Content uploaded by Leif Erik Opland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leif Erik Opland on Feb 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
0148-2963/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Employee-driven digital innovation: A systematic review and a
research agenda
Leif Erik Opland
a
,
*
, Ilias O. Pappas
a
,
b
, Jostein Engesmo
a
, Letizia Jaccheri
a
a
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science, Norway
b
University of Agder, Department of Information Systems, Norway
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Digital innovation
Digital tools
Employee-driven digital innovation
Employee-driven innovation
Intrapreneurship
Ordinary Employees
ABSTRACT
As the digital shift in society affects both private and public organizations, the role of digital innovation is critical
if digital transformations are to succeed. Research has developed models to explain how digital innovation affects
organizations and societies. During the last ten years, employee-driven innovation has emerged as a new
approach to explain innovation. Through this systematic literature review, we offer insight into the intersection
between employee-driven innovation and digital innovation, and we coin the term employee-driven digital inno-
vation. We review 58 studies published at this research intersection since 2010. The ndings show a research eld
of growing interest that is divided into two main streams of research, one focused on the outcomes of employee-
driven digital innovation and the other on the use of digital tools to support employee-driven innovation pro-
cesses. We describe this research area, identify critical research gaps and propose future research directions.
1. Introduction
Digital technology has been critical in reaching business goals, and
its pervasive effects have have enabled the transformation of entire in-
dustries (Nylen and Holmstr¨
om, 2015) leading to innovative products,
services, processes and business models. Innovation is both a buzzword
and a multidimensional concept that can be viewed from different
perspectives and disciplines (Høyrup, 2010). Innovation is a vibrant
eld of research with constantly new contributions, such as user-led
innovation (von Hippel, 1988), open innovation (Bogers et al., 2017),
digital innovation (Yoo et al., 2010) and employee-driven innovation
(Høyrup, 2010).
Traditionally, work tasks related to innovation have been organized
through R&D departments or dedicated units consisting of senior man-
agers or experts within an organization (Haapasaari et al., 2018), which
indicates a strategic centralization of innovation by management. In
opposition to this, von Hippel (1988) and Høyrup (2010) point to user-
and technology-driven innovation as alternative starting points for
innovation. User-led innovation, which emphasizes that users can
develop what they desire (von Hippel, 2005), is less limited by internal
factors in organizations that may hinder innovation. While user-led
innovation often is perceived as a pull-strategy to innovation,
technology-driven innovation is perceived as a push-strategy with
limited user involvement (De Moor et al., 2010). However, the transition
from an industrial society to a knowledge society, with a workforce that
increases its knowledge base, lays the foundations for organizations to
abandon the belief that only experts should be responsible for innova-
tion and development. This movement towards the democratization of
the innovation process, from development in closed spaces and labora-
tories to co-creation and open collaboration (Laviolette et al., 2016),
leads to the emergence of employee-driven innovation.
Different denitions exist for the concept of employee-driven inno-
vation. Ciriello et al. (2016) describe employee-driven innovation as a
new form of direct participation in which employees take the initiative
to generate, develop, and implement ideas. Kesting and Ulhøi (2010)
and Høyrup (2012) use the term “ordinary employees” to describe em-
ployees as key contributors to the innovation process. “Ordinary em-
ployees” are people in an organization without innovation-specic
functions in their job description (B¨
ackstr¨
om and Lindberg, 2019),
ranging from shop-oor workers and professionals to middle managers,
and crossing the boundaries of existing departments and professions
(Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010). All employees can therefore contribute to the
entire innovation process, from idea generation to implementation
(B¨
ackstr¨
om and Lindberg, 2019). Located close to users/customers and
equipped with specic knowledge of products and services, as well the
internal conditions of organizations, “ordinary employees” can
* Corresponding author at: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science, Sem Sælandsvei 7-9, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
E-mail address: leif.e.opland@ntnu.no (L.E. Opland).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.038
Received 22 December 2020; Received in revised form 12 January 2022; Accepted 15 January 2022
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
256
contribute to innovation in both private and public organizations. In
contrast to user-led innovation (von Hippel, 1988), the “ordinary
employee” is at the centre of innovation and can inuence innovations
through knowledge of both the organization and users. This provides
fertile ground not only for product and service innovation, but also for
process and business model innovation.
Employee-driven innovation refers not only to the initiation of
innovation by employees but also to locating them as key actors in
development and implementation. To think that this happens by itself is
in many contexts naïve. Organizations must facilitate this type of
innovation, for instance through autonomy and management support
(B¨
ackstr¨
om and Bengtsson, 2019). According to O‘Reilly and Tushman
(2013), organizations are continuously affected by demands in their
business environment, and their adaptability to these changes are
referred to as ambidexterity. This points to a duality that organizations
experience: they must focus on keeping the “wheels turning” while also
searching for innovative solutions. In many organizations, “ordinary
employees” are left to make sure the “wheels are turning”, which implies
less structural ambidexterity (O‘Reilly and Tushman, 2013) for orga-
nizing innovation activities. In such cases, the exploration and exploi-
tation (March, 1991) related to innovation is left to the “ordinary
employees” themselves and can better be described as contextual
ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004).
Employee-driven innovation embraces the principle that all “ordi-
nary employees” possess the ability to be innovative (Kesting and Ulhøi,
2010) but that it is the organization’s responsibility to recognise and
give them the opportunity to do so (Haapasaari et al., 2018; Laviolette
et al., 2016). Existing literature reviews have examined employee-
driven innovation, highlighting management support, autonomy,
collaboration and organizational norms of exploration as antecedents of
employee-driven innovation (Smith et al., 2012; B¨
ackstr¨
om and
Bengtsson, 2019). We go beyond previous studies that have examined
the anteceedents of employee-driven innovation by incorporating the
digital focus into this innovation approach. B¨
ackstr¨
om and Bengtsson
(2019) conclude in their systematic mapping that employee innovation
is a research area that spreads across multiple academic elds. “Ordi-
nary employees” can contribute to the development of digital products,
services, processes or business models, leading to employee-driven digital
innovations. We dene employee-driven digital innovation as the initi-
ation, development and implementation of new digital products, ser-
vices or processes originating from “ordinary employees”, or the use of
digital tools to support employee-driven innovation processes.
Organisations have been working to adapt to digital trends, espe-
cially during major crises such as the recent pandemic, by closing the
digital skills gap and preparing for future success (Cheng et al., 2021). As
digital innovation is gaining interest in academia, the emergence of
digital solutions has also led to an increasing number of people ques-
tioning the explanatory power and utility of existing innovation theories
(Holmstrøm, 2018; Yoo et al., 2012). Existing work on digital innovation
highlights that as the digital world expands and more products and
services become embedded with IT, digital innovation concepts and is-
sues will become of considerable interest not only to information system
scholars, but also to innovation scholars (Nambisan, 2013).
According to Kohli and Melville (2019), digital innovation as a
research area is still not fully developed and consists of unexplored el-
ements, which suggests that digital innovation does not yet have an
independent body of literature. We aim to add to the theoretical
knowledge and understanding of both these innovation concepts by
studying them in combination, rather than in isolation. Building on
knowledge from previous reviews in the area (Opland et al., 2020) that
were based on publications from 2010 onwards, we aim to pave the way
for a more thorough review based on larger data collection and to
describe both the research area and interesting future research paths.
Particularly in the last decade, organizations, industries and societies
have been coordinating for successful digital transformations (Pappas
et al., 2018; Vial, 2019). Such changes can be achieved through the
implementation of digital innovation (Svahn et al., 2017), when both
leadership and employees explore, experiment with and employ new
technologies and new processes (Herbert, 2017). We argue that deeper
insight into the intersection between employee-driven innovation and
digital innovation can spur on new contributions that will complement
the research area and create interest among practitioners. To this end,
we focus solely on employee-driven digital innovation and propose the
following research questions (RQs):
RQ1: How has the research eld of employee-driven digital innovation
developed since 2010?
RQ2: What characterizes current research on employee-driven digital
innovation?
RQ3: What are the future derived research paths within employee-driven
digital innovation where research could make the largest contributions?
To address these RQs, we performed a systematic literature review in
the area and found that employee-driven digital innovation is a frag-
mented research area that has not merged its parallel research tradi-
tions, and that more research is needed in several aspects of the concept.
Our systematic literature review contributes by showing that research in
the area is still limited, and our ndings reveal the need to view
employee-driven digital innovation from different perspectives. The
main theoretical contribution of this paper is the theoretical framework
of employee driven digital innovation, which can be used as a starting
point for further exploration within the research area. To develop our
framework, we build on existing works within digital innovation (Kohli
and Melville, 2019) and intrapreneurship (Desouza, 2011), offering the
framework as a guide both for researchers and practitioners engaging in
employee-driven digital innovation. The novelty of this framework
stems from the fact that we combine the generic innovation phases of
intrapreneurship with the characteristics of digital innovation. In addi-
tion, the paper identies four research gaps in the literature and pro-
poses a research agenda that will help advance both research and
practice in the area of employee-driven digital innovation.
The paper is organized in the following sections. Firstly, we present a
theoretical framework. Secondly, we explain our research method and
our search procedure. Thirdly, we present our results, and fourthly, in
the discussion we provide an analysis of the research area. Finally, we
present our agenda for future research on employee-driven digital
innovation, explain the limitations of our work and provide concluding
remarks.
2. Background and related work
2.1. Digital innovation
Digital innovation can lead to new market offerings, business pro-
cesses or models that result from the use of digital technology. Digital
innovation has been examined either as a process (Yoo et al., 2010) or as
an outcome (Fichman et al., 2014). Here, we argue that it should be
examined as both a process and an outcome when it comes to combining
digital technologies in new ways or with physical components that
enable socio-technical changes and create new value for adopters
(Osmundsen et al., 2018). Through digitalization, the dependencies
between the innovation process and the outcome of innovation are more
complex and dynamic, challenging some of the well-known pre-
requisites for innovation (Nambisan et al., 2017), which have primarily
viewed innovation processes and outcomes as distinct phenomena.
Furthermore, the rise of employee-driven innovation challenges existing
assumptions, such as the assumption that the nature of the innovation
agency is centralized, arguing instead that actors/entities can organize
for innovation (Nambisan et al., 2017). Digital innovation as a concept
needs to be further developed in both the academic environment and
public debate (Holmstrøm, 2018), as the emergence of new digital
products and services makes it more difcult to distinguish the process
of innovation from its outcomes.
The literature on digital innovation is diverse and diffused: studies
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
257
are related to other domains, as well as those within their own identied
cluster (Kohli and Melville, 2019). Digital innovation is inevitable for
organisations as they need to incorporate digital technologies into the
very core of their products, services and work processes (Yoo et al.,
2012). Furthermore, Yoo et al. (2010) describe how digital products,
services and processes are based on the specic characteristics of digital
information: that it can be easily stored, changed, transmitted and
tracked; that it is editable through programming; and that digital tech-
nology is self-referencing. The special characteristics of digital innova-
tion mean that “ordinary employees” can also contribute to the
innovation processes, in that digital products and services can be more
easily inuenced than physical products. Building on existing denitions
of digital innovation (Fichman et al., 2014; Nambisan et al., 2017; Yoo
et al., 2010), our denition of employee-driven digital innovation is
twofold, including: 1) the development by “ordinary employees” of new
digital products, services or processes that are outcomes-driven; and 2)
digital tools used to support “ordinary employees” in the innovation
process. With this perspective, we claim that both the processes and
outcomes of employee-driven digital innovation are distinct from the
traditional theory of innovation. This is supported by Oldham and Da
Silva (2015), who claim that computing devices and tools can boost
employee engagement at work.
Kohli and Melville (2019) propose a theoretical framework of digital
innovation that focuses on both the actions and the outcomes of digital
innovation. Their model focuses on seven constructs: initiate; develop;
implement; exploit; the internal organizational environment; the
external competitive environment; and digital innovation outcomes.
“Initiate” refers to the organizational capability to identify, assimilate
and apply valuable knowledge from inside and outside the organization
toward opportunities for digital innovation. “Develop” refers to the
design and development of new digital artifacts while “implement” re-
fers to the implementation of those artifacts. “Exploit” refers to the use
of the digital artifacts to maximize value. Others have used Kohli and
Melville’s model as a starting point for understanding digital in-
novations (Wiesb¨
ock and Hess, 2018) and digital transformation pro-
jects (Barthel and Hess, 2019).
Kohli and Melville’s (2019) phases of “development” and “imple-
mentation” can also be related to the discussion of digital materiality
(Kallinikos et al., 2013), i.e. the extent to which the same properties can
be attributed to digital artifacts as to physical materials. According to
Kallinikos et al. (2013), digital artifacts are increasingly editable,
interactive, reprogrammable and distributable, which corresponds to
the charachterisitcs of the “development” phase in Kohli and Melville
(2019). Both the outcomes of digital innovation and the tools for sup-
porting these processes can be described as digital artifacts. Reibenspiess
et al. (2019) highlight that idea generation on digital platforms founded
on knowledge from external sources has received signicant attention,
and Ciriello et al. (2014) observe that collaboration and interaction with
relevant stakeholders can be enabled through these digital artifacts.
Around these four constructs are two others that mutually inuence
them. “Internal organizational environment” refers to the organizational
backdrop, including business strategies, cultures and knowledge man-
agement, while “external competitive environment” refers to the
competitive marketplace within which rms are embedded. These
constructs comprise the digital innovation actions in the framework of
Kohli and Melville (2019), who describe the last construct, “digital
innovation outcomes”, as referring to projected or actual new business
processes, products and services that result from digital innovation.
2.2. Employee-driven innovation
Innovation, a multidimensional concept that has been approached
from several perspectives (Haapasaari et al., 2018), refers to the suc-
cessful application of new ideas that can take shape as both an outcome
and a process (Whittington, 2018). Innovation is not in itself invention,
but rather an idea that leads to something new and provides a nancial
gain or benet (Baregheh et al., 2009). Innovation is typically driven by
new market and technological opportunities, both digital and physical
(Yoo et al., 2012). Interest in inclusive forms of innovation is currently
growing among researchers and practitioners as they seek new and
improved solutions to complex organisational and societal challenges
(B¨
ackstr¨
om and Lindberg, 2018). This has led to research focused on the
sometimes uid boundaries between an organization and its stake-
holders, as described, for instance, in open innovation (Bogers et al.,
2017; Chesbrough, 2003).
However, not all research has focused on this boundary or on what is
happening outside the organization. Research in the last decade has also
focused on the organization itself, and especially on the role of “ordinary
employees” (Høyrup, 2010; Aasen et al., 2012; Voxted, 2018).
Employee-driven innovation studies concentrate on the ways in which
organizations can foster innovative practices among “ordinary em-
ployees”, those who do not have innovation as a dened part of their job
description in the way that employees in R&D units or senior experts do
(Høyrup, 2010; Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010). The aim is to tap into the
creativity and experience of employees in the development of novel
products, services, processes and business models. Previous studies
identify employees as being key actors in the development and imple-
mentation of innovations, and not only in the generation of ideas
(Høyrup, 2012; Smith et al., 2012). Indeed, recent research shows that
we are moving away from closed R&D units as the only source of
innovation, providing new viewpoints that can build better explanatory
models adjusted to today’s businesses and ecosystems (Bogers et al.,
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework of employee-driven digital innovation.
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
258
2017). The driving force for using employees as innovators results from
their inherent creativity (Lee et al., 2018) and the desire for learning and
development (Alasoini, 2013).
Employee-driven innovation, an umbrella concept that covers a
broad range of innovation processes and issues, refers to both process
and product (Høyrup, 2012). This concept is not detached from the or-
ganization’s products, services, processes and context; thus, it is the
strategic task of management to ensure that innovations are aligned with
the goals and strategic choices set by their organization (Kesting and
Ulhøi, 2010). Employee-driven innovation is closely related to intra-
preneurship as well (Desouza, 2011), although this concept also includes
leader-initiated innovation that is carried out by individuals within the
organizations who are dedicated to research and development. Høyrup
(2012) renes the strategic approach to employee-driven innovation
into three levels based on whether the processes are top-down, mixed or
bottom-up. The rst-order strategic approach refers to bottom-up initi-
ated innovation processes by “ordinary employees”; the second-order
strategic approach refers to mixed bottom-up and top-down initiated
processes; and the third-order strategic approach refers to top-down
initiated innovation processes by management. According to Høyrup
(2012), whether one includes the third-order strategic approach to
employee-driven innovation depends on whether one uses a broad or
narrow denition of the phenomenon.
2.3. Employee-driven digital innovation
We claim in this paper that there is reason to explore the above-
mentioned concepts of digital innovation and employee-driven inno-
vation in relation to each other; therefore, we propose the concept of
employee-driven digital innovation. Based on the previous work on
employee-driven innovation by Høyrup (2010) and Kesting and Ulhøi
(2010), on intrapreneurship by Desouza (2011) and on digital innova-
tion by Kohli and Melville (2019), we propose a theoretical framework
(Fig. 1) for conceptually grounding employee-driven digital innovation.
Our intention is to focus on the innovations that emerge through “or-
dinary employees” exploring the opportunities provided within their
organizations. We have therefore used the phases from the process
perspective of intrapreneurship, combining this with theories from
employee-driven innovation and digital innovation. Our theoretical
framework is centered around the phases described in the intrapre-
neurial model proposed by Desouza (2011). These phases are affected by
both the internal and external factors of the digital innovation actions
described in the digital innovation framework of Kohli and Melville
(2019). By integrating Desouzás (2011) intrapreneurial phases into
Kohli and Melvillés (2019) model, which explains research streams
within digital innovation, we have created a framework that explains
the different phases that “ordinary employees” experience in the
employee-driven digital innovation process and the inherent dynamics
within this process. We claim that the use of Desouza’s (2011) intra-
preneurship framework explains the employee-driven digital innovation
process in a more specic way than the initial phases of Kohli and
Melville (2019).
Our proposed framework also incorporates an explanatory factor
which affects the innovation process that is examined neither by Des-
ouza (2011) nor by Kohli and Melville (2019). This is the development
and use of digital tools to drive and support employee-driven digital
innovation actions. The development and use of digital tools is included
in many publications about employee-driven digital innovation, espe-
cially within information systems, such as research on ideation systems
(Beretta, 2018). One of the most notable effects of digital tools is
increased efciency in the innovation process, although these tools can
also help to solve some of the challenges identied in the intrapreneurial
innovation process. The goal of our theoretical framework is to offer a
better understanding of employee-driven digital innovation and to
support research in the area by explaining how to avoid treating
employee-driven digital innovation processes as a black box. The
framework can therefore serve to explain both employee-driven digital
innovation actions and the outcomes of those actions.
The different phases of the model are described as follows. “Gener-
ation and Mobilization” relates to the initiation phase, where ideas are
generated. “Advocacy and Screening” describes the selection of ideas to
take forward and explore. “Experimentation” describes the process of
identifying technology and developing a solution. “Commercialization”
describes the development of a solution to the identied problem or
idea. “Diffusion and Implementation” describes the dissemination and use
of the developed employee-driven digital innovation outcome, based on
the original employee-originated idea. “Digital tools” can support the
process, but are not mandatory for the process of employee-driven
digital innovation. These phases are also affected by both internal and
external factors in the business environment, where the external can be
explained by organizational ambidexterity (O‘Reilly and Tushman,
2013).
To exemplify the explanatory factors in our framework, we describe
a specic case of how it can be used by a public organization that sup-
ports employee-driven digital innovation (Opland, Pappas, Engesmo, &
Jaccheri, 2021). Here an “ordinary employee” generated an idea about
the creation of a digital tool that could both provide better services to
citizens and increase efciency in the organization. Management saw
this as a promising idea, so they ran a pre-project to nd a suitable form
of technology to solve the problem. This was affected by both external
and internal environmental factors, the most notable external factor
being usable technologies and the most notable internal one being how
to adapt to new processes. In the end, a solution was developed and
implemented within the organization.
3. Methodology
3.1. Development of review protocol
Our literature review protocol was developed in accordance with
recommendations from seminal papers in the eld (Webster and Wat-
son, 2002; Kitchenham, 2004; Rowe, 2014) in order to create a
Fig. 2. Review process.
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
259
trustworthy, rigorous and auditable methodology. Furthermore, we also
took existing related literature reviews as examples, using them to
develop our review protocol (Müller et al., 2010; Müller and Ulrich,
2013). Based on their guidelines, we conducted a review with clearly
dened steps: development of a review protocol, formulation of a
strategy for searching for relevant studies, identication of inclusion and
exclusion criteria, extraction of data, assessment of data and synthesis.
Fig. 2 presents the review process and the clearly dened steps included
in it. The rest of this section will give a detailed description of the spe-
cic steps and methods used to search, evaluate, analyze and, not least,
create a synthesis based on our data collection.
3.2. Search strategy for relevant studies
With the aim of collecting high-quality data, we used the interna-
tional online bibliographic database Scopus in March 2021 - referred to
as Step 0 in Fig. 2 - to search for possible publications. We searched for
journal articles and conference proceedings published between 1
January 2010 and 11 March 2021. In Scopus, we searched within titles,
abstracts and keywords using the following four search strings:
1. “Digital AND Employee-Driven AND Innovation”
2. “Employee-Driven AND Innovation”
3. “Employee” AND “Innovation”
4. “Digital” AND “Employee” AND “Innovation”
The search strings were based on a review of the keywords used in
publications in the subject area that we had already identied. After the
search was nished at Step 0, a control search was conducted through
Google Scholar, which did not lead us to include any more studies in the
data set. In Step 0, we identied 10,436 possible relevant publications.
3.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
In Step 1, the collected data was screened by applying a set of in-
clusion criteria, which stated that the publications had to be peer-
reviewed journal and/or conference articles that were written in En-
glish. Applying these inclusion criteria reduced the number of collected
data to N =6,547. In Step 2, we excluded duplicates of journal and
conference articles, as well as studies that did not include an abstract.
The rst author then went through the remaining studies, using the title
and publication channel of the publication to determine whether it was
relevant to employee-driven digital innovation. The publications that
did not clearly indicate whether they were within the scope of the re-
view, either through their title or publication channel, were included in
the data collection at least as far as the next step. By applying these
exclusion criteria, we further reduced the number of data collected to N
=310.
3.4. Screening the literature
The initial screening of the literature was done by the rst author,
while the other authors were involved where there were cases of un-
certainty. The abstracts of the 310 publications were reviewed for
further exclusion in Step 3. An abstract often provides a good under-
standing of the overall research work in the individual publication, as it
includes its theme, objectives, methodological approach and summa-
rized results. When reading the abstracts, we looked specically for
keywords or other indications, such as terms or descriptions, that could
indicate connections with employee-driven digital innovation. Reading
the 310 abstracts narrowed the collected data to 101 possible publica-
tions for inclusion. However, abstracts may not always provide a full
insight into the content of the research work. A complete read-through
of the remaining 101 publications was therefore conducted to achieve
complete understanding. In the complete read-through of the studies, it
became clear whether the possible publications were related to
employee-driven digital innovation (Step 4). Step 4 reduced the data to
53 relevant publications. To reduce the possibility that relevant publi-
cations could have been omitted, we then included Step 5 in our review
protocol. In Step 5, we went through the reference lists of all the papers
published in or after 2020 (an action described by Boell and Cecez-
Kecmanovic (2014) as “citation tracking”) to see if we had missed any
cited publications. Across these ten publications from 2020 onwards, we
discovered ve further publications that were then included in the re-
view, making the nal number of relevant publications included in this
review N =58.
3.5. Analyzing the literature
The 58 publications were analyzed according to categories derived
from theory related to the research area. During the analysis, the data
were extracted using a predened extraction form along the following
themes: conceptualization; channel of publication; geographical origin
of cases; methodological approach; purpose of publication; organiza-
tional origin; phase of the innovation process; strategic approach; level
of analysis; scholarly origin; epistemology; time period of study;
research design; and contributions or main ndings of the research.
These themes formed the basis for further analysis with a view toward
providing greater insight into the contexts of the literature and devel-
oping a synthesis (Duriau et al., 2007). The rst author analyzed and
coded each paper, and the results were presented to the other authors at
weekly meetings for validation and discussion. In case of disagreements,
a discussion ensued in order to reach an agreement. These meetings
ensured that the analysis of the results in the collected data was both
consistent and valid.
The purpose of the analysis, which used the theory-dervied cate-
gories, was to identify relationships and discover possible gaps in the
literature. Here, we used the software NVIVO to systematize and analyze
the collected data. This facilitated the analysis process and enabled us to
discover connections among the 58 publications included in this review.
This contributed to richer and more detailed ndings, as presented in the
next section. We use the theoretical framework of digital innovation
presented by Kohli and Melville (2019) as a structure for the discussion,
further developing their framework as an explanatory model of
employee-driven digital innovation.
During the analysis, a quality assessment of the publications was also
performed. The rst author used a quality scheme to appraise the pub-
lications according to various dimensions. This scheme was developed
following established recommendations from Dybå and Dingsøyr
(2008). Each paper was analyzed in detail with regard to the following
aspects: whether the publication was a research paper; the aims of the
research; its context; research design; recruitment strategy; data
collection; data analysis; relationship between researcher and partici-
pants; statement of ndings; and value for research or practice. This
provided a foundation for assessing the quality of the publications in
Step 5. This work was subsequently reviewed by the other authors with
the aim of ensuring the quality of the data.
3.6. Selection discussion
During the process of selecting papers for this systematic literature
review, we encountered papers that were borderline candidates for in-
clusion. We will discuss here considerations related to two of these pa-
pers. These examples are two studies that were not included, and we will
explain our reasons for this choice. “Identifying Barriers to Intra-
preneurship” by Reuther et al. (2018) and “The digital workplace is key
to digital innovation” by Dery et al. (2017) were both omitted at the
“read-through” phase of the review process, Step 4 in Fig. 2.
The paper “Identifying Barriers to Intrapreneurship” was included up
to the phase of read-through in the review process. This was because
both the title and abstract gave the impression that it could provide
interesting insights into employee-driven digital innovation based on
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
260
the process of intrapreneurship, focusing on both the individual and
organizational levels. However, the read-through made it clear that the
paper had very few aspects related to digital innovation, and we
therefore decided not to include it in our systematic literature review.
The paper “The digital workplace is key to digital innovation” was
also omitted in the read-through. It was included until Step 4 because its
title and abstract gave the impression that its focus on digital innovation
could also provide insights into employee-driven digital innovation. It
does focus on digital innovation, but the read-through showed that it
was more devoted to employee connectedness and responsive leadership
in the context of digital innovation. It was then decided that this did not
fall within the denition of employee-driven digital innovation as
explained in Section 2.3, and the publication was therefore omitted from
the literature review.
4. Findings
This section presents the ndings from our analysis of the 58 primary
studies collected in this review, which will provide a basis for the dis-
cussion of employee-driven digital innovation in the next section. The
ndings describe the focus of the literature in the area and how the eld
has developed in the past decade, leading to the identication of
research gaps and the presentation of an agenda for future research.
The scholars who have contributed to the development of employee-
driven digital innovation as a research area are evenly distributed be-
tween the areas of innovation management and information systems
(Table 1). The even distribution between the two research streams and
the increase in publications towards the end of the analyzed period
(Fig. 3) show that the topic is highly relevant to both research streams.
We nd little evidence in our data of integration between the re-
searchers who represent the different research streams, either past or
present. This is despite the fact that they examine aspects of the same
topic, albeit from different points of view. None of the authors con-
tributes to both research streams, and they all publish in channels
associated with their own domain.
Combining the concepts of employee-driven innovation (e.g.
Høyrup, 2010) and digital innovation (e.g. Yoo et al., 2010), we
analyzed the 58 publications with reference to the concept they mainly
focus on, using our denition in Section 2. The ndings of these studies
suggest that the concept is explored in two parallel research streams
(Table 2), even though most of the publications focus both on digital
tools and employee-driven digital innovation (43%). The rst direction
deals with the outcome of the innovation process while the second ex-
amines the digital tools used to support it. The division into these two
research streams supports the nding that innovation management and
information systems research are only a partially integrated research
direction, even though they focus on similar topics in their approach.
This also becomes apparent when looking at the goals and intentions of
the studies (Table 3).
Analysis of the goals of the studies (Table 3) reveals a fairly even
division between studies focusing on efciency (40%) and those
focusing on product and service improvements (43%). It is therefore not
the case that the places of origin of the research streams determine the
research focus. Both research areas examine efciency considerations as
well as product and service improvement considerations. The different
innovation types can therefore be said to be evenly distributed,
considering that efciency falls into the category of process innovation
in the most common division of innovation types (Damanpour, 1991;
Marinova and Phillimore, 2003; Whittington, 2018).
When the level of analysis (Table 4) in the publications is examined,
some interesting insights are revealed. The analysis level of the publi-
cations is evenly distributed between the organizational level (45%) and
the individual level (36%). Combining the level of analysis with the
intention of the studies reveals, not surprisingly, that the studies that
focus on the organizational level are concerned with efciency (24%)
while those that focus on the individual level are concerned with im-
provements to products and services (24%).
An analysis of the publications’ theoretical origins (Table 5) reveals
that most of them (62%) build on general innovation theory. Only 16%
of the publications are based on previous research on digital innovation.
Almost all of the publications that refer to the theory of digital
Table 1
Scholarly origin of publications.
Innovation Management Research 26 (45%)
Information Systems Research 32 (55%)
Fig. 3. Publications by year.
Table 2
Conceptualization of the primary studies in the review.
Employee-driven digital innovation 19 (33%)
Digital tools supporting employee-driven innovation 14 (24%)
Both 25 (43%)
Table 3
Goals of the studies.
Efciency 23 (40%)
Product/service improvements 25 (43%)
Unclear 10 (17%)
Table 4
Level of analysis.
Organization 26 (45%)
Individual 21 (36%)
Multilevel 3 (5%)
Industry/market 8 (14%)
Table 5
Theoretical origin.
Employee-driven innovation 13 (22%)
Digital innovation 9 (16%)
General innovation 36 (62%)
Table 6
Organizational origin of the primary studies
in the review.
Private 51 (88%)
Public 4 (7%)
Both 3 (5%)
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
261
innovation are related to the research eld of information systems, and
almost all of the publications referring to general innovation theory are
related to the research eld of innovation management research. The
publications therefore suggest that the various research streams refer to
their own specic theories about innovation, only drawing on explan-
atory models from other disciplines to a small extent.
The organizational origin of the primary studies (Table 6) reveals a
large number of studies that focus on private organizations (88%). We
were only able to nd four publications from the public sector that
examine employee-driven digital innovation, which was surprising. A
few studies examined both the private and public sectors. More recent
research has examined innovation in public organizations (Bysted and
Jespersen, 2015), and we expect interest in this eld of research to in-
crease in the near future.
When the publications’ methodological approaches are examined, it
becomes clear that there is an even division between qualitative and
quantitative research within the eld. There is also a substantial number
of studies that use a mixed-methods approach. Our ndings therefore
show that research in the area is methodologically diversied (Table 7).
We identied a range of quantitative research approaches, but the ma-
jority are qualitative studies (48%).
Categorizing the studies by type reveals a large proportion of single
case studies, with 48% of the identied studies based on data from only
one company (Table 8). This could indicate lower transfer value be-
tween organizations and countries, which may prove to be a challenge as
the eld of innovation often attracts great interest from practitioners. In
order to maintain the transfer value to practitioners, it is crucial for the
research area to ensure that the type of studies we present are appealing
to both academia and industry. The choice of organizations studied is
therefore important to the development of the research area.
Of the 58 primary studies, 37 are journal publications while 21 were
published in conference proceedings (Table 9). The journals that
contributed the most publications were the European Journal of Innova-
tion Management (6) and the Journal of Creativity and Innovation Man-
agement (3) while the conferences with the most publications were the
European Conference of Information Systems (ECIS) (4) and the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (4). Based on our data, the
researcher with the most publications in the eld is R. F. Ciriello. Alone
or in collaboration with others, he has contributed to ve different
publications. It is interesting to note that his main focus is information
systems research, in particular the use of digital tools in employee-
driven innovation processes. Several other researchers have also
contributed to more than one publication, e.g. Victoria A. Reibenspiess,
with three publications.
When we analyzed the studies with regard to strategic approach, we
chose to follow Høyruṕs (2012) division into three orders (Table 10).
This shows that only Orso et al. (2018) and Nicolajsen et al. (2019) can
be dened as studies that describe a top-down strategic approach to
employee-driven digital innovation while most of the studies (59%)
appear to describe bottom-up approaches. The rest of the studies present
second-order approaches with different kinds of top-down initiated
innovation processes or do not reveal information about each organi-
zation’s strategic approach to the innovation process.
The majority of the 58 publications originate from Europe (33),
although we identied a substantial number of studies from Asia (10),
North America (4) and Africa (1) (Table 11). Moreover, ten studies take
a global approach to the research area. Opland et al. (2020) argue that
this research area has been strongly rooted in Europe, with European
researchers largely researching the concept within the context of Euro-
pean organizations. In many ways, our analysis supports this argument,
although the existence of several studies from other areas of the world
makes the picture seem more nuanced. It still appears that the main
emphasis of the research area is the work of European researchers.
Regardless of geographical origin, the research area of employee-driven
digital innovation has been the subject of an increasing number of
publications in recent years. Of all the publications included in this
paper, 52% were published between 2018 and 2020.
5. Discussion
In this section, we discuss the ndings from the systematic literature
review. Our goals are to analyze what characterizes employee-driven
digital innovation as a research area and to identify the implications
of these characteristics for further research. First, this paper contributes
by offering a broad overview of the literature on employee-driven digital
innovation. Second, we contribute by developing a theoretical frame-
work of employee driven digital innovation, which is used in the anal-
ysis of the literature and the synthesis of the ndings. Our framework is
based on extant works on digital innovation (Kohli and Melville, 2019)
and intrapreneuership (Desouza, 2011) and can act as a guide both for
researchers and practitioners engaging in employee-driven digital
innovation. The main strength of this framework is that it combines the
generic innovation phases of intrapreneurship with the characteristics of
digital innovation. Finally, our third contribution is the identication of
four gaps in the literature along with a research agenda designed to
advance research and practice in the eld of employee-driven digital
innovation. To this end, in the following four subsections we discuss
each of the identied gaps, using the developed framework as a guide. In
our synthesis of the ndings, multiple outcomes emerge, enabling us to
propose a research agenda for the future that can help advance knowl-
edge on employee-driven digital innovation.
5.1. Research streams – Innovation management vs. information systems
The analysis of the 58 publications in our systematic literature
Table 7
Methodology of the primary studies in the review.
Qualitative 28 (48%)
Quantitative 25 (43%)
Mixed methods 5 (9%)
Table 8
Type of studies.
Single case studies 28 (48%)
Multiple case studies 13 (22%)
Not available/not relevant 17 (30%)
Table 9
Publication sources of the primary studies in the review.
Journal publications 37 (64%)
Conference publications 21 (36%)
Table 10
Strategic approach to employee-driven digital innovation.
First order 34 (59%)
Second order 8 (14%)
Third order 2 (3%)
Not available/not relevant 14 (24%)
Table 11
Case origin of the primary studies in the review.
Europe 33 (57%)
Global 10 (17%)
Asia 10 (17%)
North America 4 (7%)
Africa 1 (2%)
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
262
review demonstrate that the research on employee-driven digital inno-
vation has developed into two distinct parallel streams. The reason for
this split comes from the fact that researchers in this area originate from
two clearly different research elds: innovation management research
and information systems research (Table 1). Nevertheless, there is little
evidence that the research focus on the conceptualization of employee-
driven digital innovation is signicantly different in the two research
streams. However, they shed light on the same concepts from different
points of view, in terms of theories (Table 5), approach to research
(Table 7) and the goal of each study (Table 3). Within the innovation
management research stream, we nd publications related to the
outcome of innovation (e.g. Kesting et al., 2016; Uddin et al., 2019; van
Zyl et al., 2019), as well as publications focusing on the development
and use of digital tools, (e.g. Lathinen et al., 2017; Gressgård et al., 2014;
Huesig and Endres, 2019). Within information systems research, we nd
publications focused on the outcomes of innovation (e.g. Orso et al.,
2018; Arvidsson and Mønstad, 2018; K¨
offer et al., 2015), as well as
publications related to the development and use of digital tools (e.g.
Ciriello et al., 2015; Mueller and Renken, 2017; Benbya and Leidner,
2018). The fact that two different research areas examine the same
concepts is considered benecial as they can contribute complementary
ndings. Indeed, the ndings indicate that employee-driven digital
innovation as a research eld is equally inuenced by these two
different academic traditions. Both are encompassed by the denition of
employee-driven digital innovation that we have derived from existing
denitions of innovation (Dodgson et al., 2014) and digital innovation
(Nambisan et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, we nd evidence that the research area of employee-
driven digital innovation is still not fully developed. Key contributors
such as Yoo et al. (2012) and Holmstrøm (2018) have highlighted the
need for more research on digital innovation in order to create more
explanatory models for this type of innovation. A clear example of this is
obtained by combining the research point of view (Table 1) with the
theoretical grounding (Table 5) in the publications. On the one hand, the
publications on innovation management research are almost exclusively
theoretically rooted in general innovation theory and theory related to
employee-driven innovation. Only one of these 26 publications was
theoretically grounded in theory originating from the discourse on
digital innovation. On the other hand, the theory of digital innovation is
to a greater extent included in the research on information systems.
Nonetheless, general innovation and employee-driven innovation form a
large part of the theoretical basis of these publications. The theoretical
grounding exemplies in many ways how the research area can benet
from greater integration between the two parallel research traditions.
Just as Yoo et al. (2012) and Holmstrøm (2018) advocate more research
into digital innovation, we argue that more research into employee-
driven digital innovation is required. To develop better explanatory
models, the two research traditions should combine their different
points of view to provide a more coherent and holistic understanding of
Table 12
Research questions, research gaps and the future research agenda for employee-
driven digital innovation.
Research question
(RQ2)
Identied research gaps
in literature
Future derived research
agenda (RQ3)
What characterizes the
current research on
employee-driven
digital innovation?
Integrating the research
streams of innovation
management research
and information systems
research (Gap 1)
•Need for more research
that integrates scholars of
innovation management
and information systems
to understand how
employee-driven digital
innovation affects
organizations.
•Need for more research
into the preconditions for
employee-driven digital
innovation.
•Need for more research
into how digital tools
affect the employee-
driven digital innovation
process.
Exploring the balance
between a focus on the
outcome and the process
of employee-driven
digital innovation (Gap
2)
•Need for more research
into whether employee-
driven digital innovation
provides value to
organizations.
•Need for more research
into measuring the effects
of employee-driven digi-
tal innovation.
•Need for more research
into how employee-
driven digital innovation
affects both private and
public organizations.
•Need for more research
into how to develop
digital tools to support
employee-driven digital
innovation processes so
that they are aligned with
each organization’s goals
and strategies.
Focusing on external
competitive
environmental factors
and internal
organizational
environmental factors in
employee-driven digital
innovation (Gap 3)
•Need for more research
into different external
competitive
environmental factors
and internal
organizational
environmental factors.
•Need for more research
into the similarities and
differences between the
characteristics of
employee-driven digital
innovation in private and
public organizations.
•Need for more research
using different
methodological
approaches that can
illuminate employee-
driven digital innovation.
Creating holistic digital
tools to support
employee-driven
innovation (Gap 4)
•Need for more research
into the design of holistic
digital tools to support
employee-driven digital
innovation.
•Need for more research
into how to use new
technology to design
digital tools that solve the
challenges of idea
screening and idea
selection.
Table 12 (continued )
Research question
(RQ2)
Identied research gaps
in literature
Future derived research
agenda (RQ3)
•Need for more research
into designing digital
tools that can connect
employee-driven digital
innovation to the strategic
management levels of
private and public
organizations.
•Need for more research
into the design of more
sophisticated digital tools
for innovation purposes,
using new and advanced
technology.
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
263
the eld.
This lack of interest in combining innovation management research
and information systems research constitutes the rst research gap in the
area (Table 12). As the evidence shows that these research streams have
similar intentions (Table 3) and attain similar levels of analysis
(Table 4), we argue that the two streams can complement each other and
gain greater insight into the concept itself, as well as how it affects or-
ganizations. Increased knowledge of employee-driven digital innovation
and how it affects organizations can offer both academic and practical
implications. A challenge for this integration may come from the
maturity of the two elds of research, since all the research on innova-
tion management is published in journals, while most of the research on
information systems is published at conferences. This can be attributed
to different levels of maturity, or it could just express the differences
between the research traditions. As a consequence of these differences,
we propose the lack of integration between the two parallel research
streams as Research Gap 1 (Table 12).
5.2. Employee-driven digital innovation studies – Outcomes or actions?
As Table 3 shows, while these studies have many different aims, the
dominant intention to study innovation can focus either on the outcome
or the process. Kohli and Melville (2019) dene the outcomes of digital
innovation as new products, services or processes while the actions, on
the other hand, incorporate the innovation process and the elements
affecting it. Our denition of employee-driven digital innovation,
derived from the denitions of innovation (Dodgson et al., 2014) and
digital innovation (Nambisan et al., 2017), embraces both these areas.
Studying the outcomes of innovation - an important element in
developing the research area of employee-driven digital innovation -
may prove to be more elusive than studying the processes (i.e. the use of
digital tools). Researching outcomes can provide many insights into the
importance of this type of innovation for organizations, in terms of
effectiveness, productivity and nancial gain. Much of this research is
led by researchers originating from the innovation management eld (e.
g. Kesting et al., 2016; B¨
ackstr¨
om and Lindberg, 2018; Uddin et al.,
2019). Regardless of research origin, studies attempting to quantify the
gains that organizations make from employee-driven digital innovation
are completely absent, regardless of whether the research takes a posi-
tivist or interpretive epistemological approach. Focusing on the outcome
of innovation is a research tradition based on many of the conditions and
assumptions of research on employee-driven innovation (Høyrup, 2010;
Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010; Høyrup, 2012; Smith et al., 2012; Voxted,
2018). More research is needed to achieve greater integration of out-
comes from innovation management and information systems. Such
integration could make it easier to explore the outcomes of the inno-
vation processes, therefore giving a clearer picture of the effects of
employee-driven digital innovation on organizations, in terms of ef-
ciency, productivity and nancial gain.
Table 2 shows that most of the studies focus on both employee-driven
digital innovation as a concept and the various digital tools used to
support this form of innovation. Combined with the goals of these
studies (Table 3), where there is an even distribution of focus between
efciency and product and service development, it is evident that the
eld is concerned with both the process and the outcome of innovation.
Among the 39 publications that do not focus solely on the outcome of the
employee-driven digital innovation process, we nd varying focus on
the phases of the innovation process. Our results show that only 21% of
the studies that focus on the innovation process have an approach that
covers the entire process (e.g. Reibenspiess et al., 2019; Gressgård et al.,
2014; Tirabeni and Soderquist, 2019). The majority of such studies
(79%) are concerned with idea generation and the rst phases of the
innovation process (e.g. Zimmerling et al., 2016; Yu and Liu, 2020;
Nicolajsen et al., 2019). Here, some of the challenges in the development
of digital tools to support employee-driven innovation are presented, as
it has not been possible to create digital tools that support the entire
innovation process. The main problem here is that when we focus on the
innovation process, there may seem to be more differences than simi-
larities between the companies. Different products, services and busi-
ness models, different organizational structures, different ways of
interacting and different innovation cultures are just some of the chal-
lenges encountered in the development of digital tools. This explains
why research has focused on the rst phases of the innovation process,
with a special focus on idea generation, and also indicates another
research gap.
Our data on the primary studies (Appendix A) show an increase in
studies from 2018 onwards (Fig. 3), with more publications focusing
solely on digital tools since 2019. Digital tools have mainly been seen as
systems for generating a large quantity of ideas, based on the assumption
that the more ideas an organization generates, the greater the proba-
bility there is of nding a good one (Verganti, 2017). The increased
number of recent publications related to digital tools therefore seems
inconsistent with the assumption within innovation management that
generation of ideas is not a problem. Nevertheless, it seems that digital
tools give many opportunities for researchers to contribute to research.
There may be several reasons for these developments: rstly, techno-
logical development now offers opportunities that did not exist a few
years ago by providing exciting new opportunities for functionality
(Verganti, Vendraminelli, & Iansiti, 2020); secondly, research on inno-
vation and digital innovation has shown that digital tools can overcome
some of the challenges that exist in innovation processes (Beretta, 2018);
thirdly, the development and implementation of digital tools may seem
more easily accessible to researchers as a topic (Benbya and Leidner,
2018); and fourthly, practitioners within organizations are now inter-
ested in these tools, and this is therefore driving their development
(Ciriello et al., 2016).
To examine the type of value that new digital innovations bring to
organizations, research should focus on the outcome of the innovation
process and should quantify value concepts to examine the extent to
which these innovations create efcient solutions and prot for the or-
ganizations. A strategic approach to employee-driven digital innovation
is therefore needed to align innovation with each organization’s goals
and strategies, whether they are private (Hartley, 2013) or public
(Arundel et al., 2019). There are different orders that connect strategy to
employee-driven digital innovation (Høyrup, 2012); our ndings
(Table 10) show that most studies examine bottom-up initiatives. This
shows that organizations do not necessarily direct innovation processes
in one particular direction (e.g. towards previously existing goals,
strategies or business areas). However, the generation of ideas and ini-
tiatives needs to be aligned with each organization’s goals and strategies
(Arundel et al., 2019), even when it is the “ordinary employees” who are
doing the innovating. Here, further research on the strategic approach
could help determine the contexts in which employee-driven digital
innovation can best contribute, either as a spontaneous self-initiated
process (rst-order employee-driven innovation) or as a more struc-
tured approach (mixed or third-order employee-driven innovation). This
applies to both private and public organizations, although the goals and
strategies will be different. While public sector innovations occur mainly
through formal political mandates (Mergel, 2015), new forms of open
collaboration have recently emerged outside trusted and formalized
acquisition procedures, in both the private and public sectors. Therefore,
it is crucial for new research to examine this concept and study the
outcomes of employee-driven digital innovation to an even greater
extent, to uncover the strengths, weaknesses and connections that can
provide a better understanding of such innovation.
5.3. External competitive environment and internal organizational
environment
Digital innovations are inuenced by both the external competitive
environment and the internal organizational environment (Kohli and
Melville, 2019). However, our ndings (Table 4) demonstrate that only
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
264
a few publications have examined the external competitive environ-
ment. Our analysis shows that these publications have a different
approach to the external competitive environment as they focus on
collaboration rather than competition. For example, Schaarschmidt
et al. (2011) examine collaboration in SME networks; Laviolette et al.
(2016) look at absorptive capacity for inbound open innovation; and
Yan et al. (2018) describe the differential innovativeness outcomes of
user and employee participation. Specically, Laviolette et al. (2016)
focus on collaboration with external companies in order to not only
draw inspiration for innovation but also further develop products and
services. Therefore, it does not seem that the articles particularly wish to
reveal industry secrets that could change the competitive situation;
rather, they focus more on how organizations can make use of their
stakeholders in the environment to improve products, services, pro-
cesses and business models.
Technological development, a factor often originating in the external
environment, is crucial for the emergence of new products, services,
processes, and business models. An organization’s approach to techno-
logical development will therefore also be crucial to the success of
employee-driven digital innovation. For every organization, techno-
logical development is a resource and strategy issue, which suggests that
only large organizations can drive this development. At the same time,
several characteristics of digital innovation (Yoo et al., 2010) disprove
the assumption that this activity is reserved only for specic organiza-
tions. Technological development can to a great extent be exploited by
all organizations, even though much of it is driven by larger actors. For
example, a small business can use the same technological platforms to
reach its customers as a larger one. In other words, it can adopt the same
technological advances as others in the same market. This can be un-
derstood as exploitation related to the theories of organizational
learning (March, 1991). We claim that “ordinary employees” can
contribute to innovation through both exploration and exploitation
(March, 1991), and that this is made possible through contextual
ambidexterity (Birkinshaw and Gupta, 2013).
As the majority of the studies focus on internal organizational
environment (Table 4), they contribute to various aspects of employee-
driven digital innovation. For example, Mueller and Renken (2017) look
at how employees can become digital transformers; Ruan et al. (2010)
examine the motivation of employee innovation behavior; and Muller
et al. (2013) look at crowdfunding within an enterprise. Many envi-
ronmental elements within organizations will affect their ability to
innovate, and this is also the case in terms of employee-driven digital
innovation. Some of the publications focus on this, as shown above, but
more knowledge is still required about those organizational elements
that can foster employee-driven digital innovation and those that can
impede it. These include organizational structure, culture, learning,
creativity, motivation and leadership. This applies not only to employee-
driven digital innovation, but to employee-driven innovation in general.
In the quest for greater understanding of the external competitive
environment and the internal organizational environment, some
research challenges emerge. Our analysis of the publications shows a
strong focus of current research on private organizations, looking both
at the outcomes of employee-driven digital innovation and digital tools.
There could be several reasons for this - it may be easier to undertake
research in private organizations, or there may be more innovation in
private organizations - but this only demonstrates that more research
within public organizations is required in order to provide a better un-
derstanding of the concept. This one-sided approach offers limited un-
derstanding of the overall role of employee-driven digital innovation as
only a few studies consider public organizations, either on their own
(Lahtinen et al., 2017) or alongside private ones (Gressgård et al., 2014;
Kesting et al., 2016). Although there are many similarities between
private and public organizations, there are some fundamental differ-
ences, such as their goals and strategies (Lan and Rainey, 1992; Bysted
and Jespersen, 2015), that affect the innovation processes leading to the
development of products, services and processes. Adopting a broader
denition of innovation that includes the process approach to innova-
tion (Demircioglu and Audretsch, 2017) shows that a wide range of
innovations exist in public organizations. There is great potential for the
use of digital technology in the design of new services in public orga-
nizations, together with process innovation to increase efciency. Many
innovations in the public sector are related to the use of old technologies
in new contexts, but these are nevertheless still innovations. We believe
that public organizations should be explored further as a research area.
To increase our understanding of employee-driven digital innova-
tion, it is necessary to examine the concept from different directions and
different perspectives (Gap 3), such as those of private or public orga-
nizations. This will provide better insights into employee-driven digital
innovation and increase the validity of the results and their trans-
ferability between organizations. In other words, it is important to study
the similarities and differences between private and public organiza-
tions, in terms of both the inclusion of employees in digital innovation
processes and the outcomes of digital innovation itself. Many of the
existing publications describe single case studies, so more research is
needed that compares different companies and countries. Currently,
there is only a limited number of such publications. There is another
methodological challenge in this area, in that only 31% of the studies are
longitudinal in their approach while the rest present a cross-section of
each organization’s actions. There is therefore a need for more studies
that follow organizations over time.
The European perspective still appears to be central to the study of
employee-driven digital innovation, with almost 60% of the publica-
tions originating from Europe (Table 11). This may have important
implications as it may create institutional bias, although to a lesser
extent than previously thought (Opland et al., 2020), leading to situa-
tions where the external validity of the primary studies could be ques-
tioned. Greater diversity both of approach and of organizations studied
will therefore be important to the creation of knowledge about
employee-driven digital innovation.
5.4. Digital tools to support employee-driven innovation
The main problem for organizations trying to increase innovation is
not a lack of ideas, but rather an inability to notice the good ideas that
are already there (Barkus, 2013). Organizations must also be able to
screen the most promising ideas and select the best of them to take
forward (Verganti, 2017). This challenge is linked to the organization’s
goals and strategies, which are questions for management. When look-
ing at the number of researchers and organizations that are concerned
with the use of digital tools, it seems to be assumed that innovation is
mainly about the generation and collection of ideas. In our review, 29 of
the 39 publications that examine digital tools, either holistically or in
combination with employee-driven digital innovation, focus on the rst
phases of the innovation process, i.e. idea generation and idea gathering
(Desouza, 2011). Extensive research in the area has led to signicant
resources being spent on developing systems that can generate and
collect these ideas, creating possibilities for the organizations that utilize
them (Fairbank et al., 2003; Ciriello et al., 2016; Yang and Han, 2019).
However, this creates a management problem in relation to the
screening and selection of ideas to proceed with, as well as the challenge
of how to create digital tools that can support these parts of the inno-
vation process and predict which ideas to take forward. There is a need
for better processes and tools to facilitate not only idea generation, but
also the recognition and selection of the ideas that are generated (Ver-
ganti et al., 2020). This view supports the need for digital tools to be
developed that can support the innovation process, so that new ideas are
aligned with the organization’s goals and strategies. Our ndings show
some elements of these ideas in the development of digital tools, such as
crowdfunding within enterprises (Muller et al., 2013) and gamication
(Viberg et al., 2020), but this is the exception rather than the rule. The
critical question about employee-driven digital innovation is this: How
can the organization’s strategic direction be maintained when it is
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
265
confronted by many more or less good ideas? This does not mean digi-
talization for the sake of digitalization. However, positive effects can
come from digitizing these processes, for example in large organizations,
which may have organizational structures and geographically separated
units that make it difcult to cooperate and innovate at the employee
level. Future research could therefore examine whether digital tools
could be developed to support employee-driven digital innovation - as
well as different approaches to innovation - across many different in-
dustries and sectors.
A limited number of publications in this review do indeed explore the
selection of ideas (Elerud-Tryde and Hooge, 2014; Ciriello et al., 2015;
Campos-Bl´
azquez et al., 2020). Different solutions are presented, from
various forms of internal crowdfunding (Muller et al., 2013) to the
appointment of managers and experts within each organization to
evaluate the ideas. However, it is surprising that the majority of these
systems rely on the use of managers and experts as assessors. This may
simply move the bottleneck from the idea collection stage to the eval-
uation stage. This raises a number of interesting questions. For example,
what competence do these experts have that qualies them to assess
ideas? Could the experts have ulterior motives for promoting certain
ideas over others? To what extent should the creativity of employees
(Elerud-Tryde and Hooge, 2014; Müller and Ulrich, 2013) be inuenced
by the organization’s goals and strategies (Høyrup, 2012)? While these
are worthwhile questions, it is striking that so few of these information
systems use technology, or suggest its use, in the selection of ideas. With
the constant emergence of new technology in, for example, articial
intelligence and machine learning, it is reasonable to believe that, in the
next few years, new technology could be implemented in these infor-
mation systems to reduce the barriers created by idea abundance
(Dennehy, Pappas, Wamba, & Michael, 2021; Verganti, 2017). Howev-
er, as the current literature suggests, the immediate solution to this
problem would be to include the whole organization in the process. This
solution could involve employees voting on the most promising pro-
posals or a form of internal crowdfunding in which employees invest in
the ideas that impress them. Such approaches solve the management
problem that often arises when so many ideas are generated that the
most innovative of them are not identied or implemented. This is an
interesting dynamic because we argue that there must be a management
responsibility related to innovation to ensure that these innovations
support the organization’s purpose and goals.
In the near future, it will become possible to implement cutting-edge
technology in all types of information systems. We have only seen the
start of developments that will introduce new and exciting technology
and overcome several existing challenges (Meadows et al., 2022; Ver-
ganti et al., 2020). This technological advancement relates not only to
the steps following idea generation, but also to employees choosing to
get involved in the organization’s innovation processes. If the potential
of including employees in the innovation processes is to be fully
exploited, we would argue that it is not enough if only 30–50% of em-
ployees choose to get involved. Instead, a larger number need to see that
their ideas are taken seriously and can make a difference for the orga-
nization in the short and long terms. New technology can change the
ways in which we work with innovation, creating new ways of including
“ordinary employees” in the innovation process. We therefore believe
that this area will face rapid development in the future and require much
more research, particularly given its relevance to practitioners. At the
same time, these technologies must be discussed and problematized in
the light of innovation management. Regardless of the quality of tech-
nological support for the innovation process, it is ultimately the re-
sponsibility of management to ensure that the direction of innovation
matches the goals and strategies of the organization. We therefore
propose further research into digital tools as Gap 4 (Table 12).
Below (in Table 12), we summarize the various research gaps derived
from the discussion, relating them to RQ2: What characterizes current
research on employee-driven digital innovation? These gaps demon-
strate more research is needed to connect the two research directions we
have identied in employee-driven digital innovation. As an extension
of these research gaps, we also present proposals for future research
questions that may help to shed light on these issues (Table 12). These
proposed future research questions correspond to RQ3: To which future
derived research paths within employee-driven digital innovation could
research make the largest contributions? In this way, Table 12 sum-
marizes our contribution to an understanding of the challenges in the
research area and the solutions we see being achieved through the future
research agenda.
6. Limitations
We are aware that methodological limitations may affect the validity
of this study’s ndings. These limitations result from the choices we
made as researchers in the development of the review protocol and in
the execution of the study. We have not included studies published
before 2010, and we have only collected data using Scopus. This could
mean that we have missed important publications from the period
before 2010, as well as publications that are not included in Scopus.
Nonetheless, we have conducted searches in Google Scholar and citation
tracking to reduce these limitations.
Other choices in the execution of the study may also have created
biases and led to the exclusion of possible relevant studies (e.g. through
the selection of search terms). This may, in particular, have led to the
exclusion of studies from adjacent research areas that use different terms
to describe employee-driven digital innovation. Future studies may be
able to perform a systematic mapping of the area or employ bibliometric
analysis to gain a broader overview of the eld. Being aware of these
methodological limitations, we assessed them against our methodolog-
ical choices in order to present a thorough, systematic and compre-
hensive literature review.
7. Conclusions
Our analysis of the selected publications shows two clear directions
in which the research area has developed. The parallel research streams
have emerged as a result of different research focuses within innovation
management research and information systems research. Researchers
have either studied the development of digital products, services and
processes using employee-driven innovation or the development and use
of digital tools to support employee-driven innovation processes. Both
directions qualify as employee-driven digital innovation according to
our denition, and both constitute the overall empirical basis for the
theory of employee-driven digital innovation.
Based on the discussion above, we can make the following conclu-
sion to the research questions:
RQ1: How has the research eld of employee-driven digital innovation
developed since 2010?
RQ2: What characterizes current research on employee-driven digital
innovation?
RQ3: What are the future derived research paths within employee-driven
digital innovation where research could make the largest contributions?
The research area appears to have more facets than initially thought
(Opland et al., 2020), as shown in several recent publications. In recent
years, one can clearly see an increase in research activity in this area.
However, it is also possible to see distinct areas within employee-driven
digital innovation where research is still lacking, as demonstrated by the
research gaps identied above (Table 12). In connection with the
identied research gaps (Table 12), we highlight topics where more
research is required to provide theoretical insight. Future studies can
follow many different paths, and we present the most interesting ones
based on the following research gaps: how digital tools can inuence the
employee-driven digital innovation process (Gap 1), how to measure the
effects of employee-driven digital innovation (Gap 2), which similarities
and differences exist between private and public organizations in rela-
tion to employee-driven digital innovation (Gap 3) and how more
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
266
sophisticated digital tools can be developed (Gap 4).
This literature review shows research on employee-driven digital
innovation to still be in a maturing phase. Just as the research is at a
crossroads between several different research traditions and disciplines,
the research area itself is also affected by different points of view. This
adds to the dynamics of the research area and makes it very interesting
to follow. New research is needed to develop greater understanding and
create better explanatory models, both for researchers and practitioners.
As shown in Fig. 1, we have developed a theoretical framework that can
be used by researchers to structure further research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Leif Erik Opland: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Methodology. Ilias O.
Pappas: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Formal analysis, Methodology. Jostein Engesmo:
Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Letizia Jaccheri:
Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
None.
Appendix
See the Tables A and B.
Table A
List of included primary studies in the systematic literature review.
Author Title Journal/proceedings Information management
(IM)/Information systems (IS)
B¨
ackstr¨
om and
Lindberg (2019)
Varying involvement in digitally enhanced employee-driven
innovation
European Journal of Innovation Management IM
Ciriello and Richter
(2019)
Scenario-Based Design Theorizing Business and Information Systems Engineering IS
B¨
ackstr¨
om and
Lindberg (2018)
Behavioural Implications of Employee-Driven Innovation – A
Critical Discourse Analysis
International Journal of Innovation Management IM
Ciriello et al. (2015) PowerPoint Use and Misuse in Digital Innovation 23rd European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS), Münster, Germany, 2015
IS
Laviolette et al.
(2016)
Open innovation from the inside: Employee-driven innovation in
support of absorptive capacity for inbound open innovation
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation
IM
Kesting et al. (2016) The role of employee participation in generating and
commercialising innovations: insights from Chinese high-tech rms
International Journal of Human Resource
Management
IM
Benbya and Leidner
(2018)
How Allianz UK used an idea management platform to harness
employee innovation
MIS Quarterly Executive IS
Mueller and Renken
(2017)
Helping Employees to be Digital Transformers – the Olympus.
connect Case
38th International Conference on Information
Systems (ICIS), Seoul, South Korea, 2017.
IS
Orso et al. (2018) Employee-driven innovation for improving working practices:
preliminary ndings from a case-study
6th International Conference on Enterprise Systems
(ICES), Limassol, Cyprus, 2018
IS
Lahtinen et al. (2017) Framework Towards a Virtual Tool for the Front-End of Employee-
Driven Innovation in Healthcare
International Journal of E-Services and Mobile
Applications
IM
Ciriello et al. (2016) Designing an Idea Screening Framework for Employee-driven
Innovation
49th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Koloa, HI, USA, 2016
IS
Gressgård et al.
(2014)
Use of information and communication technology to support
employee-driven innovation in organizations: a knowledge
management perspective
Journal of Knowledge Management IM
Reibenspiess et al.
(2019)
Blessings and Pitfalls of Harnessing Employee-Driven Innovation
within a Work Model
25th Americas Conference on Information Systems
(AMCIS), Cancun, Mexico, 2019
IS
Stieglitz and
Hassannia (2016)
Idea Generation by Employees and External Participants in
Innovation Competitions
49th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Koloa, HI, USA, 2016
IS
Tirabeni and
Soderquist (2019)
Connecting the Dots: Framing Employee-Driven Innovation in Open
Innovation Contexts
International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management
IM
Arvidsson and
Mønstad (2018)
Generating innovation potential: How digital entrepreneurs
conceal, sequence, anchor, and propagate new technology
Journal of Strategic Information Systems IS
van Zyl et al. (2019) Work engagement and task performance within a global Dutch ICT-
consulting rm: The mediating role of innovative work behaviors
Current Psychology IM
K¨
offer et al. (2015) Innovation Through BYOD? The Inuence of IT Consumerization on
Individual IT Innovation Behavior
Business and Information Systems Engineering IS
Wei and Yan (2010) Research on the Key Factors of High-Tech Enterprises’ Innovation
Management Control
2nd International Conference on Networking and
Digital Society (ICNDS), Wenzhou, China, 2010
IS
Ruan et al. (2010) The impact of Motivation on Employee Innovative Behavior and the
Disparity Analysis: An Empirical Study of Zhejiang Province in
China
5th IEEE International Conference on Management of
Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), Singapore,
2010
IS
Sutthijakra and Ubon
(2010)
The Use of a Web-Based Suggestion Scheme to Facilitate Feedback
toward Service Innovation: Lessons Learned from innov@ccor in
Accor
Portland International Center for Management of
Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 2010
IS
Schaarschmidt et al.
(2011)
Web 2.0 enabled employee collaboration in diverse SME networks:
A CEOs perspective
19th European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS), Helsinki, Finland, 2011
IS
Mourmant et al.
(2013)
Spaces of IT Intrapreneurial Freedom: A Classic Grounded Theory ACM Conference on Computers and People Research
(SIGMIS-CPR), Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2013
IS
Muller et al. (2013) Crowdfunding inside the Enterprise: Employee-initiatives for
Innovation and Collaboration
31st Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (SIGCHI), Paris, France, 2013
IS
(continued on next page)
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
267
Table A (continued )
Author Title Journal/proceedings Information management
(IM)/Information systems (IS)
El-Ella et al. (2013) Accelerating High Involvement: The Role of New Technologies in
Enabling Employee Participation in Innovation
International Journal of Innovation Management IM
Rosell et al. (2014) Unleashing Innovation through Internal Hackathons 1st IEEE Innovations in Technology Conference
(InnoTek), Rhode Island, USA, 2014
IS
Elerud-Tryde and
Hooge (2014)
Beyond the Generation of Ideas: Virtual Idea Campaigns to Spur
Creativity and Innovation
Creativity and Innovation Management IM
Aziz and Rizkallah
(2015)
Effect of organizational factors on employees’ generation of
innovative ideas: Empirical study on the Egyptian software
development industry
EuroMed Journal of Business IM
Wang et al. (2015) The Effect of Organizational Levers and the Mediating Role of
Individual Absorptive Capacity in Information System Innovation
48th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 2016
IS
Vel and Park (2018) How ECS Improve Creative Use of Employees’ Knowledge? 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems,
New Orleans, LA, USA, 2018
IS
Beretta et al. (2017) Moderating Ideation in Web-Enabled Ideation Systems Journal of Product Innovation Management IM
Yan et al. (2018) Differential Innovativeness Outcomes of User and Employee
Participation in an Online User Innovation Community
Journal of Management Information Systems IS
Chasanidou et al.
(2018)
Exploring employee interactions and quality of contributions in
intra-organisational innovation platforms
Creativity and Innovation Management IM
Beretta (2018) Idea Selection in Web-Enabled Ideation Systems Journal of Product Innovation Management IM
Uddin et al. (2019) Does a creative identity encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence
from knowledge-intensive IT service rms
European Journal of Innovation Management IM
Gode et al. (2019) Employee engagement in generating ideas on internal social media:
A matter of meaningfulness, safety and availability
Corporate Communications IM
Chen et al. (2019) Collective rm-internal online idea development: Exploring the
impact of feedback timeliness and knowledge overlap
European Journal of Innovation Management IM
Nicolajsen et al.
(2019)
IT-enabled idea competitions for organizational innovation: An
inquiry into breakdowns in adaptation
Creativity and Innovation Management IM
Ciriello et al. (2014) Communicating ideas purposefully: Toward a design theory of
innovation artifacts
22nd European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS), Tel Aviv, Israel, 2014
IS
Huesig and Endres
(2019)
Exploring the digital innovation process: The role of functionality
for the adoption of innovation management software by innovation
managers
European Journal of Innovation Management IM
Ciriello and Richter
(2015)
Idea Hubs as Nexus of Collective Creativity in Digital Innovation 36th International Conference on Information
Systems (ICIS), Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2015
IS
Tirabeni et al. (2016) Driving Innovation by Enhancing Employee Roles: The Balancing
Act of Employee-Driven Innovation
International Journal of Social, Behavioral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial
Engineering
IM
Reibenspiess et al.
(2019)
A Work Model for Employee-Driven Innovation in Public
Organizations
27th European Conference on Information Systems,
Stockholm, Sweden, 2019
IS
Miao and Ji (2020) Challenges to the Promotion of Employee-Driven Innovation in
State-Owned Enterprises: Two Cases from the Automotive Sector in
China
Sustainability IM
Campos-Bl´
azquez
et al. (2020)
Employee Innovation Using Ideation Contests: Seven Step Process to
Align Strategic Challenges with the Innovation Process
Research Technology Management IM
Shafti et al. (2020) The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity:
Moderating role of intrinsic motivation
Asia Pacic Management Review IM
Wan et al. (2020) How user-driven innovation and employee intrapreneurship
promote platform enterprise performance
Management Decision IM
Iqbal et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial leadership and employee innovative behavior: an
examination through multiple theoretical lenses
European Journal of Innovation Management IM
Yu and Liu (2020) The impact of employee participation in online innovation
communities on idea quality
Kybernetes IS
Viberg et al. (2020) Facilitating ideation and knowledge sharing in workplaces: The
design and use of gamication in virtual platforms
7th International Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction
IS
Iqbal et al. (2020) Servant leadership and employee innovative behaviour: exploring
psychological pathways
Leadership and Organization Development Journal IM
Badewi et al. (2020) ERP system as an enabler for bottom-up innovations Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems IS
Reibenspiess et al.
(2020)
Tapping into the wealth of employees’ ideas: Design principles for a
digital intrapreneurship platform
Information and Management IS
Westerski et al.
(2013)
Classifying and comparing community innovation in Idea
Management Systems
Decision Support Systems IS
Sedera et al. (2016) Innovating with enterprise systems and digital platforms: A
contingent resource-based theory view
Information and Management IS
Zimmerling et al.
(2016)
Increasing the Creative Output at the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation
- A Concept for a Gamied Internal Enterprise Ideation Platform
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences IS
Hossain and Islam
(2015)
Generating Ideas on Online Platforms: A Case Study of “My
Starbucks Idea”
Arab Economic and Business Journal IS
Buech et al. (2010) Suggestion systems in organizations: what motivates employees to
submit suggestions?
European Journal of Innovation Management IS
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
268
References
Aasen, T. M., Amundsen, O., Gressgård, L. J., & Hansen, K. (2012). In search of Best
Practices for Employee-Driven Innovation: Experiences from Norwegian Work Life.
In S. Høyrup, M. Bonnafous-Boucher, C. Hasse, M. Lotz, & K. Moller (Eds.), Employee-
Driven Innovation. A New Approach (3–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alasoini, T. (2013). Rethinking employee contribution: A framework for promoting
employee-driven innovation. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Brussels, Belgium..
Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing innovation in the public sector:
Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy, 48(3),
789–798.
Arvidsson, V., & Mønsted, T. (2018). Generating innovation potential: How digital
entrepreneurs conceal, sequence, anchor, and propagate new technology. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 27(4), 369–383.
Aziz, H. H. A., & Rizkallah, A. (2015). Effect of organizational factors on employeeś
generation of innovative ideas: Empirical study on the Egyptian software
development industry. EuroMed Journal of Business, 10(2), 134–146.
Badewi, A., AbuSalim, T., A-Asfahani, L., & Shehata, D. (2020). ERP system as an enabler
for bottom up innovations. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 32(2),
305–344.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary denition
of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339.
Barkus, D. (2013). Innovation isńt an idea problem. Harvard Business Review July 23rd.
Barthel, P. & Hess, T. (2019). “Are digital transformation projects special?” In: Proceed-
ings of the 23rd Pacic Asia Conference on Information Systems, China..
Benbya, H., & Leidner, D. (2018). How allianz UK used an idea management platform to
harness employee innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(2), 355–375.
Beretta, M. (2018). Idea selection in web-enabled ideation systems. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 36(1), 5–23.
Beretta, M., Bj¨
ork, J., & Magnusson, M. (2017). Moderating ideation in web-enabled
ideation systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 389–409.
Table B
Supplementary material – dimensions of the analysis in relation to primary studies.
Author Methodology Sector origin Level of analysis Intention for publication Case origin Conceptualization
B¨
ackstr¨
om and Lindberg (2019) Qualitative Private Organization Efciency Europe Both
Ciriello and Richter (2019) Qualitative Private Organization Product/service improvements Europe Digital tools
B¨
ackstr¨
om and Lindberg (2018) Qualitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Global Employee-driven digital innovation
Ciriello et al. (2015) Qualitative Private Organization Product/service improvements Europe Digital tools
Laviolette et al. (2016) Qualitative Private Industry/market Product/service improvements Europe Both
Kesting et al. (2016) Quantitative Both Industry/market Unclear Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Benbya and Leidner (2018) Qualitative Private Multilevel Efciency Europe Both
Mueller and Renken (2017) Qualitative Private Individual Unclear Europe Both
Orso et al. (2018) Qualitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Employee-driven digital innovation
Lahtinen et al. (2017) Qualitative Public Individual Product/service improvements Europe Digital tools
Ciriello et al. (2016) Qualitative Private Organization Product/service improvements Europe Digital tools
Gressgård et al. (2014) Qualitative Both Industry/market Unclear Europe Digital tools
Reibenspiess et al. (2019) Qualitative Private Individual Unclear Europe Both
Stieglitz and Hassannia (2016) Quantitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Both
Tirabeni and Soderquist (2019) Qualitative Private Organization Unclear Global Both
Arvidsson and Mønstad (2018) Qualitative Private Individual Efciency Europe Employee-driven digital innovation
van Zyl et al. (2019) Quantitative Private Individual Unclear Europe Employee-driven digital innovation
K¨
offer et al. (2015) Quantitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Employee-driven digital innovation
Wei and Yan (2010) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Ruan et al. (2010) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Sutthijakra and Ubon (2010) Qualitative Private Organization Product/service improvements Global Both
Schaarschmidt et al. (2011) Mixed Private Industry/market Efciency Europe Both
Mourmant et al. (2013) Qualitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Global Employee-driven digital innovation
Muller et al. (2013) Mixed Private Multilevel Efciency Global Both
El-Ella et al. (2013) Qualitative Private Organization Efciency Europe Both
Rosell et al. (2014) Quantitative Private Individual Product/service improvements North America Both
Elerud-Tryde and Hooge (2014) Mixed Private Organization Product/service improvements Europe Both
Aziz and Rizkallah (2015) Quantitative Private Multilevel Product/service improvements Africa Employee-driven digital innovation
Wang et al. (2015) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Vel and Park (2018) Quantitative Private Individual Unclear North America Both
Beretta et al. (2017) Qualitative Private Organization Efciency Europe Both
Yan et al. (2018) Quantitative Private Industry/market Product/service improvements North America Both
Chasanidou et al. (2018) Mixed Private Organization Unclear Europe Both
Beretta (2018) Quantitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Both
Uddin et al. (2019) Quantitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Gode et al. (2019) Qualitative Private Individual Efciency Europe Both
Chen et al. (2019) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Europe Both
Nicolajsen et al. (2019) Qualitative Private Organization Efciency Europe Both
Ciriello et al. (2014) Qualitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Employee-driven digital innovation
Huesig and Endres (2019) Quantitative Private Industry/market Efciency Europe Digital tools
Ciriello and Richter (2015) Qualitative Private Individual Efciency Europe Digital tools
Tirabeni et al. (2016) Qualitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Global Employee-driven digital innovation
Reibenspiess et al. (2019) Qualitative Public Organization Product/service improvements Europe Employee-driven digital innovation
Miao and Ji (2020) Qualitative Public Industry/market Efciency Asia Digital tools
Campos-Bl´
azquez et al. (2020) Qualitative Both Industry/market Efciency Europe Digital tools
Shafti et al. (2020) Quantitative Public Organization Unclear Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Wan et al. (2020) Quantitative Private Organization Unclear Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Iqbal et al. (2020) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Yu and Liu (2020) Quantitative Private Individual Product/service improvements North America Both
Viberg et al. (2020) Mixed Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Digital tools
Iqbal et al. (2020) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Asia Employee-driven digital innovation
Badewi et al. (2020) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Global Digital tools
Reibenspiess et al. (2020) Qualitative Private Organization Efciency Europe Both
Westerski et al. (2013) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Global Both
Sedera et al. (2016) Quantitative Private Organization Efciency Global Digital tools
Zimmerling et al. (2016) Qualitative Private Individual Product/service improvements Europe Both
Hossain and Islam (2015) Quantitative Private Organization Product/service improvements Global Digital tools
Buech et al. (2010) Quantitative Private Organization Product/service improvements Europe Digital tools
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
269
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of
ambidexterity to the eld of organization studies. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting
literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 34, 12.
Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L.,
Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haeiger, S., Hagerdoorn, J., Hilgers, D.,
Laursen, K., Magnusson, M., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I., Moeslein, K., Nambisan, S.,
Piller, F., Radziwon, A., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Sims, J., & Ter Wal, A. (2017). The open
innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across
different levels of analysis. Journal of Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40.
Buech, V. I. D., Michel, A., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Suggestion systems in organizations:
What motivates employees to submit suggestions? European Journal of Innovation
Management, 13(4), 507–525.
Bysted, R., & Jespersen, K. R. (2015). Comparing public and private sector employees
innovative behaviour: Understanding the role of the job and organizational
characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Review, 17(5), 698–717.
B¨
ackstr¨
om, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2019). A mapping study of employee innovation:
Proposing a research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3),
468–492.
B¨
ackstr¨
om, I., & Lindberg, M. (2018). Behavioural implications of employee-driven
innovation – a critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 22(7), 1–18.
B¨
ackstr¨
om, I., & Lindberg, M. (2019). Varying involvement in digitally enhanced
employee-driven innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3),
524–540.
Campos-Bl´
azquez, J. R., Morcillo, P., & Rubio-Andrada, L. (2020). Employee innovation
using ideation contests: Seven-step process to align strategic challenges with the
innovation process. Research-Technology Management, 63(5), 20–28.
Chasanidou, D., Sivertstøl, N., & Hildrum, J. (2018). Exploring employee interactions
and quality of contributions in intra-organisational innovation platforms. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 27(4), 458–475.
Chen, Q., Magnusson, M., & Bj¨
ork, J. (2019). Collective rm-internal online idea
development: Exploring the impact of feedback timeliness and knowledge overlap.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(1), 13–39.
Cheng, J.-Y.-J., Frangos, C., & Groysberg, B. (2021). Is your c-suite equipped to lead a
digital transformation? Harvard Business Review.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and proting
from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ciriello, R. F., Aschoff, R. Dolata, M. and A. Richter (2014). “Communicating ideas
purposefully – toward a design theory of innovation artifacts.” In: 22
nd
European
Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ciriello, R. F., Richter, A. (2015). “Idea hubs as nexus of collective creativity in digital
innovation.” In: 36
th
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2015), Fort
Worth, USA..
Ciriello, R. F., & Richter, A. (2019). Scenario-based design theorizing. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 61(1), 31–50.
Ciriello, R. F., Richter, A. and Schwabe, G. (2015). “PowerPoint use and misuse in digital
innovation.” In: Proceedings of the 23
th
European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS), Münster, Germany.
Ciriello, R. F., Richter, A., & Schwabe, G. (2016). Designing an idea screening framework
for employee-driven innovation. Proceedings of the 49
th
Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of
determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 55–90.
Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector
organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681–1691.
De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., & Martens, L. (2010).
User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology
analysis. Science and Public Policy, 37(1), 51–61.
Dennehy, D., Pappas, I. O., Wamba, S. F., & Michael, K. (2021). Guest Editorial: Socially
responsible information systems development: the role of AI and business analytics.
Information Technology & People, 34(6), 1541–1550. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-
10-2021-871
Dery, K., Sebastian, I. M., & van der Meulen, N. (2017). The digital workplace is key to
digital innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2).
Desouza, K. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship: Managing ideas within your organization. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Phillips, N. (2014). The oxford handbook of innovation
management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content
analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and
methodological renements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34.
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A
systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.
El-Ella, N. A., Stoetzel, M., Bessant, J., & Pinkwart, A. (2013). Accelerating high
involvement: The role of new technologies in enabling employee participation in
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(6).
Elerud-Tryde, A., & Hooge, S. (2014). Beyond the generation of ideas: Virtual idea
campaigns to spur creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management,
23(3), 290–302.
Fairbank, J., Spangler, W., & Williams, S. (2003). Motivating creativity through a
computer-mediated employee suggestion management system. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 22(5), 305–314.
Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z.E., 2014. Digital innovation as a
fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS
Quarterly, 38 (2), 329–353.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2),
209–226.
Gode, H. E., Johansen, W., & Thomsen, C. (2019). Employee engagement in generating
ideas on internal social media: A matter of meaningfulness, safety and availability.
Corporate Communications.
Gressgård, L. J., Amundsen, O., Aasen, T. M., & Hansen, K. (2014). Use of information
and communication technology to support employee-driven innovation in
organizations: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 18(4), 633–650.
Haapasaari, A., Engestr¨
om, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2018). From initiatives to employee-driven
innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(2), 206–226.
Hartley, J. (2013). Public and private features of innovation. In S. P. Osborne, & L. Brown
(Eds.), Handbook of Innovation in Public Services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Herbert, L. (2017). Digital transformation: Build your organization’s future for the innovation
age. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Holmstrøm, J. (2018). Recombination in digital innovation: Challenges, opportunities,
and the importance of a theoretical framework. Information and Organization, 28(2),
107–110.
Hossain, M., & Islam, K. M. Z. (2015). Generating ideas on online platforms: A case study
of ‘my starbucks idea’. Arab Economic and Business Journal, 10(2), 102–111.
Huesig, S., & Endres, H. (2019). Exploring the digital innovation process: The role of
functionality for the adoption of innovation management software by innovation
managers. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(2), 302–314.
Høyrup, S. (2010). Employee-driven innovation and workplace learning: Basic concepts,
approaches and themes. Transfer, 16(2), 143–154.
Høyrup, S. (2012). Employee-driven innovation: A new phenomenon, concept and mode
of innovation. In S. Høyrup, M. Bonnafous-Boucher, C. Hasse, M. Lotz, & K. Moller
(Eds.), Employee-Driven Innovation. A New Approach (3–13). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Iqbal, A., Latif, K. F., & Ahmad, M. S. (2020). Servant leadership and employee
innovative behaviour: Exploring psychological pathways. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 813–827.
Iqbal, A., Nazir, T., & Ahmad, M. S. (2020). Entrepreneurial leadership and employee
innovative behaviour: An examination through multiple theoretical lenses. European
Journal of Innovation Management.
Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital
artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357–370.
Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2010). Employee-driven innovation: Extending the license to
foster innovation. Management Decision, 48(1), 65–84.
Kesting, P., Song, L. J., Qin, Z., & Krol, M. (2016). The role of employee participation in
generating and commercializing innovations: Insights from Chinese high-tech rms.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(10), 1059–1081.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Technical Report TR/
SE-0401, Department of Computer Science, Keele University, UK.
Kohli, R., & Melville, N. P. (2019). Digital innovation: A review and synthesis.
Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 200–223.
K¨
offer, S., Ortbach, K., Junglas, I., Niehaves, B., & Harris, J. (2015). Innovation Through
BYOD? Business and Information Systems Engineering, 57(6), 363–375.
Lahtinen, K., Aaltonen, S., J¨
arvinen, M., Teittinen, O., & Pirttim¨
aki, M. (2017).
Framework towards a virtual tool for the front-end of employee-driven innovation in
healthcare. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, 9(1), 18–34.
Lan, Z., & Rainey, H. G. (1992). Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and
hybrid organizations: More evidence on frequent assertions about differences.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 5–28.
Laviolette, E. M., Redien-Collot, R., & Tegelborg, A.-C. (2016). Open innovation from the
inside: Employee-driven innovation in support of absorptive capacity for inbound
open innovation. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(4),
228–239.
Lee, Y., Mazzei, A., & Kim, J.-N. (2018). Looking for motivational routes for employee-
generated innovation: Employeeś scouting behavior. Journal of Business Research, 91,
286–294.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Marinova, D., & Phillimore, J. (2003). Models of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The
International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 761–774). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Meadows, M., Merendino, A., Dibb, S., Garcia-Perez, A., Hinton, M., Papagiannidis, S., …
Wang, H. (2022). Tension in the data environment: How organisations can meet the
challenge. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, Article 121315. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121315. in this issue.
Mergel, I. (2015). Open collaboration in the public sector: The case of social coding on
GitHub. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 464–472.
Miao, Z., & Ji, H. (2020). Challenges to the promotion of employee-driven innovation in
state-owned enterprises: Two cases from the automotive sector in China.
Sustainability, 12(6), 1–16.
Mourmant, G., Niederman, F., & Kalika, M. (2013). Spaces of IT intrapreneurial freedom:
A classic grounded theory. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Computers and
People Research.
Mueller, B., & Renken, U. (2017). Helping employees to be digital transformers-the
olympus.connect case. In: Proceedings of the 38
th
International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS), Seoul, South Korea.
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
270
Muller, M., Geyer, W., Soule, T., Daniels, S., & Cheng, L.-T. (2013). Crowdfunding inside
the enterprise: Employee-initiatives for innovation and collaboration. Proceedings of
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Müller, S. D., Mathiassen, L., & Balshøj, H. H. (2010). Software Process Improvement as
organizational change: A metaphorical analysis of the literature. Journal of Systems
and Software, 83(11), 2128–2146.
Müller, S. D., & Ulrich, F. (2013). Creativity and information systems in a
hypercompetitive environment: A literature review. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 32(1), 175–201.
Nambisan, S. (2013). Information technology and product/service innovation: A brief
assessment and some suggestions for future research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 14(4), 215–226.
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation
management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS
Quarterly, 41(1), 223–228.
Nicolajsen, H. W., Mathiassen, L., & Scupola, A. (2019). IT-enabled idea competitions for
organizational innovation: An inquiry into breakdowns in adaptation. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 28(4), 436–449.
Nylen, D., & Holmstr¨
om, J. (2015). Digital innovation strategy: A framework for
diagnosing and improving digital product and service innovation. Business Horizons,
58(1), 57–67.
Oldham, G. R., & Da Silva, N. (2015). The impact of digital technology on the generation
and implementation of creative ideas in the workplace. Computers in Human
Behavior, 42, 5–11.
Opland, L. E., Jaccheri, L., Engesmo, J., & Pappas, I. O. (2020). Utilising the innovation
potential - A systematic literature review on employee-driven digital innovation.
Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) An Online
AIS Conference.
Opland, L. E., Pappas, I. O., Engesmo, J., & Jaccheri, L. (2021). Employee-driven digital
innovation in public organizations – a case study. Proccedings of the 25th Pacic Asia
Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) - An Online AIS Conference.
O‘Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present,
and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27 (4), 324-338.
Orso, V., Ziviani, R., Barattini, R., Bondani, G., Radu, R., & Gamberini, L. (2018).
Employee-driven innovation for improving working practices: preliminary ndings
from a case study. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise
Systems, Limassol, Cyprus.
Osmundsen, K., Iden, J., & Bygstad, B. (2018). Digital transformation: Drivers, success
factors, and implications. In: Proceedings of the 12th mediterranean conference on
information systems (MCIS), Corfu, Greece.
Pappas, I. O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., Krogstie, J., & Lekakos, G. (2018). Big data
and business analytics ecosystems: Paving the way towards digital transformation
and sustainable societies. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 16,
479–491.
Reibenspiess, V. A., Drechsler, K. and Eckhardt, A. (2019). A work model for employee-
driven innovation in public organizations. In: Proceedings of the 27th European
conference on information systems (ECIS), Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden.
Reibenspiess, V. A., Drechsler, K., Eckhardt, A., & Wagner, H.-T. (2020). Tapping into the
wealth of employeeś ideas: Design principles for a digital intrapreneurship platform.
Information and Management.
Reibenspiess, V. A., Eckhardt, A., Drechsler, K., & Wagner, H. -T. (2019). Blessings and
pitfalls of harnessing employee-driven innovation within a work model.” In:
Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),
Cancun, Mexico.
Reuther, K., Borodzicz, E. P. and C.-A. Schuman (2018). “Identifying barriers to
intrapreneurship.” In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Engineering and Innovation, ICE/ITMC, Stuttgart, Germany.
Rosell, B., Kumar, S., & Shepherd, J. (2014). Unleashing innovation through internal
hackathons. Proceedings of 2014 IEEE innovations in technology conference.
Rowe, F. (2014). What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and
recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 241–255.
Ruan, A., Hong, W., & Jin, J. (2010). The impact of motivation on employee innovative
behavior and the disparity analysis: An empirical study of Zhejiang Province in
China. Proceedings of the 5
th
International Conference on Management of Innovation and
Technology.
Schaarschmidt, M., von Kortzeich, H., Valc´
arcel, S., & Lindermann, N. (2011). Web 2.0
enabled employee collaboration in diverse SME networks: A CEO’s perspective.
Proceedings of the 19
th
European Conference on Information Systems.
Sedera, D., Lokuge, S., Grover, V., Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2016). Innovating with
enterprise systems and digital platforms: A contingent resource-based theory view.
Information and Management, 53(3), 366–379.
Shafti, M., Zoya, Lei, Z., Song, X., & Sarker, M. N. I. (2020). The effects of
transformational leadership on employee creativity: Moderating role of intrinsic
motivation. Asia Pacic Management Review, 25(3), 166–176.
Smith, P., Ulhøi, J. P., & Kesting, P. (2012). Mapping key antecedents of employee-driven
innovations. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management,
12(3), 225–236.
Stieglitz, S., & Hassannia, S. (2016). Idea generation by employees and external
participants in innovation competitions. Proceedings of the 49
th
Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Sutthijakra, S., & Ubon, A. N. (2010). “The use of a web-based suggestion scheme to
facilitate feedback toward service innovation: Lessons learned from innov@ccor in
accor. In: Proceedings Technology Management for Global Economic Growth.
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in
incumbent rms: How volvo cars managed competing concerns. MIS Quarterly, 41
(1), 239–253.
Tirabeni, L., & Soderquist, K. E. (2019). Connecting the dots: Framing employee-driven
innovation in open innovation contexts. International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, 16(4), 1–27.
Tirabeni, L., Soderquist, K. E., & Pisano, P. (2016). Driving innovation by enhancing
employee roles: The balancing act of employee-driven innovation. International
Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial
Engineering, 10(1), 143–151.
Uddin, M. A., Priyankara, H. P. R., & Mahmood, M. (2019). Does a creative identity
encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence from knowledge-intensive IT service
rms. European Journal of Innovation Management.
van Zyl, L. E., van Oort, A., Rispens, S., & Olckers, C. (2019). Work engagement and task
performance within a global Dutch ICT-consulting rm: The mediating role of
innovative work behaviors. Current Psychology.
Vel. V., & Park, I. (2018). How ECS improve creative use of employeeś knowledge? In:
Proceedings of 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems , New Orleans,
USA.
Verganti, R. (2017). Overcrowded: Designing meaningful products in a world awash with
ideas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of
articial intelligence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 212–227.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.
Viberg, O., Khalil, M. and A. Lioliopoulos (2020). “Facilitating Ideation and Knowledge
Sharing in Workplaces: The design and Use of Gamication in Virtual Platforms.” In:
Zaphiris P., Ioannou A. (eds). Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Human and
Technology Ecosystems. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12206.
Berlin: Springer.
von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Voxted, S. (2018). Conditions of implementation of employee-driven innovation.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 22(4), 471–488.
Wan, W., Liu, L., & Wang, X. (2020). How user-driven innovation and employee
entrepreneurship promote platform enterprise performance. Management Decision,
58(12), 2705–2723.
Wang, W., Feng, Y., & Liu, L. (2015). The effect of organizational levers and the
mediating role of individual absorptive capacity in information system innovation.
Proceedings of the 48
th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing
a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.
Wei, Y., & Yan, Z. (2010). Research on the key factors of high-tech enterpriseś innovation
management control. Proceedings of the International Conference on Networking and
Digital Society.
Westerski, A., Dalamagas, T., & Iglesias, C. A. (2013). Classifying and comparing
community innovation in idea management systems. Decision Support Systems, 54(3),
1316–1326.
Wiesb¨
ock, F., & Hess, T. (2018). Understanding the capabilities for digital innovations
from a digital technology perspective. ArbeitsBericht 1/2018, Ludwig Maximilians-
Universit¨
at Munchen, pp. 1-20.
Whittington, D. (2018). Digital innovation and entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yan, J., Leidner, D. E., & Benbya, H. (2018). Differential innovativeness outcomes of user
and employee participation in an online user innovation community. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 35(3), 900–933.
Yang, M., & Han, C. (2019). Stimulating innovation: Managing peer interaction for idea
generation on digital innovation platforms. Journal of Business Research. in press.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital
innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems
Research, 21(4), 724–735.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr, Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation
in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.
Yu, J., & Liu, C. (2020). The impact of employee participation in online innovation
communities on idea quality. Kybernetes.
Zimmerling, E., Hoinger, P. J., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. M. (2016). Increasing the
creative output at the fuzzy front end of innovation – A concept for a gamied
internal enterprise ideation platform. Proceedings of the 49
th
Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Leif Erik Opland is a University Lecturer and PhD-candidate at the Department of Com-
puter Science of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. His research and
teaching activities include employee-driven digital innovation, entrepreneurship and
project management. He has published articles in peer reviewed conferences including
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) and Pacic Asia Conference on In-
formation Systems (PACIS).
Ilias Pappas is a Professor of Information Systems at the Department of Information Sys-
tems, University of Agder (UiA), Norway and an Assoc. Professor at the Department of
Computer Science, NTNU, Norway. His research activities include data science and digital
transformation, social innovation and social change, user experience in different contexts,
as well as digital marketing, e-services, and information technology adoption. He has
published over 100 articles in peer reviewed journals and conferences and has been a
Guest Editor for numerous journals. He is or has been a track chair on AI as well as on Big
Data Analytics at the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) and the
Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), among others. He serves as the
vice-chair of the IFIP Working Group 6.11: Communication Aspects of the E-World. Pappas
is a recipient of ERCIM and Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowships.
L.E. Opland et al.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 255–271
271
Jostein Engesmo is an Associate Professor at the Department of Computer Science of the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology. His research and teaching activities
include digital transformation and change management. He has published articles in peer
reviewed journals and conferences including Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems
and European Conference on Information Systems.
Letizia Jaccheri (Ph.D. from Politecnico di Torino, Italy) is Professor at the Department of
Computer Science of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Jaccheri’s
research is on: software engineering; entertainment computing; computational creativity;
ICT-enabled social innovation. Jaccheri is the Norwegian representative and Vice Presi-
dent of IFIP TC14 on Entertainment Computing. She has published more than 200 papers
in International conferences and journals. She has been teaching courses in software
engineering at various levels since 1994. She has supervised PhD students, Post-doctoral
students and acted as opponent for national and international defences. From 2015 to
April 2018 she was independent director of Reply S.p.A, an IT company with 6000 em-
ployees world wide. She has been general chair of IFIP ICEC 2015, co-chair of ACM IDC
2018, and Program Chair of the European Computer Science Summit 2018. She partici-
pates to several Horizon 2020 projects, among which INITIATE INnovation through bIg
daTa and socIal entrepreneurship; UMI-Sci-Ed Exploiting Ubiquitous Computing, Mobile
Computing and the Internet of Things to promote STEM Education; SOCRATIC SOcial
CReATive IntelligenCe Platform for achieving Global Sustainability Goals. Letizia Jaccheri
is passionate about dissemination of computer science and research to the general public
and to contribute to recruit female students to computer science and research.
L.E. Opland et al.
