The Human‐ <scp>GenAI</scp> Value Loop in Human‐Centered Innovation: Beyond the Magical Narrative
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
ABSTRACT Organisations across various industries are still exploring the potential of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) to automate a variety of knowledge work processes, including managing innovation. While innovation is often viewed as a product of individual creativity, it more commonly unfolds through a collaborative process where creativity intertwines with knowledge. However, the extent and effectiveness of GenAI in supporting this process remain open questions. Our study investigates this issue using a collaborative practice research approach focused on three GenAI‐enabled innovation projects conducted within different organisations. We explored how, why, and when GenAI could effectively be integrated into design sprints—a highly structured, collaborative process enabling human‐centred innovation. Our research identified challenges and opportunities in synchronising AI capabilities with human intelligence and creativity. To translate these insights into practical strategies, we propose four recommendations for organisations eager to leverage GenAI to both streamline and bring more value to their innovation processes: (1) establish a collaborative intelligence value loop with GenAI; (2) build trust in GenAI; (3) develop robust data collection and curation workflows; and (4) embrace a craftsman's discipline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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