Research Perspectives | Transforming Your Ideas Into Research Outcomes by Luciana Guizan

Research Perspectives

Transforming Your Ideas Into Research Outcomes Professional Development Workshop June 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Editors Antonius van den Broek Felipe Domingues Nico Florian Klenner Ekaterina Kotina Stefano Magistretti Stefanie RothkĂśtter

RMIT Europe | Barcelona, Spain

RMIT University is a global university of design, technology and enterprise, with more than 84,000 students and 10,000 amazing teachers and staďŹ&#x20AC;. RMIT's European hub in Barcelona, Spain, is the gateway for European research, industry, government and enterprise to innovation and talent in Australia and Asia. We leverage the University's global connections to deliver an international dimension to research and innovation beyond Europe's borders. We provide early access to the next generation of talent for European industry including servicing our partners seeking local talent for their operations in Australia. We also work with our partners looking to extend their workforce in Europe through the diversity and depth of international talent. Talk to us about the ways you can leverage our presence in Europe to extend your markets to Australia and Asia through innovation and talent. Dr Marta Fernandez Executive Director, RMIT Europe

Media-TIC Building | Barcelona, Spain

The Media-TIC building in Barcelona is an information and communication technology hub designed to incubate, generate, exhibit and invite new ideas and developments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Set in the new science and technology district of 22@Barcelona, which occupies 200ha in Barcelona's industrial district of Poble Nou, the €20.8m building houses both office space for ICT businesses and exhibition space open to the general public. Together these elements create an environment of interaction between technology thinkers, inventors and users. Catalonia developer El Consorci funded the project, which was designed by Barcelona-based architects Cloud 9. Enric Ruiz Geli made technology a central part of the building's creation. The design team designed the building incorporating advanced technologies into the actual architecture of the building to enhance energy efficiency. Borrowing a term used by the former MoMA architecture, Ruiz describes the design as ‘performative architecture’: where the structure itself performs other functions. "In the digital information era, architecture has to be a technological platform, in which connectivity, new materials and nanotechnology are important," says Ruiz Geli. Taking cues from the structural typology of industrial buildings in Poble Nou, Augusti Obiol from Spanish structural consultants, BOMA SL, used a metallic structure composed of four rigid, braced frames 14.25m apart The frames consist of metal fink truss-style beams made of seven and eight-section forged-metal girders. Each frame has a support beam that transfers its load to 'galleries', the rigid support centres. Design Build Network

https://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/media-tic/

This page is intentionally left blank.

DMA Collective 2018 Transforming Your Ideas Into Research Outcomes

RMIT Europe Barcelona, Spain 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June 2018

Editors Antonius van den Broek Felipe Domingues Nico Florian Klenner Ekaterina Kotina Stefano Magistretti Stefanie RothkĂśtter

Transforming Your Ideas Into Research Outcomes Professional Development Workshop 2018 Design Management Academy Collective www.dmacollective.org RMIT Europe Barcelona, Spain 16–18 June 2018 Design Mark Buschgens, Felipe Domingues, and Luciana Guizan Press supported by State University of Minas Gerais, Brazil EdUEMG – University Press Preparation of Originals and Proofreading by Felipe Domingues, Ekaterina Kotina, and Stefanie Rothkötter Editors Antonius van den Broek, Felipe Domingues, Nico Florian Klenner, Ekaterina Kotina, Stefanie Rothkötter, and Stefano Magistretti Supported by Gerda Gemser and Erik Bohemia This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

ISBN 978-1-912769-00-1 Academy for Design Innovation Management Loughborough University, London 3 Lesney Avenue, The Broadcast Centre, Here East London, E15 2GZ United Kingdom

Organising and Coordinating Team Antonius van den Broek Loughborough University London, United Kingdom Mark Buschgens RMIT University, Australia Yasemin Canik Loughborough University London, United Kingdom Felipe Domingues State University of Minas Gerais, Brazil Ekaterina Kotina Loughborough University London, United Kingdom Kyulee Kim Polytechnic University Hong Kong, China Nico Klenner RMIT University, Australia Stefano Magistretti Politecnico di Milano, Italy Stefanie Rothkötter Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Germany Federico Vaz Loughborough University London, United Kingdom Noémi Zajzon Loughborough University London, United Kingdom

Support Gerda Gemser RMIT University, Australia Erik Bohemia Loughborough University, United Kingdom

DMA Collective: Transforming your ideas into research outcomes

van den Broek, Antoniusa; Domingues, Felipeb; Klenner, Nico Florianc; Kotina, Ekaterinad; Rothkötter, Stefaniee; and Magistretti, Stefanof a

University of the Arts, London, United Kingdom State University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil c RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia d Loughborough University, London, United Kingdom e Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany f Politecnico di Milano, Italy b

In June 2017, the Design Management Academy Conference brought together a diverse group of scholars and practitioners, who presented their research projects, discussed new research ideas and networked with like-minded academics. Hosted by Polytechnic University of Hong Kong, the event took place in PolyU’s landmark building Jockey Club Innovation Tower. The building was designed by Zaha Hadid and set the scene with its impressive architecture. The conference theme—Research Perspectives on Creative Intersections—challenged participants to reflect on their personal experience with such creative intersections and to envision new ways in which these creative intersections could be fostered in academia and practice. Cutting-edge research is often living at the intersection of various fields and Design Management as such resembles such an intersection. The various presentations, workshops and talks highlighted the theme from various angles. Doctoral Colloquium participants viewed the theme through the perspective of a new generation of Design Management scholars who had majored in a diverse range of subjects (e.g., arts, business, design, engineering, theory of language, etc.). The theme sparked vivid discussions about how creative intersections could be fostered to entice PhD Candidates and Early Career Researchers to collaborate with each other and with researchers from other fields. The overarching theme that connected many of the discussions among early career researchers throughout the colloquium and conference was: How could we foster exchange of ideas between early career researchers who may come from diverse educational backgrounds and share a primary research interest in Design Management? One of the ideas that emerged from the conference was to actively create these exchanges by establishing an international network of early career researchers who share a primary research interest in Design Management. Such a network would need to satisfy three criteria. Firstly, it should be open to researchers from various disciplines, such as arts, business, design, engineering, theory of language, etc. Secondly, it should actively foster a sense of belonging among members. And thirdly, the network should exist virtually, but allow for face-to-face interaction on a regular basis. On the basis of these requirements we tried to better understand key challenges, engaged in ideation and adopted a collaborative, iterative approach to develop a vision for the future. This vision manifests itself in the DMA Collective, a global network with the aim of enabling creative intersections to create the future of Design Management research. The DMA Collective has an ambitious agenda. The aim of the DMA Collective is to establish a strong professional network of PhD and Postdoc researchers in the field of Design Management. The DMA Collective will reach this aim by providing opportunities for members of the DMA Collective to meet, develop professional skills and build strong ties with other young researchers interested in similar research topics. The DMA Collective encourages leading

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

academics to share their experiences with the new generation of Design Management scholars through events, meetings and symposia. Our first workshop took place in Barcelona, Spain in June 2018. This is the first volume of proceedings resulting from the initiative. Stay tuned, there is more to come and we are excited to share a part of the journey with you.

You can revisit the program and speakers of the first workshop here at www.dmacollective.org DMA Collective Antonius, Ekaterina, Felipe, Nico, Stefanie & Stefano

Table of Contents Design Design and Practice Designer Shaping Future Society – Knowledge, Identity, Boundaries and Ethics, 13 BICKERT-APPLEBY, Svenja Bringing Pragmatistic Semiotics into Design Practices, 15 DOMINGUES, Felipe The Role of Idea Generation Techniques in the Design Process, 17 HAJIAMIRI, Milad How to Bring Human Values Into Design?, 19 KHEIRANDISH, Shadi Reimagining Users in an Era of Internet of Things, 21 NIEMANTSVERDRIET, Karin Multi-Disciplinary Research Design for Wellbeing: The Safety and Security Research by the University of Cincinnati Wellbeing Initiative, 23 WANG, Xi Experiential Design for Creativity in Sustainable Design, 25 WANICK, Vanissa The Interaction Designer in Multi-Stakeholder Building Projects, 27 van de WERFF, Thomas

Design and Innovation Emotion-Driven Innovation – a Methodology, 32 ALANIZ, Teresa Design Innovation in the Renewable Energy Transition, 34 BRYANT, Scott Design for Crossing Boundaries to Develop New Services, 36 CANIK, Yasemin Designing for the Valley of Death, 38 KLITSIE, Joannes Barend Unleashing the Innovation Potential of Fuzzy Ideas, 40 LECUNA, Alejandro Inquiry and Innovation in Design Research, 43 NUSEM, Erez Design Against Crime Thinking to Reduce Shrinkage in Retail Industry, 45 PARIVAR, Meg Service Design Support of Grassroots Transitions Governance, 47 SANDHU, Jamie Towards a Pattern Language for Innovation Spaces, 49 THORING, Katja Mapping Design Methods in European Policy Labs, 52 VAZ, Federico

Management Design and Business Strategy Does Method Matter? Nudging Organizational Transformation, 56 AUGSTEN, Andrea Viability Management in Strategic Design: Early Insights, 59 AZABAGIC, Nermin Sustainable Business Model Design, 61 BALDASSARRE, Brian Tracing Institutional Isomorphism in Design Services, 64 HEESBEEN, Johannes Willem Roles of Design that Leverage Shared Value, 66 KIM, Kyulee Analogical Reasoning in Design and Strategic Decision-Making, 68 KOTINA, Ekaterina Methods Behind the Strategic Design of Digital Channels Engagements, 70 STRAKER, Karla

Product Development – Traditional Design Fostering Middle Easternness with Brand Visual Aesthetics, 74 BUSCHGENS, Mark Alexander Designing Product Appearance to Facilitate Consumers’ Comprehension of RNPs, 76 CHENG, Peiyao Product-Service System Design, a Synthesis Approach, 78 DEWIT, Ivo Technology Steering: Discovering Quiescent Meanings in Technologies, 82 MAGISTRETTI, Stefano Using Serious Games to Guide Commercial Success, 84 O'SULLIVAN, Michael Managing New Product Development Teams, 86 ROHAERT, Sarah Product Evolution Across the Valley of Death, 88 ROTHKÖTTER, Stefanie Trigger as Product Language of Users in Everyday Design, 90 KIM, Soyoung

Design

Design and Practice

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Designer Shaping Future Society – Knowledge, Identity, Boundaries and Ethics BICKERT-APPLEBY, Svenja Loughborough University, United Kingdom mail@designfutures.de

Design as a mode for social and environmental transformation has a long tradition. Horst Rittel, Herbert Simon and Victor Papanek pointed out the impact of design on our environment and therewith on our day to day lives and emphasized the key role design and designers play in it. The history and theory of participatory design and social design (Manzini, 2015) show the increasing power and impact of design. With more projects and sectors involving designers in their work and more application of design methods and thinking within, it is very timely to critically reflect on the role, identity, knowledge, impact, boundaries and ethics of designers shaping society through work that addresses and impacts current social, environmental and political conditions. Specific schools for problem- and context-conscious design practice, such as transformation design (Jonas et al., 2015; Sommer & Welzer, 2016), transition design (Irwin, 2015), metadesign (Wood, 2013) or the Theory U (Scharmer, 2015), take as a central premise the need for societal transitions to more sustainable futures and argue that design has a key role to play in these transitions (Tonkinwise, n.d.). These new design practices are not classified by Fallman (2003) as conservative, romantic or pragmatic. It will be part of the research to define and compare what kind of knowledge (objective; subjective) is used and if the production of design knowledge comes from individual skill or from social participation. Therefore, the focus in this research is on the role, knowledge, skills, mindset, agency and identity of the designer supporting transitions efforts. The proposal builds on insights from the author’s professional experience gained as a service designer in the public and private sector in UK and Germany and as an innovation consultant involved in social and sustainably concerned innovation projects. It highlights emergent, under-researched trends in current and future professional design practice at the intersection of design, society culture and organizations. The approach is pragmatic, practice based and design-led. A trend towards openness and experimentation in organizations across sectors and a general turn towards the social in the design sphere have led to a sharp increase in the use of design and design methods to tackle complex societal problems. Yet despite emerging theoretical approaches and increasing practice impacts, there has been little critical and comparative research showing how theory and practice are intertwined and what kind of design practice is needed to support these transdisciplinary societal transformation efforts—new transition design approaches or pragmatic design practices? How can we as designer with our very own, differentiating and inherent skills, knowledge and mindset valuably contribute to and support much needed transdisciplinary societal transformation efforts—without being wielded as an omnipotent problem solver for global crisis? Assessing opportunities and boundaries of design practice in supporting transdisciplinary societal transformation, while comparing pragmatic design practices and new transition design approaches. The research will include a literature review and the conduction, assessment and comparison of two case studies involving designer working on large-scale social transformation challenges applying transition design approaches versus two case studies where designer are applying pragmatic design practices. I will distill lessons and guidelines for designer, manager and politicians that are more transparent and humble about the value and limitations of a designer’s work in transdisciplinary transformation projects, while differentiating between these two different strands of design practice. Related questions: 1. What are the emerging theoretical frameworks in design for complex challenges that can be used to analyse design practice with the aim of supporting societal transformations? 2. How can we build on history/tradition of design as a mode for social and environmental transformation 3. Which ethical guidelines and specific mind-set is the work of this designer aligned with? (problematic of north, south perspective) 4. How and where can this new design effort be deployed in order to have an impact on society 5. What evidence is needed to track the impact of design for societal transformation? 6. How can design and transformation processes be defined and analysed? This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

7. What lessons can be learned from projects that failed and from those who had a tracked positive impact? 8. How does the outcome of envisioned change look like? What are markers? 9. Where does the work in e.g. transition design start or end? How are transition phases into design for societal transformation are indicated? 10. How does a collective design agency, e.g., in transition design (Garcia i Mateu), differ from the single designer’s agency and role?

References

Fallmann, D. (2003, April). Design-oriented Human—Computer Interaction [PDF file]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '03, 225–232. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/642611.642652 Garcia i Mateu, A. (2018, Feburary 15) Design in Transition, Transition Design [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://transitiondesign.net/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Design-in-Transition-Transition-Design_EINA_Garcia-iMateu.pdf Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and Research. The Journal of the Design Studies Forum, 7(2). Jonas J., Zerwas S. & Von Ansheim, K. (Eds.) (2015). Transformation Design – Perspectives on a New Design Attitude. 1st ed. Basel: Birkhäuser. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs. An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Scharmer, C. O. (2015). Theorie U von der Zukunft her führen – Presencing als soziale Technik (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag. Sommer, B., & Welzer, H. (2017). Transformationsdesign: Wege in eine zukunftsfähige Moderne. München: Oekom Tonkinwise, C. (2018, Feburary 15). Design’s (Dis)Orders & Transition Design. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@camerontw/designs-dis-orders-transition-design- cd53c3ad7d35 Wood, J. (2013). Re-languaging the creative: Designing as a comprehensive act of combination [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1386/jwcp.6.1.59_1

About the Author Svenja Bickert-Appleby is a designer and innovation consultant, researcher and entrepreneur, founder of New Order Design, Solostücke—circular kids’ fashion and MySocialCity—city laboratory in Germany. Her work focuses on projects that add value to society using design methods and frameworks that enable people and organization to contribute to a shift towards societal transformation.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Bringing Pragmatistic Semiotics into Design Practices DOMINGUES, Felipe State University of Minas Gerais, Brazil felipe.domingues@uemg.br

This study brings into discussion possibilities of employment of Pragmatistic Semiotics into early phases of designfacts—industrial goods and services—development (cf. Domingues, 2018). Regardless of the advancements of Industrial Design (cf. ICSID, 2015), the field of design research is still being considered as a groundless field (Borja de Mozota, 2014; Deni, 2015; Findeli, 2014; Wolfgang, 2000). In this context, the importance of this study relates to providing theoretical and technical support to the analytical stages of design-facts’ development by introducing the pragmatistic dimension into design practices. This dimension relates to senses and plausible design consequences that emerge from the design-agents’ rationale. However, how to precisely access, identify and analyze pragmatistic features—interpretative answers and practical consequences—that emerge when design-facts are launched worldwide? The focus lies on gaining insight into mediation processes and their outcomes from the perspective of Peirce’s notion of sense and Eco’s understanding of functions. Mediation processes are subjective and embedded in the relationship established among customers and design-facts. As such, the senses/functions of any design-fact are associated with all possible interpretative answers and practical consequences derived from the social and individual responses they produce (cf. Peirce, 5.401). Consequently, “seeing functions from the semiotic point of view might permit one to understand and define them better […] and thereby to discover other types of functionality, which […] a straight functionalist interpretation keeps one from perceiving” (Eco, 1980, p. 12). Hence, they should be investigated in contexts of use—non-controlled environments—and under behavioral circumstances through the employment of specific research techniques. Even though design practices inherently attempt to cope with symbolic and cultural features (cf. Krippendorf, 2006; Zingale, 2012), the applied use of semiotics within design practices has remained incipient (cf. Deni, 2015). However, the use of design semiotics as a foundation to enhance design practices seems to be neglected or misused, especially when one considers that design semiotics copes with our world of signs, which are strongly associated with the ways users make and negotiate senses of design-facts (cf. Vossoughi, 2013). In this context, the development of a Methodological Research Framework (MRF) aiming at introducing the pragmatistic approach into design practices, may contribute to developing specialized design skills and culture (cf. Expert Design [Manzini, 2016]). The investigation was divided into three correlated stages: Theoretical (M.Sc./Management), Empirical (M.Sc./Design), and Theoretical-Empirical (PhD/Design). The Theoretical Stage consisted primarily of pinpointing gaps in Design Semiotics. In response to such absence of systematic contributions to design semiotics, two theoretical models were developed—The Target Model and The Hanger Model. The Empirical Stage, supported by ethnographic techniques, drew on an exploratory investigation funded by Whirlpool Latin America in partnership with the FAPEMIG. The Theoretical-Empirical Stage aimed at concluding the MRF. As outcomes, the previous investigations and results led to theoretical advancements such as The Propeller Model and The Trefoil Model (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Trefoil Model. Source: Adapted from Domingues (2018).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

In conclusion, the entire investigation attempts to introduce systematicity into Design Semiotics Research. Its contributions are expected to assist processes of attribution of intangible features in (Co-)Design Practices and Design Management. Furthermore, are we facing the development of the Design Pragmatistic Thinking?

