Lightning in a Bottle: Managing Ideas to Spur Innovation David Dahl Academic Libraries and Innovation
Yüklə 130,51 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Innovation Defined What is Innovation
- Table 1 Types of Innovation and examples of each
- Suggestions for Libraries Create Structure
- Identify Innovation Champions
|
297 Lightning in a Bottle: Managing Ideas to Spur Innovation David Dahl Academic Libraries and Innovation Innovation is an important component of the aca- demic library. In an environment where new tech- nologies and resources are clouding the information world, it is essential for libraries to continue to be at the forefront of innovations impacting the informa- tion world. Robin Bergart and M.J. D’Elia project that “if you take a look at your library’s mission or vision state- ment, there is good chance you will find a reference to innovation”. 1 And, in fact, a simple Google search for “library mission statement innovation” does indeed demonstrate that many academic libraries include the word innovation in their mission statements. As higher education institutions increasingly adapt business models and strategies from the cor- porate world, academic libraries must do the same. This effort is already evidenced through recent pub- lications addressing ROI and assessment of the value of libraries. 2 Libraries will also benefit from following the guidance of corporate practices when it comes to innovation. This paper seeks to review and organize much of the seminal research from the business and management literature related to innovation, specifi- cally the portion of the innovation process that ad- dresses the generation and management of ideas, in an effort to apply it to the academic library environ- ment. Following this review, best practices will be suggested to help libraries improve the beginning of the innovation process, commonly referred to as the “fuzzy front end”.
Innovation is often used synonymously or in accom- paniment with technological advancement. While new and improved technologies are innovations, the implication of technology when referring to the term innovation is too restrictive. Everett Rogers defines in- novation more broadly as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption”. 3 While more inclusive, this view of in- novation is problematic as ideas are commonly seen as a component of innovation rather than as an in- novation itself. Gerald Zaltman, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbek summarize two other contexts for the term innovation: (1) innovation as synonymous with the term invention and (2) innovation as the process of adopting something innovative. 4 Semantically, these two contexts can be reduced to the difference between a noun and a verb, respectively. In the latter instance, innovation is used as an activity (i.e. “doing” innovation). Innovation as an activity is the process of innovating. In the former context, innovation is viewed retrospectively as the end result of this process of innovating. This paradoxical use of the term inno- vation as both the process and the end result has led to numerous variations in the definition of innovation. David Dahl is Emerging Technologies Librarian at Towson University, e-mail: ddahl@towson.edu David Dahl 298 ACRL 2011 Types of Innovation Most often, the notion of innovation as an end result brings to mind the creation of new products. This re- lates directly to Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek’s first context of innovation as an invention. However, other types of innovation do exist, including service inno- vations and process innovations. 5 This is important to keep in mind as these types of innovations are more likely to be produced by academic libraries, which of- ten rely on vendors to create innovative products. In addition to product, process, and service innovations some innovations have larger social implications, re- ferred to as social innovations or paradigm innova- tions. 6
that an individual library would produce this type of innovation, social innovations have the potential to impact the way academic libraries function. Like product innovations, social innovations often affect or lead to service and process innovations. As Table 1 in- dicates, innovation types are not mutually exclusive. 7 The second means of categorizing innovation is in terms of its impact on the adopting unit. Innovations can be characterized as either incremental or radical. 8
and focus on gradual improvement. Radical innova- tions, referred to as discontinuous innovations by Su- san Reid and Ulrike de Brentani, 9 have the tendency to change the processes and thinking for the adopting unit. Oftentimes, innovations do not take on their dis- continuous nature until they have been implemented for some time. This is due to the S-shaped curve trend of adoption as presented by Rogers. 10 As more users adopt an innovation, its potential to become discon- tinuous increases. For academic libraries, it is impor- tant to decide whether they wish to reinvent a certain product, service, etc. (radical innovation) or make small improvements, keeping the same foundational principles (incremental innovation). The Innovation Process Regardless of the nature of the resulting innovation, the activity of doing innovation is frequently analyzed as a process. Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek propose a model for the innovation process in organizations that consists of five substages: (1) knowledge-aware- ness, (2) formation of attitudes toward the innovation, (3) decision, (4) initial implementation, and (5) con- tinued-sustained implementation. These substages are grouped into two main stages called the initiation stage (substages 1, 2, and 3) and the implementation stage (substages 4 and 5). 11 Other innovation mod- els can be, and often are, divided to fit this two-stage scheme. The initiation stage deals with the innovation in an abstract way. Ideas and knowledge are shared to help form a clear understanding of what the innova- tion should be. The implementation stage is initiated when the idea for the innovation has been finalized and a decision to implement the innovation has been made.
The Fuzzy Front End The abstract nature of the initiation stage has lead re- searchers and practitioners alike to refer to this stage as the fuzzy front end. The term was first popularized in 1991 by Preston Smith and Donald Reinertsen in their book Developing Products in Half the Time. 12
ing, clustering, screening, selecting, and improving ideas.
13 Reinertsen views the fuzzy front end as a “pre- cursor to a betting process…The purpose of the [fuzzy front end] is to alter the economic terms of the bets we place on product development”. 14 In other words, focusing efforts on improving the effectiveness and ef- ficiency of the fuzzy front end can reduce the risk of failure and lead to more successful innovations. Peter Koen et al. see the fuzzy front end as one of the larg- est opportunities for making the innovation process more effective. 15 This early stage in the innovation process must be systematically structured in order for innovation to succeed.
16 However, Heinz-Juergen Boeddrich claims that many managers do not feel that this stage of the innovation process can or should be managed be- cause of the creative nature of idea generation, a line
Type of Innovation Library-related Examples Product Next-generation catalogs and discovery tools, Internet, iPad Process
Assembly line, next-generation catalogs and discovery tools Service Twitter, next-generation catalogs and discovery tools, IM reference services Social/Paradigm Open access, Web 2.0, Creative Commons
Lightning in a Bottle: Managing Ideas to Spur Innovation 299 March 30–April 2, 2011, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania of thinking he refers to as “the fantasy route to inno- vation”.
17 It is perhaps because of the belief that the front end of the innovation process cannot be struc- tured that the fuzzy front end provides an opportu- nity for improving the innovation process. Of course, Boeddrich also warns against the over-structuring of the front end stage, referring to the other route as the “technocratic route to innovation”. 18 Instead, a com- promise between the two extremes is suggested. As in Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek’s segmenta- tion of the initiation stage, the fuzzy front end can be divided into three main segments: (1) idea generation, (2) idea development, and (3) idea selection. While other variations of this model do exist, most represent this same basic structure with more or less specific- ity for certain segments and different terminology to describe each phase. In an attempt to apply the orga- nizational factors of culture and structure to the fuzzy front end, Christiaan van Dijk and Jan van den Ende identify the three phases as idea extraction, idea land- ing, and idea follow-up. 19 This model takes for granted the generation of ideas and skips directly to the shar- ing of ideas by employees of the organization. It as- sumes that the ideas which become innovations are already in the minds of those whom contribute ideas to the organization. While it has been shown that quantity of ideas alone does not necessarily lead to better innovations, overlooking the idea generation stage altogether can cause an organization to miss out on valuable opportunities.
The idea generation stage provides an opportunity to both focus and motivate the creation of new ideas. Those who wish to achieve any type of innovation must encourage ideas and provide guidance for the scope of ideas. Koen et al. account for the need for guidance by incorporating two more stages into the fuzzy front end of innovation. In their New Concept Development Model, both Opportunity Identifica- tion and Opportunity Analysis precede the idea gen- eration stage. 20 If innovation is taken as a solution to a problem, then the identification and analysis of opportunities is comparable to the discovery and sharing of problems that need to be addressed by an organization. Without an identified need or oppor- tunity the process of generating ideas (and innova- tion for that matter) is merely self-serving. A study documented by Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek deter- mined that 75% of ideas are stimulated by identified opportunities whereas only 25% originated from pre- vious knowledge which was then found to address a certain need. 21 Identifying and analyzing a need for innovation allows individuals to generate ideas within a practicable set of boundaries. Not only do needs cre- ate a focus for idea generation, but it also serves as one of the main motivators for producing new ideas. In a survey of industry workers, approximately half of all respondents identified themselves as problem-solvers, 30% of whom said they were able to generate possible solutions as soon as the problem was identified. 22
is an important factor in idea generation, the ability of individuals and the organization to acquire and share knowledge is equally necessary. Michael Mumford et al. believe that the acquisition of knowledge requires expertise, and the complexity of most problems re- quires different forms of expertise. This makes collab- oration an important part of idea generation. 23 How- ever, a study by Karan Girotra, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl Ulrich found that working in teams was not the most effective method for producing high quality ideas. Rather, a hybrid process where individuals first generate ideas on their own and then share them in a group setting produced more ideas and higher quality ideas. 24
idea generation, it is equally important to understand from whom new ideas originate. Langdon Morris identifies the generators of ideas as creative geniuses, who “work everywhere in the organization” and of- ten are individuals outside organizations, including vendors, suppliers, and customers. 25 Jennie Bjork and Mats Magnusson stress that “the sources for innova- tion ideas cannot rely only on a few individuals”. 26
In corporations, these creative geniuses are often the front line workers who interact with customers and possess the ability to understand the reality of their environment and envision the potential for improve- ments. 27
from them as an employee as they seek out organiza- tional problems and needs and investigate potential solutions.
The sharing of generated ideas marks the beginning of the idea development stage of the fuzzy front end
David Dahl 300 ACRL 2011 of the innovation process. This phase helps turn a raw idea that an individual creates into a mature idea that has the potential to be selected and implemented as an innovation. The creative geniuses who produce ideas often do not have the ability to turn their ideas into practicable solutions. 28 During idea development it is important for others, especially innovation cham- pions
29 , to work with the idea and help it involve into an implementable idea. While suggestion systems are first and foremost a means of collecting suggestions from various sourc- es, such as employees, the scope of their use has ex- panded to support the idea development stage as well. This is largely due to the increased use of information systems within organizations. 30 A successful sugges- tion system needs to offer a means for others within the organization to provide feedback on the idea with the intent of improving it and increasing its chance of implementation. The idea may not be shared with everyone immediately depending on the preference of the creative genius who generated the idea. Some may choose a smaller group with whom to initially share their ideas before presenting them to a larger audi- ence. This is represented in Han Bakker, Kees Boers- ma, and Sytse Oreel’s Crea-Political Process Model, which divides the individual’s relationships within the organization into three separate organizational circles: intimate, professional, and managerial. 31 Many individuals will choose to gather feedback from their immediate network (i.e. intimate) before distributing their ideas more widely. Several models and diagrams exist for electronic suggestion systems. 32 However, a system for managing suggestions does not need to be encompassed within an information system. While this is often a useful method to manage the idea development process, it is more important that ideas be shared widely, that the creative genius or those who champion the idea re- ceive feedback, and that the developed idea fits within the goals of the organization and the requirements for a solution to the need being addressed (e.g. deadlines for implantation, budget, etc.). The idea development process is important as individuals are not always able to evaluate their own ideas well. 33
Idea Selection Two potential scenarios exist for the idea selection stage: (1) the best idea must be chosen from several op- tions, or (2) a single idea (without any competing ideas) must be adopted or rejected. In either scenario, the end goal is to implement only the highest quality ideas. Idea quality is defined as a combination of feasibility and originality. The best ideas are typically creative but also grounded in reality in order to possess potential for im- plementation. 34 It is commonly believed that a higher quantity of ideas will lead to higher quality ideas. This is not necessarily true. 35 Rather, factors such as the cre- ative genius’ network centrality within the organiza- tion
36 and a hybrid brainstorming structure 37 lead to the production of the highest quality ideas. The individual or group responsible for the selec- tion of ideas for implementation may vary depending on the potential impact of the innovation. If the in- novation impacts only the generator of the idea, then they may also be the decision-maker in the innovation process. If the idea has widespread impact, especially in relationship to labor and budget, it is important that the best idea is chosen. Girotra, Terwiesch, and Ulrich found that better ideas were selected by those who were unaware of the details of the process through which the idea was generated and developed. 38 This
may be due to biases that the owners of an idea have toward it. Reinertsen identifies two potential mistakes that can be made during the idea selection stage: (1) a good idea could be rejected and (2) a bad idea could be accepted. The latter seems more likely to occur if an idea owners biases affect the decision process. 39
acceptance of a bad idea can be far more costly. In the models of the innovation process discussed above, the selection stage is the dividing line between the in- novation as an idea and the implementation of that idea. At this point, money, labor, and other resources are usually invested in the innovation. The fuzzy front end process has little cost and risk associated with it compared to the implementation process. Suggestions for Libraries Create Structure As Boeddrich states, it is important to find a good compromise between imposing structure and allow- ing freedom for exploration during the fuzzy front end of innovation. A good place to start imposing structure is on those factors that affect the generation of ideas. Innovation leaders should make sure that channels are implemented so that both internal and external knowledge can be accessed by any employ- ee who desires it. This includes sharing results from Lightning in a Bottle: Managing Ideas to Spur Innovation 301 March 30–April 2, 2011, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania formalized assessment, sharing usage data and other library statistics, widely distributing feedback from patrons and other external customers, and pushing out information about new trends and developments that may have an impact on academic libraries. This knowledge will help produce more informed and po- tentially implementable ideas, possibly avoiding some of the issues of creative ideas that Levitt mentions. 40
Oftentimes committees or other working groups are relied upon to generate (or discover) ideas and imple- ment solutions within the academic library. However, as Girotra, Terwiesch, and Ulrich found, group brain- storming is not as effective for generating innovative ideas as a hybrid model. 41 Thus, rather than beginning the idea generation process with a group brainstorm- ing session, it is suggested that individuals are allowed (and even required) to generate ideas individually in advance of meeting and sharing ideas with the larger group. This will produce more variation in the pro- posed ideas, which may lead to a higher quality idea that may not have surfaced in a group brainstorm session where individuals are more likely to build on the ideas of others rather than suggesting potentially tangential ideas. The goal of effective idea generation, typically, is to produce one great idea; theoretically, it does not matter whether the other proposed ideas are good or bad. In accordance with general practices for effective idea generation, individual idea generation should be informed by the factors mentioned above that help create focus in idea generation: budgetary con- straints, deadlines for implementation, relevant litera- ture and external knowledge, and a clear description of the problem or need to be addressed. Committee chairs or group leaders should provide this and any other relevant information to their potential creative geniuses well in advance of meeting as a group.
The individuals who generate ideas are not necessar- ily equipped to carry out the implementation of the idea. As Levitt describes, they may not even be ca- pable of turning their creative ideas into practicable ideas.
42 The success of a raw idea requires the help of one or more people who possess knowledge of the li- brary’s strategic plans and values and are able to refine the idea in order to tie it to organizational outcomes. These innovation champions are able to promote the idea in terms that help sell the idea to decision-mak- ers.
43 They also tend to have a wide network within the organization, which allows them to gather feed- back from various departments and get buy-in for the idea. 44 As either a creative genius who is generat- ing ideas or an administrator attempting to get better ideas, identifying innovation champions within your organization is an unrecognized yet important task. Employees who fit the characteristics of an innovation champion should be encouraged to embrace this role and rewarded for their efforts. Reward Great Ideas Many companies provide monetary rewards for em- ployees who generate ideas. This seems to occur mostly in companies that have invested in electronic suggestion and idea management systems. Beyond fi- nancial rewards, the implementation of an idea can be a big incentive for producing ideas. If employees and external customers feel their ideas are actually being utilized, they will be more likely to contribute more ideas in the future. Not implementing ideas can have the opposite effect of discouraging the genera- tion of new ideas. As employees continue to suggest new ideas, their understanding of the need for ratio- nality during the innovation process increases. 45 This
increased understanding has the potential to trans- form employees who fit the creative genius role into innovation champions.
Innovation is commonly associated with risk and un- predictability, and failure is seen as a natural element of the innovation process. 46 However, libraries can improve their innovation successes and produce less costly failures by looking carefully at the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. The variety of needs to be addressed by the innovation process in librar- ies is too expansive to suggest one concrete system or model for managing the innovation process. More work should be done to investigate best practices that libraries can follow for each step in the idea manage- ment process. However, a review of the business and management literature on the front end of the innova- tion process indicates that libraries should encourage and seek out the generation of ideas from all employ- ees and patrons; impose organizational structures to aid the flow of information, needs, and ideas; identify David Dahl 302 ACRL 2011 individuals who possess the characteristics of certain innovation roles; and focus on putting forth mature, well-defined ideas for implementation.
1. Robin Bergart and M. J. D’Elia, Innovation: The Lan- guage of Learning Libraries, Vol. 38, 2010), 606. 2. Paula Kaufman and Sarah Barbara Watstein, “Library Value (Return on Investment, ROI) and the Challenge of Placing a Value on Public Services,” Reference Services Review 36, no. 3 (08, 2008), 226–231. ; Svanhild Aabø, “Libraries and Return on Investment (ROI): A Meta-Analysis,” New Library World 110, no. 7 (07, 2009), 311–324.; Megan Oakleaf, The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Re- view and Report (Chicago, IL: Association of College and Re- search Libraries, 2010), 210, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/ divs/acrl/issues/value/val_report.pdf (accessed December 5, 2010).; Carol Tenopir, “Measuring the Value of the Academic Library: Return on Investment and Other Value Measures,” Serials Librarian 58, no. 1–4 (Jan, 2010), 39–48. 3 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (New York: Free Press, 2003), 12. 4. Gerald Zaltman, Robert Duncan and Jonny Holbek, Innovations and Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1973), 7–8. 5. Harvard Business Essentials: Managing Creativity and Innovation. (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 2003), 7–11. 6. Alexander Brem and Kai-Ingo Voigt, “Innovation Management in Emerging Technology Ventures: The Con- cept of an Integrated Idea Management,” International Jour- nal of Technology, Policy and Management 7, no. 3 (2007), 305, http://www.industriebetriebslehre.wiso.uni-erlangen. de/lehrstuhl/IJTPM-Br-Vo.pdf (accessed January 5, 2011).; Jennie Björk and Mats Magnusson, “Where do Good Inno- vation Ideas Come from? Exploring the Influence of Net- work Connectivity on Innovation Idea Quality,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, no. 6 (11, 2009), 663. 7. Brem and Voigt, Innovation Management in Emerg- ing Technology Ventures: The Concept of an Integrated Idea Management, 305. 8. Harvard Business Essentials: Managing Creativity and Innovation, 2–7. 9. Susan E. Reid and Ulrike de Brentani, “The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinu- ous Innovations: A Theoretical Model,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 21, no. 3 (05, 2004), 176. 10. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 41. 11. Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek, Innovations and Or- ganizations, 60–69. 12. Reid and de Brentani, The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A The- oretical Model, 171. 13. Heinz-Juergen Boeddrich, “Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process,” Creativity & Innovation Man- agement 13, no. 4 (12, 2004), 275. 14. Donald G. Reinertsen, “Taking the Fuzziness Out of the Fuzzy Front End,” Research Technology Management 42, no. 6 (Nov, 1999), 25. 15. Peter Koen and others, “Providing Clarity and a Common Language to the ‘Fuzzy Front End.’,” Research Technology Management 44, no. 2 (Mar, 2001), 46. 16. Boeddrich, Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process, 274. 17. Ibid., 275 18. Ibid., 275 19. C. van Dijk and J. van den Ende, “Suggestion Sys- tems: Transferring Employee Creativity into Practicable Ideas,” R&D Management 32, no. 5 (11, 2002), 387–395. 20. Koen and others, Providing Clarity and a Common Language to the ‘Fuzzy Front End.’, 50–51. 21. Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek, Innovations and Or- ganizations, 118. 22. G. Ekvall, “Creativity at the Place of Work: Studies of Suggestors and Suggestion Systems in Industry.” The Jour- nal of Creative Behavior (1976), 54. 23. Michael D. Mumford and others, “Leading Creative People: Orchestrating Expertise and Relationships,” The Leadership Quarterly 13, no. 6 (12, 2002), 708–709. 24. Karan Girotra, Christian Terwiesch and Karl T. Ul- rich, “Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea,” Management Science 56, no. 4 (04, 2010), 591–605. 25. Langdon Morris, “Creating the Innovation Culture: Geniuses, Champions, and Leaders” (White Paper, Innova- tion Labs, 2007), http://www.innovationlabs.com/innova- tion_culture2.html (accessed February 25, 2009). 26. Björk and Magnusson, Where do Good Innovation Ideas Come from? Exploring the Influence of Network Con- nectivity on Innovation Idea Quality, 664. 27. Morris, Creating the Innovation Culture: Geniuses, Champions, and Leaders, 8. 28. Theodore Levitt, “Creativity is Not enough,” Har- vard Business Review 80, no. 8 (08, 2002), 137–145. 29. Morris, Creating the Innovation Culture: Geniuses, Champions, and Leaders, 11–13. 30. James F. Fairbank, William E. Spangler and Scott Da- vid Williams, “Motivating Creativity through a Computer- Lightning in a Bottle: Managing Ideas to Spur Innovation 303 March 30–April 2, 2011, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Mediated Employee Suggestion Management System,” Be- haviour & Information Technology 22, no. 5 (Sep, 2003), 306. 31. Han Bakker, Kees Boersma and Sytse Oreel, “Cre- ativity (Ideas) Management in Industrial R&D Organiza- tions: A Crea-Political Process Model and an Empirical Illustration of Corus RD&T,” Creativity & Innovation Man- agement 15, no. 3 (09, 2006), 300–301. 32. Ibid., 303; Fairbank, Spangler and Williams, Moti- vating Creativity through a Computer-Mediated Employee Suggestion Management System, 312.; Norman R. Baker and James R. Freeland, “Structuring Information Flow to Enhance Innovation,” Management Science 19, no. 1 (09, 1972), 106. 33. Girotra, Terwiesch and Ulrich, Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea, 593. 34. Eric F. Rietzschel, Bernard A. Nijstad and Wolfgang Stroebe, “The Selection of Creative Ideas After Individual Idea Generation: Choosing between Creativity and Im- pact,” British Journal of Psychology 101, no. 1 (02, 2010), 48. 35. Björk and Magnusson, Where do Good Innovation Ideas Come from? Exploring the Influence of Network Con- nectivity on Innovation Idea Quality, 669. 36. Ibid. 37. Girotra, Terwiesch and Ulrich, Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea, 591–605. 38. Ibid., 595 39. Reinertsen, Taking the Fuzziness Out of the Fuzzy Front End, 26. 40. Levitt, Creativity is Not enough, 137–145. 41. Girotra, Terwiesch and Ulrich, Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea, 591–605. 42. Levitt, Creativity is Not enough, 137–145. 43. Jane M. Howell and Kathleen Boies, “Champions of Technological Innovation: The Influence of Contextual Knowledge, Role Orientation, Idea Generation, and Idea Promotion on Champion Emergence,” Leadership Quar- terly 15, no. 1 (02, 2004), 136–137. 44. Morris, Creating the Innovation Culture: Geniuses, Champions, and Leaders, 11–12. 45. Ekvall, Creativity at the Place of Work: Studies of Sug- gestors and Suggestion Systems in Industry., 53. 46. Morris, Creating the Innovation Culture: Geniuses, Champions, and Leaders, 6.
Harvard Business Essentials: Managing Creativity and Inno- vation. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
Aabø, Svanhild. “Libraries and Return on Investment (ROI): A Meta-Analysis.” New Library World 110, no. 7 (07, 2009): 311–324. Baker, Norman R. and James R. Freeland. “Structuring In- formation Flow to Enhance Innovation.” Management Science 19, no. 1 (09, 1972): 105–116. Bakker, Han, Kees Boersma, and Sytse Oreel. “Creativity (Ideas) Management in Industrial R&D Organizations: A Crea-Political Process Model and an Empirical Illus- tration of Corus RD&T.” Creativity & Innovation Man- agement 15, no. 3 (09, 2006): 296–309. Bergart, Robin and M. J. D’Elia. . Innovation: The Language of Learning Libraries. Vol. 38, 2010. Björk, Jennie and Mats Magnusson. “Where do Good In- novation Ideas Come from? Exploring the Influence of Network Connectivity on Innovation Idea Quality.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, no. 6 (11, 2009): 662–670. Boeddrich, Heinz-Juergen. “Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process.” Creativity & Innovation Man- agement 13, no. 4 (12, 2004): 274–285. Brem, Alexander and Kai-Ingo Voigt. “Innovation Man- agement in Emerging Technology Ventures: The Con- cept of an Integrated Idea Management.” International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 7, no. 3 (2007): 304–321, http://www.industriebetriebslehre. wiso.uni-erlangen.de/lehrstuhl/IJTPM-Br-Vo.pdf (ac- cessed January 5, 2011). Ekvall, G. “Creativity at the Place of Work: Studies of Sug- gestors and Suggestion Systems in Industry.” The Jour- nal of Creative Behavior (1976). Fairbank, James F., William E. Spangler, and Scott David Williams. “Motivating Creativity through a Computer- Mediated Employee Suggestion Management System.” Behaviour & Information Technology 22, no. 5 (Sep, 2003): 305. Girotra, Karan, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl T. Ulrich. “Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea.” Management Science 56, no. 4 (04, 2010): 591–605. Howell, Jane M. and Kathleen Boies. “Champions of Tech- nological Innovation: The Influence of Contextual Knowledge, Role Orientation, Idea Generation, and Idea Promotion on Champion Emergence.” Leadership Quarterly 15, no. 1 (02, 2004): 123. Kaufman, Paula and Sarah Barbara Watstein. “Library Val- ue (Return on Investment, ROI) and the Challenge of Placing a Value on Public Services.” Reference Services Review 36, no. 3 (08, 2008): 226–231. Koen, Peter, Greg Ajamian, Robert Burkart, Allen Clamen, David Dahl 304 ACRL 2011 Jeffrey Davidson, Robb D’Amore, Claudia Elkins, et al. “Providing Clarity and a Common Language to the ‘Fuzzy Front End.’.” Research Technology Management 44, no. 2 (Mar, 2001): 46. Levitt, Theodore. “Creativity is Not enough.” Harvard Busi- ness Review 80, no. 8 (08, 2002): 137–145. Morris, Langdon. “Creating the Innovation Culture: Ge- niuses, Champions, and Leaders.” White Paper, Inno- vation Labs, , http://www.innovationlabs.com/innova- tion_culture2.html (accessed February 25, 2009). Mumford, Michael D., Ginamarie M. Scott, Blaine Gaddis, and Jill M. Strange. “Leading Creative People: Orches- trating Expertise and Relationships.” The Leadership Quarterly 13, no. 6 (12, 2002): 705–750. Oakleaf, Megan. The Value of Academic Libraries: A Com- prehensive Research Review and Report. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2010, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/value/ val_report.pdf (accessed December 5, 2010). Reid, Susan E. and Ulrike de Brentani. “The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 21, no. 3 (05, 2004): 170–184. Reinertsen, Donald G. “Taking the Fuzziness Out of the Fuzzy Front End.” Research Technology Management 42, no. 6 (Nov, 1999): 25. Rietzschel, Eric F., Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroe- be. “The Selection of Creative Ideas After Individual Idea Generation: Choosing between Creativity and Impact.” British Journal of Psychology 101, no. 1 (02, 2010): 47–68. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Tenopir, Carol. “Measuring the Value of the Academic Li- brary: Return on Investment and Other Value Mea- sures.” Serials Librarian 58, no. 1–4 (Jan, 2010): 39–48. van Dijk, C. and J. van den Ende. “Suggestion Systems: Transferring Employee Creativity into Practicable Ideas.” R&D Management 32, no. 5 (11, 2002): 387– 395.
Zaltman, Gerald, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbek. In- novations and Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1973. Yüklə 130,51 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|