Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Curating collections of ideas: Museum as metaphor in the management of creativity☆

Robert C. Litchfield a,⁎, Lucy L. Gilson b,1

a Washington & Jefferson College, Department of Economics and Business, 60 S. Lincoln St., Washington, PA 15301, United Statesb University of Connecticut, School of Business, 2100 Hillside Road, Unit 1041, Storrs, CT 06269-1041, United States

☆ This research was partially funded by a grant froEntrepreneurship and Innovation (CCEI).⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 412 996 2454; fax:

E-mail addresses: rlitchfield@washjeff.edu (R.C. Litchlgilson@business.uconn.edu (L.L. Gilson).

1 Tel.: +1 860 486 3504.

0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.11.010

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 April 2011Received in revised form 4 September 2012Accepted 5 October 2012Available online 22 November 2012

Keywords:Idea generationCollectionCreativityMuseumCuration

We introduce a curatorial metaphor to the management of creative idea generation in order to emphasizeand elaborate the importance of managing the creative content, rather than just the size, of collections ofideas. We propose that just as museum curators attend to the shape, maintenance, and usage of their collec-tions in order to facilitate institutional success, managers might focus on collections of ideas with the goal ofimproving the relevance of the types of creative ideas generated to the needs of organizational innovationprocesses. By considering curatorial activities in light of distinctions between radical and incremental creativity,we offer suggestions for research and practice that are particularly germane to contexts where idea generationefforts can span both intra- and inter-organizational boundaries.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The fast-paced competitive landscape of many industries requiresthat individuals, teams, and ultimatelyfirms engage in open, networked,or other boundary-spanning activities to increase their stocks of creativeideas. Yet the question of how to legitimately manage the resultingtrickle or deluge that these many sources might bring has receivedless attention. Classic approaches to managing idea generation oftensolely focus on increasing the number of ideas by using techniquessuch as brainstorming (Osborn, 1957) to improve the productivity of aspecific group of people tasked with generating ideas, or by expandingthe number of people who generate ideas through initiatives such assuggestion programs (Van Dijk & Van den Ende, 2002). In effect, thesetechniques aim to take advantage of the evolutionary principle that alarger number of ideas will increase the chance of generating at leastone idea that will be deemed “creative” (Campbell, 1960; Simonton,2003). In this paper, we draw onmuseum studies to introduce a curato-rial metaphor in order to illustrate that creative ideas, like collections ofart, need to be developed, maintained, and ultimately used in such away that they produce value. A curatorial view of idea generationemphasizes the nature, rather than just the size of collections of ideas.

In contrast to idea generation, choosingwhich idea(s) to implementis usually regarded as driven by social and organizational factors

m the Connecticut Center for

+1 724 223 6053.field),

rights reserved.

(Amabile, 1988; VandeVen, 1986). Given that these selection processesare widely posited to be imperfect and particularly biased againstnovelty (e.g., Denrell & March, 2001; March, 1976; Osborn, 1957; Vande Ven, 1986), there appears to be substantial grounds for pessimismabout the potential for firms to improve the reliability of innovationmerely by sourcingmore ideas frommore places. Furthermore, innova-tion efforts that require integration across boundaries are known to beespecially prone to difficulty (e.g., Adner & Levinthal, 2008; Carlile,2002; Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Dougherty, 1992). What this all sug-gests is that while the sourcing of large numbers of ideas is arguablygetting easier, the process of maintaining them and ultimately selectingideas for implementation from such large pools might be much harder.A curatorial metaphor provides insights relevant to the challenges asso-ciated with managing idea generation with the aim of improving theresults of idea selection without necessarily affecting the idea selectionprocess.

Although initially the world of cultural institutions might seem anodd analogy for understanding creativity in marketing, management,or business market relationships, we contend that the roles playedby curators who are responsible for acquiring, developing, storing,displaying, and promoting large collections are themselves increasinglyfocused on boundary-spanning activities akin to the management ofcreative ideas. At the same time, a curatorial metaphor is potentiallydistinct in its separation of key idea management activities from com-mon innovation roles; unlike traditional boundary-spanners, curatorsare not necessarily employees of the organization where innovationoccurs (cf., Aldrich & Herker, 1977); unlike idea champions, curatorsare not necessarily aiming to take responsibility for individual ideas(cf.,Walter, Parboteeah, Riesenhuber, &Hoegl, 2011); unlike innovatorsthemselves, curators do not necessarily generate or develop work

107R.C. Litchfield, L.L. Gilson / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

(cf., Amabile, 1988). We propose that a curatorial metaphor that con-ceives of collections of ideas in business in a similar way to those heldby museums or other cultural institutions offers many insights thatwill inform future research and practice by articulating and explicitlyorganizing activities that, whether they take place within or betweenthese roles or with others outside of the organization, are essential tomanaging large quantities of creative ideas. Indeed, by offering a newperspective beyond standard innovation process roles, we hope tospur new thinking about organizing and managing creativity.

In applying our curatorial metaphor, we note that while creativeideas are widely defined as both novel and useful (for review, seeShalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004), creativity scholars are increasingly rec-ognizing the existence of multiple types of creativity (e.g., Litchfield,2008; Unsworth, 2001). Although it has long been acknowledged inthe creativity literature that creative ideas and outcomes can rangealong a continuum from incremental adaptations to what is currentlybeing done to radical frame breaking shifts from the status quo(e.g., Kuhn, 1970; Sternberg, 1999), detailed empirical examination ofthis is relatively recent (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Madjar, Greenberg, &Chen, 2011). In this regard, creativity research and theory are movingcloser to work in the innovation domain, which has long exploredthe innovation construct using an explore – exploit demarcation(e.g., Benner & Tushman, 2003; Jansen, van den Bosch, & Volberda,2006; March, 1991; Mom, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009). Thiswork examines a firm's capabilities to be flexible and innovate basedon their overriding strategy, practices, and processes. For example, ex-ploitation is pursued when a firm's strategy is focused on incrementalchange, processmanagement, efficiency, andmeeting current customerneeds. Conversely, exploration is used by firms to identify newopportu-nities that depart fromexisting skills and customers and focus on funda-mental change (Benner & Tushman, 2003). However, exploration andexploitation can both be key drivers of performance, and are equallyimportant to organizational success (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Uotila,Maula, Keil, & Zahra, 2009).

Radical, incremental and explore, exploit—these concepts carryover almost directly to the curating of an art collection. Specifically,cultural institutions seek balance in their collections between more“challenging” or avant-garde works (i.e., radical) and those likely togarner popular appeal. Alternatively a curator may choose to pursuea model that segregates the most popular works into a separatecollection from more challenging fare (i.e., American symphonies'tradition of separating their regular seasons from the more popularand conventional “pops” concerts). Within organizations, managersmight pursue similar strategies that seek balance and/or focus. Weregard both types of choices as legitimate, though different, possibleoutcomes of pursuing a curatorial metaphor. Below, we outline inmore detail the curatorial metaphor that we propose. Following thiswe integrate and map organizational idea generation, conservationand selection onto the curatorial metaphor. In doing this, we discussour curatorial metaphor's applicability to idea generation and selec-tion. Finally, we offer some thoughts on future research and appliedpractice.

2. A curatorial view of collecting ideas

At the core of the concept of a curator is the Latin root cūrā, to carefor or to attend to (Dictionary.com). While this function of conserva-tion is certainly present in modern cultural institutions, particularlyin those that maintain collections of their own, the set of curatorialroles has become much more diverse in an era where cities, regions,and even nations compete economically in part based on their cultur-al offerings. As a result, while a contemporary view of curating retainsconcepts like conservation, care in acquisition, and domain coverage, italso suggests the importance of newer concepts such as editing, fram-ing, promoting, translating, narrative construction, and resampling(Graham & Cook, 2010). These activities are roughly divisible into

three main domains that are; 1) shaping the collection; 2) maintainingthe collection, and 3) getting the collection used. Below we will discusseach of these activities inmore detail noting however that in all of these,the focus is on the collection rather than on individual works, a focusthatwewill return tomore specificallywhen linking curating art collec-tions to organizational ideas.

2.1. Shaping collections

Sourcing collections of art and other cultural objects is an oftendifficult and costly endeavor. For instance, prices of art at auctionhave increased over 50% since 2000 (Artprice.com). These increaseshave left even relatively well-endowed cultural institutions at themargins of themarket for themost-loved or desired works, increasingthe importance of a variety of boundary-spanning activities long usedto shape collections. For example, museum exhibitions routinelyutilize loans not just from other cultural institutions, but also fromprivate collectors around the world. In a market where most promi-nent works at auction can be expected to land in the hands of wealthycollectors, connections with such individuals are particularly prized.The recent appointment of prominent art dealer Jeffrey Deitch to runthe Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (LA MOCA) illustratesthe special importance of such connections for institutions that lackeither vast holdings or long-established relationships (Boehm, 2010).

In addition to facilitating loans for exhibitions, connections toprivate collectors may, of course, facilitate donations of works to theinstitution. Given the desire of wealthy individuals to leave a legacythrough their acquisitions, strong network ties offer the potential toexpand an institution's holdings into a new area by facilitating dona-tions of private collections in whole or in part (Kastner, 2010). Thisroute also may be pursued by seeking donations from artists. Becauseartists often want to have their work represented in museum collec-tions, good relationships with artists can improve the chances ofartist-driven donation. Such practices also might involve private collec-tors in complex exchanges. For instance, by championing the work ofMarcel Duchamp and attracting him to recommend placing the privateArensberg collection (featuring his art) with the Philadelphia Museumof Art, the institution also put itself in a position to receive the gift ofDuchamp's last work, Etant Donnés, from his widow (D'Harnoncourt,2011).

In museums with a contemporary focus, collections are alsoshaped through the acquisition of works by emerging artists whoseprices are still within reach. Here, institutions rely on the connois-seurship of curators to place works into the collection based ontheir prospective value. However, these works are also among theriskiest acquisitions since the historical verdict on their value is stilluncertain (Temkin, 2010). One way to mitigate such risks to someextent is to commission new work from relatively established artists.Here, themuseum bets on a known producer at a discount from auctionrates with the proviso that it is buying a somewhat unknown product.Such strategies offer a particularly strong parallel to organizationalidea generation. Organizations frequently work with known entitiesthat they rely on as sources of creative ideas and suggestions. Forinstance, consulting firms such as IDEO (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997)and customers who use products in extreme ways (von Hippel, 1986)can be regarded as ongoing sources of ideas. Likewise, R&D andmarket-ing departments are expected to generate creative ideas and solutions.Finally, collecting institutions may allow their collections to be shapedthrough alternative channels akin to the “skunkworks” often discussedin the annals of corporate innovation (e.g., Adner & Levinthal, 2008;Fosfuri & Roende, 2009). As recounted in the 2002 film “How to Drawa Bunny,” the artist Ray Johnson learned that New York's Museum ofModern Art (MoMA) kept an archive of all correspondence it receivedfrom artists and then used this channel to send his own artwork tothe institution after MoMA spurned his more conventional efforts toplace pieces in its collection. When a friend organized an exhibition

108 R.C. Litchfield, L.L. Gilson / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

there, he chose Johnson's work from themail archive. Although not partof the “formal” collection, the mail archive essentially constituted ashadow collection – a skunk works of ideas that could be tapped ifdesired.

2.2. Maintaining collections

Maintaining an art collection can take on many meanings, but onemeaning that all collecting institutions ultimately must confront isstorage (Temkin, 2010). Although the physical costs of storing mereideas may be trivial compared to the costs of conserving culturalobjects, there aremore subtle issues at stake here. First, a critical concernin larger collections involves categorization and search. For instance, asthe size of an art collection grows, it can become increasingly difficultto consider which of a series of alternate objects might be displayed.Further, to the extent that a clear “best” exemplar is held, other lesserworks may virtually never be called up in searches of the collectioneven if they are in some sense worthy of examination. Such situationsmight be used as opportunities to allow objects to travel to other insti-tutions on loans in order to facilitate reciprocal displays of generosity,but only if the institution has carefully cataloged and made availableinformation on its holdings in an easily searchable format.

Collecting institutions also must confront the unpleasant fact thatsome of their acquisition choices will neverwork out in the way it wasoriginally hoped (Temkin, 2010).Most bad ideas, like bad art, do not getbetterwith time, and collections thatmight have been good at one pointin timemay not have the intended longevity, such that after a period oftime they are no longer of interest or importance. This is a significantproblem formuseums, asmost regard the decision to acquire as perma-nent. However, the reality is that a part of managing collections for thelong term likely does involve the need to deaccession (i.e., dismiss fromthe collection) work that is regarded as terminally low in value(Pogrebin, 2011). This can be easier to do in institutions where the nar-rative of collections is highly focused in some way. For instance,MoMA's founding charter dictated that it should sell works as neededto improve the collection (Pogrebin, 2011). In sum, editing is an essen-tial part of maintaining collections.

It is also important to protect the collection. In terms of ideas, thismeans that cultural institutions have an obligation to protect objectsand ideas that may have value, but are currently unpopular. Dramaticexamples are available: failures to adequately protect collections canresult in permanent losses of cultural capital, as in the recent caseswhere the Taliban destroyed artifacts during its rule in Afghanistanand U.S.-led military forces did not adequately protect cultural sitesin the aftermath of their invasion of Iraq. More subtly, ideas can simplybecome lost when they fail to gain popularity. Curating collectionsrequires that considerable time and attention be given to the trackingand protecting of their contents.

2.3. Getting the collection used

The point of generating collections of art, as with ideas, is the hopethat some will be used. In cultural institutions, usage can take onseveral forms. Most obviously, collected objects are used when theyare exhibited andattract an audience. This is analogous to implementinga generated idea in an organization. However, a museum's collectioncan also be said to be usedwhen its contents are loaned to other institu-tions; it can be studied for research, used as a basis for new work byscholars, artists, professionals (e.g., advertising, entertainment, anddesign firms), educators, students, or themedia. A collection is arguablybeing used even when it is posited as justification for identifying,maintaining and expanding various cultural narratives in societythrough allocations of resources such as funds or attention.

Much curatorial action is now directed at usage-related goals. Inparticular, translating and promoting have become key activities inmany institutions. For instance, the need to connect with diverse

communities has forced curators to carefully translate their narrativesand framing to a variety of audiences (Halbreich, 2010). It can be achallenge to translate even established narratives in ways thatrespect the audience and the collection (Golden & Ligon, 2006), andeven the smallest details of explanation can become fraught withdifficulty in this regard (Schaffner, 2006). Attempts to refocus narra-tives can involve changes to the display of objects (e.g., their sequenceor surroundings), changes of the objects displayed (e.g., rotatingthe display of objects in a collection) or both (Pobocha, 2010). Inaddition, curators frequently work at more obvious marketing activi-ties (e.g., arranging and hosting artist talks, and giving publiclectures) in order to act as a “bridge” between the collection andthe public (Szeemann, 2011).

3. Curating organizational ideas

In organizations, creativity has been defined as critical for successand survival through its role as a key input to innovation and driver ofperformance (e.g., Nonaka, 1994). That said, innovation researcherssometimes appear perplexed about how to manage the outputs of aprocess that seems focused on somewhat random accumulations ofideas (e.g., Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; West, 2002). For itspart, creativity research often regards its job as done once the factorsthat lead to individual or small group creativity have been specified(Gilson, 2008; Shalley et al., 2004). What this suggests is a continuedmisspecification and tenuous relationship between organizationalcreativity and innovation (George, 2007; Gilson, 2008). Organizationscontinually seek to generate ideas from multiple sources and to someextent evaluate these ideas such that some are implemented. In thissection, we revisit the concepts of shaping, maintaining, and usingcollections of ideas in the context of business organizations in orderto discuss how the curatorial metaphor might better connect creativityto the needs of downstream innovation processes.

