Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Dec2014 expand the markets for external use of innovation,
respectively. It thus comprises both outside-in and inside-out movements of technologies and ideas, referred to as ‘technology
exploration’ and
exploitation’ respectively. As a result, a growing number of MNEs have moved to an OI model in which they employ both internal and external pathways to exploit technologies and, concurrently, to acquire knowledge from external sources.
This Marine Design process of innovation will require large, multidisciplinary teams in which specialists provide expertise, simultaneously. Inside New Product Development (NPD) teams specialists often find it hard to communicate with each other, as they use a different technical vocabulary, have different perspectives on the subject
in question and methodological approaches. This
designers have a boundary spanning capability in teams and
reported on studies organisations.
Designers continually that
engage in results
forming within the team. One of the specialists is a marine designer, who focuses on the
found that
experience of use of products. Stompff and Smulders [78]
technical choices to the realm of product and/or user by means of expressive representations of
the product.
These representations are communicated in a language understood by all and this enables the other specialists to reflect on their choices and those of others, i.e. cross- disciplinary. This capability is referred to as ‘mirroring’, as the process of translation of technical choices to consequences for product/user is analogous to placing a mirror in front of the specialists, enabling them to reflect. Yet designers are not explicitly assigned the role of boundary spanning, nor are aware of this capability. It is their practice that enables them to span boundaries.
Effective Marine Design requires a wide range of specialised knowledge and capability that is distributed over many actors. In order coherent
Designers, a range of specialists need to work together and integrate their knowledge: engineers,
to develop a unified and
vessel or system, in addition to Marine Naval
Architects, Human Factors specialists, interaction designers, and marketers. This collaboration is challenging as complexity is addressed
by
disaggregation, resulting in the component part design briefs. These tasks are assigned to specialists, enabling companies to optimise then as a resource. The division of design work impedes the ability to maintain an holistic perspective of the process. It becomes difficult to ensure that an integrated product is created, in which all parts fit seamlessly without redundancy. Design problems are seldom confined to a given specialist discipline or sub- systems. They require the insight of a multi-disciplinary team and
in boundary usability and industrial translate
‘technology
However, in multi-disciplinary NPD teams, its members may find it hard to understand each other. Team members can experience boundaries at any point in time: imaginary, perceived demarcations between specialists, departments or functional units. Across these boundaries, team members find it difficult to communicate situations and challenges. Those that share the same practice are part of communities of practice, and within practices, knowledge is easily shared. However,
sharing and distinctive
disseminating knowledge across practices is challenging. The specialists may deploy entirely different vocabulary and tools, causing an issue of comprehension between team members. There are other causes of boundaries such as having sub-teams at different locations. In this case, team members cannot see each other and are not aware of concurrent activities across locations, which can be global, even if they share the same practice. The team members are confronted with time-zones, different first languages and diverse cultures. There are also organisational boundaries when parts of the product are developed by suppliers or by strategic partners [78].
Global NPD has many benefits and is widely practiced. For example, vulnerable strategic alliances are started, so that technology and ideas are bought to access and integrate specialised knowledge 'open innovation'. But in these alliances, boundaries are omnipresent. It is hard to name the group of developers a 'team', as the members do not have a shared context, applying disparate methods and tools, and speak different first languages. Therefore spanning
boundaries is an important challenge for
managing product development. Effective ‘mirroring’ is dependent upon the abilities of designers to frame any problem ‘user-centred and outside-in’ and to express their interpretation well
through compelling
representations. Generally designers do not have a formalised role to span boundaries, and are unaware of their boundary spanning capabilities. The explanation for this is that it is not
the designers themselves who
facilitate boundary spanning, but their design practice. Design practice involves translating technical choices into product proposals by sketching; making models and demonstrators that can be interacted with; the practice of 'talking products and users'. A structured process of mirroring would empower organisations to span the challenging cultural and/ or organisational boundaries in the Marine Design innovation process [78].
A final remark regarding innovation concerns the variety of communication practices [79].
Resolving these problems requires specialists to 'think collectively' as a team, which is called 'team cognition’ [78].
implementation of the described practices from the field of Industrial Design. In fact, introducing these practices to the field of ship design requires the industry actors to innovate the processes by which they presently innovate. In a recent publication by Smulders et al. [80], it asserted that Thinking)
beyond its careful consideration
the transfer of design methods (Design traditional domain requires a of the fitness
of organizational context for such a transfer.
is present
C-22
©2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188