Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

Market research methods for innovation development: an overview

Dennis List

A wide variety of market research methods can be used for researching innovations.
The methods can be divided into four main groups, corresponding to the stages of
product development: methods for (1) understanding customers, (2) idea generation,
(3) concept testing, and (4) estimating market size, growth, and composition. This
grouping is somewhat artificial, as many of the methods can be used in several
different parts of the sequence.

The first two groups of methods tend to be more qualitative, imaginative, and open.
They require divergent thinking. The second two groups of methods are more
evaluative. However, many combinations and variations of methods are possible.
The following list covers most methods.

1. Methods for understanding customers


Empathic design Observation
Customer visits Ethnography
Alien interviewing ZMET (Metaphor Elicitation)
Codiscovery conference Information acceleration

2. Methods for idea generation


Brainstorming and synectics Templates of product change
Morphological analysis TRIZ
Nominal group technique (NGT) Scenario planning
Lead users Secondary research
Lateral thinking Ignoring customers

3. Methods for concept testing


Storyboarding Customer Idealized Design
Charrette Usability testing
Consumer clinics A-B testing (formal experiments)
Consensus groups House of Quality / QFD

4. Methods for estimating market size, growth, and composition


Test marketing Delphi method
Expeditionary marketing Tracking surveys
Simulation Forecasting
Monitoring, response techniques

Each of these methods is very briefly described below, with references to more
detailed publications.

1
1. Methods for understanding customers

The purpose of these methods is to understand customers’ needs - even when not
articulated by them. They are also useful for understanding the needs and pressures
inside a large organization and possible blocks to creativity and innovation.

Empathic design – which is derived from Customer visits


Principle: Direct transfer of tacit knowledge.

Method: go into a user’s environment, for a day or more. Usually for industrial
products rather than consumer products. Follow the user around, ask questions,
observe relevant behaviour. Nothing very formal. Often done by engineering or
design staff - not by external consultants. Alternatively, by staff together with
consultants. Need to be open-minded, not blame the user for lack of knowledge or
skill.

References: McQuarrie (1993), Leonard & Rayport (1997).

Alien interviewing
Format of personal interview: interviewing designers, usually not customers.
Interviewer acts if an alien (from another planet), asking dumb questions - as if a
new user: “What’s this for?” - “Why does it do that?” - etc. Problem: some designers
become quite hostile during such questioning - and they are the ones who must
accept the thinking.

No detailed reference found. Similar to Idealized Design (see below).

Voice of the Customer


One aspect of the House of Quality, within Quality Function Deployment (QFD): the
tasks of identifying and structuring customer needs. A hierarchy of needs is created -
ofen 200 to 400 of them - from which the primary/. strategic needs for a yet-to-be-
designed product are extracted. There is strong evidence that this method works
well. It is not a unique research method, because it uses standard techniques of
personal interviews, focus groups, and mini-groups.

References: Griffin and Hauser (1993), Burchill & Brodie (1997), Ulwick (2002).

Codiscovery conference
Principle: need for mutual understanding - consumers need to understand
producers’ constraints in order to make useful suggestions, and producers need to
understand consumers’ needs.

Method: Two groups (e.g. staff and customers, 20-40 people in total) meet for two
half-day sessions, mostly working in rotating smaller groups. In the first session each
group comes to understand the other’s motivations. In the second session they work

2
together to generate and partly develop mutually acceptable ideas. End with “ideas
fair” where small groups present their new product ideas to each other.

Example: Refocusing government radio in Indonesia to become public service radio.


Producers had little detailed knowledge of their audiences, but after spending two
half-days with typical audience members, producers felt able to create more relevant
programs, and audience members decided to set up a Listeners’ Club in Jakarta.

Limitations: Findings easily forgotten by staff – need to be reinforced, but written


report doesn’t have enough impact, and videos don’t get watched.

References: List (2002, chapter 15), List (2004). Derived from the search conference
(Emery and Purser, 1996).

Observation
Watching how consumers use a type of product or service. Can be done in person or
mechanically. Software can record all actions taken at computer while recording
voice. “Unobtrusive measures” research - e.g. looking at surface wear to find most-
used features.

Limitations: ethical/privacy issues arise if users are not told what’s happening - but
possibly abnormal behaviour if they are told.

Main reference: Spradley (1980).

Ethnography
What anthropologists used to do: go and live with an undiscovered tribe for a year
or two, understand their structure and customs, then write it up. A mixture of
observation and in-depth interviewing. Nowadays, anthropologists go into large
organizations to understand their purchasing processes - but usually only for a few
weeks.

When to use: When broad details of customers’ lives (typically work lives, for NPD)
are needed for understanding of how they might use a product or service. But not
when a quick decision is (really) needed.

Limitations: Very expensive if done the traditional way (a full year with a tribe), but
often abbreviated for market research. Still far from cheap!

References: Spradley (1995), Ellen (1984).

ZMET (Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique)


Principle: tap underlying emotional connections.
(1) Participants collect pictures that symbolize their thoughts and feelings.
(2) Intense 2-hour personal interview with psychologist.

3
(3) With help from graphic artist, people create collages of their thoughts and
feelings.
(4) Clients get multimedia presentations at the end.
Example / case study: chocolate bars as an icon of time, the past (childhood images).
Use: most used in TV advertising, but also produces ideas for product design.
Limitations: Very high cost - $100,000 upwards. Patented, proprietary method.

Main reference: Zaltman & Coulter (1995).

Information acceleration
Using multimedia to “immerse” potential consumers in an experience.
(1) Find out what the respondent would use to research the topic.
(2) Make these resources available in a realistic manner.
(3) Track what sources they use and how they use them.
(4) Have them shop, make choice decisions, rate and rank items, etc.

Need to build a realistic virtual environment, so can be very expensive indeed.

Reference: Urban et al. (1997).

4
2. Methods for idea generation

These methods are used, ideally after customers’ needs are understood (e.g.
following use of methods from the previous group), to help generate ideas for new
products and services.

Brainstorming
Principle: when it comes to ideas, the more, the merrier: i.e. quantity leads to quality.
4 to 20 people meet in a room, scribble down ideas furiously, then discuss their ideas.
Often very quick – often less than 20 minutes (adding extra time adds few extra
ideas). No criticism is allowed, but participants are urged to build on each others’
ideas. Degree of prompting varies: more prompting has been found more effective.
Ideas are re-assessed later.

References: Osborn (1963) – the original book; Osborn was the founder of
brainstorming, also of the BBDO ad agency). Rossiter & Lilien (1994) – a useful
review of the literature and suggestions for improving the method.

Synectics
Similar to brainstorming, but is a more deliberate process. People (usually not
customers but staff members or experts) work in small groups for several hours,
considering pairs of concepts together, and determining if that pair could be the
basis of an innovation.

Main reference: Gordon (1961).

Morphological analysis
Principle: finding all possible combinations of a set of factors, and considering each
in turn. (A more systematic extension of synectics.) Try to include variables often
overlooked (e.g. colours of computers – Apple Imac). There is computer software
that randomly generates these, e.g. IQPlus (www.iqplus.com, www.infinn.com).
Problem: (as with brainstorming) huge output, mostly junk - but much bigger output
than brainstorming.

Example: Zwicky (an astronomer) designed several new types of jet engine by
identifying six relevant factors and considering all possible combinations of these.

Related methods: fault trees and relevance trees. Divide problems by considering
every possibility in a logical sequence. Problem: often there’s no unambiguous
logical sequence, so some possibilities can be overlooked.

References: Zwicky (1969) – the classic; Ritchey (1998).

5
Nominal group technique (NGT)
Principle: depersonalize the ideas, reduce “ownership” problems.

Like a focus group, but more structured, with a silent period at the beginning when
participants write down their ideas. For each participant in turn, one idea is
discussed at a time. Groups of about 10 people. They sit together but don’t
communicate till the end. People write their ideas on cards. Ideas written up on flip
charts, then discussed, followed by secret ballot voting.

Limitations: problem of silent start is that there’s no initial discussion to generate


new ideas in participants’ minds.

Reference: Delbecq et.al. (1975) is the most detailed manual. A related method is
focus groups: see Fern (1982), which discusses problems with focus groups for idea
generation, and doesn’t recommend them for this purpose. Another method in this
family is the consensus group – see below.

