Jan Buijs

Modelling Product Innovation Processes, from Linear Logic to Circular Chaos

Product innovation is the focal point of the Delft Design School in the Netherlands. During its more than thirty years of existence different models of the product innovation process were and are used for education and for research. This paper will describe the development of these models. The first models tried to describe the product innovation process in a logical linear order, but recently this logical order has come under discussion. The most recent models try to show the more chaotic character of the product innovation processes in real corporate life. Although this chaotic model better reflects the product innovation practice, for educational purposes it seems to be less useful than the original logical ones. For our teaching we propose the two versions (logic and chaos) of our innovation model as two sides of one coin. This innovation coin is without proper value with one side left blank.

Innovation Leaders Should Be Controlled Schizophrenics

Innovating is a multi-faceted process. In this paper, four different, yet intertwined aspects of this process are distinguished. The first aspect concerns the content of the innovation; a new product, a new technology or a new market. The second aspect concerns the group dynamics of the innovation team. The third aspect concerns seeing the innovation process as a creative process. And the fourth aspect has to do with leadership. Since these four aspects are simultaneously working together during the innovation process, the leaders of this process are working in a very difficult situation, as all four aspects need to be dealt with in different ways. Nearly all of them are, in one way or another, in conflict with one another. They may conflict in real actions, in time horizons (past, present or future) or in effect (positive reactions during market introduction do not garantee ultimate market success). This means that innovation leaders need to show a special kind of leadership. This leadership must be balanced, people-focused and must include a high tolerance for ambiguity and paradoxes. They have to be nice and nasty at the same time. In short: innovation leaders should be some kind of controlled schizophrenics.

Why do(n't) actors in collaborative design understand each other? An empirical study towards a better understanding of collaborative design

This paper presents an empirical study of collaborative design projects in industry. Two case studies were conducted to investigate which factors influence the creation of shared understanding. Furthermore, collaborative mechanisms, i.e. the patterns underlying the relationship between these factors, were investigated. The results showed that shared understanding was influenced by factors on three organizational levels: the actor-, project- and company level. These influencing factors also affected the collaborative mechanisms within four different types of interfaces between the actors involved that could be distinguished based on the results.

Towards a More Realistic Creative Problem Solving Approach

This paper takes a closer look at the existing multi-step diamond shaped models for creative problem solving (CPS). A case history of a real-life technical problem in which CPS techniques were used is our source of inspiration for some new ideas about approaching CPS. We propose three concurrent processes: Content finding, Acceptance finding and Information finding. In concrete in-company projects, these three processes need to be managed simultaneously, which leads to a fourth overarching process: project management. Content finding is concerned with the process the creative session members are going through based on peoples own active knowledge and ideas and on sharing their mental models to get new ideas. Acceptance finding is concerned with the co-creation of new and additional mental systems that are needed for bringing new ideas into good currency within the existing organization and goes beyond agreement on implementation plans. Information finding is concerned with gathering additional knowledge on the ideas that are not readily available during the session. Finally, Project management is concerned with organizing and leading the creative session and in the embedding of the project into the larger organization.

Innovation can be taught

Abstract This paper summarizes the results of an extensive programme on stimulating industrial innovation in the Netherlands (the Project Industrial Innovation, Pii). Over five years (1980–84) 155 small and medium-sized industrial firms were taught by nearly 60 management consultants on how to innovate. The results in December 1984 were very positive: 71 percent of the companies have formulated businessplans for innovation; 21 innovations were introduced on the market; 76% of the companies stated that they had learned enough to go on with the process of innovating. This last result was questionable, because of its subjective nature. In December 1985 a study was carried out to investigate the long-term effects of this programme. The number of firms with businessplans had grown to 83 percent; the number of market introductions had increased to 43; the learning effect was up to 88 percent. This time it was possible to do some empirical observations which validated these results. The study also shows that innovations are not produced without considerable efforts. Nearly all companies encountered bottle-necks. The most influencial bottle-neck is management capacity. This (lack of) capacity is described in more detail by the participating management consultants. The quality of key personnel, inadequate project management and different management visions on innovation are mentioned by them. The paper shows the distribution of these bottle-necks among the different types of innovation. The exact influence of these bottle-necks remains undiscovered. The overall conclusion of the evaluation is that in spite of these bottle-necks innovation can be taught to small and medium-sized firms.

Action Planning for New Product Development Projects

Two empirical studies are presented to show how experienced project leaders execute New Product Development (NPD) projects. In the first study we interviewed project leaders from four different design firms. We discovered that inside realistic NPD projects the NPD activities seldom occur in the same order as they are described in the NPD literature. Some activities are omitted, some activities are run in parallel and some even have a seemingly illogical timing. The reasons for these strange patterns are usually project-specific. The NPD project leaders distinguish four types of NPD projects. On the one hand, familiar (client well known and/or standard technology and/or re-design) or non-familiar projects (new client and/or new technology and/or innovative design), and on the other hand, the complexity of the product (simple versus complex), and they plan their NPD projects differently according to those four types. For instance, within simple and familiar projects they omit more NPD activities than in projects with a more complex and new nature. In the second empirical study we did a matched pairing study (finding NPD projects which would match each of the four types). This time we interviewed experienced project leaders from different companies, because they are probably more familiar with only one type of NPD project. We found a minimal and a regular NPD process. Projects on new products (the non-familiar type) contain the most activities in the total project. Complex projects execute more activities in the first stages, and also different activities than in non-complex projects. We also found that NPD project leaders adapt an opportunistic attitude towards carrying out activities in parallel in order to gain time.

Viewpoint: Towards a New Theory X

This paper addresses the issue of the management of the design or innovation process in relation to the integration of different disciplines involved. A new Theory X is suggested, in which X stands for as much diversity as necessary – which is usually much more than people and organizations realize and accept. If implemented the new Theory X will influence the way work is organized; including career development, reward systems and recruitment criteria.