Different innovation theories applied to the fine fashion industry, explained by clear examples and short definitions.

1. Silvia Arditi
Pierandrea Miglietta
Lucia Peraldo
Fiamma Sinibaldi
Luciana Tornabene
Giulia Trombi

2. 1
2
3
4
5
The AbernathyUtterbackmodel
ResourceBased View VS. StructuralView
DominantDesign vs ConvergentDesign
L.Tushmanand P.Anderson
model
Capettaet al. study
6
Structural
Ambidexerity

3. Time
Acceptanceof the style
High diffusionof the new style
Slow start, new style hasto be accepted
Approachingto the limit

4. “therewasalmostnowhereelse to go.. The mini-skirtcouldgo no higher”
mini-skirtasmass diffusionphenomenon
Time
“a controversialitem of clothing, symbol of liberation”
1962
1965
1975
Acceptanceof the style

5. Time
Style
The 90’s
The 50’s
2014
Unlikely in
technology , mini-skirt
is not more efficient
than the the50’s one.
It is just more popular
D

6. Stylea temporal phenomenon
an obligatory
transformation of taste.

9. Approches
to Style Search
DesignerDriven

10. MarketDriven

11. TwoApproachesto Style Search
KEY SUBJECT
COMPETENCES
PROCESS
LOCUS OF SEARCH
Designer
Unit (Design Function)
Designer
Customer and competitor
orientation
Individualsensemaking
Collective sensemaking
Local
Distant
Designer-Driven
Search
Market-Driven
Search

12. TwoApproachesto Style Search
Designer-Driven
Search
Market-Driven
Search
INCENTIVES
LEGACY
INNOVATION OUTCOMES
LONG-RUN LIMITATIONS
Designeristheownerofthecompanyorgetsroyalties
Memberoftheunitareregularemployeeswithatraditionaldivisionoflabourandanincentivetoinnovate
Pastcollections
Marketdynamics
Evolutionarychange
Radicalchange
Adaptationwiththemarketatrisk
Stylisticidentityatrisk

13. the design that is used by the majority of the players in the industry

14. ANDERSON AND TUSHMAN (1990)

15. Whichindustriescome to yourmind?

17. …

18. Thismodelisapplicablealsotoindustriesdrivenbystyle
….andnotonlybytechnology.

19. Period
of ferment
Relevantstyle differences
1

20. Periodof incrementalchange
Convergenceon the samestyle

21. Technical compatibility «the capability of different interfaces

22. SymbolicinnovationReassignmentof social meaningto an existingproduct, the changeof aestheticcharacteristicsgeneratingbotha new pdtand a neìwmeaning.

23. DominantDesign
ConvergentDesign

24. For stylistic
innovation
Compatibility

25. The desire for stylisticinnovationcan be explainedasboththe wantto havethe right pdtsand interactwith the right ppl.

26. For stylistic
innovation
Compatibility

27. Visual coherence in the aesthetic appearance of the elements

28. AESTHETIC COMPATIBILITY

29. HYPOTHESIS
Stylisticinnovationfollowsan evolutionarymodel characterisedby the sequenceof periodsof fermentand incrementalchange.

30. *R. Cappettaet al. / ResearchPolicy 35 (2006) 1273–1290

31. 1980 -1985 Masculine
-Structeredjacketswith XL shoulderpats
-Career Woman’sUniform
Periodof incrementalchange

32. 1986-1990
Periodof Ferment
-More unstructuredclothing
-More use of pale colors
Somethingis changing!

33. 1991-1993
Minimalism
-Strong use of neutralcolors
-Cleancuts
-More feminity
1994-1998
Periodof Ferment
-Neutralcolors are mixedwith strong ones
-More experimentation

34. 1999 -2001
Kitsch
-Artificial materials
-Strong colors
-Combinations that clash.
75.7% designers’ preferences.

35. Demandof a productincreaseswhenothersconsumeit

36. q
a demandof a productdecreasesbecausetoomanyothersare consumingit.

39. Are accelaratingtheseeffects

40. HYPOTHESIS
During the period of incremental change, incumbents are more innovative than new entrants. Indeed, they have a consolidated style and they prefer incremental innovations to radical changes.

41. HYPOTHESIS
During the period of ferment, new entrants are more innovative than incumbents.
In fact, theycan deploy at best their ‘newness’ by creating a completely new style, because of lack of inertial frames, cognitive ‘sunk costs’ and existing routines.

42. HYPOTHESIS
During the period of incremental change, incumbents are statisticallymore successful than new entrants.

43. HYPOTHESIS
During the period of ferment, new entrants are statistically more successful than incumbents.

44. oldstylescan instantlybacomerelevantagain.

45. STRUCTURAL
AMBIDEXTERITYMaster the presentPre-emptthe futureexplorationexploitation

47. Eventhoseindustryhistoricallydrivenby technologicalinnovation…

48. …are startingto strenghtenthe importanceof stylisticinnovation.

49. You!

50. Bibliography
Cappetta, Rossella, Cillo, Paola & Ponti, Anna(2006) "Convergent designs in fine fashion: An evolutionary model for stylistic innovation".Research Policy,35(9), pp. 1273-1290.
Cillo, Paola & Verona, Gianmario(2008) "Search Styles in Style Searching: Exploring Innovation Strategies in Fashion Firms".Long range planning,41(6), pp. 650-671.