INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO DESIGN-LED INNOVATION FOR ECO-FRIENDLY CUSTOMER-CENTRIC CLOTHING ENTREPRENEURS

Vuthipong Roadkasamsri; Apiched Teekalee; Uthai Asana; Preecha Noulnim; Arnon Sungvondee; Yingfeng Li

doi:10.26668/businessreview/2024.v9i3.4476

Authors

Vuthipong Roadkasamsri https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3765-4840
Apiched Teekalee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6178-0926
Uthai Asana https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9962-343X
Preecha Noulnim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6054-3232
Arnon Sungvondee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1324-5747
Yingfeng Li https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4791-1955

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2024.v9i3.4476

Keywords:

Design-Led Innovation, Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Sustainable Leftover-Based Products, Local Cultural Identity, Consumer-Centric Approach

Abstract

Purpose: This article demonstrates how collaboration in a PAR and R&D research project can be facilitated by a design-led innovation process that juxtaposes design and scientific approaches.

Theoretical Framework: The work was theoretically grounded in an interdisciplinary methodology and customer-centric approaches. Researchers adopted a "principles-driven" strategy as a primary guiding principle.

Design/Method/Approach: This study utilized participatory action research (PAR) as a research methodology, emphasizing the importance of collaborations between stakeholders and the research team. The study methodology encompassed on-site visits, SWOT analysis, focus groups, and questionnaire surveys. The data obtained from all of the previously described instruments was subjected to qualitative analysis using triangulation.

Findings: The study demonstrated that this approach significantly enhanced the innovation of new products and the establishment of brands by local businesses. The remaining fabric key rings of the stakeholders had an impact on the most recent clothing collection. The development of new products involved the integration of identity, traditional knowledge, and creativity with modern technology, utilizing local resources from the community for innovative transformation and business product development. By adhering to experts' recommendations, stakeholders can enhance the value of their products by demonstrating a preference for environmentally conscious, culturally significant, and artistically innovative products to the target market. The introduction of the new clothing product range received positive feedback from business owners and entrepreneurs, with an average rating of 4.71. Additionally, the annual sales value increased by 36.3%. PAR R&D facilitated the improvement of stakeholders.

Research, Practical, and Social Implications: Creating eco-friendly apparel from fabric scraps will contribute to sustainability. Obtaining this level of sustainability requires collaboration across disciplines and design-driven innovation. In addition, this study demonstrates how a dynamic interdisciplinary innovation strategy can be effective for generating new product concepts, obtaining consumer feedback, and fostering collaboration and learning across disciplines. Lastly, this study provides other researchers and the local industry with actionable opportunity areas and design imperatives for their sustainability-based product innovation activities.

Originality/Value: This study is the first to apply theoretical concepts to practical situations in a specific rural area to assist local community entrepreneurs lacking resources for research and development in improving their performance and outcomes, with a focus on creating product concepts that reflect the local cultural identity and incorporate innovative design principles.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alston, M., & Bowles, W. (2003). Research for social workers (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Appel, K., Buckingham, E., Jodoin, K., & Roth D. (2012). Participatory learning and action toolkit: For application in BSR's global programs. Retrieved from

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60,854-857.

Ben Mahmoud‐Jouini, S., Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2016). Contributions of design thinking to project management in an innovation context. Project management journal, 47(2), 144-156.

Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1).

Boyle, M. (2012). Research in action: A guide to Participatory Action Research (Research Report). Canberra: Department of Social Services. Retrieved from

Cardinali, S., Amadio, G., & Brezovec, A. (2023). Has everything changed or has nothing changed? Students’ perception on sales professionals after the storm. Human Systems Management, (Preprint), 1-13.

Davis, K. A., & Henze, R. C. (1998). Applying ethnographic perspectives to issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 399-419.

Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). The action research and learning toolkit. Hobart: Department of Health and Human Services Tasmania.

Gil-Pérez, I., Rebollar, R., & Lidón, I. (2020). Without words: The effects of packaging imagery on consumer perception and response. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 69-77.

Giovannetti, M., Sharma, A., Cardinali, S., Cedrola, E., & Rangarajan, D. (2022). Understanding salespeople's resistance to, and acceptance and leadership of customer-driven change. Industrial Marketing Management, 107, 433-449.

Gonera, A., & Pabst, R. (2019). The use of design thinking in transdisciplinary research and innovation consortia: challenges, enablers, and benefits. Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 96-122.

Greene, J. C. (2006). Evaluation, democracy and social change, In I. F. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark (Eds), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (Chapter 5). London: SAGE.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2007). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (Eds). (2007) Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge Land and Water Australia. (2009). The knowledge & adoption toolkit. Retrieved from

Magistretti, S., Sanasi, S., Dell'Era, C., & Ghezzi, A. (2023). Entrepreneurship as design: A design process for the emergence and development of entrepreneurial opportunities. Creativity and Innovation Management, 32(1), 5-21.

Mantra Crafts. (n.d.). Three techniques for narrating tales using remnants of fabric. https://mantracrafts.com/3technique-patchwork-boro-quilt/

McCann, J. (2023). Collaborative design principles for smart clothing. In Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology (pp. 283-325). Woodhead Publishing.

Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124-148.

Mody, A., & Wheeler, D. (1987). Towards a vanishing middle: Competition in the world garment industry. World Development, 15(10-11), 1269-1284.

Mulroy, E. A., & Lauber, H. (2004). A user friendly approach to program evaluation and effective community interventions for families at risk of homelessness. Social Work, 49(4), 573-586.

Nocella, G., & Kennedy, O. (2012). Food health claims–What consumers understand. Food Policy, 37(5), 571-580.

Noël, G. (2020). Fostering Design Learning in the Era of Humanism. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(2), 119.

Nogueira, A., & Wallig, J. F. (2022). The post-industrial legacy in Brazil: where circular economy principles meet collective urban practices by design. Local Environment, 27(10-11), 1372-1393.

Owen, J. M. (2006). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Pain, R., Whitman, G., Milledge, D., & Lune Rivers Trust. (2011). Participatory action research toolkit: An introduction to using PAR as an approach to learning, research and action. Durham: Durham University.

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

Robbins, P., & Sandberg, B. (2023). Art Thinking: Amplifying the ‘R’in R&D. Journal of Innovation Management, 11(1), IX-XXI.

Rylander Eklund, A., Navarro Aguiar, U., & Amacker, A. (2022). Design thinking as sensemaking: Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re) introduce sensibility. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(1), 24-43.

Sanasi, S. (2023). Entrepreneurial experimentation in business model dynamics: Current understanding and future opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 19(2), 805-836.

Sandberg, B. (2023). Art Thinking: Amplifying the ‘R’in R&D. Journal of Innovation Management, 11(1), IX-XXI.

Schwandt, T. A., & Burgon, H. (2006). Evaluation and the study of lived experience, In I. F. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark, (Eds), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (Chapter 4). London: SAGE.

Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119917. 176

Symmank, C. (2019). Extrinsic and intrinsic food product attributes in consumer and sensory research: literature review and quantification of the findings. Management Review Quarterly, 69(1), 39-74.

Valencia, A., Mugge, R., Schoormans, J., & Schifferstein, H. (2015). The design of smart product-service systems (PSSs): An exploration of design characteristics. International Journal of Design, 9(1).

Verganti, R., Dell’Era, C., & Swan, K. S. (2021). Design thinking: Critical analysis and future evolution. Journal of product innovation management, 38(6), 603-622.

Zemlickienė, V., Lapinskaitė, I., & Turskis, Z. (2022). Internal Communication in R&D: Decision-Making Methods Based on Expert Approaches. Sustainability, 14(19), 11839. Durham: Durham University.

Owen, J. M. (2006). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.