Bridging the Gap between Enterprise Content Management and Creativity:
A Research Framework
Jan vom Brocke University of Liechtenstein [email protected] Stefan Seidel University of Liechtenstein [email protected] Alexander Simons University of Liechtenstein [email protected]
Abstract
Enterprise content management (ECM) has emerged as a promising research area in the Infor-mation Systems (IS) discipline. According to recent works in the field, ECM may increase the consisten-cy, availability, and traceability of content. We argue that one important aspect has dropped off the agen-da—the role of creativity. While the above measures are, without any doubt, highly relevant in order to pursue important business imperatives, such as time and budget, organizations must also consider the creativity and innovativeness that employees can unfold in their work processes. In this conceptual paper, we thus advocate an approach to ECM re-search that not only considers traditional, rather control-oriented factors, but also the impact of ECM on an organization’s creativity and vice versa. We propose a research framework for ECM and creativi-ty that is grounded in diverse literatures relating to these two concepts.
1. Introduction
ECM has been defined as “the strategies, tools, processes, and skills an organization needs to manage all its information assets (regardless of type) over their lifecycle” [56, p. 648]. Given that many IS au-thors in this particular field have adopted this under-standing of ECM, there seems to be a consensus that ECM is not only a set of technologies, as it is often considered in practice, but rather an organizational concept that covers multi-faceted business issues [6, 36, 61, 62]. Against this background, it appears somewhat surprising that the impact of ECM on or-ganizational performance is commonly analyzed with regard to efficiency (e.g., reducing searching times) or availability of content (e.g., meeting reporting ob-ligations) only. In contrast, the quality of content has scarcely been discussed in prior ECM research and, if at all, almost exclusively with regard to the consis-tency and accuracy of content [4]. One such example is the concept of content reuse [40, 44]. Reusing
con-tent primarily means unifying concon-tent—“writing [content] once and reusing it many times” so that content “can appear in multiple places, but resides in only one” [40, p. 1274]. A product specification, for example, can be reused in various forms of advertis-ing materials. Here, content management technolo-gies can help organizations to improve the speed in which these materials are created and to ensure that they are kept consistent and up-to-date at any time and any place [44].
However, measuring the quality of content merely in terms of consistency and timeliness bears the risk of undervaluing other important quality measures [4]; for example, the appropriateness and novelty of con-tent. Above any doubt, the implementation of ECM technologies provides a promising means to meet important contemporary challenges organizations are increasingly confronted with, such as reducing searching times, unifying the presentation of content, or adhering to reporting obligations. However, exist-ing approaches to ECM, in both practice and re-search, often tend to (over)emphasize the role tech-nology plays in managing content, e.g., when narrow-ing down collaboration to content reuse and treatnarrow-ing content quality mainly in terms of content consisten-cy. Consequently, one important issue appears to have dropped off the ECM research agenda: the role of creativity.
While existent works on ECM highlight important capabilities regarding strategy development [40, 56], tool support, process development and deployment [62], as well as related change management [36], they tend to neglect the implications that technology has on an organization’s capacity of acting creatively. However, it has been shown that organizations not only seek efficiency, but also creativity [27, 52]; creativity is the prerequisite for innovations and thus a core competitive factor in contemporary organiza-tions. As a response, we set out to explore the mutual relationships between ECM and organizational crea-tivity in this paper. We argue that organizations are faced with the risk of overemphasizing ‘traditional’ ECM measures, such as efficiency or control, while
turning their back on their employees’ creativity. We propose a bilateral research model that may guide two major streams of future research in this particular field, namely: ECM research on creativity on the one hand side and creativity-oriented research on ECM on the other hand side. Therefore, we firstly ask ‘How does ECM impact on organizational creativi-ty?’ and, secondly, ‘How can creativity be embedded into the management of enterprise content?’
The remainder of this paper is structured as fol-lows. In the next section, we describe the research background and introduce the concepts of ECM and creativity (section 2). Our explanations are grounded in several rich literatures from both fields. We then synthesize the outcomes from the literature analysis and introduce a research framework which identifies two primary research problems as well as a set of more detailed research questions that we believe de-serve attention when exploring the impact of ECM on creativity and vice versa (section 3). In the discussion section (section 4), we focus on implications for both research and practice, and explore trade-offs between the seemingly contradictory objectives of control versus creativity. A guiding principle may be seen in achieving control over content while not restricting creativity at the same time. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution and limitations of this research (section 5).
2. Background
2.1. Enterprise Content Management
This work builds upon our prior research in the field of ECM in which we conducted an in-depth literature search in the IS domain. We analyzed more than 100 of the most significant IS journals according to the consolidated list shared by the Association for Information Systems (AIS) and edited by Carol Saunders (http://www.isworld.org/). We also in-cluded three major IS conferences in our literature search (namely: the International and the European Conference on IS and the Hawaii International Con-ference on System Sciences). In addition, we con-ducted a backward search by reviewing the refer-ences of the articles yielded from the keyword search to not overlook other articles [64]. The full details of the literature review will be reported elsewhere; this paper only presents a brief summary of contributions we uncovered in our literature search [10, 11, 31, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 50, 51, 56, 57, 61, 62]. In doing so, we particularly focus on identifying common ECM ob-jectives and drivers in order to characterize the minor
role that creativity has played in ECM research so far. So as to prepare the ground for the subsequent explanations, we firstly introduce the term ‘ECM.’
As the market for ECM software is booming and still about to consolidate [4, 38], it seems as if no clear consensus of what the term actually means has evolved yet [56]. As indicated, we understand ECM as “the strategies, tools, processes, and skills an or-ganization needs to manage all its information assets (regardless of type) over their lifecycle” [56, p. 648]. So as to distinguish ECM from its predecessors, e.g., document management [58] or Web content man-agement [37], we suggest to consider ECM as an integrative approach for managing the entirety of an organization’s information assets [42]; examples in-clude reports, spreadsheets, Web pages, presenta-tions, e-mails, word processing documents, records, invoices, images, or audio and video files [6, 36, 42, 56, 61]. That said, the term ‘ECM’ not only covers content that is necessarily informational, but also non-informational assets (e.g., images or music files) [61]. Moreover, while ‘traditional’ solutions for con-tent management differ with respect to the lifecycle of content [26], ECM takes a holistic view on the content lifecycle [36, 56], reaching from capturing and managing content to retaining, storing, and deli-vering content [6]. As a result, ECM can perhaps be best understood as a convergence of related concepts, some of which rather tend to support individual life-cycle phases, e.g., Web content management (deli-vering content) or records management (retaining and storing content) [14]. As indicated in the Introduc-tion, it is also crucial to understand that ECM is more than just software, even though “many vendors would suggest that their software is a panacea” [56, p. 647, 61]. Indeed, most researchers in the IS do-main consider ECM as being multi-dimensional, since it is firmly rooted in “the interaction of business with content, people, processes, and tools” [40, p. 1274]. Serving as a foundation for crafting our re-search framework later in this paper, we thus distin-guish between four dimensions of ECM: strategies, processes, tools, and people [40, 49, 56, 61].
Given this understanding of ECM, we now dis-cuss the main drivers of ECM initiatives. Grounded in our review of the ECM literature we identified four main categories of ECM objectives (note that other authors have used differing classifications, e.g., [42, 56]): efficiency, availability, traceability, and consis-tency. As indicated, the review also showed that the role of creativity in managing enterprise content has only slightly been examined in the considered litera-ture.
Efficiency primarily refers to cost and time sav-ings in managing content; e.g., when reducing searching times by using well-defined metadata or material and storage cost by digitalizing paper docu-ments [40, 56]. Increased efficiency can certainly be considered a core ECM driver: Smith and McKeen, for example, convened a focus group of knowledge workers for exploring ECM practices and conclude that its members “were adamant that the only reason to do ECM was to improve outcomes” [56, p. 649] (emphasis in original). Similarly, Päivärinta and Munkvold analyzed 58 rather practitioner-oriented case studies and identified cost savings in informa-tion processing and routines as an important ECM objective [42]. These authors also highlight the bene-fits of navigation aids [42, 56]. Increased efficiency in navigating through content and documents leads to another important ECM driver: availability.
Given the ever-increasing amount of especially unstructured information captured in today’s organi-zations, the availability of content is of growing im-portance. Availability is a crucial precondition for ECM as it reflects the need to create and store con-tent in a way that enables its users to retrieve it later on. The relevance of this aspect is underpinned by the awareness that organizations spend “a lot of time, money, and resources essentially creating, re-creating, and re-creating the same content” [44, p. 7]. This, in turn, “requires robust content management systems to create, store, deliver, browse, and access heterogeneous data” and “awareness of the impor-tance of metadata among content producers” [36, pp. 70&76]. Moreover, availability is crucial due to the growing need for organizations to strictly meet exter-nal regulations and standards [42]. This leads to a third ECM driver: traceability.
Traceability reflects that “ECM solutions offer organizations a way to control every aspect of the lifecycle of information—how it is created, routed, managed, accessed, and archived—and thus help organizations meet strict compliance regulations” [4, p. 65]. We argue that traceability, though also closely related to availability and efficiency (e.g., versioning of content or search and retrieval), is an ECM objec-tive in its own right. Indeed, many authors consider compliance as one of the biggest drivers for ECM adoptions [4, 55, 60]. Traceability thus enables an effective “organizational memory” in the sense of Päivärinta and Munkvold for “recording the practice, history, and transactions of the enterprise” [42, p. 2].
Finally, the consistency of content can be per-ceived as the result of unifying content across an or-ganization [44]. As indicated, many authors emphas-ize that a systematic, that is, automatic [44], approach
to content reuse plays an important role here. It is our belief that this is where the concept of ECM in par-ticular requires researchers’ attention. Andersen, for example, is one of the recent writers who point to the risks of defining the quality of content mainly in terms of consistency and accuracy [4]. One of her major concerns is that automatically generated doc-uments “are no longer tailored to a particular au-dience for a particular purpose in a particular con-text” [4, p. 74]—thus over-emphasizing information instead of people and control and regulation instead of flexibility and autonomy [4]. Indeed, the potentials of content reuse are reduced development and main-tenance costs and rapid configuration as well as translation of content in particular [44]. Clark agrees that “a well-designed system could produce outputs that are no less rhetorically effective than individual-ly crafted documents, and at the same time could provide cost and time savings” [12, p. 36]. Yet, he argues that it would be “at least strange” that the rhe-torical assumptions underlying the separation of con-tent and presentation, and reusing concon-tent respective-ly, are very seldom discussed [12, p. 36]. For exam-ple, “in practice cutting and pasting is usually fol-lowed by editing and revising,” whereas a systematic reuse of content essentially automates the copy-and-paste process (while neglecting the revision process) [12, p. 50]. Moreover, it has been found that the adoption of content management technologies may also result in a poorer communication among the content creators [4]. All this leads to the question of how far ECM technologies may thus constrain their creative potential. Or, speaking in the words of An-derson: Are ECM technologies ”liberating workers’ creativity or closing it down?” [4, p. 83].
In conclusion, existent research on ECM in the IS domain highlights several important drivers that we categorized as efficiency, availability, traceability, and consistency. While we are aware that other ECM objectives are discussed in the literature, we believe that the chosen dimensions represent a level of ab-straction that can accommodate other concepts. The concept of creativity, however, is, if at all, only slightly discussed in the considered literature, even though its relevance seems indisputable: Päivärinta and Munkvold, for example, mention the case of an advertising company that applies ECM systems to facilitate creative idea generation and teamwork [42].
For exploring the role that creativity plays in the context of ECM, the concept of creativity, and re-search thereof, are described in the following section.
2.2. Creativity
Creativity is commonly associated with the gen-eration of products, services, processes, or ideas that are both novel and appropriate [3, 66]. Research on organizational creativity has traditionally focused on individuals, groups, and organizations as the level of analysis [15]. Existent theories explain the occur-rence of creativity, creative behavior, and creative products at these levels [2, 16, 24, 46, 47, 65]. For instance, at the individual level, the personality of creative persons [5, 34], cognitive abilities [25], mo-tivation [2], and knowledge [1] have been identified as factors that impact on the creative outcome. At the group level, factors such as leadership, group compo-sition, group structure, cohesiveness, and availability of resources have been proposed [29, 43]. With re-gard to the organizational level, most notably factors have been identified that impact on the organizational climate. These include the encouragement of risk taking and the legitimization of conflicts [47, 48]. Multilevel theories, such as the one proposed by Woodman et al., suggest that creativity at a higher level is a function of creativity at the lower levels [66]. In summary, existent research mainly focuses on how the creative outcome of an organization can be enhanced. As a consequence, Drazin et al. identify that “scholars tend to model creativity as a discrete task, conducted by individuals or small groups who are isolated from broader organizational and occupa-tional pressures” [15, p. 289]. They also state that viewing creativity as an outcome rather than a process has led towards static models with the pur-pose of explaining variance of the creative outcome. Exemptions can be found in [7, 15, 19, 52], where the authors propose process-oriented models of creativi-ty. Seidel, for example, argues that creative organiza-tions in particular pursue both conventional (time, cost etc.) and creative process performance―two often contradicting objectives [52]. As indicated by other authors [27] this holds certainly also true for those organizations that do not primarily focus on creativity but require creativity within their work processes. Such process-oriented, interactionist mod-els have the capacity of explaining how complex processes that involve both human actors and infor-mation technologies interact over time. They thus enable researchers and practitioners to understand how the use of technology impacts on the creativity at various levels, and vice versa.
The IS discipline has paid some attention to crea-tivity. Most of the work explains how creativity can be embedded into the process of software develop-ment [32] and how information technology can be
utilized in order to enhance creativity at the individu-al and group level [9, 35]. However, the relationships between the management of enterprise content and creativity can be framed as an under-researched IS domain.
2.3. Research Gap
While research on ECM has primarily focused on aspects such as efficiency and control, its relationship to organizational creativity has not been investigated in depth. This has resulted in a gap between research on creativity on the one hand side and research on ECM on the other hand side. The challenge may thus be seen in bridging the gap between these two diverse literatures. This challenge appears to be twofold; the following primary research problems (RP) can be identified (compare Figure 1).
Figure 1. The relationship between the two concepts We do not argue that none of the phenomena linked to creativity and ECM have been targeted by fellow researchers. For example, it has been shown that the usage of technologies that aim at providing human actors with information may have a negative impact on the creative performance [9]. With this paper we rather contribute to the discussion on ECM by systematizing challenges and research problems in the above described context. In doing so, we present a research framework that may be utilized to break down the above mentioned, rather broad research problems into more detailed research questions.
3. Research Framework
3.1. Dimensions of the Two Phenomena
The research framework we propose is grounded in the above summarized literature review. By identi-fying major dimensions of the two phenomena being
the pivots of this paper we suggest a research agenda. Note that other researchers may have chosen different dimensions. However, we argue that the framework we propose exhibits a level of generality that can accommodate a broad range of research questions and may be further enhanced by an advanced under-standing of the two phenomena of creativity and ECM.
As explained earlier, ECM can be characterized by four categories that represent capability areas that organizations build in order to successfully manage enterprise content. These are tools, strategies, processes, and people. Table 1 provides an overview.
Table 1. Dimensions of ECM
Dimension Description Literature
Tools ECM tools include
technolo-gies relating to Web content management, document management, records agement, knowledge agement, and content man-agement
[12, 40, 42, 51, 56]
Strategies ECM strategy development includes justifying ECM in-vestments, identifying con-tent, its users and user needs, their information behaviors, information audits, and implementing ECM technologies
[8, 36, 40, 56]
Processes ECM process development
and deployment particularly includes the implementation of content lifecycle activities
[61, 62]
People The people dimension
in-cludes ECM governance, acceptance, training, and change management
[6, 36, 56]
As reinforced by various authors [15, 52], and as has been explained in the background section, re-search on organizational creativity must consider factors on at least three levels, namely: individual level factors, group level factors, and organizational level factors. Table 2 provides an overview.
Table 2. Levels of organizational creativity
Dimension Description Literature
Individual
level factors Individual factors on creativity include cognitive abilities, knowledge, expertise, and motivation
[1, 2, 5, 21, 25, 34, 54]
Group
level factors Group factors include group cohesiveness, group composi-tion, and availability of re-sources
[29, 43, 65]
Organizational
level factors Organizational factors include the legitimization of conflicts or the encouragement of risk taking, which impact on the creative climate of an organi-zation
[47, 48, 66]
In order to break down RP1, we suggest research-ers to investigate the four ECM dimensions with re-gard to their impact on creativity at the individual level, at the group level, and at the organizational level. Similarly, in order to seek answers to RP2, researchers must investigate how creativity at various levels can be embedded into the four ECM dimen-sions of tools, strategies, processes, and people. Fig-ure 2 provides an overview. It becomes noticeable that the different dimensions cannot be viewed inde-pendently. The ECM concepts of tools, strategies, processes, and people are closely interrelated. The same holds true for the different levels of organiza-tional creativity, which is expressed in multilevel models of creativity in particular; these models rec-ognize that organizational creativity cannot be viewed in isolation, but is a complex interplay of individuals and organizational resources [52, 66].
Figure 2. Research framework
In the following, we discuss how the rather broad research problems may be broken down into more detailed research questions. We also provide an out-look to potential research strategies that may be ap-plied in order to seek answers to these questions. As indicated, we do not argue that no research has been conducted. Yet, a main challenge may be seen in syn-thesizing different strands of literature in order to provide theories that offer ample answers to those research questions that emerge at the borderline be-tween ECM and creativity.
3.2. Research Questions with Regard to RP1
With regard to RP1, we suggest researchers to seek answers to the impact of ECM on organizational creativity. As indicated, the use of technology can impact creativity at various levels. Consequently, the following research question is proposed:
How does the use of ECM tools impact on the creative performance of individuals/groups/orga-nizations?
It is anticipated that attempts to seek answers to this research question will involve well-known con-cepts at different levels, including cognitive abilities, motivation, and knowledge as well as factors such as group cohesiveness or group composition. It can fur-ther be assumed that this research question will par-ticularly require the researcher to understand the in-dividual capabilities of the involved group members, as research has shown that baseline creativity of in-volved people affects the impact that knowledge reuse can have onto the creative performance [9]. Potential strategies of inquiry include experiments [17] and surveys [20]. Another potential research question focuses on the underlying ECM processes:
What are the stages of ECM processes that im-pact on the creative performance of individu-als/groups/organizations?
While the former research question may be ans-wered by a functionalist model with the creative out-come as the dependent variable, this research ques-tion may require researchers to develop a processual model that accounts for involved interactions in par-ticular. Such models are capable of providing rich insight into the reciprocal relationships between hu-man actors and technology [63]. Potential strategies of inquiry include case study research [63, 67], action research [13], and grounded theory [22, 59].
Rather design-oriented research will focus on the process of developing ECM solutions. Such research can serve to evaluate ECM in practice and, through this evaluation, further contribute to the development of theory [23]. We propose the following research question:
What are the key factors that organizations need to consider when implementing ECM solutions in order to support creative processes?
Potential strategies of inquiry include action re-search and design science rere-search [28, 33].
More specific research questions, for example, may focus on the concept of reusing content. As de-scribed above, recent works already discuss the im-pact that a systematic approach to content reuse can have on the flexibility and autonomy of content pro-ducers as well as the quality of the content created [4, 12]. Correspondingly, the following research ques-tion is proposed:
How does the reuse of content impact on the crea-tive performance of individuals/groups/organiza-tions?
3.3. Research Questions with Regard to RP2
With regard to RP2, researchers must seek an-swers to how creativity can be embedded into the management of enterprise content. For example, the following research question may be asked:
Can creativity be embedded into ECM processes so as to improve the quality of content?
In this case, content quality may be extended by constructs such as novelty and appropriateness, which are key dimensions of creativity. One main challenge must be seen in measuring the creative quality of a product. However, according measures have been proposed in the related literature [18]. One such example is the so-called Creative Product Se-mantic Scale (CPSS) [41] for the evaluation of prod-ucts across domains.
More specific research questions may focus on the processes of searching and storing content, for example. In particular a solely convergent search process that quickly leads to a result may compro-mise creativity as it may prevent exploration and di-vergent thinking [53]. Correspondingly:
Can creativity be embedded into the search process and thus lead to improved content re-trieval?
As to the storage of content, one important chal-lenge lies in finding an adequate balance between efforts and benefits. Storing content requires the con-tent user to define appropriate metadata (in order to enable other users to retrieve the content later on) [36]. The challenge may thus be seen in determining an appropriate amount of metadata to be used; the time an employee needs to invest in defining the re-quired metadata must not exceed the expected time savings in searching content. This poses the question in how far the responsibility for selecting metadata,
and storing content, can be transferred to the content creators. Consequently, the following research ques-tion is proposed:
Can creativity be embedded into the process of storing content and thus lead to improved content storage and retrieval?
It becomes apparent that there are many research questions at the borderline between the management of enterprise content on the one hand side and crea-tivity on the other hand side. We believe that this diverse field will require researchers to apply various research strategies, ranging from inductive, explora-tory theory-building research to testing functionalist theories on the impact of the use of ECM onto the creative outcome as well as rather design-oriented research that is considered to be of high relevance to practitioners.
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications for the Practice of ECM
It is expected that practitioners will benefit from research that particularly investigates the tradeoff between control and creative performance. While it can be anticipated that ECM solutions will improve the availability and consistency of content, there is evidence in the related literature that they may also inhibit creativity. Research on creativity and business process management has shown that organizations pursue both conventional process performance (such as time and cost) and creative process performance (such as novelty and appropriateness) while they si-multaneously seek to mitigate both conventional and creative risk [52]. It is expected that, in a similar manner, organizations use ECM technologies to both support organizational performance and mitigate risk through higher levels of efficiency, availability, and traceability, while, at the same time, not compromis-ing creativity. Rather design-oriented research can further contribute to this discussion by shedding light on how systems can be developed that adhere to these requirements. This is conducive to the ECM do-main’s nature of being an applied discipline that has, over the last years, mainly been driven by the emer-gence of new technologies.
4.2. Implications for Research
Researchers can apply the suggested framework in order to identify relevant research questions in the
above described context as well as position their own research and relate it to the work of their fellow col-leagues. The proposed framework provides con-cepts/constructs that may be utilized in order to gen-erate research models in positivist hypothesis testing research. In interpretive theory building research, for example, the framework may be used as a guiding sensitizing device [30]. Moreover, knowledge about related concepts and theories also becomes critical when researchers compare and contrast their own work with the existent literature with the goal of ge-neralizing their findings. It is our belief that research-ers will particularly have to develop processual, inte-ractionist models. As research on creativity has shown, theories in a functionalist-reductionist [45] manner are not capable of explaining the dynamics that processes enfold over time [15]. Yet, such know-ledge becomes critical when organizations seek to deploy the merits of technologies such as ECM, as this particularly requires them to understand the dy-namics of underlying business processes [52].
5. Conclusion
This paper contributes to the IS literature by pro-viding researchers and practitioners with a research framework that exhibits areas of interest in the con-texts of ECM and creativity. It is our belief that or-ganizations must not only consider conventional measures such as efficiency and control when im-plementing ECM technologies, but also the impact that these technologies can have on the organizations’ creative performance. Such knowledge becomes crit-ical when organizations seek to deploy ECM tech-nologies to a set of work processes that are not mere-ly transactional, but also require the involved actor’s creativity. At the same time, organizations must rec-ognize the creative skills and expertise of the in-volved people so as to improve the process of manag-ing enterprise content. It is thus also hoped that the framework will contribute to the ongoing discussion of the phenomenon of creativity in the IS discipline.
The paper has some limitations. It may be argued that the concepts of creativity and ECM have been described at a relatively high level of abstraction. For example, besides distinguishing factors at the indi-vidual, group, and organizational levels, one may also utilize the distinction between the constituent concepts of creativity; i.e., the creative product, the creative person, the creative process, and the creative environment. The same holds true for the conceptua-lization of ECM as an interplay of strategies, tools, processes, and people. Other authors in the field pro-pose a multitude of sometimes very different
capabil-ity areas and may have chosen different dimensions. However, we consider the framework flexible enough to accommodate a broad range of concepts/constructs that have already been identified as being relevant in the contexts of both ECM and organizational creativi-ty.
6. References
[1] T.M. Amabile: "A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations", in: Staw, B.M., and Cummings, L.L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, USA, 1988, pp. 123-167.
[2] T.M. Amabile: "Within You, Without You: The Social Psychology of Creativity and Beyond", in: Runco, M.A., and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theories of Creativity, Sage Publi-cations, Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990, pp. 61-91. [3] T.M. Amabile, Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, 1996.
[4] R. Andersen: "The Rhetoric of Enterprise Content Man-agement (ECM): Confronting the Assumptions Driving ECM Adoption and Transforming Technical Communica-tion", Technical Communication Quarterly, Vol. 17, 2008, pp. 61-87.
[5] F. Barron, and D.M. Harrington: "Creativity, Intelli-gence, and Personality", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 32, 1981, pp. 439-476.
[6] B.T. Blair: "An Enterprise Content Management Pri-mer", Information Management Journal, Vol. 38, 2004, pp. 64-66.
[7] S. Borghini: "Organizational Creativity: Breaking Equi-librium and Order to Innovate", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 19-33.
[8] S. Buchanan, and F. Gibb: "The Information Audit: Role and Scope", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27, 2007, pp. 159-172.
[9] P.-K. Cheung, P.Y.K. Chau, and A.K.K. Au: "Does Knowledge Reuse Make a Creative Person More Crea-tive?", Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45, 2007, pp. 219-227.
[10] D.K.W. Chiu, and P.C.K. Hung: "Privacy and Access Control Issues in Financial Enterprise Content Manage-ment", in: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05), Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2005, pp. 1-10.
[11] H.-C. Chu, M.-Y. Chen, and Y.-M. Chen: "A Seman-tic-based Approach to Content Abstraction and Annotation
for Content Management", Expert Systems with Applica-tions, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 2360-2376.
[12] D. Clark: "Content Management and the Separation of Presentation and Content", Technical Communication Quarterly, Vol. 17, 2008, pp. 35-60.
[13] P.A. Clark, Action Research and Organizational Change, Harper and Row, London, UK, 1972.
[14] R. Dilnutt: "Surviving the Information Explosion", Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 16, 2006, pp. 39-41.
[15] R. Drazin, M.A. Glynn, and R. Kazanjian: "Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: A Sensemak-ing Perspective", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, 1999, pp. 286-307.
[16] G. Ekvall, and L. Ryhammer: "The Creative Climate: Its Determinants and Effects at a Swedish University", Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 12, 1999, pp. 303-310. [17] A. Field, and G. Hole, How to Design and Report Experiments, Sage Publications, London, UK, 2003. [18] R.L. Firestien: "The Power of Product", in: Isaksen, S.G., Murdock, M.C., Firestien, R.L., and Treffinger, D.J. (eds.), Nurturing and Developing Creativity: The Emer-gence of a Discipline, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, USA, 1993, pp. 261-277.
[19] C.M. Ford: "A Theory of Individual Creativity in Mul-tiple Social Domains", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, 1996, pp. 1112-1132.
[20] F.J. Fowler, Survey Research Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London, UK, 2001.
[21] F. Galton, Hereditary Genius, Macmillan, London, UK, 1869.
[22] B.G. Glaser, and A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL, USA, 1967. [23] S. Gregor: "Design Theory in Information Systems", Australian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14, 2002, pp. 14-22.
[24] J.P. Guilford, The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1967.
[25] J.P. Guilford: "Transformation Abilities or Functions", Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 17, 1983, pp. 75-83. [26] V.K. Gupta, S. Govindarajan, and T. Johnson: "Over-view of Content Management Approaches and Strategies", Electronic Markets, Vol. 11, 2002, pp. 281-288.
[27] J.M. Hall, and M.E. Johnson: "When Should a Process be Art, Not Science?", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87, 2009, pp. 58-65.
[28] A.R. Hevner, S.T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram: "De-sign Science in Information Systems Research", Manage-ment Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 28, 2004, pp. 75-105.
[29] N. King, and N. Anderson: "Innovation in Working Groups", in: West, M.A., and Farr, J.L. (eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1990, pp. 81-100.
[30] H.K. Klein, and M.D. Myers: "A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems", Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 23, 1999, pp. 67-94.
[31] K.H.S. Kwok, and D.K.W. Chiu: "A Web Services Implementation Framework for Financial Enterprise Con-tent Management", in: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04), Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2004, pp. 1-10.
[32] N. Maiden, S. Robertson, and A. Gizikis: "Provoking Creativity: Imagine What Your Requirements Could be Like", IEEE Software, Vol. 21, 2004, pp. 68-75. [33] T.S. March, and G. Smith: "Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology", Decision Support Systems, Vol. 15, 1995, pp. 251-266.
[34] C. Martindale: "Personality, Situation, and Creativity", in: Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R., and Reynolds, C.R. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA, 1989, pp. 211-232.
[35] B. Massetti: "An Empirical Examination of the Value of Creativity Support Systems on Idea Generation", Man-agement Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1996, pp. 83-97.
[36] B.E. Munkvold, T. Päivärinta, A.K. Hodne, and E. Stangeland: "Contemporary Issues of Enterprise Content Management: The Case of Statoil", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18, 2006, pp. 69-100. [37] R. Nakano, Web Content Management: A Collabora-tive Approach, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [38] S. Nordheim, and T. Päivärinta: "Customization of Enterprise Content Management Systems: An Exploratory Case Study", in: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii Interna-tional Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04), Big Island, HI, USA, 2004, pp. 1-10.
[39] S. Nordheim, and T. Päivärinta: "Implementing Enter-prise Content Management: From Evolution through Strat-egy to Contradictions Out-of-the-box", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, 2006, pp. 648-662.
[40] R. O'Callaghan, and M. Smits: "A Strategy Develop-ment Process for Enterprise Content ManageDevelop-ment", in: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Informa-tion Systems (ECIS'05), Regensburg, Germany, 2005, pp. 1271-1282.
[41] K. O’Quin, and S. Besemer: "The Development, Re-liability, and Validity of the Revised Creative Product Se-mantic Scale", Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 268-279.
[42] T. Päivärinta, and B.E. Munkvold: "Enterprise Content Management: An Integrated Perspective on Information Management", in: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii Interna-tional Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05), Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2005, pp. 1-10.
[43] R. Payne: "The Effectiveness of Research Teams: A Review", in: West, M.A., and Farr, J.L. (eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1990, pp. 101-122.
[44] A. Rockley, P. Kostur, and S. Manning, Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy, New Rid-ers, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2003.
[45] D.M. Rousseau: "Issues of Level in Organizational Research: Multi-level and Cross-level Perspectives", in: Staw, B.M., and Cummings, L.L. (eds.), Research in Orga-nizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, USA, 1985, pp. 1-37.
[46] D.L. Rubenson, and M.A. Runco: "The Psychoeco-nomic Approach to Creativity", New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 10, 1992, pp. 131-147.
[47] M.A. Runco, Creativity. Theories and Themes: Re-search, Development, and Practice, Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA, USA, 2007.
[48] L. Ryhammer, and G.J.W. Smith: "Creative and Other Personality Functions as Defined by Percept-Generic Tech-niques and Their Relation to Organizational Conditions", Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 12, 1999, pp. 277-286. [49] A. Salminen, P. Tyrväinen, and T. Päivärinta: "Intro-duction to the Enterprise Content Management and XML Minitrack", in: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii Internation-al Conference on System Sciences (HICCS'05), Hawaii, Big Island, USA, 2005, pp. 1.
[50] R. Scheepers: "A Conceptual Framework for the Im-plementation of Enterprise Information Portals in Large Organizations", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, 2006, pp. 635-647.
[51] J. Scott, A. Globe, and K. Schiffner: "Jungles and Gardens: The Evolution of Knowledge Management at J.D.
Edwards", Management Information Systems Quarterly Executive, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 37-52.
[52] S. Seidel, A Theory of Managing Creativity-intensive Processes. Dissertation, Institute of Information Systems, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany, 2009. [53] S. Seidel, F. Müller-Wienbergen, M. Rosemann, and J. Becker: "A Conceptual Framework for Information Re-trieval to Support Creativity in Business Processes", in: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Informa-tion Systems (ECIS'08), Galway, Ireland, 2008, pp. 2428-2439.
[54] D.K. Simonton: "Age and Literary Creativity: A Cross-Cultural and Transhistorical Survey", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 6, 1975, pp. 259-277. [55] W.M. Sinnett: "Ask FERF About… Using Enterprise Content Management for Section 404 Compliance", Finan-cial Executive, Vol. 22, 2006, p. 61.
[56] H.A. Smith, and J.D. McKeen: "Developments in Practice VIII: Enterprise Content Management", Commu-nications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 11, 2003, pp. 647-659.
[57] S.K. Soy: "Book Reviews: Enterprise Content Man-agement: What You Need to Know", Information Technol-ogy & People, Vol. 18, 2005, pp. 303-304.
[58] R.H. Sprague: "Electronic Document Management: Challenges and Opportunities for Information Systems Managers", Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1995, pp. 29-49.
[59] A.L. Strauss, and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Re-search. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London, UK, 1998.
[60] N. Swartz: "Strategic ECM Boosts Profits", Informa-tion Management Journal, Vol. 41, 2007, p. 14.
[61] P. Tyrväinen, T. Päivärinta, A. Salminen, and J. Iivari: "Guest Editorial: Characterizing the Evolving Research on Enterprise Content Management", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, 2006, pp. 627-634. [62] J. vom Brocke, A. Simons, and A. Cleven: "A Busi-ness Process Perspective on Enterprise Content Manage-ment: Towards a Framework for Organisational Change", in: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Infor-mation Systems (ECIS'08), Galway, Ireland, 2008, pp. 1680-1691.
[63] G. Walsham: "Interpretive Case Studies in IS Re-search: Nature and Method", European Journal of Informa-tion Systems, Vol. 4, 1995, pp. 74-81.
[64] J. Webster, and R.T. Watson: "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review", Man-agement Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 26, 2002, pp. xiii-xxiii.
[65] W.M. Williams, and L.T. Yang: "Organizational Crea-tivity", in: Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999, pp. 373-391.
[66] R.W. Woodman, J.E. Sawyer, and R.W. Griffin: "To-ward a Theory of Organizational Creativity", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, 1993, pp. 293-321. [67] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3 ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.
