The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes

7/27/2019 The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes.

1/77

The influence of metaphors on the risk

management in radical innovation processes.

By Nishant Bhaskar and Dominiek PostMaster of strategic product design, Technical University of Delft, Landbergstraat

15, 2628 CE Delft

Abstract

Radical innovative products present great opportunities for firms in terms of growth

and expansion in new areas in order to sustain competitive advantage. Radical

innovation also brings risks and uncertainty with it, because of its novel characteristics.

Metaphors can increase the understanding of new ideas and thereby reduce theperceived risk in radical innovations. The combination of metaphors and visualizations

can serve as an effective tool for communicating the concepts in the fuzzy front end of

new product development.Previous literature observes how knowledge transfer in radical innovation

processes can be stimulated by communication mediums like visualisations and

metaphors. The effects of both mediums have been a well-explored area of research, yetlittle is known about the effect of combining the two. The main research question istherefor how the use of visually depicted metaphors influences the decision making

(gaining understanding and sustaining ambiguity) in radical innovation process?The article offers a in-depth qualitative research with managers from medium to

big sized companies. In the interviews insights are generated on how risk managementin radical innovation processes is influenced during the communication of ideas. Five

dimensions of the communication process are found which have influence on riskmanagement: 1) Exploring and communicating a wide area of possibilities. 2)

Deterrents for different actors involved during the communication process. 3) The main

objectives of communicating ideas, conveying and sense making. 4) Accessing risk and

taking decision in three steps. 5) The attribution of metaphors during thecommunication process.

By increasing the effectiveness of communication between designers and

managers, the understanding grows and thereby the risk appetite. This article provides

a basis for further research, hoping to intrigue people to further research and verifythese findings, in order to optimize the risk management in the early stages of the

radical innovation process.

Keywords: Innovation, Communication, Reasoning, Decision making, Visualmetaphors

1. Introduction

In this fast changing environment,companies all have a shared primary

target, namely to generate revenue and

survive. Through new productdevelopment organizations can create and

sustain a competitive advantage.Innovative products present great

opportunities for firms in terms of growth

and expansion into new areas (Danneeland Kleinschmidt 2001). Successful radical

innovations promise large rewards andcan establish dominant positions in the

market.

However, radical innovations alsorequire organizations to move into

unknown territory and experiment withnew processes (OConnor, McDermott

2004). Radical innovations bring risk and


2/77

uncertainty into the innovation process

and their potential outcome. In newproduct development, companies struggle

to get from the start of the new productdevelopment process to launching a

product in the market in the most efficientand effective manner. The input of

knowledge and expertise of members from

different technical and businessdisciplines at the early stage is crucial(Hon and Zeiner 2004). Unfortunately

communication between differentdisciplines is difficult because the

presence of novelty required forinnovation clashes with the path-

dependent tendency of knowledge (Carlile

2004). In the early stage of radicalinnovation communicating the idea is

extremely challenging because not only isthere cross boundary communication, the

information cannot be linked to prior

knowledge because of the novelty of thedesign.

The aim of this research is to

develop guidelines of how the use ofmetaphors can reduce the perceived risk

in radical innovations. The research willfocus on the communication between

designers and managers in radical

innovation projects.

2. Literature review

To be able to understand the differentfactors playing a role in risk perception in

radical innovations, we clarify thedefinitions stemming from different

literatures. Understanding the definitionof radical innovation, fuzzy front end,common language and ambiguity is

needed in order to come to the solutionthat visual depicted metaphors can bring.

2.2 Radical innovation

There is a common understanding aboutthe importance of innovation for

companies. Intensive research has been

done into this subject, which resulted inmany different categorizations of the level

of innovativeness. Therefore, it isimportant for us to define what product

innovativeness means and what criteriaare used to classify radical innovations.

For our research we will address theproduct innovativeness from the firmsperspective. Innovativeness for a firm is

determined by two main factors, theresources that enable the firm to develop

new products and the fit of a project(synergy) with the firm. According to

Danneel and Kleinschmidt, the resources

include things as R&D expertise,knowledge of customer needs and

competitive situations, sales force, marketresearch skills and production facilities.

The synergy refers to how well the

internally available resources fit therequirements for the new product project.

For both factors, the technological and

market environment need to be taken intoaccount in order to determine the

innovativeness of the project.

Firms Perspective:

Familiarity Technological Environment Market Environment

Fit Technological Environment Market Environment

Figure 1: Dimensions of product Innovativeness

(Danneel and Kleinschmidt, 2001)

An innovation is radical to a firm when itembodies a new technology and addresses

a new market on macro and micro level.The high uncertainty that comes withradical innovations is caused by the fact

that radical innovations normally do notaddress a recognized demand and new

technological implementations are hard toplan because of the multiple unknown

factors that radical new productdevelopment brings with it.


3/77

When innovation is desired,

mismatches occur because the commonknowledge that the different actors use to

share and assess each others domain-

specific knowledge (Carlile 2004). In new

product development, managingknowledge will improve time to market,

technology transfer and innovation.In different functions of an

organization, employees develop localunderstandings as a consequence of

differences in expertise and experience(Jelinek and Schoonhoven 1990).Knowledge transfer assumes a referential

theory of meaning and implies that within

organizations, meaning is universal andcontext is relatively homogenous (Bechky2003). However the domain-specificknowledge of actors has a very big

influence on the communication and can

cause problems for knowledge transfer,

even though the company has ahomogenous context. This poses aproblem for the notion of knowledge

transfer because if an expression ofknowledge means something different to

the receiver than it does to thecommunicator, then it is not clear what

knowledge is being transferred (Bechky

2003). Miss-communication can have verynegative effects on radical innovation

processes and should therefor be

eliminated in businesses.

2.3 Fuzzy Front End

In the literature, the fuzzy front end wasfirst restricted to one factor, e.g. the

quality of pre-development activities

(Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1990). Over

time the number of publications on the

fuzzy front end has increased and Cooper

defined three major steps in the pre-project phase: idea generation,

preliminary assessment and concept

definition (Fig. 2.) The early stages are

critical because they lay down thefoundation on which the overall new

product design project is built (Alam,2006). Considering the importance and

poor understanding of the idea generationstage, several previous studies have dealt

with the topics of sources of ideas and theidea generation techniques (Sowrey,1990) and (Wagner & Hayashi, 1994),

however little attention is paid to the role

in communication of the new ideas.In our research we will focus oncommunication in the first two stages ofthe fuzzy front end in order to reduce the

uncertainty in the last stage of the fuzzy

front end. By providing a defined product

position and the benefits that it delivers apart of the fuzziness in the fuzzy front endcan be eliminated.

2.4 Common Language

Product development has become a very

complex activity and a successful productmaterializes as a result of synergy

between different divisions/functions ofan organization, which may have very

different way of working, vocabulary andpriorities. In order to ensure fruitfulcooperation between the different

languages, it is very important to developa common language that is capable of

bringing all the stakeholders to same levelof understanding. Even in instances wherecommunication is successful, creating

shared understandings may still be

Fig. 2. Predevelopment activities (Cooper)


4/77

problematic (Fiol 1994).

The medium of communication can affectthe success of creating shared

understandings. Research has shown thatvisualizations are of great importance in

creating a shared understanding.

2.5 Ambiguity

Brun and Stre (2009) argue thatambiguity arising from multiplicity and

novelty is a natural ingredient of NPD, andthat a one-sided emphasis on reducing it

in the NPD project may hamperinnovation. Management of ambiguity thusbecomes a concern of continually

harmonizing the need for flexibility,

novelty and the need for clarity. This

accords with other authors argumentsthat managers of NPD must accept anddeal with ambiguity (Ahmed, 1998) or

even purposefully use ambiguity (Nonaka

& Takeuchi, 1995) to achieve innovation.

By their research, they arrived at thefollowing four categories of sources of

ambiguity:Multiplicity of the subject:

Alternative meanings of a single cue arise

when participants from different referencepoints are involved, and each ascribes a

different meaning to the cue depending on

his or her reference point. Ambiguity canthus originate from multiple and

conflicting interpretations of a cue at a

given point in time in an NPD project.Novelty of the subject: Novelty or

newness implies a change in meaning. Themeaning of a previously unambiguous cue

can be given a new interpretation, and

ambiguity will again arise. Ambiguityarising from novelty represents a dynamic,

time-variance aspect of ambiguity: a cuecan be ambiguous because it takes on a

meaning different from what it previouslymeant.

Validity and reliability of

information: We also found that theambiguity observed in the studied cases

can be related to the terms of validity and

reliability. For example, if the projectparticipants sample information about

user needs from users who are notrepresentative of the intended market for

the product, then this results in ambiguityabout user needs. If the participants

sample information about user needs from

a user who provides inconsistent answers,then this also results in ambiguity aboutuser needs. Ambiguity can therefore arise

because of interpretations based onunrepresentative information (low

validity of information) and because ofinterpretations based on inconsistent

information (low reliability of

information).

We believe that a combination ofmetaphors and visualization can be an

effective tool for communicating the

concepts at various stages of new product

development. In the next section we showhow metaphors help in sense making.

2.6 The Solution - visualizations containingmetaphors

Metaphors can furnish vivid images,convey multiple meanings in a concise

fashion, or express that which cannot bestated in literal terms (Gibbs &

Bogdonovich, 1999; Graesser, Mio, &Millis, 1989; Ortony, 1975; Paivio, 1979).Some theorists have even argued that all

higher-order cognitive functioning is

metaphorical in nature (e.g., Lakoff, 1987;Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

The relevance of metaphors toproblem solving is pertinent to three

fundamental steps (Gentner et al., 2001):The first step consists of extracting a

variety of unfamiliar concepts fromremote domains, where possible

relationships with the problem at hand are

not always evident. The second step

involves establishing a map of deep orhigh-level relationships between the


5/77

metaphorical concept and the problem.

Correspondence between the two comesin the form of abstractions and

generalizations. Relationships ofsecondary importance are discarded, and

only structural correspondences betweenthe metaphorical source and the problem

are retained. The last step deals with

transferring and applying structuralcorrespondences associated with themetaphorical source to the problem at

hand, which at the end generally leads to anovel solution.

In this way, metaphors not onlyassist in problem reflection, but also help

to break away from limitations imposed

by initial problem constraints (Snodgrass& Coyne, 1992), to explore unfamiliar

design alternatives and to establish novelassociations with the design problem

(Coyne, 1995; Casakin, 2006).

According to literature the metaphoricaldegree is influenced by six different

factors, evoke, aptness, familiarity,

complexity, deviation and diagnosticity.The first three factors are emphasized in

literature and are the most importantregarding metaphor interpretation. All of

these factors are not absolute and are

influenced by each other as well as by theperson who interprets them.

In the first two steps of Gentner et

al., evoking vivid mental imagery and

aptness are important. Metaphors thatevoke vivid mental imagery may beunderstood and remembered better

(Blasko 1999). Aptness or metaphorgoodness is an important factor (Trick and

Katz 1986), higher aptness ratings aregiven when the metaphor terms weretaken from relatively dissimilar semantic

domains but held similar positions withinthe domain (Blasko 1999). The higher the

aptness level of the metaphor and themore it evokes vivid mental imagery, the

better the relationship between the

metaphor and unfamiliar concept can be

made.

The last two steps of Gentner et al.,

more emphasize the aptness andfamiliarity level of the metaphor.

Familiarity in metaphors breeds liking, itwas found that high familiar metaphors

showed immediate activation of thefigurative meaning of the metaphor

(Blasko and Connine 1993). The higher the

level of aptness and familiarity in themetaphor, the easier it is to deal withabstractions and generalizations within

the idea and to transfer and applystructural correspondences associated

with the metaphor to the idea.

2.7 Limitations

Some research indicates that metaphor

can reduce persuasion (Bosman &Hagendoorn, 1991), especially when themetaphor fails to afford clear semantic

linkages with literal arguments contained

in the communication (Krumdick, Ottati, &

Deiger, 2004). Similarly, we would alsolike to understand that how much

concreteness of visualizations is optimalbecause too concrete visualization duringthe early stage of concept development

can inhibit imagination. Moreover,knowledge that is transferred is assumed

to have the same meaning for both the

person who expresses it and the personwho receives it. However, as semioticians

have pointed out, when one thinks of an

expression as a sign, a variety of contentscan be expressed by the same signifier

(Barthes 1967, Eco 1976). This is also thecase with metaphors, without an

explanation it can be interpreted

differently by different parties. The risk isthat it seems like a shared understanding

is met, and that not until later is found outthat there actually is no such

understanding.From our personal experiences as

designers, we understand that the role of

visualizations is not only to enable sense-


6/77

making but also to trigger fresh thoughts

and critical thinking.

2.8 Research Proposal

The previous literature observes how

knowledge transfer in radical innovation

processes can be stimulated bycommunication mediums likevisualisations and metaphors.

Consequently, the effect of visualisationsand metaphors on communications has

been a well-explored area of research, yetlittle is known about the effect of

combining the two mediums. Therefore,

the current study intends to fill this gap inthe literature by explaining how the use of

visually depicted metaphors influences thedecision making (gaining understanding

and sustaining ambiguity) in radical

innovation process?

3. Data and Methods

Given the limited theory about howmanagers and designers communicate

trough visual tools, especially visual

metaphors, we conducted case studyresearch. Case studies are especially useful

for developing insights in new topic areas

and the objective is on gaining insights to

build theory rather than on testinghypothesis, such as ours (Eisenhardt,1989). Multiple cases are effective

because it enables us to collectcomparative data and so we are likely to

formulate more accurate insights.The setting of our study is firms in

different innovation sectors that have

been established for quite some time. Thematurity of a company is relevant for our

research, since start-up companies haveshorter communication routes and would

likely experience less communication

problems in the decision making process

We studied 6 managers thatfrequently communicate with designers

within their firm. We focus on the

managers, because we expect thatdesigners generally have less problems

with understanding new ideas andvisualisations, since they work in a much

more creative environment. Focussing onthe managers will provide us with insights

on how depicted metaphors influences

their decision making.

3.1 Data Sources

We used two data source: (1) in-depthinterviews with managers, (2)

questionnaire answered by managers.

An important data source was the in-depth

interviews. We collected qualitative datafrom a pilot interview conducted with a

manager in an innovative industry of

dispensing machines, and than from 6more interviews with managers from

several innovative industries. After the

pilot, we interviewed one manager fromeach firm who is responsible for the

decision-making in radical innovationprocesses. We first conducted our 50-70

min interview and directly followed it up

with a questionnaire to collectquantitative data on how managers react

on the visual tools we showed them. All

interviews where recorded with the

permission of the managers. Care wastaken by the researchers to assure therespondents that they and if desired their

place of work would not be identifiable inany subsequent report.

For the study we used 2 sets of visualtools based on a metaphor and innovativeidea, both tool sets contained three similar

visual tools. The toolsets where based onnew business ideas. We used business

innovation because none of theinterviewees could have affinity related to

their own business with the new business

idea. The first visual tool shown to the

manager was a visual representation of anidea using a metaphor. The second visual


7/77

tool was a real life image of the metaphor;

the image shown was variable in the toolset. The third tool was a schematic

representation of the idea.

We asked each manager a set of open

questions in the semi structured in-depthinterview about radical innovation and

communication tools used in the process.After having finished this first phase of our

research, we introduced the manager to aninnovative business idea through a

narrative of about three sentences. Afterthe narrative we gauged the level ofunderstanding of the manager trough a

questionnaire. Whereupon we showed the

manager all of the tools from the visualtool set, after each tool the level ofunderstanding was measured again. Afterthis process a second part of the interview

was held, which focussed on the helpful

aspects of depicted metaphors.

The combination of the three visualtools presented to the manager whereorganized throughout the whole process.

Each case we showed one of the two toolsets, the sets where randomly chosen for

each manager. Within each toolset all thevisualisations of the metaphor where

shown in the same sequence to test how

managers reactions would vary for eachimage. The combination of the interview

and the questionnaire is very important, it

enabled us to comparing quantitative andqualitative data and create more

consistent insights.

3.2 Data analysis

All the interviews where taped, and then

transcribed within a week of their

occurrence. The transcripts can be found

in appendix A. The transcripts where readby both researchers and coded in the style

of grounded theory approach to dataanalysis (Charmaz 2006), with the

software atlas.ti. Seven category headingswere generated, by one of the researchers,

from the data and under these all of thedata were accounted for. The otherresearcher independently verified the

accuracy of the category system. After

discussing similarities and differences inrelated codes across the differenttranscripts, and comparing therelationship between the codes minor

modifications were made, see figure 3 for

the end result. The codebook produced in

atlas.ti can be found in appendix B.The questionnaire data was

processed as soon as all the data was

collected. Because of the small sample size(5 interviewees), no statistical analysis

with special software was needed. Thequestionnaire data was put in Excel and

analysed on various aspects. We analysed

the influence of the different tools on theunderstanding of ideas, the confidence in

the ideas, the contribution of the tool to

the clarification of the idea, and thecontribution of the tool to remembering

the idea.

Fig. 3. Journey of an idea


8/77

3.3 Advantages and limitations

The sample size of our interviewees is too

small to randomize the individualdifferences and the effect of the

metaphorical characteristics. To elicit theeffect of this in our end results, we first

tested four toolsets with different

metaphors. This was done trough a surveywith 18 participants. The surveyquestionnaire contained the brief

explanation of the business innovation, theline drawing and the metaphorical image.

Underneath the line drawing and thepicture was a question that asked for the

level of aptness and evoking vivid mental

imagery. The two toolsets which had themost similar levels between the line

drawing and image where selected for therest of the research. The survey on the

degree of metaphorical understanding can

be found in Appendix C.

4. Findings

This section outlines the findings following

the order of the different stages of newproduct design in the Fuzzy Front End.

Each section explains the findings after

which extracts from the research will beshown.

4.1 Exploring Possibilities

During the fuzzy front end, ideas are

explored in order to create newopportunities and sustain a competitive

advantage. Many limitations in thecommunication of new ideas amongdifferent sectors in companies occur.

Radical ideas are often come fromapplying an idea from one domain to

another. Silo-structured management incompanies prevent this cross sector

innovation because no communication

between different domains occurs and

knowledge from radical innovations doneis not widely shared within a company.

While searching for new ideas,

designers and managers have to envisionthe future because of the big time lag

between the first idea and time to market.Envisioning the future makes exploring

possibilities difficult because the futurebrings a lot of uncertainty with it and

people may have different visions about

the future.The most important factor in

innovation is that possibilities can be

explored in a very broad spectrum.Because of the novelty of the design, it is

difficult to define what possibilities needto be explored. Ground breaking

innovation can take place at any level

product, process, service, marketing,organization etc. It is hard to link the novel

design to prior knowledge and after somedevelopment time has elapsed managers

get more difficulties with sustaining trust

in the successfulness of the innovationproject.

1. Horizontal Application from OtherDomains: Many radical innovations

come from applying an idea from onedomain to another. For example,

Unilever applied the knowledge from

aerospace industry that stickiness ofice on the wings of aeroplanes

suddenly drops at - 800C, to its ice-

cream business to develop ice-cream

manufacturing process that can churnout ice-creams of elaborate 3D shapeswithout moulding.

2. Envisioning Future: There is a time lagbetween the time when a product idea

originates and when it reaches theconsumers due to the developmenttime. So, when thinking about

developing new products, companiesoften envision products that fulfil

some future need.

3. Watching Trends and ObservingPeople: Needs can be created and

intelligent marketing can shapeaspirations. Many companies watch


9/77

the market trends and observe

peoples lifestyle to determine whatthey should offer.

4. Different Levels: A product becomessuccessful in the market not just

because of its design, there are otherdriving factors too. And a ground-

breaking innovation can take place at

any level product, process, service,marketing, organization etc.

4.2 Deterrents

Different actors are involved during the

communication process of new ideas. All

actors have to take in account the otherparties and have their own deterrents that

reduce the success of communicating anidea.

The initiator is the person who

owns the novel idea. The initiator knowsall the details of the idea and is convinces

of its success. Often they are very

protective of the idea and do not want toshare all the details because they are

afraid that others walk away with thepraise. Moreover initiators hold back

details of the idea, because they are

already very acquainted with the idea andthose details have become logical to them.

Several ideas are discarded because of this

bad communication.

The receivers are not jetacquainted with the idea and fill in gaps inthe context with their own thoughts. On

the other hand they might be veryacquainted with the initiator and

preconceived notion about the presentermight block the change of understandingand liking the idea presented.

The last actor is the organization,the ridged structure of the organization

can block the success of the idea. Ingrouped environments radical innovations

hardly ever succeed.

Initiator: The person and the group ofpersons who own the novel idea.

1. Too Much Protectiveness: On manyoccasions the initiator(s) of the ideabecomes obsessed with protecting

his/her idea to the level that he/she isnot even willing to listen to others.

This could be detrimental to theinnovation process as others may not

identify with the idea and lose interest

in it.2. Bad Communication: As one manager

put it: Several ideas are discarded,

not because they were bad, butbecause they were badly

communicated.

Receivers

1. Preconceived Notions: In certainsituations the audience can have

preconceived notion about thepresenter of the idea or the idea

(domain) itself. Having such

prejudices can block the concernedaudiences understanding of the new

idea.

2. Jumping to Conclusions: Some peoplehave the tendency to jump to

conclusions or form a hypotheticalimage about the context too soon,

which could be detrimental to the

understanding. For understanding anovel idea, one should have an open

mind.

Organization

3. Rigid Organizational Structure: Manybig conventional organizations have

rigid divisional boundaries and there

is not much exchange of knowledgeacross the divisions. In suchcompartmentalized environment, new

ideas, if they come by, hardly ever

succeed.

4.3 Communicating

Communicating ideas has two mainobjectives, the first one conveying is very

well known. However the second purposeof communication, sense making, is as


10/77

very important in order to successfully

convey the idea. However the sensemaking aspect is not consciously focused

on during the communication process.When conveying the idea to the

receiver it is important to give themsomething tangible. By showing something

tangible all stakeholders are brought to

the same level of understanding and theidea and its context can more easily beexplained. Moreover it is vey important to

put the idea in a real live context that isappealing to the background of the

receivers. All the aspects of the idea needto be merged in one coherent story, a

presentation is not persuasive enough if it

is presented as disparate fragments.During communication a sense

making process is activated. People havetendency to form images in their minds as

they listen to and read descriptions. It is

important to tailor the communication ofthe idea to the target audience, in order to

walk them trough the whole context of the

idea while triggering their imaginativeworld. In order to ensure that they do not

form a distorted image of the concept,visual stimuli should accompany the

verbal or written explanation

Conveying

1. Show/Give Something Tangible: Thebest way to convey a concept, we

found out, is to show it by drawingor making it. When people havesomething to see and/or touch, it is

much easier to explain the idea.Moreover, it brings all stakeholders to

a similar level of understanding.2. Explain Context: No idea/product

exists in isolation. There are other

factors that determine its perception,interaction and existence. Most

managers want to understand thewhole context around a product

before making any decision about it.

3. Use Combination of Tools: A radicalidea may not have an exact analogousequivalent in the real world. Or,

perhaps the presented may not be

able to make the most revealingvisualization of the concept. Thus, it is

often a good idea to use a combinationof tools illustrations, real images,

text, and if possible, prototypes.4. Relate to Real Life: Often many of the

stakeholders involved in the decision

making process are not from technicalbackground. Therefore, it isworthwhile to distil technical ideas to

its simplest form and present it assolving a real life problem. Moreover,

people tend to retain simple ideas andreal life examples for long.

5. Tell a Story: A presentation is notpersuasive enough if it is presented asdisparate fragments. The presenter

(initiator) should put everythingtogether to make a coherent story.

Sense making

6. Tailor the Communication: It is veryimportant to understand the way ofthinking and background of thedifferent stakeholders and then tailor

the presentation in wayunderstandable to them.

7. Walk the Client/Manager Through:People have tendency to form imagesin their minds as they listen to and

read descriptions. In order to ensure

that they do not form a distorted

image of the concept, visual stimulishould accompany the verbal orwritten explanation.

4.4 Accessing Risk and Taking Decision

Accessing risk in radical innovation is

tricky because of the novel character.Managers need input information in order

to be able to make a decision. While

communicating the idea, the risks,uncertainties and advantages all need to

be shared. After assessing the informationa test needs to be executed in the real

world, testing has become an importanttool in decision making.


11/77

The information gained from the

input during the communication processal needs to be processed by the manager.

Strategic reasoning is used to see how wellthe idea fits the company. Often the

manager doesnt make the decision byhimself but is often assisted by his peer.

Also many managers rely on their intuition

when assessing the risk of radical ideas,because only previous experiences and noexact knowledge exists to base his

judgement on.

Input

1. Nuanced Information: Managers wantas much information as possible for

any idea presented to them. Theywant to know about the risks,

uncertainties and advantages. Notknowing something is more

detrimental to decision making than

knowing things, even if theinformation is about the risks and

uncertainties.

2. Testing/Observation: There is nobetter way than accessing a

concept/product than testing it in realworld. Testing has become an

important tool for decision making

especially in the software domainwhere companies apply methods such

as AB testing (diverting a part of user

traffic to the new module and monitor

their interaction) to continuously testnew concept.

Processing

3. Intuition: Since at no point all theinformation about the future of newidea, more so for radical new idea,

would be available, Managersincreasingly resort to their intuition

for making decisions. The moreknowledge and experience a manager

has, the more his/her intuition is

heeded.4. Strategic Reasoning: Some managers

recommend taking the concept from

project level to a higher level ofabstraction, say, strategic goals of the

company and then see how well theidea fits into the whole scheme of

things relevant to the company.

5. Progressive Clarification: A completelynew explorative idea cannot be

accessed in one go. It needs to beimplemented and monitored. As the

concept materializes or gains

customers, many new insights mayemerge that can shape future

decisions. An idea may also be put on

hold for a while or completelydiscarded in the middle based on the

insights that emerge.6. Joint Decision Making: In most

corporate settings decisions are not

taken by an individual but by a groupof managers. In that case, the

complementary background and

knowledge of managers may come

handy in accessing the concept fromseveral angles and then taking adecision. Joint decision making can

often be quite slow.

The table underneath gives an overview of how the respondents sided with

the various ideas that evolved during the whole interview.


12/77

The Key Elements in the Journey of a Fuzzy Concept

(as it emerged from the interviews)

Interviewees who

Sided with the

Element

Exploring

Possibilities-

Horizontal Application

from Other Domains

M3, M4, M5

Envisioning Future M4, M5

Watching Trends and

Observing People

M1, M4, M5

Different Levels M1, M3, M4

Deterrents

Initiator(s)

Too Much

Protectiveness

M2, M5

Bad Communication M2, M4

Receiver(s)Preconceived Notions M2

Jumping to

Conclusions

M2

OrganizationRigid Organizational

Structure

M4

Communicating

Conveying

Show/Give Something

Tangible

M1, M2, M3, M4, M5

Explain Context M1, M2, M3, M4

Use Combination ofTools M2, M4, M5

Relate to Real Life M2, M4

Tell a Story M2, M3

Sense making

Tailor the

Communication

M2, M3, M4

Walk the

Client/Manager

Through

M2, M4

Accessing Riskand Taking

Decision

InputNuanced Information M3, M4

Testing/Observation M1, M3, M4

Processing

Intuition M1, M2, M3, M5Strategic Reasoning M3

Progressive

Clarification

M2, M4, M5

Joint Decision Making M4, M5


13/77

4.5 Metaphors

Since we interviewed only five managers,

we do not perform any statistical analysis

on the data gathered. However, the intent

behind gathering quantitative data was tosee if there were any overall trends in

terms of preference of the variousinterviewees. Four toolsets with stimuli

containing - brief explanation in text,

illustration, image and business-model

schematic - were presented to the

interviewees, and they were asked some

questions after each stimulus, the toolsetsare shown in figure C. The results of

similar question posed after each stimulushave been clustered together and

presented in the graphs (1-4) below.

The first of the four questions was posedafter showing the interviewee, the brief

explanation in text. The second question

above was posed after showing theillustration (metaphor), the third was

posed after showing the real image

(metaphor), and the fourth question wasposed after showing them the business

model schematic. The results do not showany consistent trend. For example,

interviewee M1 had a consistent level of

understanding throughout the wholeprocess, while the level of understanding

of the other four is quite fluctuation and

does not show any distinct trend.

Stimulus shown before uestion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

My level of understanding of the

[Illustration Metaphor]

[Image Metaphor] [Business Model

Schematic][Brief Explanation

in Text

Level(Response)

High

Low

Graph 1: Level of understanding

Figure 5. Two toolsets used


14/77

The first of the three questions was posed

after showing the interviewee, the brief

explanation in text. The second question

above was posed after showing theillustration (metaphor) and the third wasposed after showing the real image

(metaphor). The trends in the above graph

are fairly consistent and revealing. We

observe that most of the lines are nearly

straight, which implies that mostinterviewees formed an opinion about thefate of the idea pretty early and it did not

change in spite of subsequent stimuli.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

Stimulus shown before question

The drawing has a ..contribution to the clarification of the

[Illustration Metaphor] [Image Metaphor]

Level(Respo

nse)

High

Low

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3

M1M2

M3

M4

M5


My confidence in the success level of this idea is.

[Illustration Metaphor]

[Image Metaphor][Brief Explanation

in Text]

Level(Response)

High

Low

Graph 3: contribution to clarification

Graph 2: Level of success


15/77

The above questions were posed after the

interviewees were shown the briefexplanation in text. The former of the two

questions was posed after showing the

illustration (metaphor) and the later was

posed after showing the real image(metaphor). No consistent trend is

observed above.

The above questions were posed after the

interviewees were shown the brief

explanation in text. The former of the twoquestions was posed after showing the

illustration (metaphor) and the later was

posed after showing the real image(metaphor). No consistent trend is

observed above.However, if we consider all the four

graphs together, we speculate the

following two things:1. Because of the differences in

background of the five interviewees,they had different opinions about the

brief explanation in text, illustration,

image and the business modelschematic.

2. Most of the interviewees formedopinion about the success of the ideaspretty early, which remained

unchanged even after showing them

other stimuli. However, we believe that

there could be some sort of correlationbetween the level of understanding and

confidence in the success if the idea asliterature in this domain suggest. The

aforementioned belief could beinvestigated in a more extensivequantitative study.

6. Discussion

The aim of this study was to observe

managers preference of visually depictedmetaphors in the communication of new

ideas. Metaphor characteristics examinedwere - aptness, evoking vivid imagery andfamiliarity. By adapting the visual

presentation of the radical innovation tothe personality of the decision maker,

higher understanding can be generatedand ambiguity can be sustained.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2

M1

M2

M3

M4M5


The drawing has a contribution to help me to

remember the idea.

[Illustration Metaphor] [Image Metaphor]

Level(Response)

High

Low

Graph 4: contribution o remembering


16/77

Metaphors, when addressing familiarity

will enhance the understanding andstimulate the clarity of the new idea.

This exact finding also threats the

validity of our research. There are

different types of people, and part of thedifferences that we found do not depend

on the visual presentation but on thepeople. The low number of respondents

limits the effect of randomization, so theresearch is biased. With the questionnaire,

we tried to randomize the effect of thedifferent people, however according toHolland (1985) people can be categorized

into six career personality types: realistic,

investigative, artistic, social, enterprisingand conventional. People purposefullylook for environments that are congruentwith their career personality types (Zhang,

2004). This means that every type of

personality has preference for different

visualisation styles and familiarity ofmetaphors will differ accordingly. Therealistic type of people according to

Holland (1994), like investigative andscientific type of work. Artistic type of

people like stimuli that provide them withthe opportunity for using their

imagination. Both social and enterprise

type of people like social interaction, butthe enterprise will take on the leadership

role. Conventional type of people like well

structured data. There are six main typesof career personalities, but many

combinations exist. Figure 6. shows the sixpersonality types in Hollands hexagon,

with on the axes the basic preference of

the types. To randomize the effect of the

different types of people in the visualpreference, the amount of respondents

needs to be increased. With such a study

the individual differences in the

preference for visual imagery can bepredicted.

Stronger stimulation of sensesresults in deeper imprint in ones memory.

Thus an image evoking vivid mentalimagery is likely to stay in ones memory

for much longer than a mundane image.Moreover, it will draw attention, thuseasing cognition. Another important

aspect of a metaphor is its aptness.

Metaphors can have varying degree ofresemblance with the product/serviceconcept. In addition, familiarity isimportant too. How much familiar the

audience is with the chosen metaphor? -

is an important question to consider. We

have already discussed how sense makingfrom metaphors happens. If an unfamiliarmetaphor is used, step one of sense

making i.e. making connection fromfamiliar domain to unfamiliar domain will

be disrupted. Thus, it lies with thepresenter to make the right trade-off

between all the three chosen parameters -

evoke vivid mental imagery, aptness andfamiliarity. There is no thumb rule for

doing it. It is up to the presenter to

understand his audience and conveyhis/her message in the most compelling

way.The sequence of showing visual

images and text is another important

Figure 6. Hollands hexagon


17/77

aspect in sustaining ambiguity. In the

questionnaire we always started with anexplaining text of the idea, after which we

showed different visual stimuli. Whilediscussing the questions with the

participants we found that many hadalready formed their own visual image

while reading the text and this image

conflicted with the metaphorical image weprovided. The conflicting images reducedthe reliability of information and thereby

increased the level of ambiguity. Whenshowing the visual stimuli and text at the

same time, no time is given to form ownvisuals and the information is seen as

more coherent.

A significant finding of our study isthat there often occurs a gap between how

the initiator communicates the idea andhow the receiver receives and perceives

the idea context. Often the context factors

determine the ideas perceptions,interaction and existence. Managers want

to understand the whole context around

an idea before making a decision, howeveroften the context is not clearly

communicated by the designer. Thedesigner has the context information in his

mind, but the lack of communication of

this information to his manager causeshigher potential of discarding the idea.

Without the provision of context

information of a new idea, receivers can

jump to conclusions or form a hypotheticalimage about the context before the actualunderstanding of the idea occurs. The

created context in the receivers mind oftenconflicts with the explanation later on

provided by the initiator. These conflictingsources of information strongly increasesambiguity and the receiver needs to

choose between competing contexts, theone created by his own imagination and

the one provided by the initiator.The notion of context is a

fundamental concern in cognitive

psychology, linguistics, and computer

science and was first introduces as theterm context-aware, by Schilit and

Theimer (1994). They refer to context as

location, identities of nearby people andobjects and changes to those objects. To

increase the risk appetite of managers weneed to understand what type of

information is listed in the definition ofcontext and what is not. In our

quantitative research part we missed at

least one context factor in the toolsets thatwas addressed as important by all themangers, namely the value. The value of a

new idea is an important aspect ofdecision making, because it shows what

can be accomplished by introducing thenew idea.

Another important finding is that

the communication should be adjusted tothe receiver. So the way the idea is visually

presented should be adapted to thepersonality of the receiver, the personal

preference. If possible the idea should be

placed in real life context. If the idea forexample is a new technology for the food

industry, than the idea should be

presented in the form of the new foodproduct that can be created with this new

technology. Presenting the idea in the reallife setting the company is operating in

helps to increase the understanding of the

new idea with the receiver. It is importantnot only to show the new idea and context,

but also tell a story that connects to the

receivers world. So the level of risk

proverbs is highly influences by howacquainted the initiator is and cansympathise with the receiver.

Our findings provide importantinsights in the influencing factors on risk

management in the communication ofradical innovations. Better understandingincreases risk appetite. Using visual

depicted metaphors that are familiar tothe receiver of the idea and have a high

level of aptness will evoke vivid imageryand increase the understanding of the

idea. By increasing the effectiveness of

communication between designers and

managers, risk management in the fuzzyfront end will bring less uncertainty with it


18/77

and therefor less potential ideas will be

discarded in this early phase of the designprocess.

7. Future research

We started this article by arguing that the

communication of new ideas can beoptimised in order to reduce risk adverse.Articles using the notion of visualisation

tools as boundary objects as well as onrisk appetite are published on a regular

basis. However most articles do notprovide a theoretical foundation for the

combination of the two. With this article

we hope to provide a basis for furtherinvestigation.

Further research should be carefulabout how personalities influence the

responds to visual depicted metaphors in

the fuzzy front end of the design process.Prior research has not distinguished the

factors for metaphorical degrees and

personal interpretation influenced bypersonality. Up till now it is not clear what

influences personality play on theinterpretation of metaphors and how the

liking of metaphors can be stimulated for

each type of personality.The dataset used for the current

study was very small, six participants. This

research functioned as a qualitative

explorative research. Future researchcould build on the present findings byusing our theoretical framework. We hope

that future research will build on thisfoundation by specifying more refined

links between visual interpretation and

personality.The research has only been

conducted among the managers in designfirms. Future research should examine the

effects of visual depicted metaphors incommunication of radical innovations

from the designers perspective. We expect

the findings to be similar for the designershowever this is still a hypothesis.Researchers will have to collect data from

designers from innovating firms as well ifthey want to study the relation between

designers and managers in the effect ofidea communication on risk management

in the early stage of the radical innovation

process.The data for this article was

collected in well established companieswith fixed communication processes.

These communication processes might be

out-dated and have a fixed and rigidstructure. Social interaction is changing

and we suggest that research also needs to

be done in young firms with more flexiblecommunication structures to see what

dimensions the effect of rigidcommunication has on the findings.

The article provides the first in-

depth conceptual look at the influence ofvisual depicted metaphors on risk

management in radical innovation

processes. A topic of great interest to all

designers and managers in the field of newproduct development. We hope to intriguepeople to further research and verify these

findings, in order to optimize the riskmanagement in the early stages of the

radical innovation process.


19/77

Literature

Ahmed, P. (1998) Culture and Climate for Innovation, European Journal of Innovation

Management, 1, 30-43.

Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of

understanding on the production floor. Organization science, 14, 312-330

Bechky, B. A. (2013), Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of

Understanding on a Production Floor. Organization science, 14 (3), 312-313

Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New york

Blasko. D. G. (1999), Only the tip of the iceberg: who understands what about metaphor? In

Journal of pragmatics 31, 1675-1683

Blasko, D. and Connine, C.M. (1993), Effect of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. In

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, memory and cognition. 19(2), 285-308

Bosman, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (1991). Effects of literal and metaphorical persuasive messages.

Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 271292.

Brun, E. and Stre, A.S. (2009), Managing Ambiguity in New Product Development Projects,

Creativity and Innovation Management, 18 (1)

Carlile, Paul R. (2004), Transferring Translating and transforming: An integrative framework for

managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15 (5), 555-568Casakin, H.P. (2006), Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process, In Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 253 - 268

Charmaz, K. (2006). Coding in grounded theory practice. In Constructing grounded theory: A

practical guide through qualitative analysis Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 42-66

Cooper R.G., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1990), New Products: the Key Factors in Success, In: American

Marketing Association, Chicago

Cooper R.G., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995) Benchmarking firms new product performance and

practices, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 23 (3)

Coyne, R. (1995), Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age - From Method to

Metaphor, MIT Press

Danneel, E., Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001), Product innovativeness from the firms perspective: Its

dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. The Jounal of

Product Innovation management, 18, 357-373Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. In Academy of Management

Review, 14 (4), p.532-550

Eysenck, H.J. Granger, G.W. Brengelmann, J.C. (1957). Perceptual processes and mental illness.

Chapman and Hall. London.

Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5 (3),

403-420

Garcia, R. Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and

innovativeness terminology: a literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 19, 110-132

Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P. and Boronat, C. (2001) Metaphor is like Analogy. In Gentner, D.,

Holyoak, K.J. and Kokinov, B.N. (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives. In Cognitive

Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 199253.

Gibbs, R. W., Bogdonovich, J. (1999). Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. In

Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 3744.

Graesser, A. C., Mio, J., & Millis, K. (1989), Metaphors in persuasive communication, In D. Meutsch

(Ed.), Models of Literary Understanding, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 131-154

Holland, J.L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work

environments (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Holland, J.L. (1994). Self-directed search. In Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, Florida

Hon, K. K. B., Zeiner, J. (2004). Knowledge brokering for assisting the generation of automotive

product design. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology, 53 (1), 159-162

Alam, I. (2006), Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzyfront-end of service innovations through

customer interactions In Industrial Marketing ManagementVolume 35 (4), 468-480

Jelinek, M., Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The innovation marathon. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.


20/77

Krumdick, N. D., Ottati, V. C., & Deiger, M. (2004), Metaphors and Persuasive Communication: The

Cognitive Coherence Hypothesis., Austin, TX: Poster presented atthe annual meeting of

the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company - How Japanese Companies

Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.OConnor, G.C., McDermott, C. M. (2004). The human side of radical innovation. J. Eng. Technol.

Manage., 21, 11-30

Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53.

Paivio, A. (1979). Psychological processes in the comprehension of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),

Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 150171

Schiit, B. Theimer, M. (1994). Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts. IEEE

Network, 8, 22-32

Snodgrass, A. and Coyne, R. (1992), Models, Metaphors and the Hermeneutics of Designing,

Design Issues, 9 (1), 56-74

Sowrey, T. (1990), Idea generation: Identifying the most useful techniques, European Journal of

Marketing, 24 (5), 2029

Trick, L. Katz, A. N. (1986), The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: relating

individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1,

185-213

Wagner, C. Hayashi, A.A. (1994), A new way to create winning product ideas, Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 11, 146155

Zhang, L. (2004). Learning approaches and career personalitytypes: Biggs and Holland united. In

Personality and Individual Differences

37 (1), 6581

Zuber, I. Ekehammar, B. (1988). Personality, time of day and visual perception: preferences and

selective attention. In Person individ. Diff. 9(2), 345-352


21/77

Appendix A: Transcripts of Interviews

Note: M1, M2, M3, M4 & M5 are the interviewees. N & D have represent interviewer1

and interviewer2 in interviews with M3 and M5. I is used to refer to both the

interviewers in interviews with M1, M2 and M4.

Transcript: M1 Interview

Part 1:I: [Introduction].

First I would like, maybe in a few lines you can tell about your company

M1: Metrixlab is an online marketing research company that performers online research

in four key areas; website usability, new product development, media and

advertisement research and customer experience management. We do all of our

research online except for some in house usability testing. I have been working forMetrixlab for the past eight and a half years I started as an intern and then just keep

growing on. I started in IT but now I focus more on very diverse innovation projects.

From guidelines for how thinks should look to doing pilots for new research

methodologies and developing new projects like dash boarding and eh yeah.

I: What according to you was the last radical innovation that you oversaw?

M1: What is a radical innovation?

I: Well that is the next question but you can start with that, what is a radical innovation

according to you?

M1: Yes that is very difficult because that is the thing about choosing also if I seesomething that I want to see or want to see happening for me it is obvious that things

should be

I: But maybe for the company or for another company?

M1: it might be radical, yeah but for me it is so obvious that I think why dont we have

this yet. This is not radical this is something we need just to keep up. Metrixlab is a

research company, but a lot of research companies are very old and come from a verydifferent time when it was about interviewing people in real life or calling them or using

paper surveys and Metrixlab was created in the late 90s and is oriented completely inusing online technologies. So in the context of research they are very innovative but inthe context of web design and web development they are behind because they only

adapt web technologies when they are matured but for research context it is very

innovative. So what is a radical innovation when uhm.. (thinks) to me a radical

innovation is something that I hadnt thought of and I didnt expect

I: But for Matrixlab you think that a software currently existing but placed in a new

context is also maybe a kind of

M1: Well right now I am working on a pilot for face reading where we use webcams at

peoples homes to analyse their emotions, so we show them a clip of a commercial, andwe want to adapt that in a quantitative manner. So that we can just invite two hundred

people to watch a commercial and be able to tell the company more about how effective


22/77

their commercial is. I think this is pretty radical but this is still in a pilot phase so maybe

it is something we might decide not to do because there are to many problems with it.

But this is something I am very enthusiastic about right now but I am still kind ofsceptical

I: But still you say that your research methods are radical, am I right?

M1: Hmm

I: Maybe at least ahead of many

M1: Yeah but there are other companies that are doing the same as we are doing.

Radical innovation is really. Im not really the kind of person that does radicalinnovation. I do very logical and pragmatic innovation, I combine thinks that exist in a

way that it makes sense. Im not really a kind Im not really an out of the box blue skylets put this on the moon kind of guy. I do not really like to call my self conservative but

Im not a radical

I: I guess you are taking radical as a too strong a word, I would rather call it trying to do

something new. As you said before finding a new direction, mixing matching things to

M1: Ok well, mobile is coming up right now and some people still think that. somepeople are still not noticing and at Metrixlab Im trying really promote adapting

everything we do from no on to also think about how would this look on a mobile phoneor on a tablet. Because if we are not doing that than we would be behind in a few years

so that is one thing that I am really endowment about that should be considered and

even done things about. And I am the kind of person that if no one is listening or picks it

up I will just do something myself

I:I see that you are more somebody who initiate things brings it to the table

M1: well as you always say, yes I am stubborn. We are trying to do more about

researching the satisfaction of our own customers so using our own products on

ourselves actually. And we made a survey and it was send to a designer and he made it

look very pretty, and I saw it and I said shouldnt this thing be also mobile compatiblebecause we are sending this to our clients and I see all of our consultants walking

around with Iphones So they will read a lot of their email on Iphones wouldnt it be

much better if our client reads this thing on an Iphone or another mobile, that he could

just immediately start the survey, answer those 5 questions and than be done with it. SoI took it upon myself to take the design, turn it into a CSS file, that is also adapting to the

screen size so if you look at it on a mobile phone it will change and everything will workperfectly. Than I gave it back to the department and they where really happy but it

didnt work yet because it still needed to be implemented and that had some impact onthe underlying technology because some things where not really compatible with that

kind of survey and the people who needed to develop it where like hey we dont havetime for this and we are not gonna do this. But by making the design and showing it toheads of sales and other researchers it started to be send from one business unit

manager to another and now it really is something that is on the map and that theyreally want. So now there is a lot of leverage or draagvlak so now a lot of people want

to see it happen a few weeks ago a sales person came up to me and said that thing youdesigned can we also sell that to costumers is it functioning yet. So maybe that is radical

design, that is what I like to do, if I see something that is logical in my eyes when I thinkwhy dont we have that yet, if nothing is being done with it, I take it, I try to improve


23/77

something or I try to give it enough traction so that other people will maybe continue

with it.

I: So maybe radical is logical to you

M1: Yes

I: But maybe not to others

M1: Yes, because I am not someone who. This is very true what you are saying

I: So there was a point at which you made some tangible thing out of it that people can

see your idea, right?

M1: Yes thats right

I: But there could be a point, there was a point when the idea was still fuzzy, when the

idea was very vague in your mind and you hadnt start the whole development process.

M1: well,..

I: Yes I understand that for you it was very clear and you know in what direction to

move

M1: yes

I: But even before you started you know when something was not done on the computer

or so but the idea was just in your head, did you already talk to it, talk about it with

somebody? When it was still not in to some kind of form

M1: Well the way I do it, I say to someone of who I think will understand my question

maybe or to sort of have a dialogue to get the idea further, In this case just my boss I say

hey, He was asking me Hey have you checked out the design for this? What do you think.

Well this and this maybe and I also think that this and this, so than he said jajaja. And

than I asked dont you think this thing should be mobile? Than he said yes I think so and

I said ok I will see what I can do with it. And than I just took it upon myself to take this

further because we dont have anyone else who would do that, we dont have a

webdesign department.

I: I think that you are in a privaledged position that you have so much freedom to do

that. That they just give you an open field and you can just take it further. But since youare from an industrial design background have dealt with people in your bachelors or

masters, well at least in your masters. So if I ask you like if an idea is already in your

head but you have not put it, it is still fuzzy. What do you think is a good way of

explaining it to somebody?

M1: Drawing!

I: is it drawing

M1: yes,

I: But what if the idea is not even clear to you, than?


24/77

M1: than drawing it will make it clearer for myself

I: Drawing it, you think that drawing it is

M1: There are so many mistakes that have been made that could have been fixed just by

making a drawing. We are working on a new booklet for making notes, it is a5 with alittle wire-o-frame and it also has a rubber band attached to it so you can close it. Andthere is a logo and the logo is on the right bottom corner.

I: Underneath the rubber band?

M1: If someone would have made a drawing of the thing, like what would it be, it will be

a5 with a wire-o and a band, oh so the logo should be more to the left. So now by using

the bleed and cutting it a bit more to the right we just managed to place the band next to

the logo but this is something which just by drawing it would have been like, o weshould make sure that the logo is far away enough from the band. So yes drawing it. And

especially if the idea is not clear to myself just drawing it will create some kind of

dialogue within me.

I: So now you where talking more about drawing the product, it is a product and you

want to draw its form.

M1: NO no no, it is also about a concept or idea. An idea is always related to other forces

or other things around it.

I: So you put them in relation on a paper

M1: yes an idea is never in isolation, so what kind of things have an impact on this

concept or this idea. What, you dont actually have to draw what it looks like to be ableto. Ok this is something that I have in my mind and if I put it on something so that it isfixed and I can think of what is around it. And well than I will draw those things and then

the map in my mind will become much more fixed, much more tangible.

I: You also have to explain to your seniors sometimes right?

M1: Yes

I: So what do you think works to best express your ideas to your seniors?

M1: Making a drawing or making a mock-up. I always make a, that is one of the first

things I do even when still analysing I will design in a way of seeing what works andwhat does not. And especially with talking to people it can be very difficult to be sure

that you are talking about exactly the same thing. And if you make a mock-up, evenwhen they say thats ugly thats not what I wanted than you know exactly that that is

not what they wanted. And if you think but hey this is something that I wanted, than

there is something to talk about, why is this not what you wanted. So making it visualthat is always the best way. Even if it is a process of something you should always draw.

I: So if you have an idea which is very difficult to explain to your senior, what would you

do?

M1: If it is really difficult to explain than making a drawing or schematic or a mock-up

will only help. Because if that is not possible than doing it with words is even more of a

problem.


25/77

I: And do you use metaphors in explaining it

M1: yes yes

I: by putting it in another context or

M1: Yes today I was talking with someone and we where talking about something, a

mailing system. It was going to be a server that does chrome jobs that automatically

mails emails for projects. So I just drew a robot and said well this robot will

automatically mail these and these things so we need someone to put those assignments

into the database and then the robot will pick them up and send them out. And if you are

talking about the robot, the mailing robot, then you have given it a name and a place and

an intention.

I: well that was really well explained

M1: I really like to give a lot of examples, of the robot and of the booklet. Becauseexamples are really important to illustrate what it could be. Right now I am working on

a dash-boarding system company wide and we have very different needs and often we

are catered by the same system. So I am making two mock-ups for both of the extreme

ends of the spectrum like what should this system support. And by making mock-ups I

can get all of the team members in one room and say ok is this what would work for you,

because this is what the client would see so making it visual making it very practical

something they can point at

I: So well than, our research is also about the same, the importance of metaphors in

making things understandable. With metaphor we dont just mean words, we want to

add a visual element as well, as you have been explaining.

Part 2:

M1: This is a pie. (about the visual) you would have to tell a story with the image, the

image it self doesnt say a lot also with the drawing So maybe by pointing at it

I would only use one case, and remove as much as possible. One case of a person who

reads a lot will imply the other case of not reading a lot. There is a lot going on right now

that makes it really complicated

I would just use the pie image with the story, that would be a lot better. It is just a pie, itis about dividing things

I: what important information is missing in the things shown so far?

M1: Well the percentage of the pie is not in the text and it is in the business model and

the pie itself of course has to be explained but just having an image of a pie and pointing

at it is much clearer than this jumble of arrows and things.

I: So you really would like to have one image and explain around it

M1: Yes


26/77

I: If this was your idea would you prefer to explain in on the hand of this (business

model) or still the pie picture

M1: Still the pie picture , it is much more uhm

(about the business model) this is really not an attractive image. If I where to explain it I

would use the image of the pie because everyone understands a pie

I: Do you think that if you see the pie image that it will be sticking in your mind

M1: Remember the pie thing? Well that is exactly how it is. The pie thing is much clearer

(about all the different visuals) It doesnt have to be a physical pie, it is about reducing it

to the least amount of uhm. The simpellest form. But using an actual metaphor is always

better. Right now we are working on a photolibrary and we also needed a picture of a

pie with different pieces of pie. So we called multi-vlaai and said we like to order one

vlaai with all different flavors because thats possible. And then we start making pictures

of it and then we ate it. But yeah bringing it back to something that is physical or people

can understand and remember.

Transcript: M2 Interview

Part 1:M2: Communication is a very important element in one of the courses I teach

I: What according to you is any last radical innovation which you were associated with?

M2: I tried to convince my boss of a wonderful idea just last Thursday,

I: What kind of idea was that?

M2: It was an idea on a theory which is very helpful which I do teach to my students.

Than I thought well I will explain it properly to my boss

I had two colleagues with me and one colleague walked away and it is quit innovative

but the other colleague sat with me but was only arguing. He was only arguing said whathe thought it was, went back to the original models. He showed the original model and

showed what it really means is this and this and this. So the whole presentation was

kind of an argument not fighting not unfriendly an oral discussion. He never admitted

from wow what a good idea, yes that is great lets investigate further the whole time he

was doing yes but. And in this interaction he than moved to all kind of examples in his

own practise where this was perfect he came with lots of examples of this theory but all

the time still arguing that it was not really useful. So that is a typical communication for

an innovator

I: And how did you present the idea, did you just talk or

M2: yes, I asked them please sit down we have got some time, so I checked for the

conditions, we got some time sit down and let me share with you a wonderful idea an


27/77

idea which I believe is wonderful. And than I developed it on the white board and they

where sitting in front of the whitboard.

I: you drew it?

M2: Yes I drew and talked

I: So you explained a theory so this drawing was not a form but a sort of schematic

representation

M2: Yes yes

I: But how did this idea first came to you besides what you where telling us about

M2: Well this idea is already being developed for years

I: So it was in your mind and now

M2: NO I already teach it for years as well but I never shared it with my colleagues and I

only teach it when they are not around. Because than you get into some kind of

discussion and they think oh what is this about

If you talk about coming to new ideas every two week I drive about 800 kilometres in

one day and have loads of ideas when I am driving.

I had a new idea on how to build a house on the moon, very easy and extremely light. I

can explain. You know a parachute in a bag and they get more and more compact, these

very modern textiles now with nano-tubes you can put a liquid in there. No what you

could do on the moon, with this package like a parachute this is a big thing, you know it

comes out of a little package but it is completely enclosed so you put a little bomb in it a

little explosion and it gets into the form that it needs to be. Because it moves the nano-tubes break and it releases the second component of the two component epoxy and it

fixes the whole textile.

I: On the ground?

M2: On the ground and in a space I am talking about I am on the moon now in vacuum.

I: So I understand that up till now that it fills up like airbags in a car

M2: No like a parachute, it got its form and while doing that it moves. The liquid that is

released because of the movement fixes its form. No on earth you could have made, no of

course you can not use a normal textile you probably have to make a huge sandwich ofmany layers, but you can do that and fold them up You have to wait two hours and than

you have got your volume in which you can have a living space. And is only the one

difference you know, vacuum, vacuum is not a big deal it is only one atmosphere and a

tire, car tire is already three or two and a half. And in a metal tank it is 400.

I: these ideas, do you write them down?

M2: Normally not, I just gave you an example of communicating, this idea was from last

night. I had another one last night, but yes ok lets go back.

I: Going back to your example that you explained to your colleagues last Thursday. Do

you think that you could have used some other way to pursuit them convince them in a

better way or a better way of communicating your idea?


28/77

M2: when no when, no I am gonna give another answer. If I where to present to a client

then I have no problem presenting such an idea and convince them. I just gave a

workshop in a consultancy about this as a tool. It was fantastic they are using it now.

Consultancies are using this as a standard tool in their own practise. The problem here

is that it is with colleagues with certain believes about you. It is very hard to escape fromwhat they think you are. So once there is already a culture it is difficult, you think o there

is (name) with his ideas and than that is it

I: So a fixed culture

M2: A fixed culture kills ideas, kills anything new! Yes

I: But also needs another approach?

M2: It could be that you need some new people, some external people in that group so

that the existing culture doesnt dominate the interaction or fixes the kind of interaction.

So the new ones might come with some naive questions and say just tell me more

I: fresh insights

M2: yes and the others jump to conclusions.

I: You have also communicated with companies a lot, in this question it is about that

section that I want to ask you, do you also have come up to thumb rules for

communication

M2: about how to communicate

I: yes like what works

M2: I have got many

I: but what if I ask you for the three most important

M2: Let me tell you another story first, another story, I am presenting a design and we

have two concepts which are within the boundaries given by the client and we present

them and then we come to the point where the client needs to choose one or the other.

But then you see I wasnt on my own there where three of us designing this, and than we

said we did this within your boundaries, but we couldnt avoid coming up with a crazy

phantasy about this and we came with a third design. And instead for use inside it wasfor use outside, at the same time it would be a childrens toy, it would be many more

things at the same time. It could do much more but was at least double the price, and

they said yes lets go for the third one. I dont know what is that.. so there are a few rules

in there, one of the rules is that you respect the client by doing what he asked at first and

than you may have some crazy ideas but as long as you have not acknowledged the

client with his or her needs they will not look any further with you. By demonstrating

that you have understood them, now they trust you. So all the communication is about

trust, trust for suspension of disbelieve.

The point is if you are presenting in the fuzzy front end, you are presenting something

new probably other wise the client would not have invited you. There curious in new

stuff at the same time, only because it is new they have to get used to it. Now it is really

theory and teaching, I think that new concepts are like babies, new born babies now I

am going to tell a sexist analogy sorry for that. There is this guy and there is a lady


29/77

coming up to him and says this baby is yours, this is a big joke in France and many other

countries, and than the guy says no it cant be I took all the precautions no way this is not

my baby. Than they get dna testing. If you think of adoptive children and someone

comes up to you and says you have to take care of this child than you say wait a minute I

have got enough to do. What you need is to get this person or this new parent to get

used to this child. And then start playing a little bit and getting to know each other thansome love might start to flow in and then only you say you have to take care of it.

The same with ideas if you go to a management team or to a client and you say listen

you now you have to take care of it. They say uh wait a moment, they have to get used to

it and the client because it is new and they asked for something new and now you come

with something new automatically they need time to adopt, that is literally the same

word, to adopt this idea

I: Will it be easier for the client to adopt the idea when it is visual, like seeing the baby

will sooner say oh ok I will take care of it.

M2: Sometimes with the first concept we presented they immediately said yes we wantthis third concept lets do it. But it will be much more expensive, well we will find the

money. So sometimes it is like that, the baby is so cute that you completely meld. But

often it is not that obvious. So underneath you need something like trust, that they

respect you and your knowledge and your capacity and in such a way that they are

willing to go with your ideas. That it is trust.

And they need to trust you in such a way they accept that need to go into suspension of

disbelieve so suspension of disbelieve is if you go to a cinema and you go to a film or you

take a dvd like monsters inc. from Pixar, just like that you are in a story even if it is with

this impossible creature with one eye and one is a lady with all snakes in the hair well

she doesnt have hair, well it is acceptable you go with the story. And so as a designer

presenting a concept or presenting a strategy it is the same thing in this kind of trust youneed to make a frame and take them with you on a journey for example and for just a

second let go of the daily occupation and criteria and lets phantasize a bit together, even

using that kind of words might help instead of just saying hey this is your baby, who

what. So you could say why dont you come for a cup of coffee look there is Johnny play

with him I will be busy in the kitchen.

Another rule, the more concrete the better, the concreter the better. That is all so no

sorry that is not the right word, the more tangible the better, if you got an object or

prototype or something that is better than a vague concept

I: You have seen many concepts, you might get a sense of how much ris

Documents

The influence of metaphors on the risk management in radical innovation processes