Master Thesis MSc Business Administration, Specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

(1)

THE EMERGENCE OF AGENDAS OF RESEARCH GROUPS: THE IMPACT OF NETWORKS

Master Thesis

MSc Business Administration, Specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Loes Hafkamp Student number: 1893890 Vechtstraat 38 9725 CV Groningen Tel: +31 (0)643252670 L.Hafkamp@student.rug.nl

Date: October the 20th, 2015

Supervisor Dr. B. Emans

Second assessor: Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

Acknowledgement:

(2)

Abstract

This study explores the manner in which ideas appear on research agendas of research groups. The process in which ideas are generated and implemented is referred to as an innovation process. This study looks specifically at an innovation process within a research group. The outcome of this innovation process translates itself into ideas for research projects, which appear on a research group’s research agenda. A research agenda is filled with completed and ongoing research projects. Due to efforts made by a research professional initial ideas are implemented and consolidated into research projects. It is expected that networks influence this innovation process. More specifically, this study focuses on the manner in which networks influence an innovation process, which leads to the emergence of a research group’s research agenda. First, literature was studied to gain an understanding of the possible manners in which networks can influence a research professional during innovation. It is proposed that network types can use resources to influence idea generation and idea implementation. Three resources were distinguished: financing, human resources, and content input. A multiple case study was conducted with research professionals and research co-workers of research groups. The interviews were focused on gathering personal stories and events that illustrated how ideas were generated and subsequently implemented. Results indicate that during idea generation, networks influence a professional by using the resource content input. As opposed to an idea implementation phase, in which the resource financing proves to be more influential. This results in a view where a broad, diverse network proves important during idea generation to increase creativity. During idea implementation, a more cohesive network delivers resources necessary to finance an idea’s implementation onto a research agenda. Management can utilize the acquired information and managerial implications from this research to create an atmosphere in which innovation is stimulated within research groups.

Keywords: research groups; research professional; research co-worker; emergent change; networks; innovation;

(3)

What happens from the moment a researcher has an idea for a research project to the implementation of that idea by a research group? The process in which ideas are generated and implemented is referred to as an innovation process (Van de Ven, 1986). This study explores an innovation process within research groups. Innovation within a research group leads to the emergence of an agenda for research projects. Therefore, the manner in which ideas for research are generated and subsequently implemented is explored in this research. It is expected that networks have an impact on a research group’s innovation process. More specifically, this study focuses on the manner in which networks influence an innovation process leading to the emergence of a research group’s research agenda.

The innovation process studied here consists of two phases. The first phase is idea generation, in which researchers generate new ideas. In the second phase, idea implementation, these generated ideas are implemented. Implementation indicates that the initial ideas are carried out with the use of resources. Both phases, idea generation and idea implementation, are referred to when discussing an innovation process.

A research group is a group of employees working on research projects within a knowledge institution, such as a University. Here, an innovation process begins with researchers generating ideas for research. Idea generation is associated with creativity and the production of new ideas (Amabile et al., 1996). Idea implementation represents a process in which an idea is shaped after it has been generated; an idea is executed by researchers and turned into a project. Together, generation and implementation of new ideas form the steps of an innovation process (Van de Ven, Angle & Poole, 1989). The scope of this research is limited to an innovation process of ideas for research projects within a research group.

The ideas for research projects appear on a so-called research agenda. Research agendas are agendas composed to expand on ideas for research; so they function as a formal planning tool written by a research group. The research agenda is filled with completed and ongoing research projects. Research agendas are commonly used in knowledge institutions or multinationals with a research and development department.

(6)

In order to compose a research agenda, a research group needs to think of ideas for research projects. But merely generating ideas does not lead to their implementation (Sohn & Jung, 2010) other factors are expected to play a role. In this study ‘networks’ are studied as a factor, which influence an innovation process. Influence is defined as the alteration of an attitude or behavior by one actor in response to another actor’s actions (Marsden & Friedkin, 1993). When the influence of networks is discussed in this study, it is assumed that multiple networks firstly influence a research professional. Because a research professional has a leading role in determining a research agenda, it is assumed that through connecting with a research professional, networks can influence a research agenda.

It is important to note that only ideas, which are generated and implemented, appear on a research agenda. Regarding the establishment of a research agenda, it is expected that multiple networks influence a research professional who determines the research agenda’s content. Hence, it is assumed that networks indirectly influence the content of ideas for research, which then appear on a research agenda. Therefore, it is proposed that a research agenda’s content is influenced and shaped by multiple networks. This research specifically studies the emergence of research agendas of research groups and the impact of networks on this innovation process.

Because the emergence of research group’s research agendas is studied, a research group is demarcated as the place in which idea generation happens. This implies that all networks, which a research professional interacts with, are differentiated as network types. This also includes his/her own research group. Hence, all network types can influence the innovation process. Network types are therefore located inside an organization as well as outside an organization; they are called respectively: ‘intra-organizational networks’ and ‘extra-‘intra-organizational networks’.

The importance of this study can be understood by acknowledging that idea generation is a fundamental activity in the early stages of innovation. The outcome of what happens in these early stages has a high impact on the costs of the later stages in the innovation process (Koen et al., 2001).

(7)

process; no previous literature on this subject was found.

With the insights derived from this research, management gains a better understanding of the influence of network types on idea generation and subsequently idea implementation. After identification of the manner in which network types influence innovation, management will know what to focus their attention on while managing research groups. This will increase the likelihood that ideas are implemented instead of being neglected. Creative ideas and their implementation are crucial for long-term survival and success of organizations (Bradnivka, 2015). Knowhow regarding stimulating innovation is relevant to advance theory. Also, management needs to know how they can develop interventions to shape and stimulate organizational creativity processes (Bradnivka, 2015). Management can utilize the acquired information and managerial implications from this research, to create an atmosphere in which innovation is stimulated within research groups.

