Expert-innovator behaviour questionnaire as a new tool for selecting potential experts

• Autorzy: Deptuła Anna M. , Nosal Czesław S.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/emj-2025-0015

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The effects of global change on development and the sustainability of the economy are visible in implementing innovations. Appropriate selection of experts, considering various knowledge areas, should use selected tools. The article introduces a research tool for selecting experts for innovation risk assessment. In particular, it aims to present individual measurement scales and their reliability assessment (Cronbach’s alpha). The article presents the factor structure of a potential expert’s competencies measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed for the appropriate selection of specialists from various industries, including production, mechanics, and management. The questionnaire constitutes a tool applicable for assessing and selecting people involved in the implementation and risk assessment of innovations. It is based on the following four scales (factors): open mind, closed mind, cognitive motivation, and response to uncertainty. The questionnaire’s effectiveness was studied using two research samples, n= 224 and n= 349, comprised of entrepreneurs and individuals professionally related to business and development and implementation of innovations. The interviewees were selected randomly. Factor analysis was used to reduce the test items in the questionnaire. The internal reliability of items was analysed using Cronbach’s alpha. The proposed questionnaire forms a new tool that can be used in selecting experts who deal with the risk assessment of innovations and in the broadly understood process of recruiting staff with appropriate competencies in terms of mindset characteristics. The article presents an analysis related to the conduct of typical research in Management and Quality Sciences, as well as practical principles guiding the use of the questionnaire, which may have wider application in the practice of risk management. The article presents the measurement tool with the answer key, which is a valuable guide for interpreting the results. The questionnaire facilitates the selection of individuals focused on independent and courageous problem-solving and the statement of evaluations. At the same time, an adequate level of caution should be respected, characterising people with risk aversion. Furthermore, creativity and openness are coupled with a considerable ability to develop new solutions and rationally respond to difficult and unpredictable situations.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

expert; innovation; creativity; risk; questionnaire; assessment; open mind; closed mind; cognitive motivation; response to uncertainty

PL

ekspert; innowacyjność; kreatywność; ryzyko; kwestionariusz; ocena; otwarty umysł; zamknięty umysł; motywacja poznawcza; reakcja na niepewność

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej
• Czasopismo: Engineering Management in Production and Services
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: Vol. 17, no. 2
• Strony: 106--116
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 65 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Deptuła Anna M.

• Opole University of Technology, Ozimska 75, 45-370, Opole, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-4971

autor

Nosal Czesław S.

• SWPS University in Wroclaw, Ostrowskiego 30b, 53-238, Wrocław, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1693-2692

Bibliografia

• Alegre, A., Pérez-Escoda, N., & López-Cassá, E. (2019). The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and personality. Is trait EI really anchored within the Big Five, big two and big one frameworks? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 866. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00866
• Anderson, T. W. (2003). An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Third Edition. New York, USA: A John Wiley & Sons.
• Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., & Pe trides, K. V. (2016). The Incremental validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): a systematic review and meta-Analysis. Journal of personality assessment, 98, 261-276. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630
• Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emo tional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Per sonality and Individual Differences, 43, 179-189. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.019
• Ayağ, Z., & Özdemir, R. G. (2007). An Analytic Network Process-Based Approach to Concept Evalua tion in a New Product Development Environment. Journal of Engineering Design, 18, 209-226. doi: 10.1080/09544820600752740
• Bouman, M. J. (1980). Application of information-process ing and decision-making research. In G. R. Ungson & D. N. Braunstein (eds.), Decision making: An in terdisciplinary inquiry (pp. 129-167). Boston, USA: Kent Publishing.
• Busenitz, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial Risk and Strategic Decision Making. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 325-340.
• Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 38, 476-506.
• Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993). The sixteen personality factor fifth edition questionnaire. The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and As sessment: Personality Measurement and Testing, 2(2), 135.
• Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55-81.
• Chin, K. S., Tang, D. W., Yang, J. B., Wong, S. Y., & Wang, H. (2009). Assessing New Product Development Project Risk by Bayesian Network with a Systematic Probability Generation Methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9879-9890. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.019
• Choi, H. G., & Ahn, J. (2010). Risk Analysis Models and Risk Degree Determination in New Product Devel opment: A Case Study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(1–2), 110–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.03.006
• Cloninger, R. C., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and char acter. Archives of general psychiatry, 50(12), 975-990.
• Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, W. J., & Tobin, R. M. (2021). Psy chological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (10 th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual Revised. Odessa, USA: Psycho logical Assessment Resources.
• Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of us ing short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874-88. doi: 10.1037/a0027403
• Crocker, L., & Algina J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of Psychological Testing (5th ed.). New York, USA: Harber Collins Publisher.
• Deptuła, A. M., & Nosal C. S. (2021). Innovator Behavior Questionnaire as an Expert Selecting for Techni cal Innovation Risk Assessment. European Research Studies Journal, 14(1), 107-119. doi:10.35808/ersj/2032
• Deptuła, A. M., & Knosala R. (2015). Risk Assessment of the Innovative Projects Implementation. Manage ment and Production Engineering Review, 6, 15-25. doi: 10.1515/mper-2015-0032
• Deptuła, A. M. (In preparation). Criteria of expert selection for the risk management process in an enterprise. Sup porting tools - Method of selection - Research results. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Opolskiej.
• Deptuła, A. M., & Rudnik, K. (2017). Risk Assessment of Innovative Project Using Fuzzy Inference System with Expert’s Psychological Conditions. In: Proceed ings of the 29th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA), p. 3093-3105. Vi enna, Austria.
• Deptuła, A. M., & Rudnik, K. (2018). Fuzzy Approach Us ing Experts’ Psychological Conditions to Estimate the Criteria Importance for the Assessment of Inno vative Projects Risk. Management and Production En gineering Review, 9(1), 13-23. doi: 10.24425/119396
• Dey, P. K., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2004). Selection and Applica tion of Risk Management Tools and Techniques for Build-Operate-Transfer Projects. Industrial Man agement and Data Systems, 104(3), 334-346. doi: 10.1108/02635570410530748
• Dörfler, V., & Ackermann, F. (2012). Understand ing intuition: The case for two forms of intu ition. Management Learning, 43(5), 545-564. doi: 10.1177/1350507611434686
• Dotgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. (2008). The Man agement of Technological Innovation. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
• Ericsson, K. A., & Chase, W. G. (1981). Exceptional memo ry. American Scientist, 70(6), 607-615.
• Ericsson, K. A., & Polson, P. G. (1988). An experimental analysis of the mechanisms of a memory skill. Jour nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 305-316.
• Garb, H. N. (1989). Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 387-396.
• Goldberg, L. R. (1970). Man versus model of man: A ratio nale, plus some evidence, for a method of improv ing on clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 422-432.
• Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
• Gustafson, J. E. (1963). The computer for use in private practice. In: Proceedings of Fifth IBM Medical Sympo sium, p. 101-111. White Plains, USA: mM Technical Publication Division. Hornowska, E. (2007). Testy psychologiczne. Teoria i prakty ka [Psychological tests. Theory and practice]. Warsaw, Poland: SCHOLAR.
• Kahraman, C., Büyüközkan G., & Ateş N. Y. A. (2007). Two Phase Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Ap proach for New Product Introduction. Infor mation Sciences, 177, 1567-1582. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2006.09.008
• Knosala, R., & Deptuła, A. M. (2018). Ocena ryzyka wdrażania innowacji [Risk assessment of implement ing innovations]. Warsaw, Poland: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
• Larkin, J., McDennott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solv ing physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
• Larsen, R., & Buss, D. (2013). Personality Psychology: Do mains of Knowledge About Human Nature. London, England: McGraw–Hill, Higer Education.
• Lee, S. F., Tsai Y. C., & Jih W. J. (2006). An Empirical Exami nation of Customer Perceptions of Mobile Advertis ing. Information Resources Management Journal, 19, 39-55. doi: 10.4018/irmj.2006100103
• Manly, B. F. J., Jorge, A., & Navarro, A. (2016). Multivari ate statistical methods: a primer. Boca Raton, USA: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Manuel, E. (2007). Innovation and Risk Management. Munich Personal RePEe Archive, 2277. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.969028
• Mobey, A., & Parker, D. (2002). Risk Evaluation and Its Im portance to Project Implementation. Work Study, 51, 202-208. doi: 10.1108/00438020210430760
• Mullins, J., & Sutherland, D. J. (1998). New Product Devel opment in Rapidly Changing Markets: An Explorato ry Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(3), 224-236. doi: 10.1016/S0737-6782(97)00081-7
• Nadkarni, S., & Shenoy, P. P. (2001). Bayesian Network Ap proach to Making Inferences in Causal Maps. Euro pean Journal of Operational Research, 128, 479-498. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00368-9
• Neubauer, A. C., & Freudenthaler, H. H. (2005). Models of emotional intelligence. In Schultz R and Roberts RD (eds.), Emotional intelligence: An international hand book, 31-50.
• Nosal, C. S. (1990). Psychologiczne modele umysłu [Psycho logical models of mind]. Warszawa, Polska: Państwo we Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
• Nosal, C. S. (2001). Psychologia Myślenia i Działania Me nedżera: Rozwiązywanie Problemów, Podejmowanie Decyzji, Kreowanie Strategii [Psychology of Manage rial Thinking and Acting: Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Strategy Formation]. Wrocław, Poland: Akade.
• Nosal, C. S. (1992). Diagnoza typów umysłu [Diagno sis of mind type]. Warszawa, Poland: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Nosal, C. S. (2021). On the relationship between intuition, consciousness and cognition: in search of a unified concept of mind. Annals of Psychology: Perception and Cognition, 24(3-4), 345-360.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
• Petrides, K. V., Perazzo, M. F., Pérez-Díaz, P. A., Jeffrey, S., Richardson, H. C., Sevdalis, N., & Ahmad, N. (2022). Trait Emotional Intelligence in Sur geons. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.829084
• Prigogine, I. (1996). La fin des certitudes. Truffaut, Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.
• Reber, R., Ruch-Monachon, M. A., & Perrig, W. J. (2007). Decomposing intuitive components in a conceptual problem solving task. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 294-309. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.05.004
• Rencher, A. C. (2002). Methods of Multivariate Analysis. Second edition. New York, USA: Wiley-Interscience. The Institute of Operational. (2012). Sound Practice Guid ance. Retrieved from https://www.ior-institute.org/sound-practice-guidance, access 8.04/2022
• Robin, R., & Riedel, J. C. K. H. (1997). Design and Inno vation in Successful Product Competition. Tech novation, 17(10), 537-548. doi: 10.1016/s01664972(97)00050-3
• Rokeach, M. (2015). The Open and Closed Mind. Investiga tions into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personal ity Systems. Connecticut, USA: Martino Fine Books.
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psycho logical Monographs, 80, 1-28. doi: 10.1037/h0092976
• Sarbin, T. R. (1944). The logic of prediction in psychology. Psychological Review, 51, 210-228.
• Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an ‘Explanation’ of behav ior? Psychological Science, 3(3), 150-161.
• Singer, R. (1975). Motor Learning and Human Performance. New York, USA: Macmillan and Company.
• Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. In: P. Slovic (Ed.), T he Perception of Risk. London, England: Earthscan Publications.
• Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. London, England: Macmillan.
• Strelau, J. (2014). Różnice Indywidualne. Historia – Deter minanty – Zastosowania [Individual Differences: His tory – Determinants – Applications]. Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in prob ability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293 315.
• Ungson, G. R, & Braunstein, D. N. (1984). Decision Mak ing: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 479.
• Zakrzewska, M. (1994). Analiza czynnikowa - zastosowania naukowe. Psychologia – metodologia [Factor analysis - scientific applications. Psychology – methodology]. Poznań, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation. Hand book of Self-Regulation, 13-39. doi: 10.1016/b978012109890-2/50031-7
• Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation Seeking and Risky Be havior. Sensation Seeking and Risky Behavior. American Psychological Association; New York, doi: 10.1037/11555-000