Geopolitical uncertainties and the resurgence of security and defence needs present both opportunities and challenges for creativity and innovation management. At both the organizational and the individual levels, we are confronted with multiple ethically challenging choices. Given the changing global security and defence realities, we outline the ethical dilemma for creativity and innovation management scholars and propose an emerging agenda for our field. Our position is that, as citizens of open and democratic societies, we must not withdraw from defending the very values and institutions that have allowed us to pursue our profession freely. With this article, we contribute to an emerging discourse in creativity and innovation management research by making a call for ethical and societal frameworks to guide our profession and by proposing directions for future research on innovation in the defence and security realm.

Internal crowdsourcing offers new opportunities for ideas to gain legitimacy in idea development as not only managers but also experts are able to provide feedback to improve and subsequently accept ideas for further realisation. Given this far limited knowledge about how ideas gain legitimacy in idea development, this paper focuses on the influence of feedback, a main source of idea legitimacy in internal crowdsourcing. More specifically, this study aims to explore how feedback from different feedback providers (i.e., managers and experts) influences idea selection in internal crowdsourcing idea development. Based on text mining methods including sentiment, topic-model, and expert identification analyses, results reveal that feedback sentiment, feedback diversity and feedback amount play key roles in idea legitimisation. Specifically, these aspects of feedback influence idea acceptance in idea selection through the mediating role of idea revision in idea development and that this relationship is moderated by feedback providers. This study extends previous knowledge about the legitimisation process from the perspective of feedback in idea development by offering both a more comprehensive view, including different feedback aspects, and a more granular measurement of these, through the use of text analysis. Based on insights from the study, practical implications are presented for how to gain legitimacy from feedback for idea selection in internal crowdsourcing.

Overview:Few companies and organizations remain innovative for long periods of time, and despite high ambitions, many innovation initiatives fail to yield the desired results. Identifying how best to measure the effectiveness of innovation initiatives is key to ensuring that those efforts actually help an organization achieve its overall goals. This article offers organizations and their leaders practical advice for measuring innovation effectively. Specifically, it defines innovation measurement and its importance in precise terms and summarizes six years of our research on innovation measurement in multiple firms and industries. We articulate nine critical lessons for improving innovation measurement in real-world practice clustered into three overarching themes: Strategy, Organization, and Measurement Design. Each of the nine lessons elucidates a problem, identifies potential consequences, and proposes concrete solutions that organizations can implement as they strive to better measure and, ultimately, improve their innovation management initiatives.

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 32, Issue 2 p. 177-179 EDITORIAL The theory and practice of creativity and innovation management—Past, present and future Harry Boer, Corresponding Author Harry Boer [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this author Harry Boer, Corresponding Author Harry Boer [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 April 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12556Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume32, Issue2June 2023Pages 177-179 RelatedInformation

Creativity and Innovation Management has grown substantially over the last couple of years, both quantitatively and qualitatively. From 2016 to 2021, the number of submissions has grown from 287 to 395. Most of the growth was realized in Asia: The number of submissions from that continent increased from 72 in 2016 to 193 in 2021. The rest of the world remained (close to) stable: 215 in 2016 and 203 in 2021. Equally important, the Thomson ISI Impact Factor increased from 1.423 in 2015 to 3.051 in 2021 and further to 3.644 in 2022. This is not where our ambitions end, though. We want to be the ever-better outlet for authors researching, and practitioners working in, the fields we cover. Editing a journal with the ambition to continuously increase its quality while dealing with a substantial growth requires teamwork-teamwork among the editors and the editorial office, teamwork between the editors and their reviewers and, as surprising as this may sound, teamwork between the authors and their reviewers in a top-quality reviewing process. The purpose of this piece is to present and discuss some reviewing standards. In particular, we aim to share with our reviewers what we think is an excellent reviewing process. Furthermore, we formulate our ideas about what it is that makes a review an excellent one. The title of this piece is deliberately ambiguous. It denotes that Creativity and Innovation Management strives for reviewing excellence-as in an excellent reviewing process. It also denotes that we reach for the stars and hope to one day receive and, hence, review only excellent submissions.

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 32, Issue 3 p. 359-361 EDITORIAL The business of business is…. complex and paradoxical! René Chester Goduscheit, Corresponding Author René Chester Goduscheit [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this author René Chester Goduscheit, Corresponding Author René Chester Goduscheit [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 21 July 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12569Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13. OECD/EUROSTAT. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation. In The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Paris/Eurostat: Luxemburg/OECD Publishing. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403. Volume32, Issue3September 2023Pages 359-361 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 32, Issue 1 p. 3-4 EDITORIAL Creativity, innovation and digits Jennie Björk, Corresponding Author Jennie Björk [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this author Jennie Björk, Corresponding Author Jennie Björk [email protected] Search for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12545Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume32, Issue1March 2023Pages 3-4 RelatedInformation

Decision biases reinforce firms' tendency to develop innovations based on narrow economic motivations. Consequently, sustainability-oriented ideas explicitly targeting social and environmental issues are easily discarded in idea selection when trade-offs between economic and sustainability values are faced. Given the so far limited knowledge about how sustainability-oriented ideas are developed and selected in organizations today, this research aims to explore how managerial biases affect selection of sustainability-oriented ideas in internal crowdsourcing. It does so through an empirical study drawing on data collected from a Swedish multinational company using internal crowdsourcing for different types of innovation ideas. The empirical study explicitly identifies sustainability-oriented ideas based on machine learning and captures managerial biases for ideas based on sentiment analysis. Regression analyses reveal that managerial biases potentially affect the selection of sustainability-oriented ideas through the mediating role of managerial attention in idea development. Furthermore, this mediating relationship is moderated by search pattern in terms of directed search. The study contributes to the literature on both innovation and sustainability, shedding new light on the effects of managerial bias, managerial attention, and innovation search for decision making and provides managerial implications enabling a fruitful adoption of sustainability-oriented innovation ideas.

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 31, Issue 3 p. 393-395 EDITORIAL Striving for excellence—A journey without an end The noblest search is the search for excellence – Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) Harry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this author Harry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 August 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12517Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue3September 2022Pages 393-395 RelatedInformation

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 31, Issue 4 p. 557-558 EDITORIAL When the going gets tough … the role of creativity and innovation management during times of crisis? René Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this author René Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 October 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12533Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue4December 2022Pages 557-558 RelatedInformation

Internal crowdsourcing utilizes a firm’s employees, of which many have a strong understanding of the domains in which the firm operates, for contributing with, developing and evaluating ideas. On the one hand, these employees can use their domain‐specific knowledge to identify the value of what may seem a far‐fetched solution to the average employee. On the other hand, previous research has shown that employees typically evaluate ideas in their domains less favorably if they do not align with ongoing exploitation activities. Hence, this study focuses on whether a higher degree of relevant domain‐specific knowledge makes employees participating in internal crowdsourcing prefer exploitative solutions when evaluating ideas. An empirical study of an online platform for firm‐internal innovation in a multinational engineering company showed that employees who only infrequently participated in internal crowdsourcing mostly contributed to and evaluated ideas within their own domain. Employees who frequently participated also contributed to and evaluated ideas outside their own domains. By statistically analyzing group differences during idea evaluation, we show that employees participating infrequently favor exploitable solutions, whereas employees participating frequently are more uncertain. The former difference is only seen concerning ideas that require domain‐specific knowledge to understand, but the latter is observed for all types of ideas. This study makes three substantial contributions. First, employees with domain‐specific knowledge, through their preference for exploitative solutions, bias the outcome of internal crowdsourcing when idea evaluation requires domain‐specific knowledge. Second, this bias is aggravated by the overall higher level of uncertainty displayed by employees participating frequently in internal crowdsourcing and thereby tend to reach out to other domains. Third, in order to mitigate this, bias management can build engagement in internal crowdsourcing through idea challenges that do not require domain‐specific knowledge and consider avoiding employees with a strongly associated domain knowledge for idea evaluation.

PurposeFirms increasingly rely on both external and internal crowdsourcing to capture ideas more broadly and enhance innovative problem-solving. Especially in internal crowdsourcing, knowledge sharing that contributes to develop or further the understanding of the problem the idea is focused on solving can take place between critical employees, and in that way improve ideas generated by others. This far, most crowdsourcing practices have focused on identifying solutions to proposed problems, whereas much less is known about how crowds can be used to share problem-related knowledge. There is thus an untapped potential in leveraging crowds not just to generate solution-oriented ideas but also to share knowledge to improve ideas and even to reframe problems. This paper aims to explore the effect of problem- and solution-related knowledge sharing in internal crowdsourcing for idea development.Design/methodology/approachData on ideas and comments were collected from an idea management system in a Swedish multinational company. The investigation captures the influences of the problem- and solution-related knowledge sharing on ideas based on content analysis and logistic regression analysis.FindingsThe results from this study show that sharing knowledge related to solutions in idea development impacts idea acceptance positively, whereas sharing knowledge related to problems in idea development has a negative effect on the likelihood of idea acceptance and these effects of knowledge sharing are moderated by the active author responses.Practical implicationsThis research provides managerial implications for firms to deliberately manage knowledge sharing in peer communities in internal crowdsourcing, especially by providing suggestions on problem reframing and solution refining for ideas.Originality/valueThe results contribute to existing theory in terms of extending the view of crowdsourcing in ideation to include how crowds contribute to the development of the problem and the solution during the development of ideas and providing new insights on knowledge sharing in internal crowdsourcing based on problem-solving theory.

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 31, Issue 1 p. 3-4 EDITORIAL The future is well hidden—It is to us to uncover it Katharina Hölzle, Katharina HölzleSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this author Katharina Hölzle, Katharina HölzleSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this authorRené Chester Goduscheit, René Chester GoduscheitSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 March 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12487Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue1March 2022Pages 3-4 RelatedInformation

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 31, Issue 2 p. 157-161 EDITORIAL All's well that ends well and starts well Harry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorJeannette Visser-Groeneveld, Jeannette Visser-GroeneveldSearch for more papers by this author Harry Boer, Harry BoerSearch for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorJeannette Visser-Groeneveld, Jeannette Visser-GroeneveldSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 June 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12508Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume31, Issue2June 2022Pages 157-161 RelatedInformation

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 30, Issue 4 p. 677-679 EDITORIAL Creativity and Innovation Management—Where do we go? Harry Boer, Corresponding Author Harry Boer hboer@business.aau.dk Search for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Hölzle, Katharina HölzleSearch for more papers by this author Harry Boer, Corresponding Author Harry Boer hboer@business.aau.dk Search for more papers by this authorJennie Björk, Jennie BjörkSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Hölzle, Katharina HölzleSearch for more papers by this author First published: 19 November 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12473Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume30, Issue4December 2021Pages 677-679 RelatedInformation

PurposeThe purpose of the present study is to assist academics and practitioners in supporting and managing digital production innovation projects using managerial controls. The focus is on projects that deliver innovations containing new combinations of physical, digital and/or cyber-physical components, developed to be used within a production system. More specifically, this paper aims to explore the applicability of different managerial controls for managing and supporting digital production innovation projects, i.e. projects that are characterized by high levels of complexity and uncertainty.Design/methodology/approachThis is a multiple-case study in which interview data was collected from five digital production innovation projects in two manufacturing firms. The empirical data was used to analyze success factors, challenges and obstacles in different phases of the studied projects, and to connect these to the application of different types of managerial controls.FindingsThe findings provide an increased understanding of who to control, what to control and how to control in digital production innovation projects.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper is focused specifically on the perception of managerial controls in digital production innovation projects and has not explicitly focused on manufacturing companies' intended usage of managerial controls. This paper's focus on manufacturing companies with producing customers and on projects developing solutions for their respective customers' production systems also encourages further studies at other companies undergoing a comparable transition. Given the necessary system perspective on managerial controls that is being highlighted, this paper emphasizes further research needs on how firms can also apply managerial controls to support external collaborations.Practical implicationsThe results have a number of managerial implications regarding digital production innovation projects. The most prominent findings revealed the importance of giving attention to the managerial controls related to the decision-making process and the involvement from stakeholders outside the organization itself. In particular, it was shown that managerial controls securing a more holistic involvement in the decision-making process should be applied, and that managerial controls suitable for customers and partners need to be developed.Originality/valueThe study is among the first studies to focus on the application and perceived effectiveness of managerial controls in digital production innovation projects. The ways in which managerial controls are applied to collaborations with customers and partners and the ways in which action, cultural and personnel controls are combined and aligned to support the corporate decision-making process particularly stand out as essential for manufacturing companies' Industry 4.0 transition.

Creativity and Innovation ManagementVolume 30, Issue 2 p. 231-232 EDITORIAL ‘What will we learn from the current crisis?’ Jennie Björk, Integrated Product Development and Design, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Hölzle, Hasso Plattner Institut, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Center for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkSearch for more papers by this author Jennie Björk, Integrated Product Development and Design, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Hölzle, Hasso Plattner Institut, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorHarry Boer, Center for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 May 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12442Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume30, Issue2June 2021Pages 231-232 RelatedInformation