Towards a Managerial Model of Creativity in Information ... · PDF fileTowards a Managerial Model of Creativity in Information Systems ... to fill this void by proposing a managerial

Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1995

Towards a Managerial Model of Creativity in Information Systems

Beata M. Lobert Brenda Massetti Robert J. Mockler Dorothy G. Dologite Long Island University St. John’s University St. John’s University CUNY-Bantch College [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract

This paper presents un early attempt at developing a framework for studying organizational creativity in the IS domain. A managerial model of organizational creativity is proposed, tying together organizational inputs, creative processes, creative outputs and organizational outcomes based on research in organizational creativity, organizational innovation and strategic management. The model is discussed in the setting of the IS domain and shows not only how critical factors of the IS organization could affect the creative IS processes, but also how the outputs of the IS creative processes are related to organizational outcomes. We discuss the business value of IS creativity in terms of increased organizational effectiveness and efficiency. The model with supporting literature on creativity and IS is used to develop a

framework for studying IS creativity. Several research propositions are suggested to test the model.

Introduction

Creativity represents an important aspect of change that gives an insight into understanding of organizational innovation, effectiveness, efficiency and ultimately organizational survival (Woodman et al., 1993). Fundamentally, creativity involves producing something unique, meaningful, valuable and new from that which already exists. We define organizational creativity as the totality of individual, group and environmental characteristics and processes in an organization that lead to or affect the creation of a new, valuable and useful product, service, idea, procedure, or process.

Creativity is considered one of the critical factors directly responsible for producing competitive advantage in the 1990’s (Burrus and Gittines, 1993, pp. 197-217). Organizational dollars are invested into various new tools, techniques and approaches that claim to improve the creative performance of employees. However, the eventual organizational outcomes that result from

creativity are not very well understood, as the assessment of organizational outcomes is a difficult task. Traditional short-term financial measures, such as return on investment, sales growth, and operating income fail to directly monitor the total value of creativity to an organization. Other measures could and should be utilized, as an integral part of the management process, to monitor the effectiveness of the creativity programs and to show that organizational creativity affects the “bottom line” (Gryskiewicz, 1987).

Given the abundance of existing organizational innovation literature, and the emerging organizational creativity models, one would expect to tind a creativity model that addresses itself to the issue of performance measurement. However, there are no comprehensive models currently available. Therefore, the authors synthesize and extend some of the previous work in organizational creativity (Woodman, et al. 1993), organizational innovation (e.g., McGinnis and Ackelsberg, 1983; VanGundy, 1987), and strategic management (Kaplan and Norton, 1993) in order to facilitate the management and examination of the “bottom line” effects of IS creativity in an organizational setting.

In the domain of Information Systems, researchers who study creativity often relate their work to Rhodes’ (l%l) 4-P’s model that involves: person, process, product and environment (press). While Rhodes’ approach can be viewed as a useful framework for relating basic research, the 4-P’s model lacks an important dimension for organizational application: an assessment of the creativity impact. The same is true of the recently proposed by Woodman et al. (1993) model of organizational creativity. In contrast, the organizational innovation literature does discuss the organizational outcomes resulting from innovations, but it hardly ever explores or even mentions the concept of creativity (VanGundy, 1987). Currently, none of the existing models identify the links between the creativity-relevant organizational characteristics and the organizational outcomes eventually produced.

We believe that it is important to understand IS creativity within the broad organizational context as

1060-3425/95$4.0001995 IEEE

Proceedings of the 28th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '95) 1060-3425/95 $10.00 © 1995 IEEE


information systems are often called upon to perform in strategically critical ways by facilitating creativity of other organizational functions. An information system can be also a competitive weapon by itself, e.g., by altering the firm’s organizational form, or its organizational behavior, or by offering new relationships with customers and suppliers (Cash and Konsynski, 1985).

Understanding IS creativity within the narrow IS context is also crucial because of the change in focus of most information systems being developed today. While the information systems of the past decades emphasized improved efficiency and control, the systems of the 1990’s focus on innovation and change.

It should be noted that creativity in IS context is somewhat different from creativity in other organizational contexts. It is much more complex to understand, as information systems are both a means (input) and an end (output) in the overall organizational creativity. Also, the creative needs of IS are different from orher organizational functions, because of the training that IS personnel traditionally receive. For the most part, the training is highly technical, founded in logic and in convergent ways of thinking. Rarely do IS personnel receive the psychological, communications, and/or human relations training to which other functions, such as marketing, are exposed (Snow and Couger, 1991).

In summary, while the topic of creativity in Information Systems domain has been receiving some of its overdue attention, so far, little guidance has been given to the IS manager as to how creativity should be managed within the IS organization. Our paper attempts to fill this void by proposing a managerial model of creativity in IS.

Managerial model of creativity applied to Information Systems domain

In order to better understand the role of creativity in the IS function, it is useful to explore various aspects of organizations that impact the process and outcomes of creativity. Our model is presented in Figure 1.

The model consists of four building blocks that are used to analyze organizational creativity and its benefits. Each block in the model influences the quality of the immediately following block. We hypothesize that the nature of organizational inputs affects the quality and effectiveness of the creative processes. The creative processes in turn influence the creativity of the outputs produced. The creative outputs then determine the degree of organizational goal attainment, or organizational outcomes, which in turn influences the nature of organizational inputs to the creative process.

Organizational Outcomes

Effectiveness 62 Efficiency

see Table 4 I

Creative Outputs

Solutions & Innovations

see Table 3

Creative Processes

Individual & Group

see Table 2

Organizational Inputs

Cultural Factors & Structural Factors

see Table I

Figure 1. Building Blocks of Organizational Creativity - a Managerial Model

While it is possible to apply this model to any organization as a whole, or to other functional units within an organization, the IS function has been selected as the focal point for the model because of the wide ranging potential IS has for competitively exploiting creativity. A brief discussion concerning each block of the model in the IS context follows. The discussion is

557



not exhaustive and only illustrative in nature, focusing on potentially important variables in the IS domain.

Organizational inputs

Within the input stage of the model, the organizational environment from which the creative processes flow is critical. This environment represents those factors of the IS organization that provide the frame or context for the creative processes to occur. Generally, the environmental factors relevant to creativity in the IS function have been grouped into two categories -- structural and cultural. Table 1 provides a listing of specific factors regarding each category.

stmctural Reward Systems Amount of Formalization

Hierarchy Flexibility Diversity

Communication Patterns

cultural Personality Factors Considered Positive

Independence of Judgement Deviance Attitude towards change

Resource Availability Training and Development Information Technology Literacy

Problem-solving Approaches --

Table 1. Categories of Organizational Inputs That Affect the Creative Process

First, structural factors refer to the procedures and processes in the IS function that overtly or covertly serve to spark the creative process. For example, whether the function has a formal reward system to encourage creative suggestions impacts how likely me creative process is to occur (Hennessey and Amabile, 1988; Bridges, 1993). Moreover, Snow and Couger (1991) suggest that the degree of formalization present in the IS environment has an impact on the creative process. Specifically, a flat hierarchy and a high degree of flexibility seem to support creative endeavors (LaBarre, 1994). In addition, increased diversity has also been shown as an important enhancer of creativity (Hisrich, 1990). Last, open and boundryless communication patterns are considered an important structural factor helpful in establishing a creative environment for IS (Gogan et al., 1992; LaBarre, 1994).

Cultural factors are the second input relevant to sparking creativity in IS. These factors reflect the nature of the beliefs, attitudes, expectations, norms and values organizational members share. For example, prior research on creativity has indicated a variety of personality factors to be important for creativity to occur (Steiner, 1991; Damanpour, 1991). The extent to which the IS organization considers these factors, such as independence of judgment and attitudes toward change, to be positive traits ultimately affects how creatively new computer systems will be designed (Couger and Dengate, 1992). In addition, the willingness with which the IS organization makes resources available for enhancing creativity reflects the value IS management places on creativity. Specifically, resource expenditures on training and on developing IS personnel to think and act more creatively is one indication of the value. (Couger et al., 1993; Snow and Couger, 1991; Thierauf, 1993; Byrd and Smith, 1989; Hisrich, 1990). Another indication is the degree to which IS personnel are provided resources to remain on the cutting edge of technological breakthroughs. For example, Thierauf (1993) suggests the extent to which alternative generation can be made more broad-based and efficient through access to multiple, electronic databases impacts positively the creative process (Thierauf, 1993). Moreover, the availability of various computer technologies, such as Group Support Systems (Fellers and Bostrom, 1993; Vogel and George, 1992; Carmel et al., 1992), Creativity Support Systems (Thierauf, 1993) Idea Processing Systems (Young, 1987; Abraham and Boone, 1994) and new development languages, such as the Visual Processing Language (Wojtkowski and Wojtkowski, 1993) is also expected to enhance various creative IS processes.

Other research in this area focuses on identifying me necessary traits of IS products that could support creative performance. For example, Elam and Mead (1987; 1990) and Young (1983) discuss the necessary features of Decision Support Systems that support creativity and Duncan and Paradice (1992) identify the creativity enhancing features for expert systems architecture.

A final cultural input relevant to creativity in IS is the nature of the problem solving approaches applied not only in the system development process but also in the solution process of IS-related problems (Telem, 1988a, 1988b; Couger, 1990, 1991; Couger et al. 1991; Sampler and Galletta, 1991; Galletta et al., 1992). For example, Basadur (1992) finds an emphasis on problem finding to support me creative process.

Ultimately, the structural and cultural factors reflected in Table 1 interact to produce an environmental climate within the IS organization for the creative



processes to occur. Consequently, depending on how these factors are managed, creativity within the IS domain will be enhanced or constrained (Snow and Couger, 1991; Couger et al. 1992; Couger, 1994b).

The creative processes

The next block in the model of Figure 1 depicts organizationally relevant concerns inherent in the creative process. Our model distinguishes between the individual and the group creative processes. A depiction of how these levels vary with respect to the IS organization can be found in Table 2.

Levels of the Creative Processes

Individual Level Programmers System Designers End Users

GrOutI Level IS Project Teams IS Quality Assurance Groups Strategic Teams

Table 2. Levels of the Creative Processes with Examples

The individual level of creativity refers to the separate steps used by IS professionals and organizational members in the process of performing their assigned tasks. The stages of the creative process that occur at an individual level, as originally proposed by Wallace (1926), are preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. Since 1926, this model has been dramatically refined and many new variants have been proposed incorporating into the creative process the framework of general problem solving (e.g., Parries, 1967; Isaaksen and Treffinger, 1985), including Couger’s Variant of the Creative Problem Solving model that includes the following stages: Opportunity Delineation/Problem Definition, Compiling of Relevant Information, Generating of Ideas, Evaluating and Prioritizing Ideas; Developing an Implementation Plan (Couger, 1994a). Woodman et al. (1993) further identifies the important individual characteristics that affect creative process on the individual level, such as: cognitive abilities and style, personality, intrinsic motivation and knowledge. As all computer information systems start with the generation of an idea (discovery), followed by the idea development (invention), creative thinking is an important skill for systems analysts and designers. It is also an important

skill for senior information systems executives, as they are increasingly called upon to function as innovators (McLean and Smits, 1993). In the process of planning and creating an information system, individual creativity allows the IS executives, the system developers and the end-users to depart from typical solutions and to overcome barriers. Thus far, no set of creative skills or traits has been identified that is of particular importance to IS personnel. However, Thierauf (1993) identifies the traits and the behaviors of a creative manager that could be applied to IS managers as well.

Couger’s (1986, 1989) research on human resources in IS and on motivation of IS personnel shows that individuals attracted to the IS field exhibit different personality traits and behaviors from those in other fields. Also the Miller et al. (1993) study, utilizing Innovation Styles Profile Inventory (Miller, 1989) to compare IS personnel’s innovation styles to innovation styles of other occupations, showed significant differences between the two, with the IS personnel having a greater proportion of “modifiers” and “experimenters” as compared to the non- IS personnel.

CreatiVity at the LOUD level refers to the combined idea generation and decision processes which result from organizational members joining forces to complete a task (e.g., VanGundy, 1984). Several group characteristics affect the group performance during the creative process: norms, cohesiveness, size, diversity, roles, task, social influences, leadership style (VanGundy, 1987; Woodman et al., 1993). This level of creativity is important in IS because it allows the IS domain to respond creatively to issues which require not only IS professionals to synergistically combine their resources but also which require additional efforts from members of other organizational domains. Group creative processes occur in the IS domain almost at every stage of a system development. To-date, nothing has been written about the generic, group creative process in IS without discussing the specific tasks and objectives of the process. The IS literature is rich in discussion of group processes taking place during system development, Joint Application Development, Participatory Design, etc. (e.g., Vogel and George, 1992; Carmel et al., 1992).

At the end of the creative process, creative outputs can be identified. Specifically, depending on whether the process entailed problem solving or opportunity finding, the outputs created are either solutions or innovations, respectively. A solution is an idea, practice or material artifact which disposes of a problem relevant to its context. An innovation is an idea, practice, or material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of reference (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Using the above terminology, the output from the creative process is either a solution or an innovation, but cannot

559



be both. The distinction between the two terms is only necessary for the output’s creativity assessment.

Creative outputs

The output stage of the model in Figure 1 depicts the organizationally relevant creative outputs, innovations or solutions, which vary along a continuum that ranges from tangible to intangible. Tangible outputs include material artifacts such as new kinds of equipment - smart cards that allow individuals to place telephone calls by slipping the card through a magnetic scanner linked to a telephone. Intangible outputs include ideas or practices that may alter organizational intelligence or change accepted procedures in the present or in the future. For example, an idea might be applying computer technology to measure an employee’s decision capability so that the computer can train and ultimately track that employee’s decision performance. Or, the creative process can generate new practices such as software- oriented help lines to answer questions and solve problems about tricky commands or apparent malfunctions.

A critical organizational consideration involving the outputs stage of Figure 1 arises from the variety of dimensions used in evaluating the output. A listing of various dimensions commonly applied to rate the outputs can be found in Table 3.

In general, the dimensions used reflect three underlying issues: quantity, quality and creativity of the solution or the innovation. The quantity dimension reflects the degree of fluency present. Fluency is the ability to generate a large number of outputs quickly and it relates more to the process of creativity than to the output. However, there is a widely held notion that the more output generated, the greater the likelihood of one being creative (Brown, 1989; Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). For example, a number of laboratory experiments with group support systems (e.g., Jessup et al., 1988; Fellers, 1989; Connolly et al., 1990) provide evidence that more ideas can be generated in less time using computer support. Often the implication is that the software improves creativity (Nunamaker et al., 1987). Barlow’s (1990) study has found, however, that idea productivity does not lead to the ultimate success of creative teams, suggesting therefore the necessity to develop alternative, more useful measures for assessment of creative process/output.

The quality dimension of the creative output is reflected in a form of a subjective assessment, such as an expert rating or ranking of the outputs, on various qualities directly or indirectly related to creativity (Hennessey and Amabile, 1988). Seveml studies have attempted to measure the quality of the ideas generated

Type of Type of Evaluation output

Studies

output Quantity

Solutions Fellers ( 1989) Massetti et al. (1992) Gallupe et al. (1992)

Innovations Fellers (1989)

output Quality

Solutions Fellers (1989) Gallupe et al. (1992)

Innovations Fellers (1989)

output Creativity

Solutions Elam and Mead (1990) Massetti et al.( 1992)

Innovations Couger & Dengate (1992) Dologite et al. (1993)

Lobert (1993)

Table 3. Dimensions of Creative Output Evaluation - A Sampling of Studies

during the creative process (e.g., Fellers, 1989; Massetti et al., 1992). They have used different methods to assess idea quality: (1) simple Likert scale ratings, based on a single question (e.g., Fellers, 1989), (2) informal ratings based on the interviews with group members, (3) quality questionnaires collected from group members (4) independent judges’ assessment of the group solution (Jarvenpaa et al., 1988; Massetti et al., 1994). Given the difficulty of operationalizing the quality concept, however, most studies tend lo rely only on the objective measures of idea quantity.

While there are instruments to measure information system reliability, convenience, accessibility, quality and effectiveness, there exists no acceptable set of criteria as to what constitutes a creative product in the information systems domain. The only way to evaluate creativity of the artifact from the creative IS effort, again, is to use the subjective judgement of experts in the field. Usually, a single question Likert scale type assessment is performed. This has been the approach utilized in the research studies concerned with creativity evaluation of IS products in Higgins et al. (1990) and Dologite et al. (1993). In recent studies, Couger and Dengate (1992) and Lobert and Dologite (1994) used a more complex

560


Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on system Sciences - 1’995

approach to measure the creativity of IS products, incorporating multiple item questionnaires. These two studies reflect the early efforts of the IS field to develop creativity metrics for IS solutions and IS innovations.

There is an ongoing discussion among the researchers who study creative outputs in the IS domain as to what should be measured and how. Recent literature on measuring effectiveness of emerging technologies, which focuses on development of valid evaluation instruments in the IS domain, may provide some direction for future research (e.g., Pervan, 1994; Vandenbosch and Higgins, 1994).

In general, all three output measures are missing an ultimate determination of the impact the selected output has, or is likely to have, on the organization. Few efforts to-date, have been aimed at directly linking outputs to outcomes. In order to determine the importance of creativity to an organization, however, the outputs from creative efforts need to be tied to appropriate strategic objectives and then tracked according to the outcomes that result. It is these eventual outcomes that determine how the organization will respond to creativity in the future. Because organizations must face economic realities, they will be more or less willing to expend resources on creativity based on the benefits they can directly or indirectly trace to the past creative outputs.

Organizational outcomes

In order to directly consider this critical organizational concern, the last phase of the theoretical model in Figure 1 depicts the organizational outcomes that are likely to result from creative outputs generated. This is the value analysis of organizational creativity. Assessing the eventual organizational outcomes that result from creativity is a difficult and elusive task (Amabile, 1983). Couger (1994a, pp. 43-47) for example, discusses several instances where companies realized an average of 300% return on investment in creativity improvement programs. Traditional short-term financial measures, however, such as ROl, sales growth, and operating income fail to directly monitor the total value of creativity to the organization. Research proposes other organizational outcome measures, such as: improved productivity (Edwards and Sproull, 1984; Raudsepp, 1987), better change management (Alter, 1990; Turbide, 1992); increased innovation (Tushman and Nelson, 1990; Couger et al., 1990; Rickards, 1991); better business practices: process improvement; increased employee motivation (Abraham and Boone, 1994); and higher job satisfaction (Coulson and Strickland, 199 1).

The organizational outcomes generally fall into two categories: effectiveness or efficiency. Effectiveness involves determining whether the output selected has

helped the organization achieve a goal while eJ?cien~, is used to determine to what degree the output is improving the organization’s performance. These organizational outcomes can be viewed from the internal or external perspectives. Table 4 provides a listing of pertinent measures in the various categories.

Effectiveness Better Change Management Quality Improvement Improved Organizational Learning Improved User Satisfaction Better Business Practices

Efficiency Increased Processing Speed Decreased Equipment Cost Decreased Cycle Times Faster Response Times Decreased Labor Cost

Table 4. Examples of Organizational Outcomes Derived from Creative Outputs

As can be seen in Table 4, the measures used to assess outcomes are organizationally relevant as opposed to output relevant. Rather than focusing on the opinions of a few experts as to the quality or creativity of the generated output, outcome measures directly relate the output selected to performance criteria important to the success of the organization. For example, knowing the extent to which a new software product increases sales, customer satisfaction and competitive advantage is a more useful assessment than simply knowing that industry experts thought the product was creative, feasible, and aesthetically appealing. Moreover, it is the increased sales, customer satisfaction and competitive position that will drive the decision to develop new products in the future. Consequently, with the challenges of outsourcing and end-user empowerment brought to the IS function, a new mechanism is necessary to show that IS provides creative outputs and how these outputs support organizational goals and improve organizational performance.

Summary

Overall, the model diagramed in Figure 1 provides a comprehensive view of how creativity operates within IS organization. Not only does it address which inputs are critical, but it also addresses the process itself operating on a variety of levels. Moreover, the model

561



considers the importance of organizational outcomes that ultimately occur, beyond the initial determination of a creative output. By examining the link between outputs and outcomes, it is hoped that a way to establish more direct measurement methods might be uncovered. The model has practical applications by providing a framework for developing and measuring organizational efforts to enhance IS creativity. The model also has research implications as it raises a number of questions about the nature and importance of creativity within the IS organizations.

Future research

In order to validate and refine this model, we pose four general research propositions that can be used to guide the development of detailed, testable hypotheses that explore the links between the various factors of the model blocks. In our first empirical study, we intend to examine the links between the creative IS outputs and me ultimate organizational outcomes realized.

Proposition 1: The organizational outcomes of IS creativity are a function of the type of outputs generated (solutions or innovations) and the way in which the outputs were evaluated.

The recent interest in IS creativity, to-date, has been placed on techniques used to produce creative outputs rather than on the assessment of the products of the process or the establishment of a relationship between the products and the organizational goals. As a result, it is difficult to directly establish the benefits creativity affords. By examining the relationship between creative outputs and organizational outcomes, a clearer indication of the value of IS creativity should emerge.

Second emphasis has recently been placed on directly linking objectives to performance measures (Kaplan and Norton, 1993). Frequently, organizations establish one set of objectives and then apply a different set of standards to evaluate outcomes. As a result, management is not afforded a visible indication of how well its organization is functioning because it is not directly assessing the factors that are driving performance (Kerr, 199 1).

In order to derive better performance measures concerning creative outputs from the IS function, the following proposition could be explored: The fashion in which IS creativity outputs are measured affects the vulue of the organizational oulcome assessed. For example, if merely the quantity of ideas generated is measured to assess the outputs of the creative process, the resulting organizational outcome can only relate to productivity or efficiency of the organization. By measuring quality or creativity of outputs, the resulting organizational outcomes can be tied more directly to creativity programs.

The next step in the exploration process wiii !>e a study of the relationship between the creative processes and the creative outputs that result. Several hypotheses can be developed based on the following proposition:

Proposition 2: The quality of the creative IS outputs is a function of the quality of the creative IS processes during which the outputs were generated.

By examining the nature of the creative process (the stages of the processes occurring at individual and/or group levels), the types of outputs generated (solutions and/or innovations) with their respective quality/creativity assessment, we can develop definite contingency guidelines that will perhaps allow us to determine the optimal process for a given output&outcome goal (Gryskiewicz, 1987).

Additionally, we should explore the important dimensions relevant to the organizational inputs described. Perhaps there is an optimal combination of structural and cultural factors associated with each creative process described. The research proposition guiding the development of hypotheses states:

Proposition 3: The quality of the creative processes that occur in IS is the function of the cultural and the structural factors of the IS organization.

An examination of the specific structural and cultural factors, in a historical context of an IS organization, can lead to identification of the specific IS creative process enhancers and constraints at both the individual and group levels. We can also determine the type of structural and cultural factors that play the key role at each stage of the process.

Finally, the link between organizational outcomes and organizational environment should be explored. We propose to examine the following:

Proposition 4: The cultural and structural factors in IS organizations ure a function of organizational outcomes produced by organizational creativity.

This needs to be explored in order to determine how organizations are assessing their creativity programs and whether they are re-investing in further development of supportive climates for creativity. Perhaps eventually, research can establish what environmental factors need to be manipulated to reach certain organizational goals in an IS creativity program.

Once this model is validated and tested, it will lead to the development of best practices and contingency guidelines for IS managers concerned with creativity in IS organizations. By understanding what outcomes result from creativity, management should be able to manipulate better the various factors present in IS organizational creativity programs.

562


proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1995

Bibliography

Abraham, T. andBoone, L.W. (1994). Computer-based systems and organizational decision making: An architecture to support organizational innovation. Creativity Research Journal (Forthcoming).

Alter, A.E. (1990). The creative process. CIg. August, 1990, pp. 14-20.

Amabile, T. (1983). Social Psychology of Creativity. NYSpringer-Verlag.

Barlow, C.M. (1990). Successful interdisciplinary ad hoc creative teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western University.

Basadur. M. (1992). Managing creativity: A Japanese model. Academy of Management Executive. 6:2, pp. 29-42.

Bridges, B. (1993). The role of rewards in motivating scientific and technical personnel: Experience at Eglin AFB. National Productivity Review. pp. 337-348.

Brown, R.T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In John A. Clover, Royce R. Romring, & Cecil R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity. New York: Plenum Press.

Burrus, D. and Gittines, R. (1993). Technotrends: How to Use Technology to Go Beyond Your Competition. New York: Harper Business.

Byrd, J. Jr. and Smith, J.M. (1989). Innovation revolution: getting better ideas. Training and Development Journal. 43: 1, pp. 68-73.

Carmel, E., George, J.F. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1992). Supporting Joint Application Development (JAD) with electronic meeting systems: Moving CASE concept into a new area of software development. In Jay F. Nunamaker and Ralph H. Sprague (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 331-342.

Cash, J.I. and Konsynski. R.R. (1985). IS redraws competitive boundries. HarvardBusiness Review. 64:2, pp. 134-142.

Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M. and Valacich. J.S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science. 36:6, pp. 689-703.

Gouger, J.D. (June 1986). Effects of cultural differences on motivating of analysts and programmers. MIS Guarterly. pp. 189-196.

Couger, J.D. (1989). New challenges in motivating MIS personnel. Journal of Information Systems Management. 4, pp.

36-41.

Couger, J.D. (1990). Ensuring creative approaches in Information Systems design. Manaeerial and Decision Economics. 11:5, pp. 281-295.

Gouger, J.D. (1994a). Creative Problem Solving and Gtmortunitv Finding. Danvers, MA:Boyd & Fraser.

Couger, J.D. (1994b). Measurement of the climate for creativity in IS. organizations. In Jay F. Nunamaker and Ralph H. Sprague (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 351-357.

Couger, J.D. and Dengate, G. (1992). Measurement of creativity of I.S. products. Proceedinns of the Twentv-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 288-298.

Couger, J.D., Higgins, L.F. and McIntyre, S.C. (1990). Differentiating creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship, interaprenurship, copyright and patenting for IS products/processes. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 370-379.

Couger, J.D., Higgins, L.F., McIntyre, SC. and Snow, T. (1991). Using a bottom-up approach to creativity improvement in IS development. Journal of Systems Management. 36, pp. 23-27.

Couger, J.D., Flynn, P. and Hellyer, D. (1992). introducing a creativity improvement program for the Federal Express IS organization. Proceedings of the International Creativitv and Innovation Networking Conference. Greensboro, NC, pp. 22- 30.

Couger, I.D., Higgins, L.F. and McIntyre, S.C. (1993). (Un)structured creativity in IS. MIS Quarterly. pp. 375-394.

Coulson, L.T. and Strickland, A. (1991). Applied creativity. Executive Excellence. 8:8, pp. 8-9.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A metaanalysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal. 34:3, pp. 555-590.

Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science. 32:11, pp. 1422-1433.

Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53, pp. 497-509.

Dologite, D.G., Mockler, R.J. and Ragusa, J.M. (1993). Knowledge-based systems: An exploratory study of new developers. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii

563



International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 342-351.

Hisrich, R.D. (1990). Enterpreneurship/Intrapreneurship. American Psvcholoeist. 45~2, pp. 209-222.

Duncan, N.B. and Pardice, D. (1992). Identifying creativity enhancing features for expert systems. Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute Conference.

Isaaksen, S.G. and Treffinger, D.J. (1985). Creative Problem SolvingThe Basic Course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Edwards, M.R. and Sproull, J.R. (1984). Creativity: Productivity gold mine? Journal of Creative Behavior. 18:3, pp. 175-184.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Rao, V.S. and Huber, G.P. (1988). Computer support for meeting of groups working on unstructured problems: A field experiment. MIS Quarterly. 12:4, pp. 64S- 666.

Elam, J.J. and Mead, M. (1987). Designing for creativity: considerations for DSS development. Information and Management. 13:5, pp. 215-222.

Elam, J.J. and Mead, M. (1990). Can software influence creativity? Information Systems Research. l:l, pp. l-22.

Jessup, L.M., Tar&k, D.A. and Laase, T.L. (1988). Group problem solving in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity on group process and outcome with a GDSS. Proceedines of the Academy of Management Conference. Anaheim, CA.

Fellers, J. (1989). The effects of group size and computer support on group idea generation for creativity task: An experimental evaluation using a repeated measures design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.

Kaplan. R.S. and Norton, D.P. (September/October, 1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review. pp. 134 -147.

Fellers, J. and Bosnom, R. (1993). Application of group support system to promote creativity in Information Systems organiza.tions. Proceedings of the Twentv-Sixth Hawaii

Kerr, S. (1991). On the folly of rewarding A. while hoping for B. In Dennis W. Organ (Ed.), The ADDlied PsvcholoEv of Work Behavior. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 179-188.

LaBarre, P. (1994). The creative revolution. Industry Week. pp. 12-19.

Galletta, D.F., Sampler, J.L. andTeng, J.T. (1992). Strategies for integrating creativity principles into system development process. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 268-275.

Lobert, B.M. (1993). The impact of group support systems on idea incubation: Exploring creativity in information system development projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The City University of New York.

Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal. 35:2. pp. 350-369.

Lobert, B.M. and Dologite, D.G. (1994). Measuring creativity of Information Systems ideas: An exploratory investigation. Proceedines of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 392-402.

Gogan, J.L., Cash, J.I. and Robinson, J. (1992). IT-based innovation. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 257-267.

McGinnis, M.A. and Ackelsberg, M.R. (1983). Effective innovation management: Missing link in strategic planning? Journal of Business Strategy. 4, pp.69.76.

Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1987). Predictable creativity. In S.G. Isaaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity ResearchBeyond the Basics. Buffalo, NY:Bearly Limited. pp. 305-313.

Massetti, B., Abraham, T., Boone, L.W. and Lyons, P. (1992). The effects of computer-based creativity support system on creative performance. Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute Conference. pp. 798-800.

Hennessey, B.A. & Amabile, T.M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In Robert J. Stemberg (Ed.), The Nature of CreativiLy: Contemuorarv Psycholodcal Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: The Cambridge University Press.

Massetti, B., Abraham, T., Boone, L.W. and Lyons, P. (1994). Creativity support systems and their impact on creative performance. Working Paper. St. John’s University.

Higgins, L.F., Couger, J.D. and McIntyre, SC. (1990). Creative marketing approaches to development of marketing information systems. Proceedinns of the Twenty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 398-404.

McLean, E.R. and Smits, S. (1993). The I/S leader as innovator. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 352-358.

Miller, W. (1989). Validation of the Innovation Styles Profile. In Iiiri, Y. and Kuhn, R.L. (Eds.), New Directions in Creative

564



and Innovative Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 287-301.

Miller, W., Couger, J.D. and Higgins, L. (1993). Comparing innovation styles profile of IS. personnel to other occupations. Proceedings of the Twentv-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on Svstem Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 378-386.

Nunamaker, J.F., Applegate, L.M. and Konsysnski, B.R. (1987). Facilitating group creativity: Experiences with Group Decision Support System. Journal of Management Information Systems. 3, pp. 5-19.

Parnes, S.J. (1967). Creative Behavior Guidebook . NY:Charles Scribners & Sons.

Pervan, G. (1994). The measurement of GSS effectiveness: A meta-analysis of the literature and recommendations for future GSS research. Proceedines of the Twentv-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 562-571.

Raudsepp, E. (1987). Establishing a creative climate. Trainine and Development Journal. April, 1987, pp. 50-53.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta m. 42, pp. 305310.

Rickards, T. (1991). Innovation and creativity: Woods, trees, and pathways. R&D Management. 21, pp. 97-108.

Sampler, J.L. and Galletta, D.F. (1991). Individual and organizational changes necessary for the application of creativity techniques in the development of information systems. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 404-411.

Snow, T.A. and Couger. J.D. (1991). Creativity improvement intervention in a system development work unit. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 412-418.

Steiner, G. (1991). The creative organization. In Barry M. Staw (Ed.), Psychological Dimensions of Oreanizational Behavior. New York: Macmillan. pp. 559-570.

Telem, M. (1988a). Information requirements specification I: brainstorming collective decision making approach. Information Processing and Management. 24:5, pp. 549-557.

Telem, M. (1988b). Information requirements specification II: brainstorming collective decision making approach. Information Processing and Manaeement. 24:5, pp. 559-566.

Thierauf, R.J. (1993). Creative Computer Software for Strategic Thinking and Decision Making. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Turbide. D.A. (1992). Reengineering calls for radical creativity. Svstems 3X/400. October, 1992, p. 72.

Tushman, M.L. and Nelson, R.R. (1990). Introduction: technology, organizations and innovations. Administrative Science Quarterlv. March 1990, pp. l-9

Vandenbosch, B. and Higgins, C. (1994). The measurement of learning from Executive Information Systems. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 572- 585.

VanGundy, A.B. (1984). Managing Group Creativity. NY:Amacom.

VanGundy, A.B. (1987). Organizational creativity and innovation. In S.G. Isaaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research:Bevond the Basics. Buffalo, NY:Bearly Limited. pp. 358-379.

Vogel, D.R. and George, J.F. (1992). Group support for analysis and design. Infomratica. 1: 1, pp. 96-114.

Wallace, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. NY: Harcourt, Brace.

Wojtkowski, W. and Wojtkowski, W.G. (1993). visual Process Language: An environment that enhances inventiveness in the system development process - a theoretical perspective. Proceedings of the TwentySixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 359-368.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of Management Review. 18:2, pp. 293-321.

Young, L.F. (1983). Right-brained Decision Support Systems. Data base. 14:4.

Young, L.F. (1987). The metaphor machine: A database method for creativity support. Decision Support Systems. 3, pp. 309-317.

565


Documents

Towards a Managerial Model of Creativity in Information ... · PDF fileTowards a Managerial Model of Creativity in Information Systems ... to fill this void by proposing a managerial