Advertisement

Supporting the Sytematization of Early-Stage-Innovation by Means of Collaborative Working Environments

  • Alexander Hesmer
  • Karl. A. Hribernik
  • Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge
  • Klaus-Dieter Thoben
Part of the IFIP The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 250)

Abstract

Research in the area of the early-stage of innovation concentrates on non-linear innovation environments constituted by the nature of the “fuzzy front end” of innovations in which there are no well-defined problems or goals at that point in time [1,2]. Early-stage-innovation requirements are the general applicability and the support of iterations within the software tools to be developed within future collaborative working environments (CWE). The research presented in this paper focuses on innovators’ every day work and the related needs in todays and future work environments to provide a highly flexible software solution supportive to the early-stage-innovation. The adaptability of the software tools to — which depends on the fulfillment of the users requirements — will be achieved by supporting the real-life work routines of innovation workers and teams; be they co-located or dislocated. In the actor-network theory [3] early-stage-innovation is seen as a social process. Therefore the participation of individuals will be encouraged by the usage of game dynamics to supporting idea generation related workflows. To equalize the dependences of people working together in one place, time zone and personal relationship a database of knowledge and object representations will be implemented in the CWE. The CWE tools support and guide innovators to get connected to the right people, produce ideas based on explored knowledge and evaluate them to achieve the goal of developing successful innovations. The approach presented in the proposed paper is basing on the work carried out by the European funded research project Laboranova.

Keywords

Innovation Process Innovation Environment Prediction Market Connection Game Collaborative Working Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Simon, H. (1973): The Structure of Ill-structured Problems, originally published in Artificial Tony J. Watson. Rhetoric, Discourse and Argument in Organizational Sense Making: a Reflexive Tale. Organizational Studies, 16(5):805–821, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayazit, N. (2004): Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research, essay in Design Issues, Volume 20, Number 1Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MIT, Allan, (January 7, 2007); http://esd.mit.edu/HeadLine/allen030106/allen030106.htmGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Rothwell, Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s, 1. R&D Management 22(3), 221–240 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.A. Schumpeter, Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, (Dunker&Humblot, Berlin, 1952).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D, Rhea, Bringing Clarity to the “Fuzzy Front End” — A predictable Process for Innovation, Design Research (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.R., Vaghefi, and A.B. Huellmantel, Strategic Management for the XX Century (Boca Ranton, 1998).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Weisberg, Creativity, Beyond the Myth of Genius (Freeman, New York, 1993).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K.A. Hribernik, A Set of High-level Objectives, Definitions and Concepts, Brain Bridges IST-015982 (2005).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Design Within Reach, Design Notes (February 15, 2007): http://www.dwr.com/images/newsletter/20061010_salads/index.html.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Bauer, Design & Methoden, in: Design Report 11/06 (Blue C. Verlag GmbH, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 2006).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Cross, Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science, paper prepared for the Design+Research Symposium held at the Politecnico di Milano, Italy, May 2000 (2001: MIT Online)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Klünder, Planbarer Brückenschlag, in: Design Report 11/06 (Blue C. Verlag GmbH, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 2006).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Cross, Developments in Design Methodology (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K.A. Hribernik, K.-D. Thoben, M. Nilsson, Technological Challenges to the Research and Development of Collaborative Working Environments in: Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration (Idea Group Reference, 2007).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K.A. Hribernik, K.-D. Thoben, M. Nilsson, Collaborative Working Environments, in: Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration (Idea Group Reference, 2007).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nova-Net Konsortium, Nutzung von Internet und Intranet für die Entwicklung neuer Produkte und Dienstleistungen (Fraunhofer IEB Verlag, Stuttgart, 2006).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Frey, Mind Mapping Software Survey, Innovation Tools, http://www.innovationtools.com/survey/index.asp, Accessed: 13.02.2007Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Eriksson, V.-P. Niitamo, S. Kulkki, K A. Hribernik, Living Labs as a Multi-Contextual R&D Methodology, in: 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE 2006). Proceedings. Milan, Italy 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Hesmer
    • 1
  • Karl. A. Hribernik
    • 1
  • Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge
    • 1
  • Klaus-Dieter Thoben
    • 1
  1. 1.BIBA — Bremen Institute of Industrial Technology and Applied Work ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations