INTERNET OF THINGS: A MEANING INNOVATION

PRODUCT APPROACH

ABSTRACT
The development of IoT products requires a non-user-centered approach, since its technological novelty, it still does not
make sense among people. A model that considers 4 variables is proposed: Social Willingness of Change, Visionaries
Networks, Meaning and Technology, as drivers of the relevant proposal of radical innovation of meanings.

KEYWORDS
Radical Innovation of Meaning; Design Driven Innovation; Knowledge Management; Internet of Things; Sense-Making.

1. INTRODUCTION
The Internet of Things - IoT is an emerging field that has the potential to profoundly change our society,
by capturing and analyzing data generated by our interaction with millions of objects with data capture and
connectivity capabilities. However, the technological proposal of the IoT has not yet been understood and
accepted by people, that is to say it does not make sense among society. Despite various technological
forecasts such as: Gartner (LeHong & Velosa 2014) which indicated that by 2020 there would be 25 billion
objects connected to the Internet (Velosa et al. 2015) or Cisco (Bradley 2013) that predicted there would be
50 billion IoT products by the indicated date. Contrasting with these forecasts, recent research indicates that
by 2018, we have 23 billion connected objects (Statista.com 2018), well below the Gartner forecast and even
lower than the number launched by Cisco. In a later publication, Cisco (Johansen et al. 2017) indicates that 6
out of 10 projects stagnate in the concept phase, 3 out of 4 companies that have an IoT initiative, have
considered them as a failure. The report also argues about the relevance of human factors as a positive
manifestation that leads to success within organizations that have developed IoT products. This suggests that
the success of an IoT development is not determined exclusively by the implicit technology, but rather that a
radical meaning innovation proposal makes sense among people in society.

This way, the purpose of this paper is to present a model which combines the arguments that relates IoT
disruptive characteristics with Radical Innovation of Meanings.

2. WHAT IS IOT? AND HOW IOT PRODUCTS ARE BEING

DEVELOPED TODAY?
IoT seeks to give voice to the objects with which we interact in our day to day. The general idea is that
the objects -the things- are connected into a digital network and capture data of our activities and daily life
behaviors in the physical world, transmit it into a computer where the analysis of that data is done so that it is
returned to the user as information is delivered at the right time and the right person, to be able to make
decisions and act in a relevant and meaningful way in their lives (Soasti Bareta & Muñiz 2017).
The evidence (Johansen et al. 2017) suggests that the IoT product developments consider stakeholders as:
IT decision makers, business decision makers, IT collaboration with business side. However people, as we
see in the evidence, are not being considered within the conceptualization of the products and services that
these companies expect that consumers understand and accept the meaning (value) of this technological
nature proposal. In this sense, User Centered Design - UCD proposes to study potential consumers, to
identify how users currently assign meaning to existing products (Verganti 2009, p.15), however when a
technology has a disruptive character, very often, these technologies do not make sense for people (Norman
& Verganti 2013). What to do then?, Where to look for in order to identify any source of value that is
relevant to the development of products with disruptive technologies?.
1. E-Society and Radical Meaning Innovation
We live in the Information Society which part, is the consequence
of the advent of information technologies and part, the cultural,
social and economic adoption and use of these technologies as the
current means for how we obtain what we need and we want in a
sustainable way. In this context of high use of information
technology, the development of a product or service is deeply related
to the proposal of an innovation, since both seek to align a product or
service projects with the unsatisfied need of a user (Jordan 2000), in
order to be able to generate a profit through the exchange of a capital,
be it: investment, human, instrumental, product, intellectual or social
(Carrillo 2002). This process involves a high degree of uncertainty Figure 1 - Innovation Strategies (Verganti, 2008)
and risk to the extent that the products or services must integrate
some kind of implicit value in itself or in its use in order to trigger the aforementioned exchange process.

Verganti (2008) point out 3 ways in which technology and meaning interact to generate an Innovation:
Market-pull, Technology-push and Meaning-Push (See Figure 1). Thus, in the Market-pull, innovations focus
on studying current users and their needs, in order to align the product development process with consumers'
perception of value and thus minimize the risk and uncertainty of the process. It also assumes that consumers
know what they want and through anthropological techniques, companies can extrapolate what users
appreciate as value in a product. The second approach, Technology-pull, considers the development of
products from the scientific research and technological development that the company carries out as part of
its activities and that lead to the development of new products (Abernathy & Clark 1985; Christensen 2014).
A third approach is Design Driven Innovation - DDI (Verganti 2006; 2009), where meaning of the product
changes radically due to the definition’s reinterpretation of that particular object within a specific and
determined social context. A characteristic of this approach is it does not focus on users to build its value
proposition, but rather it is based on the collective construction of a vision of the future, between the firm and
a visionaries network (Soasti Bareta & Muñiz 2017) that explores social, cultural and social changes of a
human group, to generate a new and powerful meaning, which Verganti (2008) calls, the Design Discourse -
DD. It also indicates that the products derived from the Design Discourse usually end up being perceived as
what people were waiting for. Verganti has proven that meaning innovation is as much relevant as the
technical functions on a product (Norman & Verganti 2013).

3. PROPOSED MODEL
Our proposed model is the result of a product review, practice borrowed from Literature. These reviews
are helpful in order build a wider knowledge about the process followed by the proposers’ challenges while
developing the product, it’s interactions, it’s shape and functionality, it’s meaning and material languages.
The products reviewed were: Pebble, Emotive Epoc, Philips Hue, Nest, Smart Parking and Smart Traffic by
Cisco. They were selected due to its disruptive nature as novelty products.
The model considers 4 main variables: Social Willingness to Change, Visionaries Networks, Meaning and
Technology.

1. Social Willingness to Change

This variable includes five criteria that contribute to build DD in order to propose a DDI: Exploring the
Benefits of Quantification of Time: Technology plays the role of controlling tasks that do not require human
supervision, thus contributes transcendentally to important tasks, perceived and unperceived. Exploring
Transcendence: It refers to all the radical innovations that improve life in terms of time, vitality and health
quality (Rose 2014), that allows people to be recognized as part of an elite, and as such follow their habits
and behaviors (Cappetta et al. 2006). Exploring Connections in the Sociocultural Context: Subjective Norm:
It refers to a perceived social pressure for making, or not, a decision influenced by the opinions of higher
influences or peers. (Taylor & P. A. Todd 1995) (Taylor & P. Todd 1995). Image: It is defined as the extent
to which the use of an innovation is perceived as improving ones status in a society (Moore & Benbasat
1991). Compatibility: It is based on emotional, symbolic and aesthetic factors. Social compatibility concerns
the willingness to be different and independent (Rose 2014). Aesthetic compatibility refers to the idea of the
visual impact that affect the aesthetic response of people; that is a visual display connecting parts in a
meaningful way (Veryzer & Hutchinson 1998). Personal Innovativeness: This is defined as the propensity of
certain individuals for taking risks (Agarwal & Prasad 1998) as part of his personality. Exploring the new
symbolic values and interaction patterns: Narcissism: Reflects the material conditions of life in a society in
which the social level depends more on consumption than on production(Castro 2005)(Trechera Herrera
1996). Hedonism: Achieving a transcendent presence in the world, and enjoying the existence jubilantly
(Hekkert 2006, p.168). Exploring calm in the face of uncertainty: It refers to society’s will to minimize the
uncertainty caused by a radical innovation as it appears in a particular social environment.

2. Visionaries Networks
It is responsible for visualizing future scenarios to use, and for proposing new Cultural Prototypes, which
are a medium that encodes and reveals new visions and interpretations of a company. It is described as
cultural because, it refers to a new meaning or new language (Verganti 2009). Personal Attitude Towards
Technology: The Social Construction of Technology (Bijker et al. 2012) is an inherently social process,
where non-technical elements play a decisive role in its genesis and consolidation (López Cerezo 1998). This
means how things are designed (as a criticism circle, in opposition to UCD), and how people interpret things
(novelty and seduction from new material language and functionality). The Will to Transcend: It is a
personality characteristic of a visionary to move toward new ways to face reality and everyday life; the desire
to offer products based on technology, as a new and seductive approach to changing the world. Personal
Innovativeness: It refers to the willingness to take risks and accept them as a personality characteristic of the
Visionary (Agarwal & Prasad 1998), not as a consumer, but as social and technological researcher. Skills
and Knowledge: It is a professional network with experts such as: Engineers and IT experts, Sociologists,
Semioticians, Interdisciplinary Designers and Artists.

3. Meanings
Meaning variable is stated as follows: Innovative Culture of the Firm: Characterized by the ability of the
firm to provide adequate spaces for proposal of new concepts, new opportunities and exploring future
scenarios yet to be designed. Technology Integration - TI: The role of TI is to act as a facilitator for the
realization of the proposed radical design innovation, by applying a technology process of social construction
(Bijker et al. 2012). Seductive Power: It refers to the ability of the network, to deliver new ideas and
dissemination of different cultural prototypes generated by the proposed design discourse of the firm
(Verganti 2009). Value: It refers to the perception of people on the radically innovative design proposal, it
includes the four criteria below: Perceived usefulness: Seeks to explain the short-term consequences. Is the
design product perceived as helpful? (Agarwal & Prasad 1998); Ease of use: The evaluation of the extent to
which interaction with a technology system is free from mental effort (Agarwal & Prasad 1998). Novelty: It
has the role of imposing an induced interest in the new meaning of the proposal (Verganti 2009). Socio-
cultural assessment of the new Meaning: At the social level, this raises the concept of behavioral belief:
Does my social group value this new proposal? (Verganti 2009), (Agarwal & Prasad 1998). At the individual
level, the concept of normative belief arises: How much does my person improve, socially speaking, when I
use the product or service? (Verganti 2009), (Agarwal & Prasad 1998).

4. Technology
It addresses the quantification of people and their activities. The characterization of this variable implies:
Perception: Sensors convert the physical aspects of reality into digital numeric arguments. Connectivity:
Allows access to the network and compatibility (Elena-Lenz 2014). Intelligence: The merging of computing
and algorithms produce a new generation of smart product experience, where Big Data, Data analytics, Data
Management are the way that technology proposes new ways to create value. Expression: Allows interaction
between people and the tangible world. It includes interfaces and user experience (Elena-Lenz 2014).

4. CONCLUSION
Since IoT is a novel field, there is a tendency mainly and only to develop the technological aspects of it, this
might become an error since it’s paradigmatic meaning is not yet established, therefore an approach to follow
on IoT product development seems to be a Design Driven Innovation where a seductive proposal (not a
solution) is delivered to people, this includes the design discourse, as well as a novelty user experience and
scenario where this experience take place.
The radical meaning innovation proposal aims to improve values such as the extension of life with quality,
and improved social and self-images. Ease of use and perceived usefulness must be explicit and seductive.
The proposed model seeks to minimize the uncertainty implicit in the development of IoT products, by
combining variables that consider people, not in their individual dimension, but in their social dynamics and
the collective influence of society in the perception of the valuation of the human being.
Theory suggests that different stakeholders must be considered in a co-creation process, in this dynamic the
interdisciplinary nature of the Visionary Network plays a main role on finding the most appropriate route for
the generation of a design discourse with sufficient axiological load to be perceived as charming.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to Gerardo Muñiz for his support and academic guidance, to Hector Ceballos for it’s valuable
words, counseling and financial aid. This study was consequence of a SENESCYT scholarship from the
Ecuadorian Government, my reconnaissance and thankfulness.

REFERENCES
Abernathy,  W.J.  &  Clark,  K.B.,  1985.  Innovation:  Mapping  the  winds  of  creative  destruction.  Research  Policy,  
14(1),  pp.3–22.  
Agarwal,  R.  &  Prasad,  J.,  1998.  A  Conceptual  and  Operational  Definition  of  Personal  Innovativeness  in  the  
Domain  of  Information  Technology.  Information  Systems  Research,  9(2),  pp.204–215.  
Bijker,  W.E.,  Hughes,  T.P.  &  Pinch,  T.,  2012.  The  Social  construction  of  technological  systems :  new  directions  
in  the  sociology  and  history  of  technology  2012th  ed.  W.  E.  Bijker,  T.  P.  Hughes,  &  T.  Pinch,  eds.,  MIT  
Press.  
Bradley,  J.,  2013.  Adopción  de  Internet  of  Everything  para  capturar  su  parte  de  los  14  ,  4  billones  de  USD,  
Cappetta,  R.,  Cillo,  P.  &  Ponti,  A.,  2006.  Convergent  designs  in  fine  fashion:  An  evolutionary  model  for  
stylistic  innovation.  Research  Policy,  35(9),  pp.1273–1290.  
Carrillo,  F.J.,  2002.  Capital  systems :  implications  for  a  global  knowledge  agenda.  Journal  of  Knowledge  
Management,  6(4),  pp.379–399.  
Castro,  S.J.,  2005.  En  teoría,  es  arte:  una  introducción  a  la  estética,  San  Esteban.  
Christensen,  C.M.,  2014.  Disruptive  Innovation.  The  Encyclopedia  of  Human-­‐Computer  Interaction,  2nd  Ed.  
Elena-­‐Lenz,  C.,  2014.  Internet  of  Things:  Six  Key  Characteristics  |  DesignMind.  designmind.  Available  at:  
http://designmind.frogdesign.com/2014/08/internet-­‐things-­‐six-­‐key-­‐characteristics/  [Accessed  January  
19,  2017].  
Hekkert,  P.,  2006.  Design  aesthetics :  principles  of  pleasure  in  design  Design  aesthetics :  principles  of  
pleasure  in  design.  Psychology  Science,  48,  pp.157–172.  
Johansen,  C.,  Culp,  B.  &  Mora,  M.,  2017.  Cisco  Survey  Reveals  Close  to  3/4ths  of  IoT  Projects  Are  Failing  |  
The  Network.  Cisco  Newsroom.  Available  at:  https://newsroom.cisco.com/press-­‐release-­‐
content?articleId=1847422  [Accessed  September  18,  2017].  
Jordan,  P.W.,  2000.  DESIGNING  PLEASURABLE  PRODUCTS,  Taylor  &  Francis.  
LeHong,  H.  &  Velosa,  A.,  2014.  Hype  Cycle  for  the  Internet  of  Things,  2014.  Gartner,  (July).  
López  Cerezo,  J.A.,  1998.  Ciencia,  Tecnología  y  Sociedad:  el  estado  de  la  cuestión  en  Europa  y  Estados  
Unidos.  Revista  Iberoamericana  de  Educación  Número  18  -­‐  Ciencia,  Tecnología  y  Sociedad  ante  la  
Educación,  pp.41–68.  
Moore,  G.C.  &  Benbasat,  I.,  1991.  Development  of  an  Instrument  to  Measure  the  Perceptions  of  Adopting  
an  Information  Technology  Innovation.  Information  Systems  Research,  2(3),  pp.192–222.  
Norman,  D.A.  &  Verganti,  R.,  2013.  Incremental  and  Radical  Innovation:  Design  Research  vs.  Technology  and  
Meaning  Change.  Design  Issues,  30(2011),  pp.78–96.  
Rose,  D.,  2014.  ENCHANTED  OBJECTS  Design,  Human  Desire,  and  the  Internet  of  Things.  Kirkus  Reviews,  
82(9),  p.69.  
Soasti  Bareta,  D.  &  Muñiz,  G.,  2017.  Conceptual  model  for  the  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  of  radical  
innovation  in  the  disruption  of  the  internet  of  things,  on  scales  of  smart  objects,  homes  and  cities.  In  
Lecture  Notes  of  the  Institute  for  Computer  Sciences,  Social-­‐Informatics  and  Telecommunications  
Engineering,  LNICST.  
Statista.com,  2018.  Internet  of  Things  connected  devices  installed  base  worldwide  from  2015  to  2025,  
Taylor,  S.  &  Todd,  P.,  1995.  Assessing  IT  Usage:  The  Role  of  Prior  Experience.  MIS  Quarterly  VO  -­‐  19,  (4),  
p.561.  
Taylor,  S.  &  Todd,  P.A.,  1995.  Understanding  Information  Technology  Usage:  A  Test  of  Competing  Models.  
Information  Systems  Research,  6(2),  pp.144–176.  
Trechera  Herrera,  J.L.,  1996.  Revista  Envío  -­‐  El  narcisismo:  epidemia  de  nuestro  tiempo.  Available  at:  
http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/243  [Accessed  July  30,  2017].  
Velosa,  A.  et  al.,  2015.  Predicts  2015 :  The  Internet  of  Things,  
Verganti,  R.,  2009.  Design-­‐Driven  Innovation:  Changing  the  rules  of  competition  by  radically  innovating  what  
things  mean.,  Boston,  Mass. :  Harvard  Business  Press,  c2009.  
Verganti,  R.,  2008.  Design,  Meanings,  and  Radical  Innovation:  A  Metamodel  and  a  Research  Agenda  *.  
Journal  of  Product  Innovation  Management,  25(5),  pp.436–456.  
Verganti,  R.,  2006.  Innovating  Through  DESIGN.  Harvard  Business  Review,  84(12),  pp.114–122.  
Veryzer,  R.W.  &  Hutchinson,  J.W.,  1998.  The  Influence  of  Unity  and  Prototypicality  on  Aesthetic  Responses  
to  New  Product  Designs.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research,  24(4),  pp.374–394.