I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I′m frightened of the old ones. – John Cage With this quote, we'd like to kick off the year 2017. May it be filled with novel ideas and let us work together to make this year a happy and good one – despite all the sorrows and fears many of us are feeling. Currently the world is changing at a rapid pace and we might wonder where our contribution as management scholars can be. Yet we feel that in our specific domain – creativity and innovation – we bring a lot to the table that can help the world to become a better place. We would like to call out to our readers to think with our research the unthinkable, to spot and develop the new and crazy ideas, to educate our students to think, act and live in an open-minded fashion, empathic to the needs of others, and then distribute our knowledge to a wide audience, making an impact beyond our small world of academia. Only with all of us working together, doing insightful research and contributing to our environment, will we be able to face the current challenges and provide answers to the questions emerging. Consequently, this issue addresses the call for new ideas – conceptually, methodologically and object-wise. It also presents articles on how to improve idea generation, which processes and tools might help, and what preconditions from an organizational and individual perspective are needed to generate and evaluate radical ideas. The first paper, ‘Studying Organizational Creativity As Process: Fluidity Or Duality?’, takes a novel and very important perspective on creativity. While we often focus on creativity as an outcome, we not so often look at the process of creativity. Neither do we know a lot about the way creativity develops and its stabilization within and across organizations. The paper takes both perspectives: ‘creativity as becoming’ and ‘creativity as practice’. The authors, Johann Fortwengel, Elke Schüßler and Jörg Sydow, develop two research agendas for studying organizational creativity as a process. Each of the two agendas promises to yield different but potentially complementary insights that bring ‘process pluralism’ to our field, and we very much look forward to the discussion and new papers this paper will stimulate. Further discussion and research impulses will probably also be generated by the second paper. In their paper ‘In Search of New Product Ideas: Identifying Ideas in Online Communities by Machine Learning and Text Mining’, Kasper Christensen, Sladjana Nørskov, Lars Frederiksen and Joachim Scholderer propose a text mining technique and a classification model for the automatic analysis of online community data. Using 2,803 texts from the Lego online community LUGNET (the Lego User Group Network), they use text mining techniques to train a classification model. They conclude that machine learning and text mining have a large potential for innovation management by detecting ideas in large amounts of text. However, they also mention that this kind of research is just at the beginning and that the next iterations are soon to come. We see this article as a wonderful example that we, as creativity and innovation researchers, should not be afraid of technology soon replacing us, but should view it as helping us to build the foundation to be even more creative in the future. This individual, human creativity that especially blossoms in interdisciplinary teams is also the focus of the third paper. In their paper ‘Individual Creativity during the Ideation Phase of Product Innovation: An Interactional Perspective’, Jing Guo, Qin Su and Qian Zhang analyse the interaction effects of personality and group diversity on employees' creative performance, focusing on the ideation stage of product innovation. In addition, the authors conduct an experiment based on a sample of 142 working adults. They show that openness to experience and extraversion are positively related to individual creativity, whereas neuroticism and conscientiousness are negatively related to individual creativity. Furthermore, the impacts of openness to experience and extraversion on individual creativity, respectively, are moderated by both functional diversity and gender diversity. It almost appears that the authors of the next paper have waited for these results when they conducted their research project. In their paper ‘Different Styles for Different Needs – The Effect of Cognitive Styles on Idea Generation’, Carina Lomberg, Tobias Kollmann and Christoph Stöckmann look at the precursors for innovation. Drawing on Kirton's Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Inventory, they test the assumption that cognitive styles differentiate between preferences for producing ideas in a certain way. In a study with 191 individuals, they find that the cognitive style originality associates with ideational fluency, whereas the rule governance style associates with the generation of original ideas. By providing a cognitive explanation for how ideas are generated, they deepen the understanding of the idea generation process and provide valuable insights on how the use of the KAI might help firms to assemble adequate teams. Once the ideas are generated, the question remains how to evaluate them and their innovative potential. In their article ‘From Creative Ideas to Innovation Performance: The Role of Assessment Criteria’, Marianne Harbo Frederiksen and Mette Præst Knudsen build on the existing creativity and innovation management literature to select three criteria – novelty, usefulness and market potential – to assess the innovation potential of early new product proposals. Industry and market experts make assessments of 106 student-generated projects and find proof for the distinctiveness of the three criteria. They also show the value of each criterion's independent role in assessing the innovation potential. The sixth paper also focuses on idea generation and thinking differently, but in a larger organizational context. In ‘The Role of Organizational Vision in Guiding Idea Generation within SME Contexts’, Graham Perkins, Jonathan Lean and Robert Newbery show that ignoring employee perception may result in a destructive impact on idea generation. Through in-depth qualitative research with a range of SMEs, their study shows that structure in the form of an outlining framework assists in opening a liminal space for ideation. Furthermore, they also show that organizational visions can act as a target, assisting the development of relevant ideas. SMEs need to consider not only the development of an outlining framework or structuring, which opens a space into which individuals can contribute ideas, but also how this framing or structuring will be perceived. Finally, in the last paper, ‘Design-Driven Innovation in Retailing: An Empirical Examination of New Services in Car Dealership’, Emilio Bellini, Claudio Dell'Era, Federico Frattini and Roberto Verganti look at what values need to be communicated to the customer in order to successfully capture new markets. They look at 104 examples of strategic innovation projects in the automotive retail sector. Their exploratory empirical analysis shows that a certain number of automotive retail firms choose design-driven innovation (DDI) as a strategy embodied in strategic innovation projects designed to achieve superior performance. Their findings suggest that radical innovation in meanings may be elicited by spatial reconfiguration and expansion, whereas temporal innovation does not seem to provide a fertile ground for DDI implementation. Consequently, entry into new markets requires a radical redefinition of the values proposed to consumers and additionally the identification of new meanings that may attract them. Last but not least, please be reminded that the 18th International CINet Conference will take place in Potsdam from 10 to 12 September 2017. This year's topic is ‘Digitalization and Innovation: Designing the Organization of the Future’. Please note that the deadline for submitting papers is 15 March. We are very much looking forward to welcoming many of you in the beautiful yet digitalized city of Potsdam!