Next Article in Journal
Methods of Automated Music Comparison Based on Multi-Objective Metrics of Network Similarity
Next Article in Special Issue
New Trends in Production and Operations Management
Previous Article in Journal
Aircraft Wake Recognition Based on Improved ParNet Convolutional Neural Network
Previous Article in Special Issue
Design Optimization of Stacked Pallet Load Units
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/app13063570
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Taxonomy of Idea Management Tools for Supporting Front-End Innovation

by
Di Zhu
1,2,
Abdullah Al Mahmud
1,* and
Wei Liu
2,*
1
School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne 3122, Australia
2
Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(6), 3570; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063570
Submission received: 31 December 2022 / Revised: 6 March 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Production and Operations Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Idea management is a crucial pillar of corporate management. Organizations may save research expenses, influence future development, and maintain distinctive competency by controlling front-end ideas. To date, several idea management tools have been developed. However, it is unknown to what extent they support the idea management process. Therefore, this scoping review aims to understand the classification of idea management tools and their effectiveness through an overview of the academic literature. Electronic databases (Scopus, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science Core Index, Elsevier ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink) were searched, and a total of 38 journal papers (n = 38) from 2010 to 2020 were retrieved. We identified 30 different types of idea management tools categorized as digital tools (n = 21), guidelines (n = 5), and frameworks (n = 4), and these tools have been utilized by software designers, hardware designers, and stakeholders. The identified tools may support various stages of idea management, such as capturing, generating, implementing, monitoring, refinement, retrieving, selection, and sharing. However, most tools only support a single stage (either capture or generate), and they cannot track the life cycle of the ideas, which may lead to misunderstanding. Therefore, it is essential to develop tools for managing ideas that would allow end users, designers, and other stakeholders to minimize bias in selecting and prioritizing ideas.

1. Introduction

Idea management, which is at the forefront of innovation management, is a crucial pillar of corporate management [1], and idea management can be viewed as a subsidiary innovation management process with the objectives of efficient and effective idea pro-duction, assessment, and selection [2]. Therefore, a company must innovate to become more competitive considering globalization. Researchers and practitioners proposed different solutions to managing improvement, such as idea management described in innovation and information technology [3]. Companies aim to achieve breakthroughs of innovation. However, their ideas are the real issue. In recent decades, front-end innovation has been recognized for its potential to strengthen innovation capability [4]. The early stage of new product development (NPD) has broadly recognized the same meaning as the fuzzy front-end phase [5]. Researchers believe that the fuzzy front end significantly influences the whole process and the outcome (input–output process) since it substantially affects the innovation’s design and total costs [6].
Therefore, the given field has paid more attention to fuzzy front-end innovation. Ideation is a vital phase of ambiguous front-end innovation and an integral part of the design [7] critical to business success [8]. Particularly conceptual ideas are the foundation of a product that continuously determines the design solutions’ success and has the most significant impact on the product development cost [9]. From a business perspective, improved design ideas can shift buying decision criteria, benefiting companies’ competitiveness [10]. The idea represents the potential starting point of innovation that strengthens individual and innovative company capability [4]. The research chooses to pursue a higher quality of ideas since quality ideas heavily impact success [11,12]. How can we improve the effectiveness and appropriateness of idea management systems, applications, tools, or methods?
Idea management is an approach for capturing, organizing, and developing ideas. Several researchers have investigated the idea management area to improve idea quality [5,10,13]. Various challenges to proposing creative ideas arose because of too many collected ideas and limited relevant information [2]. Additionally, by managing ideas, companies can save on research costs [14], extend users’ coverage [15], impact future development [16], maintain unique competency [10], etc. Many companies established research and development (R&D) and user experience (UX) departments [13]. Idea management in the R&D lab managed idea flow as information processing [17]. Researchers have discussed the process of idea management from insights to validation [18,19].
Moreover, they have discovered external idea generation, in which community innovation requires collecting ideas through the idea management system [13,20]. Using tools to track and record idea development, researchers can further discuss, reflect, and offer the ideation [21]. The essential requirements for designers are capturing, managing, and utilizing design ideas [22]. Furthermore, because management is not single-use, research in different contexts may require various idea management tools. Tools help to illuminate the apparent path for the growth of ideas and all evidence contexts [12]. Idea management tools allow one to capture, generate, and save ideas from stakeholders. As such, researchers can obtain new knowledge to iterate current products, propose new products [23], and expand the problem space [8].
Nevertheless, previous research only investigated the quality of ideas and did not include UX of the idea management system. Researchers discuss the process model [24], life cycle [18], success factor [12], and quality of ideas [25]. Still, research should address the interaction of people and idea management systems, which would help showcase how different concepts are managed in other contexts [4]. There is a gap between an ideal proposal and implementation in the real world. It is challenging to connect product planning, design, and engineering teams with trust and certainty [12]. For example, UX designers reflect on formal ideas [26]. They need to pay more attention to the importance of a methodical and sustainable process since the idea management tools should build on a specific conceptual framework [3,27]. Only a few studies mentioned the design of idea management tools from the perspective of UX. For example, Inie and Dalsgaard investigated the cognitive and social processes of users [22]. Moon and Han [28] developed a creative idea generation methodology for the fuzzy front end (FFE) of radical innovation from the perspective of UX.
It is imperative to understand user behavior, especially interaction when using the idea management system to suggest a more holistic and efficient idea management system. It is used to conduct market research. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to understand the criteria, potentials, tools, and issues emerging in the idea management area from 2010 to 2020 through an overview of the academic literature. The specific objectives were to examine (1) the overview of the idea management tools and (2) the evaluation methods and criteria of these tools.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review represents a practical way to map fields of study in which the material range could be more straightforward. It summarizes and disseminates current research findings from a broader range of views [29]. This study follows the JBI reviewer’s manual [30]. We follow the PRISMA-ScR protocol standards [31]. This scoping review aims to understand what idea management tools, systems, or applications were utilized and how those were evaluated.

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included, highlighting idea management applications and defined outcomes to assist designers over the last ten years (from 2010 to 2020). Studies published in the English language were considered, including studies that reported one of the eligible outcomes, including the tool, strategy, application, product, system, or platform. However, the research team excluded studies that were review articles or systematic reviews and had objectives only as an iteration of current tools instead of developing new tools or entailing research commentary without initial results [32]. The included studies should clearly describe the process and results of idea management tools. Analysis without users’ data was excluded. The studies where idea management was not the prime focus of the study (e.g., only mentioned in the discussion or references) were excluded. The study must include information to assess the methodological quality. Full papers that could not be retrieved were excluded.

2.2. Search Strategy

To reflect the position of all uses of the idea management tools in the design context, keywords about idea management tools were used (see Table A1 in Appendix A). Literature search strategies were developed using idea management titles and outcomes related to devices, applications, platforms, software, design, and systems. Since an “idea” may have many combinations, this study looked for the exact phrases using database settings. The electronic database searches were supplemented by combining Scopus, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science Core Index, Elsevier ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink. Only journals were considered. The literature searches were limited to English, with a range covering the last ten years (2010–2020). To ensure literature saturation, the research team scanned the reference lists of the included studies for additional sources and authors’ files to guarantee that all relevant material had been identified.

2.3. Screening

The database search resulted in 82 titles, with 78 identified from a database search and four from a Google Scholar search. As per Figure 1, it was a three-level screening. The review authors independently screened the titles. Then, abstracts were yielded by the investigation against the inclusion criteria. The first screen level entailed rapid title screening, followed by the reviewing of author pairs, filtering of full-text reports, and deciding whether these met the inclusion criteria. The team sought additional information from study authors to resolve eligibility questions, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The next level was full-text screening that screened the titles and abstracts. Thirty-seven full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Commentary without actual results was excluded since idea management was not the focus of the study (e.g., only mentioned in the discussion or references). Reports that required more information to assess the methodological quality or the complete reports that could not be retrieved were excluded. Ten articles were identified through reference scanning, and finally, 38 articles were included in the review.

2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis Method

The results, including focus, findings, target users, and tools, are presented in diagrams and tables. Two analysis parts summarize articles based on a standardized form and thematic synthesis. Using a standardized format (as Table A1 in Appendix A shows) and a detailed instruction manual that informs specific tailoring of the NVivo 12 file, two reviewers extracted data independently and duplicated them from each eligible study. To guarantee consistency across reviewers, the team conducted calibration exercises before starting the review. The data abstracts included demographic information, methodology, design details, and all reported essential outcomes. The reviewers resolved disagreements through discussion, and one of the two arbitrators adjudicated unresolved disputes. The data extraction covered basic information about the study, research methods, and findings. The research team utilized thematic synthesis to identify trends and opportunities for developing idea management tools. The thematic synthesis had two stages, including coding text and developing descriptive themes. To structure and gather idea management outcomes, researchers selected texts that reflected the perception and used the context of tools, applications, and strategies.
At first, the team sorted publications per the tools of idea management, with selected texts reflecting the views and descriptions of idea management tools. The team then organized them in a matrix where texts were clustered and coded [33]. The general characteristics of the literature were organized into descriptive themes. The research team identified and described codes reflecting how the concept was described in the literature. Thus, the encoding was to bring out the essence of the texts that illustrated the concept of idea management tools.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of the Tools

As Table 1 shows, we classified 38 tools based on outcome classification, theories to support idea management work, type of user, and design task.

3.1.1. Classification of Tools

Three categories exist within idea management research: digital tools, guidelines, and frameworks.
  • Digital tools (21 papers, 70%). This category contains idea management tools that support idea management work including local work and online collaboration. For example, these tools may zoom in on idea generation and can display images and texts with different inputs that inspire and promote idea management, especially idea generation. Furthermore, these applications tend to focus on a single context. Most applications are designed for computer terminals, with only one being a mobile app [21]. These applications support the entire process of ideas, for instance, product planning [16], idea generation [2,7], and ideation [34,35]. Some applications provide vital structure and suggestions [23] to express explicit knowledge [34]. Other applications rely on the company’s internal system [36]. One research paper evaluates the classroom climate by using the application to stimulate the generation of ideas and originality [37]. Some of the digital tools are more complete, supporting more general context with users [5]. It can test more users in natural settings following their diverse experiences [5,38,39]. The purpose of systems is to increase collaboration [40], transparency [38], and quality [41,42]. Three research studies involve more users via the Internet, such as forums based on information and communication technology, developing a distributed-innovation capability [36]. As such, this research focuses on fostering the habit of posting ideas on the system [38] and increasing the ideas’ quality. The idea management system concentrates more on anonymous online collaboration, attracting users to contribute.
  • Guidelines (five papers, 16.6%). Guidelines are instructions or printed materials to support overall idea management work. Users can follow the instruction of strategies and guidelines to work on idea management effectiveness. Idea management strategies are designed more toward professional practitioners such as design-driven entrepreneurs [10] and experienced engineering teams [43]. Guidelines explain how designers used product characteristics for concept identification and how previous concepts were turned into new solutions by adjusting their characteristics [9]. These strategies are summarized by experienced designers [43] or those proposing high-quality ideas [25]. Furthermore, cards are a way to display the context and explanation [43]. Researchers identify a conceptual framework by understanding the development of new ideas for familiar problems or daily design activities [22]. Guidelines are derived from users’ design activities, including the activities of designers, engineers, and entrepreneurs. It means research adopts more user research methods than other format outcomes.
  • Framework (four papers, 13.3%). A framework helps explain the process, structures, and relationships of idea management processes. It usually includes the holistic and contextual views. The framework shows the metrics [15], life cycle [19], business model [44], and process [45] regarding idea management. These frameworks were developed following a more apparent scope and purpose than the other three outcome formats. For example, the metrics introduce the annotation of ideas with a domain-independent taxonomy that describes concepts, gathering creative ideas from large groups [15]. It presents a relationship between different stages and elements from a new perspective, leading to more innovative ideas.
In conclusion, more studies focus on digital tools to support idea capturing, generation, refinement, and selection. Guidelines assist professional designers who have the expertise to conduct idea management. The framework shows a visual overview of the idea management process.

