Upload
maidah-masood
View
148
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept
Coherence in Product Innovation
Seidel, V. P. & Mahony, S.2014
Organization Science
Introduction
• Coordinate the effects of many minds contributing to design of single artifact (product).
• Traditional focus on formal mechanism of control i.e. work task, Organizational structure.
• Coordination can be affected by ‘representation’ of a collective effort.
• “Representations therefore coordinate by providing information. They also offer a common referent around which people interact, align their work and create shared meaning.”
• Concept Representation_____2-Approaches:• Linguistic Representation:• Material Representation:• Focus on one representation at a time, may mask the effects
where both linguistic and material representations are used. • Focus in promise of representations without specifying the
conditions that make them effective.• Examine the development of novel concepts into innovative
products.• How teams use both linguistic and material representations
in coordinating design task and the practices that made representations effective.
Verbal or written means used to communicate a concept in order to guide individual and collective action. e.g. Stories, Metaphors.Physical objects used to communicate a concept to inform individual work that must be integrated with a collective. e.g. prototype
• Incremental Innovations• Novel Innovations• Difficult to coordinate collective effort as the outcome
cannot be specified.• Team compositions and well-trained project leaders can
help coordinate design tasks.• Easily communicated representations can also help
coordinate product concept.• Representation of the product concept are generated,
communicated and revised.
Product Innovation
Adding features in already existing products.Creating a product that only exists in abstract.
Concept Representation
Common Understanding Coordinated Tasks
Coordinated design of product attributes
Common understanding of desired product
attributes
Individual Linguistic or Material
Representation
Figure 1
Basic model of individual representation, common understanding and coordination as applied to product innovation
Linguistic RepresentationsStories• Help narrow ambiguity in
memorable manner. • Narrative, unfold over time.• Develop more complicated
set of relationships.• More fluid than metaphor.
Metaphors• Metaphors direct individuals’
attention by facilitating the transfer of relations from one domain to another.
• Vivid means to stimulate action.
• Encourages memorability and generates personal understanding.
• Makes the unfamiliar familiar.
Stories and Metaphors are most relevant in an innovation context.
Gap: How individuals throughout an organization receive and act on linguistic representations and how representations evolve in use.
Material Representation• Transfer knowledge from one domain to another.• Enables differences in understanding to be transformed into
a common understanding.• “Physical objects used to communicate a concept.”• Use of even a simple prototype can help understand product
attributes.
Gap: Much focus on material objects without specifying the conditions that make them more or less effective.
Repertoires of Representations• Previously researched a specific types of representation – in
isolation.• When examined individually, representations fail to provide
different types of information.• Concept representations affect individuals throughout the
organization working on an innovation task.• “A collection of practices held in common from which
individual select responses to particular situations.”• Define and bound the range of a community’s practices.
Gap: Little information on practices or conditions that make representations effective in coordinating many task required in innovation vision.
Research Question• How teams used both linguistic and material
representations to coordinate the development of novel products and the practices that enable representations to be more or less effective.
Methods• Case study• Effective for exploring the research questions affected by
organizational context.• Teams that recently launched products novel to both
organization and market.• Press accounts: The New York Times or The Wall Street
Journal.• Six product development teams from Three industries
(consumer electronics, medical/ sports therapy devices, automotive) to increase generalizability across context.
Project names & descriptions Firm size & location Core team size
eBook(Handheld electronic book reader)
Medium (100)California
30
PDAPhone“Smart Phone”Mobile device
Medium (300)California
20
RadCross“Crossover”Of car and truck
Large (1000)Michigan
35
FlexTruckTruck with flexible cargo
Large (1000)Michigan
20
BodyCoolBody cooling device with new method
Small (8)California
6
JointCoolCooling device combining 2 therapies
Small (9)California
6
Data Collection
• Focus on the practices of the product development teams used across cases.
• Field work for eighteen months.• In-person interviews to take advantage of project data
maintained by each team.• Written and visual descriptions of each team’s product
concept.• Observation of teams communication of novel product in
various forms.• Access to meeting rooms, prototype observation.
Data Analysis• Four phases1. Comprehensive Summaries of each case2. Data Coding3. Data Recoding4. Identification of coordination practices
•Practices and concept representations used by each team.•Several different types of representations used to communicate.
•Determine the range of representations used.•Three types of representations used1.Stories2.Metaphor3.Prototype
•Not all teams benefited equally from the use of concept representation.•Identify practices that led to be more successful.1. Collective scrutiny of representations2. Linking representations to design constraints3. Active editing among repertoire of representation
Concept Coherence & Disunity
• Concept Coherence• Concept Disunity• Teams that consistently used coordination practices
achieved concept coherence & teams that didn’t experienced concept disunity.
• Multiple concept representations used along with Three coordination practices, Two modes of understanding were produced:
1. Common interpretation of representation2. Shared repertoire of representation
A common understanding of desired product attributes.Disparate understanding of desired product attributes.
Concept Representations
• Product concept presented teams with Two main challenges:1. Combining attributes of existing concepts to create
something novel.
Concept Representations
• Product concept presented teams with Two main challenges:1. Combining attributes of existing concepts to create
something novel.2. Specifying product attributes when they are not identifiable.
Crafting Concept Representations
• Stories• Metaphors• Prototypes
Explain customer needsArticulate product functionProduct’s form
Plurality of Representation
• Concept representation enable people to move from concepts to practice.
• FlexTruck prototype Common understanding• RadCross prototype Misunderstanding• Common understanding product attributes fostered by
plurality of representations create concept coherence.
Concept Coherence1. Share a common interpretation of representations.2. Maintain a common repertoire of representations. Degree to which: team members • “Stay on the same page.”• Share a common understanding of desired product attribute
while coordinating design task. Examples:• FlexTruck Team• PDAPhone Team
“Swiss Army Knife”Flip Phone
Concept Disunity• It arises from the separation of design task into many tasks
done by many men. Teams show disunity when:• Drawing upon a plurality of representations not part of a
shared repertoire.• Team members maintain different interpretations of
representations from a shared repertoire. Example:• RadCross Team
Coordinating Practices
1. Collective scrutiny of representations2. Linking representations to design constraints3. Active editing among repertoire of representation
Concept Coherence Concept Disunity
FlexTruck RadCross
PDAPhone eBook
JointCool BodyCool
Collective Scrutiny of Concept Representations
1. Shared all representations widely among the team.2. Allowed all team members to question the scope or
meaning of representations.• Teams engaged in collective scrutiny:1. Discovered sources of difference2. Produced agreement on interpreting representations
FlexTruck Team•Prototype available at secure location.• Representations conveyed throughout the organization.•Regular “town hall” meetings.•Revisiting representations.•Problem solving.
eBook Team•Conveyed representation widely.•Product attributes constantly questioned by team members.•“Its not a computer…it’s a book!”•Calculator in the eBook?...”But it’s a book”•List of contacts in an eBook?
RadCross Team• Team members rejected other members representations.
Northface jacket's pocket and zippers Multi - Functionality
Linking Representations to Design Constraints
• Any technical or market limitation that how the concept could be translated into a viable product.
• Teams performed two activities:1. Link representation to one or more design constraints.2. Continuously checked concept assumptions with emerging
design constraints.• Enables team members to coordinate individual design.• Teams achieved concept coherence even when the concept
was changing.
PDAPhone eBook
JointCool BodyCool
FlexTruck RadCross
FlexTruck•“Flexible cargo area”•Creating convertible waterproof cargo bed•Referring to metaphor: “Swiss Army Knife” - Instant convertability
PDAPhone•“Concept box”
RadCross•“Show vehicle” prototype•Contained attributes that weren’t going to be in finished product.•Desperate interpretation of the product.
Active Editing Among Representations
• Arise from the need to choose between conflicting representations or new design constraints.
• Required two activities:1. Clearly identified process owner designated to make
changes to concept representation.2. Representation that no longer fit product concept are
excised.• Critical to form concept coherence as product concept
evolve.• Facilitate the common understanding of representations.
PDAPhone•Initially two prototypes:•“flip - phone” “stick phone”•Product architect decided to make “flip phone”•Active editing of new design constraints•Revised prototype and communicated the change
eBook•Not enough digital content available•Concept change•New concept: ”tablet device” for delivery drivers•Old metaphor “It’s a book!” still prevailed•Book like prototypes still used
Story: changedMetaphor: persistedPrototype: persisted
BodyCool
•Persisting incompatible interpretation of representation
•Unable to translate concept into product
•Application confusion: sports, hospital, military?
•Confused team members
•Delayed prototype production
Dynamics of Managing the Repertoire
Dynamics of Managing the Repertoire
Discussion
• Three types of concept representations on the basis of facets of product concept: need, function & form.
• Repertoire of representation (RR) not enough for common understanding.
• Coordination practices required to manage (RR).
Discussion: Contribution
• To the theories of innovation and coordination.1. Effects of concept representation are not always positive
depends upon consistent use of coordination practices.2. Identification of two modes of common understanding: • How each representation is interpreted?• Which representations are in repertoire?3. Product concept evolves
Discussion: Managing the Repertoire
• One type of representation is inadequate to achieve complex goal.
• Repertoire of representation more effective than one type.• Multiple representations may also foster concept disunity.• RR is more effective when used conjunction of three
coordinating practices.• If product attributes change, so must concept
representations.
Discussion: Dynamics of Coordinating in Practice
• Concept coherence & coordination Common RR & Common interpretation.
• Collective scrutiny of representation Allow open questioning & Reconcile competing interpretations.
• Linking representations to design constraints Collectively generate new information.
• Active editing among representations to ensure representation relevance to concepts being designed.
• Teams achieving concept coherence Better able to adapt to changing market & technical conditions.
Discussion
Limitations• Comparison of importance
of concept coherence with other factors such as team resources.
• Coordination is effected without coordination practices to mange repertoire.
Directions• Examination of relative
importance of such tradeoffs.
• Examine repertoire of representation and role of concept coherence in dynamic environment.