In this last issue of 2011 we present a set of very interesting articles. In the opening article, which was originally presented at the 2010 CIM workshop in Paris, Pascal Le Masson, Armand Hatchuel and Benoit Weil analyse the relationship between creativity and design theory. Analysing three historical moments in design theory building, the authors point to the dialectical interplay that links creativity and design theory, structured around ‘fixation effects’. Creativity identifies fixation effects, which become the targets of new design theories, inventing models of thought to overcome them. In turn, design theories can create new fixation effects that will then be designated by creativity studies. This dialectical interplay leads to inventions of new ways to manage design.
Thomas Gillier and Gerald Piat explore the presumed identity of emerging technology. Determining the value of new technologies and identifying potential applications is a major challenge. When a new technology sees the light of day in a research laboratory, its target markets often seem plentiful, but are ill-defined. Using case studies of four micro-nanotechnologies, the authors analyse how technologists and non-experts interact to investigate new applications. They show that technologists are victims of a form of cognitive fixation effect. Their beliefs and activities are guided by a stable cognitive representation of their technology, ‘the presumed identity of technology’. Based on C-K Design Theory, the technological exploration process in the case studies is modelled. Furthermore, mechanisms to dismantle the presumed identity and to design an extended identity are proposed.
The next three articles are dedicated to open innovation. Malte Brettel and Nina Cleven investigate the relationship between innovation culture, collaboration with external partners and NPD performance. Little is known about why some firms use external knowledge sources for NPD in an extensive manner while others hardly ever use them. In addition, there is disagreement about which external partners contribute to the innovative performance of a firm. Based on the resource-based view of the firm and Kitchell's innovation adoption model, the authors hypothesize that a firm's innovation culture has a significant impact on its openness to external knowledge, which has an influence on the firm's NPD performance. A sample of 254 technology-based firms across several industries is used to empirically test the research model. In the second open innovation article, Susanne Ollila and Maria Elmquist explore the challenges at the interfaces of an open innovation arena in an in-depth qualitative study. They adopt the perspective of an open innovation actor: a Swedish traffic and vehicle safety research unit with 22 collaborating partners. This unit enables open innovation within a specific field of expertise and envisages itself as a key player in that same field. The study reveals different types of challenges for the management of an open innovation arena, related to the interface, the collaboration and the arena itself. In the third article in this set, Björn Remneland-Wikhamn and Wajda Wikhamn introduce a validated scale to measure open innovation climate. This three-dimensional assessment tool is developed from the literature and is tested in a multinational automotive corporation.
Bettina Zippel-Schultz and Carsten Schultz analyse the role of planning intensity for project success based on multi-respondent data of 130 innovation projects in hospitals. They contribute to innovation management research by clearly differentiating between the effects of business and project planning, by integrating intra-team coordination as a possible mediator of the planning success relationship, and by taking into account the degree of innovativeness as a relevant contingency. The authors demonstrate that both planning types show complementary effects. Project planning increases intra-team coordination, which mediates the planning effect on project success. Business planning has a direct effect on project success. However, the moderating effects of project innovativeness are oppositional. While business planning becomes more important for higher degrees of innovativeness, the efficacy of project planning is limited to incremental innovations.
Alexander Styhre investigates competing institutional logics in the biopharmaceutical industry. The concept of institutional logics has been introduced as the totality of beliefs and assumptions guiding actors in a specific institutional field. While an institutional logic provides actors with guidance for action and an integrated worldview, it is possible for two or more institutional logics to coexist, even over longer periods of time. This study demonstrates how actors in the biopharmaceutical industry are conceiving of a shift from the incumbent small molecules/one target model to a more complex model. The study concludes that institutional logics are never devoid of struggle and controversy and must be understood as outcomes from complex social processes and, furthermore, that linear periodizations of the life sciences impose an overly simplistic image of how new drug development is organized and technologically embedded. In the final article of this issue, Annabeth Aagaard and Frank Gertsen also focus on the pharmaceutical industry, in which they investigate front end innovation. On the basis of a multiple case study, the authors identify six key factors that facilitate radical innovation.
The year 2011 has seen many important events in the field of Creativity and Innovation Management. In this final issue, we wish to highlight the 1st Cambridge Academic Design Management Conference, organized in September by our associate editor James Moultrie. It was a delightful event in a beautiful environment. At the conference, a great many interesting papers were presented. Next year, a selection of these will be published in a special issue of our journal. For a first impression of the event, you may visit Tudor Rickards weblog http://www.leaderswedeserve.wordpress.com (entry for 13 September 2011). At the time of writing this editorial, the 12th ECCI is also taking place in Portugal, and we aim to publish more about that in a later issue (meanwhile take a peek at http://www.eaci.net). Looking ahead, we see new events scheduled for 2012 in our community: the yearly IPDMC (to be hosted by Helen Perks in Manchester), CINet, and the next Creativity and Innovation Management Community Workshop which will take place at TUBerlin, 28–29 June 2012, hosted by Jan Kratzer and his team. Save the date and keep an eye on our website for the Call for Papers and other details. For those of you on Twitter, we (@PetraDWN) have started to actively tweet about the journal just a while ago, using the hashtag #CIMJournal. It would be nice if you would follow our example and also use that hashtag in sharing your creativity and innovation management news online. The Wiley website offers all common features to share CIM articles online. Last but not least, upcoming is the voting for the Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger Award for the best paper published in CIM in 2011. We will be working on a shortlist as usual, but all suggestions are welcome. For now we wish you a very Creative Christmas and Innovative New Year in 2012.