ENHANCING PRODUCT INNOVATION THROUGH A ...

International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management Vol. 9, No. 6 (2012) 1250041 (28 pages) # .c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company DOI: 10.1142/S0219877012500411

ENHANCING PRODUCT INNOVATION THROUGH A CUSTOMER-CENTERED, LEAN FRAMEWORK

TORGEIR WELO Department of Engineering Design and Material Norwegian University of Science and Technology Richard Birkelands vei 2B, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway [email protected] TONJE OVERVIK OLSEN Department of Engineering Design and Material Norwegian University of Science and Technology Richard Birkelands vei 2B, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway [email protected] MARTIN GUDEM Department of Engineering Design and Material Norwegian University of Science and Technology Richard Birkelands vei 2B, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway [email protected] Received 22 September 2010 Revised 24 November 2010 Accepted 25 November 2010 Published 29 March 2013 For companies to survive and thrive in today's market, a key strategy is to leverage innovation capability through an e®ective process of converting unmet customer needs into successful products, creating value for customers, the company and other stakeholders. This work demonstrates how Lean becomes a pre-competitive factor in product innovation through customer value focus. The goal is to determine the applicability of user-centered methodologies in generating input that ultimately leads to di®erentiated products. An o±ce chair case study implies that although user-focus is necessary, this will not inevitably lead to novel products, since users are engrossed with past and present. Keywords: Customer value; lean innovation; front-end.

1. Introduction Innovation is de¯ned by Carlson and Wilmot [2006] as: \the successful creation and delivery of a new or improved product or service in the marketplace. (. . .) Innovation is the process that turns an idea into value for the customer and results in sustainable pro¯t for the enterprise." Creating customer value in today's highly competitive, global market has proven to be di±cult. As many as 7090% of new-product introductions fail in the 1250041-1

Production cost

T. Welo, T. O. Olsen & M. Gudem

Traditional focal region of Lean

Time-to-market

M

t ke ar

(a)

e ic pr

n) io at ov n (in

Untapped region of Lean

(b)

Fig. 1. (a) Customer focus to create customer value [Carlson and Wilmot (2006)]. (b) Three dimensions of new-product development in competitive business.

marketplace; many of these failures are caused by lack of understanding of customer and user needs and values [Nakagawa (2009); Carlson and Wilmot (2006); Gordon (2006); Sanders (1992)]. According to Carlson and Wilmot [2006], the most successful companies are those that focus on customers with a shared language and tools for understanding customer value, as well as a systematic process of creating customer value, as illustrated in Fig. 1(a). The understanding of customer value is the ¯rst and most important principle of the lean philosophy, whether this is applied to manufacturing or to new-product development. Most fundamentally, customer value can be de¯ned by the bene¯ts that a customer explicitly or implicitly attributes to a product, relative to its price [Browning (2003)], hence: Customer Value /

Benefits Benefits ¼ : Price Cost þ Margin

ð1Þ

Lean e®orts related to new-product introductions have traditionally been motivated by the desire to reduce time-to-market and production cost (the denominator in Eq. (1)), as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). In fact, there are several instances in which lean techniques from manufacturing, such as waste-removal (Kaizen), queuing, batching, costing and value stream mapping, have been used successfully to reduce lead time and the production (development) cost of new products. Moreover, lean product development has been practiced more successfully in companies that target incremental innovations than in those that pursue more radical innovations [Gautam and Singh (2008)]. In the former, new products are typically derivatives or improvements of already existing products (platforms), and the development process follows a repetitive, predictable path more similar to a production process. In today's highly competitive market, however, there is a strong motivation to explore the potential of combining lean principles with strategies for development of more novel products. In fact, among top performing companies, 62% have strong support for innovation within their ¯rms. By contrast, only 7.7% of poor performing ¯rms support innovation [Cooper et al. (2004)]. Other research described by Cooper 1250041-2

Enhancing Product Innovation Through a Customer-Centered, Lean Framework

[2005] has shown that new-to-the-world type products and new product lines make up 30% of all new product launches and represent as much as 60% of the most successful products. Tried-and-true practices for the application of lean principles to more pathbreaking innovations, for which a vast amount of learning has to take place as the project moves ahead, are currently lacking. Nonetheless, it is believed that the lean concept can be a success factor in today's global market once its application to innovation practices is better understood. Moving lean out from the factory °oor up the value chain and further out into innovation e®orts that involve the entire enterprise, requires rede¯nition of the lean concept due to a shift in the understanding of notions related to value, product, process, tasks and people. Given the fundamental di®erences between manufacturing and new-product development, it is of interest to determine whether a lean framework can be established to advance innovation by gaining more insight into the customer's value de¯nition. Therefore, the e®orts herein will be focused on the numerator in Eq. (1): perceived product bene¯ts, as represented by numerous interrelated, multi-dimensional characteristics (features, functions, performance, attributes, properties, etc.) as well as meanings of a product in everyday life [Verganti (2009)]. The latter constitutes the more complex and pre-competitive part of customer value since qualitative and emotional characteristics play an increasingly important role in the purchasing decision of today's customers, who are often motivated by the desire for an experience rather than a product. De¯ning customer value means understanding the underlying factors associated with di®erent product bene¯ts, realizing that these are continuously changing and that they are typically of an implicit or tacit nature. The scope of the present paper includes methods and practices applicable to extending lean product development practices beyond lead time and cost. In addition, it explores whether such methods and practices are applicable to the creation of more di®erentiated, innovative products, products that drive up pro¯t margins through increased market price rather than reduced production cost (see Fig. 1(b)). The overall objectives are summarized as follows: .

To explore fundamental aspects associated with the application of lean concepts to early-phase innovation processes. . To establish a lean framework that is applicable to the development of (semi-) radical product innovations. . Using a multidimensional case study, to determine to what extent user-centered innovation methods, as applied within the established lean product innovation framework, are applicable to the creation of more di®erentiated products. 2. Fundamental Aspects of the Lean Concept 2.1. Lean in a historical perspective After World War II, Japanese companies adapted and re¯ned existing manufacturing principles to more e®ectively produce advanced, innovative products. Many of these e®orts were deeply rooted in earlier theories and practices from 1250041-3


Europe and the US (e.g. Henry Ford's assembly lines and mass production concept). However, the enhanced techniques used by the Japanese made it possible for smalllot products to be produced by mass production principles. This technology-driven transformation enabled Japanese companies to outperform many of their Western competitors. Toyota Motor Corporation was one of the most successful companies in this regard. The Toyota Production System (TPS) has been the basis for what is known today as lean manufacturing [Haque and Moore (2002)]. TPS has a strong focus on reducing waste through the principles of continuous °ow and just-in-time, recognizing that only a small fraction of the total time spent in processing a product contributes to value for the end customer. Another signi¯cant aspect of the foundation of TPS is the pursuit of perfection, driven by the desire to consistently create the best for customers. Originally, lean was considered a set of tools to assist in the identi¯cation and elimination of waste and in the improvement of quality, as well as in the reduction of production time and cost. In the mid 1990s, the lean concept was broadened to encompass the lean automotive factory and later the lean factory, with focus on cost, quality and delivery. In the late 1990s, the lean notion was further extended to the lean enterprise. During the past decade lean has been introduced to new areas such as product innovation, product development, engineering, design, (agile) software development, accounting, etc. [Sobek et al. (1999); Morgan (2002); Liker (2003); Morgan and Liker (2006); Ward (2007)]. More recently, the lean notion has also been used in connection with management and leadership, health care, military and other public and governmental operations. Over a 20-year period, the focus of lean has shifted from elimination of waste to cost, quality and delivery, and then further to customer value. Still applicable today are the ¯ve generic lean principles presumed essential to a lean organization. They were introduced by Womack and Jones [1996] in their book Lean Thinking, and include: (1) De¯ne value from the point of view of the customer, including the understanding of direct customers' and intermediate customers' requirements and needs as well as trade-o®s required in delivering value to the di®erent customers; (2) Identify the steps in the value stream and eliminate any steps that do not create value (wasteful steps); (3) Create an e®ective and continuous °ow of value, eliminating interruptions and waste while reducing lead times to make processes more predictable; (4) Create pull by letting customers pull value from the next upstream activity (as in just-in-time production); (5) Create perfection through continuous improvement and learning as the above steps are implemented.

2.2. Previous lean models The application of lean principles outside the original scope of production is not straightforward, and the use of the concepts and tools may even be questionable. For example, the dynamic and complex process of new-product development involves maximizing value, rather than eliminating waste. This may include adding activities 1250041-4


rather than removing activities. Moreover, in the fairly linear process of manufacturing, waste is closely associated with physical objects and doing unnecessary activities (\the seven wastes") when transforming (raw) materials into products for the customers. In new-product development, on the other hand, the work product is not a physical object, but information, and inability to create value usually stems from doing necessary activities with the wrong input [Browning (2003)]. Furthermore, variability is the appointed enemy in lean manufacturing, whereas in new-product development, variability is a means to generate knowledge that reduces the risk of taking new products to the market, and a means to generate those very few exceptional opportunities [Terwiesch and Ulrich (2009)]. The Toyota Product Development System (TPDS) has been the model for what many, rightly or wrongly, consider synonymous with Lean Product Development [Morgan and Liker (2006)]. Using the 13 TPDS principles identi¯ed by Morgan and Liker [2006] as a reference, Table 1 compares lean product development models described in a number of signi¯cant publications. Although the publications under consideration have di®erent starting points and foci, covering a 15-year period, common characteristics are recognizable among many of them. Most importantly, customer de¯ned value appears to be a key characteristic in lean product development identi¯ed by all authors except Cooper [1998]. He, on the other hand, takes a more conventional business approach, using maximum pro¯t (relative to investment) as the primary driver [Cooper (2005)]. Due to the emphasis on customer value, the interpretation and °ow-down of customer desires into activities that result in new solutions that are successfully commercialized in the marketplace, is a fundamental part of a lean innovation system. In fact, the single most important principle in lean is the understanding of value all the other principles are secondary and based on this ¯rst principle. Inability to identify and interpret what customers actually want and need can consequently become disastrous to a company, leading to non-pro¯table value streams. As seen from the results summarized in Table 1, the chief engineer system and organization for cross-functional integration as well as the development of a culture for engineering excellence and continuous improvement are key characteristics cited in a majority of the reviewed publications. According to Kennedy [2008], however, implementing a set of selected key principles is not su±cient to create an e®ective lean innovation system. What makes the individual principles work concurrently together as a system, is the establishment of an organization-speci¯c culture to create, capture, generalize, standardize and reuse knowledge throughout the organization. A lean enterprise is for that reason one that spends more time and resources on creating value in terms of re-usable knowledge [Ward (2007)]. Therefore, lean product development is commonly referred to as \knowledge-based product development" or \learning-¯rst product development" [Kennedy (2008)]. 2.3. A new lean product innovation model Drawing on Morgan and Liker's [2006] interpretations of the TPDS and contributions from other authors (see Table 1), combined with new thinking, views and 1250041-5

People

Process

Main ¯eld

1250041-6

8. Integration of suppliers into the PD system 9. Building in learning and continuous improvement 10. Culture supporting excellence and improvement

5. Development of a chief engineer system 6. Organization for functional expertise and cross functional integration 7. Development of high competence in engineers

Other characteristics in the area of Process

1. Customer de¯ned value 2. Front loading the PD process (set-based) 3. Leveled PD process °ow work leveling 4. Standardization for predictable outcomes

Key principle

W

W

W

W

W

W

[Karlsson and [Haque and Åhlstr€om [Cooper Moore [Browning [Kennedy (1996)] (1998)] (2002)] (2003)] (2003)]

W

W

W

W

W

[Baines [Morgan and et al. Liker [Huthwaite [Kennedy [Yoshimura (2006)] (2006)] (2007)] (2008)] (2009)]

[Fiore (2005)]

Table 1. Key characteristics in di®erent lean product development models found in the literature.

W

W

[Schipper and Swets (2010)]


11. Adaption of technology to ¯t people and process

Other characteristics in the area of People

Key principle

1250041-7

W

W

W

Note: Symbols: full match/included; W partly match/included; (blank) no match.

Other characteristics in the area of Tools & Technology

Tools & 12. Alignment of organization Technology through simple, visual communication 13. Use of powerful tools for standardization and organizational learning

Main ¯eld

(Continued )

[Karlsson and [Haque and Åhlstr€om [Cooper Moore [Browning [Kennedy (1996)] (1998)] (2002)] (2003)] (2003)]

Table 1.

[Fiore (2005)]

W

W

W

[Baines [Morgan and et al. Liker [Huthwaite [Kennedy [Yoshimura (2006)] (2006)] (2007)] (2008)] (2009)]

W

[Schipper and Swets (2010)]



Fig. 2.

A proposed product innovation model [Welo et al. (2010)].

practices from other sources, Welo et al. [2010] have proposed a new model for lean product innovation practices. The model, shown in Fig. 2, consists of six core components (principles), each with di®erent sub-characteristics, forming the basis of a lean product innovation assessment tool. Each of the core components of the model will be presented in brief below. 2.3.1. Lean culture Lean is part of a system including all organizational levels and functional areas of the enterprise. A lean culture builds on mutual trust and respect, and responsibility is typically delegated to the level closest to the problem. In a lean culture, there is a strong desire to identify and solve problems, both small and large, on a daily basis and at the root cause, through a cycle of learning and reuse of knowledge. Learning through experimentation and outside-the-box thinking, balancing reliability and validity, is looked upon as necessary for the creation of innovative products, and with this comes the acceptance of failure. Simplicity is a major part of a lean culture, and visual communication is an important means to make product innovation more tangible as well as to create awareness, involvement and commitment in those involved in the project. 2.3.2. Customer value To maximize value in new-product development, it is essential to get the right information to the right place at the right time. Due to the fundamental di®erences between manufacturing and new-product development discussed above, the separation of value from waste is signi¯cantly more complicated in the latter case. One way of separating valuable activities from waste in product development, however, is to ask 1250041-8


the question: Does a speci¯c activity increase con¯dence in the product concept so that the customer is willing to pay more for it after the completion of the activity than before? Another useful approach is delineated by Mascitelli [2007], who de¯nes value as àny activity or task that transforms a new product design (or essential deliverables needed to produce it) in such a way that the customer is both aware of it and willing to pay for it'. All other activities are considered non-added value or waste. 2.3.3. Management, infrastructure and organization The product development system and infrastructure in a lean organization should establish a foundation for continuous improvement and standardization. Several factors go into making this possible: a clear technology, product and design reuse strategy; resource and workload planning (e.g. front-loading of resources early in the product development process); leadership that clearly delegates responsibilities and de¯nes roles; product leadership and portfolio management that initiates a balanced portfolio with clearly de¯ned core and strategic products. Establishing a stable work environment and infrastructure is a prerequisite for experimentation as a means to innovation. Additionally, management at all levels should focus on quality of deliverables, rather than activities and tasks, since most of the overall value is embedded in the former.

2.3.4. Standardization In lean product innovation, standardization is not a means to enforce discipline. Instead the goal is to establish a foundation for more experimentation, variability testing (set-based) and innovation. This is done by implementing a uni¯ed knowledge standard for multi-disciplinary work with the overall goal of reducing risks, errors, variability in the product innovation process, and time spent on repetitive work. (Customer) value and not rigid corporate processes and procedures should drive standardization. The focus is on standardization of output deliverables related to product performance and characteristics, rather than on tasks enforcing a rigid structure of activities between phase gates or integration points.

2.3.5. Knowledge As opposed to a traditional business philosophy with focus only on the product value stream, the lean philosophy also emphasizes a separate value stream for organizational knowledge that goes across innovation projects. This implies that value is related not only to the product, but also to the creation of knowledge and learning a permanent competitive advantage as markets, technologies and competitors are continually changing. In order for companies to fully utilize this competitive advantage, a company-wide and collective mindset for organizational learning (generating, capturing, standardizing and visualizing knowledge for reuse) must be in place. This may include learning cycles (e.g. LAMDA [Ward (2007)]) at the project team level, either instead of or integrated with phase gate management 1250041-9


reviews, as a basis for project pace and information quality, and hence value creation within the enterprise. 2.3.6. Continuous improvement Pursuit of perfection involves an underlying belief that it is always possible to do better when it comes to performance, quality and cost. This is achieved through systematic work and continuous improvement of internal processes and operations over time. It is necessary to have commitment and understanding of continuous improvement throughout the entire organization. Additionally, the use of suitable productivity measures (performance indicators) in product innovation leverages the work of continuous improvement. 3. A Lean Product Innovation Framework 3.1. Background As discussed in the previous section, understanding customer value is an important factor within a lean, innovative enterprise. Furthermore, the customers' and users' role in product innovation is becoming increasingly important in today's highly competitive market. Over the past several years, innovation focus has shifted from technology-driven to design-driven and still further to more customer-driven and user-centered approaches. Although new-product introduction success rates have increased from 10% to 20% in this period [Gordon (2006)], it is believed that there is still an untapped potential to involve users more actively and systematically in the innovation process. A generic innovation process can be divided into four main stages, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The ¯rst stage includes the discovery and understanding of unmet needs. Solutions to those needs are found by exploitation and development of ideas during the second stage (commonly referred to as the invention phase). The most promising solution concepts are selected for further re¯nement and ultimately converted into a single product solution ready for development and industrialization. The fundamental task in the development (commercialization) stage is to generate information that collectively reduces the risk of producing and distributing the product in the marketplace. The last stage involves reaping the fruits of the innovation process as the product is distributed and gradually adopted in the marketplace, creating value for the customers, the company and other stakeholders. A pro¯table product is the output of a successful innovation process, meaning that the developed product creates value, i.e. it makes the lives of customers better and more enjoyable while providing sound ¯nancial returns to the company as a

Fig. 3. Main stages in the product innovation process. 1250041-10


foundation for sustainability, even beyond the business context. It should be noted that in an e®ective innovation process, the stages are not de¯ned as separate entities (with gates), but rather are seamlessly integrated into a myriad of interrelated activities with overlaps, iterations, experimentation and loopbacks throughout the entire process. Moreover, every company should develop and improve over time its own customized innovation system with roots in the company culture and business environment. Copying a system from others, or using consultants to design a system, can at best serve as input to the process of creating a system unique to the speci¯c company. Figure 4 illustrates the developed framework for the lean product innovation process which will be further explained and demonstrated below (focusing on the ¯rst two stages). An e®ective innovation system implies that the company has a well-developed process to generate conceptual solutions to unmet needs among targeted customers. Moreover, the company must provide e±ciency in developing and commercializing the best possible solution within the context of its own business environment. This way, attractive products ones that provide immediate value to customers, as well as sustainable value creation for the company and other stakeholders (e.g. owners, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and society) will be created.

Fig. 4.

Developed framework for the lean product innovation process. 1250041-11


3.2. Step 1: Identify needs The ¯rst step in the lean product innovation process is to identify needs (top left box in Fig. 4). The problem in question is analyzed in-depth and a balance is found between the needs of the company and those of the customers: What does the customer actually need; what does the customer explicitly say that he wants; what customer needs can be determined through observation; what do experts say the customer will need (in the near future); and how can her desires be met. Numerous methods with di®erent characteristics are in use for gaining customer insight and identifying needs. They are appropriate in identifying di®erent types of information at varying knowledge depth, extending the entire scale from quantitative to qualitative methods (see Fig. 5). Table 2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of some of the most common methods reported in the literature. Several factors should be considered when choosing methods to identify customer needs (at the early stage of the innovation process): .

Customer information should be gathered by a combination of di®erent methods in order to elicit the most accurate information [Sanders (1999, 2002); Kuniavsky (2003)]; . The actual method(s) do(es) not really matter; what matters is knowing what type of information is needed and how to capture precisely this information [Ulwick (2005)]; . The method(s) must be adapted to each speci¯c problem or case and information (level) needed, considering key factors such as time and return of investment; . The method(s) should take into account functional and emotional customer desires as well as spoken and unspoken needs.

Fig. 5. An overview of methods for gaining di®erent types of customer information and knowledge. 1250041-12

Enhancing Product Innovation Through a Customer-Centered, Lean Framework Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of some common methods for identifying customer needs (based on Sanders [1999, 2000]; Kuniavsky [2003]). Method

Advantages

Disadvantages

Personal interview (What people say)

When done in person, the interviewee's behavior may tell as much as the spoken words. Possible to gather a lot of thorough information right from the source (the users). Easy to implement.

Interviewee may answer what is thought to be desired by the interviewer, may lack verbal skills or knowledge, may not be able to imagine the future, may not be able to express latent needs, may answer quickly without thinking. Takes time, one person at a time. Data interpretation may cause uncertainty.

Focus groups (What people say)

Quick method, inexpensive. May discover users' desires, experiences and priorities, and especially what people think about a speci¯c topic. Reveals group reactions to ideas.

People cannot verbally express latent needs. Chance of misinterpretation, e.g. interpretation of desires versus needs. Participants may be a®ected by others in the group. Impossible to numerically generalize to a larger population.

Survey (What people say)

Covers a large group of people. Can be measured statistically (quantitative type of research), to give very certain data. Suitable for revealing target audience makeup.

Thorough preparation necessary. Di±cult to discover latent needs. People lie and exaggerate, providing answers not strongly felt. Gives little data on extreme cases; focuses on the general. The data might be subject to bias.

Observation (What people do)

The product can be seen in use. Understanding actual behavior. The observer can ask questions while using product, analyzing user and product at the same time. Ability to reveal needs not expressed explicitly by user, latent needs. Creates a wide understanding of the problem that is being addressed.

Observer's presence may hinder natural behavior. Requires thorough planning, setup, signi¯cant resources. Usually one person is observed at a time. Requires dedicated users in the process. Interpretation of data is needed after observations. Interpretation may lead to variability. Not suitable for new and unfamiliar product types. Usually involves only a small sample of users.

Published information (Market research)

Cheap, e±cient, and easier than doing it oneself. Gives a di®erent perspective (not company's but someone else's).

Di±cult to ¯nd the exact information that is needed. May be even more di±cult to interpret it.

1250041-13

T. Welo, T. O. Olsen & M. Gudem Table 2. Method

What people make (Workshops)

(Continued )

Advantages

Disadvantages

Broader than company research. Tells how and why people want to use the product. Usually does not require too much effort from the user.

The fact that this kind of research may be broad often results in a more shallow kind of research. The research is not done by the company, so the quality of the data and the methods by which the data is collected need to be controlled. Seldom gives a picture of extreme cases, only general.

Useful for expression of thoughts, feelings, dreams and other things that are hard to express using words. Can uncover latent needs. Focus on the emotional level. Inspiration for product developers.

Di±cult to interpret the results. Less focus on the functionality of the product. Demanding process both for the user and the product developers who are creating the tools. Thorough preparation is necessary. Usually conducted on a small sample of users.

3.3. Step 2: Identify solutions The second step in the lean product innovation process is to identify solutions to the already identi¯ed needs (top right box in Fig. 4). Solutions (to unmet problems and needs) are generally identi¯ed based on interpretation and analysis of the information captured during the ¯rst step. Illustrating the second step is a target diagram denoted design palette (Fig. 6). In the bull's eye of the palette, the overall business strategy is found. Related to this is the strategy of the speci¯c product development project. The palette is divided into sectors (in this case, four sectors), each corresponding to a core value de¯ned through the business strategy. The core values should be the foundation of the new product project and the product solution. For the company involved in the case study in this paper, the de¯ned strategic areas are (see Fig. 6): .

Visual design; . Function and performance; . Health and environment; . Quality. Moving outwards from the black center of the palette, the exterior circles display a shift from product features and functions (hard, tangible characteristics) to user experience and emotions (softer, intangible characteristics), and even deeper meaning towards the outside of the diagram. This way of structuring customer and user information is based on Markowitz's hierarchy [Carlson and Wilmot 1250041-14


Fig. 6. Design palette aligning strategy, product, and user values.

(2006)], which was developed from Maslow's well-known hierarchy of needs (see Fig. 7). Markowitz emphasizes that when developing a new product, other product elements than the tangible ones, such as user experience, emotion and identity, are at least as important. He expresses that the better products touch customers' needs at multiple levels of the hierarchy. Therefore, to maximize customer bene¯ts, all the levels of the hierarchy should be part of the new product. The design palette expresses a new product concept in an overall context. Its purpose is to structure, communicate and visualize the ¯ndings to promote easy knowledge transfer within the product innovation team. Furthermore, it points out the design direction and aligns the information gained (identi¯ed customer and user needs) with the core strategic priorities and values of the company. 1250041-15


Selfactuali zation needs Esthetic needs

Deeper meaning

Cognitive needs

Emotions

Esteem needs Functions

Belongingness and love needs Safety needs

Product features Physiological needs (a) Fig. 7.

(b)

(a) Markowitz's hierarchy [Carlson and Wilmot (2006)]; (b) Maslow's hierarchy [Sanders (1992)].

3.4. Step 3: Commercialization & Step 4: Adoption and di®usion The third step in the innovation process is product development and commercialization (bottom right box in Fig. 4). Finally, the last step is adoption and di®usion, represented by an s-curve (bottom left box in Fig. 4). Here, the product is distributed in the marketplace and gradually adopted by customers, creating (steady) value for the customers, the company and other stakeholders.

4. Application of the Innovation Framework in an O±ce Chair Case Study 4.1. Background The ¯rst two stages in the proposed lean innovation framework will be demonstrated by a case study encompassing the development of an o±ce chair. The case study, conducted in Norway and Sweden from the summer of 2009 until the summer of 2010, was coordinated by a Scandinavian manufacturer of premium brand o±ce furniture. This company, which strongly emphasizes the development of innovative, healthy and environmentally-friendly o±ce chair solutions with high quality and a modern Scandinavian design, stated the goal of the user study to be: `to create a good foundation of end user understanding for the development of a new o±ce chair and to do a deep dive into end users' (underlying) problems in order to reveal unidenti¯ed need(s) which can germinate into a substantial innovation in o±ce chairs'. Involved in the case study were also a Swedish design consultancy and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). As a part of NTNU's research presented herein, the case study's overall research objective becomes twofold: Firstly, using a multi-method strategy to gain new insight into the desires of o±ce chair users (The outcome will be used as input for the design and development of a new generation product outside the research project 1250041-16


Fig. 8. Steps in carrying out the case study.

conducted by NTNU). Secondly, to determine the applicability of the di®erent usercentered innovation methodologies in terms of their ability to discover novel information that ultimately could lead to di®erentiated products. The main process steps that were carried out in this case study are illustrated in Fig. 8. The dark grey boxes are associated with identifying needs, while the light grey box represents identifying solutions to the needs. Some of the details associated with each of the process steps are summarized in Appendix A. 4.2. Identifying customer needs A combination of di®erent methods for identifying customer needs was chosen in order to gain the most accurate information (in accordance with Sanders' [1992] `converging perspective'). The ¯rst part of the user study included three separate methods utilized by three separate groups, all with the purpose of establishing improved understanding of customer desires. The various methods included personal interviews and observations of o±ce chair users in their working environment. In addition, workshops were held in which users were given tasks to solve individually or in groups (participatory design [Sanders (2002)]). The information generated from the di®erent methods was analyzed and shared among the project teams, providing the basis for the next part of the user study. This part included a web based survey which was designed to focus on one of the ¯elds that the users had revealed to be more important in the ¯rst part of the study. The survey involved a signi¯cantly larger number of participants (192) as compared to the ¯rst part (52). The demographic details of the participants for the various methods applied in the user study are given in Table 3 along with the questions and tasks given to the participants. The questions and tasks were generally created by the researchers conducting the user studies based on previous or discovered knowledge of o±ce chair users and existing products. Before implementation, all the methods were pilot tested with a small sampling of o±ce chair users. This was done to determine whether the methods produced consistent results (i.e. testing the reliability of the methods) and whether the methods measured what they were supposed to (i.e. testing the validity of the methods). 1250041-17

T. Welo, T. O. Olsen & M. Gudem Table 3. Questions, tasks and demographic details from the user studies. Method Method 1: Interview and observation

Workshop

Method 2: Homework

Interview Card sorting

Chair trial

Method 3: Interview and observation

Paper based survey

Examples of questions and tasks

Demographic details

When you arrive at work, what do you feel? 20 participants (55% female, 45% male). 11 di®erent companies. (50% open What do you need to do a good job? plan o±ce, 50% closed o±ce). AverWhat are your typical tasks? age age: 42.65 years. What do you think of your workspace? Can you show me how you work? What do you think of your o±ce chair? (What do you think of the armrests on your o±ce chair?) Make a moodboard to describe your ideal workspace. Act out how you work and adjust the o±ce equipment to the situation, both when you work alone and work with others. Take pictures of your workspace and seating 10 participants (60% female, 40% male). positions, personal items in your work2 di®erent companies (open plan of¯ce). Average age: 51.6 years. space, objects you ¯nd beautiful, objects you ¯nd ugly. (Question related to the homework) What do you think of your work space? Sort pictures (about 60) into these categories: comfort and attractiveness, discomfort, lumpy and heavy, slender and thin. Of the ¯ve di®erent o±ce chairs in front of you, without trying any out, which one would you choose and why? 22 participants (45.45% female, 54.55% How is the workspace set up? male). Most people (36.36%) 1730 How do you like your workspace? years of age. Most people (59.09%) What is the job of an o±ce chair? spent on average 68 hs in an o±ce What do you think of your o±ce chair? chair per day. How do you want an o±ce chair to make you, and others around, feel when you use it? Can you show me how you use your o±ce chair for a given task? (Mainly ¯ve-point Likert scale questions on importance and satisfaction of statements from interviews and observations). Demographic questions: gender, age, average hours in an o±ce chair per day. The o±ce chair hinders strain injury. The o±ce chair has a hard seating cushion. The o±ce chair is robust. The o±ce chair feels stable and sturdy to sit in. The o±ce chair provides good support to my body.

1250041-18

Enhancing Product Innovation Through a Customer-Centered, Lean Framework Table 3. (Continued ) Method

Examples of questions and tasks

Demographic details

The o±ce chair makes me e±cient in work. The o±ce chair matches the rest of the o±ce furnishings. The o±ce chair has a traditional look. The o±ce chair has a neutral look. The o±ce chair hinders static work. The o±ce chair gives me su±cient reach. It is easy to adjust the o±ce chair according to my needs. The o±ce chair has a functional look. The o±ce chair is minimalistic. The o±ce chair prevents me from feeling exhausted/tired. It is easy to get close enough to the desk while using the o±ce chair. The o±ce chair is personal. The o±ce chair promotes variation in seating position. Method 4: Web based survey

175 participants (39.2% female, 60.8% (Questions created based on ¯ndings from male) (58.6% open plan o±ce, 33.3% the previous methods). closed o±ce). Most people (58.6%) Demographic questions: gender, age, aver1829 years of age. Most people age hours in an o±ce chair per day. (49.7%) spent on average 68 hs in What characterizes an o±ce chair suitable an o±ce chair per day. for your work (an o±ce chair with a functional look)? (Open ended question) What characterizes an o±ce chair with a functional look? (Multiple choice question). (six-point Likert scale questions for ¯ve di®erent o±ce chairs' pictures:) The o±ce chair looks ergonomic. The o±ce chair looks comfortable. The o±ce chair looks like it can be adjusted to my body and working postures. The o±ce chair has a neutral look. The o±ce chair has a slim and slender look. The o±ce chair looks sturdy. The o±ce chair has a functional look.

For the analysis and interpretation of the quantitative information from the user studies, statistical methods were employed. For example, the web based survey utilized the QuestBack software, which was capable of providing frequency tables and bar graphs, as well as means, medians and standard deviations from the responses. An Excel add-in made it possible to conduct correlation and signi¯cance analyses. The interpretation and systematization of the more qualitative types of information (i.e. information from the interviews, observations and workshops) was more di±cult. For example, the data from the interviews, in the form of notes, was coded, sorted and, whenever possible, tabulated, in order to reveal potential trends 1250041-19


among the o±ce chair users. The data from the tasks the participants were asked to complete (i.e. moodboard creation and card sorting) was at times impossible to analyze and interpret. Consequently, it was concluded that such information was primarily suitable as a source of inspiration for the project team in the product development process. 4.3. Identifying solutions to customer needs The overall ¯ndings were organized in a design palette (Fig. 9). The design palette was created with a strong basis in the voice-of-customer (depicted as white labels with lower case letters). The labels were placed in the particular circle sector (visual design, function and performance, health and environment, or quality) and at the distance from the bull's eye (product features, functions, emotions, or deeper meaning) that best categorized them.

Fig. 9. Design palette including voice-of-customer (white labels with lower case letters) and possible product solutions (white labels with upper case letters). 1250041-20


The great majority of wants and needs expressed by the participants included characteristics associated with product features such as adjustment possibilities, armrests, wheels, headrest, (tall) back rest, and (soft) cushions. However, such features are already common in present products, and are therefore not considered important di®erentiation factors for new product platforms. In other words, what users say about desirability and product features is mainly tied to their experience with past products, and less to their imagination and ability to think outside the box. Hence, paying (too) much attention to user statements would lead to ¯ne-tuning of characteristics associated with existing features, producing a trend towards incremental innovation. A less vulnerable strategy would be to place more e®ort on using the external categories in the palette (functions, emotions, and deeper meaning) as a source and inspiration to the project team, to identify novel product opportunities, ones that could turn out to be truly innovative responses to the more tacit desires of users (shown as white labels with upper case letters). 4.4. Discoveries and ¯ndings One apparent desire strongly emphasized by the users was many, visible and userfriendly adjustment possibilities. Di®erent wants associated with features such as armrests, wheels, headrest and tall back rest were also frequently mentioned by several users. Comfort was commonly associated with di®erent features such as a tall backrest, padded cushions and cushions shaped to the human body. People were also concerned about the chair's functions and its capacity to be adjusted to the human body while simultaneously allowing for a °exible, comfortable and varying seating posture. The visual design of the o±ce chair was, somewhat surprisingly, considered less important. One cluster of users preferred an o±ce chair with a neutral (black) color, whereas another cluster preferred a colorful and lively chair. Furthermore, multiple users searched for a balance between a chair with a slender, simple and minimalistic design, and one that looks robust, stable and sturdy. If a speci¯c solution to the users' needs and desires as evident in this user study were to be created, it would be an o±ce chair fairly similar to existing products on the market, not a novel product that would take everyone by surprise. In the creation of more di®erentiated products, it is obvious that user input needs to be taken to a higher level. This should be to a level that incorporates the future, not only the past and the present (where the users' minds are focused), because it is here that the solution will generate new value to those users. Seen through the eyes of a designer, however, many of the identi¯ed desires point in the direction of a more personal o±ce chair: one that can be more uniquely ¯tted and designed to the individual's body, working postures and preferences for design. Moreover, the o±ce chair could have cushions molded to the user's body and cushion covers that are removable and available with personally designed patterns and colors. Some solution ideas are quoted with upper case letters on white labels in Fig. 9. 1250041-21


With the business strategy, product characteristics and user desires aligned in the design palette, the next pre-competitive step in the innovation process is to generate innovative concepts. Successively, the solution domain should be reduced into a viable solution, representing tradeo®s between opportunities in terms of product performance and meanings, and commercial, technical and knowledge risks. The research results provided herein may imply that user-centered innovation is not unreservedly applicable to creating more innovative products. It was clearly evident that (o±ce chair) users were engrossed with existing solutions. They focused on the past and present, e.g. giving statements such as Ì want an o±ce chair with a tall back rest, removable armrests and ¯ve wheels! ' The average user's lack of visionary and imaginative abilities in this regard can hardly be expressed more directly than with Henry Ford's famous quote: Ìf I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.' This topic is also discussed in broad terms more recently by Huthwaite [2007]. However, a user-centered approach is an essential component in the creation of di®erentiated, successful products. These approaches provide valuable information, right from the source, which ultimately could lead to more desirable products in the marketplace. On the other hand, and as seen through this case study, their application is far from a guarantee of more valid products. In order to increase the probability of success, it is therefore essential to combine and integrate user-centered innovation with internal interpretations of customer and user values in a new, future setting that is less limited by the (lack of) foresight of users. In other words, the ability to combine outsidein and insideout approaches is an important asset in making innovation practices more sustainable. Such a mixed perspective to innovation has much in common with what several authors and researchers, from di®erent starting points and view points, have denoted `design thinking' [Kelley (2005); Verganti (2009); Martin (2009); Brown (2009)]. 5. Concluding Remarks De¯ning customer value is the key principle of lean product innovation practices. Understanding the true bene¯t of products, however, is complicated, since value as perceived by the customer is composed of a myriad of quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Customers frequently struggle to express feelings, dreams and perceptions, and they are often engrossed in the past and present, lacking an imaginative and futuristic perspective. Therefore, a sound understanding of what brings value to targeted customers, along with an excellent system for converting unmet customer and user needs into concepts that gradually evolve into a commercially successful product (i.e. a product that brings excitement to customers and value to the company and other stakeholders), represents a pre-competitive capability required to succeed in today's market. The lean product innovation framework provided herein seeks to integrate the understanding of true customer value with overall business strategies and product innovation practices. The purpose is to create a pathway towards more di®erentiated products, hence breaking the pattern of incremental innovations and price reductions. 1250041-22


Based on the present investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn: .

The application of lean principles in product innovation calls for di®erent interpretations and practices than in manufacturing, due to the former's systemic, interrelated and intangible nature. Nevertheless, the common denominator in lean product innovation practices is combining the understanding of customer value with the capture, transfer and reuse of knowledge to improve the quality of information (the work product) that guides the product concept in the direction of the needs of targeted customers; . A four stage framework for a lean(er) product innovation process has been proposed. The framework is primarily based on combining common innovation practices with the more important core components of lean when applied to product innovation; . The applicability of the framework was demonstrated through a collaborative case study of a new premium o±ce chair. The study involved a multi-method strategy for identifying customer needs and a visual design palette to align the needs at di®erent depths with company strategy and focus areas. The case study showed that although user-centered innovation is a necessary strategic element, it will not unreservedly lead to the creation of more di®erentiated products, since users are engrossed with the past and present, hence lacking foresight. It is ¯nally concluded that a combination of an outside–in approach with an inside–out approach is a sustainable innovation strategy that could ultimately lead to more di®erentiated products. What should be kept in mind, however, is that the proposed lean innovation framework has only been tested through a single case study for a speci¯c product with participants selected by the researchers or by people acquainted with the researchers. Moreover, resource constraints allowed for only the ¯rst steps in the innovation process to be thoroughly investigated. In the future, these limitations can be reduced and the research quality strengthened by conducting additional case studies for other types of products and applying alternative methods for identifying customer needs, with more randomly selected participants. This may provide new knowledge and, ultimately, recommendations as to which types of methods are applicable to which types of products in which stage of the innovation process. Another suggestion would be to extend the research concept into development of ideas and product solutions based on results from the user study to determine the applicability of the framework in practice. Such a feasibility test should preferably be done by piloting the framework in multiple companies across di®erent businesses. Of particular interest from a research point of view would the documentation of e®ects over time, using carefully chosen metrics for innovation success (in accordance with the lean models promoting continuous improvement).

References Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Williams, G. M. and Greenough, R. (2006). State-of-the-art in lean design engineering: A literature review on white collar lean. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220, 9: 15391547. 1250041-23


Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design. HarperCollins Publishers, New York. Browning, T. R. (2003). On customer value and improvements in product development processes. Systems Engineering, 6, 1: 4961. Carlson, C. R. and Wilmot, W. W. (2006). Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. Crown Business, New York. Cooper, R. G. (1998). Benchmarking new product performance: Results of the best practices study. European Management Journal, 16, 1: 117. Cooper, R. G. (2005). Product Leadership: Pathways to Pro¯table Innovation, 2nd edn. Basic Books, New York. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices I. Research Technology Management, 47, 1: 3143. Fiore, C. (2005). Accelerated Product Development Combining Lean and Six Sigma for Peak Performance. The Productivity Press, New York. Gautam, N. and Singh, N. (2008). Lean product development: Maximizing the customer perceived value through design change (redesign). International Journal of Production Economics, 114: 313332. Gordon, J. (2006). Returning insight to the customer. Stagnito's New Products Magazine. December Issue. Haque, B. and Moore, M. J. (2002). Characteristics of lean product introduction. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 2, 3/4: 378401. Huthwaite, B. (2007). The Rules of Innovation. Institute for Lean Innovation, Michigan. Karlsson, C. and Åhlstr€om, P. (1996). The di±cult path to lean product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13: 283294. Kelley, T. (2005). The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO's Strategies for Defeating the Devil's Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. Currency Doubleday, New York. Kennedy, M. N. (2003). Product Development for the Lean Enterprise: Why Toyota's System is Four Times More Productive and How You Can Implement It. The Oaklea Press, Virginia. Kennedy, M. N. (2008). Learning First Product Development: Understanding Implementation Principles. Lean PD seminar and workshop at IVF, Gothenburg, Sweden. Kennedy, M. N., Harmon, K. and Minnock, E. (2008). Ready, Set, Dominate: Implement Toyota's Set Based Learning for Product Development. The Oaklea Press, Virginia. Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco. Liker, J. K. (2003). The Toyota Way 14 Management Principles Form the World's Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York. Martin, R. (2009). The Design of Business. Harvard Business School Publishing, Massachusetts. Mascitelli, R. (2007). The Lean Product Development Guidebook. Technology Perspectives, California. Morgan, J. M. (2002). High performance product development: A systems approach to a lean product development process. PhD thesis, University of Michigan. Morgan, J. M. and Liker, J. K. (2006). The Toyota Product Development System Integrating People, Technology and Process. Productivity Press, New York. Nakagawa, T. (2009). Running the numbers on innovation success and failure, Blog Tech, [online]. Available at http://www.straight.com/article-242874/running-numbers-innovation-success-and-failure [accessed on 07 June 2010]. Sanders, E. B.-N. (1992). Converging perspectives: Product development research for the 1990s. Design Management Journal, 3, 4: 4954. Sanders, E. B.-N. (1999). Postdesign and Participatory Culture. In Proceedings of Useful and Critical: The Position of Research in Design. University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

1250041-24


Sanders, E. B.-N. (2000). Generative tools for codesigning. Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000, eds. S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball and A. Woodcock. SpringerVerlag, London. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2002). From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches. Design and the Social Sciences: Making Connections, ed. J. Frascara. Taylor & Francis, London. Schipper, T. and Swets, M. (2010). Innovative Lean Development: How to Create, Implement and Maintain a Learning Culture Using Fast Learning Cycles. Productivity Press, New York. Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C. and Liker, J. K. (1999). Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, 40, 2: 6782. Terwiesch, C. and Ulrich, K. (2009). Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities. Harvard Business School Publishing, Massachusetts. Ulwick, A. (2005). What Customers Want: Using Outcome-Driven Innovation to Create Breakthrough Products and Services. McGraw-Hill, New York. Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press, Boston. Ward, A. C. (2007). Lean product and process Development. Lean Enterprise Institute Inc., Massachusetts. Welo, T., Gudem, M., Tonje, O. O. and Kristensen, K. S. (2010). User-focused innovation methods within a lean framework. XXI ISPIM Conference, Bilbao, Spain. Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Free Press, New York. Yoshimura, T. (2009). Lean product development from inside Toyota & How Toyota attains excellent quality. JMAC Scandinavia 10 year anniversary seminar, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Appendix A. Table A.1. Case study details. Task

How

What

Research planning

Set the objectives of the research. De¯ne goals and scope.

Apply di®erent methods to identify customer needs for development of a new and improved, innovative o±ce chair.

Research designing 1

Specify research methods. De¯ne research sampling. Develop questionnaire.

Method 1: Exploratory research: Interview and observations (30 min); Workshops (functional tasks with case study and acting out a scenario or emotional and esthetic tasks with mood boards and materials and colors) (100 min). 20 participants, 2 conductors per interview. Questionnaire topics: Work space in general, in addition to the o±ce chair; Mainly functional, but also emotional and esthetic. Method 2: Exploratory research: Homework (participants take pictures of given topics); Individual interview (15 min.); Card sorting (25 min.); Chair trial (10 min.) 10 participants, 2 conductors per interview.

1250041-25

T. Welo, T. O. Olsen & M. Gudem Table A.1. (Continued ) Task

How

What Questionnaire topics: Feelings perceptions and dreams, in addition to the work space in general and the o±ce chair; Mainly emotional and esthetic focus. Method 3: Exploratory research: Interview and observation; Paper based survey. 12 interview participants, additionally 10 survey participants, 1 conductor. Questionnaire topics: Mainly the o±ce chair; Both functional and emotional and esthetic focus.

Field work 1

Implement the designed methods.

Method 1: Individual interviews, including observation, were conducted in the participants' working environment. Some days later all participants were gathered for the workshop. Method 2: Homework was given to the participants two days before the interview session. This was used during the interview session, which included card sorting and chair trial, held at a suitable room at the participants' work location. Method 3: Individual interviews including observation were completed while the participants were sitting in their o±ce chairs. The survey, created based on the information from the interviews and observations, were sent out a week later and returned two days after.

Analysis 1

Edit, validate, code, tabulate, graph, interpret, and/or analyze the raw data collected from the participants of the user study.

Method 1: Notes, photographs, mood boards, scenario posters were used to create personas. Method 2: Notes, photographs, sound and video recordings were used for discussions and inspiration. Method 3: Notes and photographs were used to reveal jobs and processes the o±ce chair is used for and the participants' desired outcomes.

Findings 1

Summarize the captured, important information from the user studies, to base the further research upon.

The o±ce chair does not give good enough body support. The o±ce chair does not make the user °exible enough. The o±ce chair does not look functional enough; too esthetic looking chairs are not ergonomic, functional looking chairs relates to e®ective working. It is too di±cult to adjust the o±ce chair according to the user's needs. O±ce chair users are not too engaged in their o±ce chair.

1250041-26

Enhancing Product Innovation Through a Customer-Centered, Lean Framework Table A.1. (Continued ) Task

How

What

Research designing 2

Specify research methods. De¯ne research sampling. Develop questionnaire.

Method 4: Descriptive research: Web based survey. Target population: Scandinavian o±ce chair users in both private and public o±ce environment; Sampling frame: approximately 2,000,000 Norwegian o±ce workers; Sampling methods: non-probability sampling; convenience and judgment sampling; Sample size: 192 for 50% response rate, 10% sampling error and 95% con¯dence. Questionnaire topics: What is an o±ce chair with a functional appearance; Age, gender, average number of hours in an o±ce chair daily, type of work.

Field work 2

Implement the designed method.

Emails including links to the survey were sent out to the potential respondents list. Five days later email reminders of the survey were sent out. Five days later, the survey was closed. All collected information from the respondents was stored in .ppt, xls, and .doc ¯les

Analysis 2

Edit, validate, code, tabulate, graph, interpret, and/or analyze the raw data collected from the participants of the user study.

Removing of inappropriate and/or missing data. Coding and sorting of data from open ended questions. Construction of frequency tables and bar charts. Calculation of means, medians and standard deviations. Correlation and signi¯cance analysis.

Research ¯ndings

Summarize the captured, important information from the user studies, to base the further steps in the product innovation process upon.

Create design palette to communicate and visualize the information.

Biography Torgeir Welo is professor in Mechanical Engineering at Department of Engineering Design and Materials, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Norway. He holds a PhD within Structural Engineering on plastic behavior of aluminum alloy structures. Welo's experience includes applied research within product and production engineering, materials technology and metal forming followed by 12 years industrial experience in di®erent research, technology and product management positions in the automotive industry in US and Europe. His current research topics include metal forming, particularly bending of aluminum pro¯les, and associated technology and product development. Over the past several years, he has also been heavily involved in research projects on product development processes (Lean/Knowledge-Based Product Development), focusing mainly on the 1250041-27


interplay between customer/user, design, function and performance, and manufacturability as an important enabler for value creation and, hence, innovation. Tonje Overvik Olsen recently received her Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Her specialization was Product Development and Materials Engineering. Currently, she is working as a research assistant at NTNU, Department of Engineering Design & Materials, focusing on the investigation of product innovation processes and the maximizing of customer value, in accordance with lean principles.

1250041-28