1

2
3
er
4
Damanpour ,1987 Kim , 1980 1997 Baldridge
& Burnham ,1975 ;Scott, et.al.,1994
5


2-1

Zaltman, Duncan Holbek 1973

Leonard & Swap 1996




6










1.

2.

3.
























2-1
7

Blau ,et al. 1979 Burgess,1989 Kelm ,et al. 1995
Amabile,1988


Amabile 1988

1. setting the agenda
2. setting the stage
3. producing the ideas
4. testing and implementing the ideas
5. outcome assessment

Drucker 1985 Process
Kanter 1988
Johannessen 1994
new
useful Scott 1994
2-1

8
Wolfe 1994


2-1
/
Amabile 1988

Drucker 1985

Kanter 1988
Johannessen,
et al. 1994
Scott, et al.
1994


how why
(Zaltman, Duncan Holbek,1973) (initiation)
(implementation) ; Thompson(1967) :
(generation) (adoption) (implementation)
9
Zaltman, Duncan Holbek (1973)
Zaltman, Duncan Holbek 1973
:
l ;
2
;
3


Majaro(1988)

Amabile 1988
Kanter 1988 Majaro 1988
Scott , et al. 1994 Zaltman, Duncan
Holbek 1973
10

Zaltman, Duncan Holbek 1973

Zaltman, Duncan Holbek 1973

ideas


11
Zaltman, Duncan Holbek 1973

Csikszentmihalyi 1990
Csikszentmihalyi
individual domain field
12

Van de Ven 1986

Souder 1987

Majaro 1991

Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt 1997


2-2

Van de Ven 1986
Souder 1987
Majaro 1991
Slater & Narver
1995

Tidd, et al. 1997
Afuah(1998)
Csikszentmihaly
1990
13

Change











14










15









social innovation


16

17

ltman, Duncan Holbek 1973


H.Joseph Reitz 1988

1. preparation
2. incubation
3. insight

4. verfication
Arieti 1976 preparation
analysis ideation incubation synthesis
evaluation H.Joseph Reitz
1962 Wallas
1. preparation
2. incubation
3. insight
4. evaluation

18
1998

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Leonard & Swap 1996
Leonard & Swap

19

Leonard & Swap 1996


Leonard & Swap 1996





20





1.


Jackson 1992
21


















22









2.
Donald Campell 1992

3.


23


..


British Petroleum John Browne

1. .
24
2. .
3. .199
4. .




25
Kim,
1980 Damanpour, 1987 Baldrige & Burnham, 1975
Scott,et al. , 1994
Mumford & Gustason 1998
Amabile
critical incident technique
Amabile
Amabile
26
Kanter 1988 Amabile 1988
Amabile
Guenter 1985
Woodman 1993
Maslow,
1970 Torrance, 1975 Zimbardo, 1979 Mansfield & Busse, 1981 Khatena, 1982
Davis, 1986 Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1988

Vervalin 1962
Zimbardo 1979
1980
Eugene 1981
27
Raudsepp 1981

Shallcross 1981

1990
Sternberg 1991
Herbig & Jacobs
1996

28
1997

Taylor & Holland 1972
Getzels,1975


1990
Amabile & Gryskiewicz 1988

intrinsic Motivation
Muchinsky 1993
Csikszentmihalyi 1975
enjoyment
Deci &
Ryan,1985
Amabile Einstein
Sexton Plath Watson Wolf..
29
Amabile, 1997

Amabile
Andrews & Smith 1996


1. enjoyment
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975
2. self-determination
Deci & Ryan, 1985 Amabile, 1994
3.
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 Deci & Ryan, 1985 Amabile, 1994
1998
4.
Mcgraw,
1978 Mcgraw & McCullers, 1979 Deci & Ryan, 1985 Amabile, 1994
Amabile
30
Amabile

Amabile, 1988
Amabile & Csikszentmihalyi,
1987 domain specific
Amabile, 1988
Amabile & Csikszentmihalyi, 1987
1999
Sternberg,OHara Lubart, 1997
31

Amabile
1997
Amabile & Csikszentmihalyi 1987
Motivation to Innovate Resource
in the Domain Skill in innovation Managemant
1999 Amabile &
Csikszentmihalyi 1987
1996
32
Hellriegel & Slocum 1974
1.
2.
3.
4.
Kopelman et al., 1990 Schneider & Rentsch, 1988
Kanter,1985,1986
Tingey & Vibber 1968 1.
2. 3.
4. Sheppard 1967

Taylor 1972 1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Drucker 1985


Amabile & Csikszentmihalyi 1987
33
Amabile 1988
Motivation to Innovate Resource in the
Domain Skill in innovation Management

Motivation to
Innovate

...
Resource in
the Domain :


...
Skill in
innovation
Managemant



...
Amabile & Csikszentmihalyi 1987
34

Amabile 1996 --KEYS
KEYS Assessing the Climate for Creativity

2-5 KEYS














35

Amabile,T.M. 1996 Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity .
Academy of Management Journal, 39 5 ,1159-1162
36

37
Zaltman, Duncan Holbek 1973
Leonard & Swap
38




3-1





39
Wolf 1994 Organizational
Innovation Review, Critique and Suggested Research Directions

Diffusion of
innovation
Fisher & Carroll
1986 Norton &
Bass 1987
Attewwlb 1992
1997
Organizational
innovative
Kimberly,et al.
1981 Ettlie
1983 Meyet,et
al. 1988
1991
Process
theory
Dean 1987 Dyer
& Page 1988
Schroeder,et al.
40
1989
1996
1997
1996
exploratory research conclusive research
why how how
many
Churchill 1995 Zikmund 1994
Cooper and Emory 1995
41






Zikmund 1994 Experience Survey
Secondary Data Analysis Case Study
Pilot study
interviewer
42
Miller and Crabtree 1992
1996
everyday conversation
depth interview
focus group (pile sort)
rank order
purposive sampling
1996
generalize
Churchill 1995
1994
43
Drucker 1988
1999-2001
3-3
1999
1999
1999
1999
44
2000
2001
2001
2001
Churchill,
1995
1999-2001
e-mail
45
interview guide




46












idea
idea
. .

. .

47

Zikmund 1994




.


.

48
49








4-1























50

1.
2.
3. &
4.





5.
1.
3. / /


4.

1.

4-1
51










52
~H
~H
~C
D

~H
~C

53
~D

..
~E

~A
~D
54
~H
2.





~D
~E
55
&
~D
~E
56
~F

~F

~D
57





~H
~E
58
~H
~G
~C
59
~E
3.



~F
60

idea
~F

~F
Change
61
idea
62








63

.CC
~C
~D
~A




64





~H

~A
~H


65

~A
~G
~E

66
/




~H
~E

67
4-2



























68
~D

~G
~F




69





~F

~E
~F





70




~H
~E








71
~G
~D





~F
~A

72


4-3















73
~F

~G

~C
~F

74

~D

75
~F
~B




~D
76
~F

~E
~A

~F

Sternberg
1998
team



77

~H
~A

~D
~H
~E
1998
78


~A
~G


79




~E
~G








80

4-2












/

81





1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
82

~D
~F

~E
~C
2..




83

~F
~D
3.


4.
84
~C
5.



~C

~D
6.

85

~C

~F



Leonard & Swap 1996
F
86








~F


87

E
~A

88
4-5








1.




~E
~G


1.
2.
3. /
89
2.




~D
~G
3. /



90


~G
~E
~G
91


5-1


&



1




92
/ / 2

93







94
95


96

5-2













/
/
97
98












&

/ /














/
/




99
100



1. 1993

2. 1992 -

3. 1992
4. 1996

5. 1996
6. 1990 -

7. 1999 Drucker

8. 1999 OKeffe format

9. 1997 Levitt
10. 2000
11. (1990) Michael Quinn Patton

12. 1996 -

13. (1998) Leonard & Swap
14. 1989
-
15. 1996
21-48
16. 1996
17. 2001
18. 1975 17
19. 2001
20. 1999
21. 1997
22. 1997

23. 2000
101

24. 1997

25. 1999 -

26. , 1995 Drucker
































102

1. Adams, Marjorie, George S. Day, and Deborah Dougherty 1998 , Enhancing
New Product Development Performance An Organizational Learning
Perspective, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15,403-422.
2. Afuah, Allen 1998 , Innovation Management Strategies, Implementation, and
Profits, New York Oxford University Press.
3. Amabile, Teresa M. 1997 , Motivating Creativity in Organizations On Doing
What You Love and Loving What You Do, California Management Review, Vol.
40, No. 1(Fall), 39-58.
4. Andrews, Jonlee and Daniel C. Smith 1996 , In Search of the Marketing
Imagination Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for Mature
Products, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33(May), 147-187.
5. Calantone , Roger, C. Anthony di Benedetto, and Sriraman Bhoovaraghavan
1994 , Examining the Relationship Between Degree of Innovation and New
Product Success, Journal of Business Research, Vol.30,143-148.
6. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Gerard J. Tellis 1998 , Organizing for Radical
Innovation The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 35 November , 474-487.
7. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Keith Sawyer 1995 , Shifting the Focus From
Individual to Organizational Creativity, in Creative Action in Organizations
Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices, edited by Cameron M. Ford and
Dennis A. Gioia. Thousand Oaks Sage.
8. Deshpande, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster 1993 , Corporate
Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms A Quadrad
Analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 January , 23-27.
9. Drucker, Peter F. 1986, Innovation and EntrepreneurshipPractice and Principles.
New York Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
10. Feldman, David Henry, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Howard Gardner 1994 ,
Changing the World A Framework for the Study of Creativity, CT Praeger
Publishers.
11. Gardner, Howard 1993 . Creating minds. New York BasicBooks.
12. Huber, George P. 1991 , Organizational Learning The Contributing Processes
and the Literatures, Organization Sciences, Vol. 2 (February) , 88-115.
13. Hurley, Robert F. and G. Thomas M. Hult 1998 , Innovation, Market
Orientation, and Organizational Learning An Integration and Empirical
Examination, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62(July), 42-54.
14. Hussey, David E. 1997 , Creativity, Innovation and Strategy, The Innovation
103
Challenge, edited by David Hussey, London John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
15. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss 1988, Empowering People to Act On Ideas, Executive
Excellence, Vol. 5(February), 5-6.
16. Kim, W. Chan and Renee Mauborgne 1997 , Value Innovation The Strategic
Logic of High Growth, Harvard Business Review, January-February, 103-112.
17. Mumford, Michael D. and Sigrid B. Gustafson 1988 , Creativity Syndrome
Integration, Application, and Innovation, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.
103(January), 27-44.
18. Narver, John C.and Stanley F. Slater 1990 , The Effect of a Market Orientation
on Business Profitability, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54(October) , 20-35.
19. Nonaka, Ikujiro and H.Takeuchi 1995,The Knowledge-Creating Company. New
York Oxford University Press.
20. Pelham, Alfred M. 1997 , Mediating Influence on the Relationship Between
Market Orientation and Profitability in small Firms, Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practices, Vol. 5(3), 55-76.
21. Robinson, Alan G. and Sam Stern 1997, Corporate Creativity How Innovation
and Improvement Actually Happen, SF Berrett-Koehler Publishers,Inc.
22. Runco, Mark A. and Herbert J. Walberg 1998 , Personal Explicit Theories of
Creativity, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32(1), 1-17.
23. Sternberg, Robert J., Linda A. OHara, and Todd I. Lubart 1997 , Creativity as
Investment, California Management Review, Vol. 40(1), 8-21.
24. Sternberg & Lubart, T. L. 1996 , Investing in Creativity, American
Psychologist. Vol. 51(7), 77-688.
25. Woodman, Richard W., John E. Sawyer and Ricky W. Griffin(1993) , Toward a
Theory of Organizational Creativity, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
18(April), 293-322.