Organizational Selection of Innovation

References

• Aaltonen P (2020) Selection in R&D project portfolio management. Working paper, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.Google Scholar
• Adner R, Csaszar FA, Zemsky PB (2014) Positioning on a multiattribute landscape. Management Sci. 60(11):2794–2815.Link, Google Scholar
• Altman EJ, Nagle F, Tushman ML (2022) The translucent hand of managed ecosystems: Engaging communities for value creation and capture. Acad. Management Ann. 16(1):70–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Archer N, Ghasemzadeh F (2007) Project portfolio selection and management. Morris PWG, Pinto JK, eds. The Wiley Guide to Project, Program & Portfolio Management (Wiley, New York), 94–112.Google Scholar
• Arora A, Athreye S, Huang C (2016) The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Res. Policy 45(7):1352–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrieta J, Liu C (2023) Championing the flawed gems: In search of contrarian opportunities through minority ruling. Working paper, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
• Atanasov P, Rescober P, Stone E, Swift SA, Servan-Schreiber E, Tetlock P, Ungar L, et al. (2017) Distilling the wisdom of crowds: Prediction markets vs. prediction polls. Management Sci. 63(3):691–706.Link, Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (1996) Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 90(1):34–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bassi A (2015) Voting systems and strategic manipulation: An experimental study. J. Theoretical Politics 27(1):58–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker JA, Guilbeault D, Smith EB (2022) The crowd classification problem: Social dynamics of binary-choice accuracy. Management Sci. 68(5):3949–3965.Link, Google Scholar
• Ben-Yashar R, Nitzan S, Tajika T (2021) Skill, power and marginal contribution in committees. J. Theoretical Politics 33(2):225–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benade G, Nath S, Procaccia AD, Shah N (2021) Preference elicitation for participatory budgeting. Management Sci. 67(5):2813–2827.Link, Google Scholar
• Bentert M, Skowron P (2020) Comparing election methods where each voter ranks only few candidates. Proc. 34th AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI Press, Washington, DC), 2218–2225.Google Scholar
• Bian J, Greenberg J, Li J, Wang Y (2022) Good to go first? Position effects in expert evaluation of early-stage ventures. Management Sci. 68(1):300–315.Link, Google Scholar
• Boehmer N, Celis LE, Huang L, Mehrotra A, Vishnoi NK (2023) Subset selection based on multiple rankings in the presence of bias: Effectiveness of fairness constraints for multiwinner voting score functions. Preprint, submitted June 16, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09835.Google Scholar
• Böttcher L, Kernell G (2022) Examining the limits of the Condorcet jury theorem: Tradeoffs in hierarchical information aggregation systems. Collective Intelligence 1(2).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, Procaccia AD (2016) Introduction to computational social choice. Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, Procaccia AD, eds. Handbook of Computational Social Choice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brasil VC, Eggers J (2019) Product and innovation portfolio management. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Grushka-Cockayne Y, Soll JB (2024) Introduction to the special issue on judgment and decision research on the wisdom of the crowds. Decision (Washington, DC) 11(1):1.Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Zivin JSG, Shrader JG (2023) Choose your moments: Peer review and scientific risk taking. NBER Working Paper No. 31409, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Casella A, Macé A (2021) Does vote trading improve welfare? Annu. Rev. Econom. 13:57–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chao RO, Kavadias S (2008) A theoretical framework for managing the new product development portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Sci. 54(5):907–921.Link, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H (2006) Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J, eds. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Dahl CM, Knudsen T, Warglien M (2022) Context and aggregation: An experimental study of bias and discrimination in organizational decisions. Organ. Sci. (34):2163–2181.Google Scholar
• Chun JS, Larrick RP (2022) The power of rank information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 122(6):983.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1993) Screening new products for potential winners. Long Range Planning 26(6):74–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA (2018) Limits to the wisdom of the crowd in idea selection. Adv. Strategic Management 40(Organization Design):275–297.Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Eggers J (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10):2257–2277.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Laureiro-Martínez D (2018) Individual and organizational antecedents of strategic foresight: A representational approach. Strategy Sci. 3(3):513–532.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Levinthal DA (2016) Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies. Strategic Management J. 37(10):2031–2049.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cui Z, Kumar PMS, Gonçalves D (2019) Scoring vs. ranking: An experimental study of idea evaluation processes. Production Oper. Management 28(1):176–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David HA, Nagaraja HN (2004) Order Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Budescu DV, Dana J, Broomell SB (2014) When is a crowd wise? Decision (Washington, DC) 1(2):79.Google Scholar
• Dushnitsky G, Eggers J, Franzoni C, Teodoridis F (2023) Randomisation as a tool for organisational decision-making: A debatable or debilitating proposition? Industry Innovations 30(10):1275–1293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economist (2015) The Economist explains: How Oscar winners are decided. The Economist (January 21), https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/01/21/how-oscar-winners-are-decided.Google Scholar
• Eguia JX, Immorlica N, Ligett K, Weyl G, Xefteris D (2019) Quadratic voting with multiple alternatives. Working paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
• Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM, Klempner E (1977) Quality of group judgment. Psych. Bull. 84(1):158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eklund JC (2022) The knowledge-incentive tradeoff: Understanding the relationship between research and development decentralization and innovation. Strategic Management J. 43(12):2478–2509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elhorst P, Faems D (2021) Evaluating proposals in innovation contests: Exploring negative scoring spillovers in the absence of a strict evaluation sequence. Res. Policy 50(4):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elkind E, Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A (2017) Properties of multiwinner voting rules. Soc. Choice Welfare 48(3):599–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A, Talmon N (2017) Multiwinner rules on paths from k-Borda to Chamberlin-Courant. Sierra C, ed. Proc. 26th Internat. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 192–198.Google Scholar
• Feldmann N, Gimpel H, Muller M, Geyer W (2014) Idea assessment via enterprise crowdfunding: An empirical analysis of decision-making styles. Working paper, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
• Flache A, Mäs M, Feliciani T, Chattoe-Brown E, Deffuant G, Huet S, Lorenz J (2017) Models of social influence: Toward the next frontiers. J. Artificial Soc. Soc. Simulation 20(4).Google Scholar
• Folta TB (1998) Governance and uncertainty: The trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management J. 19(11):1007–1028.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furr NR, Eggers J (2021) Behavioral innovation and corporate renewal. Strategic Management Rev. 2(2):285–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelauff L, Goel A (2024) Rank, pack, or approve: Voting methods in participatory budgeting. Preprint, submitted January 24, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12423.Google Scholar
• Gentle JE (2019) Computational Statistics (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Ginsburgh V, Moreno-Ternero JD (2023) The Eurovision Song Contest: Voting rules, biases and rationality. J. Cultural Econom. 47(2):247–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goel A, Krishnaswamy AK, Sakshuwong S, Aitamurto T (2019) Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Trans. Econom. Comput. 7(2):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastie R, Kameda T (2005) The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psych. Rev. 112(2):494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Healey MP, Querbes A, Bleda M (2023) Costs of collective wisdom: How resources influence information aggregation in organizational decision making. Strategic Organ. 21(2):283–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM (1978) A note on aggregating opinions. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 21(1):40–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hotelling H (1929) Stability in competition. Econom. J. (London) 39(153):41–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kameda T, Toyokawa W, Tindale RS (2022) Information aggregation and collective intelligence beyond the wisdom of crowds. Nature Rev. Psych. 1(6):345–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kavadias S, Hutchison-Krupat J (2020) A framework for managing innovation. TutORials in Operations Research, 202–228.Google Scholar
• Kenney J, Keeping E (1962) Mathematics of Statistics, Pt. 1, 3rd ed. (D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Keum DD, See KE (2017) The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organ. Sci. 28(4):653–669.Link, Google Scholar
• Keuschnigg M, Ganser C (2017) Crowd wisdom relies on agents’ ability in small groups with a voting aggregation rule. Management Sci. 63(3):818–828.Link, Google Scholar
• Kleinmuntz DN (2007) Resource allocation decisions. Edwards W, Miles Jr RF, von Winterfeldt, eds. Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 400–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R (2018) Risk-type preference shifts in response to performance feedback. Strategic Organ. 16(2):141–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R (2022) Motivating innovation: Tunnels vs funnels. Strategy Sci. 7(4):300–316.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Adner R (2015) Real options logic revisited: The performance effects of alternative resource allocation regimes. Acad. Management J. 58(1):221–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, De Meyer A (2013) Becoming aware of the unknown: Decision making during the implementation of a strategic initiative. Organ. Sci. 24(1):133–153.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Esser P (2020) Stage-gate escalation. Strategy Sci. 5(4):311–329.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Rammer C (2021) Optionality and selectiveness in innovation. Acad. Management Discovery 7(3):328–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Zhu F (2022) Sample decisions with description and experience. Judgment Decision Making 17(5):1146–1175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Zhu F (2023) Ambiguity aversion and the degree of ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 67(3):299–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Levinthal DA (2007) Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organ. Sci. 18(1):39–54.Link, Google Scholar
• Kornish LJ, Hutchison-Krupat J (2017) Research on idea generation and selection: Implications for management of technology. Production Oper. Management 26(4):633–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Operti E (2023) Missed chances and unfulfilled hopes: Why do firms make errors in evaluating technological opportunities? Strategic Management J. 44(13):3067–3097.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamberson P, Page SE (2012) Optimal forecasting groups. Management Sci. 58(4):805–810.Link, Google Scholar
• Lane JN, Teplitskiy M, Gray G, Ranu H, Menietti M, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR (2022) Conservatism gets funded? A field experiment on the role of negative information in novel project evaluation. Management Sci. 68(6):4478–4495.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee MD, Steyvers M, Miller B (2014) A cognitive model for aggregating people’s rankings. PLoS One 9(5):e96431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (2017) Resource allocation and firm boundaries. J. Management 43(8):2580–2587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li H, Rosen S, Suen W (2001) Conflicts and common interests in committees. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(5):1478–1497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li X, Yi D, Liu JS (2022) Bayesian analysis of rank data with covariates and heterogeneous rankers. Statist. Sci. 37(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo H, Macher J, Wahlen M (2021) Judgment aggregation in creative production: Evidence from the movie industry. Management Sci. 67(10):6358–6377.Link, Google Scholar
