Framing meaningful colors:

how senses and aesthetics organize innovation in MedTech

companies

Riccardo Masiero

Stockholm School of Economics,

House of Innovation

Giada Baldessarelli

Stockholm School of Economics,

House of Innovation

Roberto Verganti

Stockholm School of Economics,

House of Innovation

INTRODUCTION

Climate crises and social inequalities pushes organizations to rethink their production models

and seek alternative entrepreneurial processes (Dodd et al., 2023; Johnsen et al., 2018) . Recent

research in design, innovation and entrepreneurship highlights that framing, the social process

of meaning construction (Benford & Snow, 2000; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Goffman,

1972), is central in the production of innovation and change when organizations face emergent

issues in a complex white water world (Kim, 2021; Pendleton-Jullian & Brown, 2018; Verganti

et al., 2021). So far organizational scholarship have theorized framing mainly in terms of

1
linguistic mechanisms, e.g. metaphors and analogies (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014),

overlooking the crucial role of sensorial and aesthetic interactions ubiquitously present in

creative processes (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2018). In fact, some studies have provided empirical

evidence of, albeit not theorized, the role of sensory-driven practices in reshaping

organizational meaning construction (Cornelissen et al., 2014). Organizational actors

“experience […] sensorially and not only, or even primarily, through inferring, reasoning, or

abstract categorizations” (Pakarinen & Baldessarelli, 2023) and such experiences influence

how they construct and reconstruct meanings (Cerulo, 2018; Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010).

Therefore, in this work we investigate the question: how do actors reframe their organization

of innovation processes through sensorial and aesthetic interactions?

Answering this question will help to better understand the role of sensorial interactions

(Baldessarelli et al., 2022) during organizational framing processes, shedding new light on how

meanings construction patterns are reframed in the daily life of an organization. At the

individual level, aesthetic interactions are defined as those experiences that start “with an initial

perceptual hook followed by a more detached, intellectual appreciation that returns the viewer

to the work with a deeper understanding” (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1990). These aspects

are also reflected at the organizational level, with the aesthetic perspective in organization and

management emphasizing that “it is people who create, invent and enact organization, doing

so not as individual yet interrelated ‘minds’ but through their corporeality and always in relation

to the nonhuman” (Strati, 2007, p. 66). In fact, recent findings highlight the crucial role of

aesthetics-economic dialogues in organizing creative and entrepreneurial firm (Austin et al.,

2018), opening the possibility for an aesthetics-driven view on innovation processes.

Drawing on a 2-year ethnographic study of an innovation team in a MedTech company,

we provide evidence of the central role of aesthetic and material interactions in framing

alternative and emergent ways of organizing innovation. Our preliminary findings induce to

2
theorize visual and colorful dialogues as key processes in framing the ever-changing meanings

of innovation activities. We contribute to present scholarship in framing, building theory on the

role of sensorial and aesthetic interactions during the reconstruction of meanings (Baldessarelli

et al., 2022; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). In addition, we contribute to the theme of the

workshop “Craft and emerging forms of organizing” by showing and preliminary theorizing

visual and colorful dialogues as key processes in the emergent organization of innovation

(Austin et al., 2018; Helin et al., 2014).

THEORY DEVELOPMENT

Frames are broadly defined as “means by which managers make sense of ambiguous

information from their environments” (Kaplan, 2008, p. 729). Since Goffman’s seminal work

on frame analysis (1972), framing has grown into an important construct in psychology

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), sociology (Benford & Snow, 2000), media studies (Scheufele,

1999), design (Verganti et al., 2021), strategic management (Raffaelli et al., 2019) and

organization theory (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Specifically, adopting a view of framing

as “an active processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of

reality construction” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 213), organization scholars that engage with

the construct have focused on two distinct levels of analysis – namely, the individual and the

organization.

At the individual level, framing is regarded as the process whereby actors select some

aspects of reality to have in focus, understand the context, construct meanings, and make

decisions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). A frame, therefore, can be viewed as a “mental

template that individuals impose on an information environment to give it form and meaning”

(Walsh, 1995, p. 281) or as “knowledge schemas, which then guide individual perceptions,

inferences, and actions in context” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014, p. 183). At the

3
organizational level, frames represent shared meanings and guides for interpretation that are

constructed through actions and interactions (Kaplan, 2008), and framing represents the

social and negotiated process that enables such construction (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014).

Such process of construction of new ways to make sense of information often emerges when

organizations are faced with new conditions, like the development of a new technology

(Orlikowski & Gash, 1994) or when new business opportunities are perceived as threats

(Gilbert, 2006; Raffaelli et al., 2019), that render current frames obsolete or ineffective.

Current literature highlights that framing is practiced using specific cognitive tools

“such as metaphors, catchphrases, slogans, contrast, spin, and stories” (Cornelissen &

Werner, 2014, p. 199). For example, Kim (2021) shows how a business incubator in Detroit

reframed its meaning construction processes to survive a context-related industrial crisis and

continue incubating new businesses. This process was initiated by a change in the core

metaphor that defined the business, with the co-founders pointing out: “Here, we think

business is a living organism . . . If you think it’s a living organism, the solution comes out of

biology, life sciences, not from mechanical sciences.” (Kim, 2021, p. 771). Language,

therefore, especially in the form of metaphors, is deeply interconnected with how individuals

construct, negotiate and communicate meanings (Whittle et al., 2023). As a result, linguistic

interactions help understand and change frames when faced with new contexts (Kim, 2021;

Meyer et al., 2016).

However, the analysis of the meaning construction process unfolded when a team of

firefighters attempted to reframe their mission, led Cornelissen et al. (2014) to highlight the

potential role of unexpected perceptual cues in reframing processes. This result opposes the

conceptualization of frames as abstract cognitive knowledge structures and it aligns with an

emergent body of literature pointing at the role of sensory-driven interactions, generated by

means of bodily senses (Gibson, 1963; Latour, 2004), and aesthetics in organizational

4
processes (Baldessarelli et al., 2022). For instance, Stigliani & Ravasi (2018) theorized the

role of sensory-driven interactions during the organization of feedback processes in service

designers’ creative work. In addition, Klein & Amis (2021) recognized as relevant, without

theorizing them, the role of sensory-emotional reactions evoked from iconic visuals in

reframing processes, when studying how the main UK news channels constructed new

meaning around the refugee crises in Europe. Therefore, organizational scholarship has

provided several empirical examples of, albeit not theorized, the role of sensory-driven

practices in meaning construction and reconstruction processes. However, the understanding

of sensory-driven dynamics characterizing framing processes remain nascent. A significant

reason for this is that the conceptualization of a frame has been predominantly cognitive. We

build on this line of thought with a belief that examining how and why framing unfolds can

help us uncover the role of sensory-driven and aesthetic interactions in the construction of

shared meanings.

METHODS

To answer our research question, we draw on a 20-month ethnographic fieldwork at a

MedTech company, which we call LifeLink 1.

Research site

LifeLink is a multinational MedTech company based in Sweden. We focused our study on

LifeLink Sterile Division, the division responsible for sterile transfer systems used in

biopharma production. The division ideates, designs, and produces a product called “Beta

bag” which is a single-use sterile plastic bag used to transfer sterile components in and out

sterile chambers, so called filling lines, during the production of liquid drugs. It can be used

1 All names are pseudonyms

5
only in combination with a related “Alpha port” attached to the filling line, also produced by

Sterile Division. Figure 1 shows the “Alpha-Beta” system.

-----------

Figure 1 about here

-----------

For this study, we draw on data from an extensive project aimed at creating a new team

focused on innovating the “Alpha-Beta system”. The innovation team consisted of Mark, a

newly hired manager, aided by several other people working in different areas of Sterile

Division.

Data collection

The first author conducted fieldwork between June 2022 and February 2024. Our primary

data consists of innovation team meetings, ideation workshop observations, production sites

visit, pictures taken during fieldwork, ethnographic interviews, and innovation team

presentations and documents. We complemented primary data with additional data: emails,

spontaneous talks with managers and operators and other archival material (company

documents such as annual reports). Table 1 summarizes the data collected so far in the

research process.

-----------

Table 1 about here

-----------

6
Data analysis

We followed an iterative, abductive approach to analyze our data (Timmermans & Tavory,

2012). We started with a grounded understanding of how the evolution of the innovation

process unfolded. Through the analysis of the innovation forum meetings, we uncovered first-

order findings (Van Manen, 1988) illuminating how the interactions between the managers in

the innovation team evolved across three development phases of the newly established

process, so called innovation track. We are now bouncing our first-order findings against

theoretical constructs to build theory. The theorizing process is still ongoing.

FINDINGS

At Sterile Division, before the introduction of the process proposed by Mark, spontaneous

innovative ideas started the development phase only after the presentation of a so-called

“business opportunity”. The established ideas development process comprises a series of

stages and gates assembled on a linear chain. This process is highly codified to comply with

biopharma production regulations, and Sterile Division does not have much freedom on that.

In addition, Sterile Division’s stakeholders pressure the company to create more sustainable

products, reducing the amount of CO2 and plastics emitted in the environment. For these

reasons, Sterile Division’s management team decided to introduce a new process to gather

and curate early-stage ideas. The innovation track, i.e., the new process that Mark proposed,

created a new set of activities to systematically track the emergence, development, and

evaluation of ideas before the established stage-gate process. Mark, the newly appointed

innovation director, was also in charge of tracking any new idea emerging inside Sterile

Division or from Sterile Division customers regarding the innovation of the “Alpha-Beta

System”. When new ideas emerge, Mark would include them in a PowerPoint slide

summarizing all the ideas under advisory and clustering them based on high level categories.

7
In addition, every idea would be complemented by a “non-confidential presentation”, a

PowerPoint document approved to be shared with customers and stakeholders outside the

company. We observed that the late iterations are different from the initial iterations of the

innovation track process, showing evidence of the work performed by the interactions

happening in Sterile Division’s innovation team. In fact, during the innovation forums, i.e.,

periodic meetings involving Mark and the other managers of Sterile Division, the team

produced continuously feedback and reviews to curate and re-design the process. Therefore,

in our analysis we focused the interactions between Mark and the other managers in their

attempt to develop the innovation track. In our findings, we show how the visual and material

interactions emerging within Sterile Division’s management team shape the framing of the

innovation track. These interactions enabled the innovation team to continuously frame new

meanings of the innovation track involving both sensorial hooks, e.g. colors, and cognitive

interpretations, providing evidence of the connection between sensory-driven interactions and

organizational framing. In the following sections, we provide a summary of how the

interactions between the managers in the innovation team unfolded in the terms informants

used to interpret their reality.

First-order findings

Phase 1: visual curation of a newborn emergent process

Mark starts kicking off the innovation track activities in June 2022 during the first innovation

forum. During the meetings Mark presents Power Point slides including visual representation

of the innovation track and one-pager presentations of the ideas included in it. Since the

beginning Mark points out that the shape and structure of the process has been emergent and

in continuous development:

8
“I've tried to illustrate the progress since June, because it has been developing quite a bit. We started

out with an opportunity and an idea coming out of Merriville (the Sterile Division site in the US) to

improve our internal process for particle analysis (a specific feature needed to improve the “Alpha-

Beta System)” (Mark, director of the innovation team, Innovation Forum).

This highlights the emergent and interactional characteristic of the innovation track that,

since the beginning, eludes rigid definitions and rules. In fact, during the first meetings (Fall

2022), the managers discuss the meaning of this new process differentiating from established

governance activities:

“This is not exactly a steering committee, as traditionalists in a governance body would say, it’s more

of a bouncing board body to prioritize activities and help remove obstacles and have a good dialogue

about new ideas” (Elias, Vice-President of Business Development at Sterile Division, Innovation

Forum).

In addition, Elias highlights that in the past there have been challenges with sensing and

framing the time needed for each idea evaluation: “So, in some occasions, there has been a

challenge to prioritize innovation evaluations and that’s one fact of life” (Elias, Vice-President of

Business Development at Sterile Division, Innovation Forum).

For these reasons, Mark proposes to start counting the number of days that each idea spends

in the innovation track:

“So, when it goes into the process, and it enters the opportunity track then also the clock starts

ticking” (Mark, Director of the Innovation Team, Innovation Forum)

Since then, every idea presented in the visual representation of the innovation track appears

with a number on it. However, during the Innovation Forum in September, the team of

managers realized that each idea needed an actual person that will make it happen when

exiting the innovation track:

“But at what point in time an idea will be handed over to the people that will actually make it

happen?” (Elias, Vice-President of Business Development at Sterile Division, Innovation Forum)

9
They soon realized that the initial deadline for ideas to exit the innovation track, set to 90

days, was not related to the availability of the people that will make them happen.

Phase 2: revisualizing the past and coloring the future

During Spring and Summer 2023 the team continues discussing ideas and the organization of

the innovation track during the Innovation Forums. The fixed (90 days) time limit

disappeared from the visual representation of the innovation track. Furthermore, they

understood that many ideas emerging in the organization were old ideas, generated in past

innovation workshops, that they never fully explored:

“And the outcome of that [previous innovation workshops] was actually almost non existing. There

were really not a lot of good ideas that surfaced from that. And it's really interesting that now we run

this much more structured approach [the innovation track]. And all of a sudden, people start

recognizing when items surface: “Yeah, but we actually did talk about that!”” (Anton, Vice-President

of the Alpha-Beta System, Innovation Forum).

Hence, the innovation team starts framing ideas that surfaced in the past, interacting visually

with the ones represented in the present innovation track. In addition, Mark proposes to

introduce new colors in the innovation track to frame ideas that have been handed over for

further development:

“So since last time, […] there's a new color added to this pipeline. It's now in blue setting handovers

thank you for that Richard. Having that as a clarification when you reach this handover to the product

review board or the product, customer product care project.” (Mark, director of the innovation team,

Innovation Forum)

Here visual interactions between Mark, the team and the visual artefact representing the

innovation track frame the emergent time boundaries of the ideas in the innovation process.

The blue color is associated with the handover moment, the end of life of the idea in the

innovation track.

10
Phase 3: innovation as a never ending visual dialogue

In the last phase, Mark and the management team participating in the innovation forum

continues updating and re-visualizing the innovation track. During September 2023

Innovation Forum he remarks that the innovation track has arrived at its 12th iteration, where

also a new color was added (Violet) to frame when the ideas where ready to exit the

innovation track. Surprisingly, Elias argues that in his view “It might be that in the future the

funnel [the innovation track] would be reset. In addition, he asks rhetorically what the

purpose of the innovation forum might be.” (Elias from Innovation Forum September 2023)

He states clearly that the direction and structure of the innovation track remains uncertain and

emergent. Therefore, it might be that they will decide to reset and restart the innovation track

in the future. During Winter 2023 and beginning of 2024, the team acts as if ideas hand over

was an emergent temporal boundary that they would need to discuss and frame in every

Innovation Forum. In fact, the visual dialogue framing the innovation track continues at every

step of the idea development process.

In summary, during the first phase the team starts using artefacts and visual

interactions framing and fixing the newly proposed innovation track. However, during the

second phase they realize that the innovation track deviates from a fixed framing to a

dynamic one, based on visual and aesthetic interactions. In the third phase, the team embraces

the process and develops an emergent visual dialogue to continuously frame and reframe the

innovation track.

11
CONTRIBUTIONS

Our research provides a nuanced account of the evolving relationship between organizational

framing (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014) and sensory-driven interactions extending framing

theories and recognizing the role of aesthetics in organizational processes (Baldessarelli et al.,

2022). In addition, it provides evidence of the dynamic characteristics of framing in

entrepreneurship and innovation, contributing to the broader discussion that sees

entrepreneurial processes as emergent aesthetic dialogues as opposed to rigid economic

mechanisms (Austin et al., 2018; Kim, 2021). We think this work could contribute to the

discussion on alternative forms of organizing, particularly when organizations face external

climate crises challenging present organizational assumptions (Dodd et al., 2023; Johnsen et

al., 2018).

12
References

Austin, R., Hjorth, D., & Hessel, S. (2018). How Aesthetics and Economy Become

Conversant in Creative Firms. Organization Studies, 39(11), 1501–1519.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736940

Baldessarelli, G., Stigliani, I., & Elsbach, K. D. (2022). The Aesthetic Dimension of

Organizing: A Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1),

217–257. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0198

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An

Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611

Cerulo, K. A. (2018). Scents and Sensibility: Olfaction, Sense-Making, and Meaning

Attribution. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 361–389.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759679

Cornelissen, J. P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). The Contraction of Meaning: The

Combined Effect of Communication, Emotions, and Materiality on Sensemaking in

the Stockwell Shooting. Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 699–736.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12073

Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of

Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature.

Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.

https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the

Aesthetic Encounter.

13
Dodd, S., Anderson, A., & Jack, S. (2023). “Let them not make me a stone”—Repositioning

entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(4), 1842–1870.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1867734

Gibson, J. J. (1963). The Useful Dimensions of Sensitivity. American Psychologist.

Gilbert, C. G. (2006). Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames

Coexist? Organization Science, 17(1), 150–167.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0160

Goffman, E. (1972). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.

Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (2014). The Oxford handbook of process

philosophy and organization studies. Oxford Hanbooks.

Johnsen, C. G., Olaison, L., & Sørensen, B. M. (2018). Put Your Style at Stake: A New Use

of Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 39(2–3), 397–415.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617717551

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist,

39(4), 341–350.

Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty. Organization

Science, 19(5), 729–752. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0340

Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing Landscapes: The Construction of Meaning

and Value in a New Market Category—Modern Indian Art. Academy of Management

Journal, 53(6), 1281–1304. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57317861

Kim, S. (2021). Frame Restructuration: The Making of an Alternative Business Incubator

amid Detroit’s Crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(3), 753–805.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220986464

14
Klein, J., & Amis, J. M. (2021). The Dynamics of Framing: Image, Emotion, and the

European Migration Crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1324–1354.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0510

Latour, B. (2004). How to Talk About the Body? The Normative Dimension of Science

Studies. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 205–229.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943

Meyer, M. A., Cross, J. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2016). Frame Decoupling for Organizational

Change: Building Support Across Divergent Stakeholders. Organization &

Environment, 29(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615623587

Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information

technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174–

207. https://doi.org/10.1145/196734.196745

Pakarinen, P., & Baldessarelli, G. (2023). Aesthetic Expertise. Working Paper.

Pendleton-Jullian, A., & Brown, J. (2018). Design Unbound: Designing for Emergence in a

White Water World. The MIT Press.

Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M. A., & Tushman, M. (2019). Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive

and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic

Management Journal, 40(7), 1013–1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3011

Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49,

103–122.

Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2018). The Shaping of Form: Exploring Designers’ Use of

Aesthetic Knowledge. Organization Studies, 39(5–6), 747–784.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618759813

Strati, A. (2007). Sensible Knowledge and Practice-based Learning. Management Learning,

38(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607073023

15
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From

Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

Van Manen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography.

Verganti, R., Dell’Era, C., & Swan, K. S. (2021). Design thinking: Critical analysis and future

evolution. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(6), 603–622.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12610

Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down

Memory Lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.3.280

Whittle, A., Vaara, E., & Maitlis, S. (2023). The Role of Language in Organizational

Sensemaking: An Integrative Theoretical Framework and an Agenda for Future

Research. Journal of Management, 49(6), 1807–1840.

https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221147295

16
Figure 1: Pictures of a Beta Bag (Top) and Alpha Port (Bottom)

17
Table 1: Data collection summary

Source Data

Observation 11 innovation forum meetings

Audio-visual record of innovation forum meetings, involving managers from
several different functions inside Sterile Division to discuss the
developments of innovation activities. Rich fieldnotes focusing on
interactions and visual artifacts.

2 in-presence ideation workshops observations

Rich fieldnotes of ideation workshops happened in France and the US.

1 in-presence R&D lab observation

Rich fieldnotes of the visit in the main R&D lab of Sterile Division.

Informal conversations (based on over 200 hours of field work)

During breaks or lunches or during other informal meetings

Interviews 1st wave – introduction

9 semi-structured interviews
Interviews with key Innovation Forum team members

2nd wave – past innovation projects

6 semi-structured interviews
Interviews with managers involved in past innovation projects

3rd wave – present struggles

5 ethnographic interviews
Interviews with managers involved in present innovation projects

Documents Innovation Forum documents (> 200 pages)

Documentations, slides and drafts of the ongoing innovation processes (May
22 – Oct 23)

Innovation projects-related pictures

More than 30 pictures taken during the ideation workshops and R&D visits

18