Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Improving dialogue between consumer
and food technology experts in the
innovation process
Lina Jacobsen, Liisa Lähteenmäki
In Connect4Action (C4A) we have extracted a list of recommendations that could improve
communication between food science and consumer behaviour/market experts in innovation
processes. These recommendations are based on literature reviews and a Delphi survey carried out in
the Connect4Action project. First draft of these recommendations was discussed in a C4A workshop in
December 2012 and recommendations were amended based on the discussions we had at the
workshop. Now we would like to present these recommendations for your assessment and comments.
We would like to present three questions to you:
Based on your experience
1) Do you think following these recommendations promotes cross-disciplinary communication in the
innovation process?
2) Is there something that should be changed, added or omitted from the recommendations?
3) Are these recommendations feasible: can they be applied in innovation process? If not, what would
be the bottlenecks?
The recommendations have been related to different stages of innovation process (see the figure in
page 2) according to their importance and condensed into a table (see page 3 and 4). Please send in
your comments to Lina Jacobsen ([email protected]), or add your comments on the Connect4Action group
on Linkedin or to the discussion forum in the C4A stakeholder community
(http://www.connect4action.eu/).
A full version of the report is found in appendix 1.
2
Innovation in five stages The innovation process was divided into two phases and five stages (Figure 1). The two phases are
new technology development (NTD) and new product development (NPD); the NTD refers to
technology development for applicability in food production not yet targeting to a specific product
application. NTD often happens in (or at least in cooperation with) universities and research
institutes, whereas NPD is a company driven activity. However, in reality these two phases can
overlap and have partners from both commercial and public sector.
The framework further distinguishes between two types of communication in the innovation process:
internal communication within NTD and NPD processes, and external communication that integrates
consumer views to the innovation process. The external communication can be further divided into
three types of communication: finding out about consumer wants, communication to consumers, and
interactive co-development. The first two types of external communication can be related to NTD as
well, whereas co-development is likely only in NPD processes.
Figure 1: Communication between actors in the innovation process
Recommendations: do’s and don‘ts Based on the workshop discussions specifically focusing on the distinction between the five stages in
the innovation process, the following recommendations were extracted (see table 1).
Consumers
Steps:
New Technology Development (NTD)
Idea/prom-
ising
technology
Develop-
ment
Idea +
screening
Develop-
ment
New Product Development (NPD)
Market
1 2 3 4 5
Latent consumer wants Co-development Business to consumer
Internal communication
External communication
3
Table 1: Do’s and don‘ts
Stages Stage 1: Idea/promising technology
Stage 2: Development
Stage 3: Idea + screening
Stage 4: Development
Stage 5: Market
Internal communication recommendations
Identify all key actors in the NTD process Develop a common language → shared vision among actors Establish more effective communication channels between actors Organise cross-functional teams
Internal communication is especially important in the idea and screening stage (stage 3), whereas functions can benefit from working more independently in stage 4 and 5 as long as common understanding and goals have been established in stage 3 More emphasis on internal communication when the degree of novelty in NPD increases (radical innovations require more internal communication than incremental innovations) More emphasis on internal communication under rapidly changing market conditions Establish cross-functional teams consisting of market and technology experts for ensuring informal activities in addition to formal activities. Find the optimal balance between decentralisation and formalisation in teams responsible for NPD process Ensure knowledge sharing so that market and technology functions can set clear, shared goals for the NPD process in collaboration Develop of a common language Top management should support the development of a trustful and collaborative climate by recognising both functions and basing their rewards on collaborative achievements Establish knowledge management systems that can exploit both implicit and explicit knowledge
4
Stages Stage 1: Idea/promising technology
Stage 2: Development
Stage 3: Idea + screening
Stage 4: Development
Stage 5: Market
External communication recommendations
Develop improved research methods that are able to deal with consumers as moving targets Investigate consumer reactions on the technical terminology before it is established
Be transparent on considerations with NTD and strictly restrain from hiding potential risks and uncertainties related to the technology Provide information by a trustful source Contextual factors, such as ethical and social factors, should be considered in research
Study consumers’ responses to possible ideas and products in a context as realistic as possible; Consumer responses to technology in general should not be used as predictors of product choice Use multiple methods to triangulate towards real world effects Apply the most relevant method for data collection Use open methods that allow consumers to express their opinions and ideas Consistently use the same existing and validated scales and/or standardised research protocols when studying consumers Based on existing cases, start to build a systematic body of evidence of how products get through the innovation process and perform in the market
Select knowledgeable, proactive, and motivated participants with an internal locus of control Stimulate participants to express their needs and wants Put considerable effort in the process and show this while demonstrating trust, openness, and empathy by giving input and reacting quickly and frequently Find an adequate balance between participants’ skills and complexity of the co-design activities The interactive system should be implemented and supported by the whole organisation as part of the business model
When adopting existing models and theories, critically assess their relevance in the specific context In addition to cognitive aspects, pay attention also to consumer emotions Focus on product-specific communication Take notice on differences between values and needs of consumers by using segmentation analysis to identify these different groups and to design differentiated communication patterns Different stakeholders should be involved during the whole NPD process Use social media to tailor messages
5
Appendix 1: Improving Dialogue between Consumer and Food Technology
Experts in the Innovation Process – Full report version
Improving dialogue between consumer
and food technology experts in the
innovation process
Report from WP4 workshop inWageningen, 4 December, 2012.
Lina Jacobsen, Liisa Lähteenmäki
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
2. Workshop and background for recommendations ................................................................................................ 6
3. Recommendations: do’s and don’ts .............................................................................................................................. 8
Internal communication ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Stage 1: NTD Idea/promising technology .................................................................................................................. 8
Stage 2: NTD Technology development ..................................................................................................................... 8
Stages 3-5: NPD Product idea and screening, product development and marketing .............................. 8
External communication recommendations .................................................................................................................. 9
Stage 1: NTD Idea/promising technology .................................................................................................................. 9
Stage 2: NTD Technology development ................................................................................................................... 10
Stage 3: NPD Product idea and screening ................................................................................................................ 10
Stage 4: NPD Product development ........................................................................................................................... 11
Stage 5: NPD Market ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Reflections on the recommendations and on future research needs .......................................................... 13
5. Next steps .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
6
6. References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendix 1.1: List of workshop participants ................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix 1.2: Workshop programme ............................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 1.2.1: Presentation on ‘Internal Communication: success factors from the literature’ ........ 17
Appendix 1.2.2: Presentation on ‘Taking Consumer Views on Board – do’s and don’ts’.......................... 20
Appendix 1.2.3: Presentation on ‘Experiences from the Field: findings from first round of Delphi
study’ ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
1. Introduction
As part of Workpackage 4 in the Connect4Action project, the workshop acted as starting point in the
process of constructing a framework for improved communication between food science and
consumer science experts at different stages of the innovation process. The objective of this workshop
was to discuss what the communication needs are at different stages of the innovation process and
how to improve the dialogue between consumer and technology scientists and experts. The final
outcome of this task 4.1 is a shared view in the form of this document on factors that are required to
facilitate communication when assessing consumer acceptance of new technologies at different stages
of the innovation process from development to commercialisation, and on tools that can facilitate the
internal and external dialogue (Connect4Action, 2011).
2. Workshop and background for recommendations
The workshop consisted of a short introduction followed by presentations from WP 2 and WP3 (see
the programme and presentations attached in appendix 2) and discussions based on the findings
presented. The literature reviews from WP2 concentrated on communication 1) between marketing
and technology experts within companies (internal communication), 2) from consumers to companies
(C2B), 3) from companies to consumers (B2C), and 4) as interactivity between consumers and
companies (co-development), whereas the Delphi study from WP3 integrated findings from the field.
From these findings, recommendations (in the form of do’s and don’ts) were extracted and used as
a basis for discussions, first in three smaller groups with expertise from both food and social sciences
followed by a general discussion and short conclusion. The task for the discussion was to go through
the recommendations and discuss whether the recommendations sound feasible, at which phase of the
innovation process the communication is most important, and what kind of tools and actions are
needed to promote communication between technological and consumer/social sciences.
7
Figure 1: Communication between actors in the innovation process
The innovation process was divided into two phases and five stages (Figure 1), and the
recommendations extracted from literature and Delphi study were reflected against these stages. The
division between new technology development (NTD) and new product development (NPD) phases is
not always clear in the literature, but in the Delphi study these phases were clearly referred to. NTD as
the technology development for applicability in food production, but with no targeted product
application, often happens in universities and research institutes, whereas NPD is a company driven
activity. However, in reality these two phases can overlap and have partners from both commercial
and public sector. The framework further distinguishes between two types of communication in the
innovation process: internal communication within NTD and NPD processes, and external
communication that integrates consumer views to the innovation process. The external
communication can be further divided into three types of communication: finding out about consumer
wants, communication to consumers, and interactive co-development. The first two types of external
communication can be related to NTD as well, whereas co-development is likely only in NPD
processes.
Consumers
Steps:
New Technology Development (NTD)
Idea/prom-
ising
technology
Develop-
ment
Idea +
screening
Develop-
ment
New Product Development (NPD)
Market
1 2 3 4 5
Latent consumer wants Co-development Business to consumer
Internal communication
External communication
8
3. Recommendations: do’s and don’ts
Internal communication
Stage 1: NTD Idea/promising technology
Internal communication is important already in the initial stage of NTD, and refers to communication
between many actors. Thus, technology developers must identify all key actors in the NTD process
(i.e. technology developers, scientists, consumer scientists, food manufacturers, consumer suppliers,
retail managers, shapers of consumer preferences, etc.). A shared vision of what is proposed and a
strategy of how to achieve it should be developed, which requires a common language where key
actors understand each other. Internal communication can improve if more effective communication
channels between actors are established e.g. by creating a platform for knowledge exchange.
Technology developers should be careful not to work independently from consumer experts, as
this may result in the respective functions working in different directions. Ideally, cross-functional
teams are organised to increase the quantity and quality of internal communication.
Stage 2: NTD Technology development
Recommendations for internal communication in stage 2 are similar to those in stage 1. Internal
communication must be established based on a common understanding of the technology and its
functions. Technology development should provide benefits to all actors; in order to make these
benefits transparent, knowledge exchange with main stakeholders is recommended.
Stages 3-5: NPD Product idea and screening, product development and marketing
Internal communication in NPD is especially important in the initial stages of new product
development. Internal communication is necessary in the later phases of NPD as well, but during
product development and product launch, functions may benefit from working more independently, as
long as they are based on common understanding and goals established initially. Thus, market and
technology information must be integrated early in NPD. The importance of integrating the two
knowledge areas will increase with the degree of novelty in NPD (radical innovations require more
internal communication than incremental innovations) and under rapidly changing market
conditions.
Internal communication can be established by finding the optimal balance between
decentralisation and formalisation, thus recognising the importance of both formal and informal
9
activities. A certain level of formalisation is needed to ensure some degree of knowledge sharing
where one of the most important tasks is to set clear, shared goals for the NPD process by market
and technology functions in collaboration. This joint development requires that a common
language is developed for the functions to work in the same direction and with the overall goal of the
company. However, formal communication is not enough, and decentralisation empowering the
individual teams will also motivate better collaboration within teams. The establishment of cross-
functional teams consisting of market and technology experts is important for ensuring informal
activities in addition to formal activities.
Top management is recommended to prioritise the development of a trustful and collaborative
climate by keeping an open mind towards both functions and by basing their rewards/recognition on
collaborative achievements. Collaboration could extent to involve external partners who are open
towards sharing their expertise.
Furthermore, better knowledge management systems for exploiting both implicit and explicit
knowledge should be established in order to create a platform of existing knowledge on which to
base problem solving. Implicit information sharing can be supported by informal activities including
person-to-person communication, whereas explicit information sharing can be supported by tools
such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) or the use of knowledge brokers. However, no real-world
applications of QFD in the food sector have been found in the literature. Also in relation to knowledge
sharing, companies/researchers are encouraged to be transparent in data collection e.g. by
transcribing interviews and focus groups, having draft research protocols, etc.
