Manchester Metropolitan University A STUDY OF COMPLEXITY, INNOVATION AND VARIETY; THE PHOTOGRAPHIC CAMERA EXAMPLE A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cecilia Diaz 5/27/2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisors Gill Wright, Despoina Filiou and Alberto Paucar- Caceres for their support and guidance that helped me to stay focused in moments of difficulty. I would also like to thank Ann Marie McDonalds for all her help, not only in an academic role but also simply for believing in me and helping through the completion of the thesis. In general, I am grateful to all the people who in one way or another have contributed to this thesis. I would like to dedicate this work to my parents. ii | P a g e ABSTRACT This thesis is an exploratory research concerned with the investigation and identification of complex systems and their innovation life patterns. There is evidence in the literature to suggest the existence of complex systems, which differentiate themselves not only by organisational structure, but also by the way, they innovate. Complex systems seem to display a nested hierarchical formation of technological elements and the clustering of those technological elements in a synergistic manner in order to offer an enhanced service. Another distinct element of complex systems is the dependency that some particular elements in the hierarchy seem to display. This dependency of the elements in the nested hierarchy means that changes (innovation) made in one of the elements of the hierarchy might result in changes in other elements or the whole hierarchy. These characteristics not only differentiate complex from simple systems but are also the main reason why complex systems innovate in a different manner from simple systems (classical view of innovation). There is an important gap in the study of innovation in complex systems in the literature. Firstly, if in fact complex systems innovate differently from simple systems there is no evidence of a model that could clearly identify and separate complex from simple systems. Secondly, previous research on complex systems theory and innovation has studied complexity as a whole; however, the dependency between the elements is the crucial factor that hinders complex systems from innovating according to the classical view of innovation. There is no indication in the literature of a model that could clearly identify those distinct elements within the complex systems hierarchy that display the dependency. If there was a model that could identify the risk elements in the systems that carry the dependency, iii | P a g e marketing/design managers could develop more efficient innovation strategies without putting at risk the performance of some elements of the systems or the whole product. This research proposes a model that could help to identify the particular elements that display that dependency and the possible effect that it could have in the whole hierarchy. This model is also used as a tool to identify and separate complex systems from simple systems. This research uses cameras in an example study to test the models suggested by this research. Previous research on complexity has been done in an industrial market; however, there is no empirical evidence in the literature of a model that could help the investigation of the evolution of complex systems in a commercial market. Products in a commercial market are subject to heterogeneity of demand, speed of innovation, and sophistication of needs. A model that could map the innovation pattern of commercial complex systems could help marketing and design companies with innovation strategies and decisions. In this research, this model was applied to the camera example and, in fact, cameras gave high indications and displayed clear evidence that could lead to the classification of cameras as complex systems. Cameras display evidence both of dependency between the elements and of a nested hierarchical formation, which are the elements that separate complex from simple systems. Subsequent to the finding of the evidences that support cameras as complex systems, this research investigates the innovation pattern of cameras from 1955 to 2011, and compares this innovation pattern to the classical view of both innovation and complex systems. As indicated in the literature, even though cameras have some elements common to the classical view of innovation at the beginning of the innovation life cycle, they display a rather different pattern closer to that offered by complex systems innovation. iv | P a g e By applying this model, this research not only seems to help the classification and distinguishing complex from simple systems but also studies the complex system as a whole, and the identification of the elements that display dependency and could put any innovation activity at risk. This model also offers the possibility of studying innovation and clearly identifying to what extent and in which manner complex systems innovate differently from simple systems. v | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents............................................................................................................... vi Index of Figures .............................................................................................................. viii Index of Tables .................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Research Background .................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Research Rationale ...................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Research context .......................................................................................................... 5 1.5. Research Design .......................................................................................................... 6 1.6. Organisation of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2 – Literature Review ...................................................................................... 11 2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Complexity ............................................................................................................ 17 2.2.1. Classification of complexity .............................................................................. 21 2.2.1.1. Near-decomposible complex systems: ................................................................ 27 2.2.1.2. Modular complexity: ........................................................................................... 28 2.2.1.3. Near decomposable complex systems vs modular complex systems: ................. 35 2.2.2. Models to manage complexity:............................................................................... 37 2.2.2.1. NK model: ........................................................................................................... 37 2.2.2.2. Mapping of technological relations: ............................................................... 41 2.2.3. Complex vs. simple systems: ............................................................................. 47 2.3. Innovation Life Cycles: ......................................................................................... 49 2.3.1. Incremental vs radical innovation: ..................................................................... 51 2.3.2. Architectural innovation: ................................................................................... 54 2.3.3. Innovation process and approaches: .................................................................. 57 2.3.3.1. Traditional innovation models ....................................................................... 58 2.3.3.2. Dominant design effect and variety: .............................................................. 64 2.3.4. Innovation process in complex systems: ............................................................ 73 2.4. Conclusions: .......................................................................................................... 82 Chapter 3: Cameras as an example study .................................................................... 93 3.1. Introduction: .......................................................................................................... 93 3.2. History of the photographic camera ...................................................................... 95 3.3. Types of cameras (core technology) ...................................................................... 98 3.4. Camera technology .............................................................................................. 104 3.5. Innovation in photographic cameras...................................................................