See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305511719

Social Media: A Platform for Innovation

Conference Paper · May 2015

CITATIONS READS
14 7,373

2 authors, including:

Sasan Torabzadeh Khorasani

Texas A&M University-Commerce
18 PUBLICATIONS 494 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sasan Torabzadeh Khorasani on 22 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 2015 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference
S. Cetinkaya and J. K. Ryan, eds.

Social Media: A Platform for Innovation

Sarah M. Asio and Sasan T. Khorasani

Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas

Abstract
The pervasive use of social media today and critical role of Innovation in economic growth and development
necessitate the development of a framework for explaining this relationship. Social media provides a channel for
exchange of information and sharing of views through a virtual platform. Individuals, especially millennials or
Generation Y, are constantly preoccupied with social media. Spontaneous and planned innovations result as creative,
skilled and talented individuals interact via social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, LinkedIn,
Blogs, Myspace and Wikis. This paper explores the possible use of social media platforms for identifying
opportunities for innovation. The exchange and sharing of information on social media has the potential to influence
perceptions and spark off debate and discussions among individuals with diverse backgrounds, culture, expertise,
and viewpoints. The proposition in this study is that information exchange on these platforms presents opportunities
for identification of creative ideas and solutions to problems which eventually result in useful innovations when
implemented. This study develops a theoretical model describing the hypothesized relationship between innovation
and social media based on theories of connectivism, social learning and the Medici Effect. A case study of student
engineering design teams is discussed and directions for future research presented.

Keywords
Social Media, Innovation, Organizational Productivity

1. Introduction
Social media refers to internet-based networked applications that permit participants to communicate, collaborate,
and creatively express themselves in an interactive manner [1, 2]. The advent of internet and communications
technologies has necessitated the integration of social media technologies into organizational work practices. Social
media enables individual knowledge management and construction, resulting in the development of platforms where
collective knowledge is socially mediated [3, 4, 5]. Types of social media include social networks (Facebook and
LinkedIn), media sharing networks (Youtube and Flickr), microblogging networks (Twitter), blogging sites and
forums (WordPress, Myspace and Wikis), bookmarking sites (Delicious and Stumble upon), social news sites (Digg
and Reddit) and web-based or cloud-computing sites (Google drive and Drop box). The benefits of social media
range from fostering individual and group creativity through idea sharing and gathering through social network
connections based on common interests [6]. Social media has been used to develop personal e-portfolios using blogs
such as WordPress [7], stimulate participation through micro-blogging platforms such as Twitter [8], and encourage
collaboration [9]. In general, social media provides platforms that breed creation of personal and social learning
spaces that support learning [3]. Knowledge is then synthesized as experts from different fields present their
viewpoints on a particular problem which may result in creative solutions.

Treem and Leonardi [10] propose that the use of social media in organizations can be broadly categorized as
supporting visibility, persistence, editability and association, but state that there is shortage in scholarly work on the
distinction between benefits of social media and pre-existing organizational computer-mediated communications.
Past studies have investigated the role of social media in diffusions of innovation [11]; fostering collaboration for
open innovation [12]; management of customer involvement [13]; co-creation of business concepts [14]; online
communities for collaborative customer co-design [15]; collaborative innovation mechanisms [16]; and innovative
activities of business-to-business companies [17]. Statistics have shown that 80% of individual’s knowledge about
their jobs is gained through informal learning activities (such as communications via social media), both coordinated
and uncoordinated [18]. This study contributes to the knowledge gap by identifying the relationship between Social
Media and Innovation and proposing a conceptual framework.

1496
 Asio and Khorasani

Organizations have an opportunity to capitalize on employee connections across time and space via social media.
Companies can leverage employees’ personal time for further reflection, synthesis and analysis of work problems
which increases productive use of employee time both on- and off- work. Social media can potentially be used as a
tool to improve worker productivity and quality of products and services based on the premise that some useful
information can be mined from data collected through informal social media communications. This study seeks to
answer the research question: “Are social networks useful for innovation?” The main objective of the study is to
identify the relationship between social media and innovation based on literature review and a case study. The case
study describes the relationship between Team Innovation and social network, which will be used to explore the
study hypothesis. The authors hypothesize that the extent of connectedness among individuals in a social network is
indicative of their Social Media network which in turn is related to Innovation. The next section provides a literature
review and subsequent sections describe the methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.