External communication recommendations
Stage 1: NTD Idea/promising technology
When screening ideas and new technologies for further development consumer acceptance and
consumer wants should be taken into account already in the initial stage of NTD. This requires use of
consumer research methods to identify technology-related attributes that can fulfil consumer wants or
become potential risks for consumer acceptance. Consumer needs and wants are rapidly changing and
there is a need for improved research methods that are able to deal with consumers as moving
targets rather than relying on retrospective findings of wants.
10
A way to involve consumers this early in the innovation process is by investigating their reactions
on the technical terminology before it is established. It can be difficult for consumers to evaluate a
technology that is not yet developed and integrated into a product application, but this may be
overcome by focusing on consumer perception of anticipated risks instead of technology acceptance
per se. In relation to this, NTD can include societal and ethical considerations – and of course legal
issues related to novel food legislation.
More focus can be placed on assessing the habits and motives behind choices in addition to explicitly
expressed consumer wants. A possible way to establish better integration of consumer aspects is to
establish a consumer science advisory board to be consulted during NTD.
Stage 2: NTD Technology development
In the technology development (TD) stage, trustful and comprehensive information of the technology
should be provided to consumers. In other words, technology developers are recommended to be
transparent on their considerations with TD and strictly restraining from hiding potential risks
and uncertainties related to the technology. Still, gaining trust from consumers may be a challenging
task, but is more likely if information is provided by a trustful source – preferably actors that are
independent of the technology developers or companies themselves. As in stage 1, consumer wants
and insights can be integrated in TD by assessing their risk perception of the technology. Researchers
should be aware that contextual factors, such as ethical and social factors, give different
perspectives on the technology, and are important to take into consideration.
Stage 3: NPD Product idea and screening
In the early stage of NPD, finding out consumers’ explicit and latent needs and wants is the prime goal
for companies, thus consumer to business communication is the main focus of external communication
in this stage, and recommendations related to this are presented here. Still, these recommendations
should be followed throughout the NPD process and not be limited specifically to product
idea/screening.
During their screening of ideas/concepts/prototypes/products, companies must study
consumers’ responses to possible ideas and products in a context as realistic as possible. A
problem with current methods for product testing is their reliance on hypothetical products for
consumer evaluation, as these may not predict real world success. This cannot be avoided in the idea
and concept testing where a prototype is not yet developed. However, in the idea and concept testing,
framing can be used to elicit more credible consumer responses. The further one gets in the process of
developing an actual product for testing, the more realistic settings can be applied. Thus, products
11
should be tested in the context they are aimed at. Companies should avoid assuming that attitudes
towards technology, if measured in isolation, are strong predictors of product choice. Often, the
use of multiple methods is required to triangulate towards real world effects – combination of
qualitative and quantitative research can provide more valid results. Companies should focus on
finding and applying the most relevant method for data collection to answer the specific research
question rather than just relying on methods that are most familiar. The use of open methods that
allow consumers to express their opinions and ideas are recommended as part of the tool box.
There is a need for better comparability of results, especially in quantitative studies. Therefore
companies are encouraged to consistently use the same existing and validated scales and/or
standardised research protocols when studying consumers. Based on existing cases one should
start to build a systematic body of evidence of how products get through the innovation process
and perform in the market (i.e. succeed or fail). Furthermore, one should be aware of the different type
of consumer information and communication needed in NPD processes that are more scientifically
oriented or aiming at radical innovations vs. those that are clearly targeting at more incremental or
applied innovations.
Stage 4: NPD Product development
Despite its rare occurrence in the food industry, interacting with consumers can be in the form of co-
development. Thus, recommendations related to consumer-company interaction are presented in
stage 4 (product development). However, it should be noted that the recommendations are not limited
to the product development stage and should often be considered already in stage 3 (product idea and
screening). This will depend on whether consumers are included as idea developers/screeners or as
co-creators of the specific product.
Companies are recommended to select knowledgeable, proactive, and motivated participants
with an internal locus of control (i.e. innovators, lead users, emergent consumers, and market
mavens) for interactivity. These participants must be stimulated to express their needs, habits,
desired features, beliefs, values, and new product ideas throughout the interaction. Motivation can be
maintained by providing and stressing utilitarian, hedonic, social-recognition, cognitive, and societal
benefits for participants. The management of interactive communities requires active participation,
and it is important that the company put considerable effort in the process and show this while
demonstrating trust, openness, and empathy by giving input and reacting quickly and
frequently (if this is not possible, the company should explain why). For example, companies may
provoke participants to come up with radical innovations by confronting them with its own ideas for
NPD. Additionally, participants can be informed about each other’s input. At the same time, companies
12
must assure that there is an adequate balance between participants’ skills and complexity of the
co-design activities, for example by using toolkits, modularising the process, and using information-
acquisition processes.
There are, however, some considerations to be made before starting interactive business-
consumer communication. For the implementation to succeed, efforts must be embedded in the
whole organisation meaning that the interactive system should be implemented and supported by
the whole organisation as part of the business model. Furthermore, companies should think in
advance about potential problems with confidentiality and intellectual property rights.
Stage 5: NPD Market
In this last stage of NPD, the product is launched and marketed to consumers. Therefore, the main
focus of the following recommendations is on business to consumer (B2C) communication. However,
these recommendations may be relevant also before this particular stage, but is of particular
importance in relation to launching the product on the market.
The literature on B2C communication is dominated by research on labelling, branding, and prices,
yet it may be beneficial paying attention to other marketing communication methods and testing their
effectiveness in the context of new food technologies. Companies must be careful to not just adopt
existing models and theories without critically assessing their relevance in the specific context.
Communication to consumers should not only take cognitive aspects into account, but also pay
attention to consumer emotions. Furthermore, companies can benefit from focusing on product-
specific communication about products that contain the benefits of a new food technology instead of
general communication about a new food technology. In relation to this, companies must remember
that consumers are individuals and therefore take notice on differences between values and needs
of consumers by using segmentation analysis to identify these different groups and to design
differentiated communication patterns. Through the whole NPD process, different stakeholders
should be involved and their viewpoints used to get a more complete picture of how the food
technology/product is perceived among different groups in society. However, companies should not
rely solely on expert views of what should (not) be communicated. One possibility to improve
communication to different segments is to use social media to tailor messages.
13
4. Reflections on the recommendations and on future research needs
The workshop participants generally agreed on the do’s and don’ts that were extracted from the four
literature reviews and the first round of the Delphi study.
The innovation process framework made a distinction between NTD and NPD: the discussion
revealed more insecurity about the NTD part as this is not well represented in the literature. The
importance of communication was recognised already in the NTD, but how to establish the required
communication was less obvious. This may be due to the difficulty of studying technology acceptance
independently from a specific product application. As it is a challenge to include consumers in the NTD
phase, the innovation process becomes technology driven instead of consumer driven. How and what
consumer information to integrate in the technology development part of the innovation process
needs further exploration. A suggested way of integrating consumer information already in NTD is by
addressing their concern and risk perception related to the features of the technology. So far, ethical
research with a focus on public acceptance has been applied in technology acceptance studies. From
the consumer point of view the problem may be that the technology acceptability tends to concentrate
on possible risks rather than possible benefits. In the early stages of the NTD and NPD process, when
deciding which technologies to use, technologies should be screened for consumer acceptance. In food
technology focused EU projects, partners from consumer/social sciences should be included to
establish better communication between market and technology functions, even in the NTD phase.
This would facilitate the integration of consumer science into technology development. Similarly for
consumer science to be more included in the technology research products, technologists should be
more involved in the consumer research, e.g. by helping consumer scientists to ask the most relevant
research questions when studying consumer responses.
Another suggestion related to ‘faster learning’. Fast feedback from consumer/market experts is
needed throughout the development process. For achieving this, we need improved methods for
studying consumer perceptions and an improved readiness by consumer/market experts to interpret
results that are still in raw form. In the innovation process there is a need to move away from the
linear models and enable fast input from consumer studies to different stages that may run parallel in
the innovation process. Quick and accurate enough interpretation of consumer responses would be
beneficial, but this requires that consumer scientists acknowledge that learning can happen already in
the data collection stage – not when the final report is delivered. Similarly, technology experts should
be able to recognise, in cooperation with consumer scientists, the potential consumer related risks and
benefits throughout the innovation stages in order to carry out meaningful consumer research. With
14
this approach, learning can happen earlier and faster which is an advantage when studying a rapid
changing environment (i.e. changing consumer needs/wants).
Ideally, all relevant actors in the network should participate in communication throughout the
innovation process; however, the number of actors is very high and therefore recognising the most
relevant parties is important. Most technology innovations happen outside the food company and
require technological development of machinery before being applicable in the food industry,
broadening the number of relevant parties the innovation process even further. Furthermore, the role
of retailers must be considered as they often act as mediators of consumer opinion. Innovation
processes could benefit from collaborating with these external partners.
During the discussion the question whether all results are applicable to the food industry was
raised. Especially for internal communication, the literature specifically focusing on the food industry
is scarce. The main concern was that the food industry consists mainly of SMEs (FoodDrinkEurope,
2012), and results based on bigger companies may have limited applicability. Still, it was generally
agreed that communication is important also for food companies, but the tools to improve
communication may differ with the size of the company. Future research could focus more specifically
on the food industry to address this concern.
5. Next steps
This document is sent out to workshop participants for comments and additions. After integrating
the comments the next version of the document will be sent out to the Connect4Action wider
community for commenting. The final version of the shared view document will be used as a basis to
develop a conceptual framework for improved communication between food and consumer/social
science expertise. This prototype framework will be later in 2013 tested in a larger workshop.
6. References
CONNECT4ACTION. 2011. www.Connect4Action.eu [Online].
FOODDRINKEUROPE. 2012. http://smes.ciaa.eu/ [Online].
15
Appendix 1.1: List of workshop participants
Name Organisation
Christine Brugger Agroscope
Brian McKenna EFFOST
Charlotte Cols EUFIC
Sophie Hieke EUFIC
Line Friis Lindner ICC
Karin Zimmermann LEI Wageningen - UR
Dora Lakner LEI Wageningen - UR
Siet Sijtsema LEI Wageningen - UR
Machiel Reinders LEI Wageningen - UR
Isabelle van den Berg LEI Wageningen - UR
Marian Raley Newcastle University
Hilde Cnossen TNO
Mario Mazzocchi UNIBO
Maddalena Ragona UNIBO
Matthijs Dekker Wageningen University
Hans van Trijp Wageningen University
Arnout Fischer Wageningen University
Bea Steenbekkers Wageningen University
Klaus G. Grunert Aarhus University, MAPP
Liisa Lähteenmäki Aarhus University, MAPP
Lina Jacobsen Aarhus University, MAPP
16
Appendix 1.2: Workshop programme
9:00 – 12:00 WP4 Workshop 9:00 – 9:15 Introduction – objective, set up, expected results
Prof. Liisa Lähteenmäki (AU)
9:15 – 9:30 Results of WP2 as input for the workshop Internal communication: success factors from the literature Ir. Lina Jacobsen (AU)
9:30– 9:55 Results of WP2 as input for the workshop Taking consumer views on board - do’s and don’ts Dr. Arnout Fischer / Dr. Machiel van Reinders
9:55 – 10:25 Results of WP3 as input for the workshop Experiences from the field: findings from first round of Delphi study Ir. Marian Raley (UNEW)
10:25 – 11:30 Discussion on how and when the dialogue is needed and tools to
support the exchange and integration of knowledge
11:30 – 11:55 General conclusions from the discussion round Prof. Klaus Grunert (AU)
11:55 – 12:00 Next steps Prof. Liisa Lähteenmäki (AU)
17
Appendix 1.2.1: Presentation on ‘Internal Communication: success factors from
the literature’
18
19
20
Appendix 1.2.2: Presentation on ‘Taking Consumer Views on Board – do’s and
don’ts’
21
22
23
Appendix 1.2.3: Presentation on ‘Experiences from the Field: findings from first
round of Delphi study’
24
25
26
CONNECT4ACTION. 2011. www.Connect4Action.eu [Online]. FOODDRINKEUROPE. 2012. http://smes.ciaa.eu/ [Online].
