The Homa Files

Excerpted from HBS Working Knowledge, “Radical Design, Radical Results” by Julia Hanna, February 19, 2009

* * * * *

When furniture designer Herman Miller presented a prototype of its sleek, mesh Aeron chair to a consumer focus group, many asked if they could see a finished, upholstered version.

Innovative product design can be a risky proposition. Yet as consumer purchases become increasingly driven by emotion, the competitive advantage gained by how a product “speaks” to a customer is clear. Just think about how Apple began its resurrection in 1998 with the unthinkable design of computers made of translucent blue, orange, and pink plastic, the original iMac.

Despite the importance of industrial design, little theory exists on how companies might go about creating a successful design strategy.

“Researchers have been investigating technological innovation for decades, but we know almost nothing about how companies manage design innovation.” .

For a study, Profs. Verganti and Dell’Era focused on the Italian furniture industry… they also divided the corresponding sample of 100 manufacturers into innovators and imitators.

Verganti says that design innovation often involves a high degree of uncertainty in terms of market success. “It’s very hard to understand what people want,” he says. “If I make a car that can brake in 10 yards instead of 50, that’s a quantifiable advantage that is easy to understand. But if I decide to create a computer out of translucent, colored plastic, it’s much more subjective. People will love it, or they won’t.”

Focus groups and market research can help to define a product, of course, but Verganti has found that design-driven innovation is not user-centered. Instead, it comes from within the organization. “Rather than being pulled by user requirements,” he wrote recently, “design-driven innovation is pushed by a firm’s vision about possible new product meanings … that could diffuse in society.”

“Apple is a company that is pushed by a vision,” Verganti says. “Steve Jobs has said that the market doesn’t always know what it wants. Companies that do radical innovation do not listen to users; they eventually value market feedback, but first they propose things to the users.”

In the face of this market uncertainty, Verganti has found that companies adopt one of three different strategies:

1. Launch and see. The company launches a variety of products, and then measures market reaction to each, relying on the selective capability of consumers to determine which products to focus on.
2. See and launch. The company employs some sort of research process and then launches products based on its findings.
3. Wait and see. The company allows others to experiment with various products, observes what is most successful, and reacts accordingly.

In Verganti’s study of the Italian furniture industry, one would expect those who wait and see to have the least amount of variety in their product line. After all, if the imitators decide to stand back and observe what is most successful, wouldn’t they choose to copy just a few, choice products? Conversely, it would seem that the innovative companies would probably have higher levels of variety in their products because of the experiments they conduct.

Instead, the results showed just the opposite.

While the cost of experimentation in the furniture industry is relatively low, Verganti and his colleague found that the innovator companies actually used a see and launch strategy, conducting research in order to understand what sort of product language might be most successful. (This research is less of the focus-group variety and more of a broad-based assessment of cultural trends and scenario building.)

“Innovators avoid proposing a wide range of product signs and languages as a way to protect brand identity,” says Verganti. “They tend to adopt strategies that allow customers to easily reconnect specific product signs to their brands.”

In contrast, imitators show a greater variety in their product portfolio. They observe what innovators do and how the market reacts. But the feedback they receive is initially so ambiguous, with several languages coexisting, that they eventually imitate everything.

“The confusion that this creates in the market is called semiotic pollution,” Verganti says. “Imitators can be successful if they wait four or five years to determine what they should produce. But in the beginning it’s not clear which product is the winner. So when it comes to product languages, imitation is a very expensive strategy.”

Do these findings have implications beyond the design-heavy world of the Italian furniture industry? Regardless of the product in question, Verganti believes that companies need to consider the importance of design.

“In every industry, sooner or later, there is a radical change in the language of its products,” he says. “So the point for companies is, do they want to lead the change, or do they want to suffer the change?”

Edit by NRV

Full article:http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5850.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog

This entry was posted on May 12, 2009 at 7:30 am and is filed under Mktg - Brands, Mktg - Product & Innovation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.