Innovation through imitation

Title: Copycats: how smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge
Oded Shenkar, (2010) "Copycats: how smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge", Strategic Direction, Vol. 26 Iss: 10, pp.3 - 5

Findings – In the business world, imitation gets a bad rap. We see imitating firms as “me too” players, forced to play catchup because they have nothing original to offer. In Copycats, Oded Shenkar challenges this viewpoint. He reveals how imitation is as critical to prosperity as innovation and how savvy imitators generate huge profits. They save not only on R&D costs but also on marketing and advertising investments made by first movers, and avoid costly errors by observing and learning from others' trials.

My notes: This paper presents one of those ideas that are very unlikely to spread in certain worlds like business and design. People in these communities don't want to hear/see evidence that a great component of innovation is, in fact, imitation. Shenkar's ideas are unlikely to be acclaimed, but they are the kind of ideas that reveal a great deal about innovation and how we study it.

What (Design) Theory is not

Title: What Theory is not
RI Sutton, BM Staw - Administrative science quarterly, 1995

Abstract:
This essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, but there is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory. Despite this consensus, however, authors routinely use these five elements in lieu of theory. We explain how each of these five elements can be confused with theory and how to avoid such confusion. By making this consensus explicit, we hope to help authors avoid some of the most common and easily averted problems that lead readers to view papers as having inadequate theory. We then discuss how journals might facilitate the publication of stronger theory. We suggest that if the field is serious about producing stronger theory, journals need to reconsider their empirical requirements. We argue that journals ought to be more receptive to papers that test part rather than all of a theory and use illustrative rather than definitive data.

My notes:
This is one of those papers that I keep mentioning over and over in discussions about design theory,l and design research. Probably a good time now to write a paper on What Design Theory is Not?

Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers

Title: Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers
Authors: SIEGEL, Martin A and STOLTERMAN, Erik

Abstract: In this paper we make the case that there is today a growing number of educational settings experiencing challenges when it comes to transforming non-designers into designers, and in particular, interaction designers. We see this development as a consequence of an increased awareness and recognition of what broadly could be labeled as a design perspective. We examine the transformational process, the metamorphosis, by which nondesigner students become interaction designers. We identify and describe the barriers that make it difficult for the students to move through this transformational process. We also propose some pedagogical approaches that can reduce the barriers and improve the possibility for the transformation to occur. The approach that we have developed and describe consists of three parts. Based on a fundamental understanding of the nature of design, we have developed (i) a tentative transformational model of how nondesigners become interaction designers; (ii) a special kind of conceptual framework used to support students in the transformational process; and (iii) design assignments based on real-world design problems. We end the paper with two conclusions. First we argue that there is a challenge in transforming non-designers into designers, but that it is possible if the educational effort is based on an understanding of design and on the transformational process with its barriers. Finally we argue that the experience of trying to turn nondesigners into interaction designers is in itself a valuable research approach. Dealing with non-designer students reveals deep insights about the nature of the design process and makes it possible to better formulate what constitutes a designerly approach.

My notes: One of the best papers that will help design educators to introduce "designerly" themes to other disciplines, design researchers and practitioners to better collaborate with colleagues from other disciplines. I first read this paper three years ago and is one of those papers that I'm constantly talking about.

A structural matrix model for design variety

Title: A structural matrix-based modelling for designing product variety
Authors: Ding-Bang Luha, Yao-Tsung Koa* & Chia-Hsiang Maaa

ABSTRACT: The design process is an important stage in new product development. An information model is a useful tool for analysing and improving a complex design process and product architecture because it allows the designer to visualise information flow. Based on graph theory and the weighting concept, this paper presents a quantified design structure matrix, which is a systematic planning method of optimising design priorities and product architecture for managing product variety from an informational structure perspective. Focusing on product variety and the design process in concurrent engineering, the planning model is divided into two phases: global planning and local planning. The proposed method helps designers optimise design planning and plan better design strategies for product variety. It can be applied in developing future generations of a product based on an existing product. A case study is used to illustrate this method. The results verify that designers can concurrently create variant design solutions in a product family that can meet different market needs without extra effort being spent on redundant design loops

My notes: This paper received the Best Paper Award in this journal. It is an exemplary type of research from this community. As such, the assumptions, the methods and the goals of this type of paper deserve a careful analysis. I'm not judging here the quality of this work (which I assume to be very high therefore the prize), what is much more relevant is the disciplinary traditions reflected by this paper. One can argue whether this research is transformative or incrementa, whether it seeks to evolve or improve practice, or whether it extends our understanding or refines our practice. The claims are equally interesting, worth discussing the real degree and scope of generalisation. No doubt a reference paper.

Innovation Capabilities of Engineering Students

Title: An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Engineering Students
Authors: N. Genco and K. Holtta-Otto, C. C. Seepersad
Abstract: "In this experimental study, we compare the results of concept generation exercises completed by freshman- and senior-level mechanical engineering students.  Resulting concepts were analyzed using metrics for novelty, fixation, and quality. The results indicated that the freshman students produced more novel concepts and were less fixated on the sample clocks shown in the experiment.  Both freshman and senior groups produced concepts with similar (high) levels of quality and feasibility.  The results support the troubling conclusion that freshman engineering students are more innovative than seniors.  This conclusion highlights the need for increased emphasis on innovation and creativity in the engineering curriculum."
Link: http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ppmdlab/files/creative%20ability%20031010.FINAL.pdf

My notes: "Freshman engineering students are more innovative than their senior-level counterparts... , the results of this preliminary study imply that students become less creative as they progress through the engineering curriculum"

Collaboration and Quality of User Generated Ideas in Online Innovation Communities

Title: Collaboration and Quality of User Generated Ideas in Online Innovation Communities
Authors: Ye, H.; Kanhanhalli, A.; Huber, M. J.; Bretschneider, U.; Blohm, I.; Goswami, S
Abstract: Enabled by Internet-based technologies, users are increasingly participating and collaborating in idea generation in online innovation communities. Beyond increasing the quantity of ideas contributed by users, firms are looking to obtain innovation ideas of better quality. However, with the limited understanding of the phenomenon, few studies have focused on investigating what determines the quality of collaboratively generated user ideas in online innovation communities. This study aims to address this knowledge gap by investigating the antecedents of the quality of user generated ideas from a knowledge collaboration perspective. Based on this perspective, we propose that idea creation effort, peer co-production, and peer feedback will directly and interactively influence the quality of user generated ideas. The model was tested with archival data from the SAPien’s innovation community as well as idea quality rating data from experts. The results reveal that idea creation effort and peer feedback affect the quality of user generated idea. Further, idea creation effort negatively moderates the relationship between peer co-production and the quality of user generated ideas.

My notes: No doubt an interesting approach to the study of creativity, in particular an original way of studying evaluation. The paper itself is unnecessarily lengthy but is clear overall and the reader can skip details from the first sections. Some implied assumptions are worth mentioning, not a flaw of this paper only but a limitation of creativity reasearch in general: "Ideas that are vague or contain unclear casualty are less useful than ideas that are more specific", well, says who? And more accurately, "useful" for what? "Peer coproduction" is an interesting idea but in this paper its interepretation seems very limited since it encapsulates every interaction between authors (revision, development, clarification); thus the outcomes of the paper are questionable in regards to their validity and value. Perhaps even more significantly, this study uses CAT to evaluate ideas but it has two major shortcomings: assessment criteria would need to be subjective and relative. This is not clear in the paper. Secondly, inter-rater reliability indices are too low (0.53 to 0.63), making every outcome of this work very questionable
http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb7/ibwl/leimeister/pub/JML_326.pdf

A Descriptive Study of Designers' Tools for Sharing User Needs and Conceptual Design

"A Descriptive Study of Designers' Tools for Sharing User Needs and Conceptual Design". L. Oehlberg, C. Roschuni and A. Agogino, Proceedings of ASME DETC 2011, ASME, CD ROM DETC2011-48661; pp. 199-208

Abstract: Designers employ a range of tools to gather, create, explore, sort, and act on user needs and conceptual design information. However, designers work both individually and collaboratively. This research is a descriptive study of technologies employed by designers to individually capture and collaboratively share user needs and conceptual designs. In this paper we  examine the range and affordances of tools used by designers, and how  they  use  these  tools  to  share design information.  We do this by looking at data gathered in interviews with practicing designers and design researchers, as well as documents produced in undergraduate and graduatelevel new product development courses.  We  gather  a  wide range of tools from our informants, and analyze them based on sharing semantics and formality. We then introduce a model
of sharing as a cycle of capture, reflect and share. Finally, we provide design recommendations for future information tools that support both personal and collaborative user needs and conceptual design information.

Notes:

1. "With the intent of creating innovative new tools for capturing, reflecting, and sharing user needs, the goal of this descriptive study is to understand current usage trends in early-stage design tools. Based on our study we propose the following design principles as well as areas for future research:
1. Allow for translations between tangible and digital media: Future tools need to be able to translate between tangible and digital forms to accommodate for different medium preferences at various stages of the design process
2. Allow smooth  transitions  between private,  personal and  public  design  information.
3. Allow for varying degrees of formality. Throughout the design process, everything from informal to archival documentation is produced; it is important that future tools are able to accommodate for these shifts in formality

Beyond R&D: What Design Adds to a Modern Research University

Reference: Magee, Christopher L. et al. "Beyond R&D: What Design adds to a Modern Research University." International Journal of Engineering Education, 28:2 (2012)

Abstract: The government of Singapore is launching a new university, the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), that is scheduled to take in its first freshman class in April, 2012. SUTD, in collaboration with MIT and Zhejiang University, is striving to establish a 21st century innovation paradigm that recognizes the synergy between innovation and design. Many aspects of such an exciting development are of interest to engineering educators and particularly to design educators and two are covered in this paper. One challenge addressed in this paper is the possibility for conflicting agendas between design‐centric education and the goal of becoming a leading research‐intensive university. An overview of research intended to address this conflict –that of the International Design Center that is jointly part of MIT and SUTD‐ is given. It is argued that, rather than conflicting, design‐centric education and research‐intensity are synergistic for a 21st century university. The second challenge discussed in some depth is the setting of “culture” for the new institution that encourages bold attempts to improve the world through technical innovation (“innovation culture”) with breadth in national cultures (“global culture”) bridging from Western to Asian perspectives. Relative to the latter item, a central feature are the “Eastern Cultural” curriculum items being developed by a second SUTD partner university ‐ Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China). The breadth of national cultures and a wide academic disciplinary base as part of the education process are postulated to be enablers for developing a strong 21st century innovation‐leadership‐culture for the modern research university.

Notes: This paper provides a nice overview of the origins of SUTD, here is a collection of key ideas:

1. "Thus some in academia questionwhether design can be taught and even whether it has value in the curriculum. These debates can be extremely heated –possibly reflecting the almost negligible amount of solid evidence that can be mounted in support of eitherposition"
2. "There is evidence that the design process is enhanced by processes that are not highly structured -but have just enough structure-[24] rather than being analytically or logically over-constrained"
3. "Developing common terminology and utilizing similar experimental approaches across  design of software, electromechanical hardware, architecture, manufacturing, logistics and complex socio-technical systems is expected to force consideration of fundamentals of design as opposed to context"
4. "We expect to contribute not only the idea but to make the designed system or object have an intended positive impact on society. We believe this will have educational as well as research benefits"
5. "[We] hypothesize that research intensity coupled with design-centric education is a further enabler of cultural change"
6. "The sub-title to this paper (What Design adds to a modern research university) appears to be answered by “a stronger basis for research and for translation of research results to human use (essentially translating knowledge to culture)”"
7. "The answer argued for in this paper is that research on design can lead to deeper understanding of the fundamental process of design-beyond how to teach but instead whatto teach and mentor in order to effectively teach design and what it enables -innovation. Demonstration of the synergy of the Art and Science of design is therefore the most persistent theme of this paper"

A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations

Paper: "A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers" by Pei, Campbell and Evans. The Design Journal, 14(1), 2011

Abstract: In the context of new product development (NPD), research has shown that not having a common understanding of visual design representations (VDRs) has affected collaboration between industrial designers and engineering designers. The aim of the research presented in this paper was two-fold. Firstly, to identify the representations employed by industrial designers and engineering designers during NPD from a literature survey. Secondly, to define and categorize these representations in the form of a taxonomy that is a systematic organization of VDRs that are presently dispersed in the literature. For the development of the taxonomy, four measures encompassing orthogonality, spanning, completeness and usability were employed. It resulted in four groups consisting of sketches, drawings, models and prototypes. Validation was undertaken by means of an interview survey and further, presenting the taxonomy at an international conference. The results showed that no issues were raised by the respondents concerning the structure of the taxonomy or its components.

Notes: This is the most useful and complete classification that I've seen of sketches, drawings, models and prototypes used in the design process. I'm surprised that -according to Google Scholar- it has only been referenced once since its publication in 2011. I reallly hope that more design researchers refer to this work, since we really need to build consensus on such fundamental concepts and techniques. I'm using this for teaching and also plan to use it as a key reference for future research papers.

Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts

Paper: "Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts" by Bruno Latour. Link:
www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/50-MISSING-MASSES-GB.pdf

Intro: People are free to interpret the precise meaning of an artifact, but they can’t simply tell an automobile engine that it should get 100 miles per gallon. The laws of nature and the capacities of a particular design limit the ways in which artifacts can be integrated into a sociotechnical system. In this chapter, one of the foremost  contrib-utors to the actor network approach, Bruno Latour, explores how artifacts can be deliberately designed to both replace human action and constrain and shape the actions of other humans. His study demonstrates how people can ‘‘act at a distance’’ through the technol-ogies they create and implement and how, from a user’s perspective, a technology can ap-pear to determine or compel certain actions.

Notes:

1. "There is a problem with doors", the writing style of Latour is clever and engaging, reading this paper is quite an experience in itself, so I will only add my first 5 notes here as it'd be quite a challenge to capture the depth of his ideas in a short list. Just read it.
2. "Every time you want to know what a nonhuman (an object) does, simply imagine what other humans or other nonhumans would have to do were this character not present. This imaginary substitution exactly sizes up the role, or function, of this little character.
3. "A profound temporal shift takes place when nonhumans are appealed to; time is folded"
4. "Prescription is the moral and ethical dimension of mechanisms... We have been able to delegate to nonhumans not only force as we have known it for centuries but also values, duties and ethics"
5. "How can the prescriptions encoded in the mechanism be brought out in words? By replacing them by strings of sentences (often in the imperative) that are uttered (silently and continuously) by the mechanisms for the benefit of those who are mechanized: do this, do that, behave this way, don't go that way, you may do so, be allowed to go there... Another way of hearing what the machines silently did and said are the accidents"