3.1.2. Use of Theory to Design the Idea Management Tool

The designed idea management tools used different theories to develop their key features. Below we summarize the theories mentioned in the 35 studies.
Cognitive psychology (10 papers, 40%). This perspective is focused on individual studies. Based on cognitive psychology theory, participants have a distinct way of experiencing the world. From the standpoint of cognitive psychology, idea management tools related to emotion and memory search converge and diverge. To improve idea management activities, consumers’ emotions using sentiment analysis can be studied [13]. From a memory search perspective, researchers propose a cognitive model [46]. Treating idea management as a creative activity is conducted according to the reflective practice theory of designing [47]. The focus is on the example design by inspiration and fixation influence [48] and fragment ideas using morphological analysis [10]. Specific studies are revised from the former design behavior framework [21] or complementary basic schemata [35]. Stimuli discussion is the most complicated topic given the many types of stimuli, such as visual and verbal, abstract and concrete, emotional, and cognition. The purpose is to assist designers in producing creative ideas [2]. The analogy applies the structured knowledge from a familiar field to one less familiar. One tool uses analogical reasoning and ontology to provoke participants to generate more creative ideas [7]. The study highlights that the heartbeat has an impact on the creativity of participants. Therefore, using heartbeat variations to create high-quality ideas during brainstorming can be helpful [11]. From the perspective of the cognitive psychology, ideas are influenced by various types of ideations, intuitive and logical [49], type of design [8], and inspirational resources [18]. Cognitive strategies can broaden the analysis perspective regarding further exploration [44]. Furthermore, because of inherent design knowledge, there are cognition differences between participants, such as experienced designers and novice designers with idea generation reference behavior [49], and engineering performs better in individual brainstorming sessions [9]. Triggers promote a higher quality of ideas [50] for individual designers or design teams [13]. Studies show that stimuli significantly impact problem-solving styles [47], with words, images, and videos as potential triggers [21]. There are different types of incentives, low levels (concrete) and high levels (abstract) [48], tests, and visual [46]. Sharing diverse ideas can stimulate other ideas [25].
  • Information management technology (eight papers, 32%). Idea management is a sub-category of information management. Information management technology can foster collaboration and transparency among participants with diverse experiences [5], possibly leading to a new service idea [44]. Three studies target crowds that gain more advantages thanks to information technology than others since it helps manage a large amount of information [38]. Public service, aging, and intelligent space fields require diverse user feedback [15]. The other existing tool analogy recommends an approach that helps organizations to improve how they generate new ideas [42]. Ideas could be considered knowledge, specifically explicit knowledge [41]. Users have a hold on the consumers’ domain-specific knowledge [51]. These two studies aim to express the evident expertise of participants.
Table
Table 1. Overview of the tools. * Denotes the characteristics of the tool.
Table 1. Overview of the tools. * Denotes the characteristics of the tool.
AuthorPurpose of the ToolOutcome TypeUse of Theory
(to Support Idea
Management)		Participant Categories Design Task
Digital ToolsGuidelines FrameworksCognitive PsychologyInformation Management Technology Social PsychologySoftware Designers Hardware Designers Stakeholders IndividualGroup
Cheng, 2016 [21] Support the idea development ****
Munemori et al., 2018 [41] Enable the expression of explicit knowledge****
Riedel et al., 2010 [34] Promote associative ideation***
Žavbi et al., 2013 [35] Assist engineering designers in generating concept designs****
Ardaiz-Villanueva et al., 2011 [37] Encourage creativity and analyze classroom atmosphere****
Benbya et al., 2018 [36] Develop a distributed-innovation capability***
Murah et al., 2013 [50] Provides the structure and the platform to contribute ideas**
Howard et al., 2011 [8] Use internally sourced stimuli***
Fiorineschi et al., 2018 [23] Make recommendations for new uses for products***
Han et al., 2018 [2] Assist designers to produce creative ideas****
Parjanen et al., 2012 [5] Investigate how brokerage works in a virtual setting****
Xie et al., 2010 [42] Manage the whole process of idea and support team creation***
El et al., 2017 [43] Organizations to improve their ways of generating new ideas**
Gonçalves et al., 2014 [49] Report preferences for inspirational approaches***
Han et al., 2018 [7] Create ontologies that facilitate reasoning ****
Yu et al., 2013 [40] Increases the creativity of ideas across generations***
Alessi et al., 2015 [38] Stay in line with the needs of society****
Sadriev et al., 2014 [52] Build up direct purposefully the innovation development processes*
Kokogawa et al., 2013 [53] Provide photographs are used to support idea generation***
Bacciotti et al., 2016 [16] Support product planning in ideation processes***
Munemori et al., 2020 [11] Use heartbeat variations for creating high quality ideas**
Bayus, 2012 [25]Maintaining an ongoing supply of quality ideas from the crowd ****
Daly et al., 2012 [9] Define concepts using product characteristics****
Tanyavutti et al., 2018 [10] An idea generation method for the concept****
Yilmaz et al., 2013 [43] Suggest how to develop new ideas for familiar problems****
Inie et al., 2020 [22] Identify a conceptual framework of ten strategies**
Westerski et al., 2013 [15] Collect ideas for innovation from large communities***
Jeong et al., 2016 [44] Lead to a new service idea****
Westerski et al., 2011 [19] Aid gather, organize, choose, and manage the creative ideas ***
Börekçi et al., 2015 [45] Provide insights for generating ideas in design thinking**
López-Mesa et al., 2011 [47] Effects of additional stimuli on the design process**
Schlecht et al., 2014 [54] Influence of resource constraints on idea generation*
Luo et al., 2015 [51] Enhance consumer performance in online idea generation platforms**
Vasconcelos et al., 2017 [48]Compare the inspiration effects from these two types of stimuli***
Liikkanen et al., 2010 [46] Experimentation in conceptual product design**
Oldschmidt et al., 2011 [55] Present stimuli along with a design problem**
Sozo et al., 2019 [13] Emotional stimuli for creativity***
Yang et al., 2021 [56] Understand social interaction**
  • Social psychology (six papers, 24%). Idea management is commonly considered group work, especially regarding idea generation and selection. Enhancing interaction can lead to higher-quality idea management by considering the participants as a group. Heuristics, peer interaction, and social context are the primary theories adopted by studies. A heuristic is a potential shortcut to reducing psychological consumption. It is a simple rule allowing one to make complex decisions or inferences quickly and effortlessly, providing design heuristics to designers, and helping engineers to facilitate concept generation [9]. Thus, the study recruits experienced designers to summarize their idea’s development [43]. The other perspective is activating interaction between participants by establishing a social context [37] and sharing ideas with group members [34], especially with peers. During group collaboration, including face-to-face and remote modes, participants are more likely to generate higher-quality ideas and increase their creativity [39]. One of the most practical problems is tracking the concept over time to identify the challenges [25]. It would be easier for the right question to lead to more creative ideas. A straightforward design solution space that involves known elements is needed [9]. It includes specific dimensions, contexts, constraints, and goals [36]. Regulations can change the design solution. These constraints could be time awareness [54], paper-based or computer-based time design activity, time on searching online [21], and detailed or less detailed design briefs [45].

3.1.3. Tools to Support Individual and Group Work

Unique tools are included, supporting personal work and group tools that aid team collaboration.
  • Individual work (16 papers, 61.5% total). Table 2 shows these tools are designed for individuals and most likely apply to university students or individual designers. These studies aimed to generate unique ideas and provide different triggers [48] and tools [9] to test better ways of generating more creative ideas that uphold specific constraints. Some of these tools have another hypothesis. For example, stimuli presented to student designers through texts and design problems would enhance the quality of their design solutions [55]. Moreover, tools can be tested in a lab environment. One of the tools is based on computer-aided design (CAD), designed by Autodesk. Bacciotti’s research aids NPD initiatives’ product preparation and ideation processes [14]. Individual work only has a single user and relies on the quality of ideas. Therefore, these individual tools focus more on promoting the unique potential of creative design. The differences of the tools depend on the design briefs users may work on; if users have limited scope of the design topics, the tools provide more concrete support such as CAD to support product design [16]. If users have broader design aims, the tools offer more abstract guidance to support various design direction, such as design steps [40].
Table
Table 2. List of individual-based tools.
Table 2. List of individual-based tools.
AuthorName of the Tool Purpose of the Tool
Bacciotti et al., 2016 [16]CAD Support product planning in ideation processes of new product development (NPD) initiatives
Han et al., 2018 [7]The Retriever Create ontologies that facilitate reasoning over real-world datasets that are sufficiently deep and comprehensive to inspire original thought
Parjanen et al., 2012 [5]Not mentioned Investigate how brokerage works in a virtual setting where experts from various fields and perspectives engage
Daly et al., 2012 [9]Design Heuristics Support designers’ defined concepts using product characteristics and modify them to create new solutions
Cheng, 2016 [21]AGCI interface prototype Support the idea development of individual designers and greatly affect idea communication
Žavbi et al., 2013 [35] Computer tools Assist engineering designers in generating concept designs
Ardaiz-Villanueva et al., 2011 [37] Wikideas and Creativity Connector tools Encourage creativity and analyze classroom atmosphere
Xie et al., 2010 [40] IMS Manage the whole process of idea and support team creation
Vasconcelos et al., 2017 [48] Not mentioned Compare the inspiration effects from these two types of stimuli (abstract and concrete)
Oldschmidt et al., 2011 [55] Not mentioned Present stimuli along with a design problem, which would improve the quality of their design solution
Howard et al., 2011 [8] Sweeper Use internally sourced stimuli
Sozo et al., 2019 [13] Emotriggers Emotional stimuli for creativity
Fiorineschi et al., 2018 [23] A nine-step method Make recommendations for finding potential new uses for current products and/or technologies
Han et al., 2018 [2] The Combinator Assist designers to produce creative ideas and be beneficial in expanding the design space
Kokogawa et al., 2013 [53] GUNGEN-PHOTO Provide photographs that are used to support idea generation
Gonçalves et al., 2014 [49] Not mentioned Report preferences for inspirational approaches
  • Group work (10 papers, 38.5% total). As Table 3 shows, creative design activities consistently involve a group of participants as part of the concept design. These participants have different roles, including designers [46], entrepreneurs [10], service providers [38], mobile carriers [44], and crowdsourcing users [25]. The main goal when asking a group of participants is to improve the quality of ideas during the idea generation stage. These tools aim to collect diverse users’ ideas, suggestions, and feedback. Following the generation of better ideas is the first goal; the second goal is selection [46], refinement [41], and sharing [36]. Furthermore, some researchers recruit stakeholders to develop ideas of higher feasibility, especially regarding public service, providing service to diverse users [38]. The idea management collaboration consistently occurs in a professional environment with many employees [36], design teams [46], and engineering teams [43]. The different focus is linked to the relationship between the users and company, such as employees [43], informants [41], and co-creator [25]. Besides inter-role collaborations in the professional group work, such as idea management in UI design teams [13], others may involve the interdisciplinary group members [40]. The interdisciplinary collaboration may balance the different knowledge reserve and different level of involvement and accelerate the collaboration. Therefore, understanding the relationship between users’ social interactions and innovation contributions may promote team idea management.

3.1.4. Users of Idea Management Tools

We identified three types of users, software designers, hardware designers, and stakeholders, who use idea management tools.
  • Software designers (11 papers, 31.4% total). Design is the activity of conceiving and planning what does not yet exist. Software designers design interfaces, features, and processes, including interaction designers, graphic designers, and UX designers. They are mentioned in the highest frequency alongside a variety of types, including novice designers [51], student designers [55], and professional designers [49]. Some research discusses the impacts of remaining stimuli, such as abstract and concrete stimuli [51] and emotional triggers [13]. Designers must capture inspiration in daily life. Therefore, some tools considered this use scenario. Furthermore, different types of designers may have diverse needs, such as interaction designers [22]. All the research highlights the importance of creativity and proposed tools to help designers improve their creations.
  • Hardware designers (nine papers, 25.7% total). Hardware designers design products, structures, and environments and include industrial and engineering designers. Usually, they need support in managing their ideas, especially engineering designers. Throughout these studies, engineering students are equal to industrial [9] and novice designers [47]. Instead of designers, they have limited space for innovation since the tangible prototype is limited by material and structure. Furthermore, some of them may already have patents protected. As such, studies aim to understand how experienced designers transform ideas into solutions [9] and then follow the cognitive process, assisting engineering designers in generating concept designs [35]. Design challenges can focus on a smaller scope, such as product line improvement [43]—an engineer’s idea management concentrates on improving the idea generation of tangible solutions.
  • Stakeholders (15 papers, 42.9% total). The remaining roles in idea management research are within the professional field, considered as stakeholders. The functions include entrepreneurs [10], service providers [38], mobile carriers [44], many employees [36], and crowdsourcing community users [15]. It switches the focus from ways to improve creation to collaboration. Crowdsourcing attracts users to propose ideas [25], allowing the company to collect more ideas from the idea pool [56]. It is based on quantity leading to quality [1,3]. Additionally, the company can create a community where users can share their ideas and contribute. Peer interaction impacts idea generation [49]. Some researchers recruit users from the community, but design idea management systems for designers come from the future [39]. Crowdsourcing should be traceable over time [25], with the quality and motivation of generating ideas changing.

3.1.5. How Do Tools Support Idea Management Work?

Figure 2 displays how all research considers idea generation since it is the primary consideration of idea management. The phases include capturing, generating, implementing, monitoring, refinement, retrieving, selecting, and sharing.
The idea selection phase was mentioned in seventeen papers. Ideas must be prioritized when crowdsourcing or teams have to provide many ideas. This step focuses on the impact of ideas [19]. Sixteen papers discuss capturing ideas by studying the stimuli, including photographs, abstract, and concrete stimulations [48]. Furthermore, the crowd’s innovation has to interact with others’ ideas [35,53] through social interaction such as commenting and teamwork [53]. Through refinement, potential ideas are combined to propose a better one. Fourteen papers study idea refinement with creative activity being iterative [18]. Thus, it must combine the former ideas following the current context. Implementation (six papers) is more relevant to teamwork, which must develop ideas [38]. Sharing (six papers) is more about crowdsourcing, which requires sharing ideas in the community. Some designers and engineers need to retrieve ideas (five papers) from the idea pool [45]. Only one study mentions monitoring related to public service [38].

3.2. Effectiveness Evaluation of Idea Management Tools

The section below explains the findings following the idea management tool evaluation.

3.2.1. Evaluation Criteria of Idea Management Tools

According to Table 3, there are various criteria for evaluating idea management tools. Based on the exact definition of criteria, some criteria share the same meaning, such as novelty, obviousness, creativity, and originality, which all represent uniqueness of the ideas; therefore, the research team combined these criteria into a cluster. Most of the standards focus on justifying the idea’s quality and impact.
The most frequently mentioned criterion is novelty, meaning the idea should be unusual and unexpected [8], implying originality and creativity. A novel idea commonly expands the design space [46]. Furthermore, quantity is an important criterion. It can be evaluated by the number of views [16], even given a time limit [25]. Quantity should be considered the criterion since quantity leads to quality, which is a mixed criterion. Quality does not have a precise measurement, making researchers think about its adoption intention [51], usefulness, and flexibility [2]. They also invite experts to evaluate the quality of ideas [13]. Variety is seen as a measure of design solution scope. It requires further analysis to define the cluster category [13]. Usability measures how easily a user interacts with the ideas [21] and perceived usefulness [8]. Feasibility means applicable, adaptive task constraints [8], which are both marketable and precise [54]. Satisfaction also requires an evaluation from others, which usually adopts the Likert scale [41]. Improvement equals the added value of recommender systems, which are not considered in older ideas [42].

3.2.2. Testing the Effectiveness of the Idea Management Tool

Applying idea management tools to complete a specific design challenge was the most common tool evaluation method. Fourteen papers utilized experimental comparison, specifically group comparison. For example, a CAD tool supports idea generation, comparing ideation performance between engineering students who use the tool and those without it [16]. They receive the same design brief used for the screwdriver design. Most research defines a transparent object, including a tangible product such as a washing machine [13] and a digital game such as the ultimate game [11].
Digital tools are idea management systems and platforms (five papers) that are created through user developmental testing. An example is the idea management system for team creation. Idea management is a continuous process. The testing lasts years, and a further two months are necessary to evaluate performance by asking to design a die mold [40]. The objects are stable, like the employees and crowds in the community. A survey method is adopted to collect the data.
Studies with interactive designs conduct evaluation experiments, such as application and platform evaluation. Most research adopts experimental comparison as the first step of research with more precise evaluation criteria, and seven papers select students to participate in the experiment, especially design and engineering students. Longitudinal experiments require target users to participate. Therefore, crowds [38,53], employees [36,40], and aging people [5] are considered.

4. Discussion

Numerous idea management tools have been developed to aid designers in generating more innovative ideas and improving their effectiveness.

