Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMorais-Storz, Marta
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Nhien
dc.contributor.authorSætre, Alf Steinar
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-30T15:34:33Z
dc.date.available2024-01-30T15:34:33Z
dc.date.created2020-10-30T15:30:21Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Product Innovation Management. 2020, 37 (6), 483-505.
dc.identifier.issn0737-6782
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3114667
dc.description.abstractFailure is an inevitable feature of innovation, and management research promulgates the importance of learning from it. Key to excelling at an innovation‐based strategy is understanding the processes that can turn failures into successes. However, post‐failure success remains elusive. Although failure signals that the innovation journey is off course, shifting trajectory is difficult, because it may require revising assumptions and reformulating the project’s problem representation. Using comparative case studies, this study set out to understand how problem representations are reformulated. Employing case method and comparing data versus theory iteratively, the important role of sensemaking and of leadership behaviors in driving post‐failure success became salient. Findings show that problem representations post‐failure require a process of problem formulation characterized by sensemaking and that innovative solutions are enabled by the reformulation of problem representations that spring from prospective sensemaking. Furthermore, this article identifies leadership change behavior as the linchpin driving a problem formulation process characterized by prospective sensemaking that catalyzes innovative solutions and explains why some projects thrive post‐failure and others do not. This article provides empirical support to the theoretical work of the literature on problem formulation, while extending the learning‐from‐failure literature by emphasizing and demonstrating the process driving post‐failure success. The major implication of our study is that different leadership behaviors may foster different types of sensemaking (retrospective or prospective), and that, in turn, the type of sensemaking matters for how a problem is reformulated. Ultimately, this article concludes that in the context of project failure, problem reformulation that springs from prospective sensemaking enables innovative solutions post‐failure.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpim.12552
dc.subjectProblem formulation
dc.subjectProblem formulation
dc.subjectLearning from failure
dc.subjectLearning from failure
dc.subjectInnovation
dc.subjectInnovation
dc.titlePost-failure success: sensemaking in problem representation reformulation
dc.typePeer reviewed
dc.typeJournal article
dc.description.versionpublishedVersion
dc.source.pagenumber483-505
dc.source.volume37
dc.source.journalJournal of Product Innovation Management
dc.source.issue6
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jpim.12552
dc.identifier.cristin1843697
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel