1

Market research methods for innovation development: an overview

Dennis List

A wide variety of market research methods can be used for researching innovations. The methods can be divided into four main groups, corresponding to the stages of product development: methods for (1) understanding customers, (2) idea generation, (3) concept testing, and (4) estimating market size, growth, and composition. This grouping is somewhat artificial, as many of the methods can be used in several different parts of the sequence. The first two groups of methods tend to be more qualitative, imaginative, and open. They require divergent thinking. The second two groups of methods are more evaluative. However, many combinations and variations of methods are possible. The following list covers most methods. 1. Methods for understanding customers Empathic design Observation Customer visits Ethnography Alien interviewing ZMET (Metaphor Elicitation) Codiscovery conference Information acceleration

2. Methods for idea generation Brainstorming and synectics Templates of product change Morphological analysis TRIZ Nominal group technique (NGT) Scenario planning Lead users Secondary research Lateral thinking Ignoring customers

3. Methods for concept testing Storyboarding Customer Idealized Design Charrette Usability testing Consumer clinics A-B testing (formal experiments) Consensus groups House of Quality / QFD

4. Methods for estimating market size, growth, and composition Test marketing Delphi method Expeditionary marketing Tracking surveys Simulation Forecasting Monitoring, response techniques

Each of these methods is very briefly described below, with references to more detailed publications.

2

1. Methods for understanding customers The purpose of these methods is to understand customers’ needs - even when not articulated by them. They are also useful for understanding the needs and pressures inside a large organization and possible blocks to creativity and innovation. Empathic design – which is derived from Customer visits Principle: Direct transfer of tacit knowledge. Method: go into a user’s environment, for a day or more. Usually for industrial products rather than consumer products. Follow the user around, ask questions, observe relevant behaviour. Nothing very formal. Often done by engineering or design staff - not by external consultants. Alternatively, by staff together with consultants. Need to be open-minded, not blame the user for lack of knowledge or skill. References: McQuarrie (1993), Leonard & Rayport (1997). Alien interviewing Format of personal interview: interviewing designers, usually not customers. Interviewer acts if an alien (from another planet), asking dumb questions - as if a new user: “What’s this for?” - “Why does it do that?” - etc. Problem: some designers become quite hostile during such questioning - and they are the ones who must accept the thinking. No detailed reference found. Similar to Idealized Design (see below). Voice of the Customer One aspect of the House of Quality, within Quality Function Deployment (QFD): the tasks of identifying and structuring customer needs. A hierarchy of needs is created - ofen 200 to 400 of them - from which the primary/. strategic needs for a yet-to-be-designed product are extracted. There is strong evidence that this method works well. It is not a unique research method, because it uses standard techniques of personal interviews, focus groups, and mini-groups. References: Griffin and Hauser (1993), Burchill & Brodie (1997), Ulwick (2002). Codiscovery conference Principle: need for mutual understanding - consumers need to understand producers’ constraints in order to make useful suggestions, and producers need to understand consumers’ needs. Method: Two groups (e.g. staff and customers, 20-40 people in total) meet for two half-day sessions, mostly working in rotating smaller groups. In the first session each group comes to understand the other’s motivations. In the second session they work

3

together to generate and partly develop mutually acceptable ideas. End with “ideas fair” where small groups present their new product ideas to each other. Example: Refocusing government radio in Indonesia to become public service radio. Producers had little detailed knowledge of their audiences, but after spending two half-days with typical audience members, producers felt able to create more relevant programs, and audience members decided to set up a Listeners’ Club in Jakarta. Limitations: Findings easily forgotten by staff – need to be reinforced, but written report doesn’t have enough impact, and videos don’t get watched. References: List (2002, chapter 15), List (2004). Derived from the search conference (Emery and Purser, 1996). Observation Watching how consumers use a type of product or service. Can be done in person or mechanically. Software can record all actions taken at computer while recording voice. “Unobtrusive measures” research - e.g. looking at surface wear to find most-used features. Limitations: ethical/privacy issues arise if users are not told what’s happening - but possibly abnormal behaviour if they are told. Main reference: Spradley (1980). Ethnography What anthropologists used to do: go and live with an undiscovered tribe for a year or two, understand their structure and customs, then write it up. A mixture of observation and in-depth interviewing. Nowadays, anthropologists go into large organizations to understand their purchasing processes - but usually only for a few weeks. When to use: When broad details of customers’ lives (typically work lives, for NPD) are needed for understanding of how they might use a product or service. But not when a quick decision is (really) needed. Limitations: Very expensive if done the traditional way (a full year with a tribe), but often abbreviated for market research. Still far from cheap! References: Spradley (1995), Ellen (1984). ZMET (Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique) Principle: tap underlying emotional connections. (1) Participants collect pictures that symbolize their thoughts and feelings. (2) Intense 2-hour personal interview with psychologist.

4

(3) With help from graphic artist, people create collages of their thoughts and feelings. (4) Clients get multimedia presentations at the end. Example / case study: chocolate bars as an icon of time, the past (childhood images). Use: most used in TV advertising, but also produces ideas for product design. Limitations: Very high cost - $100,000 upwards. Patented, proprietary method. Main reference: Zaltman & Coulter (1995). Information acceleration Using multimedia to “immerse” potential consumers in an experience. (1) Find out what the respondent would use to research the topic. (2) Make these resources available in a realistic manner. (3) Track what sources they use and how they use them. (4) Have them shop, make choice decisions, rate and rank items, etc. Need to build a realistic virtual environment, so can be very expensive indeed. Reference: Urban et al. (1997).

5

2. Methods for idea generation These methods are used, ideally after customers’ needs are understood (e.g. following use of methods from the previous group), to help generate ideas for new products and services. Brainstorming Principle: when it comes to ideas, the more, the merrier: i.e. quantity leads to quality. 4 to 20 people meet in a room, scribble down ideas furiously, then discuss their ideas. Often very quick – often less than 20 minutes (adding extra time adds few extra ideas). No criticism is allowed, but participants are urged to build on each others’ ideas. Degree of prompting varies: more prompting has been found more effective. Ideas are re-assessed later. References: Osborn (1963) – the original book; Osborn was the founder of brainstorming, also of the BBDO ad agency). Rossiter & Lilien (1994) – a useful review of the literature and suggestions for improving the method. Synectics Similar to brainstorming, but is a more deliberate process. People (usually not customers but staff members or experts) work in small groups for several hours, considering pairs of concepts together, and determining if that pair could be the basis of an innovation. Main reference: Gordon (1961). Morphological analysis Principle: finding all possible combinations of a set of factors, and considering each in turn. (A more systematic extension of synectics.) Try to include variables often overlooked (e.g. colours of computers – Apple Imac). There is computer software that randomly generates these, e.g. IQPlus (www.iqplus.com, www.infinn.com). Problem: (as with brainstorming) huge output, mostly junk - but much bigger output than brainstorming. Example: Zwicky (an astronomer) designed several new types of jet engine by identifying six relevant factors and considering all possible combinations of these. Related methods: fault trees and relevance trees. Divide problems by considering every possibility in a logical sequence. Problem: often there’s no unambiguous logical sequence, so some possibilities can be overlooked. References: Zwicky (1969) – the classic; Ritchey (1998).

