Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:32:25.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards radical innovations in a mature company: an empirical study on the UX-FFE model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2019

Adrien Lecossier ,
Marc Pallot ,
Pascal Crubleau  and
Simon Richir
Adrien Lecossier*
Affiliation:
Esterline & Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LAMPA Presence & Innovation research team, Angers, France
Marc Pallot
Affiliation:
Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LAMPA Presence & Innovation research team, Angers, France
Pascal Crubleau
Affiliation:
Université d'Angers, ISTIA Innovation, Angers, France
Simon Richir
Affiliation:
Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LAMPA Presence & Innovation research team, Angers, France
*
Author for correspondence: Adrien Lecossier, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ability to successfully conduct radical innovations is mandatory for mature industrial companies that want to remain competitive in the global market. This ability relies on several ingredients, namely: (1) the structuring of the innovation process; (2) managerial principles; (3) methodological tools; (4) the presence of a culture of innovation. This paper reports about the impact of applying the User eXperience-Fuzzy Front End (UX-FFE) model, which brings together the systemic innovation process with the social, economical, and methodological aspects on the outcomes of the innovation process. Firstly, it appears that the operational performance of the upstream innovation process relies on the quality of the social context, intrinsic to the group of co-creators, corresponding to the reported perceived experience. Secondly, the UX-FFE model application, therefore, allows optimizing the upstream innovation process performance. Indeed, we argue that the evaluation of the co-creators perceived experience brings new opportunities to optimize the operational performance of the upstream innovation process. The first part of this paper presents deeper a theoretical model, named UX-FFE, which combines a UX approach with an upstream innovation process (FFE). The main interest of this UX-FFE model is that it allows evaluating the social aspect of the upstream innovation process, which may be detrimental to the success of radical innovation projects in mature companies. The second part presents the results of previous experiments that validated the model. The results allow the design of an instrument dedicated to the evaluation of the user experience of co-creators in the ideation stage. Finally, the third part reports about the experimentation of the UX-FFE in a mature company. Results present the impact of the co-creators' experience on the performance of radical innovation projects.

Keywords

Assessmentco-creationfront end innovationfuzzy front endideationinnovation managementmixed-methodsreliabilityuser eXperience
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 33 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge Engineering and Management Applied to Innovation , May 2019 , pp. 172 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

LAMPA, 2 Boulevard du Ronceray, 49100 Angers, FRANCE

References

Ahmed, PK (1998) Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 1, 30–43. Available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/14601069810199131.Google Scholar
Baregheh, A, Rowley, J, Sambrook, S (2009) Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision 47, 1323–1339.Google Scholar
Christensen, C (1997) The Innovator's Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, R (2008) Perspective: the stage-gate idea to launch process – update, what's new and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25, 213–232. Available at http://www.stage-gate.com/downloads/wp/wp_30.pdf.Google Scholar
Cooper, RG (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process From Idea to Launch, Cambridge: Third Edition Basic Books, 2001. Cambridge: Third edit. B. Books, ed.. Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0024630189901854%5Cn; http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2393871%5Cn; http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6538249&site=ehost-live.Google Scholar
Cresswell, JW, Plano Clark, VL, Gutmann, ML and Hanson, WE. (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dale, L (2015) The Experience Makes the Product, Not the Features: A Comprehensive Guide for Using your MVP to Get the right Product to Market, Fast. UX Magazine.Google Scholar
De Brentani, U and Reid, SE (2012) The fuzzy front-end of discontinuous innovation: insights for research and management. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29, 70–87.Google Scholar
Dessart, L, Veloutsou, C and Morgan-Thomas, A (2015) Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24, 28–42. Available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635.Google Scholar
E.Porter, M (1985) Competitive Advantage - Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (The Free P). New York, NY, US.Google Scholar
Frishammar, J, Floren, H and Wincent, J (2011) Beyond managing uncertainty: insights from studying equivocality in the fuzzy front End of product and process innovation projects. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management 58, 551–563.Google Scholar
Gaia, R and Kirca, AH (2012) Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Marketing 76, 130–147. Available at https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0494.Google Scholar
Garcia, R and Calantone, R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness: a literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 19, 110–132.Google Scholar
Hart, T, Jacobs, P and Mangqalaza, H (2012) Key concepts in Innovation Studies. Towards working definitions. (December 2012). Available at http://www.hsrc.ac.za/uploads/pageContent/5092/RIAT2012_InnovationworkingDefinitions_ConPaper2.pdf.Google Scholar
Hart, TGB, et al. (2015) Revealing the social face of innovation. South African Journal of Science 111, 109–114.Google Scholar
ISO FDIS 9241-210 (2009) Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Switzerland.Google Scholar
Ind, N and Coates, N (2013) The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review 25, 86–95.Google Scholar
Kim, J and Wilemon, D (2002) Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Management 32, 269–279. Available at http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1467-9310.00259.Google Scholar
Koen, P, et al. (2001) Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end”. Research Technology Management 44, 46–55.Google Scholar
Koen, PA et al. (2002) Fuzzy front end: effective methods, tools, and techniques. In Paul Belliveau and Abbie Griffin and Stephen Somermeyer (Eds.), PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 5–35.Google Scholar
Krawczyk, P, Topolewski, M and Pallot, M (2017) Towards a Reliable and Valid Mixed Methods Instrument in User eXperience Studies. In International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1497–1506). Funchal: IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Society (TEMS).Google Scholar
Law, EL-C et al. (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI 09, (April 2016), p. 719. Available at http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1518701.1518813.Google Scholar
Lecossier, A and Pallot, M (2017) UX-FFE Model: An Experimentation of a new innovation process dedicated to a mature industrial company. In 23rd International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE-IEEE-TEMS 2017). Funchal.Google Scholar
Lecossier, A et al. (2016) Une vision multidimensionnelle des typologies d'innovation pour identifier et concevoir une démarche d'innovation. In CONFERE 16. Prague. Available at http://sam.ensam.eu/handle/10985/11148 (Accessed 27 September 2016).Google Scholar
Lecossier, A, Pallot, M et al. (2017 a) Modèle UX-FFE: expérimentation de la phase de validation d'un nouveau processus d'innovation dédié a une entreprise industrielle mature. In CONFERE 17. Séville.Google Scholar
Lecossier, A, Tcha-Tockey, K and Richir, S (2017 b) The user experience measurement: a challenge of the twenty-first century. In International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 175th Anniversary of the D.I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM 175). Saint-Petersburg: Book of Abstracts.Google Scholar
Lecossier, A et al. (2018 a) Application of the UX-FFE model for optimizing the performance of the upstream innovation process. In 24rd International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE-IEEE-TEMS 2018). Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Lecossier, A, Pallot, M, Crubleau, P and Richir, S (in press) Construction of an instrument to evaluate the User eXperience of a group of co-creators in the upstream innovation process. International Journal of Services Operations and Informatics.Google Scholar
Leifer, R et al. (2001) Implementing radical innovation in mature firms: the role of hubs. Source: The Academy of Management Executive 15, 102–113. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165764%0A; http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165764?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents%0A; http://about.jstor.org/terms.Google Scholar
Lucas, H and Goh, JM (2009) Journal of strategic information systems disruptive technology: how kodak missed the digital photography revolution. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18, 46–55. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2009.01.002.Google Scholar
Markham, SK (2013) The impact of front-end innovation activities on product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(suppl. 1), 77–92.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, P, Bessant, J and Smart, P (2008) Developing an organisation culture to facilitate radical innovation. International Journal of Technology Management 44, 298. Available at http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=21041.Google Scholar
Mulder, I and Stappers, P (2009) Co-Creating in Practice: Results and Challenges. In 15th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, ICE'2010 “Collaborative Innovation: Emerging Technologies, Environments and communities.” Leiden.Google Scholar
Nicholas, J (2014) An Investigation into the Practices and Underlying Factors during the Fuzzy Front End of Radical Innovation. University of Limerick.Google Scholar
O'Connor, GC and Rice, M (2001) Opportunity recognition and breakthrough innovation in large established firms. California Management Review 43, 95–116.Google Scholar
Padilha, CK and Gomes, G (2016) Innovation culture and performance in innovation of products and processes: a study in companies of textile industry. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13, 285–294. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.09.004.Google Scholar
Pallot, M and Pawar, K (2012) A holistic model of user experience for living lab experiential design. 2012 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, pp. 1–15. Available at http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84867904854&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.Google Scholar
Pallot, M, et al. (2010 a) Living Lab research landscape: from user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. Technology Innovation Management Review 1, 19–25.Google Scholar
Pallot, M, Martinez-Carreras, MA and Prinz, W (2010 b) Collaborative distance: a framework for distance factors affecting the performance of distributed collaboration. International Journal of e-Collaboration 6, 1–32.Google Scholar
Pallot, M et al. (2012) Innovation gaming: an immersive experience environment enabling co-creation. In Handbook of Research on Serious Games as Educational. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Pihlajamaa, M. (2017) Going the extra mile: Managing individual motivation in radical innovation development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M 43, 48–66.Google Scholar
Rajapathirana, RPJ and Hui, Y (2017) Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 51, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, V and Gouillart, F (2010) Building the Co-Creative Enterprise. Harvard Business Review 88, 100–109,150.Google Scholar
Reid, SE and De Brentani, U (2004) The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21, 170–184.Google Scholar
Rihova, I, et al. (2013) Social layers of customer-to-customer value co-creation. Journal of Service Management 24, 553–566.Google Scholar
Rolstadås, A, Henriksen, B and O'Sullivan, D (2012) The innovation process. In Manufacturing Outsourcing: A Knowledge Perspective. London: Springer London, pp. 129–144. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2954-7_15.Google Scholar
Salminen, J et al. (2011) Evaluating user involvement within living labs through the use of a domain landscape. 2011 17th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising.Google Scholar
Sanders, EB-N (2008) An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions 15, 13–17. Available at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1409040.1409043.Google Scholar
Sanders, EB-N and Stappers, PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 5–18. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710880701875068.Google Scholar
Scapin, DL et al. (2012) User experience: Buzzword or new paradigm? ACHI 2012 – 5th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, (January), pp. 336–341. Available at http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84883218765&partnerID=40&md5=744ea909df799253f848d5c5953ff24e.Google Scholar
Slater, SF, Mohr, JJ and Sengupta, S (2014) Radical product innovation capability: literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31, 552–566. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12113.Google Scholar
Torgerson, WS (1958) Theory and Methods of Scaling. Oxford: Wiley, ed.Google Scholar
Utterback, J (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Verworn, B, Herstatt, C and Nagahira, A (2008) The Fuzzy Front End of Japanese New Product Development Projects: Impact on Success and Differences between Incremental and Radical The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development projects: impact on success and differences between incremental a. (October). pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32, 791–805.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E (2005) Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press, ed.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q and Doll, WJ (2001) The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management 4, 95–112.Google Scholar