Queensland University of Technology
Product Ecosystems
Extrinsic Value in Product Design
Timothy Williams Bachelor of Design (Industrial Design)
School of Design Creative Industries Faculty 2019
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 1 Williams
Product Ecosystems
Extrinsic Value in Product Design Timothy Williams
Historically, an Industrial Designer’s job was often little more than adding an aesthetically pleasing shell to a product. The contemporary Industrial Designer role has expanded significantly. Now the value of design thinking is acknowledged throughout the product development process from initial user insights through marketing and manufacture to business strategy (T. Brown, 2008, 2019; Conway et al., 2017; Evans, 2012; Rowe, 1994). The wide acceptance of the value of Design Thinking provides the designer with a unique perspective as well as the skills to imagine future scenarios and solutions: this is, of course, the essence of design.
In this thesis, I document the development of a more holistic way of thinking about design: Product Ecosystem Thinking. I propose that this is a way to improve the value proposition of a product, thereby improving the chance of success. I demonstrate that products gain value from their ecosystems and develop a design method to apply that thinking. I then show that the new Product Ecosystem Design Method is easy to use, easy to learn and effective.
Page 2 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where duly referenced.
QUT Verified Signature 18/7/19 ------Tim Williams Date
A PhD project is a long journey, and I would like to acknowledge the people who were with me on that journey.
Firstly, I would like to thank my wife Angela for her never-ending support and encouragement and for keeping me grounded during the journey.
Secondly, I would like to thank my ever-changing supervisory team. My first Principle Supervisor, Marianella, who guided me through the early stages when I had no idea what I was doing and is the only one to have “stayed the distance”. Simon, who opened my eyes to quantitative research. Moreover, Evonne’s whose enthusiasm and positivity have been invaluable. Associate supervisors Sam and Rob both contributed unique perspectives.
This PhD journey started at QUT in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering in 2011 with the following supervisory team Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 3 Williams
Principal Supervisor: Marianella Chamorro-Koc Associate Supervisor: Professor Simon Washington Associate Supervisor: Sam Bucolo
In 2012 the faculty of BEE changed to the faculty of SEF
In 2013, Sam Bucolo left QUT, and Robert Perrons joined the supervisory team. At this stage, Simon Washington took over the principal supervisor role from Marianella. The team was now:
Principal Supervisor: Professor Simon Washington Associate Supervisor: Marianella Chamorro-Koc Associate Supervisor: Robert Perrons
In 2016, Simon Washington left QUT, forcing another supervisory change. Associate Professor Evonne Miller took the role of Principle supervisor. This also required a change to the Creative industries faculty.
Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor Evonne Miller Associate Supervisor: Marianella Chamorro-Koc Associate Supervisor: Robert Perrons
In 2017, Robert Perrons left the supervisory team and it now stands as:
Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor Evonne Miller Associate Supervisor: Marianella Chamorro-Koc
Page 4 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Research Paper 1 Williams, T. (2015) Using the evolution of consumer products to inform design. In Proceedings of the 6th IASDR (The International Association of Societies of Design Research Congress), IASDR (The International Association of Societies of Design Research), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 2222-2235.
Research Paper 2 Williams, T. & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2013) Product Ecosystems: an emerging methodological approach to study the implementation of disruptive innovation: the case of the CityCar. In Sugiyama, Kuzuo (Ed.) Consilience and Innovation in Design Proceedings and Program vol. 1, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 1286-1295.
Research Paper 3 Williams, T. & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2019) Identifying Extrinsic Value in a Product Ecosystem. To be submitted to the International Journal of Art and Design Education Currently unpublished.
Research Paper 4 Williams, T & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2016) Future Product Ecosystems: Discovering the value of connections. In Lloyd, Peter & Bohemia, Erik (Eds.) Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society - Future-Focused Thinking, Design Research Society, Brighton, United Kingdom, pp. 1643- 1658.
Research Paper 5 Williams, T. & Miller, E. (2019) Creating the Product Ecosystem Design Method. Submitted to The Journal of Design Strategies. April 2019 Currently under review.
Research Paper 6 Williams, T., Chamorro-Koc, M. & Miller, E (2019) Product Ecosystem Thinking: A New Design Method To be submitted to the International Journal of Art and Design Education. Currently unpublished
Research 7 - Appendix 4 Williams, T (2014) Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product Ecosystem theory. In Marchetti, N., Brebbia, C.A., Pulselli, R., & Bastianoni, S. (Eds.) The Sustainable City IX: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, WITpress, Siena, Italy, pp. 723-733.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 5 Williams
Figure 1 - First generation Hills Hoist 1967...... 16 Figure 2 - Third generation Hills Hoist 2017 ...... 16 Figure 3 - Relationship of research question and sub-questions ...... 20 Figure 4 - Thesis structure ...... 21 Figure 5 - A sample Business Model Canvas - (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) ...... 30 Figure 6 - Sample UX definitions ...... 36 Figure 7 - Innovation Ecosystems as a subset of Business Ecosystems ...... 40 Figure 8 - Innovation Ecosystems relation to Product Ecosystems ...... 41 Figure 9 - A generic value blueprint maps the ecosystem actors and links...... 41 Figure 10 - The three risks of innovation...... 42 Figure 11 - The ecosystem pie model ...... 44 Figure 12 - Actor network Theory’s relation to Product Ecosystems ...... 51 Figure 13 - ANT diagram for a television ...... 52 Figure 14 - The Double Diamond ...... 56 Figure 15 - Innovation Ecosystems relation to Product Ecosystems ...... 58 Figure 16 - The system test ...... 60 Figure 17 - A linear model of innovation ...... 64 Figure 18 - System Immune response ...... 65 Figure 19 - The gap between Design Thinking and Systems Thinking ...... 67 Figure 20 - Product Ecosystems: a blend of Design Thinking and Systems Thinking . 67 Figure 21 - Typical product lifecycle ...... 76 Figure 22 - Superseding existing models ...... 77 Figure 23 - The evolution of the five series BMW ...... 78 Figure 24 - Phyletic Gradualism ...... 80 Figure 25 - Human Evolution – The march of progress ...... 80 Figure 26 - The wristwatch family tree ...... 86 Figure 27 - Examples of a SWOT analysis using evolutionary branch analysis ..... 87 Figure 28 - The product evolution model to evaluate Design-Driven Innovation .... 90 Figure 29 - Examples of incremental and Disruptive innovation...... 96 Figure 30 - MIT CityCar ...... 103
Page 6 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 31 - Renault Twizy ...... 103 Figure 32 - Diagrammatic representation of a car network...... 110 Figure 33 - Sebring-Vanguard’s Citicar ...... 123 Figure 34 - MIT CityCar ...... 124 Figure 35 - Renault Twizy ...... 124 Figure 36 - Image from the survey showing Renault's promotional video of the Twizy127 Figure 37 - Image from the Renault Twizy Review: Fully Charged ...... 128 Figure 38 - Advantages and disadvantages of CityCars...... 128 Figure 39 - Trip categories ...... 129 Figure 40 - Q2: Preference for CityCars by trip category ...... 130 Figure 41 - Potential benefits for ecosystem change ...... 131 Figure 42 - Q2 Preference for reduced parking costs ...... 132 Figure 43 - Q3 Preference for parking convenience ...... 132 Figure 44 - Q4 Preference for reduced travel times ...... 133 Figure 45 - Preference for CityCars ...... 135 Figure 46 - CityCar preference with cheaper parking ...... 137 Figure 47 - Chart showing preferences for cheaper and more convenient parking ... 138 Figure 48 - Chart comparing preferences for all four questions ...... 139 Figure 49 - Graphical comparison of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.171 Figure 50 - An evolutionary diagram of watches...... 173 Figure 51 - The current automotive Product ecosystem ...... 175 Figure 52 - The Product ecosystem for the DVD player ...... 176 Figure 53 - The Product ecosystem map for direct movie streaming...... 177 Figure 54 - Students design project – domestic hobby products ...... 179 Figure 55 - Students design project – scuba diving experiential project ...... 180 Figure 56 - Students design project – the morning ritual products family ...... 181 Figure 57 – An example of an actor-network ...... 206 Figure 58 - Television Ecosystem map ...... 212 Figure 59 - Television PE function mapping ...... 214 Figure 60 - Example ideation sketch ...... 246 Figure 61 - Examples of stage 3 output ...... 248 Figure 62 – PE Thinking improves design ideation ...... 252 Figure 63 - Categories of responses ...... 253
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 7 Williams
Figure 64 – Future use of PE Thinking ...... 255 Figure 65 - How PE Thinking helped ideation ...... 256 Figure 66 - Reasons to continue using PE Thinking ...... 256 Figure 67 - Suggested improvements to the PE Thinking method ...... 260 Figure 68 – Positioning of Product ecosystems in the design domain ...... 275 Figure 69 - Positioning of Product Ecosystem Thinking ...... 278 Figure 70 - Product Lifecycle Curve ...... 282 Figure 71 - Indifference curves and a value trajectory ...... 283 Figure 72 - Global growth in car numbers since 1900 including projections to 2020. 347 Figure 73 - Graphical comparison of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.351 Figure 74 – Renault Twizy ...... 354 Figure 75 - Proposed methodology ...... 357
I. Abstract ...... 1 I. Statement of Original Authorship ...... 2 II. Acknowledgments ...... 2 III. List of Publications ...... 4 IV. List of Figures ...... 5 V. Table of Contents ...... 7
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13 1.1 - Preamble ...... 13 1.2 - Research questions and project structure ...... 19 1.3 - Research project development ...... 23 1.3.1 - Research Stage 1 – Theory Development ...... 23 1.3.2 - Research stage 2 - Theory validation ...... 26 1.3.3 - Research Stage 3 – Design Method Development ...... 26 1.3.4 - Research Stage 4 – Design Method application ...... 27 1.4 - Summary ...... 28 1.5 - Definitions: ...... 28 1.5.1 - Value Propositions ...... 28 1.5.2 - Design ...... 30
Chapter 2 - LITERATURE ...... 33
Page 8 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
2.1 - The origin and use of the term “Ecosystem”...... 33 2.1.1 - Business Ecosystems ...... 34 2.1.2 - User Experience ecosystems ...... 35 2.1.3 - Innovation ecosystems ...... 38 2.1.4 - Product Ecosystems...... 45 2.1.5 - References to Product Ecosystems in the literature...... 46 2.1.6 - Types of Product Ecosystem ...... 47 Open ecosystems ...... 48 Closed ecosystems ...... 48 2.1.7 - Actor Network Theory ...... 50 2.2 - Design methods ...... 52 2.2.1 - Innovation Theory ...... 52 2.2.2 - Design teaching methods...... 54 2.2.3 - Design Thinking ...... 55 2.2.4 - Gaps in new product design process literature ...... 58 2.2.5 - Systems Thinking ...... 58 2.2.6 - Open and closed systems ...... 61 2.2.7 - Systems Thinking in a Design context ...... 63 2.2.8 - Summary ...... 68
Chapter 3 - PRODUCT EVOLUTION (PAPER 1) ...... 70 3.1 - Preamble: ...... 70 3.2 - Abstract ...... 73 3.3 - Introduction ...... 74 3.4 - Aim ...... 75 3.5 - Discussion ...... 75 3.6 - Product Evolution ...... 78 3.7 - The Wristwatch ...... 82 3.7.1 - A brief history ...... 82 3.8 - Methodology ...... 83 3.9 - Evaluating the links ...... 84 3.10 - Findings ...... 87 3.11 - Limitations ...... 88 3.12 - Conclusion ...... 89 3.13 - References ...... 91
Chapter 4 - PRODUCT ECOSYSTEMS: THE CITY CAR CASE STUDY (PAPER 2) ...... 94
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 9 Williams
4.1 - Preamble ...... 94 4.2 - Abstract ...... 99 4.3 - Introduction ...... 100 4.4 - The CityCar as a case study ...... 102 4.5 - The CityCar as Disruptive Innovation ...... 104 4.6 - The City Car and its Product Ecosystem ...... 105 4.7 - The Proposed Methodology ...... 109 4.8 - Conclusion ...... 111 4.9 - References and Citations ...... 111
Chapter 5 - IDENTIFYING EXTRINSIC VALUE IN A PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM. (PAPER 3) ...... 115 5.1 - Preamble ...... 115 This Paper is yet to be submitted for publication: ...... 118 kjh Abstract ...... 118 5.2 - Introduction ...... 119 1.1 - Literature Review ...... 121 1.1.1 - What is Extrinsic Product Value ...... 121 1.1.2 - What is the Product Ecosystem? ...... 121 5.3 - The Case of the CityCar ...... 122 1.2 - Method ...... 125 1.2.1 - Participants ...... 126 1.2.2 - Design of Experiments ...... 126 1.3 - Results ...... 133 1.4 - Discussion ...... 140 1.5 - Conclusion (Next steps) ...... 141 1.6 - References ...... 141
Chapter 6 - DEVELOPING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM MAPS: (PAPER 4) ...... 160 6.1 - Preamble: ...... 160 6.2 - Statement of Contribution for Thesis by Published Papers ...... 162 6.3 - Paper as originally published: ...... 163 6.4 - Abstract: ...... 163 Keywords: ...... 164 6.5 - Introduction ...... 164 6.6 - Products, innovation and ecosystems ...... 167
Page 10 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
6.7 - A Theoretical framework: Product Evolution ...... 168 6.8 - A Design Research approach ...... 170 6.8.1 - Hindsight thinking: Past ecosystem analysis ...... 170 6.8.2 - Foresight thinking: from Present Ecosystems to future ones ...... 174 6.9 - Discussion ...... 182 6.10 - Conclusion ...... 183 6.11 - Bibliography ...... 185
Chapter 7 - CREATING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM DESIGN METHOD: (PAPER 5) 187 7.1 - Preamble: ...... 187 7.2 - Paper as originally published: ...... 190 7.3 - Abstract ...... 190 7.4 - Clarifications and abbreviations ...... 191 7.5 - Introduction ...... 193 7.6 - Industrial Design: past and current practices ...... 195 7.6.1 - A short history of design methods ...... 196 7.6.2 - The two Design Process Paradigms ...... 197 7.6.3 - Current Design Methods ...... 198 7.7 - Design tools ...... 199 7.7.1 - Existing teaching methods ...... 201 7.7.2 - Systems Thinking ...... 202 7.7.3 - Actor Network Theory ...... 205 7.7.4 - Value Engineering...... 207 7.8 - Introduction to Product Ecosystem Thinking ...... 209 7.8.1 - Stage 1 – Ecosystem mapping ...... 209 7.8.2 - Stage 2 – Function capture...... 212 7.8.3 - Stage 3 – Analysis ...... 214 7.9 - Summary and conclusions ...... 216 7.10 - Bibliography ...... 217
Chapter 8 - APPLYING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM DESIGN METHOD (PAPER 6) . 237 8.1 - Preamble: ...... 237 8.2 - Paper as it was originally published: ...... 240 8.3 - Abstract ...... 240 8.4 - Introduction ...... 241 8.5 - Research question: “Can Product Ecosystem Thinking improve design ideation?” . 243 8.6 - Methods ...... 244
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 11 Williams
8.6.1 - Research methodology ...... 244 8.7 - Discussion ...... 250 8.7.1 - Does the PE Design Method improve design ideation? ...... 251 8.7.2 - Future use of Product Ecosystem Thinking ...... 254 8.7.3 - Areas for improvement ...... 258 8.8 - Conclusions, limitations and recommendations...... 261 8.9 - Bibliography ...... 263
Chapter 9 - DISCUSSION ...... 266 9.1 - Introduction ...... 266 9.2 - Review of Research questions...... 267 9.3 - Major Findings of the Study ...... 270 9.4 - Where is Product Ecosystem Thinking positioned?...... 274 Product Ecosystems in the design domain...... 275 Product Ecosystems in the business domain ...... 277 9.4.1 - Defining product success or failure ...... 279 9.4.2 - Can industrial design facilitate product success beyond traditional approaches? .... 280 9.5 - Limits of research and opportunities for future research ...... 284 9.6 - Contribution to knowledge/impact ...... 287 9.6.1 - Business ...... 288 9.6.2 - Design Profession ...... 288 9.6.3 - Design Education ...... 289 9.6.4 - Design research ...... 289 9.7 - Environmental Sustainability ...... 289
Chapter 10 - CONCLUSION ...... 292
Chapter 11 - Bibliography ...... 295 Appendix 1 – Ethics 2014 ...... 314 Appendix 1(a) Application for Ethics Approval ...... 314 Appendix 1(b) Participant Information ...... 320 Appendix 2 Ethics Approval 2017 ...... 322 Appendix 2(a) Application for Ethics Approval ...... 322 Appendix 2(b) Sample approach email ...... 335 Appendix 2(c) Image Release consent form ...... 338 Appendix 3 Product Ecosystem workshop ...... 339 Appendix 3(a) Product Ecosystem Workshop Presentation ...... 339
Page 12 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Appendix 3(b) Example questionnaire response ...... 343 Appendix 4 Research Paper ...... 344
Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product ecosystem theory ...... 344 11.1 - Abstract ...... 344 11.2 - Introduction ...... 345 11.3 - The size of the problem ...... 346 11.4 - Theoretical framework ...... 348 11.4.1 - Wicked problems ...... 348 11.4.2 - Design Thinking ...... 349 11.4.3 - Product Ecosystem Theory ...... 350 11.5 - Finding solutions to congestion ...... 352 11.5.1 - Existing approaches ...... 352 11.5.2 - Currently proposed approaches ...... 353 11.5.3 - Future solutions ...... 355 11.6 - Conclusions ...... 358 11.7 - Bibliography ...... 358
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 13 Williams
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
My motivation for investigating this topic of research has its origin in 20 years of professional Industrial Design practice. During this time I have observed many products that appeared to me to be exceptionally well-researched, well-designed, well-conceived, and well-marketed, yet struggled to find commercial success.
This observation led to the question of; “How can industrial design facilitate product success beyond traditional approaches?”
I started to ponder this question while working for Hills Industries, a well-known manufacturer of clotheslines where I felt privileged to be involved in the design of the third generation Hills Hoist. The design motivation was to stem declining sales with the design brief requiring improvements in both aesthetics and cost. The company took the traditional view proposed by Mcarthy (1964) that a product meeting the “4 P’s” of marketing (product, place, price, promotion ) should be successful. The product was carefully redesigned, using best practice and based on well-understood user needs, with focus groups giving valuable feedback. Listed as a national treasure, the Hills Hoist is one of the most iconic products ever manufactured in Australia (National Library of Australia, 2018). Additionally, the Hills Hoists appeared as part of the Sydney Olympics closing ceremony, broadcast to an estimated worldwide audience of 3.7 billion people. Very few products have this level of exposure making promotion almost redundant. Nevertheless, Hills conducted a national marketing campaign.
Page 14 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
With outlets in most hardware and homeware retailers, product placement in terms of both retail and customer perception was excellent. The redesign effort brought the price down to compete with less well-known imports making the price point competitive. Finally, the designers involved felt a unique responsibility to create an outstanding design given the flagship status of the product. Despite all of this, sales of the Hills Hoist continued to decline. What became apparent was that the whole market segment was disappearing. The likely cause of this was that backyards are becoming smaller; repurposed from functional spaces to recreational spaces. Accelerated by the trend towards higher density living, space for this iconic Australian product was disappearing. I started to wonder how designers could identify and deal with this type of problem that, at first glance, appears to be beyond the scope of the standard design task.
I have continued to observe this type of design problem, especially with the more disruptive and innovative products. Sometimes products meet with initial failure and then enjoy significant success a few years later. Is it that some products are “ahead of their time”? Was this merely a matter of consumers being reluctant to embrace new ideas or is there something else that might explain this phenomenon? Given the enormous financial and reputational cost of product failure, there is surprisingly little evidence-based research in this area.
Christensen, in his seminal book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” (1997b), suggests that innovative products will always fail initially merely because people and technology take time to accept the new. However, eventually, the new will overtake the old. Earlier work by Rogers (with his 1962 diffusion of innovation theory) is well known for describing the lifecycle of early adopters and the bell curve of successful innovation. He showed that innovation needed to get beyond a critical mass to succeed; but, what about the products that never reach critical mass?
Metcalfe’s law of “network effects” popularised by Gilder (1993), shows that some products increase in value if more people own them. Metcalf uses the fax machine as an example of a product that needs a critical mass of users and, once attained, creates what he calls the bandwagon effect. While it is clear that as more people use
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 15 Williams this type of product, it will increase in value, in actuality, a fax machine needs so much more than just a critical mass of other fax machines. It needs telephone lines, ink, and paper. Moreover, it needs a person who refills the paper tray. All these “other things” are undoubtedly critical and yet the theories of Christensen, Roger and Metcalf do not adequately consider them.
While there are plenty of methods and tools to help designers create better fax machines (for example, design thinking, the double diamond approach, participatory co-design methods), none of these considers the “other things” that products also need to be successful. Innovations failed or did not reach critical mass because the external entities they need to survive were missing, insufficient or working against the newcomer, especially when considering the fax machine. The first patent for a fax machine dates back to 1843 and yet critical mass did not occur until the late 1970s. Now the fax machine has almost disappeared, overtaken by other innovation.
I started to form the view that products are often reliant on the existence of other products. And not just other products but many other things - such as the person who changes the fax paper or the telecom company that provides the phone lines and of course another fax machine at the other end of the line. This interrelationship with other things (entities) is very similar in structure to that of a natural ecosystem. In the same way that a species within a natural ecosystem requires a healthy, complete and supportive ecosystem, so do products within what I conceptualise as a ‘Product Ecosystem’.
In the case of the Hills Hoist, Australian back yards of the 1950s were very different ecosystems. Whilst in the 1950s they were often utilitarian spaces with incinerators, sheds, fruit trees, vegetables and clotheslines, they are now more likely to be seen as outdoor extensions of the house, places of recreation with barbeques, pizza ovens and manicured lawns, where aesthetic values are as important as they are inside the house. The backyard has evolved. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the typical Hills Hoist usage, separated by 50 years. The task is the same, but the ecosystem has changed, shown very clearly by looking at the background — utilitarian lawns in the 1950s versus the contemporary view of outdoor spaces for
Page 16 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams entertaining. Also significant is the gender of the people in the photographs, reminding us that the contemporary user is more likely to be male than was the case in the 1950s. Though the function of the clothesline has not changed since the 1950s, the ecosystem to which it belongs has changed significantly.
Figure 2 - Third generation Hills Hoist Figure 1 - First generation Hills Hoist 1967. Image: National Archives of Australia. 2017 Source: The Daily Telegraph Image: Lifestyle Clotheslines. Source: Pinterest
Many studies show that disruptive innovation fails at a higher rate than incremental innovation (C. Christensen, 1997b; McDermott & O’Connor, 2002; Wessel & Christensen, 2012); in this thesis, I postulate that this is because the surrounding ecosystem is unable to adapt fast enough to support the innovation, or because the designer has not taken the ecosystem into consideration when designing the product. Some companies seem to understand this relationship between a product and its ecosystem, developing the ecosystem concurrently with the product (Villas-Boas, 2016). For example, Apple developed iTunes at the same time as the iPod. Tesla saw the need to install rapid charging stations at the same time as developing their electric cars. However, these successful companies seem to be the exception rather than the rule; critically, they do not seem to follow any established methodology that enables
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 17 Williams designers to consciously think about the broader surrounding ‘Product Ecosystem’ in the design process.
When designers are given the task to design a product, it is perhaps understandable if they focus on the product itself. After all, there is enough complexity to consider with user insights, aesthetics, ergonomics, usability, manufacturability, cost constraints, technology, trends and so on (Design Institute of Australia, 2018). It can be difficult for designers to look at the “big picture” and to consider how well their new product will sit within its environment. Time constraints and the lack of a formalised method for examining this “big picture” may be to blame.
Einstein reportedly said: “If I had an hour to solve a problem I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions”:
Perhaps we need to spend a little longer pondering the problem.
In this thesis, I argue that designers need to think about the broader ecosystem as an integral part of the design process – and by doing so, will design and develop products that are better suited to their ecosystem and thus more likely to succeed. Indeed, with statistics that 80% of new products fail (Savoia, 2014), there is a clear need for a different and better approach to the design process.
The notion of Business Ecosystems dates back to the 1990s, based on the premise that a business cannot exist by itself. The way that businesses interact with each other is critical for success. Innovation Ecosystems are a subset of Business Ecosystems – one that involves innovation - investigates how innovation needs to have a supportive ecosystem to flourish taking a strategic view on how to ensure that such an ecosystem is developed (Adner, 2006).
Page 18 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
In the last few years, a small but growing body of design researchers has looked to systems theory for inspiration and guidance. I unpack these concepts more in the literature review, but briefly, one definition of systems thinking is:
“A context for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots.” (Senge et al., 1994)
Only a handful of design academics and industry professionals have explicitly attempted to understand and integrate a system thinking approach into the design process. Mononen (2017) has recently reflected on the differences, noting that while;
“Design thinking is an iterative process, resulting in the creation of something new in the world, systems thinking is a way of looking at the world… [in] systems philosophy, problems can be solved, and systems can be understood better in the context of relationships rather than in isolation” (Mononen, 2017, p. S4531)
This thesis continues this line of thought, positioning the practical ‘doing’ of design within an explicit consideration and understanding of the broader ecosystem.
Recently, the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) developed a position paper that argued there was a “deficit of systems thinking in design methodologies” (p3). In this position paper, Conway, Masters, and Thorold (2017) argued that fostering transformative change and solving ‘wicked’ problems in a complex world will require “augmenting design thinking with a systems thinking approach” (Conway et al., 2017, p. 3). This argument further outlined below, encapsulates what I believe and investigate in this thesis: that designers need to be trained to think about the system within which their product exists. Indeed, Conway et al. (2017) note that great designs often fail – due to broader systemic barriers to change. Their approach is to integrate systems thinking into design’s ‘double
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 19 Williams diamond’; the first diamond emphases “systemic conditions: the value chain, the institutional or societal context in which it sits, and the power dynamics at play”, and the second diamond the value of adopting an entrepreneurship approach and mindset.
‘While design thinking alone provides a compelling process for idea development, it fails to recognize that without due consideration of systemic complexity and power dynamics, even the best ideas can lie on the shelf unused, and thus without impact. The design-led approach provides strong insights on users but remains two-dimensional. (Conway et al., 2017, p. 8)
This thesis speaks to this emergent intersection between design and systems thinking, proposing an alternative method. The reality is that complex systems can be daunting and difficult to grasp (Conway et al., 2017), without a suitable method to visualise them. Even when taking a “system design” approach, the system is often considered to be a closed system of products. Perhaps this is understandable because many other components of the ecosystem are things that designers have little or no influence over. For example, legislation, electricity supply, service technicians, infrastructure are all things that might influence the success of a product but seem to be rarely considered during the design process and yet if any one of these components is missing or insufficient, the product may fail. Instead of launching into the idea generation stage, then, it is sometimes best to spend more time on the “fuzzy front end” (Reid & De Brentani, 2004) of design, considering the context of the design problem in more depth. The application of Product Ecosystems is best at the early stages in the design process.
The overall research question that this project aims to answer is: “How can industrial design facilitate product success beyond the traditional approaches?”
Page 20 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This question is broken down into six sub-questions, each addressed in the six papers included in this thesis: 1. ‘How can product history provide insight into product success and failure?” 2. ‘How does the Product Ecosystem influence an innovative new product?’ 3. ‘Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’ 4. ‘What tools can industrial designers use to analyse the Product Ecosystem?’ 5. ‘What design methods can be used to apply Product Ecosystem thinking?’ 6. ‘Is the PE Design Method an easy and effective way to apply PE thinking to the design process?’ The relationship of the research question to the sub-questions is shown in Figure 3, demonstrating the initial broad, theoretical questions progressing to the focussed final questions. It also shows the research questions for each of the six papers that form this thesis.
Figure 3 - Relationship of research question and sub-questions
The six papers cover four stages: (1) developing the theory, (2) testing of the validity of that theory, (3) development of methods to apply the theory and finally (4) application and evaluation of these methods. The structure formed by these papers is shown in Figure 4 - Thesis structure.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 21 Williams
Figure 4 - Thesis structure
Research Paper 1: Product Evolution Chapter 3 - RQ 1: ‘How can product history provide insight into product success and failure?”
The first paper proposes the idea that a product line will change over time as a result of external threats and opportunities and that this is analogous of species evolving in response to threats and opportunities afforded by the ecosystem. In this paper, I use the wristwatch as a case study of product evolution. In the first paper, I introduce the notion of Product Ecosystems.
Research Paper 2: Product Ecosystems Chapter 4 - RQ 2: ‘How does the Product Ecosystem influence an innovative new product?’
The second paper develops Product Ecosystem theory further by considering a future product, the CityCar, and examining how well it suits its ecosystem compared to
Page 22 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams existing cars1.This paper proposes and demonstrates the notion that a significant portion of the value of a product is extrinsic, (i.e. derived from the ecosystem,) and not intrinsic (i.e. created by the designer.)
Research Paper 3: Extrinsic Value Chapter 5 - RQ 3: ‘Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’
In the third paper, I describe an experiment that tests the notion of extrinsic value within a Product Ecosystem — again using the example of the CityCar. This experiment consisted of a series of questions to establish the perceived value of the CityCar within the current ecosystem. I then proposed changes to the ecosystem and asked questions to determine if the perceived value of the CityCar changed. In this paper, I demonstrated that the perceived value of a product changes as a result of changes to the ecosystem.
Research Paper 4: Ecosystem Mapping Chapter 6 - RQ 4: ‘What tools can industrial designers use to analyse the Product Ecosystem?’
The first three papers describe the Product Ecosystem theory from both historical and future perspectives and demonstrate that significant value is extrinsic to the product, derived from the ecosystem. Thus, designers need to be aware of this extrinsic value to maximise the existing value or to modify the ecosystem to create new extrinsic value. For this, a method is required to map and analyse ecosystems. In the fourth paper, we describe the development of a method to map the Product Ecosystem. In this, we use the process of co-creation to develop this mapping technique.
1 For the purpose of this thesis, a CityCar is defined as a small, lightweight, electric car, classified as a quadricycle in Europe. The name is derived from the MIT CityCar project, which was presumably derived from Sebring-Vanguard’s Citicar. A current, commercial example is the Reneault Twizy. This classification is also known as a Microcar, or Ultra Small Vehicle (USV).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 23 Williams
Research Paper 5: Product Ecosystem Design Method Chapter 6 - RQ 5: ‘What design methods can be used to apply Product Ecosystem theory?’
After establishing a mapping method, a design method was required to apply this knowledge to the design process. In paper five we describe our proposed design method and describe how it is informed by and complements existing design methods.
Research Paper 6: Validating the Product Ecosystem Design Method Chapter 7 - RQ 6: ‘Is the PE Design Method an easy and effective way to apply PE thinking to the design process?’
In the final paper of this thesis, we report on the application of the design method in a live design environment. A group of novice designers applied the method and then reported on their experiences. In this paper, we demonstrate that the new design method is both easy to implement and seen as an effective way to apply PE Thinking to the design process.
This research project is in four stages: 1. Theory development 2. Theory validation 3. Design method development 4. Method validation
Rather than starting with a well-defined research question and using a well-defined methodology to answer that question, this research project started with an ill-defined
Page 24 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams notion. This notion was that there are external factors that influence the success of a product and are not typically considered by designers. This notion was the result of the observation of many products over many years of professional practice. The grounded theory approach was used to develop Product Ecosystem Thinking. The process of developing a grounded theory is to look for patterns in observed case studies and develop a theory based on these observations (Scott, 2009). So this approach can be considered as loosely based on grounded theory. The way this developed was initially by trying to identify why some products fail and wondering what past mistakes could teach us. Wristwatches were chosen as a case study as this is a product category that has been well documented and appears to have continually changed over time.
A chronological timeline, of products, looks very much like an evolutionary map where some products flourished, and other failed. The benefit of this map is the ability to interrogate each product to determine why it failed. From this, it became clear that products within a category tended to appear, evolve and disappear due to external pressures and opportunities and following patterns in a way analogous to the way species appear, evolve and disappear. In nature, these pressures and opportunities come from external entities that form an ecosystem. Products also respond to external pressures from what can also be considered an ecosystem. When seen over time, both products and ecosystems are dynamic and ephemeral and influence each other. Described in detail in Research Paper 1: Product Evolution, the process, using the case study of the wristwatch, illustrates these transitory ecosystems.
While we can learn from past events, the past is not always a useful indicator of the future. Especially true for disruptive innovation as, by definition, it has no identifiable predecessors. Disruptive innovation is always future focussed. Further investigation showed that it is possible to analyse how innovative new products will fit within the existing ecosystem or what changes are needed in current ecosystems to support new products. A product may be released to market a year after the design phase is complete, have an expected production life of 10 years and a service life of another ten years. In this case, the designer must consider that the product may be used in an ecosystem over 20 years into the future. Thus, the designer needs to be able to
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 25 Williams envisage future ecosystems. In Research Paper 2: Product Ecosystems, I use the case study of the CityCar to look at how future ecosystems can influence the value of new products. The City Car is an ideal example as it is a disruptive innovation and this allows us to evaluate the suitability of the existing ecosystem while exploring possibilities for ecosystem modification.
Instead of launching into the idea generation stage, it is sometimes best to spend more time on the “fuzzy front end” (Reid & De Brentani, 2004) of design, considering the context of the design problem in more depth. Product Ecosystems should be considered in these early stages.
Other researchers (e.g., Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017) have highlighted how complex systems (such as a Product Ecosystem) can be daunting and challenging to grasp, without a suitable method to visualise them. To develop a suitable way to map ecosystems, I used the method of co-creation. As shown in Error! Reference source not found., a group of design students were asked to consider a future Product Ecosystem for products they were designing and create a map. Students were working in groups, each group working on a different theme. Individuals would develop their product as part of a system. Each group produced a graphical representation of the Product Ecosystem in the best way that they saw fit.
The students were deliberately given minimal direction so that they could decide what layout to use for the diagrams and what elements to include. The method was a simplified form of co-creation where the end users, in this case, student designers, worked as partners in the development process. The result of this process was a variety of mapping methods though with some commonality. Almost all of them mapped out the entities that formed the ecosystem as well as the essential links between the elements. Research Paper 4: Ecosystem Mapping covers a discussion of both the process and results.
The theory development stage finalised Product Ecosystem theory and case studies considered for both past and future ecosystems. A mapping method had also been developed to help visualise the Product Ecosystem. At this point, there was no
Page 26 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams method to apply that theory in a practical design context. Thus, a design method was required.
In research stage 1 the Product Ecosystem theory was developed. The theory proposes that products are part of an ecosystem comprised of many different types of entities, some tangible and some intangible. The ecosystem is dynamic, and it will change over time. It is also fluid and can be modified. The most important aspect is that a product’s value proposition contains both intrinsic and extrinsic value. The intrinsic value being the value ‘designed into the product’ and extrinsic value derived from the ecosystem. From this, we can deduce that changes to the ecosystem can change the value proposition of a product. This proposition appears to be supported by the case studies in research stage 2 but does not demonstrate a causal link between the ecosystem and a product’s value. For this, we need to observe a changing ecosystem and observe whether the product value also changes. Using the stated preference method we set up an experiment and asked participants to state their preference for one or another product. We then proposed changes to the ecosystem and again asked participants to choose. The results provided empirical evidence that changes to an ecosystem can change the perceived value of a product. These results confirm the central notion behind Product Ecosystem Thinking and is covered in Research Paper 3: Extrinsic Value.
Research stage 1 describes the development of Product Ecosystem thinking, and the validity of the theory’s fundamental notion tested in research stage 2. This research project is deliberately positioned from the perspective of the industrial designer and must, therefore, be useful for a designer. Theory alone is of little value to a practising Industrial Designer who requires an application method.
Thus, in research stage 3, the PE Design Method was developed. This development process started by investigating which existing design methods might be able to be used to apply this theory. This process used existing literature to inform the
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 27 Williams development of this design method and so forms a significant part of the literature review. In Paper 5: Product Ecosystem Design Method, existing methods were evaluated for their suitability for applying the PE Design Method. In particular, Actor Network Theory (ANT) is an ideal framework to both identify and map the critical entities. However, ANT could not be used on its own as it had no way to be able to identify the extrinsic value of a product. Value Analysis (VA) can isolate the individual values within a product and link them to functions based on a combination of Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Together, these existing methods were combined and used to form the new PE Design Method.
Stages 1, 2 and 3 saw the development and validation of Product Ecosystem theory as well as the Design Method. A design method is only of use if it is easy to learn and easy to apply and so in research stage 4 we test it by conducting a workshop where design students learn and apply the new method. Feedback is then collected to determine how straightforward the method is to both learn and apply.
As the PE Design Method is a new way to approach the design process, participants would have no prior knowledge and therefore would need to be taught both the theory and method before applying the method. The participants would need to be designers and be familiar with the ideation and brainstorming processes. The workshop ran for 2 hours where the theory and method had to be taught, applied to a design exercise, and then have the students provide feedback. The ability to complete this in such a short timeframe demonstrated that the PE Design Method is easy to learn, easy to apply and produces useful results. Data gathering used a mixed methods questionnaire and semi-structured focus group approach. Research Paper 6: Validating the Product Ecosystem Design Method –covers the process and results. To summarise the results, almost all (98%) of students reported that they found the method improved the ideation process and that they thought the PE Design Method was useful and straightforward enough that they intended to use the method in future projects.
Page 28 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This PhD journey started with a question about why some products fail when they should not. I discovered that products gain extrinsic value from other entities with an ecosystem and those best suited to their ecosystem are most likely to thrive. These observations informed the development of a new way to think about product design that I have called Product Ecosystem Thinking. PE Thinking contributes to a theoretical understanding of both design and design methods. The PE Design Method has been tested and shown to be easy to learn, easy to apply as well as an effective way to improve the ideation process.
In this thesis, I argue that designers need methods to widen their thinking and to guide them in the design process. Building upon existing design methods including Double Diamond (Design Council UK, 2007) Systems Thinking (Richmond, 1991), I argue that these methods do not sufficiently consider how products can be optimised for their ecosystem and therefore fail to achieve their potential value proposition. Indeed, perhaps if the Hills Hoist had been redesigned using the PE Design Method, it might still be popular in Australian back yards. The following chapters walk through my iterative thought process, as I develop, test and refine PE Thinking over seven years of part-time PhD study, varying the context, application, and product, and finally test the refined concept with a group of novice designers. I believe that the outcome, PE Thinking, has significant value for educators teaching design, as well as novice and expert designers who are increasingly creating products for very complex and rapidly evolving ecosystems.
To add clarity,a few key words are defined below.
The terms ‘Value Proposition and Business Model” are used often in this thesis and so a description of the terms may be useful.
A value proposition is:
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 29 Williams
“a clear, simple statement of the benefits, both tangible and intangible, that the company will provide, along with the approximate price it will charge each customer segment for those benefits”. (Lanning & Michaels, 1988)
For companies that manufacture consumer products, the benefits provided to the consumer are mostly if not entirely provided by the product. Thus it is the responsibility of the designer of the product to ensure that the product delivers sufficient benefits to the consumer at an acceptable price.
There is no universally accepted definition for the term “business model” however in a general form it is a term that describes the way in which the value proposition is captured and delivered. There are many ways to visualise business models and one of the more popular ones is the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
This is used by existing and startup businesses to visualise both existing and proposed business models so that the key aspects the business model can be evaluated. Figure 6 shows a sample Business Model Canvas that captures the key components of a business models such as stakeholders, costs, resources and especially value propositions.
Page 30 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 5 - A sample Business Model Canvas - (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
For the designer, the business model canvas is a tool that can be used to identify and document user insights. Another tool is the “Jobs to be Done Theory” (C. M. Christensen & Raynor, 2003) where products are seen in terms of what jobs they can do instead of what the product is. These tools, along with others, all aim to uncover new value for the customer.
The term “design” can mean different things to different people and so a short description of the way it is used in this thesis may be useful.
The term “design” is unusual as it is both a noun and a verb. A dictionary definition gives the following: Noun: “a drawing or set of drawings showing how a building or product is to be made and how it will work and look:”
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 31 Williams
Verb: “to make or draw plans for something, for example clothes or buildings:”
However ,a single-sentence dictionary definition cannot capture the fully nuanced usage of the word.
In this thesis I use the term design within the context of the Industrial Design discipline.
A typical definition of industrial design is this one, published by the Industrial Designer Society of America (IDSA)
“Industrial Design is the professional practice of designing products used by millions of people around the world every day. Industrial designers not only focus on the appearance of a product, but also on how it functions, is manufactured and ultimately the value and experience it provides for users. Every product you have in your home and interact with is the result of a design process and thousands of decisions aimed at improving your life through design.” (IDSA, 2019)
However, in recent years Industrial Design has expanded into other areas such as UX design, design-led-innovation, design thinking and business strategy (Bucolo & Matthews, 2010; Conway et al., 2017; Ropert et al., 2012). This is evidenced by prominent design consultancies now including physical product design as a minor part of their services with more emphasis on the strategic aspects of design (T. Brown, 2008, 2019; S. King & Chang, 2016). The established core of the industrial design discipline remains product-centric with a shift towards the strategic front-end of New Product Development (NPD). Though experienced designers may instinctively consider external strategic aspects there is a lack of tools to help designers
Page 32 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams incorporate a strategic view creating challenges for design educators. (Mubin et al., 2016)
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 33 Williams
` Chapter 2 - LITERATURE
As this is a PhD by publication, each paper contains a review of the literature that is relevant to that paper.
In this section, I present an overview of the literature that is important to the overall research project. To reduce repetition, literature that is only important to a specific paper will only appear in the literature section of that paper.
This research project explores how the Product Ecosystem influences the value of an industrial designed product. The research aims to improve understanding of this relationship, and the objective is to develop a method that will assist Industrial Designers to make better design decisions. Thus, there are two main areas of literature that can inform this research. The first is a review of literature about Product Ecosystems and the second is on relevant design methods.
The botanist, Sir Arthur Tansley, is credited for introducing the term “ecosystem” in the 1930s (Ayres, 2012), which has since been used to describe a community of organisms and the way in which they interact with each other, as well their interactions with the environment (the air, water, soil, weather and so on). Essential to this concept is the way that organisms compete and cooperate for resources. Those best able to exploit the ecosystem are most likely to thrive. The ecosystem notion supports the theory of the evolution of species, as first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1864 (Oldroyd, 1986) where
Page 34 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams the principle of “natural selection” means only the best suited to their ecosystem survive.
This notion that product success in a competitive marketplace mirrors the ecological principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ resonates with contemporary business. Over three decades ago, the term “ecosystem” emerged within the business communities and is now commonly used in a non-ecological sense. Moore (1993), in an article in the Harvard Business Review entitled “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition” draws a parallel between the way companies operate in increasingly interconnected ways, competing for resources and cooperating in ways that mirror natural ecosystems. Moore claims that companies must see themselves not as a stand-alone entity, but as an interconnected member of the business ecosystem that expands across many industries. In this thesis, the term ‘ecosystem’ is used in a non-ecological sense to describe the broader context within which a product exists and draws parallels to ecosystems in natural sciences. Non-ecological ecosystem literature
In contrast to the Product Ecosystem, concepts of other non-biological ecosystems such as business ecosystems have been extensively written about since the early 1990s and have become widely accepted and well defined. The term describes the way that businesses cooperate in a mutually beneficial way that is analogous to a natural ecosystem (Brogan, 2010; Koenig, 2012).
For example: “In a business ecosystem, companies co-evolve capabilities around a new innovation: they work cooperatively and competitively to support new products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of innovations” (Moore, 1993, p. 76).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 35 Williams
While Moore does not use the term ‘Product Ecosystem’, he briefly describes the way that products interact with other products. His primary focus, however, is the way that businesses interact with other businesses to form an ecosystem. Since then, the idea of Business Ecosystems has become well accepted and is often used to evaluate contemporary companies such as Wall-Mart and eBay (Iansiti & Levien, 2009).
Less well known and considered as a subset of a business ecosystem is the ‘innovation ecosystem’. This term is used to describe the financial way that businesses cooperate to create innovation that benefits multiple stakeholders.
According to Jackson (2018), ‘An innovation ecosystem models the economic rather than the energy dynamics of the complex relationships that are formed between actors or entities whose functional goal is to enable technology development and innovation.’
Neither business ecosystems nor innovation ecosystems consider the interrelationship between products and other entities that support them in the way that Product Ecosystem do. However, some of the processes used to describe and evaluate these ecosystems may be of use.
User Experience (UX) Design is a relatively new discipline and one of the few areas of design to acknowledge the value in designing products that interrelate with each other as part of an ecosystem (Babiolakis, 2016; Domingo, 2016; Glushko, 2013; Rosati, 2012; Feng Zhou et al., 2010)
The concept of a user experience ecosystem is also relatively new, and the first use of the term is unclear. Welbourne et al. (2009) describe how the Radio Frequency
Page 36 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Identification (RFID) ecosystem is used to create the IoT. However, the focus of this paper is on a suite of Web-based, user-level tools and applications and therefore has little relevance to industrial design. Perhaps the earliest mention of a UX Product Ecosystem was by Zhou et al. (2009; 2010). In these two papers, Zhou and his colleagues use affective-cognitive analysis to evaluate user experience ecosystems.
Although the literature on user experience ecosystems is reasonably extensive, a shared definition of UX design remains elusive (Law et al., 2008). Figure 6, reproduced from Law et al. shows the range of definitions for UX design.
• Alben: All the aspects of how people use an interactive product: the way it feels in their hands, how well they understand how it works, how they feel about it while they are using it how well it serves their purpose. And how well it fits into the entire context in which they are using it. • Wikipedia: User experience is a term used to describe the overall experience and satisfaction a user has when using a product or system. • Nielsen-Norman Group: All aspects of the end-user’s interaction with the company, its services and its products. • Makela & Tractinsky: A consequence of a user’s internal state (predispositions, expectations, needs, motivation, mood etc.), the characteristics of the designed system (e.g. complexity, purpose, usability, functionality etc.) and the context (or environment) within which the interaction occurs (e.g. organisational/social setting, meaningfulness of the activity, voluntariness of use, etc.) N.B. The above list is just a small sample of existing UX definitions, exemplifying the large variations such definitions exhibit. They vary in length, scope and granularity (from the crude mention about motivated action to detailed descriptions with examples of users’ psychological states and systems’ features).
Figure 6 - Sample UX definitions
Reproduced from (Law et al., 2008)
All of these descriptions can accurately be used to describe the type of user experiences that industrial designers regularly consider. User experience has always been an integral part of Industrial Design since the discipline expanded to consider
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 37 Williams more than just form aesthetics in the 1950s. While all design disciplines must consider user experience at some level, Industrial Design requires greater consideration of the user experience because of the variety of ways in which users interact with industrial design products. Because of these complex interactions, logic suggests that UX design falls more naturally in the domain of Industrial Design than other design disciplines. However, that is not the case.
What few, if any definitions make mention of is that UX design is almost exclusively related to the domain of Human-Computer Interfaces (HCI). As HCI is mostly screen based and therefore two dimensional, UX design is mostly seen as a development of graphics design, interaction design and IT with particular value in the Internet of Things (IoT) (Levin, 2014; Vukovac et al., 2019)
In ‘Design for a Thriving UX Ecosystem’, Jones (2012) defines a UX ecosystem as:
"...a set of interdependent relationships between components within an information environment".
In ‘Designing Multi-Device Experiences – An ecosystem approach to user experience across devices’, Levin (2014) writes:
‘In looking at the world of online apps and electronics today, we can see a type of ecosystem emerging.’
In the UX workshop Mapping Multi-channel Ecosystems, Rachieru writes:
‘In today's world, we’re dealing with ever-expanding multi-device multi-screen multi-service ecosystems across multiple channels.’ (Rachieru, 2018)
Page 38 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
As a result, when UX designers mention ecosystems, they are concerned with the experience of using different HCI devices within a group of products (Levin, 2014)
While industrial designers increasingly design screen based, digital products that are part of a UX ecosystem, the design of UX interfaces is either a tightly focussed subset of industrial design or a separate discipline entirely. Either way, industrial designers develop products that interrelate with other entities in ways that are not always digital. Therefore, the Product Ecosystem that industrial designers need to consider must include a more extensive range of types of entities than covered by UX ecosystems.
‘Innovation ecosystem’ is a term used in varied but similar ways. It mostly appears in professional publications with some references in academic papers and books. Definitions vary, and the following are examples of the breadth of definitions. In the Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, Autio and Llewellyn define innovation ecosystems as:
‘a network of interconnected organisations connected to a focal firm or organisation that incorporates both production and use side participants and creates and appropriates new value through innovation’ (Autio & Llewellyn T., 2014).
In this definition, the focus is on the organisations that form the network rather than the products that the organisation produces. That is; a business ecosystem that engages in innovation. Although creating value through innovation is part of a designer’s job description, the way that businesses form ecosystems is generally not something that designers influence.
In the paper ‘What is an innovation ecosystem’, Jackson (2011) provides the following definition:
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 39 Williams
‘..an innovation ecosystem models the economic rather than the energy dynamics of the complex relationships that are formed between actors or entities whose functional goal is to enable technology development and innovation.’
In this case, the emphasis is on the economic dynamics of the ecosystem actors rather than the influencing interrelationships between products and other actors.
There are many references to innovation ecosystems online. For example, Thomas (2015) writes:
“‘Innovation ecosystem” is the term used to describe the large number and diverse nature of participants and resources that are necessary for innovation. These include “entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, university faculty, venture capitalists as well as business development and other technical service providers such as accountants, designers, contract manufacturers and providers of skills training and professional development.’
More recently, Adner writes about ecosystems as a structure rather than an affiliation and provides a concise definition of the ecosystem as:
‘The alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize’ (Adner, 2017a)
The four definitions or descriptions of innovation ecosystems shown above are typical of the literature that uses the term. Distilled to its purest form, the three main areas that innovation ecosystems cover are:
Page 40 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
• The notion of an ecosystem of businesses that cooperate to create innovation • The economic model of business ecosystems engaged in innovation • The ecosystem comprised of the actors that create innovation
Figure 7 - Innovation Ecosystems as a subset of Business Ecosystems
From these definitions, Innovation Ecosystems are a specific type of business ecosystem — one in which innovation takes place. As Figure 7 shows, Business Ecosystems and therefore Innovation Ecosystems sit squarely in the domain of Business Strategy.
However, Adner (2012) makes a unique interpretation of an innovation ecosystem where he looks at specific products and considers how the ecosystem influences success. The relationship between innovative products and ecosystems is in many ways quite similar to the notion of Product Ecosystems except that Adner looks at this from a business strategy perspective and Product Ecosystems are from a design perspective. Thus, Product Ecosystems and Innovation Ecosystems are two distinct but complementary ways to consider an innovative product within and ecosystem. Metaphorically two sides of the same coin. Both recognise the need to map the ecosystem, the importance of value networks and that success is dependent on a supportive ecosystem. A key difference, as shown in Figure 8, is that innovation ecosystems focus on managing the risks of the innovation process, whereas the Product Ecosystem focus is on creating opportunities.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 41 Williams
Figure 8 - Innovation Ecosystems relation to Product Ecosystems
Adner proposes the notion of what he calls a value blueprint that is used to map the actors and links that make up the ecosystem. (Adner, 2012, p. 87)
Figure 9 - A generic value blueprint maps the ecosystem actors and links.
Reproduced from (Adner, 2012, p. 87)
Page 42 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Adner uses the value blueprint to identify the actors that do not receive sufficient value from the new ecosystem. He refers to them as ‘blind spots.’ He uses examples to demonstrate that missing a blind spot can be ruinous for innovation. These blind spots can occur in any of the three risks of innovation: Co-innovation risk, Execution risk or Adoption chain risk as shown in Figure 10. Identifying and mitigating these risks is essential to avoid failure.
Figure 10 - The three risks of innovation.
Reproduced (Adner, 2012, p. 34)
Adner continues to discuss the importance and benefits of both innovation leadership and innovation followership demonstrating that there are advantages in both positions. The aim of considering Product Ecosystems from a designer’s perspective is to optimise the product for the existing ecosystem or to redesign the unsupportive elements. Redesigning the Product Ecosystem is a position of leadership while optimising a product to suit the existing ecosystem is one of followership.
Adner does briefly discuss ecosystems from a product perspective when he discusses early mover advantage and points out the necessity of considering the ecosystem.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 43 Williams
‘In an ecosystem world, as we have seen time and time again, delivering a brilliant product that the competition cannot match is not enough. We need to make sure that all the other elements that our product requires to create its value are in place as well.’ (Adner, 2012, pp. 149, 150)
He then goes on to discuss the decision managers need to make - whether to proceed with a new product or to ‘hurry up and wait’. Having only two options, to either proceed or wait, demonstrates the major difference between Adner’s management driven innovation ecosystems and the design-driven Product Ecosystems. Designers can use design thinking to develop ways to modify non-supportive elements of the ecosystem or design products that circumvent the non-supportive elements. The design-led approach provides far more than just two possible outcomes. However, both the management and design approach requires a deep understanding of the ecosystem. The main point of difference is how to use that understanding.
In recent years the interest in ecosystems thinking has proliferated, along with the idea that ecosystems can be manipulated to increase value (Adner, 2012, 2017a; Jacobides et al., 2018; Talmar et al., 2018; Walrave et al., 2018).
The Ecosystem Pie Model (EPM) is a highly structured model that aims to capture the value proposition across the ecosystem. The EPM model shown in Figure 11 is intended to: ‘Empower managers in their efforts to analyze ecosystems across relevant categories and to develop an informed strategy. (Talmar et al., 2018)
This model aims to identify all the actors in the ecosystem and analyse the value that each receives from and provides to the ecosystem.
Page 44 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 11 - The ecosystem pie model
Reproduced (Talmar et al., 2018)
Over the last few years, the innovation ecosystem model has become a well-defined and well-accepted method for evaluating ecosystems. It is an ideal way for business strategists to study an existing ecosystem to identify whether it is advisable to commercialise a new, disruptive innovation or not.
The innovation ecosystem model assumes two things: the first is that there is a completed and fixed innovation ready to be commercialised and the second is that the ecosystem is also fixed and immovable. In contrast, the design approach will start with
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 45 Williams questions like ‘How can I design this innovative new thing to fit the ecosystem’ best or: ‘How can I change to the ecosystem to suit my innovation?’ During the divergent, initial stages of the design process, the designer assumes nothing and keeps an open mind to all possibilities.
A review of the literature reveals that before 2013, the term Product Ecosystem appeared rarely and no attempt found to define the term (Brogan, 2010; Rosati, 2012; Tobias, 2007; F. Zhou et al., 2009; Feng Zhou et al., 2010). The first defined use of the term Product Ecosystem in an Industrial Design context was in 2013 (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). Since then it has appeared more often, for example (Druce, 2014; Lingareddy, 2015; Ravichandran, 2017; Williams, 2015).
In popular media, the term Product Ecosystems occurs more often though with little consistency in use. It appears in the context of business structure (Brogan, 2010), user experience design (Babiolakis, 2016; Glushko, 2013; Rosati, 2012; Feng Zhou et al., 2010) or computer hardware (Viloria, 2016). It is variously used to describe groups of products, typically from a single manufacturer. Alternatively, it is used to describe how products from different companies rely on each other as part of a business ecosystem. A literature review in this space reveals a growing understanding of the importance of considering products to be part of an ecosystem. Though other than the work that forms part of this thesis, there is a lack of an accepted definition of a Product Ecosystem and little if any consistency in the use of the term.
Even the term “product” appears to mean different things to different people. For example, a banking “product” might be a home loan, and a software product might be a mobile phone app. For industrial designers, a product is usually a tangible, manufactured product such as a refrigerator or a car. Thus, it will be helpful to define the term Product Ecosystem.
Page 46 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The individual components, product and ecosystem, are already well defined.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a non-ecological ecosystem as:
‘A complex network or interconnected system.’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019a)
The Oxford English dictionary defines a product as:
“An article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019b)
Industrial Designers work with articles rather than substances so for our purpose the word substance can be removed.
Thus, by combining the definitions for both product and ecosystem, we arrive at the following definition for a Product Ecosystem:
‘The complex network or interconnected system of an article that is manufactured or refined for sale.”
This definition perfectly captures the essence of Product Ecosystems and is broad enough to cover the full scope of the term.
There are surprisingly few references to Product Ecosystems in academic, business or popular literature. Those few references lack consistency.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 47 Williams
Most references in popular literature tend to have the view that products designed to be part of an ecosystem offer more value than those designed as stand-alone products. Some argue that we should not think about products or platforms at all and should focus on creating an ecosystem first and foremost. (Druce, 2014; Lingareddy, 2015).
“Do not build products. Do not build platforms. Build ecosystems.” “Through the ecosystem logic, value creation and value provision are separated” (Babiolakis, 2016).
While this demonstrates contemporary discussion about products and ecosystems, all of the above reference web articles and other opinion pieces, while written by practitioners with knowledge and experience in this area, they may lack depth, academic rigour and an application to Industrial Design. What they do acknowledge though is the need to consider the greater ecosystem when developing new products. Literature abounds from both practitioner and academic on the topics of business ecosystems, innovation ecosystems and UX ecosystems, but the Product Ecosystems that industrial designers need to consider have had very little attention in comparison.
A fundamental part of the study of natural ecosystems is how they change over time and how species evolve and adapt in response to those changes. There is almost no mention of the temporal aspect in the literature of business, innovation and UX ecosystems.
Product Ecosystems have different levels and to reduce the complexity of the analysis, it is easier to separate these levels. Collectively they create the complete Product Ecosystem. The first level is the immediate surroundings of the product. The physical ecosystem. The example of the Hills hoist demonstrated that ordinary back yards have
Page 48 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams changed; i.e. part of the physical ecosystem had changed, reducing the value proposition. The second level of Product Ecosystems is a collection of interrelated actors that the product requires. Using the example of the television, these actors would include the electricity supply, content suppliers, antenna and DVD player.
The third level of the Product Ecosystem is the business entities that relate to the product. This level involves the same actors as those found in Innovation Ecosystems though considered from a designer’s perspective, not a business strategy one. There are two types of Product Ecosystem, the open or generic ecosystem where elements of the ecosystem are created and controlled by separate companies and the closed or proprietary ecosystem where a significant part of the ecosystem is created and controlled by a single company. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.
Ecosystems that comprise a range of products and other entities that are owned by different companies are the most common form of an ecosystem. A well-known example is the mobile phone ‘Android ecosystem.’ While Android provides the operating system; other manufacturers provide the rest of the ecosystem. Hardware manufacturers provide handsets; software companies provide apps, and a telecom company supplies the network. Other entities provide content such as music and video streaming. In this way, entities can gain value from each other’s existence. From an innovation ecosystem perspective, initially it was important that there was a sufficiently supportive ecosystem either in place or able to be created; i.e., there were none of Adner’s ‘blind spots’.
Groups of products made by a single manufacturer and deliberately designed to interact with each other in a way that excludes other manufacturers’ products form a ‘proprietary’ or ‘closed’ ecosystem. One of the advantages of this type of ecosystem is that a single company has complete control over how products interact with each other.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 49 Williams
Note that closed ecosystems almost always have some part of the ecosystem that is still open. In comparison to the Android ecosystem, the Apple ecosystem can be considered closed as it has many aspects that are owned and controlled by Apple. The “Apple Ecosystem” is mentioned often popular literature (Armano, 2007; Kansara, 2013; Ravichandran, 2017; “The Apple Ecosystem - AppleMagazine,” n.d.; Villas-Boas, 2016; Viloria, 2016) although with very little consistency in use.
The apple ecosystem includes not only physical products such as phones, tablets, laptops, connectors but also software. Not all products that form this type of ecosystem need to be electronic and share data; for example, a range of power tools that share a common, interchangeable battery form a closed ecosystem (Chen, 2018).
Another example of a closed ecosystem is that of electric car manufacturer Tesla. One of the biggest obstacles to the adoption of electric cars was the lack of charging facilities. The simple solution was for Tesla to install charging stations rather than waiting for existing refuelling facilities to adapt. As Adner (2012, p. 171) points out, there was a chicken and egg situation where there was little incentive to install charging stations. Although hard to miss, it was a red light. Teslas charging stations are an excellent example of a design solution for a Product Ecosystem.
The advantage of a closed ecosystem is the potential elimination of blind spots by simply designing them out rather than waiting for someone else to fix the problem. Control and profits remain within the one company, and the ecosystem can be designed and optimised with the one vision. Designing the ecosystem is a good strategy for the early mover and minimises the risks (Adner, 2012). The disadvantage of a closed ecosystem is that the complexity of setting up a large part of the ecosystem requires a broad range of expertise.
Page 50 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The main advantage of an open ecosystem is that the barrier to entry is lower for individual companies than a closed ecosystem. A company with a single product in an open ecosystem can specialise, and a focus on areas of expertise is thereby creating competition and incremental innovation, increasing the overall value of the ecosystem. It is, however, more difficult with disruptive innovation. In summary, the various types of ecosystems all argue the importance of looking at the ‘big picture’ and not just the entity in front of us. Product Ecosystems are significantly different from these other types of ecosystems and are as yet insufficiently investigated.
Industrial designers have always intuitively designed products that form part of an ecosystem even though formal methods did not exist. What suitable design methods might exist then that help designers develop products within an ecosystem.
The following is a summary of design methods that may be useful in analysing and applying Product Ecosystem theory.
Business ecosystems and UX ecosystems are specific types of ecosystems and are highly focussed compared to Product Ecosystems. The advantage of being focussed is that it reduces some of the complexity of trying to understand the ecosystem.
In the field of sociology, the complex interactions between people, objects and intangible things form a type of ecosystem and can be difficult to grasp. Actor Network Theory (ANT) is a way to visualise and analyse this type of ecosystem (I. Buchanan, 2004; Latour, 1996). Since it emerged in the1980s, it has been used many fields beyond sociology, including design (Kraal et al., 2011).
Although generic and developed for sociology, ANT provides a more structured way to look at what it calls a network. A central aspect of ANT is that all entities in the network
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 51 Williams are considered to have equal influence, irrespective of whether they are human, non- human, tangible or intangible (I. Buchanan, 2004; Latour, 1996, 2005).
Figure 12 - Actor network Theory’s relation to Product Ecosystems
As Figure 12 shows, ANT is part of both Sociology and Systems Thinking, and the structure and mapping methods have been adopted by Product Ecosystem Thinking.
Of particular interest to designers is the visualisation method commonly used in ANT. This type of mapping is ideal to use for mapping Product Ecosystems, as it also deals with tangible and intangible entities, all of which influence the value proposition and comprise the structure of systems or networks within a Product Ecosystem. Figure 18 below highlights the system surrounding a television.
Page 52 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 13 - ANT diagram for a television
In this section, I describe the design methods that are relevant to the implementation of Product Ecosystem thinking.
One of the principal authors of innovation theory is Clayton Christensen (1997b). Christensen uses the terms of incremental and disruptive innovation. Incremental is used to describe innovation that is a derivative of an existing product, creating neither a
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 53 Williams new market nor significantly changing an existing one. Disruptive innovation is an innovation that creates a new market or disrupts an existing one. Many other authors describe a similar distinction between the two types of innovation and often use different terms to describe essentially the same concept. For example, Verganti (2009) describes how radical innovation can be created by innovating the meaning of a product, and that sustaining innovation is when a new product retains the meaning of a previous product. Song (1998) discusses how ‘really-new-products’ require a different approach to design compared to incremental products. Veryzer (1998) analyses the difference in approach taken between what he calls evolutionary and discontinuous innovation, also using the term next big thing. Reid et al. (2004) also use the term discontinuous innovation to describe how the “fuzzy front end” influences innovation. New-to-the-world (R. Kumar & Uusitalo, 2014) and blue-sky products (Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2005) are also terms used elsewhere. With only slight differences in definition, these terms all refer to either product that is a significant departure from an existing product or derived product. In this thesis, I have chosen to use the widely used ‘disruptive’ and ‘incremental’ innovation.
Other authors talk about product failures outside the realm of innovation theory. For example, Gourville (2005) argues that highly innovative products suffer from what he describes as the “curse of innovation”: that developers of innovative new products overestimate the value to consumers, who in turn underestimate the value. One of the key repeated themes is a lack of understanding of how value creation in products, whether that value is in the meaning of a product (Verganti, 2009) or whether it is a lack of a new value network (C. Christensen, 1997b). From this, therefore, an understanding of how products gain value is critical.
Page 54 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Most professional designers learn the basic design methods and develop design skills while gaining a design degree at an institute providing tertiary education. So what design teaching methods are applicable for teaching Product Ecosystem thinking? In Paper 5: Ecosystem Design Method, I discuss various existing design-teaching methods and evaluate their suitability for designers to use to apply the principles of Product Ecosystem thinking. In particular, I examine the two different paradigms of design: Rational Problem Solving and Reflection in Action (Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995).
Rational Problem Solving is a more structured approach, following defined methods to produce design outcomes (Pahl & Beitz, 2013; Simon & Newell, 1971). However, Schön (1983) argues that this is not how designers design, showing that designers work in a way that is less structured, more fluid and iterative; often referred to as reflection in action (Schön, 1983). Designers work by conceptualising the design problem, making tentative explorations using sketching and ideation and then comparing the results to the design problem. Many iterations of this process are often required to establish a suitable design direction. This approach relies on skill, technical knowledge, experience and a considerable amount of subjective judgement.
As Dorst and Dijkhuis (et. al.1995) explain, there are two main paradigms of design approaches: Rational Problem Solving and Reflection in Action. Experienced designers use both paradigms and tend to move fluidly between them. On a cognitive level, this correlates with fast thinking (System 1) and slow thinking (System 2) described by Kahneman (2011). The two modes of thinking that Kahneman describes are used at different times by everyone. Slow thinking is a conscious, methodical, analytical mode whereas fast thinking is intuitive, impulsive and mostly automatic. Designers use both fast and slow thinking but are likely to use fast thinking more often than many other disciplines.
Take for example a new design for a clothes-ironing system for use in small apartments. The designer may start by analysing information such as user needs and available
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 55 Williams space in typical apartments. This methodical and objective information-gathering stage is part of a slow thinking, Rational Problem Solving approach. Later in the design process, the designer is likely to consider the aesthetics, the form of the product, the materials and surface textures, what should and should not be affordances and the treatment of them. The subjective judgement required at this stage is much more likely to be characterised by a fast thinking, reflection in action approach.
Fast thinking Reflection in Action is learned through experience and therefore used more often by experienced designers than novice designers. Novice designer will tend to rely more heavily on structured processes (Wong et al., 2016) while they are still developing skills and experience. During the creative stage of product design, structured methods such as brainstorming, personas and storyboarding are also frequently used to generate and focus innovative ideas.
Brainstorming is a well-established technique first popularised by Osborn in his book Applied Imagination (Osborn, 1957) used for the generation of ideas. There are other well established creative problem-solving techniques such as De Bono’s Lateral Thinking technique (De Bono, 1991), or TRIZ, also known as the “theory of inventive problem solving” popularised by Altschuler et al. (1995). These, along with many other idea generating and problem-solving techniques tend to be more complicated to apply than brainstorming.
“Design Thinking” is an umbrella term which refers to the methods and creative approaches that a designer may use as part of their creative process to solve complex problems. The term was first used in the 1960s, though some methods date back to the 1950s. The application in contexts outside traditional design disciplines caused a rise in popularity since the 1990s. Seen as a distinct way of tackling problems it has been applied to diverse fields from banking (Klueter & Siota, 2017) to healthcare (Roberts et
Page 56 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams al., 2016). Rittel and Webber described major intractable social problems such as crime, poverty and climate change as “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973) due to the difficulty of finding solutions. The potential for design thinking to address these complex problems is becoming more accepted (R. Buchanan, 1992; Conway et al., 2017). The strength in Design Thinking is that it is both divergent as well as convergent, allowing the generation of multiple possible solutions before converging on a preferred solution. The divergent and convergent process is best illustrated by the UK Design Councils “double diamond” visualisation of the design process, as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 - The Double Diamond
(Design Council UK, 2007)
There are variations on the double diamond model. For example, the prominent design thinking firm IDEO use what they call the ‘‘three spaces of innovation’’:
‘‘‘inspiration,’’ the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ‘‘ideation,’’ the process of generating, developing, and testing ideas; and ‘‘Implementation, the path that leads from the project room to the market.’
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 57 Williams
(T. Brown & Katz, 2011).
The foundational premise of Design Thinking is that designers approach problem- solving in ways that are different to other people in other disciplines (Cross, 2001; Dorst & Cross, 2001; Evans, 2012; Rucker, 2011). For example,
Designers use empathy to generate insight into user needs. Designers use an iterative process to repeatedly generate and discard ideas until the ‘right’ idea emerges. Designers use imagination, intuition and creativity to uncover new possibilities.
This approach may appear sloppy, unstructured, inefficient and even risky to those accustomed to generating outputs based on established linear methodologies using empirical data. However, that is what makes Design Thinking different and potent. After all, there is no effective formula for creativity (Barron & Harrington, 2003).
Compare this to the highly structured, highly detailed ecosystem pie model, and it becomes clear that business strategists and designers think in different ways and need different tools. Thus, a practical approach that designers can use consider the Product Ecosystem is more likely to be born from Design Thinking than business strategy.
Page 58 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 15 - Innovation Ecosystems relation to Product Ecosystems
Figure 15 shows that though Product Ecosystems and Innovation Ecosystems are closely related, they require different treatment.
Despite the range of established design methods and tools, there is an increasing sense that “design thinking alone will not be enough” (Conway et al., 2017, p. 3) as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution and robotics, automation and machine learning disrupt how people live, work and play. Conway et al. (2017) have persuasively argued that while design thinking is a powerful tool for idea development, it fails to consider the context fully – specifically, systemic complexity and power dynamics which means that “even the best ideas can lie on the shelf unused, and thus without impact” (Conway et al., 2017, p. 8). The answer, they argue, is to understand and integrate Systems Thinking with Design Thinking – thus enabling “innovations to enter and actively shape the complex systems that surround wicked social challenges.”
Product Ecosystems form a nexus between Design Thinking and Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking remains a difficult concept to define concisely (Arnold & Wade, 2015) even though it has gained much interest since the 1990s (Richmond, 1991; Taborga, 2011).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 59 Williams
The following are various Systems Thinking definitions: • “a system of thinking about systems” (Arnold & Wade, 2015) • “Systems Thinking is the art and science of making reliable inferences about behaviour by developing an increasingly deep understanding of underlying structure” (Richmond, 1991); • “systems thinking [is] a way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shapes the behaviour of systems” (Senge et al., 1994); • “[Systems Thinking is a] framework for seeing interrelationship rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots” (Behl & Ferreira, 2014)
Definitions for Systems Thinking vary so much that a test has been devised to determine whether a definition describes Systems Thinking (Arnold & Wade, 2015). Figure 16 shows this test.
A definition for Systems Thinking must describe the Purpose, Elements and Interconnectedness of Systems Thinking. The fact that a test exists demonstrates a lack of consensus about what Systems thinking encompasses.
Page 60 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 16 - The system test
(reproduced from Arnold & Wade, 2015, p. 271)
While a concise definition is elusive, descriptions of Systems Thinking tend to agree on the same characteristics. Table 1 shows a simplified version of Acaroglu’s (2017) 6 key concepts of System Thinking. There are many different versions of systems theory, with one of the most well-known General Systems Theory (GST) is an interdisciplinary theory that describes systems with interacting and interdependent components. Popularised by Von Bertalanffy et al. in the 1930s, (Von Bertalanffy, 1938, 1968) for use in biology to explain the growth of organisms, this theory continues to be used and developed (e.g., see Minati, 2016).
Key Concept Description
Systems thinking requires a shift in mindset, away from linear to Interconnectedness circular. The fundamental principle of this shift is that everything
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 61 Williams
is interconnected. We talk about interconnectedness not in a spiritual way, but in a biological sciences way. Synthesis refers to the combining of two or more things to create something new. When it comes to systems thinking, the goal is a Synthesis synthesis, as opposed to analysis, which is the dissection of complexity into manageable components.
Emergence is the natural outcome of things coming together, the outcome of the synergies of the parts; it is about non-linearity and Emergence self-organisation, and we often use the term ‘emergence’ to describe the outcome of things interacting together.
Since everything is interconnected, there are constant feedback loops and flows between elements of a system. We can observe, Feedback Loops understand, and intervene in feedback loops once we understand their type and dynamics. The two main types of feedback loops are reinforcing and balancing. Reinforcing creates an imbalance. Balancing creates stability.
Understanding feedback loops are about gaining perspective of causality: how one thing results in another thing in a dynamic and Causality constantly evolving system Systems mapping is one of the key tools of the systems thinker. Identify and map the elements of ‘things’ within a system to Systems Mapping understand how they interconnect, relate and act in a complex system, and from here, unique insights and discoveries can be used to develop interventions, shifts, or policy decisions that will dramatically change the system most effectively.
Table 1 - Systems Thinking Key Concepts
A key concept that Von Bertalanffy introduced was the notion of open systems vs closed systems. Closed systems do not allow external influences, whereas open systems allow for external influences. The notion of open and closed Product Ecosystems was derived directly from Von Bertalanffy’s ideas of open and closed systems.
Page 62 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Von Bertalanffy produced mathematical models to describe the growth of organisms within a system but did not establish the type of visualisation required for designers. This reliance on mathematical models was criticised and seen as being focussed on individual parts; i.e. reductionist; in contrast, a more holistic view that considered the entire system, known as synthesis. GST then evolved into what is now known as Systems Thinking (Taborga, 2011). Systems Thinking can be applied to an extensive range of systems from business structure to urban planning as it is very generic.
Goodman and Karash (1995) provide six key steps to applying Systems Thinking. They are as follows: 1 Tell the Story The first step in solving the problem is to understand it, and this is achieved by looking deeply at the whole system rather than individual parts.
2 Draw Behaviour The Behaviour Over Time graph draws a curve that presents a specific behaviour Over Time (Y) through the time (X) (BOT) Graphs
3 Create a At this point, there should be a clear vision about the problem-solving process, Focusing which is defined in the form of a statement that indicates the team’s target and why Statement the problem occurs
4 Identify the After having a clear vision about the problem through the proposed statement, the Structure system structure should be described, including the behaviour patterns. Building these patterns helps in understanding more about the problem, and it can be formed as a system archetype.
5 Going Deeper After defining the problem and the system structure, this step tends to understand into the Issues the underlying problems through clarifying four items: the purpose of the system (what we want), the mental models, the large system, and personal role in the situation.
6 Plan an The previously collected information is used to start the intervention phase, where Intervention modifications to the current problem relate parts to connections. This intervention attempts to reach desirable behaviour.
Table 2 - The six steps of Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking is a very adaptable approach used across an extensive variety of disciplines as disparate as healthcare (Research & Campbell, 2009), to the study of
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 63 Williams climate change (Lezak & Thibodeau, 2016) and is especially useful for tackling complex social problems such as poverty (Muschett, 2017). As Conway reminds us that;
“Systems encompass many actors, competing incentives and hidden nuances.” (Conway et al., 2017, p. 11).
Conway, Masters and Thorold lament (2017) that there is a deficit “of Systems Thinking in design methodologies”.
They make a compelling case for why Systems Thinking should be part of the design process and why traditional design methods are insufficient, arguing that:
“While design thinking alone provides a compelling process for idea development, it fails to recognise that without due consideration of systemic complexity and power dynamics, even the best ideas can lie on the shelf unused, and thus without impact.” (Conway et al., 2017, p. 8)
They contribute what they describe as the ‘think like a system, act like an entrepreneur’ method of bringing together design and systems thinking. The approach they suggest combines the advantage of a deep understanding of the system to gain maximum impact with an entrepreneurial part identifying opportunities for change. This approach takes into consideration factors such as power dynamics, competing incentives and cultural norms to identify barriers to change and thus identify entrepreneurial detours around them. Conway, Masters and Thorold point out that as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution with Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Biotechnology
Page 64 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams transforming so many of our social structures, we need to take a human-centred approach to tackle the real problems faced by ordinary people.
They argue that as Design Thinking is user-centric, and is an effective way to generate innovation that has both social and economic impact. This method of thinking does not conform to the traditionally well-accepted models. Traditional models are what they describe as the “engineering mindset” that clings to out-dated models of innovation such as Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovation (see Figure 21). They claim that it is “premised on linear assumptions of scaling” when innovation addressing complex social situations is far from predictable (Conway et al., 2017, pp. 10, 11)., The traditionally accepted linear model of innovation that Conway, Masters and Thorold argue is insufficient is shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17 - A linear model of innovation
(reproduced from Conway et al., 2017 p.12)
They point out that many obstacles can get in the way and often result in a failed attempt to commercialise a product or introduce a service. They call this the “system immune response” as it is analogous to the natural organism response to foreign objects. Many reasons can cause this immune response.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 65 Williams
“Competing incentives [can] leave an innovation unrealised, or strict regulatory frameworks, fear or cultural opposition create barriers or headwinds. Perhaps the wider context is not ready for the innovation because it requires complementary changes in other areas or, as is often the case in government, there are strict procurement strategies in place that prevent new products or ideas from accessing a market“. (Conway et al., 2017, p. 12)
Figure 18 graphically depicts the system immune response showing how innovation can fail, bouncing back to square one, in the same way that a body rejects a pathogen.
Figure 18 - System Immune response
(Conway et al., 2017, p. 13)
Conway et al. assert that the way to prevent the system immune response is to take a holistic view and gain a better understanding of the whole of the system. It is at this point that Systems Thinking is applied. By taking a holistic view and accepting that a system is composed of interconnected elements, one can get an understanding of the
Page 66 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
“big picture”. A common criticism of Systems Thinking is that as it attempts to make sense of complex interconnected systems, it can become so abstract that it is hard to relate it to a practical application. The “act like an entrepreneur” idea is where this brings the focus back to looking for viable, practical opportunities. For this, a “hacker mentality” is required to identify ways around the immune response.
According to Conway, Masters and Thorold, one of the main limitations of Systems Thinking when applied to real-world problems is its inability to identify practical solutions. Whereas Design Thinking provides tangible solutions to problems but may miss ‘seeing the big picture’.
Design, as an activity, has its roots in practical, physical objects whereas Systems Thinking has its origins in the very abstract General System Theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1968). The designer learns from the epistemology of practice, learning from doing, whereas the systems thinker learns by abstracting away from any discipline constraints. Ryan and Leung (2013) point out that in recent decades design has;
“followed a trajectory of increasing abstractness, migrating from the design of objects to the design of services, identities, interfaces, networks, projects, and discourses” (Ryan & Leung, 2013)
At the same time systems thinking has become grounded in practice.
They maintain that design and systems thinking is on a “collision course.”
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 67 Williams
Figure 19 - The gap between Design Thinking and Systems Thinking
While Design Thinking and Systems thinking are on this collision course, at the moment there is a gap between them. Product Ecosystem Thinking fills that gap.
PE Thinking blends the theoretical Systems Thinking with the applied Design Thinking.
Bringing both Design and Systems Thinking together allows the full complexity of an ecosystem to be understood as well as a way to identify opportunities and roadblocks; creating a very flexible approach.
Figure 20 - Product Ecosystems: a blend of Design Thinking and Systems Thinking
Page 68 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Another problem is that both Design and Systems Thinking are “umbrella methodologies” that include a wide variety of methods. Each is complex on its own, requiring significant experience to master. Add the two together, and we have a powerful but very complex methodology. The reality of most design professionals is that they work to deadlines and spending time working through a complex process may be hard to justify. Thus, what is required is a simplified method that incorporates the essence of the Design/Systems thinking approach into a practice that can be rapidly deployed by design professionals. PE Thinking aims to do just that.
While reviewing the literature that relates to the notion of Product Ecosystems I have found many useful and similar theories and references. None, however adequately cover this from the perspective of a designer. That is, no literature adequately describes the critical relationship between a designed product and its ecosystem, leaving a gap that this research project fills. The literature either tends to use the term “ecosystem” (in a non-ecological context) to describe groups of businesses and their interconnections. Alternatively, the term ecosystem is used to describe groups of electronically connected products and focuses on electronic interfaces or shared user experience. The literature includes a variety of types of ecosystems: business ecosystems, innovation ecosystems and UX ecosystems, but all of these focus on a specific type of ecosystem that is different from a Product Ecosystem.
Due to the increase in digitally connected products, the term “Product Ecosystems” is often used to describe a collection of products that interrelate digitally. I argue that this “electronic ecosystem” is a subset of a Product Ecosystem. Though products may form an ecosystem that includes other digitally linked products; these are not the only entities with which they interrelate. Product Ecosystems take into account all interrelated entities that can influence a product. In comparison, business, innovation and UX ecosystems focus on only one aspect of an ecosystem. Thus, a better understanding of Product Ecosystems is required and currently missing from the literature.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 69 Williams
Page 70 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Chapter 3 - PRODUCT EVOLUTION (PAPER 1)
This line of research started with the broad question of why some well-designed products fail; a search of the literature was unable to provide a suitable answer. I felt that perhaps looking at past successes and failures might shed some light on this. The proposal that products evolve in a way analogous to species is not new (Adomavicius et al., 2006; C. Christensen, 1997a; Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000). However, using product evolution as a means to investigate successes and failures of product lines from an industrial design perspective has not been examined. Thus, this represents a gap in knowledge.
This gap in knowledge led to the research question of: ‘How can product history provide insight into why products succeed or fail?”
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 71 Williams
Using an inductive approach based on Grounded Theory I decided to look at a product category that contained some product lines that had failed and some that had succeeded. I decided to use the wristwatch as a case study as it was a well- documented product category with a variety of successes and failures.
Gathering data was straightforward as there are numerous books and online information that documents the history of the wristwatch. I decided to chart the major types of watches on a large sheet so that I could get an overview of all the product lines. Immediately it became evident that there was a tree structure reminiscent of a family tree or an evolutionary (phylogenetic) tree. Could products evolve in a way analogous to species? Could external factors influence product success or failure in the same way that happens with species? Does their ecosystem influence products in the same way that species are?
In the study of natural ecosystems, it is a well-understood phenomenon that species evolve and adapt to opportunities and threats posed by the environment as well as competition with other species. The relationship between species and ecosystems is a fundamental mechanism that drives Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution. If consumer products are considered to respond similarly, influenced by threats and opportunities within a Product Ecosystem, then an investigation into a product evolution is required.
This paper, presented at the 6th IASDR (The International Association of Societies of Design Research) Congress held in Brisbane, Australia in 2015, was published in the proceedings of the conference, pp. 2222-2235. The original paper title was “Using the evolution of consumer products to inform design”.
Page 72 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
In the case of this chapter:
Statement of Contribution for Thesis by Published Papers
The authors listed below have certified that: 1. They meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. They take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the lead author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. There are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit. 5. They agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
Contributor Statement of Contribution Tim Williams Sole investigator, full contribution to the planning of the study, data
QUT Verified Signature collection and analysis, literature review and writing of the manuscript.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.
Evonne Miller QUT Verified Signature 04/04/19
Name Signature Date Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 73 Williams
Paper as originally published:
Author: Williams, Tim (2015)
Title: “USING THE EVOLUTION OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS TO INFORM DESIGN”
Published: In Proceedings of the 6th IASDR (The International Association of Societies of Design Research Congress), IASDR (The International Association of Societies of Design Research), 2015, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 2222-2235.
The development of a new consumer product and its release to market is typically an expensive and risky process. Up to 80% of all new products fail in the marketplace (Savoia, 2014). The consequences of failure can be ruinous for a manufacturer both financially and in terms of brand reputation. So even small improvements in success prediction have the potential to save money, effort and brand reputation. This paper proposes an approach where the history and evolution of a product are mapped and analysed. The results of the analysis can then be used to inform design decisions. This paper will also demonstrate the similarities between biological evolution and the evolution of consumer products. Using the existing structure and terminology of biological evolution allows us to focus on the aspects of innovations that have led to success and those that have led to failure.
Page 74 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This paper uses the case study of the wristwatch and its development over 100 years. The analysis of this leads to recommendations for contemporary “smartwatches.”
Keywords Disruptive innovation; product evolution; smartwatch; Product Ecosystems;
One of the most influential and widely cited ideas about innovation in recent decades is that of disruptive innovation as proposed by Clayton Christensen. In his book, The Innovators Dilemma (1997b), Christensen proposes that innovation is either sustaining or disruptive. Sustaining innovation, in its purest form, refers to incremental improvements in the performance of products. Typically this type of innovation tends to provide reliable returns on investment in the short term but with diminishing returns in the longer term. Disruptive innovation, in contrast, is innovation that creates a radically different product that significantly changes a market or creates a new one. Disruptive innovation typically offers less value initially but often goes on to succeed, eventually eliminate sustaining innovation. While this sheds some light on why some products succeed, and others fail it does not pretend to model the full complexity of market success or failure.
Alberto Savoia, in his book “Failure: Analyze It, Don’t Humanize It” (Savoia, 2014), claims that 80% of all new products fail in the marketplace and do so due to his “Law of market failure.” He states that most new products will fail in the market place even if competently executed. He goes on to suggest that there are three reasons why products fail. 1. Failure in launch 2. Failure in operations 3. Failure in premise
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 75 Williams
There are others who have investigated the reasons why products fail or succeed. For example, Gourville (2005) proposes that products often fail due to consumer behavioural reasons. The reality is that products can fail for a multitude of reasons. Some of those reasons are tangible and easily identified; for example too high a price, lack of features, too heavy and so on. Other, less tangible reasons include poorly timed entry to the market, inappropriate aesthetics, and bad brand reputation and so on. Due to the number of reasons that can lead to product failure, developing a comprehensive, reliable tool that guarantees success is at best highly improbable. However, given the enormous investment typically required to design, develop and release a new product coupled with the high likelihood of failure, any tool that can reduce the risk of failure should immediately have value: Product failures can be ruinous for a manufacturer.
This paper aims to propose a tool that can be used to help plot and analyse historical success and failure of a product within a category. So far, most efforts to analyse product failure seem to be reductionist, identifying likely categories of failure, (Gourville, 2005; Savoia, 2014 et al.) or categories of success (Christensen, 1997). Rather than reduce failures into categories, this paper proposes that an expansive view is taken that charts past success and failure of a product category. The intention is to develop a tool that allows patterns or specific examples of failure or success. These can then be analysed using existing methods such as those mentioned previously. The case study is the wristwatch, and a simple SWOT analysis will be used to evaluate the data.
The starting point for the development of a tool was the premise that it is possible to learn from the failures and successes of the past within a product category. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Santayana, 1905)
Page 76 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The first step was to look at previous examples of watches and look at how they have developed over time. A branching pattern soon emerged that had a striking similarity to the evolutionary (phylogenetic) trees found in biology. Further exploration revealed even more similarities between the evolutionary patterns found in biology and those found in product histories
The Product Lifecycle Concept (PLC) is a commonly used marketing principle based on Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory. PLC describes a lifecycle comprised of a series of phases where sales growth will increase for a while and then decline (See Figure 21 – Typical product lifecycle). A variety of factors cause the decline including market saturation and competition from other products. For some products, this curve will be gradual, over a long time and for others, very rapid.
Figure 21 - Typical product lifecycle
Manufacturers therefore typically introduce a new model that will supersede the existing model before the decline. (See Figure 22 – Superseding existing models.) This concept gained widespread acceptance in the 1960s. The intention is, of course, to improve on the previous model. Improvements can be in many areas; for example, functionality, aesthetics, usability or cost. The lifecycle of products is typically a function of aspects such as competition, the complexity of the product, the lifespan of the product, the maturity of the product and so on. For example, a hammer is a simple, long-lasting
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 77 Williams product where meaningful innovation is difficult. We can expect a hammer to have a long lifecycle. A mobile phone, by contrast, is a relatively ephemeral product, highly involved with much competition and much scope for innovation. Mobile phones, therefore, have a shorter lifecycle with manufacturers typically producing one or two new models each year.
Figure 22 - Superseding existing models
Page 78 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 23 - The evolution of the five series BMW
(Kljaic, 2015)
This process of continual refinement is what Christensen describes as sustaining innovation. Occasionally a new product category will emerge. Sometimes this will be based on an existing product with significant changes. For example, the smartphone has improvements in technology that allow far greater functionality compared to previous mobile phones. Sometimes it will be an entirely new product, such as the first DVD player. Products that create a new category also create new markets. According to Christensen, these products are examples of disruptive innovation. These products are often enabled by new technology or adapt existing technology to a new application.
When one looks at sustaining innovation, it usually is clear to see how a new model is related to the previous model and how there is a clear progression from one model to the next. With disruptive innovation, the predecessor’s influence is not always as evident as with sustaining innovation. However, it is always there and often comes from more than one source. For example, the DVD player has adopted technology from the CD player as well as the VCR. While the CD player still exists, (though arguably in decline), the VCR is no longer made in any reasonable quantities and has nearly ceased to exist. All sustaining innovation has clear predecessors and therefore can be seen to have evolved from other products (Crawford & Tellis, 1981). Some product lines rapidly evolve while others evolve slowly over time. Some products regularly supersede others in a gradual progression while occasionally new products emerge that are radically different from those that currently exist. Occasionally a product line will decline and eventually disappear altogether, becoming extinct. All products compete for market share while only the fittest thrive. These patterns of behaviour occur in both nature and consumer products.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 79 Williams
Both biological species and consumer products respond to external opportunities and threats. In biology, the opportunities and threats come from the environment and other species and for products the opportunities and threats come from the market, social trends and legislation (Williams & Chamorro-koc, 2013). They all tend to thrive when they are well adapted to exploit opportunities and decline when unable to adapt to threats. They both compete for resources; whether those resources are consumer dollars or food. In biology, the principle of phyletic gradualism describes the process where the rise of a descendant species slowly displaces an ancestral species a traceable lineage. Small changes in physiology allow species to become better adapted to their environment so they can thrive. In a resource-constrained environment, this tends to displace those ancestral species that are now less able to exploit those resources. Phyletic Gradualism has parallels in the evolution of products as new products with slight changes are released onto the market. If the changes are well received by the consumer then the product will be successful; if not then the changes will be dropped in subsequent models. This is partly described by the term “sustaining innovation” which was coined by Christensen (C. Christensen, 1997b). The difficulty with the concept of sustaining innovation is that it presumes that each new model is a slight improvement on previous models and therefore successful. The reality is that 80% of all new products fail within the first year of launch (Savoia, 2014). They fail for a multitude of reasons, the common factor being an inability to thrive within the marketplace.
Page 80 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 24 - Phyletic Gradualism
Figure 25 - Human Evolution – The march of progress
(Gambotto-Burke, 2018)
In contrast to Phyletic Gradualism is the principle of Punctuated Equilibrium which describes a process where a descendent species with very distinct differences evolve abruptly. The principle behind this is a random genetic mutation. The majority of the time these mutations are “failures” resulting in no new species. Occasionally the mutation
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 81 Williams allows the new species to exploit the environment in a very different way, leading to a successful new species. Allowing it, for example, access to a different food source or allowing it a new way to escape a predator. This is often associated with changes in the environment that create new opportunities for new species. Therefore it can be seen that disruptive innovation is responsible for punctuated equilibrium evolution and sustaining innovation creates phyletic gradualism. This is analogous to disruptive innovation where new products exploit changes in the Product Ecosystem (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). For example changes in new technology or changes in social behaviour. This results in new products that disrupt existing markets or create new market segments.
In both biology and consumer products, there is a continual process of diversification and innovation. Failures are an inevitable by-product of both processes as the available resources constrain both systems. In nature, these resources include food, water and shelter, in the market they are the various market forces. In both systems, diversification leads to competition for finite resources, creating survival of the fittest. The main difference between the two systems is that in biology, diversification and evolution comes from random genetic mutation and in new product development, diversification comes from design. This provokes the question: “Is it possible to learn something from historical diversification patterns that will allow us to improve on the 80% failure rate?” In biology, the key mechanism of evolution is natural selection where inherited biological traits in a species become either more or less prominent in response to environmental and other pressures. In product development, features in consumer products also evolve due to natural selection where features become more or less prominent in response to pressures from the market and opportunities provided by technology. It has been argued that products do not follow the strict model of evolution as they are planned through the process of design rather than random mutation and that a Lamarckian model is more appropriate (Massey, 1999). Irrespective of the instigator of change, it is sufficient for this paper to chart the structure of those changes.
Page 82 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This paper will investigate the case studies of the wristwatch. This product family was chosen because its history is very familiar and well documented. Watches have both been in use for the last 100-150 years allowing sufficient time for changes in society and technology to influence the evolution of the products and yet being in a timeframe short enough to allow documentation of those changes.
This case study looks at wristwatches from 1915 to 2015. This 100-year period was chosen for both convenience and because wristwatches, as they are known and used today started to become widespread around 1915. The following is included to provide context and a short history of the predecessors to the wristwatch.
Mechanical timekeeping is considered to have begun around 1300 with the invention of the clock using an escapement and pendulum. However, it was not until the late 1500s that spring balances and miniaturisation of components allowed timepieces to become reasonably portable. In Switzerland in 1542, John Calvin, as part of his austerity reforms, banned the wearing of jewellery. The jewellers of Switzerland adapted their skills to watchmaking instead as watches were seen as functional and therefore not merely adornment. This sparked a 500-year tradition of Swiss watchmaking. Initially, pocket watches were quite large, cumbersome and inaccurate but gradually became smaller and more robust. In Britain, in 1666, King Edward VII introduced the waistcoat, creating a safe and convenient way to carry the pocket watch, which was by then small enough to be carried in a fob pocket specifically designed for the purpose. By the 1800s women had started to wear small timepieces on their wrist, known as wristlets. Due to their small size, they were both fragile and inaccurate and seen more like jewellery or a fashion accessory than a useful wristwatch, and so men persisted with the more accurate and reliable pocket watch. During the Anglo-Boer War (1899- 1902) the value of watches began to be realised for synchronising troop movements. Pocket watches
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 83 Williams were worn on the wrist for convenience. The Second World War shortly after created demand for small, accurate, robust timekeepers specifically designed to be worn on the wrist. After the war, returned war heroes proudly wore these “trench watches” as a badge of honour. The wearing of wristwatches, as we know it today had begun. In Figure 26 - The wristwatch family tree shows an abbreviated evolution of the family of the wristwatch. Many models have come and gone over the last 100 years. It is impractical to show more than a few examples. For example, even in the emerging market of the smartwatch in 2014, there were 89 companies manufacturing smartwatches, many of which offer more than one model (Smartwatch Group, 2015). These examples have been included to show either the first, last or representative examples of a species. The horizontal green lines show the gradual refinement or evolution based on phyletic gradualism.
The first step was to gather information about the history of the wristwatch. One of the main advantages of using the wristwatch as a case study is the abundance of information about its history. This extensive recorded history tends to focus on when innovation has occurred. There are many examples, Brozek: (2004) is one. Other products may be more difficult to plot out for someone unfamiliar with that market due to less available information. However, organisations that have an interest in the success or failure of a particular product are likely to have extensive knowledge of that products individual market history. The next step was to identify the most significant innovations (see Figure 26 - The wristwatch family tree). The third step was to plot this information on a phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree. There appears no universal format for evolutionary trees, other than common ancestry shown at the branch intersections. For clarity, vertical branches with red links show Punctuated Equilibria (the evolutionary effect of sustaining innovation) and horizontal green branches show Phyletic Gradualism (disruptive innovation). See Figure 6 - The wristwatch family tree.
Page 84 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The method used to determine whether an innovation is disruptive or sustaining; the following question was asked. “Does this innovation… • Disrupt the existing market or create a new market? • Compete within the existing market?
This is based on the definition of disruptive innovation (C. Christensen, 1997b). In most cases it is quite easy to determine if a new product is disruptive or not; however, in some cases, it is not obvious. Christensen views innovation as either disruptive or sustaining. There are degrees of disruption. For this exercise, there are times when some judgment is required.
Once determined whether the innovation is disruptive or sustaining, the enabling factors need to be determined. These enabling factors can come from a variety of areas including technology push, design-led innovation, social change, legislative change. The sum of these environmental factors form the Product Ecosystem, and the product then gains or loses value depending on the product’s interaction with that ecosystem (Williams, 2014). These factors can then be divided into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Each link was analysed to see what circumstances encouraged that particular evolutionary change.
The reason for evaluating the links is to determine the significance and type of innovation. Phyletic gradualism is, by nature harder to evaluate because of the incremental nature of the innovation resulting in gradual change. This makes each step both harder to define (see Figure 23) as well as less critical. Phyletic gradualism is less essential to evaluate because the changes are typically smaller, market-driven and therefore represent significantly less risk of failure in the short term. In the long term,
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 85 Williams failure is more likely to be a gradual decline in relevance or loss of market due to competition from disruptive innovation. Therefore it is only beneficial to evaluate phyletic gradualism when the product line becomes extinct. For example, the typewriter evolved slowly over many years with numerous innovations along the way including the “Selectric” or “golfball” innovation. The rise of the personal computer in the 1980s led to the extinction of the typewriter. So, punctuated equilibrium brought about by disruptive innovation are the branches to evaluate. To determine whether innovation is disruptive or sustaining we can use Christensen’s definition (1997b). That is, if a product significantly changes a market or creates a new market, it can be said to be disruptive.
Page 86 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 26 - The wristwatch family tree
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 87 Williams
As previously mentioned the aim of creating an evolutionary tree diagram is so that various theories can be applied more easily to each evolutionary branch. In this case, a type of Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) analysis was applied. The intention was to identify the weaknesses of the watches that became extinct.
Figure 27 - Examples of a SWOT analysis using evolutionary branch analysis
The main advantage of this conceptual model is that it provides a method to visualise relationships between the various evolutionary branches easily. The evolutionary links can then be analysed using any suitable analysis method or application of theory, depending on what type of data the researcher is trying to obtain. A SWOT analysis has been shown above (in Figure 27.) One of the most prominent findings is from the example of the demise of the LED watch that did not survive much beyond 1972. The LED was in direct competition with the LCD. The LED had a much shorter battery life and required a button to be pushed to activate the display. The LED watch was also harder to read in intense light. Slightly
Page 88 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams after the release of the LED watch, the LCD version came to the market. Both types of watches shared the following strengths. • The novelty of a digital display • Robustness due to no moving parts
They both shared the opportunity for cost reduction due to the low part count and therefore low assembly costs. LCDs also have the following strengths • Uses very little power • Can always remain visible. • Long battery life • Clearly visible in bright sunlight
LED displays, by comparison, have shorter battery life, difficult to read in bright daylight and are only visible on demand by pushing a button. The example of the Swatch watch demonstrates the strength of aesthetics in the watch range. The demise of the calculator watch demonstrates the weakness of poor user interface and competition from other devices. So, from this, we can see the importance of good battery life, an always-on display and good daylight visibility. To translate these findings into criteria for contemporary designers of watches, for example, smartwatches, we can see that all other things being equal, smartwatches that offer long battery life, always-on displays, good usability and good daylight visibility are likely to thrive.
There are several limitations to this approach.
Firstly the quality of the output is only as good as the quality of the input. While the causes of failure are easy to plot out in the case of the wristwatch; other products may be more difficult to evaluate. This is because the wristwatch has a well-documented
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 89 Williams history and the cause of product failures are easily identified. As is the case for any SWOT analysis, the quality of the output will only be as good as the ability to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. This limitation is typical of many types of analysis. To reduce this uncertainty, stakeholder research may be required to determine the cause of product failure. The availability and quality of information are likely to vary from one product to the next.
Secondly, this approach deliberately simplifies the complexity of product innovation success and failure. In doing so, it is possible that some determinants of success or failure will be overlooked. Therefore it should not be seen as a means for predicting the future success of a product. It does, however, provide a simple graphical representation of a complex system that aims to identify areas for further consideration.
The third limitation is that some innovations have little or no commonality with historical products and therefore there is no historical basis for determining the likely success or failure. This method does, however, identify the novel features. Once identified further analysis is recommended using techniques such as focus groups.
A fourth limitation is that this analysis tool may be seen as a tool to show that if something has been unsuccessfully tried in the past, it should not be tried again. This is not the intention of this process; in fact, the opposite is the case. Products that have failed in the past may have been “ahead of their time”. It may be that small changes in technology or market acceptance may mean that a product can be revisited. This method can be used to identify the factors that contributed to the failure to avoid repeating them.
In summary, a product evolution diagram provides a convenient method for visualising the relationships between various products within an evolutionary family. The use of a
Page 90 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
SWOT analysis can highlight weaknesses that can lead to product failure and strengths that can promote success. Other types of product analysis can also be used. For example, this technique can be used to analyse the evolution of the meaning of products. That is, whether products have evolved through a process of user-centred, technology push or design-driven innovation. Design-driven innovation is when a new product is given a new meaning rather than innovation driven by ethnographic research or user insight (Verganti, 2009). This is demonstrated in Figure 28 - The product evolution model to evaluate Design-Driven Innovation- The use of the product evolution model to evaluate Design-Driven Innovation
Figure 28 - The product evolution model to evaluate Design-Driven Innovation
Using this model also allows researchers to evaluate more than one theory simultaneously easily. For example, if the two theories are overlaid on the model, we can ask questions such as: “In the context of watches, does User-Centred Design always lead to sustaining innovation?
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 91 Williams
Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). Understanding patterns of technology evolution: An ecosystem perspective. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.515 Antonella Gambotto-Burke. (2018). Stand Up Straight! A History of Posture. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/stand-up-straight- a-history-of-posture/news-story/efe9a2e8fb68c12ccae314ba181d8e0b Brozek, J. E. (2004). The History and Evolution of the Wristwatch... Retrieved March 31, 2015, from http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_articles/history_of_wristwatch.html Christensen, C. (1997a). Patterns in the evolution of product competition. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00081-3 Christensen, C. (1997b). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business (Vol. 1). Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from https://www.opac.uni- erlangen.de/webOPACClient/search.do?methodToCall=quickSearch&Kateg=0&Co ntent=2324510&fbt=7955401-2836663 Crawford, C. M., & Tellis, G. J. (1981). To Evolutionary Approach Product, 45(4), 125– 132. Gourville, J. T. (2005). The Curse of Innovation : A Theory of Why Innovative New Products Fail in the Marketplace. Soldiers, 02163(05), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.777644 Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. (2000). Product Sequencing: Co-Evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.237288 Kljaic, V. (2015). BMW is changing - We have to learn to live with it. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.bmwblog.com/2015/01/28/bmw-changing-learn-live/ Massey, G. R. (1999). Product evolution: a Darwinian or Lamarckian phenomenon? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429910284292 Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress. Retrieved
Page 92 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15000?msg=welcome_stranger Savoia, A. (2014). FAILURE : ANALYZE IT , DON’T HUMANIZE IT. Smartwatch Group. (2015). Top 10 Smartwatch Companies 2014 (Sales) - Smartwatch Group. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/top-10- smartwatch-companies-sales-2014/ Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=rpaj0vLzPRkC&pgis=1 Williams, T. (2014). Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product Ecosystem theory. In The Sustainable City IX : Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, (p. 723–733.).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 93 Williams
Page 94 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Chapter 4 - PRODUCT ECOSYSTEMS: THE CITY CAR CASE STUDY (PAPER 2)
In paper 1: Product evolution, I proposed the question: ‘How can product history provide insight into why products succeed or fail?” In this paper I showed that products evolve in a way analogous to natural evolution, responding to threats and opportunities in a similar way. In a changing ecosystem, only those able to evolve will survive.
The wristwatch is an ideal case study to compare the way products and species evolve and how some change gradually and some change abruptly. Compare the slow evolving incremental innovation of the mechanical watch to that of the disruptive innovation of the smartwatch. Since it left the trenches, the expensive mechanical watch has always been
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 95 Williams a symbol of status and continues to be so today. There is no pressure from the ecosystem to change. Conversely, the unchanging link to history adds value.
In contrast, the smartwatch employs technology to add innovative features and must constantly innovate to survive. The product evolution map is a valuable post-mortem tool to evaluate the cause of product failure as it provides a context for where a product line sits within the product category. It allows the designer to see how threats and opportunities have influenced past product lines and to visualise where disruptive innovation and incremental innovation have either prospered or failed.
However, how can we use this thinking to predict future product success? What happens for future products, especially highly disruptive ones? The next logical step is to look at future products and to develop a means to analyse how their ecosystems influence future products. This prompted the research question for Paper 2: Product Ecosystems ‘How is an innovative new product influenced by its Product Ecosystem?’
We investigate the case study of the CityCar as it has several examples of very well considered designs, some of which are already in production. These designs address clearly articulated user needs through the innovative use of new technology. Despite this, few of these designs, if any have enjoyed commercial success.
In Paper 2, we describe how Product Ecosystem theory sits within the framework of innovation theory. We use the CityCar as an example of disruptive innovation because it has not enjoyed the success that innovation theory would have predicted. (Gagnon, 1999; Goldman & Gorham, 2006; Verganti, 2009; Williams, 2011). We postulate that this lack of success can be better explained using the nascent Product Ecosystem theory. Furthermore, we demonstrate that unless a product has a supportive ecosystem, it cannot be successful, irrespective of how well designed the product is. The reason behind this is that much of the product value is derived from the ecosystem. Figure 29 shows an example of incremental innovation in the form of a conventional car and an
Page 96 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams example of disruptive innovation in the form of a CityCar. The conventional car has a supportive ecosystem consisting of entities such as roads, traffic lights and parking spaces that are all optimised for it. The CityCar, by comparison, must exist in an ecosystem that is less than perfect for it. E.g. parking spaces and road lanes not optimised for this type of vehicle. If a key value proposition is the ability to park in smaller places and there are none available, then the advantage of the CityCar is diminished.
Figure 29 - Examples of incremental and Disruptive innovation.
We conclude paper 2: Product Ecosystems by proposing a method to test this hypothesis.
This paper was presented at the 4th International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) conference 2013, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. Attended by over 700 delegates from around the world, this is one of the largest design conferences.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 97 Williams
Statement of Contribution for Thesis by Published Papers The authors listed below have certified that: 1. They meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. They take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the lead author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. There are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit. 5. They agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
Contributor Statement of Contribution Tim Williams Chief investigator, the significant contribution to the planning of the study, data collection and analysis, QUT Verified Signature literature review and writing of the manuscript.
Dr Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Contribution to the planning of the study (as associate supervisor), review of data and analysis of the QUT Verified Signature manuscript.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation Page 98 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.
Evonne Miller QUT Verified Signature 04/04/19
Name Signature Date
Paper, as originally published:
Authors:
Williams, Tim & Chamorro-Koc, Marianella (2013)
Original paper title:
Product Ecosystems: an emerging methodological approach to study the implementation of disruptive innovation: the case of the CityCar.
Presented at the 4th International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) conference 2013, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Published, in Sugiyama, Kuzuo (Ed.) Consilience and Innovation in Design Proceedings and Program vol. 1, pp. 1286-1295 Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 99 Williams
The car has arguably had more influence on our lifestyle and urban environment than any other consumer product; allowing unprecedented freedom allowing us to live, work and have recreation where and when we choose. However, problems of pollution, congestion, road trauma, inefficient land use and social inequality are associated with car use. Despite 100 years of design and technology refinements, the problems above are significant and persistent: many argue that resolving these problems requires a fundamental redesign of the car. Redesigned vehicles have been proposed such as the MIT CityCar and others such as the Renault Twizy, commercialised. None, however, have successfully brought about significant change and the study of disruptive innovation explains this. Disruptive innovation, by definition, disrupts a market. It also disrupts the Product Ecosystem. The existing Product Ecosystem has co-evolved to support the conventional car and is not optimised for the new design: which will require a redesigned ecosystem to support it. A literature review identifies a lack of methodology for identifying the components of Product Ecosystems and the changes required for disruptive innovation implementation. This paper proposes such a methodology based on Design Thinking, Actor Network Theory, Disruptive Innovation and the CityCar scenarios.
Keywords:
CityCar, Design Thinking, Design-Driven Innovation, Disruptive Innovation,
Page 100 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Innovation is playing an increasingly important role in providing a competitive advantage and so planning for and managing innovation is important. There are however varying degrees of innovation, from incremental, where relatively minor changes take place, to radical or disruptive innovation that changes or creates new markets. (C. Christensen, 1997b) Risks, cost and uncertainty, tend to increase as innovation becomes more disruptive as do the potential rewards of being first or early to market. The literature on disruptive innovation management tends to focus on organisational structure and practices. There is a lack of understanding of how to predict the effects of disruptive innovation in a market place. This research introduces the concept of Product Ecosystems as a means to visualise and evaluate how potential disruptive innovation interacts with other products and services. This paper reports an ongoing research project that aims to develop a method for understanding the requirements for implementing disruptive innovation in a complex interdependent system. By evaluating potential future cars, this case study will contribute to Australia’s transition to more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable use of personal urban transportation. The study employs a range of design methodologies as a means to identify the changes required of the components of the new system.
The car is undoubtedly one of the greatest inventions of our time. It gives us freedom and independence, and we love them. The car has allowed our cities to grow and has shaped the urban form. However, the car is also responsible for some significant problems such as pollution, congestion, road trauma as well as the cost burden of ownership and social and urban development problems (Mitchell et al., 2010) The following examples support this position: • “The greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term” is pollution from vehicles(Unger, 2010) • Air pollution is responsible for about twice as many deaths as motor vehicle accidents (Künzli et al., 2000)
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 101 Williams
• In Australia, the 2005 avoidable social costs caused by traffic congestion were $9.39 Billion. (BTRE, 2007) • Annually around 1300 people die on Australian roads each year, one million worldwide. (Road Deaths Australia 2011 Statistical Summary, 2011) • Road crashes in Queensland alone cost an estimated $4 billion annually. (“Road funding for safer roads - Fact Sheet 3,” n.d.) • On average, cars are unused (parked) 95% of the time. Roads occupy on average 30% of the land area of cities and parking space a further 20%. (Rodrigue et al., 2009) This represents an extremely inefficient system (West, 2006) • In Australia, the average cost to own a car is $10,500 per annum (“RACQ Vehicle Running Costs 2012,” 2012) or on average 23% of the median after-tax Australian income. Cost of car ownership is increasing, and predictions of peak oil suggest this will only accelerate (Hubbert, 1949) (Fattahi, 2011). This creates social inequity for those who cannot afford a car or who are unable to drive as they are at a disadvantage in terms of employment, access to shopping and medical services (UK Social Exclusion Unit, 2012)
While emissions per vehicle have been reducing at around 4% pa in Australia this is offset by an increase in the total number of vehicles. Reducing the number of vehicles on the roads by encouraging alternative travel modes would both decrease congestion and reduce emissions. However, efforts so far have been mostly unsuccessful with of with around 90% of all trips still by private car (Cosgrove, 2011) A fundamental redesign of the car has the potential to improve most of these points substantially. Many attempts at this have been made with a few getting past the concept stage (Mitchell et al., 2010). The common themes for redesign seem to be the following:
• Smaller cars. Microcars have a much-reduced footprint on the road and depending on the design may only require a third of the parking space. Smaller vehicles have less mass and therefore require less energy and cost less to purchase and run. (“Low mass, low energy | Team Trev on WordPress.com,” n.d.)
Page 102 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
• Electric drive. This allows greater design freedom with more effective use of internal space. Depending on electricity generator energy source can minimise pollution or at least prevent it from being concentrated in urban areas (Mitchell et al., 2010) • “Smart Cars” use a variety of electronics to avoid collisions and reduce travel times (Mitchell et al., 2010) • Despite a plethora of highly refined and detailed attempts to design vehicles that resolve the problems of the conventional car, these new vehicles designs have failed to appear in any significant way on our roads. Therefore research is required to develop an understanding of why this is the case and how a strategy can be developed to promote their implementation.
The term CityCar is used as a convenient term to describe the class of vehicle that is proposed to be used in an urban environment and is designed to minimise or eliminate the problems of pollution, congestion, safety and parking. The term CityCar is used for the design proposal that was created by MIT Media Labs (see figure 1) and at the time of writing is being commercialised as the Hiriko (“Hiriko - Driving mobility,” n.d.) This design has been chosen as the focus for this study as it appears to be a design that addresses the main problems previously identified in a way that appears succinct and viable with intelligent integration of technology and design. It is also based on a rigorous investigation of alternative designs and social requirements. However, the results of this study will be equally applicable to other similar vehicles such as the Renault Twizy (figure 2). Therefore the term CityCar in this context should be considered to apply to a class of vehicle, of which the MIT proposal is exemplary. The chief characteristics of this class of vehicle are:
• Electric drive • Small, lightweight • Highly maneuverable
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 103 Williams
The CityCar is an example of Disruptive Innovation and as such requires a deep understanding of the value proposition that this design proposal offers. The entire network of infrastructure and services must also be optimised to support the value proposition of the CityCar. An inability to understand the new value networks is the main reason why the implementation of Disruptive Innovation fails (C. Christensen, 1997b). A search of the literature fails to uncover an understanding of the CityCar value network or indeed an established methodology for developing this understanding. However, some approaches use design methodologies to develop design strategies based on latent user needs. As these latent user needs for the basis of the value proposition, an adaptation of this approach can be used to identify the CityCar value proposition. Actor Network Theory offers a way to identify the components (actors) of the new CityCar network.
Figure 30 - MIT CityCar Figure 31 - Renault Twizy
Page 104 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Proposed design solutions such as the CityCar represent a typical example of Disruptive Innovation according to the definition described by Christensen (1997b). This is because it will disrupt and change the market. According to Christensen, the main reason why companies fail to implement Disruptive Innovation is their inability to understand the new value networks. Initially, disruptive innovation appears to perform less well compared to current offerings. This is due to two reasons:
• Firstly because the new products or services offer different values and yet are judged according to the values of the old system. • Secondly, it is affected by what is known as a “network externality” which means that the value increases about adoption.
To illustrate the point, the CityCar has less carrying capacity, is less powerful and has less range than a conventional car. Even though these disadvantages are largely irrelevant given the intended context of use, these are typical performance characteristics of conventional cars. These disadvantages are potentially offset by values including greater convenience and safety, lower cost and less pollution. However, the current car network has been optimised for the conventional car, and so many of the potential advantages of the CityCar will not be realised until the network has been adapted to suit. For example, a city car can be parked in a parking space that is a third the size of a normal space, costing a third and with three times the availability. However, these spaces typically do not yet exist, and so a CityCar would need to be parked in a full-size space with none of the cost and convenience benefits that small parking spaces promise. Until these spaces are available, this benefit cannot be realised.
Disruptive innovation is often technology-driven although it does not need to be. For the example of CityCars, several emerging technologies may be incorporated. Some are almost essential such as electric drive with is required to allow the design flexibility and pollution reduction, and others are at this stage simply possibilities. For example,
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 105 Williams autonomous drive is almost certainly a possibility in the not-too-distant future and would have a significant impact on the value proposition offered.
The term “Product Ecosystem” is used here to describe the interrelated things that surround a product. For example, a digital camera cannot exist as a standalone object. It relies on an ecosystem comprised of many entities including computers, printers, memory cards, and software.
When a new product fits within an existing ecosystem, using all the incumbent products and services, it is most likely to be an incremental innovation. Disruptive innovation not only changes and creates new markets but changes or creates a new Product Ecosystem.
In natural ecosystems, animals and plants rely on each other and the environment for survival. This reliance is based on interdependent values that are shared between species and values that come from the environment. For example, a bird might rely on a tree for shelter and food, and the tree relies on the sun and rain. The bird gains value from the tree and the tree gains value from the sun. It is the existence of these values that determine the success of a species within a given environment. These ecosystems are dynamic and change over time. The changes may be gradual such as climate change leading to the evolution of a species or disruptive such as extinctions caused by the introduction of a feral species.
Importantly, the stability of an ecosystem requires a complete value network for its existence. A small change in values may lead to large changes in the ecosystem. For example, a change in the water table may lead to a particular tree species dying with flow-on effects to the species that rely on the type of tree.
Page 106 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Manufactured products also share a similar framework, described as a Product Ecosystem.
In Product Ecosystems, physical products rely on other products as well as infrastructure and legislation (analogous to the environment). For example, a television may rely on a remote control to operate, and in turn, the remote relies on batteries. The batteries give value to the remote which in turn gives value to the TV. It is the existence of these values that determine the success of a product within a given market.
These ecosystems are dynamic and change over time. The changes may be gradual where products co-evolve with the market/environment as described by the theory of incremental innovation. Alternatively, the changes may be disruptive such as obsolescence (extinctions) caused by the introduction of disruptive innovation.
Importantly, the stability of an ecosystem requires a complete value network for its existence. A small change in values may lead to substantial changes in the ecosystem. For example, a universal remote control reduces the value of the TV remote. Technology that allows hand gestures to control the TV may remove the value of the remote control and lead to the "extinction" of that product "species".
A “Product Ecosystem” is an example of a network of the kind described in the Actor Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005) ANT is used by sociologists to explain how society and technology interact and was developed by Callon, Latour, Law, and others in the 1980s. One of the key concepts in ANT is that objects, technology, knowledge, people and organisations are all “actors” or “actants” (used synonymously) within a network and should be given equal consideration as they all influence the network. An actant can be anything, provided it is granted to be the source of an action” (Latour, 2005). Using a research frame based on the Actor-Network Theory, complex socio-technical situations can be considered and the most important aspects identified. This can be applied to both existing networks as well as proposed ones (Latour, 2005). This approach can be used to
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 107 Williams identify the actors (in both existing and proposed arrangements) as well as giving a framework to map the links between them. For example, a petrol station adds value to a conventional car by allowing it to refuel and continue its journey. The value proposition may be “quick, cheap, convenient refuelling.”
Design Thinking is a term that refers to a way of approaching problems using a combination of empathy, creativity and rationality. Design Thinking is an “abductive” process as opposed to a deductive or inductive process. That is, it tends to consider many possibilities and selects a “preferred solution” instead of starting with rigid criteria and using logic and elimination to find something that fits the criteria. The benefit of using design thinking is that it is more likely to uncover options that may be missed by a deductive approach. Therefore Design Thinking is an ideal approach to determine what will need to change.
The discipline of Industrial Design emerged roughly 100 years ago. It was initially seen as an enabler to create manufactured products that use aesthetics to gain a competitive advantage. Aesthetics are just one of the ways that products can appeal to users; functionality and cost are others. The ability of the design process to improve these other user benefits was soon realized, and as a result, Industrial Designers began to influence form, function as well as the commercial imperatives of manufacturing and cost. This approach is often referred to as “user centred design.” More recently, Design Thinking has been used as a technique for not just user-centred design (or “what users want”) but for creating new propositions of meaning (or “what users will want, only they don’t know it yet.”) This approach is known as Design-Driven Innovation (Verganti, 2009). An extension of this is known as Design Led Innovation which uses Design Thinking to develop a strategic approach beyond the physical product and into the business model (Bucolo & Matthews, 2010).
The elements that will make up the proposed CityCar network will be harder to identify than those in the existing car network. This is because the proposed network does not
Page 108 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams yet exist and the structure will be dependent on a set of assumptions about the future network. These assumptions must be grounded in terms of what is technically achievable in the near term as well as what is socially desirable. The field of Design-Led Innovation offers a methodology for using co-generation of scenarios to develop future possibilities (Bucolo & Matthews, 2010).
For example, it has been suggested that CityCars are offered as entirely autonomous vehicles. In this case, the value proposition they offer vision impaired people will be very different to that of the manual version of the CityCar. Therefore a network entity called “vision impaired drivers” may be part of this network but not exist in the network of manually driven CityCars. This is a good example of the significance of understanding the nature of the network elements as the existence of “vision impaired drivers” will have significant implications for the design of not only the vehicles but also other infrastructure. There should be a reasonably defensible set of justifications for each one of the assumptions. This set of assumptions can be collated to create a scenario (or scenarios), which can then be used as a framework for this research. This scenario can be presented to the individuals that represent the network elements and questions can be asked about how they see their place in the new CityCar network. As the study progresses and knowledge about the proposed network increases, it is possible that the methodology and theory may need revision. This is supported by the principles behind grounded theory which is a systematic method for developing theory based on gathered data.
Osterwalder et al., (2010) describe a methodology for capturing value within a business model. Part of this methodology is the use of tools such as scenarios to generate new business models which are then recorded on a template called the “business model canvas.”
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 109 Williams
The proposed methodology is based on the framework offered by Product Ecosystems; it uses scenario generation based on Design Led Innovation and a Business Model generation technique to capture the value network.
This research will be conducted as a series of interviews with individuals that represent the various network elements. These individuals will be asked a series of questions firstly about the existing car network. The questions will be formulated to understand the role that the network element plays in the network as well as which other linked network elements. The second set of questions will be about the proposed City Car network. Before the questions are asked, a short presentation will be given introducing the proposed scenarios that CityCars will inhabit. Questions will then be asked about how the individual sees the role of the network element in this new scenario and again what links the network element will have with other elements.
Page 110 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 32 - Diagrammatic representation of a car network.
The aim of the first interview question (or questions) is to determine which elements in the current network are linked with which other elements. The approach to discover this will be to ask to whom they give value and from whom they get value. In the example above, service stations have links with oil companies. The oil companies provide value by supplying oil. Value is returned in monetary form. Service stations also have links with consumers. The value to consumers is the convenient supply of fuel, and the value to the service station is the income from the fuel sales. In this case, these links are obvious, but it is anticipated that other links will be discovered.
The value flowing in reverse is financial. Value typically needs to be bi-directional to be sustainable. Entities can have a negative influence on each other as well. For example,
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 111 Williams the widespread introduction of electric vehicles may lead to reduced demand for petrol resulting in a negative impact on petrol stations.
As the CityCar will be part of a multisided market, it will be subject to what is known as the “network effect” or “network externality.” This term describes how products in multisided markets offer a greater value proposition in proportion to the number of products sold. To use the credit card as an example, the value to a purchaser of owning a credit card increases in proportion to the number of places that accept the credit card. City Cars can park in much smaller spaces than conventional cars, increasing the number of vehicles in a given area. However, this is not an advantage until dedicated car parks are explicitly created for CityCars. So the interdependency between car parks and the CityCar is crucial to the value proposition.
The need to transition to a more sustainable form of personal urban transportation is clear; however, this transition will almost certainly be very disruptive. The conventional car has enjoyed 100 years of co-evolving with its supporting ecosystem. As the current ecosystem has not been designed to support the proposed CityCar and to gain full value from CityCars, the ecosystem must change.
This research proposes an application of the theory of Product Ecosystems as a means to understand the implications of disruptive innovation. This understanding will lead to a greater ability to manage the risks associated with this type of innovation.
BTRE. (2007). Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities.
Page 112 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. (2010). USING A DESIGN LED DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION APPROACH TO DEVELOP NEW SERVICES : PRACTICING INNOVATION IN TIMES OF DISCONTINUITY, 176–187.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business (Vol. 1). Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from https://www.opac.uni- erlangen.de/webOPACClient/search.do?methodToCall=quickSearch&Kateg=0&Content= 2324510&fbt=7955401-2836663
Cosgrove, D. C. (2011). Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. In Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. Adelaide: UniSA. Retrieved from http://www.atrf11.unisa.edu.au/Assets/Papers/ATRF11_0030_final.pdf Fattahi, B. (2011). Challenges for the Future. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Hiroko - Driving mobility. (nd.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.hiriko.com/ Hubbert, M. K. (1949). Energy from Fossil Fuels. Science, 103–109.
Künzli, N., Kaiser, R., Medina, S., Studnicka, M., Chanel, O., Filliger, P., … Sommer, H. (2000). Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment. Lancet, 356(9232), 795–801. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02653- 2 Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. (O. O. U. Press, Ed.)Clarendon Lectures in management studies (Vol. 7). Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1163/156913308X336453
Low mass, low energy | Team Trev on WordPress.com. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://teamtrev.com/2010/02/04/low-mass-low-energy/
Mitchell, W. J., Borroni-Bird, C., & Burns, L. D. (2010). Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century. Amazon. MIT Press. Retrieved from
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 113 Williams
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. (T. Clark, Ed. Self- Published. John Wiley & Sons.
RACQ Vehicle Running Costs 2012. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/97029/RACQ-Vehicle-Running- Costs-2012.pdf
Road Deaths Australia 2011 Statistical Summary. (2011). Canberra ACT. Retrieved from http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2012/files/RDA_Summary_2011.pdf Road funding for safer roads - Fact Sheet 3. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/roads/road_safety/road_safety_priorities/road_safety_p riorities_-_fact_sheet_3_-_safer_roads_-_road_funding
Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2009). The Geography of Transport Systems. Geography (Vol. 60). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802115474 UK Social Exclusion Unit. (2012). Making Connections. Health Devices, 41(4), 102–21. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486398
Unger, N. (2010). NASA - Road Transportation Emerges as Key Driver of Warming in New Analysis from NASA. Retrieved March 28, 2013,
West, D. S. (2006). The High Cost of Free Parking, edited by Donald C. Shoup. Journal of Regional Science, 46(4), 800–802. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2006.00478_7.x
Page 114 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 115 Williams
Chapter 5 - IDENTIFYING EXTRINSIC VALUE IN A PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM. (PAPER 3)
Paper 1: Product Evolution describes past, transitory ecosystems through the use of the wristwatch case study and Paper 2: Product-Ecosystems describes future ecosystems through the CityCar ecosystem. Both of these papers rely on the premise that the ecosystem influences the value of the product.
Case studies support the notion that changes to the ecosystem change the perceived value of a product. However, before this study, there was no experimental data that conclusively
Page 116 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams demonstrated this. For this reason, we conducted a study to answer the research question: ‘Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’ Research Paper 3: Extrinsic Value details the findings of this study.
Drivers were first asked a series of questions to establish their perception of value based on the current car ecosystem. They were then asked questions to determine whether that perception would change if the ecosystem were modified to provide:
• Special narrow vehicle lanes for CityCars. • Cheaper parking for CityCars • Increased availability of parking.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 117 Williams
Statement of Contribution for Thesis by Published Papers
The authors listed below have certified that: 1. They meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. They take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the lead author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. There are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit. 5. They agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
Contributor Statement of Contribution Tim Williams Chief investigator, major contribution to the planning of the study, data
QUT Verified Signature collection and analysis, literature review and writing of the manuscript.
Dr Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Contribution to the planning of the study and writing of manuscript (as
QUT Verified Signature associate supervisor),
Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.
Evonne Miller QUT Verified Signature 04/04/19
Name Signature Date Page 118 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Authors:
Williams, Tim & Chamorro-Koc, Marianella (2019)
Original paper title: IDENTIFYING EXTRINSIC VALUE OF THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM
Designed products do not exist in isolation. They evolve and exist as part of a greater ecosystem. It is a well-accepted notion that businesses need to consider the business ecosystem in which they operate, and now it is becoming accepted that the same holistic view needs to be applied at the product level. It Case studies and theory show that a supportive ecosystem is vital for the success of a product (Adner, 2012; Williams, 2015; Williams & Chamorro-koc, 2013; F. Zhou et al., 2009). The nascent Product Ecosystem theory proposes that the value proposition a product offers contains both intrinsic and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is an integral part of the product, such as its form, function and aesthetics. Extrinsic value is external to the product and comes from other entities within the ecosystem. Creating intrinsic value is well understood as these are the values generally created by the designer. Creating extrinsic value is less well understood which is what this paper addresses.
This research aimed to demonstrate that the product ecosystem has a direct influence on the value proposition and that by manipulating the ecosystem, we can increase a product’s perceived value. Though supported by observing case studies, controlled experimental data that demonstrates extrinsic is lacking. In this study, we employ a method that includes survey questions and proposed scenarios. Our findings demonstrate that a product — in this case, a Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 119 Williams
CityCar — can go from being undesirable to desirable directly through proposed changes to the ecosystem. While approaches to determining the value proposition of new-to-the-world products or services have been investigated from a business strategy perspective, this is yet to be considered from a Human-Centred Design (HCD) or design-driven approach. This study has furthered our understanding of the different actors and the influence those actors have on the value proposition framework of new products. The implications are that designers need to consider the ecosystem during the design process to increase the value proposition of the product.
Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’
This study investigates whether proposed changes to the ecosystem in which a product resides can change the value proposition of that product. Participants were asked about their preferences for a product before and again after proposing changes to an ecosystem. The following criteria were used to choose the product involved:
1. It must be a product that participants are unlikely to have direct prior experience with and know little about to minimise preconceived biases 2. It must be a product that is easily understood by participants in terms of use, features, advantages and disadvantages. Participants must be able to imagine themselves using the product. 3. It must be an example of disruptive innovation so that it has a different ecosystem requirement to existing products.
The product chosen for this investigation is the electric CityCar. This class of vehicle has been available in Europe for many years but unavailable in Australia due to legislative restrictions. The lack of availability means Australian drivers are unlikely to have much direct prior experience with this product: thus satisfying criteria 1. The model chosen to demonstrate to Page 120 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams participants was the Renault Twizy as it is currently the most successful example of this class of vehicle with many resources available to demonstrate feature to participants. Being a viable, mature and easily demonstrated product makes it easier for participants to imagine themselves using the product, satisfying criteria 2. Finally, it is a disruptive product as it has created a new market in Europe or at least disrupted the existing car market, meeting criteria 3.
Since its origins in the early 1980s, Human Centred Design or user-centred design is an approach to design and iterative product development. HCD starts from observing and analysing users’ needs, through a cycle of prototyping and testing (Donald a Norman & Verganti, 2014). HCD is not a set of methods; it is a process that aims for products and systems to be understandable by the user and is consistent with ISO 9241-210: 2010 Ergonomics of Human Systems Interactions. HCD is also considered a design thinking approach that leads to Incremental and Disruptive Innovation. HCD can maximise the value of a product proposition.
Existing studies have identified the need for a closer look into the factors that influence people’s perceived value of those innovations (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). The success of a disruptive innovation depends on how people perceived the value proposition of such innovation and that value proposition is dependent on the Product Ecosystem.
This article introduces a study that investigated the extrinsic values of products and systems and the methodology approach to the study.
The review of the existing literature investigates connections and gaps found between the concepts of product value and product ecosystems. Following this section are the methods to the study describing the Research Questions and the Survey instrument. Results of the survey are presented revealing people’s perceived values (e.g. values according to types of journeys). Out of the study, the authors demonstrate how changing ecosystems influence a product value propositions, and how this understanding contributes to existing knowledge in the field.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 121 Williams
This section analyses the literature according to the following two themes: Product Value and product-ecosystems
The role of the Industrial designer has always been to add value to manufactured products. Initially, Industrial Designers provided little more than the aesthetic value to otherwise unattractive products (Bauhaus movement, 2017; CMG Worldwide, 2018). Since the 1950s other value such as ergonomics and usability and translating user needs into user value has been recognised (M. Kumar & Noble, 2016; Normann & Ramírez, 1993). In recent years, there has been a distinct trend to focus on delivering design solutions that provide value. Providing value is at the heart of HCD and user centred design thinking (T. Brown, 2008; IDEO, 2018). As a result of this, Industrial Designers have developed considerable skill in translating user needs into user value. How well do we understand the origin of this value? A fundamental principle of Product Ecosystem thinking is that the ecosystem provides much of the value in a product. i.e. extrinsic value. Consider the value of snow skis in Central Australia compared to the same skis in the Swiss Alps. The product is the same, the design is the same, and the intrinsic value is the same. However, the ecosystem is different, and therefore the extrinsic value is also different. While this is perhaps an overly simple example it demonstrates that no matter how well designed a product is, the value of the product, is often governed by external factors.
According to Christensen (1997b), innovation is disruptive when it creates a new market or disrupts an existing market. In contrast, Incremental innovation is when innovation creates an improvement on previous products and does not change the existing market. Christensen notes that disruptive innovation is much more likely to fail than incremental, mainly due to a
Page 122 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams lack of understanding of what he calls the Value Network (1997b, p. 29). The idea of a Value Network demonstrates that value is not just contained within a single product but derived from other actors in a network. Another network theory that relies upon interdependent values is that of Actor-Network Theory popularised by Latour (1996). While Actor-Network Theory is a useful tool to understand intricate, interdependent relationships, Latour agrees that ANT is not a real network (Latour, 1999, 2005). We suggest that what Latour was describing is an ecosystem.
The term ‘ecosystem’ was first coined by Tansley in 1935 (Ayres, 2012) to describe the complete biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. In 1993 Moore coined the term ‘businesses ecosystem’ and defined it as:
‘An economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organisations and individuals—the organisms of the business world’ (Moore, 1993).
Since then this term has become widely accepted. More recently Adner (2012) used the term ‘innovation ecosystem’ to describe how innovations often require other new innovative products to be developed concurrently in order to thrive.
The emerging theory of Product Ecosystems (PE) posits that all products are part of an ecosystem and that this ecosystem contributes to the value proposition of the product (Brogan, 2010; Williams & Chamorro-koc, 2013; F. Zhou et al., 2009).
The concept of a small, two-seater electric car is not new. Rising concerns about pollution and congestion make this type of vehicle an obvious solution during the fuel crisis in the 1970s. Electric CityCars have been commercially available since at least the 1970s with Sebring-
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 123 Williams
Vanguard’s Citicar as an example (See Figure 33 - Sebring-Vanguard’s Citicar). Many attempts to produce a viable commercial offering have been made, including the well-known, though commercially unsuccessfully MIT CityCar. Arguably this class of vehicle did not enjoy commercial success until Renault’s released the Twizy in 2012. Regardless of historical interpretation, the CityCar class of vehicle is not new and is now a mature product. It is an example of disruptive innovation because it has created a new market or changed an existing market (Wessel & Christensen, 2012).
Figure 33 - Sebring-Vanguard’s Citicar
(Taylor, 1995)
Page 124 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 34 - MIT CityCar
(Mitchell et al., 2010)
Figure 35 - Renault Twizy
(JWH, 2018)
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 125 Williams
There is no universally accepted name for this class of vehicle. Officially in Europe, it is known as a “Light Quadricycle” and sometimes appears as an Ultra Small Vehicle (USV) or Lightweight Electric Vehicle (LEV). Sebring-Vanguards car was called the Citicar and MIT named their car the CityCar. Due to the lack of a consistent and concise descriptor for this class of vehicle, we have chosen to use the term CityCar for this study as it appears to be the most well-used descriptor.
This research aims to demonstrate that products gain extrinsic value from their ecosystem. While it might seem self-evident to some that this is the case, especially as this appears to be supported by case studies, no empirical evidence demonstrates this principle. The objective, therefore, is to run an experiment that shows a change in the product ecosystem results in a change in the perceived value of a product.
Stated Preference Analysis is a well-accepted method to compare attribute values of products by comparing two hypothetical products (Rao, 2014) and asking for a preference. The fundamental principle is that the item of higher perceived value (often called utility) (T. C. Brown, 2003; Hensher, 1994) preference is preferred. While it is usually used to compare similar products with different features in order to ascribe a value to those features, it this case we are proposing that value comes not from features but the ecosystem. Stated Preference Analysis delivers the best results when the choice is limited as much as possible, ideally to two options. Therefore we can use Stated Preference Analysis to compare the same product in two different ecosystems. If there is a change in stated preference when only the ecosystem has changed, we will have demonstrated that the ecosystem influences the perceived value of a product.
The product chosen had to be an example of disruptive innovation as incremental innovation is intended to fit within an existing ecosystem and disruptive innovation disrupts the ecosystem. The second criterion for example selection was a product that participants could
Page 126 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams easily understand but had little prior knowledge. The lack of prior experience with a product was essential to limit potential biases arising from experience with the product.
The product chosen was the Renault Twizy. This product is a small, lightweight electric car, part of a new class of car known as either an Electric CityCar or an Ultra Small Vehicle (USV). The advantage of the Twizy is that it is both a new, fully resolved production vehicle and at the time of the study, not available in Australia. Being unavailable in Australia minimised the possibility that participants would have experience with this type of vehicle, therefore, reducing the possibility of pre-existing bias for or against it. The term CityCar was used in the study as this appears to be the most unambiguous term to describe this class of vehicle.
Car drivers were recruited to take part in the questionnaire. Having a good understanding of the context of car use meant participants were more likely to be able to imagine how a CityCar would work for them. Seventy-seven drivers took part, recruited through social media with the assistance of the Royal Automobile Association of Queensland (RACQ).
The online survey experiment used a staged-scenario proposition where participants were asked questions, then shown a scenario and then asked similar questions based on the scenario. This technique allows a comparison of participants’ attitudes before and after the scenario (Cesar et al., 2000). Participants were given an introduction to the CityCar, comprised of two videos, three still images and a brief description of the advantages and disadvantages of the CityCar. The first video (Figure 36) was a promotional video from Renault (Özüağ, 2013). While this provided an unambiguous and concise idea of the context of use, it was understandably biased towards creating a positive impression.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 127 Williams
Figure 36 - Image from the survey showing Renault's promotional video of the Twizy
For this reason, a second video was included providing a more balanced perspective from an online electric vehicle review site called Fully Charged (Llewellyn, 2012). Figure 37 shows a sample image from the video. This video provided a clear and concise description of both the specifications of the Twizy and importantly provides a good impression of what the CityCar is like to drive.
Page 128 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 37 - Image from the Renault Twizy Review: Fully Charged
(Llewellyn, 2012)
Figure 38 shows a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of CityCars. The intention was to show an unbiased, accurate and yet simplified review of the Twizy.
Figure 38 - Advantages and disadvantages of CityCars.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 129 Williams
The next step was to find whether drivers, based on what they had seen, had a preference for a CityCar or a conventional car. We realised however that the context of use of a vehicle could be extensive and we felt it likely that drivers might have different levels of preference depending on the type of trip. The different types of possible trips are important as CityCars are not intended to be vehicles that will fulfil all travel requirements. Instead, they should be seen to be specialised vehicles likely to be better suited to specific types of trips.
For example, a person who has to pick up three kids from school would find the Twizy totally unsuitable for that trip but perhaps ideal for commuting to the office. As a result, we realised we needed to ask questions for a range of use scenarios.
Based on the categories in the report (Travel in south-east Queensland, 2009), we reduced the eight categories to 5 for brevity. ‘Work (direct commute)’ and ‘Education’ are seen as a similar type of trip for our purposes as are ‘serve passengers’ and ‘accompany others’ (see Figure 39).
Figure 39 - Trip categories
(Travel in south-east Queensland, 2009)
Page 130 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The five categories were:
1. Direct commute (Work or Education) 2. Work-related travel 3. Social and recreation 4. Shopping and personal business 5. Serve passengers and accompany others
For each of these categories, drivers were asked to rate whether they would prefer to drive a CityCar or a conventional car (Figure 40). Responses were via a 5 point Likert-type scale from disagree to agree. The drivers were asked:
Q1: “Based on what I now know, I would prefer to drive a CityCar than a conventional car.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
Figure 40 - Q2: Preference for CityCars by trip category
The drivers were then given some more information about CityCars, demonstrating the benefits to gain from changing the product ecosystem, unlocking some of the design benefits that CityCars have the potential to offer (Figure 41).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 131 Williams
Figure 41 - Potential benefits for ecosystem change
The potential benefits shown in Figure 41 are not realised in the current car ecosystem, at least in Australia at the time of writing. There are no narrow vehicle lanes, and so the Twizy would be stuck in the same traffic as all other cars. There are no dedicated parking spaces for CityCars even though 3 Twizy’s can occupy a single conventional car space (Leach, 2014). Of course, the CityCar class of car is non-compliant with current vehicle regulations and so is not available.
We then asked the participants the following three questions:
Q2: “If driving a CityCar meant significantly reduced parking costs, I would prefer to drive a CityCar.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
Page 132 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 42 - Q2 Preference for reduced parking costs
The next question Q3: “If driving a CityCar meant being able to park closer to my destination, I would prefer to drive a CityCar.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
Figure 43 - Q3 Preference for parking convenience
The final question Q3: “If driving a CityCar instead of a conventional car meant significantly reduced travel times, I would prefer to drive a CityCar.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 133 Williams
Figure 44 - Q4 Preference for reduced travel times
The research aims to see whether a proposed change to the ecosystem would change stated preference and so a means to demonstrate changes was required. The first question established a baseline, that is, the ecosystem status quo. The following three questions were then compared to the first to see if there were any changes.
A weighted numerical value was given to each response, creating a simple and effective way to analyse the data. ‘Agree’ responses gained a numerical value of 2, ‘Partly agree’ were given a value of 1, ‘Neutral’ was 0, ‘Partly Disagree’ a negative numerical value of -1 and ‘Disagree’ was -2. This process created a weighted average score of a single numerical value for each of the journey type.
Table 1 shows the results of the first question with both the raw numbers as well as the weighted preference score. Note that the number of responses is not even across all journey types because the drivers were asked to leave a category blank if it was a type of journey they never or rarely made. These null responses mostly affected the categories of Work- Related Travel and Serve Passengers. From this, we see that some drivers never or rarely use a vehicle for work-related trips or to pick up passengers.
Page 134 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Q1: “Based on what I now know, I would prefer to drive a CityCar than a conventional car.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
Direct Work Social & Shopping & Serve commute travel recreation personal passengers Agree 11 6 4 8 3 Partly Agree 16 9 10 17 4 Neutral 11 4 11 12 5 Partly Disagree 6 1 19 12 5 Disagree 13 14 26 22 20
Weighted Preference 28 4 -45 -7 -29
Table 3 - Preference for CityCars
The weighted preference results shown in Table 3 demonstrate that there is a preference in favour of CityCars for direct commute and preference against CityCars of a similar magnitude. There is a much stronger preference against in the category of Social and recreation. The other two categories are comparatively neutral.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 135 Williams
I would prefer to drive a CityCar ...
...than a conventional car
100 Agree 80
60
40 28
20 4 0
-7 -20
-40 -29 Disagree -45 -60 Direct commute Work related travel Social and Shopping and Serve passengers recreation personal
Figure 45 - Preference for CityCars
The when organised onto the chart shown in Figure 45 makes the results to this question are more easily interpreted. If the study aimed to compare preferred uses of a CityCar in the status quo ecosystem, then we would see that direct commute was the only journey type that drivers preferred. In this study, however, we are only interested in a comparison of preference between the status quo ecosystem and preference with the benefits that would come from a modified ecosystem. For this, we need to compare the data from question 1 with the data from the other three questions.
.
Page 136 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Responses to the remaining three questions are as follows: Q2: “If driving a CityCar meant significantly reduced parking costs, I would prefer to drive a CityCar.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
With cheaper parking
Direct Work-related Social & Shopping & Serve commute travel recreation personal passengers Agree 23 11 12 14 2 Partly Agree 9 4 20 18 6 Neutral 12 8 17 16 9 Partly Disagree 3 4 6 9 5 Disagree 12 8 17 18 15
Weighted Preference 74 28 28 29 -21
Table 4 – Preferences with cheaper parking
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 137 Williams
I would prefer to drive a CityCar ...
...than a conventional car ...with cheaper parking
100
80 74
60
40 28 28 28 29 20 4 0
-20 -7 -21 -40 -29 -45 -60 Direct commute Work related travel Social and Shopping and Serve passengers recreation personal
Figure 46 - CityCar preference with cheaper parking
When the data from question 2 is plotted aside our baseline data (Figure 36), we see an improvement in preference for all journey types. The most significant for Social and recreation and the least for serving passengers.
Q3: “If driving a CityCar meant being able to park closer to my destination, I would prefer to drive a CityCar.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
With more convenient parking
Direct Work related Social & Shopping & Serve commute travel recreation personal passengers Agree 24 11 16 21 5 Partly Agree 13 4 23 19 7 Neutral 7 9 13 16 10 Partly Disagree 4 2 8 7 1 Disagree 11 9 12 12 14
Weighted Preference 83 28 55 72 -2
Table 5 – Preferences with more convenient parking
Page 138 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
I would prefer to drive a CityCar ...
...than a conventional car ...with cheaper parking ...with more convenient parking
100 83 80 74 72
60 55
40 28 28 28 28 29
20 4 0 -2 -7 -20 -21 -40 -29 -45 -60 Direct commute Work related travel Social and Shopping and Serve passengers recreation personal
Figure 47 - Chart showing preferences for cheaper and more convenient parking
Q4: “If driving a CityCar instead of a conventional car meant significantly reduced journey times, I would prefer to drive a CityCar.” Do you agree with this statement for the following journey types?
With shorter travel times
Direct Work-related Social & Shopping & Serve commute travel recreation personal passengers Agree 26 10 13 14 3 Partly Agree 13 7 20 26 4 Neutral 8 4 12 13 8 Partly Disagree 4 4 10 7 5 Disagree 8 10 17 15 17
Weighted Preference 97 23 28 45 -23
Table 6 - Preferences with shorter travel times
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 139 Williams
I would prefer to drive a CityCar ...
...than a conventional car ...with cheaper parking ...with more convenient parking ...with shorter travel times 97 100 83 80 74 72
60 55 45 40 28 28 28 28 28 29 23 20 4 0 -2 -7 -20 -21 -23 -29 -40 -45 -60
-80 Direct commute Work related travel Social and Shopping and Serve passengers recreation personal
Figure 48 - Chart comparing preferences for all four questions
The chart shown in Figure 48 demonstrates that significant changes in preference can occur with changes to a product ecosystem. The most significant change was in the category of social and recreation with more convenient parking. Convenient parking made the CityCar the preferred vehicle for almost all journey types, while for direct commute, the CityCar was the preferred vehicle in the status quo ecosystem and significantly the most preferred vehicle with all ecosystem modifications, especially reduced travel times. For serving passengers, the CityCar was never the preferred vehicle. That serving passengers was never the preferred vehicle is consistent with the design intent of the CityCar as it is not intended to be a ‘people mover’.
Page 140 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The rise in interest in ecosystem theory in recent years has prompted significant discussion on the topic (Adner, 2002, 2006; Jacobides et al., 2018). Adner postulates that other actors directly influence the value proposition and provides case study examples to back up his statement. However, he does not provide any empirical evidence to validate this phenomenon.
This study is the first to provide empirical evidence that external actors contribute to the value proposition. In this case, we have demonstrated that the perceived value of a CityCar is less than that of a conventional car when placed in the current vehicle ecosystem. Proposing modifications to the ecosystem, (in this case the provision of cheaper, more convenient parking and dedicated narrow vehicle lanes resulting in reduced travel times) change preferences from negative to positive, thus increasing the value proposition.
The research question that this study sought to answer was: Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’ We have demonstrated that the value proposition of a product, as disclosed through stated preference analysis, can be improved through proposed changes to the Product Ecosystem. This increase in the stated value proposition could not be attributed to intrinsic value as the product did not change in any way. Therefore the change must be to extrinsic value.
The dataset used in this study was not large enough to state the magnitude of that preference change with any statistical confidence, only that a change in preference took place. The intention was only to demonstrate that this phenomenon was valid and the results have shown this to be the case.
Notwithstanding the limited dataset, this study also provides incidental insight into perceptions of the CityCar. In Figure 48, we see that there is a substantial preference to use these vehicles for commuting to work or study with improved parking and notably reduced study times. Also, the convenience of parking is valued highly for social and recreational use as well as the category of shopping and personal. Conventional cars are the preferred vehicle for
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 141 Williams
serving passengers. These observations demonstrate that PE Thinking is an effective method to gather data about the ecosystem and to compare various scenarios to determine the most effective changes to make.
This study contributes to the development of Product Ecosystem Thinking by demonstrating the causal relationships between ecosystem changes and the value proposition of a product within the ecosystem. Therefore demonstrating that the value proposition comprises both intrinsic value designed into the product as well as the extrinsic value derived from the ecosystem. These findings emerging from an HCD approach further our understanding of the value proposition of new and disruptive innovations and take into consideration the value that people perceive from the context in which those new products and innovations ought to function. Industrial design has always been about creating value, but no established methods include the strategies to factor in the extrinsic value of the innovations. As designers are increasingly involved in Systems Design and becoming strategic leaders through the application of Design Thinking, the PE Thinking model will help pave the way to design for quicker uptake and implementation of disruptive innovation.
Acaroglu, L. (2017). Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 6 Fundamental Concepts of Systems Thinking. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://medium.com/disruptive-design/tools-for- systems-thinkers-the-6-fundamental-concepts-of-systems-thinking-379cdac3dc6a Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? a demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.246 Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard
Page 142 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_100487 Adner, R. (2012). The Wide Lens. The Wide Lens. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Adner, R. (2017a). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451 Adner, R. (2017b). Knowledge in Practice: Innovation Ecosystems with Ron Adner - YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YDeWLen4DU Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). Understanding patterns of technology evolution: An ecosystem perspective. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.515 Altschuler, E. L., Williams, T. J., Ratner, E. R., Dowla, F., & Wooten, F. (1995). Altschuler et al. reply: Physical Review Letters, 74(8). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1483 Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2005). The Virtues of ‘Blue Sky’ Projects: How Lunar Design Taps into the Power of Imagination. Creativity and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00350.x Antonella Gambotto-Burke. (2018). Stand Up Straight! A History of Posture. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/stand-up-straight-a-history- of-posture/news-story/efe9a2e8fb68c12ccae314ba181d8e0b Armano, D. (2007). Logic+Emotion: The iPhone Ecosystem. Logic + Emotion. Retrieved from http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/01/sobering_though.html Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44(C), 669–678. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Special Features: Car use. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/b7 f52642c92ff11cca2570ec0073f6a7!OpenDocument Autio, E., & Llewellyn T., D. W. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.012 Ayres, P. (2012). Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118290927
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 143 Williams
Babiolakis, M. (2016). Forget Products. Build Ecosystems. – Manolis Babiolakis – Medium. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://medium.com/@manolisbabiolakis/forget-products- build-ecosystems-792dea2cc4f2 Bar-yam, Y. (1997). Complexity Rising: From Human Beings to Human Civilization, a Complexity Profile 1. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, 01(December), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1.1.79.4513 Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (2003). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 Bauhaus movement. (2017). BAUHAUS MOVEMENT | Art and Technology - A new Unity. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from http://www.bauhaus-movement.com/en/ Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337– 361. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863932 Behl, D. V., & Ferreira, S. (2014). Systems thinking: An analysis of key factors and relationships. Procedia Computer Science, 36(C), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.09.045 Boston Consulting Group. (2012). Speed to Win. Brogan, C. (2010). (150) Building Product Ecosystems - YouTube. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0lvHzCYsSY Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92, 141. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18605031 Brown, T. (2019). About IDEO: Our Story, Who We Are, How We Work | ideo.com. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.ideo.com/about Brown, T. C. (2003). Introduction to Stated Preference Methods. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (Vol. 3, pp. 99–110). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_4 Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x Brownlee, J. (2016). 5 Design Jobs That Won’t Exist In The Future. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063318/5-design-jobs-that-wont-exist-in-the-future
Page 144 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Brozek, J. E. (2004). The History and Evolution of the Wristwatch... Retrieved March 31, 2015, from http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_articles/history_of_wristwatch.html BTRE. (2007). Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities. Buchanan, I. (2004). Actor network theory. Ritzer Encyclopedia, 1–20. Buchanan, R. (1992). in Design Thinking Wicked Problems. The M I T Press Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. (2010). USING A DESIGN LED DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION APPROACH TO DEVELOP NEW SERVICES : PRACTICING INNOVATION IN TIMES OF DISCONTINUITY, 176–187. Carlson, C. S. (2014). Understanding and Applying the Fundamentals of FMEAs. Cesar, J., Leite, P., Hadad, G. D. S., Horacio, J., & Kaplan, G. N. (2000). A Scenario Construction Process, 38–61. Chapman, J. (2012). Emotionally durable design: Objects, experiences and empathy. Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771092 Chen, S. (2018). The Best Cordless Power Tool Brands of 2018 | Gear Primer. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.gearprimer.com/tools/best-cordless-power-tool-brand/ Christensen, C. (1997a). Patterns in the evolution of product competition. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00081-3 Christensen, C. (1997b). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business (Vol. 1). Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from https://www.opac.uni- erlangen.de/webOPACClient/search.do?methodToCall=quickSearch&Kateg=0&Content= 2324510&fbt=7955401-2836663 Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Innovators Solution. Director. Clay, K. (2012). Amazon Confirms It Makes No Profit On Kindles. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2012/10/12/amazon-confirms-it-makes-no- profit-on-kindles/#4d2b164a6b43 CMG Worldwide. (2018). Biography - The Official Licensing Website of Raymond Loewy. Retrieved January 9, 2018, from https://www.raymondloewy.com/about/biography/ Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From Design Thinking to Systems Change. Retrieved from https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 145 Williams
thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf Cook, J. (2016). A complete history of internet-connected fridges | Business Insider. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-complete-history-of- internet-fridges-and-connected-refrigerators-2016-1#/%231998-internet-fridges-are- looming-on-the-horizon-1 Cosgrove, D. C. (2011). Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. In Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. Adelaide: UniSA. Retrieved from http://www.atrf11.unisa.edu.au/Assets/Papers/ATRF11_0030_final.pdf Crawford, C. M., & Tellis, G. J. (1981). To Evolutionary Approach Product, 45(4), 125–132. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/3281/ Davis. (2016). What is the fourth industrial revolution? | World Economic Forum. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what-is-the-fourth- industrial-revolution/ Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W., & Boundy, R. G. (2010). Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 29. Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. De Bono, E. (1991). Lateral Thinking. Psychology, 417(June), 1–2. https://doi.org/11.0002/bies.10094 Department of economic and social affairs of the united nations population division (UNPD). (2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. Presenta-tion at the Center for Strategic and …. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ppt/CSIS/WUP_2011_CSIS_4.pdf DeSarbo, W. S., Jedidi, K., & Sinha, I. (2001). Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.191 Design Council UK. (2007). A Study of the Design Process. Design Council UK (Vol. 44). Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_Desig n_Council (2).pdf Design Institute of Australia. (2018). Design Institute of Australia (DIA) - Industrial Design. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.design.org.au/designindustry/design-
Page 146 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
disciplines-2/industrial-design Domingo, M. (2016). User Experience Ecosystem Design – Part I | Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.interaction- design.org/literature/article/user-experience-ecosystem-design-part-i Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem– solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009- 6 Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3 Dreyfuss, H. (1955). Designing for People. New York: Allworth Press. DRS. (2018). DRS Home. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from https://www.designresearchsociety.org/cpages/home Druce, B. (2014). Are you designing a Product Ecosystem that engages the heart and mind? | Planet Innovation. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from https://planetinnovation.com.au/designing-product-ecosystem-engages-heart-mind/ Eckert, C., Bertoluci, G., & Yannou, B. (2014). Handling subjective product properties in engineering, food and fashion. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, 2014-Janua, 791–800. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated Equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Speciation, 82–115. Ericsson. (2016). Ericsson Mobility Report. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105510050031 Evans, M. (2012). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work by Nigel Cross . The Design Journal. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630612x13192035508741 Fattahi, B. (2011). Challenges for the Future. . Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Gagnon, S. (1999). Strategic challenges in developing electric vehicles: a literature review. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 21(1), 89–109. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0- 0032680447&partnerID=40&md5=3f2c3a36e70062f9c5f4ae024e3fe987 Gilder, G. (1993). Metcalfe’s law and legacy. Forbes ASAP. Glushko, A. (2013). The Ecosystem Behind the Product or Service | UX Magazine. Retrieved
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 147 Williams
April 28, 2018, from https://uxmag.com/articles/the-ecosystem-behind-the-product-or- service Goldman, T., & Gorham, R. (2006). Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technology in Society, 28(1–2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.007 Goodman, M., & Karash, R. (1995). Six Steps to Thinking Systemically. The Systems Thinker, 6(2), 16–18. Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1993). Punctuated Equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366(6452), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/366223a0 Gourville, J. T. (2005). The Curse of Innovation : A Theory of Why Innovative New Products Fail in the Marketplace. Soldiers, 02163(05), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.777644 Government of Australia. (2014). Roads and rails – Parliament of Australia. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Libr ary/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/RoadsRails Green, L. N., & Bonollo, E. (2002). The Development of a Suite of Design Methods Appropriate for Teaching Product Design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(1), 45–53. Hassan, A. (2012). The Value Proposition Concept in Marketing: How Customers Perceive the Value Delivered by Firms. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(3), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v4n3p68 Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In Product Experience. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50013-7 Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. (2000). Product Sequencing: Co-Evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.237288 Hensher, D. A. (1994). Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098788 Hiriko - Driving mobility. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.hiriko.com/ Hubbert, M. K. (1949). Energy from Fossil Fuels. Science, 103-109. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2009). Creating Value in Your Business Ecosystem. Business. IDEO. (2018). Work | ideo.com. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.ideo.com/work
Page 148 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
IDSA. (2019). What Is Industrial Design? | Industrial Designers Society of America - IDSA. Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://www.idsa.org/events/what-id Jackson, D. (2011). What is an Innovation Ecosystem. Engineering Research Centers, National Science Foundation, (March), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Jackson, D. (2018). What is an innovation ? National Science Foundation, 1–13. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904 Jan, P., World, E., Kraal, B., Popovic, V., Chamorro-koc, M., & Blackler, T. (2011). AN ACTOR-NETWORK RESEARCH FRAME FOR ANALYSING COMPLEX SOCIO- TECHNICAL SITUATIONS. Jones, D. (2012). Design for a Thriving UX Ecosystem | UX Magazine. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from http://uxmag.com/articles/design-for-a-thriving-ux-ecosystem JWH. (2018). No Title. Wikipedea. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26183569 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast, thinking slow. Interpretation, Tavistock, London. Kansara, V. A. (2013). Apple-like Ecosystems for Luxury Brands? - BoF - The Business of Fashion. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/06/apple- like-ecosystems-for-luxury-brands.html King, S., & Chang, K. (2016). Understanding Industrial Design: Principles for UX and Interaction Design. King, S. K., & Chang, K. (2016). Understanding Industrial Design: Principles for UX and Interaction Design. O’Reilly Media. Kljaic, V. (2015). BMW is changing - We have to learn to live with it. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.bmwblog.com/2015/01/28/bmw-changing-learn-live/ Klueter, T., & Siota, J. (2017). Putting Design Thinking To Work In Banking. Retrieved May 11, 2018, from https://www.iese.edu/en/about-iese/news-media/news/2017/may/putting- design-thinking-to-work-in-banking/index.html Koenig, G. (2012). Business ecosystems revisited. Management (France). https://doi.org/10.1145/3185780 Kraal, B., Popovic, V., Chamorro-koc, M., & Blackler, T. (2011). AN ACTOR-NETWORK
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 149 Williams
RESEARCH FRAME FOR ANALYSING COMPLEX SOCIO-TECHNICAL SITUATIONS. In 4th World Conference on Design Research, IASDR2011, Delft University of Technology,. Delft. Kumar, M., & Noble, C. H. (2016). Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.017 Kumar, R., & Uusitalo, O. (2014). Research Methodology. New Age International. https://doi.org/http://196.29.172.66:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2574/1/Research%2 0Methodology.pdf Künzli, N., Kaiser, R., Medina, S., Studnicka, M., Chanel, O., Filliger, P., … Sommer, H. (2000). Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment. Lancet, 356(9232), 795–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02653- 2 Lanning, M. J., & Michaels, E. G. (1988). A Business is a Value Delivery System. McKinsey Staff Paper. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Source: Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/40878163 Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling Ant. The Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 954X.1999.tb03480.x Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. (O. O. U. Press, Ed.), Clarendon lectures in management studies (Vol. 7). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913308X336453 Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Kort, J., & Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition of user experience. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358693 Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142- 694X(81)90033-8 Leach, B. (2014). Review - Renault Twizy Review and First Drive. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.carshowroom.com.au/reviews/renault-twizy-review-and-first-drive/
Page 150 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Levin, M. (2014). Designing Multi-Device Experiences: An Ecosystem Approach to User Experiences Across Devices. Vasa. Levy, M. (2013). Sydney among the Western world’s worst cities for traffic congestion, report reveals. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and- traffic/sydney-among-the-western-worlds-worst-cities-for-traffic-congestion-report- reveals-20130410-2hkxc.html Lezak, S. B., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Systems thinking and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.005 Liem, A. (2007). A Systems Approach in Teaching Product Design. In INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED’07 (pp. 1–12). Paris. Lingareddy, M. (2015). A strong product ecosystem is the key for long term growth. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/252130 Llewellyn, R. (2012). Renault Twizy Review |. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfQ8F_mfF6E Low mass, low energy | Team Trev on WordPress.com. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://teamtrev.com/2010/02/04/low-mass-low-energy/ Lucas, H. C., Jr., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(1), 45–66. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1517861.1518217&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&CFID=2199 21157&CFTOKEN=65413345 Lyndon, N. (2012). Renault’s Twizy. Retrieved June 19, 2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/neil-lyndon/9464926/Renaults-Twizy- youre-better-off-on-a-bicycle.html Massey, G. R. (1999). Product evolution: a Darwinian or Lamarckian phenomenon? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429910284292 Maya, J., & Gómez, E. (2015). How Design Is Taught ? a Survey of Approaches , Models & Methods. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, (September).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 151 Williams
Mccarthy, E. J. (1964). Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/http://permalink.obvsg.at/wuw/AC00839164 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(02)00174-1 Meirion Thomas. (2015). Innovation ecosystems as drivers of regional innovation - validating the ecosystem - KNOW-HUB. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from http://www.know- hub.eu/knowledge-base/videos/innovation-ecosystems-as-drivers-of-regional-innovation- validating-the-ecosystem.html Miller, E., Buys, L., & Summerville, J. (2007). Quantifying the social dimension of triple bottom line: development of a framework and indicators to assess the social impact of organisations. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 3(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2007.014314 Minati, G. (2016). General System(s) Theory 2.0: A Brief Outline. In Towards a Post- Bertalanffy Systemics (pp. 211–219). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24391-7 Mitchell, W. J., Borroni-Bird, C., & Burns, L. D. (2010). Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century. Amazon. MIT Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=32Nbb26J9iEC Mononen, L. (2017). Systems thinking and its contribution to understanding future designer thinking. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4529–S4538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352949 Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. https://doi.org/Article Mubin, O., Novoa, M., & Al Mahmud, A. (2016). Towards the Successful Integration of Design Thinking in Industrial Design Education. International Association for Development of the Information Society. Müller, J., & Spitz, R. (2014). A brief history of the Ulm School of Design : notes on the relationship between design and politics. Zurich: Lars Müller. Muschett, M. (2017). How can we use Systems Thinking to find a Solution to the Problem of Poverty in Panama? - The Cornell Policy Review. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from
Page 152 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/how-can-we-use-systems-thinking-to-find-a-solution- to-the-problem-of-poverty-in-panama/ National Library of Australia. (2018). Treasures : Item : The Hills Hoist. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://nationaltreasures.nla.gov.au/index/Treasures/item/nla.int-ex8-s25 NDP Consulting. (2016). Value Analysis and Function Analysis System Technique. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from http://www.npd-solutions.com/va.html Norman, Don. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions, 9(4), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/543434.543435 Norman, Donald a, & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and Radical Innovation. Design Issues. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00250 Normann, R., & Ramírez, R. (1993). From Value Chain to Value Constellation. Harvard Business Review, 71(4). Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. In Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004 Oldroyd, D. R. (1986). Charles Darwin ’ s Theory of Evolution: A Review of our Present Understanding. Darwin, 1, 133–168. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. Oxford. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2005). CLARIFYING BUSINESS MODELS : ORIGINS , PRESENT , AND FUTURE OF THE CONCEPT CLARIFYING BUSINESS MODELS : ORIGINS , PRESENT , AND FUTURE OF THE CONCEPT. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(May). Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. (T. Clark, Ed.), self published. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.consulteam.be/media/5985/businessmodelgenerationpreview.pdf Oxford English Dictionary. (2019a). ecosystem | Definition of ecosystem in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ecosystem Oxford English Dictionary. (2019b). product | Definition of product in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/product Özüağ, E. (2013). Renault Twizy Cargo for daily rides. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 153 Williams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ELjBcPu8Ak Pachauri, M. (2001). Consumer Behaviour: a Literature Review. The Marketing Review, 2(3), 319–355. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 11, 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2 Pardeshi, G., Shirke, A., & Jagtap, M. (2010). SWOT Analysis. Security (Vol. 33). https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.43233 Parker, A. A. (2004). Unsustainable trends in the Australian Census Data for the journey to work in Melbourne and other cities in Victoria. In 27th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, 29 September – 1 October 2004 (pp. 1–23). Adelaide. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2007). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007- 0070-0 Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design Thinking: Understand, Improve, Apply. Profiles of drug substances, excipients, and related methodology (Vol. 36). Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387667-6.00013-0 Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015 Rachieru, C. (2018). Mapping multi-channel ecosystems - UX Australia. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from http://www.uxaustralia.com.au/conferences/uxaustralia- 2018/presentation/mapping-multi-channel-ecosystems/ RACQ Vehicle Running Costs 2012. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/97029/RACQ-Vehicle-Running- Costs-2012.pdf Rama. (2012). Renault Twizy, side view. Retrieved July 3, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Renault_Twizy,_side_view.jpg Rao, V. R. (2014). Applied conjoint analysis. Applied Conjoint Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87753-0 Ravichandran, N. (2017). How Has Apple Built A Powerful Product Ecosystem? - Key Person
Page 154 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
of Influence. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://www.keypersonofinfluence.com/apple- built-powerful-product-ecosystem/ Reid, S. E., & De Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. In Journal of Product Innovation Management (Vol. 21, pp. 170–184). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00068.x Research, W. A. for H. P. and S., & Campbell, S. (2009). Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, 7(November), 1–112. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/268925 Rich, N., & Holweg, M. (2000). N u e l u a l. INNOREGIO: dissemination of innovation and knowledge management techniques. Richmond, B. (1991). Systems Thinking. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Richmond, B. (1994). System Dynamics/Systems Thinking: Let’s Just Get On With It. In Systems Dynamics/Systems thinking. International Systems Dynamics Conference. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Road Deaths Australia 2011 Statistical Summary. (2011). Canberra ACT. Retrieved from http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2012/files/RDA_Summary_2011.pdf Road funding for safer roads - Fact Sheet 3. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/roads/road_safety/road_safety_priorities/road_safety_p riorities_-_fact_sheet_3_-_safer_roads_-_road_funding Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016). A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare, 4(1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002 Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2009). The Geography of Transport Systems. Geography (Vol. 60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802115474 Ropert, S., Love, J., & Vahter, P. (2012). T____he Value of Design Strategies for New Product Development. Birmingham. Rosati, L. (2012). From Product to Ecosystem: User Experience as a Flow and Narrative | Pervasive Information Architecture. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://pervasiveia.com/blog/from-product-to-ecosystem Roser, M., & Ritchie, H. (2017). Technological Progress - Our World in Data. Retrieved
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 155 Williams
January 15, 2018, from https://ourworldindata.org/technological-progress#the-future-of- exponential-technological-growth Rowe, P. (1994). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84–92. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZjZ3mflzJtUC&oi=fnd& pg=PA1&dq=Design+Thinking&ots=K49dvX7xGY&sig=LGNsguSP2Vzycs rYuYNjxFIuRx8 Rucker, S. (2011). How Good Designers Think. Harvard Business Review, (April). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-good-designers-think Ryan, A., & Leung, M. (2013). Systemic Design : Two Canadian Case Studies The Shape of a Systemic Design Project, 1–6. Sanchez-Fernandez, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. a. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165 Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15000?msg=welcome_stranger SAVE International Value Standard. (2015). Value Methodology. SAVE International Value Standard, (March). Savitz, A., & Weber, K. (2014). The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success - and How You Can Too. San Francisco, Jossey-Boss. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub4.Written Savoia, A. (2014). FAILURE : ANALYZE IT , DON’T HUMANIZE IT. Schneider, J., & Hall, J. (2011). Why Most Product Launches Fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/why-most-product-launches-fail Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professional think in action. Design. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0209 Scott, H. (2009). What is Grounded Theory? | Grounded Theory Online. Retrieved March 29, 2018, from http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/ Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline
Page 156 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Fieldbook. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, 593. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025496 Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030806 Smartwatch Group. (2015). Top 10 Smartwatch Companies 2014 (Sales) - Smartwatch Group. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/top-10- smartwatch-companies-sales-2014/ Software Updates | Tesla. (2019). Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.tesla.com/support/software-updates SONG, X. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products*1. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(97)00077-5 Sousanis, J. (2011). World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815 Sperling, D. P. (2010). Two Billion Cars: Is it Sustainable? In Spring Seminar Series (2010) University of Illinois at Chicago. Dept of Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.cme.uic.edu/bin/view/CME/Seminars Taborga, J. (2011). The Evolution of Systems Thinking - Saybrook University. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.saybrook.edu/blog/2011/06/22/evolution-systems-thinking/ Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Holmström, J., & Romme, A. G. L. (2018). Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.002 Taylor, B. E. (Barbara E. (1995). The lost cord : the storyteller’s history of the electric car. Greydon Press. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, a. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n1 The Apple Ecosystem - AppleMagazine. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://applemagazine.com/the-apple-ecosystem/36702 Tobias, J. (2007). Accessibility and Product Ecosystems. The Information Society, 23(3), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701323598
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 157 Williams
Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS IN PREFERENCE SPACE AND WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY SPACE. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 1–16). Travel in south-east Queensland. (2009). Brisbane. UK Social Exclusion Unit. (2012). Making connections. Health Devices, 41(4), 102–121. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486398 Unger, N. (2010). NASA - Road Transportation Emerges as Key Driver of Warming in New Analysis from NASA. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/road-transportation.html Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=rpaj0vLzPRkC&pgis=1 Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1540304 Villas-Boas, A. (2016). Why Apple’s ecosystem is king - Business Insider. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ecosystem-2016-6/?r=AU&IR=T Viloria, G. (2016). 10 Ways How Tech Brands Create a Product Ecosystem. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-ways-how-tech-brands-create-product- ecosystem-greg-viloria/ Viswanathan, B. (2013). Why Are Cars Not Getting Cheap Even With Better Economies Of Scale? Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/07/why-are-cars-not-getting-cheap-even- with-better-economies-of-scale/#1e9904595ad9 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1938). Human Biology a Quantitative Theory of Organic Growth (Inquireies on Growth Laws. II)*. Source: Human Biology, 10174254(2), 181–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505340.201 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. Georg. Braziller New York, 1, 289. Retrieved from http://books.google.es/books?id=N6k2mILtPYIC Vukovac, D. P., Džeko, M., Stapić, Z., & Orehovački, T. (2019). User Experience Design and
Page 158 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Architecture of IoT Ecosystem Employed in Students’ Activities Tracking. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94706-8 Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011 Welbourne, E., Battle, L., Cole, G., Gould, K., Rector, K., Raymer, S., … Borriello, G. (2009). Building the internet of things using RFID: The RFID ecosystem experience. IEEE Internet Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2009.52 Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. (2012). Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.001 West, D. S. (2006). The High Cost of Free Parking, edited by Donald C. Shoup. Journal of Regional Science, 46(4), 800–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2006.00478_7.x Williams, T. (2011). Design of sustainable transport : opportunities. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/48235/ Williams, T. (2014). Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product Ecosystem theory. In The Sustainable City IX : Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, (pp. 723-733.). Williams, T. (2015). Using the evolution of consumer products to inform design . Brisbane. Williams, T., & Chamorro-koc, M. (2013). The theory of Product Ecosystems as a means to study disruptive innovations : The case of the CityCar. In IASDR 2013 (pp. 1–11). Williams, T., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2013). Product ecosystems : an emerging methodological approach to study the implementation of disruptive innovations : the case of the CityCar. In K. Sugiyama (Ed.), 5th International Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (pp. 1286–1295). Tokyo, Japan: Shibaura Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/68335/ Wong, J. J., Chen, P. Y., & Chen, C. Di. (2016). The Metamorphosis of Industrial Designers from Novices to Experts. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 35(1), 140– 153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12044 Younker, D. (2003). Value Engineering: Analysis And Methodology (Google eBook). CRC
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 159 Williams
Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=Mtq_qunJIBMC&pgis=1 Zhou, F., Jiao, R. J., Xu, Q., Chen, S., Qu, X., & Helander, M. G. (2009). An affective- cognitive framework of product ecosystem design. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2060–2064. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373182 Zhou, Feng, Xu, Q., & Jiao, R. J. (2010). Fundamentals of product ecosystem design for user experience. Research in Engineering Design, 22(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0096-z
Page 160 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Chapter 6 - DEVELOPING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM MAPS: (PAPER 4)
Paper 1: Product Evolution and Paper 2: Product Ecosystems developed the theory behind Product Ecosystems and Paper 3: Extrinsic Value demonstrated the validity of the theory. This theory makes a valuable contribution to knowledge, but the design practitioner needs a way to apply the theory to the design process. Designers typically use visualisation techniques, and so we developed a technique for visualising the Product Ecosystem in a simple, fast, repeatable way.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 161 Williams
In Paper 4: Ecosystem Mapping we present the results of an experimental approach to developing a method for mapping the Product Ecosystem. The approach we used was to conduct a workshop where we described the historical and future ecosystem theory and asked a group of design students to use this theory to inform their designs. They were asked to develop a mapping system that they deemed appropriate to their particular design. This deliberately open approach allowed novice designers to experiment with a variety of mapping approaches. Developing a product, service or in this case mapping method in conjunction with the end user is consistent with the notion of co-creation (Normann & Ramírez, 1993; Payne et al., 2007; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). In this case, the approach of co-creation is particularly useful as the end users are also designers, familiar with open-ended ambiguity. The types of maps produced were varied in layout but had some consistency in the elements used. The product was the central element, or at least in a dominant position in almost all cases. Some involved designing several products at the same time, and so this map involved three foci. A consistent element across all maps was the use of lines linking entities. The results of this co-creation approach form the crucial first stages of the development of the Product Ecosystem design method.
This paper was presented at the Design Research Society conference in Brighton, the United Kingdom in 2016.
It was published in the Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society - Future- Focused Thinking, pp. 1643-1658 under the title of “FUTURE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEMS: DISCOVERING THE VALUE OF CONNECTIONS.”
“The Design Research Society is a learned society committed to promoting and developing design research. Founded in 1966, It is the longest established, multi-disciplinary worldwide society for the design research community” (DRS, 2018).
Page 162 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
In the case of this chapter:
The authors listed below have certified that: 1. They meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. They take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the lead author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. There are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit. 5. They agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
Contributor Statement of Contribution Tim Williams Chief investigator, the major contribution to the planning of the study, data collection and analysis, QUT Verified Signature literature review and writing of the manuscript.
Dr Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Contribution to the planning of the study (as associate supervisor),
QUT Verified Signature review of data and analysis of the manuscript. Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 163 Williams
Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.
Evonne Miller QUT Verified Signature 04/04/19
Name Signature Date
Authors: Williams, Tim & Chamorro-Koc, Marianella (2016)
Title: “FUTURE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEMS: DISCOVERING THE VALUE OF CONNECTIONS”
Published: In Lloyd, Peter & Bohemia, Erik(Eds.) Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society - Future-Focused Thinking, Design Research Society, Brighton, United Kingdom, pp. 1643-1658.
Product Ecosystem Theory is an emerging approach to help understand the value networks that exist between products within a system. As products become increasingly interconnected, understanding the value obtained from those connections becomes ever more critical. This paper explores the concept of Product Ecosystems and this concept’s role in mapping current products’ evolution as well as that of new product conceptual development. Historical case studies using both hindsight and foresight from new product propositions reveal the different Page 164 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams connections that take place or are considered in the emerging landscape of Product Ecosystems. This paper contributes to Product Ecosystem Theory through the discussion of the literature and discussion of the value of emerging connections within a Product Ecosystem, as well as by proposing a conceptual tool to help map out products’ value networks.
Industrial Design, Product Ecosystem Theory, Innovation Theory, Internet of Things.
Products can meet with success or failure for many reasons. While the authors acknowledge that success can take many forms, in this context we are considering success to be a commercial success. i.e. one that makes a satisfactory financial return on investment. According to the substitution effect in consumer choice theory, demand is considered to be proportional to perceived value and demand is essential for commercial success (Sanchez- Fernandez & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Therefore, in this context, perceived value and success are proportional. Conversely, failures are associated with a lack of perceived value; that is a failure in the premise of a product or failure to communicate the value to customers. Because approximately 70 – 80% of all new products fail in their first year of launch (Savoia, 2014), understanding the value that products provide becomes very important.
The traditional approach of Value Analysis or Value Engineering (DeSarbo et al., 2001; SAVE International Value Standard, 2015) is useful as it allows each function of the product to have a value ascribed. A process like this is useful for stand-alone products where all the value of the product is intrinsic to that product. However as products become more reliant on extrinsic ecosystems (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013), a more holistic approach is required. This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of how products within an ecosystem gain value from that ecosystem. Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 165 Williams
Product innovation has long been a mechanism for product differentiation, and a means to gain competitive advantage. There is now a broad acceptance that innovation can be either disruptive or incremental (C. Christensen, 1997b; Verganti, 2009). One of the main characteristics of disruptive innovation is high risk and potentially high gain whereas incremental innovation is associated with lower risk and correspondingly lower gain. Disruptive innovation creates new value networks; it disrupts existing ones; therefore understanding these value networks is seen as a critical strategy for managing the risk associated with the introduction of new products.
Product Ecosystem Theory is an emerging approach that helps visualise and understand products’ value networks by identifying value-creation and transferred between the various parts of the ecosystem (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). As previously mentioned, value and success are proportional and so increasing the overall perceived value of a product may be possible by identifying links that provide value and perhaps questioning the links that do not provide value.
While Product Ecosystem Theory is still developing, a gap in existing theory is perceived, as there are no widely accepted strategies or methods in place for mapping and understanding the flow of a product’s value in complex interconnected ecosystems. As there is a general trend towards products that exist in more complex ecosystems, Industrial design must naturally follow this trend. For example, televisions of the 1960s required a power-supply, transmission of programs and not much else. A modern television, in contrast, may sit within an ecosystem of DVD players, pay TV, streamed content, free to air content, remote controls, surround sound systems, internet connectivity and so on. Additionally, as the “Internet of Things” (IoT) gathers momentum and wireless communication between products becomes commonplace, products will interconnect in many new ways. Increasingly designers are now required to the entire system. Page 166 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
As products become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, the requirement to understand products’ emerging ecosystems becomes more critical. Currently, there is a lack of suitable methods to enable this. To this end, and complimenting current Product Ecosystem Theory, an initial model has been devised to identify existing and emerging connections within Product Ecosystems.
This paper discusses the concept of Product Ecosystems in the context of Product Design. It presents an aspect of a larger research project that investigates how CityCars (Ultra Small Vehicles) interact with and gain value from their ecosystem (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). The main aim of this aspect of the ongoing research is to identify what aspects of the ecosystem must be modified in order to improve the perceived value of the CityCar and make them more desirable. The need to devise a method to evaluate this type of value flow and connections led to the consideration that products tend to behave in ways that are analogous to natural ecosystems. The study of natural ecosystems is a mature science, and thus, many methods for mapping and describing natural ecosystems are already in place. The study of Product Ecosystems adapts some of these methods. For example, in nature, the notion that the introduction of a new species into an ecosystem can have a dramatic impact, often leading to the extinction of other species that are unable to compete is an idea that dates back to Charles Darwin (Oldroyd, 1986). In a product’s ecosystem, the introduction of a new product often has a similar impact on the incumbent products, also leading to their demise (Massey, 1999): especially with disruptive innovation.
This paper introduces a discussion about the theory of Product Ecosystems and the critical importance of understanding products’ value within an ecosystem. The intrinsic relationship between products, innovation and ecosystems is then explored. On this basis, a theoretical framework for product evolution is presented, and an Industrial Design approach is presented through two types of case studies, one responding to hindsight and exemplified with existing product innovations, and the second responding to foresight approach with examples from industrial design students’ IoT design projects. A model for the analysis of product evolution
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 167 Williams and ecosystems interconnections are presented and discussed. Finally, the conclusion section lays out the steps for the continuation of this research and development of this emerging tool.
Products are becoming increasingly complex and increasingly connected. Many, formerly stand-alone products are now reliant on other products as well as the environment in which they exist. Many products are platforms that now have little or no inherent value but rely on gaining value from the ecosystem to which they belong. For example, an iPad gains much of its value from its ability to connect with other devices, including the internet. The ability to add functionality in the form of apps is also a key value provider. Even the charger is also part of the ecosystem, without which the iPad would become inoperative. Many of these interactions provide obvious value where others may not be as obvious. As perceived value is an essential component of product success, understanding that value is critical. The statistics of new product failures illustrate the importance of this. While the definition of product failure is open to discussion, the statistic of 70 – 80% of all new products are commercial failures (Savoia, 2014) is often cited. Of course, there are many reasons why products fail, many of them unrelated to the premise of the product; however as previously noted, disruptive innovation carries a higher risk of failure (C. Christensen, 1997b). The consequences of failure can be ruinous for a manufacturer both financially and in terms of brand reputation. So even small improvements in success prediction have the potential to save money, effort and brand reputation.
The term ‘Product Ecosystem’ is most often used to talk about products that are connected electronically. For example, the “Apple ecosystem” is a term used to describe a suite of products such as an iPhone, a computer, an Apple watch and an iPad. These products communicate with each other and therefore create an ecosystem where each product gains value from the other products. However, ecosystems are more complicated than just the products mentioned. For example, the software needs consideration because without it the whole system has no value. Value also comes from content on the internet, so this is also part of the ecosystem. Without electricity, the entire system becomes useless and so on. The value
Page 168 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams of an individual component is less and sometimes worthless when removed from the ecosystem. Therefore the value of the system becomes greater than the sum of the standalone parts.
Our research suggests that once the Product Ecosystem is understood, then it is possible to manipulate the ecosystem to favour one product over another (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). For example, to address the problems of traffic congestion and pollution, vehicles that reduce these problems should be encouraged. Ultra-Small Vehicles (CityCar) are a class of vehicle specifically designed to address these problems. However, in the context of the current road-vehicle ecosystem, the perceived value of CityCars is less than that of conventional cars (Mitchell et al., 2010). For example, the drivers of CityCars are still affected by the traffic jams created by larger conventional cars. By creating special narrow vehicle lanes and thereby manipulating the Product Ecosystem, the perceived value of CityCars can be increased (Williams, 2014).
The following section presents a theoretical framework of product evolution, which provides the basis for the development of the initial model for the analysis of Product Ecosystems.
When one looks at sustaining innovation, it is normally clear to see how a new model is related to the previous model and how there is a clear progression from one model to the next. With disruptive innovation the predecessors’ influence is not always as obvious as with sustaining innovation; however, it is always there and often comes from more than one source. For example, the DVD player has adopted technology from the CD player as well as the VCR. While the CD player still exists, (though arguably in decline), the VCR is no longer made in any reasonable quantities and has nearly ceased to exist.
From this, it can be seen that all new products have clear predecessors and therefore can be seen to have evolved from other products (Crawford & Tellis, 1981). Some product lines evolve rapidly while others evolve slowly over time. Some products are regularly superseded by others
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 169 Williams in a gradual progression while occasionally new products emerge that are radically different from those that currently exist. Occasionally a product line will decline and eventually disappear altogether, becoming extinct.
All products compete for market share while only the fittest thrive. These patterns of behaviour are seen in both nature and consumer products (Massey, 1999).
Both biological species and consumer products respond to external opportunities and threats. In biology, the opportunities and threats come from the environment and other species and for products the opportunities and threats come from the market, social trends and legislation (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013). They all tend to thrive when they are well adapted to exploit opportunities and decline when unable to adapt to threats. They both compete for resources; whether those resources are consumer dollars or food.
In biology, the principle of phyletic gradualism describes the process where the rise of a descendant species slowly displaces an ancestral species a traceable lineage. This is based on small changes in physiology that allow species to become better adapted to their environment so they can thrive. In a resource-constrained environment, this tends to displace those ancestral species that are now less able to exploit those resources. This has parallels in the evolution of products as new products with slight changes are released onto the market. If the changes are well received by the consumer then the product will be successful; if not then the changes will be dropped in subsequent models. This is partly described by the term “sustaining innovation” coined by Christensen (Christensen, 1997). The difficulty with the concept of sustaining (or incremental) innovation is that it presumes that each new model improves slightly on its predecessor and therefore likely to be successful. The reality is that 80% of all new products fail within the first year of launch (Savoia, 2014). When one looks at the value network of products that undergo incremental innovation, the values tend to be similar to the previous generation with relatively small performance improvements. As a product line matures, it
Page 170 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams becomes increasingly difficult to continually improve performance and therefore increase perceived value.
By comparison, disruptive innovation typically has a completely new set of values. Some of the existing performance characteristics may be less than previous products, and there will be some completely new values. If the sum of these values is perceived to be superior to the predecessor, then the new product is likely to be a success. Product Ecosystem Theory helps identify and document these value networks, which can assist Industrial Designers to develop products that can capitalise on extrinsic value from the ecosystem.
Product Ecosystem Theory has the greatest potential when applied to the conceptual premise of a new product. Exploring how Product Ecosystems evolve so that effective future ecosystems can be designed for, as well as designing products that can fully exploit the latent value within the ecosystem. Traditionally, Industrial Design tends to focus on developing a single product with little consideration of its ecosystem. As previously mentioned the overall value of a product is comprised of both intrinsic and extrinsic values. To create maximum perceived value for a product, designers need to consider the value obtained from the ecosystem. This can be achieved by considering past and future ecosystems: that is through gaining insights from hindsight as well as foresight thinking. Hindsight thinking refers to the understanding of past and current ecosystems. The past can be analysed to give rich insight into factors that contribute to the evolution of products. The study of current ecosystems allows for identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In foresight thinking, evaluating potential future ecosystems has the most significant potential to identify future Product Ecosystems, and new product connections, which in turn, would provide a framework for devising new scenarios of emerging landscapes of new Product Ecosystems.
Successive iterations of consumer products exhibit similar evolutionary patterns as those found in biological ecosystems (Tobias, 2007; Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013; Feng Zhou et al.,
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 171 Williams
2010). Evolutionary theories such as phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can be observed not just in biological evolution but are analogous in product evolution. (Massey, 1999). Phyletic gradualism describes the gradual evolutionary morphology changes in species over time. In contrast, punctuated equilibrium describes long periods of stasis occasionally punctuated by rapid changes or branches in species (Gould & Eldredge, 1993). This can be seen in Figure 49
Figure 49 - Graphical comparison of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.
Reproduced from (Williams, 2014), based on (Gould & Eldredge, 1993)
In biology, changes in morphology are driven by environmental pressures or opportunities. When the morphology of a species changes and is better suited to the environment, that species tend to flourish (Oldroyd, 1986). Sometimes gradual changes are not enough to keep
Page 172 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams up with a changing environment, and radical change is required. The same patterns can be observed in product lines. As we know that in products, radical change is achieved through disruptive innovation and gradual change achieved through incremental innovation, we can see direct analogies between disruptive innovation and punctuated equilibria as well as incremental innovation and phyletic gradualism. As in nature, the two forms of evolution occur alongside each other in product evolution. Figure 50 depicts an example based on the evolution of watches, where the horizontal green lines depict incremental innovation and the vertical red lines depict disruptive innovation.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 173 Williams
Figure 50 - An evolutionary diagram of watches.
(Williams, 2015)
Page 174 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Each step in the evolutionary diagram can be evaluated to see what new technical opportunities allowed the change to take place and what additional values the product offered that contributed to its success (Williams, 2015). This type of evolutionary diagram allows the analysis of the products that failed and became “extinct” giving insight into the reasons behind the failure. There are many well-established methods for this type of analysis such as Value Analysis (Rich & Holweg, 2000), FMEA (Carlson, 2014), and SWOT analysis (Pardeshi et al., 2010).
Current ecosystem analysis can be used to visualise the value and influence of each component within the ecosystem. Figure 51 shows a partial ecosystem map for the automobile. The map shows the complexity of components that provide value to the automobile. The main reason for producing a current ecosystem map is that it allows a convenient baseline for proposing future scenarios. For example, we might pose the question about what will need to be mapped in the ecosystem of electric cars. We may conclude that service stations and mechanics will offer less value for electric cars than they do for conventional cars and therefore may need to rethink their business models. By understanding the interdependencies of the car ecosystem and modifying the environment accordingly, we gain control over the design of the viability of the car.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 175 Williams
Figure 51 - The current automotive Product ecosystem
(reproduced from Williams & Chamorro-koc, 2013)
In Figure 52 we can see a simplified Product Ecosystem diagram for a DVD player. The solid lines represent critical value transfer, and the dashed lines represent components that add value but are not critical. The arrows show the direction of value flow. That is, the arrow points to the receiver of value. For example, the TV is critically important to the DVD player.
Page 176 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 52 - The Product ecosystem for the DVD player
In Figure 53 we can see the Product Ecosystem for direct movie streaming overlaid on the DVD Product Ecosystem. This demonstrates the components that are removed from the system. This is only a partial map. For example, it could be expanded to include a modem, internet service providers (ISPs) and so on. The quality of the internet connection is an important factor in value flow.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 177 Williams
Figure 53 - The Product ecosystem map for direct movie streaming
Therefore by understanding the potential value generated as the consumer environment changes and opportunities that technology allows we can start to predict which products are likely to succeed. More importantly, it allows us to see what environmental variables can be modified to make a product more or less viable. The diagram presented in Figure 53 provided the foundation for an initial ‘tool’ or conceptual proposition to test the concept of foresight thinking and identification of value flows and connections in emerging Product Ecosystems. The diagram was presented to the third year Industrial Design students at Queensland University of Technology who were working on the design of an interactive product for the near future (five to ten years in time), within the IoT concept, and for the future generation of the older adult. It was explained to them that they
Page 178 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams could employ the tool to identify and outline the connections that their new product designs would require in order to exist and benefit the end user and society. Product Ecosystems from three students’ design projects are presented here: the domestic hobby products, the scuba diving experiential devices, and the bed-ritual products family. The students, according to their project needs, produced Product Ecosystems and connections. These are discussed next. In the case of domestic hobby based products, students selected home-based activities that an older adult enjoyed doing on their own, but like to share with others. These are: mowing the lawn (a predominant DIY weekend activity in Australia), bird watching, and watching a rugby match. As a large portion of older adults in Australia prefer to maintain their independence and live on their own, students designed products to support these activities and enrich the users’ experience by augmenting their socialisation potential through interactive functions. Figure 54 shows the students’ Product Ecosystem map where the connections of the three interactive products to people, the central hub, and services are depicted. In this case, this Product Ecosystem map demonstrates connections that aim to add value to existing services and products in the household through a digital infrastructure supporting each of the new product designs.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 179 Williams
Figure 54 - Students design project – domestic hobby products
In the case of the scuba diving experiential devices, the students explored the topic of active older adults who have enjoyed doing scuba diving since very young and who are not ready to give up this activity due to age. However, as physical and cognitive decline affects older adults performance and ability to continue being active, students focused on designing products that assist older adults’ performance and experience when diving. Figure 7 shows a Product Ecosystem map of the three different products that are part of the scuba diving gear. The diagram shows the connections of each product to the scuba diving activity, connections between the products, and connections to a social network.
Page 180 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 55 - Students design project – scuba diving experiential project
The third student project example is the bed-ritual products family. This project proposes an enhanced way of preparing to sleep and waking up. Many older adults include a relaxation activity as part of their preparation to sleep; reading a book is one of them. Another part of a bed-ritual activity is the wake-up, which commonly is assisted by a noisy alarm clock. To enhance and augment these basic bed-ritual activities, the students worked on two product designs that would be seamlessly integrated into the persons’ ritual activities, helping to time and provide a relaxing reading time before sleeping, and prompting a gentle wake up experience without the startle caused by the mundane alarm clock. Figure 55 shows the student's Product Ecosystem map that depicts two parallel branches that connect to a diversity of services, support network, and other products.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 181 Williams
Figure 56 - Students design project – the morning ritual products family
Page 182 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
In this exercise, the students were only asked to show the links within the ecosystem without complicating the exercise by qualifying the actual flow of value. The aim was to see how students approached the mapping process and to see what commonalities emerged.
From this we observed three distinct Product Ecosystem maps that demonstrate three types of connections: (a) product to product, (b) product to system, (c) product family. Each of these connections would potentially lead to different value flow as they respond to different types of products’ innovation.
This paper proposes two tools. The first is a tool to chart the evolution of a product and the second maps out the ecosystem of the product. Neither of these tools generates outputs of their own. Rather they both are techniques for creating a visual scaffold that allows evaluation using existing methods of analysis. It is this analysis that generates empirical data that can be used as guidance for the design process. For example, once a Product Ecosystem map has been created for a product it can be used to rank the other entities based on the amount of value that they provide the product. This can be useful in deciding which entities to optimise the product for. As is often the case with design, judgement is required to determine what level of analysis is required.
The two visual scaffolds created can also be described as maps of the value network. The evolutionary diagram represents the longitudinal value network, and the ecosystem map represents the current or proposed value network. While analysis of each of the nodes identifies the values gained from other entities in the ecosystem or how value is added over time, in practice, it seems that this level of empirical data is not always required. It seems the process of creating these maps allows a designer to visualise the context in which a new product might lie. This is similar to other techniques used in product design such as persona creation. It is not necessary to analyse the persona empirically to be of use; rather it is the
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 183 Williams process of creating a persona and the ability to visualise that person using the product that makes the technique useful.
The nascent techniques of creating an evolutionary diagram and ecosystem mapping need further evaluation to determine the usefulness in the design process. Initially, this evaluation will take place with students, as the turnover of projects is typically more rapid when compared to professional projects. Refinement will be an important part of this process. Once an effective and reliable tool has been developed, this should be evaluated with professional projects.
The need for tools to help design and configure ecosystems is becoming more apparent as products become increasingly interconnected. The “Internet of Things” promises a level of functionality for many products that was impossible until recently. Simultaneously the way that we interact with products is changing significantly as well. This suggests that Industrial Designers will find a decrease in emphasis from traditional areas of aesthetics, form and ergonomics to that of interaction and ecosystems. This follows a progression in the way that we interact with products.
When Industrial Design was a new discipline, product interaction was mostly with levers and handles. With the increase in electronic products, interaction involved knobs and switches. We are now moving into an era where interaction is through gestures and touch, increasingly remote from the product. While ergonomics and form have been the subject of design research for many years, interaction and ecosystems are relatively new subjects, and therefore adequate tools are lacking. This will require an approach to product design that is a significant departure from the traditional approach, and this research aims to help fill the gap in knowledge.
Page 184 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This paper is part of a wider research program investigating Product Ecosystems. As it is still a “work in progress” as it does not yet offer a sufficiently complete understanding in this area to provide a fully resolved tool (or tools) for use in design practice. However, this is the goal. Future research in this area is to investigate mapping ecosystems to identify either a suitable way to plot out all types of ecosystems or to identify different categories of ecosystems and develop mapping methods for each. Our initial research with design students suggests that there are different types of ecosystems that will require different approaches although it might be possible to develop a unified approach. The next area is to qualify and perhaps even quantify the flow of value within ecosystems. As Product Ecosystems are often very complex, this would appear to be a very time-consuming task. However, it may be that only certain types of value links need to be evaluated. Further research in this area is required.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 185 Williams
Carlson, C. S. (2014). Understanding and Applying the Fundamentals of FMEA. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business (Vol. 1). Harvard Business School Press.
Crawford, C. M., & Tellis, G. J. (1981). To Evolutionary Approach Product, 45(4), 125–132.
DeSarbo, W. S., Jedidi, K., & Sinha, I. (2001). Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 845–857. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.191
Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1993). Punctuated Equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366(6452), 223–227. http://doi.org/10.1038/366223a0
Massey, G. R. (1999). Product evolution: a Darwinian or Lamarckian phenomenon? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 301–318. http://doi.org/10.1108/10610429910284292
Mitchell, W. J., Borroni-Bird, C., & Burns, L. D. (2010). Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century. Amazon. MIT Press.
Oldroyd, D. R. (1986). Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: A Review of our Present Understanding. Darwin, 1, 133–168.
Pardeshi, G., Shirke, A., & Jagtap, M. (2010). SWOT Analysis. Security (Vol. 33). http://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.43233 Rich, N., & Holweg, M. (2000). Nu e l u a l. INNOREGIO: dissemination of innovation and knowledge management technique
Page 186 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Sanchez-Fernandez, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. a. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451. http://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165
Savoia, A. (2014). FAILURE : ANALYZE IT , DON’T HUMANIZE IT.
Tobias, J. (2007). Accessibility and Product Ecosystems. The Information Society, 23(3), 183–186. http://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701323598
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=rpaj0vLzPRkC&pgis=1
Williams, T. (2014). Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product Ecosystem theory. In The Sustainable City IX : Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, (pp. 723–733.).
Williams, T. (2015). Using the evolution of consumer products to inform design. Brisbane.
Williams, T., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2013). Product Ecosystems : An emerging methodological approach to study the implementation of disruptive innovations : The case of the CityCar, 1,1297–1306.
Zhou, F., Xu, Q., & Jiao, R. J. (2010). Fundamentals of Product Ecosystem design for user experience. Research in Engineering Design, 22(1), 43–61. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0096-z
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 187 Williams
Chapter 7 - CREATING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM DESIGN METHOD: (PAPER 5)
Paper 1: Product Evolution and Paper 2: Product Ecosystems described the development of the theory behind Product Ecosystems and Paper 3: Extrinsic Value demonstrated the veracity of the theory. The first three papers, therefore, have a theoretical focus, establishing Product Ecosystem theory. The remaining papers focus on the application of this theory.
In Paper 4: Ecosystem mapping, we presented the results of an experimental approach for developing a method for mapping the Product Ecosystem. This mapping method is
Page 188 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams essential for visualising and understanding the ecosystem but does not provide a means to incorporate Product Ecosystems Thinking into the design process. Thus, the next requirement is to explore ways to apply.
In Paper 5: Product Ecosystem Design Method we review the literature on design methods and evaluates the suitability of these methods to apply Product Ecosystem theory. The conclusion from this review is that there are no directly applicable methods, but components from several design methods can be combined to form a structured design method for applying Product Ecosystem Thinking. The Ideation process involving design sketching is an essential part of Design Thinking and is the ideal stage to apply the PE Design Method. Actor Network Theory provides an ideal mapping structure as well as the notion that actors (entities) can be almost anything as long as they influence the system (ecosystem) in some way. The Value Engineering processes of Value Analysis (VA) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) can be used to identify both the values and function of the ecosystem entities.
Paper 5: Product Ecosystem Design Method describes the development of the method for applying Product Ecosystem thinking to the design process. It also describes the proposed process in detail.
Statement of Contribution for Thesis by Published Papers
The authors listed below have certified that: 1. They meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. They take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the lead author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. There are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 189 Williams
4. Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit. 5. They agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
Contributor Statement of Contribution Tim Williams Chief investigator, the major contribution to the planning of the study, data collection and analysis, QUT Verified Signature literature review and writing of the manuscript.
Assoc. Proof Evonne Miller Contribution to the planning of the study (as principal supervisor), review
QUT Verified Signature of data and analysis of the manuscript.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.
Evonne Miller QUT Verified Signature 04/04/19
Name Signature Date Page 190 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Authors: Williams, Tim & Miller, Evonne (2018)
Title: “CREATING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM DESIGN METHOD.”
Submitted to the Journal of Design Strategies – April 2019 Currently under review.
Industrial Design plays a crucial role in translating new technology and user insight into desirable new products and services. The focus of the Industrial Designer is always to create the best possible value proposition for the user. The emerging theory of Product Ecosystem Thinking demonstrates that the value proposition of a product contains both intrinsic and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the designed-in value contained wholly within the product, and extrinsic value is that derived from the ecosystem. The Industrial Designer is responsible for these aspects of the value proposition.
Traditionally, Industrial designers have focussed on intrinsic values such as ergonomics, aesthetics and cost. We argue that designers need to consider the whole ecosystem to allow them to optimise their product for the ecosystem or look for ways to modify other entities in the ecosystem, thereby optimising extrinsic value. Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 191 Williams
The relationship between products and their ecosystem has been described well in the literature in recent years. In this paper, we discuss the existing literature that is relevant to Product Ecosystem Thinking as well as existing design methods. We then evaluate existing design methods for suitability to apply Product Ecosystem Thinking.
We find that existing design methods are insufficient for evaluating the Product Ecosystem. By combining aspects from a range of methods from several disciplines, we propose a new method to evaluate the Product Ecosystem and to apply Product Ecosystem Thinking.
ID = Industrial Design PE = Product Ecosystem ANT = Actor Network Theory VE = Value Engineering FEA = Finite Element Analysis
For brevity, the terms “design” and “designer” are used here to mean exclusively “industrial design” and “industrial designer” rather than including all design disciplines. Unless otherwise noted, the term “ecosystem” will refer to a “Product Ecosystem” and not a natural ecosystem.
In this article, we will mention networks, systems and ecosystems. For clarity, it is worth briefly discussing the difference between these terms as defined for this article. A network is a group of entities comprised of a limited number of types that are linked together to form a whole. The links are relevant, but with systems, there is an implication
Page 192 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams that the network is scalable and will still function if parts with parts added or removed. Consider a train network that consists of lines and stations; remove or add a station and the network still functions.
A system is also a collection of parts that act together as a whole. It implies a discrete number of components that all contribute to the overall function of the system. For example, a railway system includes locomotives, rails, signals and carriages. All are essential for the function of the system.
A natural ecosystem is composed of both animal and plant species. Importantly it also includes the environmental components such as air, water and soil and variables such as weather, altitude, tides and sunlight. Intangible components are things like the behaviour of species, the food chain and human influence. The most important thing about natural ecosystems is that all components influence the ecosystem and therefore everything is interrelated. Changes in one part of the natural ecosystem will create changes in other parts. Natural ecosystems do not have distinct boundaries. Species move between natural ecosystems as does weather and water. Finally, natural ecosystems are dynamic, constantly changing over time. Species evolve, move or become extinct, and climate changes and landscapes alter.
PEs have a similar structure and behave in similar ways to natural ecosystems. They are dynamic with new products continually emerging and competing for dominance just as species do. The product environment includes external intangible factors such as standards, legislation, users and so on that influences products. So, unlike a system which has identifiable boundaries, ecosystems do not.
A system will have an identifiable overall purpose, but PEs do not necessarily have one or at least it will not be as clear. The train ecosystem, in contrast to the train system, includes all the components of the train system but will include all things both tangible and intangible that influence how well the whole works. In ecological ecosystems, the
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 193 Williams viability of any species is dependent on other species as well as things like water, temperature, altitude and soil. Natural ecosystems do not have distinct boundaries. Even aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems would initially appear to have a water/land boundary, but many species cross that boundary. The entire earth is one complete ecosystem but this is, of course, impractical and so those who study natural ecosystems use their judgment to determine what part of the ecosystem they will study. The same is true of the PE. The designers will need to use their judgment to work out what they need to include and exclude in their study.
Since Industrial design became a distinct discipline, it has been in a constant state of change. Products have become more complex, driven by the increasing complexity of both technology and society (Bar-yam, 1997, p. 2). Consider the telephone of the 1980s whose primary and only real function was to make phone calls. In a few short decades, the functionality of smartphone telephones has increased exponentially to the point that the ability to make calls has almost become a secondary function (Ericsson, 2016). Much of this complexity is external to the actual phone. Data streaming services such as YouTube are not part of the telephone, but this extended ‘product eco-system’ adds functionality to the phone.
Products have become increasingly technically complex, physically and electronically interconnected. Indeed, many design professionals are starting to question whether traditional ID methods are adequate for designing products that sit within complex PEs (Druce, 2014). Thus, in this paper, we argue that the methods and tools for teaching and approaching the task of design have not kept pace with this evolution and new methods are required.
We conclude by proposing a new method for designing products, Product Ecosystem Thinking and assert that, due to the increased complexity and specialisation of products,
Page 194 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams designers need to engage with a method that helps them map and identify the extrinsic value within an ecosystem.
To understand the potential of Product Ecosystem Thinking, reflect on the evolution of television. Before the 1980s, televisions received broadcast signals from a limited number of channels and controls were little more than a volume control and a channel selector. To make the television work, all that was required was electricity, an antenna and transmitted content. The television designer, therefore, only had to consider where to locate the controls and speaker and how to make an attractive front panel and enclosure. In contrast, televisions today typically have a far more complicated remote control with on-screen menus, a variety of inputs and adjustments. It is also much less of a stand-alone product and much more a system of components. These components may include DVD players, media streaming devices, multi-channel amplifiers and speaker systems. Designers need to consider a far higher level of user interaction than that of previous televisions. However, most importantly, the television is no longer a single, stand-alone product. The user no longer just interacts with the television; they interact with the entire television system.
So, the designer needs to think of the television as part of a system, what we describe in this paper as part of a Product Ecosystem. A television, well integrated into its ecosystem will have more value than one that is not, all other things being equal. Another example of this is the vehicle ecosystem. While there is a clear need for disruptive innovation to address the problems with congestion and pollution, this is extremely difficult without innovation across the entire ecosystem (Williams & Chamorro- Koc, 2013). For example, there have been many innovative designs aimed to address these problems.
A well-known example is the MIT City Car (Mitchell et al., 2010) and the Renault Twizy. These highly innovative designs failed because there was insufficient infrastructure to support them: insufficient parking, insufficient charging and a lack of dedicated lanes.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 195 Williams
Also significant is that some of the inherent benefits of these vehicles, reduced congestion, and reduced pollution are shared amongst all road users while driver of the smaller vehicle is the only one disadvantaged. A PE Thinking approach should have identified that much of the value for the City Car driver comes from external factors such as parking and dedicated vehicle lanes: i.e. from the PE. (Williams & Chamorro-Koc, 2013) It is possible that experienced designers have learned to do this intuitively, though we were unable to find any indication of this in the literature. Moreover, even if experienced designers can consider the PE intuitively, there are no methods available for teaching this holistic approach to students. Before we outline the stages and processes in our PE Thinking approach, however, we must first explore current design methods.
The design process has been in continual evolution and expansion since the 1920s when the profession first became acknowledged. The history of ID falls into three approximate eras: first, an era where aesthetics and manufacturability were the main (and sometimes only) focus; second, the emphasis on the human factors of design such as ergonomics and usability; and finally, the current era where interaction, user experience, service and systems are foci (S. K. King & Chang, 2016).
As the rates of social and technological change accelerate (Roser & Ritchie, 2017), ID must evolve to keep up with these changes. It is the role of the designer to identify the opportunities that technology provides combined with user insights and translate these opportunities into products, services and experiences that give value to users. As this research is related to design methods and design tools, it is useful to include a short history and an analysis of current practice. For this article, design methods will refer to how the application of design process (that is, the steps or stages and their order) and design tools will refer to techniques used to undertake the stages in the design process.
Page 196 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Pinpointing the start of industrial design is difficult. However, Joseph Claude Sinel is often considered to have first used the term in 1919. The establishment of Industrial design coincided with the second industrial revolution, characterised by the introduction of mass manufacture (Davis, 2016). During this time, art schools taught Industrial Designers, resulting in a strong emphasis on aesthetics. Indeed, there was little distinction between the terms “Stylist” and “Industrial Designer” of that era. The early work of Raymond Loewy with his love of everything streamlined is an excellent example of this focus on aesthetics (CMG Worldwide, 2018). The Bauhaus is considered the most influential design school of this era and pioneered the amalgamation of arts and technology. However, its roots were firmly influenced by arts and crafts with a focus on taking existing functionality and innovating through aesthetics and form (Bauhaus movement, 2017). Electronics products such as radio were still in their infancy and unavailable to most. So from a design perspective, interactions with products were very tangible.
By the mid-1950s, there was a realisation that Industrial Designers needed to consider more than just aesthetics and that greater consideration of user needs was required. For example, ergonomics became a vital consideration driven by the work of designers like Henry Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss, 1955). The Ulm School of Design (Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm) is widely considered to be the first to introduce true design methods to ID education in the 1950s and 1960s. These design methods incorporated art and technology as well as disciplines such as sociology, psychology, economics, usability, and semiotics. As such, it was the first school to introduce a structured approach to design that is user centred and problem-based – what is now referred to as ‘Ulm Design’. (Müller & Spitz, 2014). This approach forms the basis of modern design practice and education. During this time, the third Industrial Revolution was taking place (Davis, 2016) where electronic products started to be available and affordable for consumers. This significantly altered the way in which people interact with products creating new challenges for designers. Manufacturing advancements, such as the
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 197 Williams availability of injection-moulded plastics, gave designers far more scope in terms of form whilst allowing the cost of products to drop and competition to increase. The increased complexity of the design task meant that the design methods pioneered by the Ulm School were necessary.
Currently, the world is entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterised by the maturation of the digital revolution, and the cyber-physical system that includes Artificial Intelligence and genome editing (Davis, 2016). As with the previous revolutions, this is changing how we interact with products. For example, cars now talk to us giving directions, and we talk back. This type of interaction was impossible when the Ulm School was developing its design methods. As the design process undergoes significant change, the question arises: are the design methods developed in the 1950s still suitable for designing the products of the 2020s and 2030s? What we are already seeing is a significant increase in the interconnectedness of products in ways that were just not possible in the 1950s. Companies (such as Apple) who have managed to capitalise on the opportunities that this interconnectedness allows have been very successful. Moreover, in this paper, we will show that current design methods do not offer much help when designing for complex interconnected systems.
There are two different paradigms of the design process, categorised as either a Rational Problem Solving or Reflection in Action (Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995). In the rational paradigm, designers use a methodical, repeatable process that starts with the design brief or problem definition and ends with a design outcome that meets predetermined criteria (Pahl & Beitz, 2013; Simon & Newell, 1971). Critics of this view claimed that this was just not how designers work and that a methodical, structured approach to design limited creativity.
Page 198 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
An alternative paradigm proposed that designers work using a process of “framing” or conceptualising the design problem, “making moves” by proposing tentative design solutions and then “evaluating moves” by considering the value of the “move.” Designers arrive at a final design solution after a process of repeatedly making and evaluating moves with an occasional return to framing. This process is more fluid, intuitive and “designerly” way to approach design (Schön, 1983). In reality, the process of design combines both the reflective and rational paradigms with variations in combinations based on the context of the design exercise. Some argue that the rational approach is better suited to incremental innovation whereas disruptive innovation is more likely to come from the reflective approach (C. Christensen, 1997b). For example, an engineer designing a bridge may use an entirely rational approach, as the design criteria for the bridge are likely to be well defined from the start. By comparison, an interaction designer developing a new app for ride-sharing might be more likely to use the reflective approach.
Another important consideration is that designers use a combination of documented knowledge (i.e. explicit) and knowledge gained through experience (i.e. tacit). The reflective approach relies on tacit knowledge (i.e. skill and judgment) and the rational approach uses explicit knowledge (i.e. using established methods.)
Novice designers are more likely to take a rational approach relying on explicit, taught methods, and experienced designers rely more on tacit knowledge (Wong et al., 2016). For this, it would seem possible that experienced designers can design for PEs using tacit knowledge depending on their experience. However, novice designers lack the experience to do this highlighting the need for PE design methods.
While many variations have evolved, a structured approach to design has developed, following a series of steps with an understanding that the design process is not a linear
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 199 Williams process but an iterative one. These steps generally follow what has become called the “double diamond” approach (Design Council UK, 2007).
Double Diamond is comprised of four steps: Discover (a divergent, investigative stage that seeks to understand the context); Define (a convergent stage that aims to focus findings of the previous stage); Develop (a divergent stage that seeks to generate potential solutions) and Deliver (the final convergent stage refines the solution/s). In recent years, “design thinking,” best understood as the general approach designers take when tackling a design problem, has been developed as a mainstream six-step (empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test, implement) creative problem-solving approach in design and non-design disciplines (Rowe, 1994). The double diamond and design thinking approaches are very similar, with each of the steps using tools that produce an outcome.
Professional designers apply a wide variety of tools to various stages in the design process. However, these tools are often not used or used in an informal way (Green & Bonollo, 2002). One reason for this is that ID is a discipline that sits on the border of many other disciplines such as Engineering, Technical Illustration, Manufacturing, Anthropometrics and Marketing. When appropriate, methods belonging to these disciplines are often adopted by the Industrial Designer. For example, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a tool mostly used by Mechanical Engineering; however, it is sometimes used by Industrial Designers. Reflected in this is the wide variety of activities and projects that Industrial Designers tackle.
The following is a list of the more common tools that are used in each stage of the double diamond process.
Page 200 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Stage Traditional Tools Discover The divergent, Market Research investigative stage that Ethnographic research seeks to understand the context of the design problem Define The convergent stage QFD that aims to focus the Project Brief findings of the previous Persona Creation stage Develop The divergent stage Brainstorming that seeks to generate Concept sketching potential solutions. Design Led Innovation TRIZ QFD Bio-mimicry Ergonomics Prototyping Deliver The final convergent Design For Manufacture stage refines the Computer-Aided Design solution(s) Finite Element Analysis
Table 7 - Design Tools
The Discover stage is where the PE needs to be considered. In this stage, market research is conducted to discover who the competitors are and what the strengths and weaknesses are in their product/service.
Market research also aims to discover who the potential users will be for the new design and how large the potential market will be. Ethnographic research is conducted to understand the users of the product/service and what their needs are. This is now a well-
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 201 Williams established part of the design process. This is also the stage where PE research needs to take place to discover the interconnected entities that form the PE.
Once these entities have been identified, it is important to understand the value that they contribute to the ecosystem as well as opportunities to innovate the ecosystem. Table 2 highlights the value of an ecosystems perspective in the discover and understand phase, with the findings from Market, User and Ecosystem research will be incorporated into a list of insights that can make up the project brief in the define stage.
Market Research User research Ecosystem Research Discover Who are the competitors? What are the latent What entities add user needs? value? Who are users? What do they want? How are they related?
Define Strengths/weaknesses of How do users feel What are the the competition about the opportunities to product/service? innovate the ecosystem? Size of market What is preventing innovation?
Table 8 - Adding an ecosystems perspective to the design process
Industrial Design is a discipline that combines the subjective approach of art with the methodical, objective processes of engineering. This means that while designers will sometimes use structured methods in the design process, there is normally a large component that relies on subjective judgment (Eckert et al., 2014). There are theories underpinning the subjective side of design; however, experienced designers often use
Page 202 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams intuition based on experience to resolve subjective aspects such aesthetics (Don Norman, 2002). For example, while the Golden Ratio is a theory of proportionality that dates back thousands of years, designers select proportions based on what “looks right” (Hekkert & Leder, 2008). Developing this appreciation for aesthetics takes experience, developed ideally from an understanding of the theory although it can be developed independently of theory.
Teaching design typically relies on teaching theory and method and then allowing students to practice and reflect on that theory. Therefore, to teach students how to design products that are part of a PE, as design educators, we need a pedagogical method that incorporates PE thinking. Maya and Gomez (2015) argue there are five pedagogical models for teaching design, four teaching methodologies and four pedagogical approaches. Of these, system thinking is the only one that attempts to address the need to design products for systems. It provides a methodology for designing systems but falls short of being able to be used for designing products for ecosystems, for reasons outlined below.
Systems thinking is a method for analysing systems and is underpinned by the concept that a system is greater than the sum of its individual parts (Richmond, 1994.). Most references in the literature relate to business systems, but it is also used in a variety of disciplines including electronics as well as all design disciplines. Arnold and Wade (2015) define systems thinking as a “system of thinking about systems” which must include three things: a purpose, elements and interconnections.
Richmond (1991) reminds us that systems thinking:
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 203 Williams
“Tends to carry you across disciplinary, cultural, and functional boundaries,” (Richmond, 1991).
This enables us to stand back far enough to see the forest as well as the trees. Applying that analogy to PEs, we need to see not just the trees and the forest but the soil, the undergrowth, the animals, forestry workers and so on. That is the full forest ecosystem. As Table 2 illustrates, this is a critical aim of adopting the PEs approach. It enables designers to pause and reflect, critically and fully, on the entire system their product sits within.
Systems Components of PE Thinking A purpose: Product Ecosystems will always have a purpose. This purpose will usually be the main function. For example, the television ecosystem has a purpose or function that is to provide entertainment. All other parts of the ecosystem in some way will support that purpose. Elements: An ecosystem is certainly made up of elements. The elements are referred to in this text as entities and can be human or non-human, physical or no-physical, tangible or intangible. The only real criterion is that they must influence the ecosystem in some way. Interconnections. All entities in the ecosystem will be interconnected to some other entity in the ecosystem. In some cases, they will be connected to all entities.
Table 9 - A systems thinking method for PE Thinking (Product Eco-systems)
Page 204 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
In an education context, systems thinking has been applied specifically to ID at least two universities. At the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, the focus is on product service systems where a company offers both a product as well as a service – for example, mail transportation (Liem, 2007). Similarly, at Queensland University of Technology systems thinking was the starting point for the design of transportation systems. In both of these examples, students start with an overview of the entire system and then select a component to redesign.
Systems thinking is a useful method for analysing systems that have clearly defined boundaries without external influences. However, it falls short when products are part of an ecosystem that has ill-defined boundaries and is subject to influences from other entities that are both tangible and intangible. To illustrate the point, it might be best to use the real world example of the Segway personal transporter (PT). This is a product that is demonstrably well designed, well-engineered and well marketed but failed to reach anticipated sales figures. A contributing factor in this lack of success is that there were limits to where they could be used in many cities. They were unable to be used on roads because they are not a car and unable to be used on footpaths because they are not pedestrians. These intangible effects of legislation and user behaviour are not something that systems thinking will detect. In contrast, the PE perspective purposely includes the intangible aspects of legislation and user behaviour.
What is needed is a method that considers all possible entities within an ecosystem without being defined by boundaries. Thus, is it possible to find a method or tool from another discipline that might help?
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 205 Williams
Actor Network Theory (ANT2) is a way of describing complex social ecosystems that are composed of objects, technology, knowledge, people and organisations. Originally used by sociologists to explain how society and technology interact, it is increasingly used in the design context. (Jan et al., 2011; Kraal et al., 2011). One of the key concepts in ANT is that objects, technology, knowledge, people and organisations are all “actors” or “actants” within an ecosystem and should be given equal consideration as they all have an influence on the ecosystem; Latour (2005) reminds us that “an actant can literally be anything provided it is granted to be the source of an action” (Latour, 2005, p. 7).
Actor network theory is an excellent method for identifying all the components of an ecosystem, as actors can be either tangible or intangible. It does not acknowledge boundaries and therefore is better suited to ecosystems than systems or networks. Its limitations are that it treats each actor as having an equal influence on the ecosystem. While this might work for social situations, with PEs there are logically some entities that have more or less influence than others. It is the level of influence that is important for PEs because the value of a product is either increased or decreased due to the level of influence from other entities. Thus, is there a method that can capture the flow of value within an ecosystem? Is there a method to capture value?
2 ANT has been criticized as not being a true theory and not being related to networks. (Latour, 1996). According to our definitions, ANT would relate to ecosystems rather than networks. Indeed, some proponents of ANT prefer to use the term “assemblage” instead as they feel “network” is inaccurate.
Page 206 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 57 – An example of an actor-network
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 207 Williams
The fields of engineering and business use the Value Engineering (VA) process to identify where the value is located in a product or system (Younker, 2003). Once the value has been identified, located and quantified then a decision can be made about whether the value of the function justifies its cost. The value engineering process incorporates a suite of methods to improve the value proposition of a product or system. These methods all create an abstract model of a product, service or system.
The benefit of using an abstract model is that biases can be removed, allowing greater opportunity for innovation. The main methods are Value Analysis (VA), Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD). VA has been used widely since it was devised by Lawrence Miles in 1945 and is primarily used to identify the functions within a product and assign a value to them. This is achieved by firstly abstracting the function into a simple verb-noun format and then assigning the functions to components or subsystems. For example, instead of aiming to design a “bicycle” the aim is to design a “person mover” so the result could be a bicycle or it could be a hover- board or anything that moves people.
The functions are grouped into basic and secondary, and then ranked according to importance. This process works well on simple products, but as products become more complex, VA becomes difficult to manage. FAST is a derivative of VA and uses a HOW- WHY matrix to identify HOW a function is generated, as well as WHY is there. The power of this approach is that can be used for more complex products and systems.
Finally, Quality Function Deployment is a method developed in Japan the 1960s that aims to translate qualitative customer needs into quantifiable product functions. This is a well-established and widely used technique that becomes particularly powerful when combined with FAST (NDP Consulting, 2016)The value improvement methodology is an excellent way to capture the relative value of individual components — using “what if”
Page 208 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams scenarios to see what happens if components are removed or added. Unlike ANT that insists on each actor to be given equal value, QFD sets out to rate the comparative value of each function. It has limitations for use to analyse PEs, in that it is not able to map out the ecosystem in any meaningful way.
Mapping Evaluation
Systems Thinking Allows some mapping with limitations
ANT Excellent mapping
abilities
Value Ability to identify
Analysis functions within a
product or system
Quality Able to identify and
Function quantify the value
Deployment within a product or
system.
Table 10 - Design Methods
Thus, is it possible to combine elements of Systems Thinking, Actor Network Theory and Value Improvement into an approach to help design for PEs? The following is a proposed method intended to be taught to novice designers so that they can design products that are optimised for a PE.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 209 Williams
PEs are complex systems that are composed of many types of entities, both tangible and intangible with ill-defined boundaries. It is the complexity that makes it difficult to be able to visualise the entire system. The metaphor often used in ANT is that it is hard to see the forest for the trees. We need to be able to see both the forest and the trees. To stretch the metaphor to the design context, it is as if we only ever design trees with no regard for their place in the forest.
PE Thinking aims to be able to identify ways to design products that are better suited to their ecosystem, or that can exploit the ecosystem in new ways. PE Thinking proposes an innovation framework that can either be applied to radically reimagine existing products or identify opportunities for disruptive new products.
To do this, we need a method to “see the forest;” that is, to first visualise the ecosystem so that we can see where our product fits. We then need to be able to identify the various functions of the entities within the ecosystem so that we can see where duplicated functions or gaps are. Once we have identified these, we can base new functions or new functional groupings that can form the basis for new products. From this point on standard design methods will apply.
The proposed PE Thinking has three distinct stages: Mapping, Analysis and Ideation.
Mapping aims to be able to visualise the entire ecosystem so that duplications and gaps can be identified. For this, two things are required; firstly an effective way of creating a graphical representation of the ecosystem and secondly identifying what needs to be included. ANT has already developed an effective way of mapping what ANT refers to as a network and what we would consider to be an ecosystem.
Page 210 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
An effective way to map an ecosystem is shown in Figure 57. This mapping approach uses colour to distinguish between the different categories of actors; in this example, there are 3 categories, human, non-human, and another group labelled ideas, concepts and factors. The actual categories will depend on the type of ecosystem being considered, and as is the case for most design processes, some individual judgment will be required. However, a good place to start is with categories of products, people, policy, place and providers.
Before the map can be created, however, we need to decide what to include. The best way to do this is the well-used method of brainstorming. Brainstorming is a method of idea generation where the aim is to generate as many ideas as possible even if many of them are nonsense. The ideas are then filtered to remove the ones that are unsuitable leaving some valid ideas. This approach can be used to generate a list of entities to include in the ecosystem map based on the categories mentioned above. Again, as in many design methods, a degree of judgment is required to determine what to reject and what to keep. An example of this is shown in
Table 11.
Television ecosystem brainstorm Products People Policy Place Providers Television Viewers Copyright Lounge Free-to-air DVD player Retailers standards room YouTube DVDs Kitchen Video Set-top box Bedroom shop/kiosk Media Streamer Netflix etc. PlayStation etc. Electricity Co. Wall- Mount Movie makers Bracket Internet HDMI Cables TV antenna Remote control
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 211 Williams
Movies AV receiver Speakers Comfy Sofa Nearby Fridge Speakers Keyboard/mouse
Table 11 - Brainstorming results for Television ecosystem
Once the various actors have been identified, we can map the results. For this, we borrow the process used in ANT. An example of this is shown in Figure 58, where the various actors are plotted, and links are drawn showing which other actors they relate to. In ANT, all actors are treated as equal. In Product Ecosystem Thinking, it is easier to treat some of the different categories in different ways. For example, many of the entities are located in one place; in this case, a lounge room. To reduce the number of links, it is easier to have a region depicting a lounge room and place the entities that are part of the lounge room on top of this region. For clarity, it is also useful to colour code the various categories. Again, this is an example only and will depend on the actual ecosystem being investigated and the individual judgment of the designer.
Page 212 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 58 - Television Ecosystem map
At this point, we have narrowed the ecosystem to a lounge room even though kitchens and bedrooms have been identified. It is also clear that there are a large number of entities of the product type. It should also be noted that this is a simplified version, normally this will be on a larger piece of paper allowing far more detail.
We then need to determine what the various entities contribute to the ecosystem. That is, we need to determine their function. This is important because the aim is to identify functions that are either missing, duplicated or could be combined and therefore provide the framework for a new product or service. To do this, we can borrow the method used in Value Analysis. In this method, the functions of a product are described using verb-noun descriptors. Normally there is one primary descriptor and several secondary descriptors. For example, the primary function of a television can be described as “provide entertainment.” Which is, of course, a very broad descriptor that could be applied to a variety of products. The secondary
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 213 Williams descriptors provide more detail. To get to the secondary descriptors, we ask “how”. For example “display video.” If we ask “how” again we get “decode DVD.” This is typically tabled as shown in
Table 12 where the “how” goes to the right and the “what” goes to the left.
Television function identification
Products Primary Secondary functions function ------What …………………… How ------> Television Provide Display Show on- Decode entertainment video screen DVD Provide Play Decode Audio speakers DVD Send to Through Amplifier HDMI
Table 12 - Partial Value Analysis for a television
Once the functions for all of the entities have been identified, they can be added to the map. Ideally, all secondary functions should be added, but for clarity, only primary functions have been added in the example shown in Figure 59.
Page 214 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 59 - Television PE function mapping
In this stage, we aim to identify opportunities for innovation. Being able to see a graphical representation of the various functions of the ecosystem makes identifying patterns and groupings that provide opportunities for innovation much easier.
Looking at the example in Figure 59, we can see that there are two distinct groups, content providers and products. There appears to be a lot of content providers delivering content through different channels. There are also a large number of products that have functions that improve the experience of watching television. From this point, we can return to brainstorming to generate questions such as: “Is it possible to create a single device that provides content and eliminates the need for multiple devices?”; “What
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 215 Williams products are not specifically designed for the television ecosystem?” and “Is there scope to develop products that incorporate several functions?”
This type of brainstorming is a typical part of the designer’s ideation process. It is just difficult to do without a picture of the whole ecosystem. The PE Thinking process allows us to visualise the entire ecosystem: in other words, see both the trees and the forest. If the aim is to identify a functional framework for a new product, then the designer can use the traditional design processes to complete the development of the new product. However, once the PE map is complete and all of the important functions have been identified, it is possible to use these functions and determine their value by using the quality function deployment (QFD) method. This may be needed to provide justification for the new product or to compare the value of two different products. The use of QFD could be considered an optional fourth stage in the process.
Questions Stage 1 - Mapping • What entities belong to the ecosystem? • Which entities link to others? • What category do they fall into? Stage 2 – Function • What is the primary function? capture • Is there more than one primary function? • How is the primary function achieved (these are the secondary functions? Stage 3 - Analysis • Are there any obvious gaps in functionality? • Are there big groups of functions and can they be combined? • Table 13 - Questions
Page 216 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
In summary, we argue that the complexity of the world designers are designing for means that there is a need to consider the PE rather than designing products/services simply as stand-alone entities. Yet, current design methods do not provide a way to consider the influence that other entities have on the product/service design being designed. Thus, we have developed the PE Design Method based on existing and proven design methods to fill the gap in current design processes. It should be used in the early definition stages of the design project, where it can best provide insights to inform design directions. At this stage, the PE Thinking process has not yet been fully tested, although variations have been informally and successfully trialled in an undergraduate teaching context. If PE Thinking is described in terms of the design process, we have defined the problem, investigated the market and users, designed the method, and we are now at the prototype-testing phase. Our hope is, by sharing our thoughts and initial method, other design educators and practitioners will be inspired to engage and experiment with the PE Thinking process in their practice.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 217 Williams
Acaroglu, L. (2017). Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 6 Fundamental Concepts of Systems Thinking. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://medium.com/disruptive- design/tools-for-systems-thinkers-the-6-fundamental-concepts-of-systems-thinking- 379cdac3dc6a Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? a demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.246 Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_100487 Adner, R. (2012). The Wide Lens. The Wide Lens. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Adner, R. (2017a). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451 Adner, R. (2017b). Knowledge in Practice: Innovation Ecosystems with Ron Adner - YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YDeWLen4DU Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). Understanding patterns of technology evolution: An ecosystem perspective. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.515 Altschuler, E. L., Williams, T. J., Ratner, E. R., Dowla, F., & Wooten, F. (1995). Altschuler et al. reply: Physical Review Letters, 74(8). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1483 Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2005). The Virtues of ‘Blue Sky’ Projects: How Lunar Design Taps into the Power of Imagination. Creativity and Innovation Management.
Page 218 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00350.x Antonella Gambotto-Burke. (2018). Stand Up Straight! A History of Posture. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/stand-up-straight- a-history-of-posture/news-story/efe9a2e8fb68c12ccae314ba181d8e0b Armano, D. (2007). Logic+Emotion: The iPhone Ecosystem. Logic + Emotion. Retrieved from http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/01/sobering_though.html Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44(C), 669–678. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Special Features: Car use. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834e fa/b7f52642c92ff11cca2570ec0073f6a7!OpenDocument Autio, E., & Llewellyn T., D. W. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.012 Ayres, P. (2012). Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118290927 Babiolakis, M. (2016). Forget Products. Build Ecosystems. – Manolis Babiolakis – Medium. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://medium.com/@manolisbabiolakis/forget-products-build-ecosystems- 792dea2cc4f2 Bar-yam, Y. (1997). Complexity Rising: From Human Beings to Human Civilization, a Complexity Profile 1. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, 01(December), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1.1.79.4513 Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (2003). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 Bauhaus movement. (2017). BAUHAUS MOVEMENT | Art and Technology - A new Unity. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from http://www.bauhaus-movement.com/en/ Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3),
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 219 Williams
337–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863932 Behl, D. V., & Ferreira, S. (2014). Systems thinking: An analysis of key factors and relationships. Procedia Computer Science, 36(C), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.09.045 Boston Consulting Group. (2012). Speed to Win. Brogan, C. (2010). (150) Building Product Ecosystems - YouTube. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0lvHzCYsSY Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92, 141. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18605031 Brown, T. (2019). About IDEO: Our Story, Who We Are, How We Work | ideo.com. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.ideo.com/about Brown, T. C. (2003). Introduction to Stated Preference Methods. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (Vol. 3, pp. 99–110). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_4 Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x Brownlee, J. (2016). 5 Design Jobs That Won’t Exist In The Future. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063318/5-design-jobs-that-wont-exist-in- the-future Brozek, J. E. (2004). The History and Evolution of the Wristwatch... Retrieved March 31, 2015, from http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_articles/history_of_wristwatch.html BTRE. (2007). Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities. Buchanan, I. (2004). Actor network theory. Ritzer Encyclopedia, 1–20. Buchanan, R. (1992). in Design Thinking Wicked Problems. The M I T Press Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. (2010). USING A DESIGN LED DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION APPROACH TO DEVELOP NEW SERVICES : PRACTICING INNOVATION IN TIMES OF DISCONTINUITY, 176–187.
Page 220 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Carlson, C. S. (2014). Understanding and Applying the Fundamentals of FMEAs. Cesar, J., Leite, P., Hadad, G. D. S., Horacio, J., & Kaplan, G. N. (2000). A Scenario Construction Process, 38–61. Chapman, J. (2012). Emotionally durable design: Objects, experiences and empathy. Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771092 Chen, S. (2018). The Best Cordless Power Tool Brands of 2018 | Gear Primer. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.gearprimer.com/tools/best-cordless-power-tool- brand/ Christensen, C. (1997a). Patterns in the evolution of product competition. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00081-3 Christensen, C. (1997b). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business (Vol. 1). Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from https://www.opac.uni- erlangen.de/webOPACClient/search.do?methodToCall=quickSearch&Kateg=0&Con tent=2324510&fbt=7955401-2836663 Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Innovators Solution. Director. Clay, K. (2012). Amazon Confirms It Makes No Profit On Kindles. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2012/10/12/amazon-confirms-it- makes-no-profit-on-kindles/#4d2b164a6b43 CMG Worldwide. (2018). Biography - The Official Licensing Website of Raymond Loewy. Retrieved January 9, 2018, from https://www.raymondloewy.com/about/biography/ Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From Design Thinking to Systems Change. Retrieved from https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from- design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf Cook, J. (2016). A complete history of internet-connected fridges | Business Insider. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-complete- history-of-internet-fridges-and-connected-refrigerators-2016-1#/%231998-internet- fridges-are-looming-on-the-horizon-1 Cosgrove, D. C. (2011). Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. In Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. Adelaide: UniSA. Retrieved from
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 221 Williams
http://www.atrf11.unisa.edu.au/Assets/Papers/ATRF11_0030_final.pdf Crawford, C. M., & Tellis, G. J. (1981). To Evolutionary Approach Product, 45(4), 125– 132. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/3281/ Davis. (2016). What is the fourth industrial revolution? | World Economic Forum. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what- is-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/ Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W., & Boundy, R. G. (2010). Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 29. Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. De Bono, E. (1991). Lateral Thinking. Psychology, 417(June), 1–2. https://doi.org/11.0002/bies.10094 Department of economic and social affairs of the united nations population division (UNPD). (2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. Presenta-tion at the Center for Strategic and …. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ppt/CSIS/WUP_2011_CSIS_4.pdf DeSarbo, W. S., Jedidi, K., & Sinha, I. (2001). Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.191 Design Council UK. (2007). A Study of the Design Process. Design Council UK (Vol. 44). Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_ Design_Council (2).pdf Design Institute of Australia. (2018). Design Institute of Australia (DIA) - Industrial Design. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.design.org.au/designindustry/design-disciplines-2/industrial-design Domingo, M. (2016). User Experience Ecosystem Design – Part I | Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.interaction- design.org/literature/article/user-experience-ecosystem-design-part-i
Page 222 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem– solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142- 694X(01)00009-6 Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3 Dreyfuss, H. (1955). Designing for People. New York: Allworth Press. DRS. (2018). DRS Home. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from https://www.designresearchsociety.org/cpages/home Druce, B. (2014). Are you designing a Product Ecosystem that engages the heart and mind? | Planet Innovation. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from https://planetinnovation.com.au/designing-product-ecosystem-engages-heart-mind/ Eckert, C., Bertoluci, G., & Yannou, B. (2014). Handling subjective product properties in engineering, food and fashion. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, 2014-Janua, 791–800. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated Equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Speciation, 82–115. Ericsson. (2016). Ericsson Mobility Report. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105510050031 Evans, M. (2012). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work by Nigel Cross . The Design Journal. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630612x13192035508741 Fattahi, B. (2011). Challenges for the Future. . Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Gagnon, S. (1999). Strategic challenges in developing electric vehicles: a literature review. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 21(1), 89–109. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0- 0032680447&partnerID=40&md5=3f2c3a36e70062f9c5f4ae024e3fe987 Gilder, G. (1993). Metcalfe’s law and legacy. Forbes ASAP. Glushko, A. (2013). The Ecosystem Behind the Product or Service | UX Magazine. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://uxmag.com/articles/the-ecosystem-behind-the- product-or-service
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 223 Williams
Goldman, T., & Gorham, R. (2006). Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technology in Society, 28(1–2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.007 Goodman, M., & Karash, R. (1995). Six Steps to Thinking Systemically. The Systems Thinker, 6(2), 16–18. Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1993). Punctuated Equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366(6452), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/366223a0 Gourville, J. T. (2005). The Curse of Innovation : A Theory of Why Innovative New Products Fail in the Marketplace. Soldiers, 02163(05), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.777644 Government of Australia. (2014). Roads and rails – Parliament of Australia. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary _Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/RoadsRails Green, L. N., & Bonollo, E. (2002). The Development of a Suite of Design Methods Appropriate for Teaching Product Design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(1), 45–53. Hassan, A. (2012). The Value Proposition Concept in Marketing: How Customers Perceive the Value Delivered by Firms. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(3), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v4n3p68 Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In Product Experience. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50013-7 Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. (2000). Product Sequencing: Co-Evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.237288 Hensher, D. A. (1994). Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098788 Hiriko - Driving mobility. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.hiriko.com/ Hubbert, M. K. (1949). Energy from Fossil Fuels. Science, 103-109. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2009). Creating Value in Your Business Ecosystem. Business.
Page 224 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
IDEO. (2018). Work | ideo.com. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.ideo.com/work IDSA. (2019). What Is Industrial Design? | Industrial Designers Society of America - IDSA. Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://www.idsa.org/events/what-id Jackson, D. (2011). What is an Innovation Ecosystem. Engineering Research Centers, National Science Foundation, (March), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Jackson, D. (2018). What is an innovation ? National Science Foundation, 1–13. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904 Jan, P., World, E., Kraal, B., Popovic, V., Chamorro-koc, M., & Blackler, T. (2011). AN ACTOR-NETWORK RESEARCH FRAME FOR ANALYSING COMPLEX SOCIO- TECHNICAL SITUATIONS. Jones, D. (2012). Design for a Thriving UX Ecosystem | UX Magazine. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from http://uxmag.com/articles/design-for-a-thriving-ux-ecosystem JWH. (2018). No Title. Wikipedea. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26183569 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast, thinking slow. Interpretation, Tavistock, London. Kansara, V. A. (2013). Apple-like Ecosystems for Luxury Brands? - BoF - The Business of Fashion. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/06/apple-like-ecosystems-for-luxury- brands.html King, S., & Chang, K. (2016). Understanding Industrial Design: Principles for UX and Interaction Design. King, S. K., & Chang, K. (2016). Understanding Industrial Design: Principles for UX and Interaction Design. O’Reilly Media. Kljaic, V. (2015). BMW is changing - We have to learn to live with it. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.bmwblog.com/2015/01/28/bmw-changing-learn-live/ Klueter, T., & Siota, J. (2017). Putting Design Thinking To Work In Banking. Retrieved May 11, 2018, from https://www.iese.edu/en/about-iese/news-
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 225 Williams
media/news/2017/may/putting-design-thinking-to-work-in-banking/index.html Koenig, G. (2012). Business ecosystems revisited. Management (France). https://doi.org/10.1145/3185780 Kraal, B., Popovic, V., Chamorro-koc, M., & Blackler, T. (2011). AN ACTOR-NETWORK RESEARCH FRAME FOR ANALYSING COMPLEX SOCIO-TECHNICAL SITUATIONS. In 4th World Conference on Design Research, IASDR2011, Delft University of Technology,. Delft. Kumar, M., & Noble, C. H. (2016). Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.017 Kumar, R., & Uusitalo, O. (2014). Research Methodology. New Age International. https://doi.org/http://196.29.172.66:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2574/1/Researc h%20Methodology.pdf Künzli, N., Kaiser, R., Medina, S., Studnicka, M., Chanel, O., Filliger, P., … Sommer, H. (2000). Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment. Lancet, 356(9232), 795–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(00)02653-2 Lanning, M. J., & Michaels, E. G. (1988). A Business is a Value Delivery System. McKinsey Staff Paper. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Source: Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/40878163 Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling Ant. The Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03480.x Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. (O. O. U. Press, Ed.), Clarendon lectures in management studies (Vol. 7). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913308X336453 Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Kort, J., & Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition of user experience. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’08.
Page 226 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358693 Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142- 694X(81)90033-8 Leach, B. (2014). Review - Renault Twizy Review and First Drive. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.carshowroom.com.au/reviews/renault-twizy-review-and-first- drive/ Levin, M. (2014). Designing Multi-Device Experiences: An Ecosystem Approach to User Experiences Across Devices. Vasa. Levy, M. (2013). Sydney among the Western world’s worst cities for traffic congestion, report reveals. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://smh.drive.com.au/roads- and-traffic/sydney-among-the-western-worlds-worst-cities-for-traffic-congestion- report-reveals-20130410-2hkxc.html Lezak, S. B., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Systems thinking and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.005 Liem, A. (2007). A Systems Approach in Teaching Product Design. In INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED’07 (pp. 1–12). Paris. Lingareddy, M. (2015). A strong product ecosystem is the key for long term growth. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/252130 Llewellyn, R. (2012). Renault Twizy Review |. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfQ8F_mfF6E Low mass, low energy | Team Trev on WordPress.com. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://teamtrev.com/2010/02/04/low-mass-low-energy/ Lucas, H. C., Jr., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(1), 45–66. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1517861.1518217&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&CFID= 219921157&CFTOKEN=65413345 Lyndon, N. (2012). Renault’s Twizy. Retrieved June 19, 2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/neil-lyndon/9464926/Renaults-
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 227 Williams
Twizy-youre-better-off-on-a-bicycle.html Massey, G. R. (1999). Product evolution: a Darwinian or Lamarckian phenomenon? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429910284292 Maya, J., & Gómez, E. (2015). How Design Is Taught ? a Survey of Approaches , Models & Methods. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, (September). Mccarthy, E. J. (1964). Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/http://permalink.obvsg.at/wuw/AC00839164 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(02)00174-1 Meirion Thomas. (2015). Innovation ecosystems as drivers of regional innovation - validating the ecosystem - KNOW-HUB. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/videos/innovation-ecosystems-as-drivers- of-regional-innovation-validating-the-ecosystem.html Miller, E., Buys, L., & Summerville, J. (2007). Quantifying the social dimension of triple bottom line: development of a framework and indicators to assess the social impact of organisations. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 3(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2007.014314 Minati, G. (2016). General System(s) Theory 2.0: A Brief Outline. In Towards a Post- Bertalanffy Systemics (pp. 211–219). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24391-7 Mitchell, W. J., Borroni-Bird, C., & Burns, L. D. (2010). Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century. Amazon. MIT Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=32Nbb26J9iEC Mononen, L. (2017). Systems thinking and its contribution to understanding future designer thinking. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4529–S4538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352949 Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard
Page 228 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. https://doi.org/Article Mubin, O., Novoa, M., & Al Mahmud, A. (2016). Towards the Successful Integration of Design Thinking in Industrial Design Education. International Association for Development of the Information Society. Müller, J., & Spitz, R. (2014). A brief history of the Ulm School of Design : notes on the relationship between design and politics. Zurich: Lars Müller. Muschett, M. (2017). How can we use Systems Thinking to find a Solution to the Problem of Poverty in Panama? - The Cornell Policy Review. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/how-can-we-use-systems-thinking- to-find-a-solution-to-the-problem-of-poverty-in-panama/ National Library of Australia. (2018). Treasures : Item : The Hills Hoist. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://nationaltreasures.nla.gov.au/index/Treasures/item/nla.int-ex8-s25 NDP Consulting. (2016). Value Analysis and Function Analysis System Technique. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from http://www.npd-solutions.com/va.html Norman, Don. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions, 9(4), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/543434.543435 Norman, Donald a, & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and Radical Innovation. Design Issues. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00250 Normann, R., & Ramírez, R. (1993). From Value Chain to Value Constellation. Harvard Business Review, 71(4). Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. In Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004 Oldroyd, D. R. (1986). Charles Darwin ’ s Theory of Evolution: A Review of our Present Understanding. Darwin, 1, 133–168. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. Oxford. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2005). CLARIFYING BUSINESS MODELS : ORIGINS , PRESENT , AND FUTURE OF THE CONCEPT CLARIFYING BUSINESS MODELS : ORIGINS , PRESENT , AND FUTURE OF THE CONCEPT. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(May).
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 229 Williams
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. (T. Clark, Ed.), self published. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.consulteam.be/media/5985/businessmodelgenerationpreview.pdf Oxford English Dictionary. (2019a). ecosystem | Definition of ecosystem in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ecosystem Oxford English Dictionary. (2019b). product | Definition of product in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/product Özüağ, E. (2013). Renault Twizy Cargo for daily rides. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ELjBcPu8Ak Pachauri, M. (2001). Consumer Behaviour: a Literature Review. The Marketing Review, 2(3), 319–355. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 11, 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2 Pardeshi, G., Shirke, A., & Jagtap, M. (2010). SWOT Analysis. Security (Vol. 33). https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.43233 Parker, A. A. (2004). Unsustainable trends in the Australian Census Data for the journey to work in Melbourne and other cities in Victoria. In 27th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, 29 September – 1 October 2004 (pp. 1–23). Adelaide. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2007). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0 Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design Thinking: Understand, Improve, Apply. Profiles of drug substances, excipients, and related methodology (Vol. 36). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387667- 6.00013-0 Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Page 230 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015 Rachieru, C. (2018). Mapping multi-channel ecosystems - UX Australia. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from http://www.uxaustralia.com.au/conferences/uxaustralia- 2018/presentation/mapping-multi-channel-ecosystems/ RACQ Vehicle Running Costs 2012. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/97029/RACQ-Vehicle-Running- Costs-2012.pdf Rama. (2012). Renault Twizy, side view. Retrieved July 3, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Renault_Twizy,_side_view.jpg Rao, V. R. (2014). Applied conjoint analysis. Applied Conjoint Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87753-0 Ravichandran, N. (2017). How Has Apple Built A Powerful Product Ecosystem? - Key Person of Influence. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://www.keypersonofinfluence.com/apple-built-powerful-product-ecosystem/ Reid, S. E., & De Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. In Journal of Product Innovation Management (Vol. 21, pp. 170–184). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737- 6782.2004.00068.x Research, W. A. for H. P. and S., & Campbell, S. (2009). Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, 7(November), 1–112. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/268925 Rich, N., & Holweg, M. (2000). N u e l u a l. INNOREGIO: dissemination of innovation and knowledge management techniques. Richmond, B. (1991). Systems Thinking. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Richmond, B. (1994). System Dynamics/Systems Thinking: Let’s Just Get On With It. In Systems Dynamics/Systems thinking. International Systems Dynamics Conference. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Road Deaths Australia 2011 Statistical Summary. (2011). Canberra ACT. Retrieved from
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 231 Williams
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2012/files/RDA_Summary_2011.pdf Road funding for safer roads - Fact Sheet 3. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/roads/road_safety/road_safety_priorities/road_saf ety_priorities_-_fact_sheet_3_-_safer_roads_-_road_funding Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016). A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare, 4(1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002 Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2009). The Geography of Transport Systems. Geography (Vol. 60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802115474 Ropert, S., Love, J., & Vahter, P. (2012). T____he Value of Design Strategies for New Product Development. Birmingham. Rosati, L. (2012). From Product to Ecosystem: User Experience as a Flow and Narrative | Pervasive Information Architecture. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://pervasiveia.com/blog/from-product-to-ecosystem Roser, M., & Ritchie, H. (2017). Technological Progress - Our World in Data. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https://ourworldindata.org/technological-progress#the-future- of-exponential-technological-growth Rowe, P. (1994). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84–92. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZjZ3mflzJtUC&oi=fnd& amp;pg=PA1&dq=Design+Thinking&ots=K49dvX7xGY&sig=LGNsgu SP2VzycsrYuYNjxFIuRx8 Rucker, S. (2011). How Good Designers Think. Harvard Business Review, (April). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-good-designers-think Ryan, A., & Leung, M. (2013). Systemic Design : Two Canadian Case Studies The Shape of a Systemic Design Project, 1–6. Sanchez-Fernandez, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. a. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165 Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
Page 232 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15000?msg=welcome_stranger SAVE International Value Standard. (2015). Value Methodology. SAVE International Value Standard, (March). Savitz, A., & Weber, K. (2014). The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success - and How You Can Too. San Francisco, Jossey-Boss. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub4.Written Savoia, A. (2014). FAILURE : ANALYZE IT , DON’T HUMANIZE IT. Schneider, J., & Hall, J. (2011). Why Most Product Launches Fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/why-most-product-launches-fail Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professional think in action. Design. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0209 Scott, H. (2009). What is Grounded Theory? | Grounded Theory Online. Retrieved March 29, 2018, from http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/ Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, 593. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025496 Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030806 Smartwatch Group. (2015). Top 10 Smartwatch Companies 2014 (Sales) - Smartwatch Group. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/top-10- smartwatch-companies-sales-2014/ Software Updates | Tesla. (2019). Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.tesla.com/support/software-updates SONG, X. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products*1. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(97)00077-5 Sousanis, J. (2011). World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units. Retrieved June 18,
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 233 Williams
2014, from http://wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815 Sperling, D. P. (2010). Two Billion Cars: Is it Sustainable? In Spring Seminar Series (2010) University of Illinois at Chicago. Dept of Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.cme.uic.edu/bin/view/CME/Seminars Taborga, J. (2011). The Evolution of Systems Thinking - Saybrook University. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.saybrook.edu/blog/2011/06/22/evolution-systems- thinking/ Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Holmström, J., & Romme, A. G. L. (2018). Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.002 Taylor, B. E. (Barbara E. (1995). The lost cord : the storyteller’s history of the electric car. Greydon Press. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, a. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n1 The Apple Ecosystem - AppleMagazine. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://applemagazine.com/the-apple-ecosystem/36702 Tobias, J. (2007). Accessibility and Product Ecosystems. The Information Society, 23(3), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701323598 Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS IN PREFERENCE SPACE AND WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY SPACE. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 1–16). Travel in south-east Queensland. (2009). Brisbane. UK Social Exclusion Unit. (2012). Making connections. Health Devices, 41(4), 102–121. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486398 Unger, N. (2010). NASA - Road Transportation Emerges as Key Driver of Warming in New Analysis from NASA. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/road-transportation.html Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by
Page 234 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=rpaj0vLzPRkC&pgis=1 Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1540304 Villas-Boas, A. (2016). Why Apple’s ecosystem is king - Business Insider. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ecosystem-2016- 6/?r=AU&IR=T Viloria, G. (2016). 10 Ways How Tech Brands Create a Product Ecosystem. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-ways-how-tech-brands- create-product-ecosystem-greg-viloria/ Viswanathan, B. (2013). Why Are Cars Not Getting Cheap Even With Better Economies Of Scale? Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/07/why-are-cars-not-getting-cheap- even-with-better-economies-of-scale/#1e9904595ad9 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1938). Human Biology a Quantitative Theory of Organic Growth (Inquireies on Growth Laws. II)*. Source: Human Biology, 10174254(2), 181–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505340.201 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. Georg. Braziller New York, 1, 289. Retrieved from http://books.google.es/books?id=N6k2mILtPYIC Vukovac, D. P., Džeko, M., Stapić, Z., & Orehovački, T. (2019). User Experience Design and Architecture of IoT Ecosystem Employed in Students’ Activities Tracking. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 94706-8 Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011 Welbourne, E., Battle, L., Cole, G., Gould, K., Rector, K., Raymer, S., … Borriello, G. (2009). Building the internet of things using RFID: The RFID ecosystem experience.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 235 Williams
IEEE Internet Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2009.52 Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. (2012). Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.001 West, D. S. (2006). The High Cost of Free Parking, edited by Donald C. Shoup. Journal of Regional Science, 46(4), 800–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9787.2006.00478_7.x Williams, T. (2011). Design of sustainable transport : opportunities. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/48235/ Williams, T. (2014). Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product Ecosystem theory. In The Sustainable City IX : Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, (pp. 723-733.). Williams, T. (2015). Using the evolution of consumer products to inform design . Brisbane. Williams, T., & Chamorro-koc, M. (2013). The theory of Product Ecosystems as a means to study disruptive innovations : The case of the CityCar. In IASDR 2013 (pp. 1–11). Williams, T., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2013). Product ecosystems : an emerging methodological approach to study the implementation of disruptive innovations : the case of the CityCar. In K. Sugiyama (Ed.), 5th International Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (pp. 1286–1295). Tokyo, Japan: Shibaura Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/68335/ Wong, J. J., Chen, P. Y., & Chen, C. Di. (2016). The Metamorphosis of Industrial Designers from Novices to Experts. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 35(1), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12044 Younker, D. (2003). Value Engineering: Analysis And Methodology (Google eBook). CRC Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=Mtq_qunJIBMC&pgis=1 Zhou, F., Jiao, R. J., Xu, Q., Chen, S., Qu, X., & Helander, M. G. (2009). An affective-
Page 236 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
cognitive framework of product ecosystem design. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2060–2064. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373182 Zhou, Feng, Xu, Q., & Jiao, R. J. (2010). Fundamentals of product ecosystem design for user experience. Research in Engineering Design, 22(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0096-z
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 237 Williams
Chapter 8 - PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM THINKING: A NEW DESIGN METHOD (PAPER 6)
Paper 1: Product Evolution and Paper 2: Product Ecosystems described the development of the theory behind Product Ecosystems and Paper 3: Extrinsic Value demonstrated the veracity of the theory.
In Paper 4: Ecosystem Mapping, we presented the results of an experimental approach to developing a method for mapping the Product Ecosystem and in Paper 5: Product Ecosystem Design Method we proposed a method to apply PE Thinking to the design
Page 238 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams process. We had a high degree of confidence that the mapping method would be effective and easy to use due to the process of co-creation. We were also confident of the design method as it was derived from existing design methods. However, putting it together as a unified design approach had not been trialled and so there was no evidence to show that it is easy and effective.
This raised the research question of: ‘Is the PE design method an easy and effective way to apply PE thinking to the design process?’
Thus, the aim of this final stage of research is to determine whether the proposed method is both easy to use as well as being perceived as a useful method to apply to the design process. This is answered by the findings of a study where The PE Design Method was taught, applied and evaluated in a training workshop setting. This involved a group of 42 design students who applied PE Thinking as part of an ongoing design project. The students then answered questions about their perceptions of the method, followed by a semi-structured discussion.
Paper 6: Validating the PE design Method, describes the process taken and reports on the findings of this study. The results conclusively demonstrated that the PE Design Method is an effective and easy to use way to design products that consider the Product Ecosystem. The PE Design Method does work.
Statement of Contribution for Thesis by Published Papers
The authors listed below have certified that: 1. They meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise; 2. They take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the lead author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication; 3. There are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 239 Williams
4. Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit. 5. They agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.
Contributor Statement of Contribution Tim Williams Chief investigator, the major contribution to the planning of the
QUT Verified Signature study, data collection and analysis, literature review and writing of the manuscript.
Assoc. Prof Evonne Miller Contribution to the planning of the study (as principal supervisor), review of data and analysis of the QUT Verified Signature manuscript.
Dr Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Contribution to the planning of the study (as associate supervisor), review of data and analysis of the QUT Verified Signature manuscript.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.
Evonne Miller QUT Verified Signature 04/04/19
Name Signature Date Page 240 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Authors: Williams, Tim; Miller, Evonne & Chamorro-Koc, Marianella (2018)
Title: “PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM THINKING: A NEW DESIGN METHOD”
Published: Submitted to the International Journal of Art and Design Education in April 2018. Currently under review.
When designing a new product, it is often no longer sufficient for Industrial Designers to just consider the product in isolation. Product Ecosystem Thinking describes the way products are part of an ecosystem similar in many ways to natural ecosystems. Products should be seen as part of a greater ecosystem because much of their value comes from their ability to fit within the ecosystem. This is becoming increasingly important as Product Ecosystems become more complex and products become more interconnected.
Thus, designers need a method to apply PE Thinking to the design process, particularly at the ideation stage, in order to create products with maximum value. Before this study, the nascent PE Design Method had only been described but not applied. In this paper, Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 241 Williams we report on the findings of a study where the PE Design Method was applied and shown to be an easy to use and effective method for improving ideation. This design method was introduced and trialled using a workshop format with data gathered using a mixed methods approach.
The way that Industrial designers approach design has constantly been changing. From the aesthetically driven work of Raymond Loewy and the “form follows function” approach of the Bauhaus (Bauhaus movement, 2017; CMG Worldwide, 2018) through the more expansive era of ergonomics (Dreyfuss, 1955) and design methods of Ulm (Müller & Spitz, 2014) to currently where design is increasingly seen as having a more central role in the innovation of products, systems and services.
Design is now seen as a driver of the innovation process rather than being one of the steps along the way. In some cases, the emphasis is less on the innovation of the physical product and more on the innovation of the meaning of the product (Verganti, 2009). Design methods such as Design Thinking might not even be applied to a physical product. For example, the highly respected design consultancy IDEO has used Design Thinking to solve a range of problems from guitar amplifiers to looking at how governments can be more citizen-focused (T. Brown, 2008; IDEO, 2018). While Industrial Designers will continue to design physical products for as long as these products are manufactured, it is likely that the focus will be on how that product can contribute to the total user experience of a whole system rather than just the experience of the product itself. This will become increasingly important as products connect in novel ways.
“As every object becomes connected–from your couch to your fitness bracelet, the hospital room to your wallet–we need to think about connected experiences, [These] offer much broader value propositions, which means
Page 242 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
we need to change the [design] processes used to define these objects beyond their immediate form and function.” Markus Wierzoch (as quoted by Brownlee, 2016)
“You have a physical product that fits into a suite of physical products that fits into a bigger ecosystem that may entail services and digital content and support. And these tie into the company’s brand philosophy, which ties into how it positions itself in the world. Companies that think in terms of a ‘Product Ecosystem’ will trounce rivals that come to the market with a more myopic view of success” Francois Nguyen - Frog Design (Druce, 2014)
“Innovation’s terrain is expanding. Its objectives are no longer just physical products; they are new sorts of processes, services, IT-powered interactions, entertainments, and ways of communicating and collaborating.” Tim Brown – IDEO (T. Brown, 2008, p. 2)
Despite this growing awareness, there is as yet very little in the literature that describes methods for applying Product Ecosystem Theory or that evaluates their effectiveness. PE Thinking is a means to understand the relationship that a product has with its ecosystem. Thus, the value to the designer is to be able to evaluate the suitability of a design concept within the ecosystem and to see what unmet opportunities the ecosystem offers. This evaluation typically takes place at the creative stages of the design process, during what is commonly referred to as the ideation phase.
This prompted the research question of: “Can Product Ecosystem Thinking improve design ideation?”
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 243 Williams
In this article, we report on the introduction of a new design method for applying Product Ecosystem Thinking and demonstrate that it does improve the design ideation process.
As the question stands at the moment, it can be answered with a simple yes or no and would be fairly meaningless. For example, if only one designer found the PE Thinking able to slightly improve design ideation the question could be answered in the positive and yet could not be seen as a valuable contribution to the designer's toolbox. Conversely, it would be unrealistic to expect that 100% of designers will find the method extremely useful at all times. Qualitative data alone will not give a satisfactory answer to this question. Because what should the threshold be to be able to claim that PE Thinking does actually improve design ideation. Selecting a percentage can only be arbitrary.
Thus, it would be valuable to get some quantitative data on how many designers find it useful, as well as qualitative responses on how useful they think it is and in what ways do they find it useful.
This will provide more insight if broken down into sub-questions:
1. Do designers find the PE Design Method improves ideation? 2. How useful do they find it? 3. In what ways is it useful? 4. Is it useful enough to be worth using in the future?
Page 244 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Clarifications In the interest of clarity, an explanation of how the term method is used in this paper is required. The term PE Design method refers to a structured design method that designers can use to apply the PE Thinking principles to the design process. This is not to be confused with the research method.
Before attempting to answer the research question we need to first define what we mean by the PE Design Method. PE Thinking is a theory that describes the observation that products receive extrinsic value from other entities in an ecosystem of entities. To be of use for designers, the practical application of PE Thinking requires a method for application. As PE Thinking is an emerging theory, there are as yet no established design methods.
A mixed methods research approach was chosen, as we need to understand not just whether PE Thinking can improve ideation but also how. A mixed method approach provides a greater depth of how and why something happens as well as demonstrating that it does happen (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010).
To answer the research question, we asked a group of 3rd-year Industrial design students to take part in a design exercise. 42 participated. Initially, participants were given a design brief and asked to use the creative process of ideation to create several design concepts and to then select their preferred option. They were then introduced to the PE Design Method and given a structured way to implement the method. Participants applied the PE Design Method to their chosen concept. The output from this method was a developed concept based on design criteria generated by the method. This was broken into 4 stages:
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 245 Williams
Stage 1: Initial Ideation
Participants were given the following instructions:
The Design Challenge: You are invited to design a product or tool, utensil, or accessory for the future household that enhances the way people: grow, store, consume, prepare, and/or dispose of food. The design solution should adopt a ‘zero waste’ approach. The design requires a Horizon 3 innovation approach (design for 10 years ahead in time).
This project was chosen because it is a highly conceptual, blue-sky project, intended to deliver results likely to be disruptive innovation: Thus, the type of project likely to benefit from the PE Design Method.
Participants were deliberately given no instruction about what design methods they should use for the ideation other than they must draw their ideas on A3 sheets of paper. This was so that they would use the method they felt was most appropriate. They were given 15 minutes to draw up a few ideas and then select the idea they felt was most promising.
Page 246 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 60 - Example ideation sketch
Stage 2 – Introduction to Product Ecosystem Thinking
In this stage, participants were shown a 20-minute presentation that described PE Thinking including a 5 step process for the implementation of the PE-Design Method. The process was as follows:
Step 1- Using the brainstorming technique; list all entities that form part of your product’s ecosystem.
Step 2 – Arrange the entities on an ecosystem map. This process is based on the mapping techniques used in Actor Network Theory.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 247 Williams
Step 3 – Identify function-values. The function or value of each of the entities is described using a verb-noun format, similar to the process used in the Value Analysis method.
Step 4 – Create design criteria using the function/value descriptors
Step 5 – Concept Development. Using the newly created design criteria, continue the ideation process to refine the design concept.
Stage 3 – Application Participants were then asked to follow the PE Thinking process. They were given a paper that listed each of the five steps and given 30 minutes to complete the task.
Page 248 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 61 - Examples of stage 3 output
Stage 4 – Evaluation Participants were asked to answer the following three questions:
1. Do you think the PE Design Method helped improve your design ideation? a. No, not at all b. Yes, a bit c. Yes, certainly It helped because…
2. Do you think the PE Design Method is something you will use in future design projects?
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 249 Williams
a. No, not at all b. Perhaps informally c. Yes, certainly Because…
3. Do you think the PE Design Method could be improved in some way? a. No, I think it is fine b. Yes, … I think you should…
For each question, there was the opportunity to provide an explanation for the answer. In addition, at the end of the session, there was a short general discussion that was run as a semi-structured focus group where participants were prompted to make comments based on the three questions. This approach allowed both qualitative and quantitative responses.
Questions 1 and 2 both address the research question: Do the designers feel the PE Design Method improves ideation?
Question 1 directly asks whether the participant feels that the PE Design Method improves ideation.
Question 2 is included to determine whether participants think they will continue to use the method. That is, whether the improvements in ideation justify the additional process. This provides a threshold test for question 1, based on the rationale that participants might feel that the PE Design Method improves ideation, but if, for example, it is too difficult to use or if it isn’t very effective then they are unlikely to use it in the future.
Page 250 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Question 3 does not directly relate to the research question; however, it does two things. Firstly it adds depth to question 1 and 2, helping to show whether the participant felt there was room for improvement. The second reason for this question is that, in the spirit of co-creation, it should provide some valuable information about how to improve the method for further development.
The primary aim of this research project was to determine whether the PE Design Method helped the process of ideation. The secondary aim was to see if this method could be taught and applied quickly and effectively. The chosen method was a short workshop that could be evaluated. The main limitation was that due to time constraints, participants could only be introduced to a simplified application of Product Ecosystem Thinking. The challenge was to be able to demonstrate a process that could be understood, applied and discussed in a maximum of 90 minutes.
As PE Thinking is an approach or a way of thinking rather than a tightly defined method, there are likely to be many methods to apply it. However, if one method based on PE Thinking is shown to be useful in the ideation process, then the research question will be answered in the affirmative. It is also possible that there are other methods that can be developed and may also be useful though they may be more complicated and require more than a 20-minute introduction. This is an area for further development.
The workshop was conducted with a class of 42 industrial design students in the first week of their 3rd year of a 4-year degree. This meant they were at the halfway point in their degree. The rationale for choosing this group was so that they will have some idea about how to tackle design ideation but unlikely to have entrenched opinions and methods about the design process. Thus this group was chosen to represent novice designers.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 251 Williams
1. Do you think the PE Design Method helped improve your design ideation? a. No, not at all b. Yes, a bit c. Yes, certainly It helped because…
The quantitative responses to this question showed that 98% of participants felt that this method helped improve ideation.
Figure 62 shows that 71% stated it helped them a bit and 27% stated that it helped them a lot. Only one participant stated that it did not help and wrote the following on the response sheet: ‘I got confused through the process.’ This would suggest that the participant was not able to apply the method and therefore it could not logically help the ideation process. Irrespective, the result conclusively demonstrates that designers feel that PE Design Method improves ideation.
Do you think the Product Ecosystem Thinking method helped improve your design ideation? 80% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 27% 20%
10% 2% 0% Yes, certainly Yes, a bit No
Page 252 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 62 – PE Thinking improves design ideation
Whilst the quantitative data demonstrates that the method improves ideation, it does not contribute any knowledge about how the method improves ideation. For this, participants were asked for comment. This was deliberately open-ended with the only prompt of:
It helped because…
36 participants provided written responses. Some responses were very similar and so were grouped together, others were unique. Some participants provided more than one response. These responses were organised into the 8 categories shown in
Table 14. T
No. Category 1 Helped to visualise and understand the design problem 2 Helped identify areas for improvement 3 It helped me think more deeply and/or broadly 4 Helped me develop concepts 5 Helped me focus on design considerations 6 I got confused/struggled with the process 7 It can be applied to all scenarios 8 Only required when no criteria are provided
Table 14 – Categories of how PE Thinking helps ideation
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 253 Williams
Figure 63 - Categories of responses
The number of responses in each category can be seen in Figure 65.
Over a third of respondents felt that the PE Design Method helped them visualise and understand the design problem better. An example of this type of response was:
“It got me thinking about other factors that would affect the design - not just manufacturing and human interaction etc. It helped me look at the bigger picture as well as the details.”
Another 16% felt that PE Thinking helped them identify areas for improvement. An example of this type of response was:
Page 254 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
“It allowed me to easily identify areas that can be improved by considering the entities involved, not only the product itself.”
The next largest group of 15% stated that it helped them think more broadly and/or deeply.
“Made me focus on … and think more about the product in a broader and more comprehensive context.”
8% of respondents reported that they were confused or struggled with the process
In summary, we can see that PE Thinking is a successful way to improve ideation and it does so mostly by helping designers to visualise and understand the scope and context of the design problem as well as identifying the important areas to focus on.
Whilst designers feel that the PE Design Method improves ideation will they continue to apply the method in the future? They are unlikely to continue to apply the method if they don’t see the value in it. Thus the second question indirectly reinforces the first question. It also demonstrates whether the results are worth the effort of applying the method. Participants were asked:
Do you think the PE Design Method is something you will use in future design projects? a. No, not at all b. Perhaps informally c. Yes, certainly Because…
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 255 Williams
Figure 65 shows that 54% of participants stated they would certainly use the PE Design Method in the future and 44% stated they would informally use the method. Thus, 98% of respondents stated that they would use PE Thinking in some form in the future. These two questions show that participants feel that the PE Design Method improves ideation and that they intend to use the method in the future.
Do you think Product Ecosystem Thinking method is something you will use in future design projects 60% 54% 50% 44%
40%
30%
20%
10% 2% 0% Yes, certainly Perhaps informally No
Figure 64 – Future use of PE Thinking
Participants were asked to comment on the reasons why they would or wouldn’t continue to use the PE Design Method for future design projects. Again, this was left to be very open-ended. 21 participants provided comments were collated under the categories shown in Table 15 Table 15 - Categories for why PE Thinking would or wouldn't be used in the future
Page 256 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
No. Category 1 Already covered in other methods (wouldn’t use) 2 Helps deeper thinking 3 Helps "designers block." 4 Helps see the bigger picture and thus the design and ideation process 5 More structured/justifiable approach 6 Easy to use/adaptable 7 Allows for a second run through 8 Efficiently streamlines ideation 9 Good for Groups
Figure 65 - How PE Thinking helped ideation
Figure 66 - Reasons to continue using PE Thinking
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 257 Williams
As can be seen in Figure 66, the main reasons for the continued use of the PE-Design Method was that it helps designers see a “bigger picture” and thus helps the design and ideation process. Examples of these comments are:
“Easy and good way to see the bigger picture.”
“Definitely felt it was beneficial to my design and ideation process.”
It also helps to provide a more structured approach that supports a logical and justifiable decision-making process. Examples are:
“I like it! Provides more of a structure which I personally prefer.” “It allows me to come to more justified and thought out design criteria - rather than 'just because'”
The participants also felt the method was easy to use and helped deeper thinking, preventing “designers block”. Example responses are:
“Is a good way to think about a concept in a different way. Good when you are stuck.”
“Thought it was helpful to me to generate a different way of thinking than I usually do.”
Page 258 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The third and final question was: Do you think the PE Design Method could be improved in some way?
a. No, I think it is fine b. Yes, … I think you should………..
Just over half, 54% of the participants responded that they thought the method was fine. 46% indicated that they felt the method could be improved. What this tells us is that a very high percentage (98%) of participants found the method to be valuable and would continue to use it, though nearly half thought that it could be improved. For this particular question, it is the qualitative data that is of most value providing an insight into what could be improved to make the method better. As one would expect, less than half; only 18 participants commented in this section though some made more than one comment. The comments were collated into the following categories shown in Table 16.
No. Category 1 Improve name 2 Less steps 3 Mnemonic for steps 4 Clearer categories for entities 5 One big diagram 6 Sample template 7 Use later in design process 8 Keywords for steps 9 Explain for both complex and simple products
Table 16 - Improvement Categories
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 259 Williams
The number of comments for each category can be seen in Figure 67.
The most common comment was that the participants felt that there were too many steps and that they could be simplified by combining steps. An example of these comments is:
“Possibly reduce the number of steps and make it one big diagram.”
This was also raised in the general discussion with comments that entities could be drawn directly on the map. Another group of comments related to the difficulty some participants had remembering the steps. They suggested using a mnemonic such as an anagram:
“Make method easier to remember. Like an anagram or something that rhymes.”
Participants also wanted something to help them identify categories on entities. They weren’t sure which to include. Comments included:
“Identify clearer categories for entities.” And “I struggled with establishing the entities, so maybe the different categories could be helpful.”
Page 260 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Other comments included finding a better name for the method
Figure 67 - Suggested improvements to the PE Thinking method
The written feedback was supported by the general discussion at the end of the session. The discussion allowed more detail to emerge and reflected the written responses. All comments related to improving the process of the PE-Design Method rather than improvements to the premise of Product Ecosystem Thinking. The suggestions for improvements were all relatively minor and will be easy to implement
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 261 Williams
In this paper, we have demonstrated that the PE Design Method can improve the ideation process for industrial designers. We have shown that it can be taught and applied quickly. In addition, it is a process that participants were enthusiastic about
Page 262 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams continuing to use in other design projects. They did, however, have some suggestions for improvement, all of which are minor, relating to the process used and can easily be implemented.
There are several limitations and recommendations that should be mentioned:
Firstly, this experiment was deliberately undertaken with novice designers. The rationale behind this is that they are unlikely to be influenced by entrenched design methods (Although 2 comments suggested that this might already be the case). Experienced designers may have developed methods that they feel more comfortable with and thus reject the PE Thinking approach, not because it doesn’t work but because it is easier to apply an approach one is already familiar with. However this is only conjecture, experienced designers may embrace the PE Design Method as enthusiastically as the novice designers. Therefore it is recommended that this experiment be repeated with a group of experienced designers.
Secondly, the design exercise was chosen because it was very open-ended requiring a highly conceptual output. The rationale behind choosing this type of exercise was because it is ideal for rapid ideation making it suitable for a short workshop. While this was suitable for answering the research question about ideation for disruptive innovation, it does not show whether the method would work as well for projects structured for more incremental innovation. It is possible that it would be more effective because as a product line reaches a level of maturity, it becomes increasingly difficult to create points of difference. To demonstrate this, the workshop should be repeated with a different design exercise.
The third limitation is that whilst the exercise has demonstrated that the ideation process can be improved through the use of Product Ecosystem Thinking, it has not shown whether this would be translated into better final design outcomes. To demonstrate this, a full design project would be required (which typically run over 12
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 263 Williams months or more). Ideally, it would need at least two groups, one using the PE Design Method and the other control group unexposed to Product Ecosystem Thinking. The outcomes would need to be assessed and adjusted for uncontrollable variables such as individual skill levels. An investigation of this size was outside the scope of this project and unnecessary to answer the research question. However, this would be an ideal next step.
Bauhaus movement (2017) BAUHAUS MOVEMENT | Art and Technology - A new Unity. Available at: http://www.bauhaus-movement.com/en/ (Accessed: 10 January 2018).
Brown, T. (2008) ‘Design thinking.’, Harvard Business Review. Edited by M. Amelang. Hasso Plattner Institut (Knowledge Solutions), 86(6), pp. 84–92, 141.
Brownlee, J. (2016) 5 Design Jobs That Won’t Exist In The Future. Available at: https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063318/5-design-jobs-that-wont-exist-in-the-future (Accessed: 9 March 2018).
CMG Worldwide (2018) Biography - The Official Licensing Website of Raymond Loewy, The Official Website of Raymond Loewy. Available at: https://www.raymondloewy.com/about/biography/ (Accessed: 9 January 2018).
Dreyfuss, H. (1955) Designing for People. New York: Allworth Press.
Druce, B. (2014) Are you designing a Product Ecosystem that engages the heart and mind? | Planet Innovation, Planet innovation. Available at:
Page 264 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams https://planetinnovation.com.au/designing-Product Ecosystem-engages-heart-mind/ (Accessed: 9 October 2017).
IDEO (2018) Work | ideo.com. Available at: https://www.ideo.com/work (Accessed: 9 March 2018).
Müller, J. & Spitz, R. (2014) A brief history of the Ulm School of Design : notes on the relationship between design and politics. Zurich: Lars Müller.
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, a. (2010) ‘Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research’, Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research, pp. 1–44. doi: 10.4135/9781506335193.n1.
Verganti, R. (2009) Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 265 Williams
Page 266 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Chapter 9 - DISCUSSION
This research journey started with an observation that well-designed products sometimes failed despite meeting all the design and marketing criteria. What is the cause and how can designers minimise the risk of failure?
An investigation of the literature provided a partial explanation but not from a design perspective, and it became obvious that a new way was needed to explain this phenomenon.
Based on a combination of observation and literature review, the concept developed that products are part of an ecosystem and that value is derived from that ecosystem. Further observation led to the development of PE Thinking as a means to visualise both the dynamics of product evolution as well as the ecosystem structure and the value flow within that ecosystem. This led to the overall research question: “How can we design products that are better suited to their ecosystems?”
To answer this question, I developed the Product Ecosystem Theory and its associated design method to apply this new theory. The PE Design Method was then applied to a live design exercise by a group of Industrial Design students. These students reported almost unanimous support for this method.
Like a design project, this research project has followed a distinctly non-linear path, often changing direction and occasionally following dead ends that lead nowhere. In
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 267 Williams hindsight, these dead ends are valuable as they constantly redirect us towards the path we should be on. The papers that form this thesis exhibit some of this change in direction and focus, especially in the early stages as PE Thinking was being formed. When viewed as a whole though, I believe they form a complete picture of this research project.
Since the start of this research project, the interest in ecosystem thinking has grown considerably. While there are those that question what they call the ‘flawed analogy to natural ecosystems’ (Oh et al., 2016), the vast majority of the increasing body of literature has embraced the benefit of applying this analogy to a range to situations.
At the start of this research project, there was no clear research question, just an observation that products sometimes failed despite the business following best practice. This observation led to the main research question: “How can industrial design facilitate product success beyond the traditional approaches?”
As a result of case studies and literature review, I formed the notion that products need to be designed as part of an ecosystem and not just stand-alone entities. This research project demonstrates that this notion is correct, it expands the notion into a theory and develops and test a method to apply that theory.
From this, six sub-questions arose, each addressed in the six papers included in this thesis: 1. ‘How can product history provide insight into product success and failure?” 2. ‘How does the Product Ecosystem influence an innovative new product?’ 3. ‘Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’ 4. ‘What tools can industrial designers use to analyse the Product Ecosystem?’ 5. ‘What design methods can be used to apply Product Ecosystem thinking?’
Page 268 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
6. ‘Is the PE Design Method an easy and effective way to apply PE thinking to the design process?’
The following provides a short summary to each of these sub-questions.
RQ1: ‘How can product history provide insight into product success and failure?” A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram used by evolutionary biologists to map the evolution of species. A similar tree can be used to map out the evolution of a product category. This is a useful method to show the following: • products that are no longer manufactured (i.e. the equivalent of biological extinction) • products that have gradually changed through the process of incremental innovation (i.e. the equivalent of phyletic gradualism) • products that have suddenly emerged through the process of disruptive innovation. (i.e. the equivalent of punctuated equilibrium) As detailed in PRODUCT EVOLUTION (PAPER 1) we can use this product-based evolutionary tree to investigate when and why products emerge or disappear. At each juncture we can analyse what creates or destroys the value proposition. This allows us to gain insight into the causes and effects of product success and failure.
RQ2: ‘How does the Product Ecosystem influence an innovative new product?’ A Product Ecosystem is a collective term for the group of entities that influence the value proposition of a designed product. The value proposition of a product is composed of both intrinsic values as well as extrinsic values derived from other ecosystem entities. Product Ecosystems are transient, changing over time as uncovered in RQ1. Therefore, when products are optimised to gain maximum extrinsic value from the ecosystem (or ecosystems modified to suit the product), a higher value proposition can be achieved for the product. This is demonstrated in PRODUCT
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 269 Williams
ECOSYSTEMS: THE CITY CAR CASE STUDY (PAPER 2). In this I use the CityCar as a case study, bringing in literature that supports this position.
RQ3: ‘Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’ Observations and case studies indicate that some of the product value comes from extrinsic sources. I.e. from the ecosystem. Though this is supported in the literature at a theoretical level, empirical evidence is lacking. To provide evidence that answers the research question I conducted an experiment to see if proposed changes to an ecosystem resulted in changes in perceived product value. Using a method that incorporated Stated Preference Analysis and proposed scenarios I asked car drivers about their preference for the Renault Twizy, a commercially available CityCar. I then proposed a scenario where special parking and road lanes were available and asked about preferences. A significant change was recorded demonstrating that changes to the Product Ecosystem resulted in an increase in the extrinsic value of a product. The details of this are found in IDENTIFYING EXTRINSIC VALUE IN A PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM. (PAPER 3)
RQ4: ‘What tools can industrial designers use to analyse the Product Ecosystem?’ A review of the literature shows that there are no existing tools that allow for a thorough analysis of Product Ecosystems. To analyse a product Ecosystem a tool is first required to map the ecosystem. To this end we used the method of co-creation to develop a mapping system. Novice designers were asked to develop a method to map the ecosystem after having been described the theoretical construct of Product Ecosystems. The results were collected and although there was variation, some common themes emerged. As detailed in CREATING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM DESIGN METHOD: (PAPER 5), we combine these common themes into a unified mapping method.
Page 270 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
RQ5: ‘‘What design methods can be used to apply Product Ecosystem thinking?’ Having developed a tool to map the ecosystem we now need a method to apply PE Thinking to the design process. For this we investigated and analysed existing design methods for their suitability to apply PE Thinking. As a result of this search we found no methods that were ideal. However there are several methods that are of interest. In CREATING THE PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM DESIGN METHOD: (PAPER 5) we review the literature that is relevant and describe how we have adapted and developed a design method for the application of PE Thinking.
RQ6: ‘Is the PE Design Method an easy and effective way to apply PE thinking to the design process?’ Chapter 10 - Having created a method to apply PE Thinking we needed to verify that it was easy to use and produced effective results. For this, we set up a workshop where novice designers were introduced to Product Ecosystem Thinking and the PE Design Method. They were then asked to apply the design method to a project that they were working on. At the end of the session they were asked to answer question about the method. The details of the process and findings are in PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM THINKING: A NEW DESIGN METHOD (PAPER 6). In summary, the design method was overwhelmingly found to be easy to learn, easy to apply and considered to be an effective way to maximise the value proposition effecting their design projects.
The inspiration for this research topic was as a result of observations that well designed and well-promoted products often fail to be successful in the marketplace.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 271 Williams
This appeared to happen to both disruptive as well as incremental innovation, though the mechanism seemed different. Incremental innovation either slowly lost market share or was suddenly displaced by a new product line. Disruptive innovation sometimes seemed to fail initially; being “ahead of its time” before becoming successful. Whilst much has been written about innovation theory there was a distinct lack of theory explaining the phenomenon that I had observed, representing a large gap in current knowledge. Given the enormous cost of developing new products and the financial implications of failed products, filling this gap in knowledge and providing means to improve the likelihood of success represents a significant contribution to knowledge.
This study delivers three significant findings:
Key findings summary
Product Ecosystem • Products are part of an ecosystem Thinking Value proposition • Products gain value from their ecosystems • Better designs Application • New method for teaching design • New theory
Table 17 - Key findings summary
First finding The first is that products form structures with other entities that are similar in structure to the way species form in a natural ecosystem. The idea that non-biological things can form ecosystems is not new and is becoming widely applied to a variety of contexts (Adner, 2006, 2012, 2017b; Babiolakis, 2016; Druce, 2014; Iansiti & Levien,
Page 272 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
2009; Moore, 1993; Tobias, 2007; Welbourne et al., 2009; Feng Zhou et al., 2010), The point of novelty in this research is that it explores specifically how products interact with other entities in a Product Ecosystem. This Product Ecosystem is dynamic and changes over time. Product lines within the ecosystem adapt to suit the changing ecosystem or disappear.
Incremental innovation slowly adapts to the changing ecosystem in a way that is analogous to the ecological evolutionary mode of phyletic gradualism. Disruptive innovation either changes the ecosystem or exploits the ecosystem in a new way. Disruptive Innovation therefore mimics the ecological punctuated equilibrium.
All products are part of an ecosystem and that the success of the product largely depends on how well they fit within the ecosystem. Products that don’t evolve in sync with the changing ecosystem will eventually “die out” and be displaced by new products that better fit the ecosystem. Radical new products that are “ahead of their time” may not fit the existing ecosystem well until the ecosystem has grown to support the new product. For example, the Segway transporter is a well-designed, well- marketed product that fulfils a clear user need but has not met with commercial success. This is at least in part due to not having a supportive ecosystem. Ideally suited for transportation in a CBD, legislation often means they cannot be used on either footpaths or roads. Steps cannot be used, awkward in elevators and perhaps no place to safely “park” them. If the ecosystem had been considered at the design stage, perhaps the outcome may have been different.
When we think in terms of ecosystems we acknowledge that everything in the ecosystem potentially influences everything else. This is significant from a design perspective where designing products in isolation is risky and designing for the ecosystem provides a higher chance of success.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 273 Williams
Second Finding The second finding is the observation that the value of a product is comprised of both intrinsic and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is contained within the product and is comprised of all the aspects of a product that Industrial Designers traditionally are concerned with. For example, a designer working on a new coffee machine will consider the intrinsic aspects that include aesthetics, ergonomics, manufacturability, cost and usability. These aspects typically form the output expected of a designer in the workplace.
Extrinsic value comes from other entities within the ecosystem and may or may not be able to be changed by the designer. Either way, the designer needs to be aware of this extrinsic value. A fax machine, for example, gains value from other entities such as fax machines, a supply of paper and ink. Thus, a designer can optimise a product to gain maximum value from the ecosystem or modify other parts of the ecosystem.
Whilst deduction based on examples shows that value can be gained from ecosystem modification, this has now been demonstrated empirically
From this, we now know that products gain extrinsic value from their ecosystem and that changes to the ecosystem can change the value proposition of a product. Therefore by harnessing the extrinsic value of a product, a designer can increase the value proposition.
As the link between the value proposition and product success is well established, improving the value proposition will improve the likelihood of success (DeSarbo et al., 2001; Hassan, 2012; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2005; Sanchez-Fernandez & Iniesta- Bonillo, 2007).
Page 274 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Thus, the significance of this finding is that we now know product success is more likely when a product is designed that is better suited to its ecosystem or by modifying the ecosystem to suit the product.
Third Finding The third finding is that the ecosystem mapping technique helps the ideation process as well as identifying extrinsic value from which products can benefit.
The conceptual framework of Product Ecosystem Theory helps designers understand the mechanisms underpinning product innovation in a tangible and visual way. I created a method to map and evaluate the Product Ecosystem. This method was then tested with a group of novice designers who were then asked whether they felt the process helped improve the ideation process and whether they would continue to use the method. 98% responded positively to both questions.
The significance of these findings is that designers now have a way to help them design products that are better suited to their ecosystems and therefore will enjoy a higher likelihood of success.
To understand where PE Thinking sits within other theoretical constructs it is useful to place it in two domains. The first domain is that of design and the second is the broader context of business.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 275 Williams
In Design, PE Thinking sits somewhere in the gap between Design Thinking and Systems Thinking as
Figure 68 demonstrates.
Figure 68 – Positioning of Product ecosystems in the design domain
It combines a practical, methodical approach based on real-world constraints with which designers are familiar and an abstract way of looking at a complex system.
While there are similarities between PE Thinking and Systems Thinking (see Table 18) there are some significant differences. Systems Thinking aims to change the whole system by synthesising elements and generally considering the systems as a whole. In contrast, PE Thinking considers how individual elements (entities) influence one specific element (the product). The reason why PE Thinking takes this more focussed approach is that it is grounded by the imperative to create a product or service that will have real-world constraints. The reality is that typically only a small part of a Product Ecosystem is likely to be able to be changed and possibly only the product being
Page 276 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams designed. Systems Thinking is far more generic and abstract, allowing it to be applied to a much wider range of systems, not just a Product Ecosystem.
Systems Thinking Product Ecosystems Inter- Elements are Elements are connectedness interconnected interconnected Synthesis Combining two or more Not necessary elements is important Emergence Creation of a new thing Not necessary through synthesis Feedback Feedback loops Not the focus, value Loops are reinforcing and flow is more important Balancing. Understanding how one Understanding how one Causality thing results in another thing results in another is is important important Systems Mapping Essential for Essential for visualisation visualisation Table 18 - Comparing PE Thinking and Systems Thinking
PE Thinking can, therefore, be seen as an applied version of Systems Thinking specifically focussed on Product Ecosystems, incorporating some of the methodology of Design Thinking. The following chapters unpack this notion in more detail, illustrating my iterative approach to developing, refining and finally testing the PE Thinking model.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 277 Williams
The PE Design Method uses brainstorming as a technique for both identifying opportunities that arise from the Product Ecosystem as well as identifying the relevant entities within the ecosystem. Identifying PE Thinking entities and opportunities do not require a high level of creativity, and so the more complex techniques are not needed. The speed and immediacy of brainstorming make it the ideal technique for this application.
From a business perspective, Product Ecosystems and Innovation Ecosystems appear very similar. Both product and innovation ecosystems look at the ecosystems influencing new, disruptive innovation products or the organisations that support them.
The main point of difference is that Innovation ecosystems are seen from a business strategy perspective and Product Ecosystems are seen from a design perspective. The business approach is to take a new, disruptive innovation and see whether the ecosystem will support it and then use this knowledge to decide whether to go ahead and commercialise the innovation or not. The design approach is to evaluate an ecosystem as a basis for designing an innovation to fit the ecosystem best or to see how the ecosystem itself can be redesigned to suit the innovation. The innovation ecosystem approach is a highly structured, detailed, methodical approach, poorly suited to the process of design.
Page 278 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 69 - Positioning of Product Ecosystem Thinking
It is well documented that designers think differently (Kahneman, 2011; Lawson, 2005; Rowe, 1994; Rucker, 2011). Innovation ecosystems are in the domain of the manager or business strategist. As a result, innovation ecosystems tend to focus on organisations and their capabilities around a central value proposition. A lot is written about structure and strategy but very little about implementation. In contrast, Product Ecosystems are in the domain of the designer and as such the emphasis is on products, services and the user and implementation.
There is considerable overlap between the design process and business strategy. The design process of Design thinking is often used as a tool for business strategy. Design, as an activity, is inherently strategic. Ecosystem Thinking sits neatly in the overlap between these two activities with Product Ecosystems a part of the design process and innovation ecosystems a part of the business process.
‘Design thinking needs to move ‘‘upstream,’’ closer to the executive suites where strategic decisions are made.
In contrast to our academic colleagues, we are not trying to generate new knowledge, test a theory, or validate a
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 279 Williams
scientific hypothesis. The mission of design thinking is to translate observations into insights, and insights into the products and services that will improve lives (T. Brown & Katz, 2011)
Measuring the financial success of a product is quite easy and common practice. A product will need to return a certain profit level to be considered successful. This is a relatively simple exercise in looking at the income minus amortised expenses. However, success is not always just financial.
Products can be used to successfully enhance a brand reputation; for example by demonstrating technical competence. A good example of this is the Internet fridge, first released in 1998. Despite being a category that has never sold in large numbers, companies such as LG, Electrolux and Samsung continue to offer connected fridges as part of their line-up. Though these models are most likely to be a financial failure, they tend to get a disproportionate amount of media interest providing a valuable demonstration of the company’s technical abilities (Cook, 2016).
Another non-financial measure of success is how well a product contributes to the social or environmental components of a company’s triple bottom line (TBL). Companies are becoming more aware of consumers expectations that they behave as responsible social and environmental citizens. Managing that reputation is critical (Bebbington et al., 2008; Savitz & Weber, 2014) and this attitude is reflected in the products they produce. An example of where a company made an extraordinarily large social and environmental mistake was the 2015 Volkswagen fuel scandal that cost the company $30 billion in fines alone; the reputational damage is probably impossible to quantify. It is difficult to quantify the non-financial contributions to the TBL (Miller et al., 2007) especially the individual contribution that a single product makes. Whilst these
Page 280 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams non-financial success indicators are important, very few products will survive long if they fail to return satisfactory profit, so it is reasonable to use financial success as an indicator of overall product success. Even then, financial success has some variables. For example, one product might return a higher profit but over a shorter product lifecycle than another. Whether this makes a product more or less successful may well vary depending on the industry and product in question.
The final consideration is that the initial motivation for this study was not to make products more profitable but to reduce the likelihood of failure. That is, to reduce the chance that they will fail to make a profit that is sufficient to keep the product on the market. The difficulty here is that different businesses will have different profit thresholds and different expectations for product lifecycles and so determining a threshold for success is not possible. This brings us back to comparing profitability based on the logic that a more profitable product is more likely to rise above the success/failure threshold. We just need to be cognizant of the fact that this does not guarantee success, only make it more likely.
This research project suggests that product success is made more likely if the PE Design Method is followed. It does this by showing the value proposition is improved by considering the ecosystem. As the value proposition is related to product success, we can deduce that the PE Design Method can improve the likelihood of product success.
However to create a definitive proof of this we would need to set up a real-world experiment where several products were designed using PE Thinking, and several products were designed without. These products would then be manufactured and released to market. The profitability of the products would be compared, and if the Product Ecosystem Thinking-designed products were more profitable than the control
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 281 Williams group, then we will have demonstrated that (at least in the cases studied) PE Thinking does improve the likelihood of product success.
There are however some difficulties with this experiment. The first is that this type of experiment requires controlling all other variables so that the only variable left is the PE Thinking process. The design/manufacturing/marketing process is inherently full of variables, and so it would be impossible to remove them all. For example, all products would have to start with the same design brief because it is not possible to meaningfully compare dissimilar products. All the products would have to be designed by the same design team because innovation is not formulaic and individual designers have different skill sets. This is a major variable. The products would all need to be marketed in an identical manner, aimed at the same demographic and promoted in the same way. This is another major variable. Markets are dynamic, and so all products would need to be released to market at the same time, through the same distribution channels and priced the same. The simultaneous release of many, similar products is unrealistic in itself, and the increased competition may mean the failure of what would otherwise have been a successful product. There are other factors that would make this type of experiment unfeasible such as the length of time required. The average time-to-market for fast-moving-consumer-goods (FMCG) is around 22 months (Boston Consulting Group, 2012) with consumer-durables typically taking longer. As market penetration follows the product lifecycle curve, the success of a product reaches the maturity stage which is defined as when the rate of sales growth slows or reaches a plateau.
Page 282 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Figure 70 - Product Lifecycle Curve
The timeframe varies significantly and so the point at which a product is declared a success or failure is hard to determine. After a 22-month development cycle, it would seem reasonable that a business would give a product at least 12 months before removing from the market. Thus, an experiment such as this would need to be run over a minimum 3 year period.
From this, we can see that a real-world experiment to prove the effectiveness of the PE Thinking approach is not feasible. The next-best approach would be to test the approach with real-world projects and compare the results with average success rates for similar products to see if there was an improvement. This would mean accepting that uncontrollable variables might influence the results. This would also require a minimum of 3 years, which is outside the scope of this study. However, this would be recommended for further study.
Whilst finding proof might not be feasible, a link between the PE Thinking approach and product success can be deduced.
In its simplest form, this deduction shows that a product will be more successful if it offers more value to a user and that PE Thinking is a method that can increase the value of a product.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 283 Williams
The relationship between perceived value and choice is a well-established part of Consumer Choice Theory (Rao, 2014). The indifference curves as shown in Figure 71 show the marginal rate of substitution for product X compared to product Y based on their perceived value.
Figure 71 - Indifference curves and a value trajectory
(Adner, 2002)
Therefore, by increasing the perceived value of one product, the consumer will be more prepared to choose that product over the other.
PE Thinking identifies potentially unrecognized value within an ecosystem. Once recognized, that value can be designed into a product at the ideation stage, thereby increasing the perceived value of the product.
Page 284 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
I conducted this research project as thoroughly and with as much rigour as possible. However it is important to acknowledge, as with all research, there are always limitations. That which is outside the scope of this study represents opportunities for future research.
This study shows that the PE Design Method is effective in improving the ideation process by optimising the product for its ecosystem (Paper 6: Validating the design method). This study also shows that when products are optimised for their ecosystems, their perceived value increases (Paper 3: Extrinsic Value). Consumer choice theory tells us that consumer preference increases as perceived value increases (T. C. Brown, 2003; Pachauri, 2001; Train & Weeks, 2005). As long as consumer preference results in higher sales, it is reasonable to deduce that higher demand for a product will reduce the likelihood of market failure. Therefore by deduction we can state that designing a product using the PE Design Method, will reduce the likelihood of product failure.
This study does not conclusively demonstrate that using the PE Design Method reduces the risk of product failure. It does so by deduction.
Paper 1: Product Evolution In both Paper 1: Product Evolution and Paper 2: Product Ecosystems, a single case study is evaluated. It is possible that other case studies may reveal different structures and therefore additional case studies should be evaluated to compare observations with those in paper 1 and paper 2. The main reason for using the wristwatch as a case study is that it is well documented over a long period and has many variations. Other products may not be as evident to chart on the evolution tree diagram. The process also requires some analysis and judgement to determine whether innovation is incremental or disruptive and also to identify what the external influences are. Also, due to time and physical constraints, not every innovation can be plotted and so some judgement is required to determine which
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 285 Williams are important enough to include. While applying value judgements is central to a designers’ skill set it does introduce an uncontrollable variable. The final limitation is that the quality of the output is reliant on the quality of the information input. Being historical makes ensuring the accuracy of the information may be difficult.
Therefore opportunities for further research are as follows: • Other case studies will need to be evaluated to evaluate the consistency of results. • Repeated case studies will allow for the refinement of better protocols for identifying the essential innovation stages.
Paper 2: Product Ecosystems The limitations for Paper 2: Product Ecosystems are similar to those of Paper 1: Product Evolution. Both papers evaluate case studies, and so, therefore, results can only be drawn from the individual case studies. They both rely on applying some judgement to decide on essential inclusions. Therefore opportunities for further research based on the limitations of Paper 2: Product Ecosystems are as follows:
Therefore opportunities for further research are as follows: • Other case studies will need to be evaluated to evaluate the consistency of results. • Repeated case studies will allow for the refinement of better protocols for identifying the essential innovation stages.
Paper 3: Extrinsic Value In Paper 3 – Extrinsic Value we investigate the question of ‘Do industrial design products gain extrinsic value from a Product Ecosystem?’ In this, we demonstrate that CityCars increase in value when their ecosystem is modified. The limitations of this
Page 286 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams study are that we did not investigate how much value is gained by the ecosystem modifications or whether other examples also gain similar increases in value.
Paper 4: Ecosystem Mapping Paper 4: Ecosystem mapping covers the development of the mapping tools used later in the research project. One of the critical methods to develop this mapping technique was the use of co-creation using design students. Commonalities in the mapping tools used by students were evaluated and synthesised into the final mapping technique. While co-creation is a well-accepted method for idea generation, we note that only novice designers took part. There is no assurance of achieving similar results with experienced design professionals. A recommended next step would be to repeat this process with practising design professionals.
Paper 5: Ecosystem Design Method In Paper 5: Ecosystem Design Method we describe how we developed the method to apply Product Ecosystem Thinking. For this, we consider existing design methods and theory across several disciplines. We then evaluate the literature on these areas and synthesise applicable methods into the new Product Ecosystem Method.
Paper 6: Validating the design method In this paper, we report on a trial of the application of the PE-Design Method. The participants in this trial were undergraduate industrial design students, midway through their education. The rationale for selecting this cohort was that they had some design experience but were still open to learning new methods. We felt that experienced designers already have methods that they use and are comfortable with and therefore may be biased against something new. We do not know what the reaction of experienced designer would be and could only determine this through further investigation.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 287 Williams
It would be a useful next step to test the method on experienced designers to see if it is as useful as it is for novice designers. Another approach would be to have practising designers apply the method to a live project and to see whether it helps improve ideation in the real world.
Given the enormous cost associated with product failures, any means to reduce the likelihood or severity of failure represents a positive contribution and higher profits. In this project, I have demonstrated the potential for PE Thinking to reduce the likelihood of product failure.
PE Thinking reduces the likelihood of failure by providing a designer with a way to design better products that are more desirable and better suited for their intent. The third contribution to knowledge is that I have developed a theory that makes a positive contribution to design research. The final contribution is educational; by demonstrating a method for quickly teaching and applying the PE Design Method.
Contribution to knowledge/Impact
Business • Reduced likelihood of product failure • Increased profitability Design Profession • Easy to use, new design method • Better designs Education • A new method for teaching design Research • New theory
Table 19 - Contribution to knowledge/impact
For designers, I have produced a method that allows them to more easily identify and consider opportunities for product improvement and therefore produce better designs.
Page 288 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This research will have a positive impact on both businesses involved in developing new products as well as the designers who develop those products.
New product development is essential for the survival of any manufacturer. Competition and consumer demands dictate that new product offerings replace old. However, new products contain risk, especially the more disruptive products. The cost of bringing a new product to market varies significantly depending on the type of product; but typically range from a hundred thousand dollars for a simple product to several hundred million dollars for a complex product like a car, sometimes even running into billions (Viswanathan, 2013). With around three-quarters of new products failing to make a return on investment (C. Christensen, 1997b; Lucas et al., 2009; Savoia, 2014; Schneider & Hall, 2011) any method that can reduce of failure rates presents significant value to a business releasing a new product. The new design method outlined in this thesis helps designers identify and therefore “design in” additional value to new products. As the perceived value and consumer preference are linked, this design method will deliver products that consumers will prefer thereby reducing the risk of failure. Not only will the risk of product failure be reduced, but PE Thinking also has the potential to improve already successful products by increasing their value proposition. While it is not possible to quantify how much more successful products will be, it is worth noting that even small improvements can make significant financial gains.
Designers represent the second group to benefit from the use of this design method. 98% of the designers who trialled the new design method reported that they felt it improved the ideation process and they intended to use the process in the future. The qualitative data from this study shows that not only did designers feel it improved the ideation process, but they also reported that it helped them move past “designers
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 289 Williams block” by helping them visualise the “big picture” and by helping them identify opportunities for improving their design. It is reasonable to expect that expert designers will also find the process valuable as well as novice designers. Using this process will allow them to produce better quality designs for their clients/organisations. For design consultants, this will give them a competitive edge, for in-house designers, simply better products.
In this study, I have shown that the PE Design Method can be easily taught and applied in a 2-hour workshop session. While this introduction to PE Thinking was not the fully nuanced version, it was sufficient to produce appreciable improvements in the design process. A second or more extended workshop is therefore likely to produce even better results by presenting a complete version of Product Ecosystem Thinking. Having a structured approach provides design educators with a design method that is simple to explain, simple to apply, and that produces rapid results.
This research project contributes to design research knowledge by providing a new theory and a new way of looking at value creation in products. As products become increasingly interconnected, especially with the Internet of Things, a theory that helps explain these interconnected relationships is becoming more critical. I hope that other design researchers will find this new theory useful and will be able to contribute to and extend this line of research.
A key strategy for reducing the environmental impact of products is to produce and consume fewer products. From the designer’s perspective, this means creating products that have a longer useful life. Not only do products have to be physically more
Page 290 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams durable, but they also need to be designed for emotional durability as well (Chapman, 2012). One of the principles that Chapman discusses is the need to grow together and that the static nature of the value proposition that most products offer is a crucial reason for why we do not form an emotional attachment and therefore discard products in favour of a new model. With the view that a product only contains the ‘designed in’ intrinsic value, it is hard to see how that value can do anything but diminish over time. Now that we understand the difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic value we can see opportunities to offer more extrinsic value. An example of this is Tesla Motors where firmware updates are sent to cars offering additional performance or functionality (“Software Updates | Tesla,” 2019).
Traditional market doctrine links profits to production output: the more products sold, the more profit made. Continual growth in production is inevitably unsustainable and so forward-thinking companies are looking to other ways to make a profit instead of just churning out more product. An alternative way to increase profits without increasing production is to other parts of the ecosystem. For example Amazon males no profit from the sale of its Kindle E- Reader (Clay, 2012). All profit comes from the sale of the E-books, and the device is just an enabler. Each download of a new book replenishes the extrinsic value of the E- Reader. As long as the E-reader is physically durable and no other products arrive that offer more value to the user, there is little motivation for the user to buy a new device. Amazon also has no motivation to sell a replacement device to an existing user as they make no profit from the device.
From a sustainability perspective, this type of scenario represents the ideal product and demonstrates the power of Product Ecosystem thinking.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 291 Williams
Page 292 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Chapter 11 - CONCLUSION
Ignoring the product ecosystem at the design stage risks the product of being unsuccessful even if best practice is used for the product’s design and release to market. The risk is particularly high with Disruptive innovation.
The underlying mechanism for this is that a product’s total value proposition contains both intrinsic value designed into the product and extrinsic value derived from the ecosystem. Product Ecosystems are dynamic and have plasticity allowing some aspects of the ecosystem to be redesigned and manipulated.
Only by considering the Product Ecosystem at the design stage can decisions be made to optimise the design to best suit the ecosystem. Alternatively, where possible to redesign the ecosystem to provide maximum extrinsic value. Existing design methods are inadequate for considering the Product Ecosystem as are methods from other disciplines.
In this research project, I have used case studies to demonstrate the dynamic nature of ecosystems and how products evolve in response to those ecosystems. Existing literature as well as case studies allowed us to demonstrate the influence of the ecosystem on all innovation, especially disruptive innovation. The ability to manipulate an ecosystem was supported in the literature though lacking empirical evidence. Thus, we conducted an experiment to show for the first time that by changes to the Product Ecosystem, result in changes to the value proposition of a product. This experiment conclusively demonstrated that the Product Ecosystem must be considered to deliver the most value.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 293 Williams
As a review of existing design methods concluded that none were satisfactory for applying the Product Ecosystem Thinking, I developed a new design method. Using an applied design approach, I gathered empirical data that demonstrated the new design method produces effective, tangible outcomes, is easy to use and is compatible with a ‘designerly’ way of working.
• The design process is increasingly complex • Products are part of an ecosystem – especially disruptive innovation. PE provides a method to investigate ecosystems and sets a framework for designing products better suited to the ecosystem or redesigning the ecosystem itself or a combination of the two. • Designers need to take a strategic view • Interest in ecosystem thinking is gathering momentum, and while some limited discussion has taken place, the work in this thesis breaks new ground providing a method for designers to apply PE Thinking to tangible outcomes. It also breaks new ground by providing empirical evidence of the link between perceived value and proposed ecosystem modification. Thus demonstrating that the value of a product is dependent on the ecosystem. • The PE Design Method has not been applied to a real-world design project. The timeframe required puts this outside the scope of this project. However, the work contained in this thesis advances the field to the point at which practical application is now possible and is an ideal next step.
• Though the PE Design Method was shown to be effective, a current limitation is that in its present paper-based form it is only feasible to look at a section of the ecosystem at a time. Careful consideration is required to decide what to include or omit. A computer’s ability to manipulate large amounts of data would allow the whole ecosystem to be mapped and configurable ‘what if” scenarios interrogated. This project had neither the time nor the budget to develop such a system, but this would be a logical next step.
Page 294 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
• The PE Design Method has the potential to be applied to wicked problems such as ‘how do we reduce crime” or ‘how do we move towards a circular economy.” The web of complex interrelationships that make wicked problems so challenging to address can be seen as an extensive ecosystem and perhaps can be tackled using the same method. Though outside the scope of this project it would be interesting to see PE Thinking applied to wicked problems.
This research project started with an observation that well-designed products failed when it seemed they should not. As a result of case studies and literature review, I developed a theoretical explanation for why these well-designed products failed. To test this, theoretical position I developed an experiment that demonstrated that the underlying principle of Product Ecosystem Thinking is valid. Theory alone may be interesting but to be useful, it needs to be applied. Thus, I developed a method to apply this theory. Based on existing design methods I developed the PE Design Method, and successfully demonstrated its effectiveness. This research makes a significant contribution to our knowledge of the design process and pushes the discipline to take a more strategic view of the things that we design.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 295 Williams
Chapter 12 - Bibliography
Acaroglu, L. (2017). Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 6 Fundamental Concepts of Systems Thinking. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://medium.com/disruptive- design/tools-for-systems-thinkers-the-6-fundamental-concepts-of-systems-thinking- 379cdac3dc6a Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? a demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.246 Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_100487 Adner, R. (2012). The Wide Lens. The Wide Lens. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Adner, R. (2017a). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451 Adner, R. (2017b). Knowledge in Practice: Innovation Ecosystems with Ron Adner - YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YDeWLen4DU Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). Understanding patterns of technology evolution: An ecosystem perspective. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.515 Altschuler, E. L., Williams, T. J., Ratner, E. R., Dowla, F., & Wooten, F. (1995). Altschuler et al. reply: Physical Review Letters, 74(8).
Page 296 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1483 Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2005). The Virtues of ‘Blue Sky’ Projects: How Lunar Design Taps into the Power of Imagination. Creativity and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00350.x Antonella Gambotto-Burke. (2018). Stand Up Straight! A History of Posture. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/stand-up-straight- a-history-of-posture/news-story/efe9a2e8fb68c12ccae314ba181d8e0b Armano, D. (2007). Logic+Emotion: The iPhone Ecosystem. Logic + Emotion. Retrieved from http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/01/sobering_though.html Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44(C), 669–678. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Special Features: Car use. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834e fa/b7f52642c92ff11cca2570ec0073f6a7!OpenDocument Autio, E., & Llewellyn T., D. W. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.012 Ayres, P. (2012). Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118290927 Babiolakis, M. (2016). Forget Products. Build Ecosystems. – Manolis Babiolakis – Medium. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://medium.com/@manolisbabiolakis/forget-products-build-ecosystems- 792dea2cc4f2 Bar-yam, Y. (1997). Complexity Rising: From Human Beings to Human Civilization, a Complexity Profile 1. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, 01(December), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1.1.79.4513 Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (2003). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 Bauhaus movement. (2017). BAUHAUS MOVEMENT | Art and Technology - A new Unity. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from http://www.bauhaus-movement.com/en/
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 297 Williams
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863932 Behl, D. V., & Ferreira, S. (2014). Systems thinking: An analysis of key factors and relationships. Procedia Computer Science, 36(C), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.09.045 Boston Consulting Group. (2012). Speed to Win. Brogan, C. (2010). (150) Building Product Ecosystems - YouTube. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0lvHzCYsSY Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92, 141. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18605031 Brown, T. (2019). About IDEO: Our Story, Who We Are, How We Work | ideo.com. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.ideo.com/about Brown, T. C. (2003). Introduction to Stated Preference Methods. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (Vol. 3, pp. 99–110). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_4 Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x Brownlee, J. (2016). 5 Design Jobs That Won’t Exist In The Future. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063318/5-design-jobs-that-wont-exist-in- the-future Brozek, J. E. (2004). The History and Evolution of the Wristwatch... Retrieved March 31, 2015, from http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_articles/history_of_wristwatch.html BTRE. (2007). Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities. Buchanan, I. (2004). Actor network theory. Ritzer Encyclopedia, 1–20. Buchanan, R. (1992). in Design Thinking Wicked Problems. The M I T Press Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. (2010). USING A DESIGN LED DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION APPROACH TO DEVELOP NEW SERVICES : PRACTICING INNOVATION IN
Page 298 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
TIMES OF DISCONTINUITY, 176–187. Carlson, C. S. (2014). Understanding and Applying the Fundamentals of FMEAs. Cesar, J., Leite, P., Hadad, G. D. S., Horacio, J., & Kaplan, G. N. (2000). A Scenario Construction Process, 38–61. Chapman, J. (2012). Emotionally durable design: Objects, experiences and empathy. Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771092 Chen, S. (2018). The Best Cordless Power Tool Brands of 2018 | Gear Primer. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.gearprimer.com/tools/best-cordless- power-tool-brand/ Christensen, C. (1997a). Patterns in the evolution of product competition. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00081-3 Christensen, C. (1997b). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business (Vol. 1). Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from https://www.opac.uni- erlangen.de/webOPACClient/search.do?methodToCall=quickSearch&Kateg=0&Con tent=2324510&fbt=7955401-2836663 Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Innovators Solution. Director. Clay, K. (2012). Amazon Confirms It Makes No Profit On Kindles. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2012/10/12/amazon-confirms-it- makes-no-profit-on-kindles/#4d2b164a6b43 CMG Worldwide. (2018). Biography - The Official Licensing Website of Raymond Loewy. Retrieved January 9, 2018, from https://www.raymondloewy.com/about/biography/ Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From Design Thinking to Systems Change. Retrieved from https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from- design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf Cook, J. (2016). A complete history of internet-connected fridges | Business Insider. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-complete- history-of-internet-fridges-and-connected-refrigerators-2016-1#/%231998-internet- fridges-are-looming-on-the-horizon-1 Cosgrove, D. C. (2011). Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. In Long term patterns of Australian Public Transport Use. Adelaide: UniSA. Retrieved from
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 299 Williams
http://www.atrf11.unisa.edu.au/Assets/Papers/ATRF11_0030_final.pdf Crawford, C. M., & Tellis, G. J. (1981). To Evolutionary Approach Product, 45(4), 125– 132. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/3281/ Davis. (2016). What is the fourth industrial revolution? | World Economic Forum. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what- is-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/ Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W., & Boundy, R. G. (2010). Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 29. Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. De Bono, E. (1991). Lateral Thinking. Psychology, 417(June), 1–2. https://doi.org/11.0002/bies.10094 Department of economic and social affairs of the united nations population division (UNPD). (2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. Presenta-tion at the Center for Strategic and …. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ppt/CSIS/WUP_2011_CSIS_4.pdf DeSarbo, W. S., Jedidi, K., & Sinha, I. (2001). Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.191 Design Council UK. (2007). A Study of the Design Process. Design Council UK (Vol. 44). Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_ Design_Council (2).pdf Design Institute of Australia. (2018). Design Institute of Australia (DIA) - Industrial Design. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.design.org.au/designindustry/design-disciplines-2/industrial-design Domingo, M. (2016). User Experience Ecosystem Design – Part I | Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.interaction- design.org/literature/article/user-experience-ecosystem-design-part-i Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–
Page 300 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142- 694X(01)00009-6 Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3 Dreyfuss, H. (1955). Designing for People. New York: Allworth Press. DRS. (2018). DRS Home. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from https://www.designresearchsociety.org/cpages/home Druce, B. (2014). Are you designing a Product Ecosystem that engages the heart and mind? | Planet Innovation. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from https://planetinnovation.com.au/designing-product-ecosystem-engages-heart-mind/ Eckert, C., Bertoluci, G., & Yannou, B. (2014). Handling subjective product properties in engineering, food and fashion. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, 2014-Janua, 791–800. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated Equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Speciation, 82–115. Ericsson. (2016). Ericsson Mobility Report. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105510050031 Evans, M. (2012). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work by Nigel Cross . The Design Journal. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630612x13192035508741 Fattahi, B. (2011). Challenges for the Future. . Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Gagnon, S. (1999). Strategic challenges in developing electric vehicles: a literature review. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 21(1), 89–109. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0- 0032680447&partnerID=40&md5=3f2c3a36e70062f9c5f4ae024e3fe987 Gilder, G. (1993). Metcalfe’s law and legacy. Forbes ASAP. Glushko, A. (2013). The Ecosystem Behind the Product or Service | UX Magazine. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://uxmag.com/articles/the-ecosystem-behind- the-product-or-service Goldman, T., & Gorham, R. (2006). Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technology in Society, 28(1–2), 261–273.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 301 Williams
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.007 Goodman, M., & Karash, R. (1995). Six Steps to Thinking Systemically. The Systems Thinker, 6(2), 16–18. Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1993). Punctuated Equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366(6452), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/366223a0 Gourville, J. T. (2005). The Curse of Innovation : A Theory of Why Innovative New Products Fail in the Marketplace. Soldiers, 02163(05), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.777644 Government of Australia. (2014). Roads and rails – Parliament of Australia. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentar y_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/RoadsRails Green, L. N., & Bonollo, E. (2002). The Development of a Suite of Design Methods Appropriate for Teaching Product Design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(1), 45–53. Hassan, A. (2012). The Value Proposition Concept in Marketing: How Customers Perceive the Value Delivered by Firms. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(3), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v4n3p68 Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In Product Experience. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50013-7 Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. (2000). Product Sequencing: Co-Evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.237288 Hensher, D. A. (1994). Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098788 Hiriko - Driving mobility. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.hiriko.com/ Hubbert, M. K. (1949). Energy from Fossil Fuels. Science, 103-109. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2009). Creating Value in Your Business Ecosystem. Business. IDEO. (2018). Work | ideo.com. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://www.ideo.com/work IDSA. (2019). What Is Industrial Design? | Industrial Designers Society of America -
Page 302 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
IDSA. Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://www.idsa.org/events/what-id Jackson, D. (2011). What is an Innovation Ecosystem. Engineering Research Centers, National Science Foundation, (March), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Jackson, D. (2018). What is an innovation ? National Science Foundation, 1–13. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904 Jan, P., World, E., Kraal, B., Popovic, V., Chamorro-koc, M., & Blackler, T. (2011). AN ACTOR-NETWORK RESEARCH FRAME FOR ANALYSING COMPLEX SOCIO- TECHNICAL SITUATIONS. Jones, D. (2012). Design for a Thriving UX Ecosystem | UX Magazine. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from http://uxmag.com/articles/design-for-a-thriving-ux-ecosystem JWH. (2018). No Title. Wikipedea. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26183569 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast, thinking slow. Interpretation, Tavistock, London. Kansara, V. A. (2013). Apple-like Ecosystems for Luxury Brands? - BoF - The Business of Fashion. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/06/apple-like-ecosystems-for-luxury- brands.html King, S., & Chang, K. (2016). Understanding Industrial Design: Principles for UX and Interaction Design. King, S. K., & Chang, K. (2016). Understanding Industrial Design: Principles for UX and Interaction Design. O’Reilly Media. Kljaic, V. (2015). BMW is changing - We have to learn to live with it. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.bmwblog.com/2015/01/28/bmw-changing-learn-live/ Klueter, T., & Siota, J. (2017). Putting Design Thinking To Work In Banking. Retrieved May 11, 2018, from https://www.iese.edu/en/about-iese/news- media/news/2017/may/putting-design-thinking-to-work-in-banking/index.html Koenig, G. (2012). Business ecosystems revisited. Management (France). https://doi.org/10.1145/3185780 Kraal, B., Popovic, V., Chamorro-koc, M., & Blackler, T. (2011). AN ACTOR-NETWORK
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 303 Williams
RESEARCH FRAME FOR ANALYSING COMPLEX SOCIO-TECHNICAL SITUATIONS. In 4th World Conference on Design Research, IASDR2011, Delft University of Technology,. Delft. Kumar, M., & Noble, C. H. (2016). Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.017 Kumar, R., & Uusitalo, O. (2014). Research Methodology. New Age International. https://doi.org/http://196.29.172.66:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2574/1/Researc h%20Methodology.pdf Künzli, N., Kaiser, R., Medina, S., Studnicka, M., Chanel, O., Filliger, P., … Sommer, H. (2000). Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment. Lancet, 356(9232), 795–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(00)02653-2 Lanning, M. J., & Michaels, E. G. (1988). A Business is a Value Delivery System. McKinsey Staff Paper. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Source: Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/40878163 Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling Ant. The Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03480.x Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. (O. O. U. Press, Ed.), Clarendon lectures in management studies (Vol. 7). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913308X336453 Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Kort, J., & Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition of user experience. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358693 Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142- 694X(81)90033-8 Leach, B. (2014). Review - Renault Twizy Review and First Drive. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.carshowroom.com.au/reviews/renault-twizy-review-and-first-
Page 304 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
drive/ Levin, M. (2014). Designing Multi-Device Experiences: An Ecosystem Approach to User Experiences Across Devices. Vasa. Levy, M. (2013). Sydney among the Western world’s worst cities for traffic congestion, report reveals. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://smh.drive.com.au/roads- and-traffic/sydney-among-the-western-worlds-worst-cities-for-traffic-congestion- report-reveals-20130410-2hkxc.html Lezak, S. B., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Systems thinking and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.005 Liem, A. (2007). A Systems Approach in Teaching Product Design. In INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED’07 (pp. 1–12). Paris. Lingareddy, M. (2015). A strong product ecosystem is the key for long term growth. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/252130 Llewellyn, R. (2012). Renault Twizy Review |. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfQ8F_mfF6E Low mass, low energy | Team Trev on WordPress.com. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://teamtrev.com/2010/02/04/low-mass-low-energy/ Lucas, H. C., Jr., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(1), 45–66. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1517861.1518217&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&CFID= 219921157&CFTOKEN=65413345 Lyndon, N. (2012). Renault’s Twizy. Retrieved June 19, 2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/neil-lyndon/9464926/Renaults- Twizy-youre-better-off-on-a-bicycle.html Massey, G. R. (1999). Product evolution: a Darwinian or Lamarckian phenomenon? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429910284292 Maya, J., & Gómez, E. (2015). How Design Is Taught ? a Survey of Approaches , Models & Methods. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 305 Williams
Education, (September). Mccarthy, E. J. (1964). Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/http://permalink.obvsg.at/wuw/AC00839164 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(02)00174-1 Meirion Thomas. (2015). Innovation ecosystems as drivers of regional innovation - validating the ecosystem - KNOW-HUB. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/videos/innovation-ecosystems-as-drivers- of-regional-innovation-validating-the-ecosystem.html Miller, E., Buys, L., & Summerville, J. (2007). Quantifying the social dimension of triple bottom line: development of a framework and indicators to assess the social impact of organisations. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 3(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2007.014314 Minati, G. (2016). General System(s) Theory 2.0: A Brief Outline. In Towards a Post- Bertalanffy Systemics (pp. 211–219). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24391-7 Mitchell, W. J., Borroni-Bird, C., & Burns, L. D. (2010). Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century. Amazon. MIT Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=32Nbb26J9iEC Mononen, L. (2017). Systems thinking and its contribution to understanding future designer thinking. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4529–S4538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352949 Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. https://doi.org/Article Mubin, O., Novoa, M., & Al Mahmud, A. (2016). Towards the Successful Integration of Design Thinking in Industrial Design Education. International Association for Development of the Information Society. Müller, J., & Spitz, R. (2014). A brief history of the Ulm School of Design : notes on the relationship between design and politics. Zurich: Lars Müller. Muschett, M. (2017). How can we use Systems Thinking to find a Solution to the
Page 306 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Problem of Poverty in Panama? - The Cornell Policy Review. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/how-can-we-use-systems-thinking- to-find-a-solution-to-the-problem-of-poverty-in-panama/ National Library of Australia. (2018). Treasures : Item : The Hills Hoist. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://nationaltreasures.nla.gov.au/index/Treasures/item/nla.int-ex8-s25 NDP Consulting. (2016). Value Analysis and Function Analysis System Technique. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from http://www.npd-solutions.com/va.html Norman, Don. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions, 9(4), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/543434.543435 Norman, Donald a, & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and Radical Innovation. Design Issues. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00250 Normann, R., & Ramírez, R. (1993). From Value Chain to Value Constellation. Harvard Business Review, 71(4). Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. In Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004 Oldroyd, D. R. (1986). Charles Darwin ’ s Theory of Evolution: A Review of our Present Understanding. Darwin, 1, 133–168. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. Oxford. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2005). CLARIFYING BUSINESS MODELS : ORIGINS , PRESENT , AND FUTURE OF THE CONCEPT CLARIFYING BUSINESS MODELS : ORIGINS , PRESENT , AND FUTURE OF THE CONCEPT. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(May). Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. (T. Clark, Ed.), self published. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.consulteam.be/media/5985/businessmodelgenerationpreview.pdf Oxford English Dictionary. (2019a). ecosystem | Definition of ecosystem in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ecosystem Oxford English Dictionary. (2019b). product | Definition of product in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 307 Williams
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/product Özüağ, E. (2013). Renault Twizy Cargo for daily rides. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ELjBcPu8Ak Pachauri, M. (2001). Consumer Behaviour: a Literature Review. The Marketing Review, 2(3), 319–355. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 11, 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319- 2 Pardeshi, G., Shirke, A., & Jagtap, M. (2010). SWOT Analysis. Security (Vol. 33). https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.43233 Parker, A. A. (2004). Unsustainable trends in the Australian Census Data for the journey to work in Melbourne and other cities in Victoria. In 27th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, 29 September – 1 October 2004 (pp. 1–23). Adelaide. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2007). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0 Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design Thinking: Understand, Improve, Apply. Profiles of drug substances, excipients, and related methodology (Vol. 36). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387667- 6.00013-0 Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015 Rachieru, C. (2018). Mapping multi-channel ecosystems - UX Australia. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from http://www.uxaustralia.com.au/conferences/uxaustralia- 2018/presentation/mapping-multi-channel-ecosystems/ RACQ Vehicle Running Costs 2012. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/97029/RACQ-Vehicle-Running- Costs-2012.pdf Rama. (2012). Renault Twizy, side view. Retrieved July 3, 2013, from
Page 308 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Renault_Twizy,_side_view.jpg Rao, V. R. (2014). Applied conjoint analysis. Applied Conjoint Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87753-0 Ravichandran, N. (2017). How Has Apple Built A Powerful Product Ecosystem? - Key Person of Influence. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://www.keypersonofinfluence.com/apple-built-powerful-product-ecosystem/ Reid, S. E., & De Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. In Journal of Product Innovation Management (Vol. 21, pp. 170–184). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737- 6782.2004.00068.x Research, W. A. for H. P. and S., & Campbell, S. (2009). Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, 7(November), 1–112. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/268925 Rich, N., & Holweg, M. (2000). N u e l u a l. INNOREGIO: dissemination of innovation and knowledge management techniques. Richmond, B. (1991). Systems Thinking. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Richmond, B. (1994). System Dynamics/Systems Thinking: Let’s Just Get On With It. In Systems Dynamics/Systems thinking. International Systems Dynamics Conference. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Road Deaths Australia 2011 Statistical Summary. (2011). Canberra ACT. Retrieved from http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2012/files/RDA_Summary_2011.pdf Road funding for safer roads - Fact Sheet 3. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/roads/road_safety/road_safety_priorities/road_saf ety_priorities_-_fact_sheet_3_-_safer_roads_-_road_funding Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016). A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare, 4(1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002 Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2009). The Geography of Transport Systems. Geography (Vol. 60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802115474
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 309 Williams
Ropert, S., Love, J., & Vahter, P. (2012). T____he Value of Design Strategies for New Product Development. Birmingham. Rosati, L. (2012). From Product to Ecosystem: User Experience as a Flow and Narrative | Pervasive Information Architecture. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://pervasiveia.com/blog/from-product-to-ecosystem Roser, M., & Ritchie, H. (2017). Technological Progress - Our World in Data. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https://ourworldindata.org/technological-progress#the- future-of-exponential-technological-growth Rowe, P. (1994). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84–92. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZjZ3mflzJtUC&oi=fnd& amp;pg=PA1&dq=Design+Thinking&ots=K49dvX7xGY&sig=LGNsgu SP2VzycsrYuYNjxFIuRx8 Rucker, S. (2011). How Good Designers Think. Harvard Business Review, (April). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-good-designers-think Ryan, A., & Leung, M. (2013). Systemic Design : Two Canadian Case Studies The Shape of a Systemic Design Project, 1–6. Sanchez-Fernandez, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. a. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165 Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15000?msg=welcome_stranger SAVE International Value Standard. (2015). Value Methodology. SAVE International Value Standard, (March). Savitz, A., & Weber, K. (2014). The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success - and How You Can Too. San Francisco, Jossey-Boss. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub4.Written Savoia, A. (2014). FAILURE : ANALYZE IT , DON’T HUMANIZE IT.
Page 310 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Schneider, J., & Hall, J. (2011). Why Most Product Launches Fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/why-most-product-launches-fail Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professional think in action. Design. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0209 Scott, H. (2009). What is Grounded Theory? | Grounded Theory Online. Retrieved March 29, 2018, from http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/ Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, 593. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025496 Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030806 Smartwatch Group. (2015). Top 10 Smartwatch Companies 2014 (Sales) - Smartwatch Group. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/top-10- smartwatch-companies-sales-2014/ Software Updates | Tesla. (2019). Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.tesla.com/support/software-updates SONG, X. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products*1. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(97)00077-5 Sousanis, J. (2011). World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815 Sperling, D. P. (2010). Two Billion Cars: Is it Sustainable? In Spring Seminar Series (2010) University of Illinois at Chicago. Dept of Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.cme.uic.edu/bin/view/CME/Seminars Taborga, J. (2011). The Evolution of Systems Thinking - Saybrook University. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.saybrook.edu/blog/2011/06/22/evolution-systems- thinking/ Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Holmström, J., & Romme, A. G. L. (2018). Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.002 Taylor, B. E. (Barbara E. (1995). The lost cord : the storyteller’s history of the electric car.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 311 Williams
Greydon Press. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, a. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n1 The Apple Ecosystem - AppleMagazine. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://applemagazine.com/the-apple-ecosystem/36702 Tobias, J. (2007). Accessibility and Product Ecosystems. The Information Society, 23(3), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701323598 Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS IN PREFERENCE SPACE AND WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY SPACE. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 1–16). Travel in south-east Queensland. (2009). Brisbane. UK Social Exclusion Unit. (2012). Making connections. Health Devices, 41(4), 102–121. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486398 Unger, N. (2010). NASA - Road Transportation Emerges as Key Driver of Warming in New Analysis from NASA. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/road-transportation.html Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=rpaj0vLzPRkC&pgis=1 Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1540304 Villas-Boas, A. (2016). Why Apple’s ecosystem is king - Business Insider. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ecosystem-2016- 6/?r=AU&IR=T Viloria, G. (2016). 10 Ways How Tech Brands Create a Product Ecosystem. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-ways-how-tech-brands- create-product-ecosystem-greg-viloria/ Viswanathan, B. (2013). Why Are Cars Not Getting Cheap Even With Better Economies
Page 312 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Of Scale? Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/07/why-are-cars-not-getting-cheap- even-with-better-economies-of-scale/#1e9904595ad9 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1938). Human Biology a Quantitative Theory of Organic Growth (Inquireies on Growth Laws. II)*. Source: Human Biology, 10174254(2), 181–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505340.201 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. Georg. Braziller New York, 1, 289. Retrieved from http://books.google.es/books?id=N6k2mILtPYIC Vukovac, D. P., Džeko, M., Stapić, Z., & Orehovački, T. (2019). User Experience Design and Architecture of IoT Ecosystem Employed in Students’ Activities Tracking. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 94706-8 Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011 Welbourne, E., Battle, L., Cole, G., Gould, K., Rector, K., Raymer, S., … Borriello, G. (2009). Building the internet of things using RFID: The RFID ecosystem experience. IEEE Internet Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2009.52 Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. (2012). Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.001 West, D. S. (2006). The High Cost of Free Parking, edited by Donald C. Shoup. Journal of Regional Science, 46(4), 800–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9787.2006.00478_7.x Williams, T. (2011). Design of sustainable transport : opportunities. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/48235/ Williams, T. (2014). Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product Ecosystem theory. In The Sustainable City IX : Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, (pp. 723-733.). Williams, T. (2015). Using the evolution of consumer products to inform design .
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 313 Williams
Brisbane. Williams, T., & Chamorro-koc, M. (2013). The theory of Product Ecosystems as a means to study disruptive innovations : The case of the CityCar. In IASDR 2013 (pp. 1–11). Williams, T., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2013). Product ecosystems : an emerging methodological approach to study the implementation of disruptive innovations : the case of the CityCar. In K. Sugiyama (Ed.), 5th International Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (pp. 1286–1295). Tokyo, Japan: Shibaura Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/68335/ Wong, J. J., Chen, P. Y., & Chen, C. Di. (2016). The Metamorphosis of Industrial Designers from Novices to Experts. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 35(1), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12044 Younker, D. (2003). Value Engineering: Analysis And Methodology (Google eBook). CRC Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=Mtq_qunJIBMC&pgis=1 Zhou, F., Jiao, R. J., Xu, Q., Chen, S., Qu, X., & Helander, M. G. (2009). An affective- cognitive framework of product ecosystem design. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2060–2064. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373182 Zhou, Feng, Xu, Q., & Jiao, R. J. (2010). Fundamentals of product ecosystem design for user experience. Research in Engineering Design, 22(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0096-z
Page 314 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 315 Williams
Page 316 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 317 Williams
Page 318 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 319 Williams
Page 320 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 321 Williams
Page 322 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 323 Williams
Page 324 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 325 Williams
Page 326 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 327 Williams
Page 328 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 329 Williams
Page 330 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 331 Williams
Page 332 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 333 Williams
Page 334 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 335 Williams
Subject Title: Participate in a research study Designing for Product Ecosystem
Dear students
My name is Tim Williams from the School of Design, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and I am doing a PhD that investigates how industrial designers approach the design of products that are part of a Product Ecosystem.
I am looking for 3rd-year industrial design students to take part in a short workshop followed by a series of focus group type questions. This is expected to take approximately 1 hr. There is no requirement for you to participate and your choice whether to participate or not will have absolutely no impact on your relationship with QUT. There are no right or wrong answers so no answer you give can make you look silly or lacking in knowledge. We are only interested your opinions and how you tackle the design process. Also, as far as we can realistically predict, nobody involved in this study, including myself, will teach you or grade your assignments in the future so there is no possibility that your involvement can affect your grades now or in the future. We will need to make an audio/video recording of the process that we will use for coding results. It will be impossible to identify you from the coded data.
The benefits to me are that I will gain valuable data that will help me in my research. The benefits to you are that you will learn about emerging methods for designing new products as well as the satisfaction of contributing to design methodology.
Please view the attached recruitment flyer for further details on the study and how to participate.
Page 336 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Please view the attached Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form for further details on the study.
If you are interested in participating or have any questions, please contact me via email.
Please note that the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee has approved this study (approval number xxx).
Many thanks for your consideration of this request.
Tim Williams PhD Student 07 313 86765 [email protected]
DR Evonne Miller Supervisor 07 31389011 [email protected] Dr Marianella Chamorro-Koc Supervisor 07 3138 2618 [email protected]
Dr Robert Perrons Supervisor 07 3138 2648 [email protected]
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 337 Williams
School of Design, Faculty of Creative industries Queensland University of Technology
Page 338 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 339 Williams
Page 340 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 341 Williams
Page 342 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 343 Williams
Page 344 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Developing a transdisciplinary approach to improve urban traffic congestion based on Product ecosystem theory
Tim Williams Queensland University of Technology - Australia
Product Ecosystem theory is an emerging theory that shows that disruptive “game- changing” innovation is only possible when the entire ecosystem is considered. When environmental variables change faster than products or services can adapt, disruptive innovation is required to keep pace. This has many parallels with natural ecosystems where species that cannot keep up with changes to the environment will struggle or become extinct. In this case, the environment is the city, and the environmental pressures are pollution and congestion. The product is the car, and the Product Ecosystem is comprised of many entities that include roads, bridges, traffic lights, legislation and refuelling facilities. Each one of these components is the responsibility of a different organisation, and so any change that affects the whole ecosystem requires a transdisciplinary approach. As a simple example, cars that communicate wirelessly with traffic lights are only of value if wireless-enabled traffic lights exist and vice versa. Cars that drive themselves are technically possible, but legislation in most places does not allow their use. According to innovation theory, incremental innovation tends to chase ever diminishing returns and becomes increasingly unable to tackle the “big issues.” Eventually, “game-changing” disruptive innovation comes
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 345 Williams along and solves the “big issues” and provides new opportunities. Seen through this lens, the environmental pressures of urban traffic congestion and pollution are the “big issues.” The design of cars and the other components of the Product Ecosystem follow an incremental innovation approach. That is why the “big issues” remain unresolved. This paper explores the problems of pollution and congestion in urban environments from a Product Ecosystem perspective. From this, a strategy will be proposed for a transdisciplinary approach to develop and implement solutions.
Keywords: Product Ecosystems, Transport, wicked problems, design thinking, congestion, CityCar, microcar.
Over the 20th century, there have been few, if any, products that have had such a profound influence on our way of life as the car. Cars have allowed our cities to grow; they give us the freedom to live, work, shop and spend our leisure time where we choose. However, this love affair with the car has caused problems. The main ones being pollution and congestion.
The problems of traffic congestion have been with us for a long time and are getting worse. Projected population increase and vehicle ownership rates will only compound the problem. However, despite vast sums of money spent on the problem, congestion stubbornly remains.
"We can not solve problems by using the same level of thinking we used when we created them" is a quote often ascribed to Albert Einstein. Indeed, the problems of traffic congestion remain stubbornly resistant to the approaches tried so far. Therefore this paper puts forward the conjecture that it is time to look at the problem from a different perspective.
Page 346 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This paper proposes a potential method for addressing the problems of traffic congestion. It draws on a theoretical framework that comes from a variety of disciplines including natural sciences, sociology and design.
One hundred years ago, only 13% of the world’s 1.6 billion people lived in cities: around 200 million people. The world population is now over 7 Billion, 50% of whom now live in cities giving us an urban population of around 3.5 Billion. In approximately the same timeframe the number of cars has increased exponentially from a few thousand to the point that there are now an estimated 1 billion cars worldwide. This gives an average of about 138 people per 1000 cars worldwide. There are of course countries with higher rates of car ownership, Australia, for example, has one of the highest rates of car ownership at 750 cars per 1000 people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). Australia is also one of the most urbanised countries worldwide with nearly 90% of the population living in urban areas. (Department of economic and social affairs of the united nations population division (UNPD), 2012). Besides, Australia has relatively low-density cities making them difficult to service with public transport. This combination of factors means that cities like Sydney have some of the worst traffic congestion in the world (Levy, 2013). These figures have been included to illustrate the enormous change from rural to urban populations as well as the rise of the car. As the concentration of cars in an urban environment is an underlying cause of traffic congestion, it is reasonable to expect that traffic congestion will also increase if urban growth patterns continue. Traffic congestion can be very costly in both financial and social ways, In Australia, for example, the financial cost of congestion due to lost production has been estimated to be from $9 Billion in 2005 AUD pa. (BTRE, 2007) To $25 Billion in 2011 (Parker, 2004). The social cost of time wasted in traffic is harder to quantify but significant.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 347 Williams
Worldwide growth in car numbers since 1900 & projection to 2020
1,800,000,000 1,600,000,000 1,400,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,000,000,000 800,000,000 600,000,000 400,000,000 200,000,000 0
Figure 72 - Global growth in car numbers since 1900 including projections to 2020.
Various sources [6,7,8]
Traffic congestion is a growing problem in many if not most urban areas. The problem is being compounded by many factors including population growth, increasing levels of urbanisation, economic growth and changing lifestyles. The imperative to find solutions to the problem of congestion is driven by factors such as atmospheric carbon emissions, urban air quality as well as the lost opportunity cost of time spent in traffic, both economic and social. These problems are particularly difficult to address. Many approaches have been tried, many of which involve attempting to persuade people not to drive, for example, use public transport, cycle or walk instead. The success of these approaches tends to be inversely proportional to the density of the city. This is because in low-density cities such as those found in Australia public transport is less effective. Road infrastructure is the primary approach taken with Australia with road spending $24 Billion pa. (Government of Australia, 2014).
Page 348 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
“Transportation is not a closed, self-contained system; rather, it is tightly intertwined with other systems.” (Goldman & Gorham, 2006) Moreover, most attempts to improve traffic congestion tend to look at isolated parts of the system and not as a whole.
There are many that believe that the time has come to look carefully at the whole road network as well as the vehicles on the roads to design a system that minimises the problems [10, 11].
This paper draws on a variety of theories that can be used to help frame the problem as well as develop an approach to address the problem.
Traffic congestion is an example of a wicked problem. The concept of a “wicked problem” first described by Horst and Rittel (1973) refers to social problems that are complex and difficult, if not impossible to solve. Wicked problems rarely have a single definitive solution and typically span many different disciplines. It is more likely that outcomes can be described as “better” or “worse” rather than “solved”. Often, due to the complex interdependencies involved and the multidisciplinary nature, solutions may cause other problems often for other disciplines. For example, crime is a wicked problem that can only be improved and will never be solved. Attempts to address crime may include increased police presence, which is addressing the symptom rather than the cause. The cause of crime probably stems from deep-seated social problems. These social problems are complex, wicked problems in their own right. Wicked problems are very often problems that are multidisciplinary in which case they can only be addressed adequately by using a transdisciplinary approach. Although wicked problems by definition cannot be solved, they can be addressed, and a better position found. Design problems are normally always wicked problems in that there is no single solution and the description of the problem is likely to be ambiguous and contradictory. A design solution is never a perfect solution but can only be
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 349 Williams considered as better or worse. Design problems typically have many criteria, some of which may contradict others. Designers, therefore, tend to be comfortable working with ambiguity and chaos which is why design thinking is an ideal approach for tackling wicked problems.
The scientific approach to solving problems usually involves a clear problem definition including an empirical method for measuring and defining both the problem and the solution. This approach is unsuitable for wicked problems because the problem, as well as the solution, are difficult, if not impossible, to define or measure. Scientific thinking tends to reductionist in its approach. That is, by reducing the problem down to its smallest component it becomes easier to define. Wicked problems are ones that do not respond to a reductionist approach and require a holistic approach. For this reason, the process of “Design Thinking” is increasingly being seen as the most effective way to tackle wicked problems. (R. Buchanan, 1992)
Design thinking is a process for addressing problems based on the way that designers tackle design problems. It is not a defined methodology but rather an approach that designers use. This approach is well suited to tackling ill-defined problems that contain multiple conflicting criteria. The approach is typically holistic and expansive as opposed to reductive. Designers will typically explore and expand on many potential solutions to a problem before selecting the most promising direction and resolving it. This is distinct from a scientific approach, which is more suitable for “tame” problems. (2008) Design thinking is naturally used in most design disciplines but is increasingly used outside those disciplines such as business and soc. According to Plattner et al. the basic structure of Design Thinking can be described as “Understand, Improve, Apply”(Plattner et al., 2011).
Page 350 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Wicked problems are complex and typically transcend disciplinary boundaries. If design thinking is to be used to tackle wicked problems, a transdisciplinary approach is needed where each discipline uses design thinking to contribute to the solution.
Product Ecosystem Theory is an emerging theory that proposes that successive iterations of consumer products will exhibit similar evolutionary patterns as those found in biological ecosystems [16,17,18]. Evolutionary theories such as phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can be observed not just in biological evolution but also in product evolution. Phyletic gradualism describes the gradual evolutionary morphology changes in species over time. In contrast, punctuated equilibrium describes periods of stasis or phyletic gradualism with occasional and rare rapid changes or branches in species (Gould & Eldredge, 1993). In biology, changes in morphology are driven by environmental pressures or opportunities. Again the same patterns can be observed in product lines. Therefore by understanding the environmental pressures and opportunities that affect products we can gain a better understanding of what sort of environment a product requires to flourish. More importantly, it allows us to see what environmental variables can be modified to make a product more or less viable.
The evolution of the car over the last 100 years follows the pattern of phyletic gradualism. That is, all the significant components and layout of the contemporary car can be observed in cars of 100 years ago. For example, steering wheel, seating arrangements, mirrors and headlights are all in the same position and function in the same basic way. This is not to say that cars have not changed, rather a gradual refinement of the car has taken place. This refinement is demonstrated in the way that engines have become more efficient, and cars have greater levels of comfort that their predecessors had. Also, this is consistent with phyletic gradualism.
In nature, punctuated equilibrium describes an evolutionary process marked by periods of relatively little change punctuated by new species rapidly evolving and
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 351 Williams either displacing the previous species or coexisting with them. This pattern can be seen in the products. For example, the development of the aeroplane has followed a pattern of periods of stability followed by Rapid change. For example, a military aeroplane of 100 years ago was typically an open cockpit biplane that bears little resemblance to a modern supersonic jet fighter. The Hindenburg shares even less with the Concorde despite being separated by only 32 years.
Figure 73 - Graphical comparison of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.
Based on (Eldredge & Gould, 1972)
Species within a natural ecosystem and products within a Product Ecosystem are both interdependent on their environment, whether it is the natural environment or the product’s environment. The car’s environment has also evolved over the last 100 years in ways that support the evolution of the car. For example, the network of roads has expanded and improved in quality allowing car passengers to travel at higher
Page 352 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams speeds and in greater comfort than previously. Traffic lights, road signs, street lights, speeding cameras, tarmac and multi-storey car parks have all been developed to support the car through the process of phyletic gradualism. As well as the less tangible items such as road rules, design standards, licencing, policing and so on. Another group are the support services such as fuel stations, crash repairs, mechanical repairs, tyre, battery and exhaust mechanics. These are just some of the things that form the car ecosystem. Without this supporting ecosystem, the car would have far less value and would be far less viable. This has strong parallels with natural ecosystems. All species rely on their environment. If the right combination of things such as food, water, shelter, and the sun is not available, the species must either evolve or decline.
By understanding the interdependencies of the car ecosystem and modifying the environment accordingly, we have control over the viability of the car. For the car to undergo a change consistent with punctuated gradualism, the whole car ecosystem must support this new evolutionary branch.
Other than approaches that aim to reduce car usage such as public transport and cycling, the primary approach to reducing traffic congestion is to improve road infrastructure. Vehicle throughput is the typical metric of improving road infrastructure (in the context of traffic congestion). A better metric, which is more difficult to measure and therefore less often used, is people throughput.
The throughput of roads can be improved by increasing either the capacity of roads or the efficiency of them. Increasing capacity has natural, finite constraints; the available corridor width being the main one. Expanding beyond available corridors requires approaches such as elevated roadway, tunnels and compulsory land acquisition and demolition. These approaches tend to be very costly both socially as well as
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 353 Williams economically. Attempts to increase efficiency include measures such as bus lanes and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
There are those that argue the car in its present form needs to be reinvented (Mitchell et al., 2010). In the context of Product Ecosystem theory, this would mean that the car has reached a fork in its evolutionary line and that the forces of punctuated equilibrium need to take place. This typically takes place when the environment is no longer suitable or when new opportunities arise. In this case, congestion is an environmental pressure that makes car use less viable. Fossil fuel costs, availability and security, coupled with CO2 emissions and air quality are all environmental issues that are increasingly making cars in their present form less viable. Even how we use cars is in many cases no longer compatible with the types of vehicles commonly used. For example, in many urban areas, single occupant trips make up as much as 70% of all car trips when most cars have the capacity of 4 or more adults (Parker, 2004). These are some of the environmental pressures that can “push” evolution. There are also environmental opportunities that can “pull” evolution. These are often technology opportunities such as improvements in batteries that can make Battery Electric Vehicles more viable.
Mitchel et al. propose a design solution comprised of small, electric folding cars, a type of Ultra Small Vehicles (CityCar). These vehicles are currently in preproduction in Spain. The design philosophy behind these cars is quite simple. Smaller vehicles use less space both on the road and when parked. However, Mitchel argues that it is not just the size of the car but that electronics that Collision avoidance and the ability to platoon also allow more efficient use of the road space (Mitchell et al., 2010).
Page 354 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
This is not the only attempt to find a design-driven approach to reinventing the car. Most of the major auto manufacturers have at least concept cars that are small, electric cars with one or two seats. Some manufacturers such as Renault have been producing this class of vehicle (the Twizy) for some years. While the Twizy has been successful compared to other electric cars, overall numbers are quite low. One possible reason for this is that while CityCars potentially reduce congestion in large numbers, individually they do very little, and any benefits they do bring are shared amongst all road users. At the same time, the disadvantages with CityCars (e.g. lack of carrying capacity) are born only by the CityCar driver. To illustrate the point, reviews of the Twizy often make comments like this
“The Twizy is so tiny that three could probably fit into a standard parking bay, but that is not allowed either: each Twizy incurs a normal car’s charge” (Lyndon, 2012)
This can be explained by Product Ecosystem theory; because the road ecosystem is designed for the conventional car is it not optimised for the CityCar. Therefore the potential benefits are unlikely to be realised. The CityCar will only be genuinely viable if the ecosystem is reinvented along with the car.
Figure 74 – Renault Twizy
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 355 Williams
(Rama, 2012)
According to design thinking principles, we should not start with the intention to design a better car; we should start with a broader view and look at redesigning an entire system that reduces congestion and pollution.
Many city streets are older than 100 years, even in relatively “young” countries like Australia. This means the car did not exist when these streets were laid out and therefore not designed for cars: certainly not in current numbers. As previously mentioned, urban populations and number of cars were a fraction of what they are now. Moreover, the overall form and function of cars have hardly changed. There is a strong argument that supports the conjecture that it is time to take a new look at the way we travel around our urban environments. Whether that is to reinvent the automobile as Mitchel et al. suggest (2010) or by employing the “new mobility” approach that Goldman and Gorham describe (2006). Either way, this is an opportunity to develop a transport system that will enhance rather than degrade the amenity of our cities.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to suggest a solution; however, a methodology can be suggested that will allow an approach to be developed. This methodology is a seven-step process based on design thinking.
1. The first consideration is that a single discipline cannot tackle this problem alone. The CityCar is an example of a design solution that needs the support of other disciplines such as those involved with infrastructure and legislation to make it viable. All stakeholders should be involved with subject area specialists
Page 356 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
from all key disciplines. This is consistent with the way that design thinking is used to address wicked problems (R. Buchanan, 1992).
2. The second step will be to develop a set of design criteria. These criteria are to be used to evaluate the design proposals. Due to the complexity of the problem, the list of criteria can be expected to be quite large and include a range of both tangible and intangible criteria. This approach is consistent with design thinking and is a typical approach that a designer may use; the only thing unusual is the size of the project.
3. The third step will be the ideation step. Idea generation techniques such as brainstorming should be used to generate as many ideas as possible. These will then be recorded in sketch form.
4. The fourth step is the filtering step to reduce the ideas to a few of the most promising ones.
5. The fifth step is the resolution stage where the best ideas are refined to a higher level of detail than the initial concepts. These ideas would then be compared with the design criteria to select the best idea.
6. The sixth step is the implementation planning stage where each discipline will set out what would be required for implementation from their discipline’s perspective.
7. The final stage will be the documentation stage where the plan will able to be presented in a way that can be easily understood by someone unfamiliar with the project.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 357 Williams
Assemble Team
Design Criteria
Ideation
Filtering
Resolution
Implementation plan
Documentation
Figure 75 - Proposed methodology
Although the process described above and shown in Figure 4 is a linear process, this is unlikely to be the case. Design is an iterative process where knowledge learned in one step is fed back into a previous step, and part of the process repeated. For example, something may be discovered at the resolution stage that can refine the criteria, requiring a repeat of the ideation stage. This is a normal part of the design process. While designers may be familiar with this process; it is likely that other disciplines are less familiar and perhaps less comfortable with this process. Careful management of the team may be required.
Page 358 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
The problem of traffic congestion remains stubbornly intractable. Car design by itself is unable to solve it. Infrastructure building hardly seems to make a dent. It now seems the time has come to take a holistic view that will redesign urban mobility and place it in a more sustainable position. Product Ecosystem theory provides a framework that will help conceptualise the approach. So design thinking is an ideal method for tackling wicked problems of this sort.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Special Features: Car use,” 2012. [2] Department of economic and social affairs of the united nations population division (UNPD), “World Urbanization Prospects: 2011 Revision,” 2012.
[3] M. Levy, “Sydney among the Western world’s worst cities for traffic congestion, the report reveals,” Sydney Morning Herald, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-traffic/sydney-among-thewestern-worlds- worst-cities-for-traffic-congestion-report-reveals20130410-2hkxc.html. [Accessed: 17-Sep-2013].
[4] BTRE, “Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities,” 2007.
[5] A. A. Parker, “Unsustainable trends in the Australian Census Data for the journey to work in Melbourne and other cities in Victoria,” in 27th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, 29 September – 1 October 2004, 2004, no. October, pp. 1–23.
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 359 Williams
[6] S. C. Davis, S. W. Diegel, and R. G. Boundy, “Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 29,” Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, pp. 1– 385, 2010.
[7] J. Sousanis, “World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units,” Wards Auto, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815. [Accessed: 18-Jun-2014].
[8] D. P. Sperling, “Two Billion Cars: Is it Sustainable?,” in Spring Seminar Series (2010) University of Illinois at Chicago. Dept of Engineering., 2010.
[9] Government of Australia, “Roads and rails – Parliament of Australia,” The government website, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/P arliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/RoadsRails. [Accessed: 18-Jun-2014].
[10] T. Goldman and R. Gorham, “Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions,” Technol. Soc., vol. 28, no. 1–2, pp. 261–273, Jan. 2006.
[11] W. J. Mitchell, C. Borroni-Bird, and L. D. Burns Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century. MIT Press, 2010, p. 240.
[12] H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning,” Policy Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–169, 1973. [13] R. Buchanan, “in Design Thinking Wicked Problems,” M I T Press Des.
Page 360 Product Ecosystems Timothy Williams
Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 5–21, 1992.
[14] T. Brown, “Design thinking.,” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 84–92, 141, 2008.
[15] H. Plattner, C. Meinel, and L. Leifer, Design Thinking: Understand, Improve, Apply, vol. 36. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, p. ii.
[16] T. Williams and M. Chamorro-Koc, “The theory of Product Ecosystems as a means to study disruptive innovations: The case of the CityCar,” in IASDR 2014, 2013, pp. 1–11.
[17] J. Tobias, “Accessibility and Product Ecosystems,” Inf. Soc., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 183–186, Apr. 2007.
[18] F. Zhou, Q. Xu, and R. J. Jiao, “Fundamentals of Product Ecosystem design for user experience,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–61, Oct. 2010.
[19] S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibrium comes of age,” Nature, vol. 366, no. 6452, pp. 223–227, 1993.
[20] N. Eldredge and S. Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism,” Speciation, pp. 82 – 115, 1972.
[21] N. Lyndon, “Renault’s Twizy,” Telegraph, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/neillyndon/9464926/Renaults-Twizy- youre-better-off-on-a-bicycle.html. [Accessed: 19-Jun-2014].
[22] Rama, “Renault Twizy, side view,” Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia -
Timothy Product Ecosystems Page 361 Williams
Creative Commons, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Renault_Twizy,_side_view.jpg. [Accessed: 03-Jul-2013]