HTML

ePub

PDF

INTRODUCTION

In early literature, product innovation was mostly referred as an activity that stems from theoretical conceptions that lead to scientific research, which become technologies that can be marketed through commercial activities (Trott, 2005; Stefik & Stefik, 2004). It was suggestedthat innovation could occur as either technology-push or market-pull (Afuah, 2003). The previous definitions do not stress design as a source for innovation; however recently product innovation is researched in both technology and meaning dimensions (Verganti, 2009). It is suggested that meaning dimension forms new product languages that alter the users’ perception of the products (Verganti, 2008). Therefore it can be inferred that the innovation characteristics of a company may have an effect on product identities.

There is information in the literature about the ways innovation characteristics can affect product languages. Dell Era and Verganti (2007) suggest that organizations with radical innovation capabilities have more homogenous product languages. However, since their results support the opposite of their original assumption, the findings are open for further studies.

This study is conducted in an effort to study and analyze the reasons behind the relation between radical innovation capabilities and integrated product identities. The factors that form the theoretical relations were studied in two groups. The first group of the factors is referred as strategic factors, which are basically discussed through studies about brand and product identity preferences of designers and organizations. The second group is evaluated as cognitive factors, which analyze the nature of radical and incremental innovation environments of technological and design oriented innovations, and define the reasons that lead them to homogenous and heterogeneous product identity integration. After defining the theoretical explanations, a qualitative case study is made to understand if the relations provided could be observed.

Reviewing the literature on innovation types and strategies

As mentioned earlier, innovations can be evaluated in two directions; design and technology. Verganti (2009) demonstrated how these two orientations may be examined together through his work.

In his work, the “meaning” axis represents the radical changes that can be observed in a products’ meaning. Radical changes in the meaning of the products can be made through design-driven innovation, while design-driven incremental innovations can be done through human-centered design. Human-centered design is formerly defined by Norman as adapting technological products to users’ daily life (Norman, 1993). This view may be investigated together with the idea about products’ evaluation proposed by Norman and Verganti (2014). In their study, writers suggest that products tend to evolve to a certain optimum; any attempt to improve a certain product is to bring it to a best state possible within its defined context. However, when radical changes occur in products, attempts to bring the new product to another optimum start again, within another context. Writers make an analogy to hill-climbing and they state that “Incremental innovation tries to reach the highest point on the current hill. Radical innovation seeks the highest hill.” (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Another claim made in this study is that, human-centered design efforts almost never end up with radical innovation; which may be supported by other studies that state design researchers’ and users’ view on products may be affected and limited by their prior experiences (Steen, 2011).

The technology axis of the model refers to radical and incremental technological innovations, which can also be described as technology push and market pull innovations; technology push innovations tend to have an R&D orientation, and radical technology changes the market conditions (Rothwell, 1994; Di Stefano et.al., 2012; Forés and Camisón, 2016). Also, market pull innovations are claimed to take market into account as the source for directing R&D activities (Trott, 2005). Norman and Verganti (2014) provide another perspective to technology driven innovations regarding industrial design discipline, and suggest that technology driven radical innovations may change the substructure of the product, however they do not change the product’s meaning; a good example being the transition to LCD TVs from CRT TVs.

Strategies related with technology driven radical and incremental innovation

The differences between companies that focus on incremental and radical technological innovations may be either strategic or structural. In literature, it is stated that there is a correlation between companies size, market orientation and incremental innovation capability; it is also suggested that for producing successful radical innovations, companies need to have innovation champions and a vast number of technology experts along with higher technological capabilities (Song & Thieme, 2009; McDermott & O'Connor, 2002; Brettel et. al., 2011; Di Benedetto et. al., 2008; Ettlie et.al., 1984; Amabile et. al., 2016). Un (2010) compared companies that prefer project oriented employing to firms that prefer to employ researchers more individually, to suggest that researchers who have more individual working capability tend to produce more radical innovations than those who are hired to work within a certain project. Regarding organizational creativity, Woodman et. al. (1993) suggest that limitations on task strategies can decrease creativity, while autonomy can have a positive effect. Studies also suggest that although industrial collaborations up to a degree may support both incremental and radical innovations, an overly complex information network is found to be ineffective for radical innovation, together with a need for better information management (Oerlemans et. al, 2013; Ritala& Hurmelinna‐ Laukkanen, 2013, Di Benedetto et. al., 2008). They also suggest that an information network should be more diverse for incremental innovation (Oerlemans, 2013).

Koberg et. al. (2003) found correlation between the age and size of a company and incremental innovation; also being experimental and having a more dynamic industrial structure favors radical innovation. Another aspect that favors radical innovation is having incubation units, as they allow large scale organizations to focus on projects that are not directly appealing to their core customers; targeting a core customer group is mentioned to favor incremental innovation (McDermott & O'Connor, 2002; Ford et.al, 2009, Sheng & Chien, 2016).

Strategies related with design driven radical and incremental innovation

The conditions that favor design driven radical innovation is mostly defined by recent studies in literature; there are also some studies that compare companies possessing design driven radical innovation capacity with the ones that have design driven incremental innovation capability.

Verganti and Öberg (2013) claim that unlike technology driven innovation, design driven innovation should be done through interpreting and envisioning. For effective interpreting and envisioning, sources should be selected according to their hermeneutics capabilities; properly selected experts could be more helpful than crowdsourcing (Verganti, 2011). However, it should be noted that inclusion of users in radical innovation researches is not completely omitted in literature. It is suggested that lead users can provide insights about products that are to be used in upcoming years (Franke et. al. 2006), and their needs do not exactly fit to the needs of majority of the users (Urban and Von Hippel, 1988). This view can also be seen in Verganti’s (2009) studies which hint that lead users can be a source of information for radical innovations. Employing researchers that are not directly related to relevant industry is suggested to favor radical design driven innovation (Dell’Era & Verganti, 2010). Also, one of the main characteristics of companies that can make effective design driven radical innovation is claimed to be focusing on socio-cultural changes, rather than current market trends (Verganti, 2009).

Dell’Era and Verganti (2010) compared companies which practice different types of design driven innovation to discover that companies with radical design driven innovation capability have (1) a larger percentage of their products to be designed by outsourced designers, (2) more outsourced designers to collaborate in projects, (3) a higher percentage for working with foreign designers when compared to other firms, (4) more diverse backgrounds in their designer portfolios, (5) a tendency to work with designers from subsectors. It is stated in studies in organizational creativity that skills in several domains may be necessary to build novel ideas (Amabile et. al. 2016).

Multidisciplinary teams formed by people of diversified backgrounds with different qualitative abilities are mentioned to be facilitators of creativity (Woodman et. al. 1993; Basadur, 2004). Dell’Era and Verganti (2009) also support that companies tend to inspect areas such as fashion and art to transfer product language and meaning aspects.

Companies with an incremental design driven innovation capability are mostly claimed to have an opposing character to firms that have radical design driven innovation abilities. Incremental innovation capabilities are studied though being market oriented and human centered on both technology and design directions (Norman & Verganti, 2014).

Applying user segmentations, making focus groups and doing surveys support market awareness; focus groups may also include Effects of Innovation Types on Product Identities: does Radical Innovation Lead to a More Integrated Product Identity? interviews (Garrett, 2010; Kunert, 2009; Wilson, 2014; Wilson, 2013). Task analysis, user tests, contextual inquiry studies may be listed among methods that support user centered design (Norman, 1986; Garrett, 2010; Leonard et.al, 2006).

Besides the research techniques mentioned, the characteristics of design research team may also provide hints about the capabilities of an organization. Referring to studies in the literature, it can be said that companies that have incremental design driven innovation capabilities tend to work mostly with their in-house designers; and they do not get regular support from outsourced experts (Dell’Era & Verganti, 2010; Dell’Era et. al, 2008). Perks et. al. (2005) also suggest that external designers appear frequently in radical product developments, however incremental developments are mostly conducted by internal designers. But, they also state that radical development does include internal designers, and radical innovators seem to employ combined teams of external and internal designers. This may be due to companies’ need for language consistency; Dell’Era et. al. (2008) define the role of “socio-cultural researchers” as design managers who keep proposals of designers within company directions, stressing the need for a coherence between external designers. Ravasi and Lojacono (2005) also stress the need of coherence among various ideas coming from external sources.

The strategies listed for both innovation aspects can be helpful to identify any possible theoretical links to product identity integration.

Product identity and its relation with innovation structures

The visual representation of products is discussed under several titles. Dell’Era and Verganti (2007) discussed this phenomenon under the terms “sign and languages”. Karjalainen (2007) refers to the same issue by pointing out to the design cues resulting from brand identity. Here, starting from the identity concept within a firm, an explanation for the chosen “product identity” term will be given.

It can be assumed that identity formation within an organization starts from corporate level. Balmer and Greyser (2003) state that, within a corporation, the question “Who we are?” discusses organizational behaviors and organizational identity, while “What we are?” question aims to examine corporate identity.

Vella and Melewar (2008) state that, the identity of corporations should be evaluated differently from the identity of people. Wee (2015) supports this idea by claiming that the identities of people are congenital, while the identities of organizations are created. Corporate identity is claimed to be a combination of communication, design, culture, behavior, structure and strategy at the corporate level (Vella and Melewar, 2008).

Brand identity is stated to be a concept that is, in some cases, close to the corporate identity. However, a company can own several brands; therefore one brand can be owned by two corporations with two different corporate identities (Balmer & Greyser, 2003). A corporate identity is more related to the shareholders of a company, while brand identity targets communication with customers (Watson & Kitchen, 2008; Wee, 2015).

Cagan and Vogel (2002) name product identity as one of the factors that support brand identity, naming the three attributes of product identity as personality, point in time and sense of place. Balmer (2008) defines product identity as the source of brand identity when he separates corporate brands from product brands. It is stated that in some cases product identities can excel corporate identities; however mostly product identity is defined as a supporter of brand identity that nourishes an integrity sense (Warell, 2001; Karjalainen 2004; Dowdy, 2003).

Another concept that is related to product languages is product character, which mainly is the reflection of the product language on the potential users (Karjalainen, 2004). Here, product identity is referred as the companies’ intention on how to reflect brand identity, while product character will be referred as audience’s perception.

It can be claimed that product identity can be transfused to audiences via visual codes; products can communicate with users through geometry, measurements, textures, materials, graphics and details (Crilly et. al., 2004). There are various references that include symbols, signs and visual cues, such has “implicit” and explicit”; first can be defined as the codes that help people to differentiate two person’s faces, while the second refers to more open visual codes (Karjalainen, 2004; Karjalainen & Snelders, 2010; Karjalainen, 2007). “Genuine” codes refer to visual cues that can communicate with users without prior knowledge; while “stringed” codes need prior exposure to produce a meaning cumulatively (Karjalainen, 2003). Finally, there are “complete” and “partial” cues; former communicates to general audience while “partial” cues only appeals to special consumer groups (Karjalainen & Snelders, 2010).

Strategic factors that relate product identity integration with innovation characteristics

It can be assumed that companies that tend to prefer applying radical innovations in general, may lean towards a more integrated product identity. It is frequently stressed that it is harder for radical innovators to have their products adopted by users; and it is also mentioned that an integrated product identity favors product adoption (Warell, 2001; Norman & Verganti, 2014).

In their study, Person et. al. (2007) provided designers with hypothetical scenarios to analyze their choices in various situations. They suggested that, at the beginning of the product life-cycle and when the product line is narrower, designers preferred more integrated product identities. This statement is compatible with Karjalainen (2004) study that declares Nokia preferred a more integrated product identity at the beginning, followed by a more diverse product language at the maturity stage. However, it is also stated that even with the diversified product range, there were visual cues that connected Nokia products (Karjalainen, 2004), as it is ideal to offer a perceptible product identity even within diversified products (Warell, 2001; Karjalainen, 2003, Person et. al. 2008).

Differentiating product identity from competitors is another aspect of visual language strategies (Monö, 1997). Person et. al. (2008) hint Dyson example to express radical innovators need to differentiate their products from competitors to stress the novel aspects of the product. In industries where innovation is mostly done by product languages, such as furniture, companies may work together on new visual cues in order to enhance user adoption (Verganti, 2009). Therefore it can be said that being a radical innovator increases the possibility of producing novel visual cues, which are in some cases brought to the market together by some other radical innovators.

When radical and incremental innovators are compared through their product identity integration tendencies, it may be claimed that radical innovators will have more integrated identities. Incremental innovators enter market when it starts to mature; and their main competitive strategy becomes product diversification for different markets. On the other hand, radical innovators operate mostly on growth stage, and they may have a tendency to differentiate their product language from others when they introduce new technologies. On product meaning level, radical innovation is made by bringing new visual cues, which are sometimes produced in cooperation with other companies in the industry.

In literature, copy-cat behavior is also mentioned, where companies deliberately copy another company’s product appearance in order to mislead and induce customers (Person et. al., 2008).

Cognitive factors that relate product identity integration with innovation characteristics

Within cognitive factors, the aspects that lead a company towards homogenous or heterogeneous product identity will be discussed. Here, the main theoretical link will be design fixation. Some of the studies on design fixation will be explained briefly, in an effort to stress the relation between innovation characteristics and product identity integrity.

Design fixation mainly refers to designers’ tendency to solve a design problem within the context of a prior solution that is exposed to them (Jansson & Smith, 1991).

Following the experimental study done by Jansson and Smith (1991), there were other studies that explore the stimuli that cause fixation, and factors that lead to defixation (Crilly, 2015). Among these studies, Purcell and Gero (1996) state that fixation can be related with problem area experience. In their study they observed that industrial designers did not get fixated in an engineering problem, while mechanical engineers did. They also argued if this finding was related to how industrial designers were educated, however their result about expertise was backed up by others, and there some studies that show industrial designers may also get fixated on product forms (Crilly, 2015; Cheng et. al., 2014).

There are other studies which also support the idea that domain expertise increases the occurrence of design fixation (Viswanathan and Linsey, 2012; Linsey et. al., 2010), while some of these focus on the use of within-domain or between-domain examples by domain experts (Ozkan and Dogan, 2013; Christensen and Schunn, 2007).

Field expertise leads to more common use of within-domain examples (Björklund, 2013), which diminishes the probability of employing novel solutions to design problems (Dahl and Moreau, 2002).

Since within domain analogies are formerly presented solutions to a design solution, they trigger probability of problem fixation through semantic analogies (Moreno et. al., 2014).

Studies suggest that designers are highly affected by examples that are shown to them; many of them tend to fixate on visual examples rather than verbal explanations, even if visual examples are inaccurate (LeFevre and Dixon, 1986; Smith et. al., 1993; Chrysikou and Weisberg, 2005; Christiaans and Van Andel, 1993).

Some studies on how to diminish fixation effect suggest that “forgetting” the problem by staying away for a while, which may help to decrease the fixation tendency (Smith et. al., 2011). Linsey et. al. (2010) suggests that using analogies for problem solving may reduce the fixation. Smith et. al. (2011) also suggest that using evolved analogies helps defixation; designers may look at totally different problem areas to bring a solution which will be novel for the actual problem.

When the literature on design fixation is evaluated together with the recent innovation studies, it may be suggested that companies with radical innovation capabilities could have a more integrated product identity.

Since radical innovators of product meanings tend to work with designers from different backgrounds, the possibility of getting fixated on product forms and visual codes would be reduced. Industrial designers seem to have a tendency to get fixated on product forms (Cheng et. al, 2014), since visual cues on the products are mainly their expertise. Therefore, including designers from other fields to solve a problem, as most radical innovators of meaning do (Dell’Era & Verganti, 2010), may help to reduce fixation tendency.

The habit of concentrating on future scenarios rather than current market needs could create a forgetting effect; since current solutions would not be designers’ primary focus, the designers of organizations with radical design driven innovation capabilities would be less prone to getting fixated on various visual cues that are existent in the market.

Being less vulnerable for design fixation may increase the possibility for a company to produce novel product forms. It is discussed that novel product identity cues can be transferred to other product categories (Karjalainen, 2007).

Therefore it may be suggested that after creating a genuine product identity, an organization can transfer its design cues to various new product lines. It may be claimed that organizations with radical design driven innovation capabilities can create and transfer distinctive identity codes, since they do not usually get affected by design fixation.

To sum up, it can be suggested that companies with radical innovation capabilities usually do not get focused to market, and work with designers from different backgrounds. These practices may diminish the design fixation effect to nourish the possibility of creating novel design cues, which may be passed to other products later to form a homogenous product identity.

On the other hand organizations with incremental innovation capabilities tend to focus on market and work with more monodisciplinary teams of industrial designers; therefore, they can be affected by design fixation. This tendency may increase a possibility of bringing various semantic cues from different competitors to their products, ending up with a heterogeneous product identity.

Research

To test the theoretical factors listed here, studies with three consumer electronics companies were conducted as case studies.

A prior study done by Dell’Era and Verganti (2007) provided quantitative data on the relationship between radical innovation capabilities and homogenous product identity. In this work, the explanations for the logic behind this correlation are tested in a simple way to see if they are worth further investigation.

Research method

For the three cases, there are two separate studies. First, the general innovation characteristics and strategic preferences of the companies are studied. Then, product identity integrities are explored.

Analyzing innovation capabilities

There are several methods to study organizations’ innovation capabilities, such as defining innovation indicators, evaluating expenditures on R&D, innovation scoreboards (Freeman & Soete, 2009; Kleinknecht et. al., 2002; Hollanders & van Cruysen, 2008). However, most of these methods do not investigate design as an innovation capability, nor do they concentrate on radical and incremental innovation capabilities. It is also stated that there is a lack of consideration for design in innovation studies in general (Hobday, 2011).

Therefore, the strategic indicators listed previously are sought in each company to get an overall idea about their innovation tendencies. Afterwards, the theoretical reasoning for product identity integrity and innovation characteristics listed below are investigated for each company.

Semi structured interviews were done with three companies, to be transcribed and thematically coded to define strategic choices (Glesne, 2015; Flick, 2009). Since one senior employee from technology R&D and design departments of each company could be interviewed just once, semi-structured interviews were helpful to avoid a secondary research by providing necessary flexibility (Gray, 2004; Louise Barriball & While, 1994).

The interviews were made with one researcher visiting senior employees in their workplaces. Interview durations were within 30 minutes to 1 hour. Questions were mainly aimed to encourage them to describe their innovation strategies. None of the codes were asked openly in order not to lead participants’ answers.

Analyzing product identity integrity

To analyze product identity integrity Design Format Analysis (DFA) method was used.

There are several methods suggested to analyze product semantic inputs in the literature, such as semantic differential (Alcántara et. al., 2005; Hsu et. al, 2000; Ampuero & Vila, 2006). Dell’Era and Verganti (2007) also identified a group of semantic codes through a vast number of products to analyze quantitatively afterwards.

In this study, it was aimed to do a more in- depth research including all types of visual cues, since the number of product sample was relatively small and LED TV’s are hard to differentiate through more simple codes such as color, texture, material etc. Therefore DFA method was applied.

DFA is basically a method for defining core visual cues for a company’s product identity; however it is stated that it can be also used for evaluating identity integrity (Warell, 2001). The main aim of DFA is to define visual cues and evaluate their existence in a range of products. The cues can be strongly existent (filled circle- 2 evaluation points), less-existent (empty circle – 1 evaluation point) or non-existent (blank- 0 evaluation point).

To evaluate integrity better, the visual codes were also evaluated within themselves regarding their strength of existence. The top score a visual code could get were divided into three sections to analyze how easily a company’s product could be identified. For example, if there are 8 products to be evaluated, top score a visual code could gather would be 16 – 2 points from each product. So, if a visual code cored between 0-5 it would be regarded as a weak visual code. The codes with scores within 5-10 would be regarded as moderate codes, and the ones with scores within 10-16 would be considered as strong codes. Having more strong codes would benefit identification of a company’s products.

Definition of codes resulting from visual cues were not limited, regarding that they can be objectively understood and evaluated by other people. Therefore codes such as “trendy” and “old school” were avoided; however codes such as “archetype feel”, “eclectic combination of geometries” were used.

The analyses were conducted by three researchers; two of which were PhD Candidates, who are also project course instructor assistants, and one was associate professor in industrial design. People with industrial design project course experience were chosen, as their ability to verbalize visual codes in different products could be above average. Analyses durations ranged between 2-3 hours.

Overall descriptions for cases

Three television producers from Turkey were included in this study. Television was chosen as the research focus, as it has both technology and meaning dimension. Due to confidentiality reasons, names of the companies and visuals of their products will not be declared.

Turkish consumer electronics companies are mostly incremental innovators (Er, 1997; Bulu et. al, 2006; Çakır, 2004; Tanyılmaz, 2002; Taymaz & Yılmaz, 2008; Ulusoy, 2003; Atman, 2013). For this study, the specific strategies that could be related for incremental innovation capabilities were sought in the interviews. Results showed that, all three companies were mostly incremental innovation oriented. The identified list for strategies can be seen in the table below.

The “+” signs show the existence of a code, while “P” letter represents the potential of a strategy, which means the strategy is not in action yet, but the executive has the intention to build it.

Company A

Among the three companies, Company A was the only company with a design-driven radical innovation code, and the executive declared that he had the intention to imply more design-driven radical innovation facilitators.

The analysis for innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity is presented below, followed by a DFA analysis for company’s products.

Innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity relation cues for company A

The identified codes are listed below.

The participants declared that they aim to produce products that are “new to the market”, which implies a target for radical innovation. However, they are currently incremental innovators and this aim only sets a potential for the firm. So the company mainly operates at the maturity stage. Company has a narrower product range compared to Company B and Company C; which can be seen in DFA analyses results.

Both technology R&D and design department seniors were asked about the product innovation process they were most satisfied with, among the processes they experienced. The two answers addressed different processes; technology R&D senior described a process which was produced through a buyer’s brief. The project ended with a novel product concept. On the other hand, design department senior described how they avoided resemblance to other products in the market by looking at general material trends, to introduce a material which has not been used before in TV context. Using a different material ended up with more clean geometry and the design was rewarded several times afterwards. “The difficulty was, this type of concept was never implemented before… But there we could have responded quickly, we can have the needed coordination and flexibility.” (Company A- Senior Engineer) “We always look at the current trends and report them in several ways, but in order not to design something that has already been designed… (For this project) when we looked at the trends (in the world), we saw real (natural) material usage was becoming more frequent, but was really hard to implement it to TV industry” (Company A- Senior Designer)

The example provided by senior designer represents the use of analogies by bringing in material trends from other industries, and design trends in general. However, he also mentioned that they constantly observe the market. Therefore it can be said that they are affected by design fixation, however they have a potential to employ defixation methods.

Innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity relation cues for company A

The results of the DFA study for Company A can be seen below.

The company had 8 different TV designs that were available to Turkish market. During the study, 15 different codes were defined. Among these codes, 2 of them were considered strong codes, as they appeared “very existent” in most of the products. There were 8 moderate codes, and 5 weak codes.

Company B

Among the companies, Company B showed the highest incremental innovation capability. No radical innovation capability was detected for either technology, or design.

The analysis for innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity is discussed to be followed by a DFA analysis.

Innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity relation cues for company B

The identified codes are as follows.

The participant from technology R&D department explained their successful innovation processes by having fewer production faults. The senior designer mentioned a project where a product platform could be diversified by using as few molds as possible. These answers give the impression that Company B mainly concentrates on production efficiency.

“It was released without flaws, both on time and successful…the company growth that year was 25%” (Company B – Senior Engineer).

“Two designs were favored. This project was cost oriented… we could have differentiated the frames visually. Therefore investment was made… that we could also use in other projects”(Company B – Senior Designer).

Company B has a broader product range when compared to Company A. The senior designer mentioned that they frequently visited industrial exhibitions to keep up with the products in the market. As the company is mainly focused on effective production and constantly follows the market, design fixation may occur in design process.

Innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity relation cues for company B

The DFA study for Company B can be seen below.

Company B had 12 different TV designs available to Turkish market, which is the same number as that of Company C. During the study, 17 different codes were identified. Among these codes, none of them were strong codes with a score above 16.

There were 2 moderate codes with the scores 12 and 10, which are relatively close to being weak codes. Therefore it can be said that Company B does not support integrated product identity.

Company C

Company C showed intensive design driven incremental innovation capabilities. It has only one strategic cue that supports technology driven radical innovation.

Innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity relation cues for company C

The detected codes can be seen below.

Company C senior engineer declared that they may continue developing research projects, even they do not meet current market needs anymore. This builds a potential for new product contexts that can lead to original product languages. Otherwise the company’s efforts seem to be mostly led by market requirements.

When they were asked about their most satisfying innovation process, senior designer explained a product (which was not a TV), where the success was defined as producing a product that gives the exact feel of the market leader’s design.

Senior engineer, on the other hand, described a project where they collaborated with customers to build a network suit, which would be applied to future products to create a competitive advantage.

“It has come to such a state that even its geometry is decided by market” (Company C – Senior Designer)

“When the product is at decision state we talk with companies like BBC, Ofcom… to decide the definition of the product… Then we took this suit to be embedded in our TV’s to create a greater value” (Company C – Senior Designer).

Company C has a broader product range than Company A, and has the same number of differentiable models with Company B. Theyhave a tendency to operate at maturity stage, as they mostly follow market. They are strictly affected by standards which are set by market, even when the product geometry is considered. Therefore they have a tendency on being affected by design fixation.

Their design department employs almost only industrial designers. Senior designer also declared he would prefer to employ more industrial designers; therefore they are prone to fixation that is originated from expertise.

Innovation characteristics and brand identity integrity relation cues for company C

The DFA results for Company C can be seen at the table below.

Company C had 12 different TV designs available to Turkish market. During the study, 17 different codes were named. Among them, none of them were strong codes.

There were 5 moderate codes with the scores ranging between 16 and 9, 3 of which are relatively close to being weak codes, one on the edge of being strong code. The other 12 codes are weak codes, and some of them are strongly existent in very few products.

Company C seems to show a product identity integrity somewhere between Company A and Company B. Also, there is one product which has some strongly existent visual codes that only appears in that product and one other.

Results

When the results of the two studies for each case are evaluated, there are clues that hint the proposed theoretical explanation may worth studying further.

When the innovation characteristics of the companies were analyzed, it was found that the codes that were derived from literature mostly exist in the cases, which are in line with the companies’ general innovation tendencies. One exception is the employment of user centered research methods; participants declared that using those methods was very difficult as they had very short time scales to catch-up with market leaders.

The findings of case studies hint that, companies with broader product lines indeed have more scattered product identity integrities. All of the companies operate at the maturity level of product life cycle, and this may be an obstacle for providing more integrated product identities.

Discussion and implications

The results of this study hint at some theoretical areas that may help to develop and analyze the relationship between innovation characteristic, design strategies, product identity and the design fixation effect.

There are still a limited number of works that compare incremental and radical innovation capabilities in technology and design. This may have to do with the point that most of the methods that explore innovation capabilities do not propose techniques to differentiate radical and incremental innovation capabilities, nor do they have an aim to do so.

However, when the strategies that build innovation characteristics are identified within case studies, it becomes a lot easier to define the consequences for them. In this study, since the aim was to define the relation with innovation types and product identity integrity, a study was done on each case to first identify strategies that may help to investigate theoretical explanations that are proposed.

The results that are proposed in this paper are in line with Dell’Era and Verganti (2007) study, and also the reasons behind these results are sought in case studies. Since clues for theoretical explanations were also found, it may be worth considering the relation between innovation, product identity and design fixation literatures.

Most of the studies in the literature that are on design fixation are not related directly to the studies that are made on radical and incremental innovation. The studies that are done about design fixation may shed a light on studies about what type of strategies may enhance radical innovation capabilities. Also, the studies that combine design fixation on product forms can be evaluated further to be integrated with studies on innovation capabilities.

For managerial purposes, the findings can help to build strategic guide for design management. Even if a company aims to operate with incremental innovation, especially design departments may apply some of the design driven radical innovation strategies to build novel visual cues to develop and sustain unique product identities. An example may be to run projects that are not related to market, just to produce novel visual cues.

Limitations and further studies

Since the theoretical base in this study depends on the existent literature, more comparative studies to define eligible strategies for innovation types and more case studies to test the relations should be done.

The theoretical explanations that are proposed here are made with the help of the few studies in the literature. These studies may be tested and improved to both test and define more strategies that are appropriate to build certain innovation capabilities. Also, more data on strategies will help to build and test new relations on product identity integrity and innovation capabilities.

Another limitation is, it is quite hard to define the weight of each strategy on both creating an innovation characteristic and its effect on product identity integrity. As it is hard to keep all other variables stable and test the effect on only one factor; the effects of strategic variables may only be assumed and assumptions can supported by other theoretical and empirical works.

References

Afuah, A. 2003. Innovation management. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alcántara, E., Artacho, M. A., González, J. C., & García, A. C. 2005. Application of product semantics to footwear design. Part I— Identification of footwear semantic space applying differential semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(8), 713-725.

Amabile, T. M., and Pratt, M. G. (2016), “The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, pp.157-183.

Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. 2006. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of consumer marketing, 23(2), 100-112.

Atman, T. 2013. Türkiye Elektronik Sanayinin Tarihi ve Günümzüdeki Durumu. Elektrik Mühendisliği. Sayı: 446, 62-68

Balmer, J. M. 2008. An Epiphany of Three. in: Facets of corporate identity, communication and reputation, ed. Melewar T. Routledge: Londra; 36- 54.

Balmer, J. M., & Greyser, S. A. 2003. Revealing the corporation: perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing: an anthology. Psychology Press.

Basadur, M. 2004, “Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership”. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.103-121.

Björklund, T. A. (2013), “Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices”, Design Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 135-160.

Brettel, M., Heinemann, F., Engelen, A., & Neubauer, S. 2011. Cross‐functional integration of R&D, marketing, and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and its effects on project effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2),251-269.

Bulu, M., Eraslan, İ. H., & Kaya, H. 2006. Türk elektronik sektörünün rekabetçilik analizi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 5:9, 49-66

Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. M. 2002. Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product planning to program approval. Ft Press.

Cheng, P., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. 2014. A new strategy to reduce design fixation: Presenting partial photographs to designers. Design Studies,35(4), 374-391.

Christensen, B. T., and Schunn, C. D. (2007), “The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design”. Memory & Cognition, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 29-38.

Christiaans, H. H. C. M., and Van Andel, J. (1993), “The effects of examples on the use of knowledge in a student design activity: the case of the ‘flying Dutchman’”, Design Studies, Vol. 14. No .1, pp. 58-74.

Chrysikou, E. G., and Weisberg, R. W. (2005), “Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1134-1148.

Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. 2004. Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design studies, 25(6), 547-577.

Crilly, N. 2015. Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers. Design Studies, 38, 54-91.

Çakır, E. 2004. Televizyon Sektör Raporu. İstanbul Ticaret Odası (Retrieved; http://www.ito.org.tr/Dokuman/Sektor/1-92.pdf, 30 January 2016)

Dahl, D. W., and Moreau, P. (2002), “The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 47-60.

Dell’Era, C.; Marchesi, A. & Verganti, R. 2008. Linguistic Network Configurations: Management of Innovation in Design-Intensive Firms. International Journal of Innovation Management. 12:1; 1-19.

Dell'Era, C., & Verganti, R. 2007. Strategies of innovation and imitation of product languages. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 580-599.

Dell’Era, C.; Verganti, R. 2009. Design-Driven Laboratories: Organization and Strategy of Laboratories Specialized in the Development of Radical Design -Driven Innovations. R&D Management. 39:1; 1-20.

Dell’Era, C.; Verganti, R. 2010. Collaborative Strategies in Design-intensive Industries: Knowledge Diversity and Innovation. Long-Range Planning. 43; 123-141.

Di Benedetto, C. A., DeSarbo, W. S., & Song, M. 2008. Strategic capabilities and radical innovation: an empirical study in three countries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 420-433

Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A. & Verona, G. 2012. Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions. Research Policy. 41. 1283-1295.

Dowdy, C. 2003. Beyond logos: New definitions of corporate identity. RotoVision: China

Er, H. A. 1997. Development patterns of industrial design in the third world: A conceptual model for newly industrialized countries. Journal of Design History,10(3), 293-307.

Ettlie, J. E.; Bridges, W. P.& O’Keefe, R. D. 1984. Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation. Management Science. 30:6, 682-695

Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

Ford, S. and Garnset, E. W. and Probert, D. 2009. Evolving Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategies: Technology Incubation at Philips, R&D Management, 40-1, 81-90

Forés, B., and Camisón, C. (2016), “Does Incremental and Radical Innovation Performance Depend on Different Types of Knowledge Accumulation Capabilities and Organizational Size?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 831-848

Franke, N., Von Hippel, E., and Schreier, M. (2006), “Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead‐User Theory”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 301-315.

Freeman, C., & Soete, L. 2009. Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past. Research policy, 38(4), 583-589.

Garrett, J.J. 2010. The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for The Web and Beyond. New Riders, Berkeley.

Glesne, C. 2015. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.

Gray, D. E. 2004. Doing research in the real world. Sage

Hobday, M., Boddington, A., & Grantham, A. 2011. An innovation perspective on design: Part 1. Design Issues, 27(4), 5-15

Hollanders, H., & van Cruysen, A. 2008. Rethinking the European Innovation Scoreboard: A New Methodology for 2008-2010. Inno-Metrics Publication. Brüssel.

Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. 2000. A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-391.

Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. 1991. Design fixation. Design studies, 12(1), 3-11.

Karjalainen, T. M. 2003. Strategic design language—transforming brand identity into product design elements. In 10th International Product Development Management Conference, June (pp. 10-11).

Karjalainen, T. M. 2004. Semantic transformation in design: Communicating strategic brand identity through product design references. University of Art and Design Helsinki.

Karjalainen, T. M. 2007. It looks like a Toyota: Educational approaches to designing for visual brand recognition. International Journal of design, 1(1).

Karjalainen, T. M., & Snelders, D. 2010. Designing visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 6-22.

Kleinknecht, A., Van Montfort, K., & Brouwer, E. 2002. The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Economics of Innovation and new technology, 11(2), 109-121.

Koberg, C.S.; Detienne, D.R. & Heppard, K.A. 2003. An Empirical Test of Environmental, Organizational and Process Factors Affecting Incremental and Radical Innovation. Journal of High Technology Management Research. 14; 21-45.

Kunert, T. 2009. User-Centered Interaction Design Patterns for Interactive Digital Television Applications. Springer, Londra.

LeFevre, J. A., and Dixon, P. (1986), “Do written instructions need examples?”, Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Leonard, K. V., Moloney, K. P. & Jacko, A. J. 2006. User-Centered Design for Information Technology. İn; Fundamentals and Assessments Tools for Occupational Ergonomics. ed., Marras, W. S., Karwowski, W. Taylor & Francis, USA

Linsey, J.S.; Tseng, I.; Fu,K.; Cagan,J.; Wood, K.L.; Schunn, C. 2010. A Study of Design Fixation, It’s Mitigation and PErception in Engineering Design Faculty. Journal of Mechanical Design. 132:4, 041003.

Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. 1994. Collecting Data using a semi‐structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of advanced nursing, 19(2), 328-335.

McDermott, C. M., & O'Connor, G. C. 2002. Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of product innovation management, 19(6), 424-438.

Monö, R. 1997. Design for Product Understanding: The Aesthetics of Design From a Semiotic Approach. Liber AB, Stockholm.

Moreno, D. P., Hernandez, A. A., Yang, M. C., Otto, K. N., Hölttä-Otto, K., Linsey, J. S., Wood, L.K. and Linden, A. (2014), “Fundamental studies in Design-by-Analogy: A focus on domain- knowledge experts and applications to transactional design problems”, Design Studies, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 232-272.

Norman, D. A. 1986. Cognitive Engineering. in; User Centered Systems Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. ed; Norman,D. A. ve Draper, S. W. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Norman, D. A. 1993. Toward Human Centered Design. Technology Review, 96:5, 47-53.

Norman, D.A.; Verganti, R. 2014. Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change. Design Issues. 30:1, 78-96.

Oerlemans, L.A.G.; Knoben, J.& Pretorius, M.W. 2013. Alliance Portfolio Diversity, Radical And Incremental Innovation: The Moderating Role of Technology Management. Technovation. 33; 234-246

Ozkan, O., and Dogan, F. (2013), “Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 161-192.

Perks, H., Cooper, R., and Jones, C. (2005), “Characterizing the Role of Design in New Product Development: An Empirically Derived Taxonomy”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp, 111-127.

Person, O., Snelders, D., Karjalainen, T. M., & Schoormans, J. 2007. Complementing intuition: Insights on styling as a strategic tool. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9-10), 901-916

Person, O., Schoormans, J., Snelders, D., & Karjalainen, T. M. 2008. Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29(1), 30-48.

Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. 1996. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363- 383.

Ravasi, D., and Lojacono, G. (2005), Managing Design and Designers for Strategic Renewal, Long Range Planning, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 51-77.

Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, P. 2013. Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition—The role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 154-169.

Rothwell,R. 1994. Towards The Fifth- Generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review; 11, 1; 7-31

Sheng, M. L., and Chien, I. (2016), “Rethinking Organizational Learning Orientation on Radical and Incremental Innovation in High- Tech Firms”. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 2302-2308.

Smith, S.M; Linsey, J.; Kerne, A. 2011. Using Evolved Analogies to Overcome Creative Design Fixation. in: Design Creativity 2010, ed: Taura, T. Nagai, Y. Springer-Verlag London Limited, Londra. 35-39.

Song, M., & Thieme, J. 2009. The role of suppliers in market intelligence gathering for radical and incremental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 43-57.

Steen, M. 2011. Tensions In Human-Centred Design. CoDesign. 7:1, 45-60

Stefik, M., & Stefik, B. 2006. Breakthrough: stories and strategies of radical innovation. MIT press.

Tanyılmaz, K. 2002. Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Elektronik Sektörü. Birleşik Metal-İş Yayınları, İstanbul

Taymaz, E.; Yılmaz, K. 2008. Integration with the global economy: The case of Turkish automobile and consumer electronics industries. Available at SSRN 1274804.

Trott, P. 2005. Innovation management and new product development. Pearson Education.

Ulusoy, G. 2003. An assessment of supply chain and innovation management practices in the manufacturing industries in Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 86(3), 251-270.

Urban, G. L., and Von Hippel, E. (1988), “Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products”. Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 569-582.

Un, A. C. 2010. An Empirical Multi-Level Analysis for Achieving Balance Between Incremental and Radical Innovations.

Vella, K., & Melewar, T. 2008. Explicating the relationship between identity and culture. İn: Facets of corporate identity, communication and reputation, ed. Melewar T. Routledge: Londra; 3- 33.

Verganti, R. 2008. Design, Meanings and Radical Innovation: A Meta-model and a Research Agenda. The Journal of Product Innovation Management. 25:5, 436-456.

Verganti, R. 2009. Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Press.

Verganti, R. 2011. Designing Breakthrough Products. Harvard Business Review. October, 2011.

Verganti, R.& Öberg, A. 2013. Interpreting and Envisioning - A Hermeneutic Framework to Look at Radical Innovation of Meanings. Industrial Marketing Management. 42; 86-95.

Viswanathan, V., and Linsey, J. 2012. “A Study on the Role of Expertise in Design Fixation and Its Mitigation”. ASME Paper No. DETC2012-71155.

Warell, A. 2001. Design syntactics: a functional approach to visual product form theory, models, and methods. Chalmers University of Technology.

Watson, T., & Kitchen, P. J. 2008. Corporate Reputation in Action. İçinde: Facets of corporate identity, communication and reputation, ed. Melewar T. Routledge: Londra; 3-33.

Wee, L. 2015. The language of organizational styling. Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, C. 2013. Credible Checklists and Quality Questionnaires: A User-Centered Design Method. Elsevier, USA

Wilson, C. 2014. Interview Techniques for UX Practitioners: A User-Centered Design Method. Elsevier, USA

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., and Griffin, R. W. (1993), “Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 293-321.

IR