No abstract

In this paper, we present a qualitative, interview-based study of the processes small technology-based firms go through when they adopt tools and adapt them for use. By extracting 59 instances of tool internalisation across five firms, we derived a coding scheme combining existing and emergent forms of tool bricolage. The four types are reconstruction, reinterpretation, evolution, and customisation. We articulate examples of each type. Our findings reinforce the variability of any given tool once enacted in practice, contrary to implied expectations in some innovation tools literature that tool application is a straightforward mechanical process. In the small firms in our study, we found reinterpretation is the most prevalent form of tool adaptation. This type of tool use is prone to being superficial and failing to gain the benefits available from a more carefully customised or reconstructed tool. We also report on the different ways in which practitioners gain awareness of new tools.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this practitioner paper is to explore whether the principles of Design Thinking and the Lean Startup could be employed in developing a disruptive model for delivering educational programs within higher education in a way that attempts to eliminate the multitude of problems facing this industry, while simultaneously adhering to the principles of frugal innovation and meeting relevant sustainability goals.Design/methodology/approachThe authors followed a design thinking approach, employing tools such as empathy mapping, customer journey, value proposition and semi-structured interviews to obtain a deep level of understanding of the problems educators and students within the context of entrepreneurship education are facing. Throughout the process they drew on the practice of emergent inquiry and customer co-creation to help guide decision making.FindingsThe authors successfully derived a conceptual solution in the form of a Minimum Viable Product of which the features were tested against the multitude of user needs and requirements. It was possible to demonstrate how the solution meets all nine of the requirements for frugal innovations while simultaneously adhering to applicable sustainability principles.Practical implicationsThe proposed solution offers a potential opportunity to first-movers in chosen academic disciplines to become leaders in online education.Originality/valueEven in an industry such as higher education there is a dire need for frugality and finding sustainable solutions for educators and students in both developed and developing markets. With this paper the authors succeed in presenting innovative combinations of digital artefacts, platforms and infrastructure to arrive at a novel crowd-sourced solution that is unique in its design.

Most commercialization models begin by taking an idea through some sort of stage‐gate product development process. There is much talk about building market thinking into this process, but this paper argues that much more is required. The research identified three perspectives required to be present at all stages of product development. The first is labelled ‘technical and operational’, the second ‘strategic’ and the third ‘commercial’. The paper argues that each perspective is required at every stage to drive the right activities that lead to successful commercialization. The science, idea and opportunity stage leads onto the technology and feasibility stage, which in turn leads onto the product and market readiness stage. The research applied the grounded theory methodology to categorize and represent data obtained from interviews and desk research. The resulting model was introduced to a New Zealand Crown Research Institute during a consulting assignment in 2004. Three external experts were selected based on their particular perspectives and experience in the area of product development. Each perspective was built into the commercialization process. Applying multiple perspectives has led to a more robust approach to product development and a greater awareness of how multiple tools work together to create a holistic product development process. Each perspective of the commercialization process can be broken down into detailed stages. The technical and operational perspective addresses areas such as opportunity creation, proof of concept and market readiness. The strategic perspective addresses areas such as strategic fit, strategic analysis/choice and pathways to market. Finally, the commercial perspective addresses areas such as opportunity assessment, feasibility study/business planning and launch.After being in place for 18 months, the challenges faced in implementation were discussed with the current commercialization manager and the model was adapted to another institute wishing to develop a design‐led commercialization process. A key finding of the research was the common understanding of language and meaning across three distinct disciplines and the involvement of each discipline in the decision‐making process. All parties accepted the value of each other's contribution once the different perspectives were understood and accepted. The paper provides useful insights for those involved in the design of commercialization processes and establishes a multi‐dimensional framework that assists in facilitating the different perspectives required for successful commercialization.