Comments for Innovation as a process: beyond ideation BLANCKAERT L., ALEXANDRE C., GENIN A., DEKIMPE E., STAINIER L. 30 November 2018 Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐ curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 625-648. This article explains why some new technologies emerge and quickly supplant incumbent technologies while others take years or decades to take off. In fact, although there are plenty of innovations, the pace of the substitution can depend on the context, the period, the dynamics of emergence and the extension opportunities. Key insights But what is substitution? It is viewed as the race…Read moreThis article explains why some new technologies emerge and quickly supplant incumbent technologies while others take years or decades to take off. In fact, although there are plenty of innovations, the pace of the substitution can depend on the context, the period, the dynamics of emergence and the extension opportunities. Key insights But what is substitution? It is viewed as the race between the old and the new ecosystem. In fact, it happens when the consumer stops using the old technology and replaces it by the new one. The 1st key insight is the understanding of the difference between (1) the as-developed performance which is the performance of the component of the product and (2) the as-used performance which includes the components and the complements of the product. In our case, we’ll mainly focus on the second performance type, the as-used performance. The 2nd key insight is the analyse of the pace of substitution, depending on 2 big influencing factors: (1) the evolution capacity of the new technology after the new has been introduced and (2) the role of ecosystem elements on determining the performance in-use gap between the old and the new technologies. Thanks to those 2 factors, we can the 3rd insight of our article, the identification of 4 substitution regimes: A. Creative destruction: In this quadrant, there is a low emergence challenge for the new technology and a low extension opportunity for the old technology. It happens when a new product quickly replaces the old technology. The new one will achieve market dominance very quickly. There is a high pace of substitution and so, the substitution is the fastest. The evolution of the camera is a good example of creative destruction. B. Robust resilience: It’s the opposite of the quadrant A, it’s therefore the slowest substitution. There is a high emergence challenge for the new technology and a high extension opportunity for the old technology. It happens when we try to implement a new technology but the performance is constrained by the lack of progress in its environment and, the old technology benefits from improvements in its own components. There is a low pace of substitution. C. Robust coexistence: This substitution is gradual, which means the pace is intermediate. In fact, there is a low emergence challenge for the new technology and a high extension opportunity for the old technology. There will be a robust competition between the technologies that will coexist during a long time before the substitution takes place. As an example, we can take the hybrid and the traditional cars (Adner, R., Kapoor, R, 2016). D. Resilience illusion: This substitution will first be stasis and then rapid. There is a high emergence challenge for the new technology and a low extension opportunity for the old one. The substitution is delayed until the emergence challenges are resolved but once it’s resolved, the pace is very quick. The old technology keeps a high market share but the market growth doesn’t expand. After, there is an inversion and the new technology goes over the old. Implications Those articles findings have 2 implications for the managers. At first, the managers should investigate to know if their current technology has reached or not its maturity. If the old technology needs plenty of effort and doesn’t increase the as-used performance, firms should stop investing this technology. By doing this study, the firms can understand if the market is saturated or not. Secondly, the managers must do some market researches before launching a new project. Indeed, if the revolution technology is not ready, the company will not catch the consumers’ needs and it will be a failure. Limits Also, there are some limits to this article that could enforce the definition of the as-used performance. First, the forces that arise from the interaction between producers, users and institutional players are not considered. Also, the interactions between technologies in the ecosystem are overlooked while innovations in different sectors are linked. Moreover, it’s impossible to set a clear date of substitution. To counter this, the managers must consider tiered relationships and overlay additional technological and non-technological factors. A situation where the implications would not apply is the switch for 2G to 3G. In this case, we don’t exactly know the pace of substitution because there are many influencing factors: the effects of the marketing and messaging strategies, the regulatory environment, and the role of funding sources and the institutional context that underline the social construction of technologies and markets (Shahzad, A., Raghu G., 2009). Further references Sérgio Cavalcante, Peter Kesting, John Ulhøi, (2011) “Business model dynamics and innovation: (re)establishing the missing linkages”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 Issue: 8, pp.1327-1342. San Cristóbal, J.R., “The S-curve envelope as a tool for monitoring and control of projects”, in Procedia Computer Science, Volume 121 (2017), pp. 756-761. Yang L., Diwei L., Ying Y., Felix, A., Jiang, W., “Improvisation for innovation: The contingent role of resource and structural factors in explaining innovation capability” in Technovation (2018), Volumes 74-75, pp. 32-41. Other sources Shahzad, A., Raghu G.,”Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical systems: The case of mobile communications” in Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue2 (2009), pp. 382-392. Adner, R., Kapoor, R., “Right tech, wrong time” in Harvard Business Review (2016), pp.60-67. Brodo, R., “The Danger of Too Much Business Innovation Too Soon” https://www.advantexe.com/blog/the-danger-of-too-much-business-innovation-too-soon, consulted the 16/11/18 Aaslaid, K., “50 Examples of Corporations That Failed to Innovate” https://valuer.ai/blog/50-examples-of-corporations-that-failed-to-innovate-and-missed-their-chance/, consulted the 16/11/18 Show less Reply Quentin Timperman 27 November 2018 1) https://search.proquest.com/docview/216218463/9564D11804D840DCPQ/1?accountid=12156 2) 2 https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17410390610645085 GROUP4 “Establishing relationships between innovation characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organisations: A meta-analysis approach.” This paper examined different innovation characteristics to understand which of those had a real impact on the information technology (IT) adoption in organizations. The goal of this paper is to value the productivity of the major determinants of IT adoption so as to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of companies. To…Read moreGROUP4 “Establishing relationships between innovation characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organisations: A meta-analysis approach.” This paper examined different innovation characteristics to understand which of those had a real impact on the information technology (IT) adoption in organizations. The goal of this paper is to value the productivity of the major determinants of IT adoption so as to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of companies. To do so, the paper used what is called a “Meta-analysis”. A meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of a very large sample of studies in order to find an average outcome, in this case a statistical significance that reflect the influence of the innovation characteristics on IT adoption. The study results show that relative advantage, compatibility, cost, observability and trialability are the key innovation determinants having the strongest correlation with a successful IT implementation whereas complexity has no impact on this decision. Managerial Implications : Considering all the study results about how certain innovation characteristic influence the IT innovation adoption we believe that the managers besides having to bear in mind the most relevant factors during the innovation process they also should focus on the following three planning decisions. Firstly, managers must restructured the organization according with the new innovation implementation, this mean elaborate a consistent new management plan that fulfill all the objectives to achieve in the future with the adoption. The manager can resort to Plan Do Act Check cycle method which allows him to choose the best option and with more financial benefits. Secondly, taking into account the thought of our first implication some changes or improvements have to be done so the adoption can be successfully implemented. For instance, training the employees in order to avoid employee’s resistance for the new IT innovation. Thirdly, organizations have to meet the needs of the end-users so that they can achieve the goal without facing a high level of risk and uncertainty managers should firstly implement prototype to test the viability of the innovation. Limitations : One of the restrictions about restructure a hole organization, in order to implement the new innovation plan, it’s related to the type and the size of the organization the manager needs to manage. The paper suggests that small organizations due to their size and limited resources lag behind in adopting new technologies, they also face substantially greater risks in IT adoption due to its limited IT knowledge and resources for its implementation. So if a manager it’s really looking forward to implement a new IT Innovation adoption and make restructure modifications, he needs to be really aware of 3 things; the type of organization, the size of it and the risks within the adoption. In this research, at first, authors classified with the word IT, but the regions of IT are very large, so the authors can sort with the specific role of IT. For example, according to one of the ILO’s discussion paper, they separate IT into some parts: software, database, network, hardware. In addition, if the authors can sort with industry instead of the type of organization such as manufacture or service. When we connect the information about the role of IT with the industry which companies belong to, managers can forecast the impact of the IT adoption more precisely. New sources: Furthermore, we found some relevant and interesting papers that complement our study such as “A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research” that provides an opinion of different impactful characteristic on the IT. (1) ““IT innovation adoption in the government sector: identifying the critical success factors.” which aims to underlying how IT is adopted in private sector organizations (2) Quentin Timperman, Catarina Santos, Kensuke Shimazaki, Elias Carrasco Show less Reply Blin Laurence, Dubus Sarah, Gillain Jérôme, Van Hecke Julien, Vermeulen Julien 26 November 2018 Organizational routine as a unit of analysis, Brian T. Pentland and Martha S. Feldman For the first workshop, we chose to work on an article called “Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change » published by Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. in 2005. We will in this paper give the main points of our work which are the objectives and key insights of the article, the managerial implications of those…Read moreFor the first workshop, we chose to work on an article called “Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change » published by Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. in 2005. We will in this paper give the main points of our work which are the objectives and key insights of the article, the managerial implications of those insights, their limits and finally a few relevant sources that helped us understand the subject of the paper. The aim of this paper is to understand the internal dynamics of routines to better control organizational phenomena, such as stability and change, flexibility and rigidity. We highlighted three main key insights. The first one is that organizational routines are composed of two aspects: ostensive, the abstract patents, and performative, the observable performances. Then, we learned that artefacts, physical manifestations of routines such as written rules and procedures, are used by the direction to materialize those aspects. Finally, another important point of this article is that there are three different methods that can be used to analyse a routine: the black box, focusing on a specific part of a routine or analysing the interactions between parts of it. The managerial implications of the previously mentioned insights are that the black box method can be used as an effective way to analyse the inputs and outputs of a system without focusing on its internal structure. Another implication is that it is essential to align the artefacts with the ostensive aspect of routines in order to decrease the risks of divergence of purpose between managers and employees. Finally, divergences between the performative aspect and artefacts can be the sign of resistance to the rules by employees, bad comprehensions of those rules or that the organization is using obsolete models. Those are symptoms showing that something is going wrong inside the organization. Therefore, managers need to make sure that the performance of their employees goes along with the rules created. Those implications of course have limitations. The first and most important one is that routines are complex and dynamic by nature. We can only study theoretical models which are most likely not fully representative. The black box method, for example, is often too simple and therefore not accurate, especially if the routine is variable. Furthermore, analysing interactions between parts of routines is not always as simple as it might seem. Regarding the managing of the performances, it is important to keep in mind that it is not possible to control and evaluate everything. Indeed, there will always be differences between artefacts and the performative aspect. We found three different articles that gave us another point of view on that matter. – Unpacking ostensive and performative aspects of organisational routines in the context of monitoring systems: A critical realist approach, Federico Iannacci Kyriakos S.Hatzaras, 2012 – Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations, Teppo Felin, Nicolai J. Foss, 2009 – Explaining the effects of performance measurement on performance: An organizational routines perspective, Andrey Pavlov, 2011 Show less Reply BROGNION Valentine, LEFEBVRE Mathilde, MARTIN Maurice, SOTTIAUX Alicia, VANDEPUT Virgile 26 November 2018 Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579-1590. Intro This executive summary gives the results of a study divided in three parts : the impact of the entrepreneurs’innovativeness on the intention to innovate, the link between the innovativeness and the personality of the entrepreneurs and finally it compares the predictive power of their new alternative model built thanks to the study. Key points First part of the article speaks about…Read moreIntro This executive summary gives the results of a study divided in three parts : the impact of the entrepreneurs’innovativeness on the intention to innovate, the link between the innovativeness and the personality of the entrepreneurs and finally it compares the predictive power of their new alternative model built thanks to the study. Key points First part of the article speaks about the fact that many scientist tried to identify if there was a tendency or orientation to adopt innovation. To show this orientation they based their paper on the concept of innovativeness which is defined as the capacity of innovation. This concept is divided into 2 components: GI (general innovativeness) and SI (specific innovativeness). Nevertheless, the marketing literature has provided unclear mixed result between the two concepts. We also have to distinguish innovators (do things differently) from adaptors (do things better). The second key point considers a correlation between the personality traits and innovativeness: a positive one for some traits and a negative one for others. To understand it, it’s useful to know the Five-Factor Model which is a model of the personality description. It takes into account 5 personality traits: the agreeablenesswhich (compassion and caring about others),the conscientiousness (preference for goal-oriented activity and degree of organization), the extroversion/introversion (predisposition towards social interactions), Openness to experience (degree of tolerance through new ides) and Neuroticism/emotional stability (keeping emotions and impulses under control). It has been pointed out that innovators have a high Openness to experience and a low Conscientiousness. Regarding the last step of this paper, they have developed one of the most accepted theory on this field, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen). To sum up, it focuses on the intention to engage in a behavior that can be assumed as the best predictor of the actual adoption of innovations. After a theoretical framework and comparisons, they found out that the Theory of planned behavior shows a lower ability to explain the intention to adopt innovations than the alternative model based on innovativeness. Implications A first implication concerns recruitment. We have to prevent difficulties before they appear by improving flexibility in the organization. To be innovative, the firm must hire innovative people while considering psychological characteristics such as creativity in problem seolving, openness to experience or even conscientiousness. But to firm needs also to continue hiring adaptors. Then, having two different types of employees is one thing, but making them work together can create new issues for the company. That’s why managers need to find a way such as encouraging reciprocal trust, cooperation or communication. The third implication we can point is that the managers should work with the schools and universities in order to develop the future innovators’ potential. On one hand they can work on primary and secondary level with basic creative techniques. On the other hand they ccan work with highest education to create more connections. Limitations This article and the recruitment solutions are given for SME. Actually, we think that it could be as useful as for bigger companies because of many reasons: the amount of their funds, the importance of the staff, etc. You also have a higher probability to have a well-balanced mix in the composition of your team members. Also, changing the population in the statistics could lead to really different results (here there were only 188 Italian companies tested). Further ref • « Ces managers qui étouffent l’innovation, mais savent la vendre », Xerfi Canal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6tqSQ5rjf4 • « Critique of the five factors model of personnality », Gregory J. Boyle, January 2008. • « Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers », Fariborz Damanpour & Marguerite Schneider, November 7, 2008. Show less Reply BARBIERE Robin, CLOQUET Guillaume, DE WOOT Brice, GRIBAUMONT Bastien, SCHYNS Martin 23 November 2018 Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155. Key Insights A. According to this article, it is possible to distinguish two major types of change, respectively evolutionary and strategic change. The first one consists in limited changes affecting specific aspects of the organization that aim to improve the current business situation. The second one consists in radical change that imply a total transformation in the organizational processes, usually in order…Read moreKey Insights A. According to this article, it is possible to distinguish two major types of change, respectively evolutionary and strategic change. The first one consists in limited changes affecting specific aspects of the organization that aim to improve the current business situation. The second one consists in radical change that imply a total transformation in the organizational processes, usually in order to catch a new competitive advantage. However, every change consists in a mix of those two poles. B. We can define resistance as “a phenomenon delaying the change process and trying to keep the status quo”, as an equivalent of inertia. There are 5 types of resistance to change: (1) A wrong initial perception of change which can appear for many reasons (management mistake, communication barriers, …). (2) A low motivation to change related to high costs or a good current position on the market. (3) A lack of creative response due to fast and complex changes. (4) Political deadlocks which come from a negative climate, particular departments resistance or deeply rooted values. (5) Five other sources of inertia which do not fit to the fourth first categories. Implications A. From the identification of these different kind of changes and inertia, we identified several managerial implications. Firstly, it seems important for a manager who wants to initiate change to refer at the inertia typology in order to identify which kind of resistance could potentially delay the change process. Keeping a continuous analysis is essential because resistances can occur at each step of the process. B. It is obvious that resistance to change couldn’t totally stop the change process. However, we determined that the existence of deep-rooted values opposed to change still remains at a prominent position. A manager should then make sure that the organization is able to overcome these core values before implementing a change. Management also needs to make sure that the organizational culture fits with the change objectives, and implement tools and processes to counter to most likely sources of inertia. Limitations Logically, the greater the change, the greater the resistance. It means that strategic changes could potentially face bigger inertia. However, it must not bring companies to develop reluctance to this kind of change which could be essential to rethink its core business. As an example, the manager of Microsoft operated such a change. He aimed to eliminate the destructive competition between different business units of the organization by promoting a limited set of goals and values that increased employee engagement and allowed them to share a new sense of mission. Further references A. Article: Ford, J., Ford, L., D’Amelio, A., (2008). Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. B. Article: Klonek, F., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Kauffeld, S., (2014). Dynamics of Resistance to Change: A Sequential Analysis of Change Agents in Action. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, 334–360. C. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LI2fkNZ2k, How to Deal with Resistance to Change | Heather Stagl | TEDxGeorgiaStateU. Show less Reply Anonymous 26 April 2018 Seligman, L. (2006). Sensemaking throughout adoption and the innovation-decision process The purpose of the article is to understand Karl Weick’s description of sensemaking from his book “Sensemaking in Organizations” as a starting point for a sensemaking-based perspective on the adoption of an innovation. Sensemaking is defined as the process by which individuals give meaning to an experience. The concept was introduced in sociology of organizations by Karl E. Weick who defined sensemaking through its…Read moreThe purpose of the article is to understand Karl Weick’s description of sensemaking from his book “Sensemaking in Organizations” as a starting point for a sensemaking-based perspective on the adoption of an innovation. Sensemaking is defined as the process by which individuals give meaning to an experience. The concept was introduced in sociology of organizations by Karl E. Weick who defined sensemaking through its 7 properties (grounded in identity construction, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, focused on and by extracted cues, social, ongoing and driven by plausibility rather than accuracy). After all this explanation of what sensemaking consists in and its implications on the adoption process of an innovation, Rogers describes the innovation-decision process as: the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes (1) from first knowledge of an innovation, (2) to forming an attitude toward the innovation, (3) to a decision to adopt or reject, (4) to implementation of the new idea, and (5) to confirmation of this decision. These five stages describe the types of activities undergone by the individual during the innovation-decision process. The sensemaking perspective provides a lower-level view, describing the evolution of the adopter’s mental framework. At each of Rogers’ stages, sensemaking compels the individual to sensible action, causing him to progress through the stages. Therefore, Rogers’ model charts a progression of activities during the adoption process, whereas the sensemaking perspective explains the adopter’s mental mechanics at each stage. The managerial implications are first of all to inform the managers of this deeper mental-level in the key stages on the adoption of an innovation. In this way to help the managers to better manage the mental adoption process in order to have a more successful innovation implementation. The concrete actions are going to be mostly to identify what makes sense for an employee or a consumer in order to identify what are their needs in term of innovation. Then, because what makes sense for an employee or a customer is linked to the good or the bad past experiences it will also be for example important to organize workshops to inform and form them to the new innovations. We could also imagine some “innovation test periods” in order to understand the sense costumers give to an innovation. Concerning the limitations, the first limit is the fact that the different steps are presented in a particular order in the paper. But in practice, the environment, the context and the state of mind of the adopter has to be taken into account. As a result, the order can be different. The managers have to stay flexible and to adapt themselves to the context. It is so difficult to standardize this model. Then, the second limit is the confusion between individual and collective sensemaking. Although the concept of sensemaking of Weick is a collective perspective, its integration in the model of Rogers makes a focus on the individual process.this article seems to talk about individual sensemaking because we are focusing on the adopter himself and the way he is thinking. We don’t talk about groups or team who are part of the organization. But an individual search of meaning can deviate in a collective one. In an organizational context, it is essential to take care about the collective sensemaking. The managers have to pay attention to this and have to involve their employees in the decision process by making workshop or groups discussion for example. Further references: 1. Hall H., Khan B. (November 2012) New economy handbook: Adoption of new technologyhttps://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/HallKhan03%20diffusion.pdf 2. Jennifer P., Ka Ho Brian C., Kimberlay E. and Sarah M. (2014) Adme Policy Ment Health: Innovation Adoption: A Review of Theories and Constructs ,volume 41(4): 480-502 3. Maurel D. (2012) Études de communication ; Sense-making : un modèle de construction de la réalité et d’appréhension de l’information par les individus et les groupes 4. Rahrovani Y., Addas, S. & Pinsonneault, A. (2014). Exploring the Long Shadow of IT Innovation Adoption Decisions on IT Value. Systèmes d’information & management, volume 19, (4), 31-87. 5. Sargent, K et al. (2012) Factors influencing the adoption of information technology in a construction business’, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2) 72-86 Show less Reply Anonymous 26 April 2018 Vuori, T., & Huy, Q. (2016). ‘Distributed Attention and Shared Emotions in the Innovation Process: How Nokia Lost the Smartphone Battle 1. Key insights According to this article, the different appraisals from top and middle managers on threats and the fear perceived by middle manager are amplified by the hierarchical status of Nokia. Indeed, the top managers are focused on external threats of Nokia and didn’t hesitate to put the pressure or to shout at the middle managers to have faster performance.…Read more1. Key insights According to this article, the different appraisals from top and middle managers on threats and the fear perceived by middle manager are amplified by the hierarchical status of Nokia. Indeed, the top managers are focused on external threats of Nokia and didn’t hesitate to put the pressure or to shout at the middle managers to have faster performance. While the middle managers are focused on the requirements of top managers and have provided too optimistic reports because they had fear of them. That generated a vicious cycle due to the assessment gap between the top and the middle managers. We can conclude that this process caused a temporal myopia. In other words, the employees of Nokia had only a short-term vision and the long term was completely forgotten. 2. Managerial implications Due to the bad internal communication between the managers caused by a fear atmosphere, we suggest to implement a culture where everyone dare to say their thoughts without being judged. This could be done by creating a charter, where it will be interesting to integrate a notion of empathy and respect of others. Another problem linked with the lack of communication is that Nokia putted on the market inappropriate products. However, a few employees were aware of this bad products. At each step of the conception of the product, we suggest to carry out regularly tests to be sure it’s reliable. The aim of this is to make appropriate decisions like to increase budget or improve a certain technology used for example. Moreover, to solve the lack of technological skills of the top managers, we can implement a basic training. Then, Nokia was mainly focused on the short term and not on the long-term strategy. The best solution to this is to organize meetings on regular basis where the long-term strategy is discussed and improved if needed. 3. Limitations Furthermore, the first limitation is the specialization of Middle managers in software creation. In addition, they were not aware of the customer’s expectations while the Top managers only knew what the customers wanted. This problem had as consequences that the product didn’t correspond to the needs of the customer. Moreover, the second limitation of this article is the fact that they assume that the hierarchy increases fear in the organization and competition between employees. This problem isn’t a generality; a lot of organizations are using a hierarchical structure and didn’t fail. 4. Further references 1) LINKE, A & ZERFASS, A. (2010). Internal communication and innovation culture: developing a change framework. Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 15 No. 4. pp. 332-348. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le9Isb03RY8, Are Emotions Contagious in the Workplace? | Brandon Smith | TEDxEmory, 15:18, published on 20th July 2016. Show less Reply GELDERS Alice, DINIS FERNANDES João, LEDENT Louise, VAN DAMME Loïc 26 April 2018 Stock, R., von Hippel, E., & Gillert, N. (2016). ‘Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success’ This article links the Five- Factor Model of personality to success in three innovation process stages by consumer-innovators. The “Big Five” Personality traits are: (1) Openness to experience, (2) Extraversion, (3) Agreeableness, (4) Conscientiousness, and (5) Neuroticism. The three basic innovation process stages are: (1) generating an idea for a new product or product improvement, (2) developing a prototype that implements that idea, and (3)…Read moreThis article links the Five- Factor Model of personality to success in three innovation process stages by consumer-innovators. The “Big Five” Personality traits are: (1) Openness to experience, (2) Extraversion, (3) Agreeableness, (4) Conscientiousness, and (5) Neuroticism. The three basic innovation process stages are: (1) generating an idea for a new product or product improvement, (2) developing a prototype that implements that idea, and (3) diffusing the innovation to others. Typically one same person carries out all stages. So, one with a highly favourable personality is more likely to bring all stages to success. For the first stage, openness to experience and extraversion have a positive correlation with success, while agreeableness and neuroticism have a negative one. In stage two, success is found in persons with low extraversion (introverts). For the third, success in offline non-commercial diffusion is found in open, contentious and agreeable individuals, while online non-commercial is successful by those who are open and neurotic; commercial diffusion is thrives when one is extravert and conscientious. Lastly, personality traits impact the decision of becoming an entrepreneur as they, compared to managers, tend to be more open to experience and conscious but less agreeable and neurotic. We found that this article’s findings imply: A. Innovators ought to seek spaces that sponsor communication and collaboration, such as forums. Managers should develop platforms for their community to interact (the video game industry is a success example, as is Lego). HR units must care for recruitments that lead to multidisciplinary teams (consulting companies have also been using this approach for a number of years). B. While traits cannot be learned, they should be developed and trained (like skills). Managers can capitalize on consumers’ and employees’ innovativeness potential by incentivizing trait enhancement with workshops, awards or contests. C. Firms should exploit the intrapreneurship of employees: act as an entrepreneur inside the firm. These individual’s traits often match those needed across the three stages of the said innovation process. Hence, by helping their ideas come to life, a firm can profit from the new invention. However, these implications are not without limits: A. Firms typically ask partners and employees to sign NDAs that limit innovative interaction with outsiders. Protection of intellectual property leads some firms to state that augmentations to their product are owned by them. In collaborative projects, not everyone may adapt to working with people with different habits and cultures, leading to a clash of personalities. B. Being informed on new trends, ahead of the curve in adoption of new technology, and having a sparkle for innovation does not correlate with predisposal to enrol in personality development workshops. More, there is a positive link between being an introvert and prototyping. C. Intrapreneurs face boundaries as they have to meet the company’s goals and values. They are creating value for someone else and their innovative ideas are ultimately owned by the company. This can be seen as a source of demotivation and a negative incentive. References: • Stock, R., von Hippel, E., & Gillert, N. (2016). ‘Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success’. Research Policy, 45, 757-769. • Today at Apple. (2017). Today at Apple – Apple (BE). [online] Available at: https://www.apple.com/befr/today/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017]. • Investopedia Academy. (2017). Investopedia Academy. [online] Available at: https://academy.investopedia.com/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017]. • Bowyer, R. (2017). Intrapreneurship Definition – Characteristics of an Intrapreneur. [Blog] Business Blog For Successful Entrepreneurs. Available at: https://in-business.org.uk/intrapreneurship-definition-characteristics-intrapreneur/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017]. • Antorini, Y. M., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Askildsen, T. (2012). Collaborating with customer communities: Lessons from the lego group. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 73-79. New sources identified: • To make a link between the Mayers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the 5 personality traits: Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and individual differences, 21(2), 303-307. • To learn more about the gap that usually exists between the consumer’s intentions to adapt innovation and the actual adoption behaviour and to compare these behaviours with the personality type results of the main article: Arts, J., Frambacha, R. & Bijmoltb, T. (2011). Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 134-144. • To deepen the phenomenon of the personality traits affecting the decision of becoming an entrepreneur (see key point 3): Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and individual differences, 51(3), 222-230. Show less Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Reference Identify the bibliographic reference you are commenting. You may use simple HTML tags to add links or lists to your comment:<a href="url">link</a> <ul><li>list item 1</li><li>list item2</li></ul> <em>italic</em> <strong>bold</strong>Name * Email * Notify me by email when the comment gets approved.