Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practice 3: Amplify Creative Associations of Knowledge Fragments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Unleashing the Crowd

Abstract

Innovative ideas were more likely to be preceded by creative associations, than any other type of knowledge. Creative associations are personal experiences a participant might have had with a similar problem in a different context, or conflicting objectives a participant believes must be solved by any proposed solution. Creative associations have a twofold inspirational value. First, they inspire others to post their own creative associations, thus amplifying the number of creative associations available for anyone reading the posts. Second, they inspire the creation of innovative ideas by helping participants make connections in their own minds that spur creative discovery. This effect only works when the creative associations are present in the most recent five posts prior to the innovative idea; posts further back are ignored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Poetz, M. K., Schreier, M., (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 29 (2), 245–256; Jeppesen, L., & Lakhani, K. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033; Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., Ogawa, S., (2013). User-generated versus designer-generated products: a performance assessment at Muji. Int. J. Res. Mark. 30 (2), 160–167.

  2. 2.

    Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Org Behavior 36, 157–183.

  3. 3.

    Anderson, N., Nik, K. P & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the science review, prospective commentary and guiding framework. Journal of Management 40(5) 1297–1333; Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M.G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Org Behavior 36, 157–183.

  4. 4.

    Van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of public administration research and theory, 13(2), 193–212.

  5. 5.

    Buchanan, R. (1992). “Wicked problems in design thinking”. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21; Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

  6. 6.

    Nijstad, B., Stroebe, W., Lodewijkx, H. (2002) Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 38(6):535–544; Smith, S. (2003) The constraining effects of initial ideas. Paulus, P., Nijstad, B., eds. Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 15–31.

  7. 7.

    Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Org Behavior 36, 157–183; Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

  8. 8.

    Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214; Nickerson, J. A., Wuebker, R., & Zenger, T. (2017). Problems, theories, and governing the crowd. Strategic Organization, 15(2): 275–288.

  9. 9.

    Batie, S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.

  10. 10.

    Brabham, D.C., (2013). Crowdsourcing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  11. 11.

    Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439–458; Huang, X., Hsieh, J. J., & He, W. (2014). Expertise dissimilarity and creativity: The contingent roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 816.

  12. 12.

    Avital, M., & Te’Eni, D. (2009). From generative fit to generative capacity: exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance. Information systems journal, 19(4), 345–367; Martinez, M. G. (2015). Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: Exploring the link to creativity. Research Policy, 44(8), 1419–1430.

  13. 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.

  14. 14.

    Althuizen, N., & Reichel, A. (2016). The effects of IT-enabled cognitive stimulation tools on creative problem solving: A dual pathway to creativity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 11–44; Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. (1996) Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press; Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77.

  15. 15.

    Althuizen, N., & Reichel, A. (2016). The effects of IT-enabled cognitive stimulation tools on creative problem solving: A dual pathway to creativity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 11–44.

  16. 16.

    Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. (1996) Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  17. 17.

    Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., Faraj, S. (2012) Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23: 951–970.

  18. 18.

    Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, 22(3), 4–17.

  19. 19.

    Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of management journal, 56(1), 137–159.

  20. 20.

    Miron-Spektor, Ella, Francesca Gino, and Linda Argote. “Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116, no. 2 (2011): 229–240.

  21. 21.

    Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851; Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343; Leonard-Barton, D. A. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995; Miron-Spektor, Ella, Francesca Gino, and Linda Argote. “Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116, no. 2 (2011): 229–240.

  22. 22.

    Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562–578.

  23. 23.

    Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

  24. 24.

    Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522–536.

  25. 25.

    Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogical reasoning and conceptual change: A case study of Johannes Kepler. The journal of the learning sciences, 6(1), 3–40.

  26. 26.

    Biscaro, C. & Comacchio, A. (2018). Knowledge creation across worldviews: how metaphors impact and orient group creativity. Organization Science, 29(1): 58–79.

  27. 27.

    Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14–37.

  28. 28.

    Burleson, W. (2005). Developing creativity, motivation, and self-actualization with learning systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4–5), 436–451.

  29. 29.

    Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Visual analogy—A strategy for design reasoning and learning. In C. Eastman, W. Newsletter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 199–219). New York: Elsevier.

  30. 30.

    Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design Studies, 29, 203–221.

  31. 31.

    Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). Introduction: The place of analogy in cognition. The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, 1–19.

  32. 32.

    Lixiu Yu, Aniket Kittur, and Robert E. Kraut. (2014). Searching for Analogical Ideas with Crowds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14), 1225–1234.

  33. 33.

    Symonds, M. R., & Moussalli, A. (2011). A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1):13–21.

  34. 34.

    Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    For a review of the literature see Paulus, P. B. & V. R. Brown. 2003. Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from Research on brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Ed.) Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration.

  35. 35.

    Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3): 827–851; Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and evolution: a metadesign perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19–32; Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.

  36. 36.

    Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 145.

  37. 37.

    Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Personal need for structure and creative performance: The moderating influence of fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 855–866.

  38. 38.

    Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.

  39. 39.

    Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, 15–31.

  40. 40.

    Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 93–102.

  41. 41.

    Dennis, A., M. Williams. (2003). Electronic brainstorming. P. Paulus, B. A. Nijstad, eds. Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration 160–178; Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, 15–31.

  42. 42.

    Lubart, T. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13:3–4, 295–308.

  43. 43.

    Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343; Hender, J. M., D. L. Dean, T. L. Rodgers, J. F. Nunamaker. 2002 An examination of the impact of stimuli type and GSS structure on creativity: Brainstorming versus non-brainstorming techniques in a GSS environment. J of Management Information Systems 18(4) 59–86.

  44. 44.

    Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

  45. 45.

    Similar to design for manufacturability or design for sustainability in engineering.

  46. 46.

    Similar to R&D efforts which “ride multiple horses simultaneously”; there is no reason to downselect early or even later.

  47. 47.

    Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business.

References

  • Althuizen, N., & Reichel, A. (2016). The Effects of IT-Enabled Cognitive Stimulation Tools on Creative Problem Solving: A Dual Pathway to Creativity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 11–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The Dynamic Componential Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations: Making Progress, Making Meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avital, M., & Te’Eni, D. (2009). From Generative Fit to Generative Capacity: Exploring an Emerging Dimension of Information Systems Design and Task Performance. Information Systems Journal, 19(4), 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of Strategic Problem Formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batie, S. (2008). Wicked Problems and Applied Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biscaro, C., & Comacchio, A. (2018). Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity. Organization Science, 29(1), 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, W. (2005). Developing Creativity, Motivation, and Self-Actualization with Learning Systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4–5), 436–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A., & Williams, M. (2003). Electronic Brainstorming. In P. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 160–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing Employee Creativity Via Individual Skill Development and Team Knowledge Sharing: Influences of Dual-Focused Transformational Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2006). Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogical Reasoning and Conceptual Change: A Case Study of Johannes Kepler. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 3–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and Evolution: A Meta-Design Perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Visual Analogy – A Strategy for Design Reasoning and Learning. In C. Eastman, W. Newsletter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp. 199–219). New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A Multilevel Model of Team Goal Orientation, Information Exchange, and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hender, J. M., Dean, D. L., Rodgers, T. L., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2002). An Examination of the Impact of Stimuli Type and GSS Structure on Creativity: Brainstorming Versus Non-brainstorming Techniques in a GSS Environment. J of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). Introduction: The Place of Analogy in Cognition. In The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X., Hsieh, J. J., & He, W. (2014). Expertise Dissimilarity and Creativity: The Contingent Roles of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L., & Lakhani, K. (2010). Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. A. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubart, T. (2001). Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams. Organization Science, 23, 951–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, M. G. (2015). Solver Engagement in Knowledge Sharing in Crowdsourcing Communities: Exploring the Link to Creativity. Research Policy, 44(8), 1419–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity Through Conflict and Integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J. A., Wuebker, R., & Zenger, T. (2017). Problems, Theories, and Governing the Crowd. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. (2002). Cognitive Stimulation and Interference in Groups: Exposure Effects in an Idea Generation Task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The Dual Pathway to Creativity Model: Creative Ideation as a Function of Flexibility and Persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., & Ogawa, S. (2013). User-Generated Versus Designer-Generated Products: A Performance Assessment at Muji. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(2), 160–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-Generating Groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2003). Enhancing Ideational Creativity in Groups: Lessons from Research on Brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The Idea Exposure Paradigm in Design Idea Generation. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Personal Need for Structure and Creative Performance: The Moderating Influence of Fear of Invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 855–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Broadway Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (2003). The Constraining Effects of Initial Ideas. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symonds, M. R., & Moussalli, A. (2011). A Brief Guide to Model Selection, Multimodel Inference and Model Averaging in Behavioural Ecology Using Akaike’s Information Criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). The Role of Timing and Analogical Similarity in the Stimulation of Idea Generation in Design. Design Studies, 29, 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2003). Dealing with Wicked Problems in Networks: Analyzing an Environmental Debate from a Network Perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014). Searching for Analogical Ideas with Crowds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14) (pp. 1225–1234).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ann Majchrzak

  2. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Arvind Malhotra

Authors
  1. Ann Majchrzak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arvind Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann Majchrzak .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A. (2020). Practice 3: Amplify Creative Associations of Knowledge Fragments. In: Unleashing the Crowd. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25557-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation