JAIST Repository
https://dspace.jaist.ac.jp/

Title

Trial and Error Mindset of R&D Personnel and its
Relationship to Organizational Creative Climate

Author(s)Shirahada, Kunio; Hamazaki, Kazuma

Citation

Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
80(6): 1108‑1118

Issue Date

2012‑10‑13

Type

Journal Article

Text version

author

URL

http://hdl.handle.net/10119/11453

RightsNOTICE: This is the author's version of a work
accepted for publication by Elsevier. Kunio
Shirahada and Kazuma Hamazaki, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 2012, 1108‑
1118,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.005

Description

Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Trial and Error Mindset of R&D Personnel and its Relationship to
Organizational Creative Climate

Kunio Shirahada1 (corresponding author), Kazuma Hamazaki2
1

JAIST, Graduate School of Knowledge Science, Research Center for Service

ScienceE-mail: kunios@jaist.ac.jp
Address: 1-1 Asahidai, Nomi city, Ishikawa 9231292 Japan
Tel/Fax: +81-761-51-1747 / +81-761-51-1149
2

Arthur D. Little (Japan), Inc., Minato-ku, Tokyo 1050001 Japan

Abstract:
This paper aims to reveal the mindset of corporate R&D personnel’s behavior when they break through adifficult problem. In addition, we examine the relationship between that mindset and the organizational
creative climate. We defined trial and error behavior as the process of continuous knowledge creation andacquisition until success is achieved, and constructed a model. We distributed a questionnaire survey on
invention and discovery activities to 706 corporate R&D personnel who had received awards fromleading Japanese science academies. The results of qualitative data analysis revealed six mindsets andapproaches:(i)

Elimination

approach,

(ii)

Idea

exploration-oriented

mindset,

(iii)

Cause

exploration-oriented mindset, (iv) Repetitive approach, (v) Passion for trial and error, and (vi)Experience-oriented mindset. In addition, the results showed that the creative climate did not have asignificant impact on the exploration-oriented trial and error mindsets of R&D personnel, such as with (ii)and (iii). Technology-oriented firms cannot develop innovative achievements if they are not willing toencourage risk taking. Our findings indicate that managers should try to understand their employees' trial
and error mindsets and create an effective organizational climate that goes beyond an organizational
creative climate.

Keywords: R&D management, trial and error behavior, organizational creative climate

1. Introduction
Innovative achievements such as inventions and discoveries of new things by R&D personnel are very
important for corporate growth. To encourage and forecast these achievements, it is necessary tounderstand the activities of R&D personnel [1-2]. Two analytical perspectives are dominant in academic
research in terms of understanding the activities of R&D personnel; one is concerned with individual
behavioral mechanisms [3], and the other with the organizational environment that affects individual
behavior and the absorptive capability of knowledge [4]. In the process of invention and discovery, R&D
personnel often face difficult problems that they need to overcome. Regarding individual behavioral
mechanisms, studies have been conducted on R&D personnel's personal inspirations [5], intrinsic
motivation [6-7], cognitive types [8], and serendipity [9] as factors contributing to the ability to discoverimportant things by accident. However, few studies have been done that focus on the detailed activities of
R&D personnel, including their everyday trials at work, regardless of the importance of understanding
individual behavioral mechanisms.
R&D management studies have recently emphasized the importance of managing R&D
personnel's trial and error activities [9-11], which consist of detailed tasks of R&D personnel. In
Webster’s dictionary, trial and error is "a finding out of the best way to reach a desired result or a correct
solution by trying out one or more ways or means and by noting and eliminating errors or causes offailure and also means the trying of one thing or another until something succeeds." The concept of trial
and error includes the process of knowledge creation to find the key knowledge that can lead to abreakthrough. This indicates that the concept of trial and error is a kind of knowledge creation that
includes repetitive actions carried out to reach a breakthrough. This paper focuses on the concept of trial
and error and defines it as a continuous knowledge creation and acquisition process until something
succeeds.
Many aspects of the organizational environment have been studied to determine the important
catalysts that influence R&D personnel’s behavior. These aspects include leadership [12-14],
circumstances that influence R&D personnel, such as the organizational climate affecting the behavior of
personnel [15-21], having a team leader [22], and corporate systems implemented to improve R&D
personnel creativity [23]. In addition, the importance of team communication [24-26] and closeness ofpartners [27] is also widely acknowledged in research on factors leading to breakthroughs. These studies

are valuable for analyzing the relationship between organizational factors and R&D personnel output.
However, there is a need to further analyze organizational factors and detailed trial and error activities of
R&D personnel in order to forecast an effective people management strategy in R&D settings.
Based on this background, we set two research questions to promote R&D management
research focusing on generating innovative achievements. The first question was intended to determine
what kind of mindset highly successful R&D personnel had when carrying out trial and error activities.
The second one was intended to determine to what extent organizational factors including theorganizational climate and the corporate system affected R&D personnel’s trial and error behavior. The
purpose here is to answer these questions. We set two research perspectives: trial and error behavior andthe organizational creative climate. This paper first proposes a model of trial and error behavior based on
knowledge creation behavior. Next, we analyze a questionnaire survey we distributed based on the model
to find the reality of the trial and error mindset of accomplished corporate researchers who had madevaluable inventions and discoveries. Then we analyze the relationship between R&D personnel’s
mindsets and organizational creative climate using structural equation modeling analysis.

2. Research perspectives
2.1 Trial and error behavior
Although trial and error behavior is relevant to the concept of knowledge creation, the relevant study
focusing on corporate R&D personnel is in an early phase of academic research [9]. In general,
researchers have expert knowledge and experience, and this includes tacit knowledge to “connect” theirknowledge and experience. In problematic situations that the researchers have already dealt with, theyoften try to solve the problems using their existing experience and knowledge [28-30]. However, if
researchers face a problematic situation that they have never experienced before, they need to carry out
trial and error activities outside their realm of experience and knowledge.
Gourlay [31] addressed the concept of knowledge creation by organizing knowledge types
using previous studies about knowledge concepts. He categorized knowledge by ‘knowledge-what’ as
decontextualized knowledge and ‘knowledge-how’ as processual knowledge. In R&D settings, trial anderror regarding knowledge-what corresponds to cause investigation. This means that researchers seek togeneralize decontextualized knowledge by investigating the bottleneck of the problematic situation fromvarious perspectives. In contrast, knowledge-how corresponds to exploring research methods orapproaches. This means that researchers seek process-oriented knowledge [32] by searching for ways andstrategies to improve the problematic situation. The quality of both types of knowledge depends on thedefinition of problematic situations. Learning has dealt with incremental improvements to adapt to an
environment in technology management studies [33-36]. Argyris and Schon indicated the importance ofproblem definition using the term double-loop learning [37] when adapting to or creating an environment.
As we already defined, trial and error is a process of continuous knowledge creation in which it isnecessary to sophisticate a kind of “space” of thoughts consisting of knowledge and experience that aperson already has. These studies about knowledge creation were the basis for three behavioral points weset that illustrate how to cross the knowledge space that someone already has: cause investigation, method
and approach exploration, and problem definition.
Researchers generally aspire to achieve a goal using their own experiential knowledge and new
knowledge gained through trial and error under the proper balance of three behavioral patterns [28]. Thisconsists of four basic behaviors: implementing an idea with no specific strategies, exploring new
approaches and implementing them, exploring new causes and trying to overcome hurdles, and exploringnew causes and new approaches and implementing them. Researchers conduct these basic behaviors
again and again, thereby creating knowledge. These strategies to traverse one's own known space lead toseveral potential types of trial and error. For example, one researcher may aspire to achieve a goal using
their own experiential knowledge and new knowledge acquired through the trial and error of cause
investigation and problem definition. Another researcher may aspire to achieve a goal by using their own
experiential knowledge and new knowledge gained from the trial and error of method exploration andcause investigation under the same problem. The important points of trial and error behavior are related toretaining or changing existing ideas and exploring approaches for problem solutions or the cause of the
problem. Thus, the ways of trial and error will differ depending on how the set of trial and error strategies
was determined.

2.2 Organizational creative climate
The belief that a positive organizational climate is an important factor of success in R&D companies iswidely accepted (e.g.[15]). Organizational climate is defined as an attribute of the organization—aconglomerate of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that characterize life in the organization [16-17]. The
concept of organizational climate refers to behavioral patterns that emerge on a daily basis in theorganizational environment. Individuals in the organization experience, understand, and interpret thesepatterns [20,38]. Therefore, individuals can be affected by the climate and can change their motivation
and behavior.
It is generally important for a company to form a positive organizational climate in which
employees work together and strive to achieve a common organizational goal, such as to outperform thecompetition [39]. In industry, many companies have introduced “work team” and “quality control”
activities to promote a collaborative mindset among their employees [40] and have worked to create apositive organizational climate. However, more importantly, there is a need to create an organizational
climate that stimulates individuals’ intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something because it isinherently interesting and enjoyable [41]. This factor relevant to human emotion is thought to affectindividual creative behaviors that will lead to innovative performance [42-44]. One study onorganizational climate discussed the concept of the creative climate that has an organizational influenceon human creativity [45] and innovativeness [46]. The impacts of a creative climate on workload havebeen reported to be both positive and negative [45]. However, especially in R&D settings, creativity is an
important resource and therefore, the relative organizational climate assumed to be deliberately created[20]. The majority of studies on organizational creative climate in the workplace have focused on therelationship between leadership and climate creation [47-48]. Although there are several important factorsthat influence employees’ behavior and behavioral changes, there are few insights into what effects theclimate has on R&D personnel’s trial and error behavior. This paper analyzes the effect of organizational
creative climate on R&D personnel’s trial and error behavior.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and data collection procedures
The targets of our investigation were corporate R&D personnel who had received awards from 15
Japanese science academic societies in fields including physics, hardware building, chemistry, software,
medicine, electronics, and automotive hardware. We asked our targets about the process they used toachieve their award-winning outputs, a few examples of which are the development of analuminum-magnesium alloy, new insights on the dependence of threshold voltage on back-gate voltage,
and the use of a superconducting detector array for terahertz imaging applications. We selected 706
targets starting in 2008 and going back as much as three years earlier. Our questionnaire was ananonymous mail-in survey and was administered from July 11, 2008 to August 1, 2008. We circulated
706 copies and received a total of 442 answers (return rate: 63%). We had 26 invalid responses that had
blanks in trial and error related questions.
The respondents we obtained data from comprised 55 hardware-oriented basic research(13.2%), 211 hardware-oriented applied research (50.7%), 25 software-oriented basic research (6.0%), 88
software-oriented applied research (21.2%), 3 service-oriented basic research (0.7%), and 24
service-oriented applied research (5.8%). The remaining 10 respondents (2.4%) did not respond to thequestion about research type.

