eindhoven university of technology master the fuzzy front ...projects in the fuzzy front end. the...
TRANSCRIPT
Eindhoven University of Technology
MASTER
The fuzzy front end of radical design-driven innovation
van der Heijden, R.A.
Award date:2011
Link to publication
DisclaimerThis document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Studenttheses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the documentas presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the requiredminimum study period may vary in duration.
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
Eindhoven, September 2011
BSc Industrial Engineering & Management Science Student identity number 0568918
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
in Innovation Management
First supervisor prof.dr. F. (Fred) Langerak, TU/e, IE&IS, ITEM Second supervisor dr.ir. I.M.M.J. (Isabelle) Reymen, TU/e, IE&IS, ITEM Third supervisor K. (Katrin) Eling MSc, TU/e, IE&IS, ITEM Company supervisor ir. E.T. (Elena) Ferrari, Philips Lighting, LightLabs
The Fuzzy Front End of Radical DesignDriven Innovation
by
R.A. (Robert) van der Heijden
TUE. Department Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences. Series Master Theses Innovation Management Subject headings: new product development, radical innovation, design‐driven innovation, fuzzy front end, case study.
I
Preface This report is the result of my master thesis of the master Innovation Management of the Eindhoven University of Technology. I conducted this master thesis at LightLabs, the pre‐development center of Philips Lighting. My research focused on the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation. I would like to thank various people who contributed to this master thesis. Firstly, I would like to thank my university supervisors. Prof.dr. Fred Langerak and Katrin Eling MSc guided me throughout this project. In addition, dr.ir. Isabelle Reymen was of help in finishing this project. Our meetings and your critique were valuable for this project. Secondly, I would like to thank my company supervisor and colleagues. Elena Ferrari offered me the opportunity to perform my master thesis at LightLabs and always made time for discussions and advice. In addition, colleagues were very willing to share thoughts in formal meetings or during a coffee break. You made me enjoy my days at LightLabs. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends. My parents and sisters supported me throughout my entire study in many ways. In addition, friends did not only make me enjoy my free time but also gave valuable advice and feedback. You made my time as a student great. Robert van der Heijden Eindhoven, September 2011
II
Management Summary
Introduction In line with current research (e.g. Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 2005), at Philips Lighting design is recently recognized as prominent driving force in stimulating innovation, accelerating growth, creating competitive differentiation, and turning the brand promise into reality. However, little research is done on the changing role of design as driving force for radical innovation (Verganti, 2003; Veryzer, 2005). As such, only a few organizations have successfully adopted a design‐driven innovation approach that leads to the development of radical innovations (Dell’Era et al., 2010). At LightLabs, the pre‐development center of Philips Lighting, Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture (DDSA) projects were initiated in 2010 and 2011. However, much certainty was expressed about these radical design‐driven innovation projects, because it was not clear what radical design‐driven innovation is and how to organize these projects in the fuzzy front end. The fuzzy front end is the period between opportunity recognition and the judgment of a concept for further development. It is important to increase this understanding because radical innovation is critical for long term success and the fuzzy front end has a large influence on the entire project and overall innovation program (Cooper, 1988; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Leifer et al., 2000). Therefore, the objective of this master thesis is to answer the following research question: How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects at LightLabs?
Theoretical Analysis Based on the analysis and synthesis of recent academic literature, radical design‐driven innovation is discussed and a conceptual model is developed for the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects. Radical design‐driven innovation includes radical innovation of both message and design language as well as functionality and technology (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). Interpretation of this message and design language results in a product meaning: a system of values and a personality and identity for the user and the deep reason why people buy the product. As such, radical design‐driven innovation combines new technologies and design languages to propose a radical new product meaning. Figure A ‐ Model of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects
Figure A gives an overview of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects and implies a consistent, logical, and iterative model. A project informally starts with the construction of a project plan. This project plan discusses the opportunity, the life context the project targets, the objective, the deliverable, and the project team. An opportunity for radical design‐driven innovation is a new technology that could enable a new meaning or insights on socio‐cultural changes
III
(Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). The objective of a radical design‐driven innovation project is to radically innovate the meaning of a product, supported by new technologies, to create an entire breakthrough product family or new business. As such, a project team aims to deliver a satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable price and competitive time span that are ready for further development (Koen et al., 2002; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Van Aken & Nagel, 2004). This project team consists of a few cross‐functional individuals, who have specific expertise and knowledge, e.g. in technology, design, and marketing, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization (O’Connor & McDermott, 2004). After constructing the project plan, the project team starts with building a vision of a new meaning. Key in developing radical design‐driven innovation is the ability to understand, anticipate, and influence the emergence of new product meanings (Verganti, 2008). Therefore, it is important to identify and interact with key interpreters, people who research and propose new meanings (Verganti, 2009). A formal and experienced evaluation board evaluates the deliverables and selects a vision. This vision has to be embodied to facilitate internal and external communication and to diffuse the new meaning in the market (Leifer et al., 2000; Verganti, 2009). This vision directs the consecutive phases, which include technology development, idea generation, and concept development (Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 1998).
Empirical Analysis and Evaluation The case study method (Yin, 2003) is used to analyze the current organization of the DDSA projects; see Figure B. By comparing the theoretical analysis with the empirical analysis, the organization of the DDSA projects is evaluated. In addition, this evaluation is used to consider the organizational level of the fuzzy front end at LightLabs as well. This resulted in the following main findings:
• The DDSA projects had not the objective to radically innovate a product’s meaning supported by new technologies, but focused on stretching LED technology to adhere to the wishes of designers and creative specifiers.
• The DDSA projects delivered technological building blocks instead of product concepts. As such, the projects did not include the phases idea generation and concept development.
• Although it is good to define a life context for a project to target, the direct link to the business unit and segments can hinder radical innovation.
• The project team consisted of experienced people, but they missed a team feeling and could not act cross‐functional due to the distinction in a technological and design team.
Figure B ‐ Model of the organization of the DDSA projects
IV
• In the phase building a vision, the design workshop was clearly structured but did not include design‐driven research on new meaning or the involvement of key interpreters. In addition, the selection was done by the project team and business unit and segments instead of by a formal board that considered the new meaning.
• In the phase technology development, the technology was developed by trial‐and‐error, a modular approach, and contacting suppliers. However, it was not driven by a vision of a new meaning. In addition, validation involved end‐users, which are less suitable at this phase, and took place at the end of the project instead of during development.
• Throughout the project, the team had difficulties in managing technology, market, organizational, resource, and design uncertainties.
• At organizational level, LightLabs has a nascent radical innovation capability and is not organized to facilitate radical design‐driven innovation.
Recommendations The opportunity that initiated the DDSA projects can lead to radical design‐driven innovation. However to realize this, it is necessary to make changes to the DDSA projects and the organization at LightLabs. Recommendations include:
• Change the objective to radically innovate meaning and the deliverables to product concepts.
• Loose the direct link to the business unit and segments in the definition of the life context, but manage this interface to gain support from visionaries and acquire resources.
• Allow individuals in the project team to act cross‐functional and involve business developers and marketing experts as well.
• In the phase building a vision, take time to do design‐driven research on new meaning, involve key interpreters, and embody and diffuse the selected vision of a new meaning.
• In the phase technology development, the vision has to direct development. Use informal market research and interaction with key interpreters and lead‐users for validation.
• Establish a hub outside current practices to embed and enhance the capability of radical design‐driven innovation and to reduce organizational and resource uncertainties at project level.
• Initiate a change process for realization and link it to the current changes at Philips Lighting due to implementation of Design as function and the new values and approaches of the new CEO.
Conclusions • The current organization of the fuzzy front end of the DDSA projects at LightLabs does not lead
to radical design‐driven innovation.
• Major changes are necessary on both project level and organizational level to be able to develop radical design‐driven innovation at LightLabs.
• The conceptual model needs to be tailored to the individual organization.
• Future research is necessary to increase the validity and generalizability of the results.
V
Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................................... I Management Summary ................................................................................................................................ II 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Theoretical Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Empirical Context .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Research Objective ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Structure of Report ....................................................................................................................... 5
2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Theoretical Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Protocol ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Empirical Analysis and Evaluation ................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Data Analysis and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 9 2.2.4 Quality ................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 11 3 Theoretical Analysis ................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Radical Design‐Driven Innovation ............................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Key aspects in Radical Design‐Driven Innovation Projects ................................................. 14
3.2 The Fuzzy Front End of Radical Innovation ................................................................................. 15 3.2.1 Phases ................................................................................................................................. 15 3.2.2 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Changes for Radical Design‐Driven Innovation ................................................................... 17
3.3 Conceptual Model of the Fuzzy Front End of Radical Design‐Driven Innovation ....................... 19 3.3.1 Project Plan ......................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Phase 1: Building a Vision ................................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Phase 2: Technology Development ..................................................................................... 22 3.3.4 Phase 3: Idea Generation .................................................................................................... 23 3.3.5 Phase 4: Concept Development .......................................................................................... 23
3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 24 4 Empirical Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Project Context: LightLabs .......................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Project Plan ................................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.1 Opportunity ......................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2 Life Context ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Objective and Deliverables ................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 Project Phases ............................................................................................................................. 28 4.3.1 Design Workshop ................................................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Selection of Architectural Factors ....................................................................................... 30
VI
4.3.3 Technology Development ................................................................................................... 30 4.3.4 Confrontation with Creative Specifiers ............................................................................... 31 4.3.5 Confrontation with End‐Users ............................................................................................ 31
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 32 5 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 33 5.1 Project Plan ................................................................................................................................. 33 5.1.1 Opportunity ......................................................................................................................... 34 5.1.2 Life Context ......................................................................................................................... 34 5.1.3 Objective and Deliverables ................................................................................................. 34 5.1.4 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Project Phases ............................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.1 Building a Vision .................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.2 Technology Development ................................................................................................... 38
5.3 Project Context: LightLabs .......................................................................................................... 39 5.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 39 5.4.1 Project Plan ......................................................................................................................... 40 5.4.2 Building a Vision .................................................................................................................. 40 5.4.3 Technology Development ................................................................................................... 42 5.4.4 Project Context: LightLabs .................................................................................................. 42
6 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 43 6.1 Project Plan ................................................................................................................................. 43 6.1.1 Life Context ......................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Objective and Deliverable ................................................................................................... 43 6.1.3 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 44
6.2 Project Phases ............................................................................................................................. 44 6.2.1 Building a Vision .................................................................................................................. 45 6.2.2 Technology Development ................................................................................................... 45
6.3 Project Context: LightLabs .......................................................................................................... 45 6.4 Realize Changes........................................................................................................................... 47 6.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 49
7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 50 7.1 Research Objective ..................................................................................................................... 50 7.2 Theoretical Implications .............................................................................................................. 52 7.3 Empirical Implications ................................................................................................................. 52 7.4 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................................ 53
References .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 57 Appendix A: Company Description ......................................................................................................... 58 Appendix B: Guideline for Semi‐Structured Interviews .......................................................................... 60 Appendix C: Overview of Interviews ....................................................................................................... 61 Appendix D: Legend of Specific Concepts Used in DDSA Projects .......................................................... 62 Appendix E: Radical Innovation Capability ............................................................................................. 63
VII
List of Figures Figure 1.1 Business creation process of Philips Lighting 4Figure 1.2 Structure of report and research approach 6Figure 3.1 Product innovation dimensions 12Figure 4.1 Organizational structure of LightLabs 25Figure 6.1 Recommendations for location and role of hub at LightLabs 46Figure 6.2 Change process to realize recommendations 48
List of Tables Table 2.1 Overview of empirical analysis 8Table 2.2 Quality in case studies 10Table 3.1 Product design value for the user 13Table 3.2 Comparison of role of design in radical innovation with radical design‐driven
innovation 17
Table 3.3 Conceptual model of fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation, project plan 19Table 3.4 Conceptual model of fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation, phases 21Table 4.1 Project plan of DDSA projects 26Table 4.2 Phases of the DDSA projects 29Table 5.1 Comparison of project plan of conceptual model with DDSA projects 33Table 5.2 Comparison of the phases of conceptual model with DDSA projects 36Table 5.3 Strong and weak points in the organization of DDSA projects 41Table 6.1 Recommendations for the project plan 43Table 6.2 Recommendations for project phases 44
List of Highlights 1 Problem definition 42 Research question 53 What is radical design‐driven innovation? 144 What are key aspects in radical design‐driven innovation projects? 155 What are key aspects in the organization of the fuzzy front end? 186 How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation? 247 How are the DDSA projects currently organized at LightLabs? 328 What are the strong and weak points regarding the project plan? 359 What are the strong and weak points regarding the phase building a vision? 3710 What are the strong and weak points regarding the phase technology development? 3811 What are the strong and weak points regarding the project context? 3912 How to address the weak points in the current organization of the DDSA projects? 47
1
1 Introduction This section introduces the master thesis. This project focused on the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation and is conducted at LightLabs, the pre‐development center of Philips Lighting. This section is structured as follows. Firstly, the theoretical background that led to this project is discussed. Secondly, the empirical context of this project is described. Thirdly, the problem that this project addressed is defined. Fourthly, the research objective is specified and finally the structure of the report is described.
1.1 Theoretical Background Currently, design receives much interest from academics and managers in the field of innovation management. Design is no longer seen as merely relevant for upgrading or restyling mature products but recognized as key contributor to new product development (Bruce & Bessant, 2002; Hong et al., 2005; Verganti, 2003). As a result, corporate design budgets are increasing (Gemser & Leenders, 2001) and the role of design in the innovation process is changing (Perks et al., 2005). For incremental innovation several end‐user driven innovation approaches are developed, such as user‐centered design. This approach focuses on a deep understanding of user needs and transforms technology into product solutions that people desire to interact with and benefit from (Veryzer & Borja de Mozota, 2005). However, the changing role of design as driving force for radical innovation is not fully understood (Verganti, 2003; Veryzer, 2005). Radical innovation is revolutionary and often has a strong technology component that leads to new performance features, major improvements, or significant cost reductions (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Leifer et al., 2000). It concerns the development of new business or product lines that transform the economics of the business (Leifer et al., 2000). The role of design in radical innovation projects is often limited to specific design tasks that need to facilitate the social acceptance of new products and technologies near commercialization. However, customers are increasingly appreciating design and a product’s emotional and symbolic value (Utterback et al., 2006). As such, a product that merely functions is not enough anymore for market success (Utterback et al., 2006) and organizations have to use new approaches for design to drive radical innovation. Design‐driven innovation is such a new approach. It focuses on design and the emotional and symbolic value of products (Verganti, 2003). More specifically, it aims at radically innovating the design and meaning users give to products through a deep understanding of broader changes in society, culture, and technology (Verganti, 2008). However, organizations are often unaware how design can be radically innovated (Verganti, 2003). In addition, most R&D managers of radical innovation projects do not rely on designers for design information and place little emphasis on design issues in the fuzzy front end (Veryzer, 2005), the period between when an opportunity is first considered and when a concept is judged ready for development (Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Koen et al., 2002). Besides, organizations often feel uncomfortable with the uncertainties associated with radical innovation and kill these projects in the fuzzy front end (Leifer et al., 2000). As such, only a few organizations have successfully adopted a design‐driven innovation approach that leads to radical innovations (Dell’Era et al., 2010).
2
Little research has been done on initiating radical design‐driven innovation projects in the fuzzy front end (Verganti, 2008). However, radical innovation is important for long term success because it can offer major growth opportunities (Leifer et al., 2000). In addition, design‐driven innovation offers new opportunities to develop radical innovation (Verganti, 2003). Furthermore, the quality of activities in the fuzzy front end often has a high impact on the success or failure of new products (Cooper, 1988) and the fuzzy front end has a strong influence on which ideas will be developed and which ideas will be abandoned (Kim & Wilemon, 2002). So, understanding radical design‐driven innovation and organizing these projects in the fuzzy front end is important.
1.2 Empirical Context At Philips Lighting, design is recently also recognized as prominent driving force in stimulating innovation, accelerating growth, creating competitive differentiation, and turning the brand promise into reality. Appendix A contains a company description for more information on Philips Lighting. In 2010, the process of establishing Design as a function within Philips Lighting started with the appointment of the first Chief Design Officer. The year 2011 is a transformation year for the Design function in which it will be aligned and implemented in the total scheme at Philips Lighting. This transformation of the Design function is in line with the massive transformation of the market and industry that Philips Lighting is facing. According to the Annual report 2010, the market is affected by global trends, such as increasing environmental awareness, the globalization and urbanization of people, and changing lifestyles in which people are spending more time relaxing, entertaining, and socializing at home. In addition, the industry is changing due to the new possibilities opened by LEDs, the demand for energy‐efficient solutions, the shift from product development to fully realized hardware and/or software lighting solutions, and the possibility of dynamic lighting to personalize lighting. To address this transformation, Philips Lighting is moving from the development of components and bulbs to offering solutions and applications. As a result, Philips Lighting has to develop new ideas for the future for long term success. LightLabs, the pre‐development center of Philips Lighting, started design‐driven projects in 2010 and 2011 together with Philips Design and Philips Research. These projects are called Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture (DDSA). These projects are initiated because LED‐based light is getting more important and customers increasingly value product’s aesthetics. Industry analysts predict that the market uptake for LED‐based lighting will accelerate over the next five years. In addition, design is the key value driver in consumer luminaires and an increasingly important one in professional luminaires. LED gives designers more design freedom. By stretching its architecture in a few components, LED can offer extended options for differentiation and customization of solutions. However, this freedom is still limited and LED is not fully challenging the paradigm of lighting. Therefore, the goal of the DDSA projects is to get a clear vision on future LED design solutions and to identify and develop the key technologies that are needed to realize these solutions.
3
1.3 Problem Definition At LightLabs, design currently receives much interest. In line with scientific research (Bruce & Bessant, 2002; Perks et al., 2005; Verganti, 2003), design is recognized as driving force for innovation. As a result, the role of design in projects of LightLabs is also changing. This is the case in the DDSA projects of 2010 and 2011. From several meetings and seven preliminary interviews with stakeholders from LightLabs and Philips Design, it became clear that no direct problems were experienced in the DDSA projects. However, much uncertainty was expressed about what design‐driven innovation is, what the role of design is, and what can be expected from these projects. In addition, the organization of these projects was not clear since these were the first design‐driven projects. As such, the role of design to radically challenge the current lighting paradigm and the organization of these projects is not clear at LightLabs. In more detail, interviews revealed that there is no common understanding of design and design‐driven innovation. Regarding design, some interviewees mainly point out aesthetic and interaction aspects and some interviewees point out the additional price customers are willing to pay for the value design adds to a product. In addition, some interviewees consider design as a process. The understanding of design has a large impact on the interviewees’ view on design‐driven innovation. As such, some interviewees see design‐driven innovation as a new approach in which Philips Design comes up with new ideas. Furthermore, other interviewees do not put Philips Design at the center of the project but consider Philips Design’s input as a starting point for exploration. As a result of the different views, particularly the start‐up of the DDSA 2010 project was characterized as chaotic and disorderly. In addition, project team members and stakeholders had different expectations during the projects. As such, the lack of a common understanding of design and design‐driven innovation resulted in misunderstandings and discussions during the projects. In addition, there was no detailed pre‐defined process and organization at the start of the DDSA 2010 project. Normally, the business creation process of Philips Lighting guides the execution of projects at LightLabs; see Figure 1.1 for an overview of this process. At strategy and programming level, this process incorporates idea generation and acceptance based on the strategy, three‐year marketing and technology plans, and portfolio management. However, design was not formally incorporated at strategy and programming level. In addition, the business creation process focuses on short‐term and incremental end‐user‐driven innovation instead of radical innovation. At project execution level, the business creation process helps project managers to apply milestones in a uniform way and to understand how to organize the project. In addition, it helps business group and business unit management to review projects using uniform project metrics and to staff and review cross‐business group projects. However, these milestones do not take design aspects into account. In addition, the milestones are suitable for projects with relatively low levels of uncertainty because these milestones require financial and marketing estimates. However, radical innovation involves much uncertainty and these aspects are not relevant to address at the beginning of radical innovation projects (Leifer et al., 2000). So, the existing business creation process could not be used because it does not incorporate design aspects and does not support radical innovation.
4
Figure 1.1 Business creation process of Philips Lighting
This lack of understanding of radical design‐driven innovation and the organization of these projects corresponds with research that states that most organizations are unaware of how design can be radically innovated and that only a few organizations have successfully adopted a radical design‐driven innovation approach (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2003). However, research also indicates that understanding radical design‐driven innovation is important because radical innovation is important for an organization’s long term success (Leifer et al., 2000). In addition, the quality of activities in the fuzzy front end often has a high impact on the success or failure of new products and on which ideas will be developed and which ideas will be abandoned (Cooper, 1988; Kim & Wilemon, 2002). Therefore, it is important for LightLabs to increase its understanding of radical design‐driven innovation and the organization of these projects in the fuzzy front end.
1. Highlight: Problem definition The Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture (DDSA) projects at LightLabs are the first projects that are design‐driven and wherein Philips Design is heavily involved. Although no directs problems are experienced, there is no common understanding of radical design‐driven innovation and the organization of these projects in the fuzzy front end. However, understanding the role of design as driving force for radical innovation and organizing these projects in the fuzzy front end is important for several reasons. Firstly, radical innovation is important for long term success and design‐driven innovation offers a new approach to achieve radical innovation. Secondly, the fuzzy front end has a large influence on the entire innovation program and process. As such, it is important for LightLabs to increase its understanding of radical design‐driven innovation and the organization of these projects in the fuzzy front end.
5
1.4 Research Objective The objective of this master thesis is to increase the understanding of radical design‐driven innovation and the organization of the fuzzy front end of these projects. As such, this master thesis seeks to answer the following research question:
The research question is supported by the following sub questions:
1. What is radical design‐driven innovation? 2. What are key aspects in radical design‐driven innovation projects? 3. What are key aspects in the organization of the fuzzy front end? 4. How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation? 5. How are the DDSA projects currently organized at LightLabs? 6. What are the strong and weak points of the current organization of the DDSA projects? 7. How to address the weak points in the current organization of the DDSA projects?
1.5 Structure of Report This report synthesizes insights from the theoretical perspective and empirical perspective and is structured as indicated in Figure 1.2. For a quick read of the full report, some subsections contain text boxes with highlights such as on the previous and this page. This first section introduced the master thesis. The remainder of this report is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the methodology of this project. Section 3 discusses the theoretical analysis that includes a conceptual model for the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation. As such, this section answers the first, second, third, and fourth sub question. Section 4 includes the empirical analysis. It covers the analysis of the DDSA projects and answers the fifth sub question. Section 5 evaluates the DDSA projects and answers the sixth sub question by comparing the conceptual model and the DDSA projects. Section 6 provides recommendations to answer the final sub question and Section 7 presents the conclusions.
2. Highlight: Research question How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects at LightLabs?
6
Figure 1.2 Structure of report and research approach
Theoretical Perspective
Empirical Perspective
Section 1:Introduction
Section 2:Methodology
Section 3:Theoretical
Analysis
Section 4: Empirical Analysis
Section 5: Evaluation
Section 6:Recommen-
dations
Section 7:Conclusions
Conceptual model
DDSA projects
Protocol
Theoretical Insights
Empirical Insights
Theoretical Implications
Empirical Implications
Research design
Propositions
Strong and weak points
Topics
1. Background;Problem definition;Research objective.
2. Case study methods;Approach for theoretical analysis, empirical analysis, and evaluation.
3. Radical design-driven innovation;The fuzzy front end;Conceptual model.
4. Project context;Project plan of DDSA;Project organization of DDSA.
5. Comparison of theoretical analysis and empirical analysis;Strong and weak points in organization.
6. Project plan;Project organization;Project context;Realize change.
7. Research objective;Implications;Limitations;Future research.
7
2 Methodology This section discusses the methodology of this master thesis. The case study method is used as main research methodology for several reasons. Firstly, the use of the case study method ensured methodological fit (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). The case study method fits this project because this master thesis did not require control over behavioral events and focused on contemporary events (Yin, 2003). Secondly, the case study method is suitable because this master thesis wanted to gain a deeper understanding of the DDSA projects in their real‐life context and to consider both formal as well as informal activities (Yin, 2003). Finally, the case study method can cope with the situation in which there are more variables of interest than data points by using multiple data sources and prior developed theory to guide data collection and analysis (Yin, 2003). The case study design for this master thesis is also illustrated in Figure 1.2. For the design of case studies, five components are important. These are the research question, propositions, the unit of analysis, the logic linking the data to the propositions, and the criteria for interpreting the findings (Yin, 2003). The research question is stated in the previous section. To answer this question, propositions to direct data collection, analysis, and evaluation are developed in the theoretical analysis based upon a protocol (Van Aken et al., 2007; Yin, 2003). The unit of analysis, the logic of linking data to the propositions, and the criteria for interpreting the findings fall under the research design for the empirical analysis and evaluation. As such, this case study design encompassed a theoretical and an empirical analysis and evaluation. The remainder of this section is organized as follows. Firstly, the research design for the theoretical analysis is discussed. Secondly, the research design for the empirical analysis and evaluation is discussed. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
2.1 Theoretical Analysis In the case study method, a theoretical analysis is essential (Van Aken et al., 2007; Yin, 2003). Although each business problem is unique, it often has overlap with other business problems. As such, previous research and existing literature on related problems can be used as basis for naming and framing the business problem, to explore possible causes and solutions for the business problem, and to provide evidence for the solutions (Van Aken et al., 2007; Yin, 2003). So, the theoretical analysis embodied a literature study to provide guidance in data collection, analyzing and evaluating the DDSA projects, and developing recommendations. The theoretical analysis focused on the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation. The results are reported in a literature study. This literature study explored the relation between design and radical innovation. In addition, it defined radical design‐driven innovation and discussed its project process. Furthermore, the literature study discussed important aspects in the fuzzy front end of radical innovation. Finally, a conceptual model of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation was developed, including project plan aspects, activities, deliverables, and important roles.
8
2.1.1 Protocol The following protocol is used to systematically collect and analyze literature, integrate insights, and assure quality (Van Aken et al., 2007). Firstly, the context to focus the search is defined as design‐driven innovation, radical innovation, and the fuzzy front end. Secondly, books and articles are searched with these and related keywords, e.g. design and discontinuous innovation, and selected based on the title, abstract, and a quick scan. In addition, references and citing books and articles are checked. Furthermore, library sections and journals are scanned, e.g. the Journal of Product Innovation Management and the Journal of Design Management. Thirdly, knowledge is extracted and synthesized by comparing, distinguishing, listing, and comparing data. Preliminary results are discussed with stakeholders and fellow students and reviewed by supervisors. Finally, the results are integrated in a written report.
2.2 Empirical Analysis and Evaluation In the case study method, an empirical analysis is essential to investigate the contemporary phenomenon in its real‐life context (Yin, 2003). Table 2.1 gives an overview of important aspects in the empirical analysis. The empirical analysis validates the business problem and specifies its characteristics, explores the causes, validates these causes and determines their importance, and maps the business process (Van Aken et al., 2007; Yin, 2003). Therefore, it is important to determine the unit of analysis and to select cases, to determine sources for data collection, to decide on analysis and evaluation methods, and to assure the quality of the research (Van Aken et al., 2007; Yin, 2003). Table 2.1 Overview of empirical analysis
Selected Case Unit of analysis Data collection
DDSA 2010 project
Organization, including project plan, activities, deliverables, and roles.
10 interviews; Project plan, status updates, final project report, annual report 2010, internal news items; Observations.
DDSA 2011 project
Organization, including project plan, activities, deliverables, and roles.
8 interviews; Project plan, status updates, annual report 2010, internal news items; Observations.
2.2.1 Unit of Analysis Following the research question, the unit of analysis is the organization of the fuzzy front end of the DDSA projects. Organizing a project includes making a plan and defining the project in activities, the deliverables, and the roles that make the project work (Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997; Van Aken & Nagel, 2004). Therefore, the project plans, activities, deliverables, and roles are considered in the analysis of the DDSA projects. In addition, the fuzzy front end at organizational level at LightLabs is also considered since the organizational capabilities drive innovation (Koen et al., 2002).
9
2.2.2 Data Collection Different sources for data collection are used. Firstly, semi‐structured interviews are used. The semi‐structured interviews had an open‐ended nature and interviewees were allowed to diverge from the questions to discuss aspects they considered relevant. However, an interview guide was used to assure that important aspects were discussed. This resulted in targeted and insightful information (Yin, 2003). To limit bias due to poorly constructed questions, the questions were developed based upon earlier research on the organization of fuzzy front end (e.g. Kurkkio, 2010). To limit response bias and inaccuracies due to poor recall, interviewees with different backgrounds, roles, and hierarchical levels were selected from LightLabs, Philips Design, and Philips Research. In addition, a representative from the business unit and segment was interviewed. In total, ten people were interviewed regarding the DDSA 2010 project and eight people were interviewed regarding the DDSA 2011 project, with five people who were involved in both projects. The interviews ranged from 45 minutes up to 75 minutes. The interviews started with a set of questions about job experience and background to make the interviewee feel comfortable and to be able to understand his or her perspective. Consecutively, a set of general questions about the fuzzy front end and design were asked before more detailed questions were asked regarding the DDSA projects. At the end of the interview, the interviewee was given the possibility to add other aspects not covered yet. See Appendix B for the interview guideline and Appendix C for an overview of the interviews. Secondly, documents were collected to corroborate and augment the interviews (Yin, 2003). Documents were collected from interviewees and stakeholders and the project database. These documents included project plans and status reports for both projects, and the final project report for the DDSA 2010 project. In addition, the annual report of 2010 and news items from the internal website were collected. Finally, direct observations were made during the project (Yin, 2003), e.g. by attending the end‐user test of the DDSA 2010 project. So, data is collected from interviews, documents, and direct observations.
2.2.3 Data Analysis and Evaluation The data analysis took place in two stages including an individual case analysis and a cross‐case analysis (Yin, 2003). Firstly, the cases of the DDSA 2010 and the DDSA 2011 project were analyzed separately. The interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed in parallel with the analysis of documents and notes of observations. Related data were clustered in accordance with the conceptual model to reduce the amount of data, e.g. project plan aspects and activities. When important information was missing or conflicting, interviewees were informally contacted to solve this. The results of the individual case analysis were written in a case study history (Yin, 2003). Secondly, a cross‐case analysis was performed. Both cases were compared to look for similarities in the organization (Yin, 2003). When relevant differences were found, they were reported as well. In addition, links between the conceptual model and the DDSA projects were considered, e.g. activities in the DDSA projects were related to phases in the conceptual model. In addition, the conceptual model was extended when important it did not cover important aspects following from the empirical analysis. In addition, based on literal replication in the two cases, results were generalized from project level to organizational level (Yin, 2003). The complete analysis was a continuous and iterative process including repetitive listening and reading of the interviews, documents, and notes. In addition, the analysis were validated during
10
discussions with five interviewees with different backgrounds, e.g. design or technical, and hierarchical levels, such as the project leader, project team members and steering committee (Yin, 2003). The final result of the cross‐case analysis is reported in a descriptive and chronological structure (Yin, 2003). To evaluate the organization of the DDSA projects, the cross‐case analysis was compared with the conceptual model that followed from the theoretical analysis. This was also a continuous and iterative process including going back and forth between the cross‐case analysis and the conceptual model. In case of doubt, the individual case histories were considered. Finally, strong and weak aspects in the organization of the DDSA projects were pointed out based on similarities and differences with the conceptual model. To evaluate the organizational level, some additional literature was consulted. These results were validated during discussions with five interviewees with different backgrounds, e.g. design or technical, and hierarchical levels, such as the project leader, project team members and steering committee (Yin, 2003).
2.2.4 Quality To assure the quality of the analysis and evaluation, four common quality aspects were taken into account (Yin, 2003). See Table 2.2 for an overview. Table 2.2 Quality in case studies adapted from (Yin, 2003)
Quality Aspect Advice Tactic Phase Construct Validity Use multiple sources of
evidence for data triangulation; Establish chain of evidence; Have key informants review draft report.
Interviews, documents, and observation are used to collect data. Sources are mentioned in the report, and the database indicates time and place of collected data. Analysis, evaluation, and report are reviewed by supervisors and key interviewees.
Data collection; Data collection; Analysis; Validation.
Internal Validity Pattern matching. Clear research framework using multiple theoretical perspectives; Interviewees from different hierarchical levels and departments.
Research design; Data collection.
External Validity Use replication logic. Literal replication based on the organization of the DDSA 2010 project and DDSA 2011 project.
Research design; Analysis.
Reliability Use case study protocol and database to facilitate retrieval.
A specific folder contains recorded interviews, transcripts, and documents.
Data collection.
11
Firstly, construct validity refers to the extent an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. To assure that the concepts were covered completely and the measurements had no components that do not fit the meaning of the concept, several tactics were used. Multiple sources of evidence were used for data triangulation and a chain of evidence was established. In addition, key informants have reviewed the analysis, evaluation, and draft report. Secondly, internal validity refers to establishing a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions. This is especially relevant for explanatory and causal case studies and pattern matching is advised. However, this case study can be characterized as descriptive and exploratory. So instead of pattern matching, a clear research framework was developed based on different theoretical perspectives, e.g. innovation management and design management. In addition, interviewees from different hierarchical levels and departments were selected to incorporate different perspectives on the organization of the DDSA projects. Thirdly, external validity refers to the extent the results can be generalized to other domains, organizations, and projects. This is addressed by assessing the replication logic between the findings from the DDSA 2010 and 2011 project and the confirmation of the propositions from theory. Fourthly, reliability refers to whether the results are independent of the particular characteristics of the study and that it can be repeated leading to the same results. Reliability can be affected by the researcher, the instruments, the respondents, and the circumstances (Van Aken et al., 2007). Therefore, a case study protocol and a case study database were developed to facilitate future retrieval. So, this project assured the research quality by taking construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability into account.
2.3 Conclusions This section discussed the case study method as research methodology for this project, which included a theoretical analysis and an empirical analysis and evaluation. The theoretical analysis included a literature study to provide guidance in data collection, analyzing and evaluating the DDSA projects, and developing recommendations. As such, the theoretical analysis led to the development of a conceptual model of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation and answered the first up to the fourth sub question. The result of the theoretical analysis is discussed in Section 3. The empirical analysis included analysis of interviews, documents, and observations regarding the organization of the DDSA projects. During the empirical analysis, construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability were taken into account to assure quality. By clustering and reducing data in accordance with the conceptual model and reporting results in a case study history, the DDSA 2010 and 2011 project are firstly analyzed individually. Consecutively, similarities and differences were reported in a cross‐case analysis. This empirical analysis was a continuous and iterative process. The results were validated with five interviewees with different backgrounds and hierarchical levels. This empirical analysis answered sub question five. The result of the empirical analysis is reported in Section 4. The evaluation is done by comparing the conceptual model with the results of the empirical analysis. Strong and weak points are pointed out by identifying similarities and differences and also validated with the same five interviewees. As such, this evaluation answered the final sub question. The results of the evaluation are reported in Section 5.
12
3 Theoretical Analysis This section gives an overview of the theoretical analysis. It encompassed a literature study to provide guidance in data collection, analyzing and evaluating the DDSA projects, and developing recommendations. This section is organized as follows. Firstly, radical design‐driven innovation is discussed and the sub questions ‘What is radical design‐driven innovation?’ and ‘What are key aspects in radical design‐driven innovation projects?’ are answered. Secondly, the fuzzy front end of radical innovation is discussed and the sub question ‘What are key aspects in the organization of the fuzzy front end?’ is answered. Thirdly, a conceptual model for the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation is developed that answers the sub question ‘How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation?’. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
3.1 Radical DesignDriven Innovation Design‐driven innovation is defined as ‘innovation where novelty of message and design language are significant and prevalent compared to novelty of functionality and technology’ (Verganti, 2003, p. 36). This definition encompasses two product innovation dimensions, which are discussed separately but interact and influence each other (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Talke et al., 2009; Verganti, 2003). See Figure 3.1 for an overview. On the one hand, a technology adds a function to a product which leads to performance for the user. This is the most common innovation dimension and often leading in radical innovation (Leifer et al., 2000). On the other hand, a design language adds a message to a product which leads to meaning for the user (Crilly et al., 2004; Verganti, 2003). So, design‐driven innovation seeks to innovate the meaning of a product (Verganti, 2008). Figure 3.1 Product innovation dimensions adapted from (Verganti, 2003)
A product’s meaning proposes a system of values and a personality and identity to the user and is the deep reason why people buy the product (Verganti, 2008). This meaning results from the interpretation by the user of the message that is encoded in the product by the design language. A design language includes style, materials, signs, symbols, colors, icons et cetera of a product (Noble & Kumar, 2010; Verganti, 2008). By interpreting the message, the product generates value to the user (Bloch, 1995;
13
Crilly et al., 2004; Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008; Verganti, 2008). This value can be distinguished in kinesthetic, rational, emotional, and symbolic value; see Table 3.1 for an overview (Noble & Kumar, 2010; Tran, 2010). Kinesthetic value is experienced in touching and interaction with the product. It includes ergonomics and human factors, e.g. intuitive operation and sensory cues to indicate that an action is performed effectively (Noble & Kumar, 2010). Rational value mainly results from the aesthetic impression and semantic interpretation. It includes the recognition of quality and performance cues and the aesthetic compatibility of the product in its intended usage environment (Noble & Kumar, 2010). Emotional value results from the affective responses and includes the emotional experience the user has with the product (Noble & Kumar, 2010). Finally, symbolic value results from symbolic association and includes the ability to express individual identity and social conformity of the user by the product (Tran, 2010). A product’s meaning primarily encompasses the emotional and symbolic value of the product (Verganti, 2003). Table 3.1 Product design value for the user (Noble & Kumar, 2010; Tran, 2010)
Product Design Value Description
Kinesthetic Value The enhancement of the quality of work being done and the provision of communication and feedback to the user.
Rational Value The recognition of quality and performance cues and the aesthetic compatibility of the product in its intended usage environment.
Emotional Value The emotional experience the user has with the product. Symbolic Value The ability to express individual identity and social conformity of the user by
the product.
Radical design‐driven innovation includes a radically new meaning by novelty in message and design language supported by new technologies (Dell’Era et al., 2010). As such, it combines new technologies and design languages to propose a radical new product meaning to the user. A radical new meaning requires a significant reinterpretation and is not in line with existing standards and socio‐cultural needs (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). Because interaction exists between the two dimensions, radical innovation in both dimensions can support each other to achieve this radical new meaning (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Talke et al., 2009). For example, a radically new meaning can initiate the development of a new technology so the product can express the right message. In addition, a new technology can be used to enable new meanings in new application areas rather than merely substituting an older technology. In the end, radical design‐driven innovation aims at creating an entire breakthrough product family or new business (Verganti, 2009).
14
3.1.1 Key aspects in Radical DesignDriven Innovation Projects Radical design‐driven innovation can start with the opportunity of a new technology that could enable a new meaning or insights on socio‐cultural changes (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). Key in developing radical design‐driven innovation is the ability to understand, anticipate, and influence the emergence of new product meanings (Verganti, 2008). To develop design‐driven innovation, knowledge of how people could give meanings to things and the power the influence the emergence of new product meanings are critical. Therefore, it is important to access this knowledge and the seductive power to influence the emergence of new meanings (Verganti, 2003). This knowledge and seductive power is tacit and distributed among many actors who do their own research on meanings in the defined life context (Verganti, 2009). These actors form a network of interpreters and seducers; people who research and propose new meanings, e.g. artist and media, and people who can propose and support new meanings with technological innovation, e.g. technology suppliers and firms in other industries (Verganti, 2009). However, the development of design‐driven innovation does not only include accessing and sharing knowledge. It also requires the generation of new meanings and visions by internally interpreting and combining knowledge. Furthermore, it includes proposing the new meaning to the market (Verganti, 2009). As such, design‐driven innovation is a network based research process that spans widely outside the boundaries of the organization and includes sharing of knowledge and modifying the socio‐cultural paradigm (Verganti, 2008). To develop radical design‐driven innovation, a new meaning has to be developed first. As such, the innovation of meaning starts with listening to interpreters to gain access to knowledge and interpretations on new meanings (Verganti, 2009). An organization acts as an interpreter, immerses itself between actors, listens to whispers, and promotes experiments to create and share knowledge with key interpreters (Verganti, 2009). Secondly, the gained knowledge is interpreted and extended with internal research and experiments. This leads to the development of an own vision and proposal for a radical new meaning and language (Tran, 2010; Verganti, 2009). Finally, the vision of the new meaning is spread among interpreters and proposed to the market to influence people how and which meaning they give to products (Verganti, 2009). In consecutive phases, the development process follows the
3. Highlight: What is radical design‐driven innovation? Design‐driven innovation is defined as innovation where novelty of message and design language are significant and prevalent compared to novelty of functionality and technology. Interpretation by the user of the message results in a product’s meaning; a system of values and a personality and identity for the user and the deep reason why people buy the product. As such, a product meaning’s primarily encompasses the emotional and symbolic value of the product design. Radical design‐driven innovation combines new technologies and design languages to propose a radical new product meaning. A radical new meaning requires a significant reinterpretation and is not in line with existing standards and socio‐cultural needs. In the end, radical design‐driven innovation aims at creating an entire new product family or business. So, radical design‐driven innovation includes a radically new meaning by novelty in message and design language supported by new technologies.
15
more common innovation process (Verganti, 2009). So, the development of radical design‐driven innovation starts with building a vision of a new meaning that directs consecutive phases. To successfully develop radical design‐driven innovation, several people play an important role. Industrial designers are important to interact with key interpreters. Key interpreters often have their own cultural, language, and way of working that managers and researchers do not understand (Goffin & Micheli, 2010). In addition, industrial designers play an important role in experimenting and designing products that are in line with the vision of the new meaning (Verganti, 2009). Top management is also important to set direction and ignite the process, create relations with key interpreters, and keep the new meaning leading in decision‐making (Jang et al., 2010; Verganti, 2009). So, industrial designers and top management are important to interact with key interpreters and to stick to the new meaning throughout the project.
3.2 The Fuzzy Front End of Radical Innovation The fuzzy front end encompasses the first stage of the innovation process (Smith & Reinertsen, 1991). It generally starts with the identification of an opportunity and ends with the judgment of a concept: a written and visual description of a product, that includes its primary features and customer benefits combined with a broad understanding of the technology needed (Koen et al., 2002). As such, the objective of the fuzzy front end is to realize a satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable price and competitive time span that are ready for further development (Koen et al., 2002; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Van Aken & Nagel, 2004).
3.2.1 Phases Many organizations use process models that have a linear progression of activities to organize the fuzzy front end (Crawford & di Benedetto, 2008). These activities are generally a response to the market and include idea generation, preliminary assessment, and concept development (Boeddrich, 2004; Cooper, 1988; Khurana & Rosenthal, 1998; Sandmeier et al., 2004). However, research indicates that the fuzzy front end is typically not linear. In addition, these activities and related traditional approaches, e.g. to develop technology, assess the market and evaluate ideas, are not relevant in fuzzy front end of radical
4. Highlight: What are key aspects in radical design‐driven innovation projects? A new technology that could enable a new meaning or insights on socio‐cultural changes is an opportunity for radical design‐driven innovation. Key in developing radical design‐driven innovation is the ability to understand, anticipate, and influence the emergence of new product meanings. Therefore, a vision of a new meaning is built first by doing internal experiments and by interacting with key interpreters. This vision of a new meaning directs consecutive phases in the development of radical design‐driven innovation and is used to diffuse the new product meaning in the market. Key interpreters are people who research, propose, and can support new meanings, e.g. artists and technology suppliers. Industrial designers and top management are important to interact with these key interpreters and to keep the new meaning leading throughout the project.
16
innovation. This is the result of the high levels of technology, market, organizational, and resource uncertainties radical innovation projects face (Cooper, 2008; Leifer et al., 2000; Sandmeier et al., 2004; Veryzer, 1998). Radical innovation projects typically have a strong technology component and start with technology development (Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998). From emerging technologies initial product applications are formulated based on the technical differential advantage of the product over existing products and technologies (Veryzer, 1998). In addition, a market vision is often developed that states a desired end state to help to overcome a short term focus and to direct further development (O’Connor & Veryzer, 2001; Veryzer, 1998). Discussion with suppliers and prototypes are used to explore the technology and to develop an application for the technology. Informal market research, such as interacting with lead users and visiting trade shows, provides additional market input. More formal prototypes allow detailed analysis, including testing and market analysis. In these later stages, critical product functions and requirements from a technical and commercial perspective are addressed. Furthermore, plans for marketing and production are developed to resolve uncertainty in the business model (Sandmeier et al., 2004; Veryzer, 1998). This results in the development of product concepts and supporting business plans (Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998). A special team is sometimes formed to facilitate the transition of the project to a specific business unit or to start a new business unit (Leifer et al., 2000). In short, the fuzzy front end of radical innovation is iterative and includes the phases technology development, followed by idea generation and concept development. After each phase, deliverables are evaluated and selected for the continuation of the project. Because of the high uncertainty, the evaluation is often based on gut instinct from senior managers. However, senior managers often have limited experience with radical innovations as their expertise lies within the existing businesses and technologies (Leifer et al., 2000). It is best to use an evaluation board that consists of individuals whose combined capabilities bring wisdom and credibility to the evaluation of radical ideas, and who have specific expertise on the underlying technology and potential market applications and the power to allocate resources (Leifer et al., 2000). For example, highly respected senior technologists, senior corporate, and business leaders who can look beyond the organization’s current strategic vision and individuals with experience in radical innovation projects. Because of the high uncertainty, criteria used for evaluation of incremental innovation, such as outcome of market research, financial projections, and clear project goals, are not useful (Leifer et al., 2000). Instead, the focus is on the benefits of the technology, how rich and robust these benefits are, and how big the future market can be (Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998). Furthermore, the fit of the idea with the corporate strategy is discussed (Rice et al., 2001). As such, the purpose of the evaluation is to start a dialogue between the project team and management to determine whether the opportunity or idea is worth to invest in (Leifer et al., 2000). So, the evaluation of radical innovation projects should be done by a board with specific knowledge, expertise and power and focus on addressing uncertainties and requiring resources for the next phase.
17
3.2.2 Project Team The project team of radical innovation often consists of only a few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in one discipline, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization (O’Connor & McDermott, 2004). This is important because specific individuals generally drive such projects (Leifer et al., 2000). In addition, contacts in the network can add specific knowledge and expertise in the role of boundary spanner and gate keeper (Reid & Brentani, 2004). In building a market vision, important individuals are senior management for supporting and initiating the process, opportunity recognizers who can value the commercial benefits of a technical discovery, ruminators who think far ahead in the future and connect disparate pieces of information, champions who promote the vision, and implementers who like to work on breakthrough projects (O’Connor & Veryzer, 2001). Management also has a large influence on shaping a culture that facilitates radical innovation, protecting projects, and initiating and giving guidance to radical ideas (Leifer et al., 2000; Hüsig & Kohn, 2003). As such, the project team also has to effectively manage the interface with the organization to acquire resources and support and to build project legitimacy (Leifer et al., 2000). So, it is important to identify those people who recognize opportunities and develop these into radical innovation and involve those individuals who can support the project.
3.2.3 Changes for Radical DesignDriven Innovation Some of these insights of the fuzzy front end of radical innovation can be used in the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation. However, radical design‐driven innovation has a strong design component and focuses on radically innovating meaning instead of performance (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). As such, the role of design is different as summarized in Table 3.2. These differences have to be taken into account in the organization of the fuzzy front end. Table 3.2 Comparison of role of design in radical innovation with radical design‐driven innovation (Borja de Mozota, 2003; Dell’Era et al., 2010; Leifer et al., 2000; Verganti, 2008; Veryzer, 2005)
Radical innovation Radical design‐driven innovation
Phase in innovation process where product design is considered
At the end of product development.
In the fuzzy front end.
Main objective of design Facilitate social acceptance of new product and technology.
Radically innovate product meaning.
Focus of design value for user Kinesthetic and rational. Symbolic and emotional. Role of industrial designers Functional specialism or cross‐
functional team. Cross‐functional team or project leader.
Balance design and technology Design is supporting and technology is leading.
Design is leading and technology is supporting.
18
To ensure the focus on a radical new meaning, the phase building a vision has to be added to the fuzzy front end (Verganti, 2009). The vision has to be leading in the fuzzy front end (O’Connor & Veryzer, 2001; Verganti, 2009). As such, technology development does not focus on technical differential advantage but on supporting the vision (Dell’Era et al., 2010). Next, idea generation also has to be based on the vision and has to focus on the product’s meaning instead of its functionality. Furthermore, ideas have to combine the new meaning, design language, and technology in initial products or applications. Finally, in concept development the focus can shift to utility value and addressing critical and basic functions (Jang et al., 2010; Sandmeier et al., 2004; Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 1998). As such, in the beginning of the development of radical design‐driven innovation the focus lies on the new meaning and in latter phases user requirements regarding its function are taken into account (Verganti, 2009). So, the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation starts with building a vision of a new meaning that directs the consecutive phases technology development, idea generation, and concept development. In addition to the extra phase building a vision, the evaluation and selection has to change. The evaluation board should also consist of people who are experienced with radical design‐driven innovation projects and understand product meaning and design languages. Criteria to use should not focus on technical different advantage but have to consider the benefits of the new meaning, if the meaning and design language fall outside current and short‐term trends, if the vision is distinctive and can survive aging, and whether the vision addresses deeper emotional and symbolic needs (Verganti, 2009). So, evaluation and selection have to focus on the new meaning instead of the technology.
5. Highlight: What are key aspects in the organization of the fuzzy front end? The fuzzy front end starts with the identification of an opportunity and ends with the judgment of concepts. As such, the objective of the fuzzy front end is to realize a satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable price and competitive time span that are ready for further development. After the identification of an opportunity, the fuzzy front end of a radical innovation project starts with technology development, followed by idea generation, and concept development. The deliverables of each phase are evaluated by an experienced and powerful board based on the benefit of the technology, market potential, and strategic fit. This evaluation is used to start a dialogue between management and the project team. The project team consists of a few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in one discipline, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization. This network allows acquiring additional knowledge, resources, and support. The fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven can use these insights, but the different role for design has to be taken into account. Therefore, first a vision of a new meaning has to be built to focus on the meaning and direct the consecutive phases in the fuzzy front end. To ensure this focus on meaning, evaluation and selection also has to focus on the new meaning instead of technology. Finally, the project team also has to include industrial designers and involve key interpreters.
19
Furthermore, the project team has to involve additional people since key interpreters are important to get insights on new meanings (Verganti, 2003). Industrial designers can assist in identifying and interacting with key interpreters and connecting insights, because designers share their language and way of working (Goffin & Micheli, 2010). In addition, industrial designers can promote internal experiments, develop a design language, and embody the vision (Perks et al., 2005; Verganti, 2008). So, the project team also needs to include industrial designers and involve key interpreters.
3.3 Conceptual Model of the Fuzzy Front End of Radical DesignDriven Innovation
Based on insights from previous subsections, a conceptual model for the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation is developed. This model is not a highly‐structured and sequential process, but a consistent and logical model that allows iterations between the phases. The model includes the project plan that is often the result of informal activities prior to the official start. In addition, the model encompasses the four phases building a vision, technology development, idea generation, and concept development. The project plan is summarized in Table 3.3 and the phases in Table 3.4. The model is discussed in more detail in the following subsections.
3.3.1 Project Plan The project plan encompasses the opportunity, the life context, the objective, the deliverables, and the project team. This project plan is summarized in Table 3.3 and discussed in more detail next. Table 3.3 Conceptual model of fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation, project plan
Project Plan Description
Opportunity A new technology that could enable a new meaning or insights on socio‐cultural changes.
Life Context A life context for the project to target has to be defined. Objective Radically innovate the meaning of a product, supported by new technologies, to
create an entire breakthrough product family or new business. Deliverables A satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable
price and competitive time span that are ready for further development. Project Team A few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in design,
technology, the innovation context, and product meaning, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization.
Radical design‐driven innovation projects can start from many opportunities. The opportunities include converging technological research and the synthesis of new and non obvious insights, weak signals in the market, changing contextual factors, or a vision of future meanings (Leifer et al., 2000; Sandmeier et al., 2004; Veryzer, 1998). As such, a new technology that could enable a new meaning or insights on
20
socio‐cultural changes are a good opportunity for radical design‐driven innovation. Therefore, is important to define the life context the project has to target. The objective of a radical design‐driven innovation project is to radically innovate the meaning of a product, supported by new technologies, and to create an entire breakthrough product family or new business (Verganti, 2009). The final deliverable of the fuzzy front end is a satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable price and competitive time span that are ready for further development (Koen et al., 2002; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Van Aken & Nagel, 2004). The project team consists of a few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in design, technology, the innovation context, and product meaning, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization (O’Connor & McDermott, 2004). The project team has to identify and involve key interpreters to build the vision and possibly design product ideas (Verganti, 2009). In addition, internal visionaries and individuals can be involved to gain additional knowledge and support.
3.3.2 Phase 1: Building a Vision In the first phase, the project team concentrates on building a vision of a radical new meaning and design language. To get access to knowledge on possible new meanings and languages and power to influence the emergence of new product meanings, it is necessary to do design‐driven research (Verganti, 2009). Within the defined life context, it is important to identify different categories of interpreters and find internal contacts with potential interpreters. In addition, interpreters outside the existing network can be attracted by initiating a dialogue by conducting experiments and research projects. Furthermore, it is possible to hire people, acquire organizations, and contact mediators that have connections with interpreters within the intended life context. From all these different interpreters, it is important to identify key interpreters and attract them to share their research and explorations (Verganti, 2009). Key interpreters can be identified based on their strong personal vision that challenges the dominant socio‐cultural paradigm that followed from their in‐depth research and specific knowledge in a particular field (Verganti, 2009). These key interpreters are doing design‐driven research themselves and can therefore be attracted by an organization that acts as a key interpreter itself and promotes and facilitates experimentation (Verganti, 2009). So, to build a design‐driven vision key interpreters have to be identified and attracted to gain insights in new meanings. Parallel to design‐driven research, it is important for the development of radical design‐driven innovation to include technology research. New technologies cannot only support new meanings, but can also lead to the possibility of new meanings (Dell’Era et al., 2010). Technology research includes the exploration of various technologies by expert researchers (Veryzer, 1998). Boundary spanners and gatekeepers should be identified to get insights in internal and external state‐of‐the‐art knowledge. In addition, collaborations and partnership with external technology suppliers to manage new technologies can be initiated (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998).
21
Table 3.4 Conceptual model of fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation, phases
1. Building a Vision 2. Technology Development
3. Idea Generation
4. Concept Development
Activities Identification and attraction of key interpreters; Design‐driven research; Technology research; Develop and select vision; Embody and diffuse vision.
Explore requirements, components, approaches and specifications; Develop collaborations and partnerships.
Idea generation; Pre‐screening; Idea elaboration; Idea selection.
Developing prototype; Address utility needs and basic requirements; Testing.
Deliverable Vision of new meaning and design language.
Technology that supports the vision of new meaning and design language.
Product ideas selected for further development.
Product concept and business plan.
Important Roles
Key interpreters; Gate keepers; Boundary spanners; Opportunity recognizer; Ruminators; Champions; Implementers; Evaluation board.
Gate keepers; Boundary spanners; Technology researchers; Suppliers; Partners; Evaluation board.
Key interpreters; New designers; Evaluation board.
Marketing; Evaluation board;Transition team.
Specific Role for Designers
Identify and attract key interpreters; Support design‐driven research; Embody vision.
Assure fit of technology with vision and design language.
Elaborate design language for product ideas; Justify ideas.
Prototype development; Support testing; Support building business case.
Key aspect The vision includes a radically new meaning.
Technology is subordinated to the vision and is developed to support the new meaning.
Product ideas focus on encompassing the new meaning and design language.
Develop ideas into commercially viable products while sticking to the new meaning and design language.
22
The acquired knowledge and insights on new meanings, languages, and technologies have to be combined and internally interpreted to develop a vision. This can be done by looking for connections (Verganti, 2009). Important roles in building a vision are opportunity recognizers who can value the commercial benefits of a discovery, ruminators who think far ahead in the future and connect disparate pieces of information, champions who promote the vision, and implementers who like to work on breakthrough projects (O’Connor & Veryzer, 2001). So in building a vision, it is important to connect insights on new meanings and state‐of‐the‐art technologies from inside and outside the organization. The initial evaluation of the vision should be done by an evaluation board which has experience with radical and design‐driven innovation project, product meaning and languages, the technology, and the power to allocate resources (Leifer et al., 2000). Despite all the effort, significant technology and market uncertainties remain (Koen et al., 2002). Therefore, criteria that are used should focus on the benefits of the new meaning and design language, how rich and robust the vision is, whether the market will be big enough when the benefits of the new meaning are delivered, if the meaning and design language fall outside current and short‐term trends, if the vision is distinctive and can survive aging and addresses deeper emotional and symbolic needs, and the strategic fit of the vision (Leifer et al., 2000; Rice et al., 2001; Verganti, 2009). The evaluation should also initiate a dialogue to identify uncertainties and determine whether the opportunity and vision are worth to invest human and financial resources in (Leifer et al., 2000). So, evaluation focuses on the new meaning and starting a dialogue to identify uncertainties to address. Finally, the selected vision of the new meaning is given form, e.g. in books, exhibitions, fairs, or websites. This visual form is not used to promote a product to customers, but to facilitate internal communication and external communication with interpreters to propose and spread the new meaning in the market (Verganti, 2009). So, the selected vision is giving form to direct further development and facilitate internal and external communication.
3.3.3 Phase 2: Technology Development In the second phase, the project team concentrates on technology development. Different technologies are considered in the first phase. However, the first phase concentrates on building a vision of a new meaning and design language. As such, the technology that supports this vision is identified by technology research, but often not developed yet. As such, the vision developed in the previous phase provides direction for technology development (Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 1998). Technical requirements, components, approaches, and specifications are examined. In addition, some initial considerations regarding applications and customers are made (Veryzer, 1998). However, this process is not directly driven by the end‐user or focused on customer benefits and commercial opportunities. The focus remains on the vision and the technological advantage to support the vision (Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 1998). To manage the technologies to support the meaning, collaborations and partnerships with suppliers and potential users can be developed (Dell’Era et al., 2010). In addition, early prototypes can be used to demonstrate the technology (Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998). This
23
also makes the design language clearer (Dell’Era et al., 2010). Feedback can come from interacting with key interpreters, lead users, internal networks, and visiting trade shows and conferences (Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998; Verganti, 2009; Von Hippel, 1986). For industrial designers it is important to assure that the technology supports the vision and design language and does not become leading. So by developing the technology to support the vision, the design language gets clearer and market insights are gathered as well.
3.3.4 Phase 3: Idea Generation The third phase concentrates on idea generation and selection. Idea generation is an iterative and evolutionary process in which ideas are built up, torn down, combined, and modified through discussion and examinations (Koen et al., 2002). As such, this can be done by the project team, key interpreters from the initial phases, and newly involved designers (Verganti, 2003). The vision of the new meaning, design language, and supporting technology give input to idea generation. An idea is the most embryonic form of a new product and consists of a high‐level view of the new meaning and supporting technology (Koen et al., 2002). As such, idea generation focuses on a product’s meaning instead of its functionality. After an initial idea screen to filter out absolute misfits, several ideas are elaborated (Sandmeier et al., 2004). Elaboration of the ideas includes developing preliminary designs for the product. In addition, specifications are further developed and initial information concerning user requirements is gathered. Although the product and design language begin to take shape, the design remains unfrozen in this phase (Veryzer, 1998). In preparation for the formal review by the evaluation board, the advantage of the new meaning over existing meanings and the design language are elaborated. In addition, an initial market, business, and technological analyses are made to build an initial case for the continuation of the project. So, ideas are generated and strengthened with the focus on the new meaning and design language. A formalized selection process for ideas is difficult due to the limited information and uncertainty. In addition, ideas must be allowed to grow. However, a good selection is critical for success (Koen et al., 2002). Therefore, the evaluation board has to have a positive attitude to move an idea forward and stimulate creativity, rather than focusing on filtering out less attractive ideas (Koen et al., 2002). The initial case provides some indication of direction, potential, and strategic fit of the product (Koen et al., 2002; Sandmeier et al., 2004; Veryzer, 1998). In addition, selection can focus on whether the design language and message of the product support the new (Verganti, 2009). So, ideas are evaluated by the evaluation board with the focus on meaning and strategic fit and selected for concept development.
3.3.5 Phase 4: Concept Development The fourth and final phase concentrates on concept development. After the idea has passed the formal evaluation, the focus shifts to concept development (Koen et al., 2002; Sandmeier et al., 2004). A concept is a written and a visual description of a product, that includes its primary features and customer benefits combined with a broad understanding of the design language and technology needed (Koen et al., 2002). As such, the project is now much more focused on developing a prototype of a specific product (Veryzer, 1998). This process requires a better understanding of customer needs and
24
drives further market research. Prototypes can assist in the development of the idea and testing the design language and technology. As the prototype is stable, testing with lead users can be done. As such, the focus shifts to utility value and addressing critical and basic functions in addition to emotional and symbolic value (Koen et al., 2002; Sandmeier et al., 2004; Veryzer, 1998). During this process many uncertainties regarding the language, technology, and customer become clear and are addressed to a certain extent (Veryzer, 1998). The final deliverable of this phase also includes a business plan. This business plan addresses topics such as objectives, strategic fit of the concept, size of opportunity, customer needs and benefits, value proposition for value chain participants, risks, environmental, health, and safety aspects, sponsorship by a receiving‐group champion, and a project plan including resources and timing (Koen et al., 2002). When a concept is selected for further development, a transition team can assist in transferring the project to a business unit (Leifer et al., 2000). So, this phase ends the fuzzy front end and delivers product concepts and business plans on which a decision is made whether to continue the project at a business unit.
3.4 Conclusions This section discussed the theoretical analysis. It answered the sub questions ‘What is radical design‐driven innovation?’, ‘What are key aspects in radical design‐driven innovation projects?’, ‘What are key aspects in the organization of the fuzzy front end?’ and ‘How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation?’. This led to the development of a conceptual model of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation. The conceptual model proposes aspects to consider in the analysis of the organization of the DDSA projects at LightLabs. This empirical analysis is discussed in Section 4.
6. Highlight: How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation? The fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation starts with informal activities that lead to a project plan. This project plan has to indicate the opportunity, the life context the project targets, the objective to radically innovate meaning supported by new technologies to develop a new business line, product concepts as the final deliverable, and the project team that consists of cross‐functional individuals with a broad network. This project team officially starts the project with building a vision of a new meaning by interacting with key interpreters. This vision and the new meaning are leading in the consecutive phases that include technology development, idea generation, and concept development. After each phase, the deliverables are evaluated and selected by an experienced and formal evaluation board with the focus on the new meaning. See Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 for an overview.
25
4 Empirical Analysis This section discusses the empirical analysis of the Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture (DDSA) projects at Philips Lighting LightLabs. The empirical analysis is done according to the case study method as discussed in Section 2. It answers the sub question ‘How are the DDSA projects currently organized at LightLabs?’. The analysis includes the entire DDSA 2010 project and the DDSA 2011 project up to the initial selection of architectural factors, because this latter project was still running during this master thesis. Appendix D includes a legend of specific concepts used in the DDSA projects. This section is organized as follows. Firstly, the project context is shortly introduced. Secondly, the plan of the DDSA projects is analyzed. Thirdly, the phases in the DDSA projects are analyzed, including the activities, deliverables and roles. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
4.1 Project Context: LightLabs The DDSA projects took place at Philips Lighting LightLabs. LightLabs, the pre‐development center of Philips Lighting, is part of the Technology function. It has the mission to create strategic growth opportunities for Philips Lighting and the vision to be the recognized front end innovator. LightLabs consists of three innovation departments and several supporting departments; see Figure 4.1. The group Product Design of the department LED Solutions already recognized design as prominent driving force in stimulating innovation in 2009. As a result, this group started DDSA projects in 2010 and 2011 involving Philips Design and Philips Research. Figure 4.1 Organizational structure of LightLabs
26
4.2 Project Plan Prior to the official start of the projects, plans were made. The plans include descriptions of the opportunity that initiated the project, the defined life context the projects targeted, the objective of the project, deliverables, and the project team. The actual organization is discussed in the next subsection. Table 4.1 gives an overview of the most important aspects that are indicated by the project plans, status updates, and the final project report of the DDSA 2010 project and that are confirmed by interviews. These aspects are discussed next. Table 4.1 Project plan of DDSA projects
Aspect DDSA Additional Remark
Opportunity The increased importance of LED‐based lighting and product design and the design freedom of LEDs.
‐
Life Context Consumer Luminaires; Homes (2010). Professional Luminaires; Office, retail, and outdoor (2011).
Communicating with the business unit and segments and involving them was challenging.
Objective To get a clear vision on future LED design solutions and to identify the key technologies that are needed to realize these.
There is no common understanding of design‐driven innovation.
Deliverables A clear design vision on future LED design solutions and new technological building blocks necessary to create exciting new lighting solutions that leverage the uniqueness of LED, as part of the technology architecture approach.
‐
Project Team LightLabs ‐ 2.5 FTE Philips Design ‐ 1 FTE Philips Research ‐ 0.5 FTE (2FTE in 2011)
The team was divided into a design team and technological team, and there was a lack of overall team feeling.
4.2.1 Opportunity The DDSA projects were initiated because LED‐based lighting is getting more important and customers increasingly value product’s aesthetics. Industry analysts predict that the market uptake for LED‐based lighting will accelerate over the next 5 years. Philips Consumer Luminaires business vision is that by 2015 80% of the Philips branded luminaires will be LED‐based and 50% of the total Consumer Luminaires portfolio will be LED‐based. In addition, design is a key value driver in consumer luminaires and an increasingly important one in professional luminaires. LED gives designers more design freedom and extended options for customization and personalization of designs. However, the design freedom of LEDs is still limited and LED is not fully challenging the paradigm of lighting.
27
4.2.2 Life Context Both DDSA projects were directly linked to a business unit and segments to define the life context. The DDSA 2010 project was related to the business unit Consumer Luminaires and targeted the home segment. In contrast, the DDSA 2011 project was related to the business unit Professional Luminaires and targeted the office, retail, and outdoor segments. Interviews indicated that communication with the business unit and segments and involving them was challenging. The business unit and segments had difficulties in understanding the project approach and the idea behind the deliverables. Particularly in the DDSA 2010 project, it was difficult to establish a link with the business unit and acquire resources. In this project, the project team expected to get commitment from the business unit after the selection of directions, but the business unit saw the evaluation and selection as pure exploration. As such, communication challenges and different expectations resulted in many meetings, discussions, and delays.
4.2.3 Objective and Deliverables The objective of the DDSA projects was to get a clear vision on future LED design solutions and to identify the key technologies that are needed to realize this vision. Although some business issues are considered, the main focus was on technical feasibility. As such, the final deliverables included a vision on future LED design solutions and technological building blocks that unleash the creativity of product designers and creative specifiers, e.g. architects and interior designers, and that leverage the uniqueness of LED, as part of the technology architecture approach. The DDSA 2011 project also included technological follow‐up for the DDSA 2010 project. So, the design‐driven aspect aimed at enabling and unleashing the creativity of designers and creative specifiers whereas the stretching architecture aspect aimed at challenging the current lighting paradigm with LED architectures that consist of modules that can be used in many lighting solutions. Despite the project plans, there was no common understanding of design and design‐driven innovation among project team members and stakeholders in 2010. In the DDSA 2011 project there was also no common understanding, but the focus shifted towards involving external creative specifiers, as illustrated by the following interviewee: ‘The project is not yet design‐driven, because we haven’t talked to a [external] designer yet’ (R10). These different and changing views among project members resulted in misunderstandings and discussions during the project.
4.2.4 Project Team The project teams involved employees from LightLabs, Philips Design, and Philips Research. Both projects had a budget of 2.5 FTE (full time employee) of LightLabs, 1 FTE of Philips Design, and 0.5 FTE and 2 FTE of Philips Research for respectively the DDSA 2010 project and the DDSA 2011 project. More employees from Philips Design were involved in the DDSA 2011 project, but the available time of Philips Design did not increase. This is remarkable because recommendations in the final project report of the DDSA 2010 project included involving a larger designer group and closely collaborating with creative specifiers. In addition, interviewees from LightLabs, Philips Research, and Philips Design had the feeling that Philips Design had not enough time in the DDSA 2010 project, as illustrated by an interviewee: ‘The
28
project was more design‐reactive, not so much design‐driven’ (R4). However, there is deliberately chosen for the same role and set‐up for Philips Design in the DDSA 2011 project as in the 2010 project. The project team was divided into a design team and a technological team. The design team was formed by Philips Design and the technological team was formed by LightLabs and Philips Research. In the technological team, the different backgrounds and way of working resulted in some tensions. During weekly meetings, the current status of the project was discussed. However, these meetings did not involve all the project team members. As such, some project team members from the design team and technological team did not directly speak to each other for over three months, as indicated by an interviewee from the technological team (R8). The division of the project team was felt throughout both projects and was not always appreciated, especially by the technological team. This is illustrated by the following interviewees: ‘The designer needs to be part of the project team and not some kind of client’ (R2) and ‘Philips Design sees it as their project, their ideas, their vision […] there is no team feeling.’ (R11).
4.3 Project Phases The project plans, status updates, and the final project report of the DDSA 2010 also included a description of the phases in the DDSA projects. These phases are also discussed during the interviews. Table 4.2 gives an overview of the phases of the DDSA projects, including the five main activities, deliverables, people involved, and the specific role for the designers. These aspects are discussed in more detail below.
4.3.1 Design Workshop The first formal activity in the DDSA projects was a design workshop. The objective of this workshop was to explore design directions that stretch the capabilities and qualities of LEDs. This workshop was organized by the design team and involved the technological team and several representatives from the business unit and segments, e.g. R&D program managers and segment marketing managers. In the DDSA 2010 project, the workshop started with exploring and identifying current and future LED differentiators and design trends. In the DDSA 2011 project, segment trends and socio‐cultural signals for each segment were also explicitly explored. In the DDSA 2010 project, the starting point was prior research and input from the participants, whereas in the DDSA 2011 the starting point was several existing technology studies and design studies covering the retail, office, and outdoor segments. These design studies were the result of a global research program, involving both Philips employees as well as external specialists. The second step was connecting insights and identifying opportunity directions. An opportunity direction is an area of interest worth exploring that translates future creative specifier wishes into segment relevant lighting opportunities that could only be feasible with LEDs. In the third step, the design team clustered the opportunity directions in opportunity platforms based on LED qualities that fulfill a set of creative specifier wishes. The goal of clustering the opportunity directions in platforms was to eliminate application‐specific details and to describe how the opportunity can enable creative specifiers in ways that were not possible with previous solutions. This clustering led to the identification of multiple architectural factors by the design team. An architectural factor is a
29
combination of technical parts and/or methodologies with a combined functionality that inspires and enables a creative specifier to do something novel with LEDs in various contexts and applications. In the last step, these architectural factors were discussed with all the other participants of the workshop and roadmaps were developed. As such, this activity resulted in architectural factors and roadmaps that stretch the capabilities and qualities of LEDs and support new design directions. Table 4.2 Phases of the DDSA projects
Activity Objective Deliverable Involved People Specific Role for Designers
1. Design Workshop
Explore design directions that stretch the capabilities and qualities of LEDs.
Architectural factors and roadmaps.
Design team; Technological team; Business unit and segments.
Organize and lead workshop; Identify architectural elements.
2. Selection of Architectural Factors
Evaluate and select architectural factors to develop up to concept feasibility level.
Selected architectural factors.
Design team; Technological team; Business unit and segments.
Present architectural factors; Evaluate design value.
3. Technology Development (in DDSA 2010)
Explore and develop technology enablers for the architectural factors.
Technology enablers for architectural factors.
Technological team.
Feedback on technology development (Voice of the Designer).
4. Confrontation with Creative Specifiers (in DDSA 2010)
Validate technological building blocks in demonstrators; Come up with product design ideas.
Validated technological building blocks; Product design ideas for prototypes.
Design team; External creative specifiers.
Organize confrontation; Generate product design ideas.
5. Confrontation with End‐users (in DDSA 2010)
Get recommendations for direction and improvements for the technology and design and a first impression how potential consumers value the outcome of project.
Validated architectural factors and technological building blocks in product designs.
LightLabs; End‐users.
Assist in (virtual) prototyping.
30
In the DDSA 2010 project, the design workshop was followed by an artist workshop. The objective was to generate ideas for new applications for LED lighting and to validate the results from the design workshop. This workshop was organized by an external organization involving independent artists and several project team members. It resulted in several hundreds ideas that could be grouped in themes and multiple concrete ideas. Although the results showed overlap with the architectural factors from the design workshop, the outcome of this artist workshop was not formally used and did not took place in the DDSA 2011 project.
4.3.2 Selection of Architectural Factors The second activity was the selection of architectural factors resulting from the design workshop. The objective was to evaluate and select architectural factors to develop up to concept feasibility level. In the DDSA 2010 project, the selection took place during a presentation of the architectural factors to the business unit and segment. The selection was based on technology challenge, design value, and business relevance of the architectural factors. In the DDSA 2011, architectural factors for each segment were selected based on the summed score of interest of the design team, the technological team, and the business unit and segment. To come to a selection, the design team enriched and identified the most inspiring architectural factors from the point of view of creative specifiers. The technological team discussed the architectural factors based on criteria that included links with other projects, technical feasibility of the architectural factors, and the potential for intellectual property. The business unit evaluated the business relevance of the architectural factors. However, interviewees revealed that the selection was seen as arbitrary and unclear. Regarding the DDSA 2010 project, this is illustrated by the following contrasting quotes: ‘The selection criteria are not so important […], at this stage it is mainly abstract […] you cannot really say this is worth it and this is not’ (R3) and ‘We have looked how much design value we can generate with the architectural factors and that is the price‐up for each product multiplied with volume of sales’ (R6). Regarding the DDSA 2011 project, this is illustrated by the following quote on the selection of architectural factors by the technological team: ‘We voted individually on what we saw as attractive technologies to work on without stating criteria in advance’ (R12). As such, the selection is seen as arbitrary but mainly based on business relevance, technology challenge, design value and done by the project team members and business unit and segments.
4.3.3 Technology Development The third activity was technology development of the selected architectural factors. The objective was to explore and develop technological building blocks for the architectural factors. At the start of this activity, only a general description was available of the architectural factors. As such, specifications and requirements were unclear. Some technological team members faced difficulties in working without clear specifications and requirements. However, the technological project team made quick demonstrators and used iteration sessions and detailed questions to derive specifications and to get feedback from the design team. This feedback and steering from the design team is called the Voice of the Designer. In addition, suppliers were contacted and techniques and existing methods were analyzed. In the DDSA 2011 project, a carrier project from the business unit will be selected during technology development to demonstrate the architectural factor. This needs to increase commitment from the
31
business unit and strengthen the specification and validation. In addition, the technology development in the DDSA 2011 project will also include a confrontation of the initial building blocks with external creative specifiers to strengthen the Voice of the Designer. So, technology development was an iterative process, including the development of demonstrators and prototypes, and was directed by the Voice of the Designer. Regarding the DDSA 2010 project, interviewees pointed out that the idea was to continue exploring during technology development by having a dialogue between the design team and the technological team. However, the design team only provided input to the technological team when this team showed demonstrators. As a result, the design team often gave on the spot feedback to the technological teams instead of participating in real discussions. The technological project team responded to the feedback by developing the next demonstrator. This sometimes resulted in the quick development of workarounds that showed the required effect, but were not real technological solutions for the architectural factor nor applicable in many applications. As such, the feedback of the design team was seen as decisive instead of as input to continue exploration.
4.3.4 Confrontation with Creative Specifiers In the DDSA 2010 project, the fourth activity was a confrontation with creative specifiers; the design team, designers from the business unit, and external designers. The objective was to come up with new home luminaire product design ideas based on the architectural factors and technological building blocks. Sketches were made and several product design ideas were developed in more detail. Three ideas for each architectural factor were finally selected based on variety of the ideas for the end‐user confrontation. In addition, the confrontation was seen as a validation of the architectural factors. However, this was not the main purpose of this activity. As such, the confrontation with creative specifiers primarily resulted in multiple product designs for the confrontation with end‐users.
4.3.5 Confrontation with EndUsers The final activity was a confrontation with end‐users, organized by LightLabs. The objective was to get recommendations for direction and improvements for the technology and design, and to get a first impression how potential consumers value demonstrators and prototypes containing the technological building blocks. Fifteen possible end‐users were questioned about appreciation of the light effect and the design, purchase intention, and price estimation. However, it was hard to test technological building blocks with end‐users because these blocks are intermediate goods whereas the end‐users were mainly interested in the final product. In addition, outcomes of purchase intention and price estimation showed a large variation. Furthermore, results showed contrasting evaluations of the same building blocks in different demonstrators and prototypes. However, results from this end‐user test showed discriminating results in architectural factors and prototypes. This contrasted with the confrontation with creative specifiers, which showed only positive evaluations. The end‐user confrontation formally ended the DDSA 2010 project, although the DDSA 2011 project includes technological follow‐up of the DDSA 2010 project as well.
32
In the DDSA 2011 project, validation will take place differently. Simple demonstrators and iterative sessions with only creative specifiers will be used to test the technological building blocks. A demonstrator focuses on the experience and the main differentiator of the architectural factors and is therefore not detailed in terms of shape, materials et cetera. A creative specifier has adequate knowledge to imagine the potential and innovativeness and address real problems. More detailed (virtual) prototypes will be used to explore an execution of an architectural factor and building blocks with end‐users. As such, the testing of demonstrators with creative specifiers will assess the value of design to innovation and the testing of prototypes with end‐users can assess the value of design to the market.
4.4 Conclusions This section discussed the empirical analysis. It answered the sub question ‘How are the DDSA projects currently organized at LightLabs?’. By analyzing the current organization of the DDSA projects, it becomes clear that the project teams experienced challenges in managing the high levels of technology, market, organizational, and resource uncertainties throughout the projects (Leifer et al., 2000). For example, during technology development, specifications were unclear and manufacturing aspects were not straightforward. In addition, customer needs and wants were not specified. Furthermore, the project team had difficulties in managing the relationship with the business unit and segments and their expectations. Next, the project team had not always clear how to find and form internal and external partnerships to acquire additional knowledge and funding. Finally, the project team was also challenged to get the wishes from the design team more clearly after the design workshop. As such, the project team faced high levels of design uncertainty as well. This empirical analysis allows evaluating the organization of the DDSA projects at LightLabs. By comparing it to the conceptual model, strong and weak points can be indicated. This evaluation is discussed in Section 5.
7. Highlight: How are the DDSA projects currently organized at LightLabs? The DDSA projects were initiated due to the increased importance of LED‐based lighting and product design and the design freedom of LEDs. The project were related to a business unit and segments to define the life context and aimed to get a clear design vision on future LED design solutions and new technological building blocks necessary to create exciting new lighting solutions that leverage the uniqueness of LED, as part of the technology architecture approach. The project team was divided into two functional teams; a design team and a technological team. The project team performed the following activities that led to initial technological building blocks: a design workshop, selection of architectural factors, technology development, confrontation with creative specifiers, and a confrontation with end‐users. These phases are summarized in Table 4.1 and 4.2.
33
5 Evaluation This section discusses the evaluation of the organization of the Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture (DDSA) projects. This evaluation is based on a comparison of the conceptual model and the empirical analysis discussed in the previous sections. As such, this section answers the sub question ‘What are the strong and weak points of the current organization of the DDSA projects?’. This section is structured as follows. Firstly, the project plan is evaluated. Secondly, the project phases are evaluated. Thirdly, the project context is evaluated. Finally, conclusions are drawn and strong and weak points are indicated.
5.1 Project Plan Regarding the project plan, the opportunity, the defined life context, the objective, the deliverables, and the project team are evaluated. Table 5.1 gives an overview of the comparison of the project plan aspects of the conceptual model and the DDSA projects. These aspects are evaluated in more detail below. Table 5.1 Comparison of project plan of conceptual model with DDSA projects
Aspect Conceptual Model DDSA Projects Opportunity A new technology that could enable a new
meaning or insights in socio‐cultural changes. The increased importance of LED‐based lighting and product design and the design freedom of LEDs.
Life context Define life context at start of project. Business unit Consumer Luminaires – home segment (2010); Business unit Professional Luminaires – retail, office, outdoor segment (2011).
Objective Radically innovate the meaning of a product, supported by new technologies, to create an entire breakthrough product family or new business.
To get a clear vision on future LED design solutions and to identify the key technologies that are needed to realize these.
Deliverables A satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable price and competitive time span that are ready for further development.
A clear vision on future LED design luminaires and key technology enablers that leverage the uniqueness of LED, as part of the technology architecture approach.
Project Team A few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in design, technology, the innovation context, and product meaning, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization.
Design team and technological team, with specific expertise in design and technology and links to the business unit and external knowledge.
34
5.1.1 Opportunity According to the conceptual model, the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation can start with the discovery of a new technology that could enable a new meaning or insights on socio‐cultural changes (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). The opportunity that initiated the DDSA projects is the increased importance of LED‐based lighting and product design and the design freedom of LEDs. This LED technology is used to challenge the existing lighting paradigm instead of just substituting the older bulb technology. As such, the identified opportunity is suitable for radical design‐driven innovation.
5.1.2 Life Context The conceptual model indicates that it is important to define the life context the project targets (Verganti, 2009). The DDSA projects defined the life context by stating a related business unit and segments for each project. However, involvement of a business unit can hinder radical innovation because radical innovation is often not in line with current business practices, such as business models, and can even cannibalize existing offers (Leifer et al., 2000). So, although the DDSA projects defined a life context, it is risky to relate the projects directly to a business unit and segment.
5.1.3 Objective and Deliverables In contrast to the opportunity, the objective and deliverables of the DDSA projects do not match with the objective and deliverables indicated in the conceptual model. The objective of radical design‐driven innovation is to radically innovate the meaning of a product, supported by new technologies, to create an entire breakthrough product family or new business (Verganti, 2009). In addition, the deliverables are a satisfactory number of promising and well‐developed concepts at an acceptable price and competitive time span that are ready for further development (Koen et al., 2002; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Van Aken & Nagel, 2004). In contrast, the DDSA projects had the objective to get a clear vision on future LED design solutions and to identify the key technologies that are needed to realize this vision. This vision did not aim at a radically new meaning but at stretching LED technology. In addition, the deliverables included a design vision and technological building blocks necessary to create exciting new lighting solutions that leverage the uniqueness of LED, as part of the technology architecture approach. As such, the objective and deliverables had a strong technology focus and included an intermediate product instead of a product concept. This is confirmed by an interviewee: ‘The output of this project is the technical feasibility of a module that gives designers the opportunity to design new products’ (R2). So, the DDSA projects aimed at facilitating radical new designs that challenge the current lighting paradigm, but had a strong technology focus and ended with an intermediate product instead of product concepts.
5.1.4 Project Team The set‐up of the project team of the DDSA projects is also not completely in line with the conceptual model. According to the conceptual model, the project team has to consist of a few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in design, technology, the innovation context, and product meaning, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization (O’Connor & McDermott, 2004). The project teams of the DDSA projects did include individuals with specific expertise in design and technology and also involved people from the business unit and segments for expertise in the
35
innovation context. However, the team was divided into two functional teams: a design team and a technological team. These two teams did not interact much. The design team was responsible for design aspects, such as organizing the design workshop, whereas the technological team was responsible for technological aspects, such as assessing feasibility and developing the technology. Furthermore, some project team members from the technological team had difficulties in dealing with the uncertainty and the lack of specifications and requirements at the beginning of the technology development. In short, the project team set‐up did not allow individuals to act cross‐functional.
5.2 Project Phases By comparing the DDSA projects with the conceptual model, the activities in the DDSA projects can be divided into two phases. Firstly, the design workshop and the selection of the architectural factors in the DDSA projects have overlap with the phase building a vision of the conceptual model. In these activities, a vision on future LED design solution is built and architectural factors that direct further development are selected. Therefore, the activities design workshop and the selection of architectural factors are evaluated in relation to the phase building a vision of the conceptual model. Secondly, the activities technology development, the confrontation with creative specifiers, and the confrontation with end‐users have much overlap with the phase technology development of the conceptual model. In these activities, technologies are developed and tested that have to support the earlier activities. Therefore, the activities technology development, the confrontation with creative specifiers, and the confrontation with end‐users are evaluated in relation to the phase technology development of the conceptual model. See Table 5.2 for a comparison of the phases building a vision and technology development of the conceptual model and of the DDSA projects. These phases are discussed next.
5.2.1 Building a Vision The activities design workshop and selection of architectural factors have overlap but also differ from the phase building a vision of the conceptual model. According to the conceptual model, the vision to be built has to include a new meaning and design language (Verganti, 2009). Building this vision starts with identifying and attracting key interpreters in the defined life context. Connecting these insights with technology research and internal experiments results in visions (Verganti, 2009). Although the DDSA projects target specific segments and tried to use external input, the project team did not identify and attract key interpreters.
8. Highlight: What are the strong and weak points regarding the project plan? The opportunity of the new LED technology can enable a radical new meaning. However, the direct link to business unit and segments to define the life context can hinder radical innovation. In addition, the objective and deliverables of the DDSA projects do not match with the objective and deliverables of the conceptual model. Finally, the team consisted of experienced people but the division of the project team into a functional design team and technological team did not allow individuals to act cross‐functional.
36
Table 5.2 Comparison of the phases of conceptual model with DDSA projects
1. Building a Vision DDSA Projects 2. Technology Development
DDSA Projects
Activities Opportunity identification; Definition of life context; Identification and attraction of key interpreters; Internal research and experiments; Develop and select vision; Embody and diffuse vision.
Opportunity identification; Definition of segments; Design workshop; Selection of architectural factors.
Explore requirements, components, approaches and specifications; Develop collaborations and partnerships.
Explore requirements, components, approaches and specifications; Contact suppliers; Look for links with other projects. Confrontation with creative specifiers; Confrontation with end‐users.
Deliverable Vision of new meaning and design language.
Architectural factors.
Technology that supports the vision of new meaning and design language.
Technological building blocks; Demonstrators; Prototypes.
Important Roles
Key interpreters; Gate keepers; Boundary spanners; Opportunity recognizer; Ruminators; Champions; Implementers; Evaluation board.
Philips Design for design value; LightLabs and Philips Research for technology challenge; Business unit and segment for business relevance.
Gate keepers; Boundary spanners; Technology researchers; Suppliers; Partners; Evaluation board.
LightLabs and Philips Research for technology development; Philips Design for Voice of the Designer.
Specific Role for Designers
Identify and attract key interpreters; Support design‐driven research; Embody vision.
Organize and lead workshop; Identify architectural elements; Evaluate design value.
Assure fit of technology with vision and design language.
Feedback on technology development (Voice of the Designer); Generate design concepts; Assist in (virtual) prototyping.
Key aspect The vision includes a radically new meaning.
Stretch the capabilities and qualities of LEDs.
Technology is subordinated to the vision and is developed to support the new meaning.
Develop technology and validate in demonstrators and prototypes.
37
In the DDSA 2010 project, the artist workshop that followed the design workshop involved external artist. However, this workshop included brainstorming by interpreters instead of sharing insights and doing real research with key interpreters. In the DDSA 2011 project, the design studies that were used as input for the design workshop were the result of a global research program, involving external specialists. However, these studies did not focus on new meanings. In addition, no key interpreters were identified and involved. Furthermore, the design workshop had a strong technology focus. The architectural factors resulted from technological differentiators and opportunity platforms that mainly addressed aesthetic, functional, and interaction aspects of design. As such, the design workshop included technology exploration. In addition, existing state‐of‐the‐art design, segment, and socio‐cultural trends were identified and extrapolated instead of doing real design‐driven research on new meanings. As a result, the architectural factors encompass a design language instead of a new meaning (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2008). So, no vision of a new meaning was built in the design workshop, the design language was in line with the evolution of current socio‐cultural models, and the architectural factors mainly stretched the capabilities and qualities of LEDs. After this research, a vision has to be selected and embodied according to the conceptual model. An evaluation board experienced in radical design‐driven innovation has to evaluate and select a vision based upon benefits of the new meaning and design language, how rich and robust the vision is, whether the market will be big enough when the benefits of the new meaning are delivered, if the meaning and design language fall outside current and short‐term trends, if the vision is distinctive and can survive aging, and if it addresses deeper emotional and symbolic needs (Leifer et al., 2000; Rice et al., 2001; Verganti, 2009). However, the selection of architectural factors was based upon business relevance by the business unit, technology challenge by the technological team, and design value by the design team, and did not explicitly consider the meaning. Finally, the selected architectural factors were only sketched and shortly described instead of given concrete form to facilitate internal and external communication and to diffuse the new meaning in the market (O’Connor & Veryzer, 2001; Verganti, 2009). So, the architectural factors were not selected based on meaning and not embodied to facilitate internal and external communication.
9. Highlight: What are the strong and weak points regarding the phase building a vision? In the first phase, the design workshop was clearly structured and included technology research. However, no design‐driven research on new meanings was done. As a result, the architectural factors had a strong technology focus and their message dimension included incremental innovation that is in line with the evolution of current socio‐cultural models. In addition, the selection of the architectural factors for further development was not done by an experienced board or based on the new meaning. The architectural factors were also not embodied. So, the architectural factors that directed further development did not encompass a radical new meaning and mainly stretched the capabilities and qualities of LEDs.
38
5.2.2 Technology Development The technology to support the vision, in the case of the DDSA project the architectural factors, was developed and tested in the activities technology development, the confrontation with creative specifiers, and the confrontation with end‐users. The organization of these activities has much overlap with the phase technology development of the conceptual model. Requirements, components, approaches, and specifications were examined and explored by iterative and rapid prototyping, and suppliers were contacted. Furthermore, a modular approach is suitable so the technology can be used in a product family. In addition, project team members were added to have the right technical knowledge for the development (Leifer et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1998). However, there was no clear vision of new meaning to direct the development. Instead, the Voice of the Designer from the design team was used to get on the spot feedback on demonstrators, acquire specifications, and steer development. So, technology development was not directed by a vision of a meaning and did not aim to support this new meaning but was developed to stretch the technology and to adhere to wishes from the design team. The architectural factors and developed technologies were tested and validated in the confrontation with creative specifiers and end‐users. However, the confrontation with creative specifiers mainly focused on developing product design ideas for the end‐user test. The lack of a vision also became clear in this activity, because the product design ideas showed much variety in the design language (Dell’Era & Verganti, 2007). In addition, several interviewees from the technological team pointed out that some product design ideas were not even possible with the developed technology. The confrontation with end‐users had the objective to get recommendations for direction and improvements for the technology and design, and to get a first impression how potential consumers value demonstrators and prototypes based on the concepts containing the technological building blocks. However, end‐users can often not understand the technology and its capabilities (Leifer et al., 2000). This also became clear in this end‐user test, which officially ended the DDSA 2010 project. So, the insights gathered from the confrontation with creative specifiers and end‐users were used to validate the deliverables instead of to gain insights to direct and improve technology development.
10. Highlight: What are the strong and weak points regarding the phase technology development? In the second phase, technology was developed with the trial‐and‐error approach with a modular approach. However, there was no clear vision of a new meaning to direct this development. Instead, technology development was directed and steered by the design team. In addition, the DDSA projects officially ended with a confrontation with creative specifiers and end‐users to validate the developed technology. However, there was little room to take gained insights into account. In addition, end‐user tests are less suitable in this phase. So, technology development was not directed by a vision of a meaning and did not aim to support this new meaning, but was developed to stretch the technology and to adhere to wishes from the design team.
39
5.3 Project Context: LightLabs By projecting the evaluation of the organization of the DDSA projects on LightLabs, the organization of radical design‐driven innovation on organizational level is conservatively evaluated as well. Capabilities on organizational level determine whether and how opportunities are identified and analyzed, how ideas are generated and selected, and how concepts are developed (Koen et al., 2002). In addition, the culture, leadership, and business strategy set the direction for innovation (Khurana & Rosenthal, 1998; Koen et al., 2002). Therefore, it is important to consider the organizational level to be able to answer the research question. The organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation on organizational level at LightLabs is evaluated based upon the maturity level of radical innovation capability of Leifer et al. (2000). See Appendix E for an overview of the contrasting nascent and mature capability. Regarding the involvement of senior managers, the project teams had little organizational mechanisms available at LightLabs to facilitate the projects although many people were enthusiastic about the DDSA projects. As such, the relations with external partners were being developed on an ad hoc basis, e.g. with creative specifiers in the DDSA 2011 project. In addition, the projects relied on individual initiative for staffing the teams and engaging champions. Furthermore, the project team expected commitment and resources from the business unit and were not supported to acquire funding through other channels. Besides, the project team faced difficulties in communicating with the business unit and transferring the technological building blocks to the business unit. As such, the radical innovation capability of LightLabs is evaluated as nascent.
5.4 Conclusions This section discussed the evaluation of the organization of the DDSA projects. The DDSA projects did not aim to develop radical design‐driven innovation as described in the conceptual model. Radical design‐driven innovation aims to radically innovate a product’s meaning supported by new technologies to create an entire breakthrough product family or new business. In contrast, the DDSA projects aimed to get a clear vision on future LED design solutions and to identify the key technologies that are needed to realize these to adhere to the wishes of designers and creative specifiers. As such, in the DDSA projects the novelty of functionality and technology was leading and the focus was on stretching LED technology. In addition, the meaning of products was not explicitly considered during the DDSA projects. Furthermore, the final deliverables of the DDSA projects differ with those stipulated in the conceptual model. According to the conceptual model, the final deliverables of the fuzzy front end are product concepts supported by a business plan. In contrast, the deliverables of the DDSA projects included a
11. Highlight: What are the strong and weak points regarding the project context? Many people are enthusiastic, but the DDSA projects did not receive much specific support from senior management. In addition, the project teams had little organizational mechanisms available that facilitated the projects. As such, at organizational level LightLabs has a nascent radical innovation capability.
40
design vision and validated technological building blocks. As such, the DDSA projects ended with technology development and did not include product idea generation and concept development. So, the DDSA projects did not try to radically innovate a product’s meaning supported by new technologies and come up with product concepts, but focused on stretching LED technology to adhere to the wishes of designers and creative specifiers. Several strong and weak points follow from the comparison of the theoretical analysis to the empirical analysis. These are discussed next. The weak points are divided in points specifically for radical design‐driven innovation and radical innovation in general. See Table 5.3 for an overview.
5.4.1 Project Plan Regarding the project plan, several strong and weak points are indicated in all aspects. A strong point is that the life context the project targets is defined. This can help in identifying internal visionaries, key interpreters, and gaining market insights. However, the business unit and segments were not used for that. Instead, the business unit and segments had much influence in the selection and the project team was depending on their resources which can hinder radical innovation. A strong point in the objective is to develop a vision to direct further development. However, the vision did not include a new meaning. In addition, the objective was to develop technologies instead of a new product family. As a result, the deliverables did not include product concepts that a business unit can adopt, but technological building blocks that need to be developed in more detail before they can be used. Another strong point is that the project team consisted of a few individuals with specific expertise and broad networks. However, the number of designers was limited and some team members had difficulties with the lack of specifications at the beginning. Finally, the clear distinction in a design team and a technological team did not allow the members to act cross‐functional.
5.4.2 Building a Vision In the phase building a vision, several strong and weak points are found as well. A strong point was the clearly structured design workshop that also included technology exploration. However, it did not include design‐driven research on new radical meanings. The early evaluation and selection of the outcome of this design workshop was good to filter out misfits and to focus further development. In contrast, a weak point is that the evaluation and selection was not done by an experienced board that had to power to allocate resources or used criteria that consider the new meaning. Instead, evaluation and selection was based on design relevance by the design team, technology challenge by the technological team, and business relevance by the related business unit and segments. Finally, the selected vision was not embodied and diffused in the market.
41
Table 5.3 Strong and weak points in the organization of the DDSA projects
Strong Aspects for Radical Design‐Driven Innovation
Weak Aspects for Radical Design‐Driven Innovation
Weak Aspects for Radical Innovation
Life context Good to define life context ‐ Much influence of business unit and segment can hinder radical innovation.
Objective Develop vision and technologies to realize this vision.
Do not aim to radically innovate meaning.
Do not aim to develop a new product family.
Deliverables A vision to direct development.
No new meaning. Technological building blocks instead of product concepts.
Project Team A few individuals with specific expertise and broad formal and informal network.
Limited number of designers involved.
The distinction of design team and technological team does not allow individuals to act cross‐functional.
1. Building a Vision
Design workshop
Clearly structured; Include technology exploration.
No design‐driven research on new meanings and involvement of key interpreters.
‐
Selection of architectural factors
Early evaluation and selection.
Evaluation not based on the relevance and potential of new meaning; No vision of new meaning is embodied and diffused in market.
No selection by experienced board with power to allocate resources.
2. Technology Development
Technology development
Trail‐and‐error approach; Rapid prototyping; Contacting suppliers; Modular approach.
Not driven by a shared vision of a new meaning.
‐
Confrontation with creative specifiers
Validation of architectural factors.
Generated product design ideas show much variety and are not based on vision of new meaning.
Late validation of architectural factors.
Confrontation with end‐users
Take end‐users wishes and needs into account.
Did not use feedback on new meaning that should have been diffused in the market at the end of the first phase.
End‐users are less relevant in this stage because they have difficulties in understanding the possibilities.
42
5.4.3 Technology Development Finally, several strong and weak points are found in the second phase technology development. A strong point was the trial‐and‐error approach to acquire specifications and the modular approach. However, technology development was not directed by a shared vision of a new meaning but by the design team and their Voice of the Designer. Furthermore, a strong point was to validate the outcomes. However, the confrontation with creative specifiers to validate the architectural factors and technological building blocks took place at end of technology development. As such, it was not possible to use insights to improve the technologies. This also yields for the confrontation with end‐users. Finally, insights from end‐users are often not useful in this phase because they cannot fully understand the technology and the possibilities.
5.4.4 Project Context: LightLabs The evaluation of the organization of the DDSA projects is projected on the organization of LightLabs. Because organizational capabilities, the culture, leadership, and business strategy direct innovation (Khurana & Rosenthal, 1998; Koen et al., 2002), it is important to evaluate the organization level as well. This is done by comparing the results with the maturity levels of radical innovation capability of Leifer et al. (2000). The conclusion is that at organizational level LightLabs has a nascent radical innovation capability and is not organized to facilitate radical design‐driven innovation. So, by comparing the DDSA projects with the conceptual model and extrapolating the evaluation to the organizational level at LightLabs, the sub question ‘What are the strong and weak points of the current organization of the DDSA projects?’ is answered. The strong points have to be maintained and the weak points have to be addressed to successfully develop radical design‐driven innovations at LightLabs. Section 6 discusses recommendations to address these weak points.
43
6 Recommendations This section discusses recommendations for the organization of the DDSA projects at LightLabs. These recommendations address the weak points that follow from the evaluation in the previous section. As such, this section answers the sub question ‘How to address the weak points in the current organization of the DDSA projects?’. This section is organized as follows. Firstly, recommendations for the project plan are discussed. Secondly, recommendations related to the phases are outlined. Thirdly, recommendations regarding the organizational level of LightLabs are discussed. Fourthly, recommendations to realize these changes are mentioned and finally conclusions are drawn.
6.1 Project Plan The opportunity that initiated the DDSA projects can lead to radical design‐driven innovation. In that case, the DDSA projects need to uncover the radical meaning that LED technology could drive and use this technology to express a radical new product meaning (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Verganti, 2009). However, to realize this it is necessary to make changes to the project plan. These recommendations are summarized in Table 6.1 and discussed next. Table 6.1 Recommendations for the project plan
Aspects Recommendation
Opportunity Use the opportunity of a new technology to uncover the radical meaning that LED technology could drive and use LED to express this radically new product meaning.
Life Context Do not link the life context directly to the business unit and segments. Manage this interface and look for visionaries and support.
Objective Aim to radically innovate meaning to produce a new product family or business, supported by LED technology.
Deliverable Deliver product concepts that convey a new meaning and are ready for further development.
Project Team Allow individuals to act cross‐functional and towards a shared goal and involve business developers and marketing experts as well.
6.1.1 Life Context The life context that the project targets should not be directly linked to the business unit and segments. Acting too close with the business unit and segment hinders radical innovation (Leifer et al., 2000). As such, the project team has to manage the interface with the organization carefully. Instead of seeing them as a client and decision maker, the project team has to identify and attract visionaries from the business unit to get support and relevant resources and insights (Leifer et al., 2000).
6.1.2 Objective and Deliverable The objective and deliverable of the DDSA project have to be in line with radical design‐driven innovation. Therefore, the objective should reflect the aim to radically innovate a product’s meaning. In addition, it has to be clear that new technologies are developed to support the meaning. This will focus
44
the attention on meaning instead of technology. Furthermore, the objective should reflect the aim to lead to a new product family or business (Leifer et al., 2000; Verganti, 2009). As such, deliverables have to include product concepts (Koen et al., 2002; Kim & Wilemon, 2002; Van Aken & Nagel, 2004). This will help to transfer the project from LightLabs to a business unit. So, the objective should be to radically innovate meaning to produce a new product family or business, supported by LED technology, and deliverables should include product concepts that convey a new meaning and are ready for further development.
6.1.3 Project Team The project team has to be able to handle the uncertainties that are related to radical innovation (Leifer et al., 2000). Therefore, team members should be allowed to act cross‐functional and frequently interact instead of being divided into a functional design team and technological team (O’Connor & McDermott, 2004). This will also stimulate team feeling and working towards a shared goal. In line with changes to the objective and deliverable, the project team has to involve business developers and marketing experts as well. So, individuals have to act cross‐functional towards a common goal.
6.2 Project Phases In addition to changes in the project plan, the phases of the DDSA projects have to change. This includes changes to the organization of the phases building a vision and technology development. In addition, the phases idea generation and concept development have to be included to deliver product concepts. The recommendations for the project phases are summarized in Table 6.2 and discussed next. Table 6.2 Recommendations for project phases
Aspects Recommendation
1. Building a Vision Design workshop Take time, involve key interpreters, do design‐driven research on
meanings, and embody and diffuse selected vision of new meaning. Selection of architectural factors Have an experienced and formal board do the evaluation and use
criteria that incorporate the meaning. 2. Technology Development Technology development Have the vision lead technology development and also continue
with the development of the design language. Confrontation with creative specifiers
Involve visionary creative specifiers and key interpreters to get feedback during technology development.
Confrontation with end‐users Use lead‐users and informal market research for validation during technology development.
3. Idea generation Include this phase in the projects. 4. Concept development Include this phase in the projects.
45
6.2.1 Building a Vision It is important to take more time for the design workshop to allow the vision of the new meaning to be enriched and get shape. The new meaning is the result of a real research and not of fast generation of several creative ideas (Verganti, 2009). In addition, a vision is not built through a single creative workshop, but develops over time and requires focus, discipline, energy, and the involvement of many people. For example, people who act as opportunity recognizers, ruminators, champions, and implementers (O’Connor & Veryzer, 2001). In addition, internal and external key interpreters have to be identified and attracted to gain insights in new meanings because design‐driven innovation is a network based research process that spans widely outside the boundaries of the organization (Verganti, 2008). Finally, the selected vision has to be embodied to facilitate internal and external communication, e.g. by a book, exhibition, or a website (Verganti, 2009). This will reduce design uncertainty. The selection has to be done by an experienced evaluation board and not be based on the preference of the project team and the related business unit and segments (Leifer et al., 2000). In addition, the evaluation has to consider the benefits of the new meaning and design language, how rich and robust the vision is, whether the market will be big enough when the benefits of the new meaning are delivered, if the meaning and design language fall outside current and short‐term trends, if the vision is distinctive and can survive aging and addresses deeper emotional and symbolic needs, and the strategic fit of the vision (Leifer et al., 2000; Rice et al., 2001; Verganti, 2009). This evaluation and selection should also initiate a dialogue to identify uncertainties and determine whether the vision is worth to invest in (Leifer et al., 2000). So, the vision of new meaning has to be selected by an experienced and formal board based upon criteria that incorporate the meaning.
6.2.2 Technology Development Technology development has to support the new meaning and has to be validated during development by informal market research. The approach in the development of the technology is similar to the approach mentioned in the conceptual model. However, it is important that technology is subordinated to the vision and developed to support the new meaning. As such, the vision of a new meaning has to direct technology development and not the wishes of the design team or creative specifiers (Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 1998). The latter would be more suitable in the lead‐user approach (Von Hippel, 1986). Instead, industrial designers and key interpreters have to assure the fit of the technology with the vision and design language (Dell’Era et al., 2010; Jang et al., 2010). In addition, the technology has to be validated during development and not only at the end. The validation has to be done with visionary creative specifiers, suppliers, key interpreters and lead‐users, and at conferences (Leifer et al., 2000; Verganti, 2009; Veryzer, 1998). This will reduce not only technology uncertainty, but also market and design uncertainty.
6.3 Project Context: LightLabs LightLabs has to establish a radical design‐driven innovation hub outside current practices to mature its capability for radical design‐driven innovation, e.g. under Strategy. This radical design‐driven innovation hub acts as expertise center to enable radical design‐driven innovation (Leifer et al., 2000; Verganti,
46
2009). The hub consists of a few individuals with different background and interests, such as a technologist, designer, marketing expert, and a socio‐cultural researcher (Leifer et al., 2000; Dell’Era & Verganti, 2009). See Figure 6.1 for its organizational location and functions. Figure 6.1 Recommendations for location and role of hub at LightLabs
Hub
LightLabs
LED Solutions Control Solutions
Supporting departments
Application Solutions
Strategy
Project 1 Project N
Design
Research
...
Evaluation board
Portfolio of projects
Form project team
Organize evaluation board
Designer 1
Designer N
Relation 1
Relation N
Portfolio of relations
Manage interface with mainstream
organization
Venture Capital
Access to funding
Hub X
Interact and develop new approaches
At organizational level, the hub can assure that the radical design‐driven innovation is part of the innovation strategy (Leifer et al., 2000; Verganti, 2009). As such, the hub can be a natural place to meet for all individuals that play a key role in capturing opportunities and making radical design‐driven innovation happen. In addition, the hub can set a culture that supports radical design‐driven innovation, attract talented individuals, and offer them a career path (Leifer et al., 2000). Furthermore, the hub can manage relationships with internal partners, e.g. Philips Design and Philips Research, and funding sources, e.g. business units and venture capital. As such, the hub can combine insights from ongoing design‐driven research from Philips Design and ongoing technology research from Philips Research. Next, the hub can manage external relationships, e.g. with suppliers, and build a portfolio of designers
47
and relations in addition to a portfolio of projects. Research shows that organizations that have adopted a design‐driven innovation approach, collaborate with a broad range of external designers and architects. Because the value of a single relationship benefits from externalities generated by other relationships, design‐driven organizations benefit most from the diversity of an entire portfolio of designers rather than from a single individual designer (Dell’Era & Verganti, 2010). Finally, the hub can interact with other hubs and develop new management systems and approaches. So, the hub can embed and enhance the capability of radical design‐driven innovation at organizational level. At project level, the hub can help to form a project team with cross‐functional individuals from different functions such as Technology, Design, and Marketing. In addition, the hub can act as mentor and expert and support the project team. Finally, the hub can organize and recruit evaluation boards and help to manage the interface with the mainstream organizations. As such, the hub can reduce organizational and resource uncertainties at project level.
6.4 Realize Changes Most recommendations related to the project plan and phases include changes that the project team itself can incorporate into a new project. However, to systematically develop radical design‐driven innovation, a radical design‐driven innovation hub has to be established. This hub requires a major organizational change at LightLabs. Realizing a hub and achieving a mature radical design‐driven innovation capability requires deliberate attention, strong and sustained commitment, and courage from top management (Leifer et al., 2000). Therefore, it is advisable to follow a change process (Kotter, 1996; Leifer et al., 2000; Van Aken et al., 2007). The following change process from Kotter (1996) is recommended; see Figure 6.2. Firstly, the sense of urgency for the change, the establishment of a hub and new project approaches, has to be created. This research can serve as background to illustrate future opportunities of radical design‐driven innovation and LightLabs current inability to develop such innovations. In addition, the urgency level can be raised
12. Highlight: How to address the weak points in the current organization of the DDSA projects? The project plan has to stipulate to radically innovate meaning and to aim to deliver product concepts. As such, the project plan has to be extended with the phases idea generation and concept development. Furthermore, the project should not be directly linked to the business unit and segments. In addition, the project team should consist of cross‐functional individuals and work together towards a common goal. In the first phase, real design‐driven research has to be done and the vision has to be selected by an experienced board. In the second phase, the technology has to be validated during development by informal market research. To mature its capability for radical design‐driven innovation, LightLabs has to establish a radical design‐driven innovation hub outside current practices. At organizational level, this hub can embed and enhance the capability of radical design‐driven innovation. At project level, this hub can reduce organizational and resource uncertainties. See Table 6.1, Table 6.2, and Figure 6.1 for an overview.
48
by demonstrating weaknesses vis‐à‐vis competitors that are currently introducing radical design‐driven innovations. Furthermore, holding managers at LightLabs accountable for broader performance measures than subunit performance can increase the sense of urgency. With the current implementation of Design as function within Philips Lighting and new approaches and values of the new CEO, it is advisable to link this change process to the current major changes at Philips Lighting. Secondly, a guiding coalition has to be formed to lead the change. This coalition has to consist of people who have a strong position, a broad expertise, a high credibility, management skills, and leadership skills. It is important that these individuals have different backgrounds, e.g. LightLabs and Philips Design, and build trust among each other, e.g. by carefully planned off‐site events and joint activities. Thirdly, this coalition has to develop a vision to direct the change and a strategy to achieve this vision. The development of the vision is a group process that takes time. Both analytical thinking and dreaming are essential. The final vision has to indicate the future direction to develop radical design‐driven innovation. The vision also has to be stated in a desirable way and be feasible, focused, flexible, and easily be conveyable in a few minutes. The strategy has to include steps, budgets, and plans for the implementation of this vision. Fourthly, the vision constantly has to be communicated. Communication has to take place in very simple words and has to be free of jargon, so everybody can understand it. In addition, metaphors and examples can be used for effective communication. Furthermore, using multiple forums and repetition helps to spread the vision. Next, important and visible employees have to behave consistent with the vision and inconsistencies in activities and communication have to be removed. Finally, it is important to listen to people and take their concerns and recommendations into account. Fifthly, the coalition has to have the power for broad‐based action. Structural barriers to the change have to be removed, e.g. organizational structures, bureaucracy, and unwilling supervisors. Furthermore, training has to be provided to employees so they are empowered to contribute to the change. Sixthly, short‐term wins have to be planned and generated. Wins that are visible, unambiguous, and clearly related to the change help to maintain momentum and support for the change. Seventhly, these short‐term wins have to be consolidated and used to produce more change. The credibility that is built allows tackling larger changes. It also allows the involvement of more people and the initiation of specific projects at lower levels. Finally, the changes and new approaches have to be anchored in the culture. This requires continuous support for people that are affected by the change, showing that the changes lead to superior results, and replacing unwilling key people. Figure 6.2 Change process to realize recommendations (Kotter, 1996)
49
6.5 Conclusions This section discussed recommendations for the organization of the DDSA projects at LightLabs. Recommendations include changes to the project plan and project phases of the DDSA projects that help to reduce technological, market, and design uncertainty. In addition, recommendations include the establishment of a radical design‐driven innovation hub that acts as expertise center. As such, it can embed radical design‐driven innovation on organizational level. In addition, this hub can assist in reducing organizational and resource uncertainty at project level. To realize the changes, a change process has to be initiated. To speed up this process, it can use the existing momentum resulting from the current implementation of Design as function at Philips Lighting and the new values and approaches of the new CEO. So, these recommendations helped to answer the last sub question ‘How to address the weak points in the current organization of the DDSA projects?’. The next section presents the conclusions of this master thesis.
50
7 Conclusions This section presents the conclusions of this master thesis. This section is structured as follows. Firstly, the research question and sub questions that are stated in the research objective are answered. Secondly, theoretical implications are outlined. Thirdly, empirical implications are discussed. Finally, limitations in this research are mentioned and directions for future research are indicated.
7.1 Research Objective The objective of this master thesis was to increase the understanding of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects at LightLabs, the pre‐development center of Philips Lighting. LightLabs recently started radical design‐driven innovation projects and faced difficulties in organizing these projects in the fuzzy front end. However, radical design‐driven innovation offers a new approach for developing radical innovations, which are critical for long term success. In addition, the fuzzy front end, the period between when an opportunity is first considered and when a concept is judged ready for development, has a large influence on the entire project and overall innovation program. Therefore, this master has answered the following research question: How to organize the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects at LightLabs? To answer this research question, radical design‐driven innovation is defined as innovation that combines new technologies and design languages to propose a radical new product meaning. This meaning results from the user’s interpretation and proposes a system of values and a personality and identity to the user and is the deep reason why people buy the product. A radical new meaning requires a significant reinterpretation and is not in line with existing standards and socio‐cultural needs. In the end, radical design‐driven innovation aims at creating an entire new product family or business. In addition, the following key aspects in radical design‐driven innovation projects are defined. Key in radical design‐driven innovation projects is the ability to understand, anticipate, and influence the emergence of new product meanings. Therefore, a vision of a new meaning has to be built by doing internal experiments and by interacting with key interpreters. Key interpreters are people who research, propose, and can support new meanings, e.g. artists and technology suppliers. Furthermore, this vision has to be embodied to direct consecutive phases and to diffuse the new meaning in the market. Finally, industrial designers and top management are important to interact with these key interpreters and to keep the new meaning leading throughout the project. Furthermore, multiple key aspects in the fuzzy front end of radical innovation are indicated. Radical innovation projects often face high levels of technology, market, organizational, and resource uncertainties. Therefore, these projects start with technology development to decrease technology uncertainties and include informal market research to decrease market uncertainties. In the consecutive phase, ideas can be generated that are based on the benefits of the technology. In the final phase, concepts are developed and more attention is paid to customers wished and needs. In addition, it is important that an experienced board with power evaluates deliverables using appropriate criteria. This can reduce resource uncertainty. Furthermore, the interface with the mainstream organization has to be
51
managed to reduce organizational uncertainty. Finally, the project team has to consist of a few individuals who have specific expertise and knowledge in one discipline, but also a significant degree of competence, interest and understanding of other disciplines, and a strong informal network in and outside the organization. These insights led to the following conceptual model for the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation. Projects informally start by constructing a project plan that states the objective to radically innovate meaning in a particular context and the aim to develop a new product family. In addition, the final deliverables include product concepts. A project team, consisting of cross‐functional individuals with a broad network, starts with building a vision of a new meaning by interacting with key interpreters and doing internal experiments. This vision is leading throughout the project and directs the consecutive phases technology development, idea generation, and concept development. The deliverables of each phase are evaluated and selected by an experienced board that uses criteria that consider the meaning. At LightLabs, the DDSA projects were organized as follows. The DDSA projects aimed at getting a clear design vision on future LED design solutions and new technological building blocks necessary to create exciting new lighting solutions that leverage the uniqueness of LED, as part of the technology architecture approach. The project team involved employees from LightLabs, Philips Design, and Philips Research, and was divided into two functional teams: a design team and a technological team. The project team started with a design workshop to come up with architectural factors; a combination of technical parts and/or methodologies with a combined functionality that inspires and enables a designers to do something novel with LEDs in various contexts and applications. Together with a related business unit and segments, the project team selected architectural factors for further technological development. At the end of technology development, the technological building blocks were validated with creative specifiers and prototypes were validated with end‐users. This validation ended the DDSA projects. Throughout the projects, the project team faced difficulties in managing the technology, market, organizational, resource, and design uncertainties. By comparing the conceptual model with the current organization, strong and weak points are identified. Regarding the project plan, the DDSA projects developed a vision but did not aim to radically innovate product meaning and to deliver concepts. The projects stopped after the second phase in the conceptual model. In addition, the direct link to the business unit and segment can hinder radical innovation. Finally, the team consisted of experienced people, but individuals could not act cross‐functional due to the two functional teams. Regarding the first phase, the design workshop was clearly structured, but no real design‐driven research was done. In addition, the evaluation was not done by an experienced board and the meaning was not considered. Regarding the second phase, technology was development by a trial‐and‐error and modular approach, as stipulated in the conceptual model. However, no vision of a new meaning was leading this development. In addition, validation took place at the end of development instead of during development. Finally, at organization level it turned out that
52
LightLabs missed supporting mechanisms for the project. As such, LightLabs has a nascent radical design‐driven innovation capability. To develop radical design‐driven innovation at LightLabs, the organization at project level and organization level has to change by addressing the weak points. The weak points at the project level have to be addressed by changing them in accordance to the conceptual model. As such, changes have to be made to the project plan so that the project aims to radically innovate meaning and to deliver product concepts. In addition, the interface with the business unit has to be managed carefully. Furthermore, the project team members have to be able to act cross‐functional towards a common goal. In addition, the phase building a vision has to involve key interpreters to do design‐driven research. Furthermore, a vision of a new meaning has to be developed and embodied. During technology development, this vision has to be leading. In addition, technology has to be validated during development by informal market research. Finally, the phases idea generation and concept development have to be included. The weak points at organizational level have to be addressed by establishing a hub outside current practices. This hub can embed and enhance the capability of radical design‐driven innovation and reduce organizational and resource uncertainties in projects.
7.2 Theoretical Implications The outcome of this master thesis results in several theoretical implications. Firstly, the conceptual model has to be tailored to an individual organization, since the organizational context affects the conceptual model on project level. During the development and validation of recommendations, it became clear that merely addressing weak points at project level is not sufficient. As such, the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation has to encompass both the organizational level as well as the project level. Secondly, design uncertainty has to be managed in radical design‐driven innovation projects in addition to technology, market, organizational, and resource uncertainties (Leifer et al., 2000). During the analysis of the DDSA projects, it became clear that after the design workshop designers and technologists had not clear what the design should look like. This design uncertainty resulted in communication and execution problems, e.g. in developing demonstrators. Although the DDSA projects did not aim to radically innovate meaning, it is likely that a radical new meaning also involves much uncertainty. As such, this master thesis has contributed to the scientific body of knowledge of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation.
7.3 Empirical Implications This master thesis has led to several empirical implications for LightLabs. Firstly, the current organization at LightLabs of the fuzzy front end of the DDSA projects does not lead to radical design‐driven innovation. Although it falls outside the scope of this master thesis, it can be questioned whether the current organization will result in innovations that challenge the current lighting paradigm at all. Secondly, major changes are necessary on both project level and organizational level to be able to develop radical design‐driven innovation at LightLabs. The current culture, organizational structure, and processes are related to incremental and end‐user driven innovation. This change should not be taken light and an official change process is advised to realize the recommendations. As such, this master
53
thesis increased the understanding of the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation projects at LightLabs.
7.4 Limitations and Future Research The results of this master thesis must be interpreted with the following limitations in mind that provide directions for future research. Firstly, the conceptual model that formed the basis for the analysis, evaluation, and recommendations is not empirically tested. In addition, knowledge on radical design‐driven innovation that is used in the model mainly comes from one university; the Politecnico di Milano. More specifically, most of the research on this topic is done by merely two researchers, Roberto Verganti and Claudio Dell’Era. As such, no widely expected body of knowledge on radical design‐driven was available for this research. This limits the validity of the results. So, future research has to test the conceptual model in an empirical setting and add knowledge to this field by researching the innovation potential of meaning and the approach to innovate meaning. Secondly, the conceptual model is a general model and not specifically tailored to LightLabs. As such, recommendations resulting from the conceptual model cannot directly be implemented at LightLabs. So, future research has to tailor the conceptual model and recommendations to LightLabs. Thirdly, this research only encompassed two cases and mainly addressed project level aspects. In addition, one case was still running during this master thesis and therefore not fully considered. Furthermore, there is lack of quantitative data and knowledge of final results. Besides, the projects considered in the case were seen as a pilot for a new innovation approach and changes to the organization were made during the project. This limits the generalizability of the results beyond the DDSA projects and to organizational level at LightLabs. So, future research can further test current findings by using larger data samples and extend research on the organization of the fuzzy front end of radical design‐driven innovation at organizational level.
54
References • Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2), 238 – 256
• Bloch, P.H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 16 – 29
• Boeddrich, H.J., (2004). Ideas in the Workplace: A New Approach Towards Organizing the Fuzzy Front End of the Innovation Process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13 (4), 274 – 285
• Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation, New York, Allworth Press
• Bruce, M., Bessant, J. (2002). Design in business: strategic innovation through design. Financial Times Prentice Hall. London.
• Cooper, R.G. (1988). Predevelopment activities determine new product success. Industrial Marketing Management, 17, 237 – 244
• Crawford, M., Di Benedetto, A. (2008). New products management. Ninth Edition. McGraw‐Hill, New York.
• Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J. (2004). Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design. Design Studies, 25, 547 – 577
• Dell’Era, C., Marchesi, A., Verganti, R. (2010). Mastering technologies in design‐driven innovation. Research Technology Management, 53 (2), 12 – 23
• Dell’Era, C., Verganti, R. (2007). Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 580 – 599
• Dell’Era, C., Verganti, R. (2009). Design‐driven laboratories: organization and strategy of laboratories specialized in the development of radical design‐driven innovations. R&D Management, 39 (1), 1 – 19
• Dell’Era, C., Verganti, R. (2010). Collaborative strategies in design‐intensive industries: knowledge diversity and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 123 – 141
• Edmondson, A.C. and McManus, S.E. (2007). Methodological fit in management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155 – 1179
• Gemser, G., Leenders, M.A.A.M. (2001). How integrating industrial design in the product development process impacts on company performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 28 – 38
• Goffin, K., Micheli, P. (2010). Maximizing the value of Industrial Design in New Product Development. Research Technology Management, September – October, 29 – 37
• Hong, P., Vonderembse, M.A., Doll, W.J., Nahm, A.Y. (2005). Role change of design engineers in product development. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 63 – 79
• Hüsig, S., Kohn, S. (2003). Factors Influencing the Front End of the Innovation Process: A Comprehensive Review of Selected Empirical NPD and Explorative FFE Studies. In: Proceedings of the 10th. International Product Development Management Conference, Brussels, Belgium, June 10‐11, 545 – 566
55
• Jang, S., Yoon, Y., Lee, I., Kim, J. (2009). Design‐Oriented New Product Development. Research Technology Management, March – April, 36 – 44
• Khurana, A., Rosenthal, S.R. (1997). Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product development. Sloan Management Review, 38 (2),103 – 120
• Khurana, A., Rosenthal, S.R. (1998). Towards Holistic Front Ends In New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 57 – 74
• Kim, J., Wilemon, D. (2002). Focusing the fuzzy front‐end in new product development. R&D Management, 32 (4), 269 – 279
• Koen, P.A., Ajamian, G.M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johson, A., Puri, P., Seibert, R., (2002). Fuzzy Front End: Effective Methods, Tools and Techniques. In: Beeliveau, P., Griffin, A., Somermeyer, S. (Eds.), The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development, Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
• Kurkkio, M. (2010). Managing the Fuzzy Front End of Product and Process Development (Doctoral thesis). Lulea University of Technology.
• Leifer, R., McDermott, C.M., O’ Connor, G.C., Peters, L.S., Rice. M.P., Veryzer, R.W.., (2002). Radical innovation. How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts.
• Noble, C.H., Kumar, M. (2010). Exploring the appeal of product design: a grounded, value‐based model of key design elements and relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 640 – 657
• O’Connor, G.C., McDermott, C.M. (2004). The human side of radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 11 – 30
• O’Connor, G.C., Veryzer, R.W. (2001). The nature of market visioning for technology‐based radical innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18 (4), 231 – 246
• Perks, H., Cooper, R., Jones, C. (2005). Characterizing the role of Design in new product development: an empirically derived taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 111 – 127
• Rice, M.P., Kelley, D., Peters, L., O’Connor, G.C. (2001). Radical innovation: triggering initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation. R&D Management, 31 (4), 409 – 420
• Reid, S.E., de Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (2), 170 – 184
• Sandmeier, P., Jamali, N., Kobe, C., Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., Meier, M. (2004). Towards a Structured and Integrative Front‐End of Product Innovation. R&D Management Conference, Lisbon.
• Smith, P.G., Reinertsen, D.G. (1991). Developing products in half the time. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.
• Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J.E., Lutz, A. (2009). What about Design Newness? Investigating the Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 601 – 615
56
• Tran, Y. (2010). Generating Stylistic Innovation: A Process Perspective. Industry & Innovation, 17(2), 131 – 161
• Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D. (2008) Product Design and Development, fourth Edition, McGraw‐Hill, New York
• Utterback, J., Vedin, B.A., Alvarez, E., Ekman, S., Sanderson, S.W., Tether, B., Verganti, R. (2006). Design‐Inspired Innovation. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
• Van Aken, J.E., Berends, H., Van der Bij, H. (2007). Problem Solving in Organizations. A methodological Handbook for Business Students. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Van Aken, J.E., Nagel, A.P. (2004). Organising and Managing the Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development. Eindhoven centre for innovation studies. Working paper 04.12, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
• Veryzer, R.W. (1998). Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (4), 304 – 321
• Veryzer, R.W. (2005). The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 22 – 41
• Veryzer, R.W., Borja de Mozota, B. (2005). The Impact of User‐Oriented Design on New Product Development: an Examination of Fundamental Relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 128 – 143
• Verganti, R. (2003). Design as brokering of languages: Innovation strategies in Italian firms. Design Management Journal, 14 (3), 34 – 42
• Verganti, R. (2008). Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 436 – 456
• Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation. Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Press. Boston, Massachusetts
• Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product. Concepts," Management Science 32 (7), 791 – 805
• Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 3rd edition. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
57
Appendices
58
Appendix A: Company Description Philips Lighting is one of the three operating sectors of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Philips Lighting is the global market leader in lighting with nominal sales of EUR 7.6 billion in 2010 and recognized expertise in the development, manufacture and application of innovative lighting solutions. Philips Lighting employs approximately 53,000 people worldwide and has manufacturing facilities in twenty five countries and sales organizations in over sixty countries. The mission of Philips Lighting is to support Philips’ brand promise ‘Sense and Simplicity’ by simply enhancing life with light. The ambition of Philips Lighting is to solidify its global leadership position in conventional lighting and solid‐state lighting and to be a front‐runner in design‐led, market and consumer driven innovation while contributing to responsible energy use and sustainable growth. Philips Lighting puts this mission and ambition in practice by focusing on the needs and desires of people, opening up new possibilities by partnering, and thereby developing meaningful and valuable solutions that enhance the quality, use, and experience of light. Philips Lighting is aligned to deliver these solutions to specific market segments. These segments are Homes, Offices, Outdoor, Industry, Retail, Hospitality, Entertainment, Healthcare, and Automotive and fall under commercial areas. These commercial areas are indicated on the right side in Figure A1. For each segment, Philips Lighting provides offering from across the entire value chain via the businesses Lumileds, Lighting Electronics and Automotive, Lamps, Consumer Luminaires, and Professional Luminaires. These businesses are placed in the middle in Figure A1. Functions, e.g. Finance, Marketing, and Technology, act as partners and provide expertise to the businesses and support operations. These functions are placed on the left side of Figure A1. As such, the businesses are responsible for end‐user driven innovation and state‐of‐the art business creation and are supported in innovation by the functions Marketing and Technology.
59
Figure A1 Organizational chart of Philips Lighting
60
Appendix B: Guideline for SemiStructured Interviews A. Background information 1. What is your formal position within Philips? 2. What are your main activities and what is your area of responsibility? 3. What is your role and area of responsibility in the Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture project?
B. Fuzzy Front End 4. How do you define the fuzzy front end / pre‐development and what activities does it include? 5. What are the objectives of pre‐development at Philips Lighting? 6. Which departments and groups are involved and how are activities and responsibilities divided? 7. What steps and activities can you identify? 8. Do you use formal processes and methods in pre‐development activities?
C. Design 9. How would you define design? 10. How do you think that design can contribute to pre‐development? 11. What is in your opinion the value of design? 12. What is design‐driven innovation; and its advantages and disadvantages?
D. Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture 13. How would you describe the project; its objective, outcome et cetera? 14. Who were involved and what was their task? 15. How was the project structured, can you describe different steps?
E. Steps 16. What is the objective of this step and when is it successful? 17. Can you elaborate on the process of this step? 18. What methods were used in this step? 19. How were tasks and responsibilities divided in the team? 20. Can you elaborate on your role in these steps? 21. What went very well in this step? How come? 22. What are the problems in this step; the causes and consequences? 23. How are these problems addressed? 24. How is the performance or result of this step evaluated, against which criteria? 25. What are the critical activities, elements or decisions in this step for the outcome of this
project? 26. How would you describe the management of this step? 27. How do these aspects relate to each other (methods, performance, activities, and decisions)? 28. Is this step successful? 29. How can this step be improved?
F. Round Up 30. What is characteristic for this project? 31. What do you think is necessary to successfully end this project?
61
Appendix C: Overview of Interviews Table A1 Overview of interviews
Interviewee Date and Duration Discussed DDSA 2010 Discussed DDSA 2011
R1 16 March, 2011; 57 min X R2 18 March, 2011; 63 min X R3 21 March, 2011; 66 min X X R4 21 March, 2011; 55 min X X R5 22 March, 2011; 50 min X R6 23 March, 2011; 45 min X R7 31 March, 2011; 58 min X X R8 5 April, 2011; 72 min X X R9 6 April, 2011; 64 min X R10 18 April, 2011; 65 min X R11 22 April, 2011; 55 min X R12 27 April, 2011; 55 min X R13 28 April, 2011; 75 min X X
62
Appendix D: Legend of Specific Concepts Used in DDSA Projects Architectural factor A combination of technical parts and/or methodologies with a
combined functionality that inspires and enables a creative specifier to do something novel with LEDs in various contexts and applications.
Creative specifier An individual (or organization) who is active in a segment that
the project targets and who’s work can be influenced by the outcome of the project.
DDSA Design‐Driven Stretched Architecture. Demonstrator A simple model that focuses on the experience and the main
differentiator of the architectural factors and is not detailed in terms of shape, materials et cetera. It is used to get feedback from the design team and creative specifiers, who have adequate knowledge to imagine the potential and innovativeness and address real problems.
FTE Full Time Employee. Opportunity directions An area of interest worth exploring that translates future
creative specifier wishes into segment relevant lighting opportunities that could only be feasible with LEDs.
Opportunity platforms A relevant cluster of opportunity directions making use of
similar LED qualities to fulfill a set of creative specifier needs/wishes.
Prototype A more detailed model than a demonstrator in terms of shape,
materials and finishing touches, that focuses on exploring an execution of a architectural factor. It is used to get feedback from end‐users who are influenced by execution matters.
Technological building block A module that enables the technological execution of an
architectural factor. Voice of the Designer Input and steering from the design team on the development of
technological building blocks.
63
Appendix E: Radical Innovation Capability Table A2 Radical Innovation Capability (Leifer et al., 2000)
Aspect Nascent Radical Innovation Capability Mature Radical Innovation Capability
Involving Senior Management
Executives act as provocateurs, patrons, and champions to compensate for lack of supportive culture.
The firm’s leadership sets expectations, develops radical innovation culture, established facilitating organizational mechanisms, and develops goals and reward systems.
Capturing Radical Innovations
Mavericks try to catch the attention of patrons. There is a lack of infrastructure and systematic approach.
Radical innovation idea hunters seek opportunities. Radical innovation hub establish effective evaluation boards that use appropriate criteria. Non‐traditional marketing and business development personnel work with radical innovation technical teams to develop the business model.
Acquiring Resources
Acquisition of resources is ad hoc. Project teams often expect a budget allocation to fund their work.
Individual managers with authority to provide seed funding and internal venture capital provide multiple sources of capital for radical innovation. The firm adopts a portfolio approach to funding radical innovation projects.
Engaging Individual Initiative
Completing radical innovation tasks, staffing the project team, and engaging champions rely on individual initiative.
Radical innovation hubs work with HR to develop a strategy for identifying, selecting, rewarding, and retaining radical innovation champions, experts, and team members.
Managing Internal/ External Partners
Relationships with internal and external partners are developed on an ad hoc, project‐by‐project basis by each project team.
Relationships between radical innovation activity internal and external partners are developed at strategic level‐ relying on the collaboration of the project team, the radical innovation hub, and the oversight board.
Managing Transitions
Communication is poor between the radical innovation project and the business unit. Project often transitions too early and radical innovation flounders. Project relies on intervention of senior management for transition,
Transition team is established to continue application and market development until uncertainty is reduced sufficiently to ensure a successful transition to the operating unit.