Integration of Managerial and Sociological Perspective of Innovation: A Framework to the Development...

INTEGRATION OF MANAGERIAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF

INNOVATION: A FRAMEWORK TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF

RADICAL INNOVATION PRODUCT

LEONARDO A.V. GOMES

1

lavgomes@gmail.com

GUILHERME AMARAL1

guisgamaral@gmail.com

ROBERTO SBRAGIA2

rsbragia@usp.br

MARIO SERGIO SALERNO1

msalerno@usp.br

SIMONE LARA1

simonelara@usp.br

1 Polytechnic School, Production Engineering Department, University of São Paulo

Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, trav.2 nº128 – Cidade Universitária – São Paulo – SP, Brazil

2 School of Economics, Business Administration and Accounting, University of São Paulo

Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 908 - São Paulo – SP, Brazil

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the development of new products with

radical innovations, which are capable of changing the rules of the competitive

game, creating new markets and destroying the companies’ then currently

established position. This subject matter has been intensely and controversially

debated, especially about the current product development models and processes

considered more directed toward products with incremental innovations by part of

the academic and practice community. Despite the current advances in this

discussion, there are few papers that propose a process to help the management

and systematic development of products with radical innovations. With this

purpose, this study applied the design research methodology, which is structured

in five steps: organizational science, principles, project rules, organizational

project; implementation and experimentation. The result was a framework for the

product development process, which has a specific scope and a non-linear,

recursive and sequential structure.

Keywords: Product development process, technological transition, radical

innovation.

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the development of new products with radical

innovations, which are capable of changing the rules of the competitive game (DAY et al.,

2000), creating new markets and destroying the companies’ then currently established

position (SCHUMPETER, 1911; NELSON; WINTER, 1982; CHRISTENSEN, 1997,

O´CONNOR, 2005). This subject matter has been intensely and controversially debated in

the last years, especially about the current product development models and processes, such

as stage-gate (COOPER, 1994), which are considered more directed toward products with

incremental innovations (ex: O´CONNOR, 1998; BESSANT, et al., 2005). An initial

consensus has been formed in the literature on product development that these models are

inadequate to organize and direct the product development with radical innovations, because

they are rigid (ex: BESSANT et al., 2005), linear (ex: BIAZZO, 2005) and more oriented

toward products that meet current needs (SARAVASTHY, 2007).

The literature on product development has a long tradition of preparation, proposition and

discussion about frameworks, models and methodologies to help companies in the

development process of new products (COOPER, 1994). Since the 70’s, academics and

practitioners have cooperated to try to respond to the challenges of this critical process

(COOPER, 1994) for the survival of companies in the long term (TIDD et al., 1997). In the

90’s, two models emerged from the process of analyzing the best practices for the product

development in leading companies: stage-gate process, which is directed by Cooper (1993;

1994; 1996), and funnel model (CLARK; WEELRIGHT, 1991). These two models strongly

influenced the practice, spreading the idea that the most successful organizations are those

having a formal product development process (BARCZAK et al., 2009).

The idea based on the importance of a formal product development process, which especially

follows the stage-gate logic, started to be more questioned from the pioneering papers of two

authors: Christensen (1997) and O’Connor (1998). The papers of theses authors gave rise to

two important debates: the importance of radical innovation for the survival of companies in

the long term and the current capacity of product development process in helping

organizations develop products with radical innovations.

This debate has intensified in the last years (for example: LEIFER, O’CONNOR, RICE,

2001). Companies’ difficulty in developing products with radical innovation starts to be

documented (LEIFER et al., 2000; BIAZZO, 2009), as well the characteristics of radical

innovation projects, particularly, the associated high level of uncertainties (PICH et al., 2001;

O’CONNOR; DEMARTINO, 2006). However, there are few studies dedicated to developing

or gathering the set of practices in the form of management process, in order to systematically

develop products with radical innovation. One of the few examples in the literature is the

study conducted by Bessant et al., (2005), who tried to gather the best practices for products

with non-incremental innovation.

This article aims to propose an initial framework to help companies manage and develop

products with radical innovation. The research strategy consists of raising practices for the

product development process with radical innovation already identified by literature (for

example: DAY et al., 2000). These best practices will be grouped and organized in the form

of structured process, which will be analyzed in view of how companies of different sizes and

technological bases can develop products with this level of innovation. On this purpose, this

paper was organized as follows: the first part reviews the literature on the product

development process and radical innovation. In the second part, this study identifies

instruments and methodological strategies applied in order to meet the goals set. In the third

part, this study presents and discusses the results of this research. Lastly, conclusions will be

discussed, limitations of this research will be highlighted and remarked, as well as possible

developments of this research will be explained

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Product development process

Product development consists of conducting a universe of activities, managing and

transforming resources, information and competence in specifications and products that will

meet a need of the market (CLARK; WEELWRIGHT, 1993). Cooper, Edget and

Kleinschmidt (2005) report that the most successful companies use formal processes, with

well-defined criteria, focusing on the qualification of the team and on the quality of the

performance of activities. More than the product quality, it is necessary to have development

quality, which enables higher efficiency and effectiveness, decreasing failure rates and

development time (COOPER, 1993). In this sense, several product development process

models have been proposed in the literature, such as that of Clark and Wheelwright (1993),

who present the concept of development funnel.

One of these models (maybe the most diffused and accepted model) is connected with the

structuring of product development process (PDP), with the employment of stages and

decision-making points (or stage-gates). Stage-Gate process can be defined as a conceptual

and operational map that moves the new product from its idea to its release, i.e., a blueprint

or a roadmap, in order to manage the product development process, increasing its efficiency

and efficacy (COOPER, 2008).

Barczak et al., (2009) carried out a large survey in the USA, with the purpose of raising the

best practices for managing the process of new products and found that the establishment of a

formal process of PDP has become a well-diffused and accepted practice, with a special focus

on the implementation/adaptation of stages and decision-making points. One of the main

authors and disclosing person of stages-gates is Robert Cooper, in his several articles

(COOPER, 1994, 2008).

More recently, several authors started to agree that stage-gate is more indicated to

incremental innovations, environments with few uncertainties and turbulence, due to its

linear, sequential, one-fits-all structure (BHATTACHARYA et al., 1998; O’CONNOR,

1998, 2005; BIAZZO, 2009; PHILIPS et al., 2006). Some practices that are present in stage-

gate process, such as Net Present Value (NPV) and market research are associated with

innovation projects with less risk or uncertainty. The approach of Cooper (1994) also fails in

capturing the entire complexity of the product development process with radical innovation,

especially its social and temporal dynamic. In the next section, this study will deepen the

debate on radical innovation and need of a complementary approach, employing concepts of

sociology and evolutionary economics, in order to meet the development dynamic of

products with radical innovations.

2.2 Radical innovation

One of the contributions of this paper is the proposition of a new definition of innovation,

which consists of contributions arising from the sociology of innovation, evolutionary

economics, innovation management and project management. The definition adopted consists

of the concept of innovation as a transition that can be comprised of three dimensions: level,

extension and trajectory. An innovation is more or less radical according to the level,

extension and trajectory of transition that it can represent (DOSI, 1982; AFUAH; BAHRAN,

1995; GEELS, 2004).

Is important to differentiate the matter of level, extension and trajectory, because the three of

them bring important implications about the development, use and diffusion of innovation.

An innovation can be radical for the customer, but it can be incremental for suppliers and

innovators (AFRAN, BAHRAN, 1995). This implies that innovation can represent a

transition in a certain aspect (for example: practice of users), but without necessarily

modifying other aspects (for example: the practiced business model). Thus, “level” refers to

the transition intensity caused by innovation. “Extension” exactly refers to the number of

aspects that an innovation can modify. For example, an innovation can modify the manner

that the customer uses the product and, at the same time, require new structures, competence

of the industry and legislation. The higher the level and extension of transition, the higher the

presence of uncertainties, the number of authors involved and the space for learning (GEELS,

2004).

Another important discussion relates to the systemic perception of innovation and to the

concept of co-evolution. Several researchers of different fields of knowledge emphasize that

innovation has a systemic character not only in its production, but also in its use and diffusion

(NELSON; WINTER, 1982; TEECE, 1986; MOORE, 1994; CHESBROUGH, 2003). The

development of an innovation can involve the modification or appearance of significant

technological systems (HUGHES, 1989), creation of new markets (O’CONNOR, 2005;

SCHUMPETER, 1912), such as Internet, energy, automobile, computer (GEELS, 2004),

involving a wide set of actors, such as universities, companies, formulators of public policies,

non-governmental organizations, among others (RAVEN; GEELS, 2010).

The appearance, development and success of an innovation follow a co-evolutionary process,

in which technologies and institutions intrinsically become part of the same dynamic of

development (NELSON; SAMPAT, 2001). For an innovation to be successful, it is not

enough to increase the demand, pursuant to the perspective of classic industrial economy, but

the co-evolution between market (for example: users) and technology (LUNDVALL, 1988);

co-evolution among technology, industry, structure and public policies (LEYDESDORFF;

ETZKOWITZ, 1998); co-evolution among science, technology and market (CALLON,

1991); co-evolution between technology and culture (VAN DIJCK, 1998) and co-evolution

between technology and society (FREEMAN; SOETE, 1997).

A framework that can help the understanding of innovation as the transition in its three

dimensions is the multi-level perspective (GEELS, 2004). The multi-level perspective aims to

integrate the discovery of different literatures as the “appreciative” literature. The different

levels are analytical and heuristic concepts, in order to understand the complex and dynamic

socio-technical change (GEELS, 2004), which is started by the development of products with

radical innovation. Radical innovations appear in small niches, passing through a complex

and systemic co-evolutionary process (arising from the series of innovations in different

aspects), until it becomes the solution established. The multilevel perspective is set forth in

figure 3, followed by the detailing of its composing elements:

Figure 1- Multilevel perspective

Source: Geels (2004)

- Landscape: it is an external structure or a context for the actors to interact with one another

(GEELS, 2002), which influences behavior, but which cannot be modified by the actors;

- Patchwork of regimes: it is referred to elements (for example: rules, resources, etc.) that

enable and constrain an activity within a certain community; “landscape” refers to broader

external factors. Geels (2004) point out that the patchwork of regimes is composed of five

regimes: i- technological and product; ii- scientific; iii- political; iv- social and cultural; v-

users, market and distribution network. Each regime organizes itself and is organized

according to types of rules/institutions, to wit: regulatory, normative and cognitive (for

additional details, please see Scott (1995) and Geels (2004)).

- Technological niches: researchers of technological sociology and evolutionary economy

emphasize the importance of niches, such as incubation locus and development of radical

innovations (GEEL, 2004). Niches are locations that deviate from the rules of the prevailing

regime. They can be composed of small markets, with the selection criterion based on high

performance. Rules are less clear and articulated in niches.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The most suitable research methodology for the goals set by this research is the design

research. This methodology aims to establish rules and standards that can explain the

behavior of organizations and it is recognized as the research method prepared to “employ the

scientific methodology” in organization actions that will not only meet pragmatic

requirements of business world, but also the requirements of academic world. It focuses on

developing principles of construction and project rules, which are based on organizational

theory, as well as on organizational solutions implemented and tested in “real world”.

[Organizational science – Principles of construction – Project rules – Organizational project – Implementation

and experimentation]

Figure 2 – Cycle of research and development of Design Research

Source: Romme and Endenburg (2006)

Organizational science (or theory) means an accumulated set of concepts, theories and relations

experimentally verified; which are useful to explain organizational processes and results. It is the

empirical and pragmatic evidence obtained in real situation.

In this part of the research, there was the definition of fields and areas of knowledge, which

are related to product development process with radical innovation. The literature used was

on the: development of new products, radical innovation, evolutionary economy concerned to

radical innovation and the authors of sociology of technology, who discuss technological

transition focused on radical innovation.

Principles of construction are the set of imperative propositions and bridge the gap between the

descriptive nature of organizational theory and the prescribed nature of technological rules,

emphasizing the importance of a certain type of solution for certain values and goals. Should a

participant engaged in the development of a project construct the understanding of principles of

construction used, his/her capability of learning and capability of action will tend to be improved.

In this article, propositions were the best practices in the product development with radical

innovation. For the survey of propositions, a bibliographical analysis was carried out. This

survey consisted of a search in three bases: Scopus, EBSCO and ISI Web of Knowledge. In

the searches, there was the inclusion of academic publications of which title, keywords or

abstracts had the following expressions: “radical innovation”, “discontinuous innovation”,

“breakthrough innovation” or “disruptive innovation”. These bases encompass a considerable

part of international publications referring to management areas. In this article, there was

only the analysis of academic articles published in indexed magazines. Books, theses,

dissertations and articles published in scientific congresses were not observed. In each article,

there was the analysis of its title, keywords and journal of publication. Only articles that

discussed the management and development of products with radical innovation were

selected. Articles related to radical innovation in services, processes and business model were

not analyzed.

Project rules are the set of guidelines for the organization’s project, which are based on the

set of principles of construction that are instrumental bases for the organization’s project

work. Project rules should be integrated with the other rules of the organization and cannot

applied without considering the contingencies of the situation of design (for example: history,

size and technology), and the preference of people engaged in the organization’s project.

The principles previously raised were grouped in a set of stages in order to direct the product

development process project. These stages were defined from the review of the literature,

especially from the paper of Tidd et al., (2005), who argues that every product passes through

a set of similar steps: product project planning, analysis or study of market, product project

process of process and release. This group is coherent with other studies of radical innovation

(for example: O’CONNOR, 2005; BESSANT et al., 2005), who suggest that product

development with radical innovation also passes though these stages, but with different

sequence and/or structures.

In order to define the organizational product development project, there was the adoption of

the model proposed by Gomes and Salerno (2010). This model was originally proposed for

the product development process in academic spin-offs. The DPD model proposed by these

authors has a non-linear, recursive and sequential structure, which is more suitable for the

development of products under uncertainty. These activities will be presented and described

in the part of results.

Implementation and experimentation are the implementation itself of the project carried out and

the test of processes arising from this project. In this step, studies of multiple cases in different

organizations will be conducted. The unit of analysis will be product development projects, which

is a similar approach to that adopted by Cooper (1991), for the development of stage-gate

concept, and by Clark and Weellright (1993), for the development of funnel concept. It is worth

emphasizing that, in the case of this article, the case study approach will be applied to test the

adherence of framework (figure 5).

Voss et al. (2002) argue that the case study methodology is particularly useful when the

purpose of the research is to propose a new model or a new theory (EISENHARDT, 1989).

This is compatible with the purpose of the research – the construction of a product

development process model. The aim will be to understand what key variables of PDP with

radical innovation in different organizations, with different technological bases, sizes and

sectors. This may enrich the research and construct an analytical and empirical scenario for

the proposition, in order to test the adherence of framework to the practice of product

development with innovations in Brazilian companies.

In order to meet the goals set by this research, the field research was structured as follows: a)

preparation of protocols and instruments of research; b) definition of a universe of criteria for

the definition of potential cases to be investigated; c) selection of cases; d) conduction of the

field research; e) preparation of model.

Voss et al. (2002) reinforce that the validity of results achieved in a case study depends on the

rigor in the conception of protocols and instruments of research. Protocols were prepared

from the review of literature on product development processes and technological transition.

These protocols corresponded to key questions that oriented the preparation of questionnaires

and plans of research that were applied in the cases. In order to enable the storage, study and

analysis of the information obtained in the field of study, an informational framework was

constructed.

Nine projects in eight different organizations were analyzed, as set froth in table 1.

Table 1- List of investigated projects

Source: Authors

Company Size Sector Analysed Project

Company 1 Big Chemical Project 1 - Launched in the market - A new resin development

Project 2 - Developing - A new kind of resin development

Company 2 Small Nanotechnology Project 3 - Launched in the market - A nano-material with antibacterial property

Company 3 Big IT Project 4 - Launched in the market - A mobile telephony software

Company 4 Small Energy Project 5 - Launched in the market - A technolgy of internet transmission by the electricity distribution grid

Project 6 - Developing - A Video-conference to call-centers technology

Company 5 Small Building Project 7 - Developing - A new type of material to buildings with susteinability paradigm

Company 6 Big Cosmetic Project 8 - Launched in the market - A new type of functional food

Company 7 Small Software Project 9 - Launched in the market - A 3D software to education

This “science of design” cycle is complemented by the observation, analysis, interpretation of

process and of results generated, and, when necessary, adaptation of organizational theories or

construction of new theories. In this sense, the use of principles of construction and expressed

project rules facilitates the transfer of results achieved from the learning among different projects,

enabling a cumulative character of researches carried out, in the direction of based theories that

should integrate the body of knowledge of organizational theory.

This new research method may contribute to the formulation of theories that can fill both rigorous

academic criteria and criterion of relevance for the improvement of organizations.

4. RESULTS

The framework proposed was organized in two parts (figure 5). The first part consists of

product development management, focusing on the development of its technical dimension.

The second part – innovation ecosystem management – is more directed toward the

construction, mobilization and coordination of social systems and structures required for the

development and success of the product with radical innovation.

Fig

ure

3-

Fra

mew

ork

pro

pose

d f

or

pro

du

ct d

evel

op

men

t w

ith

rad

ical

inn

ovat

ion

Sou

rce:

Au

thors

4.1 Management of product development process with radical innovation

a- Project planning

Project planning refers to the structuring of project activities and decisions; identification of

predictable and unpredictable uncertainties and of the complexity related to decisions (PICH

et al., 2001); definition of management approaches for each decision under uncertainty and

complexity: selection and/or learning (SOMMER; LOCH, 2004); identification of the main

technological challenges of project (TIDD et al., 2005); analysis of what parts of project will

be externally or internally carried out (CHESBROUGH, 2003); valuation of project, using the

method of Real Options (HUCHZERMEIER; LOCH, 2001). It is emphasized that the value

of project can be recalculated throughout the project, observing the emergence of new

information and uncertainties. It is worth emphasizing that project planning can be reviewed

in any product development stage. The emergence of new information or uncertainties,

including unpredictable uncertainties, may require the project re-planning. In every case

analyzed, product development was re-planned upon new information and/or uncertainties.

Decision Point – Initial Plan – It is the preparation of Initial Plan that must have the map of

uncertainties (GOMES; SALERNO, 2010); definition of agreements and terms of

partnerships; valuation of project; the project develops observing whether the option to be

exercised is “to continue” or “to invest more”.

b- Sketch of product concept

Product concept is related to the preparation of initial functions of product and to the

identification of customers’ needs. It is important to emphasize that, to the contrary of

incremental innovations, customers’ needs are not well defined in the beginning of product

development. In all cases analyzed, designers had to manage a complex learning process

involving customers, suppliers and designers themselves. In the case of company 2, two

designers constructed a learning channel that involved customers, in which, from the use of

the product in a field and the learning obtained from this use, designers modified and

developed the product concept. Designers can use the concept of innovation journey, which is

developed by the company, Ideo (TIDD et al., 2005), from which the user’s real experience,

customers’ needs are identified and product concept is defined. This conceptual prototype can

also be employed to help construct the network required to enable the product development.

The concept, in this case, may not be only restricted to technical functions of product, but it

must reflect values, symbols and rules of several actors (especially customers), who compose

the product niche. It is emphasized that the non-linear and recursive structure again reflects

the practice of product development with radical innovation. In six of nine projects analyzed,

product concept was modified throughout its development.

Decision Point – Conceptual prototype – It is the preparation of conceptual prototype.

c- Construction and learning with the market

Traditional research methods are more directed toward existing products, with needs already

known (SARAVASTHY, 2007). For new products, with radical innovation, O’Connor (1998)

suggests that the development team construct interaction channels with the market, which

enable to learn from the customer’s experience. Von Hippel (1988) was one of the first

authors to emphasize the importance of obtaining information and developing the product

from the customer’s use, especially, leading users. O’Connor (1998) also proposes that

designers should try to coordinate or influence this learning process. For this purpose, it is

necessary that the team make deliberate efforts to construct the market. The process of

constructing the market is, above all, the process of constructing networks. In this point,

sociology of technology provides some important contributions, in order to understand how

the development team constructs the market. For Akrich, Callon, Latour (2002), the

innovation process consists of the construction of networks of allies. From Geels’ point of

view (2002), this network is related to the user’s functional dimension. In all cases analyzed,

development teams made deliberate efforts to construct relations with the actors who

constitute the market. It is important to emphasize that the sequential, non-linear and

recursive logic of model implies that the process of construction and learning with the market

are carried out throughout the project, including after its release, from competitors’ actions,

new issues and problems occurred in the field, etc.

Decision Point – Embryonic Prototype – The product concept should start incorporating

customers’ initial needs; strategies for the expansion of network of customers and other allied

actors of product must be also defined.

d- Product Project

Product project is an important stage in the proposed framework. To the contrary of what is

proposed by Cooper (1993), in relation to the proposed framework, the project starts in stage

3, but it lasts even after the product release. This stage consists of preparing the version that

will be as close as possible to that of commercial product. Product parts are specified, product

physical design is projected, etc. Quick prototyping techniques can be used (ROZENFELD,

2006). Managers should use their efforts to obtain the coordination of different actors, with

different cultures and world view, when the innovation process is open.

Decision Point – Functional Prototype – It is expected that the main product functions be

mapped and identified.

e- Project of the Process

This step is directed toward the project of production process. Potential suppliers of sub-

products, raw materials or components and strategies of production and production

scheduling are defined. The team should analyze and conceive plans in view of the necessity

of flexibility for incorporating potential product modifications, from the learning obtained by

customers, when using the product.

4.2 - Innovation ecosystem management

a- Dimension of Science and Technology

As previously seen, technological innovation process can be better understood as a systemic

phenomenon. Institutions of science and technology (ISTs, Universities, etc.) are an

important part of innovation system or social and technical system. Several authors

emphasize the importance of scientific and technological system for the innovative

performance of companies (for example: FREEMAN & SOETE; 1998). Likewise, the

importance of cooperation networks between universities and companies has been

emphasized in the literature on innovation strategy and management (for example:

CHESBROUGH, 2003). The dimension of science and technology consists of efforts within a

network of researchers, laboratories and institutes aiming to set schedule, in order to solve

problems related to the technology applied to the product development in question.

b- Market Niche Dimension

The product project will demand the establishment of a network of actors aiming to provide

support to production. In this moment, there will be the establishment of relations among

suppliers, financiers, customers and distributors, in order to help develop the product project,

to create learning channels and spaces with customers (especially leading users), among other

aspects. The product development with radical innovation faces the challenge of changing the

rigid structure that supports a social and technical system established (as set forth in fig. 2)

and the innovation is gradually developed by means of the constitution of market niches,

where the variation process (definition of the product technological standards and

characteristics) and selection (acceptance and diffusion by the market) occur under

requirements that are different from those set forth in the established social and technical

system (GEELS, 2002), which was observed in 5 projects analyzed (projects 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8).

In market niche step, there are actions aiming to constitute a network of actors, in order to

spur the learning process that will enable the understanding and definition of customers’

needs, constitution of a market, etc.

c- Commercial Dimension

After the development phase of specifications of the product and its embryonic period, which

is considered by many to be the most critical phase for radical innovation or “death valley” of

innovation (RAVEN; GEELS 2010), the new product starts being developed with the

objective of being inserted into the market. For this purpose, it is necessary to create a

network that enables its diffusion and that makes the insertion of innovation into the market

feasible. This step is critical once it is necessary to pass the market selection and to set a

feasible technological trajectory in the social and technical system in force.

d- System Dimension

After the market diffusion process, a new trajectory of radical innovation starts to be

followed, which will naturally be imitated by competitors and suffer the competition of other

innovations developed in new niches. In this moment, the company may lose the control over

the technology, which starts to be part of a social and technical system composed of several

and heterogeneous actors, with their own schedules and freedom of action, aiming to obtain

profits and differentiation. It is important that the company can develop mechanisms of

feedback and intelligence, so that it can follow the market evolution and the development of

complementary assets.

4.3 Framework analysis in view of case studies

In table 2, there was the analysis of the adherence of steps and dimensions according to the

scale: adherence (proposed set of activities is present in project activities); partial adherence

(part of the activities was not carried out by actors); non-adherence (the major or total

suggested activities do not adhere to companies’ practice); and without conclusion (the

project stage does not enable its evaluation).

Table 2- analysis of the adherence of steps and dimensions

Source: Authors

5. IMPLICATION FOR MANAGERS AND LITERATURE, LIMITATIONS AND

FUTURE RESEARCHES

The purpose of this article was to structure an initial framework, in order to help companies

organize a process for the systematic product development with radical innovations.

Recently, part of the literature on product development has been advocating that current

approaches of product development models and processes are more directed toward

incremental innovations. These authors argue that these models are more suitable for

products with less uncertainty, especially unpredictable products, complexity, more stable

environments and for meeting well known needs and existing markets. However, the

differences between radical and incremental innovation projects can go beyond these aspects.

Radical innovations may require the construction of markets, which implies the creation of

values, rules, culture, laws and institutions, which are necessary for their development and

commercial success. Besides this, radical innovations tend to introduce very primitive

versions into the market, and several sequential innovations are necessary until the product to

overcome the death valley.

The death valley transposition is not limited to the product technical innovation, requiring the

construction of an ecosystem of innovation, which has a technical and social dimension,

contemplating not only companies and customers, but also other actors, such as investors,

suppliers, banks, NGOs, public policy formulators, among others.

In order to develop a framework that could contemplate this entire complexity, the research

method, Design Research, was applied. This study aimed to survey the best practices

suggested by the literature on product development for the development of products with

radical innovation. These practices were grouped and organized in a framework.

Subsequently, nine case studies of projects of products with radical innovation were

conducted, in order to analyze the adherence of framework to companies’ reality.

The framework conceived is still a very initial proposition. It was structured in two parts:

product development process management and product development ecosystem management.

The first part has a stage-gate approach, but it has a non-linear, recursive and sequential

structure. This structure seems to be more suitable for projects with radical innovation, in

which the modification in the course of project (for example: product re-planning) may occur

even in more advanced stages, due to the emergence of new information and unpredictable

uncertainties. This first part directly dialogues with the literature on product development,

which is more directed toward the product development itself, without, however, focusing on

the social dimension (especially in relation to the market).

The second part of framework aims to understand innovation in its practice, which, according

to the point of view of sociology of technology, consists of a process of construction of

networks of actors, forming an ecosystem of innovation. This second part aims to present

how this network construction process occurs, both, internally, in the company, especially in

large companies, and externally, in different communities (for example: market, science and

technology, commercial community). This second part enables the understanding that product

development with innovation may occur systemically, involving several actors, resources,

knowledge, in a co-evolutionary process that is marked by the collective and non-linear

learning. Thus, the innovation ecosystem management was proposed to serve as a roadmap,

in order to help development teams in the conception, coordination and management of this

ecosystem.

Case studies in companies of different sizes reveal that small and large companies experience

different problems. In large companies, development teams may face internal resistance, once

the innovation may not be suitable for the strategy and business model in force. In these

cases, as the radical innovation may imply the break of company’s strategic and cognitive

paradigms, cannibalizing products and creatively destroying resources, skills and

qualifications, besides threatening the existing structures of power, the team should make a

deliberate effort to initially construct the network inside the company. Small companies tend

to face the lack of credibility, legitimacy and reputation in the market, which restrains the

raise of funds, construction of partnerships, among other factors. In start-up companies, the

development of radical innovation may mix with the company’s development.

Future researches are still necessary for the evolution of framework. Primarily, it is necessary

to expand the basis of chaos in companies of different sizes and sectors. It is also necessary to

increasingly focus on successful projects. Differently from what other actors had done in the

past, in researches conducted abroad, which only investigated successful projects, this

research considered: incomplete projects, complete projects, complete but commercially

unsuccessful projects and complete and commercially successful projects. A second aspect is

the necessity to implement the framework to accurately analyze its operation. Lastly, it is

important to focus on the possible contingencies of framework, when focusing on differences

among companies (sizes, sectors and technological bases).

References

Akrich, M.; Callon, M.; Latour, B (2002) The key of success in innovation Part I: the art of

interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, v.6, n.2, p.187-206.

Barczak, G., Griffin, A.; Kenneth B. K (2009) PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in

NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, v.26, p.3-23.

Bhattacharya, S.; Krishnan, V.; Mahajan, V (1998) Managing New Product Definition in Highly

Dynamic Environments. Management Science, v.44, n.11.

Biazzo, S (2009) Flexibility, Structuration, and Simultaneity in New Product Development. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 26, p. 336-355.

Bijker, WE.; Hughes, TP.; Pinch, TP (1989). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New

Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press; Cambridge: 1994.

Chesbrough, H (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from

Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Chesbrough, H (2006) Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Christensen, CM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma – when new Technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.

Clark, KB and Weelwright, SC (1993) Managing new product and process development. NY: Fress

Press.

Cooper, RG (1984) New product strategies: what distinguishes the top performers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v.2, p.151-164.

Cooper, RG (1990) Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons,

v.33.

Cooper, RG (1993) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process Idea to Launch. Cambridge,

Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Cooper, RG (1994) Third-Generation New Product Processes. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, v.11, n.1, p.3-14.

Cooper, RG.; Edgett, SJ.; Kleinschmidt, EJ (2005) Benchmarking Best NPD Practices-3: The NPD

Process & Key Idea-to- Launch Activities. Research-Technology Management, v.47, n.6, p.43–55.

Cooper, RG (2008) Perspective: The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process- Update, What’s New, and

NexGen System. Journal Product Innovation Management, v.25, p.213-232.

Day, GS.; Schoemaker, PJH.; Gunther, RE. Editores (2000). Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dosi (1984). Mudança Técnica e Transformação Industrial: A teoria e uma aplicação à indústria dos semicondutores. Campinas: Editora Unicamp, 2006.

Eisenhardt, K (1989) Building Theories From Case Study. Research.Academy of Management, v.14,

p.532-550.

Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge

Journal of Economics, n.19, p.5-24, 1995.

Freeman, C.; Soete, L (2009) A economia da inovação industrial. Campinas: Editora Unicamp.

Geels, FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level

perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, v.31, p.1257-1274.

Geels, FW (2004) From sectoral system of innovation to socio-technical systems insights about

dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, v.33, p.897-920.

Geels, FW (2007) Typology of socio-technical transition pathways. Research Policy, v.36, p.399-417.

Geels, FW. (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level

perspective. Research Policy, n.39, p.495-510.

Gomes, LAV.; Salerno, MS (2010) Modelo Integrado de Processo de Desenvolvimento de Produto e

de Planejamento Inicial de Spin-Offs Acadêmicos. Gestão e Produção, São Carlos, v.17, n.2, p.245-

255.

Huchzermeier, A., Loch, CH (2001) Project management under risk: using the real options approach

to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, vol.47, p.85-101.

Hughes, PT (1994) The Evolution of Large Technological Systems. In: The Social Construction of

Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Bijker, WE.;

Hughes, TP.; Pinch, TP. MIT Press; Cambridge.

Kemp, R (1994) Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: The problem of

technological regime shifts. Futures, n.26, Issue 10, p.1023-1046.

Leifer, R.; O'Connor, GC.; Rice, MP (2001) Implementing radical innovation in mature firms: the role

of hubs. Academy of Management Executive, v.15, n.3, p.102-113.

Lundvall, BA; Bjôrn, J.; Andersen, ES.; Dalum, B (2002) National systems of production, innovation

and competence building. Research Policy, n.31, p.213-231.

Mowery, DC.; Rosenberg, N. (1989). Trajetórias da Inovação: A mudança tecnológica nos Estados Unidos da América no Século XX. Campinas: Editora Unicamp, 2005.

Nelson, RR.; Winter, SG (1977) In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, vol.6(1),

p.36-76.

Nelson, RR (1994). The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure and Supporting Institutions.

Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(1).

Nelson, RR.; Sampat, BN (2001) Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic

performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, n.44, p.31-54.

Nelson, RR.; Winter, SG (1982). Uma teoria evolucionária da mudança econômica. Campinas:

Editora Unicamp, 2005.

O’Connor, GC (1998) Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight

Radical Innovation Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v.15, iss. 42, p.151-166.

O’Connor, GC.; Rice, MP (2001) Opportunity Recognition and Breakthrough Innovation in Large

Established Firms. California Management Review, v.43, iss. 2, p.95-116.

O’Connor, GC.; Veryzer, RW (2001) The Nature of Market Visioning for Technology-Based Radical

Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v.18, iss.4; p.231-246.

O’Connor, GC. and Ayers, AD (2005) Building a Radical Innovation Competency. Research –

Technology Management, v.48(1), p.23–31.

Phillips, W.; Noke, H.; Bessant, J.; Lamming, R (2006) Beyond the steady state: managing

discontinuous product and process innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, v.10, n.2, p.175-196.

Pich, MT; Loch, CH.; Meyer, A (2001) On uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project

Management. Management Science, v. 4, p.356-371.

Raven, R.; Geels, FW (2010) Socio-cognitive evolution in niche development: Comparative analysis

of biogas development in Denmark and the Netherlands (1973 – 2004). Technovation, n.30, p.87-99.

Romme, AGL. And Endenburg, G (2006) Constructing Principles and Design Rules in the Case of

Circular Design. Organization Science, v.17, n.2, April, p.287-297.

Rosenberg, N. (1982). Por dentro da caixa-preta: Tecnologia e Economia. Campinas: Editora

Unicamp, 2006.

Rozenfeld, H. et al. (2006) Gestão de desenvolvimento de produtos. São Paulo: Saraiva.

Svathy, SD (2007) Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Edward Elgar Publishing

Ltd, Forthcoming.

Sommer, SC.; Loch, CH (2004) Selectionism and Learning in Projects with Complexity and

Unforeseeable Uncertainty. Management Science, v.50, n.10, p. 1334-1347.

Teece, DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,

licensing and public policy. Research Policy, v.16, p.285-305.

Tidd, J.; Bessant, J.; Pavitt, K (2005) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and

organizational change. 3rd. ed, John Wiley.

Utterback, JM (1974) Innovation in industry and the diffusion of thechnology. Science, v.183, p.620-

626.

Utterback, J (1994) Mastering the dynamic of innovation. Boston: Havard Business School Press.

Van Der Laak, W.; Raven, R.; Verbong, G (2007) Strategic nice management for biofuels: Analysing

past experiments for developing new biofuels policies. Energy Policy, n.35, p. 3213-3225.

Verbong, G.; Geels, FW.; Raven, R (2008) Multi-niche analysis of dynamics and policies in Dutch

renewable energy innovation journeys (1970-2006): hype-cycles, closed networks and technology-

focused learning. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, n.20, p.555- 573.

Von Hippel, E (1988) The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Voss, C.; Tsikriktsis, N.; Frohlich, M (2002). Case Research in Operations Management.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, v.22, n. 2, p.195-21.

Yin, RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. 3.ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.