Nowadays, design is recognized as a strategic resource. Customers are increasingly paying attention to the aesthetic, symbolic, and emotional value of products, a value that is conveyed by the design language-that is, the combination of signs (e.g., form, colors, materials) that gives meaning to a product. As a consequence firms are devoting increasing efforts to define a proper strategy for the design language of their products. An empirical analysis was conducted on the product language strategies in the Italian furniture industry; in particular, the present article explores the relationship between innovation and variety of product languages. Companies are usually faced by two major strategic decisions. The first one concerns the innovation of product languages: To what extent should a firm proactively propose new design languages or, rather, should adopt a reactive strategy by rapidly adopting new languages as they emerge in the market? The second decision concerns the variety and heterogeneity of languages in their product range. Should a firm propose a single product language to communicate a precise identity, or should it explore different product languages? Of course, the two strategic decisions-innovativeness and variety of product languages-are closed connected. Analyzing more than 2.000 products launched by 210 firms, the present article explores how the variety of product languages is approached in the strategy of innovators and imitators. The empirical results illustrate an inverse relationship between innovativeness and heterogeneity of product signs and languages. Contrary to what is expected, innovators have lower heterogeneity of product languages. They tend to be strongly proactive and limit experimentations of new languages in the market. Imitators, instead-which would be expected to have low variety since they can invest only in languages that have been proven successful in the market-tend on the contrary to have higher product variety. Eventually, by having lower investments in research on trends of sociocultural models, they miss the capability to interpret the complex evolution of products signs and languages in the market. Strategic decisions on innovativeness and variety of product languages are therefore interrelated; counterintuitively companies should carefully analyze these decisions jointly.
Design thinking is spreading extremely rapidly among organizations in terms of interest and practices. Far from being linked to the "form" of products, design thinking is accepted as a formal creative problem-solving method with the intent to foster innovation. However, the spread of design thinking in practice has not been coupled with a similarly rapid and robust diffusion of its theoretical underpinnings. This paper aims to clarify the theoretical contribution of design thinking by identifying the practices that connote different interpretations of the paradigm. Moreover, we investigate the innovation challenges that the adoption of the design thinking paradigm aims to address. From an empirical perspective, through 47 case studies of consulting organizations that provide advisory services based on the design thinking paradigm in Italy, we identify four different interpretations of the paradigm characterized by different practices: creative problem solving, sprint execution, creative confidence, and innovation of meaning.
AcknowledgmentsWe acknowledge the research support provided by Carlo Coppola and Mattia Mrvosevic. The usual disclaimers apply. Financial support from the Lombardy Region fund "Dote Ricercatori e della Dote Ricerca Applicata per lo sviluppo del capitale umano nel sistema universitario lombardo" is also gratefully acknowledged. 3 LIVING LAB: A METHODOLOGY BETWEEN USER-CENTRED DESIGN AND PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AbstractLiving Labs have received limited attention in the literature despite their diffusion throughout Europe and recent interest from policy makers. This limited attention is linked to the newness of the phenomenon, the high heterogeneity of cases and the consequent lack of definitions and acknowledged frameworks for scholarly analyses. In this work, we argue that the originality of the Living Lab phenomenon resides in the introduction of a new methodology.Using an analysis of the literature and case studies, we propose a new definition, position this methodology among other design methodologies and highlight its peculiarities. We underline the co-creative potentialities, the awareness of users and the real-life settings. Furthermore, our case-based research allows us to identify four different specifications for this methodology, and therefore four different types of Living Labs, based on the openness of the user involvement and the adopted platform technology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.