This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 17 November 2014, At: 17:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Measuring the style of innovativethinking among engineering studentsDavid Passiga & Lizi Cohena

a School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, IsraelPublished online: 07 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: David Passig & Lizi Cohen (2014) Measuring the style of innovative thinkingamong engineering students, Research in Science & Technological Education, 32:1, 56-77, DOI:10.1080/02635143.2013.878328

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.878328

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Measuring the style of innovative thinking among engineeringstudents

David Passig* and Lizi Cohen

School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Background: Many tools have been developed to measure the ability of workersto innovate. However, all of them are based on self-reporting questionnaires,which raises questions about their validityPurpose: The aim was to develop and validate a tool, called Ideas GenerationImplementation (IGI), to objectively measure the style and potential ofengineering students in generating innovative technological ideas. The cognitiveframework of IGI is based on the Architectural Innovation Model (AIM).Tool description: The IGI tool was designed to measure the level of innovationin generating technological ideas and their potential to be implemented. Thesevariables rely on the definition of innovation as ‘creativity, implemented in ahigh degree of success’. The levels of innovative thinking are based on the AIMand consist of four levels: incremental innovation, modular innovation,architectural innovation and radical innovation.Sample: Sixty experts in technological innovation developed the tool. Wechecked its face validity and calculated its reliability in a pilot study(kappa = 0.73). Then, 145 undergraduate students were sampled at random fromthe seven Israeli universities offering engineering programs and asked tocomplete the questionnaire.Design and methods: We examined the construct validity of the tool byconducting a variance analysis and measuring the correlations between theinnovator’s style of each student, as suggested by the AIM, and the three subscalefactors of creative styles (efficient, conformist and original), as suggested by theKirton Adaptors and Innovators (KAI) questionnaire.Results: Students with a radical innovator’s style inclined more than those withan incremental innovator’s style towards the three creative cognitive styles.Students with an architectural innovator’s style inclined moderately, but notsignificantly, towards the three creative styles.Conclusions: The IGI tool objectively measures innovative thinking amongstudents, thus allowing screening of potential employees at an early stage, duringtheir undergraduate studies. The tool was found to be reliable and valid inmeasuring the style and potential of technological innovation among engineeringstudents.

Key words: innovation; engineering students; technology; potential

Introduction

In the 1980s, technological innovation was defined as a technological improvementor a method of doing things better (Porter 1990). Nowadays, researchers stress thatinnovation is not revolutionary in its essence. To some (Schwartz and Malach-Pines

*Corresponding author. Email: david@passig.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Research in Science & Technological Education, 2014Vol. 32, No. 1, 56–77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.878328

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

2007), it constitutes minor changes, rather than significant breakthroughs; it involvesa set of ideas that, on the one hand, is not new, rather just not yet in use en masse,and on the other hand, needs some entrepreneurship to apply the changes in newways and settings.

To others (Harmancioglu, Droge, and Calantone 2009), technological innovationis present in the realm between a newly developed product wrapped in its marketingstrategy and the development of a new product that changes the manner in whichpeople think about it.

According to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) (PIACC 2010), employees’ problem-solving skills have greatvalue in the context of organizational and corporate survival in the ever-increasingglobal competition for innovation. Nowadays, it is well accepted that in knowledge-based societies, the extent of economic success and survival is dependent onemployees’ innovative state of mind and culture (Kim and Maubourgne 2005).Effective employees are able, simultaneously, to assess the requirements of themarket, and to define and develop innovative products, which could be commercial-ized and provide the company with a leading edge in global markets (Makri andScandura 2010).

According to Kirton (1976), the capabilities of individuals are stretched along acognitive measurable continuum: at one end are individuals considered to beinnovation adaptors and at the other end individuals considered to be innovators.Adaptors act to solve problems, make decisions and create within an existingparadigm. Innovators act within a new paradigm based on a new approach comingfrom outside the existing system.

Along this continuum one can identify three types of innovative thinking: (1) theexpert type, who works thoroughly and systematically while focusing on detailsrather than on the totality of the task; (2) the conformist type, who works withclear procedures and definitive rules without diverging from any authority andsystem volition; and (3) the original type, who has a new perspective on existingproblems, suggests original ideas, executes differently and takes risks in problemsolving.

As shown in Table 1, many tools have been developed over the past half-centurywith the aim of better measuring the ability of a vast array of workers to innovate.However, all of them are based on self-reporting questionnaires, which raises awhole series of questions regarding their validity. Baron (2004), for instance, arguedthat these tools are not based on cognitive foundations (cognitive biases, e.g. theoptimistic bias, the planning fallacy and the illusion of control; basic perceptualprocesses, e.g. object or pattern recognition; etc.), and that research on cognitiveaspects of entrepreneurship and innovation could lead to better tools.

According to Baron (2004), it is important that tools address three mainquestions: (1) Why do some people, but not others, turn out to be innovative? Whyare some people, but not others, capable of identifying opportunities in innovativeproducts or processes, which are both effective and commercially viable? and (3)Why are some innovative entrepreneurs more successful than others?

However, the appeal to undertake such studies generated mainly self-reportingquestionnaires and therefore the cognitive aspects that were analyzed were verylimited (Krause 2004; West et al. 2003).

Moreover, the Innovation & Business Industry Skills Report (IBSA 2006)pointed to the importance of not only measuring the innovative skills of workers but

Research in Science & Technological Education 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table

1.Sum

maryof

thepropertiesof

toolsmeasuring

innovativ

ethinking.

CriteriaTools

Measurement

oflevelof

innovatio

nin

technologicalideas

Measurementof

potentialto

implem

ent

technological

ideas

Capability

togenerate

innovatio

n(self-

reporting)

Capability

toim

plem

ent

innovatio

n(self-repo

rting/

expert

assessment)

Capability

tosolve

problems

(self-

reporting)

Capability

totake

decisions

(self-

reporting)

Capability

totake

risks(self-

reporting)

Capability

toundertake

team

work

(self-

reporting)

1KirtonAdaptors

andInnovators

(KAI)(K

irton

1976

)

––

+–

++

++

2Individual

Innovativ

eness

(HJC

)(H

urt,

Joseph,and

Cook1977

)

––

+–

++

++

3Individual

Innovativ

eBehaviorScale

(IIBS)(Scott

andBruce

1994

)

––

++

––

–+

4Innovatio

nInterventio

nat

Work(IIW

)(Bunce

and

West1996

)

––

+Reportin

gon

anumberof

proposed

innovatio

ns

+Reportin

gon

efficiency

ofundertaken

innovatio

ns

––

––

5Team

Clim

ate

Inventory(TCI)

(Westand

Anderson1996

)

––

++

––

––

58 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

6The

Suggestion

and

Implem

entatio

nof

Ideas(SII)

(Axtellet

al.

2000

)

––

++

––

––

7Individual

Innovativ

eBehavior(IIB)

(Kleysen

and

Street2001

)

––

++

++

++

8Innovatio

nWorkBehavior

(IWB)(Janssen

2000

,2001

)

––

++

+–

–+

9Team

Innovatio

n(TI)

(Westet

al.

2003

)

––

+Describing

innovatio

nsproposed

bygroups

ofem

ployees

+Assessing

levelsof

innovatio

nin

ideas,

proposed

byexperts,using

indicators

––

––

10Innovativ

eBehavior(IB)

(Krause2004

)

––

++

++

++

(Contin

ued)

Research in Science & Technological Education 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table

1.(Contin

ued).

CriteriaTo

ols

Measurement

oflevelof

innovatio

nin

technologicalideas

Measurementof

potentialto

implem

ent

technological

ideas

Capability

togenerate

innovatio

n(self-

reporting)

Capability

toim

plem

ent

innovatio

n(self-reporting/

expert

assessment)

Capability

tosolve

problems

(self-

reporting)

Capability

totake

decisions

(self-

reporting)

Capability

totake

risks(self-

reporting)

Capability

toundertake

team

work

(self-

reporting)

11Ideas

Generation

Implem

entatio

n(IGI)(tool

proposed

inthe

currentpaper)

+Generating

technologicalideas,

asasolutio

nto

global

problems;an

indicatorfrom

the

fieldof

measurement

ofinnovatio

nin

technological

products

+Assessing

ideas

byexperts;an

indicatorfrom

thefieldof

measurementof

innovatio

nin

technological

products

––

––

––

60 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

also training students in mastering innovative skills and strategies, which they willrequire in the future as professional workers in their industries.

In that regard, even after engaging in a through literature review, we could notidentify a tool that aimed at measuring the innovative skills of students to enable theindividual or the teacher to assess the needs and engage in training in the lackinginnovative skills; nor could we find a tool that aimed at measuring objectively thequality of the changes proposed in the innovative process. Thus, we decided todevelop a tool named Ideas Generation Implementation (IGI), on the one hand, tobetter address the appeal of various studies to implement cognitive elements in train-ing for technological innovation and, on the other hand, to better reflect objectivelythe ability of students to innovate (Zhao and Seibert 2006).

To complete the elements missing from the existing tools, in this study we testedthe Architectural Innovation Model (AIM) (Henderson and Clark 1990) (Figure 1)as a cognitive framework for measuring levels of innovation in the development ofnew technological ideas among engineering students.

The model defines four levels of technological innovation, separated into twodimensions: the modular dimension – intensity change of the components of thetechnology; and the architectural dimension – volume integration of the technologycomponents. Modular innovation affects subsystems or technological componentswithout linking mechanisms, whereas architectural innovation involves changes insubsystems and technological components, connecting them integrally with linkingmechanisms (Baldwin and Clark 2000; Henderson and Clark 1990). For example, inthe photocopier industry, adding a motor to the photocopier is considered a modularinnovation, whereas moving from 14 to 8 inches on a personal hard drive is

Table 2. Averages (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the most important technologicalfields in need of innovation.

Problems in need of innovation SD M %

1 Preventing road traffic accidents 1.48 9.07 90.02 Generating energies in alternative ways 1.30 9.03 88.33 Improving and optimizing disease diagnosis 1.27 8.95 78.34 Improving functionality of physically impaired people 1.27 8.77 83.35 Solving air pollution problems 1.48 8.55 81.76 Solving water source pollution problems 1.84 8.30 76.77 Green and smart construction of houses 1.79 7.63 53.38 Locating and identifying criminals 1.85 7.47 53.39 Securing citizens in public places 2.25 7.46 49.210 Solving crowdedness and congestion problems 1.84 7.42 55.011 Improving and optimizing agricultural produce 1.83 7.38 55.012 Tech tools for improving army operations 2.45 7.23 55.013 Preventing earthquakes and flood-related injuries 2.11 6.93 45.014 Improving and optimizing car travel 2.21 6.85 38.315 Solving urban population density 2.36 6.12 28.316 Preventing obesity in children and adults 2.65 5.87 30.017 Improving and optimizing global work processes 2.12 5.86 25.418 Improving and optimizing home maintenance 1.82 5.60 11.719 Leisure time technologies 2.39 4.95 11.920 Improving clothing for daily use 1.94 4.33 3.3

Note: % indicates the percentage of members of the group of experts who voted for this technologicalfield as one in need of innovation.

Research in Science & Technological Education 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

considered an architectural innovation (Henderson and Clark 1990). The four aspectsof the AIM are:

(1) incremental innovation: moderate change in the components and architecture(e.g. the same product, only lighter and thinner with a larger display)

(2) modular innovation: drastic change in the components and moderate changein the architecture (e.g. a drastic improvement in the battery capacity, up tothree times more than previously)

(3) architectural innovation: drastic change in the components and thearchitecture (e.g. a product that works without a power supply base and doesnot require the user to pay monthly fees to a cellular provider)

(4) radical innovation: drastic change in the components and architecture (e.g. atransition from landline to mobile telephone).

This model is based on the assumption that innovation is a result of changesmade in the core of the existing components or changes made in the relationsbetween existing and new components. The authors think that innovation can bedeveloped within existing ideas or technologies reorganized in new effective ways.

The tool includes a pointer for measuring ideas, examined on their merits andthe potential of their implementation. To the best of our knowledge, these measure-ments have yet to be undertaken by existing tools.

We chose the AIM (Henderson and Clark 1990) from among other models(Abernathy and Clark 1985; Shenhar and Dvir 1996) to develop the IGI indicators,since it was natural to transfer its components from its original management andbusiness domains to the cognitive realm. In addition, we assumed that its fourdimensions of innovations would provide us with a set of more precise indicators tomeasure a student’s level of innovation, compared with other models that provideonly two dimensions of innovation.

Variables

In this study, we used two dependent variables: the level of innovation in thedevelopment of technological ideas and the potential for their implementation. Those

Little impact on links between components

Great impact on links between components

Great impact on components

Little impact on components

Radical Innovation

Modular Innovation

ArchitecturalInnovation

Incremental Innovation

Figure 1. The Architectural Innovation Model (AIM) (Henderson and Clark 1990).

62 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

variables rely on the assumption that defines innovation as ‘creativity, implementedin a high degree of success’, as some authors have suggested (Janssen 2001; West2002).

In addition, for an organization to realize and execute innovative ideas it needscommunication, networking and teamwork skills, as well as motivation on the partof its leadership to engage in authentic change. Thus, since the IGI tool is meant todiagnose personal and not organizational abilities, we gave it a short title, indicatingits potential applicability without referring to its organizational context.

Innovative level

The level of innovation in technological ideas was rated by a group of expertsfrom high-technology (high-tech) industries using a questionnaire. The question-naire, which was based on the AIM (Henderson and Clark 1990), aims atmeasuring four levels of innovative thinking: incremental innovation, modularinnovation, architectural innovation and radical innovation. The levels of innova-tive thinking reflected two dimensions in innovation: first, the components dimen-sion, i.e. the extent of change in the components of the proposed technologicalidea compared with existing components; and second, the architectural dimension,i.e. the extent of the change in integration between the components of theproposed technological idea, compared with the integration between componentsof an existing technology.

Innovative type

According to the AIM, there are four types of innovative thinker in developingtechnological ideas:

(1) the radical type, whose ideas are based on a drastic change in the compo-nents of an existing technology and a drastic change in its architecture (e.g.a person gravitating towards developing a lighter mobile phone with a largerdisplay)

(2) the architectural type, whose ideas are based on a moderate change in thecomponents of an existing technology and a drastic change in its architec-ture (e.g. a person gravitating towards developing a mobile phone with a bat-tery lasting three times longer than the existing one)

(3) the modular type, whose ideas are based on a drastic change in the compo-nents of an existing technology and a moderate change in its architecture(e.g. a person gravitating towards developing a mobile phone without acharging base and without the need to pay any fees to cellular providers)

(4) the incremental type, whose ideas are based on a moderate change in thecomponents of an existing technology and a moderate change in its architec-ture (e.g. a person gravitating towards developing a mobile phone that opensthe way to new industries and providers).

The potential of implementing the innovative technological ideas was measuredwith the help of a group of experts working in innovation in a variety of high-tech

Research in Science & Technological Education 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

industries, using the following questionnaire, which was completed by a group ofengineering students.

Methodology

The methodology in this study had two tiers. The first tier aimed at developing theresearch tool and validating it. The second tier aimed at applying the tool in arandom sample of subjects and determining the level and style of their innovationskills. Thus, the participants in this study consisted of two groups of audiences. Thefirst group comprised 60 engineers, working in departments of innovation in avariety of hi-tech industries in Israel. This group assisted in developing, judging andvalidating the IGI tool. The second group, described below, comprised 145 studentsand served as the research group.

First tier: development and face validation of the tool

Group of 60 experts

In order to gather the first group of experts, with whom we developed the tool andchecked its face validity, we sent inquiries to 100 leading high-tech companies thatare known to have prestigious departments of innovation and asked the head of thedepartments to volunteer in this study. Sixty of them, all males, aged 26–50 andholding a graduate degree in engineering, responded positively to our request andformed the group of experts in this study.

Questionnaire

We then conducted a literature review to develop a list of technologies that needinnovation in the coming decades. The review was based on major sitesdescribing potential future technologies, such as The Futurist (published by theWorld Future Society, www.wfs.org), Technology Review (published by MIT,www.technologyreview.com), and other publications from technological forecastingcenters around the world, such as the National Intelligence Council (NIC 2004, 2008)and the TechCast virtual forecasting thinktank, www.techcast.org (Halal 2010).

We compiled a list of 20 technological fields that emerged as the major areas inneed of innovation in the future. We then asked the group of 60 experts to rankthose problems on a scale from 1 to 10 (Table 2), reflecting the need for technologi-cal innovation and the feasibility of implementing the innovation based on thecurrent state of scientific paradigm.

The results, as seen in Table 2, are the following six technological fields that thegroup of experts considered to be the most important ill-defined classes of problemsfacing humanity in the following decades and in need of innovation (M > 8; highscores > 75%):

(1) preventing road traffic accidents(2) alternative energy sources(3) solving water pollution problems(4) improving the functionality of physically impaired people(5) increasing the efficiency of disease diagnosis(6) solving air pollution problems.

64 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Based on this rating, we developed a questionnaire, Ideas GenerationImplementation (IGI), on which we report in this article.

The IGI tool

The purpose of the IGI tool is to identify different styles of innovator and measurethe potential of implementing ideas generated by these styles in the above six tech-nological fields (Figure 2). The aim was to examine how students generate innova-tive solutions to global challenges that are considered to be ill-defined problems.According to the literature (Newell and Simon 1972), this type of problem does nothave a clear route of resolution and a skillful search of various databases, containingmany alternative solutions, usually promotes innovative resolution.

The tool asked the participating students in this study, as described in the secondtier subsection below, to generate images of future technologies that may facilitatethe resolution of the problems in need of innovation. The solutions proposed by thestudents were measured by another group of three senior experts. All three hold agraduate degree in engineering and spent many years specializing in the develop-ment of technological innovations in various high-tech industries.

These senior experts were asked to evaluate the solutions proposed by thestudents, using predefined criteria. These criteria were borrowed from similar tools,such as the evolutionary model of technological change (Anderson and Tushman

Figure 2. Sample page from the Ideas Generation Implementation (IGI) questionnaire.

Research in Science & Technological Education 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1990), the two-dimensional taxonomy of products and innovations (Shenhar andDvir 1996) and the AIM (Henderson and Clark 1990), which measure levels ofinnovation in technologies.

Face validation with the group of three experts

These senior experts were asked to estimate the face validity of the tool and its valid-ity to measure technological innovative thinking. They confirmed that the face is freeto examine the capability of innovative thinking in both aspects: measuring the levelof innovation and measuring the potential for the implementation of the idea.

The three experts were asked to rate the degree of change in the components andarchitecture of the ideas proposed by the students, compared with the componentsand architecture of an existing technology aimed at solving a similar problem oreven the same problem.

They were asked to grade the idea on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the followingcriteria:

(1) There is no change in the components and no change in the architecture ofa similar technology.

(2) There is a moderate change in the components and a moderate change inthe architecture of a similar technology (incremental innovation).

(3) There is a drastic change in the components and a moderate change in thearchitecture of a similar technology (modular innovation).

(4) There is a drastic change in the architecture and a moderate change in thecomponents of a similar technology (architectural innovation).

(5) There is a drastic change in the components and a drastic change in thearchitecture of a similar technology (radical innovation).

The final score of each student included the sum of scores received from all theideas that he generated. The three experts were also asked to judge the extent towhich each idea could be implemented, based on current scientific paradigms, on ascale from 1 to 5:

(1) The proposed idea is not an implementable innovation based on currentscience.

(2) The idea has low potential for being implemented.(3) The idea has medium potential for being implemented.(4) The idea has high potential for being implemented.(5) The idea has very high potential for being implemented.

Reliability in a pilot study

The tool was also distributed to a preliminary sample of 10 students from differentuniversities and examined in a pilot study. The 10 questionnaires generated a totalof 60 innovative technological ideas. The ideas generated by the students werejudged by the group of three experts. We examined the correlation between theexperts’ grading with respect to the technological components of the ideas, theirarchitecture and the potential for their implementation.

66 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The reliability among the three judges was calculated with the kappa test. Forthe change in the components dimension the percentage of pertinence among theexperts was 83% (kappa = 0.73, p < 0.001), for the change in the architecturedimension the percentage of pertinence was 82% (kappa = 0.73, p < 0.001) and forthe change in the potential for implementation dimension the percentage ofpertinence was 78% (kappa = 0.64, p < 0.001).

The analysis of the output of each student was time consuming. The judges weresenior managers in prominent high-tech companies who volunteered their time andeffort to take part in this study. Since they had invested a great deal of effort indeveloping the grading system and since they had reached a high level of consensusin evaluating the ideas of the participants in the pilot study, they suggested that oneof them should continue with the full sample in order to achieve maximum consis-tency in the evaluations.

Each student in the pilot study suggested six ideas (one solution to eachproblem). Each idea received three scores: one reflects the level of change in thecomponents of the technology (on a scale from 1 to 5), the second reflects the levelof change in the architecture (on a scale from 1 to 5) and the third reflects theimplementation potential of the idea (on a scale from 1 to 5).

Based on the ideas the students generated, we developed two indices, andcalculated the level of their reliability as research tools:

(1) The level of innovation in the development of technological ideas: Thisindex was built out of an average of 12 items (six ideas on which wegenerated two assessments: one for the level of change in its componentsdimension, and another for the level of change in its architectural dimen-sion). The scores ranged from 1 to 5. The higher the grade, the higher thelevel of innovation. The average was M = 3.15 and the standard deviationwas SD = 0.61. The reliability was α = 0.82. It is important to note that wefound a low variance among the scores that each subject received on thevarious problems. The standard deviation of each subject across all items ofthe IGI tool was 0–1.62, with interquarterly margins of 0.67–1.03.

(2) The potential for implementation of the technological ideas: We assessed theimplementation potential of the six ideas that each student generated. Thisindex represented the average score that was received for the six ideas. Thescores ranged from 1 to 5. The higher the grade, the higher the potential forimplementation. The average was M = 2.95 and the standard deviation wasSD = 0.60. The reliability, after Spearman–Brown correction, which wasapplied owing to the scarcity of items included in this index, was α = 0.75.Here, too, we found a low variance among the scores that each subjectreceived on the various problems. The standard deviation of each subjectacross all items of the IGI tool was 0–1.64, with interquarterly margins of0.82–1.21.

Second tier: employment and construct validation of the tool

Group of 145 students

The second group of subjects in this study, on whom we employed the tool and withwhom we validated its construct, consisted of 145 students, who were sampled

Research in Science & Technological Education 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

randomly from a pool of undergraduate students in their second year or above ofstudies in engineering in the seven Israeli universities offering various engineeringprograms.