6

Nominal group technique (NGT) Principle: depersonalize the ideas, reduce “ownership” problems. Like a focus group, but more structured, with a silent period at the beginning when participants write down their ideas. For each participant in turn, one idea is discussed at a time. Groups of about 10 people. They sit together but don’t communicate till the end. People write their ideas on cards. Ideas written up on flip charts, then discussed, followed by secret ballot voting. Limitations: problem of silent start is that there’s no initial discussion to generate new ideas in participants’ minds. Reference: Delbecq et.al. (1975) is the most detailed manual. A related method is focus groups: see Fern (1982), which discusses problems with focus groups for idea generation, and doesn’t recommend them for this purpose. Another method in this family is the consensus group – see below. Lead users Principle: Identify the most intensive users of a product, the people who use it to the fullest. Get their ideas for improvement. Lead users are the ones making most extensive use of the technology - “power users.” Often have adapted it for a related purpose. Industrial settings, not consumers. Limitations: tends to create “featurism” - adding more and more features to a product to please the lead users, but most users could find this more annoying than helpful. (Microsoft Office?) Reference: von Hippel (1986) – as well as later publications by this author. Lateral thinking Principle: when trying to solve a difficult problem, don’t go head-on: try different perceptions (“wear six hats”), different concepts, and different points of entry. Recognize the dominant ideas that force perception of the problem. Search for different ways of looking at things. Relaxation of rigid control of thinking. Use chance factors to encourage new ideas. References: De Bono (1971) was the first book; see also many other works by Edward De Bono. Templates of product change Goldenberg and Mazursky found 5 patterns in the development of successful new products – attribute dependency, component control, replacement, displacement, and division. Most successful new products matched at least one of those templates. Principle: train individuals in the use of those templates.

7

References: Goldenberg et al. (1999) and Goldenberg et al. (2001). TRIZ For a change, a method that doesn’t come from the US – this is Russian. TRIZ stands for “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving” Altshuller, the developer of TRIZ, analysed problems as contradictions, and found 40 generic solutions. To solve a problem using TRIZ, work out which of the 40 applies, then work back from the generic solution to a specific one. TRIZ also has many other aspects, but focuses mainly on physical products, rather than services or human problems. References: Altshuller (1990), Mann (2003), Orloff (2003). Scenario planning Though it’s impossible to predict the future accurately, a number of broad alternatives can often be imagined. So imagine a “world” for each main alternative, then consider either (a) what kinds of innovation would be needed in such a world, or (b) if there’s already a product concept, consider how successful it could be in such a world. Consider downside if each world does not occur (e.g. investment lost), upside if it does, and company’s attitude to risk-taking. Example: Shell Oil is the best-known user of scenario planning - very successful after anticipating sudden oil price rise in 1970s. Limitations: results often fuzzy – hard to be sure a few years later which scenario is applying – sometimes all of them are. References: Ringland (1998), Schwartz (1991), van der Heijden (1996), Potter & Roy (2000). Secondary research Principle: find out what’s worked elsewhere and copy (or adapt) it. • How many TV programs get their titles. • Canadian company that reviews undeveloped patents. • Look at “lead cultures” - e.g. California, Sweden, Japan (different from “lead

users” because not studying specific people) When not to use: when there’s a danger of transgressing IP law, patents, copyright, trademarks, etc. Limitations: because no real originality is involved, such innovations are likely to be copied. (If B can copy A, C can also copy B.) References: Kostoff (2003), Huston (2004).

8

Ignoring customers Principle: customers don’t know what they want until they see it. So instead of doing market research with consumers, get ideas from industry insiders, or from within the organization. Limitations: Can be good for innovations that can be developed quickly and cheaply (low overhead costs), but there are fewer and fewer of these. So this doesn’t work as well as it used to! Reference: Morita (1986) – how Sony got started; see the chapter on development of the Walkman.

9

3. Methods for concept testing These methods are used when some tentative product ideas have been generated, and a choice is to be made between them. So usually several methods are presented to potential customers, and their reactions sought - but this does not extend to probing purchase intentions (which is covered in the next group of methods). Storyboarding Used mainly for movies, TV commercials, etc. But could be used with other products involving a sequence of actions. Groups of potential consumers are shown a draft of the ad or product in action They then fill in questionnaires, and/or have a group discussion. Limitations: many people find it difficult to visualize the real thing from a storyboard. When to use: anything that flows sequentially - from a movie to a purchase decision on a website. More for services than products. Widely used in testing TV commercials - cheap and quick. Highly successful Melbourne research company Advertising Development Solutions, with its method Add+Impact. References: Forsha (1995), Andriole (1987). Charrette Normally used by architects, town planners, etc. People are shown a model - walk around it, have it explained, etc. Photos can also used. After inspecting the model, viewers fill in a questionnaire about how they would use it, what problems they foresee, etc. Changes are made, new people check out the model – often repeated for 4 cycles (daily or weekly). Limitations: Applies to products where everything can be seen, so not suitable for electronics, etc. References: very little has been written about charrette. Lennertz (1999) with 4 whole pages, seems to be the most detailed reference. The website of the National Charrette Institute, www.charretteinstitute.org has some useful material. Consumer clinics Principle: consumers experience a real product in action, and offer their reactions. Often used in automotive industry. Groups of potential buyers come to central location and have cars (etc.) demonstrated to them. Often a comparison of several models - e.g. one in question, competitors, previous model. Followed up by questionnaires, group discussion, etc.

10

Limitations: customers easily swayed by presence of attractive object – tends to produce overestimates of sales. Urban, Hauser, and Roberts (1990) seems to be the sole reference to this widely used method, though it covers consumer clinics only in passing. Consensus groups Similar to focus groups - which aren’t recommended for NPD because they tend to produce overestimates; also similar to nominal groups. Consensus groups have slightly more participants (10 to 12 per group, usually in a set of 3 groups), who have some control over the agenda. After discussion, a vote is taken on each main issue raised. When vote is split, discussion follows and the issue is redefined. Output is a list of agreed statements – some agreed with only by sub-groups. Example: A satirical magazine in Eastern Europe was losing circulation after Communism ended. Consensus groups were done, with current readers, potential readers and ex-readers. After discussing articles from recent issues, agreed statements were generated, making it clear that the editorial focus needed to address more current issues. Limitations: The statements records attitudes and beliefs, rather than actions (like all group discussion methods) – what people think, not necessarily what they do. References: List (2001), List & Metcalfe (1988). A related method is the KJ Method, used in TQM – see Mizuno (1988). Consumer Idealized Design Method: Customers are invited to redesign the interface of an organization, to ideally suit their needs. Only constraint allowed is technological. There’s also Idealized Design (with staff instead of customers), and Idealized Redesign (less relevant for innovations). Example: menswear shop - keep all clothes of one size together, instead of keeping types of garment together. Limitations: customers often come up with only minor changes - don’t have the knowledge of what’s possible. References: Ackoff (1993), Barabba (1995), Ciccantelli & Maginson (1993). Usability testing Testing a prototype or product with real consumers, to see how well they can use it. Becoming popular with web sites, but can be used for a wide range of products and services. People often working in pairs, given tasks to complete, and discuss problems they find. 3 main variables are measured:

- Did they get a correct result? - How long did the search take?

11

- Are they satisfied with the process? Participants then discuss problems encountered and possible solutions. When to use: For checking that potential customers can follow an intellectual task, such as navigating a website, or programming a video recorder. Also used for complex forms (e.g. annual subscription to a symphony orchestra). Limitations: the most usable websites (etc) aren’t always the most popular – many other factors come into it . References: Jordan et al (1996), Norman (1988), Rubin (1994), and Jakob Nielsen’s website at www.useit.com with many useful articles. Formal experiments (“A-B testing”) Several factors are systematically varied, while all other factors are held constant. For example, four types of face-changing drug could be tested: longer nose vs shorter nose, and larger ears vs smaller ears - which is four “treatments.” Each participant is randomly allocated to one treatment. Control groups normally used; highest rigour involves double-blind testing so even the researchers don’t know who’s getting what treatment. The statistical method analysis of variance (ANOVA) is normally used to test for significant differences between treatments. Many practical problems with this method - even for a less far-fetched example - because in practice it’s very difficult to hold everything constant, specially when people are involved. This is known as the “gold standard” method because it is statistically the most sound, but in practice is seldom used - and when it is used, the conditions required to assure that everything is held constant can make the situation unrealistically artificial. It often raises as many questions as it answers. A simple application is to split a customer list into two matched groups (e.g. odd and even numbered on a database). Half the customers are made one offer, the other half a different offer. The difference in willingness to buy between the two groups is then taken to be the difference in attractiveness of the offers. (This of course assumes that the customers don’t talk to each other about the offers.) Limitations: high cost, because of the planning and coordination needed. Also many practical problems ensuring that other things remain equal. Experiments work much better on objects than on people. References: Winer et al. (1991), Cook & Campbell (1979), and more specifically for marketing, Patzer (1996).

12

House of Quality Part of QFD (Quality Function Deployment). “Voice of the customer” (see above) is part of HoQ, so the latter is a framework for research rather than a research method in itself. Essentially a method of matching customer needs to design attributes. Limitations: high cost (elaborate, multi-stage process). Few organizations have this ability to mount such research. References: Cohen (1995), Hauser & Clausing (1988), Sullivan (1986), Tan & Shen (2000). The latter is on the Kano Diagram – a useful conceptual tool often used with HoQ.

13

4. Methods for estimating market size and take-up rate. Test marketing Offering a new product for sale on an experimental basis, in a market restricted in some way - e.g. one geographical area. Common test markets in Australia are Newcastle and Adelaide, because they are relatively small, and close to the national average on many variables. (Despite Adelaide’s population being older than average, my research on TV program popularity in the 1990s found that Adelaide was the closest large city to the Australian average.) When to use: when it is possible to separate one market from another in terms of advertising. Disadvantage: competitors are likely to find out, and take counter-measures. Limitations: measured in terms of lost opportunities - what if a product is test-marketed, and found successful? Potential sales may be lost because it was not marketed elsewhere initially. Reference: Patzer (1996). Expeditionary marketing Principle: launch lots of new products, in the hope that a few will succeed (as with biological evolution), but don’t spend too much money on launching each one. Can be done on a gradual foot-in-the-water scale, assessing progress each step of the way. Similar to test marketing, but less formal. Can use different test markets, with multiple advertising campaigns. Can do parallel testing – one company launched different 11 bicycle pumps. Important to track related variables (state of economy, etc), and customer awareness and reaction – not just sales, which are often a lagging indicator. Common for minor variations in groceries - e.g. new flavours of packaged foods. Also the mainstay of the publishing and film industries. When to use: when cost of failure is not high, launching costs are low because channels are already established, and word of mouth is likely to be a large factor - thus saving on large-scale advertising. Limitations: like test marketing, often measured more in terms of lost sales rather than of direct costs. Danger of coming to false conclusions because of unknown or random characteristics of the test market chosen. References: Hamel & Prahalad (1991), Morris et al. (2002).

14

Simulations Can be either online (less realistic for many product types) or in realistic situations. Can give potential consumers tokens (equivalent to money) and let them decide how to spend them on product combinations. Similar to information acceleration. “Virtual shopping” is one form of simulation. Cost: tends to be high, because time-consuming for participants (who therefore need to be paid to turn up). If special software is written, this can be very costly, and slow to prepare. References: Clancy & Shulman (1994), Burke (1996) Monitoring, and response techniques Principle: when you can’t afford to do a formal survey, define a set of indicators that can be monitored regularly. “Response techniques” are used to provoke customers to provide indications - e.g. a regular series of competitions. If other things are held constant, number of entries should be proportional to customer interest. Limitations: measurable indicators are often not a good proxy; monitoring systems take a while to set up, so are often not well suited to NPD. When not to use: when more relevant data is available. References on monitoring include World Bank (2002), and Davies & Dart (2005). On response techniques: List (2002, chapter 14). Delphi method Principle: Convergence of answers among a panel of experts. Find a widely varying panel, separately ask them questions with numerical answers (i.e. predictions), then feed back average, standard deviation etc and get everybody to vote again until convergence either occurs or is given up on. Those whose answers were very different from average are asked to explain them. Important factor: no personal contact – all done by mail or email – so no personal influence is possible. Limitations: can be slow, with multiple rounds. Convergence doesn’t always occur – sometimes resulting in a wide range. Nor is convergence any guarantee of accuracy – sometimes all experts are equally wrong. References: Linstone & Turoff (1975), Rowe & Wright (1999 and 2001).

15

Forecasting Too vast to cover here. Basically it involves using past data to predict future data, using extrapolation and related mathematical methods. Limitations: for an innovation, there is no directly relevant past data, so forecasting is crucially dependent on judgements - for choosing (a) a set of past data that is expected to best represent the future, and (b) an algorithm for extrapolating from the past data to the future. References: there are thousands! Makridakis et al. (1997) is the best known textbook, and Armstrong (2001) is an edited overview of the field. Armstrong’s earlier book (1978), despite its age, is still very useful and comprehensive. Summary As all the above methods have weaknesses, it’s best not to rely too heavily on one of them, by using a combination of different methods that have different limitations. The most effective NPD market research (see Davis 1993, Trott 2001, Badgett et.al 2002) often uses a range of methods – e.g. one from each of the four groups above, at various stages of the development process. Comparing results serves as a cross-check. Predicting the success of product innovations – like any other prediction – is as much an art as a science. It’s easier in hindsight, because the relevant variables are obvious after the fact. The challenge is thus to identify the relevant variables in advance, so big-picture research can be more effective than very specific study. Dennis List School of Marketing / Centre for Innovation and Development University of South Australia dennis.list@unisa.edu.au Updated July 2005

16

References These references include all mentioned above under specific methods, plus some more general references. Web references were correct on 30 May 2005. To make it easier to access online references, this document will be online at the website of the Centre for Innovation and Development of the University of South Australia - http://business.unisa.edu.au/cid/publications/methods/npdresearch.pdf Ackoff, Russell (1993) Idealized design: creative corporate visioning. Omega. 21 (4)

401-410. Altshuller, Genrich (1990) And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of

Inventive Problem Solving. Salem, New Hampshire: GOAL/QPC. Andriole, S (1987) Storyboard prototyping for requirements verification, Large Scale

Systems in Information and Decision Technologies, 12 (3) 231-247. Armstrong, J Scott (1978) Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. New

York: John Wiley. Armstrong, J Scott, ed. (2001) Principles of Forecasting. Boston: Kluwer. Badgett, Melody, et al (2002) Countdown to product launch: are you confident

customers will buy? Somers, NY: IBM. Online 3 May 2005 at www-1.ibm.com/industries/cpe/download4/15727/ibv_npsd_1.pdf

Barabba, Vincent P (1995), Meeting of the Minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Burchill, Gary, and Christina Brodie (1997) Voices into Choices: Acting on the Voice of the Customer. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Center for Quality of Management, Joiner Publications.

Burke, Raymond R (1996) Virtual shopping: breakthrough in marketing research. Harvard Business Review, March-April 1996, 74 (2) 120-31.

Christensen, Clayton M (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ciccantelli, Susan, and Jason Maginson (1993) Consumer idealized design: involving consumers in the product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 10 (4) 341-347.

Clancy, Kevin J, and Robert S Shulman (1994) Simulated Test Marketing: Technology for Launching Successful New Products. Maryland: Lexington Books.

Cohen, L (1995) Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Cook, T, and D Campbell (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dahl, Darren W, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Gerald J Gorn (1999) The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1) 18-28.

Davies, Rick, and Jessica Dart (2005). The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique. Available online at www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf

Davis, R E (1993) The role of market research in the development of new consumer products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10 (4) 309-317.

17

De Bono, Edward (1971) Lateral Thinking for Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Delbecq, Andrew L, A H van de Ven, and D H Gustafson (1975) Group Techniques for

Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, USA: Scott, Foresman.

Dodson, Mark, and Roy Rothwell (1994) Handbook of Industrial Innovation. London: Edward Elgar.

Ellen, R F, ed (1984) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to Conduct. New York: Academic Press.

Emery, Merrelyn, and Ronald Purser (1996). The Search Conference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fern, Edward F (1982) The use of focus groups for idea generation. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (Feb 1982) 1-13.

Forsha, Harry L (1995) Show Me: The Complete Guide to Storyboarding and Problem Solving. Milwaukee: ASQC Press.

Foster, Richard N (1986) Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. London: Pan Books. Funk, Jeffrey L (2003) Creating and succeeding in new industries: lessons from the

electronics industries. Tokyo: Hitotsubashi University: Institute of Innovation Research. Online at www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/SMR-funk.pdf

Garud, Raghu, Praveen Rattan Nayyar, and Zur Baruch Shapira (1997) Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gatignon, Hubert, and Thomas S Robertson (1985) A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11: 849-867.

Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon (1999) Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: a channelled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2) 200-210.

Goldenberg, Jacob, Donald R Lehmann, and David Mazursky (2001) The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success. Management Science, 47 (1) 69-84.

Golder, Peter N, and Gerard J Tellis (1997) Will it ever fly? Modeling the takeoff of really new consumer durables. Marketing Science, 16 (3) 256-270.

Gordon, William J J (1961). Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity. New York: Harper and Row.

Griffin, Abbie and John R Hauser (1993) The Voice of The Customer, Marketing Science, 12 (1) 1-27.

Hamel, Gary, and C K Prahalad (1991) Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug 1991, 69 (4) 81-92.

Hauser, J R, and D Clausing (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988, 66 (3) 63-73.

Huston, Larry (2004) Mining the periphery for new products. Long Range Planning, 37: 191-196.

Jolly, Vijay K (1997) Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Jordan, Patrick W, et al (1996) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis.

18

Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, eds (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kandybin, Alexander, and Martin Kuhn (2004) Raising your return on innovation investment. Strategy+Business, 35: 1-14.

Kostoff, Ronald N (2003) Stimulating innovation; pp 388-400 in L V Shavinina (ed) International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Kuhn, Kristine M, and Janet A Sniezek (1998) Confidence and uncertainty in judgemental forecasting: different effects of scenario presentation. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 9 (4) 231-247.

Lennertz, Bill (1999) The charrette process as an agent for change. New Urban News, Winter 1999.

Leonard, Dorothy, and Jeffrey F Rayport (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1997, pp 102-113.

Lindstedt, Sven B, and E William Colglazier (1982) Managing Innovation: the Social Dimensions of Creativity Invention, and Technology. New York: Pergamon.

Linstone, Harold A, and Murray Turoff (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Application. Reading, USA: Addison-Wesley. Online at www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook

List, Dennis (2001) The Consensus Group Technique in social research. Field Methods, 13 (3) 277-290. A manual is online at www.audiencedialogue.org/consensus.html

List, Dennis (2002) Know Your Audience: A Practical Guide to Media Research. Wellington: Original Books. Online at www.audiencedialogue.org/kya.html

List, Dennis (2004) The co-discovery conference: a method for direct transmission of tacit knowledge. Wellington: Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Online at www.anzmac.org

List, Dennis, and Mike Metcalfe (2004) Sourcing forecast knowledge through argumentative inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71: 525-535.

Lynn, Gary S, Steven P Schnaars, and Richard B Skov (1999) A survey of new product forecasting practices in industrial high technology and low technology businesses. Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (6) 565-571.

Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller, and Frank M Bass (1990) New product diffusion models in marketing: a review and directions for research. Journal of Marketing, 54: 1-26.

Makridakis, Spyros G, Steven C Wheelwright, and Rob J Hyndman (1997) Forecasting: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley.

Mann, Darrell (2003) Better technology forecasting using systematic innovation methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70 (8) 779-795.

McQuarrie, Edward F (1993) Customer Visits: Building a Better Market Focus. Newbury Park, USA: Sage.

Millett, Stephen M (1998) Futuring consumer products: an illustrative example of scenario analysis; pp 285-295 in Fahey, Liam, and Robert Randall: Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. New York: Wiley.

Mizuno, Shigeru (1988) The KJ Method. Chapter 5 in Management for Quality Improvement: The Seven New QC Tools. Cambridge, USA Productivity Press.

19

Mohr, Jakki (2001) Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations. Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice-Hall.

Moore, Geoffrey (1991) Crossing the Chasm. New York: Harper Business, Moorthy, Sridhar, Brian T Ratchford, and Debabrata Talukdar (1997) Consumer

information search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March) 263-277.

Morita, Akio (1986) Made in Japan. New York: E P Dutton. Morris, M H, M Schindehutte, and R W La Forge (2002) Entrepreneurial marketing: a

construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10 (4) 1-19.

Morrison, Pamela A, John H Roberts, and David F Midgley (1999) Towards a Finer Understanding of Lead Users. Philadelphia, Institute for the Study of Business Markets, report 15-1999.

Norman, Donald (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. OECD (1992) OECD Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological

Innovation Data. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (This report, known as the “Oslo Manual,” has authoritative definitions of innovation.)

Orloff, M A (2003) Inventive Thinking Through TRIZ: a Practical Guide. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Osborn, Alex F (1963) Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Patzer, Gordon L (1996) Experiment-Research Methodology in Marketing: Types and

Applications. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum/Greenwood. Potter, Stephen, and Robin Roy (2000) Using scenarios to identify innovation

priorities in the UK railway industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (2) 229-252.

Ringland, Gill (1998) Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Ritchey, Tom (1998). General morphological analysis - a general method for non-quantified modeling. Swedish Morphological Society. Online at www.swemorph.com

Rogers, Everett M (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Rossiter, John R, and Gary L Lilien (1994) New "brainstorming" principles. Australian

Journal of Management, 19 (1) 61-72. Rowe, Gene, and George Wright (1999) The Delphi Technique as a forecasting tool:

issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15: 353-375 Rowe, Gene, and George Wright (2001) Expert opinions in forecasting: the role of the

Delphi Technique; pp 125-144 in J Scott Armstrong (ed) Principles of Forecasting. Boston: Kluwer.

Rubin, Jeffrey (1994) Handbook of Usability Testing. New York: Wiley. Schwartz, Peter (1991) The Art of the Long View. New York: Doubleday Currency. Shavinina, Larisa V, ed (2003) International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam:

Pergamon. Spradley, James P (1980) Participant Observation. Orlando, USA: Holt Rinehart &

Winston.

20

Spradley, James P (1995) The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Sullivan, L P (1986) Quality Function Deployment. Quality Progress, June 1986, pp 39-50.

Tan, K C, and X X Shen (2000) Integrating Kano's model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Quality Management 11 (8) 1141-1151.

Trott, Paul (2001) The role of market research in the development of discontinuous new products. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (3) 117-125.

Ulwick, Anthony (2002) Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review, Jan 2002, 80 (1) 91-97.

Urban, Glen L and J R Hauser (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products, second edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Urban, Glen L, et.al (1997) Information acceleration: validations and lessons from the field. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (Feb. 1997) 143-153.

Urban, Glen L, J R Hauser, and John H Roberts (1990). Prelaunch forecasting of new automobiles. Management Science, 36 (4) 401-422.

van der Heijden, Kees (1996) Scenarios: the Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

von Hippel , Eric (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32 (7) 791-805.

Wansink, Brian (2000) New techniques to generate key marketing insights. Marketing Research, Summer 2000: 28-36.

Winer, B J, D R Brown, and K M Michels (1991) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

World Bank (2002). Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods, and Approaches. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Online at www.worldbank.org

Zaltman, G, and R H Coulter (1995) Seeing the voice of the consumer: Metaphor-based advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, 35: 35-51.

Zwicky, Fritz (1969) Discovery, Invention, Research through the Morphological Approach. New York: Macmillan.