The practice of innovation management is developing fast. As new concepts emerge, exploratory studies are needed and case study research is often appropriate. To investigate the usage and quality of case study research in innovation management, all of the articles published in five top journals over 20 years (1997–2016) were reviewed. Case study research accounted for 818 of the published articles in this period (12%) and an evaluation template (termed case study evaluation template: CASET) was developed to objectively assess these articles against 10 quality criteria. It was found that the quality of case study research has often been low, although it has improved over time. Similarly, quality was found to fluctuate both within and between the different innovation journals. This indicates that the peer review process for case study research is not as robust as it should be. The assessment of individual articles using the evaluation template found significant deficiencies. Many articles: did not justify why case study research was appropriate; did not apply theoretical sampling criteria; were not transparent on how conclusions were drawn from the data; did not consider validity and reliability adequately; and did not go beyond description in their interpretation. However, the evaluation template also identified 23 “exemplary studies,” which clearly addressed nearly every criterion. Such exemplary studies provide innovation management researchers with “benchmark” reading, which can help shape their own research. This article makes four contributions to the innovation management discipline. First, the evaluation template and exemplary studies can help innovation researchers improve the quality of their case study research. Second, clear recommendations are given for how reviewers can use the template to make the peer review process more consistent and robust. Third, journal editors are encouraged to consider the implications of the findings for their particular journal. Fourth, the article should stimulate a long overdue debate on methodology in innovation management research, including the use of case study research.

How do companies manage to compete in a marketplace marked by turbulence, and not be outcompeted? In our study we assess the resources used to create resilience in organizations and how each of these resources relates to organizational creativity. We show that organizational resilience is positively related to organizational creativity. Specifically, our study highlights that cognitive, emotional, and structural resources are important resources for organizations wanting to become creative. Our results are based upon a pilot in‐depth qualitative case study followed by a survey of medium‐sized firms. The results in our study advance the emergent literature on resilience and on the practical applications of resilience in organizations. From a practical point of view, managers may realize that they have to develop a capacity for resilience (i.e. what they have to do) in order to have a creative organization, but a far bigger challenge is to understand the how; how the capacity for resilience is built. Our research shows that if managers truly want to manage in turbulence and still have a creative organization, they need to put a strong emphasis on the soft skills in the organization, in addition to the structural resources.

No abstract

No abstract

Beyond the traditional focus on product innovation, prior research and practical examples from a variety of industrial settings underscore the importance of the early phases of process development and process innovation. Despite the potential for large cost savings and efficiency gains, however, little is known about what firms actually do in the early design and concept creation phases of process development, and what guides their subsequent formal process development efforts. By means of a longitudinal multiple case study of four large companies, we bridge this gap by conceptualizing a 'process definition'. This process definition includes a process concept and is the 'process equivalent' of a product definition. Our analysis shows that firms create such process definitions through iterative trial-and-error processes, in which experiments, environmental scanning, and administrative planning constitute key methods for uncertainty reduction. Mainstream theory on product definitions fails to account for the key dimensions of a process definition. On the contrary, dimensions such as the understanding of production needs, assessment of product consequences, a thorough implementation plan and early anticipation of intended outcomes, constitute key dimensions of a successful process definition. These findings are particularly relevant to process development managers, plant managers, and others interested in process development and management of production processes. Key issues in managing process development