References Domingues, F. (2018). Pragmatism within design practices: A proposal of paradigm shift in design semiotics research. (Doctoral thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy). Borja De Mozota, B. (2014). Notes from the lecture Humanities as design knowledge in the design process. Politecnico di Milano, Department of Design, Humanities Design Network. Deni, M. (2015). For a history of semiotics of design projects. Proceedings of the European Academy of Design, France, 11. Eco, U. (1980). Function and sign: The semiotics of architecture. In G. Broadbent, Richard, B., & J. Charles (Eds.), Signs, symbols and architecture (pp. 11–69). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Findeli, A. (2014). Notes from the lecture Some epistemological aspects of design research. Politecnico di Milano, Department of Design, Laboratory of Innovation and Research about Interior. ICSID. (2015). Definition of Industrial Design. Retrieved from http://www.icsid.org/about/definition/ Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Florida: CRC Press. Manzini, E. (2016). Design in the transition phase: A new design culture for the emerging design. Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 57–62. Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vossoughi, S. (2013). A survival guide for the age of meaning. In R. Martin & K. Christensen (Eds.), Rotman on design: The best on Design Thinking from Rotman Magazine (pp. 55–59). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wolfgang, J. (2000). The paradox endeavour to design a foundation for a groundless field. Proceedings of the International Conference on Design Education, 12/2000, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. Retrieved from http://home.snafu.de/jonasw/JONAS4-54.html Zingale, S. (2012). Interpretazione e progetto: Semiotica dell'inventiva [Interpretation and project: Semiotics of inventiveness]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

About the Author Felipe Domingues. PhD in Design Research (Politecnico di Milano, Italy), Master in Design, Master in Management (MSc), Specialist in Higher Education, Specialist in Marketing, Bachelor of Communications. Research fellow at State University of Minas Gerais (UEMG), Editor-in-Chief at EdUEMG (University Press), lecturer and workshop instructor for the advanced design section of Whirlpool Latin America (20102013/Brazil). Among other awards, Domingues has received the Jeanne Liedtka Award for Emerging Researchers at the Design Management Academy Conference 2017 (Hong Kong, China). Interested in Design Semiotics, Design Education and Research Methodology in Design Semiotics.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

The Role of Idea Generation Techniques in the Design Process HAJIAMIRI, Milad Middle East Technical University, Turkey miladhamiri@gmail.com

Managing the ideation phase in the design process has always been challenging and crucial both for new product or service developers in industry (Sowrey, 1990; Alam, 2006) and for students in their design studio projects. There are several strategies for fostering creativity in early phases of the design process, known as Idea Generation Techniques (IGT) (Smith, 1998). Since IGTs have been indispensable part of the design process (Korkut & Doğan, 2010; Börekçi, 2017; Börekçi, 2015; Umulu 2017; Van der Lugt, 2005), it has motivated a study to find answers to the following questions: What are the roles that IGTs play in the design process? How important are the IGTs for the design process? To what extent are the practitioners of IGTs satisfied with available techniques? This paper presents an exploratory study, which aims to identify and describe the role of IGTs in the design process from the perspective of IGTs practitioners. The study comprises two parts. The first part includes interviews with two industrial design tutors who have applied various IGTs in their design education practice. The interviews focused on the tutors’ previous experiences with IGTs. The data was analysed by using the qualitative content analysis method (Cole, 1988). The tutors’ quotes were coded and grouped under four headings: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Quality of IGTs, Expected learning outcomes from employing IGTs, Advantages of employing IGTs, Disadivantages of employing IGTs.

In the second part of the study, these headings were used to develop main discussion topics for two focus group sessions; the researcher moderated discussions in each session, which included three senior year industrial design students who practiced various IGTs in their design studio courses. The findings were visualized as a cognitive map to illustrate the attributes of IGTs from the perspective of students and tutors. The findings indicate that IGTs have four key attributes: IGTs encourage externalization of ideas When designers have insufficient skills or knowledge in thinking with drawing (Tovey, 2012), IGTs encourage them to utilize drawing not only in visualizing their thoughts, but also in generating new ideas. IGTs also ensure the documentation of ideas which may be underestimated because they are considered as too simple or the first thing that comes to one’s mind. IGTs facilitate the management of the design process Generating diverse ideas helps designers to manage their time and effort efficiently so that there is enough time for other phases such as evaluating and detailing. IGTs encourage suspension of judgment Suspension of judgment is a cognitive process especially practiced during the ideation phase of the design process; it supports the flow of ideas and prevents premature judgment (De Bono, 2010). IGTs improve problem definition skills IGTs assist designers not only in generating new ideas but also in framing the design problem. The ability to frame or reframe, the problem and objective is one of the core design skills (Moggridge, 2007). In order to search for answers to the second and third research questions, a further study will be conducted to investigate the importance and practitioners’ satisfaction level concerning the attributes identified in this study (Martilla, 1977).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

References

Alam, I. (2006). Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Industrial marketing management, 35(4), 468–480. Börekçi, N. A. G. Z. (2017). Visual Thinking Styles and Idea Generation Strategies Employed in Visual Brainstorming Sessions. Design and Technology Education, 22(1), 19. Börekçi, N. A. G. Z. (2015). Usage of design thinking tactics and idea generation strategies in a brainstorming session. Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 32(2), 1–17. Cole, F.L. (1988). Content analysis: process and application. Clinical Nurse Specialist 2(1), 53–57. De Bono, E. (2010). Lateral thinking: a textbook of creativity: Penguin UK, 105–116. Korkut, F., & Doğan, Ç, (2010), My Dear Monster Friends: Matrix as an Emotionally Rich Generative Design Tool. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Design & Emotion (CD) ISBN: 978-0-615-40666-4. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea-Generation Techniques: A Formulary of Active Ingredients. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(2), 107–134. Sowrey, T. (1990). Idea generation: Identifying the most useful techniques. European Journal of Marketing, 24(5), 20–29. Tovey, M., (2012). The passport to practice. In Garner, S., & Evans, C. (Eds.) Design and Designing: A Critical Introduction. (pp. 5–19). London: Berg. Umulu, S. (2017). Developing a co-design method for eliciting children’s needs and preferences in the context of industrial design education. Master of Science thesis, METU Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara. Van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122.

About the Author Milad Hajiamiri. PhD Candidate, received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Middle East Technical University. He worked for Nergiz Group on production of the interior furniture of Capital Hill Residence designed by Zaha Hadid Architects for two years. Currently he is an instructor at Karabük University Department of Industrial Design.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

HuValue, a Tool to Enrich Design Concepts with Human Values KHEIRANDISH, Shadi Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands s.kheirandish@tue.nl

Introduction

Despite the significance of human values in everyday life, only few design approaches concentrate on human values, and there is even little agreement between them to identify values. Accordingly, this research by asking “how to help designers with a tool enrich design concepts with human values?” intends to support designers with a tool bringing human values consciously and explicitly into their design process. The core assumption in this study is that a wide and deep view on human values and facilitating using this concept in practice would help designers to address human values in their design.

Theoretical Framework

According to Rokeach, human values are enduring beliefs that indicate what is important and preferable for people in personal and social life. Value Sensitive Design, Value-led Participatory Design, and Value-Centred Design are the only design approaches that concentrate on human values; However, without an established and accepted fundamental grounding. Schwartz’s value framework is the recent and most popular model that is cited widely in different disciplines. Nevertheless, its value grouping does not address all aspect of life. In this respect, Dooyeweerd’s Theory of Modal aspects introduces nine aspects of reality relevant to values and norms.

Methodology

After a literature review on human values studies in design, business management and social sciences over the last century, we conducted an empirical study worldwide to cluster extended version of Schwartz’s list of values into value groups applying descriptive statistics. This value grouping layout was the main skeleton of our value framework. Using the reviewed theories and also feedback from design students, the framework was developed during several design iterations in interaction with design students and formed our tool. After finalizing the tool, an experimental study was conducted to test the applicability and effectiveness of the tool using inferential statistics.

Research Findings

In this research, we proposed a comprehensive value framework to raise designers’ awareness about human values; and a card-based design tool, called HuValue, containing a value wheel, 45 value words and 207 picture cards to facilitate using the value framework in a design process. Using this tool enables designers to be aware and sensitive to human values and consider various aspects of their topic and different types of values, even if they personally do not value them. Applying this tool during a design process, as evidenced by an experimental study, is effective for enriching design concepts with human values.

References

Dooyeweerd, H. (1955). A new critique of theoretical thought. Volume 2. The general theory of the modal spheres. H. J. Paris. Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63–125. Iversen, O. S., Halskov, K., & Leong, T. W. (2012). Value-led Participatory Design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 8(2-3), 87–105. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press. Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

About the Author Shadi Kheirandish studied Industrial Design at the Art University of Tehran, where she achieved the First Rank in both levels of bachelor and master, and also won the Research Week Award for the best thesis in industrial design. She is currently studying as a PhD candidate at Eindhoven University of Technology and researches how to address human values in design.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Reimagining Users in an Era of Internet of Things NIEMANTSVERDRIET, Karin Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands k.niemantsverdriet@tue.nl

With the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigms broadly catching ground, the nature of everyday technologies is changing: technologies are becoming ubiquitous and blend into environments, everyday artifacts are infused with cognition, and the setup of systems can be changed on the spot because of their ability to dynamically connect to different input and output devices (e.g., Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010; Loke & Ling, 2004). This has interesting consequences for the designers and developers of such technologies. In particular, the traditional view on the user as a person who controls the technology no longer holds. For example, in these contemporary systems people can be impacted by the output of the system without being able to interact directly, or can interact without being impacted by the result. As a result, the traditional user-centered interaction design tools need to be extended. In this research, we collaborate with Philips Lighting to investigate the consequences for interaction design of one particular new complex use case: shared use. We define shared use as a situation in which interaction by one person can have an impact on others and we investigate how people interact with systems that are shared in use—e.g., how do people coordinate shared use? How are new social norms established around technology use?—and how design practitioners can design for a better experience of shared use—e.g., how do design decisions influence coordination and norms around sharing? To answer such questions, we use a combination of theory and real-life insights. We take an explorative design-oriented approach, where we systematically design new interactions based on theories from social psychology and CSCW (e.g., on situation awareness [Endsley, 1995; Gutwin & Greenberg, 2002], conflict [Deutsch, 1977; Easterbrook et al., 1993; Thomas, 1992], and decision-making [Lichtenstein & Slovic, 2006; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993]). By comparing these interactions during shared use, we can identify the relation between interaction design decisions and sharing behavior, and thus translate the background theory to contemporary IoT scenarios. Since short-term observations of individuals in a controlled setting do not explain social real-world situations well (Grudin, 1994; Rogers, 2011), we compare the interactions longitudinally in real-life situations. In our most recent study, we compared three interfaces for an open-plan office lighting system. By observing longitudinal shared use of the interfaces (4,5 months divided over two sessions, 31 participants, and resulting in over 1500 interactions), we identified relations between interaction style and the amount of verbal communication to coordinate sharing, the extent to which people took others into consideration, and in the perceived level of accountability during interaction. From the parallels between the study results and background literature (especially, Ajzen, 1991; Endsley, 1995; Neisser, 1976), we have developed a new model that can be used to design interactions with IoT systems that are potentially shared in use (Figure 1). The model forms one example of a tool that can support design practitioners in taking more complex use cases surrounding IoT systems into consideration.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Figure 1. One of the primary outcomes of this research is the explorationaction model, which describes how people interact with systems that are shared in use. The model can be used by interaction designers to identify who the actors are in the system, whether attention to shared use is required, and how the interface can better support sharing.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179– 211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The Internet of Things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010. Deutsch, M. (1977). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. Yale University Press. Easterbrook, S. M., Beck, E. E., Goodlet, J. S., Plowman, L., Sharples, M., & Wood, C. C. (1993). A Survey of Empirical Studies of Conflict. In CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict?, S. M. Easterbrook (ed.). Springer-Verlag, London, 1–68. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-1981-4_1 Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32–64. Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. Commun. ACM 37(1), 93–105. doi:10.1145/175222.175230 Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supportive Cooperative Work, 11(3–4), 411–446. doi:10.1023/A:1021271517844 Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.) (2006). The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press. Loke, S.W., & Ling, S. (2004). Analyzing Observable Behaviours of Device Ecology Workflows. In Proceedings 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2004), 1–7. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: principles and implications of cognitive psychology. W.H. Freeman. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press. Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions, 18(4), 58–62. doi:10.1145/1978822.1978834. Thomas, K.W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.

About the Author Karin Niemantsverdriet is a PhD Candidate at the department of Industrial Design of the Eindhoven University of Technology. In her research, she investigates how to design interactions with IoT systems that are shared in use—i.e., where either multiple people can input to the system, or where the output of the system is shared amongst multiple people. 22

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Multi-Disciplinary Research Design for Wellbeing: the Safety and Security Research by the University of Cincinnati Wellbeing Initiative WANG, Xi

Jiangnan University, China 30daxi@gmail.com

Objective The purpose of this paper is examining the challenges involved in the multi-disciplinary design research for safety and security issue in the University of Cincinnati, arguing that multi-disciplinary design research combining qualitative and quantitative analysis can seek perception gaps for the sake of wicked problem-solving.

Methods The team approached the safety and security research project from a human-centered and knowledge-based perspective. In keeping with its multi-disciplinary nature, the team analyzed the issues of safety and security using multiple approaches. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed.

Results The use of multiple streams of data, from free listing and individual interviews to photovoice and subjective mapping, allowed the team to approach perceptions of safety and security from various angles. Several key themes emerged simultaneously from this data: the importance of the environment to perceptions of safety, deficiencies in university communications, and differences in resource use.

Limitation The results of the present project are limited by some logistical and methodological issues.

Conclusion

A well-structured multi-disciplinary design research team, a meticulously designed project process and combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods could trace perception gaps between individuals, individual and institution, institutions. Potential opportunities to build a safer university and surrounding community exist in the triangulation between research, education, and collaboration. Continued research is essential to adding onto the initial findings from our present study, as additional research could more deeply examine the problematic areas that we have identified: perception of safety, communication disconnect, and gaps in resource awareness and use.

References Maslow, A. H. (1943). Dynamics of personality organization. I. Psychological Review, 50(5), 514. Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel Modeling, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. London: A Sage University Paper Series. Kramer, L., Schwartz, P., Cheadle, A., Borton, J. E., Wright, M., Chase, C., & Lindley, C. (2010). Promoting policy and environmental change using photovoice in the Kaiser Permanente Community Health Initiative. Health Promotion Practice, 11(3), 332–339. Carlson, E. D., Engebretson, J., & Chamberlain, R. M. (2006). Photovoice as a social process of critical consciousness. Qualitative health research, 16(6), 836–852. Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 117. Luk, S. T., & Layton, R. (2002). Perception Gaps in customer expectations: Managers versus service providers and customers. Service Industries Journal, 22(2), 109–128. Birkinshaw, J., Holm, U., Thilenius, P., & Arvidsson, N. (2000). Consequences of perception gaps in the headquarters– subsidiary relationship. International Business Review, 9(3), 321–344. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage. Haggerty, J. L., Reid, R. J., Freeman, G. K., Starfield, B. H., Adair, C. E., & McKendry, R. (2003). Continuity of care: A multidisciplinary review. BMJ, 327(7425), 1219–1221.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Flor, H., Fydrich, T., & Turk, D. C. (1992). Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review. Pain, 49(2), 221–230. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the learning sciences, 13(1), 15–42. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning sciences, 11(1), 105–121. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 37–56. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 159–190. Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3). Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Browne, M. A., Andrews, G., & Whiteford, H. (2009). 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: methods and key findings. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(7), 594–605. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape and urban planning, 65(1-2), 19–30. Thompson Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear, R., Barton, J., & Depledge, M. H. (2011). Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environmental science & technology, 45(5), 1761–1772.

About the Author Xi (Cece) Wang is a design researcher, educator, and practitioner focusing on User Experience Design, Multidiscipline Design Research, and Healthcare Design. She is a PhD of design graduate from the Jiangnan University supervised by Professor Xiangyang Xin under the direction of knowledge visualization in healthcare shared decision making. And also, she worked as a research assistant at the University of Cincinnati with Professor Craig M. Vogel from 2014 to 2016.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Experiential Design for Creativity in Sustainable Design WANICK, Vanissa University of Southampton, United Kingdom v.w.vieira@soton.ac.uk

Background

Sustainability has been a global priority; however, we are still working our way to achieve effective sustainable practices (e.g., resource availability, clean energy, circular economy). We are living an era of transition, which requires new ideas to solve social and environmental problems. Hence, creativity is a key aspect towards sustainability. Research in the area of sustainable design focuses on innovations towards products, processes and organisations, particularly through eco-design, life-cycle analysis, supply chain management and eco-efficiency (Klewitz & Hansen, 2014). Thus, the involvement of stakeholders and consumers is crucial during the process of sustainable design (Ayuso, Ángel Rodríguez, García-Castro, & Ángel Ariño, 2011), particularly regarding their participation and creative outputs in product development. This sustainable transition has also been pushed by digital transformations, informing designers through data and democratising the digital space. This involves consumer participation in product development in virtual spaces (Ernst, Hoyer, Krafft, & Soll, 2017) and the creation of collaborative services using mobile phones, like sharing goods with neighbours1.

Problem description In this research, a sustainable design process is considered as a process that has the circular economy and life-cycle thinking as its core, as well as its participatory mindset. This raises the challenge of managing diversity and interdisciplinary of different participants (Kim, Kim, & Wilde, 2010). Also, this participation could occur in the virtual world, which gives it another layer of complexity. Creativity can also be enhanced by hybrid technologies (Arnab, 2017) and experiential design, like living labs (Pallot & Pawar, 2012). Playful thinking is also a strategy in the circular economy methodology2. However, what does it mean to be playful and what are the main dynamics that could evoke creativity for sustainable practices? Can technology augment this participation? Design and play have a connection and play has been present in design approaches through participatory techniques, such as participatory games in co-design (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Also, in participatory design, it is crucial to understand the roles of values and dynamics among stakeholders. Therefore, the main problem that this research covers is the management of creativity in participatory design in order to design new sustainable ideas for product development. Considering this, the question that inspired this research is: What are the best practices for the utilisation of playful thinking in creativity for participatory design in sustainable design? The main objectives related to this research are to: 1) comprehend the roles of values and dynamics among stakeholders during participatory design in product development mediated by technology; 2) develop creative thinking methods for innovative sustainable actions within organisations and communities through techniques that encompass user engagement, playful thinking and participatory actions.

Methodology

This research will undertake the following steps: literature review of the themes (creativity, experiential design, participatory design and sustainable design, which is in early stages); expert interviews (designers, consumers/users); toolkit development and testing; workshops (with stakeholders and consumers).

Expected results This research aims to explore co-creation and collaboration within participatory techniques (including games/play) and creative toolkits using different dynamics for sustainable practices. This research is in its early stages and it has been developed after several discussions with academics. We believe this research could benefit entrepreneurs, SMEs and eventually policy makers, which will be our main focus (stakeholders).

http://www.temacucar.com/ https://www.circulardesignguide.com/methods

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

References Arnab S. (2017), Playful and Gameful Learning in a Hybrid Space. In: Vaz de Carvalho C., Escudeiro P., Coelho A. (eds.) Serious Games, Interaction and Simulation. SGAMES 2016. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol. 176. Springer, Cham, pp. 9–14. doi:10.1007/978-3319-51055-2_2 Ayuso, S., Ángel Rodríguez, M., García-Castro, R., & Ángel Ariño, M. (2011). Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(9), 1399–1417. doi:10.1108/02635571111182764. Ernst, H., Hoyer, W., Krafft, M., & Soll, J.-H. (2017). Virtual Co-Creation with Customers in the Early Stages of New Product Development. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3053800. Kim, Y. S., Kim, M. S., & Wilde, D. J. (2010). Toward the Management of Design Creativity: Personal Creativity Modes, Design Activity, and Team Interaction. Design Management Journal, 3(2), 45–52. doi:10.1111/j.19487177.2008.tb00013.x. Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75. doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.07.017. Pallot, M., & Pawar, K. (2012). A holistic model of user experience for living lab experiential design. In 2012 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (pp. 1–15). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICE.2012.6297648. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.

About the Author Vanissa Wanick holds a PhD in design (University of Southampton, UK), MBA in Marketing (UFF, Brazil), and a BA (Hons) in Design (PUC-Rio, Brazil). Currently, she is a researcher and teaching fellow at the University of Southampton, teaching and researching design research methods, creativity, games, culture and sustainable design.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

The Interaction Designer in Multi-Stakeholder Building Projects van de WERFF, Thomas Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands t.c.f.v.d.werff@tue.nl

Following the Internet of Things (IoT) trend, office lighting systems are becoming connected, potentially bringing new value to its end-users (e.g., people can tailor the light to their needs, and maintenance knows exactly which device to replace). This trend is expected to have a disruptive effect on the office lighting value chain, and companies will need to adjust their processes to be able to deliver new services fitting to the new paradigm. In our project, as part of European project with leading companies in lighting, silicon & IoT, we explore how the value chains need to change to open up the benefits of IoT to the end-user. We approach this from a design perspective and formulate our research question as What is the role of the interaction designer in future value networks of IoT office lighting? We approach this question in two ways: from a stakeholder perspective, and from an interaction design perspective. With the stakeholder perspective we investigate how stakeholders can change their roles within the office lighting value chain to be able to bring the value of IoT lighting systems to the end-users. We apply methods from innovation design (den Ouden, 2012; den Ouden & Brankaert, 2013) in order to model the stakeholder network and to define potential impact on this network. We conducted 28 interviews with professionals within the European office lighting value chain, resulting in 629 scenarios. The scenarios were categorized in four perspectives on impact (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Four perspectives on impact of the Internet of Lighting, their key drivers and potential impacts.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Also, we have introduced the layered value network model: a tool to evaluate value chains and model value networks (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The office lighting value chain in the Layered Value Network Model.

Stakeholders are positioned according to their value to the end-user and their involvement in four phases of the build project: design, bid, build, and use phase. By using the perspectives on impact, we have defined potential points of impact and imagined a future value network that brings in new stakeholders, and changes stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; role and involvement throughout the lifecycle of the system. Currently we are reassessing the impact with stakeholders in two projects that deliver state-of-the-art IoT lighting solutions to evaluate the validity and to refine the envisioned value network. With the interaction design perspective, we explore the future role of the interaction designer within the multistakeholder projects delivering interactive building systems. We evaluate innovative user interfaces for office lighting systems longitudinally and in the field, using an in the wild approach (Rogers, 2011), and we define distinct effects of interface characteristics on the user experience. For example, a visible central interface evokes shared interactions and discussion, as opposed to a distributed phone application. Next to this, in a recent publication we have investigated coordination of shared use of an office lighting and present design considerations for designers of lighting interfaces to support coordination of use. Currently we are investigating how the end-user experience with is impacted by the decisions made throughout the delivery project. By combining these two approaches, we explore the future role of the interaction designer within the IoT office lighting value network with the aim to bring the benefits of connected lighting to the end-user.

References den Ouden, E. (2012). Innovation Design. London: Springer London. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2268-5 den Ouden, E. & Brankaert, R. (2013). Designing new ecosystems the value flow model. In C. de Bont, E. den Ouden, R. Schifferstein, F. Smulders, & M. van der Vort (Eds.), Advanced design methods for successful innovation (pp. 187â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 206), Design United. Retrieved from http://www.3tu.nl/du/en/downloads/ADM-2013-Book-screen-version.pdf Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions, 18(4), 58â&#x20AC;&#x201C;62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978834

About the Author Thomas van de Werff is a PhD Candidate at the Future Everyday group at the Eindhoven University of Technology. His project investigates how the Internet of Things trend impacts future role of the interaction design practitioner in construction projects. In particular his work focuses on the user-experience with interactive building systems.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Design

Design and Innovation

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Emotion-Driven Innovation – a Methodology ALANIZ, Teresa University of Padova mariateresa.alaniznavarro@phd.unipd.it

Designers are aware that apart from product style, what is important to users are the emotional and symbolic values of a product (Dell’Era, 2007; Verganti, 2003). Also, a product that offers positive experiences can amplify product purchase intentions and consequently affect the business impact. It is already known that developing products aimed to provoke unusual emotions for the type of product they belong can enhance design innovation (Desmet, Fokkinga, Ozkaramanli, & Yoon, 2016). But, how might the knowledge of emotions effectively impulse a product towards innovation? The interest in the relation of products and emotion knowledge demands pragmatic approaches to support companies in their project development processes; however, the state-of-the-art of tools aimed to support emotion-focused projects exposes some difficulties, such as: a) lack of tools helping to develop emotional granularity on designers and collaborators, b) absence of tools supporting early phases of design process, and c) lack of tools to transform the knowledge of emotions in product concept ideas by multidisciplinary teams (Alaniz & Biazzo, 2017). Within this context, our ambition is to create a practical and industrially relevant methodology to support companies in generating emotionally-focused product ideas; we have called it Emotion-Driven Innovation Methodology; it is structured in three phases: 1) Emotion Knowledge Acquisition, 2) Emotion Goal Definition and 3) Idea Generation. The creation of the methodology is the outcome of the first phase of a process research approach; a process research approach will let us develop and test processes. The project adopts the process research methodology proposed by Platts (1993) which is developed in three main steps. Step one corresponds to the creation of the process; to structure the phases of the process and define the corresponding tools. The process emerges from the challenges identified in the systematic literature review and from the collaboration with a review team; members of the review team were: a professor of the Management Engineering Department at the University of Padova, a business consultant and managers of operating companies. In order to understand the phenomenon of emotions in relation with products and to structure the methodology, it was necessary to conduct an interpretative study; the study was an observation of products and their emotion design factors in relation with a framework of positive emotions (Cross, 1999; Crotty, 1998; Gray, 2013). The second step is related to testing and refining the methodology created: it is intended to test the methodology with an action research method in real environments (design education and industrial practices) (Archer, 1995; Gray, 2013; Susman, 1978). The third step is aimed at validating the methodology and documenting its outcomes; it is planned to test the process through action research and collect data in a workbook form (Moultrie, Clarkson, & David, 2007). The last two steps will be part of descriptive studies carried out through structured workshops. One of the major implications of the project is to build a strong network of companies, design studios and design students, in order to perform a robust evaluation of the mentioned methodology.

References Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 6–13. Claudio Dell’Era, R. V. (2007). Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 580–599. Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage. Dell’Era, C., Buganza, T., Fecchio, C., & Verganti, R. (2011). Language Brokering: Stimulating Creativity during the Concept Development Phase. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(1), 36–48. Desmet, P., Fokkinga, S. F., Ozkaramanli, D., & Yoon, J. (2016). Emotion-Driven Product Design. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Emotion Measurement (pp. 405–426). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Karl Ulrich, S. E. (2011). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P. J., & David, P. (2007). Development of a design audit tool for SMEs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 335–368. Norman, D. (2003). Attractive things work better. Emotional design: Why we love or hate everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Platts, K. (1993). A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13, 4–17. Platts, K., Mills, J. F., Richards, A. H., Bourne, M., & D, N. A. (2001). Researching strategic management processes. In Twelfth Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society (POM-2001), 2001-3-30 to 2001-4-2, Orlando, FL, USA. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603. Verganti, R. (2003). Design as brokering of languages: Innovation strategies in Italian firms. Design Management Review, 14(3), 34–42. Verganti, R. (2009). Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Press. Yoon, J., Pohlmeyer, A. E., & Desmet, P. (2016). When ‘Feeling Good’ is not Good Enough: Seven Key Opportunities for Emotional Granularity in Product Development. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 1–15.

About the Author Teresa Alaniz is a design researcher with a background in industrial design and product development. She has experience in teaching Design for Experience and Development of Smart Things in higher education in Mexico. Now she is conducting a PhD in emotional design at the University of Padova (Italy) with the aim of creating a methodology to support emotion-focused projects.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Design Innovation in the Renewable Energy Transition BRYANT, Scott University of Sydney, Australia scott.t.bryant@gmail.com

In recent decades, the threat of climate change has led to an increasing push for the energy sector to develop sustainable business models to meet energy demand (Bierbaum & Matson, 2013). An increase in the uptake of renewables has resulted in decreasing viability of energy utility business models and a need for innovative solutions (Duncan, 2010). To-date research has focused on the market-level challenges (Nillessen & Pollitt, 2016; Nillessen, Pollitt & Witteler, 2014; Löbbe & Hackbarth, 2017; Bolton & Hannon, 2016) or the individual energy utility perspective (Richter, 2012; Richter, 2013), rather than the sector-wide challenge of how energy utility business models can be designed to remain viable with increasing levels of renewable energy. Design, as a methodology or dominant logic to help a firm engage with and comprehend consumer needs, has been identified as a mechanism to investigate such sectoral challenges (D’Ippolito, 2014; Norma & Stappers, 2015). However, there is currently no consensus as to how design contributes to business model innovation (Dong, 2015). It is in the context of these gaps regarding the future viability of energy sector business models, and the uncertain contribution of design to business model innovation, that the research attempts to contribute to the fields of design and energy by answering the question: What role can design play in the innovation of energy companies’ business models and states’ governance models to allow them to thrive as part of the renewable transition of the energy sector? The research will use a combination of primary (semi-structured interviews with energy sector organisations) and secondary data (company annual reports, sustainability reports; research papers on design and business model innovation). Content analyses (Boillat & Legner, 2013) of existing energy utility business model approaches, as identified from secondary data, and the role of design in business model innovation, are used to inform the interview questions. Results from primary data collection will be assessed via thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify how design can contribute to energy utility business model innovation and shape governments’ approaches to energy sector transitions. Initial findings in the first six months of research via content analyses of energy utility business models, and design and business model innovation respectively, suggest that little research has been conducted into the ability of energy utilities to innovate their business models to address the current and future impact of increasing renewable energy on their financial viability, or the role government could play in addressing this challenge. A review of the contribution of design to Business Model Innovation (BMI) found it to be a set of tools and methodologies that contributes to the desired BMI outcome, rather than an outcome of the BMI process. However, most authors appear to imply that the process of applying design tools and frameworks is proof enough that the output results in BMI, resulting in circular logic rather than verified results. It is the intention of the researcher to test this role as part of interview questioning with energy utilities.

References Bierbaum, R. M., & Matson, P. A. (2013). Energy in the context of sustainability. Daedalus, 142(1), 146–161. Boillat, T., & Legner, C. (2013). From on-premise software to cloud services: The impact of cloud computing on enterprise software vendors’ business models. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 8(3), 39–58. Bolton, R., & Hannon, M. (2016). Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Research Policy, 45(9), 1731–1742. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can thematic analysis offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1). doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152 D’Ippolito, B. (2014). The importance of design for firms’ competitiveness: A review of the literature. Technovation, 34(11), 716–730. Dong, A. (2015). Design× innovation: Perspective or evidence-based practices. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(3-4), 148–163. Duncan, R. (2010). Renewable energy and the utility: The next 20 years. Renewable Energy World, 2(3).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Löbbe, S., & Hackbarth, A. (2017). The Transformation of the German Electricity Sector and the Emergence of New Business Models in Distributed Energy Systems. In Reading, L. (Ed.), Innovation and Disruption at the Grid’s Edge (pp. 287–318). London, UK: Elsevier. Nillessen, P., & Pollitt, M. (2016). New Business Models for Utilities to Meet the Challenge of the Energy Transition. In Sioshansi, F. P. (Ed.), Future of Utilities, Utilities of the Future (pp. 283–301). Walnut Creek, CA: Elsevier. Nillessen, P., Pollitt, M., & Witteler, E. (2014). New Utility Business Model: A Global View. In Siohansi, F. P. (Ed.), Distributed Generation and its Implications for the Utility Industry (pp. 33-47). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Norman, D. A., & Stappers, P. J. (2015). DesignX: complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(2), 83–106. Richter, M. (2012). Utilities’ business models for renewable energy: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 2483–2493. Richter, M. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy. Energy Policy, 62(1), 1226–1237.

About the Author Scott Bryant. Combining a background in renewable energy, sustainability and the circular economy and experience with design and business model innovation, Scott’s research focus sits within the University of Sydney’s Design Lab. His research focuses on the role of design and business model innovation in the sustainable transition within the energy sector.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Design for Crossing Boundaries to Develop New Services CANIK, Yasemin Loughborough University London, UK y.canik@lboro.ac.uk

Research and Development (R&D) consortia projects are complex ecosystems in which knowledge is exchanged among individuals within and across organisations (Faisal, Chong, & Yee, 2017). Because of the complexity of these projects, consortia partners fail to deploy these projects together and some partners prefer closing their innovation processes during the deployment phase and source or sell the knowledge that engineers learn during R&D consortia projects (Omidvar, Edler, & Malik, 2017). One reason behind the complexity is that individuals undertaking these projects encounter pre-existing knowledge boundaries: pragmatic (lack of interest), semantic (lack of translation) and syntactic (lack of share) among each other (Dodgson, Gann, & Salter, 2007; Simeone, Secundo, & Schiuma, 2017). Simeone et al. (2017) highlight the relevance of design to cross aforementioned boundaries, such as designing a diagram to translate a technical process to other stakeholders so that knowledge would be still relevant, meaningful and interesting to others and call for further studies. To contribute to this field, this PhD research investigates the role of design for crossing aforementioned knowledge boundaries to develop new services throughout R&D consortia projects. Aforementioned boundaries are linked to tacit nature of knowledge (Du Plessis, 2007; Holste & Fields, 2010; Lawson & Lorenz, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), which is hidden on the actions, emotions, educational background, natural talent and experiences of individuals undertaking the innovation processes (Kikoski & Kikoski, 2004; Koskinen & Vanharanta, 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Seidler-de Alwis & Hartmann, 2008). Pragmatic boundaries mean that individual knowledge is unknown, and there is no interest of sharing it among individuals; semantic boundaries occur in the situations that individual knowledge is a combination of tacit and explicit and some meanings are missing because of its tacitness; syntactic boundaries happen when individual knowledge is almost known, but it is not shared with others (Carlile, 2002). Managing knowledge respectively involves transforming, translating and transferring knowledge mitigated by pragmatic (models/prototypes, maps), semantic (forms and templates) and syntactic (repositories such as e-mails) boundary objects (Carlile, 2002; Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003; Jalonen, 2011; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009; Star, 1989). Regarding mitigation of these boundaries in semantic level, the recent literature highlights the role of design for translating knowledge among partners (Acha, 2008; Beath, Poyago-Theotoky, & Ulph, 1998; Christiansen, Gasparin, & Varnes, 2003; Tushman, Lakhani, & Lifshitz-Assaf, 2012). However, little attention is given to how design supports knowledge management and new studies are needed to investigate this (Westerlund & Leminen 2011). This research contributes to the knowledge gap by mapping the role of design to develop new services during R&D consortia projects in three levels: design actors, design activities and design artefacts through a conceptual framework based on the integrative framework of Carlile (2002). This is the second year of PhD research that data collection has been undertaken since February 2018 through an exploratory study within an industrial partner. The industrial partner is an R&D institute specialising in the automotive industry for the manufacturing sector that collaborates with partners to undertake R&D consortia projects and develops new services by acquiring knowledge during R&D consortia projects. The data collection will continue till the end of October 2018. So far, through a structured research protocol developed from the literature, a longitudinal ethnographic approach has been undertaken to explore individuals within the R&D institute, its partners and customers. Data has been collected through observations, documents, semi-structured and in-depth interviews. The observation has been done by shadowing employees, activities and boundary objects (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007). Semi-structured and indepth interviews have been conducted. The data will be analysed by using Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 1996) to outline the interactions between individuals and tools to undertake activities to cross three knowledge boundaries.

References

Acha, V. (2008). Open by design: The role of design in open innovation. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderin gDownload/DIUS-RR-08-10.pdf Beath, J., Poyago-Theotoky, J., & Ulph, D. (1998). Organization design and information-sharing in a research joint venture with spillovers. Bulletin of Economic Research, 50 (1), 47â&#x20AC;&#x201C;59. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442â&#x20AC;&#x201C;455.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 1180–1195. Christiansen, J. K., Gasparin, M., & Varnes, C. J. (2003). Improving design with open innovation: A flexible management technology. Research-Technology Managemen, 56(2), 36–44. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Shadowing: and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies: Copenhagen Business School Press DK. Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. (2007). “In case of fire, please use the elevator”: Simulation technology and organization in fire engineering. Organization Science, 18(5), 849–864. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29. Faisal, R., Chong, A. L., & Yee, A. S. V. (2017). Systematic Review of Sustainable Knowledge Transfer Process in Government-Industry-Academia Consortium. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 6(3), 295–312. Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 128–140. Jalonen, M. (2011). Evolution of a boundary object through experimental learning in a networked environment. Paper presented at the The International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC), Hull, UK. Kikoski, C. K., & Kikoski, J. F. (2004). The inquiring organization: Tacit knowledge, conversation, and knowledge creation: Skills for 21st-century organizations. Greenwood Publishing Group. Koskinen, K. U., & Vanharanta, H. (2002). The role of tacit knowledge in innovation processes of small technology companies. Production Economics, 80(1), 57–64. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 47(4), 369–381. Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305–317. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Omidvar, O., Edler, J., & Malik, K. (2017). Development of absorptive capacity over time and across boundaries: The case of R&D consortia. Long Range Planning, 50(5), 665–683. Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: Knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 133–147. Simeone, L., Secundo, G., & Schiuma, G. (2017). Knowledge translation mechanisms in open innovation: The role of design in R&D projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(6), 1406–1429. Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization, 7(2), 223–232. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke, & E. Balka (Eds.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (pp. 37–54). Tushman, M., Lakhani, K., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2012). Open innovation and organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 24–27. doi:10.7146/jod.6336

About the Author Yasemin Canik graduated from Loughborough University London with MSc Design Innovation Management degree. Currently, she is a PhD Research Student in Design Innovation in Loughborough University London. She also works in HSSMI as a Design & Innovation Strategist. Her research interests are design, collaboration, boundary objects and actor network theory.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Designing for the Valley of Death KLITSIE, Joannes Barend Delft University of Technology, Netherlands j.b.klitsie@tudelft.nl

An increasingly turbulent environment is forcing large companies to take a more proactive stance to innovation (Eisenhardt, Furr, & Bingham, 2010). Organizations thus face the challenge of innovating while maintaining current operations (O’Reilly, 2013; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004). Often this challenge is solved by establishing a semi-separate innovation department or team sitting remote to existing departments. A resulting phenomenon of this form of organizing is known as the valley of death, where difficulty implementing, accelerating or commercializing an innovation across an organization is experienced (Sandberg & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2014). This challenge persists even after proof of concept has been established (Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth, 2016). The resulting outcome is that many creative, novel and valuable ideas are never implemented. Literature indicates that the use of a design approach to innovation, for example as described by Carlgren, Rauth & Elmquist (2016) may mitigate the barriers related to implementation (Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth, 2014; Kolarz et al., 2015; Liedtka, 2015). A design approach may for example mitigate barriers such as customer resistance, which describes innovation that doesn’t meet customers’ needs (Sandberg & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2014). Besides the innovation approach, implementation barriers also relate to the design of the organization as a set of structures (O’Conner & DeMartino, 2006) and the prevailing culture of an organization (Story, Daniels, Zolkiewski, & Dainty, 2014). Thus, only changing the approach to innovation may be futile if the structural and cultural design is not also considered. This research therefore examines how an organization’s structure may be changed to promote designdriven innovation (as visualized in Figure 1).

Figure 1. The valley of death and design innovation.

This research aims to further explore and explicate how a design approach to innovation assists an organization to overcome the valley of death. The first paper in this project will present the indicative findings from a research project that aims to achieve two complementary goals; 1) to identify inhibiting factors to innovation that correspond with the valley of death phenomenon within an organization, and; 2) to effect positive change through design within the chosen

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

organization to mitigate the valley of death phenomenon and enable innovation. In order to achieve this, the researcher performs action research (Coghlan, 2011; Kock, 2017) while being embedded in a large airline that has adopted design as a strategic resource (Rae, 2013). The researcher works as a design innovation catalyst (Wrigley, 2016) within an innovation department that has adopted a design approach and is responsible for driving service innovation within the organization. The researcher gathers data by observing events, undertaking design interventions and reflecting on the impact of these interventions (with the participants). Preliminary findings confirm and explore valley of death related challenges when a design approach to innovation is utilized. Furthermore, the organization infrastructure such as the departmental structure, budget structures and agent KPIs seem to be key contributors to the existence of a valley of death. To mitigate the problems at hand, the design innovation catalyst will use team coaching and training sessions to promote and guide a user focus, cross-disciplinary teams and the use of design tools to explicitly formulate project-related ambitions (and relating these to department goals and agent KPIs).

References

Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014). Exploring the use of design thinking in large organizations: towards a research agenda. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.3384/svid.2000-964X.14155 Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The Challenges of Using Design Thinking in Industry – Experiences from Five Large Firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12176 Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153 Coghlan, D. (2011). Action Research: Exploring Perspectives on a Philosophy of Practical Knowing. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.571520 Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0564 Kock, N. (2017). Action Research. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Design Foundation. Kolarz, P., Simmonds, P., Cassagneau-Francis, O., Kovacs, H., Sharp, T., & Wain, M. (2015). Innovation by Design: How design enables science and technology research to achieve greater impact. London, UK: Design Council. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation, 32(6), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163 O’Conner, G. C., & DeMartino, R. (2006). Organizing for Radical Innovation: An Exploratory Study of the Structural Aspects of RI Management Systems in Large Established Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 475–497. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00219.x O’Reilly, C. A. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025 O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039871 Rae, J. (2013). What Is the Real Value of Design? Design Management Review, 24(4), 30–37. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/drev.10261 Sandberg, B., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2014). What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 1293–1305. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.08.003 Story, V. M., Daniels, K., Zolkiewski, J., & Dainty, A. R. J. (2014). The barriers and consequences of radical innovations: Introduction to the issue. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1271–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.09.001 Wrigley, C. (2016). Design Innovation Catalysts: Education and Impact. She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.10.001

About the Author Joannes Barend Klitsie is a PhD Candidate at Delft University of Technology. His research focusses on how design can aid large companies to develop and implement innovations. His research focusses on corporate infrastructure and his approach is closely tied to practice and includes Action Research and Research through Design.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Unleashing the Innovation Potential of Fuzzy Ideas LECUNA, Alejandro University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany alejandrolecuna@gmail.com

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.― Albert Einstein

Introduction

The history of innovations shows that early ideas at the so-called fuzzy front end of innovation (e.g., Boeddrich, 2004; Koen et al., 2002; Reid & De Brentani, 2004) often didn’t show themselves as logical and beautiful. Mostly they appeared unfinished, absurd or even ugly—and yet they contained seeds for profitable innovations. However, that fuzzy nature of early ideas might trigger a negative reaction from managers and team members, overlooking the chances for more radical innovations, which we believe lie inside fuzzy ideas (Karlsson & Törlind, 2013). This paper presents a design management tool that enables companies to detect and develop the innovation potential of fuzzy ideas.

Conceptual Model

Our research is guided by a conceptual framework that differentiates two dimensions: ideas that look good or bad at first glance, and ideas that actually are good or bad after deep evaluation. We argue that ideas that look good are often foreseeable and hence might only lead to incremental innovations. In contrast, those ideas that look bad might reveal potential for radical innovation. We call those ideas Wolpertingers because of their usually weird appearance. They bear the chance for a competitive advantage because their potential might be overlooked by others (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

What is needed is a tool to facilitate the process of elaborating fuzzy ideas by 1. establishing a common language at the fuzzy front end 2. encouraging discussions and openness towards uncertainty 3. preventing premature rejection of ideas 4. helping to identify and fix Wolpertinger ideas The development and testing of such a tool is the objective of this paper.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Methodology

Based on three expert interviews, we defined nine dimensions of a design idea and developed a canvas in which these dimensions are brought together under the visual metaphor of a bridge (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Idea Arc canvas.

The concept of canvases is well-established since the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Canvases can be seen as a shared mental model (Goldschmidt, 2007) and hence facilitate team discussion. We build on research that suggests that collaborative teamwork based on templates can have a positive impact on innovation processes (Eppler, Hoffmann, & Bresciani, 2011). There exist several ideation canvases (e.g., Kline et al., 2014), but to the best of our knowledge no tool addresses the specific circumstances of fuzzy ideas. To test and evaluate the comprehensibility of the developed canvas, we conducted three workshops at different academic institutions, whereas the actual usefulness and impact of the canvas was evaluated in two industry workshops.

Results

The workshops were evaluated based on (a) direct observations by two researchers, and (b) analyses of the resulting (filled) canvases (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Workshop and filled canvas.

The results revealed that: 1. participants agreed to and used the wording provided by the canvas 2. all participants found momentum to intervene and participate 3. premature rejections of provided ideas in the beginning of the workshop were reduced in the end 4. participants identified ambiguous components of an idea and developed alternatives. Future research will include a more comprehensive (long-term) action research study and quantitative studies to measure the impact of the tool. The Idea Arc contributes to the existing literature on shared mental models (Badke-Schaub, Neumann, Lauche, & Mohammed, 2007; Goldschmidt, 2007) by providing a visual metaphor canvas for facilitating team discussions around fuzzy ideas. It also contributes to the existing literature on immature and rejected ideas (Karlsson & Törlind, 2013) by proving a design tool for preventing premature rejection of ideas and for reflection upon them.

References

Badke-Schaub, P., Neumann, A., Lauche, K., Mohammed, S. (2007). Mental models in design teams: A valid approach to performance in design collaboration? CoDesign, 3, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880601170768 Boeddrich, H.-J. (2004). Ideas in the workplace: A new approach towards organizing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 274–285. Goldschmidt, G. (2007). To see eye to eye: the role of visual representations in building shared mental models in design teams. CoDesign, 3(1), 43–50. Eppler, M. J., Hoffmann, F., & Bresciani, S. (2011). New business models through collaborative idea generation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(06), 1323–1341. Kline, W. A., Hixson, C. A., Mason, T. W., Brackin, P., Bunch, R. M., Dee, K. C., & Livesay, G. A. (2014). The Innovation Canvas in entrepreneurship education: Integrating themes of design, value, and market success. The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 80–99. Koen, P. A., Ajamian, G. M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., … Seibert, R. (2002). Fuzzy front end: Effective methods, tools, and techniques. Wiley, New York, NY. Karlsson, A., & Törlind, P. (2013). What happens to rejected ideas? Exploring the life of ideas following the completion of projects. In International Conference on Engineering Design: 19/08/2013-22/08/2013 (Vol. 3, pp. 229–238). Design Research Society. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Reid, S. E., & De Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 170–184.

About the Author Prof. Dipl.-Des. Alejandro Lecuna is a Berlin-based designer, entrepreneur, and academic. He works at the HTW Berlin - University of Applied Sciences and at the D.School in Potsdam, teaching design and innovation. He consults large corporations, non-profits and start-ups helping them to conceive, shape and realize innovative ideas. Today he is Chief Design Officer of Takeoff.com, a start-up based in Boston, which brings together online ordering technology with robotic product handling.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Inquiry and Innovation in Design Research NUSEM, Erez University of Sydney, Australia mail@andreaaugsten.de

Introduction

As the discipline of design has evolved, the role of design as a verb, i.e., as a thought process, has become increasingly prominent (Brown, 2008; Manzini, 2014). Design, despite origins of making and styling, is progressively being adopted as a method of problem solving (Dorst, 2011). While a plethora of methodologies exist across the various disciplines of design, few embody this notion. Notably, Design Thinking, and more recently Design Innovation, provide design proponents with such methods for realising outcomes in practice, yet even these lack rigorous approaches for conducting qualitative research. This paper therefore seeks to develop an approach for conducting design research, and presents the synthesis of prominent qualitative research approaches and findings from a 24-month action research engagement.

Background

As an interpretive methodology, design shares theoretical foundations with a range of qualitative research methods. Indeed, literature has done much in the way of connecting design to methodologies such as action research (Swann, 2002; Walters, 1986), and more recently content analysis (Nusem, Wrigley, & Matthews, 2017; Straker, Wrigley, & Rosemann, 2015). As content analysis provides a method for answering research questions through inferences from available text (Krippendorff, 2012), and action research provides a method for collaborative and experiential enquiry (Walters, 1986), this research suggests that a union of the two methodologies could provide the basis of a rigorous approach to design research in the future.

Methodology

This research reports on a literature review of action research and content analysis approaches, along with the findings from a longitudinal action research project; where a researcher was embedded in a non-profit aged care provider for a 24-month period. In facing emerging challenges driven by an aging population and government reform initiatives, the organization realized the need to innovate its value proposition, and mandated the design of a new business model. This engagement consisted of four action research cycles. Issues and outcomes from each cycle of research were captured and fed into consecutive cycles, with each cycle of research serving a distinct purpose; the cycles were designed to (1) demonstrate, (2) conceptualize, (3) implement, and (4) integrate design. Data was analysed thematically across four action research cycles following a within-case analysis approach (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012).

Results

The study found a design approach informed by content analysis and action research to provide an appropriate basis for rigorous qualitative research inquiry. The framework (see Figure 1) permits a design proponent to adopt both a micro and macro perspectiveâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;managing both design and context (industry) implications. Content analysis contextualised the design space, and developed an understanding of sector trends and direction, while action research provided a means of communicating and framing findings, allowing the design proponent to shift between research and practice paradigms. The study outlines two main contributions. First, the practical contribution of a qualitative approach to rigorous design research, with a focus on embedded research. Second, a theoretical contribution, linking and framing the methods of content analysis and action research in a Design Innovation context.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Figure 1. Design research framework.

References Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of design thinking and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Manzini, E. (2014). Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57–66. Nusem, E., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2017). Exploring aged care business models: A typological study. Ageing and Society, 37(2), 386–409. Straker, K., Wrigley, C., & Rosemann, M. (2015). Typologies and touchpoints: Designing multi-channel digital strategies. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(2), 110–128. Swann, C. (2002). Action Research and the Practice of Design. Design Issues, 2(18), 63–66. Walters, R.J. (1986). Informed, well-ordered and reflective: Design inquiry as action research. Design Studies, 7(1), 2–13.

About the Author Erez Nusem. PhD. Associate Lecturer in Design Innovation for Health and Medicine. Through his research Dr Nusem is exploring the role of design in creating better outcomes and experiences for patients, doctors and other medical professionals. Dr Nusem also has a breadth of experience working with non-profit and government organisations.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Design Against Crime Thinking to Reduce Shrinkage in Retail Industry PARIVAR, Meg Lancaster University, United Kingdom maparivar@gmail.com

The aim of this research project is to present insights from customer theft and identify what factors create opportunities for criminals to commit a crime and how design thinking approaches help to reduce the opportunities and improve loss prevention within a retail organisation. Retail crime is one of the most commonly committed crimes in the United Kingdom and because of the promotion of the sale by product accessibility strategy most store departments can be comfort-shopping zones that create fantastic targets for shoplifters’ activities (Whitaker, 2011). Store design can be a fantastic tool to increase sales. Also, it could significantly increase the chance of retail crime (Bamfield, 2012). The approximate number of crimes experienced was 4,120,395 in 2015, and customer theft was 3,401,948 (British Retail Consortium, 2015). Therefore, this study introduces design against crime thinking which is a human-centred approach to designing for safety and security of a community and organisation (Lockwood, 2009). All through the history of design, designers have implied and practiced a human-centric process to create evocative and effective solutions (Gibbons, 2016). Design thinking has pursued to structure the design practice in every orientation and direction, from innovation to integration to transformation (Mootee, 2013). Design thinking is a strong tool and the key principles of design thinking are thorough; they are comprehending the users deeply, collaborating with the consumers and interdisciplinary group projects at the same time, learning within visualisation, prototyping and testing the concepts to get feedback and discover the problems thoroughly (Lockwood, 2009). Moreover, this study considers organisational behaviour and change through design thinking. The outcome of the research project will be valuable as the retail industry produces almost 5% of the country’s GDP and more than 5% of the value generated by the economy each year and contributes around £17.5 billion in taxes to the United Kingdom (UK Trade and Investment, 2014). As the Police has confronted losing budget enormously, it would be valuable and beneficial for them if retailers will be able to prevent criminal retail activities, and as retailers suffer retail crime, they cannot make a full contribution to the economy, and it will be pressure on the Home office and government (Ebster, Garaus 2011). The focus of this paper is on one of the largest and successful retailers in the United Kingdom, The High-Street Retailer. As the research intention is to analyse specific issues within the boundaries of an environment or organisation, the case studies method was identified as the most appropriate method to explore the issues. The rationale underpinning this research area is based on empirical evidence; in the next stage, the research method will use a qualitative study approach to identify the core issues, through focus interviews in the stores to have direct interaction with the contributors. Prototyping will be conducted to participate in design through personal and group engagement. Also, developing a series of personas based on different types of criminals and their motivation will be considered. The initial suggested concept is in the form of a toolkit as a loss prevention framework to improve organisational behaviour and knowledge for adoption by a retailer regarding fighting opportunist criminal activity within the stores.

Figure 1: Retail crime statistics in 2014-2015 (British Retail Consortium, 2015).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

References Bamfield, J. (2012). Shopping and crime (pp. 6-7, 150–160, 118) United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. British Retail Consortium. (2016). BRC Retail Crime Survey 2015. Retrieved from https://www.businesscrime.org.uk/assets/files/BRC-2015-Crime-Survey.pdf Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2009). Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value. (pp. 5, 57– 60) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Allworth Press, U.S. Mootee, I. (2013). Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation: What They Can’t Teach You at Business or Design School. (pp. 54-56) United States: John Wiley & Sons. UK trade and investment. (2014). UK Retail Industry: International Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-retail-industry-international-action-plan/uk-retail-industryinternational-action-plan. Ebster, C., & Garaus, M. (2011). Store Design and Visual Merchandising: Creating Store Space that Encourages Buying. (pp.1-4, 62, 162) New York, NY: Business Expert Press. Whitaker, J. (2011). The Department Store: History, Design, Display. (pp. 11, 101, 177, 187, 202) London: Thames & Hudson.

About the Author Meg Parivar has a first-class honours degree in product design from the University of Salford and a master’s degree with distinction in design management from Lancaster University. Currently, she is a PhD design research candidate at ImaginationLancaster (Lancaster University). Her research interest is design against crime; she is conducting an interdisciplinary research between criminology, management and design disciplines within organisations, specifically the retail industry, to explore how design management can support the process of crime prevention.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Service Design Support of Grassroots Transitions Governance SANDHU, Jamie Loughborough London, United Kingdom J.G.Sandhu@lboro.ac.uk

Whilst negative social and ecological consequences of our everyday energy use can be mediated, to a limited extent, through decisions at the consumer level to switch the lights off or to switch to low-impact suppliers, etc., the main point of leverage available with which to address these consequences is the configuration of the energy system itself (Moloney et al., 2010; Van Der Schoor & Scholtens, 2015; Klein & Coffey, 2016; O’Rourke & Lollo, 2015). The problem is that massive systems of provision such as the energy system are emergent, complex, and stubborn things (Geels, 2005). They consist of many interdependent actors and institutions with differing agendas and narratives and are too complex or ‘wicked’ to be designed or designable by any one party (Rittel & Webber, 1973). However, the emergence and of such systems through the transformation of old sociotechnical configurations into new, radically different, ones is a process that has been theorised within innovation studies as transition (Geels & Schot, 2007; Twomey & Gaziulusoy, 2014) and this lens may hold the key to steering innovation at this level (Loorbach, 2010; Frantzeskaki et al., 2012; Vezzoli et al., 2008; Gaziulusoy & Brezet, 2015). This PhD is situated within a new field of Design practice and study, called Design for Transition (DfT), that builds on theories of transition to grapple with the problem of re-designing such un-designable systems using the approach of influencing the transitions that govern their emergence (Tonkinwise, 2015; Gaziulusoy & Ryan, 2017; Ceschin, 2014). I am investigating the phenomenon of community energy initiatives; energy-based innovation projects run by citizen-led groups that are theorised to be a major influence on the ongoing worldwide transition towards a new, potentially more sustainable yet undetermined, energy system (Walker et al., 2010; Community Energy England, 2017). CE initiatives are representative of a class of transformative initiatives that aim to realise social benefit through innovation that challenges the dominant systems of provision (Smart Energy Special Interest Group, 2013; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012). An account of the design situation driven by CE initiatives—who designs what, how and why—is currently lacking in the literature but could provide insights of particular value to DfT. The first objective of this PhD is therefore to develop a conceptual model that describes this design situation. This model focuses at the level of the activities of the CE initiative and has been developed from a cross case analysis that uses data from the documentation of CE organisations and from semi-structured interviews with leaders of CE initiatives. The second objective is to justify the utility and validity of this model by using it to identify aspects of the innovation process that affect the initiative’s transformative impact, and to explore how these might be supported through established design techniques such as Service Design. Results suggest that managers of CE initiatives use strategic partnering with third parties to generate value creating networks amongst stakeholders to realise innovative projects, and that the nature of these value constellations can be instrumental in an initiative’s transformative influence. My hypothesis at this stage is that Service Design could be utilised here, in the strategic management of CE initiatives, to plan and execute this partnering activity more effectively. Enhanced capability in this area may enable CE organisations to facilitate ’transformative' value co-creation networks in a more responsive and tactical way, giving them increased control over their influence on transitions, and thereby their affect the design of the future energy system. The novel conceptual model developed in this PhD aims to provide an initial frame and basis from which designsupportive tools can be developed, and upon which design activity aimed at transformative influence can be based. It also puts forward a novel application for service design. In this way, though this PhD research, I aim to provide a response to the problem of influencing transitions by design in the CE context and highlight a new direction for further research in this area.

References

Ceschin, F. (2014). How the design of socio-technical experiments can enable radical changes for sustainability. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 1–21. Community Energy England (2017) ‘Community Energy State of the Sector: Astudy of community energy in England, Wales & Northern Ireland’,.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability. Environmental Engineering, 15, 19–36. Gaziulusoy, A. I., & Brezet, H. (2015). Design for system innovations and transitions: A conceptual framework integrating insights from sustainablity science and theories of system innovations and transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, 108, 1–11. Gaziulusoy, I., & Ryan, C. (2017). Roles of design in sustainability transitions projects: A case study of Visions and Pathways 2040 project from Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1297–1307. Geels, F. W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multilevel perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6 SPEC. ISS.), 681–696. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. Klein, S. J. W., & Coffey, S. (2016). Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, 60, 867–880. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance, an International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 23(1), 161–183. Moloney, S., Horne, R. E., & Fien, J. (2010). Transitioning to Low Carbon Communities – From Behaviour Change to Systemic Change: Lessons from Australia. Energy Policy Dec, 38(12), 7614–7623. O’Rourke, D., & Lollo, N. (2015). Transforming Consumption: From Decoupling, to Behavior Change, to System Changes for Sustainable Consumption. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40(1), 233–259. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Van Der Schoor, T., & Scholtens, B. (2015). Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, 43, 666–675. Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381–400. Smart Energy Special Interest Group (2013). The Role of Community Energy Systems in the UK Resilient Energy Supply, (April). Tonkinwise, C. (2016). Design for Transitions ‒ from and to what? Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 85–92. Twomey, P., & Gaziulusoy, A. I. (2014). Review of System Innovation and Transitions Theories: Concepts and frameworks for understanding and enabling transitions to a low carbon built environment. Retrieved from http://visionsandpathways.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Twomey_Gaziulusoy_Innovation-and-TransitionTheory.pdf Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., & Kemp, R. (2008). Designing transition paths for the diffusion of sustainable system innovations. A new potential role for design in transition management? Changing the change, 1–14. Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H., & Evans, B. (2010). Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy, Elsevier, 38(6), 2655–2663.

About the Author Jamie Sandhu is based in London and approaching his third year of PhD research at the Institute of Design Innovation at Loughborough University. The PhD is also linked with the Design School, Loughborough. He has an M.Eng in Product Design Engineering from Loughborough University.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Towards a Pattern Language for Innovation Spaces THORING, Katja TU Delft, The Netherlands k.c.thoring@tudelft.nl

Background

The topic of creative work environments has gained increased interest during the past years, which can be inferred from the large number of published coffee-table books on the subject. The peculiar design of workspaces has become popular, especially in the so-called creative industries. However, research about the actual role of the physical environment for innovation processes is still in its beginnings. This PhD project investigates this emerging field from different angles: 1. System perspective: What types and qualities of creative spaces are required for innovation processes? 2. Management Perspective: How can space facilitate a) knowledge management, and b) creativity management? 3. Design Perspective: How can we guide the design of creative spaces? This paper focuses on the third aspectâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the design perspective: We developed a set of design principles (patterns) for designing creative spaces that can be used by design practitioners, educators, and companies to better understand the system of creative space and adjust their work environments to better suit the requirements of innovation processes.

Conceptual Model

Our endeavour to develop a pattern language of creative spaces bears resemblance to the seminal book A Pattern Language (Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977), which presents a total of 253 abstracted guidelines (patterns) for any area related to architecture. We build on this concept and present a set of 49 design principles that constitute patterns for creative environments. Our pattern development is guided by a previously developed typology of creative spaces (Figure 1).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Figure 1. A typology of creative spaces.

Methodology Our extensive prior research includes qualitative user studies with cultural probes (Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999; Mattelmäki, 2006) in three institutions (a design school, a design thinking institution, and a practitioners’ institution), which resulted in a ‘typology of creative spaces’ (Figure 1). Subsequently, 16 case studies in design institutions from academia and practice yielded in a collection of exemplary creative spaces. Additionally, interviews with eight experts were conducted. The resulting insights were clustered and aligned with the typology to identify patterns and to explain the possible impact of specific spatial configurations. A preliminary version of these patterns was tested through an action research workshop in a real-life context (based on Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2013; Lewin, 1946). According to the workshop results, we refined the patterns by (a) detailing additional information similar to Alexander’s pattern structure and (b) adding references to supporting literature (Figure 2 shows one exemplary pattern card). In a systematic literature review we compared our approach with existing guidelines for designing creative spaces (e.g., Doorley & Witthoft, 2012).

Figure 2. Exemplary pattern card View Variations.

Results

The work presented in this paper expands the existing research on innovation spaces by providing a tangible toolkit for designing such creative environments. It is empirically developed and tested, as well as supported by literature. The core of this toolkit is a set of 49 ‘patterns’ that act as guidelines for designing creative spaces. Additional floor plans, canvases, stickers, checklists, and ideation templates complete the toolkit (Figure 3). It facilitates practitioners, educators, and spatial planners when designing work and study environments in an innovation context.

Figure 3. Overview of the toolkit for designing creative spaces.

References Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken, N. J.: John Wiley & Sons. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2013). The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Springer Science & Business Media. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes (PhD Thesis). University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

About the Author Katja Thoring is teaching design foundations at Anhalt University in Dessau, Germany. She has been teaching Design Thinking at the HPI D-School Potsdam for more than 5 years. Since 2014 she is a PhD candidate at TU Delft. Her research focuses on the impact of the physical environment on the creative work and innovation potentials of designers and companies.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Mapping Design Methods in European Policy Labs VAZ, Federico Loughborough University London, UK F.Vaz@lboro.ac.uk

Introduction

This paper discusses the emergence of design approaches for policy innovation in Europe, mobilized through specialised governmental bodies known as Policy Labs. Based on the process model of public policymaking (Dye, 2013), it looks to understand which specific design tools and methods are currently being deployed to innovate how public policies come into being. The purpose of this article is to map how Policy Labs in Europe are incorporating design practices at distinct stages of the policymaking cycle. The relevance of this research is given by the novel but scarce theoretical work on the use of design methods for innovating public policymaking, which is currently increasing around the globe and concentrated in Europe. Thus, the need to understand how and in which conditions design is adding value to public policy innovation.

Background and/or Conceptual Model Policy Labs, defined as units that develop public policies in a design-oriented fashion (Fuller & Lochard, 2016), are tasked with innovating how these are conceived and implemented to gain in effectiveness and efficiency (Bason, 2014). Design has become central to some public organisations, hiring designers and looking to introduce concepts of design thinking across the stages of the policy cycle (Junginger, 2017). The rationale behind this is that this will foster public and social innovation whilst realising creative solutions outside the range of policy methods and structures (Mulgan, 2014). However, when it comes to policy innovation, political scientists have mostly focused on the innovation of the resulting product (the policy itself), disregarding the process by which innovative ideas make their way into government agendas (Mintrom, 1997). This contrasts with the notion of bringing design methods to innovate the policymaking process, and consequently, the resulting policy. This product-process innovation dynamics have been well studied in fields such as technological innovation (Schilling, 2016), but their implications for public policymaking are not addressed in the literature.

Methodology Firstly, we discuss public policy innovation in terms of a product vs. process innovation dichotomy. Secondly, we surveyed a sample of 24 Policy Labs in Europe operating at various levels of government. The dataset was based on the EU report Public policy labs in European Union Member States (Fuller & Lochard, 2016), and expanded to cover other European States outside the union. The two questionnaires distributed inquire about Policy Labs working definition of policy innovation, at which stage of the policymaking process do they intervene, and what methods do they utilise to innovate public policies at each stage. Thirdly, we look into which specific design methods are currently being deployed to innovate how public policies are conceived.

Results The survey showed the importance of the process perspective in understanding public policy innovation. The mapping of methods utilised by Policy Labs offered a rich picture of the needs and challenges these face in innovating public policies. Contrasting the findings with the literature on design methods, we found a significant gap in the awareness of the methods’ nature. These results suggest there is space for design to develop specific tools and methods which are not imported from the private sector into the public, but rather specifically develop to address public sector’s specificity and needs.

References Bason, C. (2014). Design for Policy. Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing Limited. Dye, T. R. (2013). Understanding Public Policy. Pearson Education. Fuller, M., & Lochard, A. (2016). Public policy labs in European Union Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Junginger, S. (2017). Transforming Public Services by Design. Oxon: Routledge. Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 738–770.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Mulgan, G. (2014). Design in public and social innovation: What works and what could work better. London: Nesta. Schilling, M. A. (2016). Strategic management of technological innovation. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

About the Author Federico Vaz is a PhD Researcher at the Institute for Design Innovation at Loughborough University London. His research is on the use of design approaches for public policy innovation, with a focus on European Policy Labs. As part of his PhD, he is coordinating the project Policy Innovation by Design.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Management

Design and Business Strategy

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Does Method Matter? Nudging Organizational Transformation AUGSTEN, Andrea University of Wuppertal, Germany mail@andreaaugsten.de

Introduction

The growing popularity of design thinking across sectors and disciplines has prompted some design practitioners and scholars to re-emphasize the boundaries between design as a discipline and design thinking as a set of methods (cf. Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla & Çetinkaya, 2013; du Russo, 2016; Junginger, 2016; Carlgren, 2016). So far, design thinking as a method is mainly introduced in 1–5 days training in business. However, employees and manager remark a missing organizational backbone to apply newly learned methods, tools and templates in daily practices. Disciplinary differences concerning definitions, values and beliefs about what a method, such as design thinking, might contribute to organizational change frame its perception (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). Taking a design perspective, methods are adjustable, combined and applied driven by purpose. Most managerial education is based on natural science, which treats methods like instructions (Weick, 1996). Both perspectives clash in current practice if design thinking is introduced as a method. Systems thinking, as an approach based on the idea of interrelated and interdependent parts of an entity, has been understood in practice as a holistic analysis to investigate kinds of dynamics inside an organization, for instance. Systems thinking further has bridged between natural science and humanities, as scholars and practitioners of social science, biology and engineering have built on it (e.g., Luhmann and Senge). Compared to design, which is still perceived as a form-giving arty discipline by many practitioners in industry, systems thinking has already overcome this practical rejection. Thus, it fosters the inquiry: how to combine both, systems thinking and design thinking, to nudge an organization, which has taken design as styling, according to the Danish design ladder till today, into a more human-centered one (cf. ISO 27500:2016)?

Theoretical Framework Following Junginger (2016), the paper is based on her distinction of design as a technique, a method and a strategic art. She points out that design as a method is characterized by a particular discipline concerning an intellectual or scientific framework, which brings specialized knowledge into practical use. Only if design is understood as a strategic art, it does provide strategic guidelines to apply methods and techniques for organizational change, she claims. Therefore, a set of methods might rarely nudge organizational transformation. This paper argues that combining design thinking with a systems-thinking approach fosters the strategic potential of design to nudge an organization towards change (cf. Buchanan, 2015).

Methodology An empirical single case study has been conducted at Volkswagen Group, Germany between 2015–2018, investigating the overall research question How is design thinking as a method introduced at a large corporation? In 2016, 13 expert interviews were conducted face-to-face with employees to identify organizational barriers and enablers raised through design thinking. Inspired by the content analysis (Mayring, 2010), five concepts emerged out of evaluation that defines the problem statement: The introduction as a method in training does not enable employees to act human-centered in daily routines. Second, investigating the interconnections of those concepts is needed to understand the problem fully, and to propose a conceptual solution model for an organizational transformation. A one-day workshop has been developed and accomplished two times in 2018 with 7–8 design thinking experts out of different departments and management levels at Volkswagen. The workshops aims to develop a bigger picture of how human-centered principles are embedded, affected and formulated inside innovation teams and beyond. It inquires how employees interact with the approach of systems thinking. The participants were asked to prototype the role, practices and the organizational environment as a whole (Figures 1a, 1b), and present this to gather insights. Afterwards the participants developed collaboratively a system model by discussing the interconnections of the mentioned barriers and enablers on a digital wall (Figure 1c). All phases were audio- or video-recorded and built the research data set. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Figure 1a–c: Workshops at Volkswagen Group.

Results After evaluation, the following findings emerged: 1. The participants’ visual tonality indicates the capacity for holistic future thinking and dealing with the unknown. 2. Previous experience with designing as a practice supports the ability to think, articulate and argue in a bigger picture and designing interconnections. 3. Participants remark their limited perspective on a problem due to the organizational processes, structures and responsibilities. 4. They note that seeing the big picture is needed in daily working routines to navigate and innovate.

Discussion To nudge an organization towards a more human-centered one, design thinking as a method needs to be embedded in daily routines of employees and managers. The mix of design thinking and systems thinking shows potential to communicate in a broader sense. However, the approach is weak insofar that it might contribute towards a more conservative planning mode of strategy instead of enabling the explorative mode of design thinking. Combining thinking & doing is crucial to bring insights into action, to iterate and to learn. The interconnection of both, thus, needs to be further investigated. So far, the paper contributes in-depth empirical findings about how design methods have been perceived by nondesigners and addresses the need to embed those into a strategy to enable organizational change through design. Moreover, it critically reflects on how templates, tools and methods need to adapt on the organizational context in order to exploit its potential–taking Weick’s word “The question of what to keep and drop, and why, lies at the heart of adaptive excellence” (2007, p. 14). The paper contributes to a better understanding of barriers and current perceptions of design (thinking) in industry, and describes how the phenomenon of design thinking has nudged questions about the design understanding in management and practice. Surprisingly, many argumentations have been made in theory already, but the application in practice in general and in the German automotive industry in particular is just now facing the pressure of reframing work attitude, focusing human thinking and organizational ambidexterity, which could give a hint of the relevance of the context and its implications. In times of digitalization and a shift from a manufacturer towards a mobility provider, the form, shape, interaction and social behaviours inside the organization as an artefact (Herfurth, 2016) might pave new avenues for design management. Additionally, the popularity of design thinking in management and across has elevated the debate around design, designerly practices and designers culture and attitude at workplaces once more. After focusing on roles–designers and managers–the concept of managing as designing by Boland et al. (2008) needs to be investigated without clear defined educational silos like design, innovation or else anymore. So, even if design (thinking) is introduced as a method, which might be critiqued due to its limitations, it shows its potential to nudge change, to reframe working attitude and collaboration culture and strengthen the skill, capability and understanding of design as a verb.

References Boland Jr, R. J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2008). Managing as designing: lessons for organization leaders from the design practice of Frank O. Gehry. Design Issues, 24(1), 10–25. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the Making: Design, Management, and the Reform of Organizational Culture. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5–32. Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2009). Design thinking and design management: A research and practice perspective. Design Management Review, 20, 46–55. Elsbach, K.D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management, p.0149206317744252.

Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011). Design thinking in the management discourse: Defining the elements of the concept. Contribution to the 18th International Product Development Management Conference, Innovate Through Design, Delft, the Netherlands. Herfurth, L. (2016). Organizations as Artefacts An Inquiry into Hidden Design Activities Within Situated Organizational Contexts. Lancaster University. ISO 27500:2016: The Human-centered Organization - Rationale and general principles. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Johansson- Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. Junginger, S. (2009). Design in the organization: Parts and wholes. Design Research Journal, 29, Swedish Design Council (SVID), 23–29 Junginger, S. (2016). Thoughts on Design as A Strategic Art for Organizations. In J. Faust, and S. Junginger (Eds.), S. Designing Business, Bloomsbury, pp. 375. Kimbell, L. (2009). Design practices in design thinking. European Academy of Management, 1–24. Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (pp. 601–613). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Michlewski, K. (2015). Design Attitude. Gower Publishing, Ltd. Saviranta, L. (2015). Transforming organizations – Linking Design Practices to Managing Organizational Capabilities. In E. Bohemia, A. Rieple, J. Liedtka, R. Cooper (Eds.) Proceedings of the 19th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference, (pp. 2008–2031). London. Schmiedgen, J., Rhinow, H., & Köppen, E. (2016). Parts without a whole? The current state of design thinking practice in organisations (Vol. 97). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 301–313. Weick, K. E., 2007. Drop your tools: On reconfiguring management education. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), pp.5–16.

About the Author Originally trained as a designer, Andrea Augsten develops human-centered design strategies in business, social design and design education. In 2015, she was appointed to the Think Tank 30 of Club of Rome. Alongside her position as a PhD Candidate at Volkswagen Group, she shares her experience through lecturing at various universities.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Viability Management in Strategic Design: Early Insights AZABAGIC, Nermin RMIT, Australia nermin.azabagic@rmit.edu.au

Strategic design is emerging as a stream of research and practice of design in business. It applies design principles and practices that guide both strategy formulation and implementation (Calabreta et al., 2016). Strategic design combines desirability, feasibility and viability considerations (Brown, 2009; Johansson et al., 2013). While desirability addresses user demand, feasibility relates to required resources (e.g., technology), while viability accounts for potential outcomes such as commercial benefits. Tools and methods for working with feasibility and viability in the context of strategic design are scant in literature. As suggested by Carlgren et al. (2014), this lack of attention might affect the uptake and further advancement of design as a strategic approach. In this paper, we aim to contribute to further development of the management of viability in design projects in innovation contexts. We focus on viability practices, with our proposed operational definition of viability management: practices that relate to the assessment of market opportunity, as well as the assessment and shaping of potential benefits. We aim to answer the core Research Questions (RQs): RQ1: By means of which practices is viability currently managed in design-led innovation projects and how effective are these practices? RQ2: How does the effectiveness of viability management practices interact with feasibility and desirability management practices? While we focus in particular on viability, ultimately, the three dimensions are inter-related, suggesting a potentially complex phenomenon. To better understand the dynamics of the three dimensions and their inter-relationships, we apply the lens of complexity theory, which argues that reality takes the form of emergent, dynamic, and self-organizing complex systems that interact in ways that significantly influence the probabilities of later events (Urry, 2005). We explore our research questions through qualitative research. As this is an ongoing project, our interim analysis is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with leading practitioners in strategic design. We supplemented this information with the work experience (10+ years) gained by the first author as a strategy consultant working on strategic design projects and relevant secondary data from extant academic and practice literature. On the basis of our early insights from the analysis of the data collected, we formulated the following tentative conclusions: 1. We found that designers determine viability management to be very important, yet often not particularly well formulated and managed. 2. They see the potential for viability to align the designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language and motivations and increase the likelihood that a design initiative will be implemented, which is seen as key to success. 3. Specific practices are described, including business objective setting, business landscape assessment, assumptions validation, prototyping and others. Finally, the lack of tools and methods is identified, along with implications for further research, which will be conducted in the next stages of this ongoing research project. From an academic viewpoint, we contribute to the literature by applying complexity theory to better understand new ways of managing design thinking projects and in particular the interaction between desirability and viability. From a managerial contribution perspective, we provide an overview of leading viability practices that will enable managers and designers to optimise the viability of strategic design.

References Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New Yourk: HarperCollins. Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Karpen, I. (2016). Strategic design (1st ed.). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M. & Rauth, I. (2014). Exploring the Use of Design Thinking in Large Organizations: Towards a Research Agenda. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1, 47–56. Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity And Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 1–14. Vaara, E., & Whittington R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 6, 285–336.

About the Author Nermin Azabagic is an ambidextrous thinker and strategist with over 18 years of international corporate experience. He is currently a Strategy Lead at IBM Interactive Experience, and is pursuing his PhD part-time at RMIT, where he explores the viability dimension of design thinking in the context of business innovation.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Sustainable Business Model Design BALDASSARRE, Brian TU Delft, The Netherlands b.r.baldassarre@tudelft.nl

Introduction

Concerns about the societal and environmental impact of how companies operate have generated increasing interest in more sustainable ways of doing business. Research and practice from the past decade show that a business model innovation lens is suitable to embed sustainability into firmsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; objectives/operations. Consequently, Sustainable Business Model Innovation (SBMI) emerged as a field of research. As consolidation takes place, we see that ideas and theories about SBMI are either trapped in separate silos and/or scattered across related domains, resulting in a loss of valuable information at their boundaries. This makes it difficult to design Business Models for Sustainability (BMFS), a novel challenge that needs support from and ad-hoc frameworks/processes/methods/tools. Building on recent research, we believe that strategic design practices (and in particular experimentation practices) can be leveraged to address this issue. Consequently, this PhD research aims to first explore and define which research and practice domains support SBMI. Secondly, it aims to combine elements found in such domains with strategic design practices in order to address the knowledge gap of how to design BMFS.

Background The theoretical foundations of this research are grounded in two fields. First, the SBMI field and related concept of BMFS, namely the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers and captures economic, environmental and social forms of value simultaneously. Second, the strategic design field and related practices, namely the ways that designers use to iteratively ideate, develop and implement new products/services/business models in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. We connect these two fields by building on recent research work we did in this direction, visualized in Figure 1 and Table 1.

Figure 1. Sustainable value proposition design process.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Table 1. Experimentation practices to design a BMFS.

Methodology

First, a bibliometric study based on co-citation analysis is conducted to explore the historical foundations, developments, key drivers of the SBMI research field and how it is related to other fields. Second, the resulting framework of interrelated constructs and drivers is used as a starting point for analyzing multiple longitudinal case studies with the goal of deriving strategic design practices for designing a BMFS. These include: a project aimed at developing a sustainable business model for an industrial cluster in Rotterdam and an EU project aiming to design a business model for an Italian enterprise providing a climate forecasting service to water utilities across Europe. Project work is framed as Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM), which allows creating and evaluating innovative frameworks addressing design and organizational challenges by working on real cases.

Results and / or discussion The contribution of this PhD research is twofold. From a theoretical perspective, it contributes to the consolidation of the SBMI field by defining the research and practice domain that support it. More importantly, it advances the understanding of how the field of SD can inform the field of SBMI by proposing a conceptual framework for designing BMFS. From a practice perspective, such a framework can support companies in shifting design and adopting new business models in the transition towards sustainable development.

References Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., & Jaskiewicz, T. (2017). Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 175–186. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.081. Boons, F., & Bocken, N. (2017). Assessing the sharing economy: analyzing ecologies of business models. In Product Lifetimes And the Environment 2017 - Conference Proceedings (pp. 46–50). doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-820-4-46. Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007 Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92, 141. doi:10.1145/2535915 Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Karpen, I. O. (2016). Strategic design: Eight essential practices every strategic designer must master. BIS Publishers. Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. In Proceedings of the 8th design thinking research symposium (pp. 19– 20). doi:10.1111/j.1948-7169.2005.tb00008.x. Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process: A workshop based on a value mapping process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1218–1232. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.020. Grenha Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Huang, K. H., Fisk, R. P., Nóbrega, L., & Constantine, L. (2017). The MINDS Method: Integrating Management and Interaction Design Perspectives for Service Design. Journal of Service Research, 20(3), 240–258. doi:10.1177/1094670516680033. Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474–1486. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067. Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. (2017). Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1668–1678. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3)(September), 45–78. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302. Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5–6), 133–144. doi:10.1002/jsc.821 Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organization and Environment, 29(1), 3–10. doi:10.1177/1086026615599806. Schuit, C. S. C., Baldassarre, B., & Bocken, N. (2017). Sustainable business model experimentation practices: evidence from three startups. In Product Lifetimes and the Environment 2017 - Conference Proceedings (pp. 370–376). doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-820-4-370. Small, H. (1973). Co-citations in the scientific literature : A new measure of the relationship beetween two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003. Wilden, R., Akaka, M. A., Karpen, I. O., & Hohberger, J. (2017). The Evolution and Prospects of Service-Dominant Logic: An Investigation of Past, Present, and Future Research. Journal of Service Research, 20(4), 345–361. doi:10.1177/1094670517715121.

About the Author Brian Baldassarre combines technical skills with creative thinking and a business mindset. He holds a BSc in Product Design from Politecnico di Milano and a MSc in Design Strategy from TU Delft with a specialization in Sustainable Development. His expertise is to analyze and synthesize information connecting business, technology and humans in order to develop new sustainable value propositions.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Tracing Institutional Isomorphism in Design Services HEESBEEN, Johannes Willem Loughborough University, London, United Kingdom W.Heesbeen@lboro.ac.uk

In 2014 it was Clive Dilnot who, through his contributions to two events and subsequent paper The matter of design posed a challenge. In his claim we never yet had design he directly questions the shared understanding of what Design is and what it is to become. In an earlier essay, Clive Dilnot had summarized the complexity and impurity of design; design operates in a multi-dimensional context which renders it not only a mediation between what is given and what could be, between what exists and what we might prefer to exist, but radically impure. Design does not remove itself from economic life; it cannot but engage and negotiate with it. As trade (and just as frequently as art) it is a weak negotiation with economic and social forces. (Dilnot 2013, p. 334)

Introduction Starting from the provocation from Clive Dilnot, this research project will look closer into the instances and types of weak negotiation in the Design Services field. The field covers the Design Services provided by freelance, soleproprietors, small studios, medium-size studios as well as cooperatives and collectives. Another segment is taken by inhouse and globally networked studios. By establishing a set of conditions for these weak negotiations to occur, the question is put forward, to what level are Design Services autonomous, unrestricted or are they habituated and normalized?

Questions

Which implications (or allegations) are made in the Matter of Design (Dilnot, 2015)? What constitutes a weak negotiation (Dilnot, 2013)? Can we categorize, types and instances of these weak negotiations? Would there be a set of conditions, coherent and recurring, for weak negotiations to persist and be reinforced? Are these conditions a product of isomorphism (institutional isomorphism)? Can isomorphism in Design Services be justified? What are the self-imposed limitations resulting from isomorphic tendencies? Under which conditions, settings or scenarios can Design Services recognize, avoid and eliminate isomorphic tendencies? What is to gain from the reduction of isomorphic tendencies?

Considerations for this Research

By determining if and to what extent institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) is normalizing design practices, we can evaluate design business in terms of its autonomous capacity. This evaluation will look into dominant narratives, linguistic patterns, case materials and rituals (industry publications, annual events, awards and rewards). To establish a grounded theory, we will assess the influence of notable critics and thought leaders and the adoption of their ideas; for example, Tony Fry (Redirective Practice), PP. Verbeek (Mediation Theory), Cameron Tonkinwise (Transition Design). To what extent can the commissioning/procurement of design impose certain requirements and expect consistent compliance to guidelines? This aspect of design business needs to be included in this project since it sets the stage for design practices as they are packaged and sold.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

One final aspect to consider in this project is the contributions from design educators, programs and projects. What are the intentions for choosing certain directions in the field? Central in this aspect of this project is the stages passed through and level of moderation in each of these, from early aspirations and actions to a more compatible and marketable stance, proposition and practice. Eventually, and possibly in a recurring cycle, we should be able to evaluate the adaptive capacity for the design industry and in which areas and aspects of practice the limitations/expansions are to be found.

References Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Dilnot, C. (2013). The Question of Agency in the Understanding of Design. Journal of Design History, 26(3), 331–337. Dilnot, C. (2015) The matter of design. Design Philosophy Papers, 13(2), 115–123. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2), 147–160. Margolin, V. (2002). The Politics of the Artificial: Essays on Design and Design Studies. University of Chicago Press. Margolin, V. (2007). Design, the Future and the Human Spirit. Design Issues, 23(3), 4–15. Tonkinwise, C. (2014). Design’s (Dis)Orders: Transition Design as Postindustrial Design. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/11791137

About the Author Johannes Willem Heesbeen initially studied business with an emphasis on marketing. Combined studies and practice in marketing data and analytics. Extended my analytic capabilities to strategies, which covered branding, brand activation and extensions. Since marketing is essentially one-dimensional (sales) I started studying design and developed into a design researcher. With the wider scope and horizon, the design field has allowed me to contribute in a wide range of areas and projects. Currently an independent Design Researcher and Academic Researcher at Loughborough University in London.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Roles of Design that Leverage Shared Value KIM, Kyulee The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China kyulee.kim@connect.polyu.hk

In 2011, Porter and Kramer proposed a new management “policies and operating practice” (p. 66) called Creating Shared Value (CSV) in an effort to reframe conventional, profit-oriented capitalism by targeting economic profit by solving social problems simultaneously. Although many scholars already have critically reviewed various empirical evidences of shared value, no strong operational guideline how to leverage shared value has been developed (De los Reyes, Scholz, & Smith, 2017). Despite its popularity in other academic fields (Dembek, Singh, & Bhakoo, 2016), only a few design researchers refer to CSV and those reviewed shared value only to support other neighboring concepts such as meaningful innovation (Den Ouden, 2011), or corporate social responsibility (Koo & Cooper, 2011). Although the terminology shared value is rather unfamiliar in the field of design, design’s contribution in shared value creation has been imagined also (Dubois & Dubois, 2012). The first research objective is to explore how existing practitioners have adopted design to realize shared value. The second research aim is to translate design’s identified contributions into a form of operational and transferrable design framework, which practitioners of shared value could adopt in the future. Having determined these two goals, this report summarizes a study progress and research plan. The research is divided into five phases. This is an applied research into design on shared value and qualitative data collection and analysis methods are undertaken because it is pivotal to understand in-depth layers of how design is empirically engaged and what kinds of challenges emerge in real-life. The first three stages of the research have been conducted. The first step of the study yielded a background study, which guided the researcher to review diverse shared value examples. This preliminary study generated a foundation to select four New Product Development (NPD) projects for the following two research steps 2 & 3, and discovered that NPD is one of the most fundamental ways of creating shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Crane, Palazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014; Spitzeck & Chapman, 2012). The second phase of the research is intended to conduct a pilot case study and explore the gap between shared value as design practice and management theory. The third part of the research investigates three product innovation projects with a support of literature review on NPD. The three case studies aim to understand the general process of creating shared value and identify significant challenges during each step. During the main case studies, some of those challenges could be allocated with how shared value practitioners applied design in order to manage the tasks. However, many of the challenges could not be associated directly with any design solution. Therefore, at the fourth step, the identified challenges are brought to design experts to obtain their insights on top of practitioners’ experiences. The final, phase 5 of the research is designed to enhance the practicality and transferability of the research. Therefore, study results of the first four phases are to be codified and provide the design solutions to cope with rapidly increasing demands for shared value in the current economy.

References

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the Value of Creating Shared Value. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153. Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value a theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 231–267. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2554-z. Koo, Y., & Cooper, R. (2011). Managing corporate social responsibility through design. Design Management Review, 22(1), 68–79. Den Ouden, E. (2011). Innovation design: Creating value for people, organizations and society. London: Springer. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77. De los Reyes, G., Jr., Scholz, M., & Smith, N. C. (2017). Beyond the “win-win”: Creating Shared Value requires ethical frameworks. California Management Review, 59(2), 142–167. doi:10.1177/0008125617695286

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Spitzeck, H., & Chapman, S. (2012). Creating Shared Value as a Differentiation Strategy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The example of BASF in Brazil. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 12(4), 499â&#x20AC;&#x201C;513.

About the Author Kyulee Kim. BFA in Fine Art from Carnegie Mellon University. MFA in Graphic Design program at The Basel School of Design. Currently PhD Candidate at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Design consultant and proponent for creating socially responsible yet competitive business value.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Analogical Reasoning in Design and Strategic Decision-Making KOTINA, Ekaterina Loughborough University London, United Kingdom E.Kotina@lboro.ac.uk

Introduction

Given the substantial evidence from psychology that decision makers have difficulties with identifying and applying problem analogs (Gary et al., 2012), an important agenda for research into the cognitive aspects of strategy is to identify mechanisms that improve analogical transfer in complex, dynamic decision environments faced by senior managers. The general research question is: How can analogical reasoning, as utilised in design research, influence strategic decision-making?

Background

One of the central topics in strategy is understanding the process by which decision makers in companies make sense of new changing environments and arrive at strategic decisions (Gary, Wood, & Pillinger, 2012). According to recent research, in these novel situations managers make decisions by using knowledge derived from their past experience in reasoning by analogy (Gavetti, Levinthal, & Rivkin, 2005; Gavetti & Rivkin, 2005). However, so far there exists little research on understanding how and when managers can make effective use of analogies (Gavetti et al., 2005). Prior strategy research suggests that the application of analogies can shape strategic problem definitions, reduce complexity and uncertainty, and produce fresh insights (Gary, Wood, & Pillinger, 2012; Gavetti et al., 2005; Helfat & Martin, 2015a), although it can sometimes mislead decision makers into an overly simplistic or incorrect view of new strategic problems (Schwenk, 1984). However, there are not so many analogical reasoning studies in the strategic domain as in design (Gary et al., 2012), where it has been widely studied (Ball & Christensen, 2009; Visser, 1996) as a central approach serving different aims, including problem formulation (Visser, 1996), problem-solving (Goel, 1997; Rowe, 1982), and uncertainty resolution (Ball & Christensen, 2009).

Methodology

The research methodology for the current study is in vivo research (Christensen & Ball, 2014), which attempts to study design cognition as it takes place in the real world, with no special instructions given to decision makers. This approach could help to improve the ecological validity of the study. The research methods will include at least interviews with decision makers, access to decision-making and brainstorming meetings, observations and shadowing. For the analysis of the results of such research, many scholars in the strategic management field have focused on studying cognitive maps of managers (Barr, Stimpert, Huff, Wiley, & Barr, 1992; Hodgkinson, Maule, & Bown, 2004), because “managers’ mental representations guide cognition and actions relative to strategic choices” (Stubbart, 1989, p. 330).

Discussion

Therefore, design research methods in studying analogies can be linked with strategic decision-making research. The design approach has already been introduced to strategy formulation research (Liedtka & Mintzberg, 2006; Liedtka, 2000), as it provides a theoretical framework for understanding the cognitive strategies and knowledge representations associated with devising “courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones” (Simon, 1969, p. 111). Design and strategy are indeed analogous domains as they deal with ill-defined (Mason & Mitroff, 1981; Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Théorêt, 1976) or otherwise called wicked problems (Camillus, 2008; Churchman, 1967; Dorst, 2015). Thus, decision-making processes used in design can be as well studied in the strategy-making domain.

References

Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2009). Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies, 30(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.005 Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., Huff, A. S., Wiley, J., & Barr, S. (1992). Action , and Change , Strategic Cognitive Renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(93)90335-D Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a Wicked Problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98–101.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2014). Studying design cognition in the real world using the “in vivo” methodology. In P. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds.), The Routledge companion to design research (pp. 317–328). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141-B142. https://doi.org/10.1366/000370209787169876 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Gary, M. S., Wood, R. E., & Pillinger, T. (2012). Enhancing Mental Models, Analogical Transfer, and Performance in Strategic Decision Making. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1229–1246. Gary, M. S., Wood, R. E., & Pillinger, T. (2012). Enhancing Mental Models, Analogical Transfer, and Performance in Strategic Decision Making. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1229–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D. A., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: The power of analogy. Strategic Management Journal, 26(8), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.475 Gavetti, G., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). How strategists really think: Tapping the power of analogy. Harvard Business Review, 83(4), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.10010.abs Goel, A. K. (1997). Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert-Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 12(3), 62– 70. https://doi.org/10.1109/64.590078 Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic Managerial Capabilities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281–1312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314561301 Hodgkinson, G. P., Maule, a. J., & Bown, N. J. (2004). Causal Cognitive Mapping in the Organizational Strategy Field: A Comparison of Alternative Elicitation Procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 7(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103259556 Liedtka, J. (2000). In Defense of Strategy as Design. California Management Review, 42(3). Liedtka, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Time for Design. Design Management Review, 17(2), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2006.tb00034.x Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases and Techniques. NY: Wiley. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976). The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246–275. Rowe, P. G. (1982). A priori knowledge and heuristic reasoning in architectural design. Journal of Architectual Education, 36(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1982.11102632 Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Cognitive Simplification Processes in Strategic Decision-Making. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111–128. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stubbart, C. I. (1989). Managerial Cognition: a Missing Link in Strategic Management Research. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989.tb00732.x Visser, W. (1996). Two functions of analogical reasoning in design:a cognituve-psychology approach. Design Studies, 17(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00020-8>

About the Author Ekaterina Kotina is a PhD Candidate at Loughborough University London. Previously worked for biotechnology industry in R&D and business development. Her key expertise is management of R&D projects and fundraising.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Methods Behind the Strategic Design of Digital Channels Engagements STRAKER, Karla The University of Sydney, Australia karla.straker@sydney.edu.au

Introduction Traditionally design has been employed by businesses to create an artefact or outcome based on marketing research, with the aim of enhancing product development and sales. It is only in recent history that the use of design at an organisational level has been investigated. However, designers have sought to design experiences which foster positive emotional connections, through understanding users and their interactions with a product or company. This research questions how the field of design can help managers design digital channel engagements by focusing on delivering online experiences that drive customer emotions and subsequent behaviours. This rapidly evolving landscape has left managers at a loss, and likely to implement costly mistakes through the development of an unused digital solution.

Background and/or Conceptual Model By starting with people, companies can uncover individual customers’ emotional needs and in turn understand how design can be used to meet their needs (Desmet & Hekkert, 2009; Norman, 2004). This research builds upon Brown’s (2009) and Guenther’s (2012) theories to inform the emergence of a new research area. Placing customers’ emotions at the center of a company’s business strategy can assist in strengthening customer relationships through the provision of innovative digital channel engagements (Parent et al., 2011; Schultz & Peltier, 2013). The cross-sections of emotion (people), strategy (business), and digital channels (technology) form three intersections (Figure 1) that inform three defined areas for the creation of an emotional digital engagement. This model has previously been discussed in Straker, Wrigley, and Rosemann (2015a, 2015b); however, in this article we provide a novel contribution to the methodologies for how to better understand and implement the three areas of (a) company and customer strategy, (b) digital channel strategy, and (c) digital customer experience.

Figure 1. Emotional engagement model.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Methodology The methods used across the three areas on the model are explained through an industry project, in which a digital channel is developed to support a new product and supporting network system for customers. Although other researchers have studied these topics in isolation or looked at connections between two of the three topics, this research investigates the methods behind the three stated areas. The key methods and data for each stage include a) content analysis of market data report, b) content analysis of the industry, competitors and existing digital channels and c) forty-seven (47) interviews of stakeholders and current and future customers. This data is used to inform the initial design brief and prototype of the digital solution, which is then co-created and tested with users.

Results and/or Discussion The significance of this research is two-fold. First, a cohesive and novel process to strategically design digital channel engagements is outlined providing a practical approach to bridge the separate bodies of research. This presents a process of methods that leverage the role of design, to not only produce a digital solution but one that is strategically influenced and positioned to ensure its success. Secondly, the theoretical contribution resides in the advancement of emotional design beyond products and service to the domain of innovative business digital strategy. In times of digitization, organisations are required to rethink the traditional concept of customer relationships as new technologies lead to empowering customers and the dawn of digital disruption upon us.

References Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking can transform organizations. New York: Harper Business. Desmet, P. M. A. & Hekkert, P. (2009). Special issue editorial: design and emotion. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 1–6. Guenther, M. (2012). Intersection: How enterprise design bridges the gap between business, technology, and people. Burlington, VT: Morgan Kaufmann. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design. New York: Basic Books. Schultz, D. E., & Peltier, J. (2013). Social media’s slippery slope: Challenges, opportunities, and future research directions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(2), 86–99. Straker, K., Wrigley, C., & Rosemann, M. (2015a). The role of design in the future of digital channels: Conceptual insights and future research directions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 133–140. Straker, K., Wrigley, C., & Rosemann, M. (2015b). Typologies and touchpoints: Designing multi-channel digital strategies. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(2), 110–128. Parent, M., Plangger, K., & Bal, A. (2011). The new WTP: Willingness to participate. Business Horizons, 54(3), 219–229.

About the Author Dr Karla Straker is an Early Career Development Fellow in the Design Lab, located in the School of Architecture, Design and Planning, at the University of Sydney. She has a Bachelor of Design (Industrial Design) and PhD from the Queensland University of Technology. Her research is in a cross-disciplinary setting exploring the design of digital channel engagements, investigated through theoretical approaches from the fields of design, psychology, marketing and information systems.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Management

Product Development Traditional Design

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Fostering Middle Easternness with Brand Visual Aesthetics BUSCHGENS, Mark Alexander RMIT University, Australia mark.buschgens@rmit.edu.au

We've gone with patterns that are clearly Middle Eastern… You don't necessarily get shapes, colours or patterns that are iconic to each country. — Sami’s Kitchen Spice Brand This form of non-figurative art, described in the above quote as patterns that are clearly Middle Eastern, typifies one form of visual aesthetic that can be used when designing for a brand. Sami’s Kitchen, an Australian brand with transnational reach, repeatedly employs this form of non-figurative art in its packaging design, communications and environments (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). The patterns are a way of enabling an association with Middle Eastern identity and for allowing consumers to have a sense of Transnational Imagined Community (henceforth described as TIC), where people of diverse nationalities and who may never have met distinguish themselves as belonging to a common group (Cayla & Eckhardt 2008; Anderson, 2006). Observing the visual aesthetics of brands like Sami’s Kitchen (Figure 1), this study addresses the question, how do brand aesthetics foster a Transnational Imagined Community?

Figure 1. Sami’s Kitchen Brand Aesthetic.

We use brands embedded with Middle Eastern visual aesthetics as a research context. In doing so, this study aims to specifically examine how a particular form of Middle Eastern non-figurative art characterised by vegetal and geometric ornamentation (Kühnel, 1949; Albas & Salman, 1995) is used by non-Middle Eastern brands to foster an imagined Middle Easternness. While prior research has focused on visual aesthetics fostering a sense of national identity (Wu, Borgerson, & Schroeder, 2013; Schroeder, Borgerson, & Wu, 2015), this study extends research by exploring the role of brand visual aesthetics in fostering a transnational community, a concept that has a much wider reach in the globalized world (Cayla & Eckhardt, 2008). Data consisted of brand aesthetics similar to Sami’s Kitchen and were collected through online forums between the years 2016 and 2017. The primary analytical method employed is critical visual analysis (Schroeder, 2006), a qualitative method in marketing useful for analysing images by drawing on formal techniques in art history. In addition to critical visual analysis, we apply art canons from the Middle East to a visual social semiotic approach so as to better understand how Middle Easternness is promoted by brand aesthetics in a non-Middle Eastern country (Minowa & Belk, 2017; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). The study finds and discusses six sub-dimensions of Middle Easternness, which compose two overarching dimensions of TIC, namely historical and spatial. These sub-dimensions provide brand managers and designers six different ways to foster TIC through the use of visual aesthetics in branding. Additional explanation of each sub-dimension is provided in Figure 2.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

HISTORICAL

MYTH

BIOGRAPHY

MYTH

Life narrative based on a common past Fosters Middle Easternness in a more historically accurate and true sense

TECHNIQUE

Fictional tale based on Maintained process a common past based on a common past Fosters Middle Easternness in more romanticized and fictitious sense

BIOGRAPHY

H I S T O R I C A L

Fosters Middle Easternness in more ongoing and evolutionary sense

TECHNIQUE

BRAND AESTHETIC

Dimensions

(Non-figurative Art)

SPATIAL

PHYSICAL

TOPOLOGICAL

VIRTUAL

Tangible features of transnational space

Relational features of a transnational space

Indirect reality of a transnational space

Fosters Middle Easternness in its most concrete and specific sense

Fosters Middle Easternness in more interconnected and diverse sense

Fosters Middle Easternness in more non-physically existing sense

S P A T I A L

VIRTUAL

TOPOLOGICAL

TRANSNATIONAL IMAGINED COMMUNITY (TIC)

Sub-Dimensions

(Middle Easternness)

Figure 2. Findings and conceptual framework.

Two distinct implications stand out. First, the study identifies the visual dimensions of brands that enable TIC’s to be formed. Second, understanding of the visual aesthetic sub-dimensions in this study provides designers and brand managers alike with the tools for fostering TIC’s in branding building to achieve competitive advantage and reach a transnational segment. Overall, these sub-dimensions help expand prior work on the value of design and aesthetics in branding (Hatch, 2012) the shaping of transnational communities (Cayla & Eckhardt, 2008) and yields deeper understanding of how brandings works.

References Abas, S. J., & Salman, A. S. (1994). Symmetries of Islamic geometrical patterns. Singapore: World Scientific. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York, NY: Verso Books. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. Cayla, J., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2008). Asian brands and the shaping of a transnational imagined community. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 216–230. Hatch, M. (2012). The pragmatics of branding: An application of Dewey's theory of aesthetic expression. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 885–899. Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge. Kühnel, E. (1949). The arabesque: Meaning and transformation of an ornament. Graz, Austria: Verlag fur Sammler. Minowa, Y., & Belk, R. W. (2017). Ad hoc Japonisme: How national identity rhetorics work in Japanese advertising. Consumption Markets & Culture, 20(4), 329–349. Schroeder, J. E. (2006). Critical Visual Analysis. In R. Belk (Ed.). Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing (303–321). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Schroeder, J., Borgerson, J., & Wu, Z., (2015). A brand culture approach to Chinese cultural heritage brands. Journal of Brand Management, 22(3), 261–279. Spiggle, S., (1994). Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503. Wu, Z., Borgerson, J., & Schroeder, J. (2013). From Chinese Brand Culture to Global Brands. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

About the Author Mark Buschgens is a PhD Candidate at the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. His research is situated at the intersection of visual aesthetics, cultural branding and transnational consumption and his PhD project explores the role of brand visual aesthetics in fostering transnational imagined communities. Mark currently teaches Buyer Behaviour and Market Research for undergraduate students at RMIT’s College of Business.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Designing Product Appearance to Facilitate Consumers’ Comprehension of RNPs CHENG, Peiyao Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China 14900511r@connect.polyu.hk

Introduction Designers are frequently involved in developing really new products (RNPs, a.k.a. discontinuous or radical innovations), which refer to product innovations that integrate advanced technology that has rarely been used in the industry and enables consumers to do things they were previously unable to do (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). Developing RNPs is both important and risky for consumers. One of the sources of risks is consumers’ resistance to adopting RNPs because of a lack of comprehension. To facilitate consumers’ comprehension of RNPs, current research mainly focuses on developing the strategies used in advertisements (Gregan-Paxton, 200; Hoeffler, 2003). The role of product appearance is largely overlooked. This PhD project investigates the potential of designing product appearance to facilitate consumers’ comprehension of RNPs. The general research question is proposed: How can designers use product appearance to increase consumers’ comprehension of RNPs? Answering this question contributes to the current strategies that facilitate consumers’ comprehension of RNPs through investigating an unexplored factor: product appearance. Next, as product appearance plays different roles along the different stages in a product’s life-cycle (e.g., introduction stage, maturity stage) (Person, Schoormans, Snelders, & Karjalainen, 2008), this project should shed light on the role of product appearance in the early stage of a product’s life cycle (Eisenman, 2013), which has rarely been investigated thus far. Furthermore, this project contributes to the conceptual discussion on the role of product appearance on RNP communication (Rindova & Petkova, 2007) through clarifying the underlying mechanisms and the specific factors of product appearance that trigger these mechanisms.

Background

Product appearance significantly influences consumers’ processing of a product (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005; Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004). For example, product appearance can communicate functional information and serve as a cue for consumers’ categorisation. Accordingly, this project proposes that product appearance can facilitate consumers’ comprehension: 1. by influencing consumers’ processing of RNPs through congruence between appearance and functionality; 2. by directly communicating the innovative functionality of RNPs; and 3. by serving as a visual cue to trigger analogical learning about RNPs.

Methods

To investigate the three proposed ways, this project focused on three specific factors: visual complexity (Study 1 & 2), transparency (Study 3 & 4) and product metaphor (Study 5 & 6) (see Table 1).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Table 1 Overview of methods and aims in each study

Methods

Aims

Study 1

Controlled Experiment

To explore the influence of visual complexity on consumers’ comprehension of product innovations

Study 2

Designer Interview

To translate the findings of Study 1 into practical guidelines

Study 3

Designer Interview

To explore the usage of transparency in product innovations

Study 4

Consumer Interview

To validate findings of Study 3

Study 5

Controlled Experiment

To explore the potentials of product metaphors in RNP’s

Study 6

Consumer Interview

To explore the risks of product metaphors in RNP’s

Results and Discussion

This PhD project demonstrates the influence of product appearance on consumers’ comprehension of RNPs. Specifically, consumers’ comprehension of RNPs can be improved through designing visually complex appearance (Study 1), using transparency to communicate the innovative functionality (Study 3 & 4) and presenting proper product metaphors together with the accompanying textual clues to explain the product metaphor (Study 5 & 6). Therefore, in practice, to facilitate consumers’ comprehension, designers can consider designing the appearance of a RNP in such a way that it is congruent with consumers’ perception of the RNP, show the internal components to communicate the innovative functionality and design product metaphors to relate RNPs to existing products/concepts familiar to consumers. NPD managers can also consider using both advertisements and product appearances to facilitate consumers’ comprehension of RNPs.

References Creusen, & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577. Eisenman, M. (2013). Understanding aesthetic innovation in the context of technological evolution. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 332–351. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132. Gregan-Paxton, J. (2001). The role of abstract and specific knowledge in the formation of product judgments: an analogical learning perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(3), 141–158. Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406–420. Person, O., Schoormans, J., Snelders, D., & Karjalainen, T.-M. (2008). Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29(1), 30–48. Rindova, V. P., & Petkova, A. P. (2007). When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization Science, 18(2), 217–232.

About the Author Peiyao Cheng is PhD Candidate in School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She focuses on investigating the influence of product appearance on consumers’ comprehension of product innovations in the PhD research. She has published her works in Design Studies and presented her works in several conferences (e.g., IASDR, DRS, DMA).

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Product-Service System Design, a Synthesis Approach DEWIT, Ivo Univeristy of Antwerp, Belgium ivo.dewit@uantwerpen.be

Nowadays, simple product solutions, pure services or stand-alone applications are insufficient to address fast-changing socio-economic issues. Consequently, businesses add, redesign or create new services to their products or vice versa. Yet, assimilation and demarcation approaches tend to have the upper hand in these product-service innovation processes and determine the expertise and associated practice inadequately. Product-Service Systems (PSS) on the other hand aim to solve these complex matters with a focus on the whole, taking all interactions between the various elements into account and integrating product and service into synthesis (Djellal, Gallouj, & Miles, 2013; Drejer, 2004; Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997; Morrar, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2004a, 2004b). Which new characteristics does a synthesis approach bring to the surface for PSS design? Tools and methods to support PSS design already exist in different formats, though often stem from sustainability or focus on business model innovation (Barquet, de Oliveira, Amigo, Cunha, & Rozenfeld, 2013; Ceschin, 2012; Ryan, Tormey, & Share, 2013; Tan & Mcaloone, 2006; Tischner & Vezzoli, 2009). Unfortunately, these foci determine the design outcome in different ways than we see fit for PSS. By means of a PSS design toolkit (Dewit and De Roeck, 2014; Dewit, De Roeck and Baelus, 2014; Dewit, 2015; Dewit et al., 2016; Dewit et al., 2016; Dewit et al., 2017) we concentrate on the delivery of value to those affecting the context and others affected by it, in interaction with the PSS and its resulting experience. Which effect does the PSS design methodology have on the design process, outcome, and the designer?

Figure 1. PSS design toolkit.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Conceptual Model

Figure 2. PSS design process conditions.

Figure 3. PSS design framework.

Methodology We explored (1) the extant literature of PSS, and use empirical data from expert-interviews (3) to fill in the gaps and extend its coverage (Dewit, 2014, 2016). To consolidate an understanding of the phenomenon and its applicability in design (management) practice, we followed a Design Inclusive Research methodology (Horvรกth, 2008; Horvath & Du Bois, 2012; Horvรกth & Horvรกth, 2013) and iteratively created (2) the PSS design toolkit (Dewit et al., 2016) alongside the 79

design efforts of 242 Masters students during the Integrated Systems course (12 ECTS). Participatory Action Research (PAR) was used to monitor the subjects throughout the design process. Over a period of five years we used different data collection methods, resulting in feedback and concrete suggestions for action, e.g., creativity support index (Carroll, Latulipe, Fung, Terry, & Cheriton, 2009), surveys and in-depth interviews.

Figure 4. Research framework.

Results This research resulted a reinterpretation of (PSS) design approaches that copes with the increased complexity in our contemporary mix of products and services. Creating various instantiations of the design research means made it possible to intervene in the design process, evaluate changes and identify interrelationships of input and output. The PSS design toolkit supports the designer with a threefold focus; a synthesis approach, the user experience and the frontend of innovation.

References Barquet, A. P. B., de Oliveira, M. G., Amigo, C. R., Cunha, V. P., & Rozenfeld, H. (2013). Employing the business model concept to support the adoption of product-service systems (PSS). Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 693– 704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.003 Carroll, E. A., Latulipe, C., Fung, R., & Terry, M. (2009). Creativity factor evaluation: Towards a Standardized Survey Metric for Creativity Support. In Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition - C&C ’09 (pp. 127–136). California. https://doi.org/10.1145/1640233.1640255 Ceschin, F. (2012). The introduction and scaling up of sustainable Product-Service Systems A new role for strategic design for sustainability. Politecnico di Milano. Dewit, I. (2014). Towards a Propensity Framework for Product-Service Transitions Product and Service. In I. Horváth & Z. Rusák (Eds.), Proceedings of TMCE (pp. 1–13). Dewit, I. (2015). Product Service System Design: Facilitating experience value representation. In Asian Design Engineering Workshop (pp. 45–50). Hong Kong. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.018. Dewit, I. (2016). Front-end Conditions for Product-service System Design. In Procedia CIRP (Vol. 47, pp. 42–47). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.114 Dewit, I., Cobben, B., Goovaerts, B., Van Steenkiste, C., & Jacoby, A. (2017). Representing a Case-Based Interpretation of the PSS Design Toolkit. In Procedia CIRP (Vol. 64). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.077 Dewit, I., & De Roeck, D. (2014). The front-end of product service system design, a case analysis. In International Conference on Service Sciences and Innovation 2014 (ICSSI 2014) (pp. 1–6). Taipei. Dewit, I., De Roeck, D., & Baelus, C. (2014). Roadmap and toolbox for the ideation stage of the development process of product service systems. In International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education E&PDE (pp. 54–59). Dewit, I., Van Ael, K., Baelus, C., De Roeck, D., De Rijck, R., & Coreynen, W. (2016). Product Service System Design | Strategic Rollout toolkit. (I. Dewit, Ed.). Antwerp: University Press Antwerp (UPA). Retrieved from

http://www.aspeditions.be/nl-be/book/product-service-system-design-product-service-system-strategicrollout/15791.htm Dewit, I., Van Den Bossche, E., Veelaert, L., & Zoons, L. (2016). GRAND.C, beyond the temporality of nodes. Digitally and physically connecting generations through product service system design, a case study. In Proceedings - D and E 2016: 10th International Conference on Design and Emotion - Celebration and Contemplation. Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 Drejer, I. (2004). Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpeterian perspective. Research Policy, 33(3), 551– 562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.004 Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. ELSEVIER Research Policy, 26, 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00030-9 Horváth, I. (2008). Differences between “research in design context” and “design inclusive research” in the domain of industrial design engineering. J. Design Research, 7(1), 61–83. Horváth, I. (2013). Structuring the process of design research - a necessary step towards ensuring scientific rigor. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, 7(August), 361–362 (exec. Summ.), full paper no. DS42_P_341. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236671368_STRUCTURING_THE_PROCESS_OF_DESIGN_RESEARCH__A_NECESSARY_STEP_TOWARDS_ENSURING_SCIENTIFIC_RIGOR/file/3deec52a99f9edeff5.pdf Horváth, I., & Du Bois, E. (2012). USING MODULAR ABSTRACT PROTOTYPES AS EVOLVING RESEARCH MEANS IN DESIGN INCLUSIVE RESEARCH. Proceedings of the Asme International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference 2012, Vol 2, Pts a and B. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-70050 Morrar, R. (2014). Innovation in Services: A Literature Review. Technology Innovation Management Review, (April), 6– 14. Retrieved from www.timreview.ca Ryan, L., Tormey, D., & Share, P. (2013). Transitioning product education to product service education. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education - Growing Our Future, EPDE 2013 (pp. 642–647). Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.084891325642&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 Tan, A. R., & McAloone, T. C. (2006). Characteristics of strategies in product/service-system development. 9th International Design Conference, DESIGN 2006, 1435–1442. Tischner, U., & Vezzoli, C. (2009). Module C: Product-Service Systems; tools and cases. In Design for Sustainability (D4S): A Step-By-Step Approach (pp. 33–75). Retrieved from http://www.d4s-sbs.org/ Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004b). The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of a Goods-Based, Manufacturing Model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670503262946

About the Author Ivo Devit is a design and doctoral researcher at the University of Antwerp in Belgium, with a core in Product Development, background in Business Studies, change management and marketing. His current research focuses on early stage tooling and process support for PSS design. Recently he co-founded SDN Belgium.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Technology Steering: Discovering Quiescent Meanings in Technologies MAGISTRETTI, Stefano Politecnico di Milano, Italy stefano.magistretti@polimi.it

Today’s world is characterized by a continuous evolution in the demand and supply of new technological solutions. The advent of new digital technologies (Arbesman, 2016) causes a misalignment between the traditional and the emerging technology management processes. Indeed, companies and start-ups presumed that simply launching a new technology solution or a new version on the market is sufficient to be perceived as innovative by their customers (Barczak, Griffin, & Kahn, 2009). This is no longer the case, as people seek value and meanings, and not merely incremental solutions (Dahlin, & Behrens, 2005; Verganti, 2009; Verganti, 2017). In this panorama design is becoming more relevant by proposing several approaches such as Design Thinking, Human-centered Design and Design Sprint (Buchanan, 2001; Brwon, 2008, Knapp, Zeratsky, & Kowitz, 2016) that can speed up this process. This evolution requires a deeper knowledge in the field of technology management. Indeed, companies can no longer take decades to develop and integrate new technologies but are compelled to deliver high-impact technology in a shorter time. So, the main research question of the PhD research is formulated as follows. How can companies steer the technology management process in order to foster meaningful applications? Considering the aim of the research, the theoretical backgrounds leverages on both the technology management and design management streams of literature. Cetindamar, Phaal, and Probert (2009) defines technology management as the sequence of three phases: selection (Armstrong, 2001; Scapolo & Porter, 2008), development (Thomke, 2003; Van de Vrande, Vanhaverbeke, & Duysters, 2011), and integration (Inasiti, 2000; Soukhoroukova, Spann, & Skiera, 2012). Given the focus of the research, the analysis will take into account just the last two moments. For the latter all the methodologies to manage creative session and process that can boost the innovativeness of a business unit are studied and considered. Finally, the innovation of meaning (Verganti, 2009, 2017) is considered due to the aim of the research to understand how to foster meaningful technologies. Considering the complexity of the phenomenon and the aim of the research previously reported, an exploratory case study methodology appears to be the most appropriate approach (Eisenhardt, 1989). Indeed, it is particularly suited to answering how questions, and to investigate such problems (Yin, 2011; Siggelkow, 2007). Regarding the sampling, a theoretical and convenient sampling has been adopted in order to identify relevant case study to be analysed. In particular, 10 in-depth case studies have been conducted with major technology developers and supplier such as STMicroelectronics, Samsung, 3M and IBM. The project contributes to the literatures of technology and design management by enriching the knowledge on a particular approach defined as technology steering. For what concerns the practical relevance, the expected outcome of this PhD is the identification of managerial practices that can support companies in accelerating the process of understanding and exploiting the technologies. Regarding the academic relevance, the study enriches the knowledge around technology development and integration to key phases of technology management. Moreover, it sheds light on the crucial role of design methodologies also in technology innovation.

References Arbesman, S. (2017). Overcomplicated: technology at the Limits of Comprehension. Penguin. Armstrong, J. S. (Ed.). (2001). Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (Vol. 30). Springer Science & Business Media. Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. (2009). Perspective: trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23. Brown, T. (2008) Design thinking, Harvard Business Review, 86(6), pp. 84. Buchanan, R. (2001) Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design, Design Issues, 17(3), pp. 35–39. Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. R. (2016). Technology management as a profession and the challenges ahead. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 41, 1–13. Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006). The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 12–18. Iansiti, M. (1995). Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment. Research Policy, 24(4), 521–542. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon and Schuster. Scapolo, F., & Porter, A. L. (2008). New methodological developments in FTA. In Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (pp. 149–162). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Siggelkow, N. (2007) Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20. Soukhoroukova, A., Spann, M., & Skiera, B. (2012). Sourcing, filtering, and evaluating new product ideas: An empirical exploration of the performance of idea markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 100–112. Thomke, S. H. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Harvard Business Press. Van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Duysters, G. (2011). Technology in sourcing and the creation of pioneering technologies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 974–987. Verganti, R, (2009). Design-driven innovation, changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Press. Verganti, R. (2017). Overcrowded: Designing meaningful products in a world awash with ideas. MIT Press. Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage.

About the Author Stefano Magistretti is a Research Fellow in the area of Design and Innovation Management in the School of Management of Politecnico di Milano, where he is also a PhD candidate. His research interests are focused on Technology Innovation and Innovation of Meanings. In particular, he has been working on how to foster radical innovation of meanings starting from the development stage of a technology.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Using Serious Games to Guide Commercial Success O'SULLIVAN, Michael University of Limerick, Ireland

michael.osullivan@ul.ie

Introduction

Despite the vast amount of research carried out on New Product Development (NPD) tools and techniques, studies have shown that there is a huge gap between their academic prevalence and their industry adoption. While many industrialists admit that tools like the Kano Model and the House of Quality would be beneficial to their NPD efforts, they believe that the tools are simply not worth the effort required to use them (Thia, Chai, Bauly, & Xin, 2005). The research aims to address this by integrating the serious game Buy a Feature, which should allow product development teams to prioritise features based on what customers are likely to pay, and at a very early stage of the development process (Hohmann, 2006). This would provide companies with a method of predicting success on the marketplace before committing to the development of the product.

Background

Originally created for portfolio prioritisation and adapted for software development projects, Buy a Feature is a serious game that encourages end-users to collaboratively buy and bid on potential features of a product with play money. By providing users with a total budget that is insufficient to buy all the features, it forces them to think about which features are most important to them and to discuss their reasoning behind each choice. This provides product development teams with valuable insights into which features they should prioritise in order to maximize their efforts and their chances of success on the marketplace. The researcher believes that this game could be an effective way for companies to bring customers into the co-design of physical consumer products too, and believes that the best way to achieve this is to integrate it in with the Kano Model, an existing NPD tool (Sauerwein, Bailom, Matzler, & Hinterhuber, 1996). Based on the Kano Questionnaire, The Kano Model categorises customer wants into four key types: Must-be, one-dimensional, attractive and indifferent (Chen & Chuang, 2008). The researcher believes that Buy a Feature should be played only with one-dimensional and attractive requirements, as indifferent requirements add no value and mustbe requirements simply have to be included. Without this distinction it would be impossible to run the game in an effective way.

Methodology

A study was carried out with 29 teams of final year NPD students bringing a product from concept through to production specification. It is expected that interviews and focus groups will show that teams who used the proposed methodology will have a higher confidence in their product’s fit-to-market than teams who did not use it, and that under peer review their products will be more attractive to members of the public.

Results

Though the interviews and focus groups are ongoing, the study has already shown that many teams’ assumptions about which features customers cared most were incorrect. It is also evident that the game will have to be modified to include multiple tiers of bidding for features categorised as one-dimensional in the Kano Model, and teams should apply a tax when setting prices for features to cover hidden development costs and approximate estimations made at such an early stage of the process, but results thus far are very promising.

References

Chen, C. C., & Chuang, M. C. (2008). Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 667–681. Hohmann, L. (2006). Innovation games: Creating breakthrough products through collaborative play. Pearson Education. Sauerwein, E., Bailom, F., Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1996, February). The Kano model: How to delight your customers. In International Working Seminar on Production Economics (Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 313–327). Thia, C. W., Chai, K. H., Bauly, J., & Xin, Y. (2005). An exploratory study of the use of quality tools and techniques in product development. The TQM Magazine, 17(5), 406–424.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

About the Author Michael Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Sullivan studied Product Design at the University of Limerick and is currently a researcher for the Horizon 2020 project IBUS, developing an integrated business model for customer-driven custom product supply chain. He is pursuing a PhD in new product development, with a particular focus on mass customization and co-design.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Managing New Product Development Teams ROHAERT, Sarah University of Antwerp, Belgium sarah.rohaert@uantwerpen.be

Introduction

The research pursues in depth which types of team collaborations are indicated for New Product Development (NPD) in small and medium enterprises (SMEs), how and why. We explore multiple dimensions, representing potentially impactful aspects of context. These include leadership, organizational structure and strategy versus the operational and dynamic capabilities and shared commitment of the NPD-related employees and the characterisation of their social relations and interactions as factors of influence on which types of NPD team collaboration occur in practice. As NPD knows sector-specific rhythms and routines, we have chosen one particular sector, namely the underexplored furniture sector. Our research responds to the calls for more context-aware theorizing in management, where the body of empirical research tends to downplay context, relying on small, predefined sets of variables and on surveys across industries to only a few respondents per company to auto-report on NPD and team-related issues.

Background

This research ventures to extend team theory by supporting the integration of individual NPD knowledge and work with teamwork and knowledge sharing at both team and organizational level in SMEs. Therefore it builds upon knowledge management theory and the theory of reflective practice and the learning organization, combined with insights from systems thinking.

Methodology

A qualitative approach with in-depth longitudinal case studies has been pursued to gain a contextualised, holistic understanding of the NPD practice and the NPD team collaboration types. The rich data gathering includes semistructured interviews across functional divisions to safeguard a cross functional perspective, involving the CEOs, R&D members, production, quality, marketing and sales managers. The interview data are triangulated with transcripts of NPD-related meetings, observations and informal conversations at work places and a documentary analysis, covering minutes of meetings, answer cards, extracts of employee magazines and webpages, regional news items and files extracted from personal archives of employees (e.g. notes, drawings, internal process descriptions, PrintScreens of map organisations, reports of fair visits, etc.) and pictures taken on location.

Results and/or Discussion

The research provides empirical insights about how multiple dimensions of the company context influence the integration of individual NPD work with cross-functional NPD teamwork, thus enabling or obstructing team learning, team resilience and innovation. While the benefits of cross-functional teams for NPD are emphasized in literature, our findings illustrate that teamwork is not an evident, pervasive practice. Our case study identifies a crucial role for management in setting the scene literally (the office layout) as well as figuratively (clear task, role, responsibility and resource distribution and unanimous definitions of the exploration-exploitation priorities and deadlines) for teamwork on innovation. We suggest to approach the NPD-related activities more as embedded systems in the larger SME context in interaction with the other departments, so that each can anticipate better upon the needed interactions and their consequences. A holistic representation with explicit attention to the specific organisational context of the NPD practice is proposed, as this may generate theory that is more relevant to practice.

References

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2008). Surfacing Tacit Sources of Success. International Small Business Journal, 26, 403–431. Chen, Y.-J, Chen, Y-.M., & Chu, H.-C. (2008). Enabling collaborative product design through distributed engineering knowledge management. Computers in Industry, 59, 395–409.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from cases: opportunities and challenges, Academy of Management Review, 50(1), 25–32. Gill, S. P. (2009). Knowledge as Embodied Performance. In: Cognition, Communication and Interaction. Springer, London, 3–30. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge Management’s Social Dimension: Lessons From Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, Fall 2000, 71–80. Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Johannessen, J-A. (2008). Organisational knowledge as part of knowledge management. International Journal on Information Management, 28, 403–412. Kraaijenbrink, J., Faran, D., Hauptman, A. (2006). Knowledge integration by SMEs. In A. Jetter, J. Kraaijenbrink, H. Schröder, & F. Wijnhoven (Eds.) Knowledge integration: The practice of knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Physica Verlag, Springer, Heidelberg, 17–27. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), December 1994, 23–42. March, J. G. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 201–204. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69 (Nov.-Dec.), 96–104. Peherstorfer, T., & Schmiedinger, B. (2006). Structured Knowledge Transfer in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management. Springer Berlin/ Heidelberg, 234–242. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Sergeeva, A., & Andreeva, T. (2016). Knowledge sharing research: Bringing context back in. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(3), 240–261 Valkenburg, R. C. (2000). Reflective practice as a learning process. Department of Industrial Design. Delft: TU Delft University Press. Yin, R.(2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Inc. Yu, T. F.-L. (2001). Toward a capabilities perspective of the small firm. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 185–197. Xiao, Y., Zhang, H., & Basadur, T. M. (2016). Does information sharing always improve team decision making? An examination of the hidden profile condition in new product development. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 587–595.

About the Author After an exchange in Brazil, Sarah Rohaert graduated as a Master in Product Development. She worked in the Portuguese development centre for a Scandinavian company with colleagues worldwide. Nowadays she combines her PhD with a position as the European Project Semester Program coordinator at the University of Antwerp, while raising awareness about sustainability and the global South as a USOS collaborator.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Product Evolution Across the Valley of Death ROTHKÖTTER, Stefanie Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases Berlin stefanie.rothkoetter@st.ovgu.de

Numerous obstacles line the path of translating innovative ideas from academia to market. The challenges in the translational process that can prevent discoveries and inventions from becoming useful, potentially life-saving products have prompted conceptualizations such as the Valley of Death (e.g., Auerswald & Branscomb, 2003) and the ‘lost in translation’ (Gehr & Garner, 2016). Van Burg et al. (2008) underline the lack of a common methodology or framework in research on academic entrepreneurship as a research gap. Potential new solutions to bridge the Valley of Death are emerging at the intersection of design and science. Design as a factor in the academic innovation process has been studied among others in the Design in Science project (Driver, Peralta, & Moultrie, 2012), however, focus was laid on the contribution to scientific research more than on entrepreneurship. A design-centric research question to cover both may thus be formulated as: How can product prototypes in their function as boundary objects (Simeone, 2016; Star & Griesemer, 1989) support the description of the invention-to-innovation arc? The obvious challenge to overcome is that there is usually no behind-the-scenes look at intermediate stages between an academic invention and its introduction as a product. Participation Action Research (PAR) is a suitable framework for this purpose. In this particular subtype of action research, the researcher is immersed in the project environment as team leader or member and thus has an insider perspective (Ottosson, Björk, Holmdahl, & Vajna, 2006). Since a complete crossing of the Valley of Death is beyond the time frame of the present study, the approach taken in this contribution uses case studies at different levels of development on the science-to-market spectrum. Data is currently available from three PAR projects, all based in the life sciences, in the form of documentations of design artefacts. The analysis is conducted based on models of product design processes. In a preliminary data analysis, classical patterns of divergent and convergent steps were observed (e.g., Liu, Chakrabarti, & Bligh, 2003). The relationships between prototypes and the development of product features from initial spark to full implementation could be visualized in networked prototype maps. It proved essential to keep a complete record of artefacts for analysis, including abandoned ideas and discarded prototypes as these may turn out to be ‘idea bridges’ enabling other, successful ideas. Initial results suggest that a framework describing invention-to-innovation pathways in academia could benefit from taking cues from the ‘Darwinian Seas’ notion (Auerswald & Branscomb, 2003). This concept describes the entrepreneurship process as a fluid environment, a sea to swim rather than a desert to cross, and would illustrate the changes of direction in the evolution of products as observed here. With such a dynamic framework that can be adapted to the practice needs of scientists, designers and other stakeholders in the translational process, a better understanding of the idea–product relationship can take hold and ultimately lead to more successful commercialisation of scientific invention.

References

Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, (28), 227–239. Driver, A., Peralta, C., & Moultrie, J. (2012). Design in science: Exploring how industrial designers can contribute to scientific research. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Gehr, S., & Garner, C. C. (2016). Rescuing the lost in translation. Cell, 165(4), 765–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.043 Liu, Y.-C., Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T. (2003). Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation. Design Studies, 24(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00003-6 Ottosson, S., Björk, E., Holmdahl, L., & Vajna, S. (2006). Research approaches on product development processes. In DS 36: Proceedings DESIGN 2006, the 9th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Simeone, L. (2016). Design moves. Translational processes and academic entrepreneurship in design labs. Malmö University, Malmö. Retrieved from https://dspace.mah.se/bitstream/handle/2043/21426/Simeone_muep.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, (19), 387–420. van Burg, E., Romme, A. G. L., Gilsing, V. A., & Reymen, I. M. (2008). Creating university spin-offs: A science-based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 114–128.

About the Author Stefanie Rothkötter. M.Sc., studied Integrated Design Engineering at Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg and has since been co-developing products with researchers and practitioners in the life sciences. Her research focuses on pathways of product innovation in the academic research environment.

Transforming your ideas into research outcomes Professional Development Workshop 16–18 June, 2018 | RMIT Barcelona

Trigger as Product Language of Users in Everyday Design KIM, Soyoung Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea soyoungkim@unist.ac.kr

Everyday Design (ED) involves the re-use of existing products for new purposes in a way to transform product characteristics originally given by the designer. As such, ED provides cases of user-driven creative product variants. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between product characteristics and ED to investigate the user’s potential for engaging design-driven innovation. Previous research has focused on specific situations and user intent. How can users successfully create new products through existing products? What influences the creation of users' ideas? Our goal is to offer tools for designers to make use of people’s natural tendency to produce everyday design and in that way, make products more sustainable. This research focuses on the role of the product in the new use process. Therefore, this study is to explore product characteristics as triggers for making and using everyday design. The data collection was made in a qualitative inquiry by asking 27 art college students to transform the product. Participants were in their early 20s and a total of 27 students (including 2 male students, 25 female students) participated. Students majored in visual design, painting, ceramics, and animation, but not industrial design. We provided four daily products, foil plates, PET bottles, dustpan and umbrella. The products were chosen from products that are easily accessible in daily life. Although we have provided participants with a period of experience in using the product, abundant product experience is appropriate for the experiment. The four products are configured to have various material and product characteristics. Since we use 27 participants’ data, a total of 108 objects were used for data analysis. After using the product for about a month, the users changed it to a new function of the product. We interviewed the users using semi-structured interviews and the users provided an image of the product process. The current study provides evidence of the user’s ability to engage innovative transformation through ED as design driven innovation. This can be regarded as a meaningful act of the user's redesign, which was considered as a simple product repair or reuse. By conceptualizing the relationship between ED and trigger as a product characteristics, we can explain the use and design of the ED. This provides to designers’ insights and product design strategies by clarifying the source and interaction of a product’s meaning and triggers. The strategies will increase communication between users and designers and enable sustainable consumption.

References Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press. Brand, R., & Rocchi, S. (2011). Rethinking value in a changing landscape and business transformation. A Philips Design Paper, 30. Brandes, U., & Erlhoff, M. (2006). Non Intentional Design. daab. Bravo, E. (1993). The hazards of leaving out the users. In D. Schuler, & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (pp. 3-12). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008). Representing artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 15–27. Desjardins, A., & Wakkary, R. (2013). Manifestations of Everyday Design: Guiding Goals and Motivations. C&C, 253–262. Dix, A. (2007). Designing for Appropriation. Proceedings of the 21st BCS HCI Group Conference, 2, 27–30. Retrieved from

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/41618/ Don Ihde. (2008). The Designer Fallacy and Technological Imagination. Philosophy and Design. In Philosophy and Design (pp. 51–59). Springer. Kim, H., & Lee, W. (2014). Everyday design as a design resource. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 1–13. Kuhn, S., & Muller, M. J. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 24–28. Leadbeater, C. (2005). TED Global Lecture on Innovation: The Rise of the Amateur Professional. Ted.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. doi:10.1080/15710880701875613. Maestri, L., & Wakkary, R. (2011). Understanding repair as a creative process of everyday design. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition, (January 2011), 81–90. doi:10.1145/2069618.2069633 Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? on the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123–139. Rosner, D., & Bean, J. (2009). Learning from IKEA hacking. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 09, 09pp, 419. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1518701.1518768 Suri, J. F., & IDEO. (2005). Thoughtless Acts?: Observations on Intuitive Design. BOOK, Chronicle Books. Retrieved from

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=r8gIHFia3iYC Vardouli, T. (2015). Making use: Attitudes to human-artifact engagements. Design Studies, 41, 137–161. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.08.002. Wakkary, R., & Tanenbaum, K. (2009). A Sustainable Identity: The Creativity of an Everyday Designer. CHI, 365–374.

About the Author Soyoung Kim is a doctoral researcher at Emotion Lab, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) in Korea. She earned a Bachelor of Arts at Ewha Womans University and a Master of Engineering at KAIST. Her doctoral research is a new use of everyday products. She focuses on sustainability and emotion in the human-product interaction.