IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v34y2023i6p2182-2206.html

Iterative Coordination and Innovation: Prioritizing Value over Novelty

Author

Listed:
  • Sourobh Ghosh

    (Technology and Operations Management Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Andy Wu

    (Strategy Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

An innovating organization faces the challenge of how to prioritize distinct goals of novelty and value, both of which underlie innovation. Popular practitioner frameworks like Agile management suggest that organizations can adopt an iterative approach of frequent meetings to prioritize between these goals, a practice we refer to as iterative coordination . Despite iterative coordination’s widespread use in innovation management, its effects on novelty and value in innovation remain unknown. With the information technology firm Google, we embed a field experiment within a hackathon software development competition to identify the effect of iterative coordination on innovation. We find that iterative coordination causes firms to implicitly prioritize value in innovation: Although iteratively coordinating firms develop more valuable products, these products are simultaneously less novel. Furthermore, by tracking software code, we find that iteratively coordinating firms favor integration at the cost of knowledge-creating specialization. A follow-on laboratory study documents that increasing the frequency and opportunities to reprioritize goals in iterative coordination meetings reinforces value and integration, while reducing novelty and specialization. This article offers three key contributions: highlighting how processes to prioritize among multiple performance goals may implicitly favor certain outcomes; introducing a new empirical methodology of software code version tracking for measuring the innovation process; and leveraging the emergent phenomenon of hackathons to study new methods of organizing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sourobh Ghosh & Andy Wu, 2023. "Iterative Coordination and Innovation: Prioritizing Value over Novelty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 2182-2206, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:6:p:2182-2206
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1499
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2021.1499?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    4. Songcui Hu & Richard A. Bettis, 2018. "Multiple Organization Goals with Feedback from Shared Technological Task Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 873-889, October.
    5. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2011. "Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 224-238, January.
    6. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    7. Tomasz Obloj & Metin Sengul, 2020. "What Do Multiple Objectives Really Mean for Performance? Empirical Evidence from the French Manufacturing Sector," Working Papers hal-02896084, HAL.
    8. Gerardo A. Okhuysen & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2002. "Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 370-386, August.
    9. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    10. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    11. Vibha Gaba & Henrich R. Greve, 2019. "Safe or Profitable? The Pursuit of Conflicting Goals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 647-667, July.
    12. Markus Reitzig & Boris Maciejovsky, 2015. "Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm—a behavioral view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(13), pages 1979-1999, December.
    13. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    14. Daniel A. Levinthal & Claus Rerup, 2021. "The Plural of Goal: Learning in a World of Ambiguity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 527-543, May.
    15. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal, 2009. "Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 4-21, February.
    16. Esther Duflo & Emmanuel Saez, 2003. "The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 815-842.
    17. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    18. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    19. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    20. Richard M. Burton & Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson & Jackson Nickerson & Phanish Puranam & Maciej Workiewicz & Todd Zenger, 2017. "GitHub: exploring the space between boss-less and hierarchical forms of organizing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19, December.
    21. Aleksandra Kacperczyk & Matt Marx, 2016. "Revisiting the Small-Firm Effect on Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Firm Dissolutions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 893-910, August.
    22. Aaron Chatterji & Solène Delecourt & Sharique Hasan & Rembrand Koning, 2019. "When does advice impact startup performance?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 331-356, March.
    23. Tommy Pan Fang & Andy Wu & David R. Clough, 2021. "Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 233-272, February.
    24. Tomasz Obloj & Metin Sengul, 2020. "What do multiple objectives really mean for performance? Empirical evidence from the French manufacturing sector," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2518-2547, December.
    25. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    26. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    27. Wen Wen & Feng Zhu, 2019. "Threat of platform‐owner entry and complementor responses: Evidence from the mobile app market," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(9), pages 1336-1367, September.
    28. Daniel A. Levinthal & Maciej Workiewicz, 2018. "When Two Bosses Are Better Than One: Nearly Decomposable Systems and Organizational Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 207-224, April.
    29. Shalley, Christina E. & Perry-Smith, Jill E., 2001. "Effects of Social-Psychological Factors on Creative Performance: The Role of Informational and Controlling Expected Evaluation and Modeling Experience," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 1-22, January.
    30. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    31. 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.
    32. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evgeny Kagan & Christian Jost & Tobias Lieberum & Sebastian Schiffels, 2026. "On Repeat: Does Iteration Drive Innovation?," Papers 2603.00722, arXiv.org.
    2. Cheol Young Kim, 2025. "Linking Individual and Team Engagement in Agile Team: A 2-1-2 Mediational Multilevel Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, November.

    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. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    2. Candiani, Juan Antonio & Gilsing, Victor & Mastrogiorgio, Mariano, 2022. "Technological entry in new niches: Diversity, crowding and generalism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Madeline K. Kneeland & Melissa A. Schilling & Barak S. Aharonson, 2020. "Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 535-557, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Rajat Khanna & Isin Guler, 2022. "Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1402-1430, July.
    6. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    7. D. Albert & F. A Csaszar, 2026. "Search Heuristics Under Multiple Objectives: The Case of Corporate Social Responsibility," Papers 2606.15545, arXiv.org.
    8. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Madjid Tavana & Takao Terano, 2020. "Product development team formation: effects of organizational- and product-related factors," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 88-122, March.
    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. Qu, Guannan & Chen, Jin & Zhang, Ruhao & Wang, Luyao & Yang, Yayu, 2023. "Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    11. repec:osf:osfxxx:3bn95_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2025. "Human agents, generative AI, and innovation: A formal model of hybrid creative process," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    14. Dirk Martignoni & Thomas Keil & Markus Lang, 2020. "Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 266-286, March.
    15. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Sunkee Lee & Manuel E. Sosa, 2026. "Spaces for Creativity: Unconventional Workspaces and Divergent Thinking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(2), pages 1072-1094, February.
    17. Stephan Billinger & Kannan Srikanth & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2021. "Exploration and exploitation in complex search tasks: How feedback influences whether and where human agents search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 361-385, February.
    18. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.
    19. Helge Klapper & Henning Piezunka & Linus Dahlander, 2024. "Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 1363-1387, July.
    20. Kafouros, Mario & Mavroudi, Eva & Aliyev, Murod & Hong, Junjie, 2025. "Technological complexity and the creation of impactful technologies: The role of inventors' international diversity and expertise," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3).
    21. Francisco Polidoro & Wei Yang, 2021. "Corporate Investment Relationships and the Search for Innovations: An Examination of Startups’ Search Shift Toward Incumbents," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 909-939, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:6:p:2182-2206. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.