Designing Physical Interaction Platforms

This chapter explains this dissertation’s motivation, introducing the importance of spaces for physical interaction by providing historical and contemporary examples. Following this, the current research problem is formulated, and the concept of physical interaction platforms (PIPs) is put forward. Furthermore, the author’s perspective and personal motivation for the dissertation are presented.

Motivated both from a theoretical and a personal perspective, this dissertation explores how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. In this explorative process, both scientific knowledge and specific recommendations for practical action are generated (Van De Ven & Johnson, 2006). To achieve the overall objective, the empirical research of the dissertation is divided into four steps, presented in Parts III, IV, V, and VI.

This chapter introduces the research design of this dissertation, as well as the embraced research paradigm. Research paradigms address the philosophical stance toward science. In this, a research paradigm represents the fundamental assumptions and beliefs in how the world is perceived by the researcher.

This dissertation explores how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. For this purpose, this dissertation is divided into a total of six parts. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, Parts I and II lay the foundations for the empirical work presented in Parts III, IV, V, and VI.

Part II introduces the theoretical background of this dissertation. The foundations that serve as the basis for the investigation of PIPs are found in the following three distinct streams of literature: (1) service-dominant logic (SDL) and interactive value creation, (2) (platform) business models, and (3) approaches to the systematic design of platforms. SDL and interactive value creation explain what actually happens in the PIP interactions and how value is generated for the platform actors.

To explore the design of PIPs, first, it is necessary to introduce an understanding of value and value creation. This is a debated topic, and this chapter explains why interactions are the locus of value creation and, therefore, a crucial point of departure when designing PIPs. Chapter 6 introduces these theoretical perspectives, contributing to the conceptual understanding of this dissertation.

Chapter 7 looks more deeply at the theoretical foundations regarding the concept of platforms. It begins with the introduction and definition of the term platform and elaborates this novel perspective on how value creation can be orchestrated. Building on this, platform business models and the platform life cycle are presented in more detail.

Chapter 8 focuses on the theoretical foundations of PIP design. Following Tura, Kutvonen, and Ritala (2018) and Dell’Era, Altuna, Magistretti, and Verganti (2017), platforms can be perceived not only as intermediaries in multi-sided markets but also as designed entities. To highlight this aspect of platforms, this chapter introduces systematic approaches and strategies to platform design.

Part II introduced the theoretical concepts of service-dominant logic, platforms and platform business models, and systematic approaches to platform design. Each of these three concepts holds valuable insights concerning the systematic and structured design of sustainably successful PIPs.

This dissertation seeks to explore how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. Part III supports this objective by gathering and structuring theoretical and practical knowledge about the design dimensions that constitute PIPs. As mentioned above, for scholars seeking to understand and practitioners seeking to design such spaces, two challenges arise.

Due to their increasing popularity, PIPs have received widespread scholarly attention. Research has explored how PIPs can facilitate collaborative innovation and how they are used for the development, testing, and commercialisation of innovations. Several existing typologies have sought to describe the nature of PIPs, either based on the actors that drive innovation, the type of PIP ownership, and actor engagement (e.g., temporary or continuous) or based on their purpose (e.g., explorative or exploitative).

This section summarises the results of the PIP taxonomies’ development steps. A comprehensive description of each iteration is provided, including insights generated during the process as well as dimensions and characteristics added in each instantiation of the taxonomy. Table 12.3 provides a structured overview of dimensions added or modified during each step of this iterative process.

After analysis and evaluation, the resulting taxonomy includes 18 core dimensions, each with a subset of characteristics describing PIPs. To provide better structure, the dimensions are grouped into the following categories: physical architecture, customers, key value propositions, value creation, and revenue logic. In line with the principle of parsimony, some dimensions (marked with *) allow for the selection of multiple characteristics to reduce the taxonomy´s overall complexity.

To illustrate the usefulness of the taxonomy in describing PIPs, this chapter illustrates the application of the taxonomy. Two examples were chosen to show that the taxonomy works for several manifestations of PIPs—JOSEPHS as an open innovation (OI) lab and WeWork as a co-working space.

This chapter discusses the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the PIP taxonomy. Practitioners and designers of PIPs can benefit from the taxonomy as a basis for applying morphological analysis and the systematic exploration of ideas and concepts. The taxonomy functions as a tool for creativity and analysis, leading to the right questions being asked and thereby paving the way for sustainable and prosperous PIPs.

Building on Nickerson et al.’s (2013) method, the present research developed a taxonomy for physical interaction platforms such as innovation labs, co-working spaces, makerspaces, and incubators. A total of five iterations were conducted, three of which were conceptual in nature based on a screening of the empirical field and systematic literature reviews, and two iterations were conducted on an empirical basis in the form of an expert workshop and expert interviews with operators of PIPs. The taxonomy brings together insights from current research on innovation spaces with insights from business model and value (co-)creation research.

This dissertation seeks to explore how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. Part IV supports this objective by exploring the design process of a PIP, from first conceptualisation to final implementation. Part III explored which design dimensions and characteristics comprise a PIP.

Given the intention to research how a physical interaction platform can be built, action research was chosen as the mode of inquiry. Action research was originally developed by Kurt Lewin as a contrast to experimental social psychology to establish a science that is practice-oriented and whose implications lead to solutions of practice-relevant problems (Lewin, 1946). The methodology developed by Lewin has been adopted by management researchers for use in organisations to solve organisational problems (e.g., Lindgren, Henfridsson, & Schultze, 2004).

The first AR cycle started in August 2019. The research team was commissioned to structure and participate in the concept development process of the ENIQ.

The second AR cycle started in June 2020. The research team was commissioned to support the operationalisation and implementation of the developed concept.

This research demonstrates how a PIP can be systematically designed and implemented. In this section, key insights from this research are discussed. Building on that, both a model and a revised process to structure the design of future PIPs are proposed.

This research aims to explore how physical interaction platforms (PIPs) can be built, concerning concept development and the following implementation. The findings are based on a 19-month action research project. Insights from the literature on PIPs, value creation, and the strategic development of (digital) platforms were translated into interventions.

This dissertation seeks to explore how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. Parts III and IV explored the design of a PIP in the early phases of its life cycle. Part V supports this objective by exploring the continuous innovation of a PIP.

This chapter provides additional theoretical background information necessary to explore the self-renewal of retail PIPs. It introduces the innovation challenges facing brick-and-mortar retail, including the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. Furthermore, strategic responses in dealing with crises are described.

To investigate innovation and reconfiguration happening in brick-and-mortar retail during the COVID-19 crisis, a multiple-case comparative research strategy was applied (Eisenhardt, 1991). In general, case studies use different perspectives and data sources to illustrate complex phenomena in a real-world context. With the COVID-19 crisis and its impact on retail business models, a unique phenomenon is investigated, making a qualitative, case-based approach highly suitable (Siggelkow, 2007).

Analysing the data of the eight case companies revealed three major insights answering the following research questions: What were the activities and strategic responses of retailers in reaction to the COVID-19 crisis? and Did these activities and strategic responses lead to sustainable innovation? The insights are as follows: (1) retailers made only changes to the value chain element of their business model, persevering through the crisis. The elements of value proposition, customer segments, and revenue model remained completely untouched. Despite the radical impulse caused by the COVID-19 crisis, only incremental innovation was observed.

Based on the case study of eight retailers with data from the COVID-19 crisis peak and after, the strategic responses and activities of retailers in reaction to the COVID-19 crisis were explored. Further, whether these strategic responses and activities led to sustainable innovation was investigated. The findings showed that the COVID-19 crisis triggered the reconfiguration of the retailers’ business models, which aligns with the literature stating that organisations adapt their BMs when facing threats.

This research looked at retailer reactions and activities during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand innovation under extraordinary conditions. Employing a multi-case approach with two survey points, this study shed light on whether this crisis-driven innovation was sustainable.

This dissertation seeks to explore how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. Part VI supports this objective by evaluating the findings and artifacts developed in this dissertation’s empirical studies (Parts III–V). Furthermore, by applying the findings and artifacts in an actual PIP design project, this study also synthesizes the findings and demonstrates how a PIP can be designed in a systematic and structured way.

The artifacts developed throughout this dissertation resemble a toolkit for designing PIPs. They contain knowledge about PIP design and address the issues arising from using more generic innovation processes.

A large body of knowledge on evaluating artifacts is found in the literature on design science. As building and evaluating artifacts resembles the core of design science, with numerous contributions explaining how and why to evaluate, this study draws on rich scholarly information. A distinction can be made between the demonstration and evaluation of artifacts.

The first AR cycle began in July 2021. The goal for the first AR cycle was to revisit and further develop the original FRS concept from 2020. For this purpose, an overview of possible design characteristics should be compiled.

The second AR cycle started in June 2022, intending to design the organisation of the FRS. The findings from Part IV indicate that a PIP needs to be designed on three levels—operation, team, and infrastructure. While the operation level was defined in the previous AR cycle, the second AR cycle focused on the latter, as illustrated in Figure 33.1.

This study presented the toolkit for designing PIPs—a compilation of the artifacts created in the empirical studies of this dissertation. To ensure the ease of use and the usefulness of the toolkit, a naturalistic evaluation consisting of an AR project was executed. The contributions of this study are manifold.

This research synthesised the artifacts developed throughout this dissertation into the toolkit for designing PIPs. In addition, the study evaluated the artifacts’ regarding their ease of use and usefulness during a PIP design process. The evaluation was executed in the context of the design process of a real to-be-designed PIP—the Future Retail Store.

This dissertation seeks to explore how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. As the final section of this dissertation, Part VII summarises the research, lists limitations and avenues for further research, and concludes this dissertation.

This chapter summarises Parts I–VI of this dissertation. The short summaries capture the essence of the individual parts, i.e., which insights were generated, thereby representing the executive summary of this dissertation.

The findings of the empirical studies presented in this dissertation are subject to consideration in light of their limitations. This chapter highlights the shortcomings of the studies from Parts III to VI, thereby opening up avenues for future research. In the following, shortcomings and future research are presented chronologically.

In the context of research on PIPs, this dissertation explored an essential and hitherto understudied topic: how a physical interaction platform (PIP) can be designed in a systematic and structured way. Along the lifecycle of a PIP, this dissertation uncovered which characteristics are essential for the value creation and sustainable operation of PIPs (Part III), which steps constitute a PIP design process, and at which organisational levels this process needs to take place (Part IV), as well as what can be learned about the renewal of PIPs (Part V). This dissertation harnessed the results of a taxonomy development method (Part III), action research (Part IV), and a multiple-case study (Part V).