Institute
of Innovation- and Environmental
Management, University of Graz, Universitaetsstrasse 15, A-8010 Graz,
Austria, gerald.steiner@uni-graz.at
The
creative performance capability within organizations depends on a
comprehensive set of influencing factors such as personality traits and
also –
and this is the main focus of this paper – the design of the
problem-solving
process and the prevailing innovative climate. Furthermore, the
question must
be asked how to support the creation of ideas at an individual,
organizational,
and inter-organizational level in general. Here, the ability to
generate ideas
strongly depends on the creative capabilities of the involved entities.
In
order to organize this complex system of creatively generating ideas,
the “Planetary Model” is introduced. Different to most other models
used for
explaining creative processes, this model takes into account the
dynamic
interaction of such systems. Therefore, the understanding of the
complex
real-life process of creative problem-solving can better be understood.
By
combining this model with the various single stages of a sequential
innovation
process that can easily be translated into specific working steps, the
project
related performance can be improved by simultaneously providing for
positive
organizational effects in the long run, probably also leading to
sustainable
innovation.
Key Words:
Creativity management,
collaborative problem-solving, Planetary Model, change, knowledge,
sustainable
innovation, wisdom, complex problems, systems thinking
Creativity
is a prerequisite for the generation of innovation and is
even of increasing interest when moving from incremental to radical
innovation.
In section two, creativity is considered in the context of knowledge
and
sustainability. Further, the role of creativity for innovation is
briefly
discussed and the question is asked: what kind of problems call for
creativity
or creative problem-solving processes? Consequently, in section three
the
various organizational forms of creativity are discussed. In order to
understand the complexity of creative problem-solving, the Planetary
Model is
introduced in section four in order to point out determining as well as
influencing factors of creative problem-solving processes. In a next
step
within section five the application of the Planetary Model within the
innovation process is presented. Section six shows selected results of
an
empirical study on creative problem-solving within the Austrian and
German
industrial design branch. Finally, conclusions in regard to the
question as to
how prevailing shortcomings in the ability of many companies in
utilizing their
inherent creative capabilities can be overcome will round off this
paper.
It
is characteristic of creative problem-solving that there is usually a
broad set of options available for generating appropriate solutions.
Further,
in most cases there is only very limited understanding about the
potential
implications of a sustainability orientation with regard to the
creation and
the management of knowledge and innovation.
Creativity
and creative problem-solving are always focused on the
generation of solutions and ideas (for the differences between a
solution and
an idea see section four in this paper) and consequently on the
creation of
knowledge. Hereby, it needs to be stressed that the creative
problem-solving
process is by no means restricted to problems presented to the
problem-solving
agents. Instead, it is a characteristic of highly creative
organizations and
individuals that they continuously not only work on, but also search
for new
problems. Based on Popper’s words “All life is problem solving”
(Popper, 1999)
this extension is fruitful certainly also for creative problem-solving
processes.
Knowledge
seems to be a prerequisite for all kinds of sustainable
competitive advantages (Nonaka, Konno and Toyama, 2001; Drucker, 1993;
Teece,
Pisano and Shuen, 1997). As Nonaka et al. (2001) already pointed out,
knowledge
itself is dynamic and therefore cannot defined based on a traditional
epistemological view that defines knowledge as “justified true belief”.
Despite
this “absolute, static, and nonhuman view of knowledge” they address
that
knowledge is context-specific, relational, humanistic, dynamically
created in
social interactions, and is of either an explicit or implicit kind.
Further,
knowledge is distinctive from information. While the second can be
considered
as a flow of messages, the first is “created by that very flow of
information
and is anchored in the beliefs and commitment of its holder” and can be
defined
as “a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the
truth”.
Change
has become the determining factor of most facets of life.
