Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (13)
Document Type
- Article (13) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (13)
Keywords
- Business models (1)
- Design Thinking (1)
- Framing (1)
- German Mittelstand (1)
- Managerial cognition (1)
- SMEs (1)
- Tools (1)
- Visualisations (1)
- anniversary (1)
- bibliometrics (1)
One of the most challenging difficulties for incumbent organisations, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), is to manage digital transformation driven by technological change. Incumbent organisations' responses to digital transformation have been extensively studied in the current literature.
However, most research neglects digital transformation in SMEs. There are hardly any valid developed measures for the maturity of digital transformation. We present a holistic digital transformation maturity model based on an extensive literature review, qualitative computer-assisted data analysis, and empirical findings.
The digital transformation maturity model focuses on small- and medium-sized enterprises' unique features and characteristics.
We proved the practical applicability and relevance of the digital transformation maturity model in an extensive study involving various organisations, particularly German SMEs (n = 310).
Organisations can use this model to assess themselves initially and, through this process, gain a comprehensive understanding of the multiple forms of digital transformation.
When this journal was founded in 1992 by Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, there was no academic outlet available that addressed issues at the intersection of creativity and innovation. From zero to 1,163 records, from the new kid on the block to one of the leading journals in creativity and innovation management has been quite a journey, and we would like to reflect on the past 28 years and the intellectual and conceptual structure of Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM). Specifically, we highlight milestones and influential articles, identify how key journal characteristics evolved, outline the (co-)authorship structure, and finally, map the thematic landscape of CIM by means of a text-mining analysis. This study represents the first systematic and comprehensive assessment of the journal's published body of knowledge and helps to understand the journal's influence on the creativity and innovation management community. We conclude by discussing future topics and paths of the journal as well as limitations of our approach.
Effecting, but effective?
(2020)
Business model (BM) visualisations have become popular instruments with which to explain and manage today's complex business interactions. Using verbal and graphic elements, they provide simplified representations of reality and can support BM tasks that go beyond working memory's capacities. Visualisations thus reduce cognitive load and represent how practitioners and researchers think about BMs. However, they can also affect their thinking. This constitutes a thus far insufficiently explained tension between effectively reducing reality's complexity and the resulting cognitive biases. Building on cognitive load and framing theory, we qualitatively analysed 103 BM visualisations to explain how visual elements affect visualisations' cognitive effectiveness (helpfulness and ease of applicability) and unfold visual framing effects. By identifying five visual framing effects, we contribute to the cognitive BM perspective and explain how this set of cognitive factors affects BM management and research. We also found that most BM visualisations are not cognitively effective because they consist of unclear and non-parsimonious elements, limiting their cross-contextual application. Furthermore, the analysis revealed certain visualisations with strictly operationalised BM dimensions. These findings provide essential contributions to the literature on BM methods. We conclude by discussing how practitioners and researchers can use BM visualisations and their cognitive impacts accordingly.
Implementing innovation laboratories to leverage intrapreneurship are an increasingly popular organizational practice. A typical feature in these creative environments are semi-autonomous teams in which multiple members collectively exert leadership influence, thereby challenging traditional command-and-control conceptions of leadership. An extensive body of research on the team-centric concept of shared leadership has recognized the potential for pluralized leadership structures in enhancing team effectiveness; however, little empirical work has been conducted in organizational contexts in which creativity is key. This study set out to explore antecedents of shared leadership and its influence on team creativity in an innovation lab. Building on extant shared leadership and innovation research, we propose antecedents customary to creative teamwork, that is, experimental culture, task reflexivity, and voice. Multisource data were collected from 104 team members and 49 evaluations of 29 coaches nested in 21 teams working in a prototypical innovation lab. We identify factors specific to creative teamwork that facilitate the emergence of shared leadership by providing room for experimentation, encouraging team members to speak up in the creative process, and cultivating a reflective application of entrepreneurial thinking. We provide specific exemplary activities for innovation lab teams to increase levels of shared leadership.
Organizations have discovered Design Thinking as a promising framework or language for innovation-focused project teamwork. The goal is to develop new products and services by being customer-centric and working iteratively and in an interdisciplinary way, using specific working principles and methods to create a common language among all stakeholders. The empirical results in this article show that Design Thinking teamwork is different from other forms of teamwork. The difference in Design Thinking team-based project work is that the teams go through a specific learning process that poses individual challenges but also provides the individual with experience-based learning. We show that teams going through this learning process repeatedly find themselves in seemingly insolvable conflicts-so called structural dilemmas-within the framework of project deadlines and under the influence of strategic guidelines of the organization. We explore these structural dilemmas and develop ways to overcome them.
The paradox of openness is inherent to all platform ecosystems-the tension in enabling maximum openness to create joint innovation while guaranteeing value capturing for all actors. Governance mechanisms to solve this paradox are embedded into the technical architecture of the platform, addressing the dimensions of access, control, and incentives. Blockchain technology offers unique ways to design novel governance mechanisms through the standardization of interactions. However, the design of such an architecture requires careful consideration of the cost associated with it.
Innovation response behaviour is defined as individuals novelty-supporting or novelty-impeding action when navigating innovation initiatives through the organization. A typology of innovation response behaviour is developed, distinguishing between active and passive modes of conduct for novelty-supporting and novelty-impeding behaviour, respectively. The antecedents of innovation response behaviour are delineated based on West and Farr's five-factor model of individual innovation. Moreover, we argue that within organizational contexts, individuals often fail to implement their ideas due to innovation barriers, perceived as factors that are beyond their control. Based on the theory of planned behaviour, we reveal how these barriers influence individuals intentional and exhibited innovation response behaviour. Propositions about proximal and distal antecedents of individuals innovation response behaviour are derived. Proposing a research framework to study the organizational process of innovation from an actor-based perspective, this paper intends to link existing research on individual innovation with the process of innovation at the organizational level, explicitly accounting for the socio-political dynamics and arising managerial problems associated with successful innovation implementation within organizational realities. Implications for research in innovation management are discussed and avenues for future research outlined.