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-
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
And, in fact, a simple Google search for
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
Libraries will also benefit from following
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”.
What is Innovation?
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
While more inclusive, this view of in-
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.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
This is important to
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-
While it is unlikely (though not impossible)
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.
The second means of categorizing innovation is in
can be characterized as either incremental or radical.
Incremental innovations are evolutionary in nature
tions, referred to as discontinuous innovations by Su-
san Reid and Ulrike de Brentani,
have the tendency
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.
As more users
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).
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).
Other innovation mod-
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
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.
This stage consists of generating, collecting, adopt-
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”.
In other words,
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
This early stage in the innovation process must be
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
Types of Innovation and examples of each
Type of Innovation Library-related Examples
Next-generation catalogs and
catalogs and discovery tools
Open access, Web 2.0, Creative
March 30–April 2, 2011, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
of thinking he refers to as “the fantasy route to inno-
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”.
Instead, a com-
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.
This model takes for granted
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-
If innovation is taken as a solution
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
Identifying and analyzing a need for
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.
While the ability to identify needs and problems
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.
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
As important as the motivational factors are to
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.
Jennie Bjork and
tion ideas cannot rely only on a few individuals”.
Rather, ideas should be encouraged from everyone.
front line workers who interact with customers and
possess the ability to understand the reality of their
environment and envision the potential for improve-
They often do more than what is required
tional problems and needs and investigate potential
The sharing of generated ideas marks the beginning
of the idea development stage of the fuzzy front end
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.
During idea development
, 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.
A successful sugges-
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.
immediate network (i.e. intimate) before distributing
their ideas more widely.
Several models and diagrams exist for electronic
However, a system for managing
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.
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-
It is commonly believed that a higher
is not necessarily true.
Rather, factors such as the cre-
and a hybrid brainstorming structure
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.
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.
While rejecting a good idea is a lost opportunity, 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.
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
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.
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.
Thus, rather than beginning
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.
Identify Innovation Champions
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
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-
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
As either a creative genius who is generat-
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.
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.
form employees who fit the creative genius role into
Innovation is commonly associated with risk and un-
predictability, and failure is seen as a natural element
of the innovation process.
However, libraries can
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
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),
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
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-
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
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-
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-
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,
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
nectivity on Innovation Idea Quality, 669.
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
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,
(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.
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,
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,
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,
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,
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–
novations and Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1973.