ArticlePDF Available

Developing radical innovation capabilities: Exploring the effects of training employees for creativity and innovation

January 2021
Creativity and Innovation Management 30(96)

January 2021
30(96)

Authors:

École de Technologie Supérieure

The resilience of organizations is increasingly dependent on their ability to develop radical innovation capabilities. While the literature documents numerous cases of organizations that already have radical innovation capabilities, the question of organizational devices that can be used to stimulate the emergence of such capabilities remains poorly addressed. Specifically, training for innovation and creativity has been proposed as a means to foster innovation capabilities; however, there has been little empirical evidence concerning the long‐term impacts of such training. To fill this gap, this article aims to document and evaluate the efforts of the research institute of a major Canadian energy company to provide training for innovation and creativity to initiate a radical innovation capability. We rely on a longitudinal study over the span of 18 months, where we observed 128 h of training and conducted 70 semi‐structured interviews with a sample of 40 researchers. We found that training for creativity and innovation has the potential to develop individual creative skills for exploration, to catalyze and federate collective action through common methods and a shared sense of what innovation entails, and to help create a common language and vocabulary between the different groups or divisions of an organization to talk about exploration.

Content uploaded by Rampa Romain

Content may be subject to copyright.

Developing radical innovation capabilities: Exploring the effects of training

employees for creativity and innovation

In Press in Creativity and Innovation Management (2021)

Rampa Romain,

3000 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3T 2A7, Canada

Romain.rampa@hec.ca

Marine Agogué,

3000 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3T 2A7, Canada

Marine.agogue@hec.ca

Abstract

The resilience of organizations is increasingly dependent on their ability to develop radical

innovation capabilities. While the literature documents numerous cases of organizations that

already have radical innovation capabilities, the question of organizational devices that can be used

to stimulate the emergence of such capabilities remains poorly addressed. Specifically, training for

innovation and creativity has been proposed as a means to foster innovation capabilities; however,

there has been little empirical evidence concerning the long-term impacts of such training. To fill

this gap, this article aims to document and evaluate the efforts of the research institute of a major

Canadian energy company to provide training for innovation and creativity to initiate a radical

innovation capability. We rely on a longitudinal study over the span of 18 months, were we

observed 128 hours of training and conducted 70 semi-structured interviews with a sample of 40

researchers. We found that training for creativity and innovation has the potential to develop

individual creative skills for exploration, to catalyze and federate collective action through

common methods and a shared sense of what innovation entails, and to help create a common

language and vocabulary between the different groups or divisions of an organization to talk about

exploration.

Keywords: Radical innovation, Training for innovation, Innovation capabilities, Organizational

transformation

1. Introduction

The resilience of organizations is increasingly dependent on the ability to anticipate, adapt

or proactively act in the face of radical innovations that are no longer solely technological (Buliga,

Scheiner, & Voigt, 2016; Teece, Peteraf, & Leih, 2016). In traditionally stable industries,

transforming existing models to prepare for such discontinuities is problematic since it is a question

of introducing a capability for radical innovations that does not yet exist. Indeed, as put forward by

Bessant et colleagues (2014), building such a capability is rather difficult as firms must be able to

move past a logic centred primarily on an exploitation mindset, which often locks them into

existing industrial paradigms.

The existing literature is quite prolific in describing the individual, collective and

organizational components that explain the ability of firms to develop radical innovation. A range

of disciplinary fields have addressed this issue from the standpoint of the psychology of creativity

(Amabile, 2012; de Visser & Faems, 2015; Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011), the fuzzy front end

of innovation (Griffin, Price, Vojak, & Hoffman, 2014; Reid & de Brentani, 2012; Robbins &

O'Gorman, 2015), the ambidextrous forms that can be deployed by organizations (Agostini,

Nosella, & Filippini, 2016; Papachroni, Heracleous, & Paroutis, 2016; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996;

Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman, & O'Reilly, 2010), and the methods and arrangements that

can be deployed by teams (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014; Aronson, Reilly, & Lynn, 2008;

Blackwell, Wilson, Boulton, & Knell, 2009).

Hence, the literature documents numerous cases of organizations that already have radical

innovation capabilities. However, with few exceptions (O’Connor & Ayers, 2005; Gillier, Hooge

and Piat, 2015) the question remains open in regard to the mechanisms that have been implemented

to develop such capabilities when they do not yet exist, and the effectiveness of such organizational

devices. Specifically, training for innovation and creativity has been proposed as a means to foster

innovation capability (O’Connor, 2008); though, there has been little empirical evidence to show

the effects of such training. Given this, greater insight into the influence and impact that training

can have on the development of a radical innovation capability within an organization is of critical

importance. In learning more about how the specific experiences, perceptions and sensemaking of

individuals who undergo some training for innovation and creativity, we gain a stronger perspective

of how a radical innovation capacity emerges through a dedicated implantation of a specific

program oriented towards creativity and innovation.

We therefore contribute to the literature on innovation capabilities by using a qualitative

research design, so as to document and evaluate the efforts that are implemented by the research

institute of Hydro-Québec, a French-Canadian energy company. In 2015, the managing team of

this research centre of 250 researchers decided to initiate radical innovation capabilities through

training for innovation and creativity. Over the span of 18 months, we observed 128 hours of

training and conducted 70 semi-structured interviews with a sample of 40 researchers in the energy

sector. We found that training for creativity and innovation has the potential to develop individual

creative skills for exploration, to catalyze and federate collective action through common methods

and a shared sense of what innovation entails, and to help create a common language and

vocabulary between the different groups or divisions of an organization to talk about exploration.

In the following, we first introduce the radical innovation capabilities frameworks, and

issues that need to be tackled in order for such capabilities to emerge. Secondly, based on the

existing literature on the effects of training, and more particularly training for innovation and

creativity, we try to grasp the anticipated effects of these types of training on an organization's

radical innovation capability. We then detail our case and in particular the specificities of the

training in innovation and creativity that has been given, and introduce the methodology deployed

for this longitudinal study. Fourth, our results will allow us to go beyond the development of

individual and collective skills, to discuss collective dissemination phenomena such as the

emergence of a common language, motivation to innovate or awareness of future disruptions.

Finally, we discuss the effects and limitations of the training at the individual, collective and

organizational levels and engage in a conversation on the modalities for the emergence of a radical

innovation capability.

2. Organizing to develop a radical innovation capability: Literature and issues

2.1. Radical Innovation Capability

Radical innovation capability is rooted in organizational capability theories (Barney, 1986;

Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Grant, 1996), that refer to abilities that companies are able to develop

to mobilize resources to accomplish a task or activity. Applied to innovation, this framework has

been translated into an innovation capability as the ability to continuously transform knowledge

and ideas into new products, processes and systems (Lawson& Samson, 2001). However,

managing radical innovation, that is “a product, process or service with either unprecedented

performance features or with such dramatic changes in familiar features or cost that new application

domains become possible” (O’Connor & Rice, 2013, p.2), is quite different from managing

continuous innovation (Koen et al., 2010 ; Slater et al., 2014) and therefore requires somewhat

different capabilities.

Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) thus defined a radical innovation capability as the

capability to generate innovations that significantly transform existing products and services. As

Slater et al. (2014) emphasize such capability passes the tests of value, rarity, and inimitability of

skills, resources, and/or competencies that are the foundation of an organization's competitive

advantage Slater and colleagues (2014) also stress, in their literature review on the antecedents of

firms’ radical product innovation success, that components of these capabilities cannot be

understood by taking into account only one level of analysis but must instead be supported by a

multidimensional conceptualization. Indeed, many studies tend to focus only on a particular level

of analysis, looking separately at the individual components that encourage the development of

radical innovation (Sandberg, 2007; Gemünden, Salomo & Hölzle, 2007), the roles and

characteristics of teams pursuing such innovations (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014), or

aspects related to culture or specific organizational characteristics (Chandy & Tellis, 1998). This

is why in this article we have chosen to rely simultaneously on three levels of analysis crossing

individual, collective and organizational characteristic in order to look at a radical innovation

capability.

As capabilities have been described as the result of a learning process, organizational

learning is considered as a driver to build an innovation capability (Schreyögg and Kliesch-Eberl,

2007). This leads to the idea that developing capabilities should be considered as a process that can

be managed, designed, and guided (Carlgren, 2013), where organizational learning devices such as

innovation training can play a role. However, these capabilities to work on radical innovations are

not easily developed in existing organizations, as shown by the few studies that attempt to

investigate how such capability can be built and developed in practice (e.g. Börjesson and

Elmquist, 2011; Börjesson, Elmquist and Hooge, 2014; Gillier, Hooge and Piat, 2015). This is

largely due to the constraints and barriers that inhibit its emergence in mature firms, which must

therefore succeed in developing new mechanisms, routines and skills to overcome them.

2.2. Challenges to Develop Radical Innovation Capabilities

The properties of radical innovation make it both particularly sought after by organizations

and very difficult to implement. The literature often highlights the many obstacles and limiting

factors regarding the development of radical innovation (Story et al., 2014; Sandber and Aarikka-

Stenroos, 2014), which includes four major inhibitors. The first factor involves fixation effects that

can limit the generation of new ideas (Agogué, Kazakçi, et al., 2014; Agogué, Poirel, Pineau,

Houdé, & Cassotti, 2014; Hatchuel, Le Masson, & Weil, 2011). The second factor involves

organizational reticence to experiment in unknown territories (Eisenberg, 2011; O'Connor &

McDermott, 2004), what Ahuja and Lampert call the preference for what is mature over what is

nascent (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001). The third inhibiting factor for an organization is to have

restrictive evaluation criteria to apprehend projects targeting opportunities for radical innovation

(Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Elmquist and Segrestin, 2007; Elmquist and Le Masson, 2009; Gillier et

al., 2015). Finally, the fourth aspect involves a rigid organizational culture or blocking routines

(McLaughlin, Bessant, & Smart, 2008; Stringer, 2000).

First, fixation effects are processes that interfere during creative reasoning and that leads to

being fixed on a small number of unvaried solutions (Agogué et al., 2014). They can limit the

generation of ideas and reduce the spectrum of alternatives and opportunities that individuals are

able to consider thereby hindering in particular the discovery competence for radical innovations.

Fixation effects often resulted from the counterproductive effects of prior knowledge (Smith,

1995). Bonnardel and Marmèche (2004), thus pointed out that experts can be more fixed than

novices in design situations, in relation to the negative impact that domain-related knowledge can

have on the generation of creative ideas. Such effects are reinforced at the collective level,

especially in organizational or team setting where "The mental representations shared by all actors

fix them in known technological paradigms and prevent them from consciously moving away from

existing cognitive frameworks to explore alternatives" (Agogué, 2012: 68).

Second, the process leading to radical innovations is often described as one of great

uncertainty (Sainio, Ritala, & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2012). Consequently organizations that

seek to develop a radical innovation capability must move into unknown territory and experiment

with new processes like probing and repeated learning (O’Connor and McDermott, 2004; Taylor

and Greve, 2006). But as existing organizations often prefer what is mature over what is nascent,

they are often reluctant to engage in such projects (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001). For example,

established firms tend to devote too much resources to familiar knowledge domains and existing

networks, rather than external sources and emerging networks (Stringer, 2000; Katila and Ahuja,

2002). But it has been argued that companies must also go beyond local research to access distant

and unfamiliar knowledge and skills (March 1991; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001; Russo and Vurro,

2010).

Third, radical innovation projects often fall outside the spectrum of value forms that are

promoted in organizations and mobilized to evaluate traditional project portfolios (Watts, 2001;

Birkinshaw et al., 2007). Many authors tend to show that it is difficult to evaluate radical innovation

projects with conventional quantitative criteria such as financial tools like discounted cash flow

and the net present value (Chiesa, Frattini, Lamberti and Noci, 2009; Lenfle and Loch, 2010 ;

Gillier, Hooge, & Piat, 2015), or to evaluate them through a classical quality/cost/time framework

(Lenfle, 2012). In fact, the literature seems to agree with the fact that novel ideas may be eliminated

too early when teams and organizations use restrictive evaluations criteria (Elmquist and Le

Masson, 2009). As Danneels (2002) points out, exploring new products and markets thus requires

major changes in patterns of behavior and search. Maniak (2010) argue, for example, that radical

innovation projects often need to mobilize other forms than economic or commercial value (ethical

value, ecological value, strategic value...) in order to become legitimate. For this to happen,

individuals and teams need to be open to discover unexpected and new values along the ways (Loch

et al., 2007; Gillier et al., 2015), and sometimes even to design new performance criteria that do

not exist ex-ante (Elmquist & Segrestin, 2007).

Finally, the last inhibitor to develop a radical innovation capability is rigid organizational

routines and culture (Chang et al., 2012). Established firms have difficulty to break out of

established and hitherto successful routines (Stinger, 2000). Their processes and routines are

anchored in structures organized around their existing products/services and consumers, and silos

often emerge from the implementation of efficient and effective systems in the organization

(Nonaka, & Peltokorpi, 2006). As such, core capabilities may become core rigidities (Leonard-

Barton, 1992). Attributes of the organization's culture that make it particularly effective, that

participate in continuous improvement processes or operational excellence can thus become the

current cultural inhibitors of radical innovation (O’Connor, Ravichandran and Robeson, 2008).

Instead, a culture favourable to the development of radical innovation is supposed to support risk

taking, a key element that encourages the exploration of new knowledge and ideas and gives

managers a supportive role and puts them in a position of active leadership to promote radical

innovations (McLaughlin, Bessant, & Smart, 2008). In addition, organizational learning and idea

sharing have been identified as drivers for the development of new skills, knowledge and routines

for organizing radical innovation (Herrmann, Tomczak, & Befurt, 2006).

3. Developing a radical innovation capacity: A model for understanding the effects of

training for innovation and creativity

Many constraints thus affect the development of capacities for radical innovation. However,

the literature documents a number of strategies that organizations can use to try to overcome them,

such as the creation of dedicated structures (Leifer et al., 2001 ; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013), the

implementation of alliance strategies (Ritala & Sainio, 2014), the external delegation of these

capacities (Mock & Garel, 2018), and the organization of collective innovation initiatives with

other organizations (Hooge, Béjean, & Arnoux, 2016). But if these modes are often driven by top

management or externally oriented, firms can also choose to develop the skills of their employees

and teams to try to bring out these capabilities from bottom-up initiatives through training. Training

is indeed considered one of the most important processes in strategic human resources management

(Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Gómez et al., 2004). It plays an essential role in maintaining and

developing both individual, collective and organizational capacities, and also contributes

substantially to the process of organizational change itself (Valle et al., 2000). However, there is

to our knowledge no article that deals with the influence and impact that training can have on the

development of a radical innovation capacity nor of an innovation capacity.

To remedy this, we have linked together fragmented fields of literature on the question of

the effects of training, in particular training for innovation and creativity (human relations,

psychology of creativity, organizational behaviour, innovation management), in order to capture

the anticipated effects of such devices on an organization's radical innovation capacities looking at

all three levels of analysis: individual, collective and organizational.

3.1. Anticipated effects at the individual level

For a long time, the literature in psychology of creativity and management of innovation

has been prolific in documenting the effects of training on creativity, with a particular focus on

effects at the individual level. As noted by Valgeirsdottir & Onarheim in their review of creativity

training programs (2017, p.430): « Especially due to its link to innovation, the interest in enhancing

creativity through training programs seems to be escalating ». Numerous studies have been

conducted to demonstrate the effects of such programmes on developing individual creative

abilities by developing divergent thinking (Karwowski & Soszynski, 2008), creative self-efficacy

(Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009), and creative problem solving skills (Im, Hokanson, & Johnson,

2015). In general, they tend to show that such training allows both to overcoming the fixation

effects in individuals (Hatchuel, Le Masson, & Weil, 2011), but also to make them more

comfortable experimenting in unknown territories because they allow individuals to learn new

cognitive skills but also new heuristics and strategies to implement them .

Through training to innovation and design methodologies, employees might also become

more familiar to the need to consider new forms of values in projects with a high degree of novelty.

By better understanding the creative processes and becoming creators themselves, they become

more open to new and original ideas, as well as better placed to evaluate the success of others' ideas

(Berg, 2016). Leifer et al (2001) and Loch et al (2007) emphasize that innovation methodologies

that emphasize "trial and error" approaches allow teams to discover unexpected and new values

along the way. Gillier and colleagues (2015), also mentioned that recent design theories such as C-

K theory, can help individuals to value their new ideas not only in terms of the outputs they seek,

but also in terms of their possible spill-over effects in terms of new knowledge and expertise for

the organization, thus reinforcing their ability to make sense and defend strategic forms of value.

3.2. Anticipated effects at the collective level

Training has been established as a means to develop and maintain competitive advantages

emerging from an organization’s social capital (Romijn, & Albaladejo, 2002 ; Aragòn-Sanchez et

al. 2003). Indeed, by creating a climate that facilitates the exchange of knowledge and ideas across

expertise and departments (Lau & Ngo, 2004), it enables and accelerates the identification and

valorization of major opportunities throughout the organization. As Subramaniam and Youndt

(2005) found, human capital alone is not enough to provide benefit in terms of radical innovation

capability “unless individual knowledge is networked, shared, and channelled through

relationships”. In this sense, training can serve as a platform for social interaction, which helps to

set aside existing silos, and allows for the exchange of ideas and knowledge (Chen & Huang, 2009;

Sung & Choi, 2014). Therefore, it can create opportunities for fertile bisociations, and by creating

new relationships, it can enable the activation of the right networks in the organization at later

stages (Story, Hart and Malley, 2010).

By providing participants with new tools, methodologies and theories, training for

innovation and creativity can also have several effects at the group level. Gillier et al. (2010), for

example, shows that the use of design methods has allowed different teams to be better equipped

to understand new ways of evaluating exploration projects by better identifying knowledge gaps,

synergies between their project and various others, and new stakeholders for whom the company

could create value. Kurtmollaiev et al (2018) showed that training in design thinking methods and

tools generally increases the teams' ability to make sense of and to seize new opportunities, thereby

strengthening their willingness to explore unknown territories. And, Baruah, & Paulus (2008)

demonstrated that brainstorming training significantly increases teams’ ability to generate original

and varied ideas, both in terms of quantity and quality. Training for innovation and creativity will

therefore tend to go beyond the effects of collective fixation.

3.3. Anticipated effects at the organisational level

Finally, at the organizational level, the role of training is more limited and contrasted. As a

mechanism pushed and relayed by management, it can serve as a support for the messages that

management wants to communicate. Training for innovation can thus convey the message that

innovation is a significant and legitimate agenda within the organization (Scott, 1995). And Gómez

et al (2004, p.238), also point out that a training that is sufficiently deployed in an organization

“should also be seen as a tool that facilitates communication among employees, by providing a

common language and a shared vision”. It highlights the fact that training acts as an experience

that allows participants to acquire and grasp new cultural resources that they can use to initiate a

cultural change if they subsequently "put new cultural resources and skills in relation to existing

ones" (Howard-Grenville and al., 2011, p.534).

This initial theoretical framework allowed us to establish a number of initial proposals that

guided our research in order to analyze the effects of a training on the development of a radical

innovation capability. To this end, our study is based on a longitudinal analysis over a period of

more than 18 months of a large organizational research institute that sought to start an

organizational transition to develop radical innovation capabilities by training a substantial part of

its employees (about 1/7th) to innovation and design theories, techniques and methods. In doing

so, we are trying to open the question with regard to the mechanisms that make it possible to

develop a capacity for radical innovation, but also to highlight the limits of such devices in practice.

4. Method

4.1. The case of the Research Institute of Hydro-Québec

Hydro-Québec (HQ) is a Québec state-owned company with a monopoly on energy in the

Province of Québec. HQ is one of the largest electricity producers in Canada and generates 99%

renewable energy from its hydroelectric generating stations. It is also the only power company in

North America with a considerable research institute: The Hydro-Québec Research Institute

(IREQ). With over than $100 million per year in R&D investment, IREQ includes approximately

500 scientific researchers, engineers and specialists. The institute’s teams work to support all

Hydro-Québec operations

and development of scientific research in the field of energy.

As of 2015, the research institute was confronted with new internal and external contexts

that imposed major changes on the organization. Three elements in particular characterized this

transformation. First, Hydro-Québec’s general management chose a new direction: the new goal

was to double revenues through exports and innovation. Second, Hydro-Québec’s management

decided to put a new director at the head of the institute, which reflected these new directions and

supported the goal of innovation, especially radical innovation, as a priority for the research

institute to reinforce the value initiatives and projects generated for both Hydro-Québec and the

outside world. Third, this context emerged at a time when the institute and the parent organization’s

actors were increasingly aware that the industry, which had been relatively stable, was now

evolving towards important transformations

. The energy market is indeed in transition with new

decentralized energy resources (solar panels, wind, batteries and electric vehicles, micro-grids), the

expected arrival of new players on the market, and new emerging technologies (blockchains,

from production to energy consumption

In terms of context, technologies, energy uses and models

artificial intelligence, internet of things). Hydro-Québec’s research institute was widely mobilized

and was compelled to reflect on ways to innovate.

In response to these three new directions, the IREQ management team, in 2015, decided to

train two cohorts of 20 researchers each with new tools, theories and methodologies of innovation.

The new IREQ director presumed that by training significative part of the institute’s researchers,

they would become more comfortable generating, identifying and articulating new ideas as well as

organizing and animating collective innovation initiatives. In particular, its ambition was that these

initiatives should not be pushed or led by senior management, but that they should come from the

researchers themselves.

The training for creativity and innovation was a 9-day programme. It was based on the

theoretical principles of innovative design (for an overview of the theoretical basis see: Le Masson,

Weil & Hatchuel, 2010). The purpose of the training was first to provide the participants with a

theoretical background and material to broaden their understanding of how to reason in a situation

of ill-defined problems (Simon, 1973) or wicked problems (Dunne & Martin, 2006), in which the

initial unknowns are very strong. As explained by Hatchuel et al. (2011), in these situations,

« Engineers have to modify their design reasoning instead of simply applying their competencies

in the engineering sciences. They also have to collaborate with other knowledge creators ».

Second, beyond design theories, a large number of theoretical frameworks and methods of

creativity and innovation were mobilized to allow participants to better work alone and in teams

on novel ideas. Topics covered during the sessions included: Tips for conducting ideation

exercises, methods and theories for assessing value during and after exploration, and theories on

organizing innovation processes, including animation techniques needed to manage design

collectives.

More precisely, the nine days were spread over a three-month period to optimize the

learning and incubation periods between each session. A total of 40 researchers from various teams

in the organization participated throughout the training, and 15 IREQ managers participated from

time to time. The sessions consisted of a series of lectures, a series of exercises on topics unfamiliar

to IREQ’s researchers, and workshops specifically focused on the company’s innovation problems.

All the exercises and workshops were facilitated by one of the trainers to ensure a strong ownership

and integration of the concepts and theories presented during the working sessions.

The first sessions deepened the reasoning behind innovative design by explaining the

meaning of working with the unknown and how to build on that to explore different bases of

knowledge and to acquire new ones. Subsequently, the training focused on detailing the concepts

of “dominant design” and “separation of trades” in organizations to show how an organization’s

aims are stabilized to learn how to break with existing identities. The participants then had to

consider as a team the traditional aims held by their organization to explore new alternatives. They

also had to identify distant sources of knowledge and ideas from their domains to recombine them

and generate potential radical innovation.

Thereafter, the sessions provided the participants with theoretical material from the

literature in creativity and psychology of creativity on the cognitive biases and fixation effects that

can block the generation of alternatives as well as new and radical ideas both at the individual and

collective levels. The participants then had to identify the fixations of their colleagues and working

teams. Subsequently, tools and methods developed through research to slow down design thinking,

help overcome fixation effects and force participants to explore new knowledge were presented

(Agogué, Kazakçi, et al., 2014; Agogué, Poirel, et al., 2014; Hatchuel et al., 2011).

The last sessions focused on describing the new evaluation criteria and performance

measures that are needed to generate radical innovations. Unlike working on relatively stabilized

aims, for which the evaluation is performed based on standard criteria such as quality, cost, and

timing, the training emphasized criteria to evaluate both the originality and the value of new ideas

as well as their robustness in contexts in which the knowledge bases have been changed and the

variety of solutions and knowledge that are generated during the process. The final sessions also

addressed different examples of organizations that have sought to organize their innovation

processes to systematize work on radical innovation using the theories and methods of innovative

design.

4.2 Data collection

To learn about the effects and limits of the training in initiating a firm’s radical innovation

capabilities, we conducted a longitudinal study at IREQ. The data collection was performed in four

major phases between December 2015 and June 2017, which is presented in Figure 1.

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

We used different data sources by combining non-participant observation during training

and open questions in questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. In each phase of the study,

according to the levels of analysis proposed by the literature, we looked at the three levels

simultaneously: individual, collective and organizational. One of the authors participated in

training two cohorts of IREQ personnel, of 20 participants each (see Table 1 for the information

regarding our sample). Meanwhile, to ensure the fidelity and integrity of the research, an outside

researcher conducted data collection and analysis.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

In addition to the 128 hours of non-participant observation made during the training, we

conducted 70 semi-structured interviews, before, during, after and one year after the training for

the two cohorts. We supplemented these interviews with two sets of questionnaires, one before and

one after the training, for the first cohort only. Furthermore, the organization allowed us to access

numerous secondary data sources such as internal virtual forums and discussion platforms as well

as reports, archives and other internal documents. The combination of different sources allowed

for the triangulation of the data collection (Jonsen & Jehn, 2009). On the one hand, the interviews

allowed us to gather participants' conscious and directed reflections on themes identified by the

literature and on new themes emerging as the study progressed. On the other hand, the observations

and notes taken during the training days allowed us to triangulate these interviews with the

participants' natural and non-oriented reflections, but also to capture non-verbal information

(dynamics, energy levels, participants' reactions).

Based on the categories drawn from the literature and exposed in the previous section, the

semi-conductive interviews before, during ad right-after the training explored many themes: past

experiences, their perceptions of future disruptions, their sense of efficacy and their familiarity with

the methods and theories they had just learned, the difficulties they may have had in working as a

team on new topics, their surprises during the sessions, etc. The open-ended questionnaires

explored topics related to the individual motivation to innovate, the interesting directions they had

explored, their subjective perception of the training, as well as the issues they still had to address

in relation to what they had learned. New themes that emerged during the interviews of the first

cohort and the open-ended questionnaires were integrated in the interviews with the second cohort.

The one-year-after interviews were specifically intended to explore more collective and

organizational considerations. Participants were asked about the contexts in which new methods

were now mobilized, the new practices or routines that had emerged within their teams and

divisions as a result of the training, the issues and challenges they still faced, and the surprises they

had observed. Two of these interviews were conducted with trained researchers who had had the

opportunity to pilot innovation activities with a large internal collective. Two other interviews were

conducted with the firm's managers to explore their perspectives on the evolution of innovation

practices and activities.

3.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation

The data analysis was performed in several stages following a grounded theory strategy

advocated by Langley (1999). First, we coded the data using open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 2008)

in order to allow us to identify the main themes that emerged across the many interviews and notes

collected in the field gathering more than 360 pages of material. This first comprehensive coding

was submitted to the research team for discussion and compared to the categories already

highlighted in the literature by grouping several themes into more structured meta-categories to

obtain a second coding scheme (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This inductive-deductive analysis

allowed us to distinguish between the anticipated effects on themes previously identified by the

literature, and the unanticipated effects of our study on new themes emerging from our data.

Subsequently, a second analysis was conducted from the dataset to highlight the evolution of the

actors’ discourses, practices and activities over time in the different meta-categories previously

constituted and stabilized on the initial conceptual framework. An Excel spreadsheet was created

in which we recorded the full list of first-order codes generated through the analysis, with a column

dedicated to each participant.

Through this analysis, we considered converging evidence from the field as well as points

of disagreement expressed by different actors. Finally, to reinforce the descriptive and

interpretative validity of our research, we have very often shown our informants the evolution of

our analyses, models and even manuscripts to validate our understanding and ensure the accuracy

of our research as prescribed by Myers (2019). In the end, we reviewed the initial assumptions for

each level of analysis: individual, collective, organizational. In doing so, our work allows us to

discuss the unanticipated effects, the expected but unrealized effects and the limitations of such

training.

4. Results: Impacts, effects and limits of training in innovation methods to initiate a radical

innovation capability

4.1. Individual Level

4.1.1. Impact on the Creative Skills of the Trained Researchers

Our interviews and extensive fieldwork have shown that the trained researchers felt more

open and comfortable generating, formulating and handling original and breakthrough ideas after

training. Table 2 below shows examples of the participants’ discourse development from the time

they began the training to the interviews we conducted with them one year later. Two effects in

particular are notable. On the one hand, it seems that the training stimulated a new type of reasoning

among the researchers, allowing them to be more comfortable exploring alternatives and engaging

in expansive conceptual thinking. On the other hand, some of the researchers took it upon

themselves to use the principles they learned in the training to develop new skills of group

facilitation to facilitate collaborative design activities.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

The evolution of both the discourse and the practices of the researchers in their modes of

conducting exploration following the training confirms that it facilitated the development of

automatisms, i.e., strategies and heuristics that encourage the exploration of original ideas and help

to inhibit fixation effects. One of the participants describes this process:

It allows us to develop certain automatisms, to review the way we approach problems. And,

this is even on a personal level! We approach problems differently with the training filter.

What is interesting and most surprising is that these reflections and mechanisms were

already familiar to some of the researchers. The training for them, therefore, did not fundamentally

create new skills but rather revealed and put into words the things they were already doing. The

formalization of this knowledge helps them better recognize when they are in a mode of reasoning

for exploration. During the training many of the participants told us things such as:

In the end, we have always done innovative design. There we formalized it, and we realize

when we do the right things.

Further,

As some people said at the end of the final debate, innovative design: we did it, we do it and

we hope to continue doing it, but we now have tools to guide us in it, or at least to help us

archive this mechanism of reasoning.

Another interesting aspect is the adoption by the participants of the principles and roles of

facilitation for creative sessions. More specifically, during the training, one of the points that made

many researchers uncomfortable was the non-traditional activity of facilitating workshops to

explore new ideas and creative divergence exercises with other members, both internal and external

to the organization. Even at the end of the eighth training sessions, many doubted that one day they

would be able to develop this skill, which requires a lot of practice and cannot be learned just in

theory. However, one year later, many of the participants have pointed out to us that having

developed theoretical knowledge of it, they dared to try to put it into practice and gradually develop

strong animation skills:

I have facilitated exploration sessions with colleagues on several occasions, and the

training has helped me to better organize these meetings. (...) I realized that I had to work

on them (the sessions) very early to be sure to orient people well and to be able to make

them consider different alternatives when they were blocked on a particular aspect or

theme.

This effect, which mainly happened after the training, reflects an indirect effect of the

training on the researchers that moderates their willingness to explore unknown territories: an

increase in their motivation to innovate.

4.1.2. Impact on the Motivation to Innovate

Amabile (1997, 2012) directly links individual creativity with intrinsic motivation. On this

aspect, for some individuals, the training seems to have reopened the desire to work on topics of

innovation that are important to them and have personally challenged them to develop new skills.

However, what emerges from the analysis of the interviews is that the very act of creating, of

moving away from classical modes, and on experimenting with new methods, was a source of

motivation for many individuals, almost regardless of the subject they were asked to address. Three

different reasons can be advanced to explain this phenomenon. The first is that the act of exploring

provides an individual with freedom of expression, which is reinforced by working collaboratively

in groups. A second reason is that it achieves a kind of Hawthorne effect due to the attention given

by management, such that individuals are not motivated to increase their productivity but rather

they are encouraged to innovate.

However, what we also observed is that by engaging in exploration activities and allowing

themselves to go beyond the frameworks of their jobs, individuals were also able to put their own

roles back into the process of creating value for the organization and had a more global vision of

the whole organization to better position themselves for the future:

In my case, it changed my life. Before coming to the training, my field of action was my

laboratory, where I worked with technicians on specific molecules and techniques. I worked

in my bubble. During this training, I had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on

different things. I have knowledge about things I did not see, a more global vision of where

my work fits into the company.

4.2. Collective Level

In the current way of working, the risk parameters are extremely controlled, which comes

from the perspective of the research that the topics explored often turn in circles. In some

teams, they give themselves the latitude to brainstorm, but it is not something controlled.

So either it is completely crazy or the same solutions are explored. (A renewable energy

researcher)

4.2.1. Innovative Methods taken over by the Teams of the Organization

This quote, from before the training occurred, reveals that a logic of optimization,

incremental and continuous improvement predominantly dominated the innovation processes of

the research institute. As one of the managers explained to us,

Innovation at IREQ comes from different sources. We historically had some cases with

major innovations, but we have trouble funding them because it breaks with practices. Most

of it is incremental and we make improvements of what already exists, it is optimization

without revolutionizing the ways of doing things. But, as we are in a conservative

environment it is normal to be oriented toward more efficiency and performance.

At the collective level, the main effect expected from the training was precisely to help

equip a certain number of researchers with methods and tools to get out of this logic of exploitation.

Already by the end of the first training cohort, one of the researchers told us the following:

For me, I felt that new intensive innovation methodologies should be introduced. I just

acquired much more practical tools to do it. I will use them to start a program, to keep the

ideas alive and codify them but also to explore them and not to stay fixed on a particular

alternative.

Based on the effects of the training one year later, we found that more than half of those

trained had the opportunity to apply and practice the methods and techniques of team exploration

they learned in training. Many of the initiatives we have been able to trace have been initiated and

supported by the trained researchers themselves, with the specific goal of breaking out of the known

paradigms and questioning both technologies and business models to identify new value

propositions for the organization. One of the researchers told us about an activity of strategic re-

evaluation his team launched with the approval of management using these new tools. An activity

bringing together approximately 8 researchers, of which 5 had been trained:

I participated in the development of the Vision Network 2035, where we interviewed

experts on a rather distant future, collected this information and widened the tracks

together to chart a long-term vision. The success of this approach with the management has

exceeded my expectations, and they are currently evaluating the consequences of the

changes we have proposed on Hydro-Québec's 5 and 10 year projects.

Another told us about the use of these methods to organize a brainstorming workshop with a

number of other energy companies entitled – Big Data Analytics, Moving Beyond Power Services:

As we saw with the organization of this workshop, it became a working tool. Now it’s part

of our toolbox. (…) This is the first time we have felt comfortable organizing a workshop

with external companies, and above all I think it worked well, we have a number of avenues

for new business models to explore.

These activities are part of a strategic approach whereby the organization has been able to

free up time and resources so that some of the institute’s researchers (approximately 1/5) can work

to begin exploration of new major projects. If the researchers were to rely on existing ideas or

projects, the majority of the teams in charge of these approaches would start from scratch to

generate, develop and select new ideas, by including voluntarily breaks to look for projects that,

although more uncertain, are of higher value. If it is too early to say whether the ideas emerging

from these approaches will succeed in becoming innovations, the researchers at least have created

alternatives and avenues to help Hydro-Québec better understand and adapt to a changing

environment. Lily explains as follows:

The new energy context will force our organization to reinvent itself. I believe that part of

the company will use IREQ’s services for breakthrough innovation in the following areas:

RED, cyber security, big data, asset management, participative customers, etc.

This progressive reversal of dominant thought explains why a significant part of the work

carried out thus far by the teams has been to identify the elements (products, services, models) that

will create disruption in Hydro-Québec’s markets, so they can prepare for it by exploring different

alternative ideas to adapt to these radical innovations or be proactive in developing them internally.

This combination of foresight and strategic planning has thus far led to a relatively agreed-upon

context due to the teams working to better understand and position the value of future innovation

projects by measuring the risk, the cost and the value of both using and not using them.

4.2.2. Unexpected Effects on the Creation of New Collectives in the Organization

As anticipated by the literature, the training did not produce only learning effects in the use

of new methods at the collective level. It has also had many direct and indirect impacts on the

institute’s networks. In particular, it has helped create new links between the various trained

researchers, who did not always know one another since most worked in different fields and teams,

and who continued to exchange and stay in touch after the training. However, what was more

surprising is that the training also triggered the emergence of a new autonomous community of

practice in which to exchange practices, knowledge and methods of innovation. This community

began at the end of the first cohort of training with a small group of people wanting to progress and

put into practice the new methods and techniques they just learned. Because they wanted to extend

the reflection and experiment in new practices, they had an interest in meeting for discussion with

several people in the organization.

The initiator of this first meeting describes the process as follows:

We had a little anxiety to say that we did 8 days of training in new methods and we should

use them in real life, uh, we did not know how we could do that. I think that’s where the

idea came from.

Thus, he decided to take the lead and contacted the trained researchers and other colleagues in the

organization:

I remember the first time, I launched the invitation, I sent an Outlook to people. Coffee

innovation bring your coffee. From the beginning we said that. And then the first time I

remember it was at the documentation centre of the library. We had no agenda, nothing

planned – precise. It was just, well we meet and discuss. And we had maybe eight to ten

people who came.

Since then, the initiative, which is an indirect effect of the training, has been renewed every

first Monday of the month for more than a year. Those who want to share an experience or be

inspired by others are invited to participate in a meeting where exploration approaches and

innovation projects are presented, where they discuss the methods used to achieve it and the ideas

that have been generated:

There have always been 15 to 25 people coming each time. (...) The coffee of innovation

has become a forum for sharing experiences and results on innovation in general. We have

created a simple format to talk about innovation. We create exchanges with someone who

arrives with a presentation that he will present and after we discuss it. (…) We also created

a file to exchange information, elements of organization, management, advancement and

so on.

This one-and-a-half-hour monthly institutionalized event allows for the informal sharing of new

ideas and insights that are generated beyond the project team and creates cross-functional links. In

addition, it is an opportunity for researchers to take a reflective approach to the methods and the

process of exploration they have used by doing this very informally with their peers.

However, while the training has thus directly and indirectly helped reinforce and create

collectives to work on approaches and innovation projects, there is still some difficulty applying

part of the learning of the training within teams. This difficulty is often noted at these moments of

exchange. First, it is still very difficult for many of them to find a starting point in the innovation

process without a clear management brief. Left to themselves, without great directional goal, the

teams have difficulty starting the exploration or limiting its scope. One of the researchers shares

this feeling:

We did not have clear instructions, so defining interesting directions from which to start

was not easy. The difficulty is that we tried to cover a lot of space without having a

particular focus.

Second, to obtain additional resources for exploration and to develop the ideas generated, teams

struggled to find the right sponsors in the organization to go to. Having no direct sponsor or

business units to report to from the outset, some people have been discouraged from continuing to

invest time and effort in exploration projects that sometimes struggle to come to fruition. Thirdly,

some people found that they still lack the opportunity to practice their acquired skills and to find

opportunities, for example, master the methods of group facilitation to work on the emergence of

new ideas. In particular, one of them told us the following:

I started an exercise with a small team. (...) We generated things on the board, but it was

not as structured as I would have liked. I was not equipped enough to get them out of their

area (talking about her team).

4.3. Organizational Level – The Premises of a Cultural Change: Creating a New Language

and Awareness of Future Changes in the Energy Industry

The most important impact of the training at the organizational level may have been to

create a common language for exploration and innovation, which is gradually spreading throughout

the IREQ. In interviews, this dimension emerged several times. Additionally, we especially noted

it in the evolution of the vocabulary used not only by the trained researchers but also by managers

or researchers who have not received the training that end up using the terms in daily life due to a

cross-contamination effect. Some were even surprised to see some people who were reluctant to

change their minds:

I was surprised to see that even those who at first did not want to hear about these

innovation methods were convinced.

This vocabulary and common reasoning goes beyond disciplinary fields and makes it

possible to break silos due to new theoretical constructs that can be mobilized during exploratory

steps.

For a large number of people within the institute, beyond the language, the appropriation of

the methods of exploration and the implementation of approaches to explore new alternatives,

supported by the management, have allowed for changes in the patterns of thinking and the

perspectives on radical innovations to come in the industry. The evolution in the statements testify

to the passage of a relatively conservative model whereby the technologies, the models of business

and the ways of working in the industry were perceived as relatively stable, towards a model

whereby major changes must be anticipated, developed and gradually implemented. As one of the

managers puts it,

I think there is so much change that we have no choice but to innovate. We have to bring

new sources of income, new business models, so that we will not disappear.

Further, there is a growing number of researchers who have participated in these exploratory

processes who have transformed the paradigm in which they find themselves and are aware that

the resilience of the enterprise will depend in large part on its ability to adapt to a context of

intensive innovation and to produce or adapt to major innovations:

I think it’s important, it’s a matter of survival I was going to say ! If you do not address

these elements of disruption there, you are just good to disappear. All these key words –

participative customers, decentralized energy, artificial intelligence, you are obliged to

address these innovations you have no choice.

One of the indirect effects of the training is precisely to raise awareness; through the contamination

and dissemination of ideas and knowledge, on a larger scale to the staff of the company to radical

innovations and major changes that seem to be emerging in the energy industry. However, this

result must be in part mitigated because, there are still diverging voices at the IREQ who believe

that radical innovation is far from being a priority and that exploration is a waste of money and

time.

Although there have been no formal processes implemented to incorporate these new

methods into the organization’s routines by the management team, it seems, however, that one year

after its establishment, managers and/or untrained researchers were more aware of the threats of

breakthrough innovations identified through the exploration efforts that have been made and are

more sensitive to new ideas to prepare for them. Additionally, some ideas that came out of the

exploration process are now undergoing deeper reflection to assess their value potential in the

organization (internal innovations) or in the market, to be developed and taken up in projects, or

researched to develop the competence and knowledge needed to achieve them.

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

5. Discussion: Developing competencies versus indirect encouragement to innovate, the

effects of training to initiate radical innovation capabilities

Developing radical innovation capabilities is not easy (O'Connor & Ayers, 2005), especially

in starting an organizational transformation that breaks with the logic that has been established for

some time. By considering the effects and limitations of a training for innovation and creativity,

our article sheds light on how radical innovation capabilities can be initiated through an

organizational learning process within organizations that are trying to prepare for major

discontinuities in the future. First, based on our longitudinal study, our results make it possible to

confirm some of time-persisting effects already described in the literature, but also to reveal new

ones that were not anticipated by previous studies. Second, our study allows us to build the

foundations of a first theoretical model for understanding how a training in innovation and

creativity can initiate radical innovation capacity in mature organizations. We discuss these two

major contributions in the following paragraphs.

At the individual level, our study confirm the results of previous studies showing that such

training has the potential to develop individual creative skills for exploration, allowing trained

personnel to venture into unfamiliar territories, recognizing and avoiding fixation effects on well-

known elements, and being more able to generate and experiment with radical ideas (Karwowski

& Soszynski, 2008 ; Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009 ; Hatchuel et al., 2011). These abilities play a

decisive role in generating, identifying and articulating ideas and value propositions that come out

of the mainstream (Dewett, 2007; Le Masson, Hatchuel, & Weil, 2011; Rice, Kelley, Peters, &

O'Connor, 2001). But, beyond a skills development strategy, our results show that an important

effect not anticipated by the literature is that this type of organizational device also seems to

significantly increase employees' intrinsic motivation to innovate. This is in line with the recent

literature that reasserts the role of employee engagement and motivation in pursuing radical

innovation (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014).

At the collective level, we confirm the benefits of such training to serve as a platform for

interaction between individuals with different areas of expertise and the generative transfer of

knowledge and ideas throughout the company (Lau & Ngo, 2004; Sung & Choi, 2014), and this

effect even continued after the training. The use of common methods of exploration was also key

to finding innovative ways to generate value for the company and to counterbalance a rigid stage-

gate process thus expanding value criteria and the willingness to explore collectively in unknown

territories (Gillier et al., 2010; Kurtmollaiev et al, 2018). However, one of the unexpected elements

was to federate a self-constituted collective to continue for a long time after the training to exchange,

debate and discuss the practices and methods of exploration. Collectives such as these types of

communities of practice for exploration have already demonstrated their value to renew the

exploration capabilities of firms (Barlatier & Dupouët, 2015; Borzillo, Schmitt, & Antino, 2012;

Cohendet & Simon, 2007). It may well be that liminal moments such as trainings in innovation

theories and methods can catalyse their development.

Finally, at the organizational level, our results confirm that one of the main effects of

training in innovation and creativity is to help create a common language and vocabulary between

the different groups or divisions of an organization to talk about exploration (Gómez et al., 2004).

A major feature that organizational learning theorists put forward to be able to break down silos

and encourage organizational collaboration between distant knowledge domains. For managers it

also confirms that such trainings can convey the message that innovation is a significant and

legitimate agenda within the organization (Scott, 1995). But in addition to these effects, if

organizational members, especially those in management, were already aware of the risks of

discontinuities and future changes in the energy industry, the training by giving the organization’s

staff provides access to tools to explore possible breaks, made it possible to specify the extent of

the radical innovations that could be envisaged as well as to increase by contamination the

collective awareness with regard to the changes to come (Bessant et al., 2014). This is central since

employees must first make sense and understand a new dynamic environment, which breaks with

existing logic (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; Birkinshaw, Zimmermann, & Raisch, 2016; Ghezzi,

2013).

On the basis of these results, our study then makes it possible to lays the foundations for

understanding a model by which training in innovation and creativity can initiate radical innovation

capacity in mature organizations (Cf. Figure 2). This model, which must be tested by incorporating

the results of other types of training and different contexts, does, however, offer a multi-level

perspective that is useful for understanding the processes underlying the development of a radical

innovation capacity (Slater et al., 2014). It provides a general framework that can also serve as a

support to trainers and managers to better design devices to develop the capacities of their firms.

We present these managerial implications in more detail in the conclusion.

INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE

Conclusion, Managerial Implications and Limits

Many organizations are trying to start major organizational transformations to be able to

adapt, anticipate, or implement radical innovations. Managing this creation of a collective

exploration capacity (Arrighi, Le Masson, & Weil, 2015; O'Connor, Paulson, & DeMartino, 2008;

Verganti, 2008) to adapt to such new dynamics required to make this transition requires a lot of

investment. Our article shows that devices such as training for innovation and creativity can

participate in initiating such radical innovation capabilities, having wider effects than the mere

development of individual skills and tools that can be taken up at the collective level. In particular,

our work shows that such a system can overcome a number of constraints that inhibit the

development of radical innovation opportunities by increasing employees' motivation to innovate,

by participating in the creation of new collectives, and by gradually spreading a common

vocabulary to talk about exploration.

Our study makes it possible to apprehend a bottom-up strategy that shows that beyond the

simple development of collective and individual skills and introduction to new tools and methods,

such training can be used by management to indirectly introduce changes that have a profound

impact on the ability of employees to make sense of future changes in their environment and to

motivate them to collectively explore new opportunities for radical innovation. The neutrality of

external agents, the introduction to new theoretical constructs and ways of doing things can act in

a reflexive way, through mechanisms of sensemaking, appropriation and design of modes of

adoption (Rampa, Abrassart, & Agogué, 2017), that gradually transform the practices and

representations of the participants. Further, the participants can in turn contaminate an increasing

number of actors if these mechanisms are taken over, legitimized and supported in the organization

thus supporting the progressive creation of a capacity for radical innovation through various

localized initiatives.

Surprisingly, this particular type of device is transforming the role that can be played by

management in initiating radical innovation capabilities and introducing organizational

transformation. Senior management initiates, accompanies and supports change but acts more

indirectly that through the creation of new structures, processes, or partnerships (O’Connor et al.,

2008; Börjesson, Elmquist and Hooge, 2014; Hooge, Béjean, & Arnoux, 2016). In doing so, it not

only gives employees tools, but also symbolic levers that can ultimately transform the

organization's culture. However, to maintain the effects of a training course over time, management

can act in a different way by highlighting local initiatives, by structuring a posteriori the new

routines that are developed by different groups in the organization, and by institutionalizing the

common language to talk about exploration that spreads throughout the firm.

From a practical point of view, the framework we are developing can also be used to better

design such training. For example, raising awareness of fixation effects helps participants to better

overcome them (Howard, Maier, Onarheim, & Friis-Olivarius, 2013). Similarly, special attention

can be paid to socialization spaces and group work by recombining teams to encourage meetings

and bisociations between diverse expertise. Moreover, the question of a suitable casting of

participants for such training courses could be the subject of a later study. Finally, the combination

of practical applications of tools and methods during the training on subjects with which the

participants are not familiar at first, but also on more concrete subjects, allows them to practice

their skills and automatisms in safe contexts and undoubtedly plays a key role both in their

motivation to innovate and their willingness to experiment in unknown territories.

We recognize that our research bears its limits. First, our study is based on a single

longitudinal study, which may limit the extent and scope of its theoretical generalization. Similarly,

we recognize that the particularities of the theoretical material and exercises carried out during the

training played a significant role that must be taken into account to qualify the scope of our results.

However, we believe that the scope and novelty of the longitudinal study we conducted offer some

interesting aspects with regard to the development of a radical innovation capability. In particular,

we are convinced that both the multi-level approach taken to apprehend the effects of training and

the model it has enabled to identify offer new perspectives that would deserve to be further

developed through additional studies and we strongly encourage other authors to replicate the

experience in different organizational contexts.

Finally, the present case raises many questions. First, beyond training, our study opens the

door to a broader consideration of organizational learning devices for developing a capacity for

radical innovation whether by increasing opportunities for practice, connecting employees with

innovative collectives, or providing access to innovation toolkits, etc. Secondly, our study did not

focus on studying the new roles that this type of bottom-up strategies gives to management. In

particular, the difficult task of coordinating emerging and unplanned initiatives to work on radical

innovation opportunities seems to us to be a theme that deserves further consideration.

References:

Agogué, M. (2012). Modéliser l’effet des biais cognitifs sur les dynamiques industrielles:

innovation orpheline et architecte de l’inconnu. École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris.

Agogué, M., Kazakçi, A., Hatchuel, A., Masson, P., Weil, B., Poirel, N., & Cassotti, M. (2014).

The impact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and stimulation effects. The

Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), 1-12.

Agogué, M., Poirel, N., Pineau, A., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2014). The impact of age and

training on creativity: A design-theory approach to study fixation effects. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 11, 33-41.

Agostini, L., Nosella, A., & Filippini, R. (2016). Towards an integrated view of the ambidextrous

organization: A second‐order factor model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 129-

141.

Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal

study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal,

22(6-7), 521-543.

Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal

orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423-438.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and

loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.

Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School, 12(96), 1-

10.

Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A

cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 604-633.

Aragón-Sánchez, A., Barba-Aragón, I., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2003). Effects of training on business

results. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 956-980.

Aronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2008). The role of leader personality in new

product development success: An examination of teams developing radical and incremental

innovations. International Journal of Technology Management, 44(1-2), 5-27.

Arrighi, P. A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2015). Managing radical innovation as an innovative

design process: Generative constraints and cumulative sets of rules. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 24(3), 373-390.

Barlatier, P. J., & Dupouët, O. (2015). Achieving contextual ambidexterity with communities of

practice at GDF SUEZ. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 34(3), 43-53.

Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive

advantage?. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.

Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group

Research, 39(5), 523-541.

Birkinshaw, J., Bessant, J., & Delbridge, R. (2007). Finding, forming, and performing: Creating

networks for discontinuous innovation. California Management Review, 49(3), 67-84.

Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous

change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California

Management Review, 58(4), 36-58.

Blackwell, A. F., Wilson, L., Boulton, C., & Knell, J. (2009). Radical innovation: crossing

knowledge boundaries with interdisciplinary teams (No. UCAM-CL-TR-760). University of

Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.

Berg, J. M. (2016). Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 433-468.

Bessant, J., Öberg, C., & Trifilova, A. (2014). Framing problems in radical innovation. Industrial

Marketing Management, 43(8), 1284-1292.

Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers:

Towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(3), 176-

186.

Börjesson, S., & Elmquist, M. (2011). Developing innovation capabilities: a longitudinal study of

a project at Volvo Cars. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(3), 171-184.

Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M., & Hooge, S. (2014). The challenges of innovation capability

building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars.

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31, 120-140.

Borzillo, S., Schmitt, A., & Antino, M. (2012). Communities of practice: keeping the company

agile. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(6), 22-30.

Buliga, O., Scheiner, C. W., & Voigt, K.-I. (2016). Business model innovation and organizational

resilience: towards an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of Business Economics, 86(6),

647-670.

Carlgren, L. (2013). Design thinking as an enabler of innovation: Exploring the concept and its

relation to building innovation capabilities. Chalmers University of Technology.

Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked

role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474-487.

Chang, Y. C., Chang, H. T., Chi, H. R., Chen, M. H., & Deng, L. L. (2012). How do established

firms improve radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view.

Technovation, 32(7-8), 441-451.

Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation

performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business

Research, 62(1), 104-114.

Chiesa, V. (2010). Exploring management control in radical innovation projects. Strategic

Direction, Vol. 26 No. 3

Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2007). Playing across the playground: paradoxes of knowledge

creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 587-605.

Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic

Management Journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on

perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969.

De Visser, M., & Faems, D. (2015). Exploration and exploitation within firms: The impact of

CEOs' cognitive style on incremental and radical innovation performance. Creativity and

Innovation Management, 24(3), 359-372.

Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D

environment. R&D Management, 37(3), 197-208.

Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education:

An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512-523.

Eisenberg, I. (2011). Lead-user research for breakthrough innovation. Research-Technology

Management, 54(1), 50-58.

Elmquist, M., & Le Masson, P. (2009). The value of a ‘failed’ R&D project: an emerging

evaluation framework for building innovative capabilities. R&D Management, 39(2), 136-152.

Elmquist, M., & Segrestin, B. (2007). Towards a new logic for front end management: from drug

discovery to drug design in pharmaceutical R&D. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(2),

106-120.

Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Hölzle, K. (2007). Role models for radical innovations in times

of open innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(4), 408-421.

Ghezzi, A. (2013). Revisiting business strategy under discontinuity. Management Decision,

51(7), 1326-1358.

Gillier, T., f, S., & Piat, G. (2015). Framing value management for creative projects: An

expansive perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 947-960.

Gómez, P. J., & Lorente, J. J. C. i Cabrera, RV (2004). Training Practices and Organisational

Learning Capability. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 234-256.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management

Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.

Griffin, A., Price, R. L., Vojak, B. A., & Hoffman, N. (2014). Serial Innovators' processes: How

they overcome barriers to creating radical innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8),

1362-1371.

Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2011). Teaching innovative design reasoning: How

concept-knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects. Artificial Intelligence for

Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, 25(1), 77

Herrmann, A., Tomczak, T., & Befurt, R. (2006). Determinants of radical product innovations.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(1), 20-43.

Hooge, S., Béjean, M., & Arnoux, F. (2016). Organising for radical innovation: The benefits of

the interplay between cognitive and organizational processes in KCP workshops. International

Journal of Innovation Management, 20(04), 1640004.

Howard-Grenville, J., Golden-Biddle, K., Irwin, J., & Mao, J. (2011). Liminality as cultural

process for cultural change. Organization Science, 22(2), 522-539.

Howard, T. J., Maier, A. M., Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Overcoming design

fixation through education and creativity methods. In DS 75-7: Proceedings of the 19th

International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design for Harmonies, Vol. 7:

Human Behaviour in Design, Seoul, Korea, 19-22.08. 2013.

Im, H., Hokanson, B., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2015). Teaching creative thinking skills: A

longitudinal study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33(2), 129-142.

Jonsen, K., & Jehn, K. A. (2009). Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies.

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 4(2), 123-

150.

Karwowski, M., & Soszynski, M. (2008). How to develop creative imagination? Assumptions,

aims and effectiveness of Role Play Training in Creativity (RPTC). Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 3(2), 163-171.

Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search

behaviour and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.

Koen, P. A., Bertels, H., Elsum, I. R., Orroth, M., & Tollett, B. L. (2010). Breakthrough

innovation dilemmas. Research Technology Management, 53(6), 48.

Kurtmollaiev, S., Pedersen, P. E., Fjuk, A., & Kvale, K. (2018). Developing managerial dynamic

capabilities: A quasi-experimental field study of the effects of design thinking training. Academy

of Management Learning & Education, 17(2), 184-202.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management

Review, 24(4), 691-710.

Lau, C. M., & Ngo, H. Y. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and product

innovation. International Business Review, 13(6), 685-703.

Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic

capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(03), 377-400.

Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2010). Strategic management of innovation and design.

Cambridge University Press.

Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2011). The Interplay between creativity issues and

design theories: A new perspective for design management studies? Creativity and Innovation

Management, 20(4), 217-237.

Leifer, R., O'Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. (2001). Implementing radical innovation in mature firms:

The role of hubs. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 102-113.

Lenfle, S. (2012). Exploration, project evaluation and design theory: a rereading of the Manhattan

case. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5 No. 3, 486-507.

Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control

over flexibility and novelty. California Management Review, 53(1), 32-55.

Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new

product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125.

Loch, C. H., Solt, M. E., & Bailey, E. M. (2008). Diagnosing unforeseeable uncertainty in a new

venture. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 28-46.

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental

creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730-743.

Maniak, R., & Maniak, R. (2010). Mapping the «Full Value» of Innovative Features in

Projectified Firms. In EURAM 2010 Conference, May 19-22, Roma.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization

Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study.

International Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 21-29.

McLaughlin, P., Bessant, J., & Smart, P. (2008). Developing an organization culture to facilitate

radical innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 44(3-4), 298-323.

Mock, E., & Garel, G. (2018). Innovation factory. W. by Editions Weblaw.

Myers, M. D. (2019). Qualitative research in business and management. Sage Publications

Limited.

Nonaka, I., & Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Knowledge-based view of radical innovation: Toyota Prius

case. Innovation, science, and institutional change: A research handbook, 88-104.

O'Connor, G. C. (2008). Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A systems approach. Journal

of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 313-330.

O'Connor, G. C., & Ayers, A. D. (2005). Building a radical innovation competency. Research-

Technology Management, 48(1), 23-31.

O'Connor, G. C., & DeMartino, R. (2006). Organizing for radical innovation: An exploratory

study of the structural aspects of RI management systems in large established firms. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 475-497.

O'Connor, G. C., & McDermott, C. M. (2004). The human side of radical innovation. Journal of

Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2), 11-30.

O'Connor, G. C., Paulson, A. S., & DeMartino, R. (2008). Organisational approaches to building

a radical innovation dynamic capability. International Journal of Technology Management, 44(1-

2), 179-204.

O'Connor, G. C., Ravichandran, T., & Robeson, D. (2008). Risk management through learning:

Management practices for radical innovation success. The Journal of High Technology

Management Research, 19(1), 70-82.

O'Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2013). A Comprehensive Model of Uncertainty Associated with

Radical Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 2-18.

O'Reilly, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The

Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.

Rampa, R., Abrassart, C., & Agogué, M. (2017). Training for Innovative Design to Increase

Organizational Creativity: A Longitudinal Study of Hydro-Québec’s Research Center. The Role

of Creativity in the Management of Innovation: State of the Art and Future Research Outlook, 27,

97.

Reid, S. E., & de Brentani, U. (2012). Market vision and the front end of NPD for radical

innovation: The impact of moderating effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29,

124-139.

Rice, M. P., Kelley, D., Peters, L., & O'Connor, G. C. (2001). Radical innovation: triggering

initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation. R&D Management, 31(4), 409-420.

Ritala, P., & Sainio, L. M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: technology, market and

business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(2), 155-169.

Robbins, P., & O'Gorman, C. (2015). Innovating the innovation process: an organizational

experiment in global pharma pursuing radical innovation. R&D Management, 45(1), 76-93.

Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics

and software firms in southeast England. Research policy, 31(7), 1053-1067.

Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and

impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287-306.

Russo, A., & Vurro, C. (2010). Cross‐boundary ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and

exploitation in the fuel cell industry. European Management Review, 7(1), 30-45.

Sainio, L.-M., Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2012). Constituents of radical

innovation—exploring the role of strategic orientations and market uncertainty. Technovation,

32(11), 591-599.

Sandberg, B., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2014). What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on

barriers to radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1293-1305.

Sandberg, B. (2007). Enthusiasm in the development of radical innovations. Creativity and

Innovation Management, 16(3), 265-273.

Schreyögg, G., & Kliesch‐Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be?

Towards a dual‐process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9),

913-933.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A

quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3-4), 181-

201.

Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2014). Radical product innovation capability: Literature

review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 31(3), 552-566.

Smith, S. M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking. The

Creative Cognition Approach, 135, 156.

Story, V., O'Malley, L., & Hart, S. (2011). Roles, role performance, and radical innovation

competences. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 952-966.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks. CA: Sage.

Stringer, R. (2000). How to manage radical innovation. California Management Review, 42(4),

70-88.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of

innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.

Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of

training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 35(3), 393-412.

Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and

experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723-740.

Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk,

uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13-

35.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.

Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Tushman, Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O'Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational

designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331-1366.

Valgeirsdottir, D., & Onarheim, B. (2017). Studying creativity training programs: A

methodological analysis. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(4), 430-439.

Valle, R., Martin, F., Romero, P. M., & Dolan, S. L. (2000). Business strategy, work processes

and human resource training: are they congruent?. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21(3),

283-297.

Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research

agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436-456.

Watts, R. M. (2001). Commercializing discontinuous innovations. Research-Technology

Management, 44(6), 26-31.

Table 1: Information on the 40 participants

Gender

Age group

Average seniority

Research domains of the trainees

24 Men

16 Women

32 < x < 58

14 years (Min 4

years, Max 23

years)

Materials science; Digital simulation; Energy efficiency; Cybersecurity;

Electric battery; Grid management; Robotics; Statistics; Consumer

behaviours; Data valorization; Diagnosis and prognosis of assets; Demand

prediction; Integration of decentralized energy resources; Information

technology; Renewable energies

Figure 1: The Different Phases of the Study

December 2015 / January 2016 January - May 2016

First phase: initiation, entry

into the field

4 preliminary interviews

September - November 2016 June 2017

Second phase: Documentation and evaluation

of the first cohort

64 hours of non-participant observation

17 intermediate interviews (20 - 25 minutes)

12 final interviews (25-30 minutes)

Third phase: Documentation and evaluation

of a second cohort

64 hours of non-participant observation

12 intermediate interviews (20 - 25 minutes)

13 final interviews (25-30 minutes)

Fourth phase: Evaluation of the impacts and effects of

the training, one year after its implementation in the

organization

12 new interviews (between 40 and 55 min):

-2 to document the impacts and effects of 3 specific

innovation activities.

-2 with managers

-8 with trained researchers

Table 2: Examples of evolution of participants' discourses

At the beginning of the training

One year later

A renewable

energy

researcher

When you do incremental innovation you already

have trouble communicating with the business

unit. I do not know what it takes.

Personally, I appreciate the approach because it allows us to

co-design with other stakeholders than those of our immediate

environment. It's very profitable and relevant because the

work in silos in the company is detrimental to the company's

performance and networking.

A researcher

in numerical

simulation

The field of electricity production is extremely

conservative. It is difficult to bring non-

incremental innovation to business units.

I see a different way of approaching my search for ideas in

research. I feel less lost in the unknown, I feel like I have

tools.

A researcher

in material

sciences

To arrive with a concept is difficult for me

because we are used to work on very specific

knowledge.

After the training I took part in an exploration of the new

materials where we used the tools of the training. I was, in

particular, a workshop facilitator.

A researcher

statistician

I do not feel ready to lead a creative session.

I am certainly more open to original ideas and am able to

help others raise them. I have been a facilitator a few times, in

all these cases, even if the results in terms of ideas have not

always been spectacular, I think I have become a better

facilitator.

A researcher

in robotics

Why do we need to generate new knowledge? To

explore new alternatives?

We are able to bounce on the ideas of each other. It lights

things up and we have an open mind to explore in a relatively

easy way.

Table 3: Summary of results- Impacts, effects and limits of training in innovation methods to initiate radical innovation capabilities

Unit of analysis

Expected effects

Unexpected effects

Limits

Individual level

• More openness to original ideas

• Less focused on technical

performance, openness to new

forms of value

• Greater motivation to design and

work innovations and radical ideas

(Desire to innovate)

• Lack of occasional practices to get their

hands on methods and techniques

acquired

• Not all researchers use the knowledge

learned in practice one year after

Collective level

• Application of team exploration

methods and techniques to

generate, work and select new

ideas

• More time for generation and

socialization of ideas is taken

within teams during and after the

training

• Creation of new links between

trained researchers who persist

after the training

• Creation of a community and a

monthly event to exchange on

practices, knowledge and methods

of innovation

• More formal and informal sharing

of new ideas and knowledge that

continue even after training

• Difficulty finding a starting angle in the

innovation process

• Finding sponsors remains a hindrance

to kick off and especially to the

resumption of exploration projects

Organizational

level

• Creation of a common language

and vocabulary to talk about

innovation and exploration that

spreads throughout the

organization

• More openness and exploratory

steps with external actors to the

firm

• Awareness of major changes and

radical innovations that may have

an impact on the energy industry,

sometimes with a sense of urgency

• There are divergent voices at IREQ

who believe that disruptive innovation

is far from being a priority

• There are still cultural barriers to

internal idea sharing

• There have been no formal processes

implemented to integrate these new

methods into the organization's routines

Figure 2: The effects of training for innovation and creativity on the emergence of a radical innovation capacity

Radical Innovation Capability

Overcoming fixation effects

Creative Skills

New forms of values

Expensive evaluation criteria

Greater motivation (Desire)

to innovate

Collective

level

Socialization of employees

Ideas and Knowledge

transfert

Collective innovation tools

and methodologies

Signal radical innovation as a

legitimate agenda

Creation of a common

language to talk about

innovation

Awareness of major changes

and radical innovations

sometimes with a sense of

urgency

Willingness to experiment in

unknown territories

Innovation-supportive routines

and climate

Organizational

level

Individual

level

Enhancing resilience in digital multi-sided platform start-ups: An exploration of entrepreneurial logic and open innovation strategies

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2024

Objective: The article aims to examine the strategic fit between two distinguishable types of entrepreneurial logic (effectuation and causation) and different types of innovation approaches (radical and innovative). Research Design & Methods: We employed a self-administered questionnaire-based quantitative study and the partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the hypothesis. The sample comprises 70 Indonesian digital multi-sided platform (MSP) start-ups that have been operating for at least three years. Findings: The empirical results suggest that effectuation can contribute to digital MSP start-ups’ resilience after they succeed in providing radical innovation. On the other hand, causation directly contributes to their resilience. Meanwhile, incremental innovation does not contribute to digital MSP start-ups’ resilience. Implications & Recommendations: The empirical results suggest that effectuation can contribute to the resilience of digital MSP start-ups after they succeed in providing radical innovation. On the other hand, causation directly contributes to their resilience. Meanwhile, incremental innovation does not contribute significantly to the resilience of digital MSP start-ups. Contribution & Value Added: This study explores how the entrepreneurial logic in digital MSP start-up models can improve the survival rates of emerging market start-ups. It focuses on Indonesia, where the survival rate is comparatively lower than in other Asian countries. Moreover, this research is crucial for comprehending the phenomenon underlying the resource-based theory paradox, because it involves implementing innovation strategies within the constraints of limited initial resources and capabilities.

The Role of Smart Human Resource Management in the Relationship between Technology Application and Innovation Performance

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

This study investigates the intricate relationships between technology application, smart human resource management (SHRM), and innovation performance within the Jordanian telecom industry. Employing a quantitative research methodology, data were collected from employees of telecommunications firms in Jordan. The results illuminate significant positive associations between technology application, SHRM, and innovation performance, elucidating the pivotal roles of technology and HRM strategies in fostering innovation and bolstering organizational success. Practical implications of the findings advocate for substantial investments in cutting-edge technologies, the integration of intelligent HRM practices, and the prioritization of continuous learning and development initiatives to nurture an innovative workforce. This research contributes to a deeper comprehension of innovation dynamics within the telecommunications sector and furnishes valuable insights for practitioners striving to elevate innovation capabilities within their respective organizations.

Effects of tourism resource search on folk sports project development fuzzy front-end performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamics change

Article

Full-text available

May 2024
PLOS ONE

How to improve the success of new project development through the collection of resources in the preliminary stages of new project development is a new area of research. Given the speed and magnitude of changes in the folk sports market environment, this study analyses the impact of tapping folk tourism resources on sports projects at the project development stage. Through stratified regression analyses of 600 Chinese firms engaged in folk sports project development, this paper finds that tapping internal tourism resources positively affects the Fuzzy Front-End Performance of incremental innovative project development. In contrast, tapping external tourism resources positively affects the Fuzzy Front-End Performance of breakthrough innovation projects. The study also indicates that the speed of environmental change (SEC) positively moderates the relationship between exploring external tourism resources (ERS) and Fuzzy Front-End Performance of incremental innovation projects. In contrast, the magnitude of environmental change (MEC) negatively moderated the relationship between internal tourism resource exploration (IRS) and the FFE-P of similar projects.

Creative Thinking In The Transition To Sustainability: A Study Of Creativity-Relevant Processes In Canadian Energy Industry Organizations

Article

Jan 2021

Cultural Intellectual Leadership and Breakthrough Innovation

Article

May 2024
Finance Res Lett

Maintaining Quality Time: A Creative Problem-Solving Strategy for Leaders to Improve Employee Communication

Conference Paper

Feb 2024

How transformational leadership promotes employee creativity within the context of environmental dynamism: a multilevel perspective

Article

May 2024

Purpose This study aims to explore how transformational leadership influences employees' creativity by considering the role of the environment and psychology. The study aims to provide insights into the impact of transformational leadership on team innovation climate, team reflexivity, psychological capital and employee creativity while also examining the moderating effect of environmental dynamism on these relationships. Design/methodology/approach This study employed a multi-source, multi-wave approach, utilizing data from 618 participants in 118 teams. It constructed a multilevel structural equation model and estimated the confidence intervals of the mediated and moderated effects using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Findings The results of the multilevel analyses indicated that transformational leadership positively influenced the team innovation climate, team reflexivity, psychological capital and employee creativity. Moreover, the study found that environmental dynamism positively moderates the relationships among transformational leadership, team reflexivity, psychological capital and employee creativity. Originality/value Drawing on social cognitive theory and the motivated information processing in groups model, this study offers new insights into the interplay between transformational leadership and creativity. It examines the moderating role of cross-level process linkages and environmental dynamism, thereby validating and extending relevant theories.

The Effect of the New Working Days System on Employees Productivity in Sharjah

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Lastly, future research might consider longer-term data collection methods and more intricate ways to gauge how employees react to work-life balance based on four working days in a week. The HRM needs to reconsider the current economic climate because the employees have access to a variety of offers in the market. Therefore, it is beneficial for the organization to start providing perks to their potential employees. There is a high risk of employee turnover if they are not satisfied with the job, in this case, the implication of the four working days policy can benefit the workplace. By using relevant keywords like Work system design, job satisfaction, employee performance, productivity, and JEL codes (J24, J28, and M54) the study becomes more noticeable and accessible. Our study implications emphasized the importance of performance metrics, including productivity and job satisfaction.

How corporate technological innovation social responsibility leads to better radical technological innovation: an intellectual capital perspective

Article

May 2024

Purpose Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is regarded as the driving factor of innovation. However, corporate technological innovation social responsibility’s (CTISR) role and effect mechanism in leveraging radical technological innovation (RTI) has been limited. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between CTISR and RTI and the moderating effect of intellectual capital and institutional support on CTISR and RTI. Design/methodology/approach Grounded in resource-based view, a research model including CTISR, intellectual capital, institutional support and RTI is proposed Content analysis is performed on the CSR reports of Chinese companies that have been publicly listed published from 2008 to 2022, to measure each company’s CTISR. A regression analysis was then applied to relate CTISR, intellectual capital and institutional support to firm-specific variables to determine their relevance and influence on RTI. Findings Results indicate that CTISR is positively related to RTI. The results also indicate that human capital, structural capital and institutional support strengthen this positive relationship. Furthermore, institutional support strengthens the positive interaction effect of human capital with CTISR and structural capital with CTISR, respectively. Originality/value This research explores the relationships among CTISR, intellectual capital, institutional support and RTI in a comprehensive model, which is the first known study to highlight that CTISR can enhance RTI and gives managers implications on how to align corporate technological innovation while pursuing RTI.

İş Hayatında Yaratıcılık ve Yenilik Yönetimi

Chapter

Apr 2024

Osman Akarsu

In this chapter, where new technologies and working life are examined, in this section where creativity and innovation management in business life is discussed, it will be discussed how businesses and individuals who want to maintain their place and exist in the future should handle creativity and innovation management.

The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance

Article

Full-text available

Aug 1996

Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2002

Training for Innovative Design to Increase Organizational Creativity: A Longitudinal Study of Hydro-Québec’s Research Center: State of the Art and Future Research Outlook

Chapter

Full-text available

May 2017

This chapter aims at a better understanding of the impacts training for innovative design could have on organizational creativity. It clarifies the usefulness of innovative design theories in creative contexts, and constructs an analytical framework relating three dimensions of training for innovative design and organizational creativity: concept-relevant skills, collective creativity-relevant processes, and innovation-intrinsic motivation. It bears on a longitudinal study conducted in the framework of a large organization that implements training for innovative design: Hydro-Québec research center. Our results show that transformation by the training allows participants to develop new capacities for innovative design reasoning and increase the potential of collaborative creativity within the firm.

Lead-User Research for Breakthrough Innovation

Article

Jan 2011

Ivy Eisenberg

OVERVIEW: The best companies often work closely with their customers to uncover needs and wants that can be translated into new or improved product or service offerings. The lead-user research method goes a step further, looking not only to the typical customer, but to those users whose needs and preferences lead the market. These lead users, as they are called, will modify products or use them in unforeseen ways to meet their needs. The lead-user research method was developed as a systematic way to mine the insights and innovations of these lead users. Since it was pioneered in the late 1990s, the lead-user method has evolved and grown. This paper offers an update on the use of the method and on adaptations to increase its efficiency using online search and communities as well as an overview of lessons learned from experiences on more than 20 lead-user projects.

Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize

Article

Nov 1998

Why are some firms more successful at introducing radical product innovations than others? Following Schumpeter (1942), many researchers have suggested that firm size is the key organizational predictor of radical product innovation. The authors provide an alternate view and argue that one key variable that differentiates firms with strong radical product innovation records from others is the firms’ willingness to cannibalize their own investments. The authors identify three organizational factors that drive a firm's willingness to cannibalize. Results from a survey of three high-tech industries tend to support the alternate view that willingness to cannibalize is a more powerful driver of radical product innovation than firm size is. These results suggest a need to reconsider conventional wisdom on firm size, cannibalization, and organizational synergy.

The Innovation Factory

Book

Mar 2016

The Innovation Factory takes a fresh look at the fine art of breakthrough innovation. What makes it unique is that it brings together an experienced scholar and a serial entrepreneur who share the same passion for understanding the processes and theories needed to innovate over and over again. The book marries theory with practical examples focusing on the Concept-Knowledge (C-K) Theory developed by the prestigious school Mines ParisTech. For the first time, you will discover the unknown story of the Swatch watch told by Elmar Mock, the creative engineering force behind the Swatch. In this book, he passionately tells how he helped to create this breakthrough innovation that saved the Swiss watch industry in the 1980s. Gilles Garel, a professor of management, relates this tale of epic innovation to C-K theory and both convincingly argue that organizations can channel creativity to develop breakthrough innovations that disrupt markets. Innovation is not just a case of acquiring aptitude. It is also a question of attitude: Innovators strive to remain creative and active. The book provides an overview of the characteristics and essential strengths of the successful Innovation Factory, Creaholic, based in Switzerland. The example of Creaholic helps readers grasp what breakthrough innovation is truly all about. The book's use of vibrant metaphors helps readers easily digest the ideas and concepts presented. The book concludes with thoughts about future directions for the watch industry.

Developing Managerial Dynamic Capabilities: A Quasi-Experimental Field Study of the Effects of Design Thinking Training

Article

Mar 2018

Deeply rooted in practice, design thinking lacks theory-driven empirical research on its effects. In this article, we combine the practical experience of design thinking with the theoretical advances of the dynamic capabilities framework. We examine how training team leaders in design thinking can develop their managerial sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities; stimulate innovation in their teams; and influence team operational capability. We test the model using a quasi-experimental field study with a control group and a 4-month time lag. The intervention is a design thinking training program presented in six geographically isolated business units of a large multinational telecommunications company. We found that the training had a positive effect on the participants’ sensing and seizing capabilities, which had a positive effect on their transforming capability, team innovation output, and team operational capability. These positive effects were paralleled by a direct negative effect of the training on the operational capabilities of the participants’ teams.

Studying creativity training programs: A methodological analysis

Article

Dec 2017

Throughout decades of creativity research, a range of creativity training programs have been developed, tested, and analyzed. In 2004 Scott and colleagues published a meta-analysis of all creativity training programs to date, and the review presented here sat out to identify and analyze studies published since the seminal 2004 review. Focusing on quantitative studies of creativity training programs for adults, our systematic review resulted in 22 publications. All studies were analyzed, but comparing the reported effectiveness of training across studies proved difficult due to methodological inconsistencies, variations in reporting of results as well as types of measures used. Thus a consensus for future studies is called for to answer the question: Which elements make one creativity training program more effective than another? This is a question of equal relevance to academia and industry, as creativity training is a tool that can contribute to enhancement of organizational creativity and subsequently innovation. However, to answer the question, future studies of creativity training programs need to be carefully designed to contribute to a more transparent landscape. Thus this paper proposes a methodological research standard consisting of three criteria, to which researchers can look when designing future studies of the effectiveness of creativity training.

THE DYNAMICS OF PRODUCT INNOVATION AND FIRM COMPETENCES.

Article

Aug 2000

Erwin Danneels

This study examines how product innovation contributes to the growth and renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm's competences. Field research in five high-tech firms of varying age, size, and level of diversification is combined with analysis of existing theory to develop the findings of the study. Based on the notion that new products are created by linking competences relating to technologies and customers, a typology is derived that classifies new product projects based on whether a new product can draw on existing competences, or whether it requires competences the firm does not yet have. Following organizational learning theory, these options are conceptualized as exploitation and exploration. These organizational learning concepts are used to gain a dynamic and path dependent view of product innovation and firm development, and to reveal the unique nature and challenges of different types of product innovation.

How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change?: Bridging the Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity Perspectives

Article

Aug 2016

This article develops a conceptual integration of the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives in order to understand how firms adapt to discontinuous change. Based on three illustrative case studies, it demonstrates that it is not possible to identify a universal set of dynamic capabilities. Rather, the distinct set of capabilities required depends on which of three modes of adaptation (structural separation, behavioral integration, or sequential alternation) has been prioritized. This article contributes a contingency perspective to dynamic capability research and offers guidance to managers about the alternative approaches they could take when seeking to adapt to environmental discontinuities. © 2016 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

Developing radical innovation capabilities: Exploring the effects of training employees for creativity and innovation

Abstract

Recommended publications

Training for Innovative Design to Increase Organizational Creativity: A Longitudinal Study of Hydro-...

Lorsque les démarches d’exploration nécessitent de l’innovation collective: Le rôle des communautés...

XXX. Armand Hatchuel et Benoit Weil. La théorie C-K, un fondement formel aux théories de l’innovatio...

Using design theory to characterize various forms of breakthrough R&D projects and their management:...