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.