1

DesignThinking­basedInnovation:howtodoit,andhowtoteachit?

CarlosA.Osorio,PhD(carlos.osorio@uai.cl)AdolfoIbanezSchoolofManagement

Version1.0.August8th,2009.

Abstract

Asinnovationbecomesthecornerstonefornewproblemsolvingandcreationofprivateandpublicvalue,thispaperexplorestwoquestions:(i)whatmethodsandroutineshelpteamstoinnovatebetterandfaster?and,iftherearesuchmethods,(ii)cantheybetaughtandlearned?Ifocusonthetheoryconvergingfromdesignthinking,newproductdevelopment,andsocialsciences,andonexperimentscarriedoutwithundergraduateandgraduatestudentsoncoursesdesignedtotestthehypothesesthatinnovationcanbetaughttosolvecomplexbusinessandsocialproblems.Findingshaveallowedcreatingframeworksandcoursestructuresthathelpteamstocreate,developandenhancenewsetsofskillsbyfocusingthenaturalchaosofinnovationintosolvingcomplexproblems.

Keywords:designthinking,innovation,sustainablesolutions,challenges,learning,risk,uncertainty,ambiguity,ignorance.

1. IntroductionAsinnovationgainsrelevanceintheworldassourceofvaluecreation,thereisincreasingneedtounderstanditbetterinordertobettermanageitandcreateit.Forthepurposeofthispaperitisusefultodifferentiatebetweeninnovationsasaresultandasaprocess,andtointroduceworkingdefinitions.Idefineinnovationasaresultasanynew,ornon­trivialchangein,product,service,process,orbusinessmodel,etc.,thatcreatesvalueforamarketandpaybackforanorganization.Ialsodefineinnovationasprocessasanadaptiveandstructureddevelopmentprocessthat,whileusedconsistently,allowsateamorcompanytocreateinnovationsinaconsistentandpredictablemanner(Osorio,2007).

Mostearlyresearchoninnovationfocusedoninnovationsasresults,howtomanagetheirevolution,theircompetitiveeffects,andstrategydesign.Manyscholarshavefocusedonthestudyofinnovationfromtheperspectiveoftheconceptionoftechnologicalchange(Arthur,1989;Dosi,1982;Kuhn,1970;Rosenberg,1969;Sterman&Wittenberg,1999;Tushman&Anderson,1986),lifecycleofnewtechnologies,theemergenceofdominantdesignsandsurvivaloffirms(Abernathy&Utterback,1978;Anderson&Tushman,1990;Huckman,2003;Snow,2004;Utterback,1994).Otherstudieshavefocusedonindustrydynamicsasresponsetoinnovation(Levin&Reiss,1984;Nelson&Winter,1982;Schumpeter,1934,1943),andontheimpactofinnovationsinmarketstructure(Bresnahan&Trajtenberg,1995;Utterback&Suarez,1991).

Thestudyoftechnologystrategyhasalsofocusedonrelevantinnovationthemessuchasmodularity(Baldwin&Clark,2000;Ethiraj&Levinthal,2004;Fleming&Sorenson,2001),andtherelevanceofstandardsandnetworkexternalities(David,1985;Shapiro&Varian,1999),andtheeffectofmarketsforknow‐howandlicensingonmarketintegration(Arora,Fosfuri,&Gambardella,2001;Pisano,1990;Teece,1981,1986).

2

Fromtheperspectiveoforganizationsciences,somehavestudiedthereasonsforfirmfailureinthepresenceoftechnologicaldiscontinuitiesandinnovationassourcesofcreativedestruction(Abernathy&Clark,1985;ClaytonChristensen&Rosenbloom,1995;Clark,1987;Henderson&Clark,1990;Rosenbloom&Christensen,1994;Tushman&Anderson,1986).Othershavefocusedonthecapacitiesoffirmstoabsorbnewknowledgeandpractices(Cohen&Levinthal,1990),theirabilitytocontinuouslylearnandadaptindynamicways(Abernathy&Wayne,1974;Levinthal&March,1993;March,1991;Pisano,1996;Tripsas&Gavetti,2000)andontherelevanceofdynamiccapabilities(Kogut&Zander,1992;Stuart&Podolny,1996;Teece,Pisano,&Shuen,1997;Tripsas,1997).

Insummary,thestudyabouttherelevanceandeffectsofinnovationsisabundant,unliketheresearchabouttheprocesses,methodsandroutinesthathelpfirmsandteamstoinnovatebetterandfaster.Paradoxically,whileitisveryrelevanttounderstandhowtomanageinnovationsandtheireffects,practitionersintheprivateandpublicsectorareincreasinglyaskingtoknowmoreaboutthelatter:howtocreatethem.

Thispaperisanefforttohelpclosingthisgapmotivatedbytwoquestions.First,whatarethemethods,processesandroutinesthathelpfirmsandteamstoinnovatebetterandfasterinconsistentandsystematicways?Second,iftherearesuchmethodsandroutines,howcantheybetaughtand/orlearned?

Inthenextsection,Ipresentareviewoftheliteratureaboutinnovationprocessesfromdifferentperspectives.Basedonthereviewoftheliterature,inSection3,Ipresentageneralmethodforinnovationbasedonmyresearch.InSection4Iillustratethegeneralmodulesandoutcomesofacoursedesignedtoanswerthequestionofhow(andwhether)onecanteachpeopletoinnovate.Here,whenIsayteach,Imeanitinthesenseofenablinglearning,ratherthanimpartinglecturesorcommunicatinginformation.

2. LiteratureReviewonInnovationProcessesInmanagementsciences,researchaboutinnovationprocessesisrootedonthemanagementofproductandprocessdevelopment.RobertCooperproposedaninfluentialframework,commonlyknownastheStage‐Gateprocessformanagingnewproductdevelopmentprocesses(Cooper,1986).Theframeworkwasbasedonthestudyofmultipleprojectsandfirms,whichidentifiedaseriesofproductdevelopmentactivitiesthatrangedfrominitialideascreeningtonewproductlaunch(thestages)eachfollowedbyadecisionmakingpointofgo‐nogo(thegates).Eachgaterepresentsascreeningreviewafteradifferentstepintheprocess.TheProductDevelopmentFunnelcametocomplementthisapproach(Wheelwright&Clark,1992b).Theauthorsproposedanapproachtoidentifyandmanageinnovationportfolios.Atthebeginning,thefunnelacceptsmanyoptionsforideas,technologiesandmanufacturingprocesses,whicharereducedthroughphasesofconceptgeneration,productdesign,prototypingandtesting,pilotingandmanufacturingandlaunch.

Theseapproachesleadtoadifferencebetweenthemanagementofaninnovationportfolio,andthemanagementoftheprocessofcreatinganinnovation.Whiletheformerisimportant,herewefocusonthelatter.However,thesearenottotallydistinguishableaswecanidentify(i)aplanningphase,sometimescalledPhase0(Ulrich&Eppinger,2004),whichincludesatleast20

3

differentdecisions(Krishnan&Ulrich,2001),and(ii)phasesanddecisionsmadeduringtheprocessofdevelopment.Usually,thesephasesinclude–atleast‐conceptdevelopment,system‐leveldesign,detaileddesign,testingandrefinement,andproductionramp‐up(Ulrich&Eppinger,2004).Otherscholarshaveproposedvariationsthatfocusonservices(Thomke,2002,2003b),softwaredevelopment(Iansiti&MacCormack,1997),andnewdrugdiscovery(Bonabeau,Bodick,&Armstrong,2008),amongothers.Approacheslikethesearefocusedinhelpingteamstomanagerisk,uncertaintyandambiguityacrossprojects(i.e.withinaportfolio)andwithinprojects.Here,wewillfocusonthelatter.

Uncertaintyisagoodwordininnovation(Iansiti,1995;MacCormack,2005,2006;MacCormack&Verganti,2003;Thomke&Reinersten,1998),becauseitcreatesopportunitiesforfirmswhentheyaretoaddflexibilitytotheirprocesses.Uncertainty,however,hasmanysources:market,technology,platform,etc.AccordingtoMacCormack,asuncertaintyincreasesthedifferenceinproductqualityalsoincreases,allowingforgreaterdifferentiationanddifferencesinperformance.

Wecouldaddriskandambiguitytocreatealistofusefulconceptstomanageduringtheinnovationprocess:themoreonecouldamplifyriskandambiguityinaparticularsetting,itwouldbelesslikelytohavemanyfirmsproposingsimilarconcepts.Asaprocess,innovationhasalsobeendefinedasasearchforinformation(Fleming,2001;Fleming&Sorenson,2004;MacCormack,2006).Thus,ignorancecanalsobeaddedtothelistalsoagoodword,becausewecandefineitaseverythingthatcouldbeknowninordertosolveaproblemthemostoptimalway.Ateamsignoranceincludes(i)alltheteamknowsitdoesnotknow,butmostimportantly,(ii)alltheteamdoesnotknowitdoesnotknow,and(iii)allitdoesnotknowitknows.Thus,aninnovationprocesscanbeunderstoodasalearningprocessforsearchingaboutwhatateamdoesnotknowforfindingthebestpossiblesolutiontoaproblem(Beckman&Barry,2007;Owen,1998).

Whilethetendencyofmanyteamsistryingtofigureoutearlywhatcouldwork,researchshowstheoptimalpathistolearnwhatmightnotworkintheearlieststagesofaproject,inordertodiscardthembyprototypingandtestingrounds,andthusdiscoveringwhatcould(Osorio,2009).Thisisdonethroughafront‐loadingproblemsolvingapproach(Thomke&Fujimoto,2000).

This,however,requiresmethodsandcapabilitiesnoteasilyfoundinmanagement,butfoundontheverynatureofdesignthinking.Betteryet,itrequiresbeingcapabletotakea“creativeleap”,whichcanresultfromtrainingandlearningtoenhanceopennessandwillingnesstotakethatleap(D.Kelley&Hartfield,1996).Moreover,astheauthorsstated,“thereisadifferencebetweenproblemsolvingand…creatingbeyondwhattheproblemcallsfor”.Vergantiexplainsthisbydesign‐driveninnovationasaprocessthatcanbeinexhaustibleinallowingcompaniestocreatenewproducts(Verganti,2006).

Thisisbasedonaspecialattitudetowardsproblemsolvingthatmakedesigners(i)lookattheworldbeyondtheproblemandpatentneedsfrommultipleperspectives,(ii)thinkbeyondwhatisreasonableaslimitsoftheproblem,(iii)assumethereisalwaysabettersolutionthanthestatusquo,(iv)exploreandexperimentconstantly,and(v)workalongandwithinanotherdisciplines(Brown,2008).Furthermore,asexplainedbyBrown(2008),designthinkingisnot

4

onlyfocusedonachievingfunctionalityonfulfillinguserneeds,butalsohavinganemotionaleffect.Inotherwords,designthinking‐basedinnovationfocusesintransformingthecurrentuserexperienceintothebestpossibleuserexperience(Beckman&Barry,2007;Buxton,2007;Fulton‐Suri,2003).

Thisrequiresfocusingtheinnovationprocessintothechallengeathandbytakingahuman‐centeredapproach(Brown,2008),experimentingasearly,fastandcheapaspossible(Brown,2008;Osorio,2007;Owen,1998;Thomke,2001,2003a),andlearningfastfromoutsidersandworkingalongwithotherdisciplines(Brown,2008;Owen,1998),amongotherthings.Whenallthisisdonetroughiterativeprocessesofanalysisandsynthesis(Buxton,2007;Laseau,1980;Owen,1998)andabstractandconcrete(Beckman&Barry,2007;Buxton,2007).

Thiscanbeachievedthroughadesignthinking–basedprocessthatgoesiterativelyfromexplorationanddiscoverytoalternativegeneration,thentosolutiondevelopment,andfinallytolaunchandexploitation(Osorio,2007),whichisbasedontheworkofseveralauthors(Beckman&Barry,2007;Fulton‐Suri,2003;T.Kelley&Littman,2001;Ulrich&Eppinger,2004;Wheelwright&Clark,1992a)andcompaniessuchasIDEO,Frog,Continuum,BankofAmerica,Google,Procter&Gamble,Apple,amongothers.

Unlikeatraditionalstage‐gateproductdevelopmentprocess,theultimategoalofadesignthinking‐basedprocessisnotorientedtocreatea“product”or“service”,butapotentialspaceforuserexperiencesthatisenabledbyaproductorservice(Buxton,2007;Osorio,2007).Here,theproductorserviceisthedoortoaspaceofpotentialuserexperiencesthat,accordingtoMacCormack(2008),isachievedbyiteratingwithinandthroughdesignspaces.

Learningthroughexperimentationiskeyforsuccessfullyiteratingthroughdesignspaces(Fulton‐Suri,2003;T.Kelley,2001;Thomke,1998,2001,2003a;Tohidi,Buxton,Baecker,&Sellen,2006).Summarizingtheviewfromtheseauthors,andconsideringearlyresultsonthedifferencesbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfuldevelopmentprojects(Osorio,2009),onecansaythatlearningthroughexperimentationisachievedatitsbestwhenisdonethroughprototypingandtestingcycles,whicharefollowedbyenhancedlearningprocesses.Thiscontinuesuntilthepointinwhichateamfindsanewconceptthatisimplemented,thenlaunchedandexploited(Andrew&Sirkin,2006).

Basedonthisreview,nextsectionpresentsageneralmodelfordesignthinking‐basedinnovation.

3. DesignThinking‐basedInnovationFollowingfromtheprevioussection,designthinking‐basedinnovationhappensinaspacedesignthatiterates(i)betweenanalysisandsynthesis(creatingalternativesideasandchoosingfromthesealternatives),atthesametimethatiterates(ii)betweenabstractandconcrete(fromaconcreteproblem,toabstractthinkingandlearningabouthowtosolveitthroughafinalconcretesolutionthatisfinallyimplemented).

HereIpresentageneralmodelofinnovationprocessdevelopedthroughmyresearchoverthelasttwoyearsthatisbasedoncombiningdesignthinkingwithtraditionalproductdevelopment

5

processes(Osorio,2007).Themodelwasdesignedtobeagnosticofwhetherateamisdevelopinganewproduct,service,ordesigninganewprocess.

Theprocessstartswiththedefinitionofaninnovationchallengefromaproblem,ideaorbusinessopportunity.Then,themodelhasfourphases,eachfocusinginadifferentobjectiveforthedevelopmentprocess:(i)learninganddiscovery,(ii)alternativegeneration,(iii)system‐levelpre‐launchdevelopment,(iv)launchandexploitation(SeeFigure1).

Figure1:GeneralModelofInnovationProcess

Source:theauthor

3.1.DefiningtheInnovationChallenge

AsresultofmyresearchoninnovationwithteamsandcompaniesIhavefoundthat,regardlessthenation,industryorcompany,peoplegivetoomuchcredittoideasassourcesofinnovation.Manycompaniesfocusoncreatingandstructuringideafunnels,theyscanhundredsofideasfornewproducts,servicesandprocesses,startdevelopingsome,andimplementafew.However,therearemanyproblemswiththisapproach:

1. Anideacanbeunderstoodassomeone’sconceptualizationforthemostvaluableandpromisingsolutiontoaworthyproblem.However,regardlessofhowintelligentoraccomplishedheorshemightbe,theprobabilityforhisorherideatobethebestsolutiontothatproblemisverylow(insomecaseslowerthan0.01%).

