The Relationship of Individual Capabilities and Environmental Support with Different Facets of Designers' Innovative Behavior

Theoretical perspectives on employee creativity have tended to focus on an individual's capability to generate original and potentially useful ideas, whereas definitions of innovation also include the process of putting those new ideas into practice. This field study therefore set out to test how theoretically distinct types of individual knowledge and skills are related to different aspects of employees' innovative behavior in terms of both their new idea generation and idea implementation. Using a sample of design engineers (n = 169) in a multinational engineering company, measures were taken of different aspects of innovative work behavior (patent submission, real‐time idea submission, idea implementation) and a range of individual capabilities (creativity‐relevant skills, job expertise, operational skills, contextual knowledge, and motivation) and environmental features (job control, departmental support for innovation). Analyses showed that creativity‐relevant skills were positively related to indices of idea generation but not to idea implementation. Instead, employees' job expertise, operational skills, and motivation to innovate demonstrated a stronger role in idea implementation. In terms of environmental factors, job control showed no positive relationship with innovative work behavior while departmental support for innovation was related to employees' idea generation but not idea implementation. The theoretical perspective that correlates of idea generation differ in certain aspects to those for idea implementation are confirmed by the study. Practical implications for organizations wishing to improve their innovativeness are discussed in terms of tailored training, development, motivational, and environmental interventions designed to improve the capabilities of individuals to engage in all parts of the innovation process.     

Sourcing,Filtering, and Evaluating New Product Ideas: An Empirical Exploration of the Performance of Idea Markets

The proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity through Internet‐based technologies enables new forms of support for new product development. This paper analyzes idea markets, which use widely distributed knowledge, the power of markets, and the Internet to support the crucial initial tasks of the new product development process, including the sourcing, filtering, and evaluation of new product ideas. Idea markets employ virtual stocks to represent new product ideas and allow participants to suggest and trade new product ideas in a virtual marketplace. This paper empirically explores the performance of idea markets in a real‐world field study at a large, high‐tech business‐to‐business company that includes more than 500 participants from 17 countries and features various idea sourcing tasks. The results indicate that idea markets are a feasible and promising method to support the fuzzy front end of the new product development process. Idea markets offer a platform and formal process to capture, select, and distribute ideas in an organization, which motivates employees to communicate their ideas to management. By effectively sourcing and contemporaneously filtering, idea markets help reduce the number of ideas brought to management's attention to those that seem worthy of further consideration. Because idea markets also have the ability to source many ideas, they can increase efficiency at the fuzzy front end of the new product development process.     

Commercial Innovations from Consulting Engineering Firms: An Empirical Exploration of a Novel Source of New Product Ideas

Industrial firms interact with many outside organizations such as the customers, suppliers, competitors, and universities to obtain input for their new product development (NPD) programs. The importance of interfirm interactions is reflected in a large number of interdisciplinary studies reported in a wide variety of literature bases. As a result, several sources of new product ideas have been investigated in the extant literature. Yet given the growing complexity and risks in new product development, there seems to be a need for managers to obtain input from new and unutilized sources. Apparently, one source that industry has not tapped adequately for its NPD efforts is the consulting engineering firms (CEFs). To fill the aforementioned gap in the literature, this article explores the roles and suitability of CEFs in new product development by conducting a rigorous in‐depth case research of new product idea generation in a large Australian firm manufacturing a variety of industrial products. To generate ideas for the sponsoring firm, longitudinal field interviews with 64 managers and engineers from 32 large CEFs were conducted over a one‐and‐one‐half year period. The findings of the field interviews were combined with the documentary evidences and the archival data. This longitudinal data collection enabled the author to generate new product ideas over real time and to gain access to the information that otherwise might have been difficult to obtain. The results suggest that CEFs are a rich source of new product ideas of potential commercial value. However, industry is making little use of CEFs, which underscores the need for industrial firms to collaborate and to establish an effective idea transfer relationship with them. Moreover, the services of CEFs are not restricted to idea generation but can stretch across the entire NPD process. These findings of the study encourage product managers to conceptualize NPD as a highly synergistic mutually interdependent process between CEFs and industrial firms rather than simply an arm's‐length consulting transactions. Given the dearth of research on idea generation with CEFs, this study highlights the findings that are novel and that go beyond the techniques of new product idea generation established in the extant literature.     

Getting the Measure of Employee-Driven Innovation and Its Workplace Correlates

Innovation is traditionally viewed as an activity which involves a small band of highly skilled workers. By examining the results of a British survey of employees, this article breaks with this approach. It makes two distinctive contributions. First, it provides new insights into the extent to which employees of all kinds come up with ideas about improving the work processes they use, the products they make and services they provide. Secondly, it examines the correlates of this behaviour. The results show that the strength of employee involvement, the nature of workplace support and development and performance management are strongly associated with employees’ willingness and ability to come up with innovative ideas. However, some of these features of work have declined in Britain in recent years, while economic outcomes often associated with innovation — such as increased productivity and stronger economic growth — have stalled.     

The Spirituality of Innovation: Learning from Stories

Sooner or later, most established companies face a mid-life crisis. Just like many people, these companies somehow lose the drive, the excitement, and the enthusiasm of their youth. Rather than continue to push the envelope, these companies focus on their core competencies and try to maintain order through a proliferation of policies and procedures. On the other hand, some companies (and some people) manage to sustain their innovative, entrepreneurial spirit. A handful of mature companies somehow maintain an environment in which employees continually generate added value for customers and the company alike. How do they do it? How do these mature companies continue to foster invention and innovation? Recognizing that stagnation and decline are not faits accomplis for all companies, Karen Anne Zien and a cross-functional team conducted in-depth interviews at several highly innovative firms. The interviewees provided insight into the culture, the characteristics, and the principles that set these companies apart from the competition. Perhaps the greatest insight comes from the stories these people tell. These war stories—the corporate myths and legends—provide a simple means for communicating and reinforcing the shared values that distinguish these companies. For example, a manager's recollection of Hewlett-Packard's effort to develop a pen plotter (and in particular, Bill Hewlett's role in this development) demonstrates that innovation is a companywide activity that requires the active, ongoing involvement of leaders at the highest levels of the organization. Senior people in these innovative companies foster a sense of community and common purpose and thus create an environment that encourages employees to explore new ideas and, if necessary, break the old rules. Through both formal and informal means, these companies also encourage frequent interaction between technical and marketing people. Corporate leaders energize these mature, but still innovative, companies, by providing context and communicating a dynamic vision. Storytelling offers a particularly evocative medium for articulating this vision. Rather than bore newcomers with hoary tales of the good old days, however, the most effective leaders continually reshape these stories to offer fresh insights, uncover new challenges, and reinforce the notion that every employee can and should contribute their full potential.     

I can do that alone…or not? How idea generators juggle between the pros and cons of teamwork

Research summary: The advantages of working with a team to develop an idea are well established, but surprisingly, little is known about why some idea generators ignore these advantages by developing their ideas alone. To answer this question, we study two important trade‐offs. First, working with a team provides access to additional resources but also leads to increased coordination costs. Second, sharing the risks and costs of developing an idea necessitates sharing the potential rewards of a successful idea. We use unique data on idea generators and their submission of ideas to an innovation program in a large European company between 1996 and 2008 to show how the two different trade‐offs affect the decision of idea generators to collaborate with a team. Managerial summary: Organizations usually form teams to develop and execute innovative ideas. When people have the choice, however, will they also form a team or will they develop ideas alone? By studying idea generators and their voluntary submissions of breakthrough ideas to an innovation program, we find that the success rate is much higher for team ideas. Although teamwork has important benefits, idea generators will often develop incremental ideas alone and only accept increased coordination costs for developing radical ideas—this is even more so when they have prior team experiences. Moreover, only when idea generators were successful before and—even more so—when they developed that idea alone, will they be more open to sharing the rewards and risks of developing another idea with a team.     

