Author
Listed:
- Evgeny Kagan
- Christian Jost
- Tobias Lieberum
- Sebastian Schiffels
Abstract
Motivated by the widespread adoption of iterative project management techniques, we study the effects of workflow -- iterative or sequential -- on innovative behavior and performance. We conduct a series of laboratory experiments. Our first experiment shows that, in an open-ended creative challenge, iterative task completion leads to better outcomes than sequential task completion. In the second experiment we show that the advantage of iterative workflow further extends to innovation settings that do not involve idea generation. A key mechanism driving the advantage of iterative work is that it leads to frequent task switching, prompting workers to perform a broader search for the best available solution. In the third experiment we delve deeper into the search process and show that sequential work indeed leads to more myopic idea refinement behaviors, often ending in a (suboptimal) local maximum. Our results suggest that iterative workflow improves performance across multiple, structurally distinct innovation settings. We also identify three boundary conditions. First, iterative workflow helps achieve quick gains, but its performance advantage narrows over time. Therefore, workflow effects are stronger when balanced performance across project components is required, but weaker when excellence in one component can offset poor performance in others. Second, workflow has minimal effect on performance in tasks that do not require the worker to perform broad exploration. Third, workflow effects are minimal when workers complete the easier component first.
Suggested Citation
Evgeny Kagan & Christian Jost & Tobias Lieberum & Sebastian Schiffels, 2026.
"On Repeat: Does Iteration Drive Innovation?,"
Papers
2603.00722, arXiv.org.
Handle:
RePEc:arx:papers:2603.00722
Download full text from publisher
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:arx:papers:2603.00722. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.