Upload
usp-br1
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INTEGRATION OF MANAGERIAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF
INNOVATION: A FRAMEWORK TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF
RADICAL INNOVATION PRODUCT
LEONARDO A.V. GOMES
1
GUILHERME AMARAL1
ROBERTO SBRAGIA2
MARIO SERGIO SALERNO1
SIMONE LARA1
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.