IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00976059.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Convince me or commit me? Avoid the cognitive trap induced by Non-Human Actors in early stages of NPD

Author

Listed:
  • Fabien Jean

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Pascal Le Masson

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Benoit Weil

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Akrich, Callon & Latour's concept of interessement has been broadly used in NPD. A gap in this theoretical stream of research remains in the difference between human actors' commitment and convincement. The first concerns the enrolment of competent allies while the second concerns arousing top managers' approbation. To address this gap, our qualitative research takes place at SAFRAN, a corporate conglomerate of highly specialised companies. We take the focus of non-human actors (NHA) involved in early stages of NPD analysing 28 NHA of 5 different representational media in 4 different contexts. To characterise NHAs we review the literature on artefacts made within NPD and identify two utmost types (A and B). We find that NHAs which match type A artefacts do better at convincing in prospect of an entry gate to development and that NHAs which match type B artefacts do better at committing in the ideation process. The difficulty for managers is that type A or type B artefacts cannot be recognised according to their representational medium. The consequence is a misunderstanding: some NHA which match type B artefacts create no interessement because type A artefacts were expected, introducing the risk of missing an innovation opportunity. However their failure may not be definitive as managers have the ability to switch from convincement logic to commitment logic. This change in interaction is more probable to happen in informal meetings than in distant artefacts review. Some NHA take advantage of their A-B artefact ambiguity, human actors interact with them by alternating logics, inducing richer decisionmaking and ideation. We conclude that if managers were aware of the two types of artefacts they could adapt their attitude accordingly and take better decisions. We suggest that managers favour artefacts presentations in informal meetings to favour switching between convincement and commitment logics and avoid the cognitive trap.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabien Jean & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2014. "Convince me or commit me? Avoid the cognitive trap induced by Non-Human Actors in early stages of NPD," Post-Print hal-00976059, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00976059
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00976059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00976059/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Waiting games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty : Editorial," Post-Print hal-00794423, HAL.
    2. Maria Elmquist & Blanche Segrestin, 2009. "Sustainable development through innovative design: lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(2), pages 229-244.
    3. Nooteboom, B. & Berger, H. & Noorderhaven, N.G., 1997. "Effects of trust and governance on relational risk," Other publications TiSEM 8e83932e-064c-40e8-afe7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Segrestin, Blanche, 2005. "Partnering to explore: The Renault-Nissan Alliance as a forerunner of new cooperative patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 657-672, June.
    5. Maria Elmquist & Blanche Segrestin, 2009. "Sustainable development through innovative design: lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm," Post-Print hal-00450992, HAL.
    6. Hutchel, Armand & Molet, Hughues, 1986. "Rational modelling in understanding and aiding human decision-making: About two case studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 178-186, January.
    7. Thomas Gillier & Akin Osman Kazakçi & Gérald Piat, 2012. "The Generation of Common Purpose in Innovation Partnerships : a Design Perspective," Post-Print halshs-00718287, HAL.
    8. Borum, Finn & Christiansen, John K., 2006. "Actors and structure in IS projects: What makes implementation happen?," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 213-237, September.
    9. Marine Agogué & Anna Yström & Pascal Le Masson, 2013. "Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation," Post-Print hal-00707376, HAL.
    10. Thomas Gillier & Gérald Piat, 2011. "Exploring over the Presumed Identity of Emerging Technology," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00641765, HAL.
    11. Thomas Gillier & Gérald Piat & Benoît Roussel & Patrick Truchot, 2010. "Managing Innovation Fields in a Cross-Industry Exploratory Partnership with C-K Design Theory," Post-Print hal-00586603, HAL.
    12. Yu-Ting Cheng & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1996. "Learning the Innovation Journey: Order out of Chaos?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(6), pages 593-614, December.
    13. Kirsimarja Blomqvist & Juha Levy, 2006. "Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks," International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 31-48.
    14. Thomas Gillier & Gérald Piat, 2011. "Exploring over the Presumed Identity of Emerging Technology," Post-Print hal-00641765, HAL.
    15. D.K. Robinson & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Waiting Games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty," Post-Print hal-00870369, HAL.
    16. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Waiting games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty," Post-Print hal-00794445, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabien Jean & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2015. "Engage engineers as designers to generate new meanings in concept generation," Post-Print hal-01148387, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2015. "Portfolio management in double unknown situations: technological platformsand the role of cross-application managers," Post-Print hal-01199929, HAL.
    2. Fabien Jean & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2015. "Engage engineers as designers to generate new meanings in concept generation," Post-Print hal-01148387, HAL.
    3. Marine Agogué & Elsa Berthet & Tobias Fredberg & Pascal Le Masson & Blanche Segrestin & Martin Stoetzel & Martin Wiener & Anna Yström, 2017. "Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the 'unknown': a contingency approach," Post-Print hal-01481878, HAL.
    4. Brun, Juliette & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Pénicaud, Caroline & Cerf, Marianne & Meynard, Jean-Marc, 2021. "Designing a research agenda for coupled innovation towards sustainable agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Potstada, Michael & Parandian, Alireza & Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Zybura, Jan, 2016. "An alignment approach for an industry in the making: DIGINOVA and the case of digital fabrication," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 182-192.
    6. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    7. Susanne Ollila & Anna Yström & Marine Agogué, 2013. "Stepping out of the zone of territorial protection enables open innovation collaboration," Post-Print hal-00931185, HAL.
    8. Armand Hatchuel & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Marine Agogué & Akin Kazakçi & Sophie Hooge, 2016. "Multiple forms of applications and impacts of a design theory -ten years of industrial applications of C-K theory," Post-Print hal-01184426, HAL.
    9. Mo Chen & Xuhua Hu & Jijian Zhang & Zhe Xu & Guang Yang & Zenan Sun, 2023. "Are Firms More Willing to Seek Green Technology Innovation in the Context of Economic Policy Uncertainty? —Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Armand Hatchuel & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Marine Agogué & Akin Kazakçi & Sophie Hooge, 2015. "Multiple forms of applications and impacts of a design theory -ten years of industrial applications of C-K theory," Post-Print hal-01200460, HAL.
    11. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Marc Audétat & Pierre-Benoit Joly & Harro van Lente, 2021. "Enemies of the future? Questioning the regimes of promising in emerging science and technology," Post-Print halshs-03502894, HAL.
    12. Armand Hatchuel & Pascal Le Masson & Yoram Reich & Eswaran Subrahmanian, 2018. "Design theory: a foundation of a new paradigm for design science and engineering," Post-Print hal-01633021, HAL.
    13. Thomas Gillier & Akin Osman Kazakçi & Gérald Piat, 2012. "The Generation of Common Purpose in Innovation Partnerships : a Design Perspective," Post-Print halshs-00718287, HAL.
    14. Kokshagina, Olga & Gillier, Thomas & Cogez, Patrick & Le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoit, 2017. "Using innovation contests to promote the development of generic technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 152-164.
    15. Mariana Mazzucato & Douglas K Robinson, 2016. "Lost in space? NASA and the changing publicprivate eco-system in space," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Jean-Claude Boldrini & Nathalie Schieb-Bienfait, 2015. "Collectively exploring the potential of technology derived from university research: the NanoMem case," Working Papers hal-01208517, HAL.
    17. Sophie Hooge & Mathias Béjean & Frédéric Arnoux, 2016. "Organising For Radical Innovation: The Benefits Of The Interplay Between Cognitive And Organisational Processes In Kcp Workshops," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(04), pages 1-33, May.
    18. Mäkitie, Tuukka & Hanson, Jens & Steen, Markus & Hansen, Teis & Andersen, Allan Dahl, 2022. "Complementarity formation mechanisms in technology value chains," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2019. "The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 936-948.
    20. Thomas Gillier & Akin Osman Kazakçi & Gérald Piat, 2012. "The Generation of Common Purpose in Innovation Partnerships : a Design Perspective," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-00718287, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    innovation; prototype; artefacts; ideation; decision; actor-network theory;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00976059. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.