Dissertation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PREFACE

Clarification of ambiguity is a key role of concept development as an idea is turned into a sound concept. This role that falls upon concept development teams has grown more difficult. Technologies change rapidly; new markets come and go. Responsibilities traditionally addressed later in the product development cycle need to be addressed earlier. Reorganizations constantly change the players involved in concept development. New best practices and the latest management fads show up faster than can be adopted. How much longer can this upheaval that increases ambiguity continue without hindering innovation?

Ambiguity mitigation in the concept development (CD) phase and its impact on innovation is the focus of this study. An innovative approach to studying ambiguity mitigation is made possible by going inside a concept development team to see through their eyes the challenges that are faced on a daily basis.

In this executive summary, an introduction (section 1.1) is followed by a call for research to understand ambiguity mitigation (section 1.2). Section 1.3 is an overview of the proposed research model and selected hypotheses. Section 1.4 introduces the case used to test the model and explains why the case is a revelatory one. Section 1.5 summarizes the research method. Section 1.6 summarizes the findings. Section 1.7 recaps the contribution of this research to the literature and to practice. The executive summary ends with a roadmap to the dissertation.

INTRODUCTION

New products are the lifeline of successful firms. Best practice firms surveyed in a 1995 Product Development and Management Association study expect over half of their sales to come from new products introduced within the past 3 years (Griffin, 1997). Many industries are increasingly dynamic, especially as greater integration with the supply chain is adopted (Fine, 1998). The pace of business is reflected by constant change, short production runs, and frequent new product introductions. The consequence has been a shrinkage of time for adjusting and learning which are necessary activities in concept development. An additional source of pressure on concept development teams is a growing recognition that innovation results from disruption in technology and organizational processes (Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). Less time for adaptation and the introduction of more ambiguity has become the norm.

NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING AMBIGUITY MITIGATION

The importance of ambiguity mitigation in reaching an innovative outcome in the CD phase has drawn more attention lately. The drawback to current research practice is the indirect characterization of ambiguity that overlooks the specificity inherent in ambiguity during the CD phase. Researchers infer that ambiguity and its mitigation is being measured. As a consequence, current findings are limited to observations about conditions associated with successful new product development (NPD) projects, not an explanation of ambiguity mitigation. In contrast, a direct identification of ambiguity and its mitigation to be followed in this dissertation lays a foundation for understanding ambiguity. This can be done by examining the moderating effect from various characteristics of ambiguity and its mitigation.

RESEARCH MODEL OVERVIEW

Key to the proposed conceptual model is a more direct characterization ofambiguity and its mitigation achieved by studying deliberations about ambiguous topics. The strength of the relationship between Topic Mitigation and Concept Innovation may be affected by: a) different characterizations of ambiguity (Newness of Ambiguity and Aspect of Ambiguity), b) different characterization of ambiguity mitigation (Novelty of Mitigation), and c) nature of activity during deliberation (Nature of CD Activity). The research model is such a departure from current research practice that a fundamental question must be asked. If ambiguity mitigation is measured at the level of deliberation topics, is there a relationship between Topic Mitigation and Concept Innovation at the close of CD phase? If the relationship holds, do moderator variables that characterize a deliberation topic, such as Newness of Ambiguity, moderate theTopic Mitigation-to-Concept Innovation relationship? For example, does resolving deliberation topics with first time ambiguity lead to more innovative solutions than topics with pre-project ambiguity?

CASE STUDY OVERVIEW

A project called Simple, Low-cost, Innovative Concepts Engine (SLICE) was observed in-situ to gain a better understanding of the relationship between ambiguity mitigation and innovation in the concept development phase. SLICE was initiated in June 1997 to create an innovative product concept that would convince management to fund further development efforts. In addition, the product concept would be developed by an inter-organizational virtual team using computer-mediated collaborative tools. Change was inevitable in both adoption of technologies and the concept development process guaranteeing that ambiguity was going to be present. The SLICE case is distinct from all others for several reasons. Overcoming all odds, innovation was achieved despite its highly ambiguous setting. In addition, observing three cycles of concept development builds confidence that intentional mitigation of ambiguity was responsible for innovation, not other project factors. Finally, the unprecedented access given to researchers made it possible to study the inner workings of a virtual design team. The entire project spanned 99 virtual meetings. All of these distinctions makes this case a revelatory one.

RESEARCH METHOD OVERVIEW

The strength of this research lies in its use of qualitative data from a case study but analyzed at a level where sufficient quantitative data can be encoded for statistical analysis. Ethnography was used to build theory and collect raw qualitative data. Thematic analysis provided a systematic means of identifying deliberation topics and 5 encoding their characteristics. 78 deliberation topics were identified. Analysis of each deliberation was made to code the independent variable and four moderator variables. Three of these variables could be coded by independent researchers which was done with 80% inter-rater reliability. Coding of the remaining variables relied upon the context of the case drawing upon the data made available through ethnography. Statistical analysis was used for hypothesis testing drawing extensively from tests for categorical data analysis.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A direct relationship between Topic Mitigation and Concept Innovation in the CD phase was found. This supports the conclusion that ambiguity mitigation takes place at the level of a deliberation topic. In addition, Newness of Ambiguity, Aspect of Ambiguity, Novelty of Mitigation, and Nature of CD Activity were found to be moderator variables. Each moderator has three values except for Novelty of Mitigation which has two values.

Across these moderator values, effect of mitigation was found to be different for topics where mitigation resulted in coping with ambiguity (e.g., accommodating) versus completely resolving ambiguity (Figure 1-1). Six of the 11 values of these moderators mitigated by coping were found to hinder innovation with the others having no effect on innovation. Thus, no instance of coping aided innovation. In contrast, four of 11 moderator values mitigated by being resolved were found to aid innovation, with the other seven values having no effect on innovation. None of the resolved moderator values hindered innovation. The effects of moderators on innovation varied for different values of the moderator. For example, the moderator Aspect of Ambiguity had the values multiformity, fluidity and blurriness. Multiform ambiguity was found to hinder innovation when mitigation is by coping while aiding innovation when mitigation was by resolving. At the same time, ambiguous topics characterized by fluidity hindered innovation when mitigated by coping while having no effect on innovation when mitigation was by resolving.

*** Figure 1.1 is found in the pdf ***

When the values of these moderator variables are grouped by their effect on innovation, the effort to resolve ambiguity can be prioritized. For example, blurry ambiguity has no effect on innovation regardless of whether mitigation is by coping or resolving. In contrast, multiform ambiguity hindered innovation when coping is employed while aiding innovation when the ambiguity is resolved. Further examination of these disparate findings identified two patterns when considering two moderators, Newness of Ambiguity and Novelty of Mitigation. First, timing of ambiguity mitigation is important.

Previous research indicated that disruptive effect of ambiguity could lead to innovation. Results show that when ambiguity encountered for the first time is mitigated by coping, innovation is hindered. However, resolving the same ambiguous topic encountered later in the project (i.e., continuation ambiguity) led to innovation. Apparently, relearning that can result from the disruptive effect of ambiguity takes longer than a single cycle of concept development. Since mitigation by coping is intentional, this lack of innovation might be the consequence of mitigation within one’s existing reality rather than from a new reality needed for innovation. In addition, employing a new mitigation approach with first-time ambiguity appears to induce too much ambiguity preventing mitigation approaches from being effective.

The second time-related finding shows that new mitigation approaches led to innovation only when continuation ambiguity was resolved, not with first time ambiguity. Coping resulted when new mitigation approaches were used to mitigate first time ambiguity. Apparently, capacity to mitigate ambiguity is limited since with first time ambiguity and new mitigation approaches two kinds of ambiguity have to be simultaneously mitigated. The disparate effect on innovation from various moderator variables and the time-related patterns suggest a process model for mitigating ambiguity in deliberation topics. Ambiguity mitigation should consider the mitigation approach, degree of mitigation (i.e., coping or resolved), and the newness of the ambiguity (i.e., first-time).

CONTRIBUTION

Contribution to both research literature and practice is summarized here.

Contribution to Literature

A framework based on the deliberation topic made possible the examination of moderator variables which further characterizes ambiguity and the ambiguity mitigation approach. Two findings were inconsistent with the literature about NPD. First, an initial disruption of ambiguity does not stimulate relearning until after the same ambiguity is faced again during the project. Second, there is a limit to the extent of disruption that can still be mitigated and lead to innovation. This limit became evident when new mitigation approaches were employed with first-time ambiguity.

Furthermore, mitigation that resolves or copes with ambiguity has a different effect on innovation. The contribution of this research is the identification of moderators to the relationship between ambiguity mitigation and innovation during the CD phase. The moderator variables are Newness of Ambiguity, Aspect of Ambiguity, Novelty of Mitigation, and Nature of CD Activity. The direct characterization of ambiguity and its mitigation was made possible by examining individual deliberation topics. The extent that ambiguity was mitigated for each deliberation topic can then be measured by the variable Topic Mitigation shown in the center of Figure 1-1. This is a departure from previous research that has only offered an indirect and limited characterization of ambiguity based on effectiveness of best practices at the project level. The identification of these moderators made it possible to consider ambiguity mitigation as a process model. Ambiguity in deliberation topics appears to require mitigation in a sequence that considers the mitigation approach, degree of mitigation (i.e., coping or resolved), and the newness of the ambiguity (i.e., first-time).

Contribution to Practice

Contribution to practice comes primarily from observing that some values of moderator variables do not lead to innovation even if an ambiguous topic is mitigated by being resolved rather than by coping. Additional effort spent resolving rather than coping with a deliberation topic may not aid innovation. This means that managers can choose to allocate resources toward mitigating ambiguity that has the most impact to the project. For example, effort is well spent resolving topics with multiform ambiguity, new mitigation approaches, and formulation activities since these lead to innovation and also avoiding the hindrance of innovation. In contrast, any effort spent resolving blurry ambiguity, current mitigation approaches, reduction activities, and evaluation activities do not contribute to innovation. Additional contributions arise from specific elements of the topic mitigation model. The finding that mitigating individual deliberation topics leads to innovation calls for NPD projects to identify ambiguity specific to a deliberation topic. In the existing literature, ambiguity is commonly attributed to new technology in general. For example, a new technology that substitutes for an existing component may be avoided even though this part induces much less ambiguity than an existing technology that disrupts the product architecture. In addition, the topic mitigation model shows that innovation can be an outcome measure of the CD phase. One means of reinforcing the importance of innovation into CD activities is to establish design objectives that can be met only through innovative solutions. This does not mean ignoring market needs or pre-selecting technologies. The intent is to deliberately introduce ambiguity in areas where innovation might be sparked without debilitating the project. To summarize contribution to practice, ambiguity mitigation should be viewed as a management tool that can be used to allocate resources as well as enhance innovation or to avoid being hindered by ambiguity. The key is to recognize that all ambiguity is not the same and is specific to a deliberation topic.

ROADMAP FOR CHAPTERS

Chapter 2 establishes a background for formulating the problem that indirect characterization of ambiguity overlooks the specificity inherent in ambiguity during the CD phase. The basis for a direct characterization of ambiguity is established. Chapter 3 describes the research model and the variables that allow for a direct identification of ambiguity and its mitigation. Research questions and hypotheses are also developed. Chapter 4 provides details of the case and points out its uniqueness that justifies being called a revelatory case. Much of the qualitative content is found here in describing the technical and design characteristics of the case. Chapter 5 explains the research methods with particular emphasis on the coding process that identifies deliberation topics through thematic analysis. The end result is a sample of 78 topics. The statistical methods are also described. Chapter 6 provides the quantitative results. The focus is on identifying the effects from each value of the moderator variables. Chapter 7 begins with a summary of the findings. Observations are made in the discussion section with particular emphasis on the inter-relationship between moderator variables. Additional sections include contribution to the literature, contribution to practice, limitations of the study, and future research directions.