2. Startinganinnovationprojectfromanideacaneasilyleadateamtoiteratearoundthat“original”idea,whichleadstoanchoringthedevelopmenteffortsaroundtheoriginal

6

idea1.Someexamplesofdisastrousresultsfrom“technicallyoptimumideas”aretheIridiumProject(implementedbyMotorola)andofTransantiago,thePublicTransportationSystemoftheCityofSantiago,(CHILE).Anchoringleadpeopletofocustoomucharoundthe“original”idea,andriskingnotconsideringorexploringsuperioralternatives.

3. Asresult,developmentteamsthatstartdevelopingeffortsfromanideaeasilyfallinlovewiththeidea,andlosecriticalperspective.

Insummary,whiletheproblemunderlyingtheideamightbeworthy,andfindingthebestpossiblesolutiontothatproblemmightbehighlyrewardedbythemarket,theoriginalideamightnotnecessarilybethebest.Theideaapproachmightexplain,tosomeextent,thelargepercentageofnewproductsandservicesthatfailduringthesixmonthsfollowinglaunch(Zaltman,2003).

Severalscholarshavefoundthatsourcesofinnovationsareworthyproblemsneedingbettersolutions,newregulations,obstacles,orsolutionsnotworkingsufficientlywellenough(ClaytonChristensen,2000;C.Christensen,Scott,&Roth,2004;Sull,Ruelas‐Gossi,&Escobari,2003;ErikvonHippel,1988).Basedonthis,andonmyresearchwithfirmsanddevelopmentteams,Ihavefoundthatabetterapproachistodefinetheinnovationchallengesfromproblems,obstacles,regulations,opportunitiesandideas.Here,ideasaretakenfromadifferentperspective:theyareconsideredtoevaluatethemeritsoftheproblemorobstacletheyaimtosolve,ortheopportunityorregulationtheyaimtoface.Theidea,onandinitself,haslittlevalueatthispoint.

Eachproblem,regulation,obstacleoropportunitymighthaveatleasttwodimensions:(i)valuetoamarketand(ii)urgencyofimplementation.Thusfirmsscantheirenvironmentforinformationabouthowmuchvaluecouldbecreatedbysolvingtheproblemandobstacle,facingtheregulation,andtakingadvantageoftheopportunityinthebestpossibleway.Theycanalsoassesstheurgencyforaction.ThisallowscreatinganInnovationChallengePortfolio(ICP)withinanorganization.

Fromeachproblem,obstacle,regulationandopportunity,firmscandraftpreliminaryinnovationchallenges.Table1illustratesthispointbyshowingdifferentinnovationchallengesdefinedfromvarioussourcesofinnovationfordifferenttypesoffirms.Ihavefoundthatinnovationchallengesfocustheattentionofdevelopmentteamsonhowtofindthebestpossiblesolutiontoeachand,insteadoffallinginlovewith“original”ideas,teams(i)fallinlovewithfindingthebestpossiblesolutiontotheproblem,(ii)arenotconstrainedbyanchoringintoanyonespecificsolutionex‐ante,and(iii)developsuperiorsolutionsascomparedtoscenarioswherethechallengeisbasedonan“original”idea.

1Anchoringisamongthemostcommondecision‐makingtraps.ForexamplesandmoredetailedexplanationseeHammond,KeeneyandRaifa(1998).

7

Table1:InnovationChallengesforDifferentFirms

SourceofInnovation(problem,obstacle,regulation,opportunity)

InnovationChallenge TypeofFirm

Lackofpenetrationofamajorretailcompanyinthelowermarketsegmentsofthepopulation

HowtoimprovethequalityoflifeofpeopleinsegmentsD&Ewithaconsumerexperiencethatisbothprofitableandsustainabletothefirm?

Retailcompany

Increaseinthefinancialcostoffinesbydelaysinfillingoilrequestsbyaircargofreightersatamajorinternationalairport

Howtodecreasetheaveragedelaytoserveanairfreightcargofrom35tonomorethan5minutes,withoutaffectingtheaveragetimetoserveapassengerairliner?

Oilcompanyservingallpassengerandairfreightfirmsinaninternationalairport

Lossofaudiencebyamajorbroadcastingcompanyinthesegmentofpeoplebetween15and24yearsold

Howtobecometheleaderinaudio‐visualandmediacontentusingallpossibletechnologiesandplatformsavailable?

Majorbroadcastingcompany

IntensecompetitioninmobileInternetaccessafterderegulation

Howtobecomethenation‐wideleaderinmobileinternetaccess?

Majortelecommunicationscompany

Asresult,insteadofhavingideafunnels,firmscreateICP.Then,eachinnovationchallengehasitsowndevelopmentprocess,depictedinFigure1,whichleadstoafunnelthatisspecifictoeachchallenge.Thisfunnelstartswithachallenge,thenisfilledtocreateaSpaceofPossibleSolutions(SPS)andthen,rapidly,synthesizedintoaSpaceofFeasibleSolutions(SFS).TheSFSisasubsetoftheSPS,whichcontainsagroupofideasandalternativesthatareconsideredamongthebestforsolvingthechallenge.Then,throughiterativephasesofanalysisandsynthesis,theteamgoesalongthefunneldiscardinginferioralternatives,andkeepingthesuperiorones.

ThemodelinFigure1wasbuilttoamplifytherisk,ambiguityanduncertaintyassociatedwithfindingthebestpossiblesolutiontoachallenge,butdoingitwithinaprocessthatisbuildtomitigatetheirfinancialandmarketeffects.Thisisachievedby:(i)understandingthenon‐explicitandnon‐obviousaspectsofthechallengeanddiscoveringanomalies,andareasofopportunity,(ii)generatinghundredsofideasforcreatingthelargestnumberofpossiblealternativesolutions,iterating,testingandrefiningthesesolutions,(iii)findingthebestpossiblealternative,(iv)implementingitand,finally,(v)launchingandexploitingit.

3.2.LearningandDiscovery

Theobjectivesofthefirstphasetheinnovationprocessare(i)understandingthenon‐obviousdimensions,needsandcharacteristicsofthechallenge,(ii)learningasfastaspossibleaboutthem,and(iii)discoveringanomalies,patternsandareasofopportunity.Thiscanbeachievedinfoursteps:(i)identifyinglatentneeds,(ii)understandingthoseneeds,(iii)observation,and(iv)discovering.

3.2.1.IdentifyingLatentNeeds

Focusingonachallengeeliminatessomesourcesofanchoring,butnotall.Achallengecanalsorepresentabiasedconceptualizationaboutwhattheproblemis.Forthisreason,teamsneedtoreframethechallengeinordertounderstanditfromdifferentperspectives,andgobeyondthe

8

explicitchallengeinordertoidentifyitsunderlying(andnon‐obvious)latentneeds.Thereareseveralmethodsusefulforthisendeavor;eachallowsteamstoseparatethechallengeinneedsthatareMutuallyExclusiveandComprehensibleExhaustive(MECE)increatingthebestpossibleconsumerexperience.Forinstance,theuserexperienceinasupermarketcouldbeseparatedinto(i)findingwhatyouarelookingfor,(ii)shopping,(iii)security,and(iv)checkout.

Theseneedscanbeexaminedseparately,andtheteamcouldassesswheretolookforsourcesofinspirationandunderstanding.

3.2.2.Understanding

Theobjectivesofthissteparetounderstandthebreadthanddepthofeachneed,thewaytheyrelatetoeachother,theirrelevanceincreatingtheuserexperience,identifypeopletointerviewandobserve,andsettingstoresearch.

Thus,understandinglatentneedsallowteamstodeepentheircomprehensionabouttherelevantdimensionsoftheinnovationchallenge,testtheirinitialassumptionsabouteach,andprepareapreliminaryroadmapforobservationandinterviewing.

Manyteamsandcompaniesfeeltemptedtobenchmarkwithfirmsfromtheindustrytheyareworkingon,andresearchhowothershavefacedandsolvedsuchneeds.Thisapproachisnotadvisableformanyreasonsbut,mainly,becauselookingatwhatothersinthesameindustryhavedonealsocreatesanchoring.ResearchonLeadUserInnovationMethod(Lutje&Herstatt,2004;EricvonHippel&Sonnack,1999)suggestteamsshould,regardlessoftheindustry,lookwherethedifferentneedsmighthavebeenfeltinsoexaggeratedwaysthatusersmighthavehadenoughincentivestoinnovate.

3.2.3.Observation

Accordingtoresearchinmarketing,about95%ofconsumptiondecisionsresultfromunconsciousthoughtsand,therefore,arenoteasilyarticulatedbyconsumers(Zaltman,2003).Thus,theeffectivenessofpolls,interviewsandfocusgroupsforgatheringinformationaboutconsumers’preferencesislimited.However,whilemostinformationisnotaccessiblethroughtraditionalmethods,itcanbecollectedthroughobservationandethnographicmethodsoffieldresearch.

Teammembersshouldgatherinformation,data,andsourcesofinspirationandlearningfromobservationandotherfieldresearchmethodsappliedtoallstakeholders,situationsandplacesrelatedtothechallengetheyaresolving.Here,theteamcollectsinformationintheformofphotos,videos,newspaperandmagazinearticlesandpictures,descriptionsandethnographicfieldnotes,personalaccounts,interviews,etc.Theobjectivesare(i)learningasmuchaspossibleaboutthedifferentdimensionsandlatentneedsidentifiedinthepreviousstages,(ii)identifyingleadusersthatcouldbesourcesofinnovations,and(iii)feedbacktheinitialunderstandingaboutlatentneeds,inordertorevisitandrefineit,ifneeded.

9

3.2.4.Discovering

AsthefinalsteponthestageofLearningandDiscovery,theteamgatherstogetherinordertoshareeverythingthathasbeenlearnedonthefield.Theobjectivesare(i)redefiningtheinnovationchallengeatthelightofnewfindingsandunderstandingofitsunderlyinglatentneeds,(ii)makingsenseofitsnon‐obvious,counter‐intuitiveandparticularaspects,and(iii)identifyingparticularareasofopportunityordimensionsoftheuserexperiencethatcanbeexploited.

3.3.AlternativeGeneration

ThesecondphaseoftheprocesstakestheoutcomesachievedduringthephaseofLeaningandDiscoveryandappliesittogenerateaSpaceofPossibleSolutionthroughiterativestepsofbrainstormingandcyclesofprototypingandtesting.Thesecycleshelptheteamtostartfromhundredsofideasinordertocreateroughconceptsdesigns,obtainaSpaceofFeasibleSolutionsand,fromthen,iteratebetweenanalysisandsynthesisinordertoachieveasolutionthatisaptforpre‐launchimplementation(SeeFigure2).

Figure2:PrototypingandTestingCycles

Source:theauthor

3.3.1.IdeaGeneration

InthephaseofIdeaGeneration,theteamneedstogenerateasmanyideasaspossibletosolvetheinnovationchallengeaccordingtothelatentneedstobefulfilled.Thisenhancestheprobabilityofhavingtherawmaterialrequiredtodiscoverasolutionthatdoesnotonlysolvestheproblemathand,butalsoexceedsexpectationsabouttheconsumerexperience.Asresultofanchoring,traditionaldevelopmentteamswilltendtofocusonthecompetitivespaceinwhichthecompanyhasoperated(Hammond,Keeney,&Raiffa,1998).Thisisareasonwhyteams

10

shouldencouragemarginalideasandusethesourcesofinspirationgatheredthroughmethodssuchasLeadUsermethod,andotherspointedtowardsfulfillingthelatentneedsfromvariousanddifferentindustriesandsectors.

Fromastatisticalperspective,thehigherthesetofideasgeneratedbytheteam,thehighertheprobabilitythatbreakthroughideaswillbefoundwithintheset.Forachievingthis,severalauthorshavesuggestedvariouspracticesandcontextsforbrainstorming(T.Kelley&Littman,2001;Parnes&Meadow,1959;Paulus,Brown,&Ortega,1996;Surowiecki,2004;Sutton&Hargadon,1996;Valacich,Dennis,&Connolly,1994).

Itisimportanttonotethatideagenerationisafirststepofanalysisthatwillbefollowedbysynthesisofideasintodesignconcepts,testing,learning,refinementandbyvariousroundsofbrainstorming,conceptgeneration,prototyping,testing,learningandbetterunderstanding,andrefinement.Thisisexplainedasfollows.

3.3.2.PrototypingandTestingCycles

Prototypingistheshorthandofinnovation(T.Kelley,2001)becauseallowsteamstorefine,synthesize,concretizeandcommunicateideasaboutpossiblesolutions(Buxton,2007).Theprototypeandtestcyclesiteratebetween:

• Prototyping(Analysis):startsbymodifyingunderstandingandlearning,andincorporatingthatlearningintogenerationofnewideas.Theseideasareincludedintonewareasofopportunityandconceptdesignsthatarelaterrefinedintomanyprototypesfornewexperiencesthataresupportedbyproducts,servicesandprocessesconcepts.

• Testing(Synthesis):takestheseprototypesandtesttheminto“markets”thatcanbemoreoflesscomplete,regardingthe“type”ofprototype.TeamsthenobtainfeedbackusingsomeoftheobservationmethodsusedinthephaseofLearningandObservation,analyzedata,discardsomeaspectsofeachprototype,andsynthesizethebestaspectofeachintoanewroundofanalysis.

Thesecyclesarerepeatedstartingfromvariouslow‐costprototypeswiththeobjectiveofbrainstorming(whatIDEOcallsinspirationalprototypes),tosomemedium‐costprototypeswiththeobjectiveofexperimenting(whatIDEOcallsevolutionprototypes),tofewhigh‐costprototypeswiththeobjectiveofvalidatingthefinalsolution(whatIDEOcallsvalidationprototypes).Iteratingfromlow‐cost,roughprototypestohigh‐costandrefinedprototypesallowsteamstorapidlyidentifydesignconceptsthatareinferioranddiscardthem,usinglearningthroughexperimentation,andonlyinvestseriouslyinthoseoptionsthathaveshowntobesuperior.Ifprototypingistheshorthandforinnovation,rapidprototypingallowsfasterandmoreeffectiveinnovationbecauseitenableslearningbyfailingassoon,asfastandascheapaspossible.

Prototypingandtestcyclesalsohavethebenefitofallowingfront‐loading,andacceleratingthediscoveryprocessaboutwhatcangowrongwithadevelopmentprocess(Thomke&Fujimoto,2000).Insimplewords,prototypingandtestcycleshelpteamstoreducerisk,ambiguityanduncertaintythroughlearningaboutmost–ifnotall‐ofwhatcangowrongwithaproject.

11

StefanThomkehasaddressedthequestionofhowmanyprototypesandexperimentstocarryout(Thomke,2003a).Inhisview,theanswerdependsonthecombinationbetweentheworstpossibleoutcomebythelatestidentificationofproblems,andpotentialsavingsfromtheearliestidentificationofproblems,aswellastheaveragecostofaroundofexperimentation.

3.4.Pre‐LaunchDevelopment

Theobjectivesofthepreviousphaseshavebeenunderstandingthenon‐obviousdimensionsoftheinnovationchallenge,learningasmuchandfastaspossibleaboutthem,generatingalternativedesignconcepts,anditerateamongtheminordertoidentifyanddiscardinferiorsolutions.Insummary,theobjectiveshavebeentoreduceignorance,ambiguity,uncertaintyandrisk.Onceateamhasreachedapointwherelearningthroughprototypingandexperimentationdoesnotgeneratenewlearningand/ordoesnotrequiresignificantrefinementoftheprototype,itcanstartpre‐launchdevelopment.

Thisphasefocusesondetaileddesignofthenewproduct,relatedservicesandprocesses,designofthesystemsthatwillallowandsustainthenewuserexperience.Itincludessystem‐levelanddetaileddesign,andfinalroundsoftestingandrefinement,alongwithdesignformanufacturing(inordertoreducemanufacturingcosts),designingdistributionchannels(inordertooptimizethelogisticsofmarketdelivery),designingthelaunchofthenewproduct(inordertomaximizemarketadoptionanddiffusion),andmarketing(inordertodefinesalesplan)andproduction(inordertoevaluateearlyproductionoutputandplacement)plans,amongothers.

Thisphaseallowsforappropriatemarketlaunchandexploitation(Ulrich&Eppinger,2004),alongwithlearningasmuchaspossibleaboutproductionandexploitationbeforegettingtothemarket(Pisano,1996).

3.5.LaunchandExploitation

Theobjectivesforthelastphaseonthemodelarefocusedongeneratingpaybackandmanagingthelifecycleoftheinnovation.Buildingonpreviousresearchandpracticeaboutthefinancialreturnsfrominnovation(Andrew&Sirkin,2006),teamsshouldfocuson(i)planningandexecutingthelaunchofinnovationssothatitcangenerateenoughinertiatoreachadiffusiontippingpointasfastaspossible,and(ii)generatingsalesinordertosecurefinancialreturn.

AccordingtoAndrewandSirkin(2006)therearetwoimportantvariables:(i)thetimetoreachvolumeproductionattheminimumscaleneededtodeliverpaybackfortheorganization,and(ii)thepost‐launchinvestmentneededtomaximizepayback.

4. TheProcessofLearningtoInnovateTheprevioussectionsummarizedageneraldesignthinking‐basedinnovationmethodcreatedbystudyingvariousfirms,andrefinedthroughalivinglaboratoryatthebusinessschoolandschoolofengineeringatAdolfoIbáñezUniversity.Idevelopedacoursesyllabusforan“InnovationWorkshop”inwhichIwantedtotestwhetheronecouldteachgroupsofordinarystudentstodevelopextraordinarysolutionsforrealproblems.MymotivationforcreatingthesecoursesstartedasvisitingresearchscientistatMITMediaLab,between2001and2002,whereI

12

foundmostfacultyapplyingconstructionismonthecurriculaofitscourses.IwasluckytohavemetMitchelResnick,SandyPentland,BakhtiarMikhakandbecameawareoftheteachingworkofNeilGershenfeldonhiscourse“HowtoMake(Almost)Anything”2.IhavealsogainedandlearnedverymuchfromcontactswithStefanThomke,fromHBS,andhiscoursematerialfor“ManagingProductandServiceDevelopment”,andStanford´scourseIntroductiontoHumanComputerInteraction(CS147).Finally,myteachingapproachwasalsoheavilyinfluencedbymyparticipationatHarvardBusinessSchoolColloquiumonParticipant‐CenteredLearning(CPCL),andasmasterandPhDstudentatvariousMITandHarvardcourses.

Basedonthesecoursesandresearch(mentionedinSection2),andthemodelillustratedinFigure1,Idevelopedacoursesyllabusthathasbeenimprovedthrough10classestaughtsince2007,withmorethan500studentsandabout100projectteams.Afterthesuccessandresultsfromthiscourse,wedevelopedadesignthinking‐basedMasteronInnovation(MI)program,whichisnowonitssecondgeneration3.InthispaperIwillfocusontheInnovationWorkshop,ratherthantheMI,fortworeasons:(i)theworkshophasmorehistoryandresultsthantheMI,and(ii)hasbeenappliedtotraindevelopmentteamswithinfirmswithgoodresults.

Inthefollowingsection,Isummarizethe(i)objectives,(ii)teachingphilosophy,(iii)structure,and(iv)outcomesofthecourse.

4.1. Objectives

Thegeneralobjectivesofthecoursearetochangethewaystudentsthinkaboutinnovation,andhowtheyactwhiledevelopinganewproduct,serviceorprocess.Bytheendofthecourse,studentsshouldbeabletoidentifynon‐obviousandlatentneedsfromroughlydefinedinnovationchallengeandexplicitneeds.Theyshouldgainfirst‐handexperienceondesignthinkingasmethodforapproachingdevelopmentproblems,andfeelmorecomfortablewithhandlingrisk,ambiguity,anduncertainty,aswellasrecognizetheirareasofignorance.Theyshouldknowhowtolearnthroughfailureandexperimentation,feelcomfortablewithit,andappreciatethebenefitsoffront‐loadingproblem‐solvingaswellasmanagingbasicmethodsforobservation,interviewing,discovery,experimentation,andprototyping.

4.2. TeachingPhilosophy

Inordertoaccomplishtheseobjectives,thecourseisdesignedtobeanexperiencesostudentscanlearnbydoingandapplydesignthinkingreasoningtorealproblems.

Giventhatidentifyinganworthyinnovationchallengeisnotaneasytask,Istartbycontactingcompanies,NGOsandgovernmentorganizationsforproblemsorprojectsthatcanbeusedaschallenges.Thestudentsarepresentedwithlooselydefinedchallenges,

2Forthesyllabus,pleaselookforcoursecodeMAS.863atMITOpenCoursewareathttp://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

3Forinformationandstructureonthisprogram,pleaseseehttp://www.uai.cl/images/stories/Facultades/Negocio/Master/mi/folleto%20mi.pdf

13

presentedbyCEOs,orareamanagerssuchastheChiefTechnologyorMarketingOfficer.Thechallengesareimportantproblemsinwhichfirmsareworkingorthinkingonand,inmostcases,firmsaskstudentstosignNon‐DisclosureAgreements.Thearrangementsaboutintellectualproperty(IP)havebeenvaried.Inthecaseswherethefirmspayorrewardstudents,thesponsorcompanyretainIP,whileinsometheyallowstudentstoowntheIPandhavedecidedtoinvestontheirdevelopments.

Inordertomakestudentsfaceanddealwithhighlevelsofambiguityanduncertainty,thereisnoplaceforclarificationquestionsfromtheprofessororsponsorfirms.Instead,studentsareencouragedtolearnwhattheyneedfromfieldwork,andtoreceivefeedbackfromsponsorfirmsandconsumersfromthevariousconceptsandprototypesdevelopedthroughthecourse,andfromclassdiscussion.

Asresultthecoursefocusesonparticipant‐centeredlearning.Thisalsoreflectsonthegradingsystem:(i)50%ofthegradingisassignedbythesponsorcompany,basedonthequalityofthefinalworkpresentedbythestudents,and(ii)theother50%isassignedbytheprofessortoeachstudent’scontributiontothelearningprocessoftheclass,throughdailyassessmentofhisin‐classandonlineparticipation.

Finally,Iusedthiscourseasalaboratoryformyresearchoninnovationprocessestobothdeveloptheory,andletstudentstousetheory(Carlile&Christensen,2005).Therearetwofinaloutcomesforeachteam:(i)afinalprototype,and(ii)aprojectreportthataccountsforallsteps,ideas,photographs,sourcesofinspiration,fieldworknotes,conceptdesigns,andprototypescreatedthroughtheprocess.

4.3. Structure

Thecoursehas5modules,eachwithadifferentobjective.Attheendofeachmodule,eachgroupisrequiredtopresentanadvancetotheprojectinanyformat(video,memo,prototype,etc.).ThecoursestructureisillustratedbyFigure3.

1. UnderstandingInnovationProcesses:focusesonintroducingstudentstodesignthinking‐basedinnovation,andmakethemcompareittotraditionalproductdevelopmentandengineeringprojectmanagement.Thisisachievedbycombiningcase‐basedandlecture‐basedclasses.Attheendofthemodule,sponsorfirmspresentthechallengestotheclass.

2. SourcesofInnovation,NeedsandObservation:Thefocusofthismoduleistoprovidestudentswiththepossibilitytolearnbyapplyingmethodsofreframing,identificationofsourcesofinnovation,identificationoflatentneedsandfieldwork(observation,interviewing,etc.).Theobjectiveofthismoduletomakestudentslearnanddiscovernon‐obviousaspectsofthechallengebyapplyingandcontrastingmethods,sotheycanperceivethechallengeanditsneedsfromdifferentperspectivesanddiscoverareasofopportunity.Thelearningobjectivesareachievedthroughacombinationofcase‐basedclasses,teamworkplanningandfieldwork.

3. IdeaandConceptGeneration:Thismodulefocusesongeneratingskillsinbrainstormingandconceptgenerationthroughacombinationofcase‐basedclasses,onediscussion‐basedlectureandteamworkonideaandconceptgeneration.Studentsapplyoneor

14

variousbrainstormingtechniquestocreatepreliminaryideasandconcepts,inordertobuildtheskillsneededforModule4(LearningthroughExperimentationandPrototyping)andmanagePrototypeandTestingCycles(illustratedinFigure2).Theyalsostartplanningusabilitytests,andhowtoobtainfeedbackfromcustomersandthesponsorfirm.

4. LearningthroughExperimentationandPrototyping:thismoduleisaimedtocreateskillsforlearningbyexperimentationandprototyping.Studentsgetexposedtocasesandmethodsaboutprototypingandexperimentation,andtheconsequencesoffailingassoon,asmuchandascheapaspossibleinorderto(i)learnasmuchaspossibleaboutwhatmightnotwork,and(ii)decreasetheprobabilityoffailinginthemarket(afterlaunchinganewproductorservice).

5. ProcessDesignandImprovement:Thelastmodulefocusesonexaminingtheexecutionofaninnovationprocess,improvingit,andallowingtheorganizationforcontinuousimprovementofitsinnovationroutines.

Figure3:CourseModules

4.4. Outcomes

EveryInnovationWorkshopIhavetaughthashadbetweenoneandfivechallenges.Ineveryterm,Ihavemadechangesbasedontheresultsoftheprevious,andasresultthecurriculahasevolvedovertheyears.Partofmyresearchfocusesonanalyzingtheoutcomesorthecourseforfurtherimprovement,butIdidnothadtheopportunitytocomparethequalityoftheworkofmystudentswithotherssimilarstudents,solvingthesameproblem,butwithouttheskillsandknowledgegainedattheInnovationWorkshop.

Suchopportunityhappenedduring2008,atthe“DesafíoalaInnovaciónChile2008”(the2008ChileanInnovationChallenge),thattookplaceduringthesecondhalfof2008.Chile´sInnovationForum4organizedastudentcompetitionwhere4organizations(threecompanies

4Seehttp://www.foroinnovacion.cl/fortheInnovationForum

15

andoneministry)presentedonechallengeeach.Studentparticipationreachedabout500studentsgroupedinto63teamsfrom23universities.

Thecompetitionhadthreephases(SeeFigure4).Thefirsttwophasesfocusedonblindreviewoftheproposalsbyexecutivesofthecompaniesandtheministry.Fromthe63teamsstartinginPhaseI,35madetoPhaseII,andonly23reachedPhaseIII.PhaseIIIincludedatimedpresentationfortheexecutives.Atthebeginningofthecompetition,14ofthe63teamswereformedbystudentswhohavebeentrainedbymeattheInnovationWorkshop(22.2%).ByPhaseIII,11outofthe14teamswerestillincompetition(47.8%).

Eachorganizationhadtochooseonlyoneteamaswinner.Fromthe23teamsthatreachedfinales,fourteamswereselected:threemaster‐levelteamswithtrainingattheInnovationWorkshop,andoneteamofPhDstudentswithoutthetraining.Thefinalstep,however,wastochoosethemostinnovativesolutionamongthese4teams.Thistaskwasgivento8ofthepeoplethathavebeenawardedAVONNI,theChile´sprestigiousNationalInnovationAward.

Afteranalyzingtheprojectsofthefourfinalteams,theAVONNIjudgesdecidedtoawardasMostInnovativeProjectthesolutionofateamcomingfromtheInnovationWorkshop.Noneofthesolutionsweremadepublic,becausebecameintellectualpropertyofthesponsorfirms.

Figure4:PhasesandCompetingTeamsatthe2008ChileanInnovationChallenge

Source:theauthorbasedondatafromInnovationForum

16

5. ConclusionsRegardlessofthesector,thesustainabilityofavaluepropositionisamatterofstrategicrelevance.Whetheroneconsiderscreationofpublicorprivatevalue,designthinking‐basedproblemsolvinghasthebenefitofallowingsuperiorperformance.Fromtheperspectiveofinnovation,addressingsustainabilityinvaluecreationnecessarilyrequireshandlingthemovingtargetproblem.Themovingtargetproblemiscreatedbytheinteractionamongthetimeneededtodevelop,implement,launchandexploitasolution,andtheuncertaintyandambiguityinherenttoanyproblem.Teamscangeneratebreakthroughsolutionsbyreducingtimetomarket,whilehandlingambiguityanduncertaintyin“adequate”manners.By“adequate”mannersImeantoamplifyambiguityanduncertainty,inordertoenhancethechaosinherenttoaninnovation,butwithinaprocessthatisdesignedtomitigatetheirimpact.

Inthispaper,Iarguethatdesignthinkingbasedinnovationcancontributeinimportantwaystothesustainabilityandsuperiorityofproblemsolving,throughmethodsthatallowteamsto(i)learnaboutthehiddenandlatentaspectsofchallenges,anddiscoverareasofopportunityandanomalies,(ii)becapableofgeneratingthelargestpossiblesetofalternativesforsolutions,(iii)selectand/oridentifysuperiorsolutionsbyiterativecyclesofprototypingandtesting,(iv)identifyassoonandfastaspossiblewhatcangowrong,and(v)learnbeforelaunchhowtoramp‐upthenewservices,productsandprocesses.

Researchshowsvariouscompanieshaveachievedthisgoal,andmyparticularresearchpresentsanapproachfordoingit.However,themostrelevantaspectpresentedhereisthefactthatteamsandorganizationscanlearnhowtoachievesuperiorperformancethroughdesignthinking‐basedinnovationtraining.Whetherinpublicpolicy,management,designandengineeringschools,orduringin‐companyexecutiveeducation,oneneedstofocusoncreatingasetofnewcapabilities:(i)learningtocraftaninnovationchallenge,(ii)learningtoidentifysourcesofinnovation,(iii)learningtoperceiverealityindifferentways(bycreatingcreativecapacity),(iv)learningtogenerateasmanyideasaspossibleand,byexploration,identifythosethataresuperior(bygeneratingexplorationcapacity),(v)learningtofailassoon,fastandcheapaspossibleinordertosucceed.

This,however,requiresamorebasiclearning:learningtoun‐learnwhatkeepspeopletrappedintotheefficientwayofdoingthings:(i)avoidingmistakes,(ii)beingcost‐efficient,(iii)implementingthingsatonce,etc.Theresearchonthispaperisunderdevelopment,butalreadyhasshownsignificantresults,aswiththeexampleofstudentscompetingforsolvingproblemsduringthe2008ChileanInnovationChallenge:(i)facedwithsameproblems,groupsofstudentstrainedindesignthinkingbasedinnovationachievesuperiorresultsthatgroupsofstudentswithoutsuchtraining,and(ii)theskillsandmethodsforachievingsuchperformancecanbelearned.

17

6. ReferencesAbernathy,W.,&Clark,K.(1985).Innovation:mappingthewindsofcreativedestruction.

ResearchPolicy,14,3‐22.Abernathy,W.,&Utterback,J.(1978).PatternsofIndustrialInnovation.Technology

Review(June‐July),40‐47.Abernathy,W.,&Wayne,K.(1974).LimitstotheLearningCurve.HarvardBusinessReview(Sept‐

Oct).Anderson,P.,&Tushman,M.(1990).TechnologicalDiscontinuitiesandDominantDesigns:A

CyclicalModelofTechnologicalChange.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35(4),604‐633.Andrew,J.P.,&Sirkin,H.L.(2006).Payback:reapingtherewardsofinnovation.Boston,MA:

HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Arora,A.,Fosfuri,A.,&Gambardella,A.(2001).TheMarketsforTechnology:theeconomicsof

innovationandcorporatestrategy.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.Arthur,W.B.(1989).CompetingTechnologies,IncreasingReturns,andLock‐inbyHistorical

Events.EconomicJournal,99,116‐131.Baldwin,C.Y.,&Clark,K.(2000).DesignRules:Thepowerofmodularity.Cambridge,MA:The

MITPress.Beckman,S.,&Barry,M.(2007).InnovationasaLearningProcess:EmbeddingDesignThinking.

CaliforniaManagementReview,50(1),25‐56.Bonabeau,E.,Bodick,N.,&Armstrong,R.(2008).AMoreRationalApproachtoNew‐Product

Development.HarvardBusinessReview,March,1‐6.Bresnahan,T.,&Trajtenberg,M.(1995).GeneralPurposeTechnologies:"EnginesforGrowth"?

JournalofEconometrics,65,83‐108.Brown,T.(2008).DesignThinking.HarvardBusinessReview(June),1‐9.Buxton,B.(2007).SketchingUserExperiences:gettingthedesignrightandtherightdesign.San

Francisco:FocalPress.Carlile,P.,&Christensen,C.(2005).TheCyclesofTheoryBuildinginManagement

Research.Unpublishedmanuscript,Boston,MA.Christensen,C.(2000).TheInnovator'sDilemma:whygreatcompaniesfail:HarperBusiness.Christensen,C.,&Rosenbloom,R.S.(1995).ExplainingtheAttackersAdvantage:Technological

Paradigms,OrganizationalDynamicsandtheValueNetwork.ResarchPolicy,25,233‐257.Christensen,C.,Scott,A.,&Roth,E.(2004).SeeingWhat´sNext:usingthetheoriesofinnovation

topredictindustrychange:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Clark,K.(1987).ManagingTechnologyinInternationalCompetition:TheCaseofProduct

DevelopmentinResponsetoForeignEntry.InM.Spence&H.A.Hazard(Eds.),InternationalCompetitiveness:Ballinger.

Cohen,W.,&Levinthal,D.(1990).AbsorptiveCapacity:ANewPerspectiveonLearningandInnovation.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35(1),128‐152.

Cooper,R.(1986).WinningatNewProducts:AddisonWesley.David,P.A.(1985).ClioandtheeconomicsofQWERTY.AmericanEconomicReview,75,332‐

337.Dosi,G.(1982).TechnologicalParadigmsandTechnologicalTrajectories:asuggested

interpretationofthedeterminantsanddirectionsoftechnicalchange.ResearchPolicy,11,147‐162.

18

Ethiraj,S.,&Levinthal,D.(2004).ModularityandInnovationinComplexSystems.ManagementScience,50(2),159‐173.

Fleming,L.(2001).RecombinantUncertaintyinTechnologicalSearch.ManagementScience47(1).

Fleming,L.,&Sorenson,O.(2001).TheDangersofModularity.HarvardBusinessReview,79(8),20‐21.

Fleming,L.,&Sorenson,O.(2004).ScienceasaMapinTechnologicalSearch.StrategicManagementJournal25(8‐9),909‐928.

Fulton‐Suri,J.(2003).TheExperienceEvolution:DevelopmentsinDesignPractice.DesignJournal,6(2),39‐48.

Hammond,J.,Keeney,R.,&Raiffa,H.(1998).TheHiddenTrapsinDecisionMaking.HarvardBusinessReview,September­October,2‐11.

Henderson,R.,&Clark,K.(1990).ArchitecturalInnovation:TheReconfigurationofExistingProductTechnologiesandtheFailureofEstablishedFirms.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35,9‐30.

Huckman,R.(2003).TheUtilizationofCompetingTechnologieswithintheFirm:EvidencefromCardiacProcedures.MagamenentSciences,49(5),599‐617.

Iansiti,M.(1995).ShootingtheRapids:managingproductdevelopmentinturbulentenvironments.CaliforniaManagementReview,38(1),37‐58.

Iansiti,M.,&MacCormack,A.(1997).DevelopingProductsonInternetTime.HarvardBusinessReview,September,108‐117.

Kelley,D.,&Hartfield,B.(1996).TheDesigner´sStance.InT.Winograd(Ed.),BringingDesigntoSoftware(pp.151‐170):Addison‐Wesley.

Kelley,T.(2001).PrototyingistheShorthandofInnovation.DesignManagementJournal,12(3),35‐42.

Kelley,T.,&Littman,J.(2001).TheArtofInnovation:LessonsinCreativityfromIDEO,America'sLeadingDesignFirmDoubleplay.

Kogut,B.,&Zander,U.(1992).KnowledgeoftheFirm,CombinativeCapabilities,andtheReplicationofTechnology.OrganizationScience,3(3),383‐397.

Krishnan,V.,&Ulrich,K.(2001).ProductDevelopmentDecisions:AReviewoftheLiterature.ManagementScience,47(1),1‐21.

Kuhn,T.(1970).TheStructureofScientificRevolution(2ndEditioned.):UniversityofChicagoPress.

Laseau,P.(1980).GraphicThikingforArchitectsandDesigners.NewYork,NY:VanNostrandReinholdCompany.

Levin,R.C.,&Reiss,P.C.(1984).TestofaSchumpeterianModelofR&DandMarketStructure.InZ.Griliches(Ed.),R&D,PatentsAndProductivity.Chicago,IL:UniversityOfChicagoPress.

Levinthal,D.,&March,J.(1993).TheMyopiaofLearning.StrategicManagementJournal,14,95‐112.

Lutje,C.,&Herstatt,C.(2004).TheLeadUserMethod:anoutlineofempiricalfindingsandissuesforfutureresearch.R&DManagement,34(5),553‐568.

MacCormack,A.(2005).InnovationandUncertainty.UnpublishedSeminarPresentation.HarvardBusinessSchool.

MacCormack,A.(2006).ManagingInnovationinanUncertainWorld:courseoverviewnote.HBSCaseMaterial,5­606­105,26.

19

MacCormack,A.,&Verganti,R.(2003).ManagingtheSourcesofUncertainty:MatchingProcessandContextinSoftwareDevelopment.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,20(3),217‐232.

March,J.(1991).ExplorationandExploitationinOrganizationalLearning.OrganizationScience,2(1),71‐87.

Nelson,R.R.,&Winter,S.G.(1982).AnEvolutionaryTheoryofEconomicChange.Cambridge:BelknapPress.

Osorio,C.(2007).CompetenciesforInnovation.Unpublishedmanuscript,Santiago,Chile.Osorio,C.(2009).InnovationProcessesintheBasqueIndustry:thepoweroflearningthrough

experimentation.BasqueInstituteofCompetitiveness‐DeustoUniversity.Owen,C.(1998).DesignResearch:BuildingtheKnowledgeBase.DesignStudies,19(1),9‐20.Parnes,S.,&Meadow,A.(1959).EffectsofBrainstormingInstructionsonCreativeProblem

SolvingbyTrainedandUntrainedSubjects.JournalofEducationalPsychology,50,171‐176.

Paulus,P.,Brown,V.,&Ortega,A.(1996).GroupCreativity.InR.E.Purser&A.Montuori(Eds.),SocialCreativityinOrganizations.Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress.

Pisano,G.(1990).TheR&DBoundariesoftheFirm:anempiricalanalysis.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35(1),153‐176.

Pisano,G.(1996).Learning‐Before‐DoingintheDevelopmentofNewProcessTechnology.ResearchPolicy,25,1097‐1119.

Rosenberg,N.(1969).DirectionsofTechnologicalChange:InducementMechanismsandFocusingDevices”,EconomicDevelopmentandCulturalChange,October:1‐24.EconomicDevelopmentandCulturalChange(October),1‐24.

Rosenbloom,R.S.,&Christensen,C.(1994).TechnologicalDiscontinuities,OrganizationalCapabilitiesandStrategicCommitments.IndustrialandCorporateChange,3(3),655‐685.

Schumpeter,J.A.(1934).TheTheoryofEconomicDevelopment.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Schumpeter,J.A.(1943).Capitalism,Socialism,andDemocracy(2nded.).London,UK:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,Ltd.

Shapiro,C.,&Varian,H.(1999).TheArtofStandardsWars.CaliforniaManagementReview,41(2),8‐32.

Snow,D.(2004).ExtraordinaryEfficiencyGrowthinResponsetoNewTechnologyEntries:TheCarburetor's'LastGrasp'.PaperpresentedattheAcademyofManagementConferenceSeries.

Sterman,J.,&Wittenberg,J.(1999).PathDependence,CompetitionandSuccessionintheDynamicsofScientificRevolution.OrganizationScience,10(3),322‐341.

Stuart,T.E.,&Podolny,J.M.(1996).Localsearchandtheevolutionoftechnologicalcapabilities.StrategicManagementJournal,17(1),21‐38.

Sull,D.,Ruelas‐Gossi,A.,&Escobari,M.(2003).InnovatingAroundObstacles.Strategy&Innovation(November‐December).

Surowiecki,J.(2004).TheWisdomofCrowds:WhytheManyAreSmarterThantheFewandHowCollectiveWisdomShapesBusiness,Economies,SocietiesandNations:Little‐Brown.

Sutton,R.,&Hargadon,A.(1996).BrainstormingGroupsinContext:EffectivenessinaProductDesignFirm.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,41,685‐718.

20

Teece,D.(1981,November).TheMarketforKnow­HowandtheEfficientInternationalTransferofTechnology.PaperpresentedattheTheAnnalsoftheAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience.

Teece,D.(1986).ProfitingfromTechnologicalInnovation.ResarchPolicy,15(6),285‐305.Teece,D.,Pisano,G.,&Shuen,A.(1997).DynamicsCapabilitiesandStrategicManagement.

StrategicManagementJournal,18(7),509‐533.Thomke,S.(1998).Simulation,Learning,andR&DPerformance:EvidencefromAutomotive

Development.ResearchPolicy,27,55‐74.Thomke,S.(2001).EnlightenedExperimentation:TheNewImperativeforInnovation.Harvard

BusinessReview,79(2),67‐75.Thomke,S.(2002).BankofAmerica(A)and(B),HBSCaseStudies(pp.21).Boston,MA:Harvard

BusinessSchool.Thomke,S.(2003a).ExperimentationMatters:UnlockingthePotentialofNewTechnologiesfor

Innovation.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Thomke,S.(2003b).R&DComestoService:BankofAmerica´sPathBreakingExperiment.

HarvardBusinessReview,April,70‐79.Thomke,S.,&Fujimoto,T.(2000).TheEffectof"FrontLoading"Problem‐SolvingonProduct

DevelopmentPerformance.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,17(1),128‐142.Thomke,S.,&Reinersten,D.(1998).AgileProductDevelopment:managingflexibilityin

uncertainenvironments.CaliforniaManagementReview,41(1),8‐30.Tohidi,M.,Buxton,B.,Baecker,R.,&Sellen,A.(2006,April22‐27).GettingtheRightDesignand

theDesignRight:TestingManyisBetterthanOne.PaperpresentedattheComputerHumanInteraction,Montreal,Quebec,Canada.

Tripsas,M.(1997).SurvivingRadicalTechnologicalChangethroughDynamicCapability:evidencefromtheTypesetterIndustry.IndustrialandCorporateChange,6(2),341‐377.

Tripsas,M.,&Gavetti,G.(2000).Capabilities,CognitionandInertia:EvidencefromDigitalImaging.StrategicManagementJournal21(October‐November),1147‐1161.

Tushman,M.,&Anderson,P.(1986).TechnologicalDiscontinuitiesandOrganizationalEnvironments.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly31,439‐465.

Ulrich,K.,&Eppinger,S.(2004).ProductDesignandDevelopment:McGraw‐HillUtterback,J.(1994).DominantDesignsandtheSurvivalofFirms.InJ.Utterback(Ed.),Mastering

theDynamicsofInnovation(pp.79‐102).Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Utterback,J.,&Suarez,F.(1991).Innovation,Competition,andIndustryStructure.Research

Policy,22(1),1‐21.Valacich,J.,Dennis,A.,&Connolly,T.(1994).IdeaGenerationinComputer‐BasedGroups:aNew

EndingtoanOldStory.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,57,448‐467.

Verganti,R.(2006).InnovatingThroughDesign.HarvardBusinessReview,December,114‐122.vonHippel,E.(1988).TheSourcesofInnovation.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.vonHippel,E.,&Sonnack,M.(1999).BreakthroughstoOrderat3MviaLeadUserInnovations.

MIT­SSMWorkingPapersRetrievedNovember2nd,fromhttp://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/papers/3M%20Breakthrough%20Art.pdf

Wheelwright,S.,&Clark,K.(1992a).RevolutionizingProductDevelopment(Vol.1).NewYork:TheFreePress.

Wheelwright,S.,&Clark,K.(1992b).StructuringtheDevelopmentFunnelRevolutionizingProductDevelopment(Vol.1,pp.111‐132).NewYork:TheFreePress.

21

Zaltman,G.(2003).HowCostumersThink:essentialinsightsintothemindofthemarket.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.