3.2 Questionnaire items
3.2.1 Trial and error behavior
We designed the questionnaire items as listed in Table 1; they consisted of questions concerning trial anderror, the creative climate of the workplace, the workplace environment focusing on the corporate system,
management clarity, and details about their personal characteristics based on Fowler [49]. We measured
the R&D personnel's trial and error behavior from two perspectives; one was general trial and error, andthe other was breakthrough behavior just before achieving an invention or discovery. This is because in
R&D activities, some trial and error activities are routine [50-51], and we assumed that there might beother patterns that were different from the routine trial and error behavior. We created questionnaire items
based on the trial and error behavior model. A Likert type four-point scale was used for the answers.
We attempted to gain an understanding of general trial and error behavior by estimating theordinary R&D personnel's “newness-oriented mindset.” We did this by asking them questions about what
new things they did to improve frequently occurring problem situations from the two perspectives ofcause investigation and method exploration (e.g. "We would like to ask you questions about yourattitudes when you face some problems and difficulties in the process of R&D. Please choose the mostsuitable answer for each of the following items..."). We listed items about “everyday newness-oriented
mindset (GTE 9 and 10)” and set several hypothetical constraints on each question such as having a tighttime restriction (GTE 1 and 7), already experiencing a lot of failures (GTE 2 and 8), facing issues they
had no experience with (GTE 3 and 6), and having interest or motivation (GTE 4 and 5).
To understand their breakthrough behavior just before achieving an invention or discovery, we
estimated the R&D personnel's newness-oriented mindset when they achieved discoveries and inventions.
We asked them questions about what they did just before their achievements from the cause investigationand method exploration perspectives. The questions include following form that "We would like to ask
you questions about what kinds of behavior you exhibited when solving the most difficult problems in theprocess of generating the output that led to your academic award. Please choose the most suitable answer
for each of the following items..." We listed items about newness-oriented actions for breakthroughs(BTE 9, and 10) and set hypothetical responses on each question such as reconsideration of what they had
already tried (BTE 4 and 5), repetition and confirmation of trial results (BTE 1 and 2), avoidance ofprevious trials and errors (BTE 3 and 6), and avoidance of exploring new causes and methods (BTE 7 and
8).

3.2.2 Organizational creative climate
Our first step in investigating the organizational creative climate was to translate the questions from
Sundgren et al.’s [20] study into Japanese. The questions, listed in Table 1, are based on a clear
constructive concept and are recognized as factors leading to innovation; therefore, we determined that it
was possible to conduct a detailed analysis using the results from the questions (e.g. "We would like to
ask you questions about your organizational climate. Please choose the most suitable answer for each of
the following items...").
In addition, we also set relevant questions about the workplace environment and management
clarity using questions from a work motivation survey by the Japan Information Technology Services
Industry Association (e.g. "We would like to ask you questions about your organizational system. Pleasechoose the most suitable answer for each of the following items..."). The questionnaire items onorganizational factors including creative climate are also listed in Table 1.

3.2.3 Performance level
We set a question about performance level as one of the face sheet items. Because we searched for targets

based on information about award winners in academic societies, it was necessary to know what impact
the output had on the company's growth. We partly employed a study that included new productperformance and market entry as performance measures [52] to reflect the dimensions of performance. In
addition, we used the categories of “efficiency” and “effectiveness” that have been widely used [53].
Efficiency includes cost reduction and productivity improvement, while effectiveness includes thecapability to acquire new technologies. Thus, we added the following question and answer: When you
achieved your research output, what effect did it have on your company? (Product and service sales
improvement / Organizational transformation / Improvement of QCT and productivity / New businesscreation / Did not have any effect / Other).

3.3 Data analysis
To analyze the data effectively, we eliminated questionnaire items that had no response data. This
resulted in 416 usable samples. First, we conducted an explorative factor analysis (Principal factor
method, Promax rotation) to determine the mindset of R&D personnel in their trial and error behavior.
Then we focused on R&D personnel in small R&D groups. In this paper, we refer to a previous study onsmall R&D team management [9], and we define a small R&D group as a group that has from two to fivepeople. This is because O’Connor and McDermott [54] indicated that successful R&D teams were often
composed of a rather small (5-6) group of members through their longitudinal investigation of radical
innovation cases. In addition, they found there are a number of organizational factors that leverage thehuman side of making radical innovations happen. Therefore, we assumed organizational factors closely
affect R&D personnel’s trial and error behaviors. We carried out a structural equation modeling analysis
and analyzed the relationship between the trial and error mindset of R&D personnel and theorganizational factors of their workplace.

4. Results
4.1 Researchers’ mindsets for trial and error
Table 2 lists the results of the explorative factor analysis of corporate R&D personnel. We obtained
six factors. These factors include both mindsets and approaches for continuous knowledge creation.

・	  Factor 1: Elimination approachThis factor includes eliminative statements for R&D activities such as "did not try to search" and"did not try to think"; therefore, we defined it as an "Elimination approach" toward problem
solution.
・	  Factor 2: Idea exploration-oriented mindset
This factor includes the contents of a new idea generation mindset for achieving breakthroughs (e.g.,
I value new ideas to improve problems more than established methods); therefore, we defined it as"Idea exploration-oriented mindset" for R&D activities.
・	  Factor 3: Cause exploration-oriented mindset
This factor includes the mindset of cause exploration for breakthroughs (e.g., I searched for thecauses that needed to be reviewed from the causes that I had already considered); therefore, we
defined it as "Cause exploration-oriented mindset" for R&D activities.
・	  Factor 4: Repetitive approachThis factor includes the statements of repetitive action for improving problematic situations (e.g., I
repeated implementing a plan that I had practiced); therefore, we defined it as the "Repetitive
approach" toward problem solving.
・	  Factor 5: Passion for trial and error
This factor refers to R&D personnel's strong motivation for achieving breakthroughs (e.g., Even if I
have experienced failures, I often continue to analyze the cause that I am focusing on with nohesitation); therefore, we defined this as "Passion for trial and error."・	  Factor 6: Experience-oriented mindset
This factor refers to the mindset of applying experience to solve a problem (e.g., When I face a
problem for the first time, I consider a strategy to solve it using my own experience andknowledge); therefore, we defined this as an "Experience-oriented mindset" for R&D activities.

In summary, we extracted six factors from the survey results obtained from high-achieving R&D
personnel:

theElimination

approach

(F1),

Idea

exploration-oriented

mindset

(F2),

Cause

exploration-oriented mindset (F3), Repetitive approach (F4), Passion for trial and error (F5), andExperience-oriented mindset (F6). The correlation between factors indicated that “F1 and F4” have arelatively weak correlation (r=0.38). Because both F1 and F4 concern an approach to research, the weakcorrelation is considered to be valid. Similarly, “F2 and F5” and “F3 and F5,” which concern the
researchers’ mindsets, also reveal a weak correlation (r2,5=0.30, r3,5=0.24). The inverse correlations
between “F1 and F2” (r1,2=-0.27) and “F1 and F3” (r1,3=-0.26) indicate the difference between decreasing
options (elimination) and increasing options (exploration). Of the others, we found that each factor was
nearly independent.
We output factor scores based on the factor analysis and then conducted an analysis of variance(ANOVA) between factor scores and research types, as indicated in Table 3. There were six R&D
categories: hardware-oriented basic R&D, hardware-oriented applied R&D, software-oriented basic R&D,
software-oriented applied R&D, service-oriented basic R&D, and service-oriented applied R&D. The
results of the ANOVA revealed that all p-values were over 0.05. For example, the ANOVA result for F1
revealed a p-value of 0.22. All p-values over 0.05 means there were no statistically significant differencesin any of the six categories. This means that the mind and action of trial and error did not depend on the
R&D category.
Table 4 lists the results of the ANOVA between factor scores and output levels. Some
differences between output levels were found for F1, F2, and F4 (F1: 3.403 (p<0.01), F2: 4.809 (p<0.001),
F4: 3.640 (p<0.01)). The results of Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test show that there
was a statistically significant difference between Improvement of QCT / productivity and New businesscreation. In general, new business creation requires innovative ideas and concepts as well as the thinking
that generates them. Compared to the output level, an improvement in QCT / productivity requires moreincremental thinking such that people try continuously to achieve small breakthroughs using conventional
methods. The results of Table 4 seem to correspond to the types of output level. Those who contribute to
QCT / productivity improvement are more motivated to use the Elimination approach (mean difference =0.470). Similarly, they are more motivated to take the Repetitive approach than those who contribute to
New business creation through their R&D output (mean difference = 0.398). On the contrary, the R&D
personnel contributing to New business creation have more Idea exploration-oriented mindsets than thosedealing with Incremental improvement (mean difference = -0.550).

4.2 Relationship between trial and error mindsets and organizational creative climate
We focused on R&D personnel belonging to small R&D groups and obtained 212 samples for analysis.
This is because we considered that R&D personnel in small-sized groups might be more directly affectedby the organizational climate than those in large groups.
We conducted a structural equation modeling analysis in order to analyze the effects of organizational
factors on the trial and error mindset of R&D personnel and their R&D approach. We set the model
shown in the upper left side of Fig. 1 as the basic model. Due to the complexity of the model, we
analyzed the relationship between trial and error behavior and the organizational creative climate andother organizational factors by changing the content of "Trial and error mindset of R&D personnel." Thefactors of "Trial and error mindset of R&D personnel" correspond to the factors of the three mindsets
foundthrough

explorative

factoranalysis:

Idea

exploration-oriented

mindset

(F2),

Cause

exploration-oriented mindset (F3), and Experience-oriented mindset (F6). We analyzed the three cases
according to the contents of "Trial and error mindset of R&D personnel."
We found that based on the results of GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA as shown in Fig. 1, model 1 (GFI=
0.894, AGFI= 0.861, RMSEA=0.051), model 2 (GFI= 0.879, AGFI= 0.842, RMSEA=0.059), and 3(GFI= 0.889, AGFI= 0.854, RMSEA=0.052) are considered to be relatively well-fitted. In Fig. 1, the bold,double, and solid lines indicate statistical significance at the p<0.001, p<0.01, and p<0.05 level, whereas
the dotted line means there was no statistical significance.
The basic model is based on the hypothesis that the creative climate of the workplace will affect the
R&D personnel's trial and error mindset and their R&D efforts and motivation. In addition, we speculatethat the creative climate will be affected by a workplace environment that allows R&D personnel tosufficiently exercise their potential and by the degree of management clarity based on everyday
management. This environmental factor will also affect the attitudes of R&D personnel when carrying out
their trial and error activities. Furthermore, we assume that the trial and error mindset of R&D personnel
will affect their R&D approach and that their passion for R&D will also have an impact on their R&D
approach.
As shown in Fig. 1, the creative climate is affected by workplace environment factors such as anenriched support system for career development, a reward system based on an employee’s experience andcontinued service, and guarantees given to employees enabling them to work in R&D for many years.

However, the last factor does not seem to have a significant impact on R&D personnel's trial and error
mindset. In addition, the management clarity factor does not seem to have a significant impact on either
R&D personnel's trial and error mindset or on the creative climate of the workplace.
There were two significant findings regarding the impact of the organizational creative climate of the
R&D organization. First, in terms of the trial and error mindset of R&D personnel, the creative climate
was found to have only a significantly negative impact on the Experience-oriented mindset (pathcoefficient: -0.59). This means that the creative climate will affect the R&D personnel's thinking that they
avoid depending on their existing experience as much as possible, whereas the creative climate does notseem to encourage R&D personnel attitudes of idea generation or cause exploration mindsets. Second, thecreative climate had a relatively small impact on R&D personnel's passion for trial and error. However,the climate does not seem to have a direct influence on a worker's R&D approach. The creative climate
will indirectly affect R&D personnel's R&D approach by increasing their passion for trial and error.
In terms of the trial and error mindset of R&D personnel, the "Experience-oriented mind" was foundto have a significantly positive impact on both the Elimination approach (path coefficient: 0.24) and theRepetitive approach (path coefficient: 0.46). When people use the elimination approach, they need some
options to practice elimination. Regarding the relationship between the experience-oriented mindset andthe elimination approach, R&D personnel who have a highly experience-oriented mindset will reflect on
their R&D activities to recall similar problems and collect cases that include successes and failures,
thereby advancing their research. Therefore, it seems that the experience-oriented mindset has asignificantly positive impact on the elimination approach. It also has a significantly large positive impact
on the repetitive approach. R&D personnel often carry out the same specific tasks again and again in theirtrial and error activities. Therefore, it seems to be natural that those who have an experience-oriented
mindset tend to apply a repetitive approach in their R&D.
As shown in Model 2 of Fig. 1, the "Idea exploration-oriented mindset" has a significantly negative
impact on both the Elimination approach (path coefficient: - 0.49) and the Repetitive approach (pathcoefficient: - 0.54). Because the factor "Idea exploration-oriented mindset" consists of newness-oriented
items that we assumed, it seems to be natural that a higher value for this mindset will lead to a decreased
implementation of both the elimination and repetitive approaches. In addition, model 3 in Fig. 1 indicatesthat the Cause exploration-oriented mindset has no significant impact on either the Elimination approachor the Repetitive approach.

5. Implication of trial and error research
5.1 Theoretical implication
This paper investigated the mindsets of trial and error behavior that are indispensable for technologicalinventions and discoveries. We set two research questions to explore in this study. The first is, “What is
the trial and error mindset of high-achieving R&D personnel?” and the second is “To what extent doorganizational factors, including the organizational climate and the corporate system, affect the trial anderror behavior of R&D personnel?”
The most important contributions to answer question 1 come from understanding the variety oftrial and error mindsets of successful R&D personnel. We found in our investigation that high-achieving
corporate researchers have three mindsets of trial and error behavior: an Idea exploration-oriented
mindset (F2), Cause exploration-oriented mindset (F3), and Experience-oriented mindset (F6). In addition,
we also found that they had strategies to achieve breakthroughs: the Elimination approach (F1) and theRepetitive approach (F4). We initially assumed that there were both new and past-oriented trial and error
mindsets that consisted of defining or redefining a problem, investigating a cause, and exploring a methodin the hypothetic model and assumed that there were potential types of R&D personnel based on thebalance of trial and error behavior. As a result, because highly effective R&D personnel usually seem toconduct every kind of trial and error behavior regardless of the type of research they are involved in, we
had difficulty clearly identifying the potential types.
Regarding the second research question, the results of structural equation analysis revealed thatthe creative climate and other organizational factors did not have a significant impact on R&D personnel's
exploration-oriented mindset. Members of small groups are more directly affected by the organizational
climate compared with other group sizes [54]. Previously, the creative climate has been considered to be afactor that encourages R&D personnel’s innovative behavior (eg. [17,20,45]). However, our results
revealed that the creative climate functions as a catalyst to help R&D personnel refrain from doing things
that they have already done rather than cultivating the mindset to explore new things. We need a newperspective on the organizational climate that is effective for achieving technological inventions anddiscoveries. The results in this paper also showed the limitations of the organizational creative climate onaffecting trial and error behavior. However, we found that the creative climate positively affects R&D
personnel’s motivation and passion for trial and error. This result corresponds to studies on the nature of
the organizational climate [16-17,20]. In addition, the ANOVA and structural equation modeling analysis
results indicate that trial and error attitudes varied depending not on research type but on output levels.
For example, because a creative climate will decreasingly affect a member's Experience-oriented mindset,
which seems to require the generation of outstanding QCT and productivity improvement outputs,
managers and team leaders who study QCT and productivity improvement should promote
experienced-based learning [55] and foster an effective organizational climate that helps R&D personnel
reconsider the things they have already done.
This study broadened the areas of human behavioral studies in R&D management. Previously,
R&D management studies focusing on individuals have been conducted on personal inspirations [5],intrinsic motivation [6-7], cognitive types [8], and serendipity [9]. Few studies have been done on R&D
personnel's detailed knowledge creation activities including their everyday trials at work. Previous studies
on the subject of knowledge management in R&D management have mainly focused on sharing expertiseknowledge and organizational knowledge creation. Our study is focused on individual knowledge
creation and its dynamic process. This will be a fresh perspective in R&D management.

5.2 Managerial implications
Our findings provide three practical perspectives for R&D management.
The first relates to the strategy for successful trial and error. Managers play a significant role inorganizational climate creation, and therefore, it is necessary to think about promotion strategies for
success-oriented creative trial and error in an organization. The results reported in this paper suggest thatthe creative climate that many researchers have focused on is limited in its ability to change R&D
personnel's trial and error mindset. Therefore, managers should pay more attention to cultivating a
newness-oriented trial and error mindset in their subordinates. One cue mentioned by Farson and Keyes[56] is that managers should manage innovation processes with less evaluation and more interpretation.
We can employ this attitude in managing trial and error behavior. That is, managers should provide
opportunities to interpret research findings to subordinates who are conducting trial and error activities. In
fact, Table 5 presents the relationship between the source of the direct cues they received and the contents

of cues that led to breakthroughs. There were three types of cue contents, and they occurred at the samerate. In terms of source of cue, data-related cues were the most common (Total 233: Observation data
(145), Observed facts without evidential data (64), Literature (24)). This result is relevant to previous
study about information seeking [57]. People inside the company were the second most common sourceof cues (Total 117: told by colleagues and junior researchers (49), told by boss (68)). The other group was
people outside the company (47). These results are relevant to previous studies indicating that innovation
performance in product and process can be explained using non-R&D activities including marketing [54,58-59] and consumers' perception [60]. There are many varieties of sources; therefore, managers andleaders need to create opportunities for R&D personnel to reflect on data and provide support toresearchers in communicating with different people in order to promote successful trial and error
activities.
While successful trial and error exists, some trial and error has a strong relationship with
failure (in other words, "give up"). Most R&D personnel usually had some confidence and felt positive
thoughts towards their trial and error behavior. Table 6 summarizes our questionnaire data about R&D
personnel's thoughts occurring up to the point where they generate outstanding output and the thoughts
occurring when they obtain cues to create outstanding output. The table indicates that most R&D
personnel had positive thoughts about their research (315 / 409), whereas a smaller number of people felt
anxiety about their research (94 / 409). R&D personnel tend to conduct R&D with willpower and rigid
confidence to achieve success. These data reveal the difficulties in getting subordinates to quit their trial
and error behavior. Ghoshal and Bruch [61] pointed out the problem in which human willpowersometimes blinds people and hampers disengagement and suggested the stopping rule based on clear
criteria as a managerial solution. There is a need to set effective criteria. However, what is more
important is an explanation, that is, helping R&D personnel understand why the stopping criteria arenecessary. Amabile et al. [62] indicated that creativity can be supported under specific restrictions (eg.
time-pressure conditions) if people can understand the reason for restrictions. Therefore, if managers set a
stopping rule, they should set it based on the R&D personnel’s mindsets of trial and error (e.g., the periodof exploration activities) and explain stopping criteria effectively.
The third perspective relates to the potential target of trial and error. In the trend toward a
service economy, the R&D theme will shift from a product focus to a service focus and will include anemphasis on potential customer satisfaction. Therefore, R&D personnel need to consider not only thefunctional value of products but also the value-in-use [63] of products. Managers and leaders should not
only manage research-oriented trial and error but pay attention to establishing connections with customers
and people outside the company as part of a business-oriented trial and error strategy in the future.

6. Conclusion
This paper focused on the research-oriented trial and error behaviors of high-achieving R&D personnel.
We defined trial and error behavior as the process of continuous knowledge creation and acquisition until
something succeeds. We created a behavioral model based on this definition and conducted aquestionnaire survey to identify the mindsets behind trial and error behavior. We also analyzed therelationship between this behavior with the organizational creative climate. The results of thequestionnaire survey revealed six mindsets and approaches and a unique relationship to organizational
factors.
A technology-oriented firm cannot develop innovative achievements if it is not willing toencourage risk-taking. Managers should try to understand their subordinates' trial and error mindsets andcreate an effective organizational climate. They should also create opportunities to reflect on data andprovide support to researchers in communicating with different people to promote successful trial anderror activities.
One limitation of this study is that we investigated only R&D personnel who had succeeded intheir inventions or discoveries and did not compare it with failure cases. Therefore, we cannot describe
how different the trial and error mindsets of successful R&D personnel are from unsuccessful ones. In
addition, we mainly focused on small R&D teams and analyzed the relationship between trial and error
mindsets and the organizational creative climate. Therefore, our results may well accurately reflect thesmall group environment, as researchers in such an environment may have substantial autonomy.
However, we need to expand the investigation to consider the results for large R&D teams.
The journey to understand R&D personnel behaviors leading to innovative output is long. Ourmodel of trial and error mainly focused on scientific based R&D activities. Corporate R&D personnel
need to have a scientific base and also to take part in human-oriented trial and error. Therefore, in the
future we need to consider human-oriented trial and error behavior such as the behavior used inbargaining and making presentations in addition to scientific trial and error.

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on an article from PICMET 2011. I would like to thank the PICMET participants who

gave us their helpful comments.

References[1] S. Bharadwaj, A. Menon, Making Innovation Happen in Organizations: Individual Creativity

Mechanisms, Organizational Creativity Mechanisms or Both? Journal of Product Innovation

Management 17(6) (2000) 424 434.

[2] A. Hidalgo, J. Albors, Innovation Management Techniques and Tools: A Review from Theory andPractice, R&D Management 38(2) (2008) 113 127.

[3] Carlos Montalvo, What triggers change and innovation? Technovation, 26(3) (2006) 312 323.

[4] Chinho Lin, Ya-Jung Wu, ChiaChi Chang, Weihan Wang, and Cheng-Yu Lee, The allianceinnovation performance of R&D alliances — the absorptive capacity perspective, Technovation, 32(5)(2012) 282 292.

[5] N. Wiener, INVENTION: The Care and Feeling of Ideas, The MIT Press, 1993.

[6] T. Dewett, Linking Intrinsic Motivation, Risk Taking, and Employee Creativity in R&D Environment,

R&D Management 37(3) (2007) 197 206.

[7] B. Kim, H. Oh, Economic Compensation Compositions Preferred by R&D Personnel of Different

R&D Types and Intrinsic Values, R&D Management 21(1) (2002) 47 59.

[8] C.W. Wang, R.Y Horng, The Effects of Creative Problem Solving Training on Creativity, Cognitive

Type and R&D Performance, R&D Management, 32(1) (2002) 35 45.

[9] K. Itaya, K. Niwa, Highly autonomous small-team- type R&D management model and its trial

management experiment, Proceedings of PICMET'07 (2007) 2291 2295.

[10] K. Hamazaki, K. Shirahada, K. Niwa, Analysis of R&D Behavior for Innovation 1, Proceeding of

23th JSSPRM annual conference (2008) 837 840. (in Japanese)[11] Monika Kurkkio, Johan Frishammar, and Ulrich Lichtenthaler, Where process development begins:

A multiple case study of front end activities in process firms, Technovation, 31(9) (2011) 490 504.

[12] G. Barczak, D. Wilemon, Team Member Experiences in New Product Development: Views from theTrenches, R&D Management 33(5) (2003) 463 479.

[13] R. Cordero, G.F. Farris, N. DiTomaso, Supervisor in R&D Laboratories: Using Technical, People,

and Administrative Skills Effectively, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51(1) (2004)

19 30.

[14] Y. Kim, B. Min, J. Cha, The Roles of R&D Team Leaders in Korea: A Contingent Approach, R&D

Management 29(2) (1999) 153 165.

[15] M.K. Badawy, Managing Human Resources, Research-Technology Management 50(4) (2007) 56 74.

[16] M. Bommer, D. Jalajas, The Innovation Work Environment of High-Tech SMEs in the USA and

Canada, R&D Management 32(5) (2002) 379 386.

[17] G. Ekvall, Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation, European Journal of Work &Organizational Psychology 5(1) (1996) 105 123.

[18] T. Griffith, J.E. Sawyer, Research Team Design and Management for Centralized R&D, IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management 57(2) (2010) 211 224.

[19] E.F. McDonough, Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams,

Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(3) (2000) 221 235.

[20] E. Sundgren, M. Dimenas, J. Gustafsson, M. Selart, Drivers of Organizational Creativity: A Path

Model of Creative Climate in Pharmaceutical R&D, R&D Management 35(4) (2005) 359 374.

[21] H. Thamhain, H., Managing Innovative R&D Teams, R&D Management 33(3) (2003) 297 311.

[22] J. Hauschildt, E. Kirchmann, Teamwork for Innovation - the 'troika' of Promoters, R&D

Management 31(1) (2001) 41 49.

[23] C. Dijik, J. Ende, Suggestion Systems: Transferring Employee Creativity into Practicable Ideas,

R&D Management 32(5) (2002) 387 395.

[24] G. Hirst, L. Mann, A Model of R&D Leadership and Team Communication: The Relationship with

Project Performance, R&D Management 34(2) (2004) 147 160.

[25] M. Kivimaki, H. Lansisalmi, A. Heikkila, K. Lindstrom, K. Sipila, L. Puolimatka, M. Elovainio, R.

Harisalo, Communication as A Determinant of Organizational Innovation, R&D Management 30(1)(2000) 33 42.

[26] R.K. Moenaert, F. Caeldries, A. Lievens, E. Wauters, Communication Flows in International ProductInnovation Teams, Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(5) (2000) 360 377.

[27] Benjamin Niedergassel and Jens Leker, Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D

projects of university scientists, Technovation, 31(4) (2011) 142 150.

[28] D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development,

Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, (1984).

[29] J.S. Park., Opportunity recognition and product innovation in entrepreneurial hi-tech start-ups: a newperspective and supporting case study, Technovation, 25(7) (2005) 739 752.

[30] Pablo D'Este, Surya Mahdi, Andy Neely, Francesco Rentocchini, Inventors and entrepreneurs inacademia: What types of skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32(5) (2012) 293 303.

[31] S. Gourlay, Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka’s Theory, Journal ofManagement Studies 43(7) (2006) 1415 1436.

[32] M. Shin, T. Holden, R.A. Schmidt, From Knowledge Theory to Management Practice: Towards An

Integrated Approach, Information Processing & Management, 37(2) (2001) 335 355.

[33] E.B. Viotti, National Learning Systems - A new approach on technological change in lateindustrializing economies and evidences from the cases of Brazil and South Korea, Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7) (2002) 653 680.

[34] Nutt Paul C., Averting decision debacles, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(3)(2004) 239 265.

[35] S. Chen, Task partitioning in new product development teams: A knowledge and learningperspective, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(4) (2005) 291 314.

[36] Kling Ragnar, In search of efficiency—concurrent concept elaboration and improvement,

Technovation, 26(7) (2006) 753 760.

[37] C. Argyris, D. Schön, Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective, MA:

Addison-Wesley, 1987.

[38] Menzel, Hanns C., Iiris Aaltio, Jan M. Ulijn, On the way to creativity: Engineers as intrapreneurs inorganizations, Technovation, 27(12) (2007) 732 743.

[39] Brown Steve, Felicia Fai, Strategic resonance between technological and organisational capabilities

in the innovation process within firms, Technovation, 26(1) (2006) 60 75.

[40] T. L. Doolen, M. E. Hacker, and E. M. Van Aken, The impact of organizational context on work

team effectiveness: a study of production team, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,

50(3) (2003) 285 296.

[41] E. Deci, Intrinsic motivation, New York: Plenum Press, (1975).

[42] T.M. Amabile, How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, 76(5) (1998) 76 87.

[43] J. Zhou, George, J.M., Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional intelligence. The

Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5) (2003) 545 568.

[44] A.E. Akgün, Halit Keskin, John Byrne, Organizational emotional capability, product and process

innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis, Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management, 26(3) (2009) 103 130.

[45] G. Ekvall, Creative Climate, in: M. Runco (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, 1999.

[46] P.C. Nystrom, K Ramamurthy, Alla L Wilson, Organizational context, climate and innovativeness:

adoption of imaging technology, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19( 3–4)

(2002) 221 247[47] Mauzy, Jeff, Harriman, Richard A., Three Climates for Creativity, Research-Technology

Management, 46(3) (2003) 27 30.

[48] V. J. García-Morales, Francisco Javier Lloréns-Montes, Antonio J. Verdú-Jover, Influence of

personal mastery on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation inlarge firms and SMEs, Technovation, 27(9) (2007) 547 568.

[49] F. Fowler, Jr., Survey Research Methods - Third edition, Sage Publications, USA, 2002.

[50] Jones Oswald, Martin Craven, Beyond the routine: innovation management and the TeachingCompany Scheme, Technovation, 21(5) (2001) 267 279.

[51] Dilani Jayawarna and Robin Holt, Knowledge and quality management: An R&D perspective,

Technovation, 29(11) (2009) 775 785.

[52] Javier Rodríguez-Pinto, Ana Isabel Rodríguez-Escudero and Jesús Gutiérrez-Cillán, How market

entry order mediates the influence of firm resources on new product performance, Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management, 29(2) (2012) 241 264.

[53] Vittorio Chiesa, Federico Frattini, Valentina Lazzarotti, and Raffaella Manzini, Designing aperformance measurement system for the research activities: A reference framework and an empiricalstudy, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25(3) (2008) 213 226.

[54] Gina Colarelli O’Connor and Christopher M. McDermott, The human side of radical innovation,

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2) (2004) 11 30.

[55] M. Pruett, H. Thomas, Experience-Based Learning in Innovation and Production, R&D Management38(2) (2008) 141 153.

[56] R. Farson, R. Keyes, The Failure-Tolerant Leader, Harvard Business Review August (2002) 64 73.

[57] Anderson Claire J, Myron Glassman, R.Bruce McAfee, Thomas Pinelli, An investigation of factors

affecting how engineers and scientists seek information, Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management, 18(2) (2001) 131 155.

[58] Haro-Domínguez Ma del Carmen, Daniel Arias-Aranda, Francisco Javier Lloréns-Montes, Antonia

Ruíz Moreno, The impact of absorptive capacity on technological acquisitions engineering consulting

companies, Technovation, 27(8) (2007) 417 425.

[59] Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver, Jose Albors Garrigos, and Ignacio Gil-Pechuan, Making sense ofinnovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: a forgotten lesson forpolicymakers, Technovation, 31(9) (2011) 427 446.

[60] Lo Chih-cheng, Chun-hsien Wang, Pei-Yu Chien, Chien-Wei Hung, An empirical study ofcommercialization performance on nano products, Technovation, 32(3–4) (2012) 168 178.

[61] S. Ghoshal, H. Bruch, Going Beyond Motivation to the Power of Volition, MIT Sloan Management

Review, 44(3) (2003) 51 57.

[62] T.M. Amabile, C.N. Hardley, S.J. Kramer, Creativity Under the Gun, Harvard Business Review

August (2002) 52 61.

[63] S.L. Vargo, R.F. Lusch, Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing

68(1) (2004) 1 17.

Fig. 1Result of structural equation modeling analysis

Table 1

Questionnaire items

Items

Contents

GTE1
GTE2

Even if it takes a lot of time to search for a new cause that I have not yet analyzed, I will do it.
Even if I have experienced failures, I often continue to analyze the cause that I am focusing on with no hesitation. (-)
I consider the causes of problems without using my own experience and knowledge when I encounter problems that I
have never faced.
I search for new or different causes when I am devoted to research.
I understand causes broadly rather than analyze a specific cause deeply. (-)
When I face a problem for the first time, I think about a strategy to solve it using my own experience and knowledge.
(-)
I often consider an idea deeply that I have tried to apply even if it is getting close to a deadline. (-)
I often try to practice an idea to solve a problem if I cannot get the ideal data.
I use established methods to solve problems. (-)
I value new ideas to solve problems more than established methods.
I searched for the causes that needed to be reviewed from the causes that I had already considered. (-)
I implemented a plan that I had already tried. (-)
I did not positively explore the causes that I was analyzing.
I repeated implementing a plan that I had tried before. (-)
I did not try to think about the causes that I had analyzed before.
I did not implement a plan that I had failed to achieve a breakthrough with.
I did not try to search for causes that I had never analyzed. (-)
I eliminated the ideas that I had never tried as targets of consideration. (-)
I reconsidered whether there were any causes that had not been considered.
I came up with a new idea for a breakthrough and implemented it.
I feel that the climate in the company is basically positive and encourages new ideas.
I feel that people in the company can bring up new ideas and opinions without quickly being criticized.
I feel that the company allows me to solve problems and take actions that I think are most suitable in a given situation.
I feel that there is a free atmosphere in the organization, where the seriousness of the task can be mixed with unusual
ideas and humor.
I have experienced situations in which different opinions, ideas, experience, and knowledge could be discussed inprojects.
I feel that the organization has a dynamic atmosphere.
I think that my company has enriched the support system for career development.
I think that my company rewards employees for their experience and continued service.
I think that my company guarantees an environment to work as R&D personnel for many years.
I clearly understand my role and objectives in my job.
I think that the company clearly sets standards to evaluate employee performance.
I think that the company communicates well with R&D personnel about their management policy.
(-) Reverse item in terms of the degree of newness

GTE3
GTE4
GTE5
GTE6
GTE7
GTE8
GTE9
GTE10
BTE1
BTE2
BTE3
BTE4
BTE5
BTE6
BTE7
BTE8
BTE9
BTE10
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
WE1
WE2
WE3
MC1
MC2
MC3

Table 2

Result of the explorative factor analysis

Table 3

ANOVA between trial and error related factor scores and research types

Factorsdf

Sum of square

Mean square

F-valuep-value

Elimination approach (F1)
Idea exploration-oriented mindset (F2)
Cause exploration-oriented mindset (F3)
Repetitive approach (F4)
Passion for trial and error (F5)Experience-oriented mindset (F6)

5
5
5
5
5
5

5.202
2.813
4.887
2.395
2.085
3.416

1.040
0.563
0.997
0.476
0.417
0.683

1.402
0.770
1.290
0.722
0.752
1.128

0.222
0.571
0.267
0.607
0.585
0.345

Table 4

Results of ANOVA between trial and error related factor scores and output levels (including

HSD method by Tukey)

Factorsdf

Sum ofsquares

Mean square

F-valuep-value

Elimination approach (F1)

5

12.163

2.433

3.403

.005

Idea exploration-oriented mindset (F2)

5

16.873

3.375

4.809

.000

Cause exploration-oriented mindset (F3)

5

7.902

1.580

2.106

.064

Repetitive approach (F4)5

11.930

2.386

3.640

.003

Passion for trial and error (F5)

5

4.325

.865

1.575

.166

Experience-oriented mindset (F6)

5

5.440

1.088

1.804

.111

HSD method by Tukey
Factors
Elimination approach (F1)
Idea exploration-oriented mindset (F2)
Repetitive approach (F4)Group 1
Improvementof QCT /productivity
Improvementof QCT /productivity
Improvementof QCT /productivity

Group 2

Mean difference between 1 &2
(1-2)

p-value

New businesscreation

0.470

0.004

New businesscreation-0.5500.000

New businesscreation

0.398

0.016

Table 5 Details of cues to breakthroughSource of cues

Contents
of cues

About the cause that
the R&D personnel
has analyzed
About thebreakthrough ideathat the R&D
personnel had
About the R&D
procedures
Total

Told byboss

Told bysomeoneoutsidethecompany

Observation data

Observedfacts
without
evidential
data

Literature

Total

12

17

9

58

26

3

125

24

30

27

58

19

13

171

13

21

11

29

19

8

101

49

68

47

145

64

24

397

Told bycolleagues
and juniorfellows

Table 6 R&D personnel's thoughts

Thoughts they had when they obtained cues to create outstanding output

Thoughtuntil
outstanding
outputgeneration

I thought that my R&D activities
were on target

I thought that my R&D activities
were wrong

Total

If I keep on researching, I
will surely achieve success

299

16

315

If I keep on researching, I
do not know whether I willachieve success

71

23

94

Total

370

39

409