Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multi-stakeholder system-based methodology to evaluate the needs of innovation ecosystems

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current nature of innovation projects, which integrate a growing number of stakeholders, is increasing the complexity and scope of the product development process. The understanding of the complex and synergistic dynamics between the entire set of stakeholders requires well-adapted approaches to deal with this complexity since the early stages of a project. The present paper proposes a new methodology, based on the Kano model and needs trade-off methodology for a multi-stakeholders’ ecosystem during early design stages, enabling to identify and anticipate the needs of an ecosystem of stakeholders. The resulting aggregated Kano matrix enables a holistic vision of the aggregated stakeholders’ needs, and then identify emerging needs of the entire ecosystem. The proposed methodology is illustrated through a case study concerning an innovative project of self-directed learning tool apps for smartphones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://wiki.ece.cmu.edu/ddl/index.php/Value_opportunity_analysis

References

  • Badreau S, Boulanger J-L (2014) Ingénierie des exigences: Méthodes et bonnes pratiques pour construire et maintenir un référentiel. Dunod

  • Ben Rejeb H, Boly V, Morel-Guimaraes L (2008) A new methodology based on Kano model for the evaluation of a new product acceptability during the front-end phases. In: Computer Software and Applications, 2008. COMPSAC’08. 32nd Annual IEEE International. pp 619–624

  • Berger C, Blauth R, Boger D, Bolster C, Burchill G, DuMouchel W, Pouliot F, Richter R, Rubinoff A, Shen D et al (1993) Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Cent Qual Manag J 2:3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Boly V, Morel L, Renaud J, Guidat C (2000) Innovation in low tech SMBs: evidence of a necessary constructivist approach. Technovation 20(3):161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00099-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonjour E (2008) Contributions à l'instrumentation du métier d'architecte système: de l'architecture modulaire du produit à l'organisation du système de conception. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Franche-Comté

  • Börjesson S, Dahlsten F, Williander M (2006) Innovative scanning experiences from an idea generation project at Volvo Cars. Technovation 26:775–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagan J, Cagan JM, Vogel CM (2002) Creating breakthrough products: innovation from product planning to program approval. Ft Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Camargo M, Bary R, Skiba N, Boly V, Smith R (2012) Studying the implications and impact of smartphones on self–directed learning under a Living Lab approach. Int J Prod Dev 17:119–138. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2012.051151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ (2002) Optimizing the stage-gate process: what best-practice companies do—II. Res Technol Manag 45:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godet M (1991) Actors’ moves and strategies: the mactor method: an air transport case study. Futures 23:605–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta M, Shri C (2018) Understanding customer requirements of corrugated industry using Kano model. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 35(8):1653–1670. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-04-2017-0074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber N, Fargnoli M, Sakao T (2020) Integrating QFD for product-service systems with the Kano model and fuzzy AHP. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 31:929–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1470897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He L, Song W, Wu Z, Xu Z, Zheng M, Ming X (2017) Quantification and integration of an improved Kano model into QFD based on multi-population adaptive genetic algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 114:183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J, Zhang Y (2005) Product portfolio planning with customer-engineering interaction. IIE Trans 37:801–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170590917011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao JR, Simpson TW, Siddique Z (2007) Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 18:5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive quality and must be quality. J Jpn Soc Qual Control 14:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S (2001) Strategic negotiation in multiagent environments (intelligent robotics & autonomous agents). MIT Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lesser VR (1999) Cooperative multiagent systems: a personal view of the state of the art. Knowl Data Eng IEEE Trans on 11:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Tang J, Luo X, Xu J (2009) An integrated method of rough set, Kano’s model and AHP for rating customer requirements’ final importance. Expert Syst Appl 36:7045–7053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu SC-Y, Cai J (2001) A collaborative design process model in the sociotechnical engineering design framework. AI EDAM 15:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006040115105X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MaDKit [WWW Document] (2002) URL http://www.madkit.net/madkit/. Accessed 20 June 2017

  • Morel L, Boly V (2006) New Product Development Process (NPDP): updating the identification stage practices. Int J Prod Dev 3:232–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallot M, Trousse B, Senach B, Scapin D (2010) Living lab research landscape: from user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. In: First European Summer School “Living Labs”

  • Rashid MM, Tamaki J, Ullah S, Kubo A (2011) A Kano model based computer system for respondents determination: customer needs analysis for product development aspects. Manag Sci Eng 4:70–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Rejeb HB, Boly V, Morel-Guimaraes L (2011) Attractive quality for requirement assessment during the front-end of innovation. TQM J 23:216–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharif Ullah AMM, Tamaki J (2011) Analysis of Kano-model-based customer needs for product development. Syst Eng 14:154–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tontini G (2003) Develop of customer needs in the QFD using a modified Kano model. J Acad Bus Econ 2:103–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang C-H (2013) Incorporating customer satisfaction into the decision-making process of product configuration: a fuzzy Kano perspective. Int J Prod Res 51:6651–6662. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.825742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang C-H, Hsueh O-Z (2013) A novel approach to incorporate customer preference and perception into product configuration: a case study on smart pads. Comput Stand Interfaces 35:549–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witell L, Löfgren M, Gustafsson A, Rejeb HB, Boly V, Morel-Guimaraes L (2011) Attractive quality for requirement assessment during the front-end of innovation. TQM J

  • Wood J, Sarkani S, Mazzuchi T, Eveleigh T (2012) A framework for capturing the hidden stakeholder system. Syst Eng 16(3):251–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Q, Jiao RJ, Yang X, Helander M, Khalid HM, Opperud A (2009) An analytical Kano model for customer need analysis. Des Stud 30:87–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip MH, Phaal R, Probert DR (2019) Integrating multiple stakeholder interests into conceptual design. Eng Manag J 31:142–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ERPI (Equipe de Recherche sur les Processus Innovatifs), Université de Lorraine, Nancy Cedex, France

    Mauricio Camargo, Brunelle Marche, Francisco Toledo & Vincent Boly

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Pedro Palominos & Miguel Alfaro

Authors
  1. Mauricio Camargo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro Palominos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brunelle Marche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco Toledo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincent Boly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miguel Alfaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brunelle Marche.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Marche, B. et al. A multi-stakeholder system-based methodology to evaluate the needs of innovation ecosystems. Res Eng Design 32, 489–506 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-021-00368-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-021-00368-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation