KIT – University of the State of Baden-Württemberg and National Research Center of the Helmholtz Association KARLSRUHE SERVICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (KSRI) USING SERIOUS GAMES FOR IDEA ASSESSMENT IN SERVICE INNOVATION Feldmann, Niels; Adam, Marc T. P.; Bauer, Maximilian; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute Current challenges in service idea assessment Sources: 1 e.g. Bjelland O. & Wood, R. (2009). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), Barczak, G., et al. (2009). PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23. 3 Cooper, R. G. (2009). How Companies are Reinventing their Idea–to–Launch Methodologies. Research Technology Management, 52(2), 47–57. 4 Feldmann, N. & Kohler, M (2013). Service Innovation Capabilities for Idea Assessment. In The Handbook of Service Innovation. Forthcoming 5 Schulze et al. (2012). Idea assessment in open innovation: A state of practice. ECIS 2012 IdeationIdeas Concepts MarketSuccess Cope with large idea portfolios 1 Tap the knowledge of staff 4 December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015 Requirements for new approaches Address hollow go-decisions 2, 3 High attractiveness for staff 4 IdeasConcepts IT-supported assessment 5 2

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 3 8/2012: San Jose Budget Games in the News Pre-testing a serious game in a real-life environment December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit /2012: KIT 1/2013: Pre-Study in an Eastern European branch of a German bank Online version 8 players 27 ideas they liked it Participants said... felt involved it‘s enjoyable would play in spare time

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 4 Research questions to be addressed in a lab experiment Controlled laboratory experiment RQ1: Do serious games contribute to responding to the challenges of idea assessment in service innovation? RQ2: To what extent does the formation of teams in terms of openness to experience influence the outcome of a serious game for idea assessment? December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 5 Overall experiment design December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015 Students

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 6 RQ1: Perception of system by participants (TAM3*) December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) PEOU1 My interaction with the system is clear and understandable PEOU2 Interacting with the system does not require a lot of my mental effort PEOU3 I find the system to be easy to use PEOU4 I find it easy to get the system to do what I want it to do Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) ENJ1 I find using the system to be enjoyable ENJ2 The actual process of using the system is pleasant ENJ3 I have fun using the system Output Quality (OUT) OUT1 The quality of the output I get from the system is high OUT2 I have no problem with the quality of the system’s output OUT3 I rate the results from the system to be excellent Result Demonstrability (RES) RES1 I have no difficulty telling others about the results of using the system RES2 I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of using the system RES3 The results of using the system are apparent to me RES4 I would have difficulty explaining why using the system may or may not be beneficial State your overall mood level *Source: Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39 (2), ConstructAverageVariance Perceived Enjoyment Perceived Ease of Use Output Quality Result Demonstrability Mood Level (before - after)Up by 7.6% during game (4.8 to 5.2) Conjecture: The Serious Game helps to increase popularity and regular participation in idea assessment

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 7 RQ2: Types of projects bought by varying teams December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015 Number of funded radical ideasBudget invested in radical ideas Significance Test: (# of radical idea as dependent variable) HIGH teams selecting more radical ideas is significant* (b=1.864, se=.779, z=2.39, p=.017) All other teams do not show significant differences * Ordered Logit Regression

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 8 RQ2: Individuals’ investments in radical ideas December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015 OLS regressions on budgets invested in radical ideas by each individual It’s not enough to exhibit a high openness score, participants with high openness scores need to be grouped in homogeneous high openness teams in order to spend more money on radical ideas.

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 9 Outcome, Implications & Further Research December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015  Field study to compare lab to real-life environment  Benchmark serious game with traditional decision methods  Explore further personality dimensions (e.g. extraversion)  Compare outcome and perception of game when played face-to-face vs. online Further Research 1.Contribution to  Attractiveness for staff  Hollow go-decisions  IT-supported assessment 2.No contribution to  Copes with large portfolios  Tap the knowledge of staff 3.Balanced outcome when played by an average set of participants 4.A wanted bias towards more radical ideas can be introduced Outcome & Implications 

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute Thank you ! Niels Feldmann Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Karlsruhe Service Research Institute (KSRI) December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015 Dr. Marc Adam Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Institut of Information Systems and Marketing Max Bauer Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Karlsruhe Service Research Institute (KSRI) 10

Karlsruhe Service Research Institute 11 Implications & Further Research December 05, 2014 Innovation Games Summit 2015 Evalutate chat logs of lab experiment Interactions in Teams Compare interaction pattern of lab experiment with pattern from real- life setups Interactions in Teams Explore the impact of further personality dimensions (e.g. extraversion) Further Dimensions Repeat experiment in real life situation, compare to lab and traditional decision methods Real life test