3.1. Shaping organizational idea collections

Although it is often assumed that one should always seek the mostcreative ideas, a curatorial view reveals that such a “Top 40” strategycan lead to being overwhelmed by too many diverse masterpiecesthat can work against the development of a focused narrative(Rugoff, 2006). In the museum world, having more masterworks ina collection beyond a certain threshold might not increase visitorsor otherwise affect how the collection is used. In firms, highly novelideas are, by definition, different and recent research has shown thatthere can be a bias against creativity (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo,2012). For many organizational purposes, a collection of ideas thatare very, very different from one another and from the status quo(even if, hypothetically, all were very useful ideas) might be toomuch for managers taskedwith achieving short-term financial targetsandmeeting customer needs. Considered from an inter-organizationalperspective, creative ideas sourced across boundaries may be evenmore vexing as inputs to innovation processes because they are sodifferent from one another in their knowledge perspectives (Boland &Tenkasi, 1995). Likewise, what is termed useful may vary dramaticallyacross inter-organizational boundaries. Yet, if pursuit of collectingmore of the “most creative” ideas is not always ideal, what kinds ofideas should be sought?

A curatorial view of organizational idea generation suggests thatfirms should pursue collections of ideas that approximate the balanceand/or focus that fits with their resources (e.g., culture, structure, andslack) and strategy. Museum curators have highlighted both the needfor quantity in collections and the need to determinewhat that quantityshould contain (e.g., Temkin, 2010). For example, practices such asGoogle and 3M's sanctioned free time, during which employees workon discretionary projects, appear to embrace the full range of creativevariation. Other firms, such as Apple, seem to restrict the focus of new

109R.C. Litchfield, L.L. Gilson / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

ideas more strongly. This is not to say that firms cannot collect both in-cremental and radical ideas. However, a curatorial view suggests thatmanagers might do well to separate collections of ideas by creativetype (e.g., radical, and incremental) and not only by topical content(e.g., product or market). Toward this end, managers might cultivate,say, a pool of radical ideas that can be tapped to seek big advanceswhen big advances are desired. Likewise, incremental ideas might bepooled together. To see what might be valuable about such a strategy,consider the opposite – where ideas are grouped only according totheir content focus. If ideas are implemented at random from a collec-tion organized by content (e.g., four ideas related to improving a specificproduct), the likelihood that the ideas implemented will match theneed for creativity seems small (cf., Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972). Ofcourse, most people do not think that innovation implementation iscompletely random. Yet, to the extent that ideas are not implementedat random from a collection, the widespread bias against novelty(e.g., Denrell & March, 2001; Ford, 1996; March, 1976; Osborn, 1957)would seem to greatly increase the odds that only incremental ideaswill be chosen. The recent biography of Steve Jobs (Issacson, 2011)highlights how many people he originally approached about investingin Apple who turned him down based on both the radicalness of whathe was trying to do and his physical appearance. In fact, managementat Atari appeared to be much more interested in developing a singleplayer game (incremental and exploitation) rather than the Applecomputer that Jobs was trying to produce.

From a marketing perspective, it is clear that sometimes organiza-tions want the most creative ideas, such as to stay ahead of the nextbig product or to capture critical mass in market share, but at othertimes incremental exploitation is desirable to keep a product lifespangoing, to reach customers who previously did not use the product, orto try and get current customers to purchase more or at a higher pricepoint. A curatorial view might help to ensure that more radical ideasdo not all get either killed or driven underground. Although there canbe benefits to creative deviance in organizations (Mainemelis, 2010),depending on chance and individual risk taking does not seem to offer apath to improve the reliability of innovation (Litchfield & Gentry, 2010).Segmenting collections according to creative type does nothing to guar-antee successful innovation, but it does potentially affect reliability byimproving the match of ideas generated to the type of innovationdesired. We recognize that most firms likely do not score ideas basedon creative type and that it would be very challenging for firms toconduct such sorting without screening out ideas that are deemed lowin usefulness in their initial scoring; yet an essential message of thecuratorial metaphor is that it is important to understand the creativeprofile of ideas and to delay ultimate judgment in order to maximizethe benefits of idea generation.

Thinking of collections of ideas through a curatorial lens alsomight aid in connecting discussions of reliability to an understandingof risk. Cultural institutions that actively collect are regularly confrontedwith both conceptual and physical consequences associated withassessing creative potential (Temkin, 2010). Alfred Barr, founder ofMoMA, articulated a goal of 10% success in choosing art of the presentfor inclusion in the collection (Temkin, 2010). Managers need to realizethat the size of idea collections required depends in part on the type ofcreativity desired. In particular, when managers want more radicalcreativity, they will generally need to collect more ideas because highlynovel ideas are likely to be more difficult to obtain (Ford, 1996; March,1976; Osborn, 1957). Furthermore, for more novel ideas different con-stituencies might need to be tapped. Work by Shalley and colleaguessuggests that creativity is required in any job (2000), and linked withAmabile's (1988) componential theory of creativity this would meanthat creative ideas can emanate from anywhere and everywhere in anorganization and beyond. Given that there are many individual andgroup contextual factors necessary for creativity to ensue, it is thereforelikely that incremental ideas can and should be sourced from through-out the organization as well as from plausible outside sources. But,

careful attention needs to be given to the sources of more exploratoryideas and ensuring the context is such that the search for these typesof ideas is supported (Gilson, Lim, D'Innocenzo, &Moye, 2012). Further,as stated above, even collections that aim for more radical creativity arenot likely to contain many exemplars of it.