2. Literature Review
Between 2007 and 2008, 500 corporations were reported to double their blogs; the percentage of companies using
social networking in the same period increased from 8% to 49% [19]. Examples of use of social media for
innovation include GE Aviation’s use of Salesforce chatter – an enterprise social network, to empower employees
from sales and marketing departments to answer customer questions and solve problems by leveraging their time; as
the GE CMO quotes “what might’ve taken a team – in the best case – a week, can now be done in minutes” [20]. In
another case study, a research and technology organization, MITRE, leveraged the benefits of social media resulting
in more comments on proposals from a wider group of employees [21]. The use of social media evolves from
interaction of user-controlled and user defined ideas in different media platforms. The discourse occurs in a virtual
setting across participants that may be geographically dispersed through the use of internet technologies. Social
media platforms can therefore be regarded as virtual forms of physical interfaces such as discussions during work
breaks, professional networking sessions, brown-bag sessions, brainstorming sessions, focus groups and informal
learning networks [22].

Strong evidence suggests that social media can facilitate the creation of environments that allow participants to
aggregate information, share achievements, participate in collective knowledge generation and develop their own
understanding or interpretations [23]. Results of social media that have been reported in literature include openness,
collaboration, social networking, user-generated content, and collective wisdom [3, 24-29]. Hilton [30] proposed
that social media empowers individuals to take charge of their own learning, making them an arbiter of their
knowledge, work, publication and thinking [23]. Social media facilitates learning, more specifically personalized
learning in an informal setting as the direction of discourse rests entirely on the users of the social network. Topics
for discussions are typically sparked off by various catalysts such as debates, current or past events, news stories,
reflective thoughts posted by individuals in the social media network and/or topics stimulated by general interest of
participants [31]. The nature of discourse on social media networks requires facilitation in order to succinctly guide
or provide pointers throughout discussions so as to generate usable ideas. A facilitator sorts through accessible data
from social media discussions for useful threads of information. Personalized learning environments in social media
have the potential to enable active individuals to become highly self-motivated and autonomous learners as an
integral part of their work experience [32, 33, 34]. This fosters both individual and overall organizational
productivity.

2.1 Related Theory

A number of theories are proposed to explain the relationship between social medial and Innovation. For example
the social learning theory proposed by Bandura [35] posits that cognitive processes associated with learning take
place in a social network. The social network theory on the other hand focuses on interactions among individuals
within social networks of varying complexity [36]. Another important theory is the Medici Effect as proposed by
Johansson [37] which suggests that most innovative ideas occur when people from different disciplines and cultures
meet. Over the last two decades, communication and interactions between people from different background has
increased, being magnified by the use of social media networking tools and technologies in recent years. The theory
of diffusion of innovations further augments this concept based on the proposition that individuals openly model
their own behavior against others [38]; thus, a communication of innovations over channels such as social media
results in a quick propagation of novel ideas across in a social network. Last but not least, the theory of
connectivism, also known as the learning theory for the digital age [39], explains how learning can be affected
through a social network using digital age media platforms.

1497
 Asio and Khorasani

Continuous improvement is a necessity for business success in today’s environment. One of the ways of enabling
innovation is through involvement of the workforce in problem solving process [40]. Social media can be useful as a
tool for emerging innovations which have a direct impact on organizational quality and productivity. According to
Robinson [41] Innovation can be defined as an idea, concept or object that is perceived new by observers. The
theory of diffusion of innovation stresses that the most important element for evaluating innovations, that is to say
the newness of any given concept or idea, is the point of view the audience. Furthermore, Csikszentmihalyi [42]
reiterates the social development theory asserting that the only way to know whether a new thought in an
individual’s mind is valuable is through social evaluation with reference to a standard thus creativity occurs through
the interaction between individuals’ thoughts and a socio-cultural context. The study therefore proposes that there
exists a relationship between social media and innovation. More specifically, social media is hypothesized to act as a
mediating variable for the relationships between group inputs and processes and innovation.

A framework modeling the theorized relationships was developed based on the Input-Process-Output framework
that has popularly been used for studying team performance. Input and process factor categories surrounding
teamwork and organizational environments are broadly proposed as:
 Organizational context and environment - work place setting and support for team innovation activities
within the organization.
 Team process - series of actions and activities carried out by team members collectively in the achievement
of their goals.
 Psycho-social traits - factors related to the cognitive and social aspects of teamwork. Cognitive factors are
related to mental and perceptual team processes. Social factors describe the relationships and networks
among individual team members.

The theoretical framework shown in Figure 1 is proposed. The authors theorize that social Media has moderating
effects on team predictors within the organizational context/ environment, team process and psychosocial traits
which ultimately have a direct effect on Team Innovation. Team Innovation would in turn drive organizational
productivity and quality management efforts.

Organizational Context
& Environment
Organization
Productivity

Team Processes
Social Media Innovation

Psychosocial Traits Quality

Management

Figure 1.Social Media and innovation Framework

3. Methodology
Social media has been measured in previous studies using surveys [17, 43]. A case study is discussed below to show
any potential relations between individual indicators of Social Network (SN) and Team Innovation. Measures for the
social network construct were based on social network analysis by Williams [44]. Item 1 (SN1: “Not including
yourself, how many of your team members did you know before starting your project?”) and Item 2 (SN2: “If you
knew any of your teammates previously, how many would you have considered a friend before your project
started?”) provided quantitative data on the number of students from the same team that each participant knew
before commencing the design project and how many were considered friends. The implication here is that any prior
friends would potentially constitute an individual’s social media network as well. Consequently, the higher the

1498
 Asio and Khorasani
number of individuals regarded as friends, the larger one’s social media network. Item 3 (SN3: “How often did you
get together for non-academic purposes with any of your teammates?”) requested participants to rate the frequency
of social interaction between a respondent and fellow team mates. The extent of such informal social interaction is
an indication of the degree of informal interactions between a respondent and friends (who are presumed to be in
their social media network) via social media technologies. Item measures for team innovation were developed based
on definitions of innovation from literature [45, 46] and participant perceptions were measured on a 6-point Likert
scale.

3.1 Study Sample

The study population, which was part of a broader study on predictors of Team Innovation, consisted of students,
mostly seniors, engaged in senior design capstone projects; projects involving engineering design work and creative
problem resolution over a period of one semester [47]. Each team of students was nested within a design sections
which was further nested within a particular program of study.

Table 1 shows demographics for the study population. Study data was collected from 709 participants. A response
rate of 91% was observed for the social network construct, with 87% responses from males, 11 percent from female
while 2% declined to specify their gender. A total of 709 respondents are recorded for the post-screening data while
up to 644 responses were provided to the social network survey questions. A total of 207 teams were identified for
in study.

Table 1: Study sample demographics by program of study

%age
Program # Respondents # Respondents per question
Respondents
SN1P SN2P SN3P
Chemical Engineering 56 8% 51 50 50
Civil Engineering 64 9% 53 58 58
Computer Engineering 22 3% 22 22 22
Computer Science 25 4% 25 24 24
Construction Engineering 24 3% 19 20 20
Electrical Engineering 204 29% 194 180 180
Industrial Engineering 27 4% 24 24 24
Mechanical Engineering 281 40% 252 242 242
Dual Degree 6 1% 4 6 6
Total 709 644 626 626

Response Rate 91% 88% 88%

3.2 Scale validity and reliability analysis

Prior to carrying out any statistical analysis, data for the study was screened and verified based on procedures
specified by Asio [45]. Data for the social network construct was based on different measurement scales and was
therefore standardized. The constructs in the study were then checked for normality. Figure 2 shows a path diagram
depicting measurement items for social network and innovation constructs. Social network, an exogenous latent
variable, is hypothesized too have a relationship with Team Innovation, which is classified as an endogenous latent
variable in this study.

1499
 Asio and Khorasani

Figure 2: path diagrams representing measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to verify the validity of the scales used in the study based on acceptable
threshold. A measure of Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of the scale was also calculated to check the
reliability and consistency of the scales. A Cronbach’s alpha value of α = 0.7051 was observed for Social Network
and α = 0.9115 for Team Innovation. A threshold of α > 0.70 is commonly taken to indicate “good” reliability [48]
The individual responses for the study were then aggregated to the team level prior to conducting any statistical
analyses in order to test study hypothesis. This was done because although responses to survey items were collected
at the individual level, all questions were inquiring about team-level measures. Consequently, participants provided
their individual perceptions of team level constructs. The Intra Class Correlation (ICC) coefficients were therefore
calculated in order to measure the degree of homogeneity within teams on each measure of interest. The ICC value
for Social Network is 0.49, and that for Team Innovation is 0.2067. Acceptable thresholds suggest that an ICC value
of 0.2 is demonstrative of strong group-level association [48]. Since both ICC values for Social Network and Team
Innovation are greater than 0.2, this justifies aggregation of the constructs to the team level.

3.3 Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis was carried out in order to quantify the extent and direction of the relationship between Social
Network and Team Innovation as set forth in the hypothesis. The formula for correlation is expressed in Equation
(1) [49]:

(1)
Where ρ is the correlation coefficient, is the covariance between two variables x and y, is the standard
deviation of x and is the standard deviation of y. Correlation analysis was run in SPSS Version 22.

4. Results
Correlation analysis results in Table 2 indicate that there is a weak but significant positive correlations between
Social Network and Team Innovation at an alpha level of α = 0.05 (ρ = 0.154, p-value < 0.0001). Further analysis of
individual social network indicators and Team Innovation show that there are weak but significant positive
correlations between Social Network indicators and Team Innovation (Table 3). SN3 ranks first and is significant at
an alpha level of α = 0.05 (ρ = 0.126, p-value = 0.002); SN2 ranks second and is significant at an alpha level of α =
0.05 (ρ = 0.102, p-value = 0.011); and SN1 ranks third and is significant at an alpha level of α = 0.01 (ρ = 0.084, p-
value = 0.032).

Table 2: Correlation analysis results for the relationship between Social Network and Team Innovation
Social Network Team Innovation
Social Network 1 0.154*
Team Innovation 0.154* 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

1500
 Asio and Khorasani
Table 3: Correlation analysis results for the relationship between social network Indicators and Team Innovation
SN1 SN2 SN3 Team Innovation
SN1 1 0.715** 0.313** 0.084*
SN2 0.715** 1 0.382** 0.102*
SN3 0.313** 0.382** 1 0.126**
Team Innovation 0.084* 0.102* 0.126** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results from the broader study on predictors of Team Innovation [46] suggest that Social Network is not a
statistically significant predictor of Team Innovation (beta = 0.04, t-value = 0.4373, p-value = 0.6621).

5. Discussion
A weak but significant correlation was observed between Social Network and Team Innovation [46]. This implies
that the extent of social media connectedness has a positive effect on collective innovation within the social network
but only to a certain threshold. The insignificance of linear regression results for Social Network as a direct predictor
of Team Innovation [45] may suggest that social network, hence Social Media, impacts factors such as
communication frequency and trust (that is to say team process factors and/or psychosocial traits), which directly
impact Innovation. This suggests that Social Media is a moderating variable that may have an effect on the direction
and strength of the relationship between other predictors and Team Innovation. These results support the use of
Social Media as a medium through which innovation is encouraged given that other pertinent factors are in place.
For details of a comprehensive set of predictors of Team Innovation readers are referred to Asio [45]. A closer look
at the relationship between Team Innovation and individual indicators of the Social Network construct suggest that
the higher the rate of informal interactions among participants in a social network, the more the likelihood for
innovation to occur. Social media is further proposed as a tool that fosters continuous process improvements as it
increases chances for innovation. Innovation is an important value-added indicator for organization productivity.
Consequently, the use of social media within organizations has the potential to increase overall productivity through
increased innovation. The use of networking technologies as communication tools for faster flow of information are
major advantages of social media in organizations. Social media therefore acts as a medium for information
exchange between work departments.

6. Conclusion
This paper identified the potential use of social media as a platform for innovation. A case study involving
engineering students engaged in design team work is used to illustrate the relationship between social media and
social network, which is identified to have a weak but significant correlation with Innovation. Theories of social
learning, connectivism, Medici Effect, and diffusion of innovations are used to explain mechanisms through which
social media contributes to innovation. A conceptual framework showing the moderating relationship between social
media and other team inputs and processes is suggested. The Innovation outcome is further proposed as having an
effect on organizational productivity. The findings are useful for organizations which increasingly have the need to
stay connected across organizational hierarchies as well as with business counterparts and Customers. Social media
also provides organizations with the opportunity to leverage employee time both on- and off- work which has a
bearing on employee productivity.

6.1 Future research and Limitations

One of the limitations to the use of social media in organization is lack of structure in informal social media
communications which may necessitate careful mining of data for useful information. Another limitation may result
from personal privacy issues (and privacy settings on various social media) .The case study described here is based
on several assumptions that cannot be verified at this point. A future study could consider carrying out controlled
experiments where social media use for innovation, and organizational productivity and quality management is
systematically investigated.

1501
 Asio and Khorasani

References
1. Kaplan, A. M., and Haenlein, M., 2010, “Users of the world, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of
Social Media,” Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
2. Dabbagh, N., and Reo, R., 2011a, “Back to the Future: Tracing the Roots and Learning Affordances of
Social Software,” appears in Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary
Teaching, Lee, M. J. W. and McLoughlin, C. (eds.), IGI Global, Hershey, 1–20.
3. Dabbagh, N., and Reo, R., 2011b, “Impact of Web 2.0 on Higher Education” Appears in Technology
Integration in Higher Education: Social and Organizational aspects, Surry, D. W., Stefurak, T. and Gray, R.
(eds.), IGI Global, Hershey, 174–187.
4. Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Haywood, K., 2011, the NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12edition, The New
Media Consortium, Austin.
5. Minocha, S., and Kerawalla, L., 2011, “University Students' Self-Motivated Blogging and Development of
Study Skills and Research Skills,” appears in Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for
Tertiary Teaching, Lee, M. J. W. and McLoughlin, C. (eds.), IGI Global, Hershey, 149–179.
6. Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson, and Council on Communications and Media, 2011,
“Clinical Report: The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents and Families,” Pediatrics 127(4),
800-804.
7. Rosen, D., and Nelson, C., 2008, “Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education,” Computers in
the Schools, 25, 211–225.
8. Rankin, M., 2009, “Some General Comments on the ‘Twitter Experiment’,”
9. Hazari, S., North, A., and Moreland, D., 2009, “Investigating Pedagogical value of Wiki Technology,”
Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187–198.
10. Treem, J.W. and Leonardi, P.M., 2012, “Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of
Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association,” Communication Yearbook, 36, 143-189.
11. Peslak, A., Ceccucci, W., and Sendall, P., 2010, “An Empirical Study of Social Networking Behavior using
Diffusion of Innovation Theory,” Proc. Of Conference on Information Systems Applied Research, 4-7.
12. Antikainen, M., Mäkipää, M., and Ahonen, M., 2010, “Motivating and Supporting Collaboration in Open
Innovation,” European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 100-119.
13. Lamberti, L., and Noci, G., 2009, “Online Experience as a Lever of Customer Involvement in NPD: An
Exploratory Analysis and a Research Agenda,” EuroMed Journal of Business, 4(1), 69-87.
14. Ramaswamy, V., 2010, “Competing through Co-Creation: Innovation at two Companies,” Strategy and
Leadership, 38(2), 22-29.
15. Piller, F., Schubert, P., Koch, M., and Möslein, K., 2005, “Overcoming Mass Confusion: Collaborative
Customer Co‐Design in Online Communities,” Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10(4), 00-
00.
16. Selwyn, N., 2007, “Web 2.0 Applications as Alternative Environments for Informal Learning - A Critical
Review,” Proc. Of OECD CERIKERIS International Expert Meeting on ICT and Educational Performance,
Cheju Island, South Korea.
17. Kärkkäinen, H., Jussila, J., and Väisänen, J., 2010, “Social Media use and Potential in Business-to-Business
Companies' Innovation,” In Proc. of the 14th International Academic Mindtrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments, October, 228-236
18. Attwell, G., 2007, “Personal Learning Environments-the Future of eLearning?” eLearning papers, 2(1), 1-8.
19. Liebrenz-Himes, M. L., Dyer, R. F., and Shamma, H. M., 2009, “Diffusion of Innovations as Illustrated by
Today’s Social Media Explosion: Did Rogers know best?” In Proc. of the Conference on Historical
Analysis and Research in Marketing, May 28-31, Leicester.
20. Savitz, E., 2012, “How Social Media Can Spur Organizational Transformation,” (17 December 2012).
21. Holtzblatt, L., and Tierney, M. L., 2011, “Measuring the Effectiveness of Social Media on an Innovation
Process. Proc. of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, New York 697–712.
22. Martindale, T., and Dowdy, M., 2010, “Personal Learning Environments,” appears in Emerging
Technologies in Distance Education, Veletsianos, G., (ed.), Athabasca University Press, Edmonton, 177–
193
23. Dabbagh, N., and Kitsantas, A., 2012, “Personal Learning Environments, Social Media, and Self-Regulated
Learning: A Natural Formula for Connecting Formal and Informal Learning,” The Internet and Higher
Education, 15(1), 3-8.

1502
 Asio and Khorasani
24. Alexander, B., 2006, “Web 2.0: A new wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning,” EDUCAUSE
Review, 41, 32–44.
25. Jones, B. L., 2008, Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers, Wiley, Indianapolis.
26. Lindstrom, P., 2007, “Securing ‘Web 2.0’ Technologies, In-depth Research Report, the Burton Group,”
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
27. Norton, P., and Hathaway, D., 2008, “On its Way to K-12 Classrooms, Web 2.0 goes to Graduate School,”
Computers in the Schools, 25, 163–180.
28. O'Reilly, T., 2005, “Web 2.0: Compact Definition? O'Reilly Radar,” (10 October 2005)
29. Sessums, C., 2006, “Notes on the Significance of the Emergence of Blogs and Wikis,” (21 January 2006)
30. Hilton, J., 2009, “Essential versus Strategic IT Investments,” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August.
31. Cross, J., 2007, “Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways that Inspire Innovation and
Performance,” Pfeiffer, California.
32. McGloughlin, C., and Lee, M. J. W., 2010, “Personalized and Self-Regulated Learning in the Web 2.0 Era:
International Exemplars of Innovative Pedagogy using Social Software,” Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.
33. Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., and Caruso, J. B., 2009, “The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
34. Solomon, G., and Schrum, L., 2007, “Web 2.0: New tools, New Schools,” Washington DC International
Society for Technology in Education.
35. Bandura, A., 1963, “Social Learning and Personality Development”, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New
York.
36. Kadushin, C., 2004, Introduction to social network theory, Boston.
37. Johansson, F., 2004, “The Medici Effect-Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and
Cultures” Harvard Business School, Boston.
38. Rogers, E. M., 1983, Diffusion of Innovations, 4 th Edition, Free Press, New York.
39. Siemens, G., 2005, “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age,” International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1).
40. Bessant, J. S. C., 1997, “High-involvement Innovation through Continuous Improvement,” International
Journal of Technology Management, 7-28.
41. Robinson, L., 2012, Changeology: How to Enable Groups, Communities and Societies to Do Things
They've Never Done Before, Green book Ltd, Dartington.
42. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, Harper
Collins, New York.
43. Koçak, N. G., Kaya, S., and Erol, E., 2013, Social Media from the Perspective of Diffusion of Innovation
Approach. The Macrotheme Review 2(3), 22-29.
44. Williams, K. G., 2009, “Network analysis: Applications to team dynamics,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Havard
University
45. Asio, S. M., 2015, “An Empirical Investigation of Team-level Predictors of Innovation and Creativity
within Engineering Student Design Teams,” Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University.
46. Asio, S. M., and Farris, J. A., 2013, “Creativity and Teamwork in Engineering Student Teams: Assessment
of Effort as an Intervention,” Proc. of the American Society for Engineering Management Conference,
October 2 – 5, Minneapolis, Minnesota, CD-ROM.
47. Nunnally, J. C., 1978, Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York).
48. Molleman, E., 2005, “The Multilevel Nature of Team-Based Work Research,” Team Performance
Management, 11(3/4), 113-124.
49. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W., 1996, Applied Linear Statistical Models,
4th Edition, Irwin, Chicago.

1503
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

View publication stats