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.the logical order of all the stages of the innovation process. Under the double model, there is no strict order: every stage can be the starting point of an innovation process and every stage can be followed by any other stage. Chaos from practice is now made visible.Teaching innovation using to this model has proved to be less useful: students prefer the more (chrono)-logical models. So the other side of the double model is a circular logical step-by-step version.We now teach them to use these two different model versions describing the same product innovation process: (1) a four-stage model describing the chaotic product innovation process on a very abstract level, and (2) a twenty-step model on a very concrete level which describes the product innovation process on a orderly and more (chrono)-logical way. And we also teach how these two model versions are intertwined and linked together. It is not chaos or logic, but it is chaos and logic -two sides of one coin.
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.
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, peoplefocused 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.
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 people's 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.
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.