Managing the repertoire final
- 1. Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation Seidel, V. P. & Mahony, S. 2014 Organization Science
- 2. Introduction • Coordinate the effects of many minds contributing to design of single artifact (product). • Traditional focus on formal mechanism of control i.e. work task, Organizational structure. • Coordination can be affected by ‘representation’ of a collective effort. • “Representations therefore coordinate by providing information. They also offer a common referent around which people interact, align their work and create shared meaning.”
- 3. • Concept Representation_____2-Approaches: • Linguistic Representation: • Material Representation: • Focus on one representation at a time, may mask the effects where both linguistic and material representations are used. • Focus in promise of representations without specifying the conditions that make them effective. • Examine the development of novel concepts into innovative products. • How teams use both linguistic and material representations in coordinating design task and the practices that made representations effective. Verbal or written means used to communicate a concept in order to guide individual and collective action. e.g. Stories, Metaphors. Physical objects used to communicate a concept to inform individual work that must be integrated with a collective. e.g. prototype
- 4. • Incremental Innovations • Novel Innovations • Difficult to coordinate collective effort as the outcome cannot be specified. • Team compositions and well-trained project leaders can help coordinate design tasks. • Easily communicated representations can also help coordinate product concept. • Representation of the product concept are generated, communicated and revised. Product Innovation Adding features in already existing products. Creating a product that only exists in abstract.
- 5. Concept Representation Concept Representation Common Understanding Common Understanding Coordinated TasksCoordinated Tasks Coordinated design of product attributes Common understanding of desired product attributes Individual Linguistic or Material Representation Figure 1 Basic model of individual representation, common understanding and coordination as applied to product innovation
- 6. Linguistic Representations Stories • Help narrow ambiguity in memorable manner. • Narrative, unfold over time. • Develop more complicated set of relationships. • More fluid than metaphor. Metaphors • Metaphors direct individuals’ attention by facilitating the transfer of relations from one domain to another. • Vivid means to stimulate action. • Encourages memorability and generates personal understanding. • Makes the unfamiliar familiar. Stories and Metaphors are most relevant in an innovation context. Gap: How individuals throughout an organization receive and act on linguistic representations and how representations evolve in use.
- 7. Material Representation • Transfer knowledge from one domain to another. • Enables differences in understanding to be transformed into a common understanding. • “Physical objects used to communicate a concept.” • Use of even a simple prototype can help understand product attributes. Gap: Much focus on material objects without specifying the conditions that make them more or less effective.
- 8. Repertoires of Representations • Previously researched a specific types of representation – in isolation. • When examined individually, representations fail to provide different types of information. • Concept representations affect individuals throughout the organization working on an innovation task. • “A collection of practices held in common from which individual select responses to particular situations.” • Define and bound the range of a community’s practices. Gap: Little information on practices or conditions that make representations effective in coordinating many task required in innovation vision.
- 9. Research Question • How teams used both linguistic and material representations to coordinate the development of novel products and the practices that enable representations to be more or less effective.
- 10. Methods • Case study • Effective for exploring the research questions affected by organizational context. • Teams that recently launched products novel to both organization and market. • Press accounts: The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. • Six product development teams from Three industries (consumer electronics, medical/ sports therapy devices, automotive) to increase generalizability across context.
- 11. Project names & descriptions Firm size & location Core team size eBook (Handheld electronic book reader) Medium (100) California 30 PDAPhone “Smart Phone” Mobile device Medium (300) California 20 RadCross “Crossover” Of car and truck Large (1000) Michigan 35 FlexTruck Truck with flexible cargo Large (1000) Michigan 20 BodyCool Body cooling device with new method Small (8) California 6 JointCool Cooling device combining 2 therapies Small (9) California 6
- 12. Data Collection • Focus on the practices of the product development teams used across cases. • Field work for eighteen months. • In-person interviews to take advantage of project data maintained by each team. • Written and visual descriptions of each team’s product concept. • Observation of teams communication of novel product in various forms. • Access to meeting rooms, prototype observation.
- 14. Data Analysis • Four phases 1. Comprehensive Summaries of each case 2. Data Coding 3. Data Recoding 4. Identification of coordination practices •Practices and concept representations used by each team. •Several different types of representations used to communicate. •Determine the range of representations used. •Three types of representations used 1.Stories 2.Metaphor 3.Prototype •Not all teams benefited equally from the use of concept representation. •Identify practices that led to be more successful. 1. Collective scrutiny of representations 2. Linking representations to design constraints 3. Active editing among repertoire of representation
- 15. Concept Coherence & Disunity • Concept Coherence • Concept Disunity • Teams that consistently used coordination practices achieved concept coherence & teams that didn’t experienced concept disunity. • Multiple concept representations used along with Three coordination practices, Two modes of understanding were produced: 1. Common interpretation of representation 2. Shared repertoire of representation A common understanding of desired product attributes. Disparate understanding of desired product attributes.
- 17. Concept Representations • Product concept presented teams with Two main challenges: 1. Combining attributes of existing concepts to create something novel.
- 19. Concept Representations • Product concept presented teams with Two main challenges: 1. Combining attributes of existing concepts to create something novel. 2. Specifying product attributes when they are not identifiable.
- 21. Crafting Concept Representations • Stories • Metaphors • Prototypes Explain customer needs Articulate product function Product’s form
- 23. Plurality of Representation • Concept representation enable people to move from concepts to practice. • FlexTruck prototype Common understanding • RadCross prototype Misunderstanding • Common understanding product attributes fostered by plurality of representations create concept coherence.
- 24. Concept Coherence 1. Share a common interpretation of representations. 2. Maintain a common repertoire of representations. Degree to which: team members • “Stay on the same page.” • Share a common understanding of desired product attribute while coordinating design task. Examples: • FlexTruck Team • PDAPhone Team “Swiss Army Knife” Flip Phone
- 25. Concept Disunity • It arises from the separation of design task into many tasks done by many men. Teams show disunity when: • Drawing upon a plurality of representations not part of a shared repertoire. • Team members maintain different interpretations of representations from a shared repertoire. Example: • RadCross Team
- 26. Coordinating Practices 1. Collective scrutiny of representations 2. Linking representations to design constraints 3. Active editing among repertoire of representation Concept Coherence Concept Disunity FlexTruck RadCross PDAPhone eBook JointCool BodyCool
- 27. Collective Scrutiny of Concept Representations 1. Shared all representations widely among the team. 2. Allowed all team members to question the scope or meaning of representations. • Teams engaged in collective scrutiny: 1. Discovered sources of difference 2. Produced agreement on interpreting representations FlexTruck Team •Prototype available at secure location. • Representations conveyed throughout the organization. •Regular “town hall” meetings. •Revisiting representations. •Problem solving. eBook Team •Conveyed representation widely. •Product attributes constantly questioned by team members. •“Its not a computer…it’s a book!” •Calculator in the eBook?...”But it’s a book” •List of contacts in an eBook? RadCross Team • Team members rejected other members representations. Northface jacket's pocket and zippers Northface jacket's pocket and zippers Multi - FunctionalityMulti - Functionality
- 28. Linking Representations to Design Constraints • Any technical or market limitation that how the concept could be translated into a viable product. • Teams performed two activities: 1. Link representation to one or more design constraints. 2. Continuously checked concept assumptions with emerging design constraints. • Enables team members to coordinate individual design. • Teams achieved concept coherence even when the concept was changing. PDAPhone eBook JointCool BodyCool FlexTruck RadCross FlexTruck •“Flexible cargo area” •Creating convertible waterproof cargo bed •Referring to metaphor: “Swiss Army Knife” - Instant convertability PDAPhone •“Concept box” RadCross •“Show vehicle” prototype •Contained attributes that weren’t going to be in finished product. •Desperate interpretation of the product.
- 29. Active Editing Among Representations • Arise from the need to choose between conflicting representations or new design constraints. • Required two activities: 1. Clearly identified process owner designated to make changes to concept representation. 2. Representation that no longer fit product concept are excised. • Critical to form concept coherence as product concept evolve. • Facilitate the common understanding of representations. PDAPhone •Initially two prototypes: •“flip - phone” “stick phone” •Product architect decided to make “flip phone” •Active editing of new design constraints •Revised prototype and communicated the change eBook •Not enough digital content available •Concept change •New concept: ”tablet device” for delivery drivers •Old metaphor “It’s a book!” still prevailed •Book like prototypes still used Story: changed Metaphor: persisted Prototype: persisted BodyCool •Persisting incompatible interpretation of representation •Unable to translate concept into product •Application confusion: sports, hospital, military? •Confused team members •Delayed prototype production
- 30. Dynamics of Managing the Repertoire
- 31. Dynamics of Managing the Repertoire
- 32. Discussion • Three types of concept representations on the basis of facets of product concept: need, function & form. • Repertoire of representation (RR) not enough for common understanding. • Coordination practices required to manage (RR).
- 33. Discussion: Contribution • To the theories of innovation and coordination. 1. Effects of concept representation are not always positive depends upon consistent use of coordination practices. 2. Identification of two modes of common understanding: • How each representation is interpreted? • Which representations are in repertoire? 3. Product concept evolves
- 34. Discussion: Managing the Repertoire • One type of representation is inadequate to achieve complex goal. • Repertoire of representation more effective than one type. • Multiple representations may also foster concept disunity. • RR is more effective when used conjunction of three coordinating practices. • If product attributes change, so must concept representations.
- 35. Discussion: Dynamics of Coordinating in Practice • Concept coherence & coordination Common RR & Common interpretation. • Collective scrutiny of representation Allow open questioning & Reconcile competing interpretations. • Linking representations to design constraints Collectively generate new information. • Active editing among representations to ensure representation relevance to concepts being designed. • Teams achieving concept coherence Better able to adapt to changing market & technical conditions.
- 36. Discussion Limitations • Comparison of importance of concept coherence with other factors such as team resources. • Coordination is effected without coordination practices to mange repertoire. Directions • Examination of relative importance of such tradeoffs. • Examine repertoire of representation and role of concept coherence in dynamic environment.