a-small-lab Resources

Fuzziness over the Innovation Process

The innovation process consists of three central stages,

1. Idea Creation,
2. Idea Concretisation and
3. Innovation Projects

– which are book-ended by a foundation stage involving strategic guidelines for innovation and an implementation/commercialisation (end-use) stage.

The first three stages are processes of idea management, concept-finding and pre-development (primarily utilising intellectual resources) while the last two phases as a matter of multi project management (involving the utilisation of more tangible resources) (Boeddrich, 2004; Goulding, 1983; Griffiths-Hemans and Grover, 2006; Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Majaro, 1988; McAdam and McClelland, 2002; and Sonnenburg, 2004) (link to innovation process entry reviews the literature on, and discusses the innovation process in detail).

Boeddrich (2004) notes that the tangible resources of companies and organisations tend to be focused on the later stages of the innovative development process (the project management phase) as opposed to the early stages (where tacit resources are generally utilised). The result of this is that while the path to utilisation/commercialisation of an already concrete idea is informed and guided by a number of structures and processes which (hopefully) aid in the successful realisation of the idea, the path of the idea from germination to concretisation is left wild in contrast.

Thus, the situation can be generalised as being fuzziest in the earliest stages and straightening out as a function of the tangible resources invested by the organisation in the process (Boeddrich, 2004). Furthermore, the newer, or more innovative the new product or service, the fuzzier the earlier stages are likely to be (Kratzer, Leenders et al. 2004).

Not just in the workplace or organisation, but also in the arts or sciences, creativity is rooted in discipline, but constraints that are too strict run the risk of suffocating creativity – a delicate balance needs to be achieved (Boden, 1997).

Concerning how organisations can deal with the fuzziness of the process, Boeddrich (2004) describes two extreme views of creativity/innovation management:

1. the first is a ‘fantasy’ in which innovation cannot be managed and creativity will only flow in a free, unstructured, almost chaotic environment.
2. The second being ‘technocratic’, where innovation is generated by information and data stores and governed by pushing buttons on a computer.

A highly structured process will stifle true creativity in the organisation (Boeddrich, 2004; Sands and Warwick, 1977; Tauber, 1974). Tauber (1974) in his study into truly innovative products, finds that undue formalisation of the product search may have a negative effect on the conception and development of major innovations, while Kanter et al. (1997) in a similar vein note that in order for companies to be creative, they must create an environment that informally nurtures the generation, growth and development of new ideas and concepts. Furthermore, Butler et al. (199 stress that ‘fuzzy’ structures enable adaptability and innovativeness.

In contrast, idea generation without any focus or drive may be just as detrimental (Boeddrich, 2004; Broadbent, 1980) and also undermine the efficiency of the organisation (Butler et al., 1998). One function of the creativity-seeking organisation then, is to recognise and manage constraints in order to allow not only the generation of new ideas, but their evaluation, development and application. In this way, the role of the organisation in managing the work environment (WE) is critical to the facilitation of the creative potential of their employees.

References:

Boden, M.A. (1997). The constraints of knowledge. In Å.E. Andersson and N.E. Sahlin (eds.) The complexity of creativity, 1-4. Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers.
The Complexity of Creativity

Boeddrich, H-J. (2004). Ideas in the workplace: a new approach towards organizing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management 13(4), 274-185.

Broadbent, D. (1980). Give new products a chance. Marketing, 2(20), 29-31.

Butler, R.J., Price, D.H.R., Coates, P.D. and Pike, R.H. (1998). Organizing for innovation: loose or tight control. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 775-782.

Goulding, I. (1983). New product development: a literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 17(3), 3-30.

Griffiths-Hemans, J. and Grover, R. (2006). Setting the Stage for Creative New Products: Investigating the Idea Fruition Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 27-39.

Kanter, R. M., Kao, J. and Wiersema, F. (1997). Breakthrough thinking at 3M, duPont, GE, Pfizer and Rubbermaid: Innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
Innovation : Breakthrough Thinking at 3M, DuPont, GE, Pfizer, and Rubbermaid (Businessmasters Series)

Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.T.A.J. and Van Engelen, J.M.L. (2004). Stimulating the potential: creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 63-71.

Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132.

Majaro, S. (1988). Managing Ideas for Profit. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
The Creative Gap: Managing Ideas for Profit

McAdam, R. and McClelland, J. (2002). Sources of New Product Ideas and Creativity Practices in the UK Textile Industry. Techonovation, 22, 113-121.

Sands, S. and Warwick, K. M. (1977). Successful business innovation: A survey of current professional views. Californian Management Review, 20(2), 5-16.

Sonnenburg, S. (2004). Creativity in Communication: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Product Creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 254-262.

Tauber, E. M. (1974). How market research discourages major innovation. Business Horizons, 17(3), 22-26.