Journal of Product Innovation Management最新文献

While today's society tends to prioritize problem solving and idea management, framing the problem is often more important than solving it. Problem framing is not a linear process; rather, it requires creativity and the ability to explore multiple dimensions of the problem. Scholars and practitioners increasingly recognize the value of “building the right things” and addressing the right problem, rather than “building things right” and addressing the wrong problem. In this context, understanding the process of problem framing and the role of creativity—characterized by the ability to navigate uncertainty and explore unconventional perspectives—has garnered attention across disciplines. Management, psychology, and the social sciences are among the fields in which researchers have examined the role of creativity in problem framing from three interrelated perspectives: business and organizational, cognitive, and social or relational. To gain a holistic understanding of these contributions, we conducted an integrative review of 188 academic papers, synthesizing the synergies and differences between the management, psychology, and social science communities of practice on problem framing and creativity. Our review identifies and integrates key concepts of the creative process of problem framing from these communities and organizes them into four constituents: (i) problem representations, (ii) activated knowledge, (iii) influencing stimuli, and (iv) creative logics. This integration forms the basis of the framework we present, which synthesizes insights across disciplines to redirect the innovation management debate. In addition to outlining a research agenda to guide future investigation and theorizing, our research provides practical insights into the temporal interactions of the constituents of the creative process of problem framing. These insights can help innovation managers not only navigate the dynamics and complexities of this process, but also foster more effective innovation.

Many companies leverage the creativity of their employees to gather ideas for innovations. These ideas are collected, saved, and evaluated via platforms known as corporate ideation systems. Moderated ideation systems (ideation 2.0) emerged as a solution to address the limitations of traditional, rather passive ideation systems (ideation 1.0). In this study, we apply a qualitative mixed-method approach (literature review, company case studies, expert interviews, and focus group workshops) to examine how artificial intelligence (AI) technology may relieve the remaining pains of stakeholders in collaborative, moderated ideation systems. This leads to a new framework of corporate ideation systems, termed AI-based ideation systems (ideation 3.0). We identify five major pains suffered by stakeholders in today's moderated ideation systems: creativity pain, content formulation pain, search pain, analytical pain, and administration pain. We find that AI agents act as pain relievers when serving five supporting functions: inspirer, stylist, matchmaker, analyst, and organizer. The interconnected nature of pains means that employing AI agents in certain functions within corporate ideation systems can create positive externalities across the entire system. Practical insights into AI agent implementation and application in corporate ideation systems are provided by six mini-case studies, which lead to the proposition of two organizational principles: the contextualization of AI usage and the generalization of AI implementation as the requirements for successful ideation 3.0.

For firms facing an aging society, substantial adoption gaps that often exist for new product alternatives between older and younger consumers pose a significant challenge. To examine the root cause of this phenomenon, our research draws on life-span theory and is based empirically on a set of studies involving 2050 participants in both field and controlled settings. As a first contribution, we show that, in contrast to growth-oriented younger consumers, older consumers exhibit lower levels of novelty seeking because of their relatively higher prioritization of maintenance goals. This predisposition leads older consumers to perceive the inconvenience induced by the possible behavior change associated with purchasing new (vs. established) products in a given category as more salient than potential benefit gains. In comparison, younger consumers perceive benefit gains to be more salient. For established product alternatives with familiar benefits, there is no such clear age-related difference. As a second contribution, we propose easy-to-implement adaptations of the communication strategy to address this issue, and we examine the effectiveness of these adaptations in a field study at the point-of-purchase. Specifically, since prevention-framed (vs. promotion-framed) claims are more compatible with older consumers' maintenance orientation, they can increase the salience of benefit gains over behavior change for new product alternatives and foster older consumers' product-related information behaviors and new product consideration. These results have important implications for researchers and managers as they refine the understanding of older consumers' acceptance of new products.

Despite the growing interest in using crowdsourcing to address grand challenges such as climate change, the underlying mechanism that explains users' intention to submit ideas to such crowdsourcing initiatives of relevance for wider society is poorly understood. Building on the self-determination theory, this article investigates different types of motivation and provides compelling theoretical and empirical evidence for the critical role of one motivation which is so far under-researched, that of identified motivation (i.e., which is personally important and consciously valued), in triggering users' intention to submit. We further identify a new construct stimulating motivation—sponsor-challenge fit—and reveal identified motivation as an underlying mechanism explaining the influence of sponsor-challenge fit on the intention to submit to crowdsourcing initiatives addressing grand challenges. We demonstrate the importance of identified motivation compared to other types of motivation and explore two moderators (sponsor transparency and sponsor capability) in two scenario-based experiments involving fictitious crowdsourcing initiatives. The first study demonstrates that increased sponsor transparency (i.e., open disclosure of submission guidelines and selection criteria) strengthens the effect of sponsor-challenge fit on users' identified motivation and, consequently, their intention to submit. The second study reveals that sponsor capability (i.e., financial and operational ability to develop ideas further) can mitigate the negative effects of a low sponsor-challenge fit, thereby enhancing identified motivation even when the fit is low. Our article contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the identified motivation's role in addressing grand challenges, clarifying the impact of the alignment between sponsor and challenge on engagement, and demonstrating how sponsor transparency benefits organizations with high fit while sponsor capability aids those with low fit.

Idea championing is key for implementing new ideas. A few research studies show that inventors use the consultation tactic to champion their new ideas inside organizations—that is, inventors ask others to contribute to their new ideas in the hope of obtaining others' commitment. However, prior research does not indicate why inventors should use consultation and when it is beneficial. This research proposes that consultation enhances psychological ownership, and that psychological ownership increases idea commitment. Additionally, we posit that the extent to which idea receivers contribute and build psychological ownership will vary depending on the format of the new idea. We hypothesize that consultation is beneficial when idea receivers are asked to contribute to low-elaborated ideas framed in a non-narrative format, as this type of idea format provides greater opportunities for inputs. In contrast, we argue that idea receivers build less psychological ownership when they are asked to contribute to high-elaborated ideas and/or ideas framed in a narrative format (e.g., storytelling). An exploratory survey with 204 inventors confirms that the use of consultation for gaining idea commitment is widespread in companies. The survey shows that inventors present their new ideas at varying levels of elaboration and narrative format. Furthermore, three laboratory experiments provide strong support for our predictions. This study extends our understanding of the idea championing process by providing new insights into how consultation best fosters psychological ownership.

Companies increasingly rely on web-based idea management systems (IMS) to source innovative ideas from their employees and external contributors. While existing research emphasizes the critical role of expert feedback in shaping ideators' subsequent contributions, there remains a limited understanding of how various types of feedback—and their interplay—affect future idea success. Grounded in feedback intervention theory, this study examines how success feedback (task-level), idea-related failure feedback (task-level), and ideator-related failure feedback (self-level) affect future idea success through shifting ideators' attention and activating different processes. Furthermore, we investigate the moderating roles of feedback readability and timing. Study 1 analyzes 1143 ideas submitted over 5 years by shopfloor employees of an automotive company, while Study 2 examines the causal effects and the underlying processes through an online experiment. The findings reveal that success feedback and constructive idea-related failure feedback significantly enhance future idea success by activating task motivation and task learning, respectively, while ideator-related failure feedback shows diminishing returns by activating the meta-task process. Additionally, lower feedback readability weakens the positive impact of idea-related failure feedback; however, no significant moderating effect is found for feedback timing. Our research contributes to the IMS literature by demonstrating how different feedback types uniquely influence future idea success. Practically, our findings highlight that experts and managers should prioritize feedback on ideas rather than ideators when providing IMS guidance.

Despite artificial intelligence's (AI) increased efficiency and accuracy in many contexts, algorithm aversion, that is, people's biased preference for human recommendations over those of algorithms, is a well-documented phenomenon. In this research, we show a reversal of the algorithm aversion phenomenon, referred to as algorithm appreciation, in the prevalent context of marketplace discrimination. Specifically, the current research documents people's increased propensity to rely on AI-based recommendations over those proposed by human counterparts in the aftermath of marketplace discrimination. Such an increased preference happens because it serves as a coping strategy for consumers who have faced discrimination in the marketplace from other human actors. The results of a series of three lab studies and one field study provide consistent support for the proposed effect and document the underlying psychological mechanism driving this effect through perceived embarrassment. Using a moderated-mediation model, we identify a boundary condition of the effect by demonstrating that the focal effect, that is, algorithm appreciation, remains valid under public consumption but diminishes under private consumption. Employing the natural setting of the field, we replicate our findings with actual consumers making real choices. Our findings have important implications (e.g., integrating AI-driven recommendation systems into firms' platforms in sectors susceptible to marketplace discrimination and developing ethical guidelines for AI systems) for managers and companies.

Novel technologies are emerging and evolving at such a rapid pace that it is difficult for companies and society to absorb them. Large mature organizations can be displaced if they fail to learn about, develop, and adopt new technologies, yet they struggle to do so. What is the best approach? Clearly there is no single best answer. This paper examines organizational models that companies have experimented with for leveraging technological discoveries and inventions to create strategic innovations that fuel new growth opportunities. I adopt Kanter's concept of newstreams as the guiding lens, because it addresses the challenges that mature firms face in their attempts to create new platforms of growth that emerging technologies enable, while maintaining the health of the mainstream core business. This notion demands an extension of ambidexterity theory beyond the exploration/exploitation dichotomy, recognizing that creating new streams of growth that ultimately become part of the mainstream organization requires elements of exploitation to enhance reliability and predictability that the mainstream requires. Five organizational approaches for SI that have been observed in practice are described and considered in light of three elements that, together, can be thought of as comprising a technological innovation strategy: (a) type of ambidextrous approach the firm adopts, (b) type of technology (general vs. special purpose), and (c) targeted market (internal vs. external). By combining theory and observation, configurations of ambidexterity type, technology type, and target market are proposed, as well as expected outcomes for each. I offer these as a research agenda whose outcome can provide important guidance to organizational leaders who are attempting to build capabilities for technological innovation that will secure their organizations' future health.