Innovation Management Software: balancing exploitation and exploration

According to PwC’s 25th Annual Global CEO Survey (2022), 91% of CEOs cite innovation as essential for survival. Yet only 32% of organizations have established formal processes to manage innovation, and, as reported in McKinsey’s 2023 Global Innovation Report, 94% of CEOs remain dissatisfied with their innovation outcomes—a figure that has persisted for over a decade. Are CEO's eternal dissatisfied optimists, or this persistent dissatisfaction signals a deeper, unresolved gap in how innovation is organized and managed—a gap that both scholars and practitioners must address. From traditional R&D to open innovation, innovation management has evolved with the most recent aspects characterized by greater openness, networked collaboration, and increasing digitalization. Over the decades, organizations have consistently sought digital tools to better support the innovation process, from the 1990s' Computer-Aided Innovation (CAI) systems addressing the “fuzzy front end” to today’s instant messaging platforms facilitating communication for distributed innovation cycles. Within this context, a new category is emerging: Innovation Management Software (IMS). These digital tools, tailored to diverse innovation practices, are gaining traction but have yet to reach mainstream adoption—with penetration rates between 20% and 50% among their target audiences (Gartner, 2024). As a result, IMS remains a loosely defined category, often mistaken for CRM (Customer Relationship Management), ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), or project management tools, and its distinct role in shaping innovation outcomes remains elusive. Our study analyzes 112 IMS value propositions to uncover the dominant logic and vision these tools embed. Interestingly, although IMS are positioned as fostering innovation, their core promises center on efficiency, control, and predictability—the defining hallmarks of exploitation. Building on James March's seminal distinction between exploration (uncertain, costly) and exploitation (systematic, efficient), our findings suggest that IMS positions innovation closer to operational excellence, often emphasizing measurable performance over creativity or open collaboration. In this TREO Talk, we invite the IS community to engage with several questions: to what extent can digital tools like IMS shape the trajectory of the evolution of innovation management? From a theoretical perspective, do our findings point to a novel form of tool-based ambidexterity, where exploration is placed under an exploitation framework? From a managerial standpoint, could reframing innovation through an exploitation lens help reconcile the persistent gap between CEO expectations and dissatisfaction regarding innovation outcomes? From an organization perspective, to what extent a company needs to change the way it operates to fully leverage the potential of these tools?