Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:04:50.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MITIGATING COMPANY ADOPTION BARRIERS OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION WITH HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Ehsan Baha ,
Taresh Ghei  and
Anne Kranzbuhler
Ehsan Baha*
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology; University of Montreal; Meaningwise;
Taresh Ghei
Affiliation:
Philips Consumer Lifestyle
Anne Kranzbuhler
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology;
*
Baha, Ehsan, University of Montreal, School of Industrial Design, Canada, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In Design-Driven Innovation (D-DI) the meaning of a product or service is radically innovated to introduce a new paradigm that ideally can benefit people, companies, and society as a whole. However, due to the associated risks, most companies are hesitant to engage with and adopt D-DI. Human Centered Design (HCD) is preferred while innovation is limited to incremental change. This dichotomy is also reflected in design literature where D-DI is pitted against HCD. We propose the symbiosis of the two approaches as a strategy to create space for and the adoption of D-DI within companies. An instrumental design case study explores a design-driven service innovation and its adoption in a renowned airline. Results show an adopted D-DI where HCD evidence mitigates for the market and organization uncertainty while D-DI enabled a paradigm shift in the company’s current service operation. Advantages and limitations of this mitigation strategy are discussed. With this design precedent, we aim to encourage designers and companies to further explore the benefits of a symbiotic use of D-DI and HCD.

Keywords

Service designDesign-driven innovationCase studyDesign processHuman Centered Design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2097 - 2106
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ando, T., & Yaegashi, K. (2017), “Dual Nature of Designer's Attitudes Toward Design-Led Innovation”, The Academy for Design Innovation Management 2017, Ritsumeikan University, Design Research Society, London, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar
Baha, S. E., Lu, Y., Brombacher, A., & van Mensvoort, K. (2012), “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable, but don't forget”, NordDesign 2012, 22-24 August 2012, Aalborg University, Alborg, pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
Boon, B., Baha, S. E., Singh, A., Wegener, F. E., Rozendaal, M. C., & Stappers, P. J. (2020), “Grappling with Diversity in Research Through Design”, Design Research Society 2020, 11-14 August 2020, Design Research Society, London, pp. 139–151. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.362Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2008), “Design Thinking”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 1–10. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinkingGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2012), Educational research Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.), Pearson, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005), “When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness”, Research Policy, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Goey, H., Hilletofth, P., & Eriksson, D. (2016), “Enablers and barriers to design-driven innovation: a case study at a Swedish wood furniture wholesaler”, International Annual EurOMA 2016, 17-22 June 2016, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, pp. 721–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-07-2018-0122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell'Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2007), “Strategies of innovation and imitation of product languages”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 580–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00273.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dooley, L., & O'Sullivan, D. (2001), “ Structuring innovation: a conceptual model and implementation methodology”, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14632440110101246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, S., Ju, W., & Mackay, W. (2009), “Projection, Place and Point-of-view in Research through Design”, In Price, S., Jewitt, C., & Brown, B. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research, SAGE Publications Ltd., London, pp. 266–285. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282229.n19Google Scholar
Fichman, R. G. (2000), “The Diffusion and Assimilation of Information Technology Innovations”, In Zmud, R. W. (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources inc, Cincinnati, pp. 105–128.Google Scholar
Isley, C. G., & Rider, T. (2018), “Research-Through-Design: Exploring a design-based research paradigm through its ontology, epistemology, and methodology”. Design Research Society 2018, 25-28 June 2018, Design Research Society, London, pp. 357–367. https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2018.263Google Scholar
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-8994-9Google Scholar
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005), “Blue ocean strategy: from theory to practice”, California Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/000812560504700301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, V. S., Guynes, J. L., & Bordoloi, B. (1993), “ISDN: Adoption and diffusion issues”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 10 No.4, pp. 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580539308906957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L., Miller, R., & Dismukes, J. (2005), “The critical role of information and information technology in future accelerated radical innovation”, Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 63–99.Google Scholar
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011), Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers, Columbia University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.7312/lied16467Google Scholar
Morillo, M., Dell'Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2015), “Exploring the role of outsider interpreters in the development of design-driven innovations”, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 10 No. 3-4, pp. 222–253. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTIP.2015.070849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014), “Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change”, Design Issues, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öberg, Å., & Verganti, R. (2014), “Pre-emptying and the myth of the naïve mind”, Academic Design Management 2014, 2-4 September 2014, The Design Management Institute, Boston, 2–4 September 2014.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1995), “Diffusion of Innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications”, In: Stoetzer, M. W., & Mahler, A. (Eds.), Die diffusion von innovationen in der telekommunikation. Springer, Berlin, pp. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-79868-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, B., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2014), “What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Singh, V. (2013), “Innovation diffusion categories and innovation-related needs”, International Conference on Engineering Design 2013, Sungkyunkwan University, 19-22 August 2013, The Design Society, Glasgow. pp. 297–306. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/34925/Innovation+diffusion+categories+and+innovation-related+needsGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. (2018), “The Best Leaders See Things That Others Don't. Art Can Help”, Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/04/the-best-leaders-see-things-that-others-dont-art-can-helpGoogle Scholar
Trantow, S., Hees, F., & Jeschke, S. (2013), “Innovative Capability - an Introduction”, In: Jeschke, S., Isenhardt, I., Hees, F., & Henning, K. (Eds.), Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2011/2012, Springer, Berlin, pp. 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33389-7_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verganti, R. (2008), “Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verganti, R. (2009), Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean, Harvard Business Press, Brighton MA.Google Scholar
Verganti, R. (2011), “Radical design and technology epiphanies: A new focus for research on design management”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 384–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00807.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verganti, R. (2016), Overcrowded: Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035361.001.0001Google Scholar
Von Stamm, B. (1998), “Whose design is it? The use of external designers”, The design journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41–53. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069298790225235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wensveen, S., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2004), “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward”, Designing Interactive Systems 2004, Cambridge, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013140Google Scholar
Yukawa, J. (2006), “Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative”, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-8994-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar