Trends in Food Science & Technology 41 (2015) 182e187
Viewpoint
Design Thinking
and food innovation
Nina Veflen Olsen
Aarhus University, Denmark and Nofima, Norway
(e-mail: nvo@auhe.au.dk)
This viewpoint paper aims to discuss and exemplify how
Design Thinking can contribute to innovation in the food in-
dustry. After introducing Design Thinking, I present three spe-
cific aspects capturing the core of Design Thinking: (1)
Consumer Empathy, (2) Visualization and Rapid Prototyping,
and (3) Collaboration. I describe how Design Thinking differs
from the traditional way of thinking within the food industry
and discuss the likely outcome of a Design Thinking process.
Introduction
During the last 10e15 years, Design Thinking has evolved
from a way of thinking among engineers when designing
technical products to become a very popular innovation
technique among business people. A simple Google search
on the term “Design Thinking” gives more than 300 million
hits. When including “food” into the search, the hits reveal
that Design Thinking is slowly making its way into the food
value chain too. Consultancy firms and non-profit organiza-
tions offer Design Thinking help to individual firms, branch
organizations and public food and health organizations
(Ifooddesign.org, thinkingfooddesign.com, ideo.com/
expertise/food-beverage to mention a few). However, while
Design Thinking recently has moved from the field of busi-
ness practice to attract business scholars’ attention
(Liedtka, 2014; Norman & Verganti, 2014; Seidel &
Fixson, 2013; Verganti, 2008; Verganti, 2011), the same
is not the case within the food science and technology field.
Still, few scholarly articles exist on Design Thinking and
food, and little is known about how Design Thinking differs
from what is perceived as best food innovation practices
today. By discussing how Design Thinking can add to the
conventional way of conducting food innovation manage-
ment, this article aims to bring the Design Thinking
approach to the food science and technology community.
Design Thinking, a term first mentioned in “Wicked
Problems in Design Thinking” (Buchanen, 1992), is a disci-
pline that uses the designer’s methods to match people’s
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.10.001
0924-2244/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
needs with what is technically feasible and commercially
viable (Brown, 2008), and has been defined as “a human-
centered innovation process that emphasizes observation,
collaboration, fast learning, visualization of ideas, rapid
prototyping, and concurrent business analysis”
(Lockwood, 2010). The philosophical roots of Design
Thinking can be traced back to John Dewey (1934) “Art
of Experience” where Dewey proposes that there is a con-
tinuum between the refined experience of works of art and
everyday activities and events. Dewey’s idea that an inquiry
begins with a problematic situation (Argyris & Sch€ on,
1996) is strongly present in Design Thinking today, where
the formulation of a collectively acceptable problem is the
starting point for the development process (Beckman &
Barry, 2007). By observing everyday activities and reflect-
ing upon surprising findings, the designer spots problems
that need to be solved. Design Thinking (influenced by
Sch€ons “The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action”) opposes the common view of the practi-
tioner as the one stating the problem and the researcher as
the one with the solution (Sch€on, 1984). Design Thinking
relies less on experts and engages instead a broad range
of players to find both the problem and provide the solu-
tion. Design Thinking bridges theory and practice by con-
verting the insights gained from practice into abstract
ideas/theories and then translating those theories back
into practice (Beckman & Barry, 2007).
In this paper, I will discuss three specific aspects of
Design Thinking: (1) Consumer Empathy, (2) Visualization
and Rapid Prototyping, and (3) Collaboration. Liedtka
(2014) compared the Design Thinking process of five prac-
titioners (IDEO, Continuum, D-School at Stanford Univer-
sity, Rotman Business School at University of Toronto, and
Darden Business School at University of Virginia) and
found three core development stages present among all of
them. These stages, although labeled differently, corre-
spond to the three aspects discussed here. Since the aim
of this paper is to discuss how Design Thinking can
contribute to the traditional way of thinking within the
food industry, I will in addition to describing the process
also discuss the likely outcome.
Consumer empathy
Design Thinking advocates the importance of consumer
empathy. To be able to develop good solutions, innovation
teams need to understand their users; how they think and
 N.V. Olsen / Trends in Food Science & Technology 41 (2015) 182e187
what they feel in relation to the problem the team aims to
solve. Design Thinking offers a set of techniques for how
to become empathic with the users. Innovation teams are
advised to immerse themselves into the life of their users
and observe how the users interact with the products the
teams want to improve. By watching, listening, and collect-
ing stories, they may capture unexpected insights and inspi-
rations. According to the Design Thinking approach,
innovation teams need to know their users and care about
their lives to create meaningful innovations (see dschool.
stanford.edu/use-our-methods or dschool.stanford.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.
pdf for an overview of the Design Thinking methods). As
an example: In a Norwegian “Seafood on the go” Design
Thinking project, all the team members had to observe rele-
vant users in different “on the go” surroundings; while
commuting, while feeding their kids in the car, while street
walking. All the partners got a small notebook for collect-
ing information and were told to go out into the field and
observe, talk with people, call up people that might know
something about the topic, search on the internet, and to
report all insights and learning points into their own note-
book. They were instructed to write down their most impor-
tant observations and all their learning points. The purpose
was for all the participants to become empathic with the
users, to immerse themselves into the different situations
and to learn as much as possible as fast as possible.
Including the voice of the consumer into the development
process has become more and more important within food
science and technology. Researchers like Moskowitz,
Gr€unert and van Trijp have the last 20 years proclaimed the
importance of a food development process where consumers
test and express their opinions of new concepts at an early
stage (Grunert, 1997; Grunert, Baadsgaard, Larsen &
Larsen, 1997; Moskowitz, 1983, 1985, 1994, 2000;
Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1996). However, food innovators
have in general relied more on experts than on consumers.
Influenced by wine producers and breweries that use experts
to evaluate their products, many food scientists and food in-
novators claim that experts possess superior abilities
compared to untrained consumers’ (Moskowitz, 2000).
Although the movement heads in the direction of making
consumers evaluate new food products, many consumer
food scientists still perceive trained sensory panelists’ expert
evaluation to be more important than consumers’ evaluation
for prediction of a consumer’s over all acceptance of a new
product (e.g. Menichelli, Olsen, Meyer, & Næs, 2011). The
contemporary way of thinking about consumers within
food science and technology differ from the Design Thinking
view. While Design Thinking perceives consumer insight as
the point of departure for the whole development process, the
contemporary food science view perceives consumer’s voice
as a validation of the expert’s voice, something to add at the
last part of the development process to secure acceptance.
While Design Thinking asks for an ethnographic deep dive
into consumers’ life to finding needs and unsolved problems,
183
the traditional food science view asks for consumers’ product
acceptance. Van Kleef, Van Trijp, and Luning (2005)
mention need finding activities, as emphatic design, when
categorizing different consumer food research methods, but
these techniques are far from as common and wide spread
as focus groups, conjoint analysis, Kelly repertory grid and
other product driven tests (e.g. questionnaires where con-
sumers rank multiple products) (Van Kleef et al., 2005).
In their annual reports, many Western food companies
state that including the voice of the customer at an early
stage is one of the most important success factors for inno-
vation and that improving their customers experience is a
top priority. Unfortunately, being aware of the importance
of including the voice of the consumer into the innovation
process does not automatically lead to good market ori-
ented systems and routines (Brandt, 2008). Studies from
Journal of Marketing show that firms struggle with linking
customer insights data to organizational performance
(Morgan, 2012; Morgan, Anderson, & Mittal, 2005). To
be able to close the gap between the complexity in the mar-
ket and the organizations ability to respond, they need to
become more adaptive and to enhance deeper market in-
sights (Day, 2011). Few food companies manage to inte-
grate customer information properly into their innovation
management and operations, and according to Costa and
Jongen (2006), a significant change in the mindset of the
European food organizations must take place for the inno-
vation process to become consumer-led. They perceive the
lack of concrete guidelines for the effective implementation
of consumer-led food product-development in everyday
practices to be an obstacle for further improvement. Design
Thinking can bridge this gap between knowing and doing.
Design Thinking can help food companies improve their
market-learning capabilities, by offering procedures and
techniques that improves “a firms ability to actively and
purposefully learn about customers, competitors, channel
members, and the broader business environment in ways
that not only allow a deep understanding of the current
marketplace condition but also permit future marketplaces
changes to be predicted (Morgan, 2012, p.109).
Visualization and rapid prototyping
Design Thinking promotes action and fast learning, and
creates an expectation of rapid experimentation. Large
problems are divided into smaller parts and resolved by
step-wise practical procedures (Brown, 2008; Kelly &
Litterman, 2001). Prototyping moves the Design Thinking
project forward. By building simple models or drawings
sketches before knowing the answer, prototyping helps
the innovators to think. The goal of rapid prototyping is
to make mistakes as fast as possible. By making multiple
simple models of unsolved problems, the idea is that sur-
prising discoveries will be encountered.
Making a simple model or a sketch is a very expressive
way of showing an idea, as internal thoughts becomes
externalized and easily accessible for the team members
184 N.V. Olsen / Trends in Food Science & Technology 41 (2015) 182e187
who can observe, comment on and improve the idea (Kelly
& Litterman, 2001; Tversky, 2002). Prototypes communi-
cate much better than language and stimulate to further ac-
tion within the development team. A sketch that
incorporates the relevant information and omits the irrele-
vant, not only reflects the mental idea and makes fleeting
thoughts more permanent, but also frees the working mem-
ory of the participant (Tversky, 2002). Relieving the partic-
ipants of the dual burden of holding the content and
simultaneously operating on it, stimulate creativity and
further problem solving. Prototyping doesn’t have to be
complex and expensive, but should demand only as much
time, effort, and investment as are needed to generate useful
feedback and evolve an idea. Prototyping in Design
Thinking is all about learning about the strengths and the
weaknesses and to identify new directions for further devel-
opment (Brown, 2008).
When looking into traditional text books of innovation
management (Crawford, 1997; Urban & Hauser, 1980) or
more recent books of food innovation and product develop-
ment (Børresen, 2008; Jaeger & MacFie, 2010) I find very
few texts related to prototyping. These traditional books
offer definitionsd“a prototype is the first rough physical
form of a new product”dbut no detailed descriptions of
how to prototype or why prototyping is important.
In food science, the chefs are often perceived to be the
creators. Within culinary gastronomy, famous chefs design
novel meals that combined with the atmosphere of the
restaurant (the interior and light design, the temperature,
the music and the service), become holistic food experi-
ences for the customers (Frøst, 2010). Food manufacturers
include chefs in their development process too. Often a cre-
ative food development process takes place in a trial
kitchen with a lot of trial and error and testing among the
experts, but usually without any end user testing. While
simple prototype testing with consumers is rare, food
concept testing has become quite common (Moskowitz,
2000). In a concept test, written statements of new food
ideas, sometimes combined with pictures or real samples,
are evaluated by the consumers at an early stage of the
development and are supposed to help guide the experts
in their further development of the new product. One spe-
cific kind of product test, the means-end chain technique
(MEC), is also frequently used to create an understanding
of what motivates food consumers to demand products
(Grunert & Valli, 2001). A basic assumption of this tech-
nique is that consumers demand products because of the
consequences consumption of these products will have
for them (Gutman, 1982; Olson, 1989; Peter, Olson, &
Grunert, 1999; Walker & Olson, 1991). The different kinds
of concept testing have contributed to a more consumer-
driven food innovation process, and have by generating in-
formation of which attributes a product should possess and
how a product should be positioned in order to appeal to
consumers, resulted in lower failure rates for new products.
But concept testing, including MEC analysis, cannot be
described as specifically fast. They are usually both time
and resource demanding, and differ therefore from Design
Thinking’s rapid prototyping.
Design Thinking perceives rapid and simple prototype
testing to be a goal in it selves (Brown, 2009). When a
development team spends a lot of time and effort on mak-
ing prototypes, they seem to be less willing to pay attention
to the feedback, and more likely to argue for their ideas.
Advocates of Design Thinking point out that prototyping
are not as much about validation of ideas, as it is a method
to stimulate the imagination (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997).
The aim of prototyping is to generate useful feedback and
to improve an idea, and will therefore with resource
demanding prototypes be less successful. Another chal-
lenge with concept testing is the lack of iteration. Most
food concepts would, according to Grunert and Valli
(2001), benefit from at least one (maybe several) additional
rounds of concept refinement before finalization. With
expensive prototypes this becomes a challenge. Implement-
ing Design Thinking in the food industry will therefore
contribute to simpler prototyping, increased iteration and,
in general, more rapid learning.
Collaboration
The slogan within the Design Thinking approach is
collaboration, collaboration between different disciplines,
collaboration between research and industry, collaboration
between industry and market. The purpose is to expand
the innovation ecosystem and to look for opportunities
for co-creation with customers and consumers (Brown,
2008). As an example, in the previously mentioned “Sea-
food on the go” Design Thinking project, the team con-
sisted of researchers, manufacturers, innovation
management expertise, and the owner of the project (a Nor-
wegian member association of seafood producers). The
product was developed together with the project owner,
not for them. A trained innovation project moderator facil-
itated the open innovation project and stimulated all the
partners’ creative confidence. An inter-disciplinary team
of people with different background and knowledge deliv-
ered a long list of new seafood on the go concepts, new
business models and new technical solutions. By doing
so, they met the goal of the project, which was to develop
new product concepts and business models for the members
of the seafood producer association.
Saguy (2011) talks about a need for a paradigm shift
within the food industry, away from the old system of
closed innovation within the firm, towards a new system
of more open innovation. He uses metaphors as “the valley
of death” and “sharing-is-winning” to illustrate the old and
the new system. In spite of a growing interest among food
industries, the number of companies engaging in open inno-
vation is still scarce (Sarkar & Costa, 2008). According to
Saguy (2011), openness cannot simply be wished for: it
must be engineered into the new system. The collaboration
between industry and research must be facilitated. Someone
 N.V. Olsen / Trends in Food Science & Technology 41 (2015) 182e187
must take the responsibility of driving the innovation pro-
cess. Someone must teach the team to reflect and interpret
€
their observations (Verganti & Oberg, 2013). The Design
Thinking approach offers one suggestion for how open
innovation processes can be orchestrated within the food
industry.
Design thinking uses a step-by-step progression to help
people discover and experience their own creative potential.
According to Bandura, people’s phobias can be cured by
guided mastery. Firsthand experience can remove false be-
liefs, and by exposing people gradually to small, manage-
able steps, they can overcome their fears. When people
experience their own abilities to change, they also alter
their belief in what they can accomplish. Their self-
efficacy increases (Bandura, 1997). Design Thinking builds
on Banduras theory of vicarious learning, social persuasion
and graduated tasks, and the belief that doubts in one’s cre-
ative ability can be cured by guidance. By gradually
increasing the level of challenge, and by making people
experience a series of small successes, a Design Thinking
moderator can help individuals overcome the fear of failure
that blocks their creative potential (Kelly & Kelly, 2013).
Design Thinking advocators perceive creativity to be like
a muscle that can be strengthened and nourished through
effort and experience. People can overcome the fear of fail-
ure, the fear of being judged and the fear of the unknown by
experiencing success. Design Thinking offers tools for un-
leashing peoples own creativity.
Design Thinking outcome
Design Thinking has generated a lot of attention in the
business press and has often been described as a novel
methodology; a thought process that offers a solution to
companies’ innovation problems. Plenty of anecdotal re-
ports exist, but since conducting rigorous academic
research on such a multifaceted practice is difficult, few
systematic assessments of Design Thinking’s utility are
conducted (Liedtka, 2014). Recently, however, scholars
have started to investigate how the specific mechanisms
of Design Thinking influence the outcome and thereby
contributed with knowledge of both the advantages and
the limitations of the approach.
By comparing 14 Design Thinking cases, conducted
among novice teams in US, Seidel and Fixson (2013) found
that Design Thinking methods were helpful not only during
concept generation, but also during concept selection. But
while brainstorming was valuable when combined with
other methods, increased numbers of brainstorming ses-
sions actually corresponded to lower performance, except
in the setting where new members could join the team.
They also found that increased team reflexivitydsuch as
from debating ideas, processes, or changes to con-
ceptsdwas associated with more successful outcome dur-
ing concept generation. This study indicates that novice
teams are more successful in applying design thinking
when they can be guided. Reflection upon a group’s
185
objectives, strategies and processes will, according to
Sc€on (1984), improve the group’s work. As teams adopting
design thinking for the first time may not be aware of this, a
moderator that can facilitate reflection will improve the
outcome of the process.
Liedtka (2014) links Design Thinking to cognitive bias
reduction and proposes that Design Thinking may improve
a company’s innovation process by 1) reducing decision-
makers’ inability to see beyond themselves and escape their
own pasts, current statuses and personal preferences, 2) by
improving their users or customers’ ability to articulate
future needs and providing accurate feedback on new ideas,
and 3) by improving decision-makers’ ability to test the hy-
potheses they have developed. Based on decision-making
theory, they argue that consumer empathy leads to a deep
understanding of users’ current situation and thereby makes
the developers less likely to look exclusively to their own
experience as the source of new ideas. This mitigates the
effects of the projection bias (a tendency to predict the pre-
sent into the future), the egocentric-empathy bias (an over-
estimation of the similarities between you self and others),
the focusing bias (an overestimation of one factor), and the
hot/cold bias (that the decision makers’ emotional state at
the time of prediction unduly influence their assessment)
(Fellmann, 1999; Loewenstein & Angner, 2003; Van
Boven, Dunning, & Loewenstein, 2000). Liedta (2014)
also argues that prototyping improves the customers’ ability
to identify and assess their own needs and mitigates the say/
do bias (that people are unable to accurately describe their
own needs). Teaching multi-disciplinary teams to reflect on
the results of experiments and to work with multiple opin-
ions, mitigates the effect of the planning fallacy (the over-
optimism towards their own ideas), the hypothesis confir-
mation bias (the inability to see disconfirming data), and
the endowment effect (attachment to earlier solutions)
(Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Snyder
& Swan, 1978).
Marketing scholars argue that market learning capabil-
ities, a firm’s ability to actively and purposefully generate
a deep understanding of the market place, influence a firm’s
performance (Morgan, 2012). This, and the fact that previ-
ous studies investigating the effect of user involvement in
the development process has found that ordinary users
create significantly more original and valuable ideas than
professional developers (which seem to create more easily
realizable ideas), speaks for the importance of being
empathic with the users and including them into the devel-
opment process (Kristensson, Gurstafsson & Archer, 2004;
Poetz & Schreier, 2012). Design Thinking is a market
learning process, a process that advocates rapid experimen-
tation and stimulates peoples’ creative potential.
Recently in the management literature, scholars have
discussed whether Design Thinking can lead to radical in-
novations (Norman & Verganti, 2014; Verganti, 2011;
Verganti, 2008). While most scholars agree that incremen-
tal innovations and even changes of a product’s meaning
186 N.V. Olsen / Trends in Food Science & Technology 41 (2015) 182e187
can result from a human centered innovation process, they
debate if design thinking can lead to radical product inno-
vation. According to Norman and Verganti (2014) radical
innovations usually result from the explorations and dreams
of inventors, engineers, and others who have an inner
vision, often driven through self-observation of what might
be possible and not by formal studies or analyses. A better
understanding of the market and what a product means for
the consumersddeep user insight generated by an
empathic Design Thinking processdcan also lead to
radical innovations. Radical innovations do not have a his-
tory of successful methods, but a Design Thinking process
that is directed towards new interpretations of what could
be meaningful to people may lead to radical changes. Ob-
servations and surprising findings can make developers
explore radical new areas that occasionally lead to radical
product innovations.
That Design Thinking is a faster and cheaper innovation
process, as often stated in the popular press, is debatable,
but Design Thinking offers a set of techniques that seem
to reduce the cognitive bias of innovation teams, stimulate
their creative confidence and improve their learning; mech-
anisms that all are likely to improve a firm’s innovation and
performance.
Conclusion
Innovation processes based on how people learn offer
new opportunities for the food domain. Some initiatives al-
ways fail, but focusing on experiments for finding errors as
quickly as possible, minimizes the cost of failure and hin-
ders large negative surprises close to launch. Rapid learning
implies many small “testeimproveere-test steps” conduct-
ed in interaction with consumers. Innovation teams develop
products with consumers, not for them. They give them pro-
totypes, observe them, talk to them and learn how to
improve the product. Design Thinking implies more con-
sumer empathy, more frequent prototyping and more
collaboration than what is common within the food sector
today. Design Thinking is a learning approach for innova-
tion that needs to be discussed, improved and tested also
within the food domain.
References
Argyris, C., & Sch€
on, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II. Theory,
method, and practice. US: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process:
embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review,
50(1), 25e56.
Børresen, T. (2008). Improving seafood products for the consumer.
Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing in Food, science,
technology and Nutrition.
Brandt, R. (2008). Getting more from the voice of the customer, MM,
nov/des.
Brown, T. (June 2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review,
84e92.
Buchanen, R. (1992). Wicked problems in Design Thinking. Design
Issues, 8(2), 5e21.
Costa, A. I. A., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2006). New insights into
consumer-led food product development. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, 17, 457e465.
Crawford, M. (1997). New product management. US: Irwin/McGraw-
Hill.
Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of
Marketing, 183e195.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art of experience. London: The Berkeley Publishing
Group, Penguin Books Ltd.
Fellmann, M. (1999). Breaking tradition. Marketing Research, 11(3),
20e25.
Frøst, M. B. (2010). Molecular gastronomy, chefs and food innovation:
an interview with Michael Bom Frøst. In S. R. Jaeger, & H. MacFie
(Eds.), Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care
products (pp. 634e645). UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Grunert, K. G. (1997). What’s in a steak? A cross-cultural study of the
quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preference, 8,
157e174.
Grunert, K. G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H. H., & Madsen, T. K. (1997).
Market orientation in food and agriculture. European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 24(1/2), 150.
Grunert, K. G., & Valli, C. (2001). Designer-made meat and dairy
products: consumer-led product development. Livestock
Production Science, 72, 83e98.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer
categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60e72.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and
innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, 716e749.
Jaeger, S. R., & MacFie, H. (2010). Consumer-driven innovation in
food and personal care products. Cambridge, England: Woodhead
Publishing in Food, Science, Technology and Nutrition.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: biases and
corrective procedures. Management Science, 12, 313e327.
Kelly, D., & Litterman, J. (2001). The art of innovation. US: Profile
Books.
Kelly, T., & Kelly, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the
creative potential within us all. NY: Crown Business.
Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the
creative potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 21, 4e14.
Liedtka, J. (2014). Perspective: linking Design Thinking with
innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of
Product Innovation Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.111/
ijim.12163, (published online 25.03.2014).
Lockwood, T. (2010). Design Thinking. Integrating innovation,
customer experience, and brand value. NY: Allworth Press.
Loewenstein, G., & Angner, E. (2003). Prediction and indulging
changing preferences. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, &
R. Baumeister (Eds.). Time and decisions: Economic and
psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice, (Vol. 12 pp.
351e391). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Menichelli, E., Olsen, N. V., Meyer, C., & Næs, T. (2011). .Combining
extrinsic and intrinsic information in consumer acceptance
studies. Food Quality and Preference, 23, 148e159.
Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal
of the Academic Marketing Science, 40, 102e119.
Morgan, N. A., Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (July 2005).
Understanding firms’ customer satisfaction information usage.
Journal of Marketing, 135e151.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1983). Product testing and sensory evaluation of
foods: Marketing and R&D approaches. Westport, CT: Food &
Nutrition Press.
 N.V. Olsen / Trends in Food Science & Technology 41 (2015) 182e187
Moskowitz, H. R. (1985). New directions in product testing and
sensory evaluation of foods. Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition
Press.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1994). Food concepts & products: Just in time
development. Trumbull, CT: Food and Nutrition Press.
Moskowitz, H. R. (2000). R&D-driven product evaluation in the early
stage of development. CRC Press Inc.
Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical
innovation: design research vs. technology and meaning change.
Design Issues, 1, 78e96.
Olson, J. C. (1989). Theoretical foundations of means-end chains, Vol.
5, (174e178). Werbeforsch: Praxis.
Peter, J. P., Olson, J. C., & Grunert, K. G. (1999). Consumer behaviour
and marketing strategydEuropean edition. Maidenhead: Mc
Graw-Hill.
Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: can
users really compete with professionals in generating new product
ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 245e256.
Saguy, I. S. (2011). Paradigm shifts in academia and the food industry
required to meet innovation challenges. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 22, 467e475.
Sarkar, S., & Costa, A. I. A. (2008). Dynamics of open innovation in
the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19,
574e658.
Sch€
on, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals
think in action. New York: Basic.
Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in
novice multidisciplinary teams: the application and limits of
design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(S1), 19e33.
187
Snyder, M., & Swan, W. B. (1978). Hypotheses testing processes in
social interaction. The journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 1202e1212.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (1996). Quality
guidance: a consumer-based approach to food quality
improvement using partial least squares. European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 23(2), 195e215.
Tversky, B. (2002). What do sketches say about thinking?. AAAI
Technical Report SS-02-08.
Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1980). Design and marketing of new
products. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric
empathy gaps between owners and buyers: misperceptions of the
endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(1), 66e76.
Van Kleef, E., Van Trijp, H., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer research in
the early stages of new product development: a critical review of
methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 16,
181e201.
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meaning, and radical innovation: a
metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 25, 436e456.
Verganti, R. (2011). Designing break-through products. Harvard
Business Review, 89, 114e120.
€
Verganti, R., & Oberg, 
A. (2013). Interpreting and envisioningda
hermeneutic framework to look at radical innovation of meaning.
Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 86e95.
Walker, B. A., & Olson, J. C. (1991). Means-end chains: connecting
products with self. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 111e119.