Tying It All Together: A Theory of Collective Production of Innovation to Inspire Future Research

  • Ann MajchrzakEmail author
  • Arvind Malhotra


Since we are interested in progressing research, we present a scholarly version of our theory of collective production of innovation in which innovating crowds consist of some participants willing to use their scant two posts to disaggregate their knowledge into creative associations of knowledge batons and others willing to take those knowledge batons and co-mingle them to stimulate creative discoveries. The disaggregation occurs as people break down their causal models, their coherent perspectives, their proposals of need-solution pairs into factual assumptions, short statements of ideas, and creative associations. Since crowds spend so little time contributing to the wicked problem, the more effective the crowd can be at eliciting each other’s disaggregated knowledge in a way that stimulates creative thought in a virtuous cycle, the more likely that the crowd will successfully produce an innovative solution. The implications for a new direction for research on innovation and new organizational forms are discussed.


  1. Afuah, A. (2018). Crowdsourcing: A Primer and Research Framework. In Creating and Capturing Value through Crowdsourcing. In C. L. Tucci, A. Afuah, & G. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and Capturing Value through Crowdsourcing (pp. 39–57). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altman, E. J., Nagle, F., & Tushman, M. (2014). Innovating without Information Constraints Organizations, Communities, and Innovation When Information Costs Approach Zero. In C. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 353–384). Oxford Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
  4. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: The Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  5. Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2015). The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of Strategic Problem Formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baralou, E., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). How Is New Organizational Knowledge Created in a Virtual Context? An Ethnographic Study. Organization Studies, 36(5), 593–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing Meaning across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biscaro, C., & Comacchio, A. (2018). Knowledge Creation across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity. Organization Science, 29, 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolici, F., Howison, J., & Crowston, K. (2016). Stigmergic Coordination in FLOSS Development Teams: Integrating Explicit and Implicit Mechanisms. Cognitive Systems Research, 38, 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen, L. R. (2013). Stigmergy in Human Practice: Coordination in Construction Work. Cognitive Systems Research, 21, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational Gaps, Information Processing, and Conflict in Functionally Diverse Teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlander, L., Piezunka, H., & Jeppesen, L. (2018). How Organizations Manage Crowds: Define, Broadcast, Attract and Select. In J. Sydow & H. Berends (Eds.), Managing Inter-organizational Collaborations – Process View (Part of a series: Research in the Sociology of Organizations). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  15. Dennis, A., & Williams, M. (2003). Electronic Brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration (pp. 160–178). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dipple, A., Raymond, K., & Docherty, M. (2014). General Theory of Stigmergy: Modelling Stigma Semantics. Cognitive Systems Research, 31, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott, M. A. (2016). Stigmergic Collaboration: A Framework for Understanding and Designing Mas Collaboration. In U. Cress et al. (Eds.), Mass Collaboration and Education. Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative Cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Füller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Matzler, K. (2014). User Roles and Contributions in Innovation-Contest Communities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 273–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Emergent by Design: Performance and Transformation at Infosys Technologies. Organization Science, 17(2), 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garud, R., Jain, S., & Tuertscher, P. (2008). Incomplete by Design and Designing for Incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29(3), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heylighen, F. (2015). Stigmergy as a Universal Coordinaton Mechanisms: Components, Varieties and Applications. In T. Lewis & L. Marsh (Eds.), Human Stigmergy: Theoretical Developments and New Applications. Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Heylighen, F. (2016). Stigmergy as a Universal Coordination Mechanism I: Definition and Components. Cognitive Systems Research, 38, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howison, J., & Crowston, K. (2014). Collaboration through Open Superposition. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kane, A. A., & Levina, N. (2017). ‘Am I Still One of Them?’: Bicultural Immigrant Managers Navigating Social Identity Threats When Spanning Global Boundaries. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 540–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kazamias, A. M. (1961). Meritocracy and Isocracy in American Education: Retrospect and Prospect. The Educational Forum, 25(3), 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kornberger, M. (2017). The Visible Hand and the Crowd: Analyzing Organization Design in Distributed Innovation Systems. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koskinen, K. U. (2005). Metaphoric Boundary Objects as Co-ordinating Mechanisms in the Knowledge Sharing of Innovation Processes. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakhani, K. R., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The Principles of Distributed Innovation. Innovations, 2(3), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lakhani, K. R., Fayard, A. L., Levina, N., & Pokrywa, S. H. (2012). OpenIDEO. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Case (612-066).Google Scholar
  34. Levina, N., & Fayard, A. L. (2018). Tapping into Diversity through Open Innovation Platforms: The Emergence of Boundary-Spanning Practices. In C. L. Tucci, A. Afuah, & G. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and Capturing Value through Crowdsourcing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 29, 335–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2018). Dismantling Knowledge Boundaries at NASA: The Critical Role of Professional Identity in Open Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 746–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing Cross-functional New Product Teams’ Innovativeness and Constraint Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779–793.Google Scholar
  38. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2016). Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 685–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Majchrzak, A., More, P. H., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-functional Teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Majchrzak, A., Griffith, T., Reez, D., & Alexy, O. (2018). Organizations Designed for Grand Challenges: Generative Dilemmas and Implications for Organization Design Theory. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Managing Crowds in Innovation Challenges. California Management Review, 56(4), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Carman, R., & Lott, V. (2001). Radical Innovation without Collocation: A Case Study at Boeing-Rocketdyne. MIS Quarterly, 25, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Kesebi, L., & Looram, S. (2017a). Developing Innovative Solutions through Internal Crowdsourcing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 73.Google Scholar
  44. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017b). Using Public Crowds for Open Strategy Formulation: Mitigating the Risks of Knowledge Gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marsh, L., & Onof, C. (2008). Stigmergic Epistemology, Stigmergic Cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mittal, S. (2013). Emergence in Stigmergic and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Formal Discrete Event Systems Perspective. Cognitive Systems Research, 21, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2002). Fuzzy Teams: Boundary Disagreement in Distributed and Collocated Teams. In Distributed Work (pp. 284–308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nickerson, J. A., Wuebker, R., & Zenger, T. (2017). Problems, Theories, and Governing the Crowd. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Page, S. E. (2007). Making the Difference: Applying a Logic of Diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parunak, H. V. D. (2006). A Survey of Environments and Mechanisms for Human-Human Stigmergy. In D. Weyns, H. V. D. Parunak, & F. Michel (Eds.), International Workshop on Environments for Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 124–140). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Ranade, G., & Varshney, L. R. (2018). The Role of Information Patterns in Designing Crowdsourcing Contests. In C. Tucci, A. Afuah, & G. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and Capturing Value Through Crowdsourcing. Oxford Scholarship Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ricci, A., Omicini, A., Viroli, M., Gardelli, L., & Oliva, E. (2006). Cognitive Stigmergy: Towards a Framework Based on Agents and Artifacts. In D. Weyns, H. V. D. Parunak, & F. Michel (Eds.), International Workshop on Environments for Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 124–140). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Riedl, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2017). Teams vs. Crowds: A Field Test of the Relative Contribution of Incentives, Member Ability, and Emergent Collaboration to Crowd-Based Problem Solving Performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 382–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stark, D. (1999). Heterarchy: Distributing Intelligence and Organizing Diversity. In J. H. Clippiner & E. Dyson (Eds.), The Biology of Business: Decoding the Natural Laws of Enterprise (pp. 153–179). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  56. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Communication Changes Everything. NY: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  57. Theraulaz, G. (2014). Embracing the Creativity of Stigmergy in Social Insects. Architectural Design, 84(5), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tsoukas, H. (2009). A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural Folds: Generative Disruption in Overlapping Groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Viscusi, G., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). Three’s a Crowd. In C. L. Tucci, A. Afuah, & G. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and Capturing Value through Crowdsourcing (pp. 39–57). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, E. O. (2000). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition) (2nd ed.). Harvard University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations