Managing Controversies in the Fuzzy Front End

Christiansen, John K.; Gasparin, Marta

doi:10.1111/caim.12174

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, we argue that VTs with a short lifespan and limited potential for relationship building require different coordination practices to meet the same innovation objectives as permanent VTs, or temporary ones with a longer lifespan. Though the challenging nature of the FFE has been recognized in the innovation field (Christiansen & Gasparin, 2016;Spieth & Joachim, 2017;Tran, The Role of Temporal Coordination for the Fuzzy Front-End of Innovation in Virtual Teams 4 Following from the above, our research question is: How does the temporary character of VTs influence the coordination of the FFE activities in the VT context?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of temporal coordination for the fuzzy front-end of innovation in virtual teams

Chamakiotis

Boukis

Panteli

et al. 2020

International Journal of Information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of temporal coordination for the fuzzy front-end of innovation in virtual teams

Chamakiotis

Boukis

Panteli

et al. 2020

International Journal of Information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interaction of human and non-human technical entities makes it possible for economists to act as social engineers and for economics to perform (Boldyrev and Svetlova 2016). Therefore, this situation paved the way for new forms of analyzing financial markets in terms of sociotechnical construction, in which humans and non-humans interact, create and stabilize the reality (Christiansen and Gasparin 2016). 1 In the next section, we explain why the automatization was a disruptive innovation, its epistemic regime, why computerization was an incremental innovation, and the epistemic confusion in financial theory that caused the emergence of flash crashes.…”

Section: Disruptive Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking outside the Box to Get inside the Black Box: Alternative Epistemology for Dealing with Financial Innovation

Gasparin

Schınckus

Green

2019

Social Epistemology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to ignite debate surrounding the computerization and change in organizing financial markets and, due to the emergence of trading algorithms, investigates those as disruptive innovation and its side effects. First, we frame the computerization of financial markets as disruptive innovation. Second, we analyze how an extension of a disruptive innovation generates latent effects that contradict the original principles. Third, we argue the necessity to explicitly consider the epistemological nature of financial innovations. This leads to our conclusion that there is a necessity to extend the epistemological dimension of financial innovation, in order to think outside the box to get inside the black box of financial innovation. Key words Black box; disruptive innovation; epistemology; financial innovation; financial markets; flash crashes Joeri 2016) and there are no well-defined regulations (Coombs 2016). Heeding MacKenzie's (2003) advice to open up the black box, we analyze the construction of algorithms, conceiving them as a disruptive innovation, reflecting on why their evolution from computerization of the financial market to trading algorithms caused epistemological issues that have not been solved and led to the emergence of the flash crashes. Innovation has been widely researched since the seminal works of Schumpeter (1934). However, the process of how innovations emerge and are managed is a perpetual issue. Innovation can be incremental (it presents minor improvements) or radical (it is new to the market or new to the company) if it refers to a product or service from a company's perspective; it can be disruptive or non-disruptive if it refers to a technology in a given market. Disruptive innovation generally emerges from a technological niche that is underestimated or even ignored by the mainstream companies operating in an industry. In this paper, we define a disruptive innovation, in line with Christensen (1997, 2006), as an innovation that disrupts the current market by serving a market segment that was not initially considered by the established firms, that disrupts the dominant configurations, creates new values that leads to changes to existing markets, and that establishes new working practices. This technology starts as a radical innovation, and then, building on a value network, subsequently captures the market of the mainstream technology and becomes dominant, moving into a phase of incremental innovations. For a large part of the literature, a disruptive innovation is a technology that changes the performance metrics along which it competes (Daneels, 2004; Pinkse, Bohnsack, and Kolk 2014) or it changes the business models of the firms in the market (Habtay 2012). Building on this literature, when they first emerged, financial algorithms, in line with Christensen (1997, 2006, 2009), created new values and led to changes to existing, and the creation of new, financial practice. Like many successful innovations, the financial algorithms and market subsequently evolved incrementally. H...

show abstract

“…An entire innovation process in a manufacturing company is typically divided into three stages: fuzzy front end (FFE), new product development (NPD) and commercialization [15]. An interactive training or mass-engineeroriented training model (MEOTM) is developed based on this process.…”

Section: Mass-engineer Oriented Training Model and Some Project Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Opportunity-Driven Redesign Process to Cooperate With Training Innovative Engineers in China

Tan

Dong

Yang

et al. 2018

Chin. J. Mech. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many design engineers in cross-domain industries have attended training classes of TRIZ to improve their innovative abilities in China. Most of them are successful, but others are not. So the latest target of the trainers is to improve the training process used now in industry in China and to make the engineers to understand the basic principles of TRIZ better. Based on the mass-engineer-oriented training model (MEOTM) and mechanical engineers' design cases, a relationship between managing activities about the opportunities for innovation and the training process is set up. It is shown that the inventive problems come first from opportunity searching for engineers. A training and gate system for evaluation is developed to involve the managing activities of the companies in the training process. Then comparison between the general analogous process and the application of TRIZ is made, which shows the advantages and depth principles of TRIZ for the engineers to apply them confidently. Lastly a new process is formed in which opportunity searching, engineers training, inventive problems identifying and solving,and three redesign paths are connected seamlessly. The research proposes an opportunity-driven redesign path that cooperates the training and opportunity searching, which will be applied in future training classes to make more and more engineers to follow.

show abstract

Managing Controversies in the Fuzzy Front End

Cited by 25 publications

References 61 publications

The role of temporal coordination for the fuzzy front-end of innovation in virtual teams

The role of temporal coordination for the fuzzy front-end of innovation in virtual teams

Thinking outside the Box to Get inside the Black Box: Alternative Epistemology for Dealing with Financial Innovation

Research on Opportunity-Driven Redesign Process to Cooperate With Training Innovative Engineers in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About