Silvia Arditi

Pierandrea Miglietta

Lucia Peraldo

Fiamma Sinibaldi

Luciana Tornabene

Giulia Trombi

1 2 3 4 5

The

Abernathy

Utterback

model

Resource

Based

View VS.

Structural

View

Dominant

Design vs

Convergent

Design

L. Tushman

and

P. Anderson

model

Capetta et al.

study

6

Structural

Ambidexerity

Time

Acceptance

of the style

High

diffusion

of the

new style

Slow start,

new style

has to be

accepted

Approachingto the limit

“there was almost

nowhere else to go..

The mini-skirt could

go no higher”

mini-skirt as

mass diffusionphenomenon Time

“a controversialitem of clothing,

symbol of

liberation”

1962 1965 1975

Acceptanceof the style

Time

Style

The 90’sThe 50’s 2014

Unlikely in

technology , mini-skirt

is not more efficient than the the 50’s one.

It is just more popular

D

Stylea temporal phenomenon

an obligatory

transformation of taste.

Approches

to Style Search

Designer

Driven

MarketDriven

Two Approaches to Style Search

KEY SUBJECT

COMPETENCES

PROCESS

LOCUS OF

SEARCH

Designer Unit (Design Function)

Designer

Customer and

competitororientation

Individual sensemaking Collective sensemaking

Local Distant

Designer-Driven

SearchMarket-Driven

Search

Two Approaches to Style Search

Designer-Driven

SearchMarket-Driven

Search

INCENTIVES

LEGACY

INNOVATION

OUTCOMES

LONG-RUN

LIMITATIONS

Designer is the owner

of the company or

gets royalties

Member of the unit are

regular employees with

a traditional division of

labour and an

incentive to innovate

Past collections Market dynamics

Evolutionary change Radical change

Adaptation with the

market at riskStylistic identity at risk

the design that is used

by the majority of the

players in the industry

ANDERSON AND TUSHMAN (1990)

Which industries come to your mind?

…

This model is applicable also to industries driven by style

….and not only by technology.

Period

of fermentRelevant style differences

1

Period of

incremental

changeConvergence on the same style

Technical

compatibility«the capability

of different interfaces

Symbolic

innovation

Reassignment of social meaning

to an existing product,

the change of aesthetic characteristics

generating both a new pdt and a neìwmeaning.

Dominant

Design

Convergent

Design

Fo

r st

ylis

tic

inn

ov

atio

n

Compatibility

The desire for stylistic innovation can be

explained as both the want to have the right pdts

and interact with the right ppl.

Fo

r st

ylis

tic

inn

ov

atio

n

Compatibility

Visual coherence in the aesthetic appearance of the elements

AESTHETIC COMPATIBILITY

HYPOTHESIS

Stylistic innovation follows

an evolutionary model characterised by the

sequence of periods of

ferment and incremental

change.

*R. Cappetta et al. / Research Policy 35 (2006) 1273–1290

1980 - 1985

Masculine- Structered jackets with XL

shoulder pats- Career Woman’s Uniform

Period of incremental change

1986-1990

Period of Ferment-More unstructured clothing- More use of pale colorsSomething is changing!

1991-1993

Minimalism- Strong use of neutral colors- Clean cuts- More feminity

1994-1998

Period of Ferment

- Neutral colors are mixedwith strong ones

- More experimentation

1999 - 2001

Kitsch- Artificial materials- Strong colors - Combinations that clash.

75.7%designers’

preferences.

Demand of a

product increases

when others

consume it

qa demand of a

product

decreases

because too

many others are

consuming it.

Are

accelarating

these effects

HYPOTHESISDuring the period of

incremental change,

incumbents are more

innovative than new entrants.

Indeed, they have a

consolidated style and they

prefer incremental innovations

to radical changes.

HYPOTHESISDuring the period of ferment, new entrants are more innovative than incumbents.

In fact, they can deploy at best their ‘newness’ by creating a completely new style, because of lack of inertial frames, cognitive ‘sunk costs’ and existing routines.

HYPOTHESIS

During the period of

incremental change,

incumbents are statistically

more successful than new

entrants.

HYPOTHESIS

During the period of

ferment, new entrants

are statistically more

successful than

incumbents.

old styles can instantly

bacome relevant again.

STRUCTURAL

AMBIDEXTERITYMaster

the

present

Pre-empt

the

future

explorationexploitation

Even those industry historically drivenby technological innovation…

…are starting to strenghten the

importance of stylistic innovation.

You!

Bibliography

Cappetta, Rossella, Cillo, Paola & Ponti, Anna (2006)

"Convergent designs in fine fashion: An evolutionary

model for stylistic innovation". Research Policy, 35(9),

pp. 1273-1290.

Cillo, Paola & Verona, Gianmario (2008) "Search

Styles in Style Searching: Exploring Innovation

Strategies in Fashion Firms". Long range

planning, 41(6), pp. 650-671.