Your Ideas - The Airport Of Tomorrow Conducting a pilot study at Arlanda Living Lab

UPTEC IT 09 005

Examensarbete 30 hp

Februari 2009

Your Ideas - The Airport Of

Tomorrow

Conducting a pilot study at Arlanda Living

Lab

Björn Remius

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet

UTH-enheten

Besöksadress:

Ångströmlaboratoriet

Lägerhyddsvägen 1

Hus 4, Plan 0

Postadress:

Box 536

751 21 Uppsala

Telefon:

018 – 471 30 03

Telefax:

018 – 471 30 00

Hemsida:

http://www.teknat.uu.se/student

Abstract

Your Ideas – The Airport of Tomorrow

Björn Remius

The demand for innovation requires companies to create new solutions to be able to

be innovative, and the entrance of web 2.0 related technologies and solutions allow

for a higher degree of interaction between organisations and their customers. This

master thesis conducts a pilot study using a Living Lab concept in an airport

environment at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, where software called Arlanda

IdeaTorrent has been used to let users interact. The software has allowed for ideas to

be submitted which could generate revenues for the involved partners, but the

expected ideas of scale have not been possible to achieve.

The individual report has examined different incentives for participating in open

innovation projects. A questionnaire has been used to show if incentives at an airport

is different from traditional online incentives. The questionnaire shows that at the

airport, participants want to improve their travel situation. To get a continuing flow of

participants it is important to show that the participants ideas are being implemented

at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport.

Tryckt av: Reprocentralen ITC

ISSN: 1401-5749, UPTEC IT09 005

Examinator: Anders Jansson

Ämnesgranskare: Börje Svensson / Jan Gulliksen

Handledare: Fritjof Andersson

Your Ideas – The

Airport of Tomorrow

Conducting a pilot study at

Arlanda Living Lab

Johanna Eriksson

Carolina Jansson

Björn Remius

School of Entrepreneurship, Uppsala University

2009-01-09

Entreprenörskolan i Uppsala har utvecklats och drivs av Centrum

för entreprenörskap och företagsutveckling (CEF) och är ett

samarbetsprojekt mellan Uppsala universitet och SLU.

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 2 ~

Abstract

The demand for innovation requires companies to create new solutions to be able to

be innovative, and the entrance of web 2.0 related technologies and solutions allow

for a higher degree of interaction between organisations and their customers. This

master thesis conducts a pilot study using a Living Lab concept in an airport

environment at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, where software called Arlanda

IdeaTorrent has been used to let users interact. The software has allowed for ideas to

be submitted which could generate revenues for the involved partners, but the

expected ideas of scale have not been possible to achieve.

Keywords: Open Innovation, Living Lab, usability, user-centered innovation process.

Sammandrag

Kravet på företag att vara innovativa leder fram till nya lösningar för att möjliggöra

innovationsprocessen. Inträdet av web 2.0-relaterade tekniker och lösningar leder

fram till större interaktion mellan användare och organisationer. Inom ramen för detta

examensarbete har en pilotstudie genomförts med syftet att testa ett Living Labkoncept

i en flygplatsmiljö på Stockholm-Arlanda Airport. Under studien har en

mjukvara vid namn Arlanda IdeaTorrent använts för att möjliggöra

användarinteraktion. Detta har resulterat i möjligheten att samla in idéer som kan

innebära intäkter för involverade samarbetspartners. Däremot har förhoppningen om

att uppnå en hög kvantitet av idéer inte uppnåtts under pilotstudien.

Nyckelord: Öppen innovation, Living Lab, användbarhet, användarcentrerad

innovationsprocess.

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 3 ~

Acknowledgments

First of all we would like to thank Anna Arfors and Fritjof Andersson at LFV for their

valuable help and guidance during this thesis and for letting us think “outside the

box”.

We would also like to thank Håkan Ozan, CSC and Niklas Kviselius, Stockholm

School of Economics for sharing their theoretical knowledge in the subject of Open

Innovation and Living Labs. A special thank-you to Niklas for taking time to give us

very valuable advice regarding the academic part of this thesis.

We would like to thank our supervisor Börje Svensson, Uppsala University for help

and guidance during the work with this thesis. For help and advice with our personal

technical parts we would like to thank Jan Gulliksen, Uppsala University.

Since this thesis has included a system implementation, we would like to thank

Kimmy Nordqvist, CSC for helping us out with problems regarding Arlanda

IdeaTorrent.

Since this thesis is part of a collaborative project, we would like to thank Narbeh

Ghazarian at NITA for sharing with us the results of his studies.

We would also like to thank Peter Nordin, LFV for providing us with helpful data

related to SAA.

Writing a master thesis sometimes demands for other than academic help, and

therefore we would like to thank Håkan and the rest of the LFV crew for helping us

out with a lot of practical things in our work.

Finally we would like to thank Maria Wall-Petrini and Anders Dorsell, LFV’s

management team members, for valuable discussions and organisational insights.

Johanna Eriksson Carolina Jansson Björn Remius

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 4 ~

Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 2

Sammandrag ............................................................................................................. 2

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 3

Contents .................................................................................................................... 4

Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 11

Figures Tables and Appendices ............................................................................... 11

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13

2. Background ......................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Conceptual Background ................................................................................. 15

2.2 Project Background ....................................................................................... 15

3. Purpose of thesis .................................................................................................. 19

3.1 Problem formulation ...................................................................................... 19

3.1.1 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ................................................................................ 20

3.1.2 Stand ....................................................................................................... 20

4. Limitations of the study ....................................................................................... 21

5. Theoretical models .............................................................................................. 23

5.1 Theoretical introduction ................................................................................. 23

5.2 The 4P model ................................................................................................ 24

5.2.1 Working the product ............................................................................... 24

5.2.2 Managing the price ................................................................................. 25

5.2.3 Handling the place/position ..................................................................... 25

5.2.4 Managing promotion ............................................................................... 25

5.3 The Technology Adoption Life cycle ............................................................. 26

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 5 ~

5.3.1 Innovators ............................................................................................... 26

5.3.2 Early adopters ......................................................................................... 27

5.3.3 Early majority ......................................................................................... 27

5.3.4 Late majority .......................................................................................... 27

5.3.5 Laggards ................................................................................................. 27

5.4 The Marketing Process .................................................................................. 27

5.5 Theoretical critique ........................................................................................ 28

5.5.1 Unsuitability of concepts ......................................................................... 28

5.5.2 Change of paradigm ................................................................................ 29

5.5.3 User focus ............................................................................................... 29

5.5.4 What the customer say they want is not always what they actually buy ... 30

5.5.5 Nothing new really .................................................................................. 30

6. Key Concepts ...................................................................................................... 31

6.1 Closed versus Open Innovation ...................................................................... 31

6.1.1 Closed Innovation ................................................................................... 32

6.1.2 Open Innovation ..................................................................................... 32

6.2 Open source ................................................................................................... 34

6.2.1 Open source software development ......................................................... 34

6.2.2 Rules of Open Source ............................................................................. 35

6.3 Living Lab ..................................................................................................... 35

6.3.1 Concept................................................................................................... 35

6.3.2 Why use a Living Lab ............................................................................. 36

7. Test Settings ........................................................................................................ 37

7.1 Arlanda Living Lab........................................................................................ 37

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 6 ~

7.1.1 Work Packages ....................................................................................... 37

7.1.2 The Innovation Process - Operational Level ............................................ 38

7.1.3 The Innovation Process - Functional Level .............................................. 39

7.1.4 The Innovation Process - Strategic Level ................................................ 39

7.2 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ....................................................................................... 39

7.2.1 System Explanation ................................................................................ 40

7.2.2 Log in ..................................................................................................... 40

7.2.3 Voting ..................................................................................................... 41

7.2.4 Iteration and commenting ........................................................................ 42

7.2.5 Ideas being developed ............................................................................. 42

7.2.6 Implemented ideas .................................................................................. 43

7.3 The stand ....................................................................................................... 43

7.3.1 Stand Position ......................................................................................... 43

7.3.2 Stand Design ........................................................................................... 43

8. Method ................................................................................................................ 45

8.1 Applying theoretical models .......................................................................... 45

8.1.1 Conducting a pilot study ......................................................................... 45

8.1.2 Applying the Marketing Process ............................................................. 45

8.1.3 Applying the 4P model ............................................................................ 45

8.2 The Pilot Test ................................................................................................ 47

8.2.1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 47

8.2.2 Approaches at the stand .......................................................................... 48

8.2.3 Flow observation method ........................................................................ 50

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 7 ~

8.3 Operationalisation .......................................................................................... 51

9. Collected data ...................................................................................................... 53

9.1 Living Lab ..................................................................................................... 53

9.1.1 Involvement from participating organisations .......................................... 53

9.1.2 Involvement of technology providers ...................................................... 53

9.1.3 Involvement of different companies and organisations ............................ 53

9.1.4 Openness and neutrality .......................................................................... 54

9.1.5 Involvement from public interests and government ................................. 54

9.1.6 User Involvement as a source of innovation and validation. .................... 54

9.1.7 Involvement from researchers ................................................................. 54

9.2 Communication towards employees ............................................................... 54

9.3 Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 55

9.4 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ....................................................................................... 56

9.4.1 Log in ..................................................................................................... 57

9.4.2 Voting ..................................................................................................... 57

9.4.3 Commenting ........................................................................................... 58

9.4.4 Submit an idea ........................................................................................ 59

9.4.5 Personal pages ........................................................................................ 59

9.4.6 Language ................................................................................................ 60

9.4.7 Different sorts of users ............................................................................ 61

9.4.8 Delays ..................................................................................................... 61

9.4.9 Cost per idea ........................................................................................... 61

9.5 Ideas in Arlanda IdeaTorrent.......................................................................... 62

9.5.1 Type of ideas .......................................................................................... 62

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 8 ~

9.5.2 Hour of submittal .................................................................................... 63

9.5.3 Submitting ideas on specific weekdays.................................................... 64

9.5.4 Duplicates ............................................................................................... 64

9.5.5 Ideas not submitted into Arlanda IdeaTorrent .......................................... 64

9.6 The stand ....................................................................................................... 65

9.6.1 Flow ....................................................................................................... 65

9.6.2 Approaches ............................................................................................. 66

9.6.3 Snowstorm .............................................................................................. 68

10. Comparing Arlanda IdeaTorrent with other systems .......................................... 69

10.1 Layout ......................................................................................................... 69

10.2 Idea presentation .......................................................................................... 71

10.3 Log in .......................................................................................................... 71

10.4 Idea submitting ............................................................................................ 71

10.5 Functionality ................................................................................................ 72

10.6 Feedback ..................................................................................................... 73

10.7 System summary.......................................................................................... 74

11. Analysis ............................................................................................................ 77

11.1 Organisational demands on a Living Lab ..................................................... 77

11.1.1 Demands of change ............................................................................... 77

11.1.2 Organisational goals .............................................................................. 77

11.1.3 Organisational challenges ...................................................................... 77

11.1.4 Communication ..................................................................................... 78

11.2 Analysing the questionnaire ......................................................................... 79

11.3 Analysing the system ................................................................................... 80

11.3.1 Problem and solution ............................................................................ 80

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 9 ~

11.3.2 Number of steps .................................................................................... 80

11.3.3 Feedback ............................................................................................... 81

11.3.4 Commenting and voting ........................................................................ 81

11.3.5 Dealing with user variation ................................................................... 82

11.3.6 Information within the system ............................................................... 82

11.3.7 Delays ................................................................................................... 83

11.3.8 Cost per idea ......................................................................................... 83

11.4 Analysing the stand ...................................................................................... 83

11.4.1 Flow ..................................................................................................... 83

11.4.2 Approaches ........................................................................................... 84

12. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 89

12.1 Open Innovation and Living Lab.................................................................. 89

12.2 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ..................................................................................... 89

12.3 The stand ..................................................................................................... 90

13. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 93

13.1 Organisational difficulties ............................................................................ 93

13.2 Communicational difficulties ....................................................................... 93

13.2.1 Fast lane and Investment lane ................................................................ 93

13.2.2 Potential future partners ........................................................................ 94

13.3 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ..................................................................................... 94

13.3.1 Problem and solution ............................................................................ 94

13.3.2 Feedback through e-mail ....................................................................... 94

13.3.3 Number of steps .................................................................................... 94

13.4 The stand ..................................................................................................... 95

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 10 ~

14. Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................ 97

15. References ......................................................................................................... 99

15.1 Literature sources ........................................................................................ 99

15.2 Internet sources .......................................................................................... 100

15.3 Image sources ............................................................................................ 101

Appendix 1 Backlog for Arlanda IdeaTorrent ........................................................ 103

Appendix 2 Brief Arlanda Living Lab monter ....................................................... 112

Appendix 3 Table of flow statistics........................................................................ 116

Appendix 4 Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 117

Appendix 5 Stand planning ................................................................................... 118

Appendix 6 Clothes and stand information ............................................................ 119

Appendix 7 Submitted ideas .................................................................................. 120

Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 121

Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 122

Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 123

Appendix 9 Budget for Work Package 3 ALL ....................................................... 127

Appendix 10 Ideas submitted during specific days and periods .............................. 128

Appendix 11 Evaluation of systems ....................................................................... 129

Appendix 12 Graph displaying the flow at the stand .............................................. 130

Appendix 13 Additional statistical information from questionnaire ........................ 131

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 11 ~

Abbreviations

Arlanda Living Lab ALL

Arlanda IdeaTorrent AIT

Computer Sciences Corporation CSC

Luftfartsverket LFV

Open Source Initiative OSI

Research And Development R&D

SAS Ground Services SGS

Stockholm Arlanda Airport SAA

Stockholm School Of Economics SSE

Work Package WP

Figures Tables and Appendices

Figure Page Table Page Appendix Subject Page

1 14 1 29 1 System specification 105

2 16 2 52 2 Brief 113

3 20 3 57 3 Stand planning 117

4 22 4 58 4 Questionnaire 118

5 37 5 58 5 Flow 118

6 40 6 59 6 Clothes 120

7 40-41 7 59 7 Summary of ideas 121

8 41 8 60 8 Budget 124

9 42 9 61 9 Periods 128

10 44 10 62 10 Comparison 129

11 62 11 63 11 Flow display 130

12 74 12 64 12 Data questionnaire 131

13 74 13 65 13 Questionnaire data 132

14 76 14 66

15 76 15 66

16 77 16 68

17 78

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 12 ~

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 13 ~

1. Introduction

In today’s society the demand is great on organisations to be innovative, and there is

also a demand to produce innovations at a fast pace. Some organisations have started

to examine new and different ways to accomplish this. Some organisations have come

to appreciate the users of their products or services in a way that could increase their

innovative ability. As John Donne said already in the 16th century, ‘No man is an

island in itself’ (Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII, 1624),

organisations are to a great extent starting to understand the potential of including

their users in the development process. These organisations are realizing that the users

of their products actually could be considered as experts, on for example using a

hover, car or computer software. In many organisations the development process has

been a task that included their R&D only. This is what has been called closed

innovation. Today some researchers and organisations claim that to be able to create a

faster innovation and development process, there is a demand to work towards a more

open innovation structure where users have a more important role in the development

process (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).

So, why are we facing a more open innovation structure, or a change of paradigm as

researchers call it? Are we moving towards a more open innovation climate or is this

merely a result of what the era of information technology has in store? Catharina

Melian claims in her doctoral thesis that ‘The Internet continues to change the way

work is conducted, and it is protecting and ushering a new era of collaborative,

participatory and global approach towards innovation. Openness is the hallmark of

these new processes’ (Melian, 2007). This master thesis goes as far as testing if it is

possible to create an environment where the users are the ones performing the

innovation process, and where the involved organisations only take the part of

enabling users to interact, in a way that would not have been possible without

information technology.

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 14 ~

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 15 ~

2. Background

This chapter concerns the Arlanda Living Lab project, its involved partners, the

collaboration structure and describes the partner participation.

2.1 Conceptual Background

The heart and soul of many companies are the R&D departments where the next

generation of profit-earning products are produced every year, keeping competitors at

bay and defending market positions. Especially in high-tech industry, keeping abreast

with ongoing development is crucial for long term survival, and thereby managing

this functionality in the R&D department is essential. Traditionally these departments

turned inwards to come up with a new product, feature or service which was then

more or less forced upon the market in question, using marketing campaigns to create

a new demand. The customer was then allowed to buy the product but not invited any

further into company processes. Later on most companies have discovered the

advantages of involving customers or end users into the product development, by

letting them try out and evaluate products trough prototypes, beta testing and similar

product exposures.

Despite this not too recent progress today's globalised markets and advanced

technologies are still raising the R&D demand for new effective and time saving ways

of creating innovation. Any improvement in this matter could potentially create great

value (Shilling, 2008).

2.2 Project Background

In 2007 the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA,

dedicated 11 MSEK to the purpose of trying to increase Swedish organisations' ability

to develop IT services together with end users. Some of this money ended up in the

project Arlanda Living Lab (www.vinnova.se, 2008-09-24). ALL began as a joint

venture between CSC, SGS and LFV with the common purpose of creating a better

Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, and explore the Living Lab concept by establishing a

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 16 ~

Living Lab at SAA. This was the start of the worlds first Living Lab at an airport, an

Airport Living Lab.

The collaborative structure of the project is displayed in figure 1. LFV is the owner of

SAA and SGS is one of the major organisations handling luggage and other services

SAA. CSC has SAS and the aero industry as a part of their consulting portfolio. All

parties therefore have incentives to participate in and take part in the funding of ALL.

CSC is, as the initiator of ALL, somewhat of a driving force in the project, and

employees from CSC handle the ALL project management and takes part in the

project administration. CSC participates in ALL with the main objective to acquire an

innovation business model, including the Living Lab concept, which can be

implemented at other airports and companies in general. CSC as a consulting firm

would benefit from being able to offer such a business model to their clients. LFV,

with its connection to the airport itself, together with SGS primarily handles the

project phases taking place at the airport. LFV participates in ALL hoping to gain

goodwill and positive attention to the SAA brand, and to profit later on from the

emerging innovations. SGS on the other hand hopes to gain a vent and feedback

system for its personnel.

Figure 1: The collaborative structure of the main participants in the ALL project.

The ALL project is separated into six WPs, each concerning one separate part of the

project process. The pilot study of this thesis will be conducted during November

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 17 ~

2008 as a part of WP 3 - Pilot Testing. Software adapted for user-created innovation,

Arlanda IdeaTorrent, will be trialled in a stand at SAA in terminal 5. Both AIT and

the stand will then be evaluated with respect to activity and functionality.

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 18 ~

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 19 ~

3. Purpose of thesis

This chapter concerns the purpose of the thesis and presents a short problem

formulation where the two focus areas are presented.

The purpose of the ALL project is to create a Living Lab at SAA. The given

assignment is to carry out a pilot study as a part of this project.

The purpose of this thesis is:

- To establish a testing environment for AIT at SAA.

- To evaluate the test environment and AIT.

- To leave recommendations for the continued ALL project.

3.1 Problem formulation

Figure 2: Hierarchical structure of the ALL project theoretical structure

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 20 ~

The subject being separated into several levels has resulted in two conceptual problem

formulations, which will be discussed later on but not be an object of specific study.

These problem formulations are:

To what extent can Open Innovation be achieved through a Living Lab structure

and/or the ALL structure?

To what extent has the Living Lab functionality been achieved in ALL?

3.1.1 Arlanda IdeaTorrent

The problem formulations regarding AIT are:

To what extent has AIT been a satisfactory system for managing user’s ideas?

To what extent has user activity been induced by AIT, in the form of:

- Comments per idea?

- Votes per idea?

To what extent can achieve ideas of scale by using AIT?

3.1.2 Stand

The problem formulations regarding the stand in Terminal 5 are:

To what extent has the stand been an effective way to attract users to AIT?

To what extent has the stand been an effective way to gather users’ ideas?

To what extent can ideas of scale be achieved by using a stand?

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 21 ~

4. Limitations of the study

This chapter concerns the directives given from the employer and collaborative

partners, as well as other limitations.

This thesis has limitations in time that are both given by outside directives and chosen

by the authors. Involved partners have given the assignment to conduct a pilot study

testing the AIT system in a real environment, as a part of the ALL project. The thesis

is therefore limited to the ALL project schedule. Directives have been given to carry

out the pilot test by using a stand and AIT, but there have been many opportunities to

affect the study, allowing deciding upon research methods and choosing incitements

and other ways to attract users.

The ALL project’s limited funding has limited the study in several ways. It has for

example not been able to use extensive marketing as a way of attracting users or to

choose freely where to place the stand inside the terminal.

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 22 ~

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 23 ~

5. Theoretical models

This chapter concerns the theoretical aspect of the thesis. Here important theoretical

models are presented, and how they will help build a ground for the thesis. This part

also presents theory critique and why it is a part of the thesis.

5.1 Theoretical introduction

Melissa Schilling defines innovation “as the practical implementation of an idea into a

new device or process” (Schilling, 2008). In the case of ALL the purpose is to let

users generate ideas that can end up as innovations at SAA and as a result create a

better airport. To do so requires a forum for creativity. In a closed innovation system a

single person or a R&D department are in charge of the creativity of the organisation.

This makes the individual and organisational creativity important for the innovative

success of the organisation (Schilling, 2008).

The idea of a more open innovation process creates demands which might be new to

the involved organisations. Earlier studies have shown that a lot of companies

increase their sales as their amount of resources spent in R&D increases (Schilling,

2008). But, R&D activities can be of various kinds and the concepts dealt with in this

thesis are still evolving which makes it difficult to present numbers of efficiency at

this time.

The ALL project can also be said to be a way of improving the organisations

absorptive capacity, and a way for the involved organisations to receive information

otherwise inaccessible (Schilling, 2008). But as important as it might be to recieve

information from external sources, it is also important for this project to examine if it

is possible to create “ideas of scale”. For this innovation system to work there is a

monetary aspect to consider, and just as economies of scale are important for

companies, innovations of scale are important to ALL (Besanko, Braeutigam, 2005).

This is represented by figure 3.

An underlying thought is that AIT should generate more ideas that later become

innovations for a smaller amount of money than with an in-house R&D system. If this

is not possible then it would be a failure for the concept and system. To have a system

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 24 ~

that generates less successful innovations than the existing way to innovate at the

involved partners would be a failure (Kviselius et al. 2008).

Figure 3: Illustration of how an increased number of submitted problems/solutions could result

in an increased number of implemented innovations. (Kviselius et al. 2008)

5.2 The 4P model

In marketing the 4P model, consisting of four important factors of success, has turned

out as a successful tool. In this thesis the 4P's, Product, Price, Position and Promotion,

have been used when merging AIT and the stand to create a coherent concept

intended to optimize user interaction (Kotler, Keller, 2006).

5.2.1 Working the product

The product is central to what the seller has to offer the consumer, but it is not

everything. Surrounding and additional services might be just as important as the core

product. For example the product packaging or supporting IT solutions can be more

important to the consumer than the product itself. With this in mind one needs to

create an offer, a whole product that is as close as possible to the consumer demand

(Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 25 ~

5.2.2 Managing the price

The aspect of price can differ a lot between the core product and additional services or

products. Elements such as bonus systems, discounts or extra credits can affect the

price. The focus is the total sacrifice that the consumer will do compared to what the

seller has to offer. It is important to understand that organisations can apply to a large

variety of methods when pricing their products and therefore it is important for the

seller to have knowledge about the consumer needs and use (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).

5.2.3 Handling the place/position

To make the product and the offer easy to access for the consumer, sellers can use

different ways to compete with other competitors. In most businesses this creates a

demand for distribution channels for example via the Internet, transports etc. To make

changes in an organisations distribution channels or to change their position is

probably one of the hardest things to change, but a distribution working well can also

create additional value to the consumer. When an organisation chooses its position it

is also more or less choosing the consumer that they are interested in (Lekvall,

Wahlbin, 2001).

5.2.4 Managing promotion

Depending on what kind of market the seller is acting in there will be different ways

to promote the products. The 4P model suggests that promotion should be handled in

two different ways. The first through personal adaptation which for example can be

done at sales events, sales visits, via telephone etc. The other way to promote a

product is through mechanical adaptation where the consumers are applied to as a

collective. The seller uses TV commercials, advertisement in newspapers to name

some. The effect of Internet has been that organisations have the possibility to

combine personal and mechanical adaptation (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 26 ~

5.3 The Technology Adoption Life cycle

The technology adoption life cycle is a model for understanding a markets acceptance

of new products. One of the ALL project objectives is to achieve mainstream

acceptance of the ALL, making this model highly applicable, especially in the

introductory pilot phase. The model divides a product's potential adopters into five

groups according to their different adoption behaviours. These groups are different in

size and dominate different parts of the product's lifecycle, as shown in figure 4

(Moore, 2006).

Figure 4: Graph of Geoffrey Moore’s crossing the chasm model.

http://static.flickr.com/117/307081370_ea221b9eeb_o.png , 2008-12-12

5.3.1 Innovators

This group “pursues new technology products aggressively” (Moore, 2006). They

seek out the product themselves, often even before the official market launch, because

of their burning interest in the product's specific technology. They strongly value

getting to explore new and exciting technology and getting access to it before anyone

else. Moore points out the importance of winning or getting this group involved early

because they have the possibility to persuade others to follow (Moore, 2006).

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 27 ~

5.3.2 Early adopters

Early adopters buy new products or services early in the product life cycle, not

because of interest in the technology but because of the competitive edge and benefits

this new product might give them. They relate new products or services into their

everyday life. This group represents the key for opening up any high-tech market

segment (Moore, 2006).

5.3.3 Early majority

The early majority is in one way similar to early adopters, but less interested in

technology and more focused on the practical aspects. The segment does not invest in

innovations before they can see well-established references that confirm these

benefits. Because of the size of the group they make represent a substantial profit and

growth potential (Moore, 2006).

5.3.4 Late majority

This group is big as the early majority but unlike the early majority, this group is

uncomfortable in the technical area. That makes the people in this group wait until

that new innovation has become an established standard and a working support

system around the product exist (Moore, 2006).

5.3.5 Laggards

This is a group of people that do not want anything to do with new technology. Their

reason for being uninterested might be for example economic or personal. Since they

are a rather small group compared to the others in the adoption life cycle, companies

tend to more or less ignore them (Moore, 2006).

5.4 The Marketing Process

Lekvall and Wahlbin describe what they call the Marketing process which includes

four different phases. These phases have been used to outline this thesis.

1. Phase of analysis – where the starting points and conditions have been identified

and analyzed.

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 28 ~

2. The Design phase – where the goals of the marketing are being decided and the

marketing program is being developed.

3. The phase of accomplishment – where what have been decided in the design

phase is planned in detail and executed.

4. The following up phase – where the results of the earlier phases are being

followed up and results can give input for the following work.

(Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001)

5.5 Theoretical critique

When conducting a master thesis and deciding about what kind of approach and study

one wants to create there are different paths to choose between. Theoretical

applications can be used as well as different methods. The choice of theoretical

approach and method is important and affects the entire study.

This master thesis builds both on directives from the involved partners and the

suitability of theoretical approaches in the area of innovation management. It is also

important to understand that this study also is a part of research being conducted at

SSE, Uppsala University and within the involved partner organisations. As a result

not all models and theories are yet fully studied and tested. Given the situation it is

important to be critical and reflect around the concepts and the problems it could

bring.

ALL includes two fundamental concepts: Open innovation and Living Lab. From

these concepts the study is being carried through. Even though these concepts are

given as a directive, they might not be obvious and therefore needs some reflection.

5.5.1 Unsuitability of concepts

In this thesis an Open Innovation and Living Lab approach is being used. These

concepts have not been tested in this kind of environment before. Within different

businesses as well as in different firms there are separate ways regarding how the

work is managed but also how innovation is handled. There are differences regarding

factors such as competitive environment, task complexity and management style to

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 29 ~

mention some, which also means that innovation management styles could possibly

be more or less suitable for the organisation (Lawson, Samson. 2001).

Another problem with new aspects on innovation management such as Living Lab

and Open Innovation is that no one yet really knows what kind of organisational and

managerial demands it puts on the involved organisations. Research points out the

importance of both organisational and managerial attention within companies to

provide a satisfying innovation capability (Lawson, Samson. 2001).

5.5.2 Change of paradigm

Another critique is that several researchers in the area talks about a shift of paradigm

when discussing the effects of open innovation (Chesbrough, Appleyard, 2007). The

discussion about paradigm goes back to the book The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions by Tomas S. Kuhn from 1962. According to Kuhn, the term paradigm

instead of theory points out what can be rejected and be replaced during a scientific

revolution (Marc-Wogau, Bergström, Carlshamre, 2000).

“When a paradigm is established in a discipline it works as a general opinion and the

effect is more or less governing in an unaware manner for researchers. The paradigm

is experienced as obvious to active researchers” (Johansson, 2003). Kuhn also meant

that different paradigms cannot exist within the same discipline at the same time

(Johansson, 2003).

The term paradigm has through the years received another kind of explanation than

the one that Kuhn himself originally meant. This means that it today is being used

sometimes only to explain a major change within a research discipline (Johansson,

2003).

5.5.3 User focus

Some organisations consider it to be risky to put a large amount of their investments

in the hands of their customers or users. They mean that the user or customer do not

always know what they want and there is a risk in relying too much in them as a

result. One can also discuss whether an organisation could or even should try to

achieve total customer focus in their innovation process. Some parts of an innovation

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 30 ~

process might be to complex for at least some users to handle and as a result also

make a decision (Schilling, 2008).

A problem is the ways that users are supposed to interact with to be able to affect their

situation. If the channel to interact is not easy to reach, this interaction will be difficult

and the result will not be as expected (Abasca, Azevedo, 2007).

5.5.4 What the customers say they want is not always what they

actually buy

When companies put money and effort in conducting a market research, the result

could vary depending on the achieved level of objectivity within the survey. As

Lekvall and Wahlbin describe it, market information is the kind of facts that are

relying on objective foundations for marketing decisions (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2006).

Uno Alfredeen claimed that, before a customer actually buys a product or service, one

can never really know the real potential (Malmström, 2001). In the case of ALL there

is a potential difficulty to measure the objectivity of the results since users are

allowed to promote their own ideas or innovations. But on the other hand this could

create a kind of “buzz” that for example was really important during the promotion of

Apples iPhone.

5.5.5 Nothing new really

To say that the world today is moving towards a more open innovation process can be

discussed. Some researchers would say that this is nothing new and that it is a focus

that has been of interest during a long time. Researchers talk about that organisations

always have tried to listen to the user or consumer because otherwise they would not

be able to sell their product or service. Claiming that the era of Internet has changed

this is only partially true. The channels for interaction might have changed, but does

that necessary result in different or/and better results? (Schilling, 2008).

Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow

~ 31 ~

6. Key Concepts

This chapter concerns and explains the key concepts of Open Innovation, Open

Source and Living Lab.

6.1 Closed versus Open Innovation

Definition: “Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of

knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use

of innovation, respectively. [This paradigm] assumes that firms can and should use

external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as

they look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough 2006).

Table 1: Differences regarding closed vs. open Innovation

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_innovation) 2008-09-30

Closed innovation Principles Open innovation Principles

 
Back
Top