Lead users
Principle: Identify the most intensive users of a product, the people who use it to the
fullest. Get their ideas for improvement. Lead users are the ones making most
extensive use of the technology - “power users.” Often have adapted it for a related
purpose. Industrial settings, not consumers.

Limitations: tends to create “featurism” - adding more and more features to a


product to please the lead users, but most users could find this more annoying than
helpful. (Microsoft Office?)

Reference: von Hippel (1986) – as well as later publications by this author.

Lateral thinking
Principle: when trying to solve a difficult problem, don’t go head-on: try different
perceptions (“wear six hats”), different concepts, and different points of entry.
Recognize the dominant ideas that force perception of the problem. Search for
different ways of looking at things. Relaxation of rigid control of thinking. Use
chance factors to encourage new ideas.

References: De Bono (1971) was the first book; see also many other works by Edward
De Bono.

Templates of product change


Goldenberg and Mazursky found 5 patterns in the development of successful new
products – attribute dependency, component control, replacement, displacement,
and division. Most successful new products matched at least one of those templates.
Principle: train individuals in the use of those templates.

6
References: Goldenberg et al. (1999) and Goldenberg et al. (2001).

TRIZ
For a change, a method that doesn’t come from the US – this is Russian. TRIZ stands
for “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving” Altshuller, the developer of TRIZ,
analysed problems as contradictions, and found 40 generic solutions. To solve a
problem using TRIZ, work out which of the 40 applies, then work back from the
generic solution to a specific one. TRIZ also has many other aspects, but focuses
mainly on physical products, rather than services or human problems.

References: Altshuller (1990), Mann (2003), Orloff (2003).

Scenario planning
Though it’s impossible to predict the future accurately, a number of broad
alternatives can often be imagined. So imagine a “world” for each main alternative,
then consider either (a) what kinds of innovation would be needed in such a world,
or (b) if there’s already a product concept, consider how successful it could be in
such a world. Consider downside if each world does not occur (e.g. investment lost),
upside if it does, and company’s attitude to risk-taking.

Example: Shell Oil is the best-known user of scenario planning - very successful after
anticipating sudden oil price rise in 1970s.

Limitations: results often fuzzy – hard to be sure a few years later which scenario is
applying – sometimes all of them are.

References: Ringland (1998), Schwartz (1991), van der Heijden (1996), Potter & Roy
(2000).

Secondary research
Principle: find out what’s worked elsewhere and copy (or adapt) it.
• How many TV programs get their titles.
• Canadian company that reviews undeveloped patents.
• Look at “lead cultures” - e.g. California, Sweden, Japan (different from “lead
users” because not studying specific people)
When not to use: when there’s a danger of transgressing IP law, patents, copyright,
trademarks, etc.

Limitations: because no real originality is involved, such innovations are likely to be


copied. (If B can copy A, C can also copy B.)

References: Kostoff (2003), Huston (2004).

7
Ignoring customers
Principle: customers don’t know what they want until they see it. So instead of doing
market research with consumers, get ideas from industry insiders, or from within the
organization.

Limitations: Can be good for innovations that can be developed quickly and cheaply
(low overhead costs), but there are fewer and fewer of these. So this doesn’t work as
well as it used to!

Reference: Morita (1986) – how Sony got started; see the chapter on development of
the Walkman.

8
3. Methods for concept testing

These methods are used when some tentative product ideas have been generated,
and a choice is to be made between them. So usually several methods are presented
to potential customers, and their reactions sought - but this does not extend to
probing purchase intentions (which is covered in the next group of methods).

Storyboarding
Used mainly for movies, TV commercials, etc. But could be used with other products
involving a sequence of actions. Groups of potential consumers are shown a draft of
the ad or product in action They then fill in questionnaires, and/or have a group
discussion.

Limitations: many people find it difficult to visualize the real thing from a
storyboard.

When to use: anything that flows sequentially - from a movie to a purchase decision
on a website. More for services than products. Widely used in testing TV
commercials - cheap and quick. Highly successful Melbourne research company
Advertising Development Solutions, with its method Add+Impact.

References: Forsha (1995), Andriole (1987).

Charrette
Normally used by architects, town planners, etc. People are shown a model - walk
around it, have it explained, etc. Photos can also used. After inspecting the model,
viewers fill in a questionnaire about how they would use it, what problems they
foresee, etc. Changes are made, new people check out the model – often repeated for
4 cycles (daily or weekly).

Limitations: Applies to products where everything can be seen, so not suitable for
electronics, etc.

References: very little has been written about charrette. Lennertz (1999) with 4 whole
pages, seems to be the most detailed reference. The website of the National Charrette
Institute, www.charretteinstitute.org has some useful material.

Consumer clinics
Principle: consumers experience a real product in action, and offer their reactions.
Often used in automotive industry. Groups of potential buyers come to central
location and have cars (etc.) demonstrated to them. Often a comparison of several
models - e.g. one in question, competitors, previous model. Followed up by
questionnaires, group discussion, etc.

9
Limitations: customers easily swayed by presence of attractive object – tends to
produce overestimates of sales.

Urban, Hauser, and Roberts (1990) seems to be the sole reference to this widely used
method, though it covers consumer clinics only in passing.

Consensus groups
Similar to focus groups - which aren’t recommended for NPD because they tend to
produce overestimates; also similar to nominal groups. Consensus groups have
slightly more participants (10 to 12 per group, usually in a set of 3 groups), who have
some control over the agenda. After discussion, a vote is taken on each main issue
raised. When vote is split, discussion follows and the issue is redefined. Output is a
list of agreed statements – some agreed with only by sub-groups.

Example: A satirical magazine in Eastern Europe was losing circulation after


Communism ended. Consensus groups were done, with current readers, potential
readers and ex-readers. After discussing articles from recent issues, agreed
statements were generated, making it clear that the editorial focus needed to address
more current issues.

Limitations: The statements records attitudes and beliefs, rather than actions (like all
group discussion methods) – what people think, not necessarily what they do.

References: List (2001), List & Metcalfe (1988). A related method is the KJ Method,
used in TQM – see Mizuno (1988).

Consumer Idealized Design


Method: Customers are invited to redesign the interface of an organization, to ideally
suit their needs. Only constraint allowed is technological. There’s also Idealized
Design (with staff instead of customers), and Idealized Redesign (less relevant for
innovations). Example: menswear shop - keep all clothes of one size together, instead
of keeping types of garment together.

Limitations: customers often come up with only minor changes - don’t have the
knowledge of what’s possible.

References: Ackoff (1993), Barabba (1995), Ciccantelli & Maginson (1993).

Usability testing
Testing a prototype or product with real consumers, to see how well they can use it.
Becoming popular with web sites, but can be used for a wide range of products and
services. People often working in pairs, given tasks to complete, and discuss
problems they find. 3 main variables are measured:
- Did they get a correct result?
- How long did the search take?

10
- Are they satisfied with the process?
Participants then discuss problems encountered and possible solutions.

When to use: For checking that potential customers can follow an intellectual task,
such as navigating a website, or programming a video recorder. Also used for
complex forms (e.g. annual subscription to a symphony orchestra).

Limitations: the most usable websites (etc) aren’t always the most popular – many
other factors come into it .

References: Jordan et al (1996), Norman (1988), Rubin (1994), and Jakob Nielsen’s
website at www.useit.com with many useful articles.

Formal experiments (“A-B testing”)


Several factors are systematically varied, while all other factors are held constant. For
example, four types of face-changing drug could be tested: longer nose vs shorter
nose, and larger ears vs smaller ears - which is four “treatments.” Each participant is
randomly allocated to one treatment. Control groups normally used; highest rigour
involves double-blind testing so even the researchers don’t know who’s getting what
treatment.

The statistical method analysis of variance (ANOVA) is normally used to test for
significant differences between treatments. Many practical problems with this
method - even for a less far-fetched example - because in practice it’s very difficult to
hold everything constant, specially when people are involved. This is known as the
“gold standard” method because it is statistically the most sound, but in practice is
seldom used - and when it is used, the conditions required to assure that everything
is held constant can make the situation unrealistically artificial. It often raises as
many questions as it answers.

A simple application is to split a customer list into two matched groups (e.g. odd and
even numbered on a database). Half the customers are made one offer, the other half
a different offer. The difference in willingness to buy between the two groups is then
taken to be the difference in attractiveness of the offers. (This of course assumes that
the customers don’t talk to each other about the offers.)

Limitations: high cost, because of the planning and coordination needed. Also many
practical problems ensuring that other things remain equal. Experiments work much
better on objects than on people.

References: Winer et al. (1991), Cook & Campbell (1979), and more specifically for
marketing, Patzer (1996).

11
House of Quality
Part of QFD (Quality Function Deployment). “Voice of the customer” (see above) is
part of HoQ, so the latter is a framework for research rather than a research method
in itself. Essentially a method of matching customer needs to design attributes.

Limitations: high cost (elaborate, multi-stage process). Few organizations have this
ability to mount such research.

References: Cohen (1995), Hauser & Clausing (1988), Sullivan (1986), Tan & Shen
(2000). The latter is on the Kano Diagram – a useful conceptual tool often used with
HoQ.

12
4. Methods for estimating market size and take-up rate.

Test marketing
Offering a new product for sale on an experimental basis, in a market restricted in
some way - e.g. one geographical area. Common test markets in Australia are
Newcastle and Adelaide, because they are relatively small, and close to the national
average on many variables. (Despite Adelaide’s population being older than average,
my research on TV program popularity in the 1990s found that Adelaide was the
closest large city to the Australian average.)

When to use: when it is possible to separate one market from another in terms of
advertising. Disadvantage: competitors are likely to find out, and take counter-
measures.

Limitations: measured in terms of lost opportunities - what if a product is test-


marketed, and found successful? Potential sales may be lost because it was not
marketed elsewhere initially.

Reference: Patzer (1996).

Expeditionary marketing
Principle: launch lots of new products, in the hope that a few will succeed (as with
biological evolution), but don’t spend too much money on launching each one. Can
be done on a gradual foot-in-the-water scale, assessing progress each step of the way.

Similar to test marketing, but less formal. Can use different test markets, with
multiple advertising campaigns. Can do parallel testing – one company launched
different 11 bicycle pumps. Important to track related variables (state of economy,
etc), and customer awareness and reaction – not just sales, which are often a lagging
indicator.

Common for minor variations in groceries - e.g. new flavours of packaged foods.
Also the mainstay of the publishing and film industries.

When to use: when cost of failure is not high, launching costs are low because
channels are already established, and word of mouth is likely to be a large factor -
thus saving on large-scale advertising.

Limitations: like test marketing, often measured more in terms of lost sales rather
than of direct costs. Danger of coming to false conclusions because of unknown or
random characteristics of the test market chosen.

References: Hamel & Prahalad (1991), Morris et al. (2002).

13
Simulations
Can be either online (less realistic for many product types) or in realistic situations.
Can give potential consumers tokens (equivalent to money) and let them decide how
to spend them on product combinations. Similar to information acceleration. “Virtual
shopping” is one form of simulation.

Cost: tends to be high, because time-consuming for participants (who therefore need
to be paid to turn up). If special software is written, this can be very costly, and slow
to prepare.

References: Clancy & Shulman (1994), Burke (1996)

Monitoring, and response techniques


Principle: when you can’t afford to do a formal survey, define a set of indicators that
can be monitored regularly. “Response techniques” are used to provoke customers to
provide indications - e.g. a regular series of competitions. If other things are held
constant, number of entries should be proportional to customer interest.

Limitations: measurable indicators are often not a good proxy; monitoring systems
take a while to set up, so are often not well suited to NPD.

When not to use: when more relevant data is available.

References on monitoring include World Bank (2002), and Davies & Dart (2005). On
response techniques: List (2002, chapter 14).

Delphi method
Principle: Convergence of answers among a panel of experts. Find a widely varying
panel, separately ask them questions with numerical answers (i.e. predictions), then
feed back average, standard deviation etc and get everybody to vote again until
convergence either occurs or is given up on. Those whose answers were very
different from average are asked to explain them. Important factor: no personal
contact – all done by mail or email – so no personal influence is possible.

Limitations: can be slow, with multiple rounds. Convergence doesn’t always occur –
sometimes resulting in a wide range. Nor is convergence any guarantee of accuracy –
sometimes all experts are equally wrong.

References: Linstone & Turoff (1975), Rowe & Wright (1999 and 2001).

14
Forecasting
Too vast to cover here. Basically it involves using past data to predict future data,
using extrapolation and related mathematical methods.

Limitations: for an innovation, there is no directly relevant past data, so forecasting is


crucially dependent on judgements - for choosing (a) a set of past data that is
expected to best represent the future, and (b) an algorithm for extrapolating from the
past data to the future.

References: there are thousands! Makridakis et al. (1997) is the best known textbook,
and Armstrong (2001) is an edited overview of the field. Armstrong’s earlier book
(1978), despite its age, is still very useful and comprehensive.

Summary

As all the above methods have weaknesses, it’s best not to rely too heavily on one of
them, by using a combination of different methods that have different limitations.
The most effective NPD market research (see Davis 1993, Trott 2001, Badgett et.al
2002) often uses a range of methods – e.g. one from each of the four groups above, at
various stages of the development process. Comparing results serves as a cross-
check.

Predicting the success of product innovations – like any other prediction – is as much
an art as a science. It’s easier in hindsight, because the relevant variables are obvious
after the fact. The challenge is thus to identify the relevant variables in advance, so
big-picture research can be more effective than very specific study.

Dennis List
School of Marketing / Centre for Innovation and Development
University of South Australia
dennis.list@unisa.edu.au

Updated July 2005

15
References

These references include all mentioned above under specific methods, plus some
more general references. Web references were correct on 30 May 2005. To make it
easier to access online references, this document will be online at the website of the
Centre for Innovation and Development of the University of South Australia -
http://business.unisa.edu.au/cid/publications/methods/npdresearch.pdf

Ackoff, Russell (1993) Idealized design: creative corporate visioning. Omega. 21 (4)
401-410.
Altshuller, Genrich (1990) And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving. Salem, New Hampshire: GOAL/QPC.
Andriole, S (1987) Storyboard prototyping for requirements verification, Large Scale
Systems in Information and Decision Technologies, 12 (3) 231-247.
Armstrong, J Scott (1978) Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. New
York: John Wiley.
Armstrong, J Scott, ed. (2001) Principles of Forecasting. Boston: Kluwer.
Badgett, Melody, et al (2002) Countdown to product launch: are you confident
customers will buy? Somers, NY: IBM. Online 3 May 2005 at www-
1.ibm.com/industries/cpe/download4/15727/ibv_npsd_1.pdf
Barabba, Vincent P (1995), Meeting of the Minds. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Burchill, Gary, and Christina Brodie (1997) Voices into Choices: Acting on the Voice of
the Customer. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Center for Quality of Management,
Joiner Publications.
Burke, Raymond R (1996) Virtual shopping: breakthrough in marketing research.
Harvard Business Review, March-April 1996, 74 (2) 120-31.
Christensen, Clayton M (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause
Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ciccantelli, Susan, and Jason Maginson (1993) Consumer idealized design: involving
consumers in the product development process. Journal of Product Innovation
Management. 10 (4) 341-347.
Clancy, Kevin J, and Robert S Shulman (1994) Simulated Test Marketing: Technology for
Launching Successful New Products. Maryland: Lexington Books.
Cohen, L (1995) Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You.
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Cook, T, and D Campbell (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for
Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dahl, Darren W, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Gerald J Gorn (1999) The use of
visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1)
18-28.
Davies, Rick, and Jessica Dart (2005). The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique.
Available online at www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf
Davis, R E (1993) The role of market research in the development of new consumer
products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10 (4) 309-317.

16
De Bono, Edward (1971) Lateral Thinking for Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Delbecq, Andrew L, A H van de Ven, and D H Gustafson (1975) Group Techniques for
Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, USA:
Scott, Foresman.
Dodson, Mark, and Roy Rothwell (1994) Handbook of Industrial Innovation. London:
Edward Elgar.
Ellen, R F, ed (1984) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to Conduct. New York: Academic
Press.
Emery, Merrelyn, and Ronald Purser (1996). The Search Conference. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Fern, Edward F (1982) The use of focus groups for idea generation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 19 (Feb 1982) 1-13.
Forsha, Harry L (1995) Show Me: The Complete Guide to Storyboarding and Problem
Solving. Milwaukee: ASQC Press.
Foster, Richard N (1986) Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. London: Pan Books.
Funk, Jeffrey L (2003) Creating and succeeding in new industries: lessons from the
electronics industries. Tokyo: Hitotsubashi University: Institute of Innovation
Research. Online at www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/SMR-funk.pdf
Garud, Raghu, Praveen Rattan Nayyar, and Zur Baruch Shapira (1997) Technological
Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gatignon, Hubert, and Thomas S Robertson (1985) A propositional inventory for
new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11: 849-867.
Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon (1999) Toward identifying
the inventive templates of new products: a channelled ideation approach. Journal
of Marketing Research, 36 (2) 200-210.
Goldenberg, Jacob, Donald R Lehmann, and David Mazursky (2001) The idea itself
and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success.
Management Science, 47 (1) 69-84.
Golder, Peter N, and Gerard J Tellis (1997) Will it ever fly? Modeling the takeoff of
really new consumer durables. Marketing Science, 16 (3) 256-270.
Gordon, William J J (1961). Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity. New York:
Harper and Row.
Griffin, Abbie and John R Hauser (1993) The Voice of The Customer, Marketing
Science, 12 (1) 1-27.
Hamel, Gary, and C K Prahalad (1991) Corporate imagination and expeditionary
marketing. Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug 1991, 69 (4) 81-92.
Hauser, J R, and D Clausing (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review,
May-June 1988, 66 (3) 63-73.
Huston, Larry (2004) Mining the periphery for new products. Long Range Planning,
37: 191-196.
Jolly, Vijay K (1997) Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Jordan, Patrick W, et al (1996) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and
Francis.

17
Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, eds (1982) Judgment under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kandybin, Alexander, and Martin Kuhn (2004) Raising your return on innovation
investment. Strategy+Business, 35: 1-14.
Kostoff, Ronald N (2003) Stimulating innovation; pp 388-400 in L V Shavinina (ed)
International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Kuhn, Kristine M, and Janet A Sniezek (1998) Confidence and uncertainty in
judgemental forecasting: different effects of scenario presentation. Journal of
Behavioural Decision Making, 9 (4) 231-247.
Lennertz, Bill (1999) The charrette process as an agent for change. New Urban News,
Winter 1999.
Leonard, Dorothy, and Jeffrey F Rayport (1997). Spark innovation through empathic
design. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1997, pp 102-113.
Lindstedt, Sven B, and E William Colglazier (1982) Managing Innovation: the Social
Dimensions of Creativity Invention, and Technology. New York: Pergamon.
Linstone, Harold A, and Murray Turoff (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Application. Reading, USA: Addison-Wesley. Online at
www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook
List, Dennis (2001) The Consensus Group Technique in social research. Field Methods,
13 (3) 277-290. A manual is online at www.audiencedialogue.org/consensus.html
List, Dennis (2002) Know Your Audience: A Practical Guide to Media Research.
Wellington: Original Books. Online at www.audiencedialogue.org/kya.html
List, Dennis (2004) The co-discovery conference: a method for direct transmission of
tacit knowledge. Wellington: Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy
Conference. Online at www.anzmac.org
List, Dennis, and Mike Metcalfe (2004) Sourcing forecast knowledge through
argumentative inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71: 525-535.
Lynn, Gary S, Steven P Schnaars, and Richard B Skov (1999) A survey of new
product forecasting practices in industrial high technology and low technology
businesses. Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (6) 565-571.
Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller, and Frank M Bass (1990) New product diffusion
models in marketing: a review and directions for research. Journal of Marketing, 54:
1-26.
Makridakis, Spyros G, Steven C Wheelwright, and Rob J Hyndman (1997)
Forecasting: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley.
Mann, Darrell (2003) Better technology forecasting using systematic innovation
methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70 (8) 779-795.
McQuarrie, Edward F (1993) Customer Visits: Building a Better Market Focus. Newbury
Park, USA: Sage.
Millett, Stephen M (1998) Futuring consumer products: an illustrative example of
scenario analysis; pp 285-295 in Fahey, Liam, and Robert Randall: Learning from the
Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. New York: Wiley.
Mizuno, Shigeru (1988) The KJ Method. Chapter 5 in Management for Quality
Improvement: The Seven New QC Tools. Cambridge, USA Productivity Press.

18
Mohr, Jakki (2001) Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations. Upper
Saddle River, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Moore, Geoffrey (1991) Crossing the Chasm. New York: Harper Business,
Moorthy, Sridhar, Brian T Ratchford, and Debabrata Talukdar (1997) Consumer
information search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer
Research, 23 (March) 263-277.
Morita, Akio (1986) Made in Japan. New York: E P Dutton.
Morris, M H, M Schindehutte, and R W La Forge (2002) Entrepreneurial marketing: a
construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10 (4) 1-19.
Morrison, Pamela A, John H Roberts, and David F Midgley (1999) Towards a Finer
Understanding of Lead Users. Philadelphia, Institute for the Study of Business
Markets, report 15-1999.
Norman, Donald (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
OECD (1992) OECD Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological
Innovation Data. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(This report, known as the “Oslo Manual,” has authoritative definitions of
innovation.)
Orloff, M A (2003) Inventive Thinking Through TRIZ: a Practical Guide. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Osborn, Alex F (1963) Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Patzer, Gordon L (1996) Experiment-Research Methodology in Marketing: Types and
Applications. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum/Greenwood.
Potter, Stephen, and Robin Roy (2000) Using scenarios to identify innovation
priorities in the UK railway industry. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 4 (2) 229-252.
Ringland, Gill (1998) Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Ritchey, Tom (1998). General morphological analysis - a general method for non-
quantified modeling. Swedish Morphological Society. Online at
www.swemorph.com
Rogers, Everett M (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rossiter, John R, and Gary L Lilien (1994) New "brainstorming" principles. Australian
Journal of Management, 19 (1) 61-72.
Rowe, Gene, and George Wright (1999) The Delphi Technique as a forecasting tool:
issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15: 353-375
Rowe, Gene, and George Wright (2001) Expert opinions in forecasting: the role of the
Delphi Technique; pp 125-144 in J Scott Armstrong (ed) Principles of Forecasting.
Boston: Kluwer.
Rubin, Jeffrey (1994) Handbook of Usability Testing. New York: Wiley.
Schwartz, Peter (1991) The Art of the Long View. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Shavinina, Larisa V, ed (2003) International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
Spradley, James P (1980) Participant Observation. Orlando, USA: Holt Rinehart &
Winston.

19
Spradley, James P (1995) The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Sullivan, L P (1986) Quality Function Deployment. Quality Progress, June 1986, pp 39-
50.
Tan, K C, and X X Shen (2000) Integrating Kano's model in the planning matrix of
quality function deployment. Total Quality Management 11 (8) 1141-1151.
Trott, Paul (2001) The role of market research in the development of discontinuous
new products. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (3) 117-125.
Ulwick, Anthony (2002) Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business
Review, Jan 2002, 80 (1) 91-97.
Urban, Glen L and J R Hauser (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products, second
edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Urban, Glen L, et.al (1997) Information acceleration: validations and lessons from the
field. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (Feb. 1997) 143-153.
Urban, Glen L, J R Hauser, and John H Roberts (1990). Prelaunch forecasting of new
automobiles. Management Science, 36 (4) 401-422.
van der Heijden, Kees (1996) Scenarios: the Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
von Hippel , Eric (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management
Science 32 (7) 791-805.
Wansink, Brian (2000) New techniques to generate key marketing insights. Marketing
Research, Summer 2000: 28-36.
Winer, B J, D R Brown, and K M Michels (1991) Statistical Principles in
Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
World Bank (2002). Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods, and Approaches.
Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Online
at www.worldbank.org
Zaltman, G, and R H Coulter (1995) Seeing the voice of the consumer: Metaphor-
based advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, 35: 35-51.
Zwicky, Fritz (1969) Discovery, Invention, Research through the Morphological Approach.
New York: Macmillan.

20

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi