Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159

6th CIRP Design Conference

Methodology for lean design of disruptive innovations

*, a Brad, S., b Murar, M., c Brad, E.
a,b,c
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 28 Memorandumului str., Cluj-Napoca, 400114, Romania.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-073-001-7126; E-mail address: stelian.brad@staff.utcluj.ro

Abstract

In sustainable economies, disruptive innovations are welcome to balance the gap between the intrinsic value of technological
innovations and the economic value perceived by various customer segments, as well as to transform some segments of non-
consumers into consumers. Starting from the characteristics of disruptive innovation and using a structured problem solving
method, a lean design methodology to support disruptiveness is proposed in this paper. Lean comes from the fact that the design
process is structured to reduce ineffectiveness and maximize value. It combines market analysis with business model innovation
and directed system evolution, together with a proposition of ten inventive vectors for provoking disruption of existent technologies
in the market. A test of the methodology within the field of technologies for smart buildings is presented.
©©2016
2016 The Authors.
The Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published by B.V. This isB.V.
Elsevier an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Professor Lihui Wang.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 26th CIRP Design Conference
Keywords: design methodology; disruptive innovation; lean; smart connected products; mobile control

1. Introduction If in such cases, where only reach actors and/or experts can
access certain technologies, companies can redesign the
Technologies evolve in a rhythm that is not always technology from a completely new angle in order to fulfill the
synchronized with the capability of consumer segments to fully needs and simultaneously to produce it at accessible costs and
exploit their potentials [1]. Market competition forces friendly interface to touch new market segments and user
technology-based companies to innovate continuously despite segments. These situations describe zones of disruptive
the fact that, after a certain level of development, not even the innovations [8,9]. It is suggestively illustrated in Figure 1.
high-end consumers are capable to use all functions and
features of technology [2]. This is not necessarily due to the
inability of users to handle technology, but rather because they
do not have business opportunities or processes that call cutting
edge functions and functionalities or high level operational
performances [3].
Sometimes, the business model is so expensive that certain
market segments do not have access to some high-end
technologies [4,5]. Unaffordability of some technologies to
certain markets segments happens not only due to prices and
costs emerging from the business model, but also due to the
high cost of technology [6].
There are also cases where technology is very sophisticated
and there are no dedicated interfaces to make it accessible for
operation to ordinary users, being preserved only to niche
specialists and experts [6,7]. Fig. 1. Disruptive innovation (adaptation from [4])

2212-8271 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 26th CIRP Design Conference
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.204
154 S. Brad et al. / Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159
On long term, disruptive innovations can kill the parent
technology, because one of their key effects is to disrupt
markets and to open new ones [9]. It is thus the purpose of this
paper to contribute to this issue. With these things in mind, the
authors of this paper have formulated a methodology to
approach disruptive innovation from the design perspective.
Research focus is on disruption from expensive
technologies and expensive business models to cost-affordable
technologies and price-accessible business models for low-end
new markets.
In order to introduce this methodology, the subsequent part
of the paper is organized into seven sections. A perspective on
the state-of-the-art from scientific literature is revealed in
section 2 of the paper. Section 3 is dedicated to present the
general framework for supporting methodology ideation.
Section 4 of the paper describes the design methodology for
disruptive innovation. Application of the methodology is
briefly introduced in the section 5 of the paper. Discussions
around results are presented in section 6. The paper ends with
a section of conclusions and comments on the limitations of the
methodology. Further researches on refining the design method
complete section 7 of the paper.
2. Literature review
Researches on design methods for disruptive innovation are
not yet published in international databases. An extensive
search in ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS did not return any
relevant result in this area. Tangential to the topic, scientific
literature reveals very good examples of disruptive innovations
in different fields (e.g. 3D printing and rapid prototyping,
medical devices, railway technologies, software applications,
services, etc.) [10,11,12,13,14,15], but no description of the
design approaches behind.
Assessment of customer analysis methods for enabling
disruptive innovation is reported [3,16], but such methods are
not part of a design methodology.
However, they might be very inspirational in the planning
phase of designing for disruptive innovation, even if they could
cover only a tiny part of the product design process. Researches
exposed in the scientific literature are aware of the fact that
processes required to develop disruptive innovations are not yet
well understood [16]. Though, the same literature highlights
that an essential part of creating disruptive innovations is
collecting the proper data and information on potential and
current customers, as well as their needs and behaviors
[6,16,17].
Recent published researches propose an evaluation model to
reduce the implementing obstacle of disruptive innovation
[18], but it does provide only guidance for evaluating the
success ratio of disruptive innovative design scheme
objectively and does nothing on the design method of
disruptive innovations.
Tools for evaluating disruptive innovation are reported in
other papers, too [19]. However, the lack of critical mass of
research work in the field of systematic approaches to design
disruptive technologies is clearly visible.
3. Ideation framework of the design methodology
The lean design methodology for disruptive innovation was
conceptualized and tested in the context of a research project
where the authors of this paper have been involved to set up a
smart box for controlling various aspects (temperature, gas,
water, electricity, etc.) in ordinary apartments from block of
flats, where majority of population with lower income lives. To
build a smart residential building, related traditional
technologies can easily reach 200,000 $. In order to make such
technologies accessible for new markets of low-end
consumers, costs must be dramatically reduced.
In order to conceptualize the design methodology, Theory
of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) contradiction matrix
(CM) is considered [20]. TRIZ CM was selected for this
purpose because it displays a space of creation driven by two
important laws: law of ideality [20] and law of convergence
[21]. Both laws are well-aligned with lean philosophy [22].
TRIZ CM translates pairs of conflicting problems into pairs of
TRIZ generic parameters, which are afterwards introduced into
a TRIZ CM to reveal propositions for generic directions of
intervention (i.e. called inventive vectors). The theory behind
TRIZ is broad; therefore, reader that is not familiar with TRIZ
ecosystem is invited to consult specific literature.
Having in mind the goal of disruptive innovation, the
following pairs of conflicting problems have to be treated:
x Low cost of technology while ensuring high technical
quality
x Low cost of technology while proving the key features
x Low cost of technology while facilitating high service
quality
x Easy to use/convenience while ensuring high technical
quality
x Limited number of features without affecting customer
satisfaction
Translating the set of five conflicts above into TRIZ generic
parameters, and further into the contradiction matrix, the
directions where the design methodology should act are:
D1 - Instead taking an action that is dictated by the
specifications of the problem, implement an opposite action;
D2 - Replace hard parts of the system with soft and/or
reconfigurable modules that can change their “volume”,
“concentration”, “state” or “shape”; D3 - Replace an expensive
system with several inexpensive systems; D4 - Divide the
system into elements that are able of changing their position
relative to each other. In order to define the set of methods and
concepts of the design methodology, a relationship matrix
between the set {D1, D2, D3, D4} and an exhaustive group of
methods for planning, analysis, evaluation was considered.
This exhaustive group of methods included over 100 methods
proposed in the literature of engineering design. Those methods
that had no strong relationship with at least one of the elements
D1, D2, D3, or D4 have been eliminated in the first stage.
Further, those that consume too much time or are less known
in the world of practitioners have been rejected in the second
stage. In the third stage have been eliminated all methods that
are not related with at least three of the four elements D1, D2,
 S. Brad et al. / Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159 155

D3, D4. By refining the matrix, the final set of methods was
obtained. It is shown in Figure 2, which highlights the
translation of {D1, D2, D3, D4} into the design methods
organized into four groups: collection, deployment,
reorganization, and transformation.
forces; e) apply multi-level connections; f) use asymmetry; g)
harmonize individual goals with collective goals; h) consider
net present value and real options to see if an idea is financially
feasible; i) prisoner paradox; j) shipwrecked paradox. Prisoner
paradox is about the exploitation of only existing local
resources to solve a problem by their intelligent rearrangement
and use. The shipwrecked paradox is about the transformation
of some local negative factors into positive factors by
identifying hidden value networks. The 6 Hats method is
proposed in [29] and its role is to analyze the ideation results
from multiple facets (objective and facts-based, negative and
critical, positive and emotional, creative and nonlinear, flow
and process-based, benefits and value added-based). LOTUS
method is useful for detailing the concept around its major
modules/units [30].

Fig. 2. The minimum set of tools for disruptive design

Symbols in the matrix from Figure 2 signify the followings:

{ - weak relationship; ~ - medium relationship; ` - strong
relationship. The ideation framework emerges from the net
revealed by the relationship matrix in Figure 2. It should be
interpreted like this: (1) Take an existing technology (usually a
very expensive one and/or a very sophisticated one) and inspect
it into more details by using collection and deployment tools Æ
(2) Apply D1 and/or D2 and/or D3 and/or D4 on that
technology to break it into unusual parts Æ (3) Generate new
things by multiple forms of ideation using reorganization tools
Æ (4) Combine the new forms into new technologies using
transformation tools.

4. The lean design methodology for disruptive innovation

Because the design methodology is grounded on the

philosophy of maximizing consumer value with minimum
waste and resources, it is enriched with the suffix “lean”,
considering the definition of lean from manufacturing practices
[22], [23]. Using the indications from section 3 and applying a
logical organization of the tools from Figure 2 to follow a
design flow, a lean design methodology for disruptive
innovation is further proposed.
Lean is demonstrated by the fact that, in the matrix from
Figure 2, every row and every column has at least a box with a
strong relationship symbol. The methodology is visualized in Fig. 3. The lean design methodology for disruptive innovation
Figure 3. Go-to-gemba is a concept used in quality planning
[24]. Its role is to make a deep market analysis. Mind-mapping The first key stage on provoking disruption (or disruptive
is a brainstorming tool [24]. Details about directed evolution thinking) in the methodology from Figure 3 is in the point
can be consulted in [25,26]. The 9-Windows method is where the cost objective is established. The second moment is
introduced in [26]. Both directed evolution vectors and 9- during the application of blue ocean strategy. The toolkit of
Windows method help in understanding “possible futures” of disruption tools must help in defining the paths of investigation
the current technology. Blue ocean concept originates from and ideation within the space shaped by cost objective and blue
[27]. Its role is mainly to innovate the business model. The tool- ocean strategy. Because many conflicts and constrains occur in
box of 10 disruption tools is proposed in [28] and it effectively this space, TRIZ method is a reliable mean in helping engineers
helps to disrupt the current technology based on information to formulate adequate solutions or to suggest areas where more
revealed in the previous steps of the methodology. The tool- fundamental research is necessary to produce disruption.
box is about: a) activate resonance; b) introduce neutral
elements; c) act against the wolf-pack spirit; d) use centrifugal
156 S. Brad et al. / Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159
5. Illustrative example
The methodology from section 4 was actually developed to
solve an engineering project in the field of smart buildings. In
this respect the high-end technology selected for research was
the professional building automation systems (BAS).
Professional building automation systems were first deployed
for non-residential buildings (e.g. office buildings, hospitals,
universities, factories, etc.).
Directed evolution and 9-Windows technique applied to this
technology show a tendency towards connecting more-and-
more smarter devices, wireless control, and much more
embeddedness of controllers, move on cloud, cyber protection
and actionable analytics.
Go-to-gemba applied on high-end consumers (e.g. high-tech
research labs, automated factories, hospitals) revealed a
decreasing in use of the full-pallet of functions after two or
more year-period of exploitation due to complications in
maintenance. Mostly, the long-term focus is on energy co-
generation and control, heating/cooling control, lighting
control, Internet control of devices and equipment, access
control and security control, presence control.
Go-to-gemba applied on low-end consumers (e.g. schools,
villas of wealthy people, office buildings) disclosed a main
interest for a limited number of functions in building
automation, especially access control and security control, light
control, gas and electricity control, water control.
Using the Mind-Map method, a great financial potential has
been foreseen also within residential areas. A segment of non-
consumers was identified in the owners of usual residential
apartments. Go-to-gemba applied to this new category of
consumers has shown that, in order to become attractive to
residential spaces, BAS shall be able to provide features as
services with a great level of flexibility and reduced costs.
Market analysis of this category of new consumers reveals
price objectives starting from 2000-3000 €.
To create a “blue ocean” space of the new business model,
deployment of residential BAS that are capable to cope with
individual or family life philosophies and actual needs, while
maintaining a reduced costs, is a difficult issue to be serviced
by intelligent building management system (BMS) integrators.
From financial point of view the business model should
consider that, contracted BAS services (including investments
with hardware, software, maintenance and workmanship)
should not exceed the monthly costs of a non-BAS enhanced
residence.
From the flexibility point of view BMS integrators should
consider interoperability with non-heterogeneous electronics,
gadgets, goods or other delivered services of residential
inhabitants’ daily life, which shall exponentially grow once
with the emergence of Internet of Things (IoT).
Industry players became aware of the financial potential of
residential BAS and have started to adjust their industrial
solutions and know-how for development of residential BAS
solutions. Nevertheless, it seems that lack of good
interoperability versus costs and the need of specialized
personal for commissioning of actual residential BAS
solutions, together with the emergence of Internet of Things
(IoT) and explosion of low costs and high performance cyber-
physical systems (CPS) made available residential solutions
un-attractive in spite of their advantages (e.g. stability, support,
standardization).
If one would take a closer look upon the requirements of
residential BAS, it could observe a reduced number of
requirements (heating control, energy meters, smoke, light),
therefore a reduced number of hardware. Still, the importance
stands in the customization abilities to match inhabitant needs.
With the emergence of low cost embedded systems enhanced
with Ethernet connectivity (wired or wireless), the deployment
of BAS standards like KNX, BACnet and other derived
communication fieldbuses to residential buildings will be
unnecessary due to their complexity and additional equipment
requirement to bridge different fieldbuses (e.g. gateways,
couplers, controllers).
Some solutions for residential BAS already exist onto the
market. For example, Siemens offers off-the-shelf residential
BAS products under the brand Synco. They are dedicated to
small living areas and are based on KNX communication
protocol standard. Benefits of Synco architecture are the
following: individual room HVAC control (heating, ventilation
and air conditioning), lights and blinds control, metering and
easy data visualization, doors and windows monitoring to
prevent unattended guests, utilities damage notification (e.g.
pipe breakdown) and remote access. Costs for automating an
apartment with two rooms with the above mentioned benefits
start from 4500 €, with a 20% discount out of price lists,
considering they are bought by an integrator and regardless of
actuating elements. On top of this amount, the workmanship of
the integrator comes. Price estimation for automating a two-
room apartment might start from 7000 € for control and
monitoring hardware parts and commissioning of the system.
Nevertheless, final price could vary with respect to many other
external factors (e.g. manufacturer of the actuating elements,
size of apartment and outdoor climate), easily reaching values
of 9000-10,000 € [31].
Application of the tool-box of disruption vectors is further
highlighted. The vector “apply multi-level connections” in
combination with the vector “use asymmetry” indicates
searching for product-service systems and servitization of
products. Since interoperability versus costs and customization
of delivered services is an important aspect when choosing a
residential BAS architecture, the indication for residential BAS
integrators is to focus on providing product-service solutions
based on high performance CPS modules, which could be
easily adapted, customized or reconfigured to further increase
the benefits provided by industrial players. The application of
the disruption vector “harmonize individual goals with
collective goals” led to the top level architecture from Figure
4, which is based on a local open source Internet of Things
environment (e.g. Thingspeak or Kaa) and is used to gather data
from available sensors, process data and trigger specific actions
upon available actuators from the BAS.
By using Ethernet as a physical transportation layer, the
solution brings the advantage of supplying light loads (e.g.
sensors) using Power over Ethernet (PoE) functionality. The
role of BMS integrator is to provide the required hardware for
building automation together with required functionalities to
meet inhabitant’s needs. The proposed control architecture
allows fast deployment of interoperability between vendor
specific equipment by using CPS. To design the model of the
 S. Brad et al. / Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159
CPS, the “activate resonance” vector from the tool-box proved
to be useful.
Fig. 4. The proposed BAS architecture
It suggests that more components should be integrated into
one unit. The proposed model for CPS used within BAS should
consider the architecture from Figure 5.
Fig. 5. The proposed model of smart CPS
Built around high performance embedded systems, CPS
should contain a virtual model for the accommodated sensors
or actuators in order to achieve monitoring and control
functionalities. Data is sent using the network interface, either
to assigned BMS components or directly to the local cloud
environment for processing and centralized control. Every CPS
157
should be enhanced with artificial intelligence (AI) learning
algorithms to allow basic local control functionalities in case of
system failure. Data storage is also necessary to locally record
data in event of connectivity failure or system failure. The local
cloud environment should provide means to visualize data in a
user-friendly way, together with remote control.
From financial point of view, cost for automating the same
apartment by using the proposed control architecture would be
50% up to 70% lower than reference solutions currently
existent onto the market, while providing an open source
architecture [2,8]. Considering the reduced costs, integrators
could offer BAS functionalities and hardware as services, with
fast recovery of investments, thus producing a real disruption
in the market.
The 6 Hats method is further applied to check the quality of
results from six key perspectives:
a) objective and facts-based: available technology;
b) negative and critical: market is extremely dynamic,
technologies are changing rapidly (e.g. LoRa WAN
technologies for IoT);
c) positive and emotional: the business can be run rapidly
and it is based on co-invention of applications, thus
flexible to technology evolution;
d) creative and nonlinear: product-service system model is
considered;
e) flow and process-based: partnerships are easy to
establish;
f) benefits and value added-based: market is global.
Application of LOTUS technique to detail the concept of
smart CPS has generated various solutions for various
purposes, thus proving the flexibility of the CPS model from
Figure 5. Three examples of technical solutions of the smart
CPS are introduced in Figure 6. The CPSs considered in these
solutions are built out of two parts. First part is a commercially
available and low costs embedded system development
platform from Freescale (FRDM-KL46Z) with an ARM
Cortex-M0+ core running at 48MHz. Second part is a custom
designed and developed accommodation board which provides
the required circuitry to achieve specific BAS tasks as
presented within BAS architecture. Development of specific
functionalities and control logic in order to achieve different
tasks can be done using an online compiler or using a Freescale
development environment.
Fig. 6. Examples of technical materialization of the CPS model
The left-side one was designed to drive a smart electrical
axis for door open and close. The middle one was designed to
operate multiple I/O signals. The right-side one was designed
158 S. Brad et al. / Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159
to control an electrical gearbox dc motor for window control.
Technologies integrated in these solutions are very cheap, not
exceeding 100 € per CPS and are accessible in a wide variety
onto the market. In addition, they are connectable to open
source IoT platforms, having the possibility to control CPS via
Internet.
In this case study, CPS solutions were built with
components already available on the market, innovation focus
mainly being on “configuration design”. This also shows
