“In a world that is so often a maelstrom of conflict and confusion, great innovation and invention have never had a greater role in ensuring our well-being and survival.” (Bidwell, 2017, p. 1)

Advances in technology have for years fuelled disruptive innovations that have changed the way we interact with others, the way we work, and the way we conduct business. In recent years, entire industries and business models have been turned upside down as a result of radical innovation. It would, for example, have been difficult to predict the magnitude of success that technology-driven companies such as Facebook and Tesla are experiencing today. However, technical-rational innovation is only part of the story; the role of social innovation and the innovation of meaning is equally crucial.

“Today’s problems are a new breed—open, complex, dynamic, and networked—and require a radically different response.”
(Dorst, 2015, p. 135)

Conventional problem-solving methods have shifted along with our networked society, as the problems we face have also become more complex and interconnected. In the past, problems could more easily be isolated and ordered hierarchically within a separate problem frame with simple, actionable sub-problems to solve. Today, however, the issues we face are so closely related and involve so many interdependencies that isolating them has become increasingly difficult (Dorst, 2015).

At the heart of organisational innovation lies the generation of creative ideas, and ideation has a long history. The notion of idea generation became popularised through inspirational pioneers such as Edward de Bono, who in the 1970s conceptualised techniques such as brainstorming, which remains a widely adopted process for producing new and supposedly creative ideas within organisations.

Organisations need to keep up with the rapid evolution of technology in order to remain competitive. This requires them to monitor and refine their idea generation and selection processes so that these operate in the most effective manner possible (Gaimon, 2008; Kornish & Hutchison-Krupat, 2017, p. 633).

Aim

This paper takes as its point of departure the management of the space of innovation—the context in which ideation takes place and new ideas are brought into the world.

The central question addressed by this paper is whether organisations that thrive on ideas have the right tools to engage their employees and encourage them to bring ideas into the open. To this end, the research explores this process by taking the space of innovation itself as a research issue and a design space in its own right.

It begins with the space of innovation and seeks to explore the management of that space. It draws on current management practices and challenges conventional problem-solving methods by raising questions about the future of management practices within the creative industries and other think tanks that survive and thrive by being innovative and generating new ideas.

The goal is to challenge current practices, shed light on areas that could be optimised, and respond with a solution. The challenge is defined through a closer investigation of the creative industry, and the output is a concrete concept that strives to address and question these challenges while remaining flexible and generalisable enough to apply across a variety of contexts.

Motivation

With the rise of artificial intelligence, it is easy to get carried away by dystopian visions of machines replacing humans. However, human intelligence remains, in many respects, far beyond what computational intelligence can offer, and we must remember that we shape technology before technology shapes us. Machines can rationalise, optimise, and automate, but humans are anything but purely rational. Our capacity to think, plan, reason, and express language are high-level functions that remain uniquely human. Technology can easily create an illusion of connectedness, but we need to focus more on genuine and meaningful human connections. We need to focus on our human ability to contextualise, empathise, and be creative. My personal motivation for this project is therefore to create a space in which people feel empowered to open up and connect with others.

Introduction to the Different Parts

Part 1: Introducing the industry and defining the challenge / problem space
Part 2: Deep research into the solution space
Part 3: A concept that stands as a solution

Part 1: The Industry

Managing Digital Innovation

The digitalisation of innovation processes has introduced a higher level of unpredictability and a shorter time horizon than traditional innovation processes. More linear and mechanical ways of understanding innovation—as an input leading to an output—have increasingly been replaced by more complex and iterative techniques.

Digital innovation revolves around the creation of new market offerings, unique value propositions, business processes, and business models that emerge through the use of new technology. It can be conceptualised as a process involving the “continuous matching of the potential of new and/or newly recombined digital technologies with original market offerings” (Nambisan, 2017, p. 227). This process primarily seeks to solve problems associated with the needs of users, customers, or stakeholders and their socio-technical contexts. The solutions to such problems often take the form of digitalised artefacts, such as features, functionalities, and interactions (ibid.).

Rill (2016) argues that the digital age requires organisations to undergo substantial organisational change. This shift in the locus of innovation means that organisations must develop new approaches and competencies that allow them to break with conventional rules and inherited wisdom. Such a process “requires that organisational actors’ mental maps of their industry, strategy and organisation undergo a shift so they can see things in new ways unconstrained by history” (Rill, 2016, p. 338).

This highlights the fact that constant change also calls for new managerial styles. As conceptualised by Nambisan et al., this type of management can be analysed as a constant “sporadic, parallel, and heterogeneous generation, forking, merging, termination, and refinement of problem–solution design pairs” (2017, p. 227).

Defining the Space of Innovation

The Creative Industry

The Physical Space of Innovation

In recent years, the literature has popularised the idea that innovations and new concepts can emerge through an iterative process in which problems and potential solutions “co-evolve over time” (Wiltschnig et al., 2013, p. 517). The two conceptual spaces—the problem space and the solution space—inform one another. The premise is not to focus solely on the creative leap between the two, but rather on building a bridge between them. The broader idea of problem–solution pairing suggests that participants operate within a much wider innovative space with far more fluid boundaries. Exploring the mutual tension between the problem space and the solution space is one way of generating value.

The Mental Space of Innovation

“An understanding of how this socio-cognitive sensemaking influences digital innovation processes and outcomes is central to any theory of innovation management.”
(Nambisan, 2017)

The dynamics that arise from matching problem–solution pairs, together with the fact that innovation actors often differ in how they think and work, create a space in which actors may experience shifts in cognition and entirely new forms of sensemaking. Such sensemaking occurs through socio-cognitive processes that shape the way we think. In simple terms, a frame represents an individual’s perceived reality. Frame analysis, as proposed by Goffman (1974), plays an essential role in the social sciences and can be applied as a heuristic tool to analyse how people construct and deconstruct cognitive processes in order to understand situations and activities. It offers an analytical toolbox for examining interaction as a behavioural matter—what exists, what happens, and what matters to the individual.

In relation to innovation, this concerns both how an individual innovator thinks and how the surrounding social system thinks, whether that system is a collective or other individuals. As Nambisan (2017) argues, “Integrating an understanding of how this socio-cognitive sensemaking influences digital innovation processes and outcomes is central to any theory of innovation management” (p. 227).

Nambisan (2017) stresses the need for greater theoretical depth in management theory to address explicitly how such socio-cognitive frames are nurtured and shared, and how users and institutions shape the development of frames around the meaning of new technologies. Following this line of thinking, digital innovation can be understood as a “process of social construction of opportunities from narratives” (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Nambisan, 2017).

Strategic Innovation: The Role of Resonance in Co-Creation

Research has explored how social interactions can support the creation of new innovations and, more specifically, the social dynamics of collectives. The theoretical underpinnings of such research are strongly reflected in the concept of co-creation. Rill (2016) characterises co-creation as a “disruptive social technology” and addresses it as a tool for managing strategic innovation processes.

Rill (2016) conceptualises his theoretical framework as resonant co-creation, which he argues can lead to a much wider solution space in innovation settings. In doing so, participants come closer to the unknown, and as he further stresses, “it is only from the unknown that new potentials can manifest” (p. 1141). In essence, strategic innovation processes require “a break from the known” (ibid.).

“In resonant co-creation, the transformation of worldview—the combination of beliefs, attitudes, and values that structure experience—generates new conceptual and interrelational space among participants conducive to strategic innovation.”
(Rill, 2016)

This bears resemblance to the Johari Window, which also explores the unknown, though from an individual perspective. It is a model that can be used to understand intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships, and through training, people can become aware of boundaries and work to shift them in order to increase self-awareness.

Innovation, as argued above, requires a break from the known. At the heart of co-creation lies interaction with other engaged and present participants, who together enter “the space of the unknown”—“a space that many find uncomfortable because they are outside the expertise of their established worldviews” (Rill, 2016, p. 1141).

Following Rill’s conceptualisation, co-creation represents a format in which skilled catalysts integrate coaching and facilitation to enable the movement from cultivating authenticity, awareness, and sensitivity through to the emergence of new ideas from the collective (Rill, 2016, p. 1141).

However, creating the conditions for exploring the unknown in innovation is, according to Rill (2016), an art that requires both practice and performance (p. 1141). It first requires the formulation of a core question and/or challenge that can engage participants in co-creation. In organisational consulting, Rill stresses the importance of setting up the right container in which participants feel sufficiently comfortable to open up new pathways of thinking. At the same time, he emphasises that “setting and managing expectations is crucial to creating ‘a container’ wherein participants can open up and take risks” (Rill, 2016, p. 1145).

Defining the Challenge:

A Space for Innovation

How to Create the Right Space for Innovation

“As organisations seek to harness the ideas and suggestions of their employees, it is axiomatic that the process of idea generation and implementation has become a source of distinct competitive advantage.”
(Anderson et al., 2014, p. 1298)

Such activities in organisations are informed by an underlying creativity discourse and, especially in recent years, there has been an exponential growth in the number of articles published on the subjects of creativity and innovation (Bink & Marsh, 2015; Anderson, 2015). However, it is important to keep in mind that both innovation and creativity are “complex, multilevel, and emergent phenomena that pan out over time and that require skilful leadership to maximise the benefits of new and improved ways of working” (Anderson et al., 2014, p. 1298). As argued by Bink and Marsh, “there are as many research-based definitions of creativity as there are approaches to studying the topic” (p. 10). Due to inconsistencies in definition and methodology, explaining creativity is not an easy task. As Sawyer (2012) states in Explaining Creativity, “defining creativity may be one of the most difficult tasks facing the social sciences” (p. 7).

Some myths persist in the understanding that creativity results from a complete lack of boundaries and total freedom. However, according to Henry (2013), the reality is that “we are not capable of operating without boundaries. We need them to focus our creative energy into the right channels” (p. 16). He further stresses the importance of structure that can provide enough stability for people to open up and take risks.

In his bestselling book Where Good Ideas Come From, Johnson explains how many organisations have experimented with more stimulating work environments intended to encourage architectures of serendipity, similar to brainstorming sessions. He criticises these environments and argues that they often build walls between ideas because they isolate them from the random, serendipitous connections that occur in life. This perspective follows a broader historical pattern in innovation practice, in which efforts to encourage innovation have paradoxically created barriers to it. As Johnson (2011) argues, such walls “have been erected with the explicit aim of encouraging innovation.” The main problem with these closed environments is that “they inhibit serendipity and reduce the overall network of minds that can potentially engage with a problem” (p. 205).

The issue of boundaries is central to the innovation literature. Scholars such as Leonard (1998) argue that innovation occurs at boundaries, and she explicitly states that organisations build knowledge by “combining people’s individualities with a particular set of activities.” It is this combination of people that managers must coordinate in order to enable innovation (p. 8).

Following this view, innovation is not simply a matter of creating the right environment. According to Johnson, the key lies in the organisation’s own information networks, which allow ideas to “persist, disperse and recombine.” Innovation prospers when ideas can connect and recombine through serendipity (p. 208). This is why innovative environments should not be reduced to brainstorming sessions or R&D labs alone. Instead, innovation involves more collaborative and more open exchanges among the minds taking part.

Agogué et al. (2015) similarly argue that “the production of new ideas, whether individually or collectively, requires knowledge retrieval, idea association, knowledge creation, synthesis, transformation and analogical transfer” (p. 417). They suggest that ideation methods today are challenged by their relationship to radical innovation processes. In their view, organisations often lack the knowledge-sharing tools required to manage this process effectively and consequently experience it as unusual and difficult.

“Ideation processes need to address the management challenges of efficient knowledge elicitation and creation in a collective activity.”
(Agogué et al., 2015, p. 416)

Management Challenge: Problem Space and Expert Insight

The management and organisation of creativity emerged as a central research theme through the exploration of industry challenges. For eleven consecutive years, BBDO was ranked the most creative agency network in the world by the Gunn Report, an organisation that annually awards agencies for their creative output (AMV BBDO, 2018). It was also recognised as “The Most Creative Agency of the Year” by the Creative Circle Awards.

It therefore seemed natural to begin the investigation of creative processes in an agency that claims to be “the most creative agency in the UK” (AMV BBDO, 2018). Interviews with the organisation’s creative managers sought to uncover how they manage to create and nurture a space for innovation. Interviews with creative employees, in turn, revealed their experience of this space.

Solution Space

These problems indicate a gap within the organisation and lead to the following research proposition: Are there ways to better facilitate the process of opportunity identification and exploitation required in creative organisations?

IDEO, a prominent design consultancy, has approached a comparable challenge by designing one such tool for creativity: a card game intended to inspire people to think differently. The so-called Method Cards include visual cues intended to stimulate thought and guide discussion among players (IDEO, 2018).

A large number of games designed to support design processes are already available on the market. In a large study of their effectiveness, Kwiatkowska et al. (2014) highlight that the impact of such cards lies in “introducing new contexts to the problem, enabling designers to form ideas not only on the basis of their personal experiences” (p. 37). Participants in the study reported that the cards supported storytelling around ideas. Interestingly, they also found it easier “to present the most creative and crazy ideas loudly if they could refer them to the chosen card” (Kwiatkowska et al., 2014, p. 40).

Themes: Games

Games are excellent tools for facilitating collaboration, as they allow participants to engage deeply with both past and future experiences (Brandt, 2006). Researchers particularly highlight games as useful tools for sharing and transferring knowledge across boundaries. As Harviainen et al. (2016) argue, games are “able to provide users and facilitators quick, yet deep, stakeholder insight, while retaining the playful and fascinating qualities that entice people to play them” (p. 560). In essence, they embody playful intelligence.

Organisational games are useful in three distinct ways: as a tool, as a mindset, and as a structure (Vaajakallio, 2012; Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014). In business settings, managers may use games as tools to identify stakeholders, whereas in design, games provide an underlying structure for co-design workshops. Although these uses differ, both involve a certain mindset through which participants can explore new frames of understanding. Research has increasingly focused on the potential of games to facilitate and explore new possibilities. However, much of this work lacks insight into how a game shapes social interaction among participants and, in particular, how a game may alter the relationships between them (Brandt, Messeter, & Binder, 2008).

There does not appear to be a single clear definition of organisational games; rather, they are often defined by the activities they enable and the wide variety of contexts in which they are used. They differ considerably in aim and context, yet they all revolve around participation (Brandt, 2006).

“Organisational games help people understand problems better.”

Copenhagen Game Lab specialises in developing learning games for organisations. As the lead of the company, which has operated for six years, Jimmy Olsen has witnessed increasing interest in organisational games. In interview, he stressed that games built around organisational problems function as excellent learning devices.

He gives the example of the public sector using games as educational tools, which can be far more cost-effective than sending employees on expensive training courses. Copenhagen Game Lab takes complex issues from different disciplines and knowledge fields—from cancer care to heart transplant care to psychiatric settings—identifies a problem, and helps address it through a game. This might involve a situation-based game in which players are placed within a fictional narrative and encounter problems they must solve collaboratively. In attempting to solve these problems, participants discuss the narrative in the third person and learn through that distance. If the goal is learning, participants can then speak with colleagues about what they would have done in the same situation, allowing them to discuss the problem as if it were not their own. This creates a kind of third space between the fictional scenario and their own working reality. The actions within the game enable players to make decisions about how to deal with problems, and when they return to the real world, they may be more likely to act in accordance with what they explored in the game. This demonstrates the considerable potential of games for communicating one problem to a large audience (Primary Research: Appendix: Interviews & Sessions, Interview with Jimmy Olsen, Copenhagen Game Lab).

“When creating a game, whether digital or physical, the first thing you have to ask yourself is what kind of learning you want from it.”
(Appendix: Interviews & Sessions, Jimmy Olsen)