Leveraging Social Networks to Develop Radically New Products

In this article, the authors consider the nexus of social networks and radically new products. These new products are so innovative that they forge new product categories, and social networks might be particularly fruitful in their development, dissemination, and help to foster growth and acceptance. Several social networks concepts are brought to bear on these issues, from the class diffusion model, to current considerations of lead users and emerging ideas about crowdsourcing. In particular, the classic diffusion model provides parameters to reflect innovative consumer behavior, and it is suggested that, in complement to studies that seek customer traits to identify innovators, social network concepts and indices of degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality are very well suited in identifying customers embedded in social networks whose relational ties are indicative of their likely influence and stature. Next, lead users are considered in the specific context of health care, and it is suggested that online forums provide numerous benefits to customer patients as well as opportunities to health‐care providers. Next, the dynamics of social networks are considered as they apply to cutting‐edge ideas about crowdsourcing, movements that companies are exploring to be radically open to customer feedback and suggestions. This article closes with an example of a novel appeal that bridges social networks and radically new products—the challenge of solving societal difficulties, from food scarcity, to environmental pollutants, to weather patterns, to discovering treatments for cancer or other medical conditions.     

Heterogeneous Firm‐Level Effects of Knowledge Exchanges on Product Innovation: Differences between Dynamic and Lagging Product Innovators*

Product innovation is the result of a constant interaction between the in‐house research and development (R&D) department and knowledge exchanges with the firm's environment. Knowledge exchanges come in different forms. They break down into information gathering applied in new product development, research cooperation on particular innovation projects, and managing information outflows allowing the consequent appropriation of the results of product innovation through specific methods. The way firms handle knowledge exchanges affects their performance. This paper looks at three related indicators of performance: (1) research intensity (a measure of innovative input); (2) the share of revenue realized through innovative product sales (a measure of innovative output); and (3) their impact on the growth in total revenue. The bulk of the econometric literature looking into these matters only allows general statistical statements on the behavior of an “average” firm. This paper takes on another view by using the quantile regression method to stress the heterogeneity of innovative firms in their dealing with knowledge exchange and the effect this has on their performance. A first key finding is that research intensity is positively influenced by knowledge externalities, research cooperation, and appropriability, and it is through this that these variables affect innovative revenue and also the growth in total revenue. By using quantile regression these relationships are further refined to screen for differences in behavior between dynamic and lagging innovators. This refinement indicates that, in the case of research intensity, the knowledge externalities gain in importance in the higher quantiles and are insignificant in the lower ones. Next, research cooperation remains important in all quantiles, but a higher significance is observed in the higher quantiles as well. Finally, appropriability is extremely important for the lower quantiles, but it becomes insignificant in the highest. These findings corroborate the assumptions made in the literature on open innovation: knowledge externalities and research collaboration are vital for those opening up their firm for new ideas and who are, at the same time, reluctant to protect their findings through specific appropriation measures. In the case of innovative revenue all variables on knowledge exchange operate through the research intensity irrespective of the quantile, although the impact of research intensity on this type of revenue is higher in the upper quantiles. As for the growth in revenue, the effect of the innovative revenue is, again, higher in the higher quantiles. This suggests that dynamic product innovators have the most efficient R&D process and the strongest growers are so, especially, because they are successful product innovators.     

