IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v138y2024ics0166497224001731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revolution or inflated expectations? Exploring the impact of generative AI on ideation in a practical sustainability context

Author

Listed:
  • Eisenreich, Anja
  • Just, Julian
  • Gimenez-Jimenez, Daniela
  • Füller, Johann

Abstract

The integration of generative AI (GenAI) into corporate innovation processes represents a significant shift in ideation methodologies. This study examines the comparative effectiveness of AI-generated ideation and traditional expert workshops. In collaboration with BSH Home Appliances Group (BSH), ideas were generated and evaluated using both expert-based and AI-based methods in the context of sustainable packaging. The main quantitative analysis focuses on the quality dimensions of novelty, value, and feasibility. The results indicate that GenAI models such as ChatGPT not only match, but also occasionally outperform, those generated by expert sessions in terms of generating highly novel ideas. However, this increased novelty comes with a trade-off in perceived feasibility, highlighting a critical balance that must be managed in innovation efforts. A complementary qualitative analysis provides insights into potential barriers to integrating AI into ideation at the personal and organizational levels. Depending on the innovation setting, AI-based idea stimulation may limit the creativity and motivation of experts. Therefore, the form of AI integration should be adapted to the company's innovation context and should contribute to organizational learning. On the basis of these findings, guidelines are provided on how to effectively apply, and benefit from the use of, AI as a non-human intermediary to enhance the ideation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Eisenreich, Anja & Just, Julian & Gimenez-Jimenez, Daniela & Füller, Johann, 2024. "Revolution or inflated expectations? Exploring the impact of generative AI on ideation in a practical sustainability context," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:138:y:2024:i:c:s0166497224001731
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497224001731
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103123?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nishant, Rohit & Kennedy, Mike & Corbett, Jacqueline, 2020. "Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    3. Julian Wahl & Katja Hutter & Johann Fãœller, 2022. "How Ai-Supported Searches Through Other Perspectives Affect Ideation Outcomes," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(09), pages 1-24, November.
    4. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    5. Erik Brynjolfsson & Danielle Li & Lindsey Raymond, 2023. "Generative AI at Work," Papers 2304.11771, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    6. Alexander Brem & Rogelio Puente-Díaz & Marine Agogué, 2017. "Creativity and Innovation: State of the Art and Future Perspectives for Research," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem & Rogelio Puente-Diaz & Marine Agogué (ed.), The Role of Creativity in the Management of Innovation State of the Art and Future Research Outlook, chapter 1, pages 1-12, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Jiyeon Hong & Paul R. Hoban, 2022. "Writing More Compelling Creative Appeals: A Deep Learning-Based Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 941-965, September.
    8. Mariani, Marcello M. & Machado, Isa & Magrelli, Vittoria & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2023. "Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Baer, Markus & Brown, Graham, 2012. "Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 60-71.
    10. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    11. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2010. "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 591-605, April.
    12. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    13. Nikolaus Franke & Marion K. Poetz & Martin Schreier, 2014. "Integrating Problem Solvers from Analogous Markets in New Product Ideation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 1063-1081, April.
    14. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    15. Talaei-Khoei, Amir & Yang, Alan T. & Masialeti, Masialeti, 2024. "How does incorporating ChatGPT within a firm reinforce agility-mediated performance? The moderating role of innovation infusion and firms’ ethical identity," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    16. Mariani, Marcello & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2024. "Generative artificial intelligence in innovation management: A preview of future research developments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    17. Chiarello, Filippo & Giordano, Vito & Spada, Irene & Barandoni, Simone & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2024. "Future applications of generative large language models: A data-driven case study on ChatGPT," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon, 2015. "A chance discovery-based approach for new product–service system (PSS) concepts," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 9(1), pages 115-135, March.
    19. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2024. "A Wild Mind with a Disciplined Eye: Unleashing Human-GenAI Creativity Through Simulated Entity Elicitation," OSF Preprints 3bn95, Center for Open Science.
    2. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2024. "A Wild Mind and a Disciplined Eye: Unleashing Human-GenAI Creativity Through Simulated Entity Elicitation," OSF Preprints 3bn95_v1, Center for Open Science.
    3. Just, Julian, 2024. "Natural language processing for innovation search – Reviewing an emerging non-human innovation intermediary," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. John-Paul Ferguson & Gianluca Carnabuci, 2017. "Risky Recombinations: Institutional Gatekeeping in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 133-151, February.
    5. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.
    6. Giordano, Vito & Spada, Irene & Chiarello, Filippo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2024. "The impact of ChatGPT on human skills: A quantitative study on twitter data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    7. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Kokshagina, Olga & Le Masson, Pascal & Bories, Florent, 2017. "Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 232-239.
    9. Keyvan Vakili & Sarah Kaplan, 2021. "Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1159-1183, June.
    10. Schweisfurth, Tim G., 2017. "Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 238-248.
    11. Frank Nagle & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant knowledge integration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 55-85, January.
    12. Heuschneider, Sara & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2016. "External search for exploration of future discontinuities and trends: Implications from the literature using co-citation and content analysis," Working Papers 92, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    13. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    14. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    15. Salgado, Stéphane & Hemonnet-Goujot, Aurelie & Henard, David H. & de Barnier, Virginie, 2020. "The dynamics of innovation contest experience: An integrated framework from the customer’s perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 29-43.
    16. Glenn Dutcher & Cortney S. Rodet, 2022. "Which two heads are better than one? Uncovering the positive effects of diversity in creative teams," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 884-897, November.
    17. Lee, Changyong & Jeon, Daeseong & Ahn, Joon Mo & Kwon, Ohjin, 2020. "Navigating a product landscape for technology opportunity analysis: A word2vec approach using an integrated patent-product database," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    18. Wang Kai & Tao Yu & Wang Hui, 2017. "Combining Ideas in Crowdsourced Idea Generation," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 203-212, February.
    19. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    20. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:138:y:2024:i:c:s0166497224001731. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.