Effective Group Evaluation of Ideas-Creation and Selection

Groups work together to come up with ideas. These groups may be inter or intra-company formations that focus on particular problems. The process in which they generate ideas and evaluate these ideas is important for the development of stronger business models and group decision-making. A study Harvey & Kou (2013) focused on evaluating group decision-making and found that the idea generation process eventually moves into four modes of group interaction that can be used individually or in combination to determine the merits of each idea. 

The group process is important for determining how groups work through problems and find solutions. With greater understanding it is easier to formulate and train groups to make better decisions that have a real impact on the environment. The power of group decisions may be based in their ability to generate more ideas and evaluate those ideas from multiple perspectives.

The four different ways in which evaluation processes occur is in parallel interactions where several ideas are generated and evaluated, interactive evaluation by which a couple of ideas are evaluated based upon group goals, brainstorming without evaluation, and sequential evaluation whereby one’s idea is generated and evaluated before introducing another. 

Brainstorming without evaluation is great for generating ideas but these ideas will eventually need to be evaluated through the group process to determine which are most likely to work. The Use of collective development of creative products works best when small and diverse groups are able to draw on multiple perspectives and expertise to create new and useful ideas to be evaluated for those that achieve potential goals (Nemeth, 1997). 

The process of brainstorming (ideation) and evaluation helps to ensure that the quality of ideas is beneficial (Paletz and Schunn, 2010). Ideas should start out as free flowing to create as many different pathways to understanding as possible. Potential problems can be seen from different perspectives and backgrounds. The evaluation process ensures that those who are most likely to be successful are selected for use or further study. 

They found that groups used an evaluation-centered sequence whereby a small group of ideas were evaluated in parallel form. This helped the group to create a mental problem framework that allowed them to elaborate and integrate their ideas. The study does help highlight how defining group goals is important for encouraging a mental framework to understand the problem and how the potential solutions may work. Without this evaluation process it would be difficult for the group to formalize potential avenues for solving problems. 

Harvey, S. & Kou, C. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: the role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative science quarterly, 58 (3). 

Nemeth, C. (1997) ‘Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40 (Fall): 59–74.

Paletz, S., and Schunn, C. (2010). ‘A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2: 73–95.

Innovating Products and Services with the Internet

Innovation occurs when individuals have a need for specific products and information. The internet has fostered a greater transference of information and we now see product innovation growing at a faster pace than at any point in history. This innovation isn’t always company fostered and can generate organically from consumers. A study by Takeyasu & Sotaro (2014) helps support the notion that innovation and consumption are related. In their study they reviewed 1,000 music users to determine how consumption and innovation are interrelated.

Innovation comes through companies or through consumers. The concepts of user generated content and user innovation have made their way into the field. Users actively engage in the creation process and further the development of products, concepts, and ideas. The Internet has raised the communication levels to new heights and allows users to build on existing products.

In the past, research was primarily focused on the innovation of individuals and organizations. Greater focus is now on how outside entities and inter-organizational relations produce innovation (Chesbrough, 2003). Organizations that work with other organizations and interested parties in the co-builder process may also experience higher levels of innovative development.

There are generally two ways to use the internet to gather information for product and service improvement. Innovators first need the tools which simplifies and assists users in developing products and services (Franke & von Hippel, 2003). Secondly, they need the feedback from other users to build knowledge (Mallapragada, et. al, 2012).

Organizations that seek to co-collaborate with either other organizations or with users need to have the proper platforms that create ease of use. This ease of use will encourage greater communication between members. Then they will need the users to actively engage in the process of sharing knowledge and building off of each others ideas.

The researchers found in their music and innovation study that those users who consumed music heavily also were more likely to innovate. In addition, as users interacted heavily with this music they either focused more on innovation or consumption. The implications of study help organization decision-makers find ways to allow consumers to become part of the planning and developing process.

The study lends support to two concepts. Companies may collaborate using electronic means to build better products for revenue generation (i.e. projects) or lowering transact costs (i.e. supplier networks). Companies should consider collaborating with other companies that have like needs or with consumers who use the products. These users are not passive but will often be actively engaged in the co-creation process. 

Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Franke, N., & von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7), 1199–1215.

Mallapragada, G., Grewal, R., & Lilien G. (2012). User-generated open source products: Founder’s social capital and time to product release. Management Science, 31(3), 474–492.

Takeyasu, I & Sotaro, K. (2014). The relationship between innovation and consumption of Internet Users. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 13 (1).

The Perpetual Sustainable Economic System

Sustainable economic development is a process of investment, value creation, and reinvestment to expand the economic engine.  Those economic engines that are able to provide a consistent and solid return on investment are able to draw in new resources and investments that keep the circle of influence growing. The system becomes a perpetual changing machine that develops new innovations and efficiencies that translate into market impact. 

To formalize this concept let us consider an example of an investor that contributes $100 into a business venture in hopes of earning higher revenue than what their local bank can offer. The success of a higher return on investment is based within the ability to raise the value of that money through new products and services that are sold on the international market for a profit. 

The ability to raise value is based in labor skill, the cost of obtaining resources, the technology available to increase the productive aspects of the system, and the legal infrastructure that allows such activities to occur. Assuming that the inputs allow for value creation, it is up to the decision makers to put these elements together in an innovative way that develops something of higher value. Therefore, management abilities cannot be ignored in this process.

The eventual return on sales will be used to pay labor, investors, and other expenses. Money that is not used by labor for maintenance or to repay back the initial investment is the profit that turns into labor and investor saving rates (ROI). As this money will continue to lose value sitting in a bank account due to such problems as inflation it is reinvested back into the system.  Part of the tax revenue, like reinvestment, is used to improve upon the hub’s infrastructure (virtual or physical) to create a more efficient value generation system.

Sustainable systems create perpetual value through investment and return of value on that investment. Growing systems can draw in new investments from outside sources that seek to also earn a higher return rate. These investors may contribute money, build businesses within the economic hub, or supply cheaper resources to that hub.  It is possible to see the economic hub as a value creation assembly line that seeks to draw in cheaper and better quality resources. 

Why is data so important? Data reduces investment risks. If companies can formalize the market, find their place within it, and can make forecasts they are much more likely to invest their resources into an economic hub. Considering the multitude of places to invest money, and the lack of information in other areas, the U.S. has an opportunity to capitalize on the Internet age and encourage investments through transparency of government and information.  (Work in Progress)

Growing Global Brands-Understanding International Culture

artwork by Dr. Murad Abel

With pressed three piece suits and blazing red ties they look out over the ocean and wonder just how far they need to travel to sell products in lands yet untapped. It wasn’t long ago they built towers where their grandfathers once tilled tobacco, corn, and beans. The montblanc pens are not yet dry but the ideas have long been spent. Just beyond their reach, opportunities again bound but the paths are now covered in asphalt trails that lead back to where brick and mortar ends. Just beyond that wall is something new, a place to gain footing, a vine perhaps that is hardy enough to tow products world round.  Once again the good times could roar if shined shoes are scuffed in the knee deep fields of prosperity. 

 Executives seek once again to find new opportunities to grow their businesses and create expanding opportunities. The global marketplace requires new theoretical lenses that are much sharper than the theories of the past. Global product positioning offers new opportunities that require a more complex way of conducting business and marketing offerings. A single vantage point from a single field of study simply doesn’t consider the complex nature of marketing on multiple continents with different needs and cultures. 

Products are about self-identity. As a new generation is born into the Information Age their identity begins to transcend their individualized cultures. According to McKraken (1986), global brands create an identity, achievement perspective, and perception that symbolize values that are transferred into the way consumers view themselves.  Younger generations are much more aware of different cultures and have meshed their identities into a wider perspective.  They want to be successful, and find a wide array of products that help them further this identity.  They have opportunities to purchase from anywhere in the world and do so with a few key strokes. 

Those companies that can build global brands will find willing followers if their image and products align with the needs of consumers in different cultures around the world. Global brands can create images of superiority, quality, social responsibility and prestige that help them successfully draw in a younger and more enthusiastic crowd (Keller, 1998; Ozsomer & Altaras, 2008). These brands fit within their personal aspirations and represent their chosen paths in life. 

Research by Ozsomer and Altaras (2008) shows that the global marketplace requires more complex theoretical lenses to understand how to develop brand identity that will sell internationally. They believe that consumer culture theory, signaling theory, and associative memory theory have what it takes to develop a corporate image and products that will sell. Each of these theories helps decision-makers understand the varying complex nature of market production where multiple cultures are present. 

Consumer Culture Theory: Global consumers re-contextualize symbolic meaning encoded within marketing programs to develop their individual and collective identities (Holt, 2002). As global products become more apparent it naturally changes the perceptions of consumers. Their exposure to the images and messages encoded within marketing campaigns are adapted to help them create new identities that blend their past to their future.  They will buy that which confirms their aspirations of where they desire to go and the image they would like to portray to others.

Signaling Theory: Companies take actions that signal the value of their products. For example, offering a warrantee with a product will signal that its quality and value is high (Boulding & Kirmani, 1993). Signaling can occur within the company’s strategies, offerings, and actions that can lead to higher or lower credibility on the market. When a company’s credibility is damaged through improper actions their products and future viability are likely to suffer as well.  

Associative Memory Theory:  Consumer memory and how it identifies brands is an important indicator of how customers will view and remember brands.  Memory is seen as nodes of images or information that are connected to other nodes. Each node can be mapped to understand how consumers see products (Collins and Quillian 1972). Ensuring that the company’s image, the product’s images, and the marketing messages are in alignment will help ensure that the nodes connect together correctly.

Each person exists within the context of their culture but this culture is only a vantage point in understanding the rest of the world. As an interconnected generation rises to maturity, they have cultural underpinnings that transcend their local backgrounds. It is these cultural underpinnings, rooted in human nature, where companies can find their best opportunities to sell products. 

Those companies that seek greater global brand awareness will need to relate their products and images to the identity needs of this generation. Some are seeking fame, some wealth, and others recognition but all seek something in the global marketplace. They will choose their products based upon those self and collective identities that fulfill chosen way of relating to the world. 

The three theoretical models offer a different but interconnected way of viewing the products and services developed. Understanding how the company is perceived, the actions that signal value, and the way in which consumers interpret and connect brands is important for develop market oriented products and services.  As products and services are being engineered they should do so within the underlining values that are common to most cultures. 

Boulding, W. & Kirmani, A. (1993). A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? Journal of consumer reach, 20 (1). 

Holt, D. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 70–90.

Keller, K. (1998). Strategic Brand Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Collins, A. and Quillian, M. (1972). How to Make a Language User,” in Organization of Memory, E. Tulving and W. Donaldson, eds. New York: Academic Press, 310–54.

McCraken, Grant (1986). Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 71–84.

Ozsomer A. & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: a critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4).

Universities and Economic Innovation

Universities are commonly seen as partners in innovation development. Research by Howels, Ramlogan, and Cheng (2012) suggests that most traditional universities have a natural divide with businesses. These universities do contribute to the fundamental foundations of innovation by training and retaining new talent within local economies but are not often seen as partners in innovation.

Brestow, et. al. (2011) found that universities are known to develop local human capital, attract, develop and retain graduates. This affords businesses an opportunity to gain knowledge transfer by hiring recent graduates that have update theoretical skills with greater capacity to use technology. The transfer is indirect and not well connected.

Universities often seek to measure their success in fostering business development. Links are considered informal. They ignore the concept that both formal and informal links contribute to innovation development. The ability to measure these informal links is difficult and companies do not regularly see the benefits of such connections due to their indirect nature.

Those firms that have direct connections to universities also have higher funded research and development departments. Medium and small companies do not consistently have access to university research, information or libraries. They rely more on their supplier networks for new ideas and information.

In their literary search, the authors found that both UK and U.S. traditional colleges seem to have this great divide with business. Due to the nature of such universities and lack of direct connections, they appear to lack formal communication with companies. The theoretical and practical research generation from university endeavors is not often seen or accessible to such companies.

The authors conclude that even though universities have a hand in innovation development they are often informal in nature and rarely direct. To move beyond this report it is possible to see how online universities, with greater internet connectivity, could collaborate more with businesses through open innovation platforms and available library access. Research findings made public, business collaboration platforms, and access to libraries may make direct connections between business innovative development and university success. Relationships between universities and the business sector could be become more collaborative and concrete.

Bristow, G., Pill, M., Davies, R. and Drinkwater, S. (2011). Welsh Graduate Mobility , Cardiff, Welsh Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods

Howells, J. & Ramlogan, R. & Cheng, S. (2012). Innovation and university collaboration: paradox and complexity within the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36 (3).