Developing radical innovation capabilities: Exploring the effects of training employees for creativity and innovation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resilience of organizations is increasingly dependent on their ability to develop radical innovation capabilities. While the literature documents numerous cases of organizations that already have radical innovation capabilities, the question of organizational devices that can be used to stimulate the emergence of such capabilities remains poorly addressed. Specifically, training for innovation and creativity has been proposed as a means to foster innovation capabilities; however, there has been little empirical evidence concerning the long‐term impacts of such training. To fill this gap, this article aims to document and evaluate the efforts of the research institute of a major Canadian energy company to provide training for innovation and creativity to initiate a radical innovation capability. We rely on a longitudinal study over the span of 18 months, where we observed 128 h of training and conducted 70 semi‐structured interviews with a sample of 40 researchers. We found that training for creativity and innovation has the potential to develop individual creative skills for exploration, to catalyze and federate collective action through common methods and a shared sense of what innovation entails, and to help create a common language and vocabulary between the different groups or divisions of an organization to talk about exploration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it