4.1. How Are Idea Management Tools Classified?

Idea management tools can be divided into three clusters: digital tools (70%), guidelines (16.6%), and framework (13.3%). Following this research, digital tools are the most common outcome of idea management research because these tools could be used to address a specific problem and support idea management work directly. On the other hand, the system is the most complex outcome and should adapt to various challenges. It takes a long time to build prototypes, and it is hard to test them in the field—guidelines and frameworks face the same specific question but with different forms. Strategies use text to explain the details. Frameworks use visual models such as the matrix and life cycle.
Given the complexity of design [52,57], professional designers and students always use computers to solve design-related problems. Computer-based tools are simple to test in a lab environment, with professional designers always conducting idea management on computers. However, mobility is a trend in design research, while mobile phones have a larger screen and a higher-speed processor. Portable devices would help them catch ideas in their everyday life. Thus, we should consider the features on the mobile phone that can support designers anytime and anywhere, such as idea capture and idea selection. Furthermore, these applications focus more on the idea generation phase, providing stimuli to improve idea quality.
There are more opportunities for different phases of idea management. The system manages ideas in a complex process well, such as group work, especially the community’s role in crowdsourcing. More stakeholders would be involved in making decisions. Benbya and Leidner emphasized that the system must consider the interaction between users and systems on features, including comments and voting [36]. Guidelines and frameworks differ since they are more theoretical. Strategies provide instruction in idea management, guiding design activities, not through specific tools but with a clear direction. Such a conceptual framework of ten systems supports interaction designers [22]. It summarizes the explicit knowledge of how designers can improve the management of ideas. Tools designed according to the theoretical framework may improve the quality and efficiency of thoughts. Modeling is the other way to organize the results of idea management. It is more detailed than strategies targeting the context, such as emotional metrics [15]. This study argues that methods and framework should be tested in the real world. Therefore, research should explain the tool’s theoretical basis and performance.
In addition to various carrier forms, these tools have the following three theoretical origins: cognitive psychology theory (40%), information technology theory (32%), and social psychology theory (24%). Cognitive psychology theory wants to improve individual performance. Information technology theory aims to enhance explicit knowledge transformation, and social psychology theory seeks to provide opportunities for social interaction. Unsurprisingly, cognitive psychology represents wanting to improve idea management performance. The latest research introduces the idea quality forecasting models to measure and forecast the quality [58]. It considers that stimuli would affect users to avoid fixation and provide inspiration [48], such as visual and verbal, abstract and concrete, and emotion and cognition. These triggers define idea quality. Even physical conditions affect them [11]. Information management technology relies on the internet and original data, meaning that the research is more likely to build on the current system. The tools are affected by cognitive models of various job roles. Researchers have mentioned the hierarchical roles of the idea provider, for example, an idea provider with a higher hierarchical rank may have more of an effect of constructive feedback on the idea quality [14]. Users of the idea management tools include software and hardware designers, professionals, and crowds in the community. It has different types of ideations, intuitive and logical [49], types of design [6], and inspirational resources [21]. Still, there needs to be research comparing different cognitive models of idea management. Furthermore, Cheng et al. observed the moderating effects of perceived goal clarity, knowledge self-efficacy, and cognitive demand on the correlations between germane cognitive load and idea convergence quality [59].
The social psychology perspective treats idea management work as a group activity. It introduces facilitator comment activities that increase the possibility of views colliding, leading to higher-quality ideas [37]. The social psychology research summarizes strategies from former idea management activities that can support novice designers in improving their effectiveness. Heuristics is a helpful way to enhance peer interaction [9]. However, the group discussion displays more uncertainty. It requires an experienced facilitator or a higher fault tolerance system. If we desire to generalize the findings, the idea management tools should be stable, practical, and effective. Hence, we should investigate current idea management stimulus, technologies, and strategies. Then, we could decide which combination improves the effectiveness of idea management tools. The right design questions can affect the idea management results. The questions always contain timing of awareness [54], paper-based or computer-based time design activity, time performing online searches [21], and detailed or less detailed design briefs [45]. There is increasing talk about measurable elements such as times and types of activity. Regarding the design brief, it is not easy to evaluate its details. Triggers promote higher-quality ideas [50] for individual designers or design teams [13]. It is still necessary to investigate which stimuli trigger creative ideas more effectively, especially the performance between words and visual stimuli. Future research should study low-level (concrete) and high-level (abstract) mixing.

4.2. Tools to Support Individual Work and Group Work

There are more individual tasks (61.5%) since it is more straightforward for researchers to design individual lab studies or empirical studies, providing concrete results and making it easier to recruit users. Personal tools solve design problems by a single designer or engineer, primarily for academic purposes. With 38.5% of researchers having studied group collaboration, most focus on community idea management. Users post and discuss their ideas via the forum. Group tools can support more idea management work than scenario diversity, even for professional purposes.
However, idea management work continuously occurs within teams [22]. With teamwork studies, it is easier for researchers to understand the actual needs of the users. Only some of them consider professional settings, which involve stakeholders such as designers [47], entrepreneurs [8], service providers [38], and mobile carriers [44]. Furthermore, studies geared toward design and engineering students as subjects to test the feasibility may contribute less to professional scenarios. Future research should focus on the interaction between professions with individual users. The single involvement of users may generate good ideas. However, fewer prove feasible and valuable. Practitioners have relied on users’ sense of belonging and used the voting system to collect consumer feedback [57].
Yet, if users find their voice does not contribute to any change, they may feel frustrated and stop sharing their opinions. Researchers offer suggestions for designing online studies that respect respondents’ time, effort, and dignity following participants’ crowdsourcing experiences [60]. If we rely on algorithms, these choices are frequently complicated, necessitating algorithms that consider users’ strategic (or occasionally irrational) behavior and how available tasks or people are distributed over time [61]. The involvement of professionals can generate valuable ideas and can also pay attention to the critical needs of users. Researchers have reported that conflict, decreased collaboration, and diminished innovation are more common in teams with individuals in charge [62]. Therefore, we should create opportunities for professionals and end users to discuss their opinion and make decisions together.

4.3. Who Are the Target Users of Idea Management Tools?

There are three types of users: software designers (31.4%), hardware designers (25.7%), and stakeholders (42.9%). Designers can be divided into software designers, who design interfaces, features, and processes, and hardware designers, who create products, structures, and engineering environments. Software designers must be more creative since the cost of a design application is lower than a product, and they face fewer limitations [63]. Therefore, the research concentrates more on the improvement of creativity with tools. Inspiration proves an essential element [48].
Still, hardware designers have more constraints since the product must be usable. It has a lot of mechanical requirements, given a basic structure. Therefore, they investigate effects from different functional parts, using techniques such as sentiment analysis [38]. The design assignment is simplified to a sub-problem. It requires the design problem to be divided into parts easily. Stakeholders exert authority when making decisions. It depends on different departments and teams. Real-world settings impact the final product. However, more papers must explain the diverse needs of stakeholders only by providing a channel that involves them in the idea management process. It is difficult to determine whether stakeholders express more opinions in the discussion.

4.4. How Do Tools Support Idea Management Work?

Idea management tools can support different stages of idea management. As Figure 2 shows, capturing, generating, refinement, and selection are the most popular topics intensely affecting performance. The generating phase (n = 35, 100%) has drawn the most attention. All included papers support idea generation. It has been proven that idea generation’s quantitative and qualitative components are vital to concept management [64]. Idea capturing (n = 16, 45.7%) and idea selection (n = 17, 48.6%) were other frequently mentioned phases. Ideas are generated and shared through the extracting process, while ideas are captured and evaluated utilizing the landing process [65]. The premise that organizations producing many ideas would pick excellent ideas has been the focus of most idea selection research [66]. Nevertheless, idea management is a holistic process. It should not consider only a few stages or a single stage. It should be viewed as a journey of ideas.

