[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v38y2020i4p661-671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study

Author

Listed:
  • Meinel, Martin
  • Eismann, Tobias T.
  • Baccarella, Christian V.
  • Fixson, Sebastian K.
  • Voigt, Kai-Ingo
Abstract
Both practitioners and researchers have developed various approaches to support product development teams in their creative process of generating new and valuable product concepts. A key concern of all innovation approaches is to translate the needs, wants and aspirations of users and customers into product and service solutions that match the underlying needs. Many existing innovation approaches focus predominantly on the translation process itself by providing support for aggregating data and making trade-off decisions between user preferences traceable. For that reason, we label these approaches user preference-driven. In contrast, over the last two decades, design thinking (DT) has emerged as an approach that assumes knowledge of user needs information to be fuzzy and unreliable; it addresses this challenge by focusing on developing user experiences through empathic in-depth user research and iterative prototyping. Consequently, we label approaches such as DT user experience-driven. Although DT has generated particular interest among both practitioners and educators, the academic literature investigating the usefulness of DT remains scarce. To help close this gap, we study the performance implications of applying DT processes and tools in terms of new product concept creativity relative to applying a traditional innovation approach. Using an experimental design and collecting quantitative data from 53 teams and their projects, we find that teams applying DT outperform the control group that applies an alternative innovation approach, namely quality function deployment (QFD), in terms of the feasibility, relevance and specificity of concepts, but not the novelty. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:38:y:2020:i:4:p:661-671
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237320300232
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen L. Janssen & Ben Dankbaar, 2008. "Proactive Involvement Of Consumers In Innovation: Selecting Appropriate Techniques," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(03), pages 511-541.
    2. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    3. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    4. Lehrer, Mark & Ordanini, Andrea & DeFillippi, Robert & Miozzo, Marcela, 2012. "Challenging the orthodoxy of value co-creation theory: A contingent view of co-production in design-intensive business services," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 499-509.
    5. Chan, Lai-Kow & Wu, Ming-Lu, 2002. "Quality function deployment: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 463-497, December.
    6. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    7. Rajagopal, 2014. "Organizations and Innovation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 3, pages 58-86, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Maltz, Elliot & Souder, William E. & Kumar, Ajith, 2001. "Influencing R&D/marketing integration and the use of market information by R&D managers: intended and unintended effects of managerial actions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 69-82, April.
    9. Govers, C. P. M., 1996. "What and how about quality function deployment (QFD)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 575-585, December.
    10. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    11. Rachel Croson & Karen Donohue, 2006. "Behavioral Causes of the Bullwhip Effect and the Observed Value of Inventory Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 323-336, March.
    12. Monica J. Garfield & Nolan J. Taylor & Alan R. Dennis & John W. Satzinger, 2001. "Research Report: Modifying Paradigms—Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 322-333, September.
    13. Daniel Bello & Kwok Leung & Lee Radebaugh & Rosalie L Tung & Arjen van Witteloostuijn, 2009. "From the Editors: Student samples in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(3), pages 361-364, April.
    14. Schneider, Eric, 1989. "Unchaining the value of design," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 320-331, September.
    15. Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Céline Abecassis, 2008. "Absorptive Capacity and Source-Recipient Complementarity in Designing new Products: an Empirically Derived Framework," Post-Print hal-00404108, HAL.
    16. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon & Christian Wagner, 1994. "Stimulating Ideas Through Creative Software," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(11), pages 1514-1532, November.
    17. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric & Gault, Fred & Kuusisto, Jari & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Market failure in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: Patterns in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1856-1865.
    18. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "The effect of cognitive diversity on the illusion of control bias in strategic decisions: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 430-439.
    19. Schulze, Anja & Hoegl, Martin, 2008. "Organizational knowledge creation and the generation of new product ideas: A behavioral approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1742-1750, December.
    20. Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini & Celine Abecassis-Moedas, 2008. "Absorptive Capacity and Source-Recipient Complementarity in Designing New Products: An Empirically Derived Framework," Post-Print hal-00655663, HAL.
    21. Anna S. Cui & Fang Wu, 2016. "Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 516-538, July.
    22. Carnevalli, Jose A. & Miguel, Paulo Cauchick, 2008. "Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD--Types of research, difficulties and benefits," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 737-754, August.
    23. Chen, Chun-Chih & Chuang, Ming-Chuen, 2008. "Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 667-681, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Song, Kisik & Yun, Siyeong & Kim, Leehee & Lee, Sungjoo, 2022. "Investigating new design concepts based on customer value and patent data: The case of a future mobility door," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Das, Kallol & Patel, Jayesh D. & Sharma, Anuj & Shukla, Yupal, 2023. "Creativity in marketing: Examining the intellectual structure using scientometric analysis and topic modeling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Ziheng Zhang & Rui Patricio & Gianluca Carella & Francesco Zurlo, 2022. "Supporting a Sustainable and Engaging Online Transition for Co-Design through Gamification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Fu, Shihui & Sun, Yi & Guo, Yanting, 2023. "Revealing product innovation practitioners’ perspectives on design thinking: An exploratory research using Q-sort methodology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Elise Talgorn & Monique Hendriks & Luc Geurts & Conny Bakker, 2022. "A Storytelling Methodology to Facilitate User-Centered Co-Ideation between Scientists and Designers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.
    2. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    3. Yuk, Hyeyeon & Garrett, Tony C., 2023. "Does customer participation moderate the effects of innovation on cost-based financial performance? An examination of different forms of customer participation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Dekkers, Rob & Chang, C.M. & Kreutzfeldt, Jochen, 2013. "The interface between “product design and engineering” and manufacturing: A review of the literature and empirical evidence," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 316-333.
    5. Ho-Dac, Nga N., 2020. "The value of online user generated content in product development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 136-146.
    6. Rivieccio, Giorgia & Raïes, Karine & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "Are you attractive enough? An empirical analysis on user innovators' characteristics and the creation of new social ventures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    7. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Schweisfurth, Tim G., 2017. "Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 238-248.
    9. Kei Aoki, 2021. "The Relationship between Well-Being and Knowledge Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, April.
    10. Ozer, Muammer, 2009. "The roles of product lead-users and product experts in new product evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1340-1349, October.
    11. Dimitri SCHUURMAN & Peter MECHANT & Bastiaan BACCARNE, 2013. "Open Innovation: A Typology of User Involvement in the Context of the Web2.0-Paradigm," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(89), pages 17-36, 1st quart.
    12. Philipp Alexander Ebel & Ulrich Bretschneider & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2016. "Can The Crowd Do The Job? Exploring The Effects Of Integrating Customers Into A Company’S Business Model Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-24, October.
    13. Stefan Stremersch & Elke Cabooter & Ivan Guitart & Nuno Camacho, 2024. "Customer insights for innovation : A framework and research agenda for marketing," Post-Print hal-04731671, HAL.
    14. Nanditha Mathew & George Paily, 2022. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 435-458, April.
    15. Scaringella, Laurent & Burtschell, François, 2017. "The challenges of radical innovation in Iran: Knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity highlights — Evidence from a joint venture in the construction sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 151-169.
    16. Yang Gao, 2022. "The Belt and Road Initiative and cascading innovation in China’s domestic railway ecosystem," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(2), pages 236-258, June.
    17. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    18. Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot & Delphine Manceau & Celine Abecassis-Moedas, 2019. "Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing-External Design Relationship," Post-Print hal-01883760, HAL.
    19. Beatrice d'Ippolito, 2014. "The importance of design for firms' competitiveness: a review of the literature," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00936947, HAL.
    20. Mário A.P.M. Da Silva, 2018. "R&D Investments And Spillovers Under Endogenous Absorptive Capacity: Competitive R&D Cannot Take Full-Advantage Of Complementarity In Absorptive Capacity While Cooperative R&D Can," Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance, Eurasian Publications, vol. 6(1), pages 16-24.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:38:y:2020:i:4:p:661-671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.