Motivated by the increased pressure faced by organizations to improve the way they innovate, this work investigates the effects of four aspects of knowledge (declarative vs procedural, deep vs broad) on creativity perceptions of innovative ideas. Findings show that declarative knowledge depth has a negative impact on the evaluation of ideas presented within an innovation contests and rated by other contestants. Scores assigned to the same ideas by a jury of experts are found to be correlated to the ones by contestants. Further, evaluation criteria used to form the scoring grid are shown to form a single factor. The present research has several implications. First, it highlights how prior experience constrains the perception of creativity. It also questions the emphasis put by practitioners on procedural knowledge and professional experience to select evaluation panels. Second, the correlation between the ratings from the contestants and the jury supports recent findings from the literature on experts and on wisdom of the crowd effect. Therefore, practitioners might increase innovation processes’ efficiency by substituting current evaluation panels with less experienced individuals. Third, the high amount of variance shared by scoring criteria suggests that evaluations followed a holistic approach. This implies that practitioners would achieve unaltered levels of effectiveness even by reducing the degree of formalization tied to idea evaluation processes.
Motivato dalla crescente pressione incontrata dalle organizzazioni finalizzata a migliorare i processi di innovazione, lo studio indaga gli effetti di quattro aspetti della conoscenza (dichiarativa vs procedurale, profondità vs ampiezza) sulle percezioni di creatività legate ad idee innovative. I risultati mostrano che la profondità della conoscenza dichiarativa ha un impatto negativo sulla valutazione di idee presentate durante un innovation contest e valutate dagli stessi partecipanti. I giudizi assegnati da una giuria di esperti alle stesse idee si sono dimostrati correlati a quelli dei partecipanti e i criteri utilizzati per formare la griglia di valutazione sono riconducibili a un singolo fattore. La ricerca offre diversi contributi. Primo, mostra come le esperienze passate influenzino le percezioni di creatività e mette in discussione l’enfasi posta dalle organizzazioni su conoscenza procedurale ed esperienze professionali al fine di selezionare gli incaricati della valutazione. Secondo, la correlazione tra i punteggi assegnati da partecipanti e giuria supporta la recente letteratura su esperti e wisdom of the crowd. Sarebbe quindi possibile aumentare l’efficienza dei processi di innovazione sostituendo individui meno esperti agli attuali. Terzo, l’elevata quota di varianza condivisa tra i criteri di valutazione indica che i punteggi siano stati assegnati con approccio olistico. Ciò suggerisce che si manterrebbero gli attuali livelli di efficacia pur riducendo il grado di formalizzazione dei processi di valutazione.
You’ve Got Another Thing Coming: Unveiling the Role of Knowledge Properties in the Evaluation of Creative Ideas
SCARICA, FABIO
2019/2020
Abstract
Motivated by the increased pressure faced by organizations to improve the way they innovate, this work investigates the effects of four aspects of knowledge (declarative vs procedural, deep vs broad) on creativity perceptions of innovative ideas. Findings show that declarative knowledge depth has a negative impact on the evaluation of ideas presented within an innovation contests and rated by other contestants. Scores assigned to the same ideas by a jury of experts are found to be correlated to the ones by contestants. Further, evaluation criteria used to form the scoring grid are shown to form a single factor. The present research has several implications. First, it highlights how prior experience constrains the perception of creativity. It also questions the emphasis put by practitioners on procedural knowledge and professional experience to select evaluation panels. Second, the correlation between the ratings from the contestants and the jury supports recent findings from the literature on experts and on wisdom of the crowd effect. Therefore, practitioners might increase innovation processes’ efficiency by substituting current evaluation panels with less experienced individuals. Third, the high amount of variance shared by scoring criteria suggests that evaluations followed a holistic approach. This implies that practitioners would achieve unaltered levels of effectiveness even by reducing the degree of formalization tied to idea evaluation processes.È consentito all'utente scaricare e condividere i documenti disponibili a testo pieno in UNITESI UNIPV nel rispetto della licenza Creative Commons del tipo CC BY NC ND.
Per maggiori informazioni e per verifiche sull'eventuale disponibilità del file scrivere a: unitesi@unipv.it.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14239/8919