No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Investigation of the Perception of a Radical Degree of Novelty from the Perspective of Product Users
Part of:
Innovation Engineering
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The dichotomy of radical and incremental innovation has been discussed in numerous literature sources and a great amount of advices on how to handle them in design processes has been provided. Nevertheless, only a minority of literature sources addresses the perception of radicalism from a user's perspective, meaning that there is less research on how users or, in other words, consumers perceive a radical degree of novelty of products. Furthermore, there is little research on how this perception can be measured.
This paper discusses the aforementioned user's perception and proposes a way to derive criteria which users take into account when they decide whether an idea or an innovation is radical or incremental. A concept for an investigative model was developed and applied by using it in the field with 49 test subjects. Consequently, a set of criteria was derived which concretises the decision whether a product was radical or not. The criteria were analyzed statistically and can be used by designers planning to develop a radical innovation in order to check whether the criteria people use to differentiate between radical and incremental products are fulfilled.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2297 - 2306
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Bauer, W. (2017), Innovation Management 2025, Open Innovation Kongress, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Berlyne, D.E. (1960), Conflict, arousal, and curiosity, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, London.Google Scholar
Christensen, C.M., von der Eichen, S.F. and Matzler, K. (2010), Innovators Dilemma, Vahlen, München.Google Scholar
Duncan, R.B. (1976), “The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation”, Management Organisation, Vol. 1, pp. 167–188.Google Scholar
Förster, J., Marguc, J. and Gillebaart, M. (2010), “Novelty Categorization Theory”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 736–755.Google Scholar
Gourville, J.T. (2006), “Eager sellers and stony buyers: understanding the psychology of new-product adoption”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 98–106, 145.Google Scholar
Halaszovich, T.F. (2011), Neuprodukteinführungsstrategien schnelldrehender Konsumgüter, Gabler Verlag / Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Herrmann, T., Binz, H. and Roth, D. (2017), “Necessary extension of conventional idea processes by means of a method for the identification of radical product ideas”, In: Maier, A., Škec, S., Kim, H., Kokkolaras, M., Oehmen, J., Fadel, G., Salustri, F. and van der Loos, M. (Ed.), DS 87-8 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Herrmann, T., Roth, D. and Binz, H., (2018), “Derivation of criteria for radical product ideas”, In: Marjanović, D., Štorga, M., Škec, S. Bojčetić, N. and Pavković, N. (Ed.), DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018: 15th International Design Conference, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia; The Design Society, Glasgow, UK, pp. 1867–1878.Google Scholar
Kang, M.J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I.M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S.M., Wang, J.T.-y. and Camerer, , C.F. (2009), “The wick in the candle of learning: epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory”, Psychological science, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 963–973.Google Scholar
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N. and Mole, K. (2018), “Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation”, Research Policy, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 413–427.Google Scholar
Leifer, R., McDermott, C.M., Peters, L.S., Rice, M.P. and Veryzer, R.W. (2000), Radical innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Meffert, H., Burmann, C. and Kirchgeorg, M. (2015), Marketing, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39–54. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489300,Google Scholar
Schlaak, T.M. (1999), Der Innovationsgrad als Schlüsselvariable, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Seidenschwarz, W. (2016), “Portfoliomanagement, Band I”, In: Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Handbuch Produktentwicklung, Carl Hanser Verlag, München, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Silvia, P.J. (2008), “Interest—The Curious Emotion”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 57–60.Google Scholar
Tomczak, T., Vogt, D. and Frischeisen, J. (2016), “Wie Konsumenten Innovationen wahrnehmen Neuartigkeit und Sinnhaftigkeit als zentrale Determinanten”, In: Hoffmann, C.P., Lennerts, S., Schmitz, C., Stölzle, W. and Uebernickel, F. (Ed.), Business Innovation: Das St. Galler Modell, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 187–209.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access