Search results

A self‐help guide to achieving success in business. Directed more towards the self‐employed, it is relevant to other managers in organizations. Divided into clear sections on creativity and dealing with change; importance of clear goal setting; developing winning business and marketing strategies; negotiating skills; leadership; financial skills; and time management.

The purpose of this paper is to present a fresh approach to stimulate individual creativity. It introduces a mathematical representation for creative ideas, six creativity operators and methods of matrix-algebra to evaluate, improve and stimulate creative ideas. Creativity begins with ideas to resolve a problem or tackle an opportunity. By definition, a creative idea must be simultaneously novel and useful. To inject analytic rigor into these concepts of creative ideas, the author introduces a feature-attribute matrix-construct to represent ideas, creativity operators that use ideas as operands and methods of matrix algebra. It is demonstrated that it is now possible to analytically and quantitatively evaluate the intensity of the variables that make an idea more, equal or less, creative than another. The six creativity operators are illustrated with detailed multi-disciplinary real-world examples. The mathematics and working principles of each creativity operator are discussed.

The unit of analysis is ideas, not theory. Ideas are man-made artifacts. They are represented by an original feature-attribute matrix construct. Using matrix algebra, idea matrices can be manipulated to improve their creative intensity, which are now quantitatively measurable. Unlike atoms and cute rabbits, creative ideas, do not occur in nature. Only people can conceive and develop creative ideas for embodiment in physical, non-physical forms, or in a mix of both. For example, as widgets, abstract theorems, business processes, symphonies, organization structures, and so on. The feature-attribute matrix construct is used to represent novelty and usefulness. The multiplicative product of these two matrices forms the creativity matrix. Six creativity operators and matrix algebra are introduced to stimulate and measure creative ideas. Creativity operators use idea matrices as operands. Uses of the six operators are demonstrated using multi-disciplinary real-world examples. Metrics for novelty, usefulness and creativity are in ratio scales, grounded on the Weber–Fechner Law. This law is about persons’ ability to discern differences in the intensity of stimuli.

Ideas are represented using feature-attribute matrices. This construct is used to represent novel, useful and creative ideas with more clarity and precision than before. Using matrices, it is shown how to unambiguously and clearly represent creative ideas endowed with novelty and usefulness. It is shown that using matrix algebra, on idea matrices, makes it possible to analyze multi-disciplinary, real-world cases of creative ideas, with clarity and discriminatory power, to uncover insights about novelty and usefulness. Idea-matrices and the methods of matrix algebra have strong explanatory and predictive power. Using of matrix algebra and eigenvalue analyses, of idea-matrices, it is demonstrated how to quantitatively rank ideas, features and attributes of creative ideas. Matrix methods operationalize and quantitatively measure creativity, novelty and usefulness. The specific elementary variables that characterize creativity, novelty and usefulness factors, can now be quantitatively ranked. Creativity, novelty and usefulness factors are not considered as monolithic, irreducible factors, vague “lumpy” qualitative factors, but as explicit sets of elementary, specific and measurable variables in ratio scales. This significantly improves the acuity and discriminatory power in the analyses of creative ideas. The feature-attribute matrix approach and its matrix operators are conceptually consistent and complementary with key extant theories engineering design and creativity.

First to define and specify ideas as feature-attribute matrices. It is demonstrated that creative ideas, novel ideas and useful ideas can be analytically and unambiguously specified and measured for creativity. It is significant that verbose qualitative narratives will no longer be the exclusive means to specify creative ideas. Rather, qualitative narratives will be used to complement the matrix specifications of creative ideas. First to specify six creativity operators enabling matrix algebra to operate on idea-matrices as operands to generate new ideas. This capability informs and guides a person’s intuition. The myth and dependency, on non-repeatable or non-reproducible serendipity, flashes of “eureka” moments or divine inspiration, can now be vacated. Though their existence cannot be ruled out. First to specify matrix algebra and eigen-value methods of quantitative analyses of feature-attribute matrices to rank the importance of elementary variables that characterize factors of novelty, usefulness and creativity. Use of verbose qualitative narratives of novelty, usefulness and creativity as monolithic “lumpy” factors can now be vacated. Such lumpy narratives risk being ambiguous, imprecise, unreliable and non-reproducible, Analytic and quantitative methods are more reliable and consistent. First to define and specify a method of “attacking the negatives” to systematically pinpoint the improvements of an idea’s novelty, usefulness and creativity. This procedure informs and methodically guides the improvements of deficient ideas.

In the knowledge economy, greater togetherness is the prerequisite for innovating and having more: selflessness extends scope while selfishness increases limitations. But human beings are not automatically attracted to innovation: between the two lies culture and cultural values vary widely, with the egoistic accent or the altruistic intonation setting the scene. In the representations of open innovation we submit to the reader’s attention, selfishness and selflessness are active in the cultural space.

Popularized in the early 2000s, open innovation is a systematic process by which ideas pass among organizations and travel along different exploitation vectors. With the arrival of multiple digital transformative technologies and the rapid evolution of the discipline of innovation, there was a need for a new approach to change, incorporating technological, societal and policy dimensions. Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) – the result of advances in digital technologies and the cognitive sciences – marks a shift from incremental gains to disruptions that effect a great step forward in economic and social development. OI2 seeks the unexpected and provides support for the rapid scale-up of successes.

