Abstract
In a competitive world as ours, knowledge management has become a crucial part of innovation in organizations. Further, with the trend of open innovation being practiced throughout the different hierarchies of an organization, the inflow of knowledge has been higher than ever. The inbound open innovation principles by Chesbrough have been replicated across many large companies in practice where ideas for new products, processes or businesses come from external sources such as customers, suppliers, different departments, and competitors. However, prioritizing these ideas or concepts are based on subjective experience and intuition of decision makers. This research aims to eliminate subjectivity for prioritization and selection of ideas and concepts. It proposes a systematic method of idea landscaping, prioritization, and screening to aid in decision making thereby reducing time, bias in decision-making and risk in innovation failures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abramov, O., Markosov, S., Medvedev, A.: Experimental validation of quantum-economic analysis (QEA) as a screening tool for new product development. In: Koziołek, S., Chechurin, L., Collan, M. (eds.) Advances and Impacts of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, pp. 17–25. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96532-1_2
Abramov, O.Y.: Voice Of the Product To Supplement “Voice Of the Customer”, TRIZfest (2015)
Altshuller, G.S.: The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity, Technical Innovation Center, Inc., p. 312 (1999). http://www.amazon.com/dp/0964074044
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J.: Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm - Chapter 1: Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation, pp. 1–25 (2006)
Chybowski, L., Gawdzińska, K., Souchkov, V.: applying the anticipatory failure determination at a very early stage of a system’s development: overview and case study. Multidisciplinary Aspects Prod. Eng. 1(1), 205–215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.2478/mape-2018-0027
Herstatt, C., Verworn, B.: The, “fuzzy front end” of innovation bringing technology and innovation into the boardroom. Strategy, Innov. Competences Bus. Value 4, 347–372 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230512771
Kaplan, S., et al.: New Tools for Failure & Risk Analysis, Ideation International, Inc. Dearborn (1999). http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:New+Tools+for+Failure+and+Risk+Analysis#5
Van der Panne, G.: Dept. Economics of Innovation, Delft University of Technology The Netherlands, Int. J. Innov. Manage., 7(3), 1–29 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919603000830
Rochford, L.: Generating and screening new products ideas. Ind. Market. Manage. 20(4), 287–296 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(91)90003-X
Russo, R.D.F.S.M., Camanho, R.: Criteria in AHP: a systematic review of literature, Procedia Computer Science. Elsevier Masson SAS, 55(Itqm), pp. 1123–1132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Scientia Iranica 9(3), 215–229 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590
Zlotin, B., Zlotin, A.: Levels of Invention and Intellectual Property Strategies, Innovation, pp. 1–17. GIPO, Geneva (2003)
Chesbrough, H., Bogers, M.: Explicating Open Innovation, in New Frontiers in Open Innovation (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682461.003.0001
Kavitha, K., Vijayan, R., Sathishkumar, T.: Fibre-metal laminates: a review of reinforcement and formability characteristics. Materials Today: Proc. Elsevier Ltd. 22, 601–605 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.232
Song, B., Kang, S.A.: Method of assigning weights using a ranking and nonhierarchy comparison. In: Pardalos, P. (ed. ) Advances in Decision Sciences. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, p. 8963214 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8963214
Alex Lyubirmirskiy - Intergral S-Curve Analysis. The 13th international conference TRIZ fest - 2017, p 222 (2017)
Vestola, M.: (2010) A Comparison of Nine Basic Techniques for Requirements Prioritization
Danesh, A.S., Ahmad, R.: Study of prioritization techniques using students as subjects. In: ICIME 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Information Management and Engineering. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 390–394 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Phadnis, N. (2020). Algorithm for Idea Landscaping and Prioritization. In: Cavallucci, D., Brad, S., Livotov, P. (eds) Systematic Complex Problem Solving in the Age of Digitalization and Open Innovation. TFC 2020. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 597. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61295-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61295-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61294-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61295-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