Exploring the Contributions of Involving Ordinary Users in Ideation of Technology‐Based Services*

Lead users have long been acknowledged as important contributors to the market success of innovative products and services. The ability of lead users to be such effective innovators has been ascribed to a combination of adequate technological expertise and superior knowledge of the user domain so‐called use experience. Drawing on the apparent success of lead users in innovation, many companies are now attempting to involve other types of users, namely, ordinary users, for ideation at the fuzzy front end (FFE) of new product and service development. However, ordinary users do not usually possess the technological knowledge of lead users, and the existing literature provides little guidance on how to manage such user involvement or its expected contributions. The purpose of the present study is, therefore, to contribute to scholarly knowledge regarding the benefits and management of user involvement during the ideation phase of innovation in technology‐based services. More specifically, the study investigates the contribution made in this respect by “ordinary” users, as opposed to professional developers. The research questions that are addressed are as follows: (1) What contributions do ordinary users make when involved in the FFE for ideation of new technology‐based services; and (2) how is the contribution of the users affected by their knowledge of the underlying technology? The study addresses these questions through a literature review and conceptual analysis of the involvement of users in innovation in mobile telephony, followed by an empirical study using a quasi‐experimental design in which the independent variable is the users' technological knowledge of the underlying mobile telephone system and the dependent variable is the quality of the created idea‐proposals from an innovation perspective. Various scenarios involving guided users, pioneering users, and professionals are investigated. The study finds that the users' knowledge of the underlying technology has an effect on their propensity to contribute with incremental or radical new ideas. The ideas from guided users tend to be more incremental whereas the pioneering users' ideas are more radical. Contrary to the users in the guided user scenarios, the users in the pioneering user scenarios have a propensity to produce ideas that challenge the prevailing dominant logic of the company; these ideas can be used to assist the company to think in new trajectories. The paper proposes that ordinary users should not be expected to contribute ideas that can be directly put into the new product development process; rather, ordinary user involvement should be regarded as a process whereby a company learns about users' needs and is inspired to innovate. The paper concludes that user involvement can actually be a stimulus for review of a company's business strategy.     

Biases in the selection stage of bottom‐up strategy formulation

We propose that the failure to adopt an idea or innovation can arise from an in‐group bias among employees within an organizational subunit that leads the subunit's members to undervalue systematically ideas associated with members of the organization outside their subunit. Such biases in internal selection processes can stymie organizational adaptation and therefore depress the performance of the firm. Analyzing data on innovation proposals inside a large, multinational consumer goods firm, we find that evaluators are biased in favor of ideas submitted by individuals that work in the same division and facility as they do, particularly when they belong to small or high‐status subunits. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

A study of innovators' experience of new product innovation in organisations

The present research uses conversations with new product innovators in commercial organisations to explore how they experience innovating in those organisations. Based on their words, the study explores how innovators experience the complex social settings and structures of their organisation, how this affects creativity, and how innovative climates are enabled or inhibited by it. Organic, self-organising working structures are shown to enable creative commercial innovation more easily than hierarchical settings. Innovators' own words also identify what motivates them. 'Excitement' and 'creative buzz' are shown to be common intrinsic motivators and 'tangible benefit' for organisation or customers is shown to reinforce this. Innovators' experience of networks is also studied, along with their experiences of leadership in organisations. While this study is exploratory in scope, it is hoped that it will be of value in organisations looking to build effective partnerships with their innovators.     

Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies*

Alliance formation is often described as a mechanism used by firms to increase voluntary knowledge transfers. Access to external knowledge has been increasingly recognized as a main source of a firm's innovativeness. A phenomenon that has recently emerged is alliance portfolio complexity. In line with recent studies this article develops a measure of portfolio complexity in technology partnerships in terms of diversity of elements of the alliance portfolio with which a firm must interact. The analysis considers an alliance portfolio that includes different partnership types (competitor, customer, supplier, and university and research center). So far factors that determine portfolio complexity and its impact on technological performance of firms have remained largely unexplored. This article examines firms' decisions to form alliance portfolios of foreign and domestic partners by two groups of firms: innovators (firms that are successful in introducing new products to the market), and imitators (firms that are successful at introducing products which are not new to the market). This study also assesses a nonlinear impact of the portfolio complexity measure on firms' innovative performance. The empirical models are estimated using data on more than 1800 firms from two consecutive Community Innovation Surveys conducted in 1998 and 2000 in the Netherlands. The results suggest that alliance portfolios of innovators are broader in terms of the different types of alliance partners as compared to those of imitators. This finding underlines the importance of establishing a “radar function” of links to various different partners in accessing novel information. Specifically, the results indicate that foremost innovators have a strong propensity to form portfolios consisting of international alliances. This underlines the importance of this type of partnership in the face of the growing internationalization of R&D and global technology sourcing. Being an innovator or imitator also increases the propensity to form a portfolio of domestic alliances, relative to non‐innovators; but this propensity is not stronger for innovators. Innovators appear to derive benefit from both intensive (exploitative) and broad (explorative) use of external information sources. The former type of sourcing is more important for innovators, while the latter is more important for imitators. Finally, alliance complexity is found to have an inverse U‐shape relationship to innovative performance. On the one hand, complexity facilitates learning and innovativeness; on the other hand, each organization has a certain management capacity to deal with complexity which sets limits on the amount of alliance portfolio complexity that can be managed within the firm. This clearly suggests that firms face a certain cognitive limit in terms of the degree of complexity they can handle. Despite the noted advantages of an increasing level of alliance portfolio complexity firms will at a certain stage reach a specific inflection point after which marginal costs of managing complexity are higher than the expected benefits from this increased complexity.     

Voices from the Field: How Exceptional Electronic Industrial Innovators Innovate

This exploratory research uses in‐depth qualitative interviews to investigate how 11 exceptional innovators in the electronics industry initiated, created, and commercialized radical innovations in their firms. From the data, two initial frameworks emerged for how radical innovations were created by these individuals. Four themes emerged associated with what these innovators bring to the organization as an underpinning for being able to radically innovate. Additional themes emerged as to the process by which they innovate. Across the literatures of innovation, psychology, and management, creativity is discussed in terms of person, product, or process. This research samples on highly creative innovations (products) and finds that it appears that both person and process need to be considered in attaining radical innovation. One may not be able to consider separately the person who achieves radical innovation from the process he or she uses to achieve it. These exceptional innovators have specific personality characteristics that support radically creative behavior, supplemented by a perspective or worldview that focuses on having a business orientation yet also a somewhat idealistic attitude. They have prepared for innovation by studying deeply, within not just one primary technology topic but also a secondary or peripheral technology topic. In addition, they have prepared broadly, across technology, business, and markets. They are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to innovate. People communicating what problems are urgently important to them to be solved produce external motivation for the innovator, who is then intrinsically motivated to solve these people's problems by creating new products. In terms of how they innovate, these exceptional innovators are organizationally savvy and both understand and participate in the politics necessary to gain acceptance of and resources for their project. They use an innovation process that emphasizes the up‐front aspects of finding interesting problems, planning first before executing, and understanding customer needs in great detail. This allows them to generate insights into how to solve those problems profitably for the firm. Once they have obtained and validated their insights for solving the problem, they participate in the actual implementation of the concept to a commercialized product. However, this development aspect of innovating is not much spoken of, as if it is taken for granted. Finally, they actively disseminate knowledge and acceptance of the innovation postinvention.     

Principles of New Product Management: Exploring the Beliefs of Product Practitioners

Conventional wisdom might lead us to conclude that the various disciplines involved in product development and management are often at cross-purposes. For example, practitioners from R&D and engineering have been known to suggest that marketing fails to understand the technical trade-offs involved in product management decisions. Conversely, marketing professionals sometimes complain that their technology-oriented colleagues pursue product development initiatives without adequate market awareness. And practitioners from both sides of this debate have asserted that research on new product development tends to be of the ivory tower variety, with little or no relevance for industry. Are such complaints valid? Perhaps it is time for a reality check. By searching academic literature on product development, Roger J. Calantone, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, and Ted Haggblom have compiled a list of 40 fundamental principles of new product development. This list forms the basis for a survey of new product practitioners from marketing and technical disciplines. The study provides a means for assessing whether practitioners agree with the fundamental principles of new product development that are identified in current academic literature. By obtaining responses from both marketing and technical professionals, the survey also sheds light on whether those two groups hold fundamentally different beliefs regarding new product development. The survey results reveal strong overall agreement among practitioners regarding these fundamental principles of new product management. Managers believe that 80% of the principles are either usually or almost always true. In other words, the survey results support the idea that the academic community is pursuing research issues that are relevant to practitioners, and that they are reaching valid conclusions. There are only a few cases in which the responses from the technical and marketing practitioners differ. Those disagreements probably result from differences in the basic orientations of the two groups. For example, it is not surprising that marketing managers would be more likely to agree that “product users and the marketplace form the most important source for new product ideas,” while technical managers more strongly support the idea that “radically new technologies constitute an important source of new product ideas.” The respondents noted overall disagreement with only a few of the 40 principles. In many of these cases, the academic literature has reached mixed conclusions. In other words, these “principles” might actually be oversimplifications, and further research is probably needed before we can fully understand the issues involved.     

The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas?

Generating ideas for new products used to be the exclusive domain of marketers, engineers, and/or designers. Users have only recently been recognized as an alternative source of new product ideas. Whereas some have attributed great potential to outsourcing idea generation to the “crowd” of users (“crowdsourcing”), others have clearly been more skeptical. The authors join this debate by presenting a real‐world comparison of ideas actually generated by a firm's professionals with those generated by users in the course of an idea generation contest. Both professionals and users provided ideas to solve an effective and relevant problem in the consumer goods market for baby products. Executives from the underlying company evaluated all ideas (blind to their source) in terms of key quality dimensions including novelty, customer benefit, and feasibility. The study reveals that the crowdsourcing process generated user ideas that score significantly higher in terms of novelty and customer benefit, and somewhat lower in terms of feasibility. However, the average values for feasibility—in sharp contrast to novelty and customer benefit—tended to be relatively high overall, meaning that feasibility did not constitute a narrow bottleneck in this study. Even more interestingly, it is found that user ideas are placed more frequently than expected among the very best in terms of novelty and customer benefit. These findings, which are quite counterintuitive from the perspective of classic new product development (NPD) literature, suggest that, at least under certain conditions, crowdsourcing might constitute a promising method to gather user ideas that can complement those of a firm's professionals at the idea generation stage in NPD.     

Reflexivity,stress, and unlearning in the new product development team: the moderating effect of procedural justice

The success of new product development (NPD) depends on a team's abilities to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences and the flexibility to address rapidly changing environments. To develop innovative products it is desirable that these processes should not be constrained by current beliefs and routines. NPD teams therefore need to engage in an unlearning process to overcome any resistance to new ideas and to facilitate a fresh approach. The paper recognizes that the controlled experience of stress plays a part in unlearning (e.g., confusion about technology or market change can encourage changes) and argues that teams should systematically reflect on the progress they are making in projects and in unlearning. The fairness of procedures used by the management moderates the proposed relationships. Two hundred and ninety eight team members and 77 NPD team leaders participated in the study. The results indicate that team reflexivity positively influences unlearning and product innovation, while team stress has a negative effect. The perceived fairness of management procedures strengthens the positive effects of team reflexivity on unlearning and product innovation, and reduces negative effect of team stress.     

Extending Lead‐User Theory: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers' Lead Userness*

Lead users are found to come up with commercially attractive user innovations and have been shown to be a highly promising source of innovation for new product development tasks. According to lead‐user theory, these users are defined as being ahead of an important market trend and experiencing high benefits from innovating. The present article extends lead‐user theory by exploring the antecedents and consequences of consumers' lead userness in the course of three studies on extreme sports communities. Regarding antecedents, it uncovers that field‐related variables (consumer knowledge and use experience) as well as field‐independent personality variables (locus of control and innovativeness) help explain an individual's lead userness. These variables might therefore be used as a proxy to identify the rare species of lead users. With regard to consequences, it uncovers that lead users demonstrate innovative behavior not only by creating new product ideas but also by adopting new commercial products more heavily and faster than ordinary users. This highlights the idea that lead users might not only be valuable to idea‐generation processes for radically new concepts; instead, they might also be relevant to more general issues in the marketing of new products.     

Is Boreout a Threat to Frontline Employees' Innovative Work Behavior?

With the recognition that innovation is the lifeblood of competitive firms, researchers have investigated multiple antecedents of employees' innovative work behaviors. Most studies focus on supportive work conditions, work requirements, or even high work challenges as drivers of innovative work behavior as the extent to which frontline employees (FLEs) generate new problem‐solving ideas and transform these into uses during the service encounter. This study focuses instead on a lack of resources at the service encounter. Specifically, boreout is a negative psychological state of low work‐related arousal, manifested in three main forms: a crisis of meaning at work, job boredom, and crisis of growth. According to the conservation of resources theory, these three dimensions of job boreout as lack of resources draw energy from FLEs and thus, likely affect innovative work behavior. Data from 142 FLEs and their customers confirm that these dimensions of boreout affect FLEs' innovative work behavior, though in varying ways. A crisis of meaning at work and crisis of growth both impede innovative work behavior, but job boredom has no effect. Furthermore, support provided by customers moderates the relationships of these three boreout dimensions with innovative work behavior in unique ways.     

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role*

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involvement. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project's markets, technologies, and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize innovative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control. Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain projects call for different levels and types of involvement.     

Suspending Group Debate and Developing Concepts

The ability of new product development (NPD) teams to generate ideas and develop high‐quality concepts for new products is a crucial determinant of NPD success. Although prior research in this area has developed various interventions to enhance the ability of teams to generate ideas, such interventions have limited impact on innovation management theory and practice. Partly, this is because of practical reasons: The interventions are often costly and impractical. However, there are also more fundamental, theoretical issues regarding these interventions: Knowledge of which interventions are effective in what situations is lacking. Even more importantly, there is no theory (or empirical evidence) about the effects of these interventions on the success of developing initial ideas into concepts. Together, this has caused the usefulness of these interventions for NPD teams to be uncertain at best. To remedy this situation, this study focuses on a costless and easy‐to‐implement intervention: suspending group debate. Suspending group debate refers to a team idea generation and concept development process in which groups debate a problem, ideas for solutions are generated individually, and these ideas are debated and developed into concepts collectively. The authors developed a new theory about the impact of suspending group debate on idea generation and on further concept development. Specifically, they argue that suspending group debate causes groups to generate a higher number of ideas, a higher number of original ideas, and a more diverse set of ideas, but that only the number of original ideas and the diversity of the set of ideas will translate into higher concept quality. The authors also developed new theory about when suspending group debate is especially effective. Specifically, they argue that suspending group debate is especially effective when at least one group member is low on extraversion. This theory is tested using an experimental design in which groups generated ideas and developed concepts for a specific organizational problem. Some groups suspend group debate, while others do not. Results show that suspending group debate indeed causes groups to generate a higher number of ideas, a higher number of original ideas, and a more diverse set of ideas. Importantly, results demonstrate that the effects of suspending group debate are more pronounced for groups with one or more group members that are low on extraversion. Furthermore, suspending group debate also affects concept quality, mediated by the number of original ideas and the diversity of ideas that groups generate (and thus not by the sheer number of ideas generated). Specifically, results show that both the diversity of the idea set as well as the number of original ideas positively influence the innovativeness of the final concept, while only the diversity of the idea set influences the comprehensiveness of the final concept.