• Malenko A, Nanda R, Rhodes-Kropf M, Sundaresan S (2023) Catching outliers: Committee voting and the limits of consensus when financing innovation. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Mannes AE, Soll JB, Larrick RP (2014) The wisdom of select crowds. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 107(2):276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manouchehrabadi B, Letizia P, Hendrikse G (2022) Democratic vs. elite governance for project selection decisions in executive committees. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 297(3):1126–1138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marino AM, Matsusaka JG (2005) Decision processes, agency problems, and information: An economic analysis of capital budgeting procedures. Rev. Financial Stud. 18(1):301–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Epstude K (2009) Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative thinking. J. Experiment. Psych. General 138(1):1.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myatt DP (2007) On the theory of strategic voting. Rev. Econom Stud. 74(1):255–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niederberger S, Kaliorakis N, Brusoni S (2023) The good, the bad, and the average: Comparing individual and collective effects of voting and averaging in organizational decision making. Working paper, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
• Nitzan S, Paroush J (1982) Optimal decision rules in uncertain dichotomous choice situations. Internat. Econom. Rev. 23(2):289–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nitzan S, Paroush J (2017) Collective decision making and jury theorems. Parisi F, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1 Methodology and Concepts (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 494–516.Google Scholar
• Novshek W (1980) Equilibrium in simple spatial (or differentiated product) models. J. Econom. Theory 22(2):313–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oraiopoulos N, Kavadias S (2020) Is diversity (un)biased? Project selection decisions in executive committees. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 22(5):906–924.Link, Google Scholar
• Pacuit E (2019) Voting methods. Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Metaphysics Research Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Peters D (2018) Single-peakedness and total unimodularity: New polynomial-time algorithms for multi-winner elections. McIlraith SA, Weinberger KQ, eds. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32 (AAAI Press, Washington, DC), 1169–1176.Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Schilke O (2023) The dual function of organizational structure: Aggregating and shaping individuals’ votes. Organ. Sci. 34(5):1914–1937.Link, Google Scholar
• Procaccia AD, Reddi SJ, Shah N (2012) A maximum likelihood approach for selecting sets of alternatives. de Freitas N, Murphy KP, eds. Proc. 28th Conf. Uncertainty Artificial Intelligence (AUAI Press, Arlington, VA), 695–704.Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2018) The Microstructure of Organizations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rey S, Endriss U (2023) Epistemic selection of costly alternatives: The case of participatory budgeting. Preprint, submitted September 4, https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10940.Google Scholar
• Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1988) Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. Econom. J. (London) 98(391):451–470.Google Scholar
• Salikhov M, Rudi N (2021) Forecasting demand for new products: Combining subjective rankings with sales data. Preprint, submitted February 18, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3780420.Google Scholar
• Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J. Consumer Res. 37(3):409–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2023) Strategic Management of Technological Innovation, 7th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Scott EL, Shu P, Lubynsky RM (2020) Entrepreneurial uncertainty and expert evaluation: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. 66(3):1278–1299.Link, Google Scholar
• Sengul M, Costa AA, Gimeno J (2019) The allocation of capital within firms. Acad. Management Ann. 13(1):43–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharapov D, Dahlander L (2021) Selection regimes and selection errors. Working paper, ESMT Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
• Sharpe P, Keelin T (1998) How Smith Kline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(2):45–53.Google Scholar
• Si H, Kavadias S, Loch C (2022) Managing innovation portfolios: From project selection to portfolio design. Production Oper. Management 31(12):4572–4588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skowron P, Slinko A, Szufa S, Talmon N (2020) Participatory budgeting with cumulative votes. Preprint, submitted September 6, https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02690.Google Scholar
• Sommer SC, Bendoly E, Kavadias S (2020) How do you search for the best alternative? Experimental evidence on search strategies to solve complex problems. Management Sci. 66(3):1395–1420.Link, Google Scholar
• Stadler C, Hautz J, Matzler K, von den Eichen SF (2021) Open Strategy: Mastering Disruption from Outside the C-Suite (MIT Press, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stein JC (2003) Agency, information and corporate investment. Constantinides GM, Harris M, Stulz RM, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Finance (Elsevier, New York), 111–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toh PK, Ahuja G (2022) Integration and appropriability: A study of process and product components within a firm’s innovation portfolio. Strategic Management J. 43(6):1075–1109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management J. 21(10–11):1147–1161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vinokurova N, Kapoor R (2023) Kodak’s surprisingly long journey toward strategic renewal: A half century of exploring digital transformation that culminated in failure. Preprint, submitted March 4, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4373683.Google Scholar
• Wheelwright SC, Clark KB (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Xia L (2022) Group decision making under uncertain preferences: Powered by AI, empowered by AI. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1511(1):22–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young HP (1988) Condorcet’s theory of voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 82(4):1231–1244.Crossref, Google Scholar