The paper examines the connection between the concepts of 'experience innovation' and 'creative intuition', arguing that future research on experience innovation cannot neglect the notion of intuition

Dörfler, Viktor

Stierand, Marc

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Strathprints Institutional RepositoryStierand, Marc and Dörfler, Viktor (2014) Experience-based innovation : intuitive expertise in creative professions. In: AoM 2014: The Seventy-fourth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 2014-08-01 - 2014-08-05. (Unpublished) , This version is available at http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54592/Strathprints is  designed  to  allow  users  to  access  the  research  output  of  the  University  of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may  not  engage  in  further  distribution  of  the  material  for  any  profitmaking  activities  or  any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Any  correspondence  concerning  this  service  should  be  sent  to  Strathprints  administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukAOM2014: Intuition in Organizations: Its Role in Entrepreneurship (Symposium) 1  Beyond systematic entrepreneurship: The role of intuition in experience innovation In this paper we start from the conception of experience innovation as originally proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2003) since this approach seems to contradict the assumption that entrepreneurship is a systematic behaviour based on concept and theory rather than a personality trait based on intuition (see Drucker, 2006).  We attend to the questions: What is the role of creative intuition in experience innovation? and How should be entrepreneurship studied in future? In economics, experiences are distinct economic values in the form of personally engaging events that remain memorable for the customers (Pine II & Gilmore, 2000) but they function according to a quite different set of internally consistent assumptions of value creation compared to services and products (Prahalad, 2004).  Hence, value is created at the point of exchange, and services and products are merely regarded as carriers of experiences (see Prahalad, 2004: 173).  Innovation remains a consistent factor in this economic shift from services to experiences, but here innovation is focused on experiences rather than on products or services. Experience innovation aims at nudging the co-creation of experience spaces in which ³SHUVRQDOL]HGHYROYDEOHH[SHULHQFHVDUHWKHJRDODQGSURGXFWVDQGVHUYLFHVHYROYHDVDPHDQVWR WKDW HQG´ (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003: 18).  Traditionally entrepreneurship and innovation go hand in hand because the latter is believed to have its source in the Unternehmergeist (entrepreneurial spirit).  However, Schumpeter (1911: 88-89) pointed out that ³HQWUHSUHQHXUVRIFRXUVHPD\EHLQYHQWRUVMXVWDVWKH\PD\EHFDSLWDOLVWVWKH\DUHLQYHQWRUVQRW E\ QDWXUH RI WKHLU IXQFWLRQ EXW E\ FRLQFLGHQFH DQG YLFH YHUVD´  This means that entrepreneurs can be both inventors and innovators yet in most cases they are innovators, i.e. idea catchers (see Elsbach, 2003) with the ability to identify new ways and launch them as an economic success on the market (Schumpeter, 1911). What is the role of entrepreneurial intuition in experience innovation? All innovation stems from one indispensable ingredient that of personal creativity (e.g. Popper, 1968). The latter can be defined as FUHDWLYLW\³PDQLIHVWHGLQWKHLQWHQWLRQVDQGPRWLYDWLRQWRtransform [intentionality] the objective world [sensory information] into original interpretations [transformational capacity], coupled with the ability to decide when this is useful and when it is AOM2014: Intuition in Organizations: Its Role in Entrepreneurship (Symposium) 2  QRW>GLVFUHWLRQ@´ (Runco, 1996: 4).  This definition links well to Schumpeter¶V (1911) original definition of entrepreneurs, which he saw as a minority possessing the ability to dynamically and actively respond to changing environments (i.e. personal creativity) and turn change into something new and economically viable (i.e. innovation) despite possible resistance. Hence, Schumpeter (1943) called entrepreneurs a special breed because they are creative destroyers with the ability to identify new ways and launch them successfully on the market (Tschmuck, 2006). ³7KHUHIRUH WRR WKH FDUU\LQJ RXW RI QHZ FRPELQDWLRQV LV D VSHFLDO IXQFWLRQ DQG WKHprivilege of a type of people who are much less numerous than all those who have the µREMHFWLYH¶SRVVLELOLW\RIGRLQJLW  Therefore, finally, entrepreneurs are a special type, and their behaviour a special problem, the motive power of a great number of significant SKHQRPHQD´ (Schumpeter, 1911: 81-82). In experience innovation value is created at the point of exchange, which turns customers into co-creators and decision-makers of experiences and services and products are just carriers of experiences (see Prahalad, 2004: 173).  Traditionally, however, innovation is defined as the acceptance of a new and useful idea by those other than the creator (Amabile, 1996; George, 2007; Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973) and those others often are what is called appropriate observersµH[SHUWV¶ZKRDUH³IDPLOLDUZLWKWKHGRPDLQLQZKLFKWKHSURGXFWZDVFUHDWHGRUWKHUHVSRQVHDUWLFXODWHG´(Amabile, 1982: 1001; 1983: 359).  For example, the Michelin and Gault Millau restaurant guides can be considered appropriate observers of haute cuisine and only if WKHLU UHVWDXUDQW WHVWHUV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DJUHH WKDW D FKHI¶V FXLVLQH LV LQQRYDWLYH LW µEHFRPHV¶innovative (Stierand, 2013; Stierand, Dörfler & MacBryde, 2014). This process, however, seems to be significantly jeopardized in experience innovation because creation and consumption are more or less immediate and thus there is little or often no time for improvement or correction and expert opinions.  Thus, we argue, entrepreneurship research on experience innovation needs to consider the notion of creative intuition (see Dane & Pratt, 2009; Gore & Sadler-Smith, 2011), because the creative process in experience innovation relies on a part of our thinking that is non-DOJRULWKPLFZKLFKPHDQVLW³FDQQRWEHSXWLQWRDILQite sequence RI LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU VROYLQJ D SUREOHP´ (Stierand & Dörfler, 2011: 123).  Due to this non-algorithmic nature it is impossible to fully control the process of experience innovation and thus entrepreneurship research also has to study the possible link between creative intuition and AOM2014: Intuition in Organizations: Its Role in Entrepreneurship (Symposium) 3  distinct entrepreneurial behaviours and personalities and their effects on failures or successes of experience innovation. How should entrepreneurship be studied in future? We argue that future entrepreneurship research on experience innovation has to start from a broad definition of creative intuition to give room for exploring possible new research areas and directions that at this point may only be vague hunches or cannot even be imagined.  Such a broad definition may be the one provided by Policastro (1995: 99) who says that as a SKHQRPHQRQFUHDWLYHLQWXLWLRQFDQEHGHILQHGDV³a vague anticipatory perception that orients creative work in a promising direction´ DQG DV ³a metaphorical seeing of the phenomenon searched for, an anticipatory perception of its shape or its gross structure´ (Entwistle and Marton in Policastro, 1995: 100, this definition is based on interviews with Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine who talked about the experience of scientific intuition).  A PRUH WHFKQLFDOGHILQLWLRQPD\GHVFULEHFUHDWLYH LQWXLWLRQDVD³WDFLW IRUPRINQRZOHGJH WKDWEURDGO\FRQVWUDLQWVWKHFUHDWLYHVHDUFKE\VHWWLQJLWVSUHOLPLQDU\VFRSH´(Policastro, 1995: 100).  In our view, both types of definitions are necessary in order to design feasible research projects without running into danger of oversimplifying reality.  In addition, we urge researchers interested in thiVDUHDWRILUVWUHIOHFWRQ6FKXPSHWHU¶VRULJLQDOnotion of entrepreneurs being a special breed, because too often we fall all into the trap of equating equality with sameness but true Schumpeterian entrepreneurs are not about the average person but about creative destroyers and those are by definition extraordinary.  Somehow it seems uncomfortable or even unacceptable for some of us to welcome outliers, who often get cut off as ³tall poppies, because their talents naturally distinguish them from the rest of us´(Stierand & Dörfler, 2011: 122), but it is our obligation as researchers to be inclusive and understand also the extraordinary: ³,IXOO\UHFRJQL]HWKDWH[WUDRUGLQDULQHVVGRHVQRWRILWVHOIWUDQVODWHLQWRZRUNLQJIRUWKHsocietal good, or even caring about what the good might be.  Still, if we are to have a world civilization ± and, more particularly, one that strives towards fairness and peacefulness ± we must understand as much as we can about individuals of unusual SURPLVHDQGDFKLHYHPHQW´(Gardner, 1998: 16). AOM2014: Intuition in Organizations: Its Role in Entrepreneurship (Symposium) 4  Hence, we strongly believe that entrepreneurship research cannot significantly progress if we continue to only look at the average and we therefore propose to increase exploration of the extraordinary (see Dörfler & Stierand, 2009; Gardner, 1998).  This is also in line with work on the intuitive sense of creative outcome prior to the creative process (Arnheim, 1980; Gardner & Nemirovsky, 1991; Gruber, 1981; Piaget, 1981; Policastro, 1995) that acknowledge the importance of the extraordinary as the only source of high-quality creative ideas carrying the chance of turning into innovations (see Einstein, 1956/1984: 8-9). References Amabile, T. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43(5): 997-1013. Amabile, T. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2): 357-376. Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Arnheim, R. 1980. The genesis of apainting. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Dane, E., & Pratt, M. 2009. Conceptualizing and measuring intuition: A review of recent trends. In G. Hodgkinson and J. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 1-40. Chichester: Wiley. Dörfler, V., & Stierand, M. 2009. Investigating the Extraordinary. British Academy of Management (BAM) Annual Conference. Brighton. Drucker, P. 2006. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles (2nd revised edition ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Einstein, A. 1956/1984. The World As I See It. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing. Elsbach, K. 2003. How to Pitch a Brilliant Idea. Harvard Business Review, 81: 1-7. Gardner, H. 1998. Extraordinary Minds. London: Phoenix. Gardner, H., & Nemirovsky, R. 1991. From private intuitions to public symbol systems. Creativity Research Journal, 4(1): 1-21. George, J. M. 2007. 9 Creativity in Organizations. The academy of management annals, 1(1): 439-477. Gore, J., & Sadler-Smith, E. 2011. Unpacking intuition: A process and outcome framework. Review of General Psychology, 15(4): 304-316. Gruber, H. (Ed.). 1981. Darwin on man. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. AOM2014: Intuition in Organizations: Its Role in Entrepreneurship (Symposium) 5  Piaget, J. 1981. Preface. In H. Gruber (Ed.), Darwin on man. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pine II, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. 2000. Satisfaction, sacrifice, surprise:: three small steps create one giant leap into the experience economy. Strategy & Leadership, 28(1): 18-23. Policastro, E. 1995. Creative intuition: An integrative review. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2): 99-113. Popper, K. R. 1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. 2003. The new frontier of experience innovation. Sloan Management Review, 44(4): 12-18. Prahalad, C. K. 2004. The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 37(2): 171-179. Runco, M. 1996. Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1996(72): 3-30. Schumpeter, J. 1911. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (5th ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin. Stierand, M. 2013. Innovation in Hospitality. In R. Wood (Ed.), Key Concepts in Hospitality Management: 105-109. London: Sage. Stierand, M., & Dörfler, V. 2011. Methods against Methods. In A. Mesquita (Ed.), Technology for Creativity and Innovation: Tools, Techniques and Applications: 121-134. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Stierand, M., Dörfler, V., & MacBryde, J. 2014. Creativity and Innovation in Haute Cuisine: Towards a Systemic Model. Creativity and Innovation Management. Tschmuck, P. 2006. Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. 1973. Innovations and organisations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.  

Experience-based innovation : intuitive expertise in creative professions

Name not available

http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54592/1/Stierand_Dorfler_AOM2014_experience_based_innovation_intuitive_expertise_creative_professions.pdf

Experience-based innovation : intuitive expertise in creative professions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Name not available