Volume 26 Issue 1 Article 4 March 2024 Creativity in Information Systems Research: A Systematic Creativity in Information Systems Research: A Systematic Literature Review Literature Review Mojca Simonovič University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, mojca.simonovic@ef.uni- lj.si Aleš Popovič University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia AND University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia Matej Č erne University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home Part of the Business Analytics Commons, and the Management Information Systems Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Simonovič , M., Popovič , A., & Č erne, M. (2024). Creativity in Information Systems Research: A Systematic Literature Review. Economic and Business Review, 26(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.15458/ 2335-4216.1331 This Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business Review. REVIEW ARTICLE Creativity in Information Systems Research: A Systematic Literature Review Mojca Simonoviˇ c a, * , Aleš Popoviˇ c a,b , Matej ˇ Cerne a a University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia b University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia Abstract For more than six decades, creativity has been the cornerstone of diverse scientic disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior (OB) studies. Its fundamental role in guiding business prospects, driving devel- opment, and fueling economic growth has made it an essential research theme in many elds. Yet, despite its importance, scholars within the information systems (IS) discipline have highlighted the signicant lack of attention paid to this concept in their research. The transformative role creativity plays in contemporary business environments, along with the ever-present need to innovate, compete, and grow, sparked our curiosity. Is creativity still an understudied area in the IS discipline, as it was 10 years ago? Our goal was not simply to examine the current state of creativity studies within the IS eld, but to chart its evolution from 2010 to the present day. Through a comprehensive systematic literature review, we scrutinized papers from prestigious journals and proceedings of acclaimed conferences within the IS eld. The ndings map out the trajectory of creativity studies, yet also point to an emerging research gap. Accordingly, the paper provides invaluable insights into future research directions, emphasizing the need to ll the creativity studies void within the discipline of IS. Keywords: Creativity, Information systems, Business analytics, Literature review, Academic research JEL classication: M15, O32 Introduction T he increasingly dynamic and competitive busi- ness landscape, marked by digitalization (Legner et al., 2017; Parviainen et al., 2017; Tomat & Trkman, 2019) and shifting consumer needs and habits, means the call for creativity today resonates stronger than ever (Amabile, 1988; Woodman et al., 1993). This de- mand for creativity has intensied, with a view to catalyzing the pursuit of innovation, competitiveness, and growth (Amabile et al., 1996; Kaufman & Stern- berg, 2010). As the engine that propels the generation of novel and purposeful products or services (Wood- man et al., 1993), creativity has become integral to modern business practices (Amabile, 1998). This ex- tends beyond creating unique goods or services to cultivating competitive advantages that are difcult to replicate (Müller-Wienbergen et al., 2011). As such, understanding, identifying, and fostering creativity (Schwarz et al., 2013; Siemon et al., 2016) have be- come critical business imperatives and vital areas of academic inquiry. A decade ago, seminal works by Seidel et al. (2010) and Muller and Ulrich (2013) presented extensive lit- erature reviews, dissecting the concept of creativity within the IS discipline. While other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and OB studies dedicate en- tire journals to creativity studies, Seidel et al. (2010) and Muller and Ulrich (2013) both echoed Couger et al.’s (1993) observation that creativity continues to be distinctly under researched within the disci- pline of IS. Seidel et al. (2010) reviewed 27 papers analyzing creativity from the Senior Scholars’ Ex- tended Basket of Journals (published between 1977 Received 18 August 2023; accepted 6 November 2023. Available online 5 March 2024 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: mojca.simonovic@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Simonoviˇ c). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1331 2335-4216/© 2024 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 46 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 and 2009), which represented a mere 0.5 percent of all papers in the journals considered. Muller and Ulrich’s (2013) broader review incorporated the Association for Information Systems (AIS) list of management of information systems journal rankings and pro- ceedings from the ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, unearthing 88 creativity-related pa- pers (published between 1998 and 2011). These reviews spotlighted an enduring gap within IS creativity studies, notwithstanding the recognized inuence of creativity on the development of IS and information technology (IT) and its impact on the cre- ative performance of individuals and groups (Muller & Ulrich, 2013; Seidel et al., 2010). Both reviews concluded by strongly pleading for future creativity research within the IS discipline, in particular as re- gards the 4Ps of creativity (person, product, process, press; Rhodes, 1961), research dealing with person- and press-related concepts (Seidel et al., 2010), and understanding of the creative process (Muller & Ul- rich, 2013) in different socio-technical contexts. Given this background, our literature review seeks to explore whether creativity remains a neglected re- search area (Couger et al., 1993) within the discipline of IS and addresses two research questions: (1) How is creativity conceptualized and understood in the IS discipline; and (2) how has it been examined and researched in the last decade? We aim to offer a com- prehensive synthesis of the literature based on three main points. First, by extending Seidel et al. (2010) and Muller and Ulrich’s (2013) reviews with the re- view of works published between 2010 and 2022. Second, by adding the review of proceedings from esteemed conferences in the IS discipline. Third, by analyzing the understanding of creativity in the IS discipline and detecting promising avenues for future research as well as emerging gaps in the literature. Our research contributes to studying eld by com- plementing earlier literature reviews with an analysis of works published in the last decade and a review of conference contributions from relevant conferences in the research area. Finally, the results of the presented analysis will allow us to conrm or reject the claim that creativity is a poorly researched phenomenon in the IS discipline (Couger et al., 1993; Muller & Ulrich, 2013; Seidel et al., 2010). 1 The literature search and analysis process 1.1 Selection of relevant literature To accomplish our research inquiries, the literature search primarily focused on leading academic jour- nals, an approach reecting the insights of Seidel et al. (2010) that showed the signicant inuence of such journals on the formation of academic disciplines. Our selection was guided by the Senior Scholars’ List of Premier Journals, as determined by the AIS, which in February 2023 constituted a well-curated, com- prehensive, and impactful catalogue of 11 journals (details in Table 1). This selection process parallels that employed by Seidel et al. (2010) in their review, which also consulted the Senior Scholars’ Extended Basket of Journals. Moreover, following vom Brocke et al.’s (2009) ad- vice, our literature survey was not restricted to articles published in academic journals, but included pro- ceedings from reputable conferences as well (vom Brocke et al., 2009). We focused on AIS conferences (in alphabetical order: Americas Conference on In- formation Systems—AMCIS, European Conference on Information Systems—ECIS, International Con- ference on Information Systems—ICIS, and Pacic Asia Conference on Information Systems—PACIS), as the Association’s purpose is to promote the ad- vance of knowledge and excellence in the practice and study of IS. We also analyzed works presented in the oldest and well-recognized conference in the studied eld—the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). These proceedings are peer-reviewed and serve as accurate barometers of current research trends, which means they add sub- stantial value while exploring the literature in the IS discipline. To add to the insights from the literature reviews detailed in the introduction, we conducted an ex- pansive search using the term “creativity” in the titles, keywords, and abstracts of journal and con- ference papers published between 2010 and 2022. We thereby identied 40 papers of relevance in the Senior Scholars’ List of Premier Journals, as shown in Table 1, along with 66 papers from noteworthy conferences in the IS eld, sourced from the AIS eLi- brary (with the following specic numbers from each conference: 24 from ICIS, 11 from HICSS, 16 from AM- CIS, 5 from ECIS, 9 from PACIS, and 1 from ACIS, where the last one was included due to its topical relevance). The ndings of our rigorous literature search sup- port the observation that research focusing on cre- ativity in the IS eld remains underrepresented in the academic canon. A mere 0.51 percent of the pa- pers published in the selected journals in the period under scrutiny deal with creativity (evaluated by considering all relevant hits while searching in the Senior Scholars’ List of Premier Journals—40—and all items—7798—published in these journals in the observed period between 2010 and 2022). Although the representation of specic themes in the IS eld is known to be diverse and expansive, our ndings give ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 47 Table 1. Search results from the Senior Scholars’ List of Premier Journals. Journal Journal items (a) Relevant hits Databases/websites searched Decision Support Systems 1966 6 ScienceDirect European Journal of Information Systems 603 4 Taylor & Francis Online Information & Management 1135 9 ScienceDirect Information and Organization 242 2 ScienceDirect Information Systems Journal 511 2 Wiley Online Library Information Systems Research 996 3 Informs PubsOnline Journal of the AIS 537 4 AIS eLibrary Journal of Information Technology 384 1 Sage Journals Journal of MIS 606 6 Taylor & Francis Online Journal of Strategic Information Systems 420 0 ScienceDirect MIS Quarterly 398 3 JSTOR Total 7798 40 (a) All items published between 2010 and 2022 (papers, editorial comments, etc.). considerable weight to the claimed need for a more concentrated, systematic exploration of creativity in future IS research. 1.2 The analysis process and results The identied papers were meticulously evaluated utilizing the parameters shown in Table 2, which were partly derived from the methods employed by Seidel et al. (2010). We were also interested in understanding how the authors viewed creativity in order to more robustly conceptualize creativity in the IS discipline. Further, analyzing concrete constructs that had been studied as creativity and identifying the tools, IT, or IS observed drove us to distinguish different ways of inquiring into creativity in the studied eld. This analytical framework was designed to ensure com- prehensive and systematic scrutiny of the selected literature. The analysis was carried out in two rigorous phases, each providing further depth in the evaluation. Each paper was independently assessed against all parameters during the rst phase, to establish a broad overview of the literature. In this phase, we also excluded two journal papers and four conference papers (bringing down the initial 112 items to the nal 106 relevant items) from further consideration since they did not treat creativity in a visible and detailed manner. The second phase involved analyzing each parameter by focusing on the corresponding literature identied in the initial phase. We revisited each work according to the spe- cic characteristics of the parameter and reevaluated it if needed. This iterative approach ensured the utmost accuracy and depth in our examination. The 4Ps perspective of studying creativity allowed us to better understand the view of creativity adopted by authors while studying the phenomenon. The analysis reveals that creativity is mostly studied from the person and product perspectives, as em- braced in two thirds of cases. We identied some studies employing the process perspective, whereas Table 2. Overview of analytical parameters. Parameter Component Description The 4Ps perspective of creativity (a) person, process, product, press Identifying the appropriate perspective for studying creativity with respect to Rhodes’ (1961) 4Ps model of creativity The perspective of studying creativity (b) individual, group, organization, market Identifying the appropriate perspective from which the phenomenon was studied and analyzed in the paper, understood as a broader view on the entire work, vs. the level of analysis of the research conducted The view on creativity adopted by authors outcome, process, a required feature Identifying the authors’ studying position by evaluating whether creativity was understood as an outcome or process or a required feature in the authors’ denition or explanation of the phenomenon The specic construct or concept that was studied as creativity (transcribed from the paper) Identifying the main construct or concept representing the researched phenomenon analyzed in the paper The artefact analyzed (transcribed from the paper) Identifying the tool, IT, or IS analyzed in the paper The role of the creativity construct or variable (concept) in the research (c) dependent, independent Identifying the role of the analyzed construct or variable (concept) studied or operationalized as creativity in the presented research in the paper The research method (d) qualitative, quantitative Identifying the method used in the presented research in the paper (a, b, c, d) Parameters are taken partly from Seidel et al. (2010). 48 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 creativity from an environmental perspective remains under researched, as already noted by Seidel et al. (2010). In synthesizing literature, we distinguished four different perspectives of researching the phenomenon—individual, group, organizational, and market. The most frequently identied perspective from which creativity was studied in the analyzed works is the individual level, which was used in over half the works. Studying creativity from a group perspective is also well-established, whereas only a few works explore the organizational perspective (Fehrer et al., 2022; Li & Kettinger, 2021; Mikalef & Gupta, 2021; Olszak et al., 2018; Roquilly, 2011) or investigate it through a multilevel approach (Ding et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Moreover, we did not identify any paper analyzing creativity through the market perspective, with this deciency of the literature having already been exposed in Seidel et al.’s (2010) review. Evaluating a different study position is relevant if the aim is to determine how creativity is under- stood in the IS discipline. Our analysis was directed to recognizing creativity as an outcome, a process or a required feature, and reveals that creativity is most often interpreted as an outcome. In the analyzed works, creativity was studied through different constructs and concepts, and, de- pending on the authors’ study position interpreting creativity as an outcome, a process, or a required fea- ture, we can place them in three groups. The rst, and also the most represented one, is the group where creativity is understood as an outcome and authors conceptualize creativity as creative ideas and their originality, novelty, usefulness, number, etc. (Alnu- aimi et al., 2010; Dennis et al., 2013; Siemon et al., 2016; Wang & Nickerson, 2019); creative output, out- come, or work (Goerzen, 2017; Seidel et al., 2019; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2010; Wang & Holahan, 2017); or individual (Binsawad et al., 2018; Klein et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022; Miao et al., 2020; Schwarz et al., 2013; Shirish et al., 2014), employee (Ding et al., 2019; Ganye & Salam, 2022; Nevo et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2016), team (Qu et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2017); group (Jalowski et al., 2020), collective (Literat, 2017; Sher et al., 2020), and organizational creativity (Mikalef & Gupta, 2021). The second group of con- structs views creativity as a process, which includes concepts such as idea generation (Nevo et al., 2020); creative use (Yu & Nickerson, 2011); creative task or act (Bergener et al., 2012; Jenkin et al., 2011); and knowledge acquisition, activation, or ideation (Ag- garwal et al., 2021; Javadi et al., 2013). The third group involves papers that analyzed creativity as a required feature, that is, as organization, bounded, or com- plementary creativity (Baskerville et al., 2016; Li & Kettinger, 2021). The artefacts studied in the analyzed works vary from systems supporting creative processes in a dif- ferent context, that is, creativity or group support sys- tems (Alnuaimi et al., 2010; Althuizen & Reichel, 2016; Althuizen et al., 2012; Minas & Dennis, 2019; Müller- Wienbergen et al., 2011; Wang & Nickerson, 2019), to artefacts allowing modern approaches and ways of working, that is, electronic brainstorming, virtual re- ality, crowdsourcing, innovation communities, social networks (Aggarwal et al., 2021; Bhagwatwar et al., 2018; Ding et al., 2019; Hildebrand et al., 2013; Javadi et al., 2013; Kohler et al., 2011; Zhao & Oberoi, 2022), as well as studying the development of software (Li & Kettinger, 2021; Rose et al., 2016) or the use of IS or IT (Baker & Mills, 2011; Schwarz et al., 2013; Tamm et al., 2021) to endorse the creativity lens. Observation of the role played by the construct, concept, or variable of creativity in research and applied methods bolsters the understanding of the creativity being researched in the IS discipline. The analysis of the identied works shows creativity is studied as a dependent variable and a dominance of quantitative research methods. Despite the evidence, it is worth noting the prominence of qualitative meth- ods, especially in conference papers where the initial stages of research, ideas, and initiatives are presented. A comprehensive evaluation of all 106 papers is provided in Appendix, Table A1. In the next chapter, we elucidate the results of this rigorous evaluation process. Distilling the evaluation results allowed us to delineate how creativity has been conceptualized in the IS discipline and discern ve distinct streams of research in the last decade. 2 Comprehension and exploration of creativity 2.1 Conceptualizing and interpreting creativity Creativity is a dynamic and elusive phenomenon that is at once tangible and intangible and can man- ifest as a mental state, a talent, a product, a solution, or a process (Ford, 1996; Pozzebon et al., 2011). It is most frequently described in OB studies as either a process culminating in the creation of something or the outcome itself, characterized by novelty, orig- inality, usefulness, or meaning (Althuizen & Reichel, 2016; Amabile, 1983; Dean et al., 2006; Lubart, 2001; Mumford, 2003; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). A key emphasis of creativity analysis lies in the novelty and utility of outputs (Pozzebon et al., 2011), with these outputs often being transformative ideas that serve as catalysts for problem solving and innovation (Brkovic et al., 2022). Irrespective of the integral role that ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 49 creativity plays in a myriad of disciplines and it hav- ing been explored from multiple perspectives, the IS eld has thus far given it scant attention, par- ticularly as regards how creativity unfolds within socio-technical processes (Seidel et al., 2010). Our analysis of the literature and proceedings revealed that most authors view creativity as an out- come dened by the novelty and usefulness of the resultant ideas, products, services, or processes. A smaller proportion of the literature (less than one fth of the works analyzed) treated creativity as a pro- cess, emphasizing the actions and behaviors inherent in creation, such as idea generation, the discovery of new associations, or other production processes. The differing perspectives on creativity, whether as an outcome or a process, have a signicant inu- ence on the various research streams within the IS discipline. 2.2 Five research streams on creativity The literature analysis allowed us to discern ve distinct research streams on creativity, as shown in Table 3. These streams arose from diverse perspec- tives on creativity (interpretations of creativity as an outcome or process), varying contexts of its applica- tion (creativity in the use of IS or IT, the impact of IS or IT usage on creativity), and the call for creativity in IS research and theorization, including its role in the development of IS or IT. The streams identied above align with and build upon the ndings of earlier literature reviews (Muller & Ulrich, 2013; Seidel et al., 2010); this specically ap- plies to three streams: IS/IT as a Catalyst for Creative Outcomes, Creativity as a Socio-Technical Process and Creativity as a Catalyst for Research, Theorizing, and IS/IT Development. Our analysis and synthesis of the literature suggest a pivotal direction for future research: a more rigorous exploration of creativity as an independent variable, and a deeper understanding of its role relative to the use of IS or IT, a cornerstone of the IS discipline (DeLone & McLean, 1992). 3 Future research on creativity The predominant research stream, as shown by Muller and Ulrich (2013) and Seidel et al. (2010) a decade ago and reafrmed by our review, delves into the role of IS and IT in fostering creativity through supportive systems. Despite the comprehensive na- ture of these inquiries, an unequivocal need remains for future research to trace the evolution of IS and IT in cultivating creative outcomes and processes within varying contexts. This endeavor will substantially en- rich the knowledge pool within the IS discipline. Several noteworthy directions for future research surface as we reect upon the evaluation of the identi- ed papers. First, it would be valuable to investigate the press or environmental perspective of creativity study (Rhodes, 1961). As Seidel et al. (2010) sug- gested, exploring the socio-technical contexts where creativity unfolds promises to yield invaluable in- sights. Second, the analysis reveals a conspicuous absence of studies treating creativity as an indepen- dent construct or concept. This means that explor- ing its role within unique and denitive models or frameworks within the IS discipline is a path worth pursuing. In addition, qualitative research remains conspicuously sparse, notably in analyzed papers from the Senior Scholars’ List of Premier Journals, cor- roborating Seidel et al.’s (2010) observation that the market perspective in research in creativity studies is underrepresented. Further, within the IS discipline, the utilization of IS or IT is a fundamental concept (Basadur et al., 2014), scrutinized by different theories and models across various contexts. Technology in and of itself neither augments nor diminishes work- ers’ performance (Orlikowski, 2000); instead, its use is paramount. Understanding the role of creativity in utilizing IS or IT, as presented in the third and fourth research streams, is consequently vital for enriching eld knowledge. We concur with Seidel et al.’s (2010) recommendation to unravel the complex interplay of creativity and related concepts within socio-technical contexts. Moreover, creativity, understood as the genera- tion of diverse ideas, the exploration of alterna- tives, and the identication of business opportu- nities, is a critical step in problem solving and decision making (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Seeber et al., 2017; Seidel et al., 2019). As orga- nizations continuously seek innovative solutions, novel products, or improvements to existing offer- ings, business analytics (BA) within the IS discipline has emerged as an essential tool for facilitating in- formed, evidence-based decisions (Seddon et al., 2017). By drawing parallels between BA’s process of transforming raw data into meaningful information and creativity’s process of generating and creating novel outcomes, a promising area for future research surfaces. Surprisingly, the study of creativity within the BA context, as per our literature search and analysis, is distinctly under researched. A solitary paper by Tamm et al. (2021) explores “creative analytics” and its role in decision making within the creative process of developing video games. By more deeply consider- ing the role of creativity as an independent construct within the BA context, we can discover intriguing insights and identify emerging gaps. We believe this 50 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 Table 3. The ve identied research streams on creativity. Stream topic Description Representative papers IS/IT as a catalyst for creative outcomes A central focus of this research stream is to investigate how IS or IT, particularly that expressly designed to catalyze, amplify, and facilitate creativity (like creativity support systems, group support systems, electronic brainstorming mechanisms, virtual worlds, and crowdsourcing platforms), can be used to generate creative outcomes. Here, creativity is treated as a dependent variable and is quantitatively gauged by evaluating individual or group creative performance. This assessment is usually conducted based on several dimensions, including the number of ideas generated, their novelty (i.e., the proportion of original or unique ideas), workability (i.e., the number of practical or implementable ideas), relevance, breadth (variety or divergence of ideas), and depth (detail or elaboration of ideas), among others. This approach to studying creativity thus emphasizes the crucial role IS/IT plays as a tool for the activation, expression, and enhancement of creativity. Alnuaimi et al., 2010; Althuizen & Reichel, 2016; Althuizen et al., 2012; Althuizen & Wierenga, 2014; Bhagwatwar et al., 2018; Dennis et al., 2013; Javadi et al., 2013; Lee & Chau, 2019; Minas & Dennis, 2019; Nevo et al., 2020; Olszak et al., 2018 Creativity as a socio-technical process This research vein emphasizes understanding creativity as a dynamic process that unfolds within a socio-technical environment. It delves into the underpinnings of the creative process, considering components like creative labor, knowledge activation, the act of creation, and the nature of creative tasks. The research also explores the factors and determinants that govern this process, drawing extensively from theories rooted in OB studies. Notably, within this framework, creativity is largely treated as a dependent variable. However, a small, yet signicant body of work also conceptualizes creativity as an independent variable, underscoring the complexity and multi-dimensionality of creativity in the IS/IT context. Aggarwal et al., 2021; Bergener et al., 2012; Javadi et al., 2013; Jenkin et al., 2011; Müller-Wienbergen et al., 2011; Wang & Nickerson, 2019; Yu & Nickerson, 2011 The intersection of creativity and the usage of IS/IT This research perspective highlights the interface between creativity and the practical application of IS/IT. The investigative emphasis is on understanding how individuals exercise creativity while using IS/IT solutions that may not have been designed to support creative tasks. This intricate relationship is explored through the analysis of “creative use” and “creative IT self-efcacy” (analyzed as dependent variables). The approach also investigates “individual creativity with IT” as an independent variable. This dual focus allows for a comprehensive examination of the role and impact of creativity in IS/IT utilization. Baker & Mills, 2011; Schwarz et al., 2013; Tams & Dulipovici, 2022 The Impact of IS/IT Utilization on Creativity This research perspective mostly concerns creativity evaluated from an individual- or process-oriented standpoint. The focal point of this strand of investigation is understanding how the utilization of IS/IT inuences the ultimate creative performance. This analysis is undertaken independent of the individual’s characteristics or the process’s specic attributes. The overarching objective is to illuminate the symbiotic relationship between IS/IT utilization and creativity, stressing how the former can potentiate or modulate the latter in diverse contexts. Bunjak et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2019; Hildebrand et al., 2013; Tamm et al., 2021; Thatcher & Brown, 2010; Wang et al., 2021 Creativity as a catalyst for research, theorizing, and IS/IT development This research trajectory foregrounds creativity not merely as an output or a process but as a seminal element that underpins IS research and theorizing. The perspective shifts from a normative view of creativity as an end product or process to a comprehensive understanding of creativity as an inherent and indispensable component of the scholarly landscape. The premise here is that creativity acts as a catalyst, driving the generation of novel hypotheses and theoretical frameworks and the development and enhancement of IS/IT. This view transcends traditional paradigms, underscoring the importance of creativity as a seminal factor in the evolution and progression of the IS discipline itself. Avital et al., 2012; Baskerville et al., 2016; Kohler et al., 2011; Li & Kettinger, 2021; Miranda et al., 2015; Tjørnehøj & Mathiassen, 2010; Trauth et al., 2012; Williams & Wynn, 2018 could add immensely to our understanding of cre- ativity within the IS discipline. 4 Conclusion with implications Despite the persistent underrepresentation of cre- ativity research within the discipline of IS (Muller & Ulrich, 2013; Seidel et al., 2010), the symbiotic link between creativity and IS is stressed in many of the analyzed contributions. Our work serves as a substantial extension of the literature reviews con- ducted by Seidel et al. (2010) and Muller and Ulrich (2013), broadening the scope to include papers from the Senior Scholars’ List of Premier Journals and ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 51 proceedings from renowned IS conferences published between 2010 and 2022. The results of our exhaustive literature search and subsequent analysis reinforce the long-held assertions that creativity is minimally represented in the IS discipline. Meticulous analysis and evaluation of 40 identi- ed journal papers and 66 conference papers across selected analytical parameters permitted us to dis- cern ve distinct streams of creativity research within the mentioned discipline. These streams encapsu- late varied research perspectives, including viewing creativity as an outcome or a process, exploring cre- ativity in the utilization of IS or IT, probing the inuence of IS or IT usage on creativity, and ad- vocating for increased creativity in researching and theorizing within the IS discipline and its implications for IS or IT development. The presented literature review makes three con- tributions. First, we can claim that, after a decade of researching and notwithstanding the strong calls for future creativity research in the IS discipline underlined in previous literature reviews, creativity continues to be an under researched area. Our nding that 0.51 percent of papers published in the selected journals in the period under scrutiny deal with cre- ativity conrms the mentioned concerns of Couger et al. (1993), Seidel et al. (2010), and Muller and Ulrich (2013). Second, our analysis corroborates the nding that the dominant pattern of researching creativity in the IS discipline remains the stream where an IS or IT is analyzed as a catalyst for creative outcomes. Ac- cordingly, focusing on the impact of IS or IT use on the creative performance of individuals and groups (Muller & Ulrich, 2013; Seidel et al., 2010), even after years of researching, remains an important topic and an established stream of researching creativity in the discipline of IS. Complementing earlier literature reviews, the anal- ysis of works published in the last decade and contributions from renowned conferences led to two new streams of research being identied (the third contribution), which reects the growing importance of creativity in business practices today. Further, these streams of research, studying the intersec- tion of creativity and the usage of IS or IT and impact of IS or IT utilization on creativity, reect the call made by Seidel et al. (2010) to study the socio-technical contexts where creativity unfolds. We may thus claim that the last decade of research- ing creativity in the IS discipline has, at least in terms of content, given support to the recommenda- tions made in past literature reviews. Two identied research streams, empowered with future research studies and contributions, will denitely bring sig- nicant insights and theoretically contribute to the IS discipline. In conclusion, we draw noteworthy parallels be- tween creativity and BA. Creativity, conceptualized as the process of generating meaningful and novel out- comes, mirrors the essence of BA, wherein the trans- formation and analysis of raw data generate valuable insights for problem solving and decision making. We posit that creativity must serve as a catalyst for BA, supplementing the transformation of data, fos- tering the development of new knowledge, inform- ing decision-making processes, and enabling excep- tional business actions. The potentially profound role played by creativity in BA, as evinced by our ndings, deserves a more rigorous examination. We anticipate that our future research efforts will not only provide a more comprehensive understanding of this dynamic, but also signicantly contribute to the existing body of knowledge on creativity within the IS discipline. Acknowledgment Matej ˇ Cerne and Mojca Simonoviˇ c were supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) under core project funding J5-2555. Aleš Popoviˇ c was supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) under research core funding P2-0442. References Aggarwal, V ., Hwang, E. H., & Tan, Y. (2021). Learning to be cre- ative: A mutually exciting spatiotemporal point process model for idea generation in open innovation. Information Systems Research, 32(4), 1214–1235. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021 .1020 Ahmad, R., Siemon, D., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2018). Creativity tests versus cognitive computing: How automated personality min- ing tools can enhance team composition. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 51st annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 114–123). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS .2018.016 Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P ., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loang in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230. https://doi .org/10.2753/Mis0742-1222270109 Althuizen, N., & Reichel, A. (2016). The effects of IT-enabled cog- nitive stimulation tools on creative problem solving: A dual pathway to creativity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 11–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1172439 Althuizen, N., Reichel, A., & Wierenga, B. (2012). Help that is not recognized: Harmful neglect of decision support systems. Deci- sion Support Systems, 54(1), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.dss.2012.08.016 Althuizen, N., & Wierenga, B. (2014). Supporting creative problem solving with a case-based reasoning system. Journal of Man- agement Information Systems, 31(1), 309–340. https://doi.org/ 10.2753/Mis0742-1222310112 Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A com- ponential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .45.2.357 52 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in or- ganizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 76(5), 76–87. https://hbr.org/1998/09/how-to-kill -creativity Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. Avital, M., Mathiassen, L., Crowston, K., El-Sawy, O., & Gregor, S. (2012). Alternative genres of IS research: Looking for great leaps forward. In M.-H. Huang, G. Piccoli, & V . Sambamurthy (Eds.), ICIS 2012 proceedings (Article 6). Association for Informa- tion Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/ Panels/6 Baker, G., & Mills, A. (2011). Creative use. PACIS, Pacic Asia Con- ference on Information Systems. In P . B. Seddon & S. Gregor (Eds.), P ACIS 2011 Proceedings (Article 131). Queensland Univer- sity of Technology. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/131/ Basadur, M., Gelade, G., & Basadur, T. (2014). Creative problem- solving process styles, cognitive work demands, and organi- zational adaptability. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(1), 80–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313508433 Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., Pries-Heje, J., Storey, V . C., & Kris- tiansen, E. (2016). Bounded creativity in design science research. In ICIS 2016 proceedings (Article 5). Association for Infor- mation Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/ISDesign/ Presentations/5 Baumgart, T. L., Klesel, M., Oschinsky, F. M., & Niehaves, B. (2020). Creativity loading—please wait! Investigating the relationship between interruption, mind wandering and creativity. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 53rd annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 300–309). https://doi.org/ 10.24251/HICSS.2020.038 Baumgart, T. L., Oschinsky, F. M., & Niehaves, B. (2021). Inves- tigating the impact on creativity in a supportive technology- driven environment: An experimental approach. In Y. Chan & M. Boudreau (Eds.), AMCIS 2021 proceedings (Article 3). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ amcis2021/adopt_diffusion/adopt_diffusion/3 Bergener, K., Andrea, M., Ortbach, K., & Becker, J. (2012). Consulting—a creativity-intensive process? Insights from an exploratory case study. In K. D. Joshi & Y. Yoo (Eds.), AMCIS 2012 proceedings (Article 21). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/ EndUserIS/21 Bhagwatwar, A., Massey, A., & Dennis, A. (2018). Contextual prim- ing and the design of 3D virtual environments to improve group ideation. Information Systems Research, 29(1), 169–185. https:// doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0721 Binsawad, M., Sohaib, O., Hawryszkiewycz, I., & Aleidi, A. (2018). Individual creativity towards technology business incubator performance. In AMCIS 2018 proceedings (Article 8). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2018/ AdvancesIS/Presentations/8 Boughzala, I., Garmaki, M., & Chourabi, O. (2020). Understand- ing how digital intelligence contributes to digital creativity and digital transformation: A systematic literature review. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 53rd annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 320–329). https://doi.org/ 10.24251/HICSS.2020.040 Brkovic, P ., Sabel, C., & Nüesch, S. (2022). Incentivizing creativity in virtual groups. In R. Beck, S. Petter, & T. Blegind Jensen (Eds.), ICIS 2022 proceedings (Article 9). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2022/social/social/9 Bunjak, A., ˇ Cerne, M., & Popoviˇ c, A. (2021). Absorbed in technol- ogy but digitally overloaded: Interplay effects on gig workers’ burnout and creativity. Information & Management, 58(8), Article 103533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103533 Chiasson, M., & Davidson, E. (2012). Reconsidering deconstruction in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.55 Ciriello, R. F., & Richter, A. (2015). Idea hubs as nexus of collec- tive creativity in digital innovation. In ICIS 2015 proceedings (Article 18). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel .aisnet.org/icis2015/proceedings/ManagingIS/18 Couger, J. D., Higgins, L. F., & Mcintyre, S. C. (1993). (Un)structured creativity in information-systems organizations. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/249584 Dean, D. L., Hender, J., Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E. (2006). Iden- tifying good ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646–699. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00106 Debowski, N., Siemon, D., & Bittner, E. A. (2021). Problem areas in creativity workshops and resulting design principles for a virtual collaborator. In D. Vogel, K. N. Shen, & S. L. Pan (Eds.), P ACIS 2021 proceedings (Article 108). Association for Informa- tion Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2021/108 DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems suc- cess: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60 Dennis, A. R., Minas, R. K., & Bhagwatwar, A. P . (2013). Sparking creativity: Improving electronic brainstorming with individual cognitive priming. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222290407 de Vreede, T., & de Vreede, G.-J. (2017). The impact of divisive political conict in the workplace on team creativity and satis- faction in virtual teams. In AMCIS 2017 proceedings (Article 29). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ amcis2017/AdvancesIS/Presentations/29 Ding, G. Q., Liu, H. F., Huang, Q., & Gu, J. B. (2019). Enterprise social networking usage as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Information & Management, 56(8), Article 103165. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.04.008 Fehrer, T., Fischer, D. A., Leemans, S. J. J., Roglinger, M., & Wynn, M. T. (2022). An assisted approach to business process redesign. Decision Support Systems, 156, Article 113749. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.dss.2022.113749 Ford, C. M. (1996). Atheory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112–1142. https://doi.org/10.2307/259166 Ganye, D., & Salam, A. (2022). Employee creativity and informa- tion technology in the context of COVID-19 pandemic: Effect of large-scale unexpected event on organizational innovation. In S. Brown & M. Subramani (Eds.), AMCIS 2022 proceedings (Article 6). Association for Information Systems. Gebbing, P ., Lattemann, C., & Siemon, D. (2022). Creativity drivers: Design principles for virtual creative collaboration. PACIS, Pa- cic Asia Conference on Information Systems. https://aisel .aisnet.org/amcis2022/sig_cnow/sig_cnow/6 Goerzen, T. (2017). “What is it good for—absolutely nothing?” Exploring the inuence of task meaning on creativity in crowd- sourcing. In ICIS 2017 proceedings (Article 8). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/Peer-to -Peer/Presentations/8 Goncalves, D. (2021). How organizational transparency strength- ens digital innovation capabilities in startups. In ECIS 2021 research papers (Article 76). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rp/76 Griebel, M., Flath, C., & Friesike, S. (2020). Augmented creativity: Leveraging articial intelligence for idea generation in the cre- ative sphere. In ECIS 2020 research-in-progress papers (Article 77). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ ecis2020_rip/77 Haider, A. (2012). Creativity lies at the edges of chaos-reducing complexity in IT projects. In K. D. Joshi & Y. Yoo (Eds.), AMCIS 2012 proceedings (Article 22). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/ Posters/22 Harison, E. (2010). Who owns enterprise information? Data own- ership rights in Europe and the U.S. Information & Management, 47(2), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.12.001 He, S., & Gou, J. (2022). Employee creativity in digital transforma- tion insights from applied action design research. In P ACIS 2022 proceedings (Article 10). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2022/10 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 53 Hildebrand, C., Haubl, G., Herrmann, A., & Landwehr, J. R. (2013). When social media can be bad for you: Community feedback sties consumer creativity and reduces satisfaction with self- designed products. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0455 Hossain, M. D., Moon, J., Yun, J. W., & Choe, Y. C. (2012). Im- pact of psychological traits on user performance in information systems delivering customer service: IS management perspec- tive. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 270–281. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.035 Jalowski, M., Schymanietz, M., & Möslein, K. (2020). Support- ing participants in creative processes: Opportunities for per- suasive technology in participatory design. In J. George, S. Paul, & R. De’ (Eds.), ICIS 2020 proceedings (Article 4). As- sociation for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2020/user_behaviors/user_behaviors/4 Javadi, E., Gebauer, J., & Mahoney, J. (2013). The impact of user interface design on idea integration in electronic brainstorm- ing: An attention-based view. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais .00322 Jenkin, T., Skillicorn, D., & Chan, Y. (2011). Novel idea generation, collaborative ltering, and group innovation processes. In C. Beath, M. D. Myers, & K. K. Wei (Eds.), ICIS 2011 proceedings (Article 11). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel .aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/knowledge/11 Karacic, T., Günther, W., Sergeeva, A., & Huysman, M. (2021). Creativity in data work: Agricultural data in practice. In A. Barua & R. Wright (Eds.), ICIS 2021 proceedings (Article 12). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2021/ai_business/ai_business/12 Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Khedhaouria, A., & Belbaly, N. (2011). Organizational creativ- ity climate factors: Lessons learned from the French energy management industry. In ECIS 2011 proceedings (Article 143). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ ecis2011/143 Klein, H. C., Oschinsky, F. M., & Rubens, S. (2021). Cultivating creativity: Insights from German local governments about the drivers and barriers of change. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 54th annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2153–2162). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.265 Klein, H. C., Oschinsky, F. M., Weber, S., Kordyaka, B., & Niehaves, B. (2020). Beyond the obvious—Towards a creativity support system using AI-driven inspiration. In B. Anderson, J. Thatcher, & R. Meservy (Eds.), AMCIS 2020 proceedings (Article 7). As- sociation for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ amcis2020/cognitive_in_is/cognitive_in_is/7 Klein, H. C., Oschinsky, F. M., Weber, S., & Niehaves, B. (2020). MUSE—Towards a concept of inspiring ambient technology driven by articial intelligence. In D. Vogel, K. N. Shen, & S. L. Pan (Eds.), P ACIS 2020 proceedings (Article 191). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2020/191 Klein, H. C., Weber, S., Schlechtinger, M., & Oschinsky, F. M. (2020). Does one creative tool t all? Initial evidence on creativity sup- port systems and Wikipedia-based stimuli. In J. George, S. Paul, & R. De’ (Eds.), ICIS 2020 proceedings (Article 13). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/hci _artintel/hci_artintel/13 Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K., & Stieger, D. (2011). Co-creation in virtual worlds: The design of the user experience. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 773–788. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042808 Krejci, D., Küng, L., & Missonier, S. (2022). A case study of enterprise-wide digital innovation: Involving non-IT employ- ees. In ECIS 2022 research papers (Article 55). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2022_rp/55 Lee, P . T. Y., & Chau, M. (2019). Can immersive systems improve creativity performance? An exploratory study. In G. Rodriguez-Abitia & C. Ferran (Eds.), AMCIS 2019 proceedings (Article 8). Association for Information Systems. https:// aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2019/human_computer_interact/ human_computer_interact/8 Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P ., Mädche, A., Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2017). Digi- talization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Business & Infor- mation Systems Engineering, 59(4), 301–308. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s12599-017-0484-2 Levallet, N., & Chan, Y. (2022). Uncovering a new form of digitally-enabled agility: An improvisational perspective. Eu- ropean Journal of Information Systems, 31(6), 681–708. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2022.2035262 Li, H., & Kettinger, W. B. J. (2021). The building blocks of software platforms: Understanding the past to forge the future. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1524–1555. https:// doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00706 Lin, C., Wittmer, J. L. S., & Luo, X. (2022). Cultivating proactive in- formation security behavior and individual creativity: The role of human relations culture and IT use governance. Information & Management, 59(6), Article 103650. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.im.2022.103650 Literat, I. (2017). Tapping into the collective creativity of the crowd: The effectiveness of key incentives in fostering creative crowdsourcing. In T. X. Bui & R. Sprague Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1745–1754). https://doi.org/10.24251/ HICSS.2017.212 London, J., & Grover, V . (2021). Creativity with IS: A conser- vation of resources perspective. In Y. Chan & M. Boudreau (Eds.), AMCIS 2021 proceedings (Article 12). Association for In- formation Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2021/adopt _diffusion/adopt_diffusion/12 Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308. https://doi .org/10.1207/s15326934crj1334_07 Medappa, P . K., & Srivastava, S. C. (2020). Can human judgement be machine-sourced? An approach to measure the perceptual dimensions embedded in software. In J. George, S. Paul, & R. De’ (Eds.), ICIS 2020 proceedings (Article 4). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/adv _research_methods/adv_research_methods/4 Merchel, R., Iqbal, T., Süße, T., & Knop, S. (2021). Digi- tal competencies and IT skills as employees’ resources to cope with digitalization demands. In A. Barua & R. Wright (Eds.), ICIS 2021 proceedings (Article 18). Association for In- formation Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2021/is_future _work/is_future_work/18 Miao, Y., Du, R., & Storey, V . C. (2020). A multilevel model for individual creativity and innovative behavior in software de- velopment. In B. Anderson, J. Thatcher, & R. Meservy (Eds.), AMCIS 2020 proceedings (Article 6). Association for Infor- mation Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/it_project _mgmt/it_project_mgmt/6 Mikalef, P ., & Gupta, M. (2021). Articial intelligence capabil- ity: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and rm per- formance. Information & Management, 58(3), Article 103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103434 Minas, R. K., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Visual background music: Creativity support systems with priming. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(1), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07421222.2018.1550559 Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with social media: How cognitive structuring of organizing vision facets affects IT innovation diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591– 614. https://doi.org/10.25300/Misq/2015/39.3.04 Müller-Wienbergen, F., Müller, O., Seidel, S., & Becker, J. (2011). Leaving the beaten tracks in creative work—A design theory for systems that support convergent and divergent thinking. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(11), 714–740. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00280 Muller, S. D., & Ulrich, F. (2013). Creativity and information sys- tems in a hypercompetitive environment: A literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 32, Ar- ticle 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03207 54 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Jour- nal, 15(2–3), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003 .9651403 Nevo, S., Nevo, D., & Pinsonneault, A. (2020). Exploring the role of IT in the front-end of innovation: An empirical study of IT-enabled creative behavior. Information and Organization, 30(4), Article 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg .2020.100322 Nierhoff, J., & Herrmann, T. (2017). Data elicitation for continuous awareness of team climate characteristics to improve organiza- tions’ creativity. In T. X. Bui & R. Sprague Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 204–213). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.024 Olszak, C., Bartu´ s, T., & Lorek, P . (2017). An information system design for organizational creativity support. In T. X. Bui & R. Sprague Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th annual Hawaii Inter- national Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4386–4395). https:// doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.531 Olszak, C. M., Bartu´ s, T., & Lorek, P . (2018). A comprehensive framework of information system design to provide organi- zational creativity support. Information & Management, 55(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.04.004 Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting struc- tures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.11.4.404.14600 Ozturk, P ., Han, Y., & Ren, J. (2022). What you know and what you don’t know: A discussion of knowledge intensity and support architectures in improving crowdsourcing creativity. In R. Beck, S. Petter, & T. Blegind Jensen (Eds.), ICIS 2022 proceedings (Arti- cle 4). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet .org/icis2022/social/social/4 Park, I., Al-Ramahi, M., & Cho, J. (2015). The effect of perceived IS support for creativity on job satisfaction: The role of effective IS use in virtual workplaces. In ICIS 2015 proceedings (Article 1). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2015/proceedings/HumanBehaviorIS/1 Parviainen, P ., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J., & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the digitalization challenge: How to benet from digi- talization in practice. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.12821/ ijispm050104 Payne, K. C., Keith, M. J., Babb, J., & Spruill, A. N. (2018). Develop- ment and validation of the information systems creative-self- efcacy scale. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 51st annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 124–133). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.017 Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P . V . (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462 Pilcicki, R., Siemon, D., & Lattemann, C. (2021). How virtual teams collaborate creatively under communication constraints. In Y. Chan & M. Boudreau (Eds.), AMCIS 2021 proceedings (Article 4). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ amcis2021/cogn_research/cogn_research/4 Pilcicki, R., Siemon, D., & Lattemann, C. (2022). Constraints that support creativity—Design principles for next generation cre- ativity support systems. In P ACIS 2022 proceedings (Article 148). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ pacis2022/148 Pita, A. H., Kanwal, S., Pita, A., Rashid, R. M., & Ren, M. (2020). Impact of excessive use of social media on employee creativity through strain: Moderation effect of communication visibility. In D. Vogel, K. N. Shen, & S. L. Pan (Eds.), P ACIS 2020 proceedings (Article 170). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel .aisnet.org/pacis2020/170 Pozzebon, M., Petrini, M., de Mello, R. B., & Garreau, L. (2011). Unpacking researchers’ creativity and imagination in grounded theorizing: An exemplar from IS research. Information and Orga- nization, 21(4), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg .2011.09.001 Qu, G., Wang, J., Lu, X., Xu, Q., & Wang, Q. (2022). Network con- guration in app design: The effects of simplex and multiplex networks on team performance. Journal of the Association for In- formation Systems, 23(6), 1532–1556. https://doi.org/10.17705/ 1jais.00770 Redlich, B., Dorawa, D., Siemon, D., & Lattemann, C. (2018). Towards semi-virtual design thinking-creativity in dispersed multicultural and multidisciplinary innovation project teams. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 51st annual Hawaii Inter- national Conference on System Sciences (pp. 717–726). https:// doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.090 Ren, J., Han, Y., Yeoh, W., & Genc, Y. (2017). Exploring the role of learning in crowdsourcing creativity: The value of idea- building in the crowd. In ICIS 2017 proceedings (Article 10). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2017/Peer-to-Peer/Presentations/10 Ren, J., Nickerson, J. V ., Mason, W., Sakamoto, Y., & Graber, B. (2014). Increasing the crowd’s capacity to create: How alterna- tive generation affects the diversity, relevance and effectiveness of generated ads. Decision Support Systems, 65, 28–39. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.05.009 Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. Riemenschneider, C. K., & Armstrong, D. J. (2021). The develop- ment of the perceived distinctiveness antecedent of information systems professional identity. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1149–1186. https://doi.org/10.25300/Misq/2021/14626 Roquilly, C. (2011). Control over virtual worlds by game companies: Issues and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042802 Rose, J., Jones, M., & Furneaux, B. (2016). An integrated model of innovation drivers for smaller software rms. Information & Management, 53(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015 .10.005 Schwarz, C., Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T. E., Thatcher, J. B., & Chin, W. (2013). Understanding the impact of individual creativity with information technology upon the deep us- age of IT systems. In J. P . Shim, Y. Hwang, & S. Pet- ter (Eds.), AMCIS 2013 proceedings (Article 2). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/ AdoptionOfIT/GeneralPresentations/2 Seddon, P . B., Constantinidis, D., Tamm, T., & Dod, H. (2017). How does business analytics contribute to business value? Informa- tion Systems Journal, 27(3), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/ isj.12101 Seeber, I., de Vreede, G. J., Maier, R., & Weber, B. (2017). Beyond brainstorming: Exploring convergence in teams. Journal of Man- agement Information Systems, 34(4), 939–969. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07421222.2017.1393303 Seidel, S., Berente, N., & Gibbs, J. (2019). Designing with au- tonomous tools: Video games, procedural generation, and cre- ativity. In H. Krcmar & J. Fedorowicz (Eds.), ICIS 2019 proceed- ings (Article 14). Association for Information Systems. https:// aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/future_of_work/future_work/14 Seidel, S., Müller-Wienbergen, F., & Becker, J. (2010). The concept of creativity in the information systems discipline: Past, present, and prospects. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27(2), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.02714 Shao, Z., Li, X. X., & Wang, Q. (2021). From ambidextrous learning to digital creativity: An integrative theoretical framework. Infor- mation Systems Journal, 32(3), 544–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/ isj.12361 Sher, N., Kent, C., & Rafaeli, S. (2020). Creativity is connecting things: The role of network topology in fostering collective cre- ativity in multi-participant asynchronous online discussions. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 53rd annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 310–319). https://doi.org/ 10.24251/HICSS.2020.039 Shirish, A., Boughzala, I., & Srivastava, S. C. (2014). Examining the role of legal climate on individual creativity in virtual worlds. In AMCIS 2014 proceedings (Article 4). Association for Infor- mation Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2014/Posters/ VirtualCommunities/4 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 55 Siemon, D., Khalili Narani, S., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2017). The benets of creativity support systems for entrepreneurs: An exploratory study. In AMCIS 2017 proceedings (Article 14). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ amcis2017/ICTs/Presentations/14 Siemon, D., Plaumann, R., Regenberg, A., Yuan, Y., Liu, Z., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2016). “Tinkering for creativity”: An exper- iment to utilize MaKey MaKey invention kit as group priming to enhance collaborative creativity. In AMCIS 2016 proceedings (Article 3). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel .aisnet.org/amcis2016/Open/Presentations/3 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press. Strohmann, T., Fischer, S., Siemon, D., Brachten, F., Lattemann, C., Robra-Bissantz, S., & Stieglitz, S. (2018). Virtual moderation assistance: Creating design guidelines for virtual assistants sup- porting creative workshops. In M. Tanabu & D. Senoo (Eds.), P ACIS 2018 proceedings (Article 80). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/80 Szopinski, D. (2020). Exploring design principles for stimuli in business model development tools. In J. George, S. Paul, & R. De’ (Eds.), ICIS 2020 proceedings (Article 15). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/digital _innovation/digital_innovation/15 Tamm, T., Hallikainen, P ., & Tim, Y. (2021). Creative analytics: Towards data-inspired creative decisions. Information Systems Journal, 32(4), 729–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12369 Tams, S., & Dulipovici, A. (2022). The creativity model of age and innovation with IT: Why older users are less innova- tive and what to do about it. European Journal of Information Systems. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0960085x.2022.2137064 Thatcher, S. M. B., & Brown, S. A. (2010). Individual creativity in teams: The importance of communication media mix. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss .2010.03.004 Tjørnehøj, G., & Mathiassen, L. (2010). Improvisation during process-technology adoption: A longitudinal study of a soft- ware rm. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2009.20 Tomat, L., & Trkman, P . (2019). Digital transformation—The hype and conceptual changes. Economic and Business Review, 21(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.15458/ebr.90 Trauth, E. M., Avital, M., Kendall, J. E., Kendall, K. E., & Boland, R., Jr. (2012). Out of the box and onto the stage: Enacting infor- mation systems research through theatre. In M.-H. Huang, G. Piccoli, & V . Sambamurthy (Eds.), ICIS 2012 proceedings (Arti- cle 5). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet .org/icis2012/proceedings/Panels/5 Vogel, J., Schuir, J., Koßmann, C., Thomas, O., Teuteberg, F., & Ham- borg, K.-C. (2021). Let’s do design thinking virtually: Design and evaluation of a virtual reality application for collaborative prototyping. In ECIS 2021 research papers (Article 112). Associa- tion for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021 _rp/112 vom Brocke, J., & Lippe, S. (2010). Towards creativity-aware project management—An initial study on creativity in research projects. In ACIS 2010 proceedings (Article 93). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2010/93 vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In ECIS 2009 proceedings (Article 161). Association for Information Sys- tems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2009/161 Wang, K., & Holahan, P . (2017). The effect of monetary reward on creativity: The role of motivational orientation. In T. X. Bui & R. Sprague Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th annual Hawaii In- ternational Conference on System Sciences (pp. 224–233). https:// doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.026 Wang, K., & Nickerson, J.V . (2019). A Wikipedia-based method to support creative idea generation: The role of stimulus relatedness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(4), 1284–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019 .1661095 Wang, K., Nickerson, J. V ., & Sakamoto, Y. (2013). Crowdsourced idea generation: The effect of exposure to an original idea. In J. P . Shim, Y. Hwang, & S. Petter (Eds.), AMCIS 2013 proceedings (Article 5). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/VirtualCommunities/ GeneralPresentations/5 Wang, P ., Lee, M., Meng, X., & Butler, B. (2016). Toward an ecology theory of creativity in IT products: A study of mobile device in- dustry. In ICIS 2016 proceedings (Article 5). Association for Infor- mation Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/GeneralIS/ Presentations/5 Wang, W., Chen, W., Zhu, K., & Wang, H. W. (2020). Emphasiz- ing the entrepreneur or the idea? The impact of text content emphasis on investment decisions in crowdfunding. Decision Support Systems, 136, Article 113341. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.dss.2020.113341 Wang, W., & Li, B. (2021). Empower audience creativity using multi-modal video analytics: Evidence from TED Talks. In A. Barua & R. Wright (Eds.), ICIS 2021 proceedings (Article 12). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2021/dig_innov/dig_innov/12 Wang, X., Ye, S., & Teo, H. H. (2014). Effects of interruptions on creative thinking. In ICIS 2014 proceedings (Article 10). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2014/proceedings/HCI/10 Wang, Y. Y., Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Yang, F. (2021). Role stres- sors, job satisfaction, and employee creativity: The cross-level moderating role of social media use within teams. Information & Management, 58(3), Article 103317. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.im.2020.103317 Williams, C. K., & Wynn, D. E. (2018). A critical realist script for creative theorising in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0960085X.2018.1435231 Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Grifn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/258761 Wu, K., & Boland, D. (2017). Design an information system to stim- ulate creativity in organizations. In ICIS 2017 proceedings (Article 17). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet .org/icis2017/IS-Development/Presentations/17 Yan, J. K., Leidner, D., & Benbya, H. (2016). User-generated content and employee creativity: Evidence from Salesforce IdeaExchange community. In ICIS 2016 proceedings (Article 7). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2016/Crowdsourcing/Presentations/7 Yao, X., Li, X., Zhang, C., & Ling, H. (2017). Fueling virtual teams with creativity through composition of private and public workspaces. In ICIS 2017 proceedings (Article 3). As- sociation for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2017/SocialMedia/Presentations/3 Yu, L., & Nickerson, J. V . (2011). Generating creative ideas through crowds: An experimental study of combination. In C. Beath, M. D. Myers, & K. K. Wei (Eds.), ICIS 2011 proceedings (Article 21). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2011/proceedings/onlinecommunity/21 Zhao, Z. Z., & Oberoi, P . (2022). Designing crowdsolving Ba: A closer look at the features of crowdsolving platforms to manage organizational knowledge. Information & Management, 59(4), Ar- ticle 103641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103641 Zou, L., Ke, W., Zhang, J., & Wei, K. K. (2014). User creativity in crowdsourcing community: From extrinsic motivation perspective. In P ACIS 2014 proceedings (Article 45). Asso- ciation for Information Systems. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ pacis2014/45 56 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 Appendix Table A1. Evaluation of the analyzed papers (in alphabetical order). Role of the The 4Ps The perspective The study creativity perspective adopted while position/view variable/ Research of creativity studying creativity on creativity construct methods Author/authors Person Process Product Press Individual Group Organization Market Outcome Process Required feature The construct studied as creativity The context of studying creativity Dependent Independent Qualitative Quantitative Aggarwal et al. (2021) Knowledge acquisition, Unsuccessful ideation, Successful ideation An open innovation platform (n/a) Ahmad et al. (2018) (n/a) Creativity tests (n/a) (n/a) Alnuaimi et al. (2010) Number of unique ideas A group support system Althuizen and Reichel (2016) Creative problem solving A creativity support system Althuizen and Wierenga (2014) Creative ability, Novelty, Usefulness, and Overall creativity A creativity support system Althuizen et al. (2012) Novelty and usefulness A creativity support system Avital et al. (2012) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Baker and Mills (2011) Creative use (n/a) (n/a) Baskerville et al. (2016) (n/a) (n/a) Bounded creativity (n/a) (n/a) Baumgart et al. (2021) Creativity A technology-driven environment Baumgart et al. (2020) Creativity (n/a) Bergener et al. (2012) Creative act Consulting Bhagwatwar et al. (2018) Idea quantity, Novelty, Workability, Breadth of ideas, Depth of ideas A virtual environment and a Group support system Binsawad et al. (2018) Individual creativity A technology business incubator Boughzala et al. (2020) (n/a) Digital creativity (n/a) (n/a) Brkovic et al. (2022) Creativity of virtual groups A creative task Bunjak et al. (2021) Creativity Working professionals Chiasson and Davidson (2012) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Discourse analysis of IS texts (n/a) (n/a) Ciriello and Richter (2015) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Collective creativity (n/a) (n/a) de Vreede and de Vreede (2017) Creative performance (n/a) Debowski et al. (2021) Creativity Creativity workshops Dennis et al. (2013) Creative ideas Electronic brainstorming Ding et al. (2019) Employee creativity Enterprise social networking (continued on next page) ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 57 Table A1. (continued) Role of the The 4Ps The perspective The study creativity perspective adopted while position/view variable/ Research of creativity studying creativity on creativity construct methods Author/authors Person Process Product Press Individual Group Organization Market Outcome Process Required feature The construct studied as creativity The context of studying creativity Dependent Independent Qualitative Quantitative Fehrer et al. (2022) (n/a) Business process design Ganye and Salam (2022) Employee creativity Remote working settings Gebbing et al. (2022) (n/a) Virtual creative collaboration Goerzen (2017) Output creativity A crowdsourcing platform Goncalves (2021) People’s creativity Startups Griebel et al. (2020) (n/a) A creative process (fashion design) Haider (2012) (n/a) Technology development (n/a) (n/a) Harison (2010) (n/a) (n/a) A minimal degree of creativity Data ownership rights He and Gou (2022) Employee creativity Design knowledge for employee creativity Hildebrand et al. (2013) Creativity of self-designed products Mass customization systems Hossain et al. (2012) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Organizational creativity (n/a) (n/a) Jalowski et al. (2020) Individual and group creativity Persuasive technologies Javadi et al. (2013) Knowledge activation Electronic brainstorming Jenkin et al. (2011) Creative task A Creativity and Group support system (n/a) Karacic et al. (2021) (n/a) Machine learning (n/a) Khedhaouria and Belbaly (2011) Organizational creativity climate Intranet—a Group support system Klein, Oschinsky, Weber, Kordyaka, and Niehaves (2020) (n/a) Creativity support systems (n/a) (n/a) Klein, Oschinsky, Weber, and Niehaves (2020) Creative output A creativity support system Klein, Weber, et al. (2020) Creative output A creativity support system Klein et al. (2021) Individual creativity Public sector Kohler et al. (2011) (n/a) Virtual worlds (n/a) (n/a) Krejci et al. (2022) (n/a) Digital innovation Lee and Chau (2019) Breadth of ideas, Depth of ideas Virtual reality Levallet and Chan (2022) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Li and Kettinger (2021) Complementary creativity Software development (continued on next page) 58 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 Table A1. (continued) Role of the The 4Ps The perspective The study creativity perspective adopted while position/view variable/ Research of creativity studying creativity on creativity construct methods Author/authors Person Process Product Press Individual Group Organization Market Outcome Process Required feature The construct studied as creativity The context of studying creativity Dependent Independent Qualitative Quantitative Lin et al. (2022) Individual creativity Employees from different industries Literat (2017) Collective creativity A crowdsourcing platform London and Grover (2021) Creativity Creative task performance Medappa and Srivastava (2020) Creativity of open-source software Open-source software (n/a) Merchel et al. (2021) Creativity—digital competencies Technology in everyday work Miao et al. (2020) Individual creativity Software development Mikalef and Gupta (2021) Organizational creativity Articial intelligence in organizations Minas and Dennis (2019) Creative solutions A creativity support system Müller-Wienbergen et al. (2011) Creative work A creativity support system (n/a) Nevo et al. (2020) Employee creativity: idea generation, idea elaboration, and idea championing Business analytics tools, customer relationship management systems, and ERP Nierhoff and Herrmann (2017) Organization creativity A survey system prototype (n/a) Olszak et al. (2018) Organizational creativity A creativity support system Olszak et al. (2017) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) A creativity support system (n/a) (n/a) Ozturk et al. (2022) Crowdsourcing creativity (n/a) Park et al. (2015) Perceived IS support for creativity (n/a) Payne et al. (2018) IS creative self-efcacy scale (n/a) Pilcicki et al. (2021) (n/a) A creativity support system Pilcicki et al. (2022) Creativity under constraints, Radical creativity, Incremental creativity, Creative collaboration Creativity support systems Pita et al. (2020) Employee creativity Employees working in different organizations Pozzebon et al. (2011) (n/a) Grounded theory methods in the IS eld (n/a) Qu et al. (2022) Team creativity A creative task (continued on next page) ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 59 Table A1. (continued) Role of the The 4Ps The perspective The study creativity perspective adopted while position/view variable/ Research of creativity studying creativity on creativity construct methods Author/authors Person Process Product Press Individual Group Organization Market Outcome Process Required feature The construct studied as creativity The context of studying creativity Dependent Independent Qualitative Quantitative Redlich et al. (2018) (n/a) A group support system (n/a) Ren et al. (2014) Three dimensions of creativity: divergence, effectiveness, and relevance Creative task and idea generation Ren et al. (2017) Creativity: idea generation and idea building A creative task, a crowdsourcing experiment Riemenschneider and Armstrong (2021) Creativity IS personnel in organizations Roquilly (2011) (n/a) (n/a) Virtual worlds (n/a) (n/a) Rose et al. (2016) (n/a) Process of software development Schwarz et al. (2013) Individual creativity in the domain of IT, Creation of novel ideas, Creation of useful ideas Electronic document system Seidel et al. (2019) Creative outcome Autonomous design tools Shao et al. (2021) Digital creativity IoT in daily work Sher et al. (2020) Collective creativity An online discussion platform Shirish et al. (2014) Individual creativity Virtual worlds, user-generated content (n/a) (n/a) Siemon et al. (2016) Number of unique ideas, average originality score of ideas, average paradigm relatedness score of ideas, and count of novel ideas A creativity support system Siemon et al. (2017) (n/a) A creativity support system (n/a) Strohmann et al. (2018) (n/a) (n/a) Creativity and design thinking workshops (n/a) (n/a) Szopinski (2020) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Creativity A creativity support system Tamm et al. (2021) Creative analytics Business analytics (n/a) Tams and Dulipovici (2022) Creative IT self-efcacy Electronic knowledge repositories (continued on next page) 60 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2024;26:45–60 Table A1. (continued) Role of the The 4Ps The perspective The study creativity perspective adopted while position/view variable/ Research of creativity studying creativity on creativity construct methods Author/authors Person Process Product Press Individual Group Organization Market Outcome Process Required feature The construct studied as creativity The context of studying creativity Dependent Independent Qualitative Quantitative Thatcher and Brown (2010) Creativity: the number of creative ideas, the usefulness of the ideas, and the overall creativity of the work (n/a) Tjørnehøj and Mathiassen (2010) (n/a) Software process improvement technology Trauth et al. (2012) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Vogel et al. (2021) (n/a) A creativity support system and virtual reality (n/a) (n/a) vom Brocke and Lippe (2010) Creative work (n/a) (n/a) Wang and Holahan (2017) Creative outcome (n/a) Wang and Li (2021) Idea creativity TED Talk channels on YouTube Wang and Nickerson (2019) Ideas A creativity support system Wang et al. (2020) Text content (idea creativity) Kickstarter campaigns Wang et al. (2021) Employee creativity Social media for teamwork Wang et al. (2013) Originality An online crowdsourcing environment Wang et al. (2014) Personal creativity (n/a) Wang et al. (2016) Novelty (n/a) Williams and Wynn (2018) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Theorizing in the IS eld (n/a) (n/a) Wu and Boland (2017) Group and individual creativity A creativity support system Yan et al. (2016) Employee creativity Online user innovation communities Yao et al. (2017) Team creativity Collaboration tasks Yu and Nickerson (2011) Creative ideas Crowdsourcing, idea generation Zhao and Oberoi (2022) Concept of Ba (roughly, “a place for creativity”) A “crowdsolving” platform (n/a) (n/a) Zou et al. (2014) Creative performance Crowdsourcing, open innovation communities Legend: x—evaluated parameter and (n/a)—data not available, parameter was not evaluated.