capacity of disruption in terms of business models and supply
chain management.
6. Discussions on results
Disruption innovation is about designing technical solutions
under strong cost constrains, while keeping the quality
standards in terms of functionalities and performance. It uses
the know-how of the original technology as a reference and/or
source of inspiration, but approaches the problem from a
different angle. In the case study introduced in this paper,
disruption made possible the reconsideration of innovation
from product-driven business to service-driven business.
Moreover, due to the solutions of the CPS model and BAS
architecture proposed in this paper, integrators are not vendor
locked-in. This represents a significant paradigm shift in
accelerating innovation by providing clear business
opportunities for a much wider technology providers from the
category of SMEs.
7. Conclusions, limitations and further researches
The main fundamental contribution of this work is a design
methodology that conducts disruptive innovation process in a
structured way. The thesis at the foundation of this
methodology is that disruption can happen if strong cost
constrains are applied to existent costly technologies,
combined with the design of a “blue ocean” solution by
breaking current technology with the help of predefined out-of-
the-box thinking patterns. It does not necessarily look for new
fundamental principles or breakthrough discoveries to lead
disruptive innovation. The major idea is to take the existent
know-how and to reorganize it in a new, atypical way, also
possible with addition of other affordable technological
developments that broadly exist on the market.
The case study that complements the methodology provides
a perspective of how disruptive solutions can be formulated in
a manageable way. However, the methodology is defined to
handle the top and mid layers of the design process. For lower
layers, there are plenty of well-known tools and means
proposed in the literature to approach specific research and
design tasks.
The first important finding from the application of
methodology is that the go-to-gemba activity is very useful to
identify the gap between capacity and opportunity to exploit a
certain technology and its intrinsic potential. The second
important finding is that the effort for formulation of blue-
ocean spaces where to fit the disruptive technology generates
the major pillars for disruption. Application of the tool-box of
disruptive vectors does not mean it is the single path for
disruptive thinking. Other frameworks like Unified Structured
Inventive Thinking (USIT) [32], Advanced Systematic
Inventive Thinking (ASIT) [33], etc. could bring similar
results. Also, there is no argument to say that the proposed
methodology should be applied as it is and full, jut for the sick
of rigorousness. This actually happened in the case study from
this paper, too.
Sometimes, the 6 Hats technique can be skipped when
engineers succeed to ideate promising solutions in the earlier
steps of the methodology. Despite the fact this kind of things
can often happen in practice because of high experience of the
design team, a review of solutions with 6 Hats technique seems
to be very beneficial, just from the simple fact that it helps for
better configuring the position of the proposed solutions with
respect to peer ones.
At this stage of research, the ten disruption vectors have
been used randomly in the ideation process. It might be
possible that a smart combination of these vectors to activate
higher thinking potentials and idea associations. This space of
action is open for more investigations in future researches.
Nevertheless, after a series of applications in more projects
from different technological fields, the methodology could
probably be refined.
References
[1] Yang H, Yu J, Zo H, Choi M. User acceptance of wearable devices: An
extended perspective of perceived value. Telemat Inform 2016; 33(2): 256-
269.
[2] Immelt J, Govindarajan V, Trimble C. Reverse innovation: how GE is
disrupting itself. Harvard Bus Rev 2009; 87:56-65.
[3] Kaldate A, Thurston D, Rood M. Disruptive versus sustaining technology
and the design process. 17th International Conference on Engineering
Design, Palo Alto, 2009. p. 277-288.
[4] Christensen CM. The innovator’s dilemma. New York: Harper Business;
2011.
[5] Ratib O, Rosset A, Heuberger J. Open source software and social networks:
disruptive alternatives for medical imaging. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78(2):259-
265.
[6] Pattinson HM, Woodside AG. Capturing and (re)interpreting complexity in
multi-firm disruptive product innovations. J Bus Ind Mark 2009; 24(1-
2):61-76.
[7] Rotheram-Borus MJ, Swendeman D, Chorpita BF. Disruptive innovations
for designing and diffusing evidence-based interventions. Am Psychol
2012; 67(6): 463-476.
[8] Bower JL, Christensen CM. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave.
In: Rebuilding your business model. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Press; 2011. p. 201-230.
[9] Christensen CM, van Bever D. The capitalist’s dilemma. In: The definitive
management ideas of the year from HBR 2015. Harvard Business Review
Press; 2015. p. 15-32.
[10] Eltoum IA, Alston EA, Roberson J. Trends in pancreatic pathology
practice before and after implementation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided
fine-needle aspiration: an example of disruptive innovation effect? Arch
Pathol Lab Med 2012; 136(4): 447-453.
[11] Bateman J, Davies D. The challenge of disruptive innovation in learning
technology. Med Educ 2014; 48(3): 227-228.
[12] Carlos Barahona J, Elizondo AM. Introducing a disruptive service
innovation: a national dilemma in e-procurement. Man Dec 2014; 52(9):
1782-1800.
[13] Berlin DB, Davidson MJ, Schoen FJ. The power of disruptive
technological innovation: transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Biomed
Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2015; 103(8): 1709-1715.
[14] Sandström CG. The non-disruptive emergence of an ecosystem for 3D
printing - insights from the hearing aid industry's transition 1989-2008.
Technol Forecast Soc Change 2016; 102:160-168.
 S. Brad et al. / Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 153 – 159
[15] Bye R. Designing mobile user experiences: disruptive innovation in
railway asset information. 4th International Conference on Rail Human
Factors, London, 2013. p. 453-460.
[16] Reinhardt R, Gurtner S. Enabling disruptive innovations through the use
of customer analysis methods. Rev Manag Sci 2011; 5(4):291-307.
[17] Diab S, Kanyaru J, Zantout H. Disruptive innovation: a dedicated
forecasting framework. 9th KES International Conference on Agent and
Multi-Agent Systems-Technologies and Applications, Sorrento, 2015. p.
227-237.
[18] Guo J, Sun J, Liang T, Tan R. Evaluation model of disruptive innovative
design scheme based on logistic regression. Comput Integrated Manuf Syst
2015; 21(6):1405-1416.
[19] Collins R, Hevner A, Linger R. Evaluating a disruptive innovation:
function extraction technology in software development. 44th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Koloa, 2011. p. 45-50.
[20] Altshuller G. TRIZ keys to technical innovation. Worcester: Technical
Innovation Center; 2002.
[21] Silverstein D, Samuel P, DeCarlo N. The innovator’s toolkit: 50+
techniques for predictable and sustainable organic growth. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
[22] Lonnie W. How to implement lean manufacturing. 1st ed. New York:
McGraw Hill; 2010.
[23] Chryssolouris G, Papakostas N, Mavrikios D. A perspective on
manufacturing strategy: Produce more with less. CIRP-JMST 2008, 1(1):
45-52.
159
[24] Imai M. Comment: solving quality problems using common sense. Int J
Qual Reliab Manag 1992; 9(5):1-5.
[25] Zlotin B, Zusman A. Directed evolution: phylosophy, theory and practice.
Michigan: Ideation International; 2001.
[26] Clarke DW. Strategically evolving the future: directed evolution and
technological system development. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2000;
64(2-3):133-153.
[27] Kim CW, Mauborgne R. The blue ocean strategy: from theory to practice.
Calif Manage Rev 2005; 47(3):105-121.
[28] Brad S, Mocan B, Brad E, Mocan M. Economic development of
peripherial/lagging zones through smart innovation. Int J Innov Trans Syst
2016; in press.
[29] DeBono E. Six thinking hats. London: Penguin Books; 1987.
[30] Titus PA. Marketing and the creative problem-solving process. J Mark
Educ 2000; 22(3): 225-235.
[31] eibmarkt.com - einer der führenden Technikshops Europas [Internet].
Eibmarkt.com. 2016 [cited 18 April 2016]. Available from:
http://www.eibmarkt.com
[32] Nakagawa T. USIT operators for solution generation in TRIZ: clearer
guide to solution Paths. ETRIA TRIZ Future, Florence, 2004. p. 347-363.
[33] Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Shai O, Subrahmanian E. A theoretical analysis of
creativity methods in engineering design: casting ASIT with C-K theory. J
Eng Design 2012; 23(1-3):137-158.