‘Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come’ – this thought, attributed to Victor Hugo, tells us how a great deal is at stake with open innovation. Amidon and other scholars have argued that the twenty-first century is not about ‘having more’ but about ‘being more’. The promise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is that they enable us to extend and amplify human intellect and experience. In the so-called experience economy, users buy ‘experiences’ rather than ‘services’. OI2 is a paradigm about ‘being more’ and seeking innovations that bring us all collectively on a trajectory towards sustainable intelligent living.

Recognizing the impact of innovation on organizational performance, scholars from a number of disciplines have sought to identify the conditions that make innovation possible. Although these studies have served to identify a number of key variables, the relationship between these variables and innovation is complex. In this chapter, we argue that the apparent complexity of these relationships may be attributed to cross-level differences in the requirements for innovation and the existence of complex interactions among the phenomena operating at a given level of analysis. The implications of this multi-level perspective for understanding how innovation occurs in organizational settings are discussed.

This chapter addresses ambidexterity at the individual level. Ambidexterity is defined as a company's ability to guarantee both short- and long-term successes by simultaneously exploring new market or new technological paths and improving existing products. We demonstrate that this ability can result from the evolution of social networks linking individuals involved in idea development. We used a longitudinal approach that combined case study and social network structure analysis of the R&D center of a semiconductor company. Six cases have been selected according to the level of disruption of the first idea generated and the end result in terms of exploration and exploitation. For these six cases, data have been gathered from monthly project reviews, press articles and listings of patents. Seventy-four interviews with key actors in the idea-development process have also been conducted.We mapped the relationships between actors who have contributed to the development of the idea through creative thinking and/or helped it to be accepted both internally and externally over three-year windows. Consequently, two network pictures are drawn for each case, and network structure indicators are computed for these two representations. We created a description of network evolution and the consequences of this process on the level of disruption of the ideas involved. This research demonstrated that different network structures and types of connections are relied upon depending on the explorative or exploitative objectives of teams of individuals.

Traditionally, firms have been dependent on internal sources such as their own employees – and up to a certain extent, on some external sources, their customers – for innovation. However, in the current scenario of technological dynamism, firms are exploring multiple sources to generate ideas for innovation. Therefore, there is a need to understand the relative effect of various sources of innovations on a firm’s performance.

We offer a conceptual framework where we identify six distinct sources of innovations – firm, customers, external network, competition, macro-environment, and technology and how they create value for focal firms especially their brand equity. We introduce a taxonomy of various costs and benefits related to innovations. We then argue using our proposed taxonomy to understand the relative strengths of various sources of innovation affecting a firm’s brand equity.

We discuss and compare the relative effects of these sources of innovations on a firm’s brand equity by rank-ordering the sources. The customers and the technology as a source of innovation have the maximum impact on the firm’s brand equity followed by the marginal impact of macro-environment and external network of a firm. The firm itself has a moderate impact on its brand equity, while competition has the minimal impact. Further, we also discuss how the relationship is moderated by different innovation characteristics (nature and type of innovations).

The main practical implication is to create awareness among managers about various costs and benefits of the proposed six sources of innovations and their effects on brand equity. Managers would be able to prioritize their sources of innovation based on firms’ current needs, and whether to focus on lower costs or building higher brand equity in the scarce resource environment.

We offer a comprehensive list of six sources of innovation, build a conceptual framework wherein we discuss the relative strengths of these sources affecting brand equity.

Proposes a new product implementation process which is designed to reduce the risk inherent in new product introductions in consumer markets. Defines the stages of this process as idea generation, idea screening, conceptual development and testing, business analysis, product development, test market, and product introduction. Concludes that this process differs from previous models in suggesting a team be created to manage the development, speeding up the tasks in each stage.

The effectiveness of the whole product development process is limited by the quantity and quality of new ideas uncovered. New idea inputs surface haphazardly when no systematic procedure exists to uncover them. As a consequence, the unorganised company may find itself developing products of only marginal promise. A systematic approach to comparative product ideas is especially important in industries with short product life cycles, such as the packaged drug business. An “inventory” of new product ideas is needed to produce a series of overlapping profit waves to insure growth and a regular cash flow. The high mortality rate of product ideas also argues for having a large pool of ideas to draw on.

The purpose of this paper is to propose that adoption of new ideas is a more involved cognitive process than has been recognised and this paper seeks to redress the trivialisation of ideas as emerging management ideas (“fads”). The embracing of “fads” for performance improvement and competitive advantage has received considerable attention in the academic literature, resulting in a rather one-sided view.

Cognitive decision-making, evidence-based management and complexity theory are examined to illustrate cognitive process, skills and experiences used when making decisions and several propositions are derived from these ideas.

An conceptual model of “fad” adoption, integrating the ideas and propositions is presented. This model provides a more pragmatic examination of “fad” adoption decisions and encourages an in depth consideration of their introduction. The model offers a more sophisticated, focused tool for examining the adoption of new management ideas and provides a springboard from which more detailed, integrated models can be developed, and hopefully will stimulate discussion. Implications for theory and practice are also considered.

Examination of the literature on management “fads” revealed significant material that focused on the negative aspects of “fad” adoption, but an absence of material that examined how manager’s made their adoption decisions. This paper, therefore, provides a valuable contribution to both theory and practice by examining factors which contribute to how and why management decisions to adopt “fads” are made and develops a model to illustrate how these are integrated to contribute to the process of decision-making.