Further, creativity is the basis of every successful innovation as the
means to
cope with change (Peters, 1993, 44; Amabile, 1997, 40; Utterback, 1994;
Ulrich,
1994, 7–14; Ford and Gioia, 1996, 878). Moreover, innovation can –
under
certain circumstances (described in the following paragraph) – also be
supportive of the sustainable development of social, natural, and
technical
systems. As already stated at the beginning of this paper, it seems to
be
obvious that the more creativity is needed the higher the degree of
innovativeness is, or in different words, radical innovations require
more
creativity than incremental ones (for further detailed distinctions
between
incremental and radical innovation, see for example Christensen (2000)
and
Christensen and Overdorf (2001, 103–130).
Innovation
that contributes to sustainable development will be
considered in the following as sustainable innovation. In more detail,
sustainable innovation is innovation that is sustainable from an
ethical, a
social, an ecological, and an economic point of view.[1]
Whereas the attainment of economically sustainable
innovation seems obvious and can simultaneously be considered as
sustainable
competitiveness, the other facets of sustainability seem to be much
more
critical: Since within complex problem-solving people are of crucial
interest,
I only want to discuss the implications of socially sustainable
innovation
briefly: Whereas socially sustainable development in general is
characterized
by dynamic patterns, it is increasingly complex with regard to the
development
of innovation. Innovation is not only standing for the development of
new and
more appropriate solutions, but also may imply – to some degree – the
destruction of former solutions (Schumpeter, 1980). However, these
former
solutions stand in close relation to people, such as its users or
creators.
Accordingly, it seems necessary to build awareness for such diverse
effects on
different stakeholder groups and not only make decisions based on a
majority
principle, but on intense communication and interaction in order to
attain
consensus if possible. For that purpose an extensive stakeholder
analysis is
the needed basis:
It
must be stated that creativity not only led to some of the beneficial
developments of social, natural, and technical systems, but also to
some of the
most disastrous. This fact calls for an extended perspective of
creative
performances by taking into account social and ethical considerations.
Talking
about innovation, these considerations should not be only applied
shortly
before their implementation into the market, but already at the
fundamentals of
creativity, within definitions and models of creativity by integrating
a
holistically sustainability perspective!
With
respect to this important topic the extraordinary contribution of
Sternberg (2003) as a major scholar in the field of creativity and
intelligence
research should be mentioned in particular. He points out that some of
the
world’s cruelest despots and greediest business tycoons can be
considered as
successfully intelligent, but at the expense of many other people.
Therefore,
besides intelligence and creativity it is wisdom that especially needs
to be
considered. Wisdom can be understood as “the value-laden application of
tacit
knowledge not only for one’s own benefit but also for the benefit of
others, in
order to attain a common good”. Further, Sternberg states, “The wise
person
realizes that what matters is not just knowledge, or the intellectual
skills
one applies to this knowledge, but how the knowledge is used”. For a
detailed
review of major approaches to wisdom – from philosophical approaches
and
implicit-theoretical approaches to explicit-theoretical approaches –
see Baltes
and Staudinger (2000) and Sternberg (2000; 2003).
As
a complex problem the development of innovations and specifically
sustainable innovations can be characterized by the following system’s
peculiarities. It is typical for those problems that not only the
target state
of the problem-solving process is unknown or at least ambiguous, even
the
system’s initial state cannot precisely be described (similar to the
definition
of ill-defined problems by Scholz and Tietje (2002, 26-27). Further
characteristics of complex problems are the huge amount of interacting
elements
and subsystems in conjunction with high dynamics of the system leading
to
changing patterns and structures as well as intensities over time
(Gomez and
Probst, 1999, 22-24).
In
contrast to complex problems, for simple problems the initial and the
target state of the investigated system are well known. Additionally,
such
systems consist of only a small amount of elements with little
interaction, but
stable patterns over time (Gomez and Probst, 1999, 11–33).
Consequently, this
kind of problem can be solved by applying reproductive thinking without
any
specific or at most relatively simple methods.
Complicated
problems are similar to simple problems characterized by
defined initial and target states, but consist of comparatively more
elements
and with more interaction. In contrast to complex problems the patterns
are
still relatively stable over time. In order to solve those problems,
more
sophisticated methods are needed, although different to complex
problems the
problem is still of deterministic nature (Gomez and Probst, 1999,
11–33).
The
development of an innovation is always heavily influenced by a wide
variety of impact factors that are not controlled or even not known by
the
innovator. Especially the overall target of an ethically, socially,
ecologically, and economically sustainable development of any system is
quite
vague, so that there is definitely no clear target state to aim at. We
are
confronted with a highly complex situation with dynamic, non-linear
phenomena.
Therefore, understanding the complex relations between humankind and
nature is
a prerequisite for overcoming cognitive barriers (Scholz et al. 1998,
16).
Because
of their specific characteristics complex problems usually
cannot be solved by applying standard solutions (which are nevertheless
useful
for simple and complicated problems).
Instead, complex problem ask for innovative solutions,
which require
creative problem-solving capabilities from the problem-solving agents.
In this
work the “Planetary Model” is used as a basis for dealing with the
complexity
of sustainable innovation by utilizing the given creative capabilities.
First,
in order to generate creative solutions for complex systems, a
more holistic system’s view is required instead of specializing on ever
smaller
system’s units. Authors such as Probst, Raub and Romhardt (1999, 187)
stress
that complex problems cannot be solved by mono-causal thinking within
linear
cause-effect relations, but instead require holistic systems thinking
or a
socio-cybernetics point of view (von Bertalanffy, 1998; Wiener, 1948;
Forrester, 1961; Ulrich, 1968; von Foerster and von Glasersfeld,
(1999); Probst
and Gomez, 1991; Gomez and Probst, 1999; Mulej, 1995). Additionally,
besides
rational and convergent thinking the dynamics of such systems with
permanently
changing patterns require the development of new and creative
approaches for
solving these complex problems with an extension to teamwork,
organizational,
and inter-organizational problem-solving processes. Informal systems
thinking
and the dialectical systems theory proposed by Mulej might therefore be
very
useful to avoid getting lost or otherwise being too restrictive or too
specific
when working on complex problems (Mulej et al. 2004; Mulej et al. 2003).
In
order to enhance the overall creative abilities within a system it
seems necessary to enlarge the view of the creative individual by also
taking
into account the various organizational levels of creativity. Those can
be
divided into:
By
focusing on an individual, the creative performance can be understood
as a function of attention, intrinsic motivation, time, and knowledge
(see
equation (1)) (Steiner, 2006).
CP(Ind.)= f(A, Mi, T, K)
CP(Ind.)..................... Creative Performance of the
individual
A................................ Attention
MI.............................. Intrinsic Motivation
T................................ Time
K................................
Knowledge
The
peculiarities of theses single
factors of the individual creative performance are:
By
going a step further, within a collaborative problem-solving process
such as a group or an organization, the overall creativity is much
harder to
determine, since it cannot be assumed that this is just the sum of the
single
individual performances, but instead synergies might allow creative
solutions
to emerge that are the result of associative thinking among different
people
with different backgrounds, different experiences, different value
systems, and
different expectations (Steiner, 2006; Risopoulos, Posch and Steiner,
2004).
Figure
1: Levels of
Creativity
Having
the focus on corporations, in addition to these structural
considerations on creativity, it is also necessary to distinguish
between
internal and external creative capabilities. Here, internal creativity
refers
to the creative capabilities of the internal stakeholders of the
organization –
individuals and also groups – such as employees and stockholders. On
the other
hand, external creativity is standing for the creative capabilities of
those
individuals, groups, and organizations that contribute to defined
projects with
their creative capabilities as non-members of the considered
organization.
As
a consequence, it also must be asked how the interplay between
internal and external creativity can be best designed. In order to
constructively and synergistically include external creativity within
the
organization, the crucial roles of a common and “understandable”
language,
complementary value systems and personality profiles, and clearly
defined
competences become obvious. This is especially true because of the
sensitivity
of most creative problem-solving processes.
The
Planetary Model can roughly be divided into three dimensions: In the
middle of the Planetary Model there is the sun, standing for the
solutions and
ideas generated within the problem-solving process. Whereas both
solutions and
ideas are outcomes of the creative problem-solving process, solutions
are
directly connected to a certain problem and an idea has no obvious
relation to
the problem one was working on. The sun is surrounded by the planets,
which
stand for the various phases of the creative problem-solving process.
The sun
and all the planets are embedded within cosmic clouds, standing for the
needed
thinking styles and competences, as well as the innovative climate
together
(see figure 2).
Figure
2: Planetary
Model: A Dynamic Creativity Management Model for Solving Complex
Problems
(modified on the basis of Steiner, 2003; Steiner, 2006)
Since
the whole system is strongly interconnected, the planets can
neither be seen in isolation from each other nor as isolated from the
influence
of the rest of the cosmos. They are continuously interacting. These
interdependences also lead to permanently changing pattern. Circularity
instead
of linearity becomes the determining element.
By
focusing on the single planets, it becomes obvious that each planet
itself stands for another more detailed micro-cosmos, in which single
moons (as
subsystems of the single planets) are surrounding the planets in a
dynamically
interacting way. Moreover, the moons are influenced by the other
planets and
the cosmic clouds as well (see figure 3).
Figure
3: Planetary
Model: the planets with their moons
The
planet “Problem finding” is surrounded by the moons “Cognition of
problems”, “Creation of problems”, “Problem analysis”, and “Problem
classification”. The planet “Stakeholder management” is surrounded by
the moons
“Stakeholder identification”, “Stakeholder analysis”, “Stakeholder
classification”, and “Stakeholder action plan”. The planet “Objective
finding”
is surrounded by the moons “Cognition of objectives”, “Creation of
objectives”,
“Adequacy of objectives”, and “Objective classification”. The planet
“Generation of alternatives” is surrounded by the moons “Secondary
analysis”,
“Idea generation”, “Clustering of ideas”, and “Relevance of ideas” (for
a
detailed explanation see Steiner (2006).
Although
the sun includes specific procedures of instrumental evaluation
and selection, in real world scenarios this is only one facet of
evaluation and
selection. Whereas in the context of the sun there is a concentration
on
potential solutions dependent on a generated set of alternatives,
formal as
well as informal evaluation and selection procedures also occur at all
other
planets and moons, whether talking about the interpretation of a
problem, the
construction of goals or the choice of certain creativity techniques
that have
to be applied.
Furthermore,
it seems necessary to broaden the paradigms of many
traditional approaches of innovation management, whereby problems are
often
considered as something given. Within sustainability-oriented change
processes
a shared vision between the various stakeholders acts as a set of
meta-objectives that is usually not something given, instead it very
often has
to be constructed. Additionally, as expressed in the planet “Objective
finding”, cognitive processes play an important role. Hereby, the
planet
"Stakeholder management” is influencing strongly the process of the
creation of a shared vision among the problem-solving agents and other
stakeholders. Consequently, the linearity of cause and effect can no
longer be
assumed. Therefore, the “Planetary Model” can support problem-solving
agents
who are working together with other stakeholders on the complex task of
developing sustainable innovation, including students and teachers
within
certain systems like case studies (e.g. in a regional context)
(concerning case
studies see also Steiner and Laws, 2006).
It
is necessary to stress the importance of combining this model with
other effective tools. The “Planetary Model” is thought to support the
innovators who are working in transdisciplinary teams (Steiner and
Posch, 2006;
Thompson Klein, 2001) towards the development of a sustainable
innovation.
As
shown, the Planetary Model realistically determines how creative
solutions and other ideas are generated within the process of
problem-solving.
Nevertheless, the problem-solving agents need further process
orientation when
working on complex problems. In the following I point out how the
Planetary Model
provides for an understanding of creative processes by simultaneously
giving
orientation by a sequential process order without being confronted with
the
risk of oversimplification. In fact, the Planetary Model could be
combined with
every other sequential process guide. Here, working steps are
introduced that
are especially adequate when working on complex real-world problems.
The
underlying working process is roughly divided into four main
interconnected phases:[2]
Figure
4: Creativity
management within the innovation process
System-analysis
and system-design is used to understand the underlying
system, its main elements and interdependencies, its structure and
patterns of
behavior, its environment and its initial state, together with some
rough ideas
or a rough vision of the target state of the system. Based on the
understanding
of this system within the conceptualization, different variants for
future
developments of the systems or potential solutions for an improvement
of the
underlying system are created by applying all kinds of rational and
creative
means. Within the specification stage it is the goal to choose among
potential
alternatives, reduce them to the most promising ones, and move forward
to more
detailed developments. At the last stage a final selection between the
remaining potential alternatives is the basis for further measures of
implementation of the final outcome of the whole innovation process.
Real-world
innovation processes such as product development processes
require an easily understandable project structure in order to give the
project
team orientation. The danger of reducing a complex system, such as the
underlying creative problem-solving process needed for the creation of
an
innovation, to an easily understandable, interconnected four-stage
working
process that is also easy to communicate lies in the potential of
dangerously
oversimplifying a complex problem and consequently being confronted
with the
negative outcome of having neglected important system peculiarities.
In
order to overcome that potential danger I suggest a two-dimensional
procedure for the working process. Firstly, the four stages of
system-analysis
and system-design, conceptualization, specification, and selection and
implementation are the basis of structuring and guiding the working
process in
the sense of a project management philosophy. Secondly, every stage has
always
to be seen in the context of its implications for the whole
problem-solving
process, expressed within the Planetary Model. That means each stage
always has
to be considered with regard to the problem, the system of objectives,
the
implications for the various stakeholders, and the influence on the
generation
of alternatives in interplay with the needed thinking styles and
competences,
and also in interplay with the innovative climate.
By
going from one stage of the innovation process to the other and
consequently moving along the time-line, the system itself is achieving
increasingly precise, higher concreteness about the target state of the
system.
Potential solutions are attained, together with an improved level of
knowledge,
not only concerning the potential solutions but also with regard to the
gained
process capabilities and experiences.
The
model described here has been applied in various projects within
industrial design, mainly as part of a joint endeavor of the School of
Industrial Design at the University of Applied Sciences in Graz
together with
various companies such as Audi and BMW. The model has also been used in
other
real-world innovation projects done in cooperation with industry and
industrial
design companies (Steiner, 2005; Steiner, Strebel, Jarz and Pfeiffer,
2003).
As
it has been pointed out in this paper, the understanding of the
complex real-life process of creative problem-solving is to be
considered as a
basis for improving the overall creative performance capabilities of an
organization. Therefore, it was suggested to extend innovation models
by using
creativity-related issues, such as the Planetary System for creative
problem-solving.
It
has to be pointed out that in order to better understand innovation
processes, further interdisciplinary research is needed with the focus
on
creative problem-solving processes. Here, specific demand for action is
given
especially with regard to further scientific investigations on the
process of
problem finding, the innovation climate, and collaborative
problem-solving processes.
Concentrating purely on traits approaches or the application of methods
supportive of the generation of creative ideas is far too limited and
only
helps to understand isolated subsystems of the overall system of
organizational
creativity.
Amabile, T.M. (1997). “Motivating Creativity in
Organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do,” California Management Review
40(1):39-58.
Baltes,
P.B., and Staudinger, U.M. (2000). “Wisdom:
A meta-heuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward
excellence,”
American Psychologist 55:122-135.
Christensen, C.M. (2000): The
Innovator’s Dilemma, Harper-Business, New York.
Christensen, C.M., and Overdorf,
M. (2001). “Meeting the Challenge of
Disruptive Change,” in Harvard Business
Review on Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston
MA:103-129.
Drucker,
P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society,
Butterworth Heinemann, London.
Ford,
C.M., and Gioia, D.A. (1996). “Creativity Management,” in International Encyclopedia of Business and
Management, (M. Warner,
ed.), Vol. 1, Routledge, London New York:878-882.
Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial
Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gomez,
P., and Probst, G.J.B. (1999). Die Praxis des
ganzheitlichen Problemlösens.
Vernetzt denken, unternehmerisch handeln, persönlich überzeugen,
Haupt,
Bern et al.
Laws,
D., Scholz, R., Shiroyama, H., Susskind, L.,
Suzuki, T. and Weber, O. (2002). “Expert Views on Sustainability and
Technology
Implementation,” working paper 30, ETH-UNS, Zurich.
Mulej,
M. (1995). “Different International Environments – Different
Initiatives for
Systems Thinking,” Wirtschaftskybernetik
und Systemanalyse. Systemdenken und Globalisierung 18:377-380.
Mulej,
M., Bastic, M., Belak, M., Knez-Riedl, J.,
Mulej, N., Pivka, M., Potocan, V., Rebernik, M. Ursic, D. and Zenko, Z.
(2003).
“Informal Systems Thinking versus Systems Theory,” Cybernetics
and Systems 34(2):71-92.
Mulej,
M., Trninic, V. and Pozdnyakov, V. (2004).
“Support to Creativity as a Precondition of Growth and Innovation in
CEECs,” STIQE 2004 - Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Linking Systems Thinking, Innovation,
Quality,
Entrepreneurship and Environment, (M. Rebernik, and M.
Mulej, eds.),
University of Maribor, Maribor:73-80.
Nonaka, I., Konno,
N. and Toyama, R.
(2001). “Emergence of Ba. A Conceptual Framework for the Continuous and
Self-transcending Process of Knowledge Creation,” in Knowledge
Emergence: Social, Technical and Evolutionary Dimensions of
Knowledge Creation, (I. Nonaka, and T. Nishiguchi, eds.),
Oxford University
Press, New York.
Perman,
R. (1997). Natural Resource and Environmental
Economics, Addison Wesley
Longman, London New York.
Peters, T. (1993). Jenseits der
Hierarchien: Liberation Management, ECON, Düsseldorf
et al.
Popper,
K. (1999). All life is problem solving,
Routledge, London.
Probst,
G.J.B., and Gomez, P. (1991). “Die Methodik des vernetzten Denkens zur
Lösung
komplexer Probleme,“ in Vernetztes Denken.
Ganzheitliches Führen in der Praxis, (G.J.B. Probst, and P.
Gomez, eds.),
Gabler, Wiesbaden, (3-20).
Probst, G.J.B., Raub, S. and Romhardt,
K. (1999). Wissen managen. Wie Unternehmen
ihre wertvollste Ressource optimal
nutzen, Gabler, Frankfurt am Main.
Risopoulos,
F., Posch, A. and Steiner, G. (2004). “Transdisciplinary
Creation of a Shared Vision for
Sustainable Development,” in STIQE 2004 -
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Linking Systems
Thinking,
Innovation, Quality, Entrepreneurship and Environment, (M.
Rebernik, and M.
Mulej eds.), University of Maribor, Maribor:109-117.
Scholz,
R., Mieg, H.A., Weber, O. and Stauffacher,
M. (1998). “Sozio-psychologische
Determinanten nachhaltigen Handelns,“ DISP
133 (Documents and Information on Local, Regional, and
Country Planning in
Switzerland), no. 133:14-21.
Scholz,
R., and Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case
Study Methods, Integrating
Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge, Sage, London et al.
Schumpeter,
J.A. (1980). Kapitalismus, Sozialismus, und
Demokratie, Francke, München:
Steiner,
G. (2003). “Kreativitätsmanagement: Durch Kreativität zur
Innovation,” in Innovations- und
Technologiemanagement, (H. Strebel, ed.), utb, Wien:265-323.
Steiner, G., Strebel, H., Jarz, D. and Pfeiffer,
D. (2003). Vom Kundenbedarf zur
Produktinnovation: Eine empirische Analyse von Designunternehmen in
Österreich
und Bayern. Abschlussbericht des Projekts Innovationen durch Design -
Eine
Analyse der österreichischen Design Branche im Hinblick auf
Innovationspotenzial und Wettbewerbssituation, University of
Graz, Graz.
Steiner,
G. (2006). Kreativitätsmanagement,
Gabler duv, Wiesbaden.
Steiner,
G., and Laws, D. (2006). “From Harvard
Business School to Transdisciplinary Case Studies,” International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
(accepted and in print).
Steiner,
G., and Posch, A. (2006). “Higher
education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case
studies: An
innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems,” Cleaner Production (accepted and in
print).
Sternberg,
J.R. (2000). Intelligence and wisdom. In
J.R. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of
Intelligence (629-647). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg,
J.R. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and
creativity synthesized, Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Strebel,
H. (1997). “Nachhaltige Wirtschaft – Sustainable Development
als Problem einer umweltorientierten Betriebswirtschaftslehre,“ UmweltWirtschaftsForum 2:14-19.
Strebel,
H. (2002). “Möglichkeiten und Grenzen nachhaltiger Wirtschaft
im Unternehmen,“ in Produktion und
Controlling, (F. Keuper, ed.), Gabler, Wiesbaden:105-125.
Teece, D.J., Pisano,
G. and Shuen, A. (1997).
“Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic
Management Journal 18(7):509-533.
Thom, N. (1980). Grundlagen
des betriebswirtschaftlichen Innovationsmanagements, Hanstein, Königstein.
Thompson
Klein, J. (2001). “The Discourse of
Transdisciplinarity: An Expanding Global Field,” in Transdisciplinarity:
joint problem solving among science, technology, and
society: an effective way for managing complexity, (J. Thompson Klein, W.
Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill,
R.W. Scholz and M. Welti, eds.), Birkhäuser, Basel:35-44.
Ulrich,
H. (1968). Die
Unternehmung als produktives soziales System, Haupt, Bern et al.
Ulrich, H. (1994). “Reflexionen über Wandel und Management,“ in Unternehmerischer Wandel. Konzepte zur
organisatorischen Erneuerung, (P. Gomez, P., D. Hahn, G.
Müller-Stewens and
R. Wunderer, eds.), Gabler, Wiesbaden:5-29.
UN
(1992). The
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de
Janeiro.
Utterback, J.M. (1994). Mastering
the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston Massachusetts.
von
Bertalanffy, L., (1998). General
Systems Theory. Foundations, Development,
Applications (12th
printing
and revised edition of the first edition from 1969), George Braziller,
New
York.
von Foerster,
H., and von Glasersfeld,
E. (1999). Wie wir uns erfinden: Eine Autobiographie des
radikalen Konstruktivismus,
Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag, Heidelberg.
Wiener,
N. (1948). Cybernetics
or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine,
MIT Press,
Cambridge.
World
Commission on Environment and Development
(1987). Our common future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford New York.
[1] Sustainability affairs are not going to be
discussed extensively in this paper. For that see WCED, 1987; UN, 1992;
Perman,
1997; Strebel, 2002; Strebel, 1997; Laws et al., 2002; Steiner and
Posch, 2006.
[2] An example of a broadly
applied
three-stage innovation process is the one provided by Thom (1980).