Microfoundations of Problem Solving: Attentional Engagement Predicts Problem-Solving Strategies

Organizations use a plethora of methods and tools to help their members solve problems effectively. Yet the specifics of how individuals solve problems remain largely unexplored. We propose and test a cognitive model of problem solving that integrates dual process theories into the attention-based view. The model suggests that diverse problem-solving strategies emerge in response to how individuals deliberate. Three studies provide observational and causal evidence in support of our model. The first study explores the strategies managers use to solve problems. We use think-aloud protocols combined with content, sequence, and cluster analyses to extract the key differences in how experienced managers solve problems. Two problem-solving strategies emerge from the data: one emphasizes mental activities related to framing, and the other emphasizes mental activities related to implementation. In the second study, we use a mixed factorial experimental design and mouse-tracking analysis to uncover the causal mechanism that explains the emergence of these two strategies. We then retest our hypotheses in a third, preregistered, study. We find that manipulating attention toward mental activities related to framing increases deliberation aimed at restructuring the problem elements. In contrast, directing attention toward mental activities related to implementation increases deliberation on the potential contingencies and consequences of the solution. Our findings provide empirical evidence about how problems are actually solved and support the idea that attentional processes are malleable enough to affect the choice of problem-solving strategies

The evolutionary dynamics of the artificial intelligence ecosystem

We analyze the sectoral and national systems of firms and institutions that collectively engage in artificial intelligence (AI). Moving beyond the analysis of AI as a general-purpose technology or its particular areas of application, we draw on the evolutionary analysis of sectoral systems and ask, “Who does what?” in AI. We provide a granular view of the complex interdependency patterns that connect developers, manufacturers, and users of AI. We distinguish between AI enablement, AI production, and AI consumption and analyze the emerging patterns of cospecialization between firms and communities. We find that AI provision is characterized by the dominance of a small number of Big Tech firms, whose downstream use of AI (e.g., search, payments, social media) has underpinned much of the recent progress in AI and who also provide the necessary upstream computing power provision (Cloud and Edge). These firms dominate top academic institutions in AI research, further strengthening their position. We find that AI is adopted by and benefits the small percentage of firms that can both digitize and access high-quality data. We consider how the AI sector has evolved differently in the three key geographies—China, the United States, and the European Union—and note that a handful of firms are building global AI ecosystems. Our contribution is to showcase the evolution of evolutionary thinking with AI as a case study: we show the shift from national/sectoral systems to triple-helix/innovation ecosystems and digital platforms. We conclude with the implications of such a broad evolutionary account for theory and practice

The power of modularity today: 20 years of “Design Rules”

In 2000, Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark published “Design Rules: The Power of Modularity,” a book that introduced new ways of understanding and explaining the architecture of complex systems This Special Issue of Industrial and Corporate Change celebrates this seminal work, the research it has inspired, and the insights that these collective efforts have generated. In this introductory essay, we review the impact of “Design Rules” across numerous fields, including organization theory, competitive strategy, industry structure, and innovation management. We offer perspectives on key themes that emerge from contributions in this issue, including the alignment between organizational and technical designs (“mirroring”), the dynamics of industry evolution, and the role that individuals play in shaping and responding to system designs. We close by highlighting opportunities to apply the theory in Design Rules to new phenomena and puzzles that have emerged in the past 20 years

An exploratory study into everyday problem solving in the design process of medical devices

We investigated accounts of how individuals in public and private organisations operating in the medical device industry use different forms of capital (social e.g. networks and cultural e.g. knowledge) to solve design based problems. We define capital as resources embedded in social networks, knowledge or economic wealth (Bourdieu, 1986). Data were collected from interviews and written diaries from individuals involved in the design process of medical devices using interpretative analysis. Inferences made from our analyses suggested that individuals working in organisations who successfully solve problems may do so by using both social and cultural capital and so may be more likely to engage in innovative activity than others. These exploratory findings suggest workers in large organisations may have the capability to use a greater level of in-house social and cultural capital, whereas those in smaller organisations may be more reliant on high levels of social capital in order to ‘tap into’ cultural capital beyond organisational boundaries

Explicitly searching for useful inventions: dynamic relatedness and the costs of connecting versus synthesizing

Inventions combine technological features. When features are barely related, burdensomely broad knowledge is required to identify the situations that they share. When features are overly related, burdensomely broad knowledge is required to identify the situations that distinguish them. Thus, according to my first hypothesis, when features are moderately related, the costs of connecting and costs of synthesizing are cumulatively minimized, and the most useful inventions emerge. I also hypothesize that continued experimentation with a specific set of features is likely to lead to the discovery of decreasingly useful inventions; the earlier-identified connections reflect the more common consumer situations. Covering data from all industries, the empirical analysis provides broad support for the first hypothesis. Regressions to test the second hypothesis are inconclusive when examining industry types individually. Yet, this study represents an exploratory investigation, and future research should test refined hypotheses with more sophisticated data, such as that found in literature-based discovery research

Research on Markets for Inventions and Implications for R&D Allocation Strategies

Several streams of literature have examined the phenomenon of “markets for inventions”, that is, the trade of elements of knowledge which are “disembodied” from individuals, organizations, and products. The aims of this paper are to bring together the various streams of research in this area and discuss their major assumptions and limitations, in order to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the phenomenon, and identify promising paths for future research. We start our review by identifying the object of market exchange—that is, an invention whose knowledge has been codified and disembodied from individuals, organizations, or artifacts. We then identify those factors that enable firms to trade inventions, distinguishing between institutional-, firm-, and industry-level factors. We close our analysis of the extant literature by discussing the implications of markets for inventions for firm behavior and performance. Against this background, we highlight an important avenue for future research. A neglected implication of the development of invention markets is that firms are confronted with a wide variety of technological paths from which to choose, because the opportunity to acquire technologies on the market offers them a greater variety that can their internal R&D departments. However, the streams of research on markets for inventions and on R&D allocation strategies have been surprisingly disconnected so far. Hence, in the final section, we start to establish and explore the link between these literatures, and to identify a research agenda in this domain

Overcoming systemic barriers preventing healthy urban development in the UK: Main findings from interviewing senior decision-makers during a 3-year planetary health pilot

This paper sets out the main findings from two rounds of interviews with senior representatives from the UK’s urban development industry: the third and final phase of a 3-year pilot, Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development’ (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost-benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and, secondly, to interview those in control of urban development in the UK in order to reveal the potential barriers to, and opportunities for, the creation of healthy urban environments, including their views on the use of economic valuation of (planetary) health outcomes. Much is known about the ‘downstream’ impact of urban environments on human and planetary health and about how to design and plan healthy towns and cities (‘midstream’), but we understand relatively little about how health can be factored in at key governance tipping points further ‘upstream’, particularly within dominant private sector areas of control (e.g. land, finance, delivery) at sub-national level. Our findings suggest that both public and private sector appeared well aware of the major health challenges posed by poor-quality urban environments. Yet they also recognized that health is not factored adequately into the urban planning process, and there was considerable support for greater use of non-market economic valuation to help improve decision-making. There was no silver bullet however: 110 barriers and 76 opportunities were identified across a highly complex range of systems, actors and processes, including many possible points of targeted intervention for economic valuation. Eight main themes were identified as key areas for discussion and future focus. This findings paper is the second of two on this phase of the project: the first sets out the rationale, approach and methodological lessons learned