خلاقیت، اعتماد و فرآیندهای سیستماتیک در توسعه محصول

This paper addresses the challenge of striking a balance between, on one hand, mitigating uncertainty through the existence of systematic processes and structures and, on the other, stimulating creativity through allowable variation in work processes and structures. Both objectives are fundamental aspects of product development work. Our main finding is that both objectives can be achieved simultaneously. We introduce trust as a mediating variable. We show first, that being systematic in the processes for obtaining information and applying explicit organizational rules and structures in product development work creates an atmosphere of trust in the organization. Second, we show that trust increases creativity. The paper contributes to an understanding of how and why trust is important in product development organizations and of how trust can be actively managed. Above all, the paper contributes to the understanding of how uncertainty and creativity should be managed in organizations conducting product development.

This paper addresses the balance between mitigating uncertainty and stimulating creativity in product development. Facing the inherent uncertainty in product development work (e.g., Stockstrom and Herstatt, 2008), firms are advised on one hand to decrease variation through systematized processes and structures (e.g., Cooper, 1992) and on the other, they are also advised to increase variation in processes and structures in order to stimulate creativity in product development work (Amabile et al., 1996). Both systematized processes and structures (e.g., Cooper, 1992), and creativity (e.g., Bassett-Jones, 2005) are central aspects of innovation. Achieving both requires balance, as expressed by Clark and Fujimoto (1991, p. 161) “The challenge in product development is not so much unilateral pursuit of organic structure and permissive management style as a subtle balance of control and freedom, precision and flexibility, individualism and teamwork”. At its most general level, this paper argues that there is no inherent tradeoff between being systematic with processes and structures while also stimulating creativity in product development work. More specifically, the paper shows that the process for obtaining information can be systematic and organizational rules and structures can be explicit – while the climate in the organization remains nevertheless creative. The compatibility of these apparent contraries lies in how trust is achieved and managed within organizations. Previous research has modeled trust as an outcome of predictability (e.g., Lewicki and Bunker, 1996), i.e., when the actions of organizational members are perceived as predictable, trust will increase. Systematic processes and structures exist in order to decrease variation and thereby increase predictability. We argue, therefore, that systematic processes and structures will foster trust in an organization. Previous research has identified trust as an important element in product development because it enhances learning and stimulates creativity (Barczak et al., 2010). This paper therefore explores the following research question: can trust function as a mediating variable that, enables firms to combine systematic processes and structure with creativity? We propose and then test the proposition that when goodwill trust is high in an organization, product development activity can benefit from being systematic in processes and structures without crowding out creativity. In doing so, this paper makes four key contributions. First, we show that trust can emerge beyond the simply the scope of individual interaction. More specifically, our study describes how systematic processes and structures contribute to predictability in an organization and thereby foster trust. Second, we show how trust can be actively managed within an organization. We are able to do so by translating the abstract notion of predictable behaviors into the tangible notion of systematic processes and structures. Because processes and structures are the result of active management, the results of this paper imply that trust can also be actively managed. Third, we analyze trust in two dimensions – goodwill trust and competence trust. We argue that whereas goodwill trust and creativity are closely related, competence trust does not necessarily stimulate creativity. This finding complements earlier studies arguing for a relationship between trust and creativity (Bidault and Castello, 2009, Bidault and Castello, 2010 and Chen et al., 2008). Fourth, by introducing trust as a mediating variable, we find that being systematic in processes and structures does not necessarily crowd out creativity. Thereby, we elaborate on previous theoretical suggestions (Feldman and Pentland, 2003 and Gilson et al., 2005) that systematized rules and routines can result in creativity. First – in Section 2 – we outline a conceptual framework that defines the role of trust as a mediating link between being systematic and being creative. In Section 3, we describe and justify the sample and data collection process and the constructs and measures of investigation. In Section 4, we account for the analytical processes applied and for results. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss our findings and their implications for research and practice as well as their limitations.

The main finding from our empirical study is that we provide support for goodwill trust being a mediating variable, enabling firms to combine systematic processes and structures with creativity. As such we can explain why systematic processes and structures does not necessarily crowd out creativity (e.g., Feldman and Pentland, 2003 and Gilson et al., 2005). Our finding is particularly relevant in light of the interest of scholars and managers to understand the fundamental enablers and barriers to successfully mitigate uncertainty and stimulate creativity in product development (e.g., Amabile et al., 1996 and Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Furthermore, we also build on the growing research on the importance of trust in an organizational setting (e.g., Rousseau et al., 1998), in general, and in product development in particular (e.g., Bstieler, 2006, Dayan et al., 2009, Koskinen et al., 2003 and Madhavan and Grover, 1998). Our paper contributes to the understanding of why trust is important and how trust can be actively managed.