4.5. What Are the Evaluation Criteria of Idea Management Tools?

How useful do users consider idea management tools? Do the tools help provide a better idea management experience? Nineteen papers evaluating the performance of ideas management tools, reviewing the evaluation design, and testing the results are necessary to consider. Most of the studies are conducted by academic researchers. Fewer are designed by corporations such as Allianz [36]. Only some tools are tested in real contexts with target users [8,13,22,34,36,40]. As we mentioned, they often use students as subjects. Table 4 displays different criteria to evaluate the idea management tools. The research team combined the requirements with the exact definition. Most standards look to justify the idea’s quality and impact. Some criteria are measurable, such as quantity, satisfaction, and usability.
Regarding quality, improvement, and appropriateness, it is necessary to involve experts or users to identify the qualitative performance and turn it into a score [51]. Novelty, quantity, and quality are the most mentioned criteria. However, measures depend on different idea management requirements, such as radical and incremental innovation. Therefore, we should further explore the effectiveness of other criteria combinations, especially in different innovation types.
Researchers adopted an experimental comparison (n = 14, 73.7%) to evaluate the effectiveness and performed longitudinal experiments (n = 5, 26.3%). It was found that these methods map the classification of tools since the longitudinal investigation requires the mutual idea management system to test over months or even years. Furthermore, to evaluate the performance of tools, researchers need a benchmark against which to compare the performance. Researchers tend to use the usual methods to solve design problems, such as brainstorming and the K-J method. However, there are more techniques to improve the performance of idea management. Mikelsone and Liela found that researchers have created a wide range of potential routes for further study, demonstrating the infinite potential of this subject [20].
Supposing the idea management system relies on crowdsourcing, it is more technology-oriented and capable of managing a large amount of data. Crowdsourcing markets have gained popularity and show promise, facilitating theoretical and empirical research into the creation of algorithms to improve several features of these markets [61]. Still, these data are more quantitative, including satisfaction and feasibility. The convergence of ideas for further examination from a vast pool of candidate ideas of varying quality poses a significant challenge [59]. Therefore, we must decide which technique has the best performance. Future directions are related to the improvement of selecting the more popular benchmark and investigating how to enhance the idea quality in the crowdsourcing system.

5. Conclusions

We identified three types of idea management tools: digital tools, guidelines, and frameworks. Most tools are validated for the research context, but little is known about users and design tasks affecting their implementation. For those tools that collect users’ ideas that will gather a large number of different ideas, designers lack channels to further investigate and understand the user suggestions. The idea management tools may involve stakeholders without a rich experience of managing ideas. Without effective communication between the designers and users, designers and other stakeholders may experience misunderstanding. To minimize the bias, we should further investigate the potential barriers of multiple stakeholders managing ideas and recommendations to overcome these barriers. Since idea generation is iterative, most idea management tools support a single stage (either capture or generate). Therefore, they cannot track the life cycle of the ideas in all stages of idea management. Therefore, it is essential to develop tools for managing ideas that would allow end users, designers, and other stakeholders to minimize bias in selecting and prioritizing ideas.

Author Contributions

Methodology, A.A.M.; formal analysis, D.Z.; data curation, W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.A.M.; supervision, W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

MDPI Research Data Policies at https://www.mdpi.com/ethics (accessed on 6 March 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflict of interest concerning this article’s research, authorship, and/or publication.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Articles used in the review.
Table A1. Articles used in the review.
Author Purpose of the ToolOutcome Type Use of Theory (to Support Idea Management)Participant Categories Design Task Effectiveness of the Design Outcome Criteria of
Effectiveness		Evaluation Type Name of the Tools (n = 38)
Cheng, 2016 [21] Support the idea development Digital toolsCognitive psychology Software designers IndividualExperimental comparison Usability Lab study AGCI interface prototype
Munemori et al., 2018 [41] Enable the expression of explicit knowledgeDigital toolsInformation management technology Software designers Group Experimental comparison Satisfaction Lab study GUNGEN-Web II
Riedel et al., 2010 [34] Promote associative ideationDigital toolsSocial psychology Stakeholders Not mentioned Experimental comparison Number, quality, and improvements Field study Melodie ICT Tool
Žavbi et al., 2013 [35] Assist engineering designers in generating concept designsDigital toolsCognitive psychology Hardware designers IndividualExperimental comparison Variety and better chance to find innovative solutions Lab study Computer tools
Ardaiz-Villanueva et al., 2011 [37] Encourage creativity and analyze classroom atmosphereDigital toolsSocial psychology Hardware designers IndividualExperimental comparison Creativity and affinity Internet study Wikideas and Creativity Connector tools
Benbya et al., 2018 [36] Develop a distributed-innovation capabilityDigital toolsInformation management technology Stakeholders Not mentioned Longitudinal experiment Not mentioned Field study Not mentioned
Murah et al., 2013 [50] Provides the structure and the platform to contribute ideasDigital toolsNot mentioned Stakeholders Not mentioned No evaluation Not mentioned Not mentioned Kacang Cerdik
Howard et al., 2011 [8] Use internally sourced stimuliDigital toolsNot mentioned Hardware designers Individual Experimental comparison Frequency, originality, appropriateness, and unobviousness Field study Sweeper
Fiorineschi et al., 2018 [23] Make recommendations for new uses for productsDigital toolsNot mentioned Software designers IndividualNo evaluation Not mentioned Lab study A nine-step method
Han et al., 2018 [2] Assist designers to produce creative ideasDigital toolsCognitive psychology Software designers IndividualExperimental comparison Originality, usefulness, fluency, and flexibility Lab study The Combinator
Parjanen et al., 2012 [5] Investigate how brokerage works in a virtual settingDigital toolsInformation management technology Stakeholders Individual Longitudinal experiment Not mentioned Internet study Not mentioned
Xie et al., 2010 [42] Manage the whole process of idea and support team creationDigital toolsNot mentioned Stakeholders Individual Longitudinal experiment Satisfaction Lab study IMS
El et al., 2017 [43] Organizations to improve their ways of generating new ideasDigital toolsInformation management technology Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Value for actor and organization Not mentioned Recommendation system
Gonçalves et al., 2014 [49] Report preferences for inspirational approachesDigital toolsNot mentioned Software designers IndividualNot mentioned Not mentioned Quantitative research Not mentioned
Han et al., 2018 [7] Create ontologies that facilitate reasoning Digital tools Cognitive psychology Stakeholders IndividualExpert evaluation Not mentioned Lab study The Retriever
Yu et al., 2013 [40] Increases the creativity of ideas across generationsDigital tools Social psychology Stakeholders Not mentioned Experimental comparison Not mentioned Internet study Internet-scale idea generation systems
Alessi et al., 2015 [38] Stay in line with the needs of societyDigital tools Information management technology Stakeholders Group Longitudinal experiment Not mentioned Internet study Sentiment analysis tool and gamification
Sadriev et al., 2014 [52] Build up direct purposefully the innovation development processesDigital tools Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
Kokogawa et al., 2013 [53] Provide photographs that are used to support idea generationDigital tools Not mentioned Software designers Individual Experimental comparison Quality Lab study GUNGEN-PHOTO
Bacciotti et al., 2016 [16] Support product planning in ideation processesDigital tools Not mentioned Hardware designers Individual Experimental comparison Not mentioned Lab study CAD
Munemori et al., 2020 [11] Use heartbeat variations for creating high-quality ideasDigital tools Cognitive psychology Not mentioned Not mentioned Experimental comparison Usefulness Lab study GUNGEN-Heartbeat
Bayus, 2012 [25]Maintaining an ongoing supply of quality ideas from the crowd GuidelinesSocial psychology Stakeholders Group No evaluation Quality and quantity Lab study Dell’s IdeaStorm
Daly et al., 2012 [9] Define concepts using product characteristicsGuidelinesSocial psychology Hardware designers IndividualNo evaluation Not mentioned Lab study Design Heuristics
Tanyavutti et al., 2018 [10] An idea generation method for the conceptGuidelinesCognitive psychology Stakeholders Group Experimental comparison Not mentioned Lab study Not mentioned
Yilmaz et al., 2013 [43] Suggest how to develop new ideas for familiar problemsGuidelinesSocial psychology Hardware designers Group No evaluation Variety Field study Design Heuristics
Inie et al., 2020 [22] Identify a conceptual framework of ten strategiesGuidelinesNot mentioned Software designers Not mentioned No evaluation Not mentioned Field study Not mentioned
Westerski et al., 2013 [15] Collect ideas for innovation from large communitiesFrameworksInformation management technology Stakeholders Not mentioned Experimental comparison Not mentioned Internet study Idea management systems
Jeong et al., 2016 [44] Lead to a new service ideaFrameworksInformation management technology Stakeholders Group Not mentioned Not mentioned Case study To-Be curve
Westerski et al., 2011 [19] Aid in gathering, organizing, choosing, and managing the creative ideas FrameworksNot mentioned Stakeholders Group Not mentioned Not mentioned Internet study Not mentioned
Börekçi et al., 2015 [45] Provide insights for generating ideas in design thinkingFrameworksNot mentioned Software designers Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Lab study Not mentioned
López-Mesa et al., 2011 [47] Effects of additional stimuli on the design processNot mentioned Cognitive psychology Hardware designers Process-based and outcome evaluation Novelty, variety, quantity, and quality Lab study SCAMPER
Schlecht et al., 2014 [54] Influence of resource constraints on idea generationNot mentioned Not mentioned Hardware designers Not mentioned Not mentioned Novelty, appropriateness, technical feasibility, marketability, and clarity Lab study Not mentioned
Luo et al., 2015 [51] Enhance consumer performance in online idea generation platformsNot mentioned Information management technology Stakeholders Not mentioned Not mentioned Idea quality: adoption intent Lab study Not mentioned
Vasconcelos et al., 2017 [48]Compare the inspiration effects from these two types of stimuliNot mentioned Cognitive psychology Software designers Individual No evaluation Fluency, diversity, commonness, and conformity Lab study Not mentioned
Liikkanen et al., 2010 [46] Experimentation in conceptual product designNot mentioned Cognitive psychology Hardware designers Not mentioned No evaluation Not mentioned Lab study Not mentioned
Oldschmidt et al., 2011 [55] Present stimuli along with a design problemNot mentioned Not mentioned Software designers Individual No evaluation Originality and practicality Lab study Not mentioned
Sozo et al., 2019 [13] Emotional stimuli for creativityNot mentioned Cognitive psychology Software designers Individual Experimental comparison Quantity, quality, variety, and novelty Field study Emotriggers
Yang et al., 2021 [56]Understand relationship between users’ social interaction and innovation contributionNot mentioned Not mentioned Stakeholders Group Longitudinal experiment Not mentioned Lab study Not mentioned

References

  1. Gerlach, S.; Brem, A. Idea management revisited: A review of the literature and guide for implementation. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2017, 1, 144–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Han, J.; Shi, F.; Chen, L.; Childs, P.R. The Combinator—A computer-based tool for creative idea generation based on a simulation approach. Des. Sci. 2018, 4, e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Mikelsone, E.; Spilbergs, A.; Volkova, T.; Liela, E.; Frisfelds, J. Idea Management System Application Type Impact on Idea Quantity. Eur. Integr. Stud. 2020, 4, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jensen, A.R.V.; Musura, A.; Petrovecki, K.; Ryeong Kim, S.; Gerlach, S.; Brem, A. A literature review of idea management. Nord. Conf. 2017, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  5. Parjanen, S.; Hennala, L.; Konsti-Laakso, S. Brokerage functions in a virtual idea generation platform: Possibilities for collective creativity? Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 2012, 14, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Herstatt, C.; Verworn, B. The ‘Fuzzy Front End’ of Innovation. Bringing Technology and Innovation into the Boardroom; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2004; pp. 347–372. [Google Scholar]
  7. Han, J.; Shi, F.; Chen, L.; Childs, P.R.N. A computational tool for creative idea generation based on analogical reasoning and ontology. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. AIEDAM 2018, 32, 462–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Howard, T.J.; Culley, S.; Dekoninck, E.A. Reuse of ideas and concepts for creative stimuli in engineering design. J. Eng. Des. 2011, 22, 565–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Daly, S.R.; Yilmaz, S.; Christian, J.L.; Seifert, C.M.; Gonzalez, R. Design heuristics in engineering concept generation. J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 101, 601–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Tanyavutti, A.; Anuntavoranich, P.; Nuttavuthisit, K. An idea generation tool harnessing cultural heritage for design-driven entrepreneurs. Acad. Entrep. J. 2018, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  11. Munemori, J.; Komori, K.; Itou, J. GUNGEN-heartbeat: A support system for high quality idea generation using heartbeat variance. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 2020, 103, 796–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ryeong Kim, S. Idea Management. Identifying the factors that contribute to uncertainty in idea generation practices within front end NPD. Des. J. 2017, 20 (Suppl. 1), S4398–S4408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sozo, V.; Ogliari, A. Stimulating design team creativity based on emotional values: A study on idea generation in the early stages of new product development processes. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 70, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shani, N.; Divyapriya, P. A role of innovative idea management in HRM. Int. J. Manag. 2011, 2, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  15. Westerski, A.; Dalamagas, T.; Iglesias, C.A. Classifying and comparing community innovation in Idea Management Systems. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 54, 1316–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bacciotti, D.; Borgianni, Y.; Rotini, F. A CAD tool to support idea generation in the product planning phase. Comput. Aided Des. Appl. 2016, 13, 490–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Alexy, O.; Criscuolo, P.; Salter, A. Managing unsolicited ideas for R&D. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2012, 54, 116–139. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bassiti, L. Toward an Innovation Management Framework: A Life-Cycle Model with an Idea Management Focus. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2013, 4, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Westerski, A.; Iglesias, C.A.; Nagle, T. The road from community ideas to organisational innovation: A life cycle survey of idea management systems. Int. J. Web Based Communities 2011, 7, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mikelsone, E.; Liela, E. Literature review of idea management: Focuses and gaps. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 5, 107–121. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cheng, P.J. Development of a mobile app for generating creative ideas based on exploring designers’ on-line resource searching and retrieval behavior. Des. Stud. 2016, 44, 74–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Inie, N.; Dalsgaard, P. How interaction designers use tools to manage ideas. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2020, 27, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Fiorineschi, L.; Frillici, F.S.; Gregori, G.; Rotini, F. Stimulating idea generation for new product applications. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2018, 10, 454–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bank, J.; Raza, A. Collaborative Idea Management: A Driver of Continuous Innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2014, 4, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bayus, B.L. Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Manag. Sci. 2013, 59, 226–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Inie, N.; Dalsgaard, P.; Dow, S. Designing Idea Management Tools: Three challenges. In Proceedings of the Design as a Catalyst for Change—DRS International Conference 2018, Limerick, Ireland, 25–28 June 2018; p. 3. [Google Scholar]
  27. Krejci, D.; Missonier, S. Idea Management in a Digital World: An Adapted Framework. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021; Volume 1, pp. 5851–5860. [Google Scholar]
  28. Moon, H.; Han, S.H. A creative idea generation methodology by future envisioning from the user experience perspective. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 56, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Bazzano, A.N.; Martin, J.; Hicks, E.; Faughnan, M.; Murphy, L. Human-centred design in global health: A scoping review of applications and contexts. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Anåker, A.; Heylighen, A.; Nordin, S.; Elf, M. Design Quality in the Context of Healthcare Environments: A Scoping Review. Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2017, 10, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Riedel, J.C.K.H.; Vodicka, M. Evaluating the Melodie ICT tool for supporting idea generation. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2010, 43, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Žavbi, R.; Fain, N.; Rihtaršič, J. Evaluation of a method and a computer tool for generating concept designs. J. Eng. Des. 2013, 24, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Benbya, H.; Leidner, D. How Allianz UK used an idea management platform to harness employee innovation. MIS Q. Exec. 2018, 17, 141–157. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ardaiz-Villanueva, O.; Nicuesa-Chacón, X.; Brene-Artazcoz, O.; Sanz De Acedo Lizarraga, M.L.; Sanz De Acedo Baquedano, M.T. Evaluation of computer tools for idea generation and team formation in project-based learning. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 700–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alessi, M.; Camilo, A.; Chetta, V.; Giangreco, E.; Soufivand, M.; Storelli, D. Applying Idea Management System (IMS) approach to design and implement a collaborative environment in public service related open innovation processes. CEUR Workshop Proc. 2015, 1367, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Yu, L.; Nickerson, J.V. An internet-scale idea generation system. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2013, 3, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xie, L.; Zhang, P. Idea management system for team creation. J. Softw. 2010, 5, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Munemori, J.; Sakamoto, H.; Itou, J. Development of idea generation consistent support system that includes suggestive functions for preparing concreteness of idea labels and island names. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 2018, 101, 838–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. El Haiba, M.; Elbassiti, L.; Ajhoun, R. Using recommender systems to support idea generation stage. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017, 12, 9341–9351. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yilmaz, S.; Daly, S.R.; Christian, J.L.; Seifert, C.M.; Gonzalez, R. Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team. Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov. 2014, 2, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Jeong, S.; Jeong, Y.; Lee, K.; Lee, S.; Yoon, B. Technology-based new service idea generation for smart spaces: Application of 5G mobile communication technology. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Börekçi, N.A.G.Z. Usage of design thinking tactics and idea generation strategies in a brainstorming session. METU J. Fac. Archit. 2015, 32, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liikkanen, L.A.; Perttula, M. Inspiring design idea generation: Insights from a memory-search perspective. J. Eng. Des. 2010, 21, 545–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. López-Mesa, B.; Mulet, E.; Vidal, R.; Thompson, G. Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. J. Eng. Des. 2011, 22, 31–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Vasconcelos, L.A.; Cardoso, C.C.; Sääksjärvi, M.; Chen, C.C.; Crilly, N. Inspiration and Fixation: The Influences of Example Designs and System Properties in Idea Generation. J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME 2017, 139, 031101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Gonçalves, M.; Cardoso, C.; Badke-Schaub, P. What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Des. Stud. 2014, 35, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Murah, M.Z.; Abdullah, Z.; Hassan, R.; Bakar, M.A.; Mohamed, I.; Amin, H.M. Kacang cerdik: A conceptual design of an idea management system. Int. Educ. Stud. 2013, 6, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Luo, L.; Toubia, O. Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task structure on the basis of consumers’ domain-specific knowledge. J. Mark. 2015, 79, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Sadriev, A.R.; Pratchenko, O.V. Idea management in the system of innovative management. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 5, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Kokogawa, T.; Maeda, Y.; Matsui, T.; Itou, J.; Munemori, J. The effect of using photographs in idea generation support system. J. Inf. Process. 2013, 21, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schlecht, L.; Yang, M. Impact of prototyping resource environments and timing of awareness of constraints on idea generation in product design. Technovation 2014, 34, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Goldschmidt, G.; Sever, A.L. Inspiring design ideas with texts. Des. Stud. 2011, 32, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yang, M.; Han, C. Stimulating innovation: Managing peer interaction for idea generation on digital innovation platforms. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 125, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Di Guardo, M.C.; Castriotta, M. The challenge and opportunities of crowdsourcing web communities: An Italian case study. Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 2014, 4, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Mikelsone, E.; Spilbergs, A.; Segers, J.P.; Volkova, T.; Liela, E. Idea quality forecasting models for different web-based idea management system types. In Proceedings of the 21st International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 25–27 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cheng, X.; Fu, S.; De Vreede, T.; De Vreede, G.J.; Seeber, I.; Maier, R.; Weber, B. Idea convergence quality in open innovation crowdsourcing: A cognitive load perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2020, 37, 349–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fowler, C.; Jiao, J.; Pitts, M. Frustration and ennui among Amazon MTurk workers. Behav. Res. Methods 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. O’Donovan, P.; Lībeks, J.; Agarwala, A.; Hertzmann, A. Exploratory font selection using crowdsourced attributes. ACM Trans. Graph. TOG 2014, 33, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Trischler, J.; Pervan, S.J.; Kelly, S.J.; Scott, D.R. The value of codesign: The effect of customer involvement in service design teams. J. Serv. Res. 2018, 21, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Inie, N.; Dalsgaard, P. A typology of design ideas. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, Singapore, 27–30 June 2017; pp. 393–406. [Google Scholar]
  64. Selart, M.; Johansen, S.T. Understanding the role of value-focused thinking in idea management. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2011, 20, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Davies, R.; Harty, C. Initial use of an idea capture app in a UK construction organisation. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, Portsmouth, UK, 1–3 September 2014; pp. 987–996. [Google Scholar]
  66. Taylor, D.W.; Berry, P.C.; Block, C.H. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Adm. Sci. Q. 1958, 3, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 13 03570 g001 550
Figure 1. Article screening process of the scoping review.
Figure 1. Article screening process of the scoping review.
Applsci 13 03570 g001
Applsci 13 03570 g002 550
Figure 2. Frequency of idea management research phases.
Figure 2. Frequency of idea management research phases.
Applsci 13 03570 g002
Table
Table 3. List of group-based tools.
Table 3. List of group-based tools.
Author Name of the ToolPurpose of the Tool
Tanyavutti et al., 2018 [8] Not mentioned An idea generation method for the concept
Alessi et al., 2015 [38] Sentiment analysis tool and gamification Stay in line with the needs of society and foster collaboration and transparency
López-Mesa et al., 2011 [47] SCAMPER Effects of additional stimuli on the design process and on the creativity of the outcomes
Jeong et al., 2016 [44] To-Be curve Lead to a new service idea and new business models for smart spaces with adequate technology and market feasibility
Benbya et al., 2018 [36] Not mentionedDevelop a distributed-innovation capability
Munemori et al., 2018 [41] GUNGEN-Web II Enable the expression of explicit knowledge
Westerski et al., 2011 [19] Not mentionedAid in gathering, organizing, choosing, and managing the creative ideas offered by the communities established around businesses or organizations
Yang et al., 2021 [56] Not mentionedUnderstand the relationship between users’ social interactions and innovation contributions
Bayus, 2012 [25] Dell’s IdeaStorm Challenges in maintaining an ongoing supply of quality ideas from the crowd over time
Yilmaz et al., 2013 [44] Design HeuristicsSuggest how experienced designers develop new ideas for familiar problems
Table
Table 4. Frequency of criteria for evaluating ideas in the literature.
Table 4. Frequency of criteria for evaluating ideas in the literature.
Criteria for Evaluating IdeasFrequency Reference
Novelty 11 [2,7,10,13,35,37,39,47,48,54,55]
Quantity 10 [2,7,8,10,13,16,25,34,47,48]
Quality 9 [2,5,7,10,13,25,34,47,51,53]
Variety 6 [13,16,35,43,47,48]
Usability6 [2,7,10,11,21,54]
Satisfaction 2 [3,6,40]
Feasibility 2 [8,54]
Improvement 2 [34,42]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhu, D.; Al Mahmud, A.; Liu, W. A Taxonomy of Idea Management Tools for Supporting Front-End Innovation. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063570

AMA Style

Zhu D, Al Mahmud A, Liu W. A Taxonomy of Idea Management Tools for Supporting Front-End Innovation. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(6):3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Di, Abdullah Al Mahmud, and Wei Liu. 2023. "A Taxonomy of Idea Management Tools for Supporting Front-End Innovation" Applied Sciences 13, no. 6: 3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063570

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop