Frameworks for innovation, collaboration, and change: Value creation wheel, design thinking, creative problem‐solving, and lean

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2321
• Author: Antonin Ricard,Luis F. Lages,Aurélie Hemonnet‐Goujot,Anne‐Marie Guerin
• Date: 01 March 2020
• Published date: 01 March 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Frameworks for innovation, collaboration, and change: Value

creation wheel, design thinking, creative problem-solving,

and lean

Luis F. Lages

1

| Antonin Ricard

2

| Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot

2

| Anne-Marie Guerin

2

1

Nova School of Business and Economics,

Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

2

Aix-Marseille University–IAE, CERGAM,

Aix-en-Provence, France

Correspondence

Luis Filipe Lages VCW Lab at Nova SBE, Nova

School of Business and Economics,

Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

Email: lflages@novasbe.pt

Abstract

The value creation wheel (VCW) is the decision-making meta-framework rec-

ommended to address innovation, collaboration, and change challenges in formal

relationships. The VCW can integrate, complement, or be joined with other frame-

works, tools, and theories to address the challenges of formal relationships. The

VCW's ability to incorporate intra- and interorganizational insights emerging from

internal and external stakeholders is especially useful in solving the challenges of col-

laborative arrangements. VCW solutions are often more realistic than Design Think-

ing, Creative Problem-Solving, and Lean because they accommodate the views of

various stakeholders about ideas and filters, and because key decision makers must

be involved in the main stages of the decision-making process.

1|INTRODUCTION

Organizations and managersface daily challenges that are all but linear.

The businessworld is global and local,flat and irregular, addingcomplex-

ity to problem-solving.Organizations are beingchallenged to collaborate

and create shared value (CSV)while considering the needsof society. In

order toinnovate, grow, andaddress organizationalchallenges,organiza-

tions are being challenged to involve internal and external stakeholders

and provide them with the tools to become partners and CSV

(McManus, 2019; Mendy, 2019; Porter and Kramer, 2011). Similarly, in

order to deal with today's constant need for innovation, collaboration,

and change (IC&C), new problem-solving frameworks are now expected

to be simultaneously structured and agile and providesolutions via col-

lectiveintelligence, co-creation, and partnerships(Lages, 2016).

Because of increasing globalization and the importance of collab-

oration, research dedicated to formal relationships has become popu-

lar in the last two decades (Gomes et al., 2011; Gomes et al., 2016).

Nowadays, there are many articles examining formal inter-

organizational collaboration across markets (for example, mergers and

acquisitions [M&A], strategic alliances, joint ventures, franchising,

global value chains, and business model restructuring). Although these

types of formal partnerships are essential for a firm's constant IC&C,

they present several challenges in the form of trust, control, confi-

dence, contract and negotiation, commitment, and cultural issues

(Gomes et al., 2016), cooperation vs. competition, participation values,

productivity, and performance (Wong et al., 2017), value appropria-

tion and risk–return trade-offs (Contractor & Woodley, 2015), and

shared value and sustainability (Lee, 2019). Many of these challenges

might be addressed by applying the problem-solving collaborative

frameworks often used in the context of informal forms of coopera-

tion. Surprisingly, the literature has not explored how these collabora-

tive frameworks could be applied in the context of formal

relationships, and which one(s) would be more appropriate for which

contexts. This article proposes to fill this gap by comparing four popu-

lar problem-solving frameworks: the Value Creation Wheel (VCW),

Design Thinking (DT), Creative Problem-Solving (CPS), and Lean.

This study contributes to the literature on formal partnerships

and to managerial practice on three levels. First, it explores the extent

to which different problem-solving frameworks traditionally used in

informal relationships can bring added value to the context of formal

partnerships. Much of the research in formal partnerships have

explored the reasons for entering into an agreement vs. going it alone

(Beamish & Lupton, 2016) and the relationship between internal and

external cooperation (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2003; Mudambi &

JEL classification codes: M00, O14, O31, O32, O35, O38, P13, Q01.

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2321

Strategic Change. 2020;29:195–213. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 195

Tallman, 2010; Stettner & Lavie, 2014). To our knowledge, no

research explores how traditional problem-solving frameworks (VCW,

DT, CPS, and Lean) could be used to enhance cooperation in formal

collaboration with lower risk. The application of these four frame-

works might have important implications because they can be applied

as a halfway compromise between a pure informal collaboration and a

more formal collaboration for solving organizational challenges,

namely in the pre- and/or postagreement phases.

Second, after analyzing and comparing the four frameworks, this

study focuses on the VCW. The VCW works very well in the context of

formal relationships because it is a structured and flexible meta-framework

that can include, complement, or be integrated into other tools and frame-

works (including DT, CPS, and Lean). Since it is an innovation framework,

it might be integrated into, incorporate, or complement several front-end

innovation frameworks (for example, innovation life cycle, value proposi-

tion canvas, 5-days design sprint, value proposition canvas) as well as

back-end frameworks (for instance, Customer Development Process, inno-

vation life cycle, Business Model Canvas). Often, it triggers the decision to

use DT (for example, for new product development purposes), CPS (for

instance, to communicate across diverse teams), Lean (for instance, to

optimize the production process), Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS) (for instance,

to identify new market spaces and determine how to cut costs while

increasing value), Lean Startup (for instance, to develop minimum viable

products), Business Model Canvas (BMC) (which, for instance, identifies

the value proposition that underpins description, analysis, design, and

development of a business model), and Customer Development Process

(for example, to search and execute the business model), among others.

Finally, it is well known that interest is growing in topics of lead-

ership and in the human side of formal partnerships (Ferrary, 2015;

Gomes et al., 2016). Due to its ability to accommodate intra- and

interorganizational insights emerging from internal and external stake-

holders, the VCW can easily be applied to solve several challenges of

collaborative arrangements across diverse sectors. VCW outcomes

are especially realistic because they require the key decision makers

(KDMs) to be committed to, and involved in, the main phases of the

VCW problem-solving process (definition of the challenge, selection

of best ideas, ranking of filters, and implementation phase).

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: The next

section presents the research approachused in this study, followed by a

section in which the four collaboration frameworks for problem-solving

(VCW, DT, CPS, and Lean) are reviewed.The four frameworks are then

compared in the context of formal partnerships and we propose that,

due to its uniquecharacteristics, theVCW meta-framework is themost

suitable problem-solving framework to address a wide range of chal-

lenges. The findings of our exploratory study are then presented and

several VCW projects in formal relationships are presented. This is

followedby the discussion anddirections for futureresearch.

2|RESEARCH APPROACH

This study is exploratory and is aligned with other researches in the

field of formal relationships (such as strategic alliances) in which about

a third of the articles published in top journals are exploratory and a

fifth are conceptual, dedicated to formulating theories and ideas

(Gomes et al., 2016). Considering that no analysis of the four

problem-solving frameworks (VCW, DT, CPS, and Lean) in the context

of formal partnerships is reported in the literature, our research ques-

tions are as follows:

1. Could the four problem-solving frameworks be used in the context

of pre- and/or postagreement phases?

2. If the answer is yes, which framework could be the most appropri-

ate to address challenges in the context of formal partnerships?

After determining that the VCW is more appropriate to address

challenges of formal relationships, this study explores a 3-year data-

base (2016–2018) of VCW projects in formal partnerships. Our

exploratory sample comprises cases in which the VCW was used to

address challenges in the context of collaborative arrangements such

as M&A, strategic alliances, joint ventures, franchising, global value

chains, and business model restructuring. This sample is diverse in

terms of problems/challenges, industry, and nationalities and allows

us to better understand the dynamics and processes used by compa-

nies when applying the VCW in formal partnerships.

3|REVIEW OF THE FOUR PROBLEM-

SOLVING FRAMEWORKS

In this section, we start by discussing in detail each of the four

problem-solving approaches (VCW, DT, CPS, and Lean), their limita-

tions, and the extent to which they are aligned with today's changing

environment. We then explain how each of them can be applied in

the context of formal relationships to deal with IC&C.

3.1 |The value creation wheel

3.1.1 |VCW definition

The VCW is a meta-framework designed to help KDMs and their

teams solve various challenges. The VCW is particularly useful for

KDMs and teams who believe in co-creation, collective intelligence,

and collective thinking. First, the KDMs define a challenge/problem

using the VCW. Second, through co-creation, the VCW helps them

identify a range of solutions and criteria/filters to solve the challenge/

problem. Third, the KDMs select the solutions and rank the criteria.

Finally, the VCW filters the ideas and helps to implement the final

solution(s). In the words of the CEO of a pharmacy company, “the

Value Creation Wheel model is very useful to understand reality, to

model it, and then to use it for policy making”(Villax, 2017).

The VCW defines the KDM as a leader who is committed, has the

power, and has the 3Ms (manpower, minute and money) to solve a

challenge/problem at the organizational and/or individual level.

Depending on the context, we can all be KDMs. Often, there are

196 LAGES ET AL.