Presentation on "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation" Author Name:Seidel, V. P. & Mahony, S. Year of Publishing: 2014 Journal Name: Organization Science

1. Managing the Repertoire: Stories,
Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept
Coherence in Product Innovation
Seidel, V. P. & Mahony, S.
2014
Organization Science

2. Introduction
• Coordinate the effects of many minds contributing to design
of single artifact (product).
• Traditional focus on formal mechanism of control i.e. work
task, Organizational structure.
• Coordination can be affected by ‘representation’ of a
collective effort.
• “Representations therefore coordinate by providing
information. They also offer a common referent around
which people interact, align their work and create shared
meaning.”

3. • Concept Representation_____2-Approaches:
• Linguistic Representation:
• Material Representation:
• Focus on one representation at a time, may mask the effects
where both linguistic and material representations are used.
• Focus in promise of representations without specifying the
conditions that make them effective.
• Examine the development of novel concepts into innovative
products.
• How teams use both linguistic and material representations
in coordinating design task and the practices that made
representations effective.
Verbal or written means used to communicate a concept in
order to guide individual and collective action. e.g.
Stories, Metaphors.
Physical objects used to communicate a concept to inform
individual work that must be integrated with a collective.
e.g. prototype

4. • Incremental Innovations
• Novel Innovations
• Difficult to coordinate collective effort as the outcome
cannot be specified.
• Team compositions and well-trained project leaders can
help coordinate design tasks.
• Easily communicated representations can also help
coordinate product concept.
• Representation of the product concept are generated,
communicated and revised.
Product Innovation
Adding features in already existing products.
Creating a product that only exists in abstract.

5. Concept
Representation
Concept
Representation
Common
Understanding
Common
Understanding
Coordinated TasksCoordinated Tasks
Coordinated design
of product attributes
Common
understanding of
desired product
attributes
Individual Linguistic
or Material
Representation
Figure 1
Basic model of individual representation, common understanding and
coordination as applied to product innovation

6. Linguistic Representations
Stories
• Help narrow ambiguity in
memorable manner.
• Narrative, unfold over time.
• Develop more complicated
set of relationships.
• More fluid than metaphor.
Metaphors
• Metaphors direct individuals’
attention by facilitating the
transfer of relations from one
domain to another.
• Vivid means to stimulate
action.
• Encourages memorability and
generates personal
understanding.
• Makes the unfamiliar
familiar.
Stories and Metaphors are most relevant in an innovation context.
Gap: How individuals throughout an organization receive and act on linguistic
representations and how representations evolve in use.

7. Material Representation
• Transfer knowledge from one domain to another.
• Enables differences in understanding to be transformed into
a common understanding.
• “Physical objects used to communicate a concept.”
• Use of even a simple prototype can help understand product
attributes.
Gap: Much focus on material objects without specifying the conditions that
make them more or less effective.

8. Repertoires of Representations
• Previously researched a specific types of representation – in
isolation.
• When examined individually, representations fail to provide
different types of information.
• Concept representations affect individuals throughout the
organization working on an innovation task.
• “A collection of practices held in common from which
individual select responses to particular situations.”
• Define and bound the range of a community’s practices.
Gap: Little information on practices or conditions that make representations
effective in coordinating many task required in innovation vision.

9. Research Question
• How teams used both linguistic and material
representations to coordinate the development of
novel products and the practices that enable
representations to be more or less effective.

10. Methods
• Case study
• Effective for exploring the research questions affected by
organizational context.
• Teams that recently launched products novel to both
organization and market.
• Press accounts: The New York Times or The Wall Street
Journal.
• Six product development teams from Three industries
(consumer electronics, medical/ sports therapy devices,
automotive) to increase generalizability across context.

11. Project names & descriptions Firm size & location Core team size
eBook
(Handheld electronic book reader)
Medium (100)
California
30
PDAPhone
“Smart Phone”
Mobile device
Medium (300)
California
20
RadCross
“Crossover”
Of car and truck
Large (1000)
Michigan
35
FlexTruck
Truck with flexible cargo
Large (1000)
Michigan
20
BodyCool
Body cooling device with new method
Small (8)
California
6
JointCool
Cooling device combining 2 therapies
Small (9)
California
6

12. Data Collection
• Focus on the practices of the product development teams
used across cases.
• Field work for eighteen months.
• In-person interviews to take advantage of project data
maintained by each team.
• Written and visual descriptions of each team’s product
concept.
• Observation of teams communication of novel product in
various forms.
• Access to meeting rooms, prototype observation.

14. Data Analysis
• Four phases
1. Comprehensive Summaries of each case
2. Data Coding
3. Data Recoding
4. Identification of coordination practices
•Practices and concept representations used by each team.
•Several different types of representations used to
communicate.
•Determine the range of representations used.
•Three types of representations used
1.Stories
2.Metaphor
3.Prototype
•Not all teams benefited equally from the use of concept
representation.
•Identify practices that led to be more successful.
1. Collective scrutiny of representations
2. Linking representations to design constraints
3. Active editing among repertoire of representation

15. Concept Coherence & Disunity
• Concept Coherence
• Concept Disunity
• Teams that consistently used coordination practices
achieved concept coherence & teams that didn’t experienced
concept disunity.
• Multiple concept representations used along with Three
coordination practices, Two modes of understanding were
produced:
1. Common interpretation of representation
2. Shared repertoire of representation
A common understanding of desired product attributes.
Disparate understanding of desired product attributes.

17. Concept Representations
• Product concept presented teams with Two main challenges:
1. Combining attributes of existing concepts to create
something novel.

19. Concept Representations
• Product concept presented teams with Two main challenges:
1. Combining attributes of existing concepts to create
something novel.
2. Specifying product attributes when they are not identifiable.

21. Crafting Concept Representations
• Stories
• Metaphors
• Prototypes
Explain customer needs
Articulate product function
Product’s form

23. Plurality of Representation
• Concept representation enable people to move from
concepts to practice.
• FlexTruck prototype Common understanding
• RadCross prototype Misunderstanding
• Common understanding product attributes fostered by
plurality of representations create concept coherence.

24. Concept Coherence
1. Share a common interpretation of representations.
2. Maintain a common repertoire of representations.
 Degree to which: team members
• “Stay on the same page.”
• Share a common understanding of desired product attribute
while coordinating design task.
 Examples:
• FlexTruck Team
• PDAPhone Team
“Swiss Army Knife”
Flip Phone

25. Concept Disunity
• It arises from the separation of design task into many tasks
done by many men.
 Teams show disunity when:
• Drawing upon a plurality of representations not part of a
shared repertoire.
• Team members maintain different interpretations of
representations from a shared repertoire.
 Example:
• RadCross Team

26. Coordinating Practices
1. Collective scrutiny of representations
2. Linking representations to design constraints
3. Active editing among repertoire of representation
Concept Coherence Concept Disunity
FlexTruck RadCross
PDAPhone eBook
JointCool BodyCool

27. Collective Scrutiny of Concept Representations
1. Shared all representations widely among the team.
2. Allowed all team members to question the scope or
meaning of representations.
• Teams engaged in collective scrutiny:
1. Discovered sources of difference
2. Produced agreement on interpreting representations
FlexTruck Team
•Prototype available at secure
location.
• Representations conveyed
throughout the organization.
•Regular “town hall” meetings.
•Revisiting representations.
•Problem solving.
eBook Team
•Conveyed representation
widely.
•Product attributes constantly
questioned by team members.
•“Its not a computer…it’s a
book!”
•Calculator in the
eBook?...”But it’s a book”
•List of contacts in an eBook?
 RadCross Team
• Team members rejected other members representations.
Northface jacket's pocket and
zippers
Northface jacket's pocket and
zippers
Multi - FunctionalityMulti - Functionality

28. Linking Representations to Design Constraints
• Any technical or market limitation that how the concept
could be translated into a viable product.
• Teams performed two activities:
1. Link representation to one or more design constraints.
2. Continuously checked concept assumptions with emerging
design constraints.
• Enables team members to coordinate individual design.
• Teams achieved concept coherence even when the concept
was changing.
PDAPhone eBook
JointCool BodyCool
FlexTruck RadCross
FlexTruck
•“Flexible cargo area”
•Creating convertible
waterproof cargo bed
•Referring to metaphor:
“Swiss Army Knife” - Instant
convertability
PDAPhone
•“Concept box”
RadCross
•“Show vehicle” prototype
•Contained attributes that
weren’t going to be in
finished product.
•Desperate interpretation of
the product.

29. Active Editing Among Representations
• Arise from the need to choose between conflicting
representations or new design constraints.
• Required two activities:
1. Clearly identified process owner designated to make
changes to concept representation.
2. Representation that no longer fit product concept are
excised.
• Critical to form concept coherence as product concept
evolve.
• Facilitate the common understanding of representations.
PDAPhone
•Initially two prototypes:
•“flip - phone” “stick
phone”
•Product architect decided to
make “flip phone”
•Active editing of new design
constraints
•Revised prototype and
communicated the change
eBook
•Not enough digital content
available
•Concept change
•New concept: ”tablet device”
for delivery drivers
•Old metaphor “It’s a book!”
still prevailed
•Book like prototypes still used
Story: changed
Metaphor: persisted
Prototype: persisted
BodyCool
•Persisting incompatible interpretation of representation
•Unable to translate concept into product
•Application confusion: sports, hospital, military?
•Confused team members
•Delayed prototype production

30. Dynamics of Managing the Repertoire

31. Dynamics of Managing the Repertoire

32. Discussion
• Three types of concept representations on the basis
of facets of product concept: need, function & form.
• Repertoire of representation (RR) not enough for
common understanding.
• Coordination practices required to manage (RR).

33. Discussion: Contribution
• To the theories of innovation and coordination.
1. Effects of concept representation are not always positive
depends upon consistent use of coordination practices.
2. Identification of two modes of common understanding:
• How each representation is interpreted?
• Which representations are in repertoire?
3. Product concept evolves

34. Discussion: Managing the Repertoire
• One type of representation is inadequate to achieve complex
goal.
• Repertoire of representation more effective than one type.
• Multiple representations may also foster concept disunity.
• RR is more effective when used conjunction of three
coordinating practices.
• If product attributes change, so must concept
representations.

35. Discussion: Dynamics of Coordinating in
Practice
• Concept coherence & coordination Common RR &
Common interpretation.
• Collective scrutiny of representation Allow open
questioning & Reconcile competing interpretations.
• Linking representations to design constraints
Collectively generate new information.
• Active editing among representations to ensure
representation relevance to concepts being designed.
• Teams achieving concept coherence Better able to
adapt to changing market & technical conditions.

36. Discussion
Limitations
• Comparison of importance
of concept coherence with
other factors such as team
resources.
• Coordination is effected
without coordination
practices to mange
repertoire.
Directions
• Examination of relative
importance of such
tradeoffs.
• Examine repertoire of
representation and role of
concept coherence in
dynamic environment.