To recruit this group, we posted advertisements in campuses and on internetforums used by students in engineering, asking for volunteers. We received 542applications, from which we used SPSS to randomly sample 150 applicants and sentthem an online link to fill in the questionnaire anonymously. They were asked tocomplete the questionnaire within two weeks, after which access to the questionnairewas revoked. In total, 145 students completed the assignment in two weeks andformed the research group of students (n=145).

The 145 students studied engineering in a variety of fields, including softwareengineering, electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering,bioengineering, civil engineering, industrial engineering, communication systemsengineering and material engineering. Students in these programs may well be thenext generation of Israeli high-tech employees. We believe that the results of thisstudy, if implemented, could have implications for syllabuses, curricula and teachingmethods aimed at training students to serve as innovation agents of the future.

The students were asked to propose ideas that could solve each of the problemswith which they were presented in the questionnaire (Figure 2). First, they wereasked to address the change in the components of their proposed technology, com-pared with those in an existing or similar technology. Then, they were asked toaddress the change in the architecture of the technology they proposed, comparedwith the architecture of an existing or similar technology.

Construct validity

To examine the construct validity of the IGI tool, we conducted a variance analysisand measured the correlations between the innovator’s style of each student, assuggested by Henderson and Clark (1990) in their AIM, and the three subscalefactors of the creative styles (expert, conformist and original), as suggested byKirton (1976) in the Kirton Adaptors and Innovators (KAI) questionnaire.

We found statistically significant differences between the innovator’s styles inthe three creative styles:

(1) The efficiency style (F(2,133) = 9.34, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.12) was found to be

higher among the radical innovator’s style (M = 3.95) and lower among theincremental innovator’s style (M = 3.49). We did not find a significant differ-ence between the radical or incremental styles and the students who wereidentified as having an architectural innovator’s style (M = 3.72).

(2) The conformity style (F(2,133) = 4.64, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.07) was found to be

higher among the radical innovator’s style (M = 3.56) and lower among theincremental innovator’s style (M = 3.26). We did not find a significantdifference between the radical or incremental styles and the students whowere identified as having an architectural innovator’s style (M = 3.32).

(3) The originality style (F(2,133) = 4.56, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.06) was found to be

higher among the radical innovator’s style (M = 3.78) and lower among theincremental innovator’s style (M = 3.50). We did not find a significant differ-ence between the radical or incremental styles and the students who wereidentified as having an architectural innovator’s style (M = 3.73).

68 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In summary, we found that students with a radical innovator’s style receivedhigher scores than students with an incremental innovator’s style in each of thesethree indicators of innovation style. This means that they work thoroughly andsystematically (expert style), and keep within the framework of the task based onthe directives and procedures (conformist style), while generating new and originalideas (original style). On the other hand, students with an architectural innovator’sstyle tend to act similarly to those with a radical innovator’s style but with a lowerintensity that did not reach statistical significance.

Sample of ideas

Using the IGI questionnaires, the students generated approximately 900 innovativetechnological ideas. Before going into the results of employing the tool, we presentsome examples of the technological ideas that participants generated with the IGIquestionnaire. These examples illustrate the outcomes referred to later, in the Resultssection.Ideas for problem 1: Preventing road traffic accidents.

Each year, one million people are killed in road traffic accidents worldwide. If amillion people died from an illness, it would be defined as a global pandemic. In thisproblem, participants were asked to suggest innovative solutions related to variousaspects of safe driving.

� Collision prevention: a transmitter and a server. A system that controls thesteering of the vehicle. Any vehicle on the road is fitted with such a system,and holds a unique identification code. The vehicle regularly transmits itsunique code, and at the same time receives transmissions from surroundingvehicles, while the central server calculates their position. The central server isconstantly monitoring that distances of the surrounding vehicles are reason-able. Where distances are unreasonable, automatic adjustments to the courseand speed of the surrounding vehicles are made to prevent the risk of collision.Adjustments are performed by a specially designed algorithm, to be devel-oped. In large vehicles, two transmitting devices at two different corners willbe installed.This idea is an example of architectural innovative thinking, since the compo-nents of the technology do exist in other applications (transmitter, server, etc.).However, the car industry is suggested to use them for collision prevention. Inthat sense, this idea is drastically innovative at the system level, since it doesnot exist there, but its level of innovation in the component aspect is moder-ate.

� Distance measuring radar, with breaking capability: a satellite coordinatedsensor installed in vehicles, designated satellites and a control vehicle,which will operate alongside the sensors. Sensors in various vehicles on theroad will communicate with each other, and calculate via satellites the dis-tance and speed of the vehicle and of those around it. Sensors will reviewthe routes of the vehicles and will be able to take control of steering andbraking to prevent accidents, even before the driver becomes aware of thedanger.

Research in Science & Technological Education 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This idea is an example of radical innovative thinking, since the compo-nents of the technology (satellite-controlled sensors) do not exist elsewhereand are new in controlling collisions from afar.

Ideas for problem 2: Alternative energy sources.The need for energy in the developed world for personal use or energy-hungry

industries is increasing. Nevertheless, there is a growing awareness of the need forclean energy. The participants were asked to generate innovative ideas for newresources, which are greener and safer.

� Ultra magnus: a huge ring that surrounds the Earth outside the atmosphere, sothat its diameter is the diameter of the Earth plus some 300 km (twice theheight of 100 km from Earth around the edge of the atmosphere, withinthe ionosphere). The ring will remain around the Earth owing to its gravity.The Earth’s rotation will produce a magnetic field, which may be used togenerate free energy, similarly to the operation of a rotor in an electric motor,using the magnetic properties of the poles. A control system will preventdamage by aircraft departing Earth (satellites and missiles exiting the atmo-sphere) and damage by meteors and asteroids. High-efficiency (large surfacearea) solar receivers will be installed on the outer circumference of the ringand on its sides, and will generate cheap electricity and energy, regardless ofthe magnetic field, while using properties such as the Earth’s magnetic fieldand energy from the sun.This idea is an example of radical innovative thinking, since the major compo-nent of this solution (a huge ring surrounding the Earth) does not exist; itsounds like science-fiction and would be very difficult to implement. In addi-tion, it provides a novel and revolutionary solution for green energy.

� Flexible solar cells: a tapestry of solar cells, light-weight and foldable, capableof being cut to tailor-made measurements. The unit could be deployed on theroofs of apartment buildings or used for sheds on balconies. The solar unitproduces electricity for the benefit of the living unit. The solar unit will bereadily available and cheap to buy. Customers will be able to easily deploy thesolar surface in their house, balcony, courtyard or rooftop, or install it to shielda yard. It will be possible to connect the unit to an adapter, which connects tothe home’s electrical system, and to provide electricity to the home.This idea is an example of modular innovative thinking, since light-weight,tailor-made solar cells do not exist and it would be considered a drasticinnovation to develop them. However, their domestic application (architecturalinnovation) is not very different from the solar units that already exist onmany roofs.

Results

In addition to examining the levels of innovation embedded in the ideas generatedby the participating students, we examined whether it is possible to define thecognitive types of innovation that represent this random sample of students. We didthis by examining the joint distribution (scatterplot) of the extent of change in thecomponents of the ideas, compared with the extent of change in their architecture(Figure 3).

70 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Figure 3 shows that the level of innovation in the development of innovativetechnological ideas generated by the students is strongly related to their componentsand architecture dimensions. A low level of change in the components dimension isrelated to a low level of change in the architecture dimension and this is true also ofhigh levels of change. In addition, the correlation between the extent of change inthe components dimension and the architecture dimension of the idea was very high(r(143) = 0.91, p < 0.001).

In an attempt to calculate the correlation between the AIM of Henderson andClark (1990) regarding the level of innovation in technologies with the results ofthis study, the students were divided based on the median of their high and lowscores by the components and architecture dimensions (Table 3).

Table 3 illustrates the strong correlation between the change in components andthe change in architecture. Most students were found to be either low or high in bothdimensions.

Consequently, and according to the results found, we can say that there are threemain cognitive types of technological innovator:

(1) radical innovators (high in both architecture and components)(2) incremental innovators (low in both architecture and components)(3) architectural innovators (low in components, but high in architecture).

The results indicate that most of the students participating in this study were theradical and incremental types.

There appears to be congruence between these findings and the AIM (Hendersonand Clark 1990), upon which our IGI tool relies. Moreover, to examine thedifferences between the cognitive types of innovator, we conducted a one-waymultivariate analysis of variance and found a significant result (F(4,274) = 64.26,p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.27).

Figure 3. Joint distribution of innovative ideas in their components and architecture.

Research in Science & Technological Education 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The one-way analysis of variance, undertaken to examine the differences in bothindices of the study, i.e. the level of innovation in developing technological ideasand the potential for their implementation, also shows significant results.

With reference to the level of innovation in developing technological ideas(F(2,138 = 178.34, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.72), we found that among students defined asradical types (M = 3.70, SD = 0.39) the level of innovation was higher than in thosedefined as architectural types (M = 3.11, SD = 0.15), and in both the level of innova-tion was higher than in those defined as incremental types (M = 2.61, SD = 0.28).

With reference to the potential and prospects of implementing the ideas(F(2,138) = 13.37, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.16), we found that among those studentsdefined as incremental types, the potential for implementation was higher (M = 3.21,SD = 0.56) than that among students defined as architectural types (M = 2.65,SD = 0.52) or as radicals (M = 2.75, SD = 0.55). The results of this analysis areshown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Innovative thinking as a function of cognitive types of innovator.

Table 3. Distribution of levels of innovation based on the level of change in the componentsand architecture dimensions.

Change in components

Low High

N % N %

64 44.14 2 1.38Change in architecture Low Incremental

innovationModularinnovation

14 9.65 65 44.83High Architectural

innovationRadicalinnovation

72 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Discussion

The purpose of this study, as stated earlier, was to develop a tool that could reliablymeasure the potential of students from various engineering professions to generateinnovative technological ideas relating to major human problems. The tool, there-fore, includes six global problems, which in the view of the participating group ofexperts in innovation reflect the main challenges that high-tech industries will facein the future. The students who formed the research group were asked to formulatepossible solutions to each of the problems with which they were presented, referringto two dimensions at the level of innovation – the components and architecturaldimensions – compared with these dimensions in existing or similar technologies.

The IGI tool focuses on solving problems that are ill-defined, whose solutionrequires an interdisciplinary, holistic point of view, critical thinking and intelligentreview of databases containing many alternatives. These properties, according to dif-ferent studies (e.g. Newell and Simon 1972), are some of the main skills requiredfrom employees in knowledge-based high-tech industries, engaged in optimizingexisting technologies and developing new ones.

In light of the results, the IGI tool may be suitable for measuring innovativethinking capability in developing innovative technological ideas among students inengineering departments, as sought by the authors of the Innovation & BusinessIndustry Skills Report (IBSA) (2006) and the OECD Programme for the Interna-tional Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (2010).

Furthermore, the wide variety of issues listed at the base of this tool seems toassist in the identification of general innovative thinking among students, rather thanreferring to the narrow field of study of each student.

As stated in the aims of the study, the scores generated by the IGI tool helped toclassify each participant in one of the five levels of innovation defined by Hendersonand Clark (1990):

(1) absence of innovation(2) incremental innovation (moderate change in components and in architecture)(3) modular innovation (drastic change in components and moderate change in

architecture)(4) architectural innovation (drastic change in architecture and moderate change

in components)(5) radical innovation (drastic change in components and in architecture).

We did not identify any participants who demonstrated no ability to innovate atall (level 1 of the IGI tool). The process of academic training thus succeeds in devel-oping, in young engineering students, streams of innovative thinking as stated inPIAAC (2010), in addition to the basic skills that probably lead students chooseengineering initially.

At one end of the capability to develop innovative thinking are students withinnovative incremental thinking. In this study, approximately 44% of the participat-ing students were classified as having incremental innovative thinking.

Incremental innovation is characterized by small changes in the course ofdeveloping a technological product or service (Benner and Tushman 2003). Someconsider incremental innovation to be very important (Porter 1990) since it leads tothe improvement and perfection of the properties of existing products, enabling

Research in Science & Technological Education 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

companies to remain competitive in the short term (Leifer et al. 2006). Thetwenty-first century labor market prefers projects that are profitable in the short term(Bers et al. 2009), and therefore, employees with incremental innovative thinkingare essential for high-tech companies to survive demanding markets. Our studyshows, at least in this random sample, that nearly half of the potential employees inhigh-tech industries may be this type of thinker.

At the other end of the capability to exercise innovative thinking are studentswith a radical innovative style of thinking. In order to formulate their ideas, theypropose drastic change, both to components of existing technologies and to theirarchitecture.

In our study, approximately 45% of the participating students were classified asbeing radical innovative thinkers. Radical innovative thinking involves replacingexisting knowledge with new knowledge, as part of the process of finding a break-through idea (Garcia and Calantone 2002). Innovative thinking of these types ischaracterized by great leaps from existing technology, which enable radical change(Benner and Tuchman 2003).

Implementation of a radical innovative style requires a generation, or evenseveral generations of development before a mature and profitable commercialproduct is adopted by customers, while exposing the organization to many risks andunexpected challenges.

This kind of innovative thinking style enables companies and organizations toprepare for long-term economic growth (Leifer et al. 2006). Therefore, employeeswith a radical innovative style are essential for high-tech companies to secure theireconomic future. The random sample in our study indicates that nearly half of thepotential employees in high-tech industries may use this style of radical innovativethinking.

Between the levels of incremental innovative thinking style and radical innova-tive thinking style, there are two other possible levels: modular and architecturalinnovative thinking styles (Henderson and Clark 1990). The first involves a drasticchange in the components of an existing technology with only a moderate change inits architecture. The second involves a moderate change in the components of anexisting technology with a drastic change in its architecture.

In our study we found only a few engineering students with an architecturalinnovative thinking style (10%) and very few with a modular innovative thinkingstyle (< 1.5%). One possible explanation for these low percentages is that whenstudents with an architectural innovative thinking style approach problems that areill-defined, although they rely largely on existing components of the technology,they generate a new kind of integration between them and create a drastic change inthe architecture.

This kind of thinking is compatible with one definition of creativity (Nevo1997). According to Nevo, creativity is the ability to respond to a given or develop-ing reality in an original manner (i.e. creating something new or a quality product),involving novel use of known components. More specifically, of all aspects ofcreativity, the architectural innovative thinking style requires most of all a highlyflexible mentality in order to succeed in proposing a variety of original ideas relatedto a given problem. This kind of mentality goes against the more common cognitiveprocess known as fixation, defined as the inability to see a problem from a differentangle. One of its known tendencies is functional fixation (Duncker 1926), defined asa mental block, barring the use of a given object in a new way to solve problems.

74 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Such a block limits a person’s capability to use existing components in a newcontext.

In this regard, it is possible that the architectural innovative thinker has difficul-ties overriding this mental block and daring to forget, i.e. being prepared to abandonconcepts, theories or situations that block new thinking, which in turn creates intel-lectual fixation. This capability is defined as one aspect of a skill termed melioration(Passig 2003). The melioration skill is cognitively quite complex and it seems thatonly a few of the engineering students were able to use it at this stage of theirprofessional development.

The same argument may explain the very low percentage (1.5%) of studentswho were identified as having a modular innovative thinking style. Modular think-ing may be naturally very difficult to process, since a change in the components of atechnology necessarily leads to a new kind of integration between them. Therefore,they are no longer the same components. It seems that among our random sample ofengineering students, only a few could practice this kind of thinking.

Implications

The IGI tool could reliably measure the innovative thinking of engineering students,while they are still taking their academic courses. In addition, academic institutescould use the tool at curricular crossroads to assess the viability of their curriculumto prepare graduates to act as technology innovators. Finally, academic institutescould use it as an additional rating tool for admission to graduate or research-oriented degrees, such as the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) or theGraduate Record Examinations (GRE). It is important to accept highly innovativecandidates on advanced engineering programs and this tool could provide a suitablebenchmark by which to rank students.

Limitations

Alongside the importance of the findings of this study, it is necessary to consider anumber of methodological limitations. First, most of the students who were includedin the study were males. Although the profusion in the number of males in the studyreflects their proportion among engineering students in Israel, it is neverthelessrecommended that a deeper look into gender-related differences in the capability ofinnovative thinking is undertaken and future research should examine a similarnumber of participants of both genders.

In addition, the issue of reliability should be considered. Although a high reli-ability was found in the index of the levels of innovation, only a moderate reliabilitywas found in the index of the potential to implement the ideas. It is possible that theborderline reliability may be due to the sample in this particular study, whichincluded students who have not yet been required to implement their ideas. As aresult, the different ideas they proposed may have had different levels of potentialfor implementation. It is recommended, therefore, that the IGI tool be examinedamong other groups of employees in high-tech companies. It is also recommendedthat our group of students be followed as they enter the workforce and a few yearslater, as full-time employees in their field of expertise.

Research in Science & Technological Education 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the IGI tool could assist in identifying types ofinnovative thinker. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, organizations arerequired to recruit a variety of types of worker, to promote their growth and goals(IBSA 2006; PIAAC 2010). This tool may provide an additional vehicle tocategorize workers and to prepare them in dealing with their weaker innovativethinking aspects. The development and validation process of this tool strengthen theclaim that unlike previous tools, which examined innovation capability through aself-reporting mechanism only, the IGI tool objectively measures innovative thinkingamong students, thus allowing screening of potential employees during theirundergraduate studies, before taking a job in technology industries.

ReferencesAbernathy, W. J., and K. Clark. 1985. “Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction.”

Research Policy 14: 3–22.Anderson, P., and M. Tushman. 1990. “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs:

A Cyclical Model of Technological Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35:604–633.

Axtell, C. M., D. J. Holman, K. L. Unsworth, T. D. Wall, and P. E. Waterson. 2000.“Shopfloor Innovation: Facilitating the Suggestion and Implementation of Ideas.” Journalof Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 265–285.

Baldwin, C., and K. B. Clark. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. CambridgeMA: Harvard Business School.

Baron, R. A. 2004. “The Cognitive Perspective: A Valuable Tool for AnsweringEntrepreneurship’s Basic ‘Why’ Questions.” Journal of Business Venturing 19: 221–239.

Benner, M. J., and M. L. Tushman. 2003. “Exploitation, Exploration, and ProcessManagement: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited.” Academy of Management Review28: 238–256.

Bers, J. A., J. P. Dismukes, L. K. Miller, and A. Dubrovensky. 2009. “Accelerated RadicalInnovation: Theory and Application.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76:165–177.

Bunce, D., and M. West. 1996. “Stress Management and Innovation Intervention at Work.”Human Relations 49: 209–232.

Duncker, K. 1926. “A Qualitative (Experimental and Theoretical) Study of ProductiveThinking (Solving of Comprehensible Problems).” Pedagogical Seminary and Journal ofGenetic Psychology 33: 642–708.

Garcia, R., and R. J. Calantone. 2002. “A Critical Look at Technological InnovationTypology and Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review.” Journal of ProductInnovation Management 19: 110–132.

Halal, W. E. 2010. The Tech Cast Forecasting System. George Washington University andGeorge Mason University. Accessed March 2013 http://www.techcast.org/Forecasts.aspx.

Harmancioglu, N., C. Droge, and R. J. Calantone. 2009. “Theoretical Lenses and DomainDefinitions in Innovation Research.” European Journal of Marketing 43: 229–263.

Henderson, R. M., and K. B. Clark. 1990. “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration ofExisting Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms.” AdministrativeScience Quarterly 35: 9–30.

Hurt, H. Y., K. Joseph, and C. D. Cook. 1977. “Scales for the Measurement ofInnovativeness.” Human Communication Research 4: 58–65.

IBSA. 2006. Innovation & Business Industry Skills Report. Accessed March 2013 http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/E4B8708D-6589-4CDF-A0FD-A5EF4634D758/14975/InnovationandBusinessIndustrySkillsReport.pdf.

Janssen, O. 2000. “Job Demands, Perceptions of Effort-Reward Fairness, and InnovativeWork Behavior.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 287–302.

76 D. Passig and L. Cohen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Janssen, O. 2001. “Fairness Perceptions as a Moderator in the Curvilinear Relationshipsbetween Job Demands, Job Performance and Job Satisfaction.” Academy of ManagementJournal 44: 1039–1050.

Kim, W. C., and R. Maubourgne. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Kirton, M. 1976. “Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure.” Journal of AppliedPsychology 61: 622–629.

Kleysen, R. F., and C. T. Street. 2001. “Toward a Multi-Dimensional Measure of IndividualInnovative Behavior.” Journal of Intellectual Capital 2: 284–296.

Krause, D. E. 2004. “Influence-Based Leadership as a Determinant of the Inclination toInnovate and of Innovation-Related Behaviors: An Empirical Investigation.” TheLeadership Quarterly 15: 79–102.

Leifer, R., C. M. McDermott, G. C. O’Connor, L. S. Peters, M. P. Rice, and R. Veryzer.2006. Radical Innovation: How Mature Companies Can Outsmart Upstarts. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Makri, M., and T. A. Scandura. 2010. “Exploring the Effects of Creative CEO Leadership onInnovation in High-Technology Firms.” The Leadership Quarterly 21: 75–88.

Newell, A., and H. Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

NIC – National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project l. 2004. Mapping the Global Future.Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Accessed on March 2013http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf.

NIC – National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project l. 2008. Global Trends 2025: ATransformed World. Accessed on March 2013 http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf.

Nevo, B. 1997. Human Intelligence. Tel-Aviv: Open University Press.Passig, D. 2003. “A Taxonomy of Future Higher Thinking Skills.” Informatica 2(1): 79–92.

Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius.PIAAC. 2010. The OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult

Competencies. Accessed March 2013 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/45/41690983.pdf.Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.Schwartz, D., and A. Malach-Pines. 2007. “High Technology Entrepreneurs versus Small

Business Owners in Israel.” Journal of Entrepreneurship 16: 1–17.Scott, S. G., and R. A. Bruce. 1994. “Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of

Individual Innovation in the Workplace.” Academy of Management Journal 37: 580–607.Shenhar, A. J., and D. Dvir. 1996. “Toward a Typological Theory of Project Management.”

Research Policy 25: 607–632.West, M. A. 2002. “Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of

Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups.” Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review 51: 355–387.

West, M. A., and N. R. Anderson. 1996. “Innovation in Top Management Teams.” Journalof Applied Psychology 81: 680–693.

West, M. A., C. S. Borrill, J. F. Dawson, F. Brodbeck, D. A. Shapiro, and B. Haward. 2003.“Leadership Clarity and Team Innovation in Health Care.” The Leadership Quarterly 14:393–410.

World Future Society. 2010. Special Report 20 Forecasts for 2010–2025. Futurist, AccessedMarch 2013 http://www.wfs.org/forecasts/.

Zhao, H., and S. E. Seibert. 2006. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and EntrepreneurialStatus: A Meta-Analytical Review.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 259–271.

Research in Science & Technological Education 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

7:02

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14