the influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
1/77
The influence of metaphors on the risk
management in radical innovation processes.
By Nishant Bhaskar and Dominiek PostMaster of strategic product design, Technical University of Delft, Landbergstraat
15, 2628 CE Delft
Abstract
Radical innovative products present great opportunities for firms in terms of growth
and expansion in new areas in order to sustain competitive advantage. Radical
innovation also brings risks and uncertainty with it, because of its novel characteristics.
Metaphors can increase the understanding of new ideas and thereby reduce theperceived risk in radical innovations. The combination of metaphors and visualizations
can serve as an effective tool for communicating the concepts in the fuzzy front end of
new product development.Previous literature observes how knowledge transfer in radical innovation
processes can be stimulated by communication mediums like visualisations and
metaphors. The effects of both mediums have been a well-explored area of research, yetlittle is known about the effect of combining the two. The main research question istherefor how the use of visually depicted metaphors influences the decision making
(gaining understanding and sustaining ambiguity) in radical innovation process?The article offers a in-depth qualitative research with managers from medium to
big sized companies. In the interviews insights are generated on how risk managementin radical innovation processes is influenced during the communication of ideas. Five
dimensions of the communication process are found which have influence on riskmanagement: 1) Exploring and communicating a wide area of possibilities. 2)
Deterrents for different actors involved during the communication process. 3) The main
objectives of communicating ideas, conveying and sense making. 4) Accessing risk and
taking decision in three steps. 5) The attribution of metaphors during thecommunication process.
By increasing the effectiveness of communication between designers and
managers, the understanding grows and thereby the risk appetite. This article provides
a basis for further research, hoping to intrigue people to further research and verifythese findings, in order to optimize the risk management in the early stages of the
radical innovation process.
Keywords: Innovation, Communication, Reasoning, Decision making, Visualmetaphors
1. Introduction
In this fast changing environment,companies all have a shared primary
target, namely to generate revenue and
survive. Through new productdevelopment organizations can create and
sustain a competitive advantage.Innovative products present great
opportunities for firms in terms of growth
and expansion into new areas (Danneeland Kleinschmidt 2001). Successful radical
innovations promise large rewards andcan establish dominant positions in the
market.
However, radical innovations alsorequire organizations to move into
unknown territory and experiment withnew processes (OConnor, McDermott
2004). Radical innovations bring risk and
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
2/77
uncertainty into the innovation process
and their potential outcome. In newproduct development, companies struggle
to get from the start of the new productdevelopment process to launching a
product in the market in the most efficientand effective manner. The input of
knowledge and expertise of members from
different technical and businessdisciplines at the early stage is crucial(Hon and Zeiner 2004). Unfortunately
communication between differentdisciplines is difficult because the
presence of novelty required forinnovation clashes with the path-
dependent tendency of knowledge (Carlile
2004). In the early stage of radicalinnovation communicating the idea is
extremely challenging because not only isthere cross boundary communication, the
information cannot be linked to prior
knowledge because of the novelty of thedesign.
The aim of this research is to
develop guidelines of how the use ofmetaphors can reduce the perceived risk
in radical innovations. The research willfocus on the communication between
designers and managers in radical
innovation projects.
2. Literature review
To be able to understand the differentfactors playing a role in risk perception in
radical innovations, we clarify thedefinitions stemming from different
literatures. Understanding the definitionof radical innovation, fuzzy front end,common language and ambiguity is
needed in order to come to the solutionthat visual depicted metaphors can bring.
2.2 Radical innovation
There is a common understanding aboutthe importance of innovation for
companies. Intensive research has been
done into this subject, which resulted inmany different categorizations of the level
of innovativeness. Therefore, it isimportant for us to define what product
innovativeness means and what criteriaare used to classify radical innovations.
For our research we will address theproduct innovativeness from the firmsperspective. Innovativeness for a firm is
determined by two main factors, theresources that enable the firm to develop
new products and the fit of a project(synergy) with the firm. According to
Danneel and Kleinschmidt, the resources
include things as R&D expertise,knowledge of customer needs and
competitive situations, sales force, marketresearch skills and production facilities.
The synergy refers to how well the
internally available resources fit therequirements for the new product project.
For both factors, the technological and
market environment need to be taken intoaccount in order to determine the
innovativeness of the project.
Firms Perspective:
Familiarity Technological Environment Market Environment
Fit Technological Environment Market Environment
Figure 1: Dimensions of product Innovativeness
(Danneel and Kleinschmidt, 2001)
An innovation is radical to a firm when itembodies a new technology and addresses
a new market on macro and micro level.The high uncertainty that comes withradical innovations is caused by the fact
that radical innovations normally do notaddress a recognized demand and new
technological implementations are hard toplan because of the multiple unknown
factors that radical new productdevelopment brings with it.
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
3/77
When innovation is desired,
mismatches occur because the commonknowledge that the different actors use to
share and assess each others domain-
specific knowledge (Carlile 2004). In new
product development, managingknowledge will improve time to market,
technology transfer and innovation.In different functions of an
organization, employees develop localunderstandings as a consequence of
differences in expertise and experience(Jelinek and Schoonhoven 1990).Knowledge transfer assumes a referential
theory of meaning and implies that within
organizations, meaning is universal andcontext is relatively homogenous (Bechky2003). However the domain-specificknowledge of actors has a very big
influence on the communication and can
cause problems for knowledge transfer,
even though the company has ahomogenous context. This poses aproblem for the notion of knowledge
transfer because if an expression ofknowledge means something different to
the receiver than it does to thecommunicator, then it is not clear what
knowledge is being transferred (Bechky
2003). Miss-communication can have verynegative effects on radical innovation
processes and should therefor be
eliminated in businesses.
2.3 Fuzzy Front End
In the literature, the fuzzy front end wasfirst restricted to one factor, e.g. the
quality of pre-development activities
(Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1990). Over
time the number of publications on the
fuzzy front end has increased and Cooper
defined three major steps in the pre-project phase: idea generation,
preliminary assessment and concept
definition (Fig. 2.) The early stages are
critical because they lay down thefoundation on which the overall new
product design project is built (Alam,2006). Considering the importance and
poor understanding of the idea generationstage, several previous studies have dealt
with the topics of sources of ideas and theidea generation techniques (Sowrey,1990) and (Wagner & Hayashi, 1994),
however little attention is paid to the role
in communication of the new ideas.In our research we will focus oncommunication in the first two stages ofthe fuzzy front end in order to reduce the
uncertainty in the last stage of the fuzzy
front end. By providing a defined product
position and the benefits that it delivers apart of the fuzziness in the fuzzy front endcan be eliminated.
2.4 Common Language
Product development has become a very
complex activity and a successful productmaterializes as a result of synergy
between different divisions/functions ofan organization, which may have very
different way of working, vocabulary andpriorities. In order to ensure fruitfulcooperation between the different
languages, it is very important to developa common language that is capable of
bringing all the stakeholders to same levelof understanding. Even in instances wherecommunication is successful, creating
shared understandings may still be
Fig. 2. Predevelopment activities (Cooper)
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
4/77
problematic (Fiol 1994).
The medium of communication can affectthe success of creating shared
understandings. Research has shown thatvisualizations are of great importance in
creating a shared understanding.
2.5 Ambiguity
Brun and Stre (2009) argue thatambiguity arising from multiplicity and
novelty is a natural ingredient of NPD, andthat a one-sided emphasis on reducing it
in the NPD project may hamperinnovation. Management of ambiguity thusbecomes a concern of continually
harmonizing the need for flexibility,
novelty and the need for clarity. This
accords with other authors argumentsthat managers of NPD must accept anddeal with ambiguity (Ahmed, 1998) or
even purposefully use ambiguity (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995) to achieve innovation.
By their research, they arrived at thefollowing four categories of sources of
ambiguity:Multiplicity of the subject:
Alternative meanings of a single cue arise
when participants from different referencepoints are involved, and each ascribes a
different meaning to the cue depending on
his or her reference point. Ambiguity canthus originate from multiple and
conflicting interpretations of a cue at a
given point in time in an NPD project.Novelty of the subject: Novelty or
newness implies a change in meaning. Themeaning of a previously unambiguous cue
can be given a new interpretation, and
ambiguity will again arise. Ambiguityarising from novelty represents a dynamic,
time-variance aspect of ambiguity: a cuecan be ambiguous because it takes on a
meaning different from what it previouslymeant.
Validity and reliability of
information: We also found that theambiguity observed in the studied cases
can be related to the terms of validity and
reliability. For example, if the projectparticipants sample information about
user needs from users who are notrepresentative of the intended market for
the product, then this results in ambiguityabout user needs. If the participants
sample information about user needs from
a user who provides inconsistent answers,then this also results in ambiguity aboutuser needs. Ambiguity can therefore arise
because of interpretations based onunrepresentative information (low
validity of information) and because ofinterpretations based on inconsistent
information (low reliability of
information).
We believe that a combination ofmetaphors and visualization can be an
effective tool for communicating the
concepts at various stages of new product
development. In the next section we showhow metaphors help in sense making.
2.6 The Solution - visualizations containingmetaphors
Metaphors can furnish vivid images,convey multiple meanings in a concise
fashion, or express that which cannot bestated in literal terms (Gibbs &
Bogdonovich, 1999; Graesser, Mio, &Millis, 1989; Ortony, 1975; Paivio, 1979).Some theorists have even argued that all
higher-order cognitive functioning is
metaphorical in nature (e.g., Lakoff, 1987;Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
The relevance of metaphors toproblem solving is pertinent to three
fundamental steps (Gentner et al., 2001):The first step consists of extracting a
variety of unfamiliar concepts fromremote domains, where possible
relationships with the problem at hand are
not always evident. The second step
involves establishing a map of deep orhigh-level relationships between the
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
5/77
metaphorical concept and the problem.
Correspondence between the two comesin the form of abstractions and
generalizations. Relationships ofsecondary importance are discarded, and
only structural correspondences betweenthe metaphorical source and the problem
are retained. The last step deals with
transferring and applying structuralcorrespondences associated with themetaphorical source to the problem at
hand, which at the end generally leads to anovel solution.
In this way, metaphors not onlyassist in problem reflection, but also help
to break away from limitations imposed
by initial problem constraints (Snodgrass& Coyne, 1992), to explore unfamiliar
design alternatives and to establish novelassociations with the design problem
(Coyne, 1995; Casakin, 2006).
According to literature the metaphoricaldegree is influenced by six different
factors, evoke, aptness, familiarity,
complexity, deviation and diagnosticity.The first three factors are emphasized in
literature and are the most importantregarding metaphor interpretation. All of
these factors are not absolute and are
influenced by each other as well as by theperson who interprets them.
In the first two steps of Gentner et
al., evoking vivid mental imagery and
aptness are important. Metaphors thatevoke vivid mental imagery may beunderstood and remembered better
(Blasko 1999). Aptness or metaphorgoodness is an important factor (Trick and
Katz 1986), higher aptness ratings aregiven when the metaphor terms weretaken from relatively dissimilar semantic
domains but held similar positions withinthe domain (Blasko 1999). The higher the
aptness level of the metaphor and themore it evokes vivid mental imagery, the
better the relationship between the
metaphor and unfamiliar concept can be
made.
The last two steps of Gentner et al.,
more emphasize the aptness andfamiliarity level of the metaphor.
Familiarity in metaphors breeds liking, itwas found that high familiar metaphors
showed immediate activation of thefigurative meaning of the metaphor
(Blasko and Connine 1993). The higher the
level of aptness and familiarity in themetaphor, the easier it is to deal withabstractions and generalizations within
the idea and to transfer and applystructural correspondences associated
with the metaphor to the idea.
2.7 Limitations
Some research indicates that metaphor
can reduce persuasion (Bosman &Hagendoorn, 1991), especially when themetaphor fails to afford clear semantic
linkages with literal arguments contained
in the communication (Krumdick, Ottati, &
Deiger, 2004). Similarly, we would alsolike to understand that how much
concreteness of visualizations is optimalbecause too concrete visualization duringthe early stage of concept development
can inhibit imagination. Moreover,knowledge that is transferred is assumed
to have the same meaning for both the
person who expresses it and the personwho receives it. However, as semioticians
have pointed out, when one thinks of an
expression as a sign, a variety of contentscan be expressed by the same signifier
(Barthes 1967, Eco 1976). This is also thecase with metaphors, without an
explanation it can be interpreted
differently by different parties. The risk isthat it seems like a shared understanding
is met, and that not until later is found outthat there actually is no such
understanding.From our personal experiences as
designers, we understand that the role of
visualizations is not only to enable sense-
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
6/77
making but also to trigger fresh thoughts
and critical thinking.
2.8 Research Proposal
The previous literature observes how
knowledge transfer in radical innovation
processes can be stimulated bycommunication mediums likevisualisations and metaphors.
Consequently, the effect of visualisationsand metaphors on communications has
been a well-explored area of research, yetlittle is known about the effect of
combining the two mediums. Therefore,
the current study intends to fill this gap inthe literature by explaining how the use of
visually depicted metaphors influences thedecision making (gaining understanding
and sustaining ambiguity) in radical
innovation process?
3. Data and Methods
Given the limited theory about howmanagers and designers communicate
trough visual tools, especially visual
metaphors, we conducted case studyresearch. Case studies are especially useful
for developing insights in new topic areas
and the objective is on gaining insights to
build theory rather than on testinghypothesis, such as ours (Eisenhardt,1989). Multiple cases are effective
because it enables us to collectcomparative data and so we are likely to
formulate more accurate insights.The setting of our study is firms in
different innovation sectors that have
been established for quite some time. Thematurity of a company is relevant for our
research, since start-up companies haveshorter communication routes and would
likely experience less communication
problems in the decision making process
We studied 6 managers thatfrequently communicate with designers
within their firm. We focus on the
managers, because we expect thatdesigners generally have less problems
with understanding new ideas andvisualisations, since they work in a much
more creative environment. Focussing onthe managers will provide us with insights
on how depicted metaphors influences
their decision making.
3.1 Data Sources
We used two data source: (1) in-depthinterviews with managers, (2)
questionnaire answered by managers.
An important data source was the in-depth
interviews. We collected qualitative datafrom a pilot interview conducted with a
manager in an innovative industry of
dispensing machines, and than from 6more interviews with managers from
several innovative industries. After the
pilot, we interviewed one manager fromeach firm who is responsible for the
decision-making in radical innovationprocesses. We first conducted our 50-70
min interview and directly followed it up
with a questionnaire to collectquantitative data on how managers react
on the visual tools we showed them. All
interviews where recorded with the
permission of the managers. Care wastaken by the researchers to assure therespondents that they and if desired their
place of work would not be identifiable inany subsequent report.
For the study we used 2 sets of visualtools based on a metaphor and innovativeidea, both tool sets contained three similar
visual tools. The toolsets where based onnew business ideas. We used business
innovation because none of theinterviewees could have affinity related to
their own business with the new business
idea. The first visual tool shown to the
manager was a visual representation of anidea using a metaphor. The second visual
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
7/77
tool was a real life image of the metaphor;
the image shown was variable in the toolset. The third tool was a schematic
representation of the idea.
We asked each manager a set of open
questions in the semi structured in-depthinterview about radical innovation and
communication tools used in the process.After having finished this first phase of our
research, we introduced the manager to aninnovative business idea through a
narrative of about three sentences. Afterthe narrative we gauged the level ofunderstanding of the manager trough a
questionnaire. Whereupon we showed the
manager all of the tools from the visualtool set, after each tool the level ofunderstanding was measured again. Afterthis process a second part of the interview
was held, which focussed on the helpful
aspects of depicted metaphors.
The combination of the three visualtools presented to the manager whereorganized throughout the whole process.
Each case we showed one of the two toolsets, the sets where randomly chosen for
each manager. Within each toolset all thevisualisations of the metaphor where
shown in the same sequence to test how
managers reactions would vary for eachimage. The combination of the interview
and the questionnaire is very important, it
enabled us to comparing quantitative andqualitative data and create more
consistent insights.
3.2 Data analysis
All the interviews where taped, and then
transcribed within a week of their
occurrence. The transcripts can be found
in appendix A. The transcripts where readby both researchers and coded in the style
of grounded theory approach to dataanalysis (Charmaz 2006), with the
software atlas.ti. Seven category headingswere generated, by one of the researchers,
from the data and under these all of thedata were accounted for. The otherresearcher independently verified the
accuracy of the category system. After
discussing similarities and differences inrelated codes across the differenttranscripts, and comparing therelationship between the codes minor
modifications were made, see figure 3 for
the end result. The codebook produced in
atlas.ti can be found in appendix B.The questionnaire data was
processed as soon as all the data was
collected. Because of the small sample size(5 interviewees), no statistical analysis
with special software was needed. Thequestionnaire data was put in Excel and
analysed on various aspects. We analysed
the influence of the different tools on theunderstanding of ideas, the confidence in
the ideas, the contribution of the tool to
the clarification of the idea, and thecontribution of the tool to remembering
the idea.
Fig. 3. Journey of an idea
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
8/77
3.3 Advantages and limitations
The sample size of our interviewees is too
small to randomize the individualdifferences and the effect of the
metaphorical characteristics. To elicit theeffect of this in our end results, we first
tested four toolsets with different
metaphors. This was done trough a surveywith 18 participants. The surveyquestionnaire contained the brief
explanation of the business innovation, theline drawing and the metaphorical image.
Underneath the line drawing and thepicture was a question that asked for the
level of aptness and evoking vivid mental
imagery. The two toolsets which had themost similar levels between the line
drawing and image where selected for therest of the research. The survey on the
degree of metaphorical understanding can
be found in Appendix C.
4. Findings
This section outlines the findings following
the order of the different stages of newproduct design in the Fuzzy Front End.
Each section explains the findings after
which extracts from the research will beshown.
4.1 Exploring Possibilities
During the fuzzy front end, ideas are
explored in order to create newopportunities and sustain a competitive
advantage. Many limitations in thecommunication of new ideas amongdifferent sectors in companies occur.
Radical ideas are often come fromapplying an idea from one domain to
another. Silo-structured management incompanies prevent this cross sector
innovation because no communication
between different domains occurs and
knowledge from radical innovations doneis not widely shared within a company.
While searching for new ideas,
designers and managers have to envisionthe future because of the big time lag
between the first idea and time to market.Envisioning the future makes exploring
possibilities difficult because the futurebrings a lot of uncertainty with it and
people may have different visions about
the future.The most important factor in
innovation is that possibilities can be
explored in a very broad spectrum.Because of the novelty of the design, it is
difficult to define what possibilities needto be explored. Ground breaking
innovation can take place at any level
product, process, service, marketing,organization etc. It is hard to link the novel
design to prior knowledge and after somedevelopment time has elapsed managers
get more difficulties with sustaining trust
in the successfulness of the innovationproject.
1. Horizontal Application from OtherDomains: Many radical innovations
come from applying an idea from onedomain to another. For example,
Unilever applied the knowledge from
aerospace industry that stickiness ofice on the wings of aeroplanes
suddenly drops at - 800C, to its ice-
cream business to develop ice-cream
manufacturing process that can churnout ice-creams of elaborate 3D shapeswithout moulding.
2. Envisioning Future: There is a time lagbetween the time when a product idea
originates and when it reaches theconsumers due to the developmenttime. So, when thinking about
developing new products, companiesoften envision products that fulfil
some future need.
3. Watching Trends and ObservingPeople: Needs can be created and
intelligent marketing can shapeaspirations. Many companies watch
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
9/77
the market trends and observe
peoples lifestyle to determine whatthey should offer.
4. Different Levels: A product becomessuccessful in the market not just
because of its design, there are otherdriving factors too. And a ground-
breaking innovation can take place at
any level product, process, service,marketing, organization etc.
4.2 Deterrents
Different actors are involved during the
communication process of new ideas. All
actors have to take in account the otherparties and have their own deterrents that
reduce the success of communicating anidea.
The initiator is the person who
owns the novel idea. The initiator knowsall the details of the idea and is convinces
of its success. Often they are very
protective of the idea and do not want toshare all the details because they are
afraid that others walk away with thepraise. Moreover initiators hold back
details of the idea, because they are
already very acquainted with the idea andthose details have become logical to them.
Several ideas are discarded because of this
bad communication.
The receivers are not jetacquainted with the idea and fill in gaps inthe context with their own thoughts. On
the other hand they might be veryacquainted with the initiator and
preconceived notion about the presentermight block the change of understandingand liking the idea presented.
The last actor is the organization,the ridged structure of the organization
can block the success of the idea. Ingrouped environments radical innovations
hardly ever succeed.
Initiator: The person and the group ofpersons who own the novel idea.
1. Too Much Protectiveness: On manyoccasions the initiator(s) of the ideabecomes obsessed with protecting
his/her idea to the level that he/she isnot even willing to listen to others.
This could be detrimental to theinnovation process as others may not
identify with the idea and lose interest
in it.2. Bad Communication: As one manager
put it: Several ideas are discarded,
not because they were bad, butbecause they were badly
communicated.
Receivers
1. Preconceived Notions: In certainsituations the audience can have
preconceived notion about thepresenter of the idea or the idea
(domain) itself. Having such
prejudices can block the concernedaudiences understanding of the new
idea.
2. Jumping to Conclusions: Some peoplehave the tendency to jump to
conclusions or form a hypotheticalimage about the context too soon,
which could be detrimental to the
understanding. For understanding anovel idea, one should have an open
mind.
Organization
3. Rigid Organizational Structure: Manybig conventional organizations have
rigid divisional boundaries and there
is not much exchange of knowledgeacross the divisions. In suchcompartmentalized environment, new
ideas, if they come by, hardly ever
succeed.
4.3 Communicating
Communicating ideas has two mainobjectives, the first one conveying is very
well known. However the second purposeof communication, sense making, is as
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
10/77
very important in order to successfully
convey the idea. However the sensemaking aspect is not consciously focused
on during the communication process.When conveying the idea to the
receiver it is important to give themsomething tangible. By showing something
tangible all stakeholders are brought to
the same level of understanding and theidea and its context can more easily beexplained. Moreover it is vey important to
put the idea in a real live context that isappealing to the background of the
receivers. All the aspects of the idea needto be merged in one coherent story, a
presentation is not persuasive enough if it
is presented as disparate fragments.During communication a sense
making process is activated. People havetendency to form images in their minds as
they listen to and read descriptions. It is
important to tailor the communication ofthe idea to the target audience, in order to
walk them trough the whole context of the
idea while triggering their imaginativeworld. In order to ensure that they do not
form a distorted image of the concept,visual stimuli should accompany the
verbal or written explanation
Conveying
1. Show/Give Something Tangible: Thebest way to convey a concept, we
found out, is to show it by drawingor making it. When people havesomething to see and/or touch, it is
much easier to explain the idea.Moreover, it brings all stakeholders to
a similar level of understanding.2. Explain Context: No idea/product
exists in isolation. There are other
factors that determine its perception,interaction and existence. Most
managers want to understand thewhole context around a product
before making any decision about it.
