• No results found

THE INNOVATION PROCESS CREATIVITY DURING THE ‘FRONT END’ OF

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "THE INNOVATION PROCESS CREATIVITY DURING THE ‘FRONT END’ OF"

Copied!
97
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

CREATIVITY

DURING

THE

‘FRONT

END’

OF

THE

INNOVATION

PROCESS

by

WILLEM MIEDEMA

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics & Business

MSc Business Administration, Strategy & Innovation

University Supervisor: Dr. A.R. van der Eijk

August 2012

(2)

PREFACE

This study was conducted as the final assignment of my master in Strategy & Innovation at the University of Groningen. Throughout my education, I have always had a special interest in creativity. Therefore, when PUB Innovation Lab provided me the opportunity to research creativity within the innovation process, I found the perfect topic for my thesis. Even though it took me a long time to complete the project and at times it was a struggle, I never lost faith in a good ending. The topic keeps fascinating me and I hope that this thesis will contribute to the reader’s understanding of creativity within the context of innovation.

(3)

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to select a number of methods for stimulating creativity and determine how these can be applied during the initial stages of innovation processes in order to crystallize ideas, exploring methods for both the divergent and convergent phases. For this purpose, a number of methods were identified based upon in-depth interviews with creativity experts. For each of these methods, the effectiveness was determined, identifying TRIZ as the most effective divergent method. Two firm attributes were expected to impact method effectiveness: size and degree of innovativeness. Empirical testing demonstrated a negative relationship between the size of firms and the effectiveness of intuitive divergent methods, implicating that such methods work better in small than in large firms. No relationship was found concerning firm innovativeness and method effectiveness. Applications of creativity within the front end of the innovation process were found not to differ from regular problem solving applications of creativity, implying that no special approach is required for employing creativity methods within innovation processes.

(4)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PUB Innovation Lab is an organization where young, creative entrepreneurs are able to develop their ideas for a project, product, or organization. Creativity is used as an important tool to stimulate innovative entrepreneurship. However, for PUB Innovation Lab it remains unsure how to develop processes of divergent and convergent thinking in order to get one step closer to realizing innovation. Therefore, more knowledge about the employment of creativity methods during both divergent and convergent phases of innovation processes is desired. Accordingly, the goal of this study is to select a number of methods for stimulating creativity and determine how these can be applied during the initial stages of innovation processes in order to crystallize ideas, exploring methods for both the divergent and convergent phases. Accordingly, the main research question has been formulated as follows: How can selected creativity methods be applied during the ‘front end’ of innovation processes in order to crystallize ideas?

After defining important concepts such as innovation and creativity, the various stages of the innovation process are addressed, of which especially the predevelopment activities are thoroughly examined. Several models are put forward, typically including a problem or need, research, development, commercialization, diffusion and adoption, and consequences. This entails the entire innovation process, whereas the first three activities comprise the so-called front end. Several models of the creative process, defined as the sequence of thoughts and actions that leads to a novel, adaptive production, are presented. Based on these models, a combined creative process model is composed, providing an integral overview of all steps included in the creative process. This combined creative process model is found to show considerable overlap with the front end of the innovation process, indicating that innovation and creativity are heavily intertwined. Creativity is found to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for innovation. Hence, innovation ultimately depends on the generation of creative, new ideas. Within the front end of the innovation process, especially during the divergent and convergent phases, creativity is found to be essential.

Divergent creativity methods aim to generate as may ideas as possible, whereas convergent methods aim to evaluate and select the best ideas. The effectiveness of such creativity methods is expected to be dependent upon the type of organization in which they are used. Firm size and firm innovativeness are used as constructs that are expected to impact method effectiveness. To test the assumed relationships, empirical data is gathered. First, based on in-depth interviews with creativity experts working at various creative consulting firms, a selection of commonly used creativity methods is formulated. Next, using a questionnaire conducted by similar creativity experts during various creative sessions, the effectiveness of those methods is examined and the aforementioned relationships are tested.

(5)

method is found significantly more effective in selecting the best idea in terms of novelty and usefulness.

Regarding the expected relationships, firm size is found to negatively correlate with the effectiveness of divergent intuitive methods, meaning that such methods work better in small than in large firms. This is caused by the structural design of small firms, having a flat structure and an organic, free-flowing management style, reinforcing its employees’ ability to work with intuitive methods. In contrast, no significant relationship is found between firm size and systematic-analytical methods. Therefore, such methods yield equal results in both small and large firms. Finally, the impact of firm innovativeness on method effectiveness is tested, but both divergent and convergent methods appear to work equally well within innovative as well as non-innovative firms.

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ... 8

1.1. PROBLEM DEFINITION ... 8

1.2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS... 8

1.3. ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER ... 9

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 11

2.1. THE INNOVATION PROCESS ... 11

2.1.1. Cooper’s Stage-Gate Model ... 11

2.1.2. Rogers’ Six Main Phases in the Innovation Process ... 12

2.2. THE ‘FRONT END’ OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS ... 13

2.2.1. Cooper’s Predevelopment Stages ... 14

2.2.2. Kijkuit and Van den Ende’s Predevelopment Stages ... 15

2.2.3. Van Wulfen’s FORTH Innovation Method ... 16

2.3. THE CREATIVE PROCESS ... 17

2.3.1. Wallas’ Four-Step Creative Process Model ... 18

2.3.2. Basadur’s Eight-Step Creative Process Model ... 18

2.3.3. Osborn’s Creative Problem Solving Model... 19

2.3.4. Amabile’s Componential Framework of Creativity... 19

2.3.5. Combined Creative Process Model ... 20

2.4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY ... 22

2.5. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF CREATIVITY METHODS ... 23

2.5.1. Divergent Thinking ... 23

2.5.2. Convergent Thinking ... 25

2.5.3. Creativity Methods and the Innovation Process ... 26

2.6. CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 26

3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 27

3.1. CREATIVITY METHODS AND TYPE OF ORGANIZATION... 27

3.1.1. Firm Size ... 27 3.1.2. Firm Innovativeness ... 28 3.2. CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 29 3.3. CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 30 4. METHODOLOGY ... 31 4.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 31

4.2. DATA COLLECTION,ANALYSIS AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES ... 31

4.2.1. First Empirical Round ... 31

4.2.2. Second Empirical Round ... 32

4.3. VALIDITY,RELIABILITY AND GENERALIZABILITY ... 36

4.3.1. First Empirical Round ... 36

4.3.2. Second Empirical Round ... 36

4.3.3. Overall Study ... 36

(7)

5. RESULTS ... 38

5.1. OVERVIEW OF CREATIVITY METHODS ... 38

5.1.1. Divergent Creativity Methods ... 39

5.1.2. Convergent Creativity Methods ... 44

5.2. EFFECTIVENESS OF CREATIVITY METHODS ... 45

5.2.1. Effectiveness of Divergent Creativity Methods ... 45

5.2.2. Effectiveness of Convergent Creativity Methods ... 47

5.3. EFFECTIVENESS AND TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ... 48

5.3.1. The Effect of Firm Size ... 48

5.3.2. The Effect of Firm Innovativeness ... 50

5.4. CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 51 6. DISCUSSION ... 52 6.1. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ... 52 6.2. CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 54 7. CONCLUSION ... 56 7.1. CONCLUSION ... 56

7.1.1. Answers to Research Questions ... 56

7.1.2. Theoretical Implications ... 57

7.2. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 58

REFERENCES ... 59

APPENDIXES ... 63

APP.1:INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FIRST EMPIRICAL ROUND ... 63

APP.2:INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS FIRST EMPIRICAL ROUND ... 64

Interview #1: Marijke Krabbenbos (IdeaCompany) ... 64

Interview #2: Enno Meines (Ennovatief) ... 71

Interview #3: Mary Lou Leistikow (QréaCom) ... 78

APP.3:DATA MATRIX OF INTERVIEWS ... 82

APP.4:QUESTIONNAIRE SECOND EMPIRICAL ROUND ... 85

APP.5:STATISTICAL TESTS ... 89

A. Effectiveness of Divergent Creativity Methods ... 89

B. Effectiveness of Convergent Creativity Methods ... 92

C. The Effect of Firm Size ... 94

(8)

1. INTRODUCTION

In today’s world, progressive organizations face many significant challenges, not the least of which is generating or recognizing ideas that have the potential to be developed into appealing goods or services. Successful ideas are often a balance between novelty and familiarity: new and different enough to capture consumers’ attention, but familiar enough to not be misunderstood or rejected out of hand as too radically different (Ward, 2004). However, how does one find the right balance between the appropriate degree of novelty and familiarity? That is where creativity comes into play, first aiding to generate a great amount of ideas and subsequently to select the most suitable one for the situation at hand (Walravens, 1997). For that purpose, various types of creativity methods may be used. Within this study, the role of such creativity methods within the innovation process is examined.

1.1. Problem Definition

PUB Innovation Lab is an organization where young, creative entrepreneurs are able to develop their ideas for a project, product, or organization. This entails the developmental stages between idea generation and implementation. To stimulate idea development PUB Innovation Lab offers space in both senses of the word with access to knowledge, experience, and business experts, as well as an extensive network. Creativity is an important tool used to stimulate innovative entrepreneurship. In addition, the sharing of knowledge and experience is encouraged. PUB Innovation Lab offers an environment where talents from different sectors and disciplines are able to meet and further develop and improve their ideas.

By offering knowledge, experience, meetings, and creativity stimuli PUB Innovation Lab provides young entrepreneurs with a broader view on the possibilities within their frame of ideas. This entails a divergent way of thinking, generating many ideas and ensuring that the development of an idea is approached from various perspectives. However, it remains unsure exactly how to develop this process of divergent thinking within the initial stages of innovation processes. In addition, after the divergent phase, how should one return to the essence of the idea? How can the new findings be translated to the original idea? And how can this raise the idea to a higher level? This involves a convergent way of thinking. Creativity methods exist for purposes of divergent as well as convergent thinking. More knowledge about the employment of creativity methods during both divergent and convergent phases within the initial stages of innovation processes is desired.

1.2. Research Objective and Research Questions

(9)

divergent and convergent phases. For this purpose, the following main research question is proposed:

How can selected creativity methods be applied during the ‘front end’ of innovation processes in order to crystallize ideas?

Divergent creativity methods are tools for considering various alternative ideas, combining them, and generating new ideas (Brophy, 2000). Convergent creativity methods are tools for selecting the ideas in terms of some criteria such as their uniqueness, quality, and feasibility (Brophy, 2000). The ‘front end’ is defined as the period between when an opportunity is first considered and when an idea is judged ready for development (Kim and Wilemon, 2002). Crystallizing ideas pertains to developing the initial idea into a more concrete concept that is ready to go into development. For answering the above research question, the following sub questions are used:

(a) What is the relationship between creativity and the various stages of innovation processes?

(b) Which creativity methods are most employed by creativity experts during the ‘front end’ of innovation processes?

(c) Which creativity methods are proven most effective to stimulate a creative thought and development process?

(d) In what type of organization are these creativity methods most effective?

Sub question (a) introduces the relevant concepts and explains the relationship between creativity and innovation processes. The main focus lies on the front end of the innovation process.

Sub question (b) provides a selection of the most promising creativity methods for the initial stages of innovation processes. Creativity experts are knowledgeable and experienced teachers of creativity, working at creative consulting firms. Since the literature contains descriptions of a myriad of creativity methods, making a selection is essential. Within this selection, both divergent and convergent methods are taken into account.

Sub question (c) determines which of the selected creativity methods proof most effective in stimulating divergent and convergent ways of thinking. This is determined by the output of the creativity methods, which differs for divergent and convergent methods. For divergent ways of thinking the number of ideas raised is measured, while the effectiveness of convergent methods is measured on two dimensions: novelty and usefulness of the idea raised (Amabile, 1983, 1996b). This will be further addressed in the Methodology section.

Sub question (d) addresses the fact that various types of organizations operate vastly different from one another, which encourages the notion that the employment of creativity methods may also need to differ between organizations. Organizations are assessed on two dimensions: firm size and firm innovativeness. These dimensions are further addressed in the Conceptual Model section.

1.3. Organization of the Paper

(10)
(11)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter relevant concepts are introduced and important relationships are explained. First, innovation and the innovation process in general are discussed. The focus then turns explicitly to the ‘front end’ of the innovation process. Next, creativity and the creative process are introduced. Then, the concepts of innovation and creativity are linked together. Finally, the theoretical background of creativity methods is explained.

2.1. The Innovation Process

In order to begin to describe the innovation process, it is first important to define innovation itself. Over the years, many different definitions are given. For example, Rogers (1995) defines innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new. Similarly, Jacobs (2007) also sees innovation as something new, but according to him it should have added value as well. However, these definitions seem to apply to inventions, and not necessarily to innovations. An invention does not become an innovation until it has processed through production and marketing tasks and is diffused into the marketplace (Layton, 1977; Smith and Barfield, 1996; Rogers, 1995). As explained by Smith and Barfield (1996: 1), “innovation does not only include basic and applied research, but also product development, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, servicing, and later product adaptation and upgrading.” In effect, an innovation makes a direct economic contribution, while an invention does not. The definition of innovation by Hauser et al. (2006) – the process of bringing new products and services to the market – adopts this condition, since it includes commercialization. Similarly, Amabile (1996a) sees innovation as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization. In turn, West and Farr (1990) define innovation as the intentional introduction and application of ideas, processes or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society. This definition includes newness, added value, and application, i.e. commercialization. Therefore, the definition by West and Farr best captures all relevant aspects of an innovation for the purpose of this study.

The innovation process consists of all steps that need to be performed in order to realize innovation. It should be noted that the terms innovation process, innovation-development process, and new product development process are used interchangeably throughout the text. The focus will now turn to describing the most influential innovation process models.

2.1.1. Cooper’s Stage-Gate Model

(12)

linear process. Depending on the project, some gates or activities may be skipped, or moved to another stage.

Source: Cooper, 2008

The Stage-Gate process (Cooper, 2008) is initiated by a discovery, a new idea or problem to be solved. The first gate, idea screen, is the first decision to commit resources to the project. It involves considering a number of criteria which the project should meet. Among others, these criteria deal with project feasibility, magnitude of the opportunity, and market attractiveness (Cooper, 1990). The first stage, scoping, has the objective of determining the project’s technical and marketplace merits. In the light of the new information obtained, the project is reevaluated during the second screen. Next, building a business case includes formulating a definition of the project and a competitive analysis, after which the decision is made to move to development. Actual development takes place during the third stage, including drawing up plans for testing, marketing, and operations (Cooper, 1990). The viability of the project is tested during the fourth stage – testing & validation – before moving to commercialization, which occurs during launch. Corresponding gates are used to determine if the project should continue. Finally, the project and product’s performance is reviewed during the post-launch review. It should be noted that all elements of the Stage-Gate model are not necessarily required. As stated before, depending on the project, some gates or stages may be skipped, adjusted, or relocated. In addition, simplified variants have been proposed for less complex innovation projects, in which the number of steps is reduced to three (Stage-Gate XPress) or two (Stage-Gate Lite). Most importantly, the Stage-Gate model should be used as a guideline to get from an idea to a successful new product (Cooper, 2008).

2.1.2. Rogers’ Six Main Phases in the Innovation Process

An approach similar to Cooper is taken by Rogers, who sees the innovation-development process as “all the decisions and activities, and their impacts, that occur from recognition of a need or problem, through research, development, and commercialization of an innovation, through diffusion and adoption of the innovation by users, to its consequences” (1995: 132). Therefore, six main phases can be identified, which are summarized in Figure 2.

Stage 1 Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Discovery Second Screen Idea Screen Go to Development Go to Testing Go to Launch Post- Launch Review Scoping Build Business Case Development Testing & Validation Launch FIGURE 1

(13)

Source: Rogers, 1995

The innovation-development process, as explained by Rogers (1995), usually begins with recognition of a problem or need, stimulating research and development activities designed to create an innovation to solve the problem or need. In certain cases, scientists may perceive a future problem and launch research to find a solution. In other cases, a problem or need may rise to high priority within society. The next phase consists of research, either basic or applied. Basic research is defined as original investigations for the advancement of scientific knowledge that do not have a specific objective of applying this knowledge to practical problems. In contrast, applied research consists of scientific investigations that are intended to solve practical problems. Development of an innovation is “the process of putting a new idea in a form that is expected to meet the needs of an audience of potential adopters” (Rogers, 1995: 137). The next phase, commercialization, involves the production, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, and distribution of a product that embodies an innovation. As explained by Rogers, it is the conversion of an idea from research into a product or service for sale in the marketplace. At this point, the invention becomes an innovation. Then, during the diffusion and adoption phase, the innovation is diffused to potential adopters. Rogers defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system (1995). Adoption, although related, is not the same in definition. Adoption is an individual’s decision to adopt (i.e. use) a certain innovation. Thus, adoption is defined at the individual level, while diffusion pertains to the societal level. In other words, diffusion means that the innovation has to be adopted by many individuals. The final phase in the innovation-development process is the consequences of an innovation, defined as “the changes that occur to an individual or to a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation” (Rogers, 1995: 150). At this point, the original problem or need that set off the innovation process is either solved or not.

Cooper’s Stage-Gate model and Rogers’ innovation-development process show a number of similarities. Both divide the innovation process into clearly identifiable steps. Also, both models include predevelopment, development, and commercialization, indicating the importance of these activities. For the purpose of this study, the focus will now turn to predevelopment activities. According to Morris (2011), it is during the predevelopment stages of the innovation process that creativity plays a crucial role.

2.2. The ‘Front End’ of the Innovation Process

Predevelopment activities, i.e. the ‘front end’, refer to all activities performed until the go/no-go decision to execute a new-product development project. In the models discussed above, this entails

FIGURE 2

Six Main Phases in the Innovation Process

(14)

all activities before the development stage. An effective front end of the innovation process is vital for successful development of innovations, as pointed out by various authors (Cooper, 1988; Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998; Kim and Wilemon, 2002; Reid and De Brentani, 2004). The ‘front end’ is defined by Kim and Wilemon (2002) as the period between when an opportunity is first considered and when an idea is judged ready for development. It includes activities such as product strategy formulation and communication, opportunity identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project planning, and executive reviews (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998). Khurana and Rosenthal go as far as arguing that the real keys for success of an innovation can be found in those activities that occur before management makes the go/no-go decision for any new-product development project. In other words, the most significant benefits can be achieved through improvements in the performance of the front end activities.

The importance of the initial stages of innovation processes is also emphasized by Cooper (1988: 241): “[t]he deciding factors, by which winners and losers are most often determined […] tend to occur much earlier in the new product process, often before product design and development even begins.” According to Cooper, the front end process accomplishes three main things: idea generation (conceiving the product idea itself), product definition (defining the winning new product; its positioning, benefits to be delivered, and product design), and project evaluation (evaluating the project from a marketing, technological, manufacturing, and financial standpoint, in order to determine whether the project should be pushed into development). Various influential models of the front end will be described in more detail next.

2.2.1. Cooper’s Predevelopment Stages

(15)

The final stage of the predevelopment steps, concept definition, is perhaps the most difficult and expensive. An important aspect is making the final go/no-go decision prior to product development. Elements of this stage include concept identification (determine ‘ideal product’ in the eyes of consumers), concept generation (translate market requirements into a technically and economically operational concept), and concept test (test the likely acceptance of the product by the marketplace). The concept definition stage concludes with concept evaluation, which is the final go/no-go decision point before moving into full-scale product development.

Source: Cooper, 1988

2.2.2. Kijkuit and Van den Ende’s Predevelopment Stages

Three predevelopment stages are also distinguished by Kijkuit and Van den Ende (2007), namely idea generation, idea development, and idea evaluation. These stages are comparable to the stages proposed by Cooper (1988), which were summarized in Figure 3 above. Idea generation involves problem identification, problem structuring, and idea formulation (Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998). It is about recognizing gaps with the current state of thinking, i.e. questioning the status quo or the need to solve a problem, resulting in an initial creative idea. During the second phase, idea development, response generation and concept development are the most important activities. As explained by Kijkuit and Van den Ende, the idea moves from a one-liner into a detailed proposal (2007). Relevant literature is explored, and colleagues and friends may be consulted to clarify key issues. Exploring alternatives and searching in new directions ensures making the idea more robust, and perhaps even resulting in a redefinition of the idea. In the idea evaluation phase, important activities are screening and decision making. The idea is already described and only minor refinements may be necessary. The decision makers – the people having the authority to make or

No go No go No go Go Go Go FIGURE 3

Predevelopment Stages in the Innovation Process

(16)

part on information provided by relevant experts and peers. Important decision criteria refer to market prospects and technological feasibility, which is in line with Cooper’s (1988) preliminary market and technical assessment. Finally, Kijkuit and Van den Ende (2007) note that it is important that the phases during the front end are interdependent and not necessarily sequential. For example, further development of an idea can lead to an almost completely new idea, or a negative evaluation can send an idea back into previous phases.

2.2.3. Van Wulfen’s FORTH Innovation Method

According to Van Wulfen (2009), in Cooper’s Stage-Gate model, representing the overall innovation process, the ‘ideation phase’ remains underdeveloped. The Stage-Gate model assumes that there are sufficient attractive new product ideas. However, as explained by Van Wulfen, this is often not the case. When needed most, new product ideas are scarce. In addition, while the Stage-Gate model includes three predevelopment steps, Van Wulfen (2009) considers the phase from idea creation until the decision to develop the product concept as a whole. Based on this notion, Van Wulfen developed the FORTH innovation method, which is an approach for devising new product ideas. FORTH is an acronym found in the first letter of each step: (1) Full Steam Ahead; (2) Observe and Learn; (3) Raise Ideas; (4) Test Ideas; and (5) Homecoming. The FORTH innovation method is designed for the front end, i.e. the ideation phase, of the innovation process. Figure 4 depicts the FORTH innovation method positioned in Cooper’s Stage-Gate model, which was presented earlier in Figure 1.

Source: Van Wulfen, 2009

With the FORTH method, Van Wulfen has designed a complete method for the creation of new products from the idea to a mini new business case. Therefore, it is a practical interpretation of the first stages of Cooper’s aforementioned Stage-Gate model. The FORTH method starts with Full Steam Ahead, where the destination is chosen and the innovation task is determined. Also, an internal innovation team is set up, stimulating innovation throughout the process. Next, during the Observe and Learn stage, the potential target group is examined. What do they consider to be important and with what do they struggle the most? In addition, this stage offers time for incubation, in other words time to allow the idea to hatch. The thirds stage, Raise Ideas, is the most important stage of the FORTH method. It consists of developing new product ideas into a product concept. During this

Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Go to Development Go to Testing Go to Launch Post- Launch Review Development Testing &

Validation Launch

FIGURE 4

FORTH Innovation Method as Part of the Innovation Process

(17)

stage insight into the customer’s needs and the opportunities available are acquired. Creativity plays an important role during this stage, according to Van Wulfen (2009), as many ideas need to be generated. Then, during the Test Ideas stage, the newly developed product concepts are tested with the potential target group. Any negative aspects that surfaced during the market research are adjusted. Finally, during Homecoming, additional market insights are gathered, and turnover and profits are estimated. The most promising product concepts are then presented as a new mini business case to management, which in turn determines whether or not to proceed to development. Overall, the FORTH method does not seem radically different from the Stage-Gate model or the other predevelopment models. The FORTH method deals somewhat differently with certain steps and takes a more practical approach, above all.

Now that the innovation process – and its front end in particular – has been thoroughly discussed, the next section will turn to the second important part of this study: the creative process.

2.3. The Creative Process

Creativity, as defined by Amabile, typically refers to the production of new and useful ideas by an individual or a small group of individuals working together (1996b). Within this definition two key dimensions of creativity are captured, of which the importance is emphasized by many authors: novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1983, 1996b; Jackson and Messick, 1965; Kaufman and Sternberg, 2010; O’Quin and Besemer, 2006; Stein, 1953, 1974, 1975; Sternberg, 1999; Ward, 2004). Novelty refers to the degree of newness or uniqueness, while usefulness concerns the meaningfulness or appropriateness of an idea.

Novelty arises from a reintegration of already existing materials or knowledge (Stein, 1974), resulting in a significant deviation from that which existed. As explained by Stein, there is distance between the new and the status quo or the traditional. Novelty, however, is not an end in itself. As pointed out by Ward (2004), successful ideas are often a balance between novelty and familiarity: new and different enough to capture consumers’ attention, but familiar enough to not be misunderstood or rejected out of hand as too radically different. In addition, that which is produced must also be useful, tenable, or satisfying (Stein, 1974). Without a clear use or purpose, diffusion and adoption become difficult.

(18)

2.3.1. Wallas’ Four-Step Creative Process Model

The most traditional analysis of stages in the creative process was originated by Wallas (1926), proposing a four-step model of the creative process, including preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Preparation entails a preliminary analysis of the problem, exploring and clarifying the situation, and looking for what the real problem is. It involves thinking about what may be needed to work towards a solution, and gathering and reviewing relevant data. During the incubation stage, no conscious mental work is performed. Unconsciously, however, while engaging in things totally unrelated to the creative activity, the mind continues to work on the problem. Even though conscious work is suspended, a series of unconscious and involuntary mental events are stirring about, ready to break through to conscious awareness in the illumination stage. This revelation of sudden insight is known as the ‘aha-erlebnis’, a sudden change in perception, a new combination, or a transformation that produces an acceptable solution to the problem at hand. This period is usually accompanied by a feeling of excitement and renewed interest in the creative activity. However, at the same time, this stage is hypothesized to be somewhat delicate, easily disturbed by outside interruptions or trying to rush the emerging idea. Verification involves the use of logical and rational consideration to translate the sudden insight into an appropriate solution. Proposed solutions are evaluated against objective criteria, refining and developing the idea.

2.3.2. Basadur’s Eight-Step Creative Process Model

(19)

2.3.3. Osborn’s Creative Problem Solving Model

A more flexible view of the creative process is provided by the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model, initially developed by Alex Osborn, and later refined by Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval (2005). In its current form, the CPS model has eight stages, which have been clustered into four general components: (1) Understanding the challenge; (2) Generating ideas; (3) Preparing for action; and (4) Planning your approach. The first component, understanding the challenge, consists of constructing opportunities, exploring data, and framing problems. Constructing opportunities concerns stating broad, brief, and beneficial opportunities and goals. Possible opportunities and challenges are considered, and a constructive goal to pursue is identified. Exploring data involves examining many sources of data from different points of view, and focusing on the most important elements of the task or situation. When framing problems, the goal is to generate many, varied, and unusual ways to pose the problem. The generating ideas component contains only one element, which is simply termed generating ideas, and concerns an open exploration or search for ideas, in which many, varied ideas as well as new perspectives, and unusual, novel ideas are generated. Subsequently, the focus turns to identifying ideas with interesting or exciting potential to refine, develop, and put to use. The third component, preparing for action, consists of developing solutions and building acceptance. Developing solutions is about applying deliberate strategies and tools to analyze, develop, and refine promising possibilities, and to transform them into powerful solutions. Building acceptance involves considering ways to build support and to decrease or overcome resistance to possible solutions, and planning specific ways to carry out and evaluate results and effectiveness. The final component, planning your approach, concerns appraising tasks and designing the process. Appraising tasks regards determining whether CPS is an effective choice, while designing the process is about planning the CPS components, stages, or tools that are best suited for reaching goals.

2.3.4. Amabile’s Componential Framework of Creativity

(20)

order for the product to be considered ‘creative’ according to the definition proposed earlier. Finally, the fifth stage involves achieving an outcome that is based on the results of the fourth stage. If an idea is accepted, indicating success, or rejected, indicating failure, the creative process ends. If the idea lacks usefulness but does contribute significantly to solving the problem, the process returns to the first stage.

2.3.5. Combined Creative Process Model

When comparing the creative process models discussed thus far, a series of overall steps in the process leading towards a creative result begins to emerge. Although the terms and emphases may vary, there is a great deal of agreement among all models. In Table 1, the various steps and/or stages of each creative process model are listed in the rows, while the columns group similar steps and/or stages across different models together. Arrows indicate that a step or stage of a particular model includes more than one step of the creative process, while an empty field indicates that a particular model does not have a corresponding step. At the bottom of Table 1, all models are combined into an overall creative process model, similar to Nemiro’s work (2004).

(21)

Source: author (based on Nemiro, 2004) TABLE 1

Overview of the Stages and Steps across the Various Creative Process Models

(22)

2.4. The Relationship between Innovation and Creativity

Now that innovation and creativity have been discussed, it is time to answer the first sub question, concerning the relationship between the two. The first sub question has been formulated as follows:

(a) What is the relationship between creativity and the various stages of innovation processes?

It is clear that innovation and creativity are heavily intertwined. However, although certain aspects show some overlap, the two concepts are not the same. Creativity and innovation differ in the required degree of idea novelty. According to Rank (2004) creativity is truly novel, whereas innovation can be based on ideas that are adopted from previous experience or different organizations. However, although a product or an idea must be different from what has been done before to be considered creative, Amabile (1996a) stresses that few creativity theorists hold the strong position that a creative idea must be completely unique. Still, creativity requires a higher level of novelty than innovation. In addition, innovation is primarily an inter-individual social process, whereas creativity is to some extent an intra-individual cognitive process (Anderson and King, 1993). In other words, creativity largely takes place within people’s minds, while innovation is a more interactive social process.

Creativity typically refers to the production of new and useful ideas by an individual or a small group of individuals working together (Amabile, 1996b), whereas innovation is defined as the intentional introduction and application of ideas, processes or procedures (West and Farr, 1990). Hence, creativity refers to idea generation, whereas innovation refers to both idea generation as well as implementation, implying that there can be no innovation without creativity (Rank et al., 2004). This view is shared by West and Farr (1990: 10), considering “creativity as the ideation component of innovation and innovation encompassing both the proposal and application of new ideas.” This notion is underlined by Amabile, who sees creativity as a starting point for innovation (1996a). As proposed by Amabile et al. (1996b: 1154), “successful implementation of new programs, new product introductions, or new services depends on a person or a team having a good idea – and developing that idea beyond its initial state.” In other words, creativity is a necessary condition – but not sufficient – for innovation. This view is confirmed by Mumford (2000), arguing that innovation ultimately depends on the generation of creative, new ideas.

(23)

When taking the above discussion into account and looking at the innovation process as described in previous sections, it becomes clear that creativity plays a particularly important role during the front end activities. Kim and Wilemon (2002) define the front end as the period between when an opportunity is first considered and when an idea is judged ready for development. In other words, the front end consists of all activities until an idea moves into the development stage, including problem identification, response generation, and concept evaluation, for example. All these activities are also important during the creative process, which has been defined by Lubart (2001) as the sequence of thoughts and actions that lead to a novel, adaptive production. As shown by the overview of stages and steps across various creative process models depicted in Table 1, the creative process consists of activities very similar to those during the front end of the innovation process presented earlier in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Moreover, as Morris (2011) explains, it is during the predevelopment stages of the innovation process that creativity plays a crucial role. As such, there is substantial overlap between the initial stages of the innovation process and the creative process. Hence, the creative process can be seen as a vital component of the comprehensive innovation process, underlining the notion that there can be no innovation without creativity, as argued by various authors (Amabile, 1996b; Rank et al., 2004; West and Farr, 1990).

