language brokering concept development_2011

8/6/2019 Language Brokering Concept Development_2011

1/13

Language Brokering: Stimulating

Creativity during the ConceptDevelopment Phasecaim_584 36..48

Claudio DellEra, Tommaso Buganza,Camilla Fecchio and Roberto Verganti

To improve product styling and ergonomics, a growing number of companies are exploringnew ways to involve design consultants in their innovation processes. Many studies have

underlined the importance of designers in the innovation processes of successful companies,and some designers have achieved superstar status. By capturing, recombining and integrat-ing socio-cultural knowledge and product semantics across social and industrial settings,designers can help create breakthrough product meanings. The relationship between briefswritten by managers and solutions developed by designers is quite complex. Very oftenmanagers are unable to appropriately communicate and commercialize new products andservices conceptualized by designers because they know only the final output of the innova-tion process rather than its entire story. The Language Brokering Process can enrich thedialectic between managers and designers, and consequently, it can improve both current andfuture innovation projects. This methodology elucidates the structure and process adopted byseveral designers and also illustrates an effective framework for communicating choices tomanagers. We present results from a student application of this methodology in the develop-ment of a new product-service system for Aquarius (a brand of the Coca-Cola Group) for twotarget demographics: desperate housewives and young adults.

Introduction

Innovation is often necessary for firms tocompete successfully in the marketplace,and improving product design is one way thatfirms can innovate. To improve product stylingand ergonomics, a growing number of compa-nies are exploring new ways to involve designconsultants in their innovation processes.

Many studies have underlined the importanceof designers in the innovation process ofsuccessful companies (Cillo & Verona, 2008;Verganti, 2009), and some designers haveachieved superstar status for example,Jonathan Ive for Apple, Jacob Jensen for Bang& Olufsen, and Philippe Starck for several fur-niture companies, as well as Nike and Puma. Awidely used practice in many industries is tocollaborate with external designers to sourcefresh insights, creativity and new knowledge.Case studies, including Alessi, Apple, Bang &Olufsen, Kartell, Philips, Sony and Swatch,

demonstrate how designers are becoming keyactors in terms of product innovation and stra-tegic renewal (Ravasi & Lojacono, 2005).

Industrial design practitioners and academ-ics alike understand that management of thesemantic dimension of design is important forproduct and service innovations. Designersprovide access to knowledge of product lan-guages and meanings. Design deals with the

meanings ascribed to products and with thelanguage that can be used to convey thosemeanings to the point that some scholars go sofar as to state that design is making sense ofthings (Krippendorff, 1989). Each product,along with its functionality and performance,has a meaning, which is the underlying reasonwhy people buy it and use it. Product signsand languages allow products to speak andconvey precise meanings. Verganti (2003)illustrates the unique approach that successfulItalian manufacturers are using to involvedesigners in their innovation processes. They

36 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 20 Number 1 2011doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00584.x

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


2/13

collaborate with companies to introduceradical innovations in product meanings andact as brokers of languages to do so. Capturingand integrating knowledge about differentsocio-cultural contexts and industry settings,designers combine different product lan-guages to propose breakthrough productmeanings. In other words, they play a crucialrole as brokers of languages. The Apple iMacG3 (1998) represents an interesting examplebecause it adopted a design language that wasnovel for the industry (translucent colouredplastics), but already diffused in other indus-tries. The same translucent plastic and thesame colours had spread into household prod-ucts in the early 1990s. The emerging languageof objects in homes inspired the iMac becauseit was meant to live in houses. Steve Jobsselected Jonathan Ive (an independent designconsultant who operated mainly in the bath-room and plumbing industries) to design the

iMac G3 because he understood that personalcomputers should speak the friendly languageof modern household products rather than thecold, remote language of business and offices.Ive gave Apple the opportunity to access theworld of household meanings and languagesunknown to any other computer company.

Several literature contributions describe theprocesses used by design consultants in orderto capture and combine different pieces ofknowledge (Twigg, 1998; Tennity, 2003; Ver-ganti, 2003). At the same time very often man-agers (and more generally companies) are notable to appropriately communicate and com-mercialize new products and services concep-tualized by designers because they know onlythe final output of the innovation processrather than the entire story behind the product(Sonnenwald, 1996; Ramesh & Tiwana, 1999;Chiu, 2002). An enriched dialectic betweenmanagers and designers can improve the per-formance of innovation projects. How canmanagers improve their interactions withdesigners during concept generation? Howcan they share their diverse knowledge andapproaches in the concept developmentphase? In this paper, we propose a Language

Brokering Process for stimulating this creativ-ity during the concept development phase,and facilitating collaboration between manag-ers and designers.

Using two student design teams, we haveexplored this methodology in the develop-ment of a new product-service system com-missioned by managers at Aquarius (a brandof the Coca-Cola Group). This paper is orga-nized as follows. The next two sections estab-lish a theoretical context by introducing theconcept of radical design-driven innovation,and then exploring the designers critical con-

tribution to the innovation process. We then goon to introduce and ground our methodology,proposing the Language Brokering Process.Results from the two student design teams arethen presented, and in the final section wediscuss these results and their managerialimplications.

Semantic and Semiotic Innovation

Both the industrial design and academicworlds (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton,1981; Margolin & Buchanan, 1995) have recog-nized the importance of the semantic dimen-sion of products in the development of newgoods and services. The semantic dimension isable to modify the meanings embedded inproducts to allow them to evolve with society.Peirce (1935) proposes one of the most widelycited theories about semiotics, whereby

product messages, and therefore meanings,are represented by signs such as indexes,symbols and icons that are in turn embeddedwithin products. According to Peirce (1935), asign is not a thing or an object but a relation,and it can be defined as something that standsfor something to somebody in some respect orcapacity. This theory of semiotics can beapplied to products, and in this case, the set ofsigns used to make a product speak can becalled product language. Consistent with thisidea, Butter and Krippendorff (1984) defineproduct semantics as the study of the sym-bolic qualities of man-made forms in the cog-nitive and social context of their use andapplication of knowledge gained to objects ofindustrial design.

Verganti (2009) defines radical design-driven innovation as an innovation wherenovelty of message and design language is sig-nificant and prevalent compared to novelty offunctionality and technology. According toVerganti (2008), innovation may concern aproducts functional utility, its meaning, or both. Moreover, functional innovation mayimply an incremental or radical improvementof technical performance (Chandy & Tellis,

1998; Garcia & Calantone, 2002); at the sametime innovation of the semantic dimensionmay also be more or less radical. The proposalof a product language aligned with the currentevolution of socio-cultural models allows us tointroduce an incremental innovation; while aradical innovation of meanings happens whena product has a language and delivers amessage that implies a significant reinterpre-tation of meanings. Design-driven innovationis based on the idea that each product has aparticular meaning; style is just a possible lan-guage that can be exploited to communicate it.

LANGUAGE BROKERING 3

Volume 20 Number 1 201 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


3/13

The Swatch, launched first in 1983, was aradical design-driven innovation. It com-pletely transformed the interpretation ofwatches from jewels or time instruments intofashion accessories (Glasmeier, 1991; Verganti,2009). The Family Follows Fiction product lineintroduced by Alessi in 1993 adopted signsand languages completely different fromclassic products of the kitchenware industry(plastic material, translucent surfaces anddaring colours) in order to stimulate new userexperiences such as the need for tenderness,delicacy and intimacy (DellEra & Verganti,2009). The Nintendo Wii has redefined themeaning of playing on a game console; it is nolonger defined as a passive immersion in avirtual world targeted at young players, but asactive form of entertainment in the real worldfor people of all ages and demographics (Ver-ganti, 2009). According to this interpretation,the Nintendo Wii can be considered a break-

through in product meanings. Product signsand languages can also be analysed from thestandpoint of company differentiation, par-ticularly when product re-design is inter-preted as a means to continuously improve aproduct portfolio. Conversely, a consistentproduct identity can increase brand recogni-tion, differentiate the company and its offer-ings from those of competitors, and createcoherence across different markets, productcategories and over time (Karjalainen, 2001).Kapferer (1994), Aaker (1996) and Holt (2004)underline the importance of identity in termsof values and meanings shared with thecustomers.

Olins (1990) identifies three mains areas thatcan be exploited to reinforce the identity:products/services, environments and commu-nications. Several studies, such as Warell(2001), Muller (2001), Karjalainen (2004) andMcCormack and Cagan (2004), demonstratethat product design conveys messages to cus-tomers and, consequently, can develop mean-ingful visual recognition and brand-specificassociations. In an analysis of the automotiveindustry, and more specifically the Volvo,Nissan, Volkswagen and Citron case studies,

Karjalainen and Warell (2005) describe designelements through which users distinguishproducts. They argue that similar connotationsallow a consistent message to develop andcreate a product/brand identity. Beginningwith the assumption that a strong identity onthe market is increasingly important forproduct development and manufacturingcompanies, Warell and Nbo (2002) point outthe necessity of developing products thatspeak a coherent language. In this sense, it canbe important for customers to recognize prod-ucts developed by the same company when

new models or generations are introduced onthe market.

Designers as Brokers ofProduct Languages

Many recent studies underline the importanceof designers in the innovation process ofsuccessful companies (Krippendorff, 1989;Gotzsch, 1999; Gierke, Hansen & Turner, 2002;Lloyd & Snelders, 2003; Tennity, 2003; Ver-ganti, 2003, 2006, 2009; Boland & Collopy,2004; Durgee, 2006). Some even go so far as topoint out the rise of the design superstars like Jonathan Ive for Apple, Jacob Jensen andDavid Lewis for Bang & Olufsen, and PhilippeStarck for several furniture companies, as wellas Nike and Puma. Gierke, Hansen and Turner(2002) argue that designers play a unique rolein predicting trends and patterns. They say

that Like an almanac of wisdom, designerscan help to prepare a company for the weatheron the way. Design can help to build a strongbrand identity that differentiates the companyor product from competitors, that makes anemotional appeal through style or personalityand that communicates benefits. Design acts asan interface between company and customer,ensuring that the company delivers what thecustomer wants in a way that adds value in allof these ways.

Designers can support companies in theidentification and interpretation of futuretrends. Designers can propose new meaningsto modify future scenarios. The involvement ofdesigners in the innovation process is achannel through which a firm can gain knowl-edge about its customers and their needs.Designers may act as crucial gates that providea firm with access to different socio-culturalcontexts (Verganti, 2008). They are bridges between different industries, and thereforefacilitate the transfer of knowledge of mean-ings and languages. Designers are able tointerpret different cultures and may beregarded as cultural gatekeepers. The oppor-tunity to collaborate with companies on

different categories of products (i.e., chairs,kitchens, sofas, lamps, etc.) and in differentindustries allows designers to transfer lan-guages from one sector to another (Capaldo,2007). As a result, in many cases product signsand languages are not industry-specific. Thenature of product languages enables theirtransfer from one product typology to anotheror from one industry to another.

The role of brokers able to move technologi-cal knowledge among different industrieshas been studied recently (Harada, 2003);similarly, some research has analysed the




4/13

brokering role played by designers (Bertola &Texeira 2003; Hargadon 2003). For example,Hargadon and Sutton (1997) demonstrate thatIDEO (one of the most successful design firmsin the world in the last 20 years) acts as atechnology broker, providing access to 40 dif-ferent industries and exploiting its networkposition to move solutions across industries(Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). Designers act asbrokers of knowledge of languages as well astechnologies. From a managerial perspective,this property implies great innovative and cre-ative stimulus. There are many examples ofhow product languages have moved acrossindustries. For example, the product lineFamily Follows Fiction launched by Alessi in1993, several products developed by Kartell inthe 1990s and Apples iMac introduced in 1998all use similar materials, transparency andcolours.

Designers support manufacturers, particu-

larly during the concept generation phase.From a transaction-cost economics perspective(Williamson, 1985, 1996; Shelanski & Klein,1995) and a knowledge-based view perspec-tive (Kogut & Zander, 1992, 1996; Conner &Prahalad, 1996), literature on outsourcing pre-sumes that firms use outsourcing when con-cerns over specific assets and appropriabilityare low and when advantages of intra-firmlearning, communication and identity are lessimportant than those offered by outsourcing.The collaboration with different clients allowsspecialized suppliers such as designers todevelop superior expertise in professionalknowledge in comparison to internal teams.The opportunity to aggregate requests and briefs coming from different clients allowsdesigners to accumulate knowledge of andexperience in problem solving and ideageneration.

Twigg (1998) argues that companies mustlook to the network of suppliers for designand process expertise. This is particularly rel-evant in design-intensive industries becausethe knowledge about the subtle and unex-pressed dynamics of socio-cultural models isdistributed and tacit. In contrast to traditional

socio-cultural investigations, which describeextrapolations of current phenomena, design-driven innovation foresees the proposal of newmeanings able to modify the current scenario(Verganti, 2009). Leading Italian manufactur-ers such as Kartell and Alessi develop a con-tinuous dialogue on socio-cultural modelsabout patterns of consumption, behaviour andsocietal values because they understand thatknowledge about socio-cultural models is dif-fused within their external environment. Rawmaterial suppliers, universities, design schoolsand especially designers develop their own

investigations, representing a sort of largeresearch laboratory. Each actor participating inthis dialogue can support the company in theidentification and interpretation of emergingphenomena as well as influence the meanings,aspirations and desires held by users by affect-ing their daily lives.

Language Brokering Process

Managers are very often unable to appropri-ately communicate and commercialize newproducts and services conceptualized bydesigners because they know only the finaloutput of the innovation process rather than itsentire story. Taking this into consideration, thispaper proposes a Language Brokering Processthat aims to stimulate creativity during theconcept development phase and facilitate col-laboration between managers and designers. It

comprises four sequential steps, each of whichtakes inspiration from literature streams previ-ously introduced (see Figure 1).

Step 1 Semantic and semiotic introspectionaims at identifying meanings and languagesthat represent the identity of the company.This step is particularly critical because theLanguage Brokering Process aims at develop-ing innovations able to reinforce the companyidentity and product recognition. As DellEraand Verganti (2007) argue, in the trade-offbetween variety and brand identity in productlanguages, innovators are more attentive to thelatter than are imitators. Innovators of theItalian furniture industry avoid proposing awide range of product signs and languages toprotect brand identity. They tend to adoptstrategies that allow customers to easily recon-nect specific product signs to their brands.Gilmore and Pine (2007) describe the conceptof authenticity as the new business imperative,especially through the case studies of Disneyand Starbucks. They show that todays con-sumers are looking for authenticity where andwhen they buy.

Step 2 New meaning development representsthe core of the process. Several studies dem-

onstrate the fact that consumers increasinglymake brand choices on the basis of the aes-thetic and symbolic value of products and ser-vices. Verganti (2009) explores how firmscreate innovations that customers do notexpect but that they eventually love. Untilnow, the literature on innovation has focusedeither on radical innovation pushed by tech-nology or incremental innovation pulled bythe market. Design-driven innovations do notcome from the market, they create newmarkets. They do not push new technologies,they push new meanings. Exploring case




5/13

studies such as Nintendo Wii, Apple iPod andWholeFoods, Verganti (2009) investigates aninnovation paradigm based on collaborationwith a network of interpreters that allows newmeanings and values to be proposed.

Step 3 Language scouting operationalizesthe concept of language brokering proposedby Verganti (2003). As previously mentioned,similar to technology brokers (Hargadon &Sutton, 1997), designers are able to transferproduct languages and meanings acrossindustries, exploiting their connections andnetworks. Kolb (1984) says that knowledgeresults from the combination of grasping andtransforming experience. His ExperientialLearning Theory describes two dialecticallyrelated modes of grasping experience: con-crete experience and forming abstract con-cepts. He also describes two modes oftransforming experience: observation andreflection, and testing in new situations. The

construction of knowledge arises from the cre-ative tension among the four learning modes.The process is drawn as a circle or, better yet,as a spiral to signify a recursive exercise inwhich the learner touches all the bases: expe-riencing, reflecting, thinking and acting.

Step 4 Language translation exploits poten-tialities provided by rhetorical figures. Accord-ing to Casakin (2007), metaphors helpdesigners to understand unfamiliar designproblems by juxtaposing them with knownsituations. The implementation of metaphorsin design practice can contribute to creative

thinking and thereby to more innovative prod-ucts. The relevance of metaphors to problem-solving is pertinent to three fundamental steps(Gentner et al., 2001):

The first step consists of extracting a varietyof unfamiliar concepts from remotedomains, where possible relationships with

the problem at hand are not always evident. The second step involves establishing a map

of deep or high-level relationships betweenthe metaphorical concept and the problem.Correspondence between the two comes inthe form of abstractions and generaliza-tions. Relationships of secondary impor-tance are discarded, and only structuralcorrespondences between the metaphoricalsource and the problem are retained.

The last step deals with transferring andapplying structural correspondences asso-ciated with the metaphorical source to theproblem at hand, which at the end generallyleads to a novel solution.

In this way, metaphors not only assist inproblem reflection, but also help to break awayfrom limitations imposed by initial problemconstraints (Snodgrass & Coyne, 1992), toexplore unfamiliar design alternatives and toestablish novel associations with the designproblem (Coyne, 1995; Casakin, 2006). Kar-jalainen (2001, 2007) interprets metaphor as atool for brand/product identity analysis andargues that metaphorical connections can becreated between existing brands (or products)

Figure 1. Language Brokering Process




6/13

from totally different product categories, offer-ing great potential for value-added associa-tions. With these reflections in mind, we haveexplored the following methodology in thedevelopment of a new product-service systemcommissioned by managers of Aquarius totwo student design teams.

Each design team, comprising five Italiandesign students (24 years old), developed theproject over a period of three months. Espe-cially during Step 1 Semantic and semioticintrospection, each team was supported by anAquarius Marketing Manager to collect infor-mation and materials (products, catalogues,brochures, leaflets, TV spots, etc.) that allowedthem to interpret meanings and languages thatrepresent the identity of the company. Moreprecisely, each design team dedicated 12 hoursper week over three months to the develop-ment of the project. Four hours were dedicatedto design review in collaboration with the

authors, while eight hours were dedicated toteam activities.

Empirical Results

The brief proposed by Aquarius was quite spe-cific they wanted to develop differentproduct-service systems that, through the useof a beverage product, improve an otherwisestressful supermarket shopping experience.Each student design team worked on a specifictarget customer. The first team analysed thespecific target market of desperate house-wives. These are women with more than onechild, little time for themselves, and who arebusy running the house and shopping for theirfamily. When they go to the supermarket, theirshopping trolley is always filled with severalkinds of products. The second team worked onthe target market of young adults. This groupconsists of men and women between 20 and 30years old who are predominantly studentsliving away from home. They go to thesupermarket only at the weekend to buy food-stuffs for the next week and are substantiallyless time-constrained than the desperate

housewives.

Desperate Housewives

The students began with a detailed analysis ofmeanings and languages that connote thebrand and principal products of the company,such as joy or freshness associated with itslogo, feeling fit and healthy based on the ingre-dients of the drink, or practicality transferredby the shape of the bottle (step 1). The studentdesign team then identified the specific needsof the target customers (e.g., to ease their

workload, to find enough time to relax, etc.)and developed new meanings and messagesto introduce in a new product-service system(step 2): for example, you can stop for a while,relax, re-hydrate and regenerate yourself orafter this break you will be ready to deal withyour work day. During this phase the designstudent team paid great attention to the origi-nal meanings of Aquarius to propose coherentinnovations. In the third and fourth steps, theysearched for languages adopted by other com-panies to convey these messages (step 3) andthen used the same languages to create thenew product-service system (step 4). To do so,they chose four different product lines (seeFigure 2):

From Estath, the iced tea from Ferrero withthe cheerful and easy-to-use glass packag-ing, they picked the ergonomic benefit ofan easy opening and attached a drinkingstraw.

From Kinder Pingu, a snack with milk andchocolate proposing to give new energy tochildren and adults alike, they took the ideaof a fresh and satisfying beverage. Thisfeeling was conveyed by focusing on ingre-dients and some graphical elements likelemon, drops and ice cubes.

From Dove with its skin, body and hair careproducts and its attention to women andreal beauty, they picked the concept of arehydrating beverage infused with mineralsalts.

From Mastro Lindo, the floor cleaner line

from Procter & Gamble positioned as amagical ally for housekeeping, theyextracted a service idea: an Aquarius-teampositioned near the supermarket check-out,ready to help the consumer with a shop-ping bag.

The students tried to combine these mes-sages and design elements taken from thefour brands to create a new visual identity(see Figure 3). They chose to discard the origi-nal bottle shape and, instead, to use a packageshaped like that of Estath, which conveys afeeling of familiarity and emphasizes relax-

ation. With the spherical shape of the glassthey gave special importance to the tactileexperience. This shape was chosen to conveya sense of pleasure and softness. Finally, thestudents designed a new logo to communi-cate a sensation of freshness with colours(light blue, white and yellow) and withgraphical elements (slice of lemon, ice cubes,and water).

In terms of service, the student design teamadopted a position near the check-out where adesperate housewife could find an Aquariusteam member who could help her put her




7/13

purchases in her shopping bag. She can thentake advantage of this moment to rehydrateherself with the soft drink and satisfy her thirst(see Figure 4).

Young Adults

The second design team identified othermeanings and languages connected with the

Figure 2. Language Scouting (Target: Desperate Housewives)

Figure 3. Language Translating Visual Identity (Target: Desperate Housewives)




8/13

Aquarius brand and its products: spontaneity,freshness, sharing and a capacity to rechargeand regenerate the energy spent during dailyactivities (step 1). They then considered theneeds and requirements of the specific target:a desire to have fun with friends, to shareamusing experiences, to transform a boringmoment (weekly shopping) into a moment of joy and conviviality and to have customizedproducts (step 2). In the next two phases, stu-dents identified four brands that have thesevalues and meanings, studied how these mes-sages are expressed, and strategized how totransfer them in a new product-service system(step 3 and 4). The four chosen brands were(see Figure 5):

Air Action Vigorsol, a chewing gum with afresh mint liquid inside that promotes asensation of freshness.

The Pocket Coffee by Ferrero, a chocolatecandy with espresso coffee inside, thatgives an energy boost any time of day.

The new Fiat 500, from which they extractedpersonalization and the ability to expressyourself.

Hard Rock Caf, from which they extractedthe idea of a fun experience that is memo-rable and an opportunity to show off.

Combining the elements from their analysis,the design team created a new visual identityfor the drink and connected it with a newservice model for the supermarket. Their rede-signed bottle has an opaque surface made ofsatin-finished aluminium that can be writtenon with a pen. The logo is written in calligra-phy to convey the appearance of being hand-written. The colours imply freshness anddynamism (light blue, acid green and white).The bottle has a shape that looks like longdrinks or beers that you can drink in pubs andlounge bars. The intention was to differentiateAquarius from other energy drinks or fruitjuices with a relaxing or party-like atmosphere(see Figure 6).

The associated service was a game to playinside the supermarket. Before entering theshopping centre, the young adults wouldfind an Aquarius stand where they could buy adrink, personalize their bottle, and receive aspecial PIN to start a game. During their shop-ping inside the supermarket, they could thentry to find another person with the same pin. Iftwo people with the same pin came back to thestand together, they receive a discount ticketthat they can spend in the shopping centre.The aim of this service is to make the weeklyshopping at the supermarket more pleasant

Figure 4. Language Translating Storyboard (Target: Desperate Housewives)




9/13

and to give users the potential to find newfriends (see Figure 7).

Conclusions

Many recent studies underline the importanceof designers in the innovation process of suc-cessful companies, and even point out that

some are considered superstars. By captur-ing, recombining and integrating knowledgeabout socio-cultural models and productsemantics in several different social and indus-try settings, designers help in creating break-through product meanings. The relationshipbetween product briefs written by managersand solutions provided by designers is quitecomplex. According to Borja de Mozota (2003)

Figure 5. Language Scouting (Target: Young Adults)

Figure 6. Language Translating Visual Identity (Target: Young Adults)




10/13

and Phillips (2004), the design brief initiallydeveloped by managers is often reiterated ina document issued by designers explainingits interpretation of the problem. Thisco-evolution of the design brief is essential fordesigners to absorb and prioritize the informa-tion outlined in the brief and align the relation-ship. In several situations, managers needmore information to understand the reasonsfor designers solutions. Managers (and moregenerally companies) are not able to appropri-ately communicate and commercialize newproducts and services conceptualized bydesigners because they know only the final

output of the innovation process rather than itsentire story. The Language Brokering Processcan enrich the dialectic between managers anddesigners, and consequently improve bothcurrent and future innovation projects. Theproposed methodology can help designersimprove concept development and help man-agers understand how designers developednew product ideas. The concepts developed byour design student teams demonstrate thatthis methodology may help managers anddesigners share knowledge and collaborateto develop solutions. According to Aquarius

managers, product-service systems are notonly innovative in themselves, but they areparticularly interesting because they provideconcrete tools to communicate the innovationto several stakeholders: for example, they usedthe output of the Language Brokering Processto brief the advertising agency that developedthe communication strategy about the conceptdedicated to Young adults. Moreover, theyused the visual identity and the storyboardabout the concept dedicated to Desperatehousewives in order to propose the project tothe Aquarius top management. The LanguageBrokering Process can represent a collabora-

tive platform where managers and designerscan interact, adding value through a mix ofspecific competences. Furthermore, this meth-odology can support managers in the appro-priation of basic concepts that connote the newproduct-service system, and consequently itallows them to better present and narrate theinnovation.

The Language Brokering Process representsa design tool based on different literaturestreams such as brand and product identity(Kapferer, 1994; Aaker, 1996; Karjalainen,2001; Holt, 2004; DellEra & Verganti, 2007;

Figure 7. Language Translating Storyboard (Target: Young Adults)




11/13

Gilmore & Pine, 2007), radical innovationof product meanings (Csikszentmihalyi &Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Margolin & Buchanan,1995; Verganti, 2009), brokering of technolo-gies and languages (Kolb, 1984; Hargadon &Sutton, 1997; Verganti, 2003), and metaphorsas a design tool (Gentner et al., 2001; Kar-jalainen, 2001, 2007; Casakin, 2007). Very oftenmanagers provide specific knowledge aboutthe industry where they operate, while design-ers combine bits of knowledge coming fromdifferent contexts. This methodology eluci-dates the structure and process adopted byseveral designers and also illustrates an effec-tive framework for communicating choices tomanagers. In addition, the connections createdamong brands and metaphors employedprovide additional insights and incentivesduring the concept generation.

The results obtained during these twostudent projects can provide additional

insights to improve the Language BrokeringProcess. Future research is needed to verify itsapplication for different product categoriesand industries. Specifically, we believe thatattention to language translation (Step 4) canenrich the capability to combine and recom- bine signs and languages (e.g., rhetoricalfigures, metaphors) in ways that can improvebrand and value to the customer.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all thepractitioners who collaborated with us inthe field during the data gathering process.They would also like to acknowledge thedesign students in the course GestionedellInnovazione and managers at Aquarius.Naturally, any mistakes or omissions are thesole responsibility of the authors. Financialsupport from the FIRB fund ART DECO Adaptive InfRasTructures for DECentralizedOrganizations is greatly appreciated.

ReferencesAaker, D.A. (1996) Building Strong Brands. The Free

Press, New York.Bertola, P. and Texeira, L.C. (2003) Design as a

Knowledge Agent. How Design as a KnowledgeProcess is Embedded into Organizations to FosterInnovation. Design Studies, 24, 18194.

Boland, R.J. and Collopy, F. (2004) Managing asDesigning. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto,CA.

Borja de Mozota, B. (2003) Design Management Using Design to Build Brand Value and CorporateInnovation. Allworth Press, New York.

Butter, R. and Krippendorff, K. (1984) ProductSemantics Exploring the Symbolic Qualities ofForm. The Journal of the Industrial Designers Societyof America, Spring, 49.

Capaldo, A. (2007) Network Structure and Innova-tion: The Leveraging of a Dual Network as aDistinctive Relational Capability. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 28, 585608.

Casakin, H.P. (2006) Assessing the Use of Meta-phors in the Design Process. Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design, 33, 25368.

Casakin, H.P. (2007) Metaphors in Design ProblemSolving: Implications for Creativity. International

Journal of Design, 1, 2133.Chandy, R.K. and Tellis, G.J. (1998) Organizing for

Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Roleof Willingness to Cannibalize.Journal of MarketingResearch, 35, 47487.

Chiu, M.L. (2002) An Organizational View ofDesign Communication in Design Collaboration.Design Studies, 23, 187210.

Cillo, P. and Verona, G. (2008) Search Styles in StyleSearching: Exploring Innovation Strategies in

Fashion Firms. Long Range Planning, 41, 65071.Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996) A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge versusOpportunism. Organization Science, 7, 477501.

Coyne, R. (1995) Designing Information Technology inthe Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor. MITPress, Cambridge, MA.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E.(1981) The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbolsand the Self. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge.DellEra, C. and Verganti, R. (2007) Strategies of

Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 58099.

DellEra, C. and Verganti, R. (2009) Design-DrivenLaboratories: Organization and Strategy of Labo-ratories Specialized in the Development ofRadical Design-Driven Innovations. R&D Man-agement, 39, 120.

Durgee, J.F. (2006) Freedom of Superstar Designers?Lessons from Art History. Design ManagementReview, 17, 2934.

Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002) A Critical Lookat Technological Innovation Typology and Inno-vativeness Terminology: A Literature Review.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 11032.

Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P. and Boronat, C.(2001) Metaphor is like Analogy. In Gentner, D.,

Holyoak, K.J. and Kokinov, B.N. (eds.), The Ana-logical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science.MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 199253.

Gierke, M., Hansen, J.G. and Turner, R. (2002) WiseCounsel: A Trinity of Perspectives on the Busi-ness Value of Design. Design Management Journal,13, 1017.

Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, B.J. (2007) Authenticity What Consumers Really Want. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Cambridge, MA.

Glasmeier, A. (1991) Technological Discontinuitiesand Flexible Production Networks: The Case ofSwitzerland and the World Watch Industry.Research Policy, 20, 46985.




12/13

Gotzsch, J. (1999) Creating Products with SymbolicValue. 3rd European Academy of Design Conference,Sheffield, 30 March 301 April.

Harada, T. (2003) Three Steps in Knowledge Com-munication: The Emergence of Knowledge Trans-formers. Research Policy, 32, 173751.

Hargadon, A. (2003) How Breakthroughs Happen: TheSurprising Truth about How Companies Innovate.

Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) TechnologyBrokering and Innovation in a Product Develop-ment Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,71649.

Holt, D.B. (2004) How Brands become Icons: The Prin-ciple of Cultural Branding. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Kapferer, J.N. (1994) Strategic Brand Management:New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating BrandEquity. The Free Press, New York.

Karjalainen, T.M. (2001) When is a Car like a Drink?Metaphors as a Means to Distilling Brand andProduct Identity. Design Management Journal, 12,6671.

Karjalainen, T.M. (2004) Semantic Transformation inDesign Communicating Strategic Brand Iden-tity through Product Design References. DoctoralDissertation, University of Art and Design,Helsinki.

Karjalainen, T.M. (2007) It Looks like a Toyota. Edu-cational Approaches to Designing for VisualBrand Recognition. International Journal of Design,1, 6781.

Karjalainen, T.M. and Warell, A. (2005) Do You Rec-ognise This Tea Flask? Transformation of Brand-Specific Product Identity through Visual DesignCues. Proceedings of International Design Congress

IASDR 2005, Taiwan, 31 October4 November.Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the

Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replica-tion of Technology. Organization Science, 3, 38397.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996) What Firms Do?Coordination, Identity, and Learning. Organiza-tion Science, 7, 50218.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience asthe Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Krippendorff, K. (1989) On the Essential Contexts ofArtifacts or on the Proposition that Design isMaking Sense (of Things). Design Issues, 5, 938.

Lloyd, P. and Snelders, D. (2003) What was PhilippeStarck thinking of? Design Studies, 24, 23753.

Margolin, V. and Buchanan, R. (eds.) (1995) The Ideaof Design: A Design Issues Reader. MIT Press, Cam-

bridge, MA.McCormack, J.P. and Cagan, J. (2004) Speaking the

Buick Language: Capturing, Understanding, andExploring Brand Identity with Shape Grammars.Design Studies, 25, 129.

Muller, W. (2001) Order and Meaning in Design.Lemma Verlag, TU Delft, Utrecht.

Olins, W. (1990) Corporate Identity. In Oakley, M.(ed.), Design Management A Handbook of Issuesand Methods, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Peirce, C.S. (1935) Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P.(eds.),CollectedPapers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols78. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Phillips, P. (2004) Creating the Perfect Design Brief How to Manage Design for Strategic Advantage. All-

worth Press, New York.Ramesh, B. and Tiwana, A. (1999) Supporting Col-laborative Process Knowledge Management inNew Product Development Teams. DecisionSupport Systems, 27, 21335.

Ravasi, D. and Lojacono, G. (2005) Managing Designand Designers for Strategic Renewal. Long RangePlanning, 35, 5177.

Shelanski, H.A. and Klein, P.G. (1995) EmpiricalResearch in Transaction Cost Economics: AReview and Assessment. Journal of Law, Econom-ics, & Organization, 11, 33561.

Snodgrass, A. and Coyne, R. (1992) Models, Meta-phors and the Hermeneutics of Designing. DesignIssues, 9, 5674.

Sonnenwald, D.H. (1996) Communication Rolesthat Support Collaboration during the DesignProcess. Design Studies, 17, 277301.

Tennity, M. (2003) What Clients Want in Consult-ants. Design Management Journal, 14, 1014.

Twigg, D. (1998) Managing Product Developmentwithin a Design Chain. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, 18, 50824.

Verganti, R. (2003) Design as Brokering of Lan-guages: The Role of Designers in the InnovationStrategy of Italian Firms. Design Management

Journal, 3, 3442.Verganti, R. (2006) Innovating through Design.

Harvard Business Review, 84, 11422.Verganti, R. (2008) Design, Meanings, and Radical

Innovation: A Metamodel and a ResearchAgenda. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, 25, 43656.

Verganti, R. (2009) Design Driven Innovation Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Inno-vating what Things Mean. Harvard Business Press,Boston, MA.

Warell, A. (2001) Design Syntactics A FunctionalApproach to Visual Product Form, Doctoral Dis-sertation, Chalmers University of Technology,Gothenburg.

Warell, A. and Nbo, M. (2002) Handling ProductIdentity and Form Development Issues in DesignManagement using Design Format Modeling.Proceedings of the 11th International Forum on

Design Management Research & Education, DesignManagement Institute, Northeastern University,Boston, MA, 1012 June.

Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions ofCapitalism: Firms, Markets, Relative Contracting.The Free Press, New York.

Williamson, O.E. (1996) The Analysis of DiscreteStructural Alternatives. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 36, 26996.




13/13

Claudio DellEra ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor in the Departmentof Management, Economics and IndustrialEngineering of Politecnico di Milano,where he serves also as Co-Director ofMaDe In Lab, the Laboratory of Manage-ment of Design and Innovation of MIP

Politecnico di Milano (http://www.madeinlab.it). Research activities devel-oped by Claudio DellEra are concentratedin the area of Management of Innovation.His research interests are concentrated intwo main areas: first, on innovation strate-gies developed by leading companies thatoperate in design-intensive industrieswhere symbolic and emotional values rep-resent critical success factors to generatecompetitive advantage (Management ofDesign-Driven Innovation); and, second,on analysing approaches and practicesadopted during innovation processes byhigh-tech companies that face turbulent

environments (Management of Technologi-cal Innovations in Turbulent Environ-ments). He has published in relevantinternational journals, such as Journalof Product Innovation Management, LongRange Planning, R&D Management,International Journal of Operations & Produc-tion Management, Industry & Innovationand International Journal of Innovation

Management.Tommaso Buganza is Assistant Professor

of Management of Innovation at the Facultyof Design and at the School of Managementof Politecnico di Milano. Tommaso Bugan-zas papers investigating the development

of new products and services in turbulentenvironments won the Best Paper Awardat the EIASM (European Institute for

Advanced Studies in Management) Interna-tional Product Development ManagementConferences in 2003 and 2004 and therunner-up diploma in 2002.

Camilla Fecchio graduated in 2007 inIndustrial Design at the Faculty of Design ofthe Politecnico di Milano, with a specializa-tion in Communication Design. She con-

ducts research in the field of design-driveninnovation, collaborating on projects for thegeneration of new scenarios and innova-tive product-service systems in design-intensive industries.

Roberto Verganti is Professor of Manage-ment of Innovation at the Politecnico diMilano, where he also serves as the Directorof MaDe In Lab, the laboratory for educa-tion in management of design and innova-tion. He is also chairman of PROjectScience, a consulting institute focusing onstrategic innovation, a visiting professor ofDesign Management at the CopenhagenBusiness School and Adjunct Professor of

Design Innovation at the University ofVaasa, Finland. He is a member of the Edi-torial Board of the Journal of Product Innova-tion Management and of the AdvisoryCouncil of the Design Management Insti-tute. He has published over 100 papers,including 35 papers in leading international

journals (such as the Journal of Product Inno-vation Management, Management Science and

Harvard Business Review) and seven books.He was awarded the Compasso dOro in2001 (the most prestigious design award inItaly) for the Italian Design System researchproject for which he served as a member ofthe Scientific Organising Committee. His

most recent book is Design-Driven Innova-tion, published in August 2009 by HarvardBusiness Press.


2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

language brokering concept development_2011

Documents