Search results

This study aims to investigate how configurations of boundary objects (BOs) support innovation teams in developing innovative product concepts. Specifically, it explores the effectiveness of different artefact configurations in facilitating collaboration and bridging knowledge boundaries during the concept development process.

The research is based on data from ten undergraduate innovation teams working with an industry partner in a creative industry. Six categories of BOs are identified, which serve as tools for collaboration. The study applies fsQCA (fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis) to analyse the configurations employed by the teams to bridge knowledge boundaries and support the development of innovative product concepts.

The findings of the study reveal two distinct groups of configurations: product envisioning and product design. The configurations within the “product envisioning” group support the activities of visioning and pivoting, enabling teams to innovate the product concept by altering the product vision. On the other hand, the configurations within the “product design” group facilitate experimenting, modelling and prototyping, allowing teams to design the attributes of the innovative product concept while maintaining the product vision.

This research contributes to the field of innovation by providing insights into the role of BOs and their configurations in supporting innovation teams during concept development. The results suggest that configurations of “product envisioning” support bridging semantic knowledge boundaries, while configurations within “product design” bridge pragmatic knowledge boundaries. This understanding contributes to the broader field of knowledge integration and innovation in design contexts.

The innovative capacity of an organization is typically realized through unit-level teams. Previous studies correlate innovation performance with cultural diversity of teams, but note that team dynamics need to be optimized to derive maximum benefit. Herein, this study offers an assessment of available team building instruments through the lens of diverse innovation teams. In a demonstration project in the pharmaceutical industry, this study then outlines specific tools and approaches which can be successfully deployed through team coaching and mentoring.

A cluster of nine innovation teams with varying degrees of cultural diversity was provided with assessment and management instruments which had been identified and field tested by a mentoring team. Content included cultural awareness tools, innovation team profiling methods and Team Science (SciTS) ideology. Teams were funded, coached and mentored through a six-month performance period and assessed at regular intervals.

Team assessments provided correlations between performance (measured by project completion and new intellectual property generated) and diversity together with wealth of information on intra-team culture and dynamics. Concrete recommendations from the study include adoption of appropriate communication standards to promote inclusivity, use of SciTS operational tracking metrics to enhance engagement, use of the FourSight group profiling methodology and cultural quotient scale cultural awareness instruments at team-forming stage to promote effective dynamics and enhance inclusivity.

Cultural diversity has a positive impact on innovation teams. This said, for maximum benefit cultural awareness of team members should be optimized to avoid unintended conflicts developing. Such issues can be exacerbated when teams are deployed remotely and preventative measures should be established. These issues became of heightened significance as a result of telecommuting imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and have longer-term implications, as corporations consider global air travel reduction through environmental concerns. A tracking tool is described to monitor team engagement and promote inclusivity. It is expected that the learnings can influence how teams can best form, normalize and operate within corporate innovation programs and form the basis of long-term impact studies.

This represents the first systematic study on the impact of cultural diversity and team dynamics within innovation programs in the pharmaceutical industry. The tools and methodologies deployed are widely available and can be adopted by innovation teams in many adjacent industries with established innovation ecosystems.

Though there is broad agreement on the beneficial impact of diversity in management and leadership roles, much of the innovative capacity of an organization is realized at the unit level in working teams. Recent research points to cultural diversity having an especially significant impact on innovation team performance. The reports also highlight the need for the optimal team operating principles to derive maximum benefit. To prepare such innovation teams for success, it is valuable to understand the dynamics of team diversity at the project level and the underlying barriers and opportunities presented.

This paper reviews the literature and case studies on cultural inputs to ideation and innovation, assessing team diversity through readily available instruments and the deployment of the science of team science (SciTS) principles in innovation teams.

The key learnings include the importance of establishing communication standards, SciTS principles, team assessment of thinking styles and the utility of cultural awareness instruments.

Diversity provides a creative advantage for innovation teams. However, team dynamics play an important role in maximizing these advantages, and cross-cultural competence of team members is required. Deployment of appropriate assessment tools and team methodologies enhances the likelihood of successful outcomes including in remote team settings.

Literature from diverse functional areas is summarized including the science of team science, organizational management, diversity and inclusion methodologies and ethnocultural dynamics. It provides pointers for the optimal formation and operating principles with highly culturally diverse teams.

Within digital innovation, there are two significant consequences of the pervasiveness of digital technology: (1) the increasing connectivity is enabling a wider reach and scope of innovation structures, such as innovation networks and (2) the unprecedented availability of digital data is creating new opportunities for innovation. Accordingly, there is a growing domain for studying data-driven innovation (DDI), especially in contemporary contexts of innovation networks. The purpose of this study is to explore how DDI processes take form in a specific type of innovation networks, namely federated networks.

A multiple case study design is applied in this paper. We draw our analysis from data collected over six months from four cases of DDI. The within-analysis is aimed at constructing the DDI process instance in each case, while the crosscase analysis focuses on pattern matching and cross-case synthesis of common and unique characteristics in the constructed processes.

Evidence from the crosscase analysis suggests that the widely accepted four-phase digital innovation process (including discovery, development, diffusion and post-diffusion) does not account for the explorative nature of data analytics and DDI. We propose an extended process comprising an explicit exploration phase before development, where refinement of the innovation concept and exploring social relationships are essential. Our analysis also suggests two modes of DDI: (1) asynchronous, i.e. data acquired before development and (2) synchronous, i.e. data acquired after (or during) development. We discuss the implications of these modes on the DDI process and the participants in the innovation network.

The paper proposes an extended version of the digital innovation process that is more specifically suited for DDI. We also provide an early explanation to the variation in DDI process complexities by highlighting the different modes of DDI processes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical investigation of DDI following the process from early stages of discovery till postdiffusion.

In today’s digital economy, it is very important to cultivate digital professionals with advanced interdisciplinary skills. The purpose of this paper is that universities play a vital role in this effort, and research teams need to use the synergistic effect of various educational methods to improve the quality and efficiency of personnel training. For these teams, a powerful evaluation mechanism is very important to improve their innovation ability and the overall level of talents they cultivate. The policy of “selecting the best through public bidding” not only meets the multi-dimensional evaluation needs of contemporary research, but also conforms to the current atmosphere of evaluating scientific and technological talents.

Nonetheless, since its adoption, several challenges have emerged, including flawed project management systems, a mismatch between listed needs and actual core technological needs and a low rate of conversion of scientific achievements into practical outcomes. These issues are often traced back to overly simplistic evaluation methods for research teams. This paper reviews the literature on the “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates” policy and related evaluation mechanisms for research teams, identifying methodological shortcomings, a gap in exploring team collaboration and an oversight in team selection criteria.

It proposes a theoretical framework for the evaluation and selection mechanisms of research teams under the “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates” model, offering a solid foundation for further in-depth studies in this area.

Research progress on the Evaluation Mechanism of Scientific Research Teams in the Digital Economy Era from the Perspective of “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates.”

This paper aims to describe the students’ experience in adopting design thinking (DT) and extreme programming (XP) throughout a course of technology innovation workshop in a master of business administration (MBA) degree program.

This study analyzes data (performed process and achieved results) from the students’ reports and the instructor’s observations about three courses held in 2016, 2017 and 2018. In each course, there were students conducting activities to understand, develop, and validate the market, customer, user and prototype.

This paper identifies that the processes of DT and XP promote active and collaborative learning relationships. The adopted activities along with a mix of different backgrounds from the students can promote good insights to understand the user problem and build a technological solution with incremental innovation.

This paper describes only a unique view from the instructor’s knowledge; therefore, others might present different scenarios and results.

The paper contributes to the characterization of DT and XP activities when teaching technological innovation in a MBA.

This study investigates the role of collaborative spaces as organizational support for internal innovation through cross-functional teams and for open innovation with external stakeholders. In particular, the study focuses on collaborative spaces as tools for multiplex (i.e., simultaneous internal and external boundary management in innovation projects).

The authors conducted a qualitative study in a multi-divisional organization that set up in its headquarters a collaborative space for collaborative product development. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observations.

Findings highlight that the relation between expectations and experiences about the collaborative space impact on employees' ability to perform boundary work inside and outside the organization. In addition to the collaborative space's affording role for expectations about hands-on collaborative innovation (space as laboratory), the study also highlights a set of collaboration constraints. These latter are generated by perceived boundary configurations (i.e. degree of boundary permeability and infrastructure in internal and external collaborations) and by discrepancies between expectations (space as laboratory) and actual collaboration experiences in the space (i.e. space as maze, cloister, showcase and silo). We show that space-generated constraints slow down internal and external boundary work for innovation and generate a trade-off between them.

Using the process-based perspective of boundary work, the paper connects studies on cross-functional teaming and open innovation through the concept of “multiplex boundary work.” It also contributes to the literature on boundary work by showing the challenges of using collaborative spaces as organizational support tools for multiplex boundary spanning.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the forces driving organizational innovation, particularly CEO transformational leadership as it affects external and internal social capital in top management teams.

Survey questionnaires were administered to 90 Chinese top management teams. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized relationships.

Both internal and external social capital mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation.

Organizations should strengthen internal and external capital of top management teams to reap maximal innovation outcomes from transformational leadership.

The findings contribute to the transformational leadership, social capital, and innovation literature first by showing how leadership influences innovation through largely neglected mechanisms – internal and external social capital. Second, a social capital focus challenges the tacit assumption that transformational leadership has only internal influences by showing that it potentially spills over to the external domain.

The purpose of this paper is to identify factors promoting innovation in the framework of R&D based on surveys conducted on firms in five ASEAN countries, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

The analytical method divided sample firms into two categories, namely, “the R&D group” and “non-R&D group.” The analysis attempts to identify which of the internal capabilities, consisting of technology, human factors and organization factors, promote innovation. Ordered probit analysis is employed.

Findings from the estimations indicate that the two groups pursue product innovation differently. The R&D group promotes innovation by cross-functional teams of production, engineering, and marketing and IT use, whereas the non-R&D group promote product innovation by HRD programs for workers, group awards for suggestions or QC, and ISO9000 series.

The number of samples related to the non-R&D group is too small to conduct statistical analysis. External linkages played an important role in the authors’ previous studies. The introduction of external linkages into the model may yield different results, though the analysis would become more complex.

The results of this paper provide the solid basis of policy to promote innovation and upgrading SMEs in the region.

Many ASEAN SMEs successfully achieve innovation without owning specified in-house departments or sections to conduct R&D.

The features of this paper lie in the original firm-level survey data and rigorous estimation method using ordered probit analysis, which are new to this literature.