seen in next paragraphs.

(19)

19 Besides triggers, the ability to make connections is another element of serendipity (Inkinen, 2012; McCay‐Peet & Toms, 2015a). This enabling entails actively engaging individuals to think about triggers, which can be done by the social environment (e.g. other individuals) or the physical environment (e.g. software). The last environmental factor is enabling capturing in the follow-up phase (McCay‐Peet & Toms, 2015a). The environment must thus support the individual to take actions upon the serendipitous finding.

No other comprehensive studies that focus on environmental factors, serendipity and innovation have been found. Most studies that include these three variables only mention environment as a factor which might influence serendipity. Rosenman (1988) concluded that serendipity can be enhanced in appropriate group settings. However, this is a result of a study on scientific discovery and not on innovative discovery per se. Erdelez (1999) analyzed the elements of serendipity, which she refers to as information-encountering experience. One of the four elements she mentions is the environment, more specifically the source of the encountered information. Erdelez points out that these sources can be social (people) or physical (e.g. paper versus electronic). Again, no specific environmental factors are named in these studies, but they do confirm the division of social and physical environment made earlier.

Previous studies suggest that the social environment plays a certain role in influencing serendipity. Kakko and Inkinen (2009) even proposed a new management paradigm on this subject. They speak of ‗serendipity management‘, which aims to create favorable environments and situations for serendipity. This can be realized with ‗different facilitation techniques such as trust building, providing inspiration for co-discoveries, and by connecting people to each other and to their higher potentials‘ (Kakko & Inkinen, 2009). The research of Cunha et al. (2010) point towards a similar direction. They state that serendipity ‗may benefit from more general attributes that are commonly associated with teams, such as high levels of organizational trust and support‘. Based on all these bits and pieces, social environment (e.g. other employees, teams) and physical environment (e.g. paper, software) clearly influence the chance of a serendipitous encounter.

(20)

20 Based on the literature one could conclude that social, organizational, and physical environments are important influencing factors. These factors share a great similarity with the factors that can stimulate (McCay-Peet et al., 2015b) or hamper creativity (Cunha et al., 2010). Kakko and Inkinen (2009) suggest that the degree of creativeness of the work environment influences serendipity just like the process of creativity. However, McCay-Peet et al. (2015b) find that this is not the case. Thus while serendipity, creativity, and innovation are closely related, they apparently have different mechanisms compared to each other.

Table 7 - Categorization of factors affecting serendipity and innovation

Categorization of factors affecting serendipity

Authors Elements of the categorization

Social/organizational environment

Sun et al., 2011;

Rosenman, 1988; Erdelez, 1999; Kakko and Inkinen, 2009; Cunha et al., 2010

- Serendipity happens when

interacting with social environment (e.g. socializing with colleagues, listening to related talk or presentation)

- Connect individuals with diverse information and ideas

- Provide feeling of trust and security - Presence of organizational support - Provide inspiration for

co-discoveries

- Connecting people to each other and to their higher potentials

Physical environment (including digital environment)

Sun et al., 2011; McCay‐ Peet and Toms, 2015a; Erdelez, 1999

- Serendipity happens when interacting with physical environment (e.g. looking at something in their environment, reading, listening to music) - Provide trigger-rich environment - Highlights triggers

(21)

21

3.9 Serendipity and individual factors

Not only external factors but also individual factors can have an influence on serendipity. Individual factors such as prior knowledge (Toms, 2000), attitudes and cognitive styles (Foster & Ford, 2003), skills and skill diversity (Shimizu et al., 2012) are factors that explain why some people experience serendipity more often than others. While these individual factors cannot easily be altered by organizations, organizations can adapt their HR policies, the department composition, and the team composition. Hence, what individual factors can influence serendipity?

Individual characteristics and their effects on innovation related themes such as entrepreneurship, opportunity recognition, and creativity have been widely studied (e.g. Kakko & Inkinen, 2009; Dane, Baer, Pratt, & Oldham, 2011; Dew, 2009; Shane, 2000). Similar to environmental influences, individual characteristics influence both creativity and serendipity and in turn influence innovativeness (Cunha et al., 2010). For example, characteristics such as openness to unexpected encounters (Austin, Devin, & Sullivan, 2012) and sagaciousness (Cunha et al., 2010) showed to affect the quantity of serendipitous experiences and value of the innovation. Similar characteristics have been extracted from serendipity literature by Race, Popp, and Dallis (2012) and McBirnie (2008) who found that a sense of curiosity; a prepared mind and knowledgeable to recognize opportunity; an open and flexible mind; and an observant mind are the factors that nurture serendipity.

Many authors have identified possible influencing and facilitating factors of serendipity by theoretical reasoning. However, empirical research shows that these lines of reasoning are not always reliable. The variables ‗locus of control of behavior‘, ‗openness to experience‘, and ‗extraversion‘ are recurring in the literature as potential influencers on the perception of serendipity. Only extraversion showed a small but significant relationship with serendipity (McCay-Peet et al., 2015b). This confirms that while some characteristics have been identified, many remain unknown. McCay-Peet et al. (2015b) confirm this in a recent study, saying that we still know little about how individual characteristics such as abilities and traits in combination with an individual‘s environment lead to serendipity. Dew (2009) came to similar conclusions; while theoretical reasoning indicates that personality traits play a role in receptiveness to serendipity, it requires more research.

(22)

22 with awareness of serendipity itself would promote the connection between a need and something that has the potential to address that need. One could argue that this awareness of the concept serendipity and the alertness to cues could also be a result of prior experience.

Makri, Blandford, Woods, Sharples, and Maxwell (2014) found that certain strategies closely linked to personality traits and behaviors would support the serendipity process. These strategies include varying routines, being observant, making mental space, relaxing your boundaries, drawing on previous experiences, looking for patterns, and seizing opportunities. Most of these strategies are quite similar to the personality traits described by the other authors in the previous sections. While these strategies have similarities with some environmental and individual factors, they are also related to the state of mind. For example, being observant will be easier for individuals with certain personality traits, but individuals without these certain traits are still able to be observant when they have the right state of mind. Sun et al. (2011) also found that the state of mind can influence serendipity. Individuals experienced serendipity when they ‗felt relaxed, less pressure and able to devote both physical and mental attention to making serendipitous discoveries‘ (Sun et al., 2011). While these studies clearly indicate that some individual characteristics must have at least a minor influence on serendipity, some of these studies come to the conclusion or suggestion that collaboration between individuals might have a stronger influence than the individual characteristics (e.g. Darbellay et al., 2014; Cunha et al., 2010). When including all the different views, it might be that the combination of factors is the overall mechanism that facilitates or hampers serendipity. Like with creativity, certain individual characteristics can stimulate creativity, but can only flourish if the environment allows or stimulate it (Cunha et al., 2010; Shane, 2000; McCay-Peet et al., 2015b). The studies that focus on overall facilitating factors and not on certain isolated factors showed that it is the specific relationship between certain factors that facilitates or hampers serendipity (Sun et al., 2011; McCay-Peet et al., 2015b; McCay‐Peet & Toms, 2015a). It is thus the interplay of environment, individual characteristics and prior knowledge that eventually could facilitate the occurrence of serendipitous encounters.

Individual

characteristics/personality traits

Makri and Blandford, 2012a; Austin et al., 2012; Cunha et al., 2010; Race et al., 2012; McBirnie, 2008

- Individual‘s alertness to cues - Openness to unexpected encounters - Openness to experience

(23)

23 - Sagaciousness

Prior experience Makri and Blandford, 2012a; von Hippel and von Krogh, 2015

- Awareness of serendipity itself

Prior knowledge Dew, 2009; Thudt et al., 2012; Makri and

Blandford, 2012b; von Hippel and von Krogh, 2015; Race et al., 2012

- Knowledge of similar concepts to recognize serendipitous encounters - Prepared mind to recognize

serendipitous encounters

State of mind Sun et al., 2011; Makri et al., 2014; Race et al., 2012

- Feeling relaxed and experience low pressure

- Varying routines - Being observant

- Having physical and mental attention

- Relaxing your boundaries - drawing on previous experiences - Looking for patterns

- Seizing opportunities

3.10 Serendipity and open innovation

The next section will explain why open innovation is relevant for serendipity. When looking at the different classifications of serendipity, most classifications include one or two types of serendipity which includes searching for ‗A‘ but finding ‗B‘. While in scientific research unexpected findings such as finding ‗B‘ are new and valuable directions for future research (Stoskopf, 2005), this is not necessarily the case in corporate settings. As Simard & Laberge (2015) put it, current new product development processes are mostly straightforward (Campanario, 1996) and focused on classical creativity instead of serendipitous creativity (Campos & Figueiredo, 2002). This means that with the standardized new product development processes there is not much space for unexpected ‗B‘ findings, since it does not fit the project scope.

(24)

24 to commercialize such findings. This means that open innovation can actually facilitate serendipitous innovation, since it offers opportunities to commercialize findings or inventions which would have been discarded in more closed innovation business models.

The relatedness of open innovation to the serendipity concept has been proven in the study by Austin et al. (2012). They sought methods to support unpredictability in the creative process of innovation by being open to accident. The cone of expectation is the key to this question, which entails the expectation an employee has on the outcomes of a certain action (Austin et al., 2012). When an action results in an accidental outcome it is likely that this outcome will fall outside the cone of expectation and therefore will be rejected for the usage of the project (Austin et al., 2012). Austin et al. argue that making the usage and pursuit of such accidents less costly will facilitate serendipitous innovation. One of the advantages of open innovation is that it allows other organizations to be involved in the innovation process of the core organization (Inkinen, 2012) and thereby providing opportunities to lower the costs of pursuing serendipitous findings.

The study of Kakko and Inkinen (2009) ties this and previous sections together. They found that science parks could stimulate innovation and serendipity by bringing together the right people (with certain individual characteristics), stimulating connectivity and collaboration (with the physical and social environment), providing the right structure (with open innovation).This again confirms the notion of previous section that all factors influencing serendipity and innovation are complexly intertwined.

3.11 Obstacles to serendipitous discoveries

While most factors presented in previous chapters are focused on facilitating serendipity, it is also useful to know which factors inhibit serendipity. Often the inhibitors are closely related to the facilitators. For example, open structures that offer autonomy will facilitate serendipity, while more closed and bureaucratic structures will inhibit serendipity (Cunha et al., 2010; Mendonça, Cunha, & Clegg, 2008). Just as with extrapolation of factors from other studies, taking the opposites of facilitating factors to find inhibiting factors might be invalid. To identify the inhibiting factors it is important to make the distinction between the serendipitous finding and serendipitous innovation, since both entail different processes. The first involves only the accidental finding while the second involves the actual commercialization of the serendipitous finding. It turns out that this distinction is indeed important for the identification of obstacles as will be described in the next paragraphs

(25)

25 likeliness of rejection (Cunha et al., 2010). A factor that promotes self-censorship is also described in the science literature and is known as retrospective falsification (Barber & Fox, 1958; Meyers, 2007; Campanario, 1996). Because of certain beliefs, traditions or dogmas the chance exist that serendipitous findings will be disapproved by the community (Van Andel, 1994).

An example of impedance can be found in the study of Lembregts, Pandelaere, and Paolacci (2014), in which they state that a serendipitious finding of an empolyee can be perceived as less attractive only because of the serendipitious manner in which it was found. The study does not clarify the consequences of impedance. It could be that this impedance only inhibits the commercialization of a serendipitous finding and not the finding itself. Another possibility is that it eventually will alter the openness of employees to unexpected findings and thus will impede the actual finding itself.

Another interesting finding is that the prepared mind can actually inhibit serendipity. McCay‐Peet and Toms (2015a) found that the prepared mind helps individuals seeing certain triggers, but also prevents these individuals from seeing new triggers that are not related to the primed concepts in the prepared mind. This is one of the few studies that state something on the inhibiting factors on the serendipitous finding itself. While studies on environmental factors do find facilitating factors that could theoretically be turned around into inhibiting factors, it requires research to see whether this is possible. The finding of the two opposite consequences of the prepared mind confirms again that a lot of complex relationships are still unknown or barely understood.

Impedance Cunha et al., 2010; Mendonça

et al., 2008

- Closed and bureaucratic structure - Result of vested interests, power

dynamics and the credibility and visibility of the discoverer Self-censorship de Rond, 2014; Cunha et al.,

2010; Lembregts et al., 2014; Van Andel, 1994; Barber and Fox, 1958; Meyers, 2007; Campanario, 1996

- Likeliness of rejection - Retrospective falsification

because of beliefs, traditions or dogmas

(26)

26

4. Discussion and conclusions

In many important innovations serendipity played a critical role. 3M‘s Post-its, vulcanized rubber, and penicillin are just few of the many examples of serendipitous innovations. For this reason, serendipity starts to get increasing attention from media (Kennedy, 2016) and scholars (Shimizu et al., 2012; de Rond, 2014; Kennedy, 2016). Debates are going on about the true meaning of serendipity and if serendipity can be deliberately applied to achieve more creative results. Even while stimulating accidental findings sounds the same as ‗planned spontaneity‘, a lot of studies point towards factors that can actually facilitate serendipity. In innovation related fields such as science where serendipity or even just lucky encounters seems out of place, scholars start to see and acknowledge that serendipity is an integral part of the scientific process. This is also true for all other domains related to innovation and the innovation domain itself. Whether an employee comes with a breakthrough idea all depends on his own knowledge, the knowledge he encounters and his environment. He just needs to have the right knowledge at the right time, to have the right tools and meet the right people. It all boils down to luck combined with effort. It is with no doubt that serendipity is important for innovation. But despite its importance, many gaps in the literature exist.

The aim of this study was to collect and structure the literature on serendipity and innovation management. It systematically reviewed the literature on the definition of serendipity, on serendipity in literature fields related to innovation, and on serendipity in innovation management. The results give an overview of the available literature; of literature on which authors present mixed or contradicting results; and of parts of serendipity that are still absent and thus require further research. Many different definitions of serendipity are being used in studies today. According to some authors even wrong definitions have been used (de Rond, 2014). From the many proposed definitions a few recurring elements could be extracted. The combination of effort and sagacity differentiate serendipity from cheer luck. The definition ‗effort and luck joined by alertness and flexibility‘ of Denrell et al. (2003) combines the recurring elements in the definition of serendipity nicely. Also there appear to be different types of serendipity, which is a possible explanation of all the different definitions in the literature. Four classifications of serendipity can be identified, namely two types of ‗true‘ serendipity and two types of ‗pseudo-serendipity‘.

(27)

27 science serendipity also appears to play a role, but is often not acknowledged. The scientific paradigm and social pressures show to be inhibiting environmental factors for serendipity.

The results from related literature already reveal some facilitating and inhibiting factors that are also described in the serendipity and innovation literature. The topics connected to serendipity and innovation are environmental factors, individual factors, open innovation, and obstacles to serendipitous findings. Environmental factors can be social, physical or digital. Having a trigger-rich environment in which triggers are highlighted, an environment that enables making connections and enables capturing opportunities, will facilitate serendipitous encounters. These encounters occur while interacting with the physical and social environment and could thus be facilitated by providing the right physical and social environment. However, no study specifies how such environments could provide these highlighted triggers. Some authors argue that cooperation in the social environment might facilitate serendipity, and that general attributes in teamwork such as trust, willingness and support can therefore be facilitating factors (Inkinen, 2012; Cunha et al., 2010). Cunha et al. (2010) noted that it is still ‗not clear how one should organize to help serendipity happen‘. While there are some suggestions concerning facilitating factors, serendipity literature still lacks deep understanding of the mechanisms between environmental factors and serendipity.

Another interesting finding is that because of the closeness of serendipity to creativity some authors extrapolate findings in creativity studies to develop an understanding of serendipity. While this is tempting since creativity is a widely researched subject, it turns out that the mechanisms of serendipity work differently. For example, the degree of creativeness of the environment can stimulate creativity and is suggested to do so for serendipity by some scholars (Kakko & Inkinen, 2009); it does not appear to be an important factor in stimulating serendipity according to McCay-Peet et al. (2015b). Campos and Figueiredo (2002) even state that ‗it is the very similarity between creativity and serendipity that hinders the deep nature of serendipity‘.

(28)

28 operationalized. Cunha et al. (2010) defines sagaciousness as having ‗the right individual characteristics, plus the knowledge necessary, to explore and seek explanation of the anomalous things that they witness‘. It remains unknown what these right characteristics and necessary knowledge entail.

Serendipity also appears to have elements in common with open innovation. To go from a serendipitous encounter to a serendipitous innovation commercialization is needed. Formal new product development processes give little room for serendipitous encounters which will often fall outside the boundaries of projects. With an open innovation business model, ideas that fall outside the project‘s scope or organization‘s strategy have other ways to commercialized. The open innovation model allows other organizations to be involved in the innovation process, which can help pursue serendipitous opportunities. Open innovation can thus facilitate serendipitous innovation, since it offers opportunities to commercialize findings or inventions which would have been discarded in more closed innovation business models.

Another remarkable finding is that the empirical studies focused on finding facilitating and inhibiting factors for serendipity and innovation find only facilitating factors. For example, the study of McCay‐ Peet and Toms (2015a) focused on both facilitating and inhibiting factors, but mainly found facilitating factors. The reason that it is hard to find inhibiting factors is because of the fact that serendipity can only be recognized in retrospect. If serendipity was hindered by certain factors, these factors could not be identified since the serendipitous finding would not exist.

The obstacles that do have been found are impedance, self-censorship, and a prepared mind. Impedance includes mainly environmental factors such as certain beliefs and dogmas in an individual‘s social environment. Self-censorship can also be a result from the environment, only with the difference that the finder of the serendipitous finding hides its own discovery. The last obstacle is a rather surprising factor, since it has been mainly associated with its positive effects on serendipity. It turns out that by having a prepared mind, it is easier to see connections that are related to concepts you had prior experience with. But it works as a double-edged sword; it disables to see concepts that are not related to those concepts primed in the mind.

Based on the reviewed studies the conclusion is that the interplay of environment, individual characteristics and prior knowledge can facilitate the occurrence of serendipitous encounters. Also, a more elaborate understanding of serendipity is needed to distinguish ‗lucky‘ finding from ‗real‘ serendipitous findings.

4.1 Future research and limitations

(29)

29 hamper serendipity, many influencing factors are being suggested. But the few empirical studies out there showed mixed findings concerning these factors. It appears that factors from research fields that are akin to serendipity often play a different role than assumed (Campos & Figueiredo, 2002). It is therefore important that studies start to focus solely on serendipity and innovation to develop an understanding of the deep nature of serendipity and its relationship with innovation.

Furthermore, many influencing factors found in serendipity studies remain rather vague. For example, we know that trigger rich environments can facilitate serendipity, but what kinds of triggers are needed for this to happen and is it possible to have too much triggers? Dew (2009) state that search costs might explain why some people discover opportunities while others not. This implies that an environment with many triggers and potential opportunities would raise searching costs for individuals since they need to identify relevant and irrelevant triggers which in turn decrease an individual‘s exploration propensity. Further research is needed in how organizations can design social, physical and digital environments to facilitate serendipity and consecutively stimulate innovation.

The lack of findings of inhibiting factors for serendipity is due to the fact that serendipity can only be recognized in retrospect. According to McCay-Peet et al. (2015b), it is the lack of tools to measure serendipity that inhibits the recognition of facilitating and hindering factors. To develop a complete understanding of serendipity in innovation management, both facilitating and hindering factors need to be understood. This field of study therefore requires the development of new tools to measure serendipity.

While no study in the sample focused solely on competitive advantage, still a few studies mention that serendipity plays a role in competitive advantage. De Rond (2014) proposes that with a proper understanding of serendipity the development of a ‗serendipity-based view of competitive advantage‘ could be possible. If organizations manage to facilitate serendipity in such a manner that their employees are able to see certain unexpected connections and are able to commercialize these findings, it could result in a competitive advantage. However, these lines of reasoning are purely speculative and require further research to see if they are valid.

(30)

30 is a need for more systematic empirical research which will test the initial assumptions of factors that influence serendipity and innovation.

One of the major challenges of this study was finding relevant literature. Due to the big differences in use of terminology collecting and consolidating the literature turned out to be difficult. Firstly, it made it hard to determine the search terms that should result in a semi-exhaustive sample. Secondly, it is not always certain if the terms used by the different authors represent the same concept.

Another challenge was consolidating literature from different literature fields. Serendipity is often described in the creativity and entrepreneurship literature fields. It is tempting to apply concepts of creativity and entrepreneurship to serendipity, while these concepts are not always interchangeable. Future research should therefore be cautious with using and integrating these concepts in serendipity literature.

4.2 Managerial implications

When looking at the practical implications of the findings for serendipity and innovation management, three main contributions come to mind. The first is the fact that serendipity can positively influence innovation. While it is yet unknown what kind of influence serendipity has on innovation, literature shows that being able to facilitate serendipity can be a source of competitive advantage. This is the result of the ability of an organization‘s employees to see unexpected connections or opportunities which other organizations‘ employees cannot see.

(31)

31

References

*Agarwal, N. K. (2015). Towards a Definition of Serendipity in Information Behaviour. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 20(3).

*André, P., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (2009). Discovery is never by chance: designing for (un) serendipity. ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (pp. 305-314). ACM.

*Austin, R. D., Devin, L., & Sullivan, E. E. (2012). Accidental innovation: Supporting valuable unpredictability in the creative process. Organization Science, 23(5), 1505-1522.

*Barber, B., & Fox, R. C. (1958). The case of the floppy-eared rabbits: An instance of serendipity gained and serendipity lost. American Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 128-136.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

*Campa, R. (2008). Making science by serendipity. A review of Robert K. Merton and Elinor Barber‘s The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 17(1), 75-83.

*Campanario, J. (1996). Using citation classics to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery. Scientometrics, 37(1), 3-24.

*Campos, J., & Figueiredo, A. D. (2002). Programming for serendipity. AAAI Fall Symposium on Chance Discovery – The Discovery and Management of Chance Events. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

*Cannon, W. B. (1940). The role of chance in discovery. The Scientific Monthly(50), 204-209. Cannon, W. B. (1961). Gains from serendipity. In The way of an investigator. New York: Hafner. Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information

systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information systems journal, 14(3), 197-235.

Conn, V., Valentine, J., Cooper, H., & Rantz, M. (2003). Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nursing research, 52(4), 256-261.

(32)

32 *Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S. R., & Mendonça, S. (2010). On serendipity and organizing. European

Management Journal, 28(5), 319-330.

*Dane, E., Baer, M., Pratt, M. G., & Oldham, G. R. (2011). Rational versus intuitive problem solving: How thinking ―off the beaten path‖ can stimulate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(3), 3-12.

*Darbellay, F., Moody, Z., Sedooka, A., & Steffen, G. (2014). Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 1-10.

De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-1201.

*de Rond, M. (2014). The structure of serendipity. Culture and Organization, 20(5), 342-358.

*Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977-990.

*Dew, N. (2009). Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 30(7), 735-753.

*Diaz de Chumaceiro, C. L. (1995). Serendipity or pseudoserendipity? Unexpected versus desired results. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(2), 143-147.

*Díaz de Chumaceiro, C. L. (1997). Serendipity Citations in the Biomedical Sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 91-93. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 91-93.

*Diaz de Chumaceiro, C. L. (1999). Serendipity. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker, Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 543-549). San Diego: Academic Press.

*Erdelez, S. (1999). Information encountering: It's more than just bumping into information. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 25(3), 26-29.

*Fine, G. A., & Deegan, J. G. (1996). Three principles of serendip: insight, chance, and discovery in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 434-447. *Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. Journal of

documentation, 59(3), 321-340.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research: An introduction (6th ed.). New York: White Plains.