Scholarly and practitioner literature have both described the potential benefits of using methods associated with a "design thinking" approach to develop new innovations. Most studies of the main design thinking methodsneedfinding, brainstorming, and prototyping-are

Arecognized challenge in innovation scholarship is how to coordinate the efforts of many minds contributing to the design of a single artifact. Much research shows that product concept representations can help coordinate design tasks, but we know little about the practices that make representations more or less effective. We used an inductive approach to examine how six teams in three industries used concept representations when creating novel products. All six teams crafted three types of representations: stories, metaphors, and prototypes. However, merely using representations did not ensure a shared repertoire and concept coherence—a common understanding of desired product attributes. Teams that failed to consistently engage in three practices—(1) collective scrutiny of representations, (2) linking representations to design constraints, and (3) active editing of representations—produced concept disunity, with disparate understandings of desired product attributes. Teams that maintained concept coherence were better able to coordinate design tasks than teams that experienced concept disunity. Our research explains how the ultimate effect of concept representations on the coordination of innovation is contingent on the practices used to manage a repertoire of representations in use.

Radical product development projects, which are undertaken to create new categories of products, present significant challenges to development teams. In such settings existing formal processes may be limited or inappropriate, and objectives may be ambiguous and changing. The generation of a novel product concept early in the process can play an important role in guiding development teams, but the process by which teams later change concepts, as may be required within radical contexts, has merited further research. This study investigated how teams change novel product concepts after initial generation, employing an inductive case-study method drawing from 51 interviews with members of six radical development projects. The empirical results found that concepts were described in terms of concept componentselemental descriptive forms that included verbal stories, verbal metaphors, and physical prototypes. When changes were required to concepts due to new technical or market information, rather than reconsider the overall concept through iteration to earlier product definition stages, teams shifted individual concept components, with a new component replacing a component of similar descriptive form. Over half of concept components observed across cases came after the initial generation of concepts in later elaboration and shifting. Contrary to expectations, development teams maintained reference not only to the revised concept but also to the deferred original concept. The case of a novel electronic book development project is used to illustrate the process, along with evidence of concept shifting across cases. The detailed findings expand our understanding of how formal processes may be augmented in radical innovation settings and how concepts are actually used by development teams in changing circumstances.

Please scroll down for article-it is on subsequent pages With 12,500 members from nearly 90 countries, INFORMS is the largest international association of operations research (O.R.) and analytics professionals and students. INFORMS provides unique networking and learning opportunities for individual professionals, and organizations of all types and sizes, to better understand and use O.R. and analytics tools and methods to transform strategic visions and achieve better outcomes. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org