2.5. Theoretical Background of Creativity Methods

The innovation process, the creative process, and the relationship between the two have now been addressed. Therefore, it is now time to zoom in on the creative process and move the discussion to creativity methods. Within the creative process, two main ways of thinking are crucial: divergent and convergent. Divergent thinking, on the one hand, includes a consideration of various alternatives, a combination of them, and generation of new ideas (Brophy, 2000). On the other hand, convergent thinking is most evident in selecting the ideas in terms of some criteria such as their uniqueness, quality, and feasibility (Brophy, 2000). This corresponds with the steps generate solutions and select solutions in the combined creative process model depicted earlier in Table 1. According to Walravens, it is the variation of divergent and convergent thinking that ultimately determines the success of the creative process (1997). The divergent and convergent aspects are further explained below.

2.5.1. Divergent Thinking

Divergent thinking is all about generating new ideas. As such, divergent creativity methods, or idea generation techniques, are tools for generating new ideas aimed to solve a certain problem. The following sections go into more detail about relevant aspects of divergent creativity methods.

2.5.1.1. Guidelines for Using Divergent Creativity Methods

As Walravens (1997) explains, finding sufficient ideas depends not only on employing divergent methods, but to a large extent on the inventive creative potential of the person employing it. In addition, certain guidelines should be taken into account during any creative session, as outlined by Walravens (1997):

(24)

- Quantity over quality: more ideas means more possible associations and thus more possible solutions

- Cross-pollination: one idea is the base for the next idea

- Delay of judgment: instant judging of ideas inhibits the creativity of some individuals. This is especially of interest during oral sessions

- Noting: all ideas should be noted down. This helps delaying judgment and fosters cross-pollination

- Listening: in order to apply all previous rules, listening is important

These guidelines capture the essence of divergent thinking, which is to generate as many ideas as possible. Quantity is more important than quality at this stage and judgment needs to be postponed to prevent any restriction on one’s creative potential.

2.5.1.2. Classification of Divergent Creativity Methods

Different types of divergent creativity methods exist. According to Walravens, divergent creativity methods can be classified by mode of thought and by mode of operation (1997). The first dimension, mode of thought, is either association or confrontation. Association is an idea generating principle in which non-related ideas are free to be interconnected through the logic of one’s mind (Walravens, 1997). As Stein (1974) explains, an association may occur because two stimuli occur together (contiguity); because in some way they are similar to each other (similarity); or in some way they are different from each other (contrast). Accordingly, various association patterns exist, for example cause and effect, closeness in space or time, polar oppositeness and analogy in form or sound. Confrontation, in turn, concerns deliberately providing the participant with totally unrelated words or images during the thought process. By looking for analogies between the problem and the totally unrelated things, new insights about solving the problem may be acquired. The second dimension, mode of operation, ranges from intuitive to systematic-analytical. While the former has no underlying systematics and is based on the participant’s intuition and line of thought, the latter is more calculative and seeks to find a solution based upon certain rules and is therefore of a more structured approach. The two dimensions – mode of thought and mode of operation – can be combined to create a model in which all divergent creativity methods can be placed alongside two axes, representing their relative position. Figure 5 shows this model. After reviewing various divergent creativity methods in the Results section, each will be placed into the model.

2.5.1.3. Factors Influencing the Choice of Method

(25)

FIGURE 5

Model for Classification of Divergent Creativity Methods

Source: author

2.5.2. Convergent Thinking

Convergent ways of thinking involve the evaluation and selection of ideas. This is one of the most difficult phases of the creative process according to Walravens (1997). When evaluating and selecting ideas, the two underlying principles of creativity are essential, as indicated by various authors: novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1983, 1996b; Jackson and Messick, 1965; O’Quin and Besemer, 2006; Sternberg, 1999; Ward, 2004). As explained earlier, novelty refers to the degree of newness or uniqueness, while usefulness concerns the meaningfulness or appropriateness of an idea. Convergent creativity methods aim to select those ideas that have the highest levels of novelty and usefulness. Selected ideas will continue to sequential steps within the innovation process.

According to Goldsmith and Foxall (2003) novelty implies at least three different aspects. The first aspect is recency. Things are considered new when they are encountered or acquired recently (Richins and Bloch, 1986). The second aspect is originality. Things are judged as new when they are unfamiliar because they are so original. Finally, newness is a function of similarity. How similar or different a thing is from existing things of the same type lead to perceptions of newness, as explained by Goldsmith and Foxall (2003). In practice, usefulness reflects the degree to which an idea can be implemented. Great ideas that turn out to be impossible to implement, are of little value. Therefore, during the convergent phase of the creative process, it is crucial to evaluate ideas on their usefulness and select those ideas that are possible to implement. That way, difficulties at later stages of the innovation process are avoided.

(26)

2.5.3. Creativity Methods and the Innovation Process

Even though methods for stimulating a creative thought and development process have been widely emphasized as problem solving techniques (Stein, 1974; Walravens, 1997), they can just as easily be deployed within the innovation process. When looking at the innovation process, for example considering Cooper’s and Rogers’ innovation process model presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively, it always starts with a need or a problem to be solved (Rogers, 1995; Cooper, 2008). Divergent creativity methods are excellent tools to generate solutions, i.e. ideas, to solve the need or problem defined at the start of the innovation process. As such, the first stage is of little difference compared to ‘normal’ problems. In other words, to a large extent the creative process is similar to the problem solving process, which is confirmed by Runco (1994). Therefore, the application of creativity methods within innovation processes is considered to be similar to regular problem solving applications, indicating that no special approach is required for employing creativity methods within innovation processes.

2.6. Chapter Summary

(27)

3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL

In this chapter the development of a conceptual model is presented. The conceptual model visually represents the assumed relationships between a number of constructs aimed to investigate within this study. This involves relationships between the type of organization and the effectiveness of creativity methods. The assumed relationships are tested, of which the results will be presented in the Results section.

3.1. Creativity Methods and Type of Organization

Many different types of organizations exist. These differences can be found in an almost unlimited number of firm attributes. Such attributes may have an impact on the employment of creativity methods. For that purpose, two attributes are examined in this study: firm size and firm innovativeness. Both will be briefly discussed and then their link to creativity methods is explained, resulting in a total of three research hypotheses, which will be tested later on.

3.1.1. Firm Size

The first attribute is firm size. It comes as no surprise that large firms differ from small firms. As Carter and Jones-Evans (2006) explain, there is no uniform definition of what constitutes small and large firms. However, they offer a definition that is most commonly used in Europe, indicating firms as micro, small, medium or large, depending on the number of employees. Turnover may also be captured in a definition of firm size, but as Carter and Jones-Evans explain, turnover is eroded over time by the influence of inflation and may therefore become problematic as an indication of firm size (2006). Daft (2004) also states that firm size is typically measured solely by the number of employees. Therefore, the definition adopted for this study includes only the number of employees. Table 2 shows all categories, including the respective number of employees.

TABLE 2 Definition of Firm Size Enterprise Category: Micro Small Medium Large # of Employees: 0 - 9 10 - 49 50 - 249 250 +

Source: Carter and Jones-Evans, 2006

(28)

supports the conclusion that large firms are more formalized, since they rely more on rules, procedures, and paperwork to achieve standardization and control across their large numbers of employees and departments, whereas top managers can use personal observation to control a small firm (Daft, 2004). According to Daft, this also has implications for firm structure, which tends to be more hierarchical for large firms, and more flat for small firms (2004). In other words, large firms tend to be standardized, complex, and hierarchical, causing them to have many functional specialties and departments, while small firms tend to have a flat structure and an organic, free-flowing management style (Daft, 2004).

Section 2.5.1.2. described the classification of divergent creativity methods. As explained, for divergent creativity methods the mode of operation ranges from intuitive to systematic-analytical. Intuitive methods are based on the participant’s intuition and line of thought, whereas systematic-analytical methods seek to find a solution based upon certain rules and are therefore of a more structured approach (Walravens, 1997). This conception can be linked to firm size. As described above, large firms are more formalized and often have a more hierarchical structure, whereas small firms are more organic and tend to have a flat structure (Daft, 2004). One could state that an intuitive approach fits best within a flat organization structure, and a systematic-analytical approach fits best within a hierarchical structure. Then, each method is used in line with the properties of the organization structure. Within a flat structure, an organic, free-flowing management style is used, and thus an intuitive approach seems appropriate. In contrast, within a hierarchical structure, bureaucracy and systematical approaches are more present, and thus a systematic-analytical approach seems appropriate. Therefore, it may be expected that intuitive creativity methods work better in small firms, whereas systematic-analytical creativity methods work better in large firms. Thus, a relationship between the effectiveness of creativity methods and the size of the firm is presumed. Based on the discussion above, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: The effectiveness of intuitive divergent creativity methods is greater within small firms than within large firms.

H2: The effectiveness of systematic-analytical divergent creativity methods is greater within large firms than within small firms.

An additional reason to investigate firm size lies in the fact that PUB Innovation Lab provides resources for young, creative entrepreneurs. These are all micro (0-9 employees) or small firms (10-49 employees). Therefore, it is interesting to find out if creativity methods used by medium to large-sized firms (50+ employees) can also be employed within smaller firms. If not, this has serious implications for the range of creativity methods to choose from.

3.1.2. Firm Innovativeness

(29)

applied an innovation, which might be a product, process, marketing or organizational innovation. However, this is an output-view of innovativeness. One can also look at the innovativeness of a firm by judging the inputs of that firm. Rogers (1998) makes a clear distinction between these two approaches. For the purpose of this study, the internal measure of innovativeness is adopted. Concerning the input-view of innovativeness, as Rogers explains, the funds available for research and development has been the most extensively used proxy for a firm’s degree of innovativeness (1998). Tidd et al. (2005) list two other important conditions for creating an innovative environment: an organization culture aimed at innovation, and an internal reward and recognition system. Gamal (2011) lists many additional metrics for determining the innovativeness of a firm, but these are outside the scope of this study.

Section 2.4. described the relationship between innovation and creativity. The conclusion has been that creativity is a necessary condition – but not sufficient – for innovation. In other words, innovation ultimately depends on the generation of creative, new ideas, as stated by Mumford (2000). In that light, one could expect that innovative firms are familiar with creativity and would therefore get better results when employing creativity methods than non-innovative firms. Thus, a relationship between the effectiveness of creativity methods and the innovativeness of the firm is presumed. Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: The effectiveness of all creativity methods is greater within innovative firms than within non-innovative firms.

3.2. Conceptual Model

(30)

Source: author

H1: The effectiveness of intuitive divergent creativity methods is greater within small firms than within large firms.

H2: The effectiveness of systematic-analytical divergent creativity methods is greater within large firms than within small firms.

H3: The effectiveness of all creativity methods is greater within innovative firms than within non-innovative firms.

3.3. Chapter Summary

(31)

4. METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the methodological issues of this study. First, an overview of the research design is given. Next, methods of data collection and analysis are presented in more detail, including an overview of the different variables used. Finally, the validity, reliability and generalizability of this study are discussed.

4.1. Research Design

In order to answer the main research question, desk research as well as field research has been performed. First, an extensive literature review was performed to introduce relevant concepts and explain important relationships. Next, during the desk research phase, creative consulting firms were approached. These firms are specialized in stimulating creativity within the business world by giving advice, training, courses, and workshops to managers, departments, teams, entrepreneurs, or entire organizations.

Two rounds of empirical research have been conducted. First, three creativity experts working at creative consulting firms were interviewed in-depth, with the main goal of finding methods suitable for stimulating a creative thought and development process. Creativity methods for divergent as well as convergent purposes are taken into account. Subsequently, an additional literature review was performed, which together with the interviews resulted in an overview consisting of selected creativity methods. Second, in order to test the effectiveness of selected methods a questionnaire was used, which was conducted by various creative experts during creative sessions with business organizations. The outcomes of these questionnaires are used to test the hypotheses formulated in the previous chapter, of which the results will be presented in the Results section.

4.2. Data Collection, Analysis and Measurement Issues

4.2.1. First Empirical Round

4.2.1.1. Data Collection

During the first empirical round three creative consulting firms were interviewed in-depth with the main goal of finding various creativity methods. Standard interview questions have been used for this purpose, which can be found in Appendix 1. These standard questions were used as a guideline. If necessary, additional questions were asked, depending on the situation and answers given by the respondents. Thus, semi-structured interviews have been used, consisting of open questions. Of the three interviews, one was held by telephone, due to logistical difficulties. The other two interviews took place face-to-face.

4.2.1.2. Data Analysis

(32)

matrix can be found in Appendix 3. The data matrix provides a structured overview of all important constructs discussed during the interviews.

4.2.2. Second Empirical Round

4.2.2.1. Data Collection

The second empirical round was designed to test the effectiveness of the various creativity methods found during the first empirical round. For that purpose, a questionnaire was composed. The questionnaire was sent to several creativity experts, which conducted them during creative sessions with business organizations. During these creative session, employees of various participating business organizations, mostly managers, completed the questionnaires. Measuring the effectiveness of selected creativity methods has been the most important object. Each questionnaire measures the effectiveness of a creativity method that was employed at that time. All responses for any method were collected during a single creative session, ensuring equal situational conditions. A total of four different creativity experts facilitated the creative sessions. Table 3 shows the number of responses per method for each creativity expert. Due to sensitivity of the collected information, the creativity experts wished to remain anonymous within this study. Therefore, their names and organizations are not revealed. The methods presented in the left column of the table are further addressed in the Results section.

TABLE 3

Overview of Respondents of Second Empirical Round

Expert A Expert B Expert C Expert D

Biomimicry 10x Brainstorming 11x Brainwriting 12x Heroes 10x Reversals 11x SCAMPER 11x TRIZ 11x COCD-box 20x

Six thinking hats 22x

(33)

The numbers in the table reflect the amount of employees that completed a questionnaire for the particular method. For divergent methods, the average number of respondents is 11, with a total of 76 respondents. For convergent methods 21 respondents filled in the questionnaire, on average, with 42 in total. The questionnaire contained a number of questions regarding output of selected creativity methods during creative sessions with business organizations. It serves measure two things: the effectiveness of selected creativity methods and a potential correlation between selected creativity methods and the type of organization for which they were employed. The entire questionnaire can be found in Appendix 4. All variables measured by the questionnaire are discussed next.

4.2.2.2. Variables Measured

Effectiveness of creativity methods. The dependent variable within this study is the effectiveness of creativity methods, as outlined in the Conceptual Model section. There are two types of creativity methods, each with their own way of measuring its effectiveness.

Methods for divergent ways of thinking are measured on the number of creative ideas raised. According to Amabile (1983, 1996b), this is the only necessary measure for divergent creativity methods. The purpose of divergent methods is to find as many ideas as possible. At this point in the creative process, the novelty or usefulness of ideas is not important, quantity is all that matters (Walravens, 1997). A direct question has been included in the questionnaire to measure the number of ideas raised using a particular creative method. To compare outcomes across methods, the average number of ideas raised per hour is calculated for each method. Although the amount of time was not included in the questionnaire, it has been established for each method by contacting the respective creativity expert afterwards.

Methods for convergent ways of thinking are measured on two dimensions: the novelty (i.e. newness, uniqueness) and the usefulness (i.e. meaningfulness, appropriateness) of the concept(s). These two dimensions are identified as necessary for creativity by many authors (Amabile, 1983, 1996b; Jackson and Messick, 1965; O’Quin and Besemer, 2006; Stein, 1953, 1974; Sternberg, 1999; Ward, 2004). While these two dimensions were of no importance during the divergent phase, during the convergent phase they have become essential for selecting the best ideas. The preceding can be visually represented as depicted in Figure 7. In the questionnaire, two statements have been put forward for measuring the novelty of the best raised idea, and two statements for measuring the usefulness of that idea. The statements are assessed using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1. Completely disagree to 5. Completely agree. Two statements are put forward for each construct, improving the reliability of responses.

(34)

Source: author

Firm innovativeness. The second independent variable is firm innovativeness. According to Rogers the innovativeness of a firm is typically measured by the funds available for research and development (1998). The presence of an organization culture aimed at innovation as well as an internal reward and recognition system are considered as important additional conditions by Tidd et al. (2005). As outlined by Gamal (2011), many additional metrics for determining the innovativeness of a firm exist. However, for the purpose of this study, these are not taken into account. For measuring the innovativeness, four statements have been included in the questionnaire, including assessment of the organization culture, funding for both incremental and radical innovation, and internal rewards for innovation. The aforementioned four statements are evaluated by employees – preferably managers – of the participating firm. Most other metrics require specialist judgment, and therefore proved inappropriate for this study. Furthermore, to keep the questionnaire short and concise, no more than four statements were used.

Control variable ‘expert’. In addition to the variables listed above, the creativity expert by which the creative session was held, is used as a control variable in this study. As such, any differences within the effectiveness of methods that may be caused by the impact of the various facilitators are controlled for.

Overview of all variables. Table 4 provides an overview of all variables used within this study, including their measurement issues.

# of ideas

Measure:

Concept Idea

DIVERGENT THINKING CONVERGENT THINKING FIGURE 7

Measurement of the Effectiveness of Divergent and Convergent Creativity Methods

- novelty - usefulness

(35)

TABLE 4 Overview of Variables

Variable Measured by Coding

Measurement scale

Effectiveness of divergent

methods Number of ideas raised

Numeric value

1, 2, 3, …, n Ratio scale

Effectiveness of convergent methods

Degree to which the best idea raised is considered novel and useful

1 = completely disagree 2 = disagree

3 = neutral 4 = agree

5 = completely agree Ordinal scale

Firm size Number of employees

1 = 0 - 9 2 = 10 - 49 3 = 50 - 249 4 = 250+ Ordinal scale Firm innovativeness Presence of innovative organization culture, funds for innovation and internal reward systems

1 = very low 2 = low 3 = neutral 4 = high

5 = very high Ordinal scale

Control variable ‘expert’

Which creativity expert facilitated the creative session

1 = Expert A 2 = Expert B 3 = Expert C

4 = Expert D Nominal scale

Source: author 4.2.2.3. Data Analysis

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Nevertheless, there has not been executed a systematic literature review on specific application opportunities for data-driven decision making alongside the entire

4.3.4 Motives in connection with the current actors in X’ Innovation Ecosystem and process The Focal Firm and the strategic partners have mentioned three key motives to get

The dynamic environment of innovation projects and the different tasks to be completed in early or late stages of design would cause a difference in the role of

Lastly, this paper proposes an indirect positive influence of gained experience on Artistic Creativity through a positive effect on the amount of Experiential Knowledge Assets

This thesis conducted its research at an innovative technology company who recently implemented an organizational innovation, which is described below. In order to gain a

Autonomy and encouragement to the exchange of knowledge and skills as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity, and its influence on team and individual

This research aims to contribute to the innovation of education by evaluating one of the good practice examples – an experimental pilot “Innovation Lab: Sustainable

A critical element of FabKids methodology is the appli- cation of the Design Process inherent in the Learning Area of Technology Education at the General Education and Train- ing