In this study five different network types the professional connects with, are examined as network types that influence the two phases of an innovation process regarding ideas for research projects. The network types are divided as follows: top management; supportive staff; intra-organizational co-professionals; extra-organizational co-professionals;and the work field. These network types are studied to understand how they shape the research agenda’s content, through conducting interviews with research professionals and research co-workers. Three resources are considered while studying the influence of networks, for it is assumed that network types influence innovation within a research group by making resources available. The first resource, financing, includes any financial contract between a professional and a network type. The second resource is human resources, which represents the distribution of employees and collaboration or employee exchange between a professional and a network type. The resource content input consists of exchanging creative ideas or knowledge sharing between a professional and a network type.

(8)

Figure 1: A research group’s innovation process and the influence of networks

This study is conducted to gain insights into the way multiple networks influence a research professional during idea generation and idea implementation. Therefore this study is aimed at showing how networks indirectly (through a research professional) influence a research agenda’s content. A case study approach is taken to explore the emergence of research agendas. Interviews were held with research professionals and research co-workers to extract data. In this study eight different research groups are examined, of four universities

(9)

2. Theoretical background

Through following the innovation model of idea generation and idea implementation by Van de Ven (1986) the outline of this research is presented. In the theoretical background the process is described in which ideas for research are turned into research projects for a research agenda. By explaining this process and exploring the influence of network types on different steps during this innovation process, this research shows how research agendas emerge.

First idea generation is discussed. Several reasons and explanations are presented in order to show why networks are important for idea generation. Then idea implementation in relation to multiple networks is discussed. After that five networks are described. Propositions are presented on how networks influence a professional during idea generation and during idea implementation.

Idea generation

It is important to understand what happens in the idea generation phase before the implementation process is explained, because idea generation is necessary but not sufficient to enable innovation (Carayannis & Gonzalez, 2003). Idea generation is associated with creativity and it represents the first step in the innovation process (Amabile et al. 1996). A scientific definition of creativity describes it as the production of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996, Mumford & Gustafson 1988, Heap, 1989). The commonly accepted definition underscores that: “organizational creativity is the creation of a valuable, useful new product or idea by individuals working together in a complex social system” (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin 1993: p. 293). In this section the influence of networks on idea generation is discussed.

The perks of interacting with networks during idea generation

During an idea generation phase, professionals are responsible for developing ideas and concepts for research projects. Creative and new ideas are important to start new research projects (Carayannis & Gonzalez, 2003). Usually, idea generation regarding research projects happens within an organization, among different employees. In fact, for most organizations the primary source of innovative ideas is idea generation by its own employees (Terwiesch & Ulrich, 2009).

(10)

during idea generation. When it is clear to organizations how networks influence idea generation taking place within a research group, organizations can make better use of these external sources of innovation. In this subsection is explained why networks are important during idea generation. To start off, when actors are not connected to each other; each actor keeps working in a distinct network type. One actor might deal with the same issues as another actor, but because they are located in different networks they are unable to share knowledge and help each other. This is highly inefficient. In order to get access to new knowledge, this requires networking efforts as argued by Tsai (2001). Through connecting with a lot of different networks, an actor can create a comprehensive network. This comprehensive network gives an actor access to diverse sources of information, which is emphasized as a key advantage of comprehensive social networks (Wong & Boh, 2014).

Burt (2004) talks about networks by introducing a concept called: “structural holes”. Structural holes indicate a lack of connection between groups in a network. The structural holes argument holds that social capital is created by a network in which an actor can broker connections between otherwise disconnected segments (Burt, 2001; McEvily and Zaheer, 1999). Social capital is the sum of resources actors can access because they are connected to networks (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Actors with connections across structural holes have early access to diverse, often contradictory, information and interpretations, which gives them a competitive advantage in seeing and developing good ideas (Burt, 2004). From this theory, it is expected that professionals who can broker connections between disconnected network types, develop a competitive advantage for generating ideas for research projects.

Next to gaining access to new ideas through connecting with multiple networks, an actor can also increase his/her own ability to be creative by interacting with multiple networks. Opinion and behavior are more homogeneous within one specific network type than between different network types (Burt, 2004). Thus, it is proposed that when a professional is connected with several networks, through participating in networks, s/he gets more familiar with alternative ways of thinking and behaving. Access to diverse sources of information is proposed to increase individual innovativeness (Wong & Boh, 2014). So, employees exposed to a variety of information can generate more creative ideas (Wong & Boh, 2014; Burt, 1992; Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). Leading to the idea that research professionals who are connected with multiple networks become more creative themselves. Due to research professional’s increased creativity they become more skilled in generating new ideas for research. From this line of reasoning it is expected that when professionals are connected to many different network types, they are able to generate more creative ideas for research projects.

(11)

information, it is expected that professionals become more creative through interacting with different network types, which leads to generating good ideas for research projects. But it is not clear yet, how network types influence idea generation through a professional. Also, it is still unclear which resources, networks utilize when they are influencing idea generation. For now, the topic idea generation is left to rest.

Power politics during idea implementation

After having discussed and finished the section regarding idea generation, a transition is made towards power politics. It is important to understand the concepts power and politics because these concepts are used during an idea implementation phase. Power is defined by Burnes (2014, p. 203), as “the possession of position and/or resources” and politics as “the deployment of influence and leverage”. When looking at approaches to change, it appears that the planned and emergent approach to change have an opposite view on power (Burnes, 2014). The planned approach views change and also the exercise of power, as top-down (Burnes, 2014; Smith & Graetz, 2011). This results in an important role for an actor imposing change, for it is his/her job and responsibility to initiate and implement ideas successfully (Smith & Graetz, 2011). The emergent approach sees change agents as facilitators who bring together and empower groups, instead of directing change from the top (Bennis, 2000; Burnes, 2014; Weick & Quinn, 1999). In this study, a research professional is expected to initiate and implement ideas for research. That is why a professional is also expected to encounter situations in which power and politics play a role.

Research professionals are in charge of a research group and are as a result responsible for generating and implementing ideas. Implementing ideas can be seen as bottom-up through the exercise of power in lower levels of the organization. Proponents of emergent change view organizations as power systems and, consequently, see change as a political process whereby different departments in an organization struggle to protect or enhance their own interests (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Orlikowski and Yates, 2006; By et al., 2008). The way in which networks deploy their resources is called organizational politics. Organizational politics entails the efforts of members to mobilize support for policies, resources or other decisions in which the outcome will have an effect on them (Robbins, 1987). Politics is essentially the exercise of power.In this study, it is believed that networks possess different resources, which they can use to influence idea implementation. Now that both the emergent and planned approach to change are explained, implementation can be discussed in the next section.

The role of resources during idea implementation

(12)

put to use in the business activities”. For an actor, successful innovation relies upon obtaining resources such as external information, manpower, financial support, and sponsorship (Ancona, 1990; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Faraj and Yan, 2009). In this study it is emphasized that an idea needs to be combined with resources such as financing and knowledge, in order for that idea to be translated into research projects on a research agenda. So, access to resources is necessary to realize idea implementation (Van de Ven, 1986).

In order to gain resources, collaboration and gaining support from networks is required (Axtell et al., 2000). It is assumed that networks possess resources for which the research group is in need. This gives networks a certain amount of power. As clarified by Pettigrew (1973), who claims that power at the network level is associated with the possession of resources by each network. So, it seems important for a professional to connect with several networks to access different resources.

From a resource dependency perspective, Smith & Graetz (2011), argue that when an actor is located centrally, which means that s/he is connected to a lot of different networks this implies that s/he has greater access to resources. Resources, which are important during implementation are: information, knowledge and financing (Walter, 2005). Therefore, a professional must seek support from several networks and collaborate with them in order to gather different resources.

The resource financing is applied in any situation in which a network type can influence a professional during idea generation or idea implementation by providing financing. The resource human resources is applied in any situation in which a network type can influence a professional during idea generation or idea implementation by collaboration or employee exchange. The resource content input is applied in any situation in which a network type can influence a professional during idea generation or idea implementation by convincing a professional of an idea. Examples of content input are: idea sharing, discussions, learning & feedback. It is important to note, that influencing through using the resource content input is purely based on convincing a professional of ideas or arguments, no financing or other incentives are used.

(13)

influence idea implementation by distributing those valuable resources. Now that is explained how network types can influence idea implementation regarding a research agenda of a research group, the next section will elaborate on the five network types.

Top management

The first network type studied is named ‘top management’. Top management consists of executive managers or directors and its exact construction can differ per organization. Mintzberg (1979) refers to this group as the strategic apex in which people are found who are charged with overall responsibility for the organization. Top management is charged with ensuring that the organization serves its missions in an effective way and also that it serves the needs of those people who control or otherwise have power over the organization (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 25). One of the duties of top management is supervision. Among the managerial roles associated with direct supervision are: resource allocator, including the design of the structure itself, the assignment of people and resources to tasks and monitoring, which involves the review of employees’ activities.

The network relation with top management is a formal relationship, instead of a willingly chosen network relationship. Because the organizational structure is arranged with top management at the top and the research group placed beneath top management, this makes a professional accountable to the hierarchy. Therefore, the professional has no choice but to cooperate with the network ‘top management’. From this organizational structure it is expected that top management executes a degree of power over the research department. The power entails mostly the strategy that top management sets out, next to financing and employee allocation.

Top management’s influence on idea generation

Top management has a powerful source of influence on employees’ work behaviors (Yukl, 2002). In a similar way top management influences an idea generation phase. Top management’s goal is to ensure that employees follow the organizational strategy set out by them. This also applies for a professional who needs to follow the organizational strategy while generating ideas for research. The organization can ensure that a professional takes the organizational strategy into account by using different techniques.

(14)

(Bratnicka, 2015). By using these techniques top management can steer a professional into following the organizational strategy.

When top management focuses on controlling idea generation by steering a professional into the direction of the organizational strategy, this will constrain variation in ideas that are generated. Constraining will limit the number of options a professional can take into consideration while generating ideas for research. On the other hand narrowing the number of options down, to the ones that fit the organizational strategy keeps a professional focused. As Jong and Hartog (2007, p. 58) state: “communicating an attractive vision that explicitly incorporates the role and preferred types of innovation may guide idea generation”.

From this reasoning, it is proposed that top management steers a professional into executing research in an area that is in alignment with an organization’s strategy. This way, top management influences a professional during idea generation. Steering by top management falls under the heading of the resource content input.

Top management’s influence on idea implementation

Next to steering a professional there are other ways for top management to influence a professional’s compliance to the organizational strategy. Top management distributes important resources, which gives them a certain amount of decision power during idea implementation. Top management can influence an implementation process by monitoring whether ideas for research projects fit within the strategic direction. Monitoring includes ensuring effectiveness and efficiency and checking-up on employees (Mutlu, 2014).

A survey-based study by Oldham and Cummings (1996) showed that monitoring was negatively related to employees’ creative performance. So with increased monitoring, levels of creativity decreased. On the other hand, Leonard and Swap (2005) stress that some degree of monitoring is desirable to ensure the progress of both innovations and current operations. From these opposing visions towards monitoring can be deduced that top management needs to find a balance in the degree to which they monitor professionals.

(15)

resources to ensure a professional’s compliance to the organizational strategy. So, only when top management recognizes novel ideas generated by professionals as being in alignment with the organizational strategy, they will provide the resources necessary for implementing these ideas. Thus, it is assumed that top management serves as an important resource provider for a professional during idea implementation. This means that top management has some degree of power during idea implementation, because it can decide on the financing and employee allocation.

From this it is proposed that top management influences idea implementation by monitoring a research project’s alignment with the organizational strategy. Next, top management will proceed to allocating financing and human resources. Monitoring and subsequently allocating resources by top management fall under the heading of the resource financing and human resources.

Supportive Staff

The second network type that is considered is ‘supportive staff’. This network type is aimed at supporting the writing of research proposals and supporting application process of research proposals. Supportive staff supports the functioning of the operating core indirectly, that is, outside the basic flow of operating work (Mintzberg, 1979). Therefore this network type is located beneath the research group in the organizational structure. This implies that due to their organizational position supportive staff cannot display power to the research group. Supportive staff could prove to be useful during an innovation process because according to Kesting and Parm Ulhøi (2010) employees typically acquire highly dependent knowledge from practicing their daily activities. Supportive staff has context-specific knowledge regarding research as opposed to managers who are not involved in exercising research. From this, it is assumed that supportive staff acquires knowledge about research projects with which they can influence idea generation or idea implementation.

Supportive Staff’s influence on idea generation

(16)

contribute during idea generation by sharing their specific body of knowledge. With body of knowledge is meant the complete set of concepts, terms and activities that make up a professional domain.

From this it is proposed that supportive staff influences a professional during idea generation by sharing their knowledge about a specific research project. The situation in which supportive staff shares its body of knowledge regarding a specific research project falls under the heading of the resource content input.

Supportive Staff’s influence on idea implementation

Professionals collaborate with supportive staff members to write applications for research. Because of supportive staff’s experience with writing applications they seem to facilitate that specific part of idea implementation, which is related to writing a research proposal or an application for subsidy. This network type contributes during idea implementation by writing and supporting the research project in general.

Because it is assumed that supportive staff members facilitate idea implementation, they also influence idea implementation. From this it is proposed that supportive staff influences a professional during idea implementation, through their facilitating role during idea implementation. The way in which supportive staff facilitates the research project falls under the heading of human resources.

Intra-organizational co-professionals

The third network type considered is called: ‘Intra-organizational co-professionals’. In the definition used throughout this study, intra-organizational co-professionals entails all researchers within an organization. Intra-organizational co-professionals network type refers to researchers inside the professional’s research group, but also professionals and co-workers from a different research group. Research groups have the purpose of executing research in a specific research field. There is no formal authority relationship between two research groups because they function as autonomous groups. Colleagues from different research departments are equivalents regarding their position in the organizational structure; this can be called a horizontal power relation. Horizontal power is the use of influence tactics among collaborating employees to obtain benefits for themselves, it is an important mechanism used within and between organizations in allocating resources (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974).

Intra-organizational co-professional’s influence on idea generation

(17)

challenging of ideas, and shared commitment to the project (Albrecht & Hall, 1991; Andrews, 1979). These internal factors are considered to stimulate idea generation.

From the literature factors such as constructive challenging of ideas and shared commitment to a research project are likely to increase creativity in groups. Therefore if these factors are found in research groups, it is interesting to explore whether these factors also influence idea generation within research groups. Two of the primary features of intrinsic motivation are meaningfulness of work and knowledge of the results, according to the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1976). Intrinsic motivation implies that a person is engaged in a task purely for his/her own sake because it is interesting and enjoyable (Galia, 2008). Intrinsically motivated researchers have an inner drive for their job, a passion for what they do, as opposed to extrinsically motivated researchers who are primarily driven by rewards or fear of penalties. Feelings of competence and autonomy are important for intrinsic motivation (Galia, 2008). Intrinsic motivation stimulates idea generation. Intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to exchange ideas with other employees inside and outside the research group, which will lead to improved information, new knowledge creation and support for the innovation process (Galia, 2008; Axtell et al., 2000).

It is expected that the network type intra-organizational co-professionals has a professional body of knowledge filled with concepts, terms and activities that are related to research topics and projects. Connecting with this network type is important for a professional in the sense that s/he can extract knowledge related to specific research topics and projects from this network type. Therefore it is proposed that the network type intra-organizational co-professionals influences idea generation through coming up with various ideas for research topics and projects. The situation in which the network type intra-organizational co-professional shares its body of knowledge falls under the heading of the resource content input.

Intra-organizational co-professional’s influence on idea implementation

(18)

Only when resources are scare and the professional needs the resources, an intra-organizational co-professional network type gains more power in an idea implementation phase. This implies that when this network type owns critical resources they are able to influence which ideas are supported and implemented with the use of resources. In this way the network type intra-organizational co-professionals influences idea implementation. So, the more critical the resource is for a professional’s innovation process, the more power an intra-organizational co-professional network type has.

From this it is proposed that the network type intra-organizational co-professionals influences a professional during idea implementation through collaborations, employee exchange and sharing knowledge. These two ways of influencing fall under the heading of human resources and content input.

Extra-organizational co-professionals

The fourth network type is called: ‘extra-organizational professionals’. The extra-organizational co-professional network type is filled with co-professionals from other organizations: researchers, alumni, former colleagues, former business partners and old acquaintances who are working on themes, which are interesting for a professional. Extra-organizational co-professionals are located outside the organization and their relationship with a professional is aimed at knowledge and idea exchange. A professional is connected with this network type based on previous contact or personal relationships. Networking relations with these professionals are interesting because of the different body of knowledge they are expected to possess.

Extra-organizational co-professional’s influence on idea generation

When an actor connects with several network types this leads to opportunities to combine different kinds of knowledge sets, something that was reflected in the findings of Björk (2012). Björk (2012) observed that individuals who span different knowledge domains had higher idea generation performance than others. Also at a more general level, central network positions have been found to correlate with the generation of high-quality ideas (Björk & Magnusson, 2009; Björk et al., 2011). Employees in central network positions can therefore be defined as those that have many ties (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Previous literature demonstrates that holding a central network position predicts knowledge sharing in positive ways (Anderson, 2008; Burt, 1992; Freeman, 1979; Tsai, 2001). For a professional who connects with the network type extra-organizational co-professionals this yields benefits in the sense of access to more ideas. In addition to this a professional is also expected to generate higher quality ideas him/herself when s/he is connected to different kinds of knowledge sets. This is based on the idea that every tie in an employee’s network represents a channel through which knowledge may flow to and from that employee (Anderson, 2008).

(19)

connection with this network type is important for a professional in the sense that s/he can extract academic knowledge and ideas from this network type.

When the body of knowledge of an extra-organizational network type differs from a professional’s body of knowledge this will lead to differences in ideas and opinions when these bodies of knowledge are combined. Therefore the extra-organizational network type proves to be an important factor in the idea generation process, due to the different ideas that will emerge from connecting with this network type. Thus, it is proposed that an extra-organizational network type influences a professional during idea generation through sharing their knowledge and ideas. The situation in which the network type extra-organizational co-professional shares its body of knowledge falls under the heading of the resource content input.

Extra-organizational co-professional’s influence on idea implementation

Innovations might have a higher likelihood of success when individuals not only harness the diverse information from their networks for good ideas but also signal the credibility of those ideas by occupying an influential network position (Wong & Boh, 2013, p. 1182). Social capital exists where people have an advantage because of their location in a social structure (Burt, 2004, p.351). When professionals know how to find these people with social capital they can make use of this for their own implementation process. So it is proposed that connecting with influential people increases the chance that an idea will be implemented.

The boundary spanning perspective highlights a person’s actions to acquire resources for innovation purposes from networks (Ancona, 1990; Faraj and Yan, 2009; Fleming and Waguespack, 2007). The boundary spanning perspective is used to study how professionals can successfully extract information and influence from their social network for innovation purposes. Professionals can increase their chances of idea implementation by collaborating with an extra-organizational co-professional network type. In such collaborations, merely exchanging research ideas or providing feedback can be sufficient to shape and influence idea implementation. Also a professional increases the chances to obtain financing for research ideas through connecting with extra-organizational co-professional.

(20)

Work field

The fifth network type taken up in this study is called ‘Work field’. Network connections originating from the work field are divided into organizations and subsidy providers. A professional is connected with this network type based on a client-contractor relationship, therefore a professional needs to deliver a product or service to this network type. In some cases organizations contact a professional with a concrete question for research. In other cases a professional approaches an organization to initiate a research project or s/he invites an organization for collaboration. Therefore, the client organization and a professional need to exchange ideas to fine-tune how the research is actually executed.

Work field’s influence on idea generation

It is expected that because organizations participate in the work field they encounter different situations and problems than a research group. Research groups are mainly focused on one specific research topic in which they specialize. By exchanging ideas and knowledge with a network type from the work field this enables a professional to access practical knowledge. Organizations from the work field are assumed to develop practical knowledge because they work in the field and they encounter problems in the field first hand. Therefore, it is expected that a work field’s network type has a body of knowledge filled with concepts, terms and activities that are related to work field practices and knowledge. So it is proposed that the work field can influence idea generation by exchanging insights and ideas they gained from working in the field.

From this it is proposed a work field’s the network type influences a professional during idea generation by sharing their knowledge about work field practices. The situation in which a work field’s network type shares its body of knowledge regarding a work field practices falls under the heading of the resource content input.

Work field’s influence on idea implementation

A client – contractor relationship is maintained between organizations and a research group. The organization receives a product or service from a research group in exchange for financing. Because of the nature of this relationship, it is expected that the work field network type will deliver resources needed for implementation. Subsidy providers can also provide the funding for research projects. The research group has to go through different phases of an application process. Eventually, when a research group successfully went through all the evaluating stages, they are granted the subsidy.

(21)

Conceptual model

In this subsection, the determinants are shortly defined to explain how network types are expected to influence idea generation and idea implementation. These determinants and their definitions are based on the literature discussed in the previous section. After that, the determinants and the resource category in which they are assigned are presented in a conceptual framework.

The manner in which network types influence idea generation and idea implementation

(22)

Table 1: The manner in which independent determinants are proposed to influence idea

generation and idea implementation

Network type’s influence on a phase in an innovation process Determinant Definition Top Management’s influence on idea generation

Steering covered by the

resource content input

Top management influences a professional during idea generation through steering a professional into executing research in an area that is in alignment with the organizational strategy. Top Management’s

influence on idea implementation

Monitoring covered by the

resource financing and human resources

Top management influences a professional during idea implementation by monitoring whether a research project’s topic is in alignment with the organizational strategy and subsequently by allocating financing and human resources. Supportive Staff’s

influence on idea generation

Sharing research project specific body of knowledge covered by the resource

content input

Supportive staff influences a professional during idea generation by sharing their knowledge about a specific research project.

Supportive Staff’s influence on idea implementation

Facilitating covered by human

resources

Supportive staff influences a professional during idea implementation, through their facilitating role during idea implementation

Intra-organizational co-professionals’ influence on idea generation

Sharing research specific body of knowledge covered by the

Intra-organizational co-professionals influence a professional during idea generation through coming up with various ideas for research projects. Intra-organizational

co-professionals’ influence on idea implementation

Providing human resources by collaborations or employee exchange and content input

Intra-organizational co-professionals influence a professional during idea implementation by providing human resources through enabling collaboration and employee exchanges and sharing knowledge

Extra-organizational co-professionals’ influence on idea generation

Sharing professional body of knowledge covered by the

Extra-organizational co-professionals influence a professional during idea generation through sharing their research specific knowledge and ideas.

Extra-organizational co-professionals’ influence on idea implementation

Providing financing, employees and knowledge covered by the resource

financing, human resources and content input

Extra-organizational co-professionals influence a professional during idea implementation by providing resources such as financing, employees and knowledge

Work field’s influence on idea generation

Sharing practical body of knowledge covered by the

The work field influences a professional during idea generation by sharing their practical knowledge about the work field with them Work field’s influence

on idea implementation

Providing financing covered by the resource financing

(23)

The framework for research

Below, the framework of this research is presented in figures 2 and 3, in which ten determinants are displayed. These determinants indicate the manner in which network types are proposed to influence a professional. Two models are used to highlight the difference between idea generation and idea implementation and the influence of network types during each phase. By examining how the resources: financing, human resources and content input are used, the influence of network types on a professional are studied further. Through influencing a professional, network types influence idea generation and idea implementation. This leads to the establishment of a research agenda, which is the phenomenon explained in this study.

Figure 2: determinants of network types influencing idea generation

(24)

3. Research method

As aforementioned, this study aims to provide insights into the way network types influence a professional during idea generation and idea implementation. This research topic is still exploratory in its nature and there are still unresolved issues in the literature regarding this topic (Aken et al., 2012). Therefore, theory development is chosen as the appropriate method of research. In this section, firstly the context of the study is introduced. This is followed by the description of the data collection. Lastly, the data analysis method is explained.

Data and the context of the study

In studying the way ideas emerge on research agendas data was collected from research groups. Research groups are often part of a research center, but for the sake of keeping this study understandable, only research groups are discussed. In this study four different Universities of Applied Sciences are examined, from these knowledge institutions eight research groups are selected. Three research groups are focused on business and economics, two research groups are focused on care giving, one research group is focused on language, one research group is focused on services and lastly, one research group is focused on sport. From every research group a research professional was contacted to conduct an interview with. After a research professional agreed to an interview s/he was asked to name a research co-worker that was also willing to give an interview. The strength of this research lies in the different perspectives of research professionals and research workers. Both the professional and research co-worker are executing research and by studying both points of view a balanced picture can be presented of the emergence of a research agenda of a research group.

Research professionals and research co-workers tend to be very passionate and motivated throughout their work; this contributed to the participation of professionals and co-workers from different universities and research departments to this study. To further enhance participation, managerial implications were promised, as was the distribution of this document to all participants. Due to privacy reasons, no names are used in this research. The research took place from mid-April to mid-July 2015.

Data collection

For the data analysis a qualitative approach was chosen in which interviews were conducted. This approach is appropriate to get a better understanding of the real-life experiences of the professionals and co-workers while they recall their interactions with networks. Interviewing is especially useful for developing theoretical insights when research focuses on areas that extant theory does not address well (Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009).

(25)

specifically, the interviewees were invited to come up with stories about network types influencing research agendas through the allocation of resources (financial, human resources and content input) held by them. As elaborated in the interview protocol (Appendix A) interviewees were asked to elaborate on projects they were currently engaged in or that had been finished and they had contributed in. This was done to get a view of the research agenda’s content for a specific research group. Follow-up questions expanded on how the original ideas for research emerged. Interviewees were asked to talk about an idea for research that appeared on the research agenda. Interviewees were then asked to elaborate on how that specific idea was generated and whether, and how networks were involved in generating that idea. This was asked to gain insight into the way network types, in which a professional participates, influence idea generation. During the interview a network type table printed on paper was displayed. The table was shown after the interviewee had given an introduction of him/herself and after s/he had explained a bit more about the specific research group. This table included five network types the researcher came up with and three resources, which could be used by different network types to influence idea generation and idea implementation. The determinants presented in table 1 could all be covered by one specific resource. So for example the top management network type’s proposed influence on top management through steering falls under the heading of the resource content input.

The researcher explained five networks to ensure interviewee and researcher had the same concept in mind of all five networks. Further interview questions were aimed at understanding the way idea implementation is influenced by networks the professional participates in. Interviewees were asked to share examples of the way ideas were shaped and implemented onto the research agenda. Herein the researcher explicitly asked about the use of resource allocation by five different networks. Questions were aimed at which resources networks possess and the way networks use resource allocation for influencing idea implementation.

During the interviews, facts were emphasized and generalizations were avoided by asking each respondent specifically which network types interacted with the research group during idea generation. The same was done for idea implementation. Moreover, critical probing questions were asked to prompt the respondents to reflect deeper on their thinking and to further clarify their responses. Interviews lasted from 45 to 90 minutes; they were all recorded and afterwards transcribed. After transcribing the interviews, the interviewee was asked for feedback on the executed analyses of that specific research group with the goal of securing the reliability of the information (by checking on inconsistencies and/or misinterpretations).

(26)

Eight research professional and five research co-workers were interviewed. Participants were identified by directly contacting them or with the snowball sampling approach through a secretary office. Professionals were selected based on years of experience within the research group, with a minimum of one-and-a-half years’ experience in the research group. The snowball sampling method was used, this is a common method used for theoretical sampling by qualitative interviewers. It is executed by first locating one respondent who fulfils the theoretical criteria, then that person helps to locate other respondents through their social networks (Arksey and Knight, 1999; Weiss, 1994). This approach was used to select co-workers for interviews; in fact professionals located every interviewed co-worker.

This research is based on a multiple case study. By choosing a multiple case study the external validity of research is secured. When conducting a single-case study, the data would be very context specific and the research would offer only limited opportunities for generalizing (Aaboen et al., 2012). During case-selection, attention was paid to a fitting definition of the population. I chose to define the population as all broad Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. With broad is meant: Universities of Applied Sciences who offer a diverse range of study tracks focused on research domains such as economics, languages and nursing. In contrast to Universities of Applied Sciences who are only focused on one research domain for example agriculture. This demarcation was chosen because broad Universities of Applied Sciences have multiple research departments and it would be legitimate to compare these research departments to each other. By defining the population it becomes clear to what extent the research outcomes can be generalized. The sample eventually consists of eight professionals and five co-workers originating from four different Universities of Applied Sciences and eight different research groups. Through the multitude of responses from contrasting research departments the findings can be generalized and used in multiple organizations, such as multinational organizations with an R&D department. Multiple organizations can benefit from the gained insights about how to stimulate an innovative environment for research.

The insights of this study are based upon extensive interviews with professionals and co-workers of Universities of Applied Sciences. The collected data through interviews was purely qualitative. Secondary data were only used to get familiar with the studied organizations in order to understand how these organizations conduct research and which network parties are involved in this process. Secondary data contained: annual reports, Validation Reports Quality Assurance Research Institute of Universities of Applied Sciences, documents about performance agreements with the Ministry and internal documents. As noted by Jick (1979) quantitative data can be useful for understanding the core principles hidden behind the relations that are uncovered through qualitative data.

Data analysis

(27)

1967) to identify how networks influence the idea implementation process for research agendas. The transcribed interviews ranged from 8 to 16 pages per interview and in total amounted to 200 pages. The interviews were coded to analyze the data. Coding involves reading through transcripts of conducted interviews and marking words, sentences and themes that occur within these transcripts (van Aken et al., 2012). During the coding process the qualitative data program Atlas.ti was used.

The analysis starts with discussing deductive codes. Deductive coding refers to codes derived from the literature as was discussed in the theoretical framework. Deductive codes were set beforehand and represent the codes that were expected to be found during the interviews. The coding was conducted by placing parts from the interview within the conceptual table that was defined before the interviews took place, as displayed in table 2.

Next to coding in this manner a few codes emerged during the process. These are inductive codes and were derived during the interviews and from the transcripts. These codes emerged because a conceptual gap was identified during analysis. The inductive codes are: research co-worker’s network; science society; environment and organizational politics. Appendix B shows the coding schema with the code names, descriptions and sample quotes.

Table 2: Coding process of the conducted interviews

Step Coding process/description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Transcribing of the interviews

Filling in the predetermined coding scheme

Researcher coded the interviews for influence of network, by assigning resources towards the manner in which a network type influences idea generation and idea implementation

To complete the coding schema, the following codes were added: research co-worker’s network, science society, environment, and organizational politics

Final coding of the transcripts

(28)

4. Results

In this section, the information gathered from the conducted interviews will be discussed. First, interview outcomes that are related to deductive codes will be presented. These codes are limited to a network type’s influence on a professional during idea generation and idea implementation. Two different points of view are examined, namely a professional’s point of view and a co-worker’s point of view. A coding scheme is presented to provide an overview of the results. The coding scheme presented in table 2 includes ten codes, three resources, one or two examples of quotes, the specific interviewees (P stands for professional and C stands for co-workers) and the frequency of the number of respondents. After the coding table is presented, a short explanation of the results is given to clarify the findings. After that, the deductive codes that emerged from the interviews are presented. These codes vary widely, and are also displayed in a coding scheme to provide an overview.

Deductive codes related to a network type’s influence on idea generation and idea implementation In this subsection the interview outcomes related to deductive codes are presented. These outcomes indicate a network type’s influence on idea generation and idea implementation. A coding scheme is presented to provide a clear overview of the results (see table 3). Three resources, which can be used by a network type to influence a professional during idea generation and idea implementation, are displayed in the second column. Financial, human resources and content input are used to categorize the possible resources. The next column, named ‘example’ presents a statement given by an interviewee. ‘Interviewees’ refers to the specific interviewees who mentioned the code during the interviews. ‘Frequency’ signifies the number of times the code was mentioned during the interviews. Some interviewees indicated that during idea generation or idea implementation more than one resource was used to influence a professional, therefore in some instances more than 13 responses are presented. For example top management’s influence on idea implementation has 21 responses, distributed over financial, human resources and content input.

(29)

Table 3: The impact of networks on idea generation and idea implementation

No. Code Resources Example1 _Interviewees2 _Freq.

3

1 Top

management’s influence on idea generation

Financial Not found

Human resources

Not found

Content input

Steering

“Because the organization sets out the strategic pillars Energy and Healthy Ageing, all

professionals try to formulate research projects around these themes, because that is expected of them” P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 11 No data P4, P5 2 2 Top management’s influence on idea implementation Financial Monitoring

“The only thing the hierarchy influences is the formation, they decide on the amount of money they want to invest into research”

P1, P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, C1, C2, C3, C4 10 Human resources Monitoring

“Top management, steers the number of FTE’s and the accompanying composition of research groups”

P1, P3 2

Content input “Top management tests the framework, they verify whether it (the project) fits within the strategic pillar: living technology. If it does not fit the strategic pillar, the project is

immediately terminated" P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, C1, C2, C3, C4, 9 No data C5 1 3 Supportive staff’s influence on idea generation

Financial Not found

Human resources Not found Content input Sharing research project specific body of knowledge Not found No data P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 13 4 Supportive staff’s influence on idea implementation

Financial “They do not affect the research agenda. No I don’t believe that is the case”

C1 1

Human resources

Facilitating

“They are not experts on the content, but they do know how to make the match between what to write in an application and the demands of the subsidizer”

(30)

5 Intra-organizational co-professional’s influence on idea generation

Financial Not found

Human resources “Every month we have a seminar in which researchers present their research up to the stage in which they are so far. Then we discuss with each other, and you can see interaction between different research groups”

P3, P6, P8, C2, C3, C4, C5 7 Content input Sharing research specific body of knowledge

“The most important tasks of a professional is to develop ideas in accordance with

researchers from the research group, receive subsidy for these ideas and then implementing them” P1, P2, P3, P6, P8, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 10 No data P4, P5, P7 3 6 Intra-organizational co-professional’s influence on idea implementation

Financial “Two of my co-workers made a research proposal for that, to do something with the strategic pillar energy, that has been approved and they received financing for that project”

P1, P2, P3, P5, P6, P7, P8, C1, C2, C4, C5 11 Human resources Collaborations or employee exchange

“We now work on a research theme in collaboration with another knowledge workplace, that is focused on making the environment more motion-friendly”

P3, P6, P8, C2, C3, C4, C5 7 Content input Sharing research specific body of knowledge

“Every two months, we have a meeting with researchers, who are actually involved in the research project. We talk about research in a formal way. During the formal meetings we discuss someone’s research project, and the developments. Informally, you call or mail each other if something is wrong. We also have meetings with other research groups”

“As colleagues you run into each other, regularly and then you talk about projects you are working on. Research trajectories, striking things, you discuss these things. When you run into problems, you hope that someone has a solution to that” P1, P2, P3, P6, P8, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 10 No data P4, P5, P7 3 7 Extra organizational co-professional’s influence on idea generation

Financial Not found

Human resources “Collaborations emerge because you meet people during congresses”

P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P7, P8, C1, C3, C4, C5 11 Content input Sharing professional body of knowledge

“I have my own group of entrepreneurs, with whom I have worked together for more than 30 years. At the end of each year I challenge them to make an outlook for next year: ‘what will we be doing?’ Then you get MKB’s vision of the future”

(31)

8 Extra organizational co-professional’s influence on idea implementation Financial Providing financing

“This was very personal, the question originated from our school’s former director. He played golf en he knew me and another colleague of mine. He said I would like to do a project with you and I can also provide the financial resources. The research project did not fit in our research theme; we only did it because it is a good connection of ours and because we liked doing the project”

“An important network relation for me is the ministry, they know our business and I did previous research for them. At a certain point you end up belonging in some club. They are a small group of communication research advisors, working at the ministry; they are an important connection for me because they inform me about important research projects […] They directly pay me from their budgets”

P2, P3, P5, P6, P7, P8, C2, C3, C5 9 Human resources Providing employees

“Then I received a phone call by a bureau, which also has been asked to write an offer. The bureau’s director called me and asked to write the offer together because then we would have a better chance of receiving the

assignment”

“Usually you steer on collaboration based on a research topic or a subsidy opportunity”

P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P7, P8, C1, C3, C4, C5 11 Content input Providing knowledge

“We (another professional from a different organizations and the interviewee) exchange a lot of ideas and we keep each other informed about research projects we are working on. Together we aim to set up a national network”

“Look, you meet each other, then you ask about research projects. We comment and give feedback on each other’s research proposals”

P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 13 No data 9 Work field’s influence on idea generation

Financial Not found

Human resources Not found P3, P7, P8,

C1, C2, C3, C5 7 Content input Sharing practical body of knowledge

(32)

10 Work field’s influence on idea implementation Financial Providing financing

“Gasterra is a big client of ours. Also

ministries pay us directly from their budget for research projects, so not through a subsidy”

P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, C1, C2, C3, C5

12

Human resources “We have a team consisting of three people from the organization and three people from the work field. Because we collaborate intensively with the work field”

“Those companies contribute with work hours to the research project”

P3, P7, P8, C1, C2, C3, C5

7

Content input “We try to involve the work field in the issue we execute research on. We also make them an associate in the research project, by letting them take part in the research themselves and by involving them in the process of translating this into a communication advice for them”

P1, P5, P7, P8, C1, C2

6

No data

Table 3: 1 Statements of interviewees clarifying the code 2 The interviewees who were mentioning the codes during the interviews

3_{Number of times the code was mentioned during the interviews}

Influence of top management on idea generation

(33)

Influence of top management on idea implementation

When interviewees were asked to elaborate on the manner in which top management can influence idea implementation, 10 interviewees referred to the importance of financial resources. A deeper analysis of the data reveals top management’s influence on idea implementation is realized by using their decision-making power regarding financial aids and employee allocation. Therefore the resources financing and content input are combined. A co-worker (C4) explains how this works: ‘They (top management) test the framework, they verify whether it (the project) fits within the strategic pillar: living technology. If it does not fit the strategic pillar, the project is immediately terminated.’ This means that top management allocates resources, but only when research projects fit the organization’s strategic pillars. Top management tests research projects by evaluating research proposals or applications. The link between following the organizational framework and resource allocation is also mentioned by another co-worker (C2): ‘Of course you can understand when top management decides on strategic pillars, they expect professionals doing research to adopt this agenda. Top management will attach the choices they make regarding financing, based on who is working with the strategic pillars in research.’ Interviewees indicated that top management steers into a direction for conducting research, say healthy ageing or energy but they are not involved in the project’s content and the manner in which research is executed. As illustrated by a professional (P3): ‘I do not feel steered by top management, I feel steered regarding the research project’s content by collaboration partners.’ A professional (P1) states that: ‘The only thing the hierarchy influences is the composition of research groups, they decide on the amount of money they want to invest into research’. The composition of research groups includes staffing and financial benefits. ‘So in that sense they (top management) literally control the number of FTEs and the associated research group ’. Top management controls financing and employee allocation, they will only allocate these resources to a professional if s/he stays within the strategic framework.

Influence of supportive staff on idea generation

No interviewees recognized supportive staff’s influence on a professional during idea generation. Consequently, the proposition that supportive staff influences a professional during idea generation by sharing their knowledge about a specific research project is rejected.

Influence of supportive staff on idea implementation

Master Thesis MSc Business Administration, Specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Master Thesis

MSc Business Administration, Specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Table of contents

Table 1: The manner in which independent determinants are proposed to influence idea

generation and idea implementation