Once a desired focus is established,managersmustwork on buildingtheir collections of ideas. Just as museums struggle to source works fortheir collections by cultivating a variety of networks, managers mustgive careful consideration to who is invited to contribute and howthose contributions are to be motivated. These concerns relate to boththe type of creativity and the type of content of the ideas desired.Hence, it might be important for idea contributors to be diverse insome respects (e.g., functional specialization) in order to make surethat one has a collection of ideas of the desired creative type thatspans, say, sculpture, painting, and photography. In their unusualstudy of idea generation and its links to innovation at the engineering-consulting firm IDEO, Sutton and Hargadon (1996) observed that thefirm took great care in its decisions about staffing idea generation. Byinformally tracking individuals' contributions to ideation efforts andformally archiving past projects, the firm signaled that it valued an“attitude of wisdom” and that individuals would earn status by contrib-uting the right types of creative ideas (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996).Although these goals were not necessarily formally stated at IDEO,other research shows that even relatively general cues to provide con-textually appropriate creativity can be effective.

Shalley (1991) found that providing individuals with a creativitygoal enhanced the creative outputs they achieved. Further, researchon radical and incremental creativity suggests that different assort-ments of individual and contextual variables such as openness to ex-perience, extrinsic or intrinsic motivation, risk propensity, networksize, strength, and diversity, and the targets of psychological bondscan differentially influence the type of creative production (Baer,2010; Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Madjar et al., 2011). More recently,Gilson et al. (2012) examined different motivational antecedents tocreativity finding that supportive supervision facilitates incrementalcreativity and that whereas intrinsic motivation was more stronglyrelated to radical creativity, for extrinsic rewards the relationshipwas the reversed. Because these variables are potentially selectableor implementable in a context, managers may be able to use themto shape idea collections. In this vein, laboratory research providesinitial evidence for the possibility of shaping by showing that it is pos-sible to assign goals to increase the novelty component of creativity ina collection of ideas separately from usefulness (Litchfield, Fan, &Brown, 2011).

3.2. Maintaining idea collections

Managers of ideas need not devote the same attention to physicalstorage and conservation required in museums. Yet, collections ofideas still requiremaintenance if they are to be of use. One particularlyvexing problem in this regard is the need to appropriately categorizecollections according to their contents. Obviously, collections ofideas are of little use if nobody knows what they contain. However,unlike in a museum, the phrase “collections of ideas” may or maynot imply centralized storage and responsibility in firms. For instance,even though IDEO did maintain archives of solutions developed inprior consulting and its offices were littered with physical specimensof different types of creative products (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996), itsmain modus operandi for maintaining idea collections was cultural(Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). Specifically, all IDEO designers acquireda variety of exposure to different industries and problems, and theywere encouraged to cross-pollinate ideas from these experiencesinto new contexts by sharing their expertise widely, seeking outothers with different and relevant expertise, and applying previoussolutions to new work (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). Thus, while noth-ing prohibits the use of IT tools or centralized knowledgemanagement

110 R.C. Litchfield, L.L. Gilson / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

practices in maintaining collections of ideas, IDEO shows that distrib-uted and informal knowledge management routines can work well insome firms.

An interesting adjunct to the implications of informal mainte-nance of idea collections is the need to maintain idea generators.Museum curators in contemporary art contexts (i.e., where artistsare largely still living) have previously observed the need to nurtureand protect those who promote novel ideas in a society that oftendoes not understand or support novelty (Halbreich, 2010). Managersmay find that even keeping contacts current and available can be achallenge in firms where ideas for business-market solutions are gen-erated across firm boundaries. People change jobs, responsibilities,and firms, and periodic testing of networks may be needed to ensuretheir viability from both directions. People who generate novel ideasfor outsiders might not be appreciated at home, and managers mightprovide a source of supportive leadership across organizationalboundaries for good sources. To succeed over the longer term, ideaproduction networks need to be seen as viable by both producingmembers and the network managers.

An important part of maintaining collections of ideas is to jettisonpoor ones. Althoughmany ideas will remain poor ones in perpetuity, acuratorial metaphor invokes the reluctance of museums to deacces-sion work on the grounds that it is often hard to know when to saythat an idea is bad (Temkin, 2010). Assessment problems may beless serious in firms in the sense that many implementation decisionseffectively create path dependence effects that basically doom wholesets of ideas not chosen to obsolescence (for review, see Sydow,Schreyogg, & Koch, 2009). Political or cultural conflict in firms mayrender some other ideas permanently low in value (Van de Ven,1986). Put differently, assessments about cultural objects may bemore open to revision or, at least if revision does occur, more poten-tially implementable in the future compared to ideas in organizationalcollections.

That said, collections of ideas in firms still require maintenanceand protection to survive. The issue of time might be crucial in thatwhat appears to be too challenging an idea in today's marketplacemay become common place in a very short period of time, for examplethe desk top computer thatwent from being a geek hobbyist gadget to astaple in almost every home in the developedworld (Issacson, 2011). Intheorizing creative deviance, Mainemelis (2010) detailedmanyways inwhich creative ideas can be suppressed, surreptitiously nurtured, andrevived. One key technique is inconsistent punishment of those whoengage in creative deviance in order to allow some such activity to goon. But, to the extent that managers want to collect novel ideas toincrease their future choices for more radical creativity, other actionsmay be needed. One possibility is to deploy power to improve the firm'scapability to adopt other perspectives (Litchfield & Gentry, 2010). Suchactivities might normalize a broader set of ideas, protecting them frombeing destroyed too soon (cf., Denrell & March, 2001). This type of ap-proach might work to improve a firm's ability to collect at least someideas that go beyond the incremental. When extremely radical ideasare desired, firms will likely still want to segregate their generationfrom immediate scrutiny by exploitation-based systems (Benner &Tushman, 2003).

3.3. Using creative ideas: A link to innovation

Ideas, like collections of art, are developed and maintained so thatat some stage, they can be used. As described by George (2007),creativity is recognized as “a critical means by which organizationsand their members can create meaningful, lasting value for theirmultiple stakeholders in today's dynamically changing environment”(p. 439). To realize this value, creative ideas and approaches to workmust be converted into innovation—the implementation of new prod-ucts or procedures that benefit the individual, group, organization, orwider society (West & Farr, 1990; Yuan & Woodman, 2010).

Although collections of ideas are a necessary first step towardhaving candidates for implementation, as described above care needsto be taken in the shaping and maintaining of collections, especiallyby paying attention to the type of creativity they contain. In addition,while creativity and innovation are often discussed in tandem withone another, innovation considers expectations regarding power, com-mercialization, and perceived need for change (Damanpour, 1991; Vande Ven, Angle, & Poole, 1989) that are not part of the operational defini-tion of creative idea generation. Here, a curatorial metaphor providesa nice bridge between the creativity and innovation literaturessuggesting that collections themselves might be the subjects of study.For managers, examining and understanding the creative profiles ofidea collections should yield insight about the types of ideas the organi-zation generates, when, by whom, and under what contextual factors.This level of in-depth thinking about idea collections is akin to thework of curators who need to examine their collections for insightsabout the production of artistic groups, time periods, etc. Furthermore,in both instances, understanding what resides in a collection will becritical for usage. As with neglected artworks, ideas that are storedsomewhere and forgotten are never going to be of use. We posit thatfor researchers, studying collections of ideas might lead to new insightsabout the likelihood of different types of creativity being implemented.Understanding ideas as collections and what gives rise to patterns ofcreative ideas might reveal how to better match idea generation to thelikelihood that creative ideas will progress to innovation, but also whatkinds of “misfires” (i.e., generations of the “wrong” type of creativity)are most likely in different types of collections.

Collections of ideas might become fuel for efforts at “problem-finding.” Unsworth (2001) theorized creativity in terms of thematch between problem “openness” (i.e., the degree to which ideasare needed to identify issues in the first place) and motivation, yetempirical research has yet to fully address her ideas. Like curators,managers might sometimes use idea collections to spark newdirectionsthat are not yet identified within a particular market opportunity orarea of concern. Theoretical work in the innovation literature hasexplored how large organizations can foster multiple teams all workingon new products at the same time by considering team play as a neces-sary boundary (Dougherty & Takas, 2004). This notion of play as fun,interactive, and heedful also may provide a means to better deal withthe fear of uncertainty that can result in a bias against creativity(Mueller et al., 2012) although uncertainty has also been shown tospur a search for creative ideas (Audia & Goncalo, 2007).

Managers also might use collections of ideas to construct narrativesabout the type of innovation desired. For instance, collections can bepromoted as exemplars of capability (i.e., “these are the types of ideaswe generate around here”). In professional services firms, such promo-tionsmight lead to increased revenue (Sutton &Hargadon, 1996). How-ever, other types of firms might also reinforce and refine cultures ofinnovation by promoting idea collections. When business market rela-tionships cross firm boundaries, promoting collections to some extentbetween firmsmight communicate trust and open innovation conceptsto suppliers, customers, or other partners.

A curatorial metaphor suggests the possibility of using older collec-tions of ideas for resampling to solve new problems in fast-movingmarkets without having to start from scratch. Although research hassuggested that collections of ideas will not become widespread targetsof formal resampling efforts (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Majchrzak,Cooper, & Neece, 2004), the existence of well-maintained collectionsmay allow for ideas that were written off at an initial point in time tobe reconsidered later.Wewant to note here that ideasmight bewrittenoff as too novel because they are not feasible however, over time thecriteria for judging both novelty and feasibility changes and thus, sotoo might the value of ideas. In museums, collections of artifacts areresampled to understand and highlight ideas that were once deemedunimportant or too avant-garde. Alterations to the presentation ofworks from the permanent collection inNewYork'sMuseumofModern

111R.C. Litchfield, L.L. Gilson / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

Art (MoMA) illustrate how such resamplings can affect a long-dominant narrative (Loos, 2009). Likewise, the collaboration betweenthe British Museum and the BBC to present “A History of the World in100 Objects,” constitutes resampling aimed at reviving ideas and focus-ing on reaching new audiences (Hoyle, 2009). The use of resampling torevive also addresses the phenomenon of “newness” as distinct fromnovelty. Although it is obvious that not all newly generated ideasare novel, the reverse is often forgotten. When an idea is revivedand used, it might be acknowledged as novel even though it is not“new.” This may not be a trivial issue in a world where managementexhibits some degree of esthetic, fashion-based preference for ideas(Abrahamson, 1996). A curatorial perspective highlights the potentialrole of “old” collections of ideas in developing future creative insight.

4. Discussion

Creativity is considered an integral means by which firms cansustain and develop competitive positions. Using a curatorialmetaphor,we have discussed organizing for creativity in open, networked, orother boundary-spanning contexts as a process of shaping,maintaining,and using collections of ideas. The curatorial view presented here isintended to broaden our thinking about some of the many challengesassociated with identifying and managing creative ideas as inputs forfuture usage-innovation.

A curatorial perspective highlights the importance of boundaries,networks, working with others, and collections. Although museumsand private collectors have always existed in a somewhat symbioticrelationship, many in the art world have remarked upon the impor-tance of networks in a world where the market prices have sooutstripped the ability to pay, and where collectors harbor dreams ofestablishing a legacy (e.g., Deitch, 2010). Thus, in one sense, networksare important in building bridges between collections of ideas. Suchbridging activities help would-be curators to visualize how both indi-vidual ideas and independent collections might relate to one another.Organizational research and theory have addressed idea generation increative networks (e.g., Baer, 2010; Burt, 2004; Perry-Smith & Shalley,2003), but a curatorial view might still add to this body of work. Forinstance, changes in usefulness screens necessitate changes incollecting practices that can be facilitated by networks. Consider thecase of Kathy Halbreich, former director of Minneapolis's Walker ArtCenter, who worked in the 1990s to develop art collections for audi-ences of color. Halbreich (2010) noted that a huge commitment isneeded to developing networks between curators and idea producers(in her case, artists) to realize collections that will meet new defini-tions of usefulness. Curating may require a central network position(Burt, 2004; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003), but it surely reaches beyondthis characterization. In a world where our bias against novelty caneasily extend to its producers (Halbreich, 2010), a curatorial view sug-gests that an important aspect of building and maintaining collectionsof ideas involves attention to the collection of idea generators.

Finally, a curatorial view suggests the existence of a curatorial role.Although generally beyond the scope of this paper, questions in thisarea might bring idea generation into contact with broader researchon knowledge management (for a review, see Alavi & Leidner, 2001).One way to construe a curatorial role is as a requirement of the profes-sional knowledge manager; for example a museum curator chargedwith conserving collections. Another way to operationalize a curatorialrole is as a joint function of knowledgeworkers. Artists who collectivelycurate their own exhibitions might serve as such an example. A thirdconstrual involves line managers, as in the case of museum directorsand their involvement in building and championing collections. In theart world, many active and influential curators have lived their careersoutside of formal institutional roles, and these individuals have oftencautioned against attaching the curatorial function too tightly to organi-zational structures (see interviews with Walter Hopps and HaraldSzeemann, collected in Obrist, 2011). Perhaps some form of consultants

or independent consortia are suggested by this vision. Indeed, onemight imagine that idea generation efforts across firm boundarieswould achieve greater credibility in some ways (e.g., with regard toconcerns about ownership of ideas) if unaffiliated curators can befound. Future research might more strongly link creativity and knowl-edge management by pursuing questions related to these issues.

Initiation, management, and integration of creative processes andideas across and within organizational boundaries are areas of greatinterest to academics and practitioners. Our goal with this work isto show how applying a curatorial metaphor advances our thinkingabout the management of creative idea collections. As with collec-tions of art, ideas need to be generated, maintained, and used.Mismanagement of any part of this process might be detrimentalfor performance. Given the importance of creativity in businessmarket relationships, we hope that the systematic approach providedby our curatorial metaphor will be of use to both researchers andmanagers in their work to organize the often chaotic yet ultimatelycrucial work of generating creative ideas.

References

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21,254–285.

Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. (2008). Doing versus seeing: Acts of exploitation and perceptionsof exploration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 43–52.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge manage-ment systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25,107–136.

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure.Academy of Management Review, 2, 217–230.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). Amodel of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw, &L. L. Cumming (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10. (pp. 123–167)Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovationresearch: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.

Audia, P., & Goncalo, J. (2007). Past success and creativity over time: A study of inventorsin the hard disk drive industry.Management Science, 53, 1–15.

Baer, M. (2010). The strength of weak ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensiveexamination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 592–601.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process manage-ment: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28,238–256.

Boehm, M. (2010, January 12). L.A.'s MOCA picks art dealer Jeffrey Deitch as director. LosAngeles Times online edition. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/12/entertainment/la-et-deitch-moca12-2010jan12.

Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking incommunities of knowing. Organization Science, 6, 350–372.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology,110, 349–399.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as inother knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.

Carlile, P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects innew product development. Organization Science, 13, 442–455.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizationalchoice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing,and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32,761–773.

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in largefirms. Organization Science, 3, 179–202.

D'Harnoncourt, A. (2011). Interview. In H. U. Obrist (Ed.), A brief history of curating(pp. 168–195). Zurich: JRP.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of deter-minants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.

Deitch, J. (2010). Comments in special section on the museum revisited.Artforum (RetrievedFebruary 1, 2012 from http://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201006&id=25688)

Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stoveeffect. Organization Science, 12, 523–538.

Dougherty, D., & Takas, H. (2004). Heedful interrelating in innovative organizations:Team play as the boundary for work and strategy. Long Range Planning, 37, 569–590.

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.

Fosfuri, A., & Roende, T. (2009). Leveraging resistance to change and the skunk worksmodel of innovation. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 72, 274–289.

George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1,439–477.

Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative? In C. Shalley, & J. Zhou (Eds.), Handbook oforganizational creativity (pp. 303–322). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

112 R.C. Litchfield, L.L. Gilson / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 106–112

Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., D'Innocenzo, L., & Moye, N. (2012). One size does not fit all:Managing for radical and incremental creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior,46, 169–193.

Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents andprocesses. The Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 21–28.

Golden, T., & Ligon, G. (2006). With our faces to the rising sun. In P. Marincola (Ed.),What makes a great exhibition? (pp. 62–75). Philadelphia, PA: PhiladelphiaExhibitions Initiative.

Graham, B., & Cook, S. (2010). Rethinking curating: Art after new media. Cambridge: MITPress.

Halbreich, K. (2010). Comments in special section on the museum revisited. Artforum (Re-trieved February 1, 2012 fromhttp://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201006&id=25687)

Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B. (2006). When collections of creatives become creativecollective – A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17,484–500.

Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a productdevelopment firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.

Hoyle, B. (2009). British Museum and BBC reveal history of the world in 100 objects. TheTimes (Retrieved January 15, 2011 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk)

Issacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. NY: Simon & Schuster.Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation,

exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedentsand environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674.

Kastner, J. (2010). New foundations. Artforum online (http://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201006&id=25704)

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of

Management Review, 33, 649–668.Litchfield, R. C., Fan, J., & Brown, V. R. (2011). Directing idea generation using brain-

storming with specific novelty goals. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 135–143.Litchfield, R., & Gentry, R. J. (2010). Perspective-taking as an organizational capability.

Strategic Organization, 8(3), 187–205.Loos, T. (2009). At MOMA, ‘permanent’ learns to be flexible. The New York Times, October

25: AR24.Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental

creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,730–743.

Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L. P., & Neece, O. E. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation.Management Science, 50, 174–188.

Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas.Academy of Management Review, 35, 558–578.

March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. OrganizationalScience, 2, 71–87.

March, J. G. (1976). The technology of foolishness. In J. G. March, & J. P. Olsen (Eds.),Ambiguity and choice in organizations (pp. 69–81). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variationin managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formalstructural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828.

Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Whypeople desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. OrganizationScience, 5, 14–37.

Obrist, H. U. (2011). A brief history of curating. Zurich: JRP.Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner's.Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and

dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89–106.Pobocha, P. (2010). Ab Ex NY: Rethinking the display of the permanent collection.

http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2010/10/13/ab-ex-ny-rethinking-the-display-of-the-permanent-collection

Pogrebin, R. (2011, January 26). The permanent collection might not be so permanent.The New York Times online edition http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/arts/design/27sell.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

Rugoff, R. (2006). You talking to me? On curating group shows that give you a chanceto join the group. In P. Marincola (Ed.), What makes a great exhibition? (pp. 44–51).Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiative.

Schaffner, I. (2006). Wall text. In P. Marincola (Ed.), What makes a great exhibition?(pp. 154–167). Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiative.

Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discre-tion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextualcharacteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,30, 933–958.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: Theintegration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin,129, 475–494.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 3, 83–100.

Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in aproduct design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.

Sydow, J., Schreyogg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Openingthe black box. Academy of Management Review, 34, 689–709.

Szeemann, H. (2011). Interview. In H. U. Obrist (Ed.), A brief history of curating(pp. 81–100). Zurich: JRP.

Temkin, A. (2010). Comments in special section on the museum revisited. Artforum(pp. 312–313).

Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 26,289–297.

Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financialperformance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30,221–231.

Van deVen, A.H. (1986). Central problems in themanagement of innovation.ManagementScience, 32, 590–607.

Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Research on the management ofinnovation: The Minnesota studies. New York: Ballinger/Harper & Row.

Van Dijk, C., & Van den Ende, J. (2002). Suggestion systems: Transferring employeecreativity into practicable ideas. R & D Management, 32, 387–395.

vonHippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. ManagementScience, 32, 791–805.

Walter, A., Parboteeah, K. P., Riesenhuber, F., & Hoegl, M. (2011). Championship behaviorsand innovations success: An empirical investigation of university spin-offs. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, 28, 586–598.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model ofcreativity and innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 51, 355-38.

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological andorganizational strategies. New York: Wiley.

Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role ofperformance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal,53, 323–342.

Robert C. Litchfield (rlitchfield@washjeff.edu) is an associate professor of managementin the Department of Economics & Business at Washington & Jefferson College. Hereceived his Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from The Ohio State University.His current research focuses on creativity, innovation and psychological underpinnings ofmanagement interventions.

Lucy L. Gilson (lgilson@business.uconn.edu) is an associate professor of managementat the University of Connecticut. She received her Ph.D. from Georgia Tech. Lucy'sresearch focuses on creativity, innovation and teams. Specifically, across organizationalsettings and diverse jobs, how do creativity, employee empowerment, diversity,leadership, and virtual communication influence effectiveness.