3. Use Combination of Tools: A radicalidea may not have an exact analogousequivalent in the real world. Or,
perhaps the presented may not be
able to make the most revealingvisualization of the concept. Thus, it is
often a good idea to use a combinationof tools illustrations, real images,
text, and if possible, prototypes.4. Relate to Real Life: Often many of the
stakeholders involved in the decision
making process are not from technicalbackground. Therefore, it isworthwhile to distil technical ideas to
its simplest form and present it assolving a real life problem. Moreover,
people tend to retain simple ideas andreal life examples for long.
5. Tell a Story: A presentation is notpersuasive enough if it is presented asdisparate fragments. The presenter
(initiator) should put everythingtogether to make a coherent story.
Sense making
6. Tailor the Communication: It is veryimportant to understand the way ofthinking and background of thedifferent stakeholders and then tailor
the presentation in wayunderstandable to them.
7. Walk the Client/Manager Through:People have tendency to form imagesin their minds as they listen to and
read descriptions. In order to ensure
that they do not form a distorted
image of the concept, visual stimulishould accompany the verbal orwritten explanation.
4.4 Accessing Risk and Taking Decision
Accessing risk in radical innovation is
tricky because of the novel character.Managers need input information in order
to be able to make a decision. While
communicating the idea, the risks,uncertainties and advantages all need to
be shared. After assessing the informationa test needs to be executed in the real
world, testing has become an importanttool in decision making.
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
11/77
The information gained from the
input during the communication processal needs to be processed by the manager.
Strategic reasoning is used to see how wellthe idea fits the company. Often the
manager doesnt make the decision byhimself but is often assisted by his peer.
Also many managers rely on their intuition
when assessing the risk of radical ideas,because only previous experiences and noexact knowledge exists to base his
judgement on.
Input
1. Nuanced Information: Managers wantas much information as possible for
any idea presented to them. Theywant to know about the risks,
uncertainties and advantages. Notknowing something is more
detrimental to decision making than
knowing things, even if theinformation is about the risks and
uncertainties.
2. Testing/Observation: There is nobetter way than accessing a
concept/product than testing it in realworld. Testing has become an
important tool for decision making
especially in the software domainwhere companies apply methods such
as AB testing (diverting a part of user
traffic to the new module and monitor
their interaction) to continuously testnew concept.
Processing
3. Intuition: Since at no point all theinformation about the future of newidea, more so for radical new idea,
would be available, Managersincreasingly resort to their intuition
for making decisions. The moreknowledge and experience a manager
has, the more his/her intuition is
heeded.4. Strategic Reasoning: Some managers
recommend taking the concept from
project level to a higher level ofabstraction, say, strategic goals of the
company and then see how well theidea fits into the whole scheme of
things relevant to the company.
5. Progressive Clarification: A completelynew explorative idea cannot be
accessed in one go. It needs to beimplemented and monitored. As the
concept materializes or gains
customers, many new insights mayemerge that can shape future
decisions. An idea may also be put on
hold for a while or completelydiscarded in the middle based on the
insights that emerge.6. Joint Decision Making: In most
corporate settings decisions are not
taken by an individual but by a groupof managers. In that case, the
complementary background and
knowledge of managers may come
handy in accessing the concept fromseveral angles and then taking adecision. Joint decision making can
often be quite slow.
The table underneath gives an overview of how the respondents sided with
the various ideas that evolved during the whole interview.
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
12/77
The Key Elements in the Journey of a Fuzzy Concept
(as it emerged from the interviews)
Interviewees who
Sided with the
Element
Exploring
Possibilities-
Horizontal Application
from Other Domains
M3, M4, M5
Envisioning Future M4, M5
Watching Trends and
Observing People
M1, M4, M5
Different Levels M1, M3, M4
Deterrents
Initiator(s)
Too Much
Protectiveness
M2, M5
Bad Communication M2, M4
Receiver(s)Preconceived Notions M2
Jumping to
Conclusions
M2
OrganizationRigid Organizational
Structure
M4
Communicating
Conveying
Show/Give Something
Tangible
M1, M2, M3, M4, M5
Explain Context M1, M2, M3, M4
Use Combination ofTools M2, M4, M5
Relate to Real Life M2, M4
Tell a Story M2, M3
Sense making
Tailor the
Communication
M2, M3, M4
Walk the
Client/Manager
Through
M2, M4
Accessing Riskand Taking
Decision
InputNuanced Information M3, M4
Testing/Observation M1, M3, M4
Processing
Intuition M1, M2, M3, M5Strategic Reasoning M3
Progressive
Clarification
M2, M4, M5
Joint Decision Making M4, M5
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
13/77
4.5 Metaphors
Since we interviewed only five managers,
we do not perform any statistical analysis
on the data gathered. However, the intent
behind gathering quantitative data was tosee if there were any overall trends in
terms of preference of the variousinterviewees. Four toolsets with stimuli
containing - brief explanation in text,
illustration, image and business-model
schematic - were presented to the
interviewees, and they were asked some
questions after each stimulus, the toolsetsare shown in figure C. The results of
similar question posed after each stimulushave been clustered together and
presented in the graphs (1-4) below.
The first of the four questions was posedafter showing the interviewee, the brief
explanation in text. The second question
above was posed after showing theillustration (metaphor), the third was
posed after showing the real image
(metaphor), and the fourth question wasposed after showing them the business
model schematic. The results do not showany consistent trend. For example,
interviewee M1 had a consistent level of
understanding throughout the wholeprocess, while the level of understanding
of the other four is quite fluctuation and
does not show any distinct trend.
Stimulus shown before uestion
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
My level of understanding of the
[Illustration Metaphor]
[Image Metaphor] [Business Model
Schematic][Brief Explanation
in Text
Level(Response)
High
Low
Graph 1: Level of understanding
Figure 5. Two toolsets used
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
14/77
The first of the three questions was posed
after showing the interviewee, the brief
explanation in text. The second question
above was posed after showing theillustration (metaphor) and the third wasposed after showing the real image
(metaphor). The trends in the above graph
are fairly consistent and revealing. We
observe that most of the lines are nearly
straight, which implies that mostinterviewees formed an opinion about thefate of the idea pretty early and it did not
change in spite of subsequent stimuli.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Stimulus shown before question
The drawing has a ..contribution to the clarification of the
[Illustration Metaphor] [Image Metaphor]
Level(Respo
nse)
High
Low
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3
M1M2
M3
M4
M5
Stimulus shown before question
My confidence in the success level of this idea is.
[Illustration Metaphor]
[Image Metaphor][Brief Explanation
in Text]
Level(Response)
High
Low
Graph 3: contribution to clarification
Graph 2: Level of success
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
15/77
The above questions were posed after the
interviewees were shown the briefexplanation in text. The former of the two
questions was posed after showing the
illustration (metaphor) and the later was
posed after showing the real image(metaphor). No consistent trend is
observed above.
The above questions were posed after the
interviewees were shown the brief
explanation in text. The former of the twoquestions was posed after showing the
illustration (metaphor) and the later was
posed after showing the real image(metaphor). No consistent trend is
observed above.However, if we consider all the four
graphs together, we speculate the
following two things:1. Because of the differences in
background of the five interviewees,they had different opinions about the
brief explanation in text, illustration,
image and the business modelschematic.
2. Most of the interviewees formedopinion about the success of the ideaspretty early, which remained
unchanged even after showing them
other stimuli. However, we believe that
there could be some sort of correlationbetween the level of understanding and
confidence in the success if the idea asliterature in this domain suggest. The
aforementioned belief could beinvestigated in a more extensivequantitative study.
6. Discussion
The aim of this study was to observe
managers preference of visually depictedmetaphors in the communication of new
ideas. Metaphor characteristics examinedwere - aptness, evoking vivid imagery andfamiliarity. By adapting the visual
presentation of the radical innovation tothe personality of the decision maker,
higher understanding can be generatedand ambiguity can be sustained.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2
M1
M2
M3
M4M5
Stimulus shown before question
The drawing has a contribution to help me to
remember the idea.
[Illustration Metaphor] [Image Metaphor]
Level(Response)
High
Low
Graph 4: contribution o remembering
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
16/77
Metaphors, when addressing familiarity
will enhance the understanding andstimulate the clarity of the new idea.
This exact finding also threats the
validity of our research. There are
different types of people, and part of thedifferences that we found do not depend
on the visual presentation but on thepeople. The low number of respondents
limits the effect of randomization, so theresearch is biased. With the questionnaire,
we tried to randomize the effect of thedifferent people, however according toHolland (1985) people can be categorized
into six career personality types: realistic,
investigative, artistic, social, enterprisingand conventional. People purposefullylook for environments that are congruentwith their career personality types (Zhang,
2004). This means that every type of
personality has preference for different
visualisation styles and familiarity ofmetaphors will differ accordingly. Therealistic type of people according to
Holland (1994), like investigative andscientific type of work. Artistic type of
people like stimuli that provide them withthe opportunity for using their
imagination. Both social and enterprise
type of people like social interaction, butthe enterprise will take on the leadership
role. Conventional type of people like well
structured data. There are six main typesof career personalities, but many
combinations exist. Figure 6. shows the sixpersonality types in Hollands hexagon,
with on the axes the basic preference of
the types. To randomize the effect of the
different types of people in the visualpreference, the amount of respondents
needs to be increased. With such a study
the individual differences in the
preference for visual imagery can bepredicted.
Stronger stimulation of sensesresults in deeper imprint in ones memory.
Thus an image evoking vivid mentalimagery is likely to stay in ones memory
for much longer than a mundane image.Moreover, it will draw attention, thuseasing cognition. Another important
aspect of a metaphor is its aptness.
Metaphors can have varying degree ofresemblance with the product/serviceconcept. In addition, familiarity isimportant too. How much familiar the
audience is with the chosen metaphor? -
is an important question to consider. We
have already discussed how sense makingfrom metaphors happens. If an unfamiliarmetaphor is used, step one of sense
making i.e. making connection fromfamiliar domain to unfamiliar domain will
be disrupted. Thus, it lies with thepresenter to make the right trade-off
between all the three chosen parameters -
evoke vivid mental imagery, aptness andfamiliarity. There is no thumb rule for
doing it. It is up to the presenter to
understand his audience and conveyhis/her message in the most compelling
way.The sequence of showing visual
images and text is another important
Figure 6. Hollands hexagon
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
17/77
aspect in sustaining ambiguity. In the
questionnaire we always started with anexplaining text of the idea, after which we
showed different visual stimuli. Whilediscussing the questions with the
participants we found that many hadalready formed their own visual image
while reading the text and this image
conflicted with the metaphorical image weprovided. The conflicting images reducedthe reliability of information and thereby
increased the level of ambiguity. Whenshowing the visual stimuli and text at the
same time, no time is given to form ownvisuals and the information is seen as
more coherent.
A significant finding of our study isthat there often occurs a gap between how
the initiator communicates the idea andhow the receiver receives and perceives
the idea context. Often the context factors
determine the ideas perceptions,interaction and existence. Managers want
to understand the whole context around
an idea before making a decision, howeveroften the context is not clearly
communicated by the designer. Thedesigner has the context information in his
mind, but the lack of communication of
this information to his manager causeshigher potential of discarding the idea.
Without the provision of context
information of a new idea, receivers can
jump to conclusions or form a hypotheticalimage about the context before the actualunderstanding of the idea occurs. The
created context in the receivers mind oftenconflicts with the explanation later on
provided by the initiator. These conflictingsources of information strongly increasesambiguity and the receiver needs to
choose between competing contexts, theone created by his own imagination and
the one provided by the initiator.The notion of context is a
fundamental concern in cognitive
psychology, linguistics, and computer
science and was first introduces as theterm context-aware, by Schilit and
Theimer (1994). They refer to context as
location, identities of nearby people andobjects and changes to those objects. To
increase the risk appetite of managers weneed to understand what type of
information is listed in the definition ofcontext and what is not. In our
quantitative research part we missed at
least one context factor in the toolsets thatwas addressed as important by all themangers, namely the value. The value of a
new idea is an important aspect ofdecision making, because it shows what
can be accomplished by introducing thenew idea.
Another important finding is that
the communication should be adjusted tothe receiver. So the way the idea is visually
presented should be adapted to thepersonality of the receiver, the personal
preference. If possible the idea should be
placed in real life context. If the idea forexample is a new technology for the food
industry, than the idea should be
presented in the form of the new foodproduct that can be created with this new
technology. Presenting the idea in the reallife setting the company is operating in
helps to increase the understanding of the
new idea with the receiver. It is importantnot only to show the new idea and context,
but also tell a story that connects to the
receivers world. So the level of risk
proverbs is highly influences by howacquainted the initiator is and cansympathise with the receiver.
Our findings provide importantinsights in the influencing factors on risk
management in the communication ofradical innovations. Better understandingincreases risk appetite. Using visual
depicted metaphors that are familiar tothe receiver of the idea and have a high
level of aptness will evoke vivid imageryand increase the understanding of the
idea. By increasing the effectiveness of
communication between designers and
managers, risk management in the fuzzyfront end will bring less uncertainty with it
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
18/77
and therefor less potential ideas will be
discarded in this early phase of the designprocess.
7. Future research
We started this article by arguing that the
communication of new ideas can beoptimised in order to reduce risk adverse.Articles using the notion of visualisation
tools as boundary objects as well as onrisk appetite are published on a regular
basis. However most articles do notprovide a theoretical foundation for the
combination of the two. With this article
we hope to provide a basis for furtherinvestigation.
Further research should be carefulabout how personalities influence the
responds to visual depicted metaphors in
the fuzzy front end of the design process.Prior research has not distinguished the
factors for metaphorical degrees and
personal interpretation influenced bypersonality. Up till now it is not clear what
influences personality play on theinterpretation of metaphors and how the
liking of metaphors can be stimulated for
each type of personality.The dataset used for the current
study was very small, six participants. This
research functioned as a qualitative
explorative research. Future researchcould build on the present findings byusing our theoretical framework. We hope
that future research will build on thisfoundation by specifying more refined
links between visual interpretation and
personality.The research has only been
conducted among the managers in designfirms. Future research should examine the
effects of visual depicted metaphors incommunication of radical innovations
from the designers perspective. We expect
the findings to be similar for the designershowever this is still a hypothesis.Researchers will have to collect data from
designers from innovating firms as well ifthey want to study the relation between
designers and managers in the effect ofidea communication on risk management
in the early stage of the radical innovation
process.The data for this article was
collected in well established companieswith fixed communication processes.
These communication processes might be
out-dated and have a fixed and rigidstructure. Social interaction is changing
and we suggest that research also needs to
be done in young firms with more flexiblecommunication structures to see what
dimensions the effect of rigidcommunication has on the findings.
The article provides the first in-
depth conceptual look at the influence ofvisual depicted metaphors on risk
management in radical innovation
processes. A topic of great interest to all
designers and managers in the field of newproduct development. We hope to intriguepeople to further research and verify these
findings, in order to optimize the riskmanagement in the early stages of the
radical innovation process.
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
19/77
Literature
Ahmed, P. (1998) Culture and Climate for Innovation, European Journal of Innovation
Management, 1, 30-43.
Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of
understanding on the production floor. Organization science, 14, 312-330
Bechky, B. A. (2013), Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of
Understanding on a Production Floor. Organization science, 14 (3), 312-313
Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New york
Blasko. D. G. (1999), Only the tip of the iceberg: who understands what about metaphor? In
Journal of pragmatics 31, 1675-1683
Blasko, D. and Connine, C.M. (1993), Effect of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. In
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, memory and cognition. 19(2), 285-308
Bosman, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (1991). Effects of literal and metaphorical persuasive messages.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 271292.
Brun, E. and Stre, A.S. (2009), Managing Ambiguity in New Product Development Projects,
Creativity and Innovation Management, 18 (1)
Carlile, Paul R. (2004), Transferring Translating and transforming: An integrative framework for
managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15 (5), 555-568Casakin, H.P. (2006), Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process, In Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 253 - 268
Charmaz, K. (2006). Coding in grounded theory practice. In Constructing grounded theory: A
practical guide through qualitative analysis Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 42-66
Cooper R.G., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1990), New Products: the Key Factors in Success, In: American
Marketing Association, Chicago
Cooper R.G., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995) Benchmarking firms new product performance and
practices, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 23 (3)
Coyne, R. (1995), Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age - From Method to
Metaphor, MIT Press
Danneel, E., Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001), Product innovativeness from the firms perspective: Its
dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. The Jounal of
Product Innovation management, 18, 357-373Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. In Academy of Management
Review, 14 (4), p.532-550
Eysenck, H.J. Granger, G.W. Brengelmann, J.C. (1957). Perceptual processes and mental illness.
Chapman and Hall. London.
Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5 (3),
403-420
Garcia, R. Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19, 110-132
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P. and Boronat, C. (2001) Metaphor is like Analogy. In Gentner, D.,
Holyoak, K.J. and Kokinov, B.N. (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives. In Cognitive
Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 199253.
Gibbs, R. W., Bogdonovich, J. (1999). Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. In
Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 3744.
Graesser, A. C., Mio, J., & Millis, K. (1989), Metaphors in persuasive communication, In D. Meutsch
(Ed.), Models of Literary Understanding, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 131-154
Holland, J.L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Holland, J.L. (1994). Self-directed search. In Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, Florida
Hon, K. K. B., Zeiner, J. (2004). Knowledge brokering for assisting the generation of automotive
product design. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology, 53 (1), 159-162
Alam, I. (2006), Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzyfront-end of service innovations through
customer interactions In Industrial Marketing ManagementVolume 35 (4), 468-480
Jelinek, M., Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The innovation marathon. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
20/77
Krumdick, N. D., Ottati, V. C., & Deiger, M. (2004), Metaphors and Persuasive Communication: The
Cognitive Coherence Hypothesis., Austin, TX: Poster presented atthe annual meeting of
the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company - How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.OConnor, G.C., McDermott, C. M. (2004). The human side of radical innovation. J. Eng. Technol.
Manage., 21, 11-30
Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53.
Paivio, A. (1979). Psychological processes in the comprehension of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),
Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 150171
Schiit, B. Theimer, M. (1994). Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts. IEEE
Network, 8, 22-32
Snodgrass, A. and Coyne, R. (1992), Models, Metaphors and the Hermeneutics of Designing,
Design Issues, 9 (1), 56-74
Sowrey, T. (1990), Idea generation: Identifying the most useful techniques, European Journal of
Marketing, 24 (5), 2029
Trick, L. Katz, A. N. (1986), The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: relating
individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1,
185-213
Wagner, C. Hayashi, A.A. (1994), A new way to create winning product ideas, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 11, 146155
Zhang, L. (2004). Learning approaches and career personalitytypes: Biggs and Holland united. In
Personality and Individual Differences
37 (1), 6581
Zuber, I. Ekehammar, B. (1988). Personality, time of day and visual perception: preferences and
selective attention. In Person individ. Diff. 9(2), 345-352
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
21/77
Appendix A: Transcripts of Interviews
Note: M1, M2, M3, M4 & M5 are the interviewees. N & D have represent interviewer1
and interviewer2 in interviews with M3 and M5. I is used to refer to both the
interviewers in interviews with M1, M2 and M4.
Transcript: M1 Interview
Part 1:I: [Introduction].
First I would like, maybe in a few lines you can tell about your company
M1: Metrixlab is an online marketing research company that performers online research
in four key areas; website usability, new product development, media and
advertisement research and customer experience management. We do all of our
research online except for some in house usability testing. I have been working forMetrixlab for the past eight and a half years I started as an intern and then just keep
growing on. I started in IT but now I focus more on very diverse innovation projects.
From guidelines for how thinks should look to doing pilots for new research
methodologies and developing new projects like dash boarding and eh yeah.
I: What according to you was the last radical innovation that you oversaw?
M1: What is a radical innovation?
I: Well that is the next question but you can start with that, what is a radical innovation
according to you?
M1: Yes that is very difficult because that is the thing about choosing also if I seesomething that I want to see or want to see happening for me it is obvious that things
should be
I: But maybe for the company or for another company?
M1: it might be radical, yeah but for me it is so obvious that I think why dont we have
this yet. This is not radical this is something we need just to keep up. Metrixlab is a
research company, but a lot of research companies are very old and come from a verydifferent time when it was about interviewing people in real life or calling them or using
paper surveys and Metrixlab was created in the late 90s and is oriented completely inusing online technologies. So in the context of research they are very innovative but inthe context of web design and web development they are behind because they only
adapt web technologies when they are matured but for research context it is very
innovative. So what is a radical innovation when uhm.. (thinks) to me a radical
innovation is something that I hadnt thought of and I didnt expect
I: But for Matrixlab you think that a software currently existing but placed in a new
context is also maybe a kind of
M1: Well right now I am working on a pilot for face reading where we use webcams at
peoples homes to analyse their emotions, so we show them a clip of a commercial, andwe want to adapt that in a quantitative manner. So that we can just invite two hundred
people to watch a commercial and be able to tell the company more about how effective
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
22/77
their commercial is. I think this is pretty radical but this is still in a pilot phase so maybe
it is something we might decide not to do because there are to many problems with it.
But this is something I am very enthusiastic about right now but I am still kind ofsceptical
I: But still you say that your research methods are radical, am I right?
M1: Hmm
I: Maybe at least ahead of many
M1: Yeah but there are other companies that are doing the same as we are doing.
Radical innovation is really. Im not really the kind of person that does radicalinnovation. I do very logical and pragmatic innovation, I combine thinks that exist in a
way that it makes sense. Im not really a kind Im not really an out of the box blue skylets put this on the moon kind of guy. I do not really like to call my self conservative but
Im not a radical
I: I guess you are taking radical as a too strong a word, I would rather call it trying to do
something new. As you said before finding a new direction, mixing matching things to
M1: Ok well, mobile is coming up right now and some people still think that. somepeople are still not noticing and at Metrixlab Im trying really promote adapting
everything we do from no on to also think about how would this look on a mobile phoneor on a tablet. Because if we are not doing that than we would be behind in a few years
so that is one thing that I am really endowment about that should be considered and
even done things about. And I am the kind of person that if no one is listening or picks it
up I will just do something myself
I:I see that you are more somebody who initiate things brings it to the table
M1: well as you always say, yes I am stubborn. We are trying to do more about
researching the satisfaction of our own customers so using our own products on
ourselves actually. And we made a survey and it was send to a designer and he made it
look very pretty, and I saw it and I said shouldnt this thing be also mobile compatiblebecause we are sending this to our clients and I see all of our consultants walking
around with Iphones So they will read a lot of their email on Iphones wouldnt it be
much better if our client reads this thing on an Iphone or another mobile, that he could
just immediately start the survey, answer those 5 questions and than be done with it. SoI took it upon myself to take the design, turn it into a CSS file, that is also adapting to the
screen size so if you look at it on a mobile phone it will change and everything will workperfectly. Than I gave it back to the department and they where really happy but it
didnt work yet because it still needed to be implemented and that had some impact onthe underlying technology because some things where not really compatible with that
kind of survey and the people who needed to develop it where like hey we dont havetime for this and we are not gonna do this. But by making the design and showing it toheads of sales and other researchers it started to be send from one business unit
manager to another and now it really is something that is on the map and that theyreally want. So now there is a lot of leverage or draagvlak so now a lot of people want
to see it happen a few weeks ago a sales person came up to me and said that thing youdesigned can we also sell that to costumers is it functioning yet. So maybe that is radical
design, that is what I like to do, if I see something that is logical in my eyes when I thinkwhy dont we have that yet, if nothing is being done with it, I take it, I try to improve
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
23/77
something or I try to give it enough traction so that other people will maybe continue
with it.
I: So maybe radical is logical to you
M1: Yes
I: But maybe not to others
M1: Yes, because I am not someone who. This is very true what you are saying
I: So there was a point at which you made some tangible thing out of it that people can
see your idea, right?
M1: Yes thats right
I: But there could be a point, there was a point when the idea was still fuzzy, when the
idea was very vague in your mind and you hadnt start the whole development process.
M1: well,..
I: Yes I understand that for you it was very clear and you know in what direction to
move
M1: yes
I: But even before you started you know when something was not done on the computer
or so but the idea was just in your head, did you already talk to it, talk about it with
somebody? When it was still not in to some kind of form
M1: Well the way I do it, I say to someone of who I think will understand my question
maybe or to sort of have a dialogue to get the idea further, In this case just my boss I say
hey, He was asking me Hey have you checked out the design for this? What do you think.
Well this and this maybe and I also think that this and this, so than he said jajaja. And
than I asked dont you think this thing should be mobile? Than he said yes I think so and
I said ok I will see what I can do with it. And than I just took it upon myself to take this
further because we dont have anyone else who would do that, we dont have a
webdesign department.
I: I think that you are in a privaledged position that you have so much freedom to do
that. That they just give you an open field and you can just take it further. But since youare from an industrial design background have dealt with people in your bachelors or
masters, well at least in your masters. So if I ask you like if an idea is already in your
head but you have not put it, it is still fuzzy. What do you think is a good way of
explaining it to somebody?
M1: Drawing!
I: is it drawing
M1: yes,
I: But what if the idea is not even clear to you, than?
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
24/77
M1: than drawing it will make it clearer for myself
I: Drawing it, you think that drawing it is
M1: There are so many mistakes that have been made that could have been fixed just by
making a drawing. We are working on a new booklet for making notes, it is a5 with alittle wire-o-frame and it also has a rubber band attached to it so you can close it. Andthere is a logo and the logo is on the right bottom corner.
I: Underneath the rubber band?
M1: If someone would have made a drawing of the thing, like what would it be, it will be
a5 with a wire-o and a band, oh so the logo should be more to the left. So now by using
the bleed and cutting it a bit more to the right we just managed to place the band next to
the logo but this is something which just by drawing it would have been like, o weshould make sure that the logo is far away enough from the band. So yes drawing it. And
especially if the idea is not clear to myself just drawing it will create some kind of
dialogue within me.
I: So now you where talking more about drawing the product, it is a product and you
want to draw its form.
M1: NO no no, it is also about a concept or idea. An idea is always related to other forces
or other things around it.
I: So you put them in relation on a paper
M1: yes an idea is never in isolation, so what kind of things have an impact on this
concept or this idea. What, you dont actually have to draw what it looks like to be ableto. Ok this is something that I have in my mind and if I put it on something so that it isfixed and I can think of what is around it. And well than I will draw those things and then
the map in my mind will become much more fixed, much more tangible.
I: You also have to explain to your seniors sometimes right?
M1: Yes
I: So what do you think works to best express your ideas to your seniors?
M1: Making a drawing or making a mock-up. I always make a, that is one of the first
things I do even when still analysing I will design in a way of seeing what works andwhat does not. And especially with talking to people it can be very difficult to be sure
that you are talking about exactly the same thing. And if you make a mock-up, evenwhen they say thats ugly thats not what I wanted than you know exactly that that is
not what they wanted. And if you think but hey this is something that I wanted, than
there is something to talk about, why is this not what you wanted. So making it visualthat is always the best way. Even if it is a process of something you should always draw.
I: So if you have an idea which is very difficult to explain to your senior, what would you
do?
M1: If it is really difficult to explain than making a drawing or schematic or a mock-up
will only help. Because if that is not possible than doing it with words is even more of a
problem.
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
25/77
I: And do you use metaphors in explaining it
M1: yes yes
I: by putting it in another context or
M1: Yes today I was talking with someone and we where talking about something, a
mailing system. It was going to be a server that does chrome jobs that automatically
mails emails for projects. So I just drew a robot and said well this robot will
automatically mail these and these things so we need someone to put those assignments
into the database and then the robot will pick them up and send them out. And if you are
talking about the robot, the mailing robot, then you have given it a name and a place and
an intention.
I: well that was really well explained
M1: I really like to give a lot of examples, of the robot and of the booklet. Becauseexamples are really important to illustrate what it could be. Right now I am working on
a dash-boarding system company wide and we have very different needs and often we
are catered by the same system. So I am making two mock-ups for both of the extreme
ends of the spectrum like what should this system support. And by making mock-ups I
can get all of the team members in one room and say ok is this what would work for you,
because this is what the client would see so making it visual making it very practical
something they can point at
I: So well than, our research is also about the same, the importance of metaphors in
making things understandable. With metaphor we dont just mean words, we want to
add a visual element as well, as you have been explaining.
Part 2:
M1: This is a pie. (about the visual) you would have to tell a story with the image, the
image it self doesnt say a lot also with the drawing So maybe by pointing at it
I would only use one case, and remove as much as possible. One case of a person who
reads a lot will imply the other case of not reading a lot. There is a lot going on right now
that makes it really complicated
I would just use the pie image with the story, that would be a lot better. It is just a pie, itis about dividing things
I: what important information is missing in the things shown so far?
M1: Well the percentage of the pie is not in the text and it is in the business model and
the pie itself of course has to be explained but just having an image of a pie and pointing
at it is much clearer than this jumble of arrows and things.
I: So you really would like to have one image and explain around it
M1: Yes
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
26/77
I: If this was your idea would you prefer to explain in on the hand of this (business
model) or still the pie picture
M1: Still the pie picture , it is much more uhm
(about the business model) this is really not an attractive image. If I where to explain it I
would use the image of the pie because everyone understands a pie
I: Do you think that if you see the pie image that it will be sticking in your mind
M1: Remember the pie thing? Well that is exactly how it is. The pie thing is much clearer
(about all the different visuals) It doesnt have to be a physical pie, it is about reducing it
to the least amount of uhm. The simpellest form. But using an actual metaphor is always
better. Right now we are working on a photolibrary and we also needed a picture of a
pie with different pieces of pie. So we called multi-vlaai and said we like to order one
vlaai with all different flavors because thats possible. And then we start making pictures
of it and then we ate it. But yeah bringing it back to something that is physical or people
can understand and remember.
Transcript: M2 Interview
Part 1:M2: Communication is a very important element in one of the courses I teach
I: What according to you is any last radical innovation which you were associated with?
M2: I tried to convince my boss of a wonderful idea just last Thursday,
I: What kind of idea was that?
M2: It was an idea on a theory which is very helpful which I do teach to my students.
Than I thought well I will explain it properly to my boss
I had two colleagues with me and one colleague walked away and it is quit innovative
but the other colleague sat with me but was only arguing. He was only arguing said whathe thought it was, went back to the original models. He showed the original model and
showed what it really means is this and this and this. So the whole presentation was
kind of an argument not fighting not unfriendly an oral discussion. He never admitted
from wow what a good idea, yes that is great lets investigate further the whole time he
was doing yes but. And in this interaction he than moved to all kind of examples in his
own practise where this was perfect he came with lots of examples of this theory but all
the time still arguing that it was not really useful. So that is a typical communication for
an innovator
I: And how did you present the idea, did you just talk or
M2: yes, I asked them please sit down we have got some time, so I checked for the
conditions, we got some time sit down and let me share with you a wonderful idea an
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
27/77
idea which I believe is wonderful. And than I developed it on the white board and they
where sitting in front of the whitboard.
I: you drew it?
M2: Yes I drew and talked
I: So you explained a theory so this drawing was not a form but a sort of schematic
representation
M2: Yes yes
I: But how did this idea first came to you besides what you where telling us about
M2: Well this idea is already being developed for years
I: So it was in your mind and now
M2: NO I already teach it for years as well but I never shared it with my colleagues and I
only teach it when they are not around. Because than you get into some kind of
discussion and they think oh what is this about
If you talk about coming to new ideas every two week I drive about 800 kilometres in
one day and have loads of ideas when I am driving.
I had a new idea on how to build a house on the moon, very easy and extremely light. I
can explain. You know a parachute in a bag and they get more and more compact, these
very modern textiles now with nano-tubes you can put a liquid in there. No what you
could do on the moon, with this package like a parachute this is a big thing, you know it
comes out of a little package but it is completely enclosed so you put a little bomb in it a
little explosion and it gets into the form that it needs to be. Because it moves the nano-tubes break and it releases the second component of the two component epoxy and it
fixes the whole textile.
I: On the ground?
M2: On the ground and in a space I am talking about I am on the moon now in vacuum.
I: So I understand that up till now that it fills up like airbags in a car
M2: No like a parachute, it got its form and while doing that it moves. The liquid that is
released because of the movement fixes its form. No on earth you could have made, no of
course you can not use a normal textile you probably have to make a huge sandwich ofmany layers, but you can do that and fold them up You have to wait two hours and than
you have got your volume in which you can have a living space. And is only the one
difference you know, vacuum, vacuum is not a big deal it is only one atmosphere and a
tire, car tire is already three or two and a half. And in a metal tank it is 400.
I: these ideas, do you write them down?
M2: Normally not, I just gave you an example of communicating, this idea was from last
night. I had another one last night, but yes ok lets go back.
I: Going back to your example that you explained to your colleagues last Thursday. Do
you think that you could have used some other way to pursuit them convince them in a
better way or a better way of communicating your idea?
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
28/77
M2: when no when, no I am gonna give another answer. If I where to present to a client
then I have no problem presenting such an idea and convince them. I just gave a
workshop in a consultancy about this as a tool. It was fantastic they are using it now.
Consultancies are using this as a standard tool in their own practise. The problem here
is that it is with colleagues with certain believes about you. It is very hard to escape fromwhat they think you are. So once there is already a culture it is difficult, you think o there
is (name) with his ideas and than that is it
I: So a fixed culture
M2: A fixed culture kills ideas, kills anything new! Yes
I: But also needs another approach?
M2: It could be that you need some new people, some external people in that group so
that the existing culture doesnt dominate the interaction or fixes the kind of interaction.
So the new ones might come with some naive questions and say just tell me more
I: fresh insights
M2: yes and the others jump to conclusions.
I: You have also communicated with companies a lot, in this question it is about that
section that I want to ask you, do you also have come up to thumb rules for
communication
M2: about how to communicate
I: yes like what works
M2: I have got many
I: but what if I ask you for the three most important
M2: Let me tell you another story first, another story, I am presenting a design and we
have two concepts which are within the boundaries given by the client and we present
them and then we come to the point where the client needs to choose one or the other.
But then you see I wasnt on my own there where three of us designing this, and than we
said we did this within your boundaries, but we couldnt avoid coming up with a crazy
phantasy about this and we came with a third design. And instead for use inside it wasfor use outside, at the same time it would be a childrens toy, it would be many more
things at the same time. It could do much more but was at least double the price, and
they said yes lets go for the third one. I dont know what is that.. so there are a few rules
in there, one of the rules is that you respect the client by doing what he asked at first and
than you may have some crazy ideas but as long as you have not acknowledged the
client with his or her needs they will not look any further with you. By demonstrating
that you have understood them, now they trust you. So all the communication is about
trust, trust for suspension of disbelieve.
The point is if you are presenting in the fuzzy front end, you are presenting something
new probably other wise the client would not have invited you. There curious in new
stuff at the same time, only because it is new they have to get used to it. Now it is really
theory and teaching, I think that new concepts are like babies, new born babies now I
am going to tell a sexist analogy sorry for that. There is this guy and there is a lady
-
7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.
29/77
coming up to him and says this baby is yours, this is a big joke in France and many other
countries, and than the guy says no it cant be I took all the precautions no way this is not
my baby. Than they get dna testing. If you think of adoptive children and someone
comes up to you and says you have to take care of this child than you say wait a minute I
have got enough to do. What you need is to get this person or this new parent to get
used to this child. And then start playing a little bit and getting to know each other thansome love might start to flow in and then only you say you have to take care of it.
The same with ideas if you go to a management team or to a client and you say listen
you now you have to take care of it. They say uh wait a moment, they have to get used to
it and the client because it is new and they asked for something new and now you come
with something new automatically they need time to adopt, that is literally the same
word, to adopt this idea
I: Will it be easier for the client to adopt the idea when it is visual, like seeing the baby
will sooner say oh ok I will take care of it.
M2: Sometimes with the first concept we presented they immediately said yes we wantthis third concept lets do it. But it will be much more expensive, well we will find the
money. So sometimes it is like that, the baby is so cute that you completely meld. But
often it is not that obvious. So underneath you need something like trust, that they
respect you and your knowledge and your capacity and in such a way that they are
willing to go with your ideas. That it is trust.
And they need to trust you in such a way they accept that need to go into suspension of
disbelieve so suspension of disbelieve is if you go to a cinema and you go to a film or you
take a dvd like monsters inc. from Pixar, just like that you are in a story even if it is with
this impossible creature with one eye and one is a lady with all snakes in the hair well
she doesnt have hair, well it is acceptable you go with the story. And so as a designer
presenting a concept or presenting a strategy it is the same thing in this kind of trust youneed to make a frame and take them with you on a journey for example and for just a
second let go of the daily occupation and criteria and lets phantasize a bit together, even
using that kind of words might help instead of just saying hey this is your baby, who
what. So you could say why dont you come for a cup of coffee look there is Johnny play
with him I will be busy in the kitchen.
Another rule, the more concrete the better, the concreter the better. That is all so no
sorry that is not the right word, the more tangible the better, if you got an object or
prototype or something that is better than a vague concept
I: You have seen many concepts, you might get a sense of how much ris