Making creativity real

(1)

Making creativity real

MSCA: Strategic Innovation Management

Master Thesis

AUTHOR Daphne Hoving

SUPERVISORS

Thesis supervisor: dr. R.A. van der Eijk Co-reader: Prof. dr. ir. J.M.L. van Engelen

(2)

Making creativity real

A multiple case study approach

Daphne Hoving

S2399393

+316 81965412

D.C.M.hoving@student.rug.nl

ABSTRACT

This research explores how a pre-selection of ideas, made during a brainstorm session, influences the initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session. It hereby investigates how the decision making process develops and how it is influenced by the applied screening method, evaluation criteria and individual and contextual factors. The objective of this study is to investigate how to improve the decision making process after a brainstorm session. An improvement factor may lie in creating a good balance between idea generation and idea evaluation during a brainstorm session in form of a pre-selection. Therefore this research tests and challenges the approach what the influence is of two different case formations (namely pre-selection selected by the initiator of the brainstorm or the brainstorm group), on the acceptance and adoption of the pre-selection of ideas. The research findings point out that a pre-selection can speed up the overall decision making process by incorporating the opinion and idea preference of the brainstorm participants. Even though the screening process is executed by the initiator, it has proven that initiators have benefited by incorporating the opinion of the participants. Furthermore, research points out that the applied screening method and evaluation criteria have an influence on the screening of the pre-selection. Also individual characteristics and contextual factors influenced the screening process and determined certain decisions of the initiator. This paper concludes with several insights for managers and brainstorm initiators. Furthermore, suggestions for further research are given.

Key words: Brainstorming, innovation, idea screening, idea evaluation, pre-selection, (initial)

formal idea selection, decision making process.

University of Groningen

(3)

PREFACE

“Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life—think of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other

idea alone. This is the way to success.” [Swami Vivekananda].

This master thesis research is the last assignment of the Master Strategic Innovation Management at the University of Groningen. It is the final proof of competence for obtaining a Master of Science degree in Business Administration. From the beginning this research topic caught my sincerest interest. Creativity is part of my live, and therefore this topic suits me and kept me motivated throughout the research process. Furthermore, new ideas form the bedrock of innovation and in turn creativity forms the root of generating new ideas. For me it was very interesting to start at the very beginning of the innovation process and investigate in specific how a pre-selection of ideas, composed during a brainstorm session, influences the initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank some people who helped me throughout this master thesis process. First of all I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. Van der Eijk, for sharing his wisdom and experience and for his advice and criticism. Also I would like to thank Dr. van Damme from the University of Gent for his interest in my study and for his valuable advice. My gratitude further goes to all the interview participants, I want to thank them for their patience, time and wisdom. Without them I could never have accomplish this research. Furthermore, I would like to thank my parents. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for always supporting me and never stop believing in me. Further I am grateful that they have made it financially possible to study at the University. I further would like to thank my dear friend Margit, for reviewing my research and giving me that push in the right direction. Last but not least I would like to thank Tim. Thank you for being there, your love and support and for never stop believing in me.

Proudly I look back to what I have achieved in the past two years. After obtaining a Bachelor of Applied Science in Communication I decided to continue studying and therefore in September 2012 I started with the Business Administration Pre-Master program. This master thesis is my final work as a student. I had a wonderful time and I have grown on professional and personal level in many different ways. It is time to finish this beautiful chapter of my life and to start a new one.

I hope you will enjoy reading this master thesis.

(4)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nowadays brainstorming is undoubtedly one of the most popular idea generating techniques applied by organizations (Faure, 2004). After generating ideas, a phase of idea screening follows. This process can take place during or after a brainstorm session and comprises the activities of evaluating and selecting ideas that will be forwarded to the next phase of the innovation process (Harvey et al., 2013). It can be seen as perhaps the most critical stage in the innovation process because risky projects need to be eliminated early before significant investments are made and costs rise (Calantone et al., 1999). By conducting a multiple case study approach, this research took a unique perspective by investigating how a pre-selection of ideas, made by the group of participants or the initiator of the brainstorm, influences the first formal screening process that follows after the brainstorm session. This decision making process has, to the knowledge of the researcher, not been addressed in the current literature yet.

Interviews have gained in-depth knowledge on the decisions that were made at the initial formal screening process and the choice whether or not to pursue the pre-selection of ideas. This process was investigated in two different case formations, which are the composition of a pre-selection of ideas by the initiator or participants (group) of the brainstorm session (the initial formal screening process was in all cases performed by the brainstorm initiator). Based on the current brainstorming literature it is assumed that a pre-selection composed by the brainstorm group accelerates the overall selection process, as it is the intention of the group to deliver ideas that are in principle all executable. The research findings of this current study point in the same direction. In addition it was found that the initiators, who performed the selection process on their own, have benefited by the incorporation of the opinion of the brainstorm participants. This resulted in a large adoption of the pre-selection of ideas.

Further results relate to the applied screening method, evaluation criteria and the individual and contextual factors that influenced the decision making process. First of all, formal organized brainstorm sessions (with an external facilitator) deliver in relation to the other sessions a relatively large amount of ideas. However, this did not caused an over search of ideas in composing the pre-selection of ideas. Secondly, it can be said that ideas were not selected when the initiator had no imagination, feeling or emotion with it. The choice of application of these intuitive based screening methods was basically formed by the industry. As the majority of the cases were established in the creative industry. For the initiator pre-selection cases it could be observed that the cases that solely relied on intuition, and that not incorporate the opinion of others, had to adapt their method/evaluation criteria at the initial formal screening stage.

Regarding the evaluation criteria it is interesting to note that at an initiator pre-selection originality (product uniqueness) and imagination (intuition) were decisive criteria at the composition of the pre-selection whereas feasibility was decisive at the initial formal screening process. In specific, a group pre-selection incorporated feasibility at the pre-selection. Whereas the initiator composed the pre-selection bases on feeling and originality. Furthermore, time pressure influenced the decision whether to pursue more original or feasible ideas. In these cases time restricted the idea selectors to pursue more feasible ideas, and the contextual factors became evaluation criteria.

(5)

evaluation criteria. Only business owners or managers did take this into account. In the cases where financial potential was not mentioned the idea selectors were project leaders or the idea generation phase was in a very premature phase where everything is (still) possible. Furthermore, a remarkable contextual factor was discovered in an interview, which is the influence of the set-up brainstorm session. It was decisive in both selection processes.

Concerning the individual factors, there is some support that the initiators with experience in the selection of ideas after a brainstorm session adopted more ideas of the pre-selection than the non-experienced idea selectors (in cases of initiator pre-selection). This might imply that the decision-making process was accelerated since the final selection takes more form. Furthermore, all the initiators who performed the pre-selection and initial selection were intrinsic motivated. When the group selected the pre-selection of ideas extrinsic motivation was also mentioned. Another thing that was observed was that the group pre-selector cases performed the initial screening process with two persons.

Lastly, the brainstorm sessions differ in objective/intention. Some brainstorms were in a pre-mature phase and others in an advanced stadium. Based on this and the results it can hereby be concluded that the approach of the brainstorm session stands in relation to the outcome of the brainstorm session.

In conclusion, it can be stated that a pre-selection of ideas influences the initial formal screening process in several ways. Most importantly is that a pre-selection can speed up the overall decision making process by incorporating the opinion and idea preference of the brainstorm participants. The research findings point out that initiators have benefited by incorporating the opinion/idea preference of the brainstorm participants. Initiators who did not incorporated this struggled at the initial formal selection process, which extended the selection process. The goal of this study was to investigate how to improve the decision making process after a brainstorm session. With respect to that it is proved that under the right conditions a pre-selection is a good pre-elementary screen. It is therefore confirmed that a brainstorm session can be optimal executed when a perfect balance between idea generation and idea enrichment is reached.

(6)

2.3.2.1 Screening method ... 15 2.3.2.2 Evaluation criteria ... 17 2.3.2.3 Individual factors ... 19 2.3.2.4 Contextual factors ... 20 2.4 Chapter conclusion ... 20 3. Research framework ... 21 3.1 Research process ... 21 3.2 Research framework ... 21 4. Methodology ... 23 4.1 Research design ... 23 4.2 Case selection ... 23 4.3 Data collection ... 24 4.4 Data analysis ... 26

4.4.1 Analyzing within-case data ... 26

4.4.2 Cross-case analysis ... 26

4.5 Variables and coding ... 27

4.6 Quality criteria for research ... 28

4.6.1 Reliability ... 29

4.6.2 Validity ... 29

4.6.3 Generalizability ... 29

4.4 Data analysis ... 31

(7)

5.1 Qualitative data matrix ... 30

5.2 Data overview matrix ... 37

6. Discussion of findings ... 40

6.1 Selecting the pre-selection of ideas ... 40

6.2 Decision making process at the initial formal screening process ... 41

6.2.1 Screening method ... 41

6.2.2 Evaluation criteria ... 42

6.2.3 Contextual factors ... 44

6.2.4 Individual factors ... 44

6.3 The pre-selection as a first indication of the initial formal screening of ideas ... 45

6.4 Key findings ... 47

7. Conclusion ... 48

7.1 Theoretical implications ... 49

7.2 Managerial implications ... 50

7.3 Limitations and directions for future research ... 51

References ... 53

Appendix 1 Survey ... 57

(8)

Making creativity real

________________________________

“Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the

people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.” [Steve Jobs].

1. INTRODUCTION

In today’s rapidly changing competitive environment, innovation is the key to business success. Therefore organizations are investing heavily in their Research and Development (R&D) department. But innovation does not just happen through investment in R&D, it involves the creativity of people’s minds (Birkinshaw et al., 2013). Innovation can be seen as ideas that have been developed and implemented (Bjork et al., 2009). Creativity motivates the generation of those ideas and is therefore a necessary determinant of innovation. Ways to spark creativity among organizational members are idea generation techniques. Brainstorming is such an idea generation technique and is a way to collect (creative) ideas in a freewheeling discussion without criticism (Rochford, 1991). According to Faure (2004) brainstorming is undoubtedly one of the most popular creativity techniques used by organizations. A brainstorm group’s main objective is to create a set of potential valuable ideas that can be further evaluated and pushed into the funnel of innovation (Dennis et al, 2013). Rietzschel et al. (2006) emphasize this and state that in order to let creativity become innovation divergent idea generation must be followed by convergent idea selection. How to recognize and select upon these potential valuable ideas turned out to be an important stream of further research.

The shift to a more innovation-driven economy has slightly changed the world of today’s businesses. As competition turns into a game of who can generate the best and greatest number of ideas, creativity has become the centre of attention (Caniëls, 2013). Although a lot has been written about the generation of ideas, the other stages of the (fuzzy) front end of the innovation process are paid less attention to. This is striking since having a large pool of ideas is not a guarantee for innovation. It is commonly assumed in the brainstorming literature that quantity breeds quality. However, as the study of Reinig & Briggs (2008) pointed out, this is only an assumption and was therefore not supported in their research. The importance lies in the recognition and selection of the best ideas. This selection process, which is a subject of the screening process, is therefore a major challenge in the front end of new product or service development (Onarheim, 2012). The initial screening of a new (product) idea can be seen as perhaps the most critical stage in the innovation process. Risky projects (i.e., those with high probabilities of failure) need to be eliminated early before significant investments are made and costs rise (Calantone et al., 1999). In addition, Cooper & Kleinschmidt (1987) found that initial screening was the most often performed NPD activity (92% of the time) and exhibited the highest correlation with new product performance.

(9)

process has received less attention in research (Onarheim, 2012; Hammedi et al., 2011; Putman et al., 2009). In addition Rietzschel et al. (2006) states that in the brainstorming research the focus lies on idea generation whereas idea selection is neglected. Focusing on the decision-making process is very important at the idea screening stage because the use of inappropriate evaluation criteria has shown to have an adverse effect on the innovation process (Hammedi et al, 2011). Onarheim (2012) also points out that the evaluation process at the formal idea screening (how to evaluate ideas, who is evaluating and by which criteria) in early gates has not been the subject of much research. Studies further emphasize how difficult the evaluation and selection of new product ideas is, because of relativity high levels of complexity and uncertainty that characterize the screening stage (Hammedi et al., 2011).

1.1 Research objective and research question

The objective of this research is to close the research gap in the idea screening literature and contribute to the current brainstorming literature field by investigating what the influence is of the composition of a pre-selection of ideas during a brainstorm session. Following from above it can be stated that the literature on the idea screening process is in comparison to the idea generation process scarce. In specific this research investigates how a pre-selection of ideas, made by the group of participants or the initiator of the brainstorm, influences the first formal screening process that follows after the brainstorm session. This has, to the knowledge of the researcher, not been addressed in the current literature yet. It is important to define that with the initiator of the brainstorm is meant the person who organized the brainstorm session and analysis its results. With the initial formal screening process is meant the first formal idea evaluation point after a brainstorm session, which leads to the decision whether or not an idea will be adopted for further development or second screening process. The term formal refers to the performance of selection and evaluation in a consistent, quantifiable and repeatable manner (Aktam et al., 2013). In order to fill the research gap in the current literature, the following research question is defined: “How does a pre-selection

of ideas that was made during a brainstorm session influences the initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session?”

To answer the central research question several sub-questions are created. The sub-questions are formulated as follows:

 What are the pros and cons of a group idea selection process during brainstorming?  What are the pros and cons of an idea selection process after a brainstorm session?

 Which factors does the literature suggest as influence factors to the formal idea screening process after a brainstorm session?

 In which way does the set-up, composition of the idea selectors and number of ideas generated during the brainstorm session influence the composition of the pre-selection of ideas?

 In which way is the decision making process at the initial formal screening process influenced by the detected influence factors?

(10)

1.2 Research contribution

This study is of high theoretical relevance, since the idea screening stage (idea evaluation and idea selection), in comparison to the idea generation stage, has not been addressed much in research yet. The selection of the generated ideas within the organization is an integral part of brainstorming and should be explicitly considered. Organizations want to make sure the best ideas are selected and the worst are eliminated. Therefore this decision making process is of high concern (Faure, 2004). The goal of this study is therefore to investigate how to improve the decision making process after a brainstorm session. An improvement factor may lie in creating a good balance between idea generation and idea evaluation during a brainstorm session in form of a pre-selection.

It is expected that a pre-selection of ideas may give already a good indication of the ideas that need to be further developed or implemented. This research therefore challenges the approach of the influence of pre-selection on the initial formal screening process. And investigates in depth which factors influence the initial formal screening process and therefore the pursuing or not pursuing of the pre-selection (i.e., how the ideas and concepts are evaluated, by whom, and how decisions are made). The influence of pre-selection on a selection after the brainstorm is not addressed in the literature yet, to the knowledge of the researcher, and is therefore of high theoretical relevance. Furthermore, the field context, with real creativity people, wherein this study was conducted departs from the traditional lab settings where previous brainstorming research was conducted. This may yield more accurate findings.

This research builds on and contributes to the idea screening and brainstorming literature. Besides that it also addresses literature fields as NPD, organizational decision making theory and the psychology of idea ownership. The literature on the front end of the innovation process has primarily focused on the antecedents and driving mechanisms of idea generation or implementation. Little attention has been paid to the actual selection decision about ideas; the decision managers/brainstorm initiators determine whether they want to implement a specific idea or not) (e.g. Onarheim et al, 2012; Woodman et al, 1993) and the overall screening process (Hammedi et al., 2011). Faure (2004) also highlights this and states that brainstorming research has ignored the last two activities of the brainstorm process, which are evaluation and selection of the alternatives and the final implementation. In particular this research contribution is to connect two different idea screening processes, including the group idea screening process and the initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session.

1.3 Research scope and domain

(11)

can be compared and conclusions can be drawn. Moreover, later stages may imply different context factors and evaluation criteria, which prohibits a cross-case analysis.

1.4 Research outline

(12)

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

“There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress, and we would forever repeating the same patterns.”

[Edward de Bono]

This chapter goes into the literature on the relationship between innovation and creativity, the innovation process, the front end of innovation and the idea screening process at the front end of innovation. Furthermore this chapter goes into depth about these topics in several sub topics. The theoretical background sketches the theoretical frame of this research and provides definitions of key concepts. With this literature review the first three sub-questions are answered.

2.1 The relationship between innovation and creativity

In today’s world with mature markets, increased competition and a high pace of technological change, innovation has become the key to success (Scott, 1994). Following from (Zheng, 2010: p.154) the definition of innovation is widely accepted as: “the generation, acceptance, and

implementation of new ideas, processes, products, or services.” The foundation of innovation

involves new ideas, and the people who develop, carry and react to, and modify these ideas (Scott, 1994). In order to generate new ideas, creativity is required. According to Amabile creativity can be defined as: “the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain. In order to be considered

creative, a product or an idea must be different from what has been done before, but it must also be appropriate to the problem at hand, correct, valuable or expressive of meaning.” (Amabile, 1996:

p.1). The definition of creativity has to do with the production of novel and useful ideas, whereas innovation is about the production and implementation of these useful ideas. Creativity deals with doing something for the first time or creating new knowledge, innovation may also encompasses the adoption of products or processes from outside the organization (Scott, 1994).

Atuahene-Gima (2012) highlights the difference between creativity and innovation. According to the author, creativity is a dreamy process and ability to generate new ideas. These new ideas must be turned into products and services that can stand the reality of the market place: are people prepared to pay for them? So while creativity is about idea generation, innovation is about waking up to reality. This line of thought means that one can be creative but may not be innovative, but one cannot be innovative without first being creative. Concluding, the terms creativity and innovation are often used interchangeably in research, and the distinction between the two concepts may be more one of emphasis than of substance.

2.2 The innovation process and the front end of innovation

The innovation process consists of several systematic steps that need to be performed in order to realize innovation. In the literature the innovation process is referred to in many different ways, such as the new product development process, or models like the Stage-Gate System and Innovation Funnel. Both systems can be seen as a roadmap for driving innovation project from idea to launch and beyond (Flynn et al., 2003).

(13)

innovation process are headed under the (fuzzy) front end of innovation and consist of idea generation, idea screening and concept development stages (Alam, 2006). Following from Kijkuit et al. (2007) the front end process ends with a go/no-go decision (adoption of the idea) for the start of an innovation project. The front end is a critical component of the innovation process; choices made at the front end will ultimately determine which innovation options can be considered for development and commercialization (Koen et al, 2014). For the idea generation phase of the innovation process, different techniques and methods can be applied, a well-known example is brainstorming.

2.2.1 Brainstorming, an idea generation technique

The best known and probably most widely used procedure to stimulate creativity is brainstorming. Brainstorming has helped many organizations to come up with innovative ideas, services, solutions and products. The creativity technique was developed by Alex Osborn (1963) and is applied as a fun, but productive way to generate problem-solving possibilities and creative breakthrough ideas (Hartman, 2005). According to Faure (2004) it is undoubtedly one of the most popular creative techniques used by organizations. The goal of brainstorming is to free participants from criticism and inhibition, in order to generate as many different ideas as possible to the predefined problem statement. The creativity technique is characterized by four basic rules, which are: 1. Criticism is ruled out (until later), 2. Free-wheeling is welcomed (the wilder the ideas, the better), 3. Quantity is wanted and 4. Combination and improvement are sought (combine ideas and make them better). An important aspect in following these four basic rules is group interaction and collaboration (Taylor et al., 1958).

In the end the synergy of the group will create workable ideas that no single individual could create on its own. On the other hand, literature on brainstorming suggest that there is evidence that in general groups generate fewer and less creative ideas then do individuals working alone (Faure, 2004; Harvey et al., 2013). Putman et al. (2009) suggest that these effects may be caused by a variety of task and social factors (e.g. social anxiety). Adding a trained facilitator who manages the group interaction appears according to Putman et al. (2009) to downsize these effects and helps to increase the creative output of the brainstorm session. A facilitator encourages to generate many ideas and to produce ‘wild ideas’. Furthermore, they do not criticize ideas but do prize promising ones (Sutton and Hargadon, 1996).

2.3 The idea screening process at the front end of innovation

The idea screening process comprises the activities of evaluating and selecting ideas that will be forwarded to the next phase of the innovation process. In that context, idea selection can be seen as a specific form of decision making. Since the idea generation and screening stage dictates the further stages of the innovation process, it is important to manage this process in the most efficient and effective manner (Rochford, 1991) in order to minimalize two types of potential errors. Type 1 error, which occur when the company’s scarce resources are spent on inappropriate projects and type 2 errors which occur when ideas that might be successful are neglected (Hammedi et al., 2011).

(14)

2.3.1 Idea screening process during brainstorming

Brainstorming generally consists of two stages, the fast-moving idea generation stage (generate as many ideas as possible without criticism) and the discussion stage. During the discussion stage the diverge ideas are converted into a few workable ideas based on evaluation criteria like money, time, skills, resources and marketability. It depends however on the type and goal of the brainstorm session whether the selected ideas during brainstorming, in reality will be pushed into the next phase of the innovation process (Hartman, 2005).

Alex Osborn developed brainstorming in a three phased way, namely: fact-finding, idea-finding, and solution-finding. Each phase is characterized by divergent thinking to broaden the issues, followed by convergent thinking to obtain resolution (Volkema, 1995). In addition, according to Silvia (2008) brainstorming is all about divergent thinking (creating ideas) and convergent thinking (evaluating and revising ideas) and creating a good balance between the two phases. For a brainstorm group this implies that the generated ideas must be winnowed down until a smaller set of (the best) ideas remain. It is proposed to defer the idea screening stage to the end of the idea generation phase in order to avoid some negative issues (Harvey et al., 2013).

It is expected that groups have an advantage in convergent decision making because of the large quantity of information and diverse perspectives for identifying mistakes. The diverse perspectives of the brainstorm group members may be useful in evaluating the utility of the various ideas and eliminate bad alternatives that are not like to be accepted in the organization/society or are not feasible (Putman et al., 2009). The inclusion of various persons with different organizational functions in the screening phase has also proven beneficial in the study of Soukhoroukova et al. (2011). This phenomenon can be referred to as the wisdom of the crowd. Following from Simmons et al. (2011) this means that decisions made by a group of people will outperform decisions made by single judges or experts. Furthermore, members of the brainstorm group would have a higher potential of selecting ideas of greater quality because of their understanding of the ideas. Participants are able to provide motives for the idea and argue its value and so the chance of misunderstanding the idea is reduced (Faure, 2004). However, on the other hand there is empirical support that a brainstorm group is not suited for the idea screening process. Groups may be determined by groupthink, and are biased for paying attention to shard or common information which leads to similar perspectives instead of considering creative ideas (Putman et al., 2009; Soukhoroukova et al., 2011). Following from Harvey et al. (2013), interacting brainstorm groups do not outperform nominal groups at selecting ideas (Faure, 2004), and generally fail to identify creative ideas. It is therefore proposed that evaluating (creative) ideas improves when groups move away from the decision-making process.

(15)

those with limited ownership, to adopt change that diminished their ideas and more likely to adopt suggestions that expanded them. Making important decisions, solving difficult problems, or developing new products or services all require that people revise or otherwise change their opinions, solutions, or ideas in response to the suggestions and comments they receive from their colleagues, customers, et cetera. (Baer & Brown, 2012). Van Engelen et al. (2001) claim that without disagreement, limited progress is made.

In the light of this research it is interesting to investigate if people stick with their pre-selection of ideas and so, the psychological of idea ownership. And which forces and factors come into play in the abandoning of this pre-selection.

An important aspect of idea evaluation in organizational settings is that the predefined problem may have multiple (competing) goals. Employees participating in a brainstorm session must therefore be able to evaluate the best solution(s) against these competing goals and identify both the short and long term consequences of implementing a particular course of action (Runco et al., 1991). According to Reiter-Palmona et al. (2004) group members may lack the necessary knowledge or broader view necessary for this specific process.

Another important aspect in the group idea screening process is the instructions that were given at the idea generation and evaluation phase. The pre-defined goal or problem will usually serve as a yardstick for the evaluation phase. Therefore instructions to be creative will increase the likelihood of selecting creative ideas. When no instructions are given, the group members will compare their ideas to their own experiences and line of thought (Reiter-Palmona et al., 2004; Rietzschel et al., 2010). However, this extreme value logic may still cause incorrect determination of idea quality.

Finally, combing the idea generation with idea screening offers the benefit of giving group members immediate feedback on their ideas. Furthermore, screening during an idea generation session reduces the chances of information overload and cognitive inertia. Also combing the two phases should help identify the best decision-makers for the idea evaluation step, since idea inventors are assumed to have the specific knowledge (Soukhoroukova et al., 2011). Another possibility is to find a middle way in the idea screening process by incorporating a pre-selection of ideas at the end of the brainstorm. Hereby members evaluate the ideas on some general factors. The first criteria an idea may be subjected to in the initial screening stage can be as simple as: “Does the idea fit the company’s new product guidelines or mission?” and “Is the project do-able?” (Rochford, 1991). In the end a few workable ideas are left, which are evaluated in detail later in the screening process after the brainstorm session.

Based on the above findings, this current research adopts the view that a pre-selection composed by the brainstorm group accelerates the overall selection process, as it is the intention of the group to deliver ideas that are in principle all executable.

2.3.2 The initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session

The previous stage highlighted the pros and cons for a group screening process after idea generation, such as the positive aspect of the wisdom of the crowd but the danger for the psychology of idea ownership. This paragraph discusses the initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session that takes place at a different (but first) moment in time than the idea generation phase.

(16)

and cost and the required investment to rely on (Cooper and de Brentani, 1984). Rochford (1991) discusses the need for (top) management involvement in the opportunity identification at the screening process. Under high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity a management team evaluates the new product and service ideas and makes a first go/no-go decision. Hammedi et al. (2011) argue that management often applies ad hoc haphazard selection methods, based on gut feelings. The authors argue that organizations should look for approaches that create a flexible balance on formal and informal evaluation criteria, that adapt to the unique situation at hand. Attention should be given to the decision-making process in the screening process, since rigorous use of rigid evaluation criteria and inflexible screening methods have an adverse effect on new ideas. Soukhoroukova (2011) emphasises this and states that companies often lack a formal selection process. An important step at the formal screening process is the development of criteria to evaluate the ideas. These criteria should be formulated before the ideas are generated, while keeping in mind the objective and limits of the project (Rochford, 1991).

Girotra et al. (2010) state that evaluating an idea without knowledge of the specific trajectory of its origin may result in more accurate judgments. An external party, like an expert or critic, might overcome this bias since this expert evaluates ideas on its own merits and is not biased by the associative history of the ideas.

2.3.2.1 Screening method

According to Calantone et al. (1999) the manner in which a company evaluates new product ideas has enormous implications for the overall success and the company’s performance. The application of formal selection procedures, or screening methods, increases uniformity, which ensures that all projects are evaluated according to similar criteria (Hammedi et al., 2011). Screening methods may be categorized as quantitative or qualitative. The qualitative methods are employed in the primary stages of the screening process and the quantitative methods are applied later in the process (Rochford, 1991). Due to uncertainty and incomplete quantitative information, the early screening process depends largely on qualitative analysis, rather than on quantitative calculation. Hereby idea evaluators conduct qualitative analysis for the product scheme based on past experience. (Yan et al., 2012).

Screening methods may vary from unstructured question lists, structured scoring models, computer-based expert systems to mathematical models. However, in addition to such screening systems, the informal discussion and negotiation activities of the management are considered as a central part of project selection (Martinsuo et al., 2011). Kickul et al. (2009) suggest that relying on intuition as a screening method in the initial formal screening process is preferred over numeric scoring models. Relying on intuition at this stage of the innovation process is very useful, since searching for opportunities includes the adaptation of ideas across disciplines and finding unexpected solutions.

(17)

original not yet feasible ideas (yellow) are in the top right. Table 1 summarizes the results of the different screening methods detected in the literature.

Table 1: Summary screening methods

Author Screening Methods Innovation process

Baillie (2006) COCD Box

Clustering Action planning

Overall

Calantone et al. (1999) Analytic Hierarchy Process model NPD

Cooper and de Brentani (1984)

Portfolio model

Benefit contribution methods (check lists, scoring models, and paired comparisons)

Financial return models Market research approaches.

New Industrial Products

Conway & Steward (2009)

Frontier models Risk analysis Portfolio models Customer evaluation Scoring and checklist models

NPD

Gupta et al. (2012) Implicit mental models New Business Ideas

Kickul et al. (2009) Intuition New Venture Creation

Martinsuo et al., 2011 Unstructured question lists

Structured scoring models and anchored scales Analytic hierarchy processes

Computer-based expert systems Mathematical models

Official discussion and negotiation activities of the management

NPD

Moore et al. (1969) Scoring models Economic models

Constrained optimization models Risk analysis models

R&D project selection

Rochford (1991) Ranking

Checklists Scoring models Network models

Attribute based discriminant analysis Numerical weighting methods Line profiles

Block profiles Idea sort

Profitability index models Lexiographic evaluation

NPD

Yan et al. (2012) Analytic Hierarchy Process model Experience (in case of uncertainty)

NPD

2.3.2.2 Evaluation criteria

(18)

choosing the wrong criteria can be fatal (Cooper & de Brentani 1984). Gupta et al. (2012) therefore stresses that in ambiguous and uncertain environments, where risk factors are associated with new business ideas and difficult to verify, people tend to rely on implicit mental models (intuition) or structures in making their evaluations. Following from Hodgkinson & Healey (2011), in complex situations intuition brings around large quantities of implicit knowledge in a focused manner.

After a preliminary screen, criteria for evaluation can become quite extensive (Rochford, 1991). O’Meara (1961) classifies screening (evaluation) criteria into the categories of marketability, durability, productive ability, and growth potential. The marketability of the idea refers to whether there is a potential market (demand) for the idea. It refers to market opportunity such as market size, market share, and market growth (Carbonell-Foulquie et al., 2003). The study of Martinsuo et al. (2011) showed that technical feasibility, market potential (marketability), intuition, and product uniqueness are the most important criteria applied at the early phases of product development. According to the authors the technical criteria have a central position in the front end of the new product development process. However, technical criteria can best be used in comparison with non-technical criteria to bring objectivity and a systematic approach to the evaluation process. The product uniqueness refers to the differential advantage that can be achieved (Cooper and the Brentani, 1984). Following from Runco et al. (1991), it is important to understand that ideas are not evaluated in a vacuum. At the evaluation of an idea, people may imply some sort of a yardstick to which the idea is compared.

The study of Dean et al. (2006) provides a method for measuring ideas in terms of idea quality, idea novelty and idea creativity. Based on a literature of 90 studies this research comes up with sufficient definitions on these quality terms. They define a novel idea as one that is rare, unusual, or uncommon. A quality on the other hand is an idea that applies to the problem at hand and is an effective and implementable solution. Lastly a creative idea is defined as a quality idea that is also novel.

Table 2 shows a summary of the evaluation (screening) criteria that were derived from the literature review. The table is classified per evaluation criteria (or code), which will help to analyse the empirical results. From the table it can be observed that the financial potential, technical feasibility, product uniqueness and marketability are frequently mentioned. Also intuition is several times mentioned.

Table 2: Summary evaluation criteria

Evaluation criteria Innovation process Author

Technical feasibility NPD

Carbonell-Foulquie et al. (2003) Hart et al. (2003)

Martinsuo et al. (2011) O’Meara (1961)

Cooper and de Brentani (1984)

Marketability NPD O’Meara (1961) Martinsuo et al. (2011) Hartman (2005) Carbonell-Foulquie et al. (2003) Hart et al. (2003) Rochford (1991)

Product uniqueness NPD Martinsuo et al. (2011)

(19)

Rochford (1991)

Cooper and de Brentani (1984)

Intuition NPD

New Business Ideas

Martinsuo et al. (2011) Hart et al. (2003) Wang et al. (2012) Rochford (1991) Gupta et al. (2012) Financial potential New Industrial Products

Ideas, products, services, and solutions

R&D project selection NPD

Cooper and de Brentani (1984) Wang et al. (2012) Carbonell-Foulquie et al. (2003) Hartman (2005) Moore et al. (1969) Rochford (1991) Strategic fit NPD

Carbonell-Foulquie et al. (2003) Cooper and de Brentani (1984)

Customer acceptance NPD Carbonell-Foulquie et al. (2003)

Relationships Ideas, products, services, and

solutions

Hartman (2005)

Resources Ideas, products, services, and

solutions

Hartman (2005)

Growth potential NPD O’Meara (1961)

Durability NPD O’Meara (1961)

Skills/Abilities (experience) Ideas, products, services, and solutions

Hartman (2005) Feasibility (product development,

technology, production, personnel & financial)

NPD Rochford (1991)

Compatibility (organizational infrastructure and personnel and managerial expertise)

NPD Rochford (1991)

Time (To develop the idea & to commercialize)

NPD Rochford (1991)

Involve the customer in the fuzzy front-end stages.

NSD Alam (2005)

2.3.2.3 Individual factors

Creativity is a combination of the cognitive processes, motivational factors and domain specific skills/knowledge. Therefore the definition of what is the ‘best’ idea may vary. Magadley et al. (2012) refer to domain-expertise as the knowledge, expertise, technical skills, intelligence, and talent in the particular field in which the problem-solver is working. Intrinsic motivation is an important enabler of creativity and therefore in the evaluation of useful and novel ideas. It is based on interest, curiosity, and a desire to learn. It further increases cognitive flexibility, risk taking, and persistence (Grant and Berry, 2011).

(20)

hand it might speed up the decision-making process, but whether this is a positive or negative thing is debatable (Cline, 1968).

Licuanan et al. (2007) point out three errors in evaluating highly original ideas. First, people tend to focus on current operative goals. This causes a failure to recognize the emergent goals which are associated with original ideas. Second, in evaluating ideas, people will tend to frame their evaluations in terms of past performance. Since highly original new ideas are relatively rare, these ideas may not fit their current frame and are therefore rejected. Third, by means of their novelty, information relevant to the key attributes of highly original new ideas will not be readily accessible. People, as a result, will tend not to apply this information in evaluation and decision-making these ideas.

De Martino et al. (2006) argue that theories of decision making have tended to emphasize on analytical processes in the decision making process. However, more intuitive or emotional responses can play a key role in human decision-making. In situations where decision making has to be done under conditions of incomplete available information or highly complex subjects, people tend to rely on simplifying routines or rules of thumb rather than algorithmic processing. Hodgkinson & Healey (2011), highlight the critical influence of felt emotion on choice. People rather rely on their emotions they experience at the time of choice and their mental images of choice, rather than calculations of the probability or expected utility of those outcomes.

2.3.2.4 Contextual factors

Contextual factors refer to the characteristics of the screening environment that manipulate the evaluation and selection of specific ideas. Reiter-Palmon (2011) found that contextual factors affect not only the criteria used to evaluate ideas but also may have a direct or indirect effect on the motivation of the individual. Contextual factors like goal setting, rewards competition, and personal discretion in work procedures can have both positive and negative effects on individual creativity.

According to Rochford (1991) the screening process is influenced by a high degree of uncertainty and objectivity. In addition Hammedi et al. (2011) point out that the evaluation of new product and service ideas is done under high levels of uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. Time pressure is another contextual factor that influences the decision making process. It influences performance by causing a systematic change in the processing of information. Since people under time pressure do not have time to finish the slower analytic processing, this forces them to consider switching strategies in order to save time (Rice et al., 2012). Further, the context of the idea generation stage may cause some problems. In the case of over-searching there may be too many ideas for the organization to manage and choose between. Since there are so many ideas, few of these ideas are taken seriously or given the required level of attention (Laursen & Salter, 2006).

2.4 Chapter conclusion

(21)

factors were extensively discussed in sequence. Overall this chapter tried to create a theoretical funding for the examination of the influence of pre-selection on the initial formal screening process, and investigated in depth which factors influence the initial formal screening process and therefore the pursuing or not pursuing of the pre-selection (i.e., how the ideas and concepts are evaluated, by whom, and how decisions are made).

3. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

This chapter outlines the research process and research framework. Figure 1 displays the research process. It shows which steps will be taken in this research and which part of the front-end of the innovation process is investigated. Figure 2 outlines the research framework and displays the research variables. This figure is based on the theoretical concepts which were elaborated in the previous chapter.

3.1 Research process

The research process starts with a brainstorm session. After the idea generation a pre-selection of ideas is made during the brainstorm. This selection can be done either by the initiator of the brainstorm session or by the group of participants in form of a voting round. After the brainstorm session, at a different moment in time, the initial formal screening process follows. This process compromises the decision making process of evaluating and selecting ideas that will be forwarded to the next phase of the innovation process. In this present research this stage is executed by the initiator of the brainstorm session, who also participated in the brainstorm session. The outcome of the initial formal screening process is the decision to select an idea(s) for further development (final selection) or that a second screening process is necessary on a selected group of ideas.

Figure 1: Research process

3.2 Research framework

(22)

Two of the four influence factors that this study investigates are the contextual factors and the individual characteristics of the initiator (the idea evaluator). Further the screening method and evaluation criteria are researched. These four influence factors form the research variables and will be specified into workable measures (and codes) in the next chapter.

The outcome of the initial formal screening process may be diverse. For example, it may become clear after the initial screening process a second screening process is necessary, further it may become clear that some ideas need to be dropped and others further developed or that new ideas need to be generated. Last, it may become clear that the initial formal selection is the final selection. In order to get a full image of the decision making process it is proposed that the pre-selection process is investigated as well. As mentioned earlier, the pre-pre-selection process can be executed by the initiator or the participants of the brainstorm session. Based on this the cases of this research are formed.

In order to get a complete picture on the pre-selection it is proposed to add the number of ideas generated during the brainstorm session and the set-up of the brainstorm. With the latter is meant whether the session was formal or informal and if an external facilitator was present. It is imagined that it can be rather difficult for the pre-selector to compose a pre-selection of ideas when there are many ideas generated.

(23)

4. METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology of this research. The goal of this chapter is to provide a valid and reliable process of collecting and analysing data.

4.1 Research design

The purpose of this research is to gain insights in how a pre-selection (composed by the initiator or group) of ideas influences the initial formal screening process after a brainstorm session. With the initial formal screening process is meant the first formal idea evaluation point after a brainstorm session which leads to the decision whether or not an idea will be adopted for further development. The literature on idea screening is in comparison to idea generation relative scantiness, whereas the literature of a pre-selection of ideas is absent. Based on the study of Woodman et al. (1993) a clear image of the possible influence factors on the initial formal screening process was drawn in the theoretical background chapter.

This research applied a multiple case study approach, since this study includes two or more observations of the same phenomenon (Blumberg et al., 2011). According to Ozen & Eisenhardt (2009), multiple cases are effective because they enable a collection of comparative data, which yields a more accurate and generalizable theory then single cases. Yin (2003) distinguishes between three types of case studies: explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory case studies. Because there is not much information available about this particular research subject, this case study research will have and exploratory character. Exploratory research is usually conducted when the researcher has limited knowledge about the phenomenon and needs additional information or desires new or more recent information. In addition, exploratory research goes beyond description and attempts to explain the mechanisms behind the phenomenon that descriptive studies have only observed. This qualitative analysis therefore investigated the why and how of decision making rather than the what, when and where (Blumberg et al., 2011).

4.2 Case selection

Following from Seawright et al. (2008), case selection is an important task of the case study researcher. The authors point out two methods of case selection which are the most similar and the most different method. At the most similar technique the chosen cases are similar on all the independent variables, except for the independent variable of interest. The most different method of case selection is the opposite of the most similar. Rather than looking for cases that are most similar, one looks for cases that are most different. In this multiple case study, the selected projects are as different as possible on the formation of the pre and initial formal selection. This was chosen in order to discover what happens when different compositions of pre-selections are investigated and which formation yields more accurate results. Table 3 outlines how the cases formation is arranged.

(24)

consideration by the case selection, but will be taken into account at the data analysis. Further the organization where the brainstorm was initiated was of no specific requirement, as long someone has taken the initiative to organize a brainstorm session with a business perspective. The size and scope of the organization in question was therefore of no specific interest, as long as cases can be formed according to table 3. This table also shows how many cases were formed in each formation. According to Eisenhardt (1989) at least four cases are required in order to develop and build theory.

The key informants that have been selected for the interviews were the initiators of the brainstorm session. All the initiators had a high function, they were either the business owner of the company or a project leader or manager. Furthermore all the initiators were involved in the entire brainstorming process. Almost all the initiators did participated in the brainstorm session.

Table 3: Case formation

4.3 Data collection

According to Yin (2003) a case study method applies for multiple data sources. In this research three stages of data collection were conducted. The first stage was performed with a literature review, in order to find out which factors are described in the literature that are of influence on the initial formal idea screening process and what the pros and cons are of idea selection during or after a brainstorm session. With this literature review first three sub-questions were answered. Business Source Premier, Google Scholar and within article reference were the main data sources. Two factors, the screening method and evaluation criteria, were systematically ordered in an analytical review scheme in order to give a comprehensive overview of the available definitions. According to Crossan & Apaydin (2009), an analytical review scheme is necessary for systematically evaluating the contribution of a given body of literature.

The second stage of data collection consists of direct observations of the brainstorm sessions and a survey. Direct observations occur when the observer is physically present and personally monitors what takes place (Blumberg et al., 2011). Approximately 260 companies were contacted for their participation in this research. The majority of these companies did not want to cooperate because they did not want to share their generated ideas. Eleven cases were eventually selected, which are displayed in table 4 (some cases could not be used from the master thesis Creativity the New frontier database due to incorporation of final selection at the brainstorm, not willing to participate in an interview or the companies were not originated in the Netherlands). During the observations was observed how the overall brainstorming session proceeded, but the emphasis of observing was focused on obtaining information about the number of ideas generated and how the pre-selection was composed. In addition it was observed if the brainstorm session was organized in a formal or informal manner. At the end of the brainstorm the initiator was asked to fill in the survey. A pre-test was conducted to identify and eliminate complex or ambiguous items of the survey and to get inspiration for the set-up of this research. An important part of the survey was the composition of the pre-selection of ideas (top 5), the survey can be found in Appendix 1. For this research only the pre-selection part of the survey was of interest (the other questions were used by other members of this master thesis research group). In case of an initiator pre-selection the initiator composed its

Initiator initial formal selection

Group pre-selection 4

(25)

own top 5 (or top 3) of interest. In case of a group pre-selection the initiator of the brainstorm was asked to copy this selected top 5.

The third stage of data collection consists of semi-structured interviews, which form the primary data source of this research. A semi-structured interview usually starts with some specific questions but allows the interviewee to follow his or her own thoughts (Blumberg et al., 2011). Probing techniques were applied to evoke additional information form the respondents. The objective of the interviews was to gain in-depth information about how the initial formal screening process proceeded, which decisions were made on which ground and of the pre-selection was of any influence on these decisions. Therefore open-ended questions were asked in order to stimulate the key informants to talk, which supports the exploratory nature of this study.

In order to get the interviewees focused on the research objective an interview protocol was developed. Following from Blumberg et al. (2011) this protocol (or guide) serves as a memory list to ensure that the same issues are addressed in every interview. How the interview protocol was composed is explained in paragraph 4.5. The predefined questions of the protocol were used as a guideline. Additional and specific questions were asked, depending on the specific situation and the answers given by the respondents. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix 2.

The interviews took place approximately two a three weeks after the brainstorm session. The average length of the interviews was between 25 and 40 minutes. All the interviews were taped, transcribed and sent back to the interviewees for feedback. Table 4 displays the eleven interviews that were conducted for this research.

Table 4: Cases and research participants

# Organizatio n

Short description of the organization Interviewee Function at brainstorm session Pre-selectio n Initial formal selection Brainstorm subject 1 Pezy Innovation Creation of innovative products D. Gosenhuis

Initiator X X New medical product

2 Kunst van Herinnering

Art (add colour to deal with difficult times)

M. Smit Initiator X X Extend product line

3 Smoske, het boek

Book about the rhinoceros that escaped in Paris during transport

M. Kamphuis

Initiator X X How to promote the

book

4 Creatief Groningen

Website with overview of artistic possibilities in Groningen

H. Bloem Initiator X X How to organize a

creative route 5 De Merkstudio Brand creation, management and experience

M. Haikens Initiator X X How to extent the

business network

6 Paradigm Club where music, art and creativity stand central

M. Bakker Initiator X X New theme of

club/festival

7 Tasmania Party Pub & Lounge A.

Haverkamp

Initiator Group X New event

8 MPapps Entrepreneurs V. Konink Initiator Group X New Smartphone

App

9 Groninger Museum

Museum J. Stelpstra Initiator Group X New product

10 Infoversum First full dome 3D theatre in the Netherlands

A. Hofman Initiator Group X How to set up the

(26)

4.4 Data analysis

According to Yin (2003) the analysis of case study evidence is one of the least developed and most difficult aspects in case study research. The data analysis usually involves reducing accumulated data to a manageable amount, developing summaries and discovering patterns (Blumberg et al., 2011). The data analysis of this study will follow the case study method proposed by Eisenhardt (1989), which consists of a within-case and cross-case analysis. According to Ravenswood (2011) using the case study approach of Eisenhardt is an excellent method to apply in a case study research.

4.4.1 Analysing within-case data

The first step in the data analysis is the transcription of the interviews, in order to reduce the mass of text to something manageable and meaningful. In the transcription the generated ideas are not published; they are referred to with an overarching theme. After the transcription of the interviews the open coding technique was applied (Khandkar, 2009). With the open coding technique important sentences or quotes from the interviews were placed into a qualitative data matrix. The quotes needed to be written down as shortly and compact as possible. Sometimes answers were combined into a single quote. Following from Bijlsma-Frankema and Droogleever Fortuijn (1997) a qualitative data matrix is a method to order and analyse interviews. It concisely orders the information from the interviews per respondent and theme. The open coding process is related to the middle part of the research framework (figure 2), which is the decision making process at the initial formal screening process and the potential influence factors.

At the second stage of the data analysis the axial coding technique was applied by grouping the interview quotes into codes. Following from Seidel (1998), codes are used to categorize a series of otherwise discrete events, observations and statements. According to Hennink et al. (2011) codes can be deductive and inductive. Deductive codes originate from the researcher, which can be from the interview protocol, concepts or theory in the research literature. Inductive codes on the other hand reside from the data. Regarding the deductive codes, a so called head-coding scheme was composed. This table displays the basis of the interview protocol and the attached deductive codes. It implies the set-up of potential codes that were derived from the theoretical background chapter. In paragraph 4.5 the head-coding scheme is presented at table 5. Furthermore, table 2 (evaluation criteria) was set-up in a way so that codes could be easily derived.

In conclusion, the axial coding process was based on either table 1,2 or 5. This method was followed in order to attach the same code to similar quotes. Furthermore, as is in the nature of this research, new (inductive) codes were derived from the data.

4.4.2 Cross-case analysis

In this stage, close attention has to be given to the information-processing bias, which is defined as the danger that investigators reach premature and even false conclusions (Eisenhardt, 1989). As explained in the within-case analysis, data of the interviews were selected into quotes. After attaching the same code to similar quotes in the qualitative data matrix the codes were transferred into a data overview matrix. In this table all the variables that were presented in the research framework are present. In this way a complete overview was created which will facilitate the cross-case analysis. The data overview matrix contains the results from the direct observations and the

11 Zodiac Aerospace

World leader

in aerospace equipment

B. Vereecke Initiator X X How to improve the

(27)

semi-structures interviews, whereas the qualitative data matrix solely contains the empirical result of the interviews.

Based on the two matrixes a cross-case analysis was performed; the cases were compared in order to detect patterns in the data. Pattern matching was applied in order to combine existing research with the empirical evidence. Linking this to existing literature is an important and difficult task to apply in a case study method. By linking the patterns of the empirical data with the patterns in the literature fields, mechanisms may be defined which will probe towards answering the (sub) research question (Eisenhardt, 1989). Furthermore new findings were discovered with this analysis. The cross-case analysis is performed in chapter 6. In this chapter extensive use of citations from the interviews is applied in order to stay as close as possible to the original data, achieving a high level of accuracy.

Furthermore, building theory from case studies involves using one or more cases to create theoretical constructs or propositions. Based on the cross-case analysis and the literature review this research formulates some propositions, which may spur future research. According to Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) the propositions need to be based on effective pattern matching between theory and the data.

4.5 Variables and coding

As explained in the previous paragraph this paragraph introduces a so-called head coding scheme with deductive codes. Since the research question is a ‘how’ question it is difficult to pre-specify all the codes. Therefore, interviews were applied in order to gain insight in the research phenomenon that is proposed in this research. In line with this there is referred to table 1 and 2 in the head coding scheme. Furthermore, the operationalized interview questions represent the main part of the interview protocol (appendix 2).

Table 5: Head coding scheme

Factors Code Definition Reference Operationalization/interview question Screening method Rely on intuition Analytical review scheme in table 1 (chapter 2)

In situations where decision making has to be done under conditions of incomplete available information or highly complex subjects, people tend to rely on simplifying routines or rules of thumb rather than algorithmic processing.

Martino et al. (2006)

To what extent did you trust on your intuition and emotion when

screening/selecting the ideas? Or did you applied logical reasoning in form of a screening method based on numerical data? Evaluation criteria Analytical review scheme in table 2 (chapter 2)

Which evaluation criteria did you applied during the first formal screening process after the brainstorm session? On what basis did you select?

What gave the decisive, originality/ novelty of the idea/ideas or the practicality/feasibility?

Individual factors

Domain-expertise Knowledge, expertise, technical skills, intelligence, and talent in the particular domain in which the problem-solver is working.

Magadley et al. (2012)

Which personal factors have influenced the selection process?

Making creativity real

Making creativity real

MSCA: Strategic Innovation Management

Master Thesis

Making creativity real

A multiple case study approach

Daphne Hoving

S2399393

+316 81965412

D.C.M.hoving@student.rug.nl

ABSTRACT

University of Groningen

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Making creativity real